Text John 6. 53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you and from thence they gave Infants the Lord's Supper also But suppose that Baptism doth signify or is a figure of the washing of Regeneration yet sprinkling is no form of washing but all know dipping is and the safest way of washing 2dly You mention Fierâ— Baptism or the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Fire Mat. 3. 11. This Scripture you say was fulfilled when the Holy Ghost came upon the Disciples in the appearance of Fiery Tongues Acts 2. 3. This Baptism was not say you by plunging in Fire but by sprinkling or pouring of Fire you mean the Holy Spirit upon them which sate upon each of them which is a Fiery washing which purifieth the Soul c. I answer Tho the Baptism of the Spirit was by pouring forth of the Spirit yet they were overwhelmed or immersed with it like as Dust may be poured upon a dead Corps until it is covered all over or quite buried therein So the Baptism of the Holy Ghost at the Day of Pentecost signifies the miraculous Effusion of the Holy Ghost The Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Learned Casaubon is to dip plâ—â—ge c. 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 Sir 't is not the sprink ing of the Spirit that is the Baptism of the Spirit for they had doubtless some sprinklings of the Spirit before they were baptized with it Moreover Oecumenius on Acts 2. saith A Wind filled the whole House that it seemed like a Fish-pond because 't was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Spirit Thus you may see that this no ways helps you to make Sprinkling or Rantizing Baptism 3dly You mention the Baptism of Blood or Sufferings I will repeat your Words Baptism of Blood of this Baptism doth Christ ask the Children of Zebedee Are you able to drink of the Cup that I drink of and to be baptized with the Baptism that I am baptized with Mat. 20. 22. This Cup and this Baptism are the same viz. the Sufferings of Christ of which his Disciples were to be Partakers You intimate that Baptism is a Witness of our Spiritual Resurrection and of our Resurrection at the last Day you mention 1 Cor. 15. 29 c. Answ Therefore say I it must be so administred as it may represent our Rising again First from a Death in Sin to a Life in Grace And Secondly from the Dead or out of our Graves in the Earth at the last Day But Sprinkling doâ—h not this cannot do this In sprinkling a little Water on the Face there is no resemblance or representation of rising up out of the Grave of Sin or from the Dead nor out of the Grave aâ— the last Day the Baptism of Sufferings signifies great Afflictions and from the Literal Signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 great Afflictions or Troubles are taken for and figurately called Baptism as Vossius shews Not every light Affliction is the Baptism of Afflictions but like that of David Psal 32. 6. He drew me out of deep Waters Hence great Afflictions are called Waves Thy Waves and thy Billows are gone over me Psal 42. 7. See Pool's Annotations on Mat. 20. 22. To be baptized is saith he to be dipped in water Metaphorically to be plunged in Afflictions So that neither of these Metaphorical Baptisms will do you any Service to justify your Tradition of sprinkling or pouring a little Water but contrariwise quite overthrows your pretended Baptism As to what you say in the next place of your three manner of ways of the Administration of Baptism in your first Chapter it doth not concern our present Purpose 't is true John the Baptist baptized into him that was to come so in that respect it differ'd from the Administration of it after the Death and Resurrection of our blessed Lord and no doubt from the Commission it appears Baptism was to be administred to the end of the World into the Name of the Father Son and holy Spirit and no other ways CHAP II. Containing some Remarks upon Mr. Owen's second Chapter AS to what you have wrote in your second Chapter about the Continuation of Water-Baptism in the Church until Christ's coming the second time or to the end of the World I approve generally of your Arguments and in that matter we are of your mind tho much more might be added to confirm that great Truth but pray Sir remember 't is Christ's Baptism of Believers which he only instituted that doth remain not Infants Baptism much less Infants Rantism which was neither instituted nor allowed by our blessed Lord. And because some of your Arguments for the Continuation of Baptism mentioned in your second Chapter tend to overthrow your Infant Baptism I shall make some Remarks upon them They are taken from your 4 th Proof you argue thus viz. Water Baptism is to continue in the Church if we consider the Ends of it 1. You say Christ hath ordained Baptism to be a Sign of our Repentance and therefore 't is called the Baptism of our Repentance Mark 1. 4. Repentance is a remaining Duty therefore the Baptism of Repentance is to remain Remark If Baptism be a siâ—n of Repentance to the Person baptized then the Person baptized ought to be a Person capable to repent and when baptized to have what is signified therein but Infants as such have not the Grace of Repentance when baptized so they are not capable to repent 2dly You say It is an Evidence of our Faith in Christ Mark 16. 16. Acts 8. 37 38. and therefore it is to remain as long as Faith is to remain on the Earth Remark If Baptism is an Evidence of our Faith in Christ then it must only belong to Believers How can it be an Evidence of Faith in Infants who are not capable to believe they know not the Object of Faith nor can they exert any Act of Faith It must be an Evidence to the Subject when baptized and so the Scriptures you cite hold forth He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. it doth not say he that is baptized and believeth If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayst Not if thou shalt believe hereafter but if thou dost believe now It appertains to such who have Faith when baptized and it evidences such a Faith to the Person nay Faith is required of them before they are to be baptized And so saith the Church of England 3dly You say It is the Bond of Holiness 1 Pet. 3. 21. the Apostle exhorts the Christians to be dead unto Sin and alive unto Righteousness There is a Virtue in the Ordinances of God answerable to
yet the grafting of a Person into Christ is represented by that Allusion or Metaphorical Expression Must the Sign and the Thing signified be all one and the same thing Thus we see in opposition to what you say in the close of your third Chapter that it is very plain and manifest that dipping is absolutely necessary and of the Essence of Baptism it 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alas Sir in all the New Testament where we read of sprinkling the Greek as I said before renders it rantizing not baptizing 〈◊〉 Christ has ordained Rantism to represent the sprinkling of his Blood or the sprinkling of his Spirit prove it we deny it and have sufficiently proved he has appointed Baptism to represent his Death Burial and Resurrection and that sprinkling is not baptizing But for a farther Satisfaction of the impartial Reader take a few Syllogistical Arguments Arg. 1. If Baptism was ordained to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ in a lively Figure then Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism But Baptism was ordained to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ in a lively Figure therefore Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism This Argument we have proved to be true in every part of it Arg. 2. If Baptism was appointed to hold forth or represent in a lively Figure the Person 's Death to Sin who is baptized or his present Regeneration not future and his rising again to walk in Newness of Life then Infants cannot be the Subjects thereof But Baptism was appointed to hold forth or represent in a lively Figure the Person 's Death to Sin who is baptized or his present Regeneration not future and his rising again to walk in Newness of Life Therefore Infants are not the Subjects thereof 4. There is yet one Proof further to make it yet clearer that Baptism is dipping or plunging and nothing else and that is taken from those Typical Baptisms spoken of in the holy Scripture 1. That of the Red Sea wherein the Fathers were buried as it were unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud See Pool's Annotations on the Place Others says he more properly think the Apostle uses this Term in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptism as it was used the Person going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea the great Receptable of Water tho the Water at that time was gathered on heaps on the other side of them yet they seemed buried in the Water as Persons seem'd buried in the Water were in that Age when they were baptized 2. The second Typical Baptism was that of Noah's Ark See Sir Norton Knatchbull whom I quoted before saith he Noah's Ark and Baptism were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection not a Sign of the washing away of Sin tho so taken metonymically but a particular Signal of the Resurrection of Christ Of this again saith he is Baptism a lively and emphatical Figure as also was the Ark of Noah out of which he returned as from a Sepulchre From hence I infer this Argument following Arg. 3. If those Typical Baptisms spoken of in the Scriptures signified Immersion or an Overwhelming or a Burial then is Sprinkling no true Baptism But those Typical Baptisms c. did signify Immersion or an Overwhelming or a Burial Therefore Sprinkling is no true Baptism Again that Baptism is dipping or plunging or a being buried in the Water appears by those Metaphorical Baptisms we read of which are twofold 1st The Baptism of the Holy Spirit 2dly The Baptism of Afflictions 1st Saith John the Baptist I indeed baptize you with Water but he shall baptize you with the holy Spirit and Fire Now 't is not the sanctifying Gifts of the Spirit which every Godly Person receives that is the Baptism of the Spirit but as the Learned observe the miraculous Effusions of the holy Spirit like that at Pentecost Acts 1. 4 5. shall be baptized The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Casaubon is to dip or plunge c. 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 'T is not a sprinkling of the Spirit that is the Baptism of the Spirit for so doubtless the Apostles had the Spirit before they were said to be baptized with it Oecumenius on Acts 2. saith A Wind filled the whole House that it seem'd like a Fish-pond because it was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost 2dly We read of the Baptism of Afflictions I have a Baptism to be baptized with and how am I straiâ—ned till it be accomplished From the literal Signification of the word baptizâ— immergo as I shewed before to plunge under overwhelm great Afflictions come to be called Baptism and signifies as Vossius shews not every light Affliction but like that of David Psal 32. 6. he drew me out of the deep Waters Hence great Afflictions are called Waves Thy Wazes and thy Billows are gone over me Psal 42. 7. 'T is spoken of Christ's Sufferings who was as it were drowned drenched or overwhelmed in Afflictions and Sufferings Every small Affliction is not the Baptism of Afflictions but great and deep Afflictions suffering even unto Blood and Death Pool's Annotations say to be baptized is to be dipped in Water metaphorically to be plunged in Afflictions I shall close this also with another Argument Arg. 4. If those Metaphorical Baptisms which we read of in God's Word as the Baptism of the Spirit and of Afflictions and Sufferings are taken from the literal and genuine Signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immergo which signifies to dip then sprinkling is not baptizing but the former is true Ergo sprinkling is not baptizing CHAP. V. Wherein Mr. Owen's Argument for Infant-Baptism taken from the Covenant God made with Abraham is examined and totally confuted SIR YOu in your fourth Chapter come to consider and enquire who are the proper Subjects of Baptism or who they are that ought to be baptiz'd And first you say that Baptism doth not belong to all Men but to the Faithful and their Seed He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. When the Eunuch ask'd Philip See here is Water what doth hinder me to be baptized He answered If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayst Acts 8. It is plain say you that Baptism belongeth to them that believe but say you how doth it appear that Baptism doth belong to the Seed of such that will appear you say 1. From God's Covenant 2. From Circumcision under the Law 3. From Christ's Command to baptize all Nations 4. Because they are holy 5. Because Christ blessed them 6. Because the Gentiles were ingrafted into the Privileges of the Jews 7.
which I have already proved that that Covenant that is not of Faith must be a Covenant of Works there being no Medium betwixt them and consequently must be the same for Substance with that made with Adam and that on Mount Sinai with the Children of Israel Arg. 9. That Covenant that is plainly represented to us in Scripture as a Bondage-Covenant in and by which there was imposed such a Yoke upon the Necks of the Jews which neither those in the Apostles time nor their Fathers were able to bear could be no other than a Covenant of Works and not of Grace But the Scriptures do plainly represent such was the nature of the Covenant of Circumcision Acts 15. 10. Gal. 5. 1 2 3. Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant but a Covenant of Works Thus Mr. Cary argues also And thus we have proved from God's Word and sound Arguments that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant Object But lest any should think that we shut out all dying Infants from having any Benefit by Christ Answ I answer I doubt not but God might comprehend them in-that glorious Covenant or Compact made between him and our Surety in the Covenant of Redemption But as I said before secret things belong to God But let me here add one word or two further i. e. Circumcision you say was a Privilege so we say too but not such a Privilege as you do imagine 1. It doth profit as a Privilege because it was given as a Token or a Sign to Abraham's Natural Seed that they should have the Land of Canaan for an everlasting Possession 2. As a Token or Sign to them of the giving forth of the Law on Mount Sinai He dealt his Laws and Statutes to Israel he did not so to any other Nation this Rite could not therefore be a Gospel-Rite nor the Covenant it was a Sign of a Gospel-Covenant in which the Gentile Christians are concern'd And thus Paul argues Rom. 31. What Advantage then hath the Jew or what Profit is there in Circumcision Ver. 2. Much every way chiefly because unto them were committed the Oracles of God You may soon know the nature of that Covenant made with Abraham's Natural Seed and of Circumcision which was a Sign of it the chiefest Privilege which attended it was the giving to them i. e. the People of Israel the Law of the Ten Commandments 3. Circumcision by the Doctrine of St. Paul was a Privilege if they kep the Law For Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keepest the Law but if thou be a Breaker of the Law thy Circumcision is made Uncircumcision or a Nullity and profiteth thee nothing that is if thou keep not the Law perfectly And thus speak our late Annotators on the place If thou Jew keep the Law perfectly to which Circumcision obligeth Gal. 5. 3. If otherwise thou transgressest the Law thy Circumcision availeth thee nothing it gives thee no Privilege above the uncircumcised What is now become this being so of that mighty Privilege Abraham's Seed as such had by Circumcision if the chief Profit or Privilege was because unto them the Land should be given which could not give Life but was a Covenant of Works then the chiefest Profit lay not in it as it was an Ordinance of Initiation into the Church sure had Paul been of the Judgment of Pedo-baptists he would have rather past by that Privilege when he spoke of Circumcision which he calls the chief and have said chiefly in that it was a Seal of Church-Membership But since he speaks the quite contrary who shall we believe you or the great Apostle of the Gentiles And evident it is he confirms the same Doctrine Gal. 5. 3. For I testify to every Man that is circumcised that he is a Debtor to keep the whole Law And hence 't is said to be a Yoke of Bondage which neither they nor their Fathers could bear Acts 15. because it obliged them to universal Oâ—edience or to keep the Law perfectly and brought them under a Curse if they did not Gal. 3. 10. These things considered fully shew of what stamp and nature Circumcition was together with that Covenant to which it did appertain You sav the Covenant made with Abraham did include Spiritual Blessings And I grant the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham principally included Spiritual Blessings but the Covenant with his Natural Seed as such did not include Spiritual Blessings All Spiritual Blessings are made in Christ and to none but to the Elect in him Moreover we deny not but the Covenant of Circumcision was made as well with Abraham's Spiritual Seed that sprang from his Loins as unto his Carnal Seed and so Circumcision and the Land of Canaan were of use to his Spiritual Seed as the one typified the Circumcision of the Heart and the other the Celestial Rest You say that Infants were always in the Covenant of Grace and to proveit you mention Act. 2 38 39. Repent and be baptized every one os you c. For the Promise is to you and to your Children c. Answ Do we deny that the Promise of Pardon and of the holy Spirit doth belong to our Children or Off-spring that â—o believe or are called by the Lord We grant it readily but we do deny that this Promise here refers to our Seed as such Dr. Taylor late Bishop of Down on this Text says And to your Children that is to you and to your Posterity to you and to your Children when they are of the same Capacity in which you are effectually receptive of the Promise but saith he if whenever the word Children is used in Scripture we should by Children understand Infants we must believe that in all Israel there were no Men but all â—ere Infants and if that had been true it had been the greater Wonder they should overcome the Anakims and beat the King of Moab and march so far and discourse so well for they were all called the Children of Israel The Promise appertains not to Infants in that Capacity and Consistence but only by the Title of their being Reasonable Creatures and when they come to act Faith of which by Nature they have the Faculty If it did yet Baptism saith he is not the Means of conveying the Holy Ghost for when Peter says Repent and be baptized and ye shall receive the holy Spirit it signifies no more than this First Be baptized and then by Imposition of Hands c. which was another Mystery and Rite ye shall receive the Promise of the Father c. But then saith he from hence to argue that where-ever there is a Capacity of receiving the same Grace there also the same Sign is to be administred and from hence to inser Pedo-baptism is an argument very fallâ—cious upon several Grounds 1. Because Baptism is not the Sign of the Holy Ghost but by another Mystery it was conveyed ordinarily and extraordinarily that is by laying on of Hands
as the Doctor mentioned before 2. If the Supposition were true the Proposition built upon it is false for saith he they that were capable of the same Grace are not always capable of the same Sign for Women under the Law of Moses altho they were capable of the Righteousness of Faith yet they were not capable of the Sign of Circumcision for God doth not always convey his Grace in the same manner Thus far Reverend Dr. Jer. Taylor Lib. of Proph. p. 234 235. For what the Bishop hath said answers all you affirm on this Text for Infants Baptism The Promise of the Spirit we grant runs to Believers and to all their believing Seed and Off-spring be they Jews or Gentiles and this Text proves nothing more It did not belong to the Jews Seed as such but only to their Children that did believe and so it doth to the Gentiles that were sometimes afar off that believe and to their Children that God shall also call as he doth call their Parents That which you seem to affirm from this Text is this viz. that there is such a Covenant made with Gentile Believers and with every particular Believer and his Carnal Seed as God made with Abraham which is strange Divinity We have proved that there was a Covenant of Peculiarity made with Abraham and his Natural Seed to which Circumcision did belong and by virtue of that Covenant as appertaining to the Flesh There was under the Law a knowing of Men the Jews in that Legal and External Covenant had the Preference above the Gentiles but that Covenant is taken away and that Partition Wall is pulled doâ—n and now the Jews have no Advantage upon that account above the Gentiles or the Gentiles above the Jews old things being passed away and old Church State and Church-Membership gone so that all you say upon this Scripture and Argument signifies nothing And remarkable 't is that Peter spake these words to the Jews The Promise is to you and your Children c. But to say the Promise runs to them and to their Infants as to Baptism and Church-Membership under the Gospel as Circumcision and Legal Church-Membership did under the Law is notoriously faise none of the Jews Children were allowed Baptism or received into the Gospel-Church but only such that did believe nor of the Gentiles neither when their Children believe or are called then they may be baptized and they have right to the Promise of the holy Spirit The Promise and Blessing of Abraham you say comes on the Gentiles through Christ and by Faith therefore say I not in a fleshly Line and by Birth-Privilege You say Abraham's Blessing was not Personal unto him and unto his Seed this Blessing came upon the believing Gentiles therefore say you it must come on the Faithful and on their Seed for it cannot be termed Abraham's Blessing if it come not upon the Gentiles in an essential form to Abraham's Covenant that is I will be a God unto thee and to thy Seed unless this Blessing come upon the Gentiles in the same manner and in the same Enlargement it being not Abraham's Blessing but a part of it being cut in the middle I will be a God to you Gentiles but not to your Seed is this Abraham's Blessing how unlike to it there is a great difference between an Estate settled on a real Man and that being also settled on his Children Answ 1. You talk â—s if you were ignorant what Abraham's Blessing wâ—s the Blessing of Abraham was not the External Privileges of the Covenant of Grace which it seems is all you plead fâ—r about your Infant Seed but the spirituâ—l Part anâ— Blessing of the Covenant namely Justification Pardon of Sin Adoption and Eternal Life 2 As to Abraham's Seed doth not the Apostle tell you that To Abâ—aham and to his Seed the Promise was made He saith not to Seeds as of many but to thy Seed which is Christ Gal 3 16 Now you contend for Seeds as of many even to all the fleshly Seed of Abraham and fleshly Seed of all Believers Sir no Gentiles but such as are Christ's 〈◊〉 â—braham's Seed none but such that believe and hâ—ve Abraham's Faith The â—nheriâ—ance which is God to be our God by way of special Interest 〈◊〉 settled upon all Believers and their Children that have the same Faith not their Carnal Seed as such but only God's Elect Ones 3. I have proved it is true that there was a Legal and External Covenant made with Abraham and his Fleshly Seed in which Covenant God was said to be the God of the whole House of Israel and was bound to them but that Covenant is abolished and the new Covenant is not according to that but quite different the Fleshly Seed are not in a Relative External Covenant 〈◊〉 Christ's Gospel-Church is not National This being considered it appears that whâ—t you say concerning Abraham being the Father of the Gentiles signifies nothing for your purpose for he was not the Father of any Gentiles but of such that believe in Christ or Elect Ones and this you seem to acknowledg in these words viz. the believing Gentiles are a Seed to Abraham Gal. 3. 29. But Sir what 's this to the Business prove if you can that the fleshly Seed of Gentile Believers as such are a Seed to Abraham for 't is that which we utterly deny and on that foot of account the whole Controversy depends You say the Children of the Flesh are not accounted to be the Children of God when they break their Covenant with God and John Baptist calleth such a Generation of Vipers Answ 1. This is the sense of the Apostle strange Can those that are the Children of the Covenant of Grace cease to be such May the Children of God degenerate into Dogs Wolves and Vipers I thought that such as are God's Children or Heirs according to the promised Covenant of Grace made with Abraham can never cease being the Children of God how else is the Promise sure to all Abraham's Spiritual Seed Do not all the Children of God partake of God's Divine Nature and are not they all Heirs of God Are you an Arminian Do you plead for final falling out of God's Covenant or from a State of tâ—ue Grace that must follow what you say here or your Argument is gone and lost for ever 2. Reader 't is plain that Ishmael Esau c. and many more of Abraham's Natural Seed nay all as such or â—s so simply considered were not accounted for his Spiritual Seed or the Children of God but only such that are God's Elect Ones or such as believe in Christ and 't is plain that none of the true Children of God can degenerate so as to cease being his Children I mean they cannot fall totally and finally from a State of Grace and become Vipers c. as Mr. Owen acknowledges some of Abraham's Seed did which clearly shews that those Jews never were in the Covenant of Grace God
external Privileges of the Covenant of Grace who only partake of Baptism and not of the Lord's-Supper Is not Faith required of all such that ought to be baptized as well as it iâ— required in all that partake of the Lord's Supper to examine themselves neither of which Infants are capable to do It iâ— manifest that the Children of the Faithful as such are not in the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham but that there was a twofold Covenant made with him and that the Covenant of Grace only appertains to the Elect of God whether they be Children of Believers or Children of Unbelieverâ— which is not known to us until they are grown up and are brought by the Spirit of God under special Vocation and Regeneration and that they are the Adult only viz. such as believe that have right to Baptism but that not by virtue of the Covenant of Grace but by virtue of the positive Command of Christ in the New Testament Sir you mistake again it was not by virtue of the Covenant of Grace that Persons had right to Circumcision for if so then Lot and Melchisedec and Abraham's Males as soon as they were born had a right to it as also his Females nothing gave right to Abraham's Male-Infanâ—s to Circumcision but the meer positive Command of God to him which extended only to those Males in his own House or bought with his Money and not till the eighth day for such that died before the eighth day tho Males had no right to be circumcised nor had his Females any right thereto so none but Believers when they can give an account of their Faith by virtue of Christ's express and positive Command ought to be baptized Pray remember the Covenant of Grace as such gives no right to Baptism for if it did all Believers or Elect Persons had right to it from the first Introduction or Declaration of it to Adam upon the Fall No no it is a pure Gospel-Ordinance and meerly positive and only depends upon the Will and Pleasure of the Law-giver Jesus Christ Honoured Britains who inhabit North and South Wales let me intreat you to consider how false the Conclusion is that Mr. Owen draws concerning the Right the Infants of the Faithful have to Baptism namely that if they are in the Covenant of Grace then they ought to be baptized For as he nor no Man else can prove the Infants of Believers as such are in the Covenant of Grace so it would not follow were that granted that they ought to be baptized it being not the Covenant of Grace but the express and positive Command of Christ that gives Persons just Right thereunto Suppose Christ had not commanded Believers to be baptized would any Man have adventured to baptize them or conclude it was their Duty because they were in Covenant with God Or would Abraham have been circumcised himself because in the Covenant of Grace had he not received a positive Command so to be Certainly he was long in the Covenant of Grace before he was circumcised and did not sin thereby because God had not given that Precept to him until he was old Moreover it was the express Command of God that gave right to his Male-Infants to be circumcised and not only those of his Seed that were in the Covenant of Grace but Ishmael and others who were not Children of the Promise or in the Covenant of Grace were circumcised and also it was not Lot's Duty tho in the Covenant of Grace to be circumcised because not one that dwelt in Abraham's Family or his Natural Seed nor commanded by the Lord to be circumcised or to circumcise his Infants CHAP. VII Proving Infant-Baptism is not lawful because Circumcision under the Law belonged unto the Male-Infants of the Jews containing an Answer to Mr. James Owen's first Chapter IF say you Circumcision under the Law belonged unto Infants then Baptism under the Gospel belongeth unto them for even as Circumcision was so Baptism is the Seal of the same Covenant of Grace and signifieth the same things Answ 1. I answer If Circumcision did not belong to Infants under the Law any otherwise than by express and positive Command of God which gave them right thereto then if God hath not commanded Believers to baptize their Infants it is not their Duty to baptize them but their Sin if they do it But I have proved it was the express Command of God only that gave Male-Infants proceeding from Abraham's Loâ—â—s Authority to be circumcised and God hath given no such Command to Believers to baptize their Infants therefore Baptism doth not belong to the Infants of Believers as such under the Gospel as Circumcision did belong to Male-Infants under the Law 2. I have proved Circumcision was not the Seal of the Covenant of Grace tho it was a Seal to Abraham of the Righteousness of his own Faith yea of that Faith he had being not circumcised A Seal I have shewed gives an undoubted Right of all those Blessings and Privileges to those Persons to whom the said Covenant is sealed and so it did to Abraham but it was no Seal of the Blessings of the Covenant of Grace to Ishmael Esau and many thousands more who were commanded to be circumcised Were this therefore true that Mr. Owen asserts That Circumcision was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace to all that were circumcised in Infancy then they were all saved even all the Males that proceeded from Abraham's Loins many of which proved as vile and wicked Men as most that ever lived in the World Nor Reader is Baptism a Seal of the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel for if so it would seal all Gospel-Blessings to all Persons that are baptized who then were it so but would be baptized and baptize his Children Brethren the holy Spirit only is the Seal of the Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant vid. Ephes 1 13 14. cap. 4. 10. You proceed to shew in several respects that Circumcision and Baptism signify the same things 1. You say because Original Corruption cometh by Natural Generation 2. Because we are born in Uncleanness we must be washed in our Infancy Answ 1. Supposing that Circumcision did and Baptism doth signify the Corruption or Filthiness of Original Sin or Uncleanness must we therefore baptize our Infants without any Authority Command or Example in God's Word 2. Doth Baptism wash away Original Corruption I know the Papists assert it doth do this but how do they or you prove it Baptism St. Peter saith doth not wash away the Filthiness of the Flesh or Corruption of Natural Pollution 1 Pet. 3. 21. 3. Your Reverend Brother Mr. Stephen Charnock fully proves that Baptism is not Regeneration that can't cleanse from Sin Answer his Arguments in his Book of Regeneration What tho those Baptists in Germany you speak of understood that the antient erring Fathers that introduced Infant-Baptism did bring it in to wash away Original Sin Cannot Christ cleanse Elect
dying Infants from Original Sin by virtue of his Blood in a way unknown unto us Must we deny Original Sin or own Infant-Baptism does cleanse from it Strange Divinity you prove nothing 4. You say all were not regenerated in Circumcision but God blessed his own Ordinance in his own time for the Regeneration of his Elect c. So say you not that all are regenerated in Baptism but because Baptism sheweth the necessity of Regeneration and being effectual in time unto all those that are elected for working Regeneration in them Answ 1. You say all were not regenerated in Circumcision and so not that all are say you regenerated in Baptism c. Sir take heed you do not deceive the Souls of People I deny that ever any one Soul was regenerated in Infancy either in Circumcision or Baptism nor did God ever ordain either of those external Ordinances to regenerate young or old 2. I know the Scripture and worthy Divines hold forth that Baptism is a Sign of present Regeneration they that ought to be baptized i. e. Believers do rise out of the watery Grave as Dr. Sherlock asserts new born Creatures but thus do not Infants whom you baptize or rather rantize 3. Prove if you can that God ever blessed Circumcision or Baptism to the Regeneration of any Elect Infants when grown up But if none but Elect Infants are the Subjects of Baptism why do you baptize as you call it all the Infants of Believers Are all their Children elected and none but theirs Are not many Children of Unbelievers elected Why then are such not to be baptized as well as the Children of the Faithful Sir we know not who are elected till called and Baptism belongs to none but such who can make a Profession of their Faith and give Evidence of effectual Calling and present Regeneration You write but your own Phantasie not God's unerring and certain Truth 4. You say Abraham's Heart was circumcised before the Flesh of his Fore-skin but you intimate his Childrens Flesh was circumcised before their Hearts were circumcised In the same manner you say our Ancestors the Gentiles were first Fruits unto Christ and were regenerated before baptized but their Seed are baptized before they are regenerated To Abraham you say it was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace he had and of the Righteousness of his Faith before circumcised but to his Seed it was a Sign of the Righteousness of Faith they were bound to receive for Justification after they were circumcised and so you speak of Believers Seed in respect of Baptism Answ 1. I answer Abraham only received Circumcision as a Seal of the Righteousness of his Faith c. But prove that Circumcision did bind all his Children to receive by Faith Justification 't is a bold Assertion I have proved that Circumcision did not appertain to the Covenant of Grace but to the external or fleshly Covenant God made with Abraham and in him with the whole Nation of the Jews and therefore 't is positively affirmed by the Apostle That such that were circumcised were bound to keep the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. not to receive by Faith Justification Your Parallel between Circumcision and Baptism 't is true well futes with the Human Contrivance of those that first invented Infant-Baptism who would thereby fain make the Gospel-Church National as the Jewish Church was and confirm the old Church-Right and Church-Membership which is taken away and a new Church-state erected which doth not consist of Believers and their Carnal Seed as such but only of the Spiritual Seed of Abraham who are Believers or living Stones who are built up a Spiritual House 1 Pet. 2. 5 6. The Gospel-Church is not National but Congregational say what you please to the contrary 2. Therefore as the Faithful at first among the Gentiles and Jews too received Baptism as Believers being regenerated before baptized so must we unless you have a new Gospel or fresh Authority to change the Administration of Gospel-Ordinances and the Gospel-Church I thought the Water as it just came forth of the Fountain was most pure you do but plead for the muddy Water that has run through the Popish Stream You say Circumcision was a Sign of Admission into the Church of God every Male did come in through that Door the uncircumcised had no right to the Privileges of the visible Church So you would have Baptism to run Answ 1. 'T is not true what you say Circumcision was not the Door into the Jewish Church they were all born Members of that National Church and therefore their Females were as truly Members that were not required to be circumcised as their Males 2. Tho we grant Baptism is the initiating Ordinance into the Gospel-Church yet it admits of no Members but Believers only if any others upon a false Faith get into it they have no just Right thereto and when discovered are to be put out 3. Sir tremble at the Thoughts of what you say It is not we but Christ in his Blessed Gospel that excludes Infants or the Natural Seed of Believers as such from being Members of the Gospel-Church he hath shut up that Door viz. by Generation i. e. being the Seed of Abraham or Seed of Believers as such and hath opened the Door of Regeneration 'T is we that believe and our Children that the Lord our God shall call and none else 4. Sir Circumcision was so far from being any such a Privilege as you intimate that the Apostle calls it such a Yoke of Bondage that neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear Act. 15. And in Answer to what you say p. It was not for their Sin nor the Sin of their Parents that Infants are excluded or not received into the Gospel-Church but because it was the good Pleasure of God to erect another and more spiritual Church-state and to remove the old Way and Typical Church-state of Israel 5. Therefore for you to intimate as if we were so unnatural as to cast our Children out of God's House is not to be indured it doth but reflect on the Wisdom of God we are more faithful to our Children and not like the Ostritch than you for we would not allow them that Right which God hath not nor make them think in Baptism they were regenerated and made Members of God's Church and so deceive and put them upon a Temptation not to seek out for any other Regeneration and Gospel-Right to Church-Membership You say Circumcision was an Obligation to put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh and say you Baptism putteth us under the same Obligation c. Answ Baptism can oblige none to put off the Body of Sin but such that are the true Subjects of it by virtue of Christ's holy Institution which are only Believers such who before baptized have received the Spirit of God so to do But you without any Warrant from Christ would put this hard Obligation on your poor Infants whereas
still proceed from the Loins of Godly Parents And how gracious do many Children of wicked Parents prove when grown up 2. You know not whether these little Children were the Children of Godly Parents or not nor who they were that brought them to Christ their Parents might be ungodly as far as we know and yet some of their Relations Kindred or Neighbours might believe that Christ would bless them and heal them therefore they might bring them to Christ 3. You say Baptism is Christ's Mark but I have shewed the foolishness of that Assertion Baptism is not distinguishing Mark that God's Children have on them but his Mark and Seal is his holy Spirit and his holy Nature or Image stampt upon the Soul 4. You say that Christ was very angry with his Disciples for forbidding little Children to come unto him Reply From hence we may gather it was not the Command of their Master that they should be baptized or come that way unto him for if it had besure the faithful Disciples of our Lord would not have once attempted to forbid them to be brought to Christ Moreover it is thought the Reason why the Disciples forbid them to bring little Children to our blessed Lord might be left by their crying they might disturb him for that we see little Children in a Croud of People are subject to do But you insist to shew what great Bowels Christ manifested to these little Children and fain would have it because he knew they were in God's Covenant c. Answ By this you seem to intimate that all Infants are in Covenant with God for I say again you cannot prove that these little Children were Children of faithful and holy Persons However I will add here what I have said in Answer to Mr. Burkitt on this Argument to which or any other of my Answers he hath not attempted to give any Reply but as I am inform'd is resolved to let it rest in silence and write no more on the Subject Take his Argument from this Text which is in substance the same that you further insist on about Christ's Bowels and Love to those little Children If Infants saith he be capable of Christ's Blessing on Earth and of his Presence in Heaven if they be Subjects of his Kingdom of Grace and Heirs of his Kingdom of Glory then they have an undoubted right to the Privilege of Subjects among which the Seal of the Covenant is not the least Answ 1. We answer and argue thus to the first part of the Proposition viz. In many of the Jews and others who were ungodly Persons were capable of Christ's Blessings i. e. of being healed of their Bodily Diseases they were Subjects of Baptism Is this sound arguing What farther Blessing Christ vouchsafed to Infants when he laid his Hands upon them we know not for that was the way Christ took oftentimes in the healing the Sick and so blessed many Persons that never were baptized as we read of 2. We as I have before told you do deny Infants are Subjects of the Visible Church therefore if by the Kingdom of Grace any intend not that they beat the Air Alas such â—o arguing beg and prove not besides it doth not follow I say again tho Infants may be Heirs of the Kingdom of Glory therefore they have an undoubted right to the Privileges of the Subjects of God's Church for then it would follow they have right to one Privilege as well as to another and are to have Fellowship with the Saints and Houshold of God as well as Baptism Mr. Burkitt argues further thus viz. Those whom Christ invites to him and are received by him his Ministers may not refuse nor put from them But Infant â—re by Christ invited to him and were received by him therefore the Ministers of Christ may not ought not durst not refuse them into Communion with them Take my Answer Answ 1. Christ invited Multitudes to come unto him and he received them so far as to feed them with Barley-Loaves and Fishes and to the Blessing of healing them of their Bodily Distempers But may his Ministers therefore receive all such into their Communion 2. In the days of Christ when he was upon Earth there were many who are said to come unto him whom he might receive into his Presence and Company yet his Ministers might not baptize them nor receive them into their spiritual Communion nor indeed you dare not so receive infants I mean into your Communion of the Lord's-Supper We read of some Pharisees and Lawyers that came to Christ and he received them into his Company who it appears came to tempt him Also the Sadduces are said to come unto him who said there was no Resurrection may Christ's Ministers baptize such and receive them into their Communion Therefore in Opposition to what Mr. Burkitt says in his Book I affirm there were then other ordinary ways of coming to Christ than by Admission into his Church Christ invited the worst of Sinners unto him who nevertheless did not receive him Therefore there are some who must be excluded whom Jesus Christ graciously inviteth Mr. Burkitt's Appeal for Proof of this Argument to St. Mark 10. 3. Suffer little Children to come unto me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven doth not his Business they do not belong to the Kingdom of Grace i. e. the Church for if they did belong to that or were of the Visible Church as such then he need not by Baptism make them belong to it If Christ owns them Subjects or Members of his Visible Church then Pedo-baptists need not add them thereto by Baptism For if as they are the Seed of Believers they are already fide foederis not only in Covenant with God but also belong unto his Kingdom or Church upon Earth all the World may see that Mr. Burkitt goes about to give them that very Right or Privilege which they had before and without Baptism Doth Christ saith he take Children into his Arms and shall his Church cast them out of her Imbraces Answ May I not argue thus i. e. Doth Christ receive all Persons into his Arms of Mercy to heal their Bodily Distempers of which perhaps some were wicked and ungodly And shall the Church refuse to receive all such into her Imbraces Besides all those pretended Consequences make no more for Infants to be baptized than for their receiving the Lord's-Supper and all other Privileges that belong as well as Baptism to Adult Persons who believe or are Disciples Does Christ says he own them for Subjects in his Kingdom and shall we allow them no better standing than in the Devil's Kingdom Answ Does Christ own Infants to be Subjects of his Kingdom and yet did not baptize them for that he did not and shall we attempt to baptize them as if we were wiser than he I must again turn the Edg of the Sword upon this Man If little Children were brought to Christ and he did not baptize them
was no Ordinance of God but a meer Human Tradition But the Custom â—…ng the Jews of baptizing the Heathen and their Children 〈◊〉 were admitted into their Church was never Commâ—… of God nor any where given unto them by Moses who was faithful in all his House Ergo That Custom was no Ordinance of God but a meer Human Tradition Lastly Take what a VVorthy and Learned Author hath said in Confutation of this foolish and absurd Argument for Pedo bâ—ptism 't is Sir Norton Knatchbul Kt. and Baronet The Thing saith he is uncertain that it cannot be said of the Râ—bbins that there were not several among them who differed very much about this matter for Rabbi Eliâ—zar expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first that I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews for Rabbi Eliezar who was Contemporary with Raâ—bi Joshua if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte Circumcised and not Baptized was a true Proselyte for so we read of the Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Jacob that they were Circumcised but not Baptized But Rabbi Joshua affirms that he who was Baptized not he that was Circumcised was a true Proselyte To whom shall I give Credit to Eliezar who asserts what the Scripture confirms or to Joshua who aâ—…ms what is no where to be found in Scripture But the Rabbins upheld Joshua's Side and what Wonder was it For it made for their Business that is for the Honour of the Jewish Religion that the Christians should borrow their Ceremonies from them But when I see Men of great Learning in these Times fetching the Foundations of Truth from the Rabbins I cannot but heâ—…ate a little For whence was the Talmud sent as they are the Words of Buxtors in his Synagoga Judaica that we should give Credit thereto that from thence we should believe that the Law of Moses either can or ought to be understood Much less the Gospel to which they were profess'd Enemies For the Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors and the Foundation of Jewish Fables it was brought to Perfection and held for authentick five hundred Years after Christ Therefore it is unreasonable to rest upon the Testimony of it And that which moves me most Josephus to omit all the Fathers that lived before the Talmud was finished who was a Jew and a Contemporary with Rabbi Eliezar who also wrote in particular of the Rites Customs and Acts of the Jews is altogether silent in this Matter So that it is an Argument to me next to a Demonstration that two such Eminent Persons both Jews and living at the same Time the one should positively deny and the other make no mention of Baptism among the Jews Besides if Baptism in the Modern Sense were in use among the Jews in Antient Times why did the Pharisees ask John Baptist Why dost thou baptize if thou art not Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet Do they not plainly intimate that Baptism was not in use before and that it was a received Opinion among them that there should be no Baptism till either Christ or Elias or that Prophet came So far Sir Norton Knatchbull in his Notes printed at Oxford Anno Dom. 1677. with the Licence of the Vice-Chancellor a very Learned Man and a Son of the Church of England Sir What think you now of your Jewish Custom of baptizing the Heathens and their Children who were admitted to their Church Do you think there was not need that Infant-Baptism should be mentioned in the Holy Scripture had it been a Truth Is this uncertain Story of the Jewish Custom sufficient for you to build your Faith and Practice upon when the Truth of the Story as to Matter of Fact may justly be doubted But if it was true it is but a rotten Foundation to build one of the great Sacraments of Christ upon viz. a vile profane and Human Tradition of the Jewish Rabbins You say The Israelites and their Children were baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea 1 Cor. 10. 2 3. That Israel going under the Cloud and through the Sea that was say you a Baptism unto them The Cloud rained upon them and the Sea dropped upon them which was as a High Wall round about them 2. This Baptism under the Cloud and in the Sea signifyeth in its Essence the same thing with the Baptism of the Gospel viz. the Lord Jesus Christ and his Blessings The Spiritual Washings in the Sea and the Spiritual Drink from the Rock signified the same thing even Christ he was the Substance of all the Types under the Law The Pillar of Cloud and the Pillar of Fire did foreshew the Baptism of Water and the Baptism of Fire or of the Holy Spirit the falling of the Water from the Cloud signified the pouring of the Holy Ghost c. 3. The Children were baptized with their Parents with the Baptism of Moses they were all baptized unto Moses c. Answer Two Things are to be done to disprove what you say here 1. That the Rain falling from the Cloud was not that which was the Figure of Baptism 2. That this Text doth not prove Infants to be the Subject of Baptism First If Persons may be said to be baptized when it rains upon them How many times have you and I been so baptized Besides Do you think it never rained upon the â—…ites before they passed through the Sea And Secondly Prove if you can it did then either rain upon them from the Cloud or that the Sea dropped upon them 't is but your own ungrounded Supposition Thirdly Prove that Rain falling upon them can in any Sense be called a Washing or Baptism Therefore let the Reader consider well what our Annotators speak on this Place see Mr. Pool's Annotations on 〈◊〉 Cor. 10. 2 3. Others saith he more probably think that the Apostle useth this Term in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptism as it was then used the Persons baptized going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea that great Receptacle of Water though the Water at that time was gathered on Heaps on either side of them yet they seemed buried in the Water as Persons in that Age were when baptized Thus spake your Brethren who compleated Mr. Pool's Annotations They tell you in what Sense the Fathers were said to be baptized unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud Here is nothing of sprinkling pouring or raining on them but they were as it were buried in the Sea and under the Cloud and so it represents Immersion or Dipping which is Christ's true Baptism We are buried not sprinkled with Christ in Baptism both in the Sign and also in Signification to shew he was dead buried and rose again for us and that we are dead to Sin and ought to walk in Newness of Life But do not mistake the Fathers being said to be baptized to Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud was
Word from Corruption but not the Humane History of the Fathers 2. But should this Father and St. Austine and others that followed them be for Infant Baptism what will this avail the asserters of Infant Baptism seeing the Church was before their times so greatly corrupted and many grand Errors brought in the Tradition of God Fathers and God Mothers one of the Church of England hath lately shewed to be near as early in the Church as Infant baptism which Mr. Owen will not therefore receive to be an Apostolical Tradition 3. We readily grant that Infant baptism is of great Antiquity of more then Thirteen Hundred years standing so are many other abominable Errors Practices and corrupt Ceremonies but from the beginning it was not so viz. 't is not to be found in Holy Scripture it is none of Christs Institution therefore an Human Invention nor was it practised in the Two first hundred years after Christ as I shall now prove out of as good Authors as any Mr. Owen hath or can produce 1. 'T is said Justin Martyr was Converted about 30 years after the Apostle John and by the Order then used in the Church It appears there was no Infant baptism thought of Walafrid Strabo as I find him cited by a great Historian says that there was no Children but aged and understanding Persons Baptized in this Age that is to say in the Second Century Wal. Strabo Eccl. Hist cap. 26. Vicecom l. 1. c 30. Tertullian in his Book of Baptism speaking of that Text Suffer little Children to come unto me saith he Indeed the Lord said do not hinder them to come unto me Let them come therefore while they grow to Years and while come let them be Taught let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ Why doth Innocent Age hasten to the Remission of Sins Men will deal more warily in Worldly affairs So that they who are not trusted with an Earthly Inheritance are trusted with an Heavenly one Let them ask for Salvation that thou mayest appear to have given it to them Dr. Taylor saith that the Truth of the business is as there is no Command of Scripture to oblige Children to the susception of it so the necessity of Pedo-Baptism was not determined in the Church till the Canons that was made in the Milevitan Council a provincial in Africa never till then I grant saith he it was practised in Africa before that time and they or some of them thought well of it And though that is no argument for us to think so yet none of them ever pretended it to be necessary nor to have been a precept of the Gospel St. Austin was the first that ever preached it to be necessary and it was in his Heat and Anger against Pelagius Thus Dr. Taylor Ignatius in his Discourse about Baptism asserts that it ought to be accompanyed with Faith Love and Patience after Preaching H. Montanus p. 45. and Jacob Dubois p. 16. to 22. and Dutch Martyrology where Ignatius's Letters are mentioned to Polycarp Tralensis to them of Philadelphia Dr. Taylor saith in his Disswasive against Popery p. 118. printed 1667 one of his last pieces Thus viz. That there is a Tradition to baptize Infants relies but upon two Witnesses Origen and Austin and the latter having it from the former it lies upon a single Testimony which saith he is a pittiful argument to prove a Tradition Apostolical He is the first that spoke of it but Tertullian that was before him seems to speak against it which he would not have done if it had been an Apostolical Tradition and that it was not so is but too certain if there be any Truth in the Words of Ludovicus Vives who says that anciently none were baptized but Persons of ripe Age. Great Bazil in his Book of the Holy Spirit Cap. 12. saith Faith and Baptism are the two means of Salvation inseparably cleaving together for Faith is not perfected by Baptism but Baptism is founded by Faith and by the same Name both things are fulfilled for as we believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit so also we are baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit and indeed there goeth before a Confession leading us to Salvation but Baptism followeth sealing our Confession and Covenant The same Churches Teacher saith the learned Dr. Du-Veil in his Third Book against Eunomius speaketh thus viz. Baptism is the Seal of Faith Faith is the Confession of the Godhead it is necessary we should first Believe and then be sealed in Baptism Du veilon Acts c. 8. p. 278. Zonaras saith the Babe will then need Baptism when it can chuse it Gregory Nazianzen in his Fourth Oration saith Dr. Du-Veil Of those who dye without Baptism gives us an Instance in those to whom Baptism was not administred by reason of Infancy And the same Nazianzen though he was a Bishops Son being a long time bred up under his Fathers care was not saith the said Dr baptized till he came to Man's Age. In like manner saith he Basil the Great that was born of devout Parents and instructed from his Childhood was not baptized until a Man p. 280. Also saith he John of Antioch called afterwards Chrysostom was born of Christian Parents as the truer Opinion is tutored by the famous Bishop Miletius was not yet baptized till he was One and Twenty Years of Age. Hierom also Ambrose and Austin who were born of Christian Parents and consecrated to Christian Discipline even from their Childhood were not baptized before thirty years of age as Dr. Taylor Bishop of Down asserts in his Twelfth Section of the Life of Christ Now Sir here are Examples enough that do prove in the primitive times Children of baptized Believers were not baptized but had their Baptism delayed till they themselves believed and gave an account of their Faith Had it been the constant custom of the Godly to baptize Infants would not these think you have been in their Infancy baptized Grotius as I find him quoted by Dr. Du-Veil saith The Primitive Churches did not baptize Infants see Grotius's Notes on the Gospel Nay saith the same great and learned Author it doth most plainly appear by the right of baptizing in the Romish Church for baptism is to be asked before the Person to be baptized do enter into the Church which the surety does in the Infants Name a clear distinct confession of Faith is required which the same surety rehearseth in the Infants Name i. e. a Renouncing of the World its Pomps the Flesh and the Devil We may by this perceive from whence the Original of our old Church Catechism came But this is a clear Argument saith the Dr. to prove of old the Persons who were to be baptized themselves asked Baptism in their own Name and of their own choice and professed their own Faith In the Neo-Cesarean Council it was framed thus As to those who are big with Child they ought to be baptized
untill we become Adult Persons and do believe in him he hath left us an Example how we should follow his steps Mr. Owen brings in his Fifth Objection against his Doctrine and practice of Infant Baptism viz. If Infant Baptism belongs to Infants why do not you give them the Lords Supper Take his answer Because saith he the Apostle Commands those that receive the Lords Supper to examine themselves and to discern the Body of the Lord which little Children cannot do Answ I answer And as the Apostle Commands all that receive the Lords Supper to examine themselves and to discern the Lords Body so likewise John Baptist the Lord Jesus and his Apostles too Commanded all that received baptism to believe and repent and to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance which little Babes cannot do Repent and be Baptized every one of you Acts 2. 37. If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayest Acts 8. 37. that is be baptized 2. You say Baptism is the Sacrament of our Regeneration and of our Admission into the Church of God the Lord's Supper is a Sacrament of our Growth and Spiritual Food 1. I answer this quite overthrows your Infant Baptism unless you Presbyterians do believe as the Church of England doth or at leastwise what they affirm viz. that Baptism doth regenerate the Child is Baptism an Ordinance or Sacrament of Regeneration i. e. to regenerate Persons or to hold forth that regeneration or the New Birth is wrought in such that are baptized why then do you baptize Infants who are not the Subjects of Regeneration Can they die to Sin and are they raised up out of the Water new Born Creatures to walk in newness of Life 2. If your Infants are new born or born again by Baptism no doubt the Food of the new Creature viz. the Lord's Supper ought to be given to them The first Sacrament holds forth 't is clear a Person born again or a Babe of Grace the other is Food fit and proper for that New born or Regenerated Person that he may grow thereby therefore they belong both to one and the same Subjects and neither of them it appears from hence do belong to Infants but 3. Are all the Infants that you baptize let in as Members of your Church are they absolutely Members of your Congregations as having the Ordinance of Admission is the Door of God's House opened to them How can you then say I deny them the priviledge of true and lawful Members shall your little Members your Lambs in Christ's Fold being New Born be starved what shall the regenerated Babe not be fed with the Food of their Fathers House 4. But if thus what number of Members have you in your Churches that have not their Names in your Church-book nor perhaps never looked after when grown up nor cast out though prophane and Wicked for do you cast out or exclude all such Children you baptized when grown up if not what polluted Churches are yours Infant Baptism was doubtless contrived to encrease National Churches or to make national Churches and it doth tend indeed to increase and continue that Christian Religion that is in Name only and not in Power you have its true in England by meer necessity lost your National Constitution and are become Congregational whether you will or no but Infant Baptism will not accord with a congregation Constitution nor do such Churches so constituted that are for Infant Baptism own their Babes to be proper and true Members of their Churches so far as I can learn what then signifies your Sacrament of Admission if they are not in truth admitted and owned as Members and allowed the Food and Priviledges of such 3. You say it was formerly though Circumcision belonged to Infants yet the Paschal Lamb belonged not but to the Adult Answ I answer this is denyed prove if you can that the little Children in the Jewish Church were not admitted to eat of the Passover it is positively said Exod. 12. 34. That the whole House were to eat thereof even a Lamb for an House and I find a great Writer asserting the same thing that little Children did eat thereof they were to bring their Children once or twice a Year before the Lord and I see no ground you have to say that none but Adult Persons did eat thereof 2. But let that be as it will that which was or might be the right of Jewish Church-Members or not their right is no rule for us in the Gospel Church as I have sufficiently prov'd and besure all baptized Persons who are regular Members of a Gospel Church cannot be denyed the Lord's Supper without Sin So much to your Answers to our Objections you might might have brought twice as many more CHAP. XX. In Answer to Mr. James Owen's 17 Chapter wherein the Antipedo Baptists are cleared of those foul Charges he hath cast upon them and 't is proved that to deny Infant Baptism is no Sin nor are those guilty of Murther nor Adultery that baptize or dip Men and Women in Water in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit as Mr. Owen charges them but contrariwise it is proved that to Baptize or Rantize Infants is an unlawful Practise and very Sinful YOU say you shall demonstrate in this Chapter how great the Sin is of those that are tempted to deny the Baptism which they receive in their Infancy and that suffer themselves to be baptized again there are many People that know not the nature of their first Baptism and are perverted to renounce it thinking that they do please God in so doing but they fall into Temptation and the Snares of the Devil who is the Author of Errors and Father of falshood Answ I hope by this time the Reader may discern how great an error 't is to call Rantism or Sprinkling Baptizing and that Infant Baptism is also an error being a meer human innovation this I have prov'd and theresore 't is so far from being a Sin to disown it and cast it away that it is every good Christians Duty so to do that would in all things walk by the rule of God's Word And for Mr. Owen to charge our People after this manner as if we were perverted and insnared by the Devil in denying our Infants Baptism is just as the Papists used to charge the Protestants that disowned the human Traditions and the vain Fopperies of their rotten Church and thunder'd out their Bulls against them 1 You say they are guilty of great Sin insomuch that they neglect to make a right use of their first Baptism Infant Baptism putteth them under continual Vow to the Lord and they are bound to renew their Vows to take the Lord to be a God unto them as soon as they come to age Answ 'T is true you brought them under an Obligation or a Vow to take the Lord to be their God in their Infancy but why did you do it unless you had any Warrant or
and vivification to a New Life but in the Rantizing or Sprinkling of an Infant there is not cannot be a lively Representation of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection c. Arg. 26. That pretended Baptism that pretends to frustrate the glorious end and design of Christ in his Instituting of Gospel Baptism or cannot answer it is none of Christ's Baptism but the pretended baptism of Infants tends to frustrate the glorious end and design of Christ in Instituting of Gospel Baptism Ergo. The Major will not be denied As to the Minor all generally confess the end and design of Christ in Instituting the Ordinance of Baptism was in a lively Figure to represent his Death Burial and Resurrecton with the Persons Death unto Sin and his rising again to walk in newness of Life that is baptized as the Sacrament of the Supper was ordained to represent his Body was broke and his blood was shed But that a lively Figure of Christs 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 Christs 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 Christs 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 fully proved which is also confessed by all Learned in that Language 2. That the Typical Baptism viz. that of the Red Sea wherein the Fathers were buried as it were unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud appears from Pools Annotations 1 Cor. 10. 2. Others saith he more probably think that the Apostle useth this Term in regard of the great Analogy betwixâ— Baptism as it was then used the Persons going down into the Waters and being Dippâ—d and the Israelites going down into the Sea the great receptacle of water tho' the water at that time was gathered on heaps on either side of them yet they seemed buried in the water as Persons in that Age were when they were baptized c. The second was that of Noahs Ark See Sir Norton Knatchbul who I before Quoted and shall here again recite his words The Ark of Noah and Baptism saith he were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection not the Sign of the washing away of Sin tho' so taken Metonymically but a particular signal of the Resurrection of Christ Of this Baptism is a Lively and Emphatical Figure as also was the Ark of Noah out of which he returned as from a Sepulchre to a New Life 3. Metaphorical Baptism is that of the Spirit and of affliction The first signifies not a Sprinkling of the Spirit but the great Effusion of the Spirit like that at Pentecost Acts 1. 4 5. Shall be Baptized c On which words Causabon speaks thus See Dr. Du Veil on Acts 2. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to Dip or Plungâ— as it were to die Colours in which sense saith he the 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 into a large Fish-Pond Also Decumentus on Acts 2. saith A wind filled the whole House that it seemed like a â—iâ—h-Pond because it was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost And the Baptism of afflictions are those great depths or overwhelmings of afflictions like that of our Saviours magnis componere parva no part free Mat. 20. 22. where you have the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and like that of David who saith God drew him out of deep waters 4. The spiritual signification thereof is the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ and of our Death to sin and vivification to a New Life This being so it follows undeniably that Sprinkling cannot be Christs true baptism it must be Immersion and nothing else And in the last place finally to confirm that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to Dip both from the â—…teral and spiritual signification thereof as also from those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms mentioned in the Scripture I might add further that this evidently appears from the practice of John Baptisâ— 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—ordan as the Greek 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 Sir I expect your answer to these Arguments particularly if you make any reply to what I have said in confutation of your Treatise and see you do your business better the next time for as yet you have not proved Infant Baptism to be from Heaven as I hope the unprejudiced Reader will conclude I shall say no more at present but leave all I have said to the blessing of God hoping in a little time he will vanquish by the light of his sacred word your Scripture less practice of Infant Baptism out of the World clear up the Truth of his own despised Ordinance That Wisdom may 〈…〉 of her Children and God may be Honoured to whom be Glory now and for ever more Amen FINIS †Worthy Britains see how Mr. Richard Baxter hath out down Infant Baptism with his own Sword can Infants shew their consent to be married to Christ or profess Faith in him ☞ * Read the Table of the Authors at the beginning of this Book Mr. Daniel Williams in his Book called the vanity of youth page 131. Mr. Williams Worthy of blame as well as Mr. Burkit The danger of Infants Baptismal Covenant layd open * Perkins on Gal. c. 3. p. 256.
are not straiter P. 73. l. 33. for has read hath P. 75. l. 28. for theirs read the. P. 75. l. 29. for their read the. P. 77. l. 17. i. e. as such should be in a Parenthesis P. 84. l. 3. blot out any P. 86. in the Contents of Chap. vii for first read fifth P. 88. l. 3. blot out from P. 99. for with the Gentiles read and their Children P. 89. l. 31. for same read thing P. 105. l. 37. for pai read pain P. 112. l. 28. for and read but. P. 117. l. 19. for with read without P. 118. l. 3. for Mat. read Mal. P. 120. l. 20. blot out so read and since c. P. 201. l. 40. for he that believes shall not be damned read he that believeth not shall be damned P. 250. l. 15. for vers 34. read 3 4. P. 264. l. 2. for born in Sin read born again P. 264. l. 4. blot out do P. 266. l. 40. for Christian read Children P. 239. l. 33. for Lord read Lords P. 293. l. 21. read an external Rite CHAP. I. In answer to what Mr. Owen hath said in his first Chapter SIR AS to what you say about the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledg that they were Seals of the two Covenants viz. of the Covenant of Works and of the Covenant of Grace or free Promise of God it is far fetch'd and very doubtful and as little to the Purpose for which you mention them therefore I shall pass that by 2dly As touching Circumcision being a dark Shadow of the Old Covenant under the Old Dispensation it may be granted but that it was the Seal of the Covenant of Grace which you affirm elsewhere in your Book I do deny it being only a Seal of Abraham's Faith even of that Faith he had being yet Uncircumcised and also that he should be the Father of all that should believe 3dly You say well that those dark Shadows viz. Circumcision c. are abolished the Substance being come that Yoke of Bondage is taken away which proves Circumcision did not appertain to the Covenant of Grace as the Seal of it in common to all Believers for the breaking off of a Seal cancels the Covenant to which it was prefixed as all Men know So that nothing can be more clear than this that Circumcision if it was a Seal of any Covenant as you conceive it was it was a Seal of the Covenant of Works which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear in regard it obliged all that were circumcised to keep perfectly the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. 4thly You say Christ hath ordained in the Gospel a light and easy Burden viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper These two are the only Sacraments you say of the Gospel This is granted and owned herein we do not differ 5thly You say Baptism signifieth our Spiritual Birth the Lord's Supper our Spiritual Growth and Nourishment This we grant also and therefore we say Baptism cannot belong to Infants because they are not in an ordinary way capable of Regeneration tho we deny not that those elect Infants that die are renewed quoad illorum naturas but we know not which they are if we did yet we ought not to baptize them because we have no Precept or Precedent so to do we might therefore as well and by as good Authority give them the Lord's Supper as Bâ—ptism which the antient Fathers when first Pedo-baptism was by Human Authority introduced into the Church you know did for near four hundred Years till the latter end of the Sixth Century 6thly You say Baptism according to the Signification of the Word is Washing and therefore the Apostle saith saved us by the washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered in Heb. 9. 10. in divers Baptisms those were not only by dipping under Water but by sprinkling Water on those baptized as the Apostle teacheth Heb. 9. 19. he took the Blood of the Calves and of Goats with Water and sprinkled the Book and all the People That which the Apostle you say called Baptism in Ver. 10. is in this Verse called the Sprinkling of Water c. Answ 1. I answer tho the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a remote Sense doth take in Washingâ— yet I challenge you and all that know or pretend to know the Greek Tongue whether in every place in the New Testament where the Word is mentioned or any Derivative from it as it refers to Christ's Ordinance of Baptism it doth not directly and properly signify Immersion and accordingly rendred by Beza in his Translation 2dly You greatly wrong that Text Heb. 9. 19. where the Apostle speaks of sprinkling the Blood of Calves and of Goats with Water c. by saying he refers to Ver. 10. where the Apostle speaks of Divers Washings and in thus doing you do not only abuse the Sacred Text but you wrong your own Soul and Conscience and the People also Sir do you find the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in ver 10. in ver 19. where sprinkling is mentioned or is it not in ver 13 19. as also 1 Pet. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We may modestly affirm that no Greek Author whether Heathenish or Christian has ever put Baptizing for Sprinkling or used those Words promiscuously for as in these Scriptures you have cited Heb. 9. 13 19 21. 't is always translated Sprinkling so there is not one place in Scripture wherein the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Baptism nor is there one Scripture where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Sprinkling And therefore tho sometimes the Greek Word doth signify in a remote Sense Washing yet 't is primarily such a washing as is by dipping or plunging as I said before And thus Mr. Wilson in his Dictionary renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tingo c. to dip or plunge into the Water and signifies saith he primarily such a washing as is used in Bucks where Linen is plunged or dipped tho in a remote Sense he hints it signifies other kind of washing but it does not so in the Holy Scripture where the Word is used as referring to Christ's Ordinance of Baptizing 3dly You say water-Water-Baptism i. e. the Washing of the Flesh signifies the Washing of the Spirit and therefore the Apostle Peter saith Even Baptism doth now save us not the putting away the Filth of the Flesh but the answer of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Christ Answ I answer you confound Regeneration with Baptism the washing of Regeneration is not the washing of Baptism Baptism regenerates no Person But you seem to follow the antient erroneous Fathers who concluded no Person could be saved unless baptized abusing that Text Joh. 3. 5. Unless a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven taking Water there for Baptism In like sort they abused that
do not the thing you rantise and baptize none unless you dip them into the Water Chamier also faith the antient use of Baptism was to dip the whole Body into the Element therefore did John baptize in a River Dr. Hammond in his Annotations upon John 13. 10. saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an Immersion or washing the whole Body and which answereth to the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for dipping in the Old Testament and therefore tells us upon Mat. 3. that John baptized in a River viz. in Jordan Mark 1. 5. in a Confluence of Water John 3. 23. because 't is said there was much Water which the Greeks called the Lakes where they used to wash Also saith he the Antients called their Baptisterions or the Vessels containing their Baptismal Water Columbethras viz. swimming or diving places being very large with Partitions for Men and Women The Learned Mr. Pool or those Learned and Reverend Divines concerned in perfecting his most excellent Annotations on the holy Bible says a great part of those who went out to hear John were baptized that is dipped in Jordan on John 3. 6. and on Mat. 28. 20. say they the first Baptism of which we read in Holy Writ was dipping the Person baptized The Dutch Translation according to their Language reads it dipping Mat. 3. 16. Ende Jesus Gedoopt zijn de is terstont Opgeklomen vit hit wâ—er And when Jesus was dipp'd he came out of the Water And Ver. 6. Ende wierden van hemge doopt in de Jordan And were dipped of him in Jordan Hence they called John the Baptist John the Dipper In Verse 1. Ende in die dayen quam Jonnes de dooper predikenn in de woeffijue van Judea In English thus In those days came John the Dipper preaching in the Wilderness of Judea Had our Translators translated the Greek word into our English Tongue as the Dutch have done it into theirs it would have been read in our Bible John the Dipper and for baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. it would have been read dipping them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and then the People would not have been deceived but they have not translated the Greek word at all but left it in its Original Language What difference is there between Baptism and the Greek word Baptisma Mr. Ball in his Catechism doth not only say Faith was required of such who did desire Baptism but also that the Party baptized was washed by dipping c. But to close with this I argue thus viz. Since our Saviour sent his Disciples to teach and baptize or dip in the Name c. into all Nations viz. into cold Countries as well as hot and seeing Infants tender Bodies cannot bear dipping without palpable danger of their Lives it follows clearly that they are none of the Subjects Christ commanded to be dipp'd in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost To conclude with this take one Argument viz. If the proper literal and genuine Signification of the Greek word baptizo is dipping or to dip then sprinkling is not baptizing But the proper literal and genuine Signification of the Greek word baptizo is dipping or to dip Ergo Sprinkling is not Baptizing CHAP. IV. Proving Baptism is Dipping by the Practice of John Baptist Christ and his Apostles 2dly FRom the Practice of the Primitive Times I have already shewed that John Baptist baptized in the River Jordan who was the first that received Commission to baptize And Diodate on Mat. 3. says he plunged them in Water Piscator also saith the antient manner of baptizing was that the whole Body was dipp'd into the Water So saith the Assembly in their Annotations Nav say I it had been a vain and needless thing for them to go to Rivers to baptize if it had been only to sprinkle a little Water on the Face for a Quart of Water might have served to have rantized a great number And had Sprinkling or Rantizing been the Ordinance there is no Reason left to conceive why they should go to Rivers nor would the Spirit of God have given that as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water John 3. 23. But some strive to contradict the Holy Ghost by making People believe there was not much Water in that place Because the Original reads not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much Water but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Waters that is say they many Sâ—…ms or Rivolets Answer What difference is there between much VVater and many Waters If they were Streams and Rivolets tho not deep yet if they were but a little while stopped with a Dam they would soon rise to be deep enough to swim in as Experience shews But 't is enough there he baptized saith the Holy Spirit for there was much Water or many Waters there for or because intimating plainly that the Ordinance could not be administred with a little Water but that it required many Waters or much Water a great deal more than a Bason could hold or you hold in your Hand 2. But 't is objected Sandy's Travels tell us that they were so shallow as not to reach above the Ankles Answ 1. Must we believe God's Word or a lying Traveller the Scripture saith there was much Water or many Waters and he says there was but a little 2. In some shallow Rivolets we daily see that in some places the Water is deep and might it not be so in that and this Traveller might not so curiously search or examine the matter 3. Or might there not be a great Confluence of Water then as Dr. Hammond words it and yet but little or shallow Water now or when Sandys was there Time alters Rivers as well as other things But if any seek after this manner to contradict the sacred Text to defend their Childish Practice of Rantism they deserve greatly to be blamed Take this Argument If the Holy Ghost gives it as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water then a little Water will not serve to baptize in But the Holy Ghost gives this as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water Ergo a little Water will not serve to baptize in 2dly But to proceed Mark 1. 9. 't is said Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan Now saith a Learned Man on the place It had been Nonsense for St. Mark to say that Jesus was baptized in Jordan if he had been sprinkled because the Greek reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Jordan Could Jesus be said to be sprinkled into the River Jordan 't is proper to say he was dipped into Jordan and that is and was the Act and nothing else besure 3dly They went down both into the Water both Philip and the Eunuch Acts 8. What need had there been
away the Filth of it Now says he and you to the same purpose the sprinkling of the Blood of Christ and the pouring forth of the holy Spirit upon the Infant are more fully and plainly represented by Baptism as administred by sprinkling than by dipping He says further That if the inward and spiritual Grace signified by Baptism be more lively represented by sprinkling than by dipping then surely sprinkling is not only lawful but more expedient than dipping but the inward and spiritual Grace signified by Baptism to wit the cleansing the Soul by the Grace and Spirit of Christ is more lively represented by sprinkling than by dipping therefore more expedient and accordingly we find Almighty God himself often expressing the Mercy of Sanctification by this Action Ezek. 36 25 Theu will I sprinkle clean Water upon you and ye shall be clean c. Ansew 1. To this I answer where the Thing signified is not the Sign is a nullity but your Thing signified in sprinkling VVater on the Face of an Infant viz. the holy Spirit and Graces of it does not appear in those Infants you so sprinkle Ergo Your Sign is a nullity If Grace was in them so much as in the Habit of it when they are grown up the Act and Fruits of the Spirit and Faith would shew themselves for Grace is an active and lively Principle where-ever it is infused 2. And I positively deny that the End and Use of Baptism is or can be represented by sprinkling or pouring of VVater but by what I have said and produced by the Testimony of the Scripture and almost all Learned Men both Antient Fathers and Modern Divines I have fully shewed the contrary 3. I thought the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper had been instituted by Christ to signify the Effusion or pouring forth his precious Blood and not Baptism VVill you confound the Use and End of one Sacrament with the other to maintain your own Innovation and Abuse of Christ's holy Baptism 4. Might not the Jews who instead of making Altars of Gold or Stone made them Altars of Brick say that Altars of Brick might serve as well to answer the Use and End of burning Incense Nay may be they might say they had not the other to do it and therefore built their Altars of Brick But would this Pretence do No no what saith the Almighty God They provoke me continually to my Face Also might not others argue thus about the Sacrament of the Supper viz. VVhat need we have VVine If we use Mum or some other Red Liquor instead of the Fruit of the Grape it will answer the Use and End of that Sacrament as well as VVine O whither would this lead us 5. VVe utterly deny that Baptism was ordain'd or instituted by Christ to signify either the pouring forth of his Blood or the pouring forth of the holy Spirit and must tell you that you affirm what you please without any Proof from God's VVord But by the way let the Reader observe how you go from sprinkling to pouring VVater on the Face of Infants I question whether you ever do so or not but if you should that would be no more Christ's Baptism than sprinkling You are not to devise new Signs or Symbols of Spiritual Mysteries of which God speaks nothing in his VVord nor ever instituted to such Ends. I affirm he has appointed no Rite or Ordinance in the Gospel to represent the sprinkling or pouring forth of the holy Spirit The Papists have you know seven Sacraments and they tell us of the Use and End of them and how wonderfully significant they are and yet all the Use and Signification of them were the Contrivances of their own wicked Hearts And I must tell you that they prove what they do and say for their Sacraments as well as you do As to what you speak of pouring or sprinkling take what Tho. Aquinas most excellently hath said on this account It belongs to the Signifier says he to determine what Sign is to be used for the Signification But God it is who by things sensible signifies spiritual things in the Sacrament Christ hath ordained Baptism to be a Sign Symbol or lively Representation of his own Death Burial and Resurrection as I have proved and confirmed by a Cloud of Witnesses Will God endure or suffer Men think you to invent out of their own Brains new Signs and Symbols of Divine Gospel-Mysteries and then father them upon him and call them his Ordinances Nay more be so bold as to say these are more useful and answer better the End of God than those which he himself instituted For thus you and other Pedo-baptists speak of Sprinkling viz. 't is not only lawful but more expedient than Dipping And hereby you seem to teach God Wisdom or to magnify yours above his Be astonished O Heavens Be thou horribly amazed O Earth Were ever any Men thus bold before First You contrive a new Rite and new Significations of it which God never appointed to represent such things and then say 't is more expedient than Christ's Ordinance of dipping which was instituted by him for other Ends and Significations whereas the whole Body of all learned Men and Christians witness to and testify the contrary Pray take what Sir Norton Kâ—atchbul hath wrote in direct opposition to what you affirm Saith he Baptism which now saves us by Water speaking of the Text in 1 Pet. 3. 21. that is by the assistance of Water and is antitypical of the Ark of Noah does not signify the laying down the Filth of the Flesh but the Covenant of a good Conscience towards God while we are plunged in the Water which is to testify our Belief of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ so that there is a manifest Antithesis between these words by Water and by the Resurrection Nor is saith he the Elegancy of it displeasing As if he should say the Ark of Noah not the Flood was a Type of Baptism and Baptism was an Antitype of the Ark Not as if Baptism is a washing away of the Filth of the Flesh by Water wherein it answers not at all to the Ark but as it is the Covenant of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Christ in the belief of which Resurrection we are saved as they were saved by the Ark of Noah for the Ark and Baptism were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection so that the proper End mark of Baptism ought not to be understood as if it were a Sign of the wishing away of Sin although it be thus oftentimes taken Metonymially in the New Testament and by the Fathers but a particular Signal of the Resurrection by Faith in the Resurrection of Christ of which Baptism is a lively and emphatical Figure as also was the Ark out of which Noâ—h returned as from a Sepulchre to a new Life and therefore not unaptly called by Philo the Captain of the new Creation and the Whale's Belly out
that were in his House or Family or bought with his Money Therefore all this arguing of yours is weak and groundless In vain therefore is that which you say to sinful Parents that delivered Corruption to their Children that they should administer Medicines unto them and so give them the Ordinance of Baptism which Christ hath appointed for that end that they might not fall into the bottomless Piâ— Answ 1. You must prove Christ hath appointed Baptism for Children do that and your Work is done 2. Prove that Baptism is the Medicine to cure the Disease of Original Sin and to save Children or Adult Persons either from falling into the bottomless Piâ— You seem to frighten Parents into the Belief of your Tradition Can any thing save either young or old from Hell but the Blood and Merits of Christ through the Sanctification of the Spirit which Baptism can be but a Figure of 't is not the Medicine nor is it appointed to any to be a Figure of that c. but to Believers only who certainly have the things signified 2dly Baptism you say signifies the pouring forth of the Holy Ghost Acts 2. 38. Tit. 3. 5. and 't is certain that little Children can receive the Holy Ghost from their Mothers Womb Luke 1. 15. Answ We deny that Baptism signifies the pouring of the Holy Spirit the Scriptures you cite prove no such thing It signifies as I have shewed the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ with our Death unto Sin or Mortification of Sin and rising again to a new Life What tho the Promise is made to Christ and his Seed in Isa 44. 3. 59. 11. Are Infants of Believers as such the Seed of Christ and in the Covenant of Grace The Promise of pouring forth of the Spirit is only made to Believers and to such of their Seed that believe or to all the Elect of God Prove that Infants of Believers as such in the Gospel-days received the Holy Spirit God can 't is true give his Spirit to a Babe in the Womb and may be to one or two Babes he might do it so he once also opened the Mouth of an Ass must all Asses therefore speak with Man's Voice You say 3dly Baptism signifies Regeneration and 't is possible say you that Children may be regenerated What can hinder the unspeakable Grace of God's working upon their Hearts Jeremiah was sanctified in his Mother 's Womb. Answ I answer Pagans and Infidels may be regenerated 't is possible what can hinder God's working upon their Hearts Nay and 't is probable too God will do it when he affords the Gospel to them and when they are regenerated let them be baptized when they have the thing signified let them have the Sign also Mr. Baxter saith Baptism is a 〈◊〉 of present not future Regeneration Baptism was not appointed of Christ to be a Sign of that which might or might not be in the true Subject of it hereafter but of that Regeneration that was certainly wrought in the Person before baptized If thou believest if thou hast true Faith or art a converted Man thou â—…st Acts 8. not if that hereafter thou mayst be a Believer â—ut if thou art now one that dost believe You say God can easily give holy Qualities to the Souls of Children Cannot God restore his own Image to little Children I do not say all the Children of the Faithful receive the Grace of Regeneration in their Infancy it is evident to the contrary many of them being wicked but on the other hand the Work of Grace appeareth very early day by day in others of them Answ If this he so your Cause is gone How Are not all the infants of Believers regenerated and in Covenant with God Why then do you baptize all even such that have not the thing signified when baptized nor ever after till they die Worthy Britains see here Mr. Owen does acknowledg that the Infants of Believers as such are not in Covenant for all that are in the Covenant of Grace and have a right to the Seal of it are regenerated alas what is the Seal but a Seal of Regeneration and so of eternal Salvation Ephes 1. 13 14. Chap. 4. 30. But you say In others Regeneration appears very early day by day that is in some little Children Answ 2. But are not some Children of ungodly Parents as early wrought upon and born again as the Children of the godly why then may not their Children also be baptized You say Mr. Eliot in his Book called Tears of Repentance speaks of two Indian Children who were converted before three Years old Sir these were not the Children of Godly Parents 3. Admit that to be true and that God sometimes doth regenerate Children at three or four Years of Age. Such Children I can baptize by the Authority of Christ's Commission or by Virtue of his holy Precept and none but such Children that do believe have any right thereunto You say Solomon was very young when the Lord loved him Answ No doubt but the Lord loved his Elect before they were born even from Everlasting but what of this yet when they are called and regenerated and not till then they ought to be baptized In a word that which renders Persons capable of Baptism are the Prerequisites of Baptism or those things that are required by Christ to be in the true Subjects thereof which are Faith and the Profession of it or Faith and Repentance You may be capable of being made a Justice of Peace but you must not exercise that Office without a lawful Commission So let our Children be capable of what they will or may yet without a Warrant from God's Word they ought not to be admitted to Baptism the Lord's Supper nor to any other Gospel-Ordinance God can give sacred Habits and Qualities to a Child we deny not but till he doth it you are not to give them the Signs of those gracious Qualities and if there be no visible Signs or Demonstrations of those sacred Qualities in such Infants you baptize that render them Believers 't is at best but a mock Baptism Object If we knew that little children are regenerated we would baptize them This is your Objection against your self as if we argued thus Answ No Sir you mistake us if we did know little Infants were regenerate which is impossible for us to know 〈◊〉 I doubt not but that those Infants that go to Heaven are made holy in some secret way unknown to us because no unclean â—…ng can enter into Heaven yet we durst not baptize them because we want Authority to do it Put to come to your Answer That say you cannot be certainly known of the Adult therefore by this Objection none can be baptized 'T is sufficient in this case that the Promise of God belongs to the Infantâ—… of the Faithful They are Members of the visible Church through which the Line of Gâ—… Election runneth Rom. 9. 4 5. Chap. 11. 7. Answ.
sure when Zacheus believed in Christ he was a proper Subject of Gospel Baptism so were all that believed who were in his House but the Text doth not say that every particular Person that were in his House believed or that Salvation came so to his House but if it did no doubt they were all upon their believing baptized 2. But you may well say what is this to Baptism since he and all his House were baptized before even when he was in his Sins and a notorious Sinner the chief of the Publicans it is probable say you sure Sir 't is more then probable it was impossible that Zacheus and his Family should escape Baptism when John had baptized all the whole Country before all yea every individual Person that dwelt in Jerusalem Judea and all the Regions round about The truth is this is very impertinently brought in to prove Infant Baptism what doth it signifie that Salvation was come to Zacheus that day and not until then seeing John's Commission was to baptize all whether Godly or Ungodly Believers or Unbelievers whether Salvation was come to them or not let the Reader observe what darkness and ignorance this Man shews Peter say you when he first planted the Christian Religion among the Jews exhorted them saying be baptized every one of you for the promise is to you and to your Children Ans This of the promise being unto them and to their Children we have fully already answered but why doth Peter command these Jews who doubtless dwelt at Jerusalem to be baptized seeing John Baptist had baptized them and their Children before as you have positively asserted what must they be all rebaptized what inconsistency is there in your arguing 2. The latitude of this Command be baptized every one of you is no further then to all them that he commands to repent nor is the promise to any of their Children but such that the Lord our God shall all the Parents right and interest to the promise of the Holy Spirit Remission of Sins and eternal Life spring from their Interest in Christ by Faith and at that Door comes in the right and interest of all their Children or Off-spring that are called by the effectual operations of the word and spirit of God 't is the promise made to all the true spiritual Seed of Abraham but are the natural Seed of Abraham and the natural Seed of Believers as such or as so considered the spiritual Seed of Abraham 3. the promise here meant and the duty of being baptized are as you say of the same Latitude thus you argue viz. be baptized you and your Children for the promise is unto you and to your Children we so are to understand the Words the Promise and the Duty being of the same Latitude if the Promise belongeth unto them and their Children then bapâ—â—â—â—â— Ans I answer what is the promise but the Holy-Ghost and eternal Life and such that receive this Promise viz. the holy Spirit as an earnest of eternal Life we deny not are to be baptized and if no Child hath any other right to the Duty but such who have received the same Promise through Faith ziz remission of Sin and of the Holy Spirit then no Children but such that repent and believe ought to be baptized seeing the Promise and Duty runs to the Children or Off-spring as it runs to the Parents In the same manner you say when Peter planted the first Church among the Gentiles as might be gathered from the words of the Angel to Cornelius being the first Fruits of the Church of the Gentiles Acts 11. 13. send Men to Joppa and call for Simon whose Sir-name is Peter who shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy House shall be saved the Gospel bringeth Salvation to him and to all his House Cornelius well knew the meaning of the Words for he being a proselite to the true Religion before that time though uncircumcised yet received the severe Commandment of Noah the substance of which might be seen Gen. 9. 1. God's Covenant was with Noah and his Seed c. 1. Ans I answer 't is said Peter should tell Cornelius words whereby he and all his House shall be saved but it must be such of his House that could hear and understand those Words Peter should tell them he shall tell thee and tell all thy House Words whereby you shall be saved but not unless he and they of his House believed and pray observe is it not said he was a devout Man and one that feared God with all his House Acts 10. 2. all his House the Holy-Ghost here intends were such who were of understanding and did fear God as well as himself also Cornelius said to Peter now we are all here to hear what things are commanded thee of God all his House were capable to hear c. Moreover is it not said while Peter yet spake these words the Holy Ghost fell on them which heard the word Verse 44. and all these were commanded to be baptized viz. that had received the Holy-Ghost for their reception of the Holy-Ghost is that argument the Apostle uses to command them to be baptized Verse 47 can any Man forbid water that those should not be baptized which have received the Holy-Ghost as well as we and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Verse 48 them that did believe them that had received the Holy-Ghost them that spake with Tongues and magnified God and if it was every individual Person in his House let it be so the greater Grace of God was manifested but here are no Children mentioned in Infancy that were baptized 2. Besides I wonder at you 't is said Peter should tell Cornelius words whereby he and all his House should be 〈◊〉 sure you do not believe what you seem to plead for pray answer when the Parent believes and is saved or assured of Salvation are all his Children and whole Family by his Faith brought into the like stars of Salvation shall they all be saved also Through his Faith the external Priviledges of the Covenant that your Brethren talk of that is something but I know not what by virtue of their Parents Faith it is not however that which you plead for you tell us when Cornelius heard words whereby he came to be saved all his Family through his Faith were saved also if you do not this I profess I know not what you mean by what you have written but if this be your meaning I hope no Body will believe you because all know it is utterly false 3. But the greater wonder comes at last viz. it appears Cornelius and his Houshold because a Gentile had right to Baptism by the Covenant and Commandment of God to Noah not by virtue of Abraham's Covenant the Truth is one is as good an Argument for Baptism as the other but was the Covenant God made with Noah the Covenant of Grace if it was all the
But they that despise and slight the Baptism of Infants despise neither the Baptism of John nor Christ because neither John nor our blessed Saviour commanded Infants to be baptized nor did they ever baptize one Child as we read of if you can prove they did do it we will say no more but will soon baptize our Children Thus I have done with all I thought necessary to remark or take notice of that is contained in your second Chapter CHAP. III. Shewing Baptizing is Dipping not sprinkling nor pouring a little Water SIR AS to what is contain'd in the second Chapter of your Book concerning the Continuation of Christ's Baptism of Water in the Church I shall say no more to that in that we agree and are one but we differ about what Baptism of Water is you would have it to be Sprinkling which indeed is not Baptism but Rantism for that you know is the Greek Word for Sprinkling 2. As also we differ about the true and proper Subjects of it according to our Saviour's Institution and since you begin with that you call the Manner or external Form of Administration of Baptism I shall follow you herein and shall first repeat your Words and then reply Thus you begin viz. Some judg that the whole Body ought to be dipped in Water and all other ways to be unlawful Others judg say you the sprinkling of Water on the Face of him that is baptiz'd to be sufficient especially in these cold Climates for even as in the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is one Moâ—sel of Bread and one Spoonful of Wine sufficient for to signify the Spiritual Food that is had in Christ even so in the Sacrament of Baptism the sprinkling of a little Water on him that is baptized signifies the Virtue of the Blood of Christ as effectually as Rivers of Water I answer Certainly you cannot be ignorant of what many learned Pedo-baptists have said in Opposition to what you here speak for tho both the holy Sacraments are very significant of Christ's Sufferings and of those spiritual Benefits we receive from him yet they are of different Signification First The Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper holds forth in a lively Figure the breaking of Christ's Body and the pouring forth of his precious Blood and this indeed may as well he represented by a small quantity of Bread and Wine as by much yet a little Water will not serve in Baptism 1. Because ' â—is positively said that John was baptizing in Enon near Salim John 3. 23. because there was much Water there Certainly the Holy Ghost would not have given this as the Reason why John baptized near Enon viz. because there was much Water in that place if a little Water namely a Spoonful or two would have been sufficient or two or three Quarts It seems plainly deducible from this Text it cannot be administred with a little Water but contrariwise it doth require much Water Secondly Pray consider that as the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper holds forth or represents symbolically the breaking of the Body of Christ and the shedding of his Blood and to that purpose it was in part instituted even so the Sacrament of Baptism holds forth in as lively Figure that our blessed Lord was dead buried and rose again and to this end this holy Ordinance was also instituted as also to shew forth our Death unto Sin and Vivification to Newness of Life as by and by shall be abundantly proved both from the holy Scriptures and a multitude of learned Men that hold Infant-Baptism therefore since a little Water cannot in this Ordinance represent Christ's Burial and Resurrection it follows directly that a little Water will not serve to baptize Persons in but that it must be administred in Rivers Ponds or places where there is much Water i. e. so much Water as that the Body may be buried or covered all over therein But to proceed you say Neither is dipping or sprinkling essential unto this Ordinance but washing with Water or putting Water on the Body for the word Baptism signifies in the Greek washing with Water as we cited say you from Heb. 9. 10. Answ I answer now you have given away your Cause at once or I am mistaken for if neither dipping nor sprinkling be essential unto this Ordinance but washing what is become of your Baptism Sir all dipping in Water is washing tho all washing is not dipping in that you hurt us not but your sprinkling is not washing If a Woman should sprinkle her foul Linen with a few drops of Water would that be deem'd a washing of them Again if Sprinkling be not essential to Baptism you have no Baptism at all take away the Body of a Tree and there is no Tree That thing can't be where the essential part of it is wanting And now that the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify dipping and such a washing as is by dipping we shall plainly shew evince and demonstrate and confirm it by such Arguments and Authors that no unprejudiced sober Person can any longer well remain doubtful about this matter and then we will examine your Objections I shall prove baptizing or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not sprinkling nor pouring of Water upon the Body but dipping or plunging the Body all over in Water and that 1st From the proper literal and direct Signification of the Greek Word Baptizo and the Testimonies of Learned Men. 2dly From the Practice of Primitive Times 3dly From the Consideration of what is signified and represented in Baptism 4thly From those Typical Baptisms spoken of in the Scriptures 5thly From the nature of those Metaphorical Baptisms mentioned viz. the Baptism of the Spirit and that of Afflictions To proceed to prove the first Scapula and Stephens two as great Masters of the Greek Tongue as most we have do tell you in their Lexicons that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizo from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bapto signifies mergo immergo item tingo quod fit immergendo inficere imbuere viz. to dip plunge overwhelm put under cover over to dye in Colour which is done by plunging Grotius says it signifies to dip over Head and Ears Pasor an Immersion dipping or Submersion Vossius says it implies a washing the whole Body Mincaeus in his Dictionary saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Latin Baptismus in Dutch Doopsit or Doopen Baptismus or Baptism to dive or duck in Water and the same with the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabal which the Septuagint or Seventy Interpreters render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizo to dip This Casaâ—bon saith was the right of way Baptizing that Persons were plunged into the Water which the very word Baptizo sufficiently demonstrates which as it does not extend so far as to sink down to the bottom to the hurt of the Person so it is not to swim upon the Superficies of the Water Baptism ought to be
for them so to have done had Baptism been sprinkling Sure Philip would not have put that Noble Person who was a Man of great Authority under Caâ—dace Queen of the Ethiopians to that great trouble to come out of his Chariot if to sprinkle a little Water on his Face might have done and to go down into the Water and dip him Sure Philip would on this occasion have dispensed with Immersion and let Aspersion or Rantism have served considering he was a great Person and on a journey he might have fetch'd a little Water in his Hand or otherwise and have sprinkled him in his Chariot as some Ministers do now in their publick Places of Worship and thus Men make void the Command of Christ by their Traditions to the abuse of Christian Baptism and Reproach of us that keep to his sacred Institution Mr. Daniel Rogers a most worthy Writer says in a Treatise of his It ought to be the Church's part to cleave to the Institution which is dipping especially it being not lest Arbitrary by our Church to the Discretion of the Minister but required to dip or dive And further saith That he betrays the Church whose Minister he is to a disordered Error if he cleave not to the Institution O what abundance of Betrayers of the Truth and of Churches too have we in these as well as in former days How little is the Institution of Christ or Practice of the Primitive Churches minded by many good Men Where is the Spirit of Reformation And doubtless that famous Author and Learned Critick in the Greek Tongue Casanbon was in the right Take his words I doubt not saith he but contrary to our Church's Intention this Error having once crept in is maintain'd still by the carnal Ease of such as looking more at themselves than at God stretch the Liberty of the Church in this case deeper and further than either the Church her self would or the Solemness of this Sacrament may well and safely admit Afterwards he saith I consess my self unconvinced by Demonstrations of Scripture for Infants sprinkling The truth is the Church gave too great Liberty she had no Power to alter in the least matter but to have kept exactly to the Institution She says dipping or sprinkling that spoils all that Addition gives Encouragement VVho will dip the Person that can believe the Church that sprinkling may serve And O! how hard is it to retract an Error which hath been so long and so generally received especially when Carnal Ease and Profit attends the keeping of it up and also when the true way of baptizing is reproached and look'd upon to be so contemptible a Practice and those who own it and dare not act otherwise vilified and reproached by many with the scurrilous Name of Anabaptists c. altho we are as much against rebaptizing as any People in the VVorld can be The Learned Cajetan upon Mat. 3. 5. saith Christ ascended out of the Water therefore Christ was baptized by John not by sprinkling or pouring Water upon him but by Immersion that is by dipping or Plunging into the Water Moreover Musculus on Mat. 3. calls Baptism dipping and says the Parties baptized were dipped not sprinkled To close with this take one Argument If the Baptizer and the Baptized in the days of Christ and his Apostles went both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipped then is Baptism not Sprinkling but Dipping But the Baptizer and the Baptized in the days of Christ and his Apostles went both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipped Ergo Baptism is not Sprinkling but Dipping CHAP. V. Proving that Baptism is plunging or burying in Water the whole Body in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Wherein Mr. Owen's Arguments for sprinkling and his Objections against Immersion or Dipping are fully answered REader thou mayst see that tho the remote Sense of the common word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may refer to pouring of Water yet the proper and genuine Sense of that word is dipping or such a washing as is by dipping which is abundantly proved as you have heard both by the Scriptures and Consent of a great Cloud of Witnesses amongst the Learned both Anâ—…nt and Modern Therefore what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith in the beginning of his third Chapter viz. That it is uncertain whether in the New Testament the Apostles baptized by dipping or sprinkling is not true it being evident it was by dipping and no other way For where-ever the word Baptism is used I say again in the New Testament as it refers to Christ's Ordinance of Baptism it signifies dipping or plunging into the Water nor can he prove the Jews washed their Hands and Cups only by pouring Water on them tho Elijah might have Water poured on his Hand we commonly wash our Hands and Cups by dipping them into the Water And so did the Jews as Mr. Ainsworth affirms 2dly Sir what you say concerning that Typical Baptism in the Cloud and Sea you have heard also fully answered and that makes not for sprinkling nor pouring But more to that hereafter 3dly What you say concerning the Signification of Baptism that it holds forth two things 1. The Blood of Christ 2. The Spirit of Christ is far fetch'd for the Lord's Supper holds forth the Blood of Christ and we have no Ordinance ordain'd by Christ to hold forth in a Figure the sprinkling or pouring forth of the Spirit if Man has invented such a thing so be it The Papists found out seven Sacraments with their significant Signs as they tell you and they have the same Parity of Reason to maintain their Sacraments without any Warrant from God's Word as our Pedobaptists have for their baptizing or rather rantizing or sprinkling of Babes True the Apostle speaks of sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus but Baptism is no Figure of that as you have heard but primarily of the Death â—urial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ Sir you say Sprinkling is lawful because it is very probable that the Apostles themselves did baptize by pouring or sprinkling Water Acts 2. 41. Then they that gladly received the word were baptized and the same day there were added unto them three thousand Souls It is not you say very probable that these three thousand were plunged over Head and Ears in VVater How could Peter and the rest of the Apostles even twelve Men baptize three thousand in one day yea in one half day how could they change their Apparel c. Answ 1. I answer wonder no more how three thousand Persons shou'd be baptized i. e. dipped in that short time 't is sufficient for any Christian to believe it because the Holy Ghost hast said it 2. But whereas you say there were but twelve Men to administer it that is not true there were the seventy Disciples no doubt with them who were Ministers and there might very probably be many more 3. However since Baptism is Immersion
i. e. dipping and the Text says they were baptized it follows they were dipped into the Water What you say about Ananias baptizing Paul and of Paul's baptizing the Jaylor proves nothing 't is meer stuff that deserves no Answer You say Paul was baptized in his Lodging when he was sick Answ It is not said he was sick nor that he was baptized in his Lodging read the Text again true 't is said after he was baptized he received Strength I have known multitudes of weak Persons baptized by dipping in frosty Weather in our cold Climate and never took any harm thereby We say Baptism is Dipping and among many other Reasons we argue it must needs be so administred because John the Baptist baptized in Jordan and in Enon near Salim because there was much Water there Mat. 3. 13. John 3. 23. You answer If some were baptized by dipping others were baptized by pouring Water on them as we proved say you before therefore both ways are lawful I answer 1. 'T is well our way of dipping is owned by you as lawful and a right way then do you and all others take heed how you speak against us who so administer the holy Ordinance of Baptism it appears we err not in so doing by your own Confesson 2. But whereas you say you have proved that some were in the Primitive Time baptized by pouring Water on them we have shewed your Proofs to be too short and invalid 3. The way of the Administration of Christ's sacred Ordinance was but one and the same in all the Churches of the Saints and if some were baptized by dipping and others by sprinkling or pouring Water upon them then the Ordinance must have different Significations which could not be answered on some Persons unless 〈◊〉 they were both dipped and sprinkled and had water poured upon them which is preposterous to imagine for such that were dipped or buried under the VVater were thereby made in Sign and Signification conformable to the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ which we have so fully proved to be one great End of Baptism that it cannot be denâ—ed and such who were only sprinkled they were taught thereby the sprinkling of Christ's Blood and of the Spirit as you would have the Ordinance to signify without any ground from God's VVord Now how unlikely it is that both these ways were used this being considered I shall leave to all wise and considerate Persons to think upon You say in the next place That the Scripture doth not say in any place when they were baptized they were dipped If say you those that are against sprinkling say that they gather so much by Consequence from the fore-cited Scriptures they ought to remember their rejecting Scriptural Consequences when they are used by us for proving Infant-Baptism c. Answ If I had not a Learned Man to deal with I should not marvel Sir Is not Baptisin a Greek VVord VVhat difference between Baptism and Baptisma Is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek and is it not in English to dip VVhat need of Consequences here Had our Translators truly translated that word they must have render'd it as the Dutch have as I mentioned before viz. Ende Jesus gedoopt zijnde is ter-stont opgeklomen vit hit wter and when Jesus was dipp'd he came out of the Water Mat. 3. 16. and ver 6. Ende wierden van hemge doopt in de Jordan And were dipped of him in Jordan Hence the Dutch call John the Baptist John the Dooper John the Dipper As to your Consequences we always deny that they are genuine or naturally drawn from those Scriptures to which you refer But whereas you say we have nothing for dipping which is of the Essence of Baptism as we do affirm it is but Consequences it is too bold an Assertion not being true as by this time my honest Country men may see if they are impartial Persons They think say you that John baptized by dipping because he baptized in Jordan they can never prove that was the Cause for the Scripture doth not say what was the occasion why he baptized in Jordon Answ Sir look into your Greek Testament once again and read Mark 1. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Jordan VVould it be proper to say he sprinkled them or poured VVater on them into Jordan It is proper to say he dipped them into Jordan and that is Baptism and nothing else as it refers to Christ's Ordinance viz. a washing by dipping or plunging into Jordan or into the VVater 2. Tho the Scripture doth not say in so many words that that was the occasion of John's baptizing into Jordan Yet Sir remember and tremble at that Text John 3. 23. for there it is by the Holy Ghost given as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water there plainly denoting that a little VVater will not serve to administer holy Baptism but so much as will cover or bury the whole Body You add It being very doubtful whether those People that came unto him were dipped or plunged for there went out unto him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the Regions round about Jordan and were baptized by him We cannot judg you say that he baptized less than an hundred thousand Men and Women c. there were you say much more People in those Countries but it being impossible for him to dip or plunge so many Men in so short time of his Ministry which continued but three Years and of these three Years he lay in Prison half a Year so that he did neither preach or baptize but for two Years and a half Vid. Lightf vol. I. p. 234. If he had baptized fifty every day on these two Years and a half which is not probable he could do the whole you say is but forty five thousand six hundred and twenty five but he baptized much more which could not be done by dipping or plunging therefore it is reasonable for us you say to judg that he sprinkled or poured Water on them c. Answ As to what you say here it seems very strange to me that you should once imagine that John baptized all the People universally in Jerusalem and Judea without Exception Why did not you put in all the Infants too as well as Men and Women I had lately to do with one Mr. Exel who asserted that in a Treatise of his which with Shame enough to him I gave an Answer unto I am sorry you have no better Skill in Scripture-Rhetorick where frequently per Synecdochen vel totius vel partis a part is put for the whole or the whole for the part as 't is said God would have all Men to be saved i. e. some of all sorts and degrees as Kings Noble-Men Old Young Rich Poor c. So 't is said Christ when he was lifted up he would draw all Men unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 12. 32. Doth
Justice in which Christ for our sakes for a while was in a manner swallowed up abiding under the Water how little time soever denotes his Descent into Hell even the very deepest of Lifelesness lying in the sealed or guarded Sepulchre where he was accounted as one dead Rising out of the VVater holds forth to us a lively Similitude of that Conquest which this dead Man got over Death In like manner saith he 't is therefore meet that we being baptized into his Death and buried with him should rise also with him to go on in a new Life Thus far And let all thinking and serious Christians carefully consider since this sacred Ordinance was appointed to be thus significant as this and other Learned Men observe what a sad and lamentable thing it is that the true Baptism should be changed from dipping into sprinkling which neither doth nor can hold forth these great Mysteries for which purpose our Saviour ordained it For 't is evident Rantism or Sprinkling doth not bear any Proportion to these Mysteries nor can they be signified thereby What Figure of a Burial of Christ or of the old Man is there in sprinkling a few drops of VVater on a Person 's Face Or what Representation is there in that Act of a Resurrection O how is Christ's holy Baptism abused by this devised Rantism and the Signification thereof destroyed the Lord open your Eyes or the Eyes of my godly and impartial Reader This shews you clearly what Christ's true Baptism is as also the true Subject But to proceed St. Ambrose saith VVater is that wherein the Body is plunged to wash away all Sins there all Sins saith he are buried We suppose he means 't is a Sign of this i. e. that all Sin is buried Moreover Chrysostom saith that the Old Man is buried and drown'd in the Immersion under Water and when the baptized Person is afterwards raised up out of the Water it represents the Resurrection of the New Man to Newness of Life and therefore concludes the contrary Custom being not only against Ecclesiastical Law but against the Analogy and Mystical Signification of the Sacrament is not to be complied with It has been too long as I have formerly noted God grant Men more Light to see their Error and abhor to do so any more Kecker says That Immersion not Aspersion was the first Institution of Baptism as it doth saith he plainly appear from Rom. 6. 3. And say I VVhere hath Christ since the first Institution instituted Aspersion or Sprinkling in the stead or room of Immersion or Dipping or given Orders to change that significant Sign into the insignificant Foppery of Sprinkling Ought not we to keep the Ordinances as they were first instituted and given to the Saints Is not God's Word to be our Rule in all Points of Faith and Practice to the End of the World Has Christ given any Men or Church a Dispensation to change his Laws and Ordinances or make them void by these Traditions or set up their Post by his Post How doth God complain by the Prophets against his People of old for presuming to change his Laws Deut. 12. 13 God gave particular Command to make an Altar of Gold to offer Incense Exod. 40. 5. and he commanded Exod. 20. 24 25. that his Altar should be made of Earth or rough Stone but in Isa 65. 3. he reproves their horrid Transgressions and Disobedience in acting contrary to his express Institution A People saith God that provoketh me to Anger continually to my Face that sacrificeth in Gardens and burneth Incense upon Altars of Brick You may think that was no great Error instead of Gold or Stone to make Altars of Brick but what saith God they for this c. provoke me continually to my Face O tremble ye who adventure to transgress God's Precept in as bad or worse a manner Who commanded you to baptize or dip Believers in the Name of the Father c. and you rantize or sprinkle Infants Aâ—as you know not how you hereby provoke God! altho he is yet silent and doth not manifest his Displeasure yet know he is a jealous God and hath the like Zeal for his Gospel-Institutions as ever he had of those under the Law and may manifest it too in his own time But to proceed and call in for more Witnesses against your Practice Daillâ— on the Fathers saith that it was a Custom heretofore in the antient Church to plunge those they baptized over Head and Eâ—…s in the VVater And saith he Tertullian in his third Book de 〈◊〉 Mil. Cyprian in his seventieth Epistle p. 211 c. and others testify it Dr. Cave saith that the Party baptized was wholly immerged or put under the VVater which was the almost constant and universal Custom of those Times whereby they did most notably and significantly express the great Ends and Effects of Baptism For as in immerging there are in a manner three several Acts the putting the Person into the VVater his abiuing under the VVater and his rising up again thereby representing Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection and in our Conformity thereupto our dying to Sin the Destruction of its Power and our Resurrection to a new course of Life So by the Person 's being put into the Water was lively represented the putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh c. by his being under it which is a kind of Burial into the Water his entering into a State of Death or Mortification like as Christ remained for sometime under the State or Power of Death therefore 't is said As many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his Death c. And then by Immersion or rising up out of the Water is signified his entering upon a new course of Life that like as Christ was raised up by the Glory of the Father so we should walk in Newness of Life Thus Dr. Cave We are said saith PaÌ„raeus to die and to be buried with Christ in Baptism And further shews that the external Act of being buried in Water is a lively Emblem of the internal Work of Regeneration St. Bernard saith Immersion is a Representation of Christ's Death and Burial Against all these Testimonies and multitudes more of the best and most Learned Writers Mr. Burkitt objects as follows and you seem to argue after the same manner these are his words viz. If Baptism administred by pouring Water on the Face representing the whole Person doth answer the Use and End of Baptism as well as when administred by aipping or plâ—nging then dipping is not essentially and absolutely necessary in the Act of baptizing but the one answereth the Use and End of baptizing as well as the other therefore the one cannot be more essential than the other What is the End and Use of Baptism but to represent to our Minds 〈◊〉 Effusion of Christ's Blood for to take away the Guilt of Sin and the pouring forth of the Spirit for the purging
of which Jonas after a Burial of three days was set at liberty and the Cloud and the Red Sea in which the People of Israel are said to have been baptized i. e. not washed mark but buried for they were all Types of the same thing as Baptism viz. not the washing away of Sin but of the Death and Resurrection of Christ and our own to which the Apostles the Fathers the Scholasticks mark and all Interpreters agree The thing saith he is so apparent as not to need any Testimonies but because there are not a few who do not vulgarly teach this Doctrine it will not be superfluous to produce some of those innumerable Testimonies that I may saith he not seem to speak without Book And First Let us begin with St. Paul Rom. 6. 3. Know ye not that so many of you that have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his Death Therefore we are buried with him in Baptism into his Death c. Else what shall they do that are baptized for the Dead if the Dead rise not As if he had said If there be no Resurrection why are we baptized In vain does the Church use the Symbol of Baptism if there be no Resurrection The like Testimonies frequently occur among the Fathers saith he Ignatius saith That believing in his Death we may be made Partakers of his Resurrection by Baptism Baptism was given in Memory of the Death of our Lord we perform the Symbols of his Death mark not of pouring forth his Blood or holy Spirit or sprinkling the Spirit on us or the Blood of Christ No no this that Author says is not signified in Baptism but the Burial and Resurrection of Christ which sprinkling no manner of ways can represent Justin Martyr saith We know but one saving Baptism in regard there is but one Resurrection from the dead of which Baptism is an Image And from hence say I we know not Infants Rantism or Sprinkling for this is none of Christ's true Baptism Christ's Baptism is but one and 't is that of Believers and 't is not sprinkling but dipping to signify Christ's Burial and Resurrection He goes on and cites other Authors Hear Paul exclaiming They past through the Sea and were all baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea He calls Baptism the Passage of the Sea for it was a flight of Death caused by Water To be baptized and so plunged and to return up and rise out of the Water is a Symbol of the Descent into the Grave and returning from thence Baptism is a Pledg and Representation of the Resurrection Baptism is an Earnest of the Resurrection Immersion is a Representation of Death and Burial Innumerable are the Testimonies saith Sir Norton which might be added but these I think sufficient to prove that Baptism is an Image of the Death and Resurrection of Christ from whence we acknowledg the Mystery of our Religion saith he Christ's Deity and Humanity and of the Faithful who are baptized in his Faith from Death in Sin to Newness of Life which if they lead in this World they have a most assured Hope that being dead they shall hereafter rise to Glory with Christ Thus Sir Norton Knatchbul a worthy Knight Mr. Perkins saith The dipping of the Body signifies Mortification or Fellowship with Christ in his Death the staying under the Water signifies the Burial of Sin and coming out of the Water the Resurrection from Sin to Newness of Life In another Treatise of his he saith the antient Custom of baptizing was to dip as it were to dive all the Body of the baptized in Water Rom. 6. Council of Laodicea and Neocesarea And here let me add what Reverend Dr. Sharp the present Archbishop of York hath lately delivered in a Sermon preached before the Queen's Majesty on Easter-day March the 27th 1692. And this in antient Times was taught every Christian saith he in and by his Baptism Whenever a Person was baptized he was not only to profess his Faith in Christ's Death and Resurrection but he was also to look upon himself as obliged in Correspondence therewith to mortify his former carnal Affections and to enter upon a new State of Life And the very form of Baptism saith he did lively represent this Obligation to them For what did their being plung'd under Water signify but their undertaking in Imitation of Christ's Death and Burial to forsake all their former evil Courses as their ascending out of the Water did their Engagement to lead a holy spiritual Life This our Apostle doth more than once declare to us thus Rom. 6. 3 4. We are buried saith he with Christ by Baptism unto Death that like as Christ was raised up by the Glory of the Father so we should walk in Newness of Life Thus far Dr. Sharp his Sermon on Phil. 3. 10. pag. 9. Dr. Fowler now Lord Bishop of Glocester on Rom. 6. 3 4. saith Christians being plunged into the Water signifies their undertaking and obliging themselves in a spiritual Sense to be buried with Jesus Christ in an utter renouncing and forsaking all their Sins that so answering to his Resurrection they may live a holy and a godly Life Design of Christianity p. 90. Also Dr. Sherlock Dean of St. Paul's on Rom. 6. 3 4. saith Our Conformity to the Death and Resurrection of our Saviour consists in dying to Sin and walking in Newness of Life Which saith he St. Paul tells us is represented by the external Ceremony of Baptism and rising out of his watery Grave a new born Creature Charity without Usury p. 1. And unto these let me add what the Pious and Reverend Dr. Tillotson late Archbishop of Canterbury hath wrote speaking of the same Text Rom. 6. 3 4. Antiently saith he those who were baptized put off their Garments which signified their putting off the Body of Sin and were immersed and buried in the Water to represent the Death of Sin and then did rise up again out of the Water to signify their Entrance upon a new Life And to these Customs the Apostle alludes when he says How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his Death c. 1. 'T is a hard case you neither will believe the holy Scripture the Antient Fathers and Modern Divines nor other learned Prelates of the Church of England who are yet living but contrary to the nature and tendency of holy Baptism plead for Sprinkling and condemn Dipping and cast Reproach upon it and say also that the Thing signified thereby is the pouring forth of Christ's Blood or the sprinkling and pouring out of the holy Spirit notwithstanding we prove from the Scripture and with the Testimony of all these great Men that Baptism signifies the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and not any of those things you affirm as your own Conceit without the Testimony of any learned or approved
you know nor whether ever God will give them his Spirit or Grace to enable them so to do And as one Pedo-baptist lately saith If they do not discharge this Obligation viz. their Baptismal Covenant they are guilty of Perjury and 't is the damning Sin O cruel Parents you list your Infants into the Spiritual War by your pretended Baptism and arm them not The Graces of the Spirit are the Believers Spiritual Armour and Weapons these they have when listed I mean baptized but Infants as such have not this Armour on when baptized Alas poor Babes they have too much Guilt upon them naturally O the Weight that lies upon them but you Pedo-baptists add to it by your Tradition of a Baptismal Covenant that God never appointed them to come under Therefore you object How can Children be bound to that which they are ignorant of You answer They were ignorant of the Bond of Circumcision and yet were bound over to the Law to take him to be their God and to depart from the ways of Sin c. Answ Because God obliged and bound over the Jews by Circumcision in their Infancy in that Legal Covenant to love the Lord their God with all their Hearts to take him to be their God and to depart from all the ways of Sin nay to keep the Law perfectly which shewed the necessity of Christ's Righteousness and Merits which was nevertheless upon this respect a Yoke of Bondage which Yoke by Christ we and our Children are delivered from Will you adventure to bring your poor Children under another like Yoke of Bondage Christ's Yoke is easy and his Burden is light because he gives all that are to be baptized his Spirit and a changed Heart to love God and cleave to him and serve him but you make his Yoke as hard as the Yoke of Circumcision by putting Baptism on your poor Infants to oblige them thereby to be regenerated and love God with all their Hearts before Grace in the Habit of it is infused into them and all this without the least Authority from Christ or the Gospel O cruel Parents Sirs who hath required this at your Hands You shall hear more of this hereafter You do intimate that 't is true Circumcision did oblige to keep the Law perfectly since the Law but from the beginning it was not so for say you Circumcision was not of Moses but of the Fathers Joh. 7. 22. Answ Was not the Moral Law from the beginning and were not those that were circumcised bound to keep the Moral as well as the Ceremonial Law How then dare you say and prove it not that from the beginning it was not so i. e. It did not bind Abraham's Natural Seed exactly to keep the Moral Law that is to love God with all their Hearts and their Neighbours as themselves yea to leave and loath all Sin Circumcision I have proved was no Seal nor part of the Covenant of Grace but of and part of the Covenant of Works so that you run into a dangerous Sâ—are and deceive the People unwarily by your Ignorance of the two Covenants made with Abraham and not distinguishing Circumcision from being a Seal to Abraham's Faith and not a Seal in common to all his Children It was a Sign to them in their Flesh but no Seal of the Covenant of Grace You further run a Parallel between Circumcision and Baptism as some others before you have done Pray take my former Answers to all you say here which I have given to other Pedo-baptists upon this foot of account 1. Others formerly have as well as you do now affirmed That Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision 2. They run a Parallel between Circumcision and Baptism and would have them both signify the same thing in an exact Analogy 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Say they which you seem to affirm also If Baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision then as the Jewish Infants were circumcised so the Infants of Christians may and ought to be baptized But Baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision Therefore as their Children were circumcised then so may ours be baptized now Answ 1. There is no necessity that a Gospel-Ordinance must succeed in the room of a Legal or Jewish Ordinance What if I affirm that no Ordinance succeeds in the room of Circumcision Were there not many other Rites and Ordinances under the Law or Old Testament besides Circumcision and yet you cannot find or once imagine any Gospel-Rite or Ordinance to come in the room of them respectively for that then it would follow there would be as many Christian Rites Precepts and Ordinances as there were Jewish Rites Precepts and Ordinances which as one observes were more than three hundred 2. Besides as Dr. Taylor observes If Baptism came in the room of Circumcision you must baptize your Children always on the eighth day and you must not baptize your Females at all because none but Male Infants were then circumcised 3 And whereas you say that Baptism signifies the same things that Circumcision did it is not true as will appear to all understanding Men if they consider these Particulars following which are so many Disparities viz. 1. Circumcision was a Shadow of Christ to come Baptism is a Sign he is already come was dead and buried 2. Circumcision was a Sign of the Covenant made with Abraham and his Natural Seed Baptism is a Sign of the peculiar spiritual Privileges made to Saints as such and no others 3. Circumcision was a Domestick Action i. e. to be done in the House Baptism an Ecclesiastick belonging to the Gospel-Church 4. Circumcision was to be done by the Parents in that respect Baptism is to be done only by Gospel-Ministers 5. Circumcision was the cutting off the Foreskin of the Flesh which drew Blood Baptism is to be done by dipping the whole Body into the Water without drawing of any Blood 6. Circumcision belonged to Male-Children only Baptism belongs to Males and Females also 7. Circumcision was to be done precisely on the eighth Day Baptism is not limited to any precise Day 8. Circumcision made a visible Impression on the Body which the Party might perceive when he came to Age of Understanding Baptism leaves no Impression on the Body 9. Circumcision belonged to Abraham's House to his Male-Infants only or such who were bought with his Money and not the Male-Infants of any other Godly Men in his days unless they join themselves to his Family Baptism belongs to Believers in all Nations 10. Circumcision bound those who came under that Rite to keep the whole Law of Moses Baptism signifies we are delivered from that Yoke of Bondage 11. If Circumcision signified the same things and consequently particularly the sealing the Covenant of Grace then those that were circumcised needed not to be baptized because sealed before with the same Seal or that which signified the same thing but Christ and all his Apostles and many others who were circumcised were nevertheless baptized 12.
Circumcision signified the taking away the Sins of the Flesh or the Circumcision of the Heart but Baptism signifies the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ which Circumcision did not 13. Circumcision was to be a Partition-Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile but Baptism testifieth that Jew and Gentile Male and Female Barbarian and Seythian Bond and Free are all one in Christ Jesus Therefore there are divers Disparities and different Significations between Circumcision and Baptism 4. And what tho we should grant that Circumcision was then the initiating Ordinance and Baptism is so now in Gospel-Times i. e. an Ordinance of Initiation yet Circumcision initiated none into the Jewish Church but such who were by express and positive Command of God to be circumcised who were only Male-Infants for the Females were initiated without it even so Baptism tho it be an initiating Ordinance yet none are to be initiated thereby but only those who by the express Command are required to be baptized and they are only such who believe or make Profession of their Faith Sir Precepts that are meerly positive greatly differ you know well enough from Precepts that are purely Moral in their own nature Laws that are of meer positive Right wholly depend upon the absolute Will and Pleasure of the great Legistator and in all Cases and Circumstances we must keep to the express words of the Institution we must venture to do no more nor less nor do any thing in any other manner than God hath commanded as appears in Nadab and Abihu and Uzzah's Cases the first for offering of strange Fire which thing God commanded them not tho God in express words no where forbid them so to do were cut off Levit. 10. 1 2. When God commanded Abraham to circumcise on the eighth day did he not virtually forbid him to do it on the seventh or ninth day Therefore this sort of reasoning of yours is meerly sophistical and you do but darken Counsel with Words without Knowledg Again 't is affirmed by you and other Pedo-baptists That God hath no where declared that Infants should be excluded you mean he hath no where forbid in express words the baptizing of Infants No more say I has he forbid Honey Wine Oil Salt and Spittle to be used in Baptism the former was used by some of the Antient Fathers and the latter is still in the Romish Church Where are we forbid to baptize Bells and consecrate Water as the Papists do to make it holy Water Also where are Infants excluded from the Lord's-Table If therefore any thing may be done in God's Worship which you suppose is not forbid and bears also some proportion in Signification with Jewish Rites all Popish Rites and Ceremonies may be let in at the same Door For the Pope Miter Popish Vestures Candle and Candlesticks c. they no doubt will tell you are of like Signification with the High-Priest under the Law with the Priest's Vestures and other Ceremonies among the Jews Whither will this lead you 't is dangerous to be led by such a Guide But to proceed we will come to that grand Proof for Infant-Baptism you mention i. e. That Baptism doth come in the room of Circumcision which is in Col. 2. 11 12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands by the Circumcision of Christ buried with him in Baptism c. It is affirmed That the Design of the Apostle here is to take the Colossians off from the old Sacrament of Circumcision He informs them that there was no Reason why they should be fond of it because they were compleat without it Christ having substituted a new Circumcision in the room of it namely Baptism and accordingly Christians may now be said by Baptism to be spiritually circumcised as the Jews were said to be spiritually baptized Answ This Exposition of this Text there is no ground to admit of the Apostle speaks of the Power or Virtue of Christ's Circumcision His Design is to shew we are compleat in Christ and have him on he mentions Faith as well as Baptism or such a Faith that should always attend Baptism and therefore Infant-Baptism from hence cannot be proved or inferred nor the least ground for such a bold Conclusion from hence viz. That Baptism came in the room of Circumcision 1. For first the Apostle 't is true excludes Circumcision but 't is upon another account viz. by shewing Circumcision was a Figure of the Circumcision of the Heart as Rom. 2. 28 29. Phil. 3. 3. and since they had the same signified thereby the Rite or Sign ceased And as I have formerly replied in Answer to this Text so I must say to you all that can well be asserted from this Scriptare where the Apostle brings in Baptism is no more than this viz. That where Baptism is rightly 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 hath put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ which may refer to the Power of his Death in the blessed Effects thereof by the effectual Sin-killing Operations of the Spirit on the Heart And as being dead to Sin we are buried with Christ in Baptism both in Sign and Token of Christ's Burial i. e. covered all over in the Water which is a clear Symbol of his Burial also in Signification i. e. that we being dead and buried with Christ in Baptism so are to rise with him by the Faith of the Operation of God and both these are held forth in true Baptism The Apostle doth not mention Baptism to come in the room of Circumcision but to shew that these believing Colossians had through Christ by the Spirit obtained the Antitype thereof or thing figured out in the Circumcision of the Flesh which Baptism did clearly represent But since this is so strenuously urged afresh tho so often answered I will be at the trouble to transcribe once more what Dr. Taylor late Bishop of Down hath said to this Argument of yours and others before you about Circumcision viz. That Baptism is the Antitype of it or that it came in the room thereof The Argument saith he from Circumcision is invalid upon infinite Considerations Figures and Types prove nothing unless a Command go along with them or some thing express to signify such to be their Purpose for the Deluge of Waters and Ark of Noah were Figures of Baptism saith Peter If therefore the Circumstances of the one be drawn to the other we shall make Baptism a Prodigy rather than a Rite The Paschal Lamb was a Figure of the Eucharist which succeeds the other as Baptism doth Circumcision But because there was in the Manducation of the Paschal Lamb no Prescription of Sacramental Drink shall we conclude from hence the Eucharist is to be administred in one kind To which let me add Because Children Servants and all in the House might
ear of the Passover must our Children and all in our House eat of the Eucharist or Supper of the Lord But saith the Doctor In this very Instance of this Argument suppose a Correspondency of the Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism yet there is no Correspondency of Identity for tho it be granted both of them did consign the Covenant of Faith yet there is nothing in the Circumstances of Children being circumcised that so concerns that Mystery but that it might well be given to Men of Reason because Circumcision left a Character in the Flesh which being imprinted upon the Infants did its Work to them when they came to Age and such a Character was necessary because there was no word added to the Sign But Baptism imprints nothing that remains on the Body and if it leaves any Character at all it is upon the Soul to which the word is added which is as much a part of the Sacrament as the Sign it self for both which Reasons it is requisite that the Party baptized should be capable of Reason that he may be capable both of the Word and of the Sacrament and the Impress upon the Spirit Since therefore the Reason of the Parity does wholly fail there is nothing left to infer a necessity of complying in the Circumstance of Age any more than in the other Annexes of Types The Infant must also precisely be baptized upon the eighth day and Females must not be baptized at all because not circumcised But it were more proper if we would understand it aright to prosecute the Analogy from the Type to the Antitype by the way of Letter and Spirit and Signification and as Circumcision figures Baptism so also the Adjuncts of the circumcised shall signify something spiritual in the Adherents of Baptism and therefore as Infants were circumcised so spiritual Infants should be baptized which is spiritual Circumcision for therefore Babes had the Ministry of the Type to signify that we must when we give our Names to Christ become Children in Malice and then the Type is made compleat Thus as I have formerly said the worthy Doctor hath given you a full Answer to all you have said concerning your Arguments for Baptism coming in the room of or being a Figure of Circumcision But to proceed 5. If Baptism and Circumcision were both in full force together for some time then Baptism is not the Antitype of nor came in the room of Circumcision But Baptism and Circumcision were both in full force together for some time therefore Baptism is no Antitype of nor came in the room of Circumcision The Minor is undeniable Was not Baptism in full force from the time that John received it from Heaven and administred it on the People And did not Christ by his Disciples baptize many Persons nay more Disciples than John as it is said John 4. 1 2. and was not Circumcision then in full force too and so abode till Christ took it away by nailing it with all other Jewish Rites to his Cross And as to the Sequel of the Major that cannot be denied for if one thing cannot come in the room and place of another till the other is actually and legally removed and took out of the way which is plain then since these two Rites had a Being together the Major is undeniable A Type can abide no longer than till the Antitype is come therefore Baptism is not the Antitype of Circumcision or came not in the room and place thereof the Antitype of which or that which came in the room of the Circumcision of the Flesh is the Circumcision of the Heart not in the Flesh but in the Spirit whose Praise is not of Men but of God 6. And indeed how one thing that was a Figure or Shadow should come in the room or be the Antitype of another thing which is a Figure or Shadow no wise Man can see Reason to believe And thus your great Text Col. 2. 11 12. is plainly and honestly opened according to the scope and main drift of the Spirit of God therein and your great Pillar for your Scriptureless Practice of Babes Baptism razed and utterly overthrown I have met with an Answer given to the like pretended Proof for Pedo-baptism written by a most Learned and Reverend Author The Argument and Answer I have been at the pains to transcribe which take here as followeth The Argument runs thus viz. To them to whom Circumcision did agree to them Baptism doth agree but Circumcision did agree to Infants therefore also Baptism c. The Major he endeavours thus to prove i. e. If the Baptism of Christ succeeds in the room and place of Circumcision then Baptism belongs to them that Circumcision belonged to but the Antecedent is true therefore the Consequent The Minor he says is proved from Col. 2. 12. 't is said the Colossians were circumcised because baptized Answ This Argument supposeth Baptism to succeed in the room of Circumcision which may be understood many ways 1. So as that the sense be that those Persons may be baptized which heretofore by God's Appointment were to be circumcised and in this sense the Argument must proceed if it conclude to the purpose but in this sense it is false for Females were not circumcised which yet were baptized as Acts 8. 12 13 14. 16. 14 15. and Believers out of Abraham's House as Lot Melchisedec Joh were not to be circumcised but believing Gentiles are universally to be baptized 2. It may be so understood as if the Rite of Baptism then began when the Rite of Circumcision did or was to end but this is not to be said for John Baptist and Christ's Disciples baptized Joh. 4. 1 2. before Circumcision of right ceased 3. It may be understood as if Baptism did succeed in the place of Circumcision in respect of its Signification which is true in some things but not in others First both might signify the Sanctification of the Heart and this is all may be concluded out of that place alledged Col. 2. 11 12. to which I think meet to add that if that Text be looked into the Apostle speaks not of Circumcision but of Christ because in him we are compleat and by whose Circumcision we are said to put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh nor doth the Text say we are circumcised because we are baptized but that we are compleat in Christ because we are circumcised in him and buried with him in Baptism in which or in whom ye are also risen together through the Faith of the Operation of God that raised him from the Dead In some things Baptism doth not succeed in the place of Circumcision in respect of Signification For 1. Circumcision did signify Christ to come of Isaac according to the Flesh Gen. 10. 11. but Baptism doth not signify this but points at his Incarnation Death and Resurrection 2. Circumcision was a Sign that the Israelites were a People separated from all Nations
Baptism the other after Baptism unto the Adult among the unbelieving Gentiles Teaching precedes Baptism but to the Children of such Baptism preceded Teaching in the same manner as Abraham being the Father of the Gentiles was taught before circumcised but his Children were circumcised before they were taught This yousay is the Signification of the word as appeareth Answ 1. I answer you would have the form of the Commission to run according to your Scriptureless Practice of baptizing of Infants as you call Sprinkling but that the Commission is wrested and abused by you to serve your turn will appear 1. They that are the only Subjects of Baptism according to the Commission are first to be taught or as the Greek word is discipled or made Disciples and then baptized and I will appeal to your Conscience whether they are not the same Persons that were to be taught before baptized that our Lord commands to be taught afterwards all other things that he hath commanded baptized Believers to observe and keep You would have the Parents converted from Heathenism to be taught before baptized but the Teaching afterwards not to refer to them but to their Children baptized before taught or in their Infancy O what abominable Abuse is this of the great Commission of our blessed Saviour 1. The Commission runs Teach them in all Nations whether Jews or Gentiles 2. Baptizing them that are taught or made Disciples by teaching 3. Teaching them i. e. the same them that were Disciples baptized Dare you invert nay subvert the sacred Commission and so make void the Command of God to uphold your own Tradition Sir tremble at the thoughts of it Answ 2. That this which we say is the true Purport of the Commission is acknowledged by Mr. Perkins Mr. Baxter and other Pedo-baptists Take Mr. Perkins's own words First of all saith he 't is said Teach them that is make them Disciples by teaching them to believe and repent here saith he we are to consider the Order which God observes in making a Covenant with Men in Baptism First of all he calls them by his Word and Spirit to believe and repent then in the second place he makes a Promise of Mercy and Forgiveness and thereby he seals his Promise by Baptism They says he that know not nor consider this Order which God used in covenanting with them in Baptism deal preposterously overslipping the Commandment of repenting and believing which is the cause of so much Profaneness in the World Doubtless he said right for you who baptize Infants that are not capable to repent nor believe make a multitude of profane Christians in the World as they are called Who knows which of the Infants you baptize God will call and savingly work Grace in which should indeed be wrought in all before they are according to the direct Order or From of the Commission or ought to be baptized O what profane Wretches doth your Practice bring into your Church if all you baptize you make Members thereof in their Infancy Mr. Perkins doubtless did not foresee how by his honest Exposition of the Commission he overthrew his Infant-Baptism and Church-Membership Moreover take Mr. Richard Baxter's words speaking of the Commission Christ gave to his Disciples Mat. 28. 19 20 viz. Their first Task saith he is to make Disciples of them which are by Mark called Believers The second work is to baptize them whereto is annexed the Promise of Salvation The third work is to teach them that are baptized Believers all other things which are after to be learned in the School of Christ To contemn this Order saith he is to contemn the Rules of Order for where can we find it if not here See Mr. Baxter's Right of Baptism pag. 144 150. This Man tho a Pedo-baptist yet durst not be so bold as to invert the Order of the Commission nor do as you do viz. affirm the Teaching mentioned after Baptism refers not to Believers baptized after they are made Disciples but to their Infants baptized of which the Commission speaks not one word nor can it by any colour of Reason or Consequences be drawn therefrom But to prove your false Exposition of the Text you proceed to do it First from God's Promise to Abraham Isaac and Jacob that in their Seed should all the Nations of the Earth be blessed Gen. 18. 18. 22. 18. Christ came say you to confirm the Promise unto the Fathers that the Gentiles might glorify God for his Mercy Rom. 15. 8 9. If God is not a God to the Gentiles and their Seed according to the Promises made to the Fathers then say you Christ weakeneth and not confirmeth the Promises God forbid we should think so c. Answ 1. God forbid that you should rest always under such dark and cloudy Conceptions of the Covenant and Promises made to the Fathers touching the Gentiles for the Covenant and Promises made to Abraham Isaac and Jacob were that the Gentiles through Faith in Christ should be Fellow-heirs with the Jews that believed in him and with the â—…s that bâ—…ed also And thus runs the Covenant of Grace to Abraham c. and thus it runs to believing Gentiles that all of them and their Children that believe or are in the Election of Grace shall be saved And 't is thus that all the Nations of the Earth are blessed in Christ whether Jews or Gentiles i. e. all such in all Nations that believe and are called by the preaching of the Gospel 2. But because Christ's Church does not now in Gospel-days take in whole Nations and whole Families as the Jewish Church under the Law did take in the whole Nation of the Jews and all their Families doth Christ weaken the Promises Sir that external Legal Covenant erected a Typical Church which Church ceased at the Establishment of the Spiritual Church which is only Congregational under the Gospel as I fully proved before But furthermore You say the Apostles understood Christ's Command unto them in this sense and therefore they have preached Salvation to those that believed and all theirs c. Answ The Apostles understood Christ's Command and Commission no doubt but it appears you understand it not Did they preach Salvation to Believers and to all their Children as such whether elected or not called by the Word or Spirit or not For this you must prove or you say nothing and how absurd would that be should you affirm any such thing Peter speaks of no Promise made to Jews nor Gentiles and to their Children but to such of them that the Lord our God shall call And 't is directly said that the Goaler and all his believed therefore if you will still affirm that the Apostles apply'd as you intimate Abraham's Covenant among the Gentiles unto the Seed the fleshly Seed of Believers as such you do assert an Untruth and cast a Lie upon the Apostles through your Ignorance Prove if you can they were to baptize any Person Adult or
Speak Sir your Mind freely the next time for God willing I shall be ready for you O when will you cease to corrupt the Word of God by your Tradition You say Mr. Tombs saith If Children are Members of the visible Church they ought to be baptized I do not remember Mr. Tombs saith so and if they are Members of the visible Church before baptized they cannot be made Members by Baptism 'T is absurd to say to a Man Come into this House or to say Bring such a Child into the House that is in it before For Baptism say you is the Door through which we come into the Church of God Those that say they are not Members of the Church of God ought you say to shew us a plain Scripture for their casting out if they can of one Church since Adam until this latter Age of which little Children were Members c. And again you say if they were cast out how comes it to pass that there is not one word in Scripture mentioned of it call for a Scripture from those that would shake your Faith concerning this Prerogative Answ 1. I have answered this already We say and prove that Infants were never received at all into the Gospel-Church therefore cannot be said to be cast out of it 2. We deny what you affirm without any Proof viz. That Infants were always Members of the Visible Church since Adam Prove if you can they were received as Members before that Typical Church-state which was constituted in Abraham's Family 3. The First-born of Israel were holy the Priests Sons had a right to the Ministery or Priesthood shew when they were cast out and lost both those Prerogatives and that very way you must take to answer will serve to answer your self in respect of Infants Church-Membership The Answer must be this the National Church and Church-Membership and Priesthood of the Jews are dissolved and taken away and thereby all those external Rites and Prerogatives the Jewish Children had are gone 4. These were as Legacies left in the old Will in the old Testament but there is a new Will made or Christ hath made his last Will and Testament and in this his last Will and Testament none of these external Rites or Prerogatives as you call them are left to Infants Sir there is no need in a new Will in the last Will and Testament to mention Negatives that is not usual not what is not left but only in the Affirmative what is left therefore in vain is this Flourish it will do your People who are shaken in their Belief of your Tradition no good 5. You bid them call for a Scripture from those that oppose their Practice in the Negative i. e. that forbid Infants Church-Membership or speak where they were cast out O how dangerous is your Doctrine May not the Papists say to them also Where do you read holy Water and holy Garments are forbid Moses commanded the People to be sprinkled with Water and many other Rites that were among the Jews We say the Papists call for Scripture where those things are forbid which they have among them or when God cast them out of the Church What Human Tradition may not be let into the Church at this Door You say the unbelieving Jews would have stumbled if Paul had cast out their Children from the Church and put them in the same Condition as the Children of Infidels Answ 'T is your mistake he told them plainly that the Children of the Flesh were not the Children of God i. e. of the Promise or of the true Gospel-Church as such Rom. 9. 5 6 7. yet they stumbled not nay shewed them they and their Children had no external Privileges above the Gentiles and that Circumcision availed them nothing and yet the believing Jews stumbled not at his Doctrine Sir no doubt when the Jews are called they will not be of your mind to plead the old Covenant-right of their Children being Members as such You say That we judg the Adult holy because they are separated unto the Lord in a Profession of Holiness altho it be too often an Hypocritical Profession and shall we not say you judg the Children of the Faithful to be holy whom God so called c. Answ 1. God called the whole House of Israel holy because he separated them to himself both Parents and Children in a legal Church-state whether the Parents were Believers or faithful Persons or real Saints or not but God in the Gospel hath separated none to be Members of the Gospel-Church but such that are Adult Persons Believers in â—ued with real Holiness There is I tell you again no Fleshly Relative Federal Holiness under the Dispensation of the Gospel spoken of disprove it if you can 2. As to the Holiness of Infants born in lawful Wedlock they are by the Lord called holy or a Godly Seed Mal. 2. 15. And did he make one i. e. one Wife yet he had the residue of the Spirit and wherefore one that he might seek a Godly Seed that is a godly or holy Seed by Legitimation whether the Man or the Woman joined together in holy Matrimony are Believers or Unbelievers their Seed is a godly or holy Seed in this respect and not only the Seed of the Faithful as you intimate but the Seed of Unbelievers also and so not a Federal or Spiritual Holiness as you would have it The Seed born to the Faithful say you in lawful Wedlock are a godly and holy Seed God calleth such his Children that were born to them Ezek. 16. 20 21. As it was formerly even so it is under the New Testament those that are separated unto the Lord by Baptism are called a holy Nation Answ It follows then by your Argument that the Children of Unbelievers born in lawful Wedlock are not a holy Seed that is they are Bastards or Cast-aways but you must first prove their Marriage unlawful and the Holiness here mentioned such you speak of before you carry this Point 2. All the Children of the whole House of Israel were typically and federally holy then in that National Church you confound typical federal Holiness and Matrimonial Holiness together which are quite remote in their nature 3. We say all Believers baptized under the Gospel are spiritually holy and are called 1 Pet. 2. 7. a holy Nation a Royal Priesthood but this holy Nation consisteth of none but Adult Persons that believe who are called lively Stones building up a spiritual House 1 Pet. 2. 5 6. not a National Church consisting of Parents and their Fleshly Seed as such as under the Law But if for Argument-sake we should grant all that were in the Gospel-times received as Members in the visible Church should be called holy in Charity from that Profession they made yet this will do you no good until by God's Ordination you can prove that the Infants of Believers were received as Members into the Church in Gospel-times as they were into
no real but Typical Baptism 2. This Place proves not that Infants are the Subjects of Gospel Baptism 1. 'T is said all our Fathers were baptized but 't is nor said their Children were baptized unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud 2. But you intimate there were many Children with them as they passed through the Sea To which I answer so there were many wicked Men also all the Israelites were not godly Persons but many among them were prophane and ungodly People Besides there was a mixt People passed through the Sea with the Fathers also may be some of the Egyptians and others of other Nations and much Cattle also and these were all baptized as truly as were the little Children May we baptize such therefore we have as much ground from hence to baptize such as you have to baptize your Babes nay more ground if the Rain falling upon the Israelites was that which baptized them 't is a Question whether any Rain might fall on little Babes if it fell on their Parents for the Parents might cover them by holding some thing over their Heads and Bodies c. 3. The same Persons which the Apostle saith were baptized in the Sea and under the Cloud are also said to eat the same Spiritual Meat and to drink the same Spiritual Drink Now did not the Children partake of the Lord's Supper I mean that Typical Lord's Supper This Text therefore proves as strongly that you may give them the Lord's Supper as Baptism because they ate of the Manna that fell from Heaven and drank of the Water that came from the Rock 4. The design of the Apostle here is to forewarn the Saints at Corinth to take heed lest they fell as the Fathers fell in the Wilderness and to caution them the more effectually he shews them that the Fathers who fell not the Children in the Wilderness had like great Privileges with them viz. a Typical Baptism and also a Typical Lord's Supper Therefore nothing of this matter concerned their little Babes nor ours neither As to what you say of whole Housholds being baptized in the New Testament in this Chapter I shall refer my Answer to that Chapter of yours where you particularly insist upon that weak Argument You say the Parents and their Children were baptized by giving of the Law upon Mount Sinai Exod. 19. 10. Go to the People and sanctify them and let them wash their Clothes Now the washing of their Clothes and the washing of the Flesh went together Lev. 15. 5 6. wash his Clothes and wash himself in Water Being thus washed the Apostle saith that all the People entred into God's Covenant by Baptism Heb. 9. 19. For when Moses had spoken every Precept to the People according to the Law he took the Blood of Calves and of Goats with Water and sprinkled both the Book and the People The Apostle calls this Sprinkling Baptism Heb. 9. 10. divers Baptisms c. Answ I answer you have once already to your great Reproach and I fear contrary to the Light of your own Conscience asserted that which is false I appeal to you and all that can read the Greek whether that word in Heb. 9. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divers washings which I deny not may be read divers baptisms is the same word in Heb. 9. 19. viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sprinkling the Book and all the People is it there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Speak and confess your Ignorance or else acknowledg your Sin in going about to deceive the People by making them believe that sprinkling is in Greek Baptism or baptizing For tho washing in Heb. 9. 10. is Baptism or baptizing yet in Heb. 9. 19. sprinkling both the Book and People you must needs know is in the Greek rantizing 2. And what tho these divers washings are called Baptisms I have shew'd once already from a Faithful and Learned Author namely Mr. Henry Ainsworth that all those Legal Washings were by total dipping of the whole Body Take his Words again on Levit. 11. 32. All that are unclean whether Men or Vessels are not cleansed but by dipping or baptizing in Water and wheresoever the Law speaketh of washing a Man's Flesh or washing of Clothes for Uncleanness it is by dipping the whole Body therein and whether they be Men or Vessels there may not be any thing between them and the Water to keep them asunder as Clay Pitch or the like that cleaveth to the Body or Vessel if there be then they are saith he unclean and their washing profiteth them not Maim Mikvaoth chap. 1. § 12 21. Take heed what you affirm for the future This Man you and all know was well acquainted with Jewish Rites and Ceremonies and what can be a more full Confutation of what you affirm of Jewish Washings or Baptisms But where we read of sprinkling of Blood and Water 't is not baptizing unless baptizing and rantizing be both one and the same Word and Thing which we utterly deny 3. What tho the People were washed even all the whole Congregation Was not that a Typical Church and did it not typify that all true Believers must be washed in the Blood of Christ in Justification and also washed by the Holy Spirit in Sanctification These Things were held forth thereby and not Baptism You would make one thing that is a Figure or Shadow a Type of another thing that is also it self but a Shadow or Figure for Baptism signifies Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection and our Death unto Sin and Viâ—ification to a new Life But those Types were Shadows of good things to come even of Christ he was the Substance of them all they must I say prefigure a Substance not a Shadow 4. In a word all your labour is here lost about those divers Legal Baptisms and Rites under the Old Testament and of Children being in that Covenant because they were all Types even that all the Elect or all that believe in Christ should be washed in Christ's Blood or have his Blood sprinkled upon them and be sanctified by his Spirit Also it was a legal external and Typical Covenant and an external Typical Church holding forth the true Spiritual Gospel-Church and that like as Circumcision and those divers washings did belong to the whole House of Israel whether Godly or not So all the true Israel under the Gospel Dispensation should have the Substance and Anti-type of them and when any have attained to Faith in Christ and have what is signified in Baptism then and not till then they ought to be baptized but this not simply because they are in Covenant or have the thing signified in Baptism but because of the express and positive Command of Christ I say again nothing can give being to an Ordinance that wholly depends on a meer positive Rite but the express Will and Command of the Law-giver To conclude with this I infer 1. From the whole in Opposition to what
Mr. Owen saith it plainly appears that the sprinkling of VVater is not Baptism 2. That God receives all into the Covenant of Grace and Gospel Church through the Spiritual washing of Regeneration and Sanctification of the Spirit and that such only by Christ's positive Command ought to be baptized 3. That there was no Gospel-Baptism no Baptism of Christ under the Law but that 't is a pure positive Command and Institution of our Lord Jesus in the Gospel 4. That God received none of his People under the Law into Covenant through Baptism or through sprinkling of Water and Blood And that the sprinkling of Blood was a Figure of the Atonement of Christ's bloody Sacrifice and the sprinkling of Water of the sanctifying Virtue of the Spirit in Sanctification and not that Gospel-Baptism was signified thereby 5. That 't is only the meer positive Command of Christ in the New Testament that gives being and a just Right to Gospel-Baptism 6. That tho the Children with their Parents were taken into the Legal or Typical Jewish Church by God's positive Command that being a National and Typical Church yet no Children or Parents are by the positive Command of Christ in the New Testament to be received into the Gospel-Church but only those of them that believe and are washed in the Blood of Christ and sanctified by the Sacred Water of the Holy Ghost sith the Church of God now is not National but Congregational not consisting of the Fleshly as such but the Spiritual Seed of Abraham And since there being no Precept nor Precedent in all the New Testament that any one Infant was baptized or taken into the Gospel-Church it follows 't is an Human Tradition 7. That the Covenant on Sinai and the Ceremonial Law was not the Covenant of Grace tho given in subserviency thereunto and the latter a clear Figure of the Covenant of Grace and held it forth to all such who by Faith could see beyond those Sacrifices to the Anti-type of them Lastly Mr. Owen saith If Children were baptized formerly into Covenant ought they not to be baptized into his Covenant now especially because the Grace of the Covenant being enlarged under the Dispensation of the Gospel and the Privileges being more extensive I answer He doth but beg the Question asserting that which he proves not nor is ever able to prove viz. 1. That Children were baptized into the Covenant under the Law What Pedo-baptist ever asserted this before And in vain doth he affirm it now especially since he cannot prove sprinkling is Baptism 2. That all Infants were received into Covenant with God by Legal sprinkling and not till then but certainly all the Infants of the Jews were born Members of that National Church therefore not received into that Church and Covenant by Circumcision which most of the Assertors of Childrens Baptism do affirm much less not by sprinkling Blood and Water upon them Yet that sprinkling of Blood and Water might I deny not be a Sign that they and the whole House of Israel were God's Legal Covenant People and so the Type of the whole Spiritual Israel who should be washed in the Blood of Christ or Blood of the New Covenant and sanctified by his Spirit as is said before 2. Moreover evident it is that tho the Covenant of Grace in the Dispensation of it under the Gospel is enlarged and the Spiritual Privileges more extensive than were the Privileges of the Legal Covenant and Legal Church yet the external Privileges are less and not so extensive now as was theirs How many outward and earthly Privileges had the Jews and Ministers of God under the Law more than the Saints and Ministers of Christ have now Many of which I have reckoned up in the beginning of this Treatise Thus I close with your Eighth Argument CHAP XIV Proving that Children have no Right to Baptism from John the Baptist's Administration of Baptism in Opposition to what Mr. James Owen saith in his 12th Chapter That John baptized no Infants neither according to the Practice of the Jewish Church nor by virtue of any Commission he had from God that sent him Containing an Answer to Mr. Owen's 9th Argument for Pedo-Baptism MR. Owen saith If John baptized Infants Baptism doth always belong unto them for the Baptism of John and the Baptism of the Apostles were the same in the Substance of it He baptized in the Name of Christ to come and they baptized in the Name of Christ that was come Answ If you can prove John baptized Infants you do your Business indifferent well Now say you What we are to prove in this Chapter is that John baptized Infants to manifest this let it be considered 1. John the Baptist came not to nullify the Covenant of Abraham but rather to fulfil it and the Covenant of Abraham was that God would be a God to his People and to their Seed all the Visible Church of the Jews were in this Covenant John warneth them that they trusted not in the Privileges of this Covenant by living ungodly Lives he doth not in any Place make void this Covenant but rather confirms it saying God will raise other Children to Abraham if the Jews brought not forth Fruit meet for Repentance he came to baptize the Seed of Abraham which were all of them in the Covenant of God not only the Parents but the Children also Therefore their Children had the same right to Baptism as their Parents had Answ 1. I deny not but the whole House of Israel were in Covenant with God both Parents and Children and so abode till the old Covenant and old Covenant-Seed were cast out but What saith the Scripture Cast out the Bond-woman and her Son Gal. 4. 30. Now the Apostle tells you by the Bond-woman is meant the Sinai Covenant and by her Son the natural Seed of Abraham as such Gal. 4. 22 23 24 25. 2. This Grant of yours proves that the Jewish Covenant which took in all the People both Parents and Children was not the Covenant of Grace because but a finall number of the Jews were in God's Election and so in the Covenant of Grace See Dr. Owen on the Hebrews 3d Vol. Pag. 256. The Covenant of Grace in Christ is made only with the Israel of God the Church of the Elect. Pag. 291. The new Covenant is made with all who effectively and eventually are made Partakers of it and if they are not so with whom the New Covenant is made it comes short of the Old in Efficacy who were actual Partakers of the benefit of that that is of those external Benefits 3. Nor doth that which you mention help you viz. that in that Covenant made with Abraham and the whole House of Israel 't is said God would be their God or a God to Abraham and to his Seed in their Generations For First God may be said to be the God of a People divers manner of ways as Dr. Bates observes 1. Upon the account of
and twelfth and last Argument YOU say Infant Baptism is an excellent means which God hath ordained for to plant and continue the Church of God Christ thus commanded his Apostles to gather Churches among the Gentiles by teaching and baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. Mat. 28. 29. Answ I answer The way it appears that Christ commanded his Apostles to gather Churches among the Gentiles is first to teach them and then baptize them you say right whilst you repeat the Text but God hath not commanded to baptize Infants and that way to plant his Church You add It is an excellent means for this end making Children to be Disciples of Christ let none marvel at this because Infants are of the number of Disciples Acts 15. 11. Why tempt ye God to put a yoke on the necks of the Disciples Those Disciples were say you the Faithful and their Seed Answ This is not true The Disciples in the Text you cite refer only to Believers among the Gentiles those false Teachers would have the Brethren be circumcised and they were they only that are called Disciples These Brethren being Gentiles were never circumcised and therefore these false Teachers taught them so to be see Acts 15. 1. 2. Sir I will appeal to your Conscience in this matter Is not a Disciple one that is taught or instructed and can Infants be called Disciples who are not capable of being taught Mr. Baxter saith Such that are made Disciples by teaching are the Subjects of Baptism according to the Commission and he is in the right 3. Doth the baptizing of Infants make them Disciples Doth Christ say baptize and so make them Disciples Or is it not make Disciples and baptize them Mathetusate disciplize and then it follows baptize them You say Christ knoweth how to administer a secret Doctrine to Infants according to his promise Thy Children shall be all taught of the Lord. Answ 1. No doubt but Christ is able to do it But doth he in a secret way administer Instruction to Infants prove it and also how you come to know it for they must be known Disciples visible Disciples that are to be baptized 2. Are they little Infants that Promise refers to i. e. Thy Children shall be all taught of God They are Sion's Children or such that are born of God that are under that Promise not Infants or our Children as such for are all Believers natural Offspring taught of God when Babes or adult either O abominable abuse of the holy Text Baptism say you setteth little Children under a particular obligation to be the Lord's doubtless they can receive such an obligation now as formerly they did Deut. 29. 11 12. And it is as certain that this Bond is a great advantage to make them willing when they come to age God hath presented them by the Grace of his Covenant c. Answ 1. 'T is you pretend to lay them under an obligation but not by Christ's authority prove he hath commanded you so to do 2. Doth Baptism confer Grace you seem to assert this for else how hath God by Baptism prevented them Your sprinkling them with water doth not cannot prevent them I affirm therefore 't is an obligation of man's devising for you cannot prove it is of God's appointment therefore to refuse to bring them under such an obligation is no fantastick thing as you intimate it is You say the mark of the Spirit is upon them Answ Baptism is no mark of the Spirit to any but to such who have the Spirit and what a Mock-Baptism is it to give the Sign where appears no demonstration of the thing thereby signified You say on the other side Satan hath not such an advantage against those that are baptized in their Infancy Answ How doth it appear that Satan hath not such an advantage against your Children as he hath against ours that were never baptized as you call Rantism I am sure our Children generally are as sober and helped to escape Satan's snares as far forth as yours generally are VVill God own or bless an humane Tradition The Woman that Luther mentioned no doubt might think she was obliged to fear God by that sort of Baptism she had when she was an Infant yet God never obliged her to come under that obligation but may be she was baptized when a Believer However the Papists may argue for their voluntary Vows after the same manner viz. it is a great help and an advantage to them to preserve them from sin and temptations of the Devil Infant-Baptism is an excellent means you say to plant the true Religion and to continue the Church by giving an advantage for the Ministers of the Gospel to reason with such when they come to age far better than they can with those that are not baptized that they might call them to remembrance of their baptismal Vow c. Answ This is certainly a grand mistake for instead of its being an advantage to Ministers to reason with such that were baptized in their Infancy to remember their baptismal Vow and so to believe and turn to God 't is apparent it may â—inder them for if those persons when grown up do call to remembrance what you Pedobaptists have taught and told them touching those Blessings and Privileges they then received it may rather take them off from seeking after either Faith or Repentance 1. For you tell them when their Parents believed and were saved they were made partakers of the same Privilege and Blessing also if so what need they concern themselves about getting personal Faith you believe and teach them the Doctrine of final Perseverance no doubt such who are in a state of Grace can never finally fall out of it 2. The Obligation and Vow that lies upon baptized persons according to the Scripture is not that they seek after Regeneration no for it necessarily supposeth that they had that before baptized but it doth bind or oblige them to persevere in Holiness that as they have been buried in Baptism as persons dead to sin so they should walk in newness of life Rom. 6. 3 4. Now you would have your Baptism to oblige your baptized Children to become dead to sin they were not it appears dead when buried with Christ in Baptism but you bury them alive if you baptized them To shew them they must die Sir God never ordained Baptism to such an end or to oblige persons thus to do see Rom. 6. 3. 4 5 6 7 8. Col. 1. 12 13. 3. The Church of England saith That the Child which they baptize is thereby that is in Baptism regenerated and made a Child of God a Member of Christ and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven And what you say implies as much for it must needs be thus if when the Parents believe and are regenerated and saved the Child partakes of the same privilege then the Child believed and was regenerated and saved also Now if this be so what
advantage can Ministers have from the Consideration of Infants Baptism to press Regeneration or the Performance of Repentance upon them when they come to age above what we have to press these great Duties upon our Children when grown up that never were baptized What need is there to press that on the Consciences of your Children when they come to age which they had wrought in them when they were in their Infancy No your Work is rather to press them as Saints and renewed Persons to live holy Lives and improve those Divine Habits which they received when their Parents believed or those inspired Habits that were plauted in their Souls when in Infancy they were baptized and regenerated 4. Certainly your Children when they come to age may think that they received some mighty Privilege in their Infancy by being in the Covenant of Grace with their Parents and so in a State safe enough for you tell them there is no final Falling from a State of true Grace We and you too know that and declare that the Covenant of Grace is sure to all the true Seed or Spiritual Seed of Abraham of which Seed you declare all your natural Off-spring as such are a part This being so it is evident that Ministers have no Advantages but the contrary in pressing the necessity of Repentance and Conversion on your Children when at age we have the greater advantage far in preaching to our Sons and Daughters who tell them that our Faith did not cannot profit them or save them no but that they were born in sin and were Children of Wrath by Nature and so remain till true actual Faith and Regeneration do pass upon them or they do believe in Christ 5. Besides the Baptismal Vow you brought them under being not by God's Appointment what Blessing can you expect from thence Will God own and bless a voluntary Vow or approve of an Humane Tradition 6. The Papists as I hinted before may expect as well and from as good Ground and Authority as great advantage to press Holiness and Chastity upon those that they bring under their voluntary Vows and Covenants in their Nunneries and Fryaries 7. Besides your Children entred not into that Baptismal-Covenant you talk of by their own consent they knew nothing of it and can find no Authority from God's Word you had to bring them under it and therefore what power is that like to have upon their Consciences Had you not better bring them under a solemn Vow to become good and to repent as soon as they come to age nay bring them under an Oath or cause them to enter into a solemn Covenant so to do and set their Hands unto it But you will say you have no Command nor Warrant from God's Word to do that no more say we have you any Command or Warrant from the Word of God to bring them under any such Baptismal Vow â—o forsake Sin the Devil and all his Works c. in their Infancy Infant-Baptism is so effectual to continue the true Religion and the Encrease of the Church of God at this time as Circumcision formerly had been It pleased God to continue true Religion among the Jews by bringing their Children under the Bond of the Covenant He left them not to their own liberty c. and let none take upon them to be wiser than God by leaving Children at this time to follow their own Fancies to choose their own Religion without having God's Covenant upon them for Humane Nature is as corruptible at this time as formercy c. Answ 1. I answer Circumcision was God's absolute and positive Command in the Jewish Church which was national but God hath not commanded Infants to be baptized into the Gospel-Church which is not National but Congregational if therefore there was the like Authority from God for the one as there was for the other we would contend with you no longer 2. 'T is you that would seem wiser than God whose Wisdom hath not led him to erect his Gospel Church of such Materials or of such Matter and in such Form now as it was his Wisdom to build the Jewish or Legal Church Must the fleshly Seed as such be taken into the Gospel-Church by Baptism because the Male-Infants were circumcised under the Law Who tells you so where is it written Will you be wiser than God Did not John Baptist say Think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father Now the Ax is laid to the Root of the Tree Now the case is altered as if he should say Now we know no Man after the Flesh 2 Cor. 5. 17 18. 3. Hath not God freely left us and our Children to choose to be his Servants or to choose our Religion Are not the Saints to be all Volunteers Will Christ accept of Prest-Souldiers into his Service Or have you any power to force or compel your Children to be of what Perswasion in Religion you please God it is true hath no more left Children now than formerly to follow their own Fancies no God forbid But he hath commanded them to believe and be baptized and not to follow the Fancies of their Parents any more than to follow their own Fancies nor Ministers who teach them contrary Doctrine to that which the Word of God doth 4. As to the Corruption of our Nature 't is true that is as bad as ever but your Sprinkling your Children in Infancy hath no Virtue or Power in it to change or purge out that Corruption your Children receive no benefit by that you call Baptism Say what you will I am sure you cannot prove they receive any profit thereby 5. I affirm God hath not commanded us to bring our Children into the Bond of the Covenant by Baptism until they believe and you can never disprove us while you live from God's Word You say the Lord hath blessed the Baptism of Infants to be a Means for the continuing of the true Religion and of the Christian Church From the days of the Apostles even to this very day the Lord bestoweth his particular Blessings but upon his own Ordinance he imprinteth not the Seal of Heaven upon earthly Inventions none can deny but that there are thousands baptized in their Infancy that feel in themselves the Virtue of their Baptism Answ 1. I answer You cannot prove that God hath any manner of ways owned or blessed infant-Infant-Baptism for because God hath continued a Seed to serve him in every Age since the Apostles time will you attribute that to infant-Infant-Baptism which is only to be ascribed to the rich and soveraign Grace of God and Power of his Spirit 2. As to the true Church for many years she was hid and in the Wilderness she fled from the face of the Romish Beast and cruel Dragon Rev. 12. I must confess Infant-Baptism hath in part been a means to keep up the name of the Christian Religion in the Church ever since the Apostacy and it was
dying in Infancy are certainly saved it makes say you that Ordinance a Channel of Grace c. 1. Answ This is like to the rest But Sir by what Authority do you assert all these things You know what wonderful Vertue the Papists say is in many of their Popish Rites Ceremonies and Reliques i. e. in their crossing of themselves and in their Holy-water especially in their Agnns Dei But how do they prove it Even as well as you do what you speak here upon this account and we have the same reason to believe them as to believe you in what you speak without Proof or Authority from God's word 2. Pious Parents But alas how few are there of that sort but what hope have the Impious Prophane and ungodly Parent of the Salvation of his dying Children But Sir I thought all the Pious and Believing or Godly Parents Children were born in Covenant with God that their Parents Faith would have secured them whether Baptized or not were not the Jews Female Children saved they were not Circumcised And were not their Male Infants saved who dyed before the Eighth Day 3. From what Scripture is it these Pious though Ignorant and deceiv'd Parents may have hope that their Children that dye in their Infancy shall be saved and none but theirs that are Baptized or rather Rantised 4. Will Pedo-Baptists make Baptism their Saviour Can Baptism save them And is it so indeed Is it in the power of Parents to save or damn their Children And how came Baptism to have such power in it or who made that a Channel of Grace to dying Infants Do you not place that Virtue in an external Rite that only belongs to the Blood of Christ and sanctifying Grace of God's Spirit Mr. Perkins saith That Baptism indeed saveth but saith he that is not the Baptism of Water but the stipulation of a good Conscience by the Resurrection Again he saith the outward Baptism without the inward is no mark of God's Child but the mark of a Fool that makes a Vow and afterwards breaks it 5. May not this Doctrine of theirs clearly tend to scare and affright poor Parents with fear that all their Babes that dye in their Mothers Womb or before baptized are damned And Oh in what a sad Condition are all the Children of the ungodly and impious Persons whose little Babes you dare not cannot Baptise if you are true to your own Principles But that Text may give us better ground of Hopes a Thousand times concerning the well being of our dying Infants where our Saviour saith for of such are the Kingdom of Heaven and that also which you mention I shall go to him he shall not return to me together with the infinite Mercy of God through the virtue of Christ's Blood who can convey help and healing to dying Infants and Ideots in ways we know not of nor are we to trouble our Selves about such secret things that are not revealed 6. Mr. Burkitt saith the practice of Infant Baptism appears most beneficial because it prevents such shameful and scandalous neglects of Baptism to the blemish of Christianity Ans Is it then a shameful scandal to neglect a Tradition of Man For so I have proved Infant Baptism to be Where is the shame that ought to be in Christians that Christs Laws and Precepts are neglected and his precious Ordinance of Baptism exposed to Contempt and Shame as it is by you and Thousands more whilst the Statutes of Omri are zealously kept and observed as the Prophet of old complained I mean humane Rites and Traditions or Statutes like those of Omri instituted by him and Jeroboam which the Wisdom of your Church and many corrupt Churches have been zealous for to this day and thus I have run through and examined Mr. Burkitts Six particulars which he brought to prove the usefulness of Infant Baptism above the baptism of Believers which our Blessed Saviour Instituted and now shall shew you further that Infant Baptism is so far from being more useful then that of the Adult that it is a palpable error and therefore of no use at all but the contrary viz. a very sinful thing Reader can that be useful or any ways beneficial which Christ never Commanded or required to be done in his Name but is unrighteously Fathered upon him to the utter making void his own Ordinance of baptizing Believers 2. Can that have any usefulness in it that brings guilt upon the Parents in doing it making them guilty of Will Worship or of a humane Tradition 3. Can that be useful that brings Babes into such a Covenant which Christ never Ordained them to enter into and to which they directly nor indirectly consented nor approved of and which they are utterly unable to keep and which giveth them no strength to perform nor is there one promise of God made to assist or help them to do it and yet for not keeping of it they are charged with Perjury with self Murder nay with Hell and Damnation 4. Can that be of use to Infants that may basely beguile and deceive them causing them when grown up to think they were thereby made Christians and become the Children of God Members of Christ and Inhabitants of the Kingdom of Heaven nay Regenerated and from hence never look after any other work of Grace nor Regeneration but conclude all is well with them 5. Can that be an usual thing which the doing of it is a palpable alteration of the words of Christ's Commission and so inverts that Holy Order left by him for baptizing who requires none to be baptized before they be first Taught and made Disciples 6. Can that be of any use to an Infant which you nor no Man else can prove from Gods Word to have any use and Blessing in it to them 7. Can an humane Rite or Tradition think you save poor Children or a little Water sprinkled on the Face wash away Original Sin Or will God bless a Tradition of Man 8. Can Water beget Children to Christ or can that be useful to them which they have only the bare sign of and not the thing signified viz. the Sign of Regeneration but not Regeneration it self a sign of Grace but not Grace it self you give them the Shell but no Kernel the name of a Christian but no nature of a Christian making that you call Christ's Baptism as Dr. Taylorsaith a sign without effect and like the Fig-tree in the Gospel full of Leaves but no Fruit. 9. Can that be useful that tends to make the Gospel Church National and confounds the Church and the World together which ought to be Congregational a holy and separate People like a Garden enclosed 10. Can Baptism be more useful to Infants then adult Believers notwithstanding the Scripture saith that the Person baptized doth not only believe but call upon the name of the Lord Acts 22. 16. Can Infants do that 11. Can Infant Baptism be more useful then that of Believers and
at all and so cast off and renounce their Infants Rautism that they hereby become guilty of Perjury and must be Damned for he speaks not of those sins forbidden in God's Word but the violation of this baptismal Covenant which he saith is Perjury and the Damning Sin and Root of all Sin O! what want of Charity is here in these Men and what New and strange Doctrine do they Teach 2. Train up your Children in the fear of God and set them a good example and pray for them and over them and give them good Instruction godly Counsel and Admonition And see that you neglect not to Catechise them daily that so they may understand early the main Grounds and Principles of Religion but dread to Baptize them in Infancy or before they believe and have the inward and Spiritual Grace signified in true Baptism You have had it proved from God's Word that there is no Ground nor Authority from thence to baptize Infants and know 't is not in the power of Man by external Rite to bring Children into the Covenant of Grace nor to make them Members of his Visible Church neither Baptism nor the Lords Supper are Bread for Infants but for Christ's New Born Babes 1 Pet. 2. 1 2 3 5. not for your Children as such but such only that are the true Children of God who are born of the Spirit 3. Do not go about directly nor indirectly to deceive your Children by making them believe they are in a good condition by reason they are the Seed of believing Parents and Baptized as these Men call Sprinkling and so that way made Christians and so from hence perhaps look for no further or other work of Grace or regeneration but think they by this pretended baptism are the Children of God Members of Christ and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven when 't is in Truth no such thing nor have you any cause to doubt but that your Infants who die tho' not baptized are happy as appears from what we have said neither be you so ignorant to believe that baptism can save your Infants or the Adult either nor let poor Children cry out against their ungodly Parents as some of these pedo-baptists intimate they may do Pray see what Mr. Burkitt saith in his Book page 62. Before your Children are born make sure as much as in you lieth that they may be born within the Covenant and under the promise by your being in Covenant with God Your selves see that the Lord be your God in Covenant with you and then you may comfortably hope he will be the God of your Seed Answ This Doctrine implys that 't is in the power of Men and Women to bring their Children into the Covenant of Grace and as also it denotes that the Children of believers are not Born Children of Wrath by Nature for are those that are born in the Covenant of Grace born Children of Wrath O ye Parents know that you may be in Covenant and your Children never in it whilst they live nay die out of Covenant as doubtless many Children of the Faithful do Nor hath God made any such Covenant with any believer and their Natural Seed as such as he made with Abraham who was the Father of all that believe but so are not you nor I tho' we are believers and in Covenant with God and walk in Abrahams Steps Those that are in the Electiof Grace of your Seed never fear but God will in due time bring into the Covenant of Grace and give all the Covenant Blessings and Priviledges but if any of them are not comprehended in the Election of Grace their being born of your Loyns will not cannot bring them into the Covenant of Grace nor give them a right to the Seal thereof viz. the holy Spirit nor can baptism bring any into it which is only an outward Sign of our being in that Covenant or of that divine and spiritual Grace we received before we were baptized as I have proved Your business and your Childrens also is to make your own Election sure by special and effectual calling 'T is not the first birth but the second that brings either you or your Children into the Covenant of Grace so that we and they may have God to be our God by way of special Interest But mark Mr. Burkitts next words page 62. O! were but Infants capable of knowledge how much would they dread being born of wicked Parents make it your endeavour before your Children are born to sanctifie your poor Children this is done by prayer c. 1. Answ This is enough to set the Children against their ungodly Parents nay to hate them in their Hearts Alas the Children of wicked Parents I see not but they may be in as good a Condition as many Children of believers tho' I doubt not but God doth let out his infinite Grace generally more to the seed of the Faithful when grown up then to others but God will not certainly destroy poor Children for the fault and unbelief of their Parents Therefore as your begetting them in the first birth tho' gracious cannot save them so your begetting them tho' wicked cannot damn or destroy them There is no reason saith Mr. Perkins that the wickedness of the Parents should prejudice the Children in things pertaining to eternal Life Perkins on Gal. 3. p. 264. 2. However if it be as Mr. Burkitt and Mr. Owen say that when believers are in Covenant their Children are in Covenant also Doubtless they are in a safe condition whether baptized or not that doth not bring them into Covenant 3. But may not this Doctrine of theirs put a just rebuke upon unbelievers or ungoly persons for once attempting to Marry and beget Childre that are in such a sad condition by reason their Parents were not in Covenant with God ought they nay may they lawfully Marry this being consider'd and such dreadful effects following upon their poor Babes besides how far doth this Covenant blessing and priviledge extend If my Grand Father was in Covenant tho' my Father and I too are wicked and ungodly Persons are not we still in Covenant with God The Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham viz. that of Circumcision extended not only to his immediate Seed or Off-Spring but to all his Natural Seed successively in their Generations untill Christ came and put an end to that external Covenant and Covenant Right CHAP. XXV Containing several Queries for Mr. Owen to answer since the Athenian Society have not done it who some time since did attempt it Sir I Having wrote a few Queries lately about Infant Baptism for the Athenian Society to answer upon their bold Challenge and since they are too hard for them to do it having said nothing at all to the purpose I shall expect to see them answered by you when you answer this reply to your Book I shall not trouble you with all but only with a few of them Query 1. Whether the
be Baptized Arg. 2. If Infant Baptism was never Instituted Commanded or Appointed of God Infants ought not to be Baptized But Infant baptism was never Instituted Commanded or Appointed of God Ergo they ought not to be baptized As to the Major if one thing may be practised as an Ordinance without an Institution or Command of God another thing may also and so any Innovation may be let into the Church As to the Minor If there is an Institution for it c. 'T is either contained in the great Commission Mat. 28. Mark 16. or somewhere else But 't is not contained in the great Commission nor any where else Ergo c. The Major none will deny The Minor I prove thus None are to be baptized by virtue of the Commission but such who are Discipled by the Word as I said before and so the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies If any should say Christ Commanded his Disciples to Baptize all Nations and Infants are part of Nations therefore ought to be baptized I answer Arg. 3. If all Nations or any in the Nations ought to be Baptized before Discipled then Turks Pagans unbelievers and their Children may be Baptized because they are a great part of the Nations but Turks Pagans and unbelievers and their Children ought not to be baptized Ergo c. Besides That Teaching by the Authority of the Commission must go before baptizing we have proved which generally all Learned Men do assert If the Institution is to be found any where else they must shew the place Arg. 4. Faith and Repentance are required of all that ought to be baptized but Infants are not required to Believe and Repent nor are they capable so to do Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Major is clear Acts 2. 8. 10. 16. Chapters and it s also asserted by the Church of Ergland What is required of Persons to be baptized that 's the Question the Answer is Repentance whereby they forsake Sin and Faith whereby they stedfastly believe the promise of God made to them in that Sacrament The Minor cannot be denyed Arg. 5. That practice that tends not to the Glory of God nor the profit of the Child when done nor in aftertimes when grown up but may prove hurtful and of a dangerous Nature to him cannot be a Truth of God but the practice of Infant Baptism tends not to the Glory of God nor 〈◊〉 profit of the Child when Baptized nor in aftertimes when grown up but may be hurtful and of a dangerous Nature to him Ergo See Levit. 10. 1 2. Where Moses told Aaron Because his Sons had done that which God the Lord Commanded them not That God would be Sanctified by all that drew near unto him intimating that such who did that which God Commanded them not did not Sanctifie or Glorifie God therein Can God be glorified by Man's Disobedience or by adding to his Word by doing that which God hath not required Mat. 16. 9. In vain do you Worship me Teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men. And that that practice doth profit the Child none can prove from God's Word And in after times when grown up it may cause the Person to think he was thereby made a Christian c. and brought into the Covenant of Grace and had it sealed to him nay thereby regenerated for so the Athenian Society in their Mercury December 26. plainly intimate and that Infants are thereby ingrafted also into Christs Church Sure all understanding Men know the Baptism of Believers is not called Regeneration but only Metonymically it being a Figure of Regeneration But they Ignorantly affirm also that Infants then have a Federal Holiness as if this imagined Holiness comes in by the Parents Faith or by the Childs Covenant in Baptism which may prove hurtful dangerous to them and cause them to think Baptism confers Grace which is a great error How can water saith Mr. Charnock an external thing work upon the Soul Physically nor can it saith he be proved that ever the Spirit of God is tied by any promise to apply himself to the Soul in a gracious operation when Water is applyed to the Body If it were so then all that were baptized should be saved or else the Doctrine of Perseverance falls to the Ground Some indeed says he say that Regeneration is conferred in Baptism upon the Elect and exerts its self afterwards in Conversion But how so active a Principle as Spiritual Life should lye dead and a sleep so many years c. is not easily conceived On Regen page 75. Arg. 6. If the Church of England says that Faith and Repentance are required of all that ought to be baptized and in so saying speaks truly and yet Infants can't perform those things then Infants ought not to be Baptized But the Church of England says that Faith and Repentance are required of all such c. and speak truly and yet Infants cannot perform these things Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Obj. If it be objected That they affirm they do perform by their Sureties Ans. If Suretiship for Children in Baptism is not required of God and the Sureties do not yea cannot perform those things for the Child then Suretyship is not of God and so signifies nothing but is an unlawful and sinful undertaking but Suretiship in Childrens Baptism is not required of God and they do not cannot perform what they promise Ergo c. Do they or can they cause the Child to forsake the Devil and all his works the Pomps and Vanities of this wicked World and all the sinful Lusts of the Flesh In a word can they make the Child or Children to repent and truly believe in Jesus Christ for these are the things they promise for them and in their Name Alas they want power to do it for themselves and how then should they do it for others Besides we see they never mind nor regard their Covenant in the case and will not God one day say who has required these things at your hands Arg. 7. If there be no president in the Scripture as there is no precept that any Infant was baptized then Infants ought not to be baptized But there is no president that any Infant was baptized in the Scripture Ergo. If there is any precedent or example in Scripture that any Infant was baptized let them shew us where we may find it Erasmus saith 'T is no where expressed in the Apostolical writings that they baptized Children Union of the Church and on Rom. 6. Calvin saith 't is no where expressed by the Evangelists that any one Infant was baptized by the Apostles Instit cap. 16. lib. 4. Ludovicus Vives saith None of Old were wont to be baptized but in grown Age and who desired and understood what it was Vide Lud. The Magdeburgenses say That concerning the bapâ—…ing the Adult both Jews and Gentiles we have sufficient proof Acts. 2. 8 10. 16. Chap.
but as to the baptizing of Infants they can meet with no example in Scripture Magdeb. Cant. l. 2. page 469. Dr. Taylor saith It is against the perpetual Analogie of Christs Doctrine to baptize Infants For besides that Christ never gave any precept to baptize them nor ever himself nor his Apostles that appears did baptize any of them so all that either he or his Apostles said concerning it requires such previous dispositions of baptism of which Infants are not capable viz. Faith and Repentance Lib. proph page 239. Arg. 8. If whatsoever is necessary to Faith and practice is left in the Holy Scripture that being a compleat and perfect Rule and yet Infant Baptism is not contained or to be found therein then Infant Baptism is not of God but whatever is necessary to Faith and Practice is contained in the Holy Scriptures c. but Infant baptism is not to be found therein Ergo. That the Scripture is a perfect Rule c. we have the consent of all the Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines Athanasins saith The Holy Scriptures being Inspirations of God are sufficient to all Instructions of Truth Athan. against the Gentiles Crysostom saith All things be plain and clear in the Scripture and whatsoever are needful are manifest there Chrysost on 2 Thess and 2 Tim. 2. Basil saith That it would be an Argument of Infidelity and a most certain Sign of Pride if any Man should reject any thing written and should Introduce things not written Basil in his Sermon de fide Augustin saith In the Scriptures are found all things which contain Faith manner of Living Hope Love c. Let us saith he seek no farther then what is written of God our Saviour lâ—st a Man would know more that the Scriptures witness Augustin in his 198 Epistles to Fortunatus Theophilact saith It is part of a Diabolical Spirit to think any thing Divine without the Authority of the Holy Scripture Lib. 2. pasch Isychius saith Let us who will have any thing observed of God search no more but that which the Gospel doth give unto us Lib. 5. cap. 16. on Levit. Bellarmin saith That though the Arguments of the Anabaptists from the defect of Command or Example have a great use against the Lutherans for as much as they use that Rite every where and having no Command or Example theirs is to be rejected yet is it of no force against Catholicks who conclude that an Apostolical Tradition is of no less authority with us than the Scripture c. This of baptizing of Infants is an Apostolical Tradition Bell. Lib. de Bapt. 1. cap. 8. Mr. Ball saith We must for every Ordinance look for 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 of the New-England Elders page 38 39. And as to the Minor 't is acknowledged by our Adversaries it is not to be found in the Letter of the Scripture And as to the Consequences drawn therefrom we have proved they are not Natural from the premises and tho' we will 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 'tis 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 and ground of Pedo-baptism or for what reason they ought to be baptized Ergo It is no Institution of Christ The Minor is undeniable some affirm as we have already shew'd that it was to take away Original Sin others say it is theirs 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 Surety Some ground their Right from 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 Controversie 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 Parents 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 threatning 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 who is not Baptized let them prove it since it is denyed 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 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 nor reprov'd for neglecting to baptize them 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 denyed The Minor is clear from Exod. 25.
yet Baptism an Ordinance of the Souls Marriage with Christ and is not that as Mr. Baxter saith a strange Marriage where there is nothing signified of consent and are Infants able so to do 12. Can Infant Baptism be more useful then that of Believers and yet Baptism call'd the Answer of a good Conscience Can a little Babe answer a good Conscience by being baptized in Obedience to Christ and to shew forth his Death and Resurrection 13. Can Infant Baptism be more useful then that of Believers Whereas the first has no promise of God made unto it and yet the other hath many as Acts 2. 36 37 38. Mark 16. 16. 14. Can that be an useful thing that frustrates the Sacred and Spiritual ends of Baptism which we have shewed are many but as administred to poor Babes 't is rendred wholly of none effect and an insignificant thing Mr. Perkins hints that Baptism signifies two things 1 our Union with Christ 2 our Communion with him now how does this appear in Infants as such as it does in Believers Perkins on Gal. p. 265. 16. Is not that an absurd Doctrine and Practice that renders the fruitful Womb of a godly Woman more advantageous to increase the Church of Christ then a fruitful Gospel 17. Is it not a very absurd thing to say that Abraham could by his Money purchase and bring Strangers and proselyted Gentiles into the Covenant of Grace and if Abraham could buy them and bring them into the Covenant of Grace with Silver and Gold what need was there of Jesus Christ to buy or purchase them with his own Blood 18. Is not that an absurd Doctrine and Practice that holds forth that godly Parents have power to bring in their Children into the Covenant of Grace or keep them out of it for if you by baptizing them do not bring them into the Covenant of Grace but you do believe they were in the said Covenant by being born of Believers by being begotten by you according to the Flesh then it will follow if we are Believers our Children are in as good a Condition as yours though they were never baptized CHAP. XXII Answer to Mr. James Owen's 18th Chapter wherein be sheweth the Duty of Parents to their Children proving in opposition to what he says that Parents ought not to consecrate their Infants to the Lord by Baptism YOu say if Parents would perform their Duties towards their Children and how to make a right use of their Baptism there would be more Godliness and Sobriety in the Country and few would be the number of them that deny their Baptism c. Answ If Parents did generally take more care of their Childrens Souls and instruct them in the Principles of the Christian Religion then they do no doubt Sobriety and Godliness would more abound then now it doth every where 2. But as to the right use of their Baptism you your Selves cannot tell what use that can be to them because 't is not appointed of God 3. Did Parents instruct their Children according to the word of God viz. to believe and get Union with Christ and not baptize them till they desired it according to the Scripture Infant Baptism would soon vanquish 1. You say look to your own right in the Covenant of God if God is not a God to you he is not a God to your Seed c. 1. Answ Suppose then that some of those Parents whose Children you baptize should not be in Covenant with God what right had their Children to Baptism is not that Baptism a nullity it was not thus in the case of Circumcision if the Parents were Abraham's natural Seed whether Godly or wicked they were to Circumcise their Male Children 2. Though 't is true an adult Person hath no right to Baptism that is not a true believer yet if he profess Faith in Christ and a Minister not knowing his Heart but sees no cause to doubt of the reality or truth of his Faith he may baptize such but you have no Warrant to baptize a Child upon the profession of its Parents Faith tho' his Faith be sincere 2. When they are Born prepare to Present and Consecrate them say you to the Lord through the Sacred Ordinance of Baptism there are many that baptize all their Children as matter of Ceremony and meer Custom without looking to the Lord c. Answ By whose Authority must they thus do viz. As soon as their Children are Born Consecrate them to the Lord. 'T is not by the Authority of God's Word therefore a piece of Will Worship Parents would do well to pray over their Babes as soon as they are Born but unless required by Christ to baptize them they must not do that 2. Whoever therefore Baptize their Infants do it only as a Ceremony divised by Man tho' not in their intention their Consciences being missed You ought say you to be serious about their Baptism as we should be about our own baptism that which the Child ought to do if he had been at Age and Understanding must be done by you for them even as Mothers when their Children be Sick take Physick themselves which the Children ought to take so that the Child may have the Medicine in his Mothers Milk even so do ye that which the Child ought to do if he had been of Age before Baptised 1. Answ Some of the Papists are very serious about their divised Ceremonies but this makes it in no wise the more acceptable to God But 2. Do you not here seemingly acknowledge 't is the Duty of the Child when 't is at Age to be baptized but you would have its Parents do it for the Child but how do you prove that God will accept that at the Hands of the Parent which the Child ought to do when at Age. I have shewed you that in an early Council they would not allow a Woman big with Child to be Baptized least it should be thought the Child was baptized with the Mother 3. Doth the Mothers Faith and Holiness avail and profit their Childs Soul as her Milk may avail and profit the Body of her Child what kind of Doctrine is this but it may be so if what you said before be true i. e. that the Child is part of the Patent 3. Bless the Lord for the Covenant of Grace say you and for Christ the Mediator of the Covenant and for Baptism the Seal of that Covenant Is the extent of the Covenant a small thing in thy sight that the living God bindeth himself to thee and thy sinful Seed Is it a small thing that he should pitty them when they were polluted in their blood that he washed them and entred into a Covenant with them Ezek. 16. 5. 6. 1. Answ We have all cause to bless the Lord for the Covenant of Grace and for Christ the Mediator both in respect of our selves and for our Children but you affirm ' that which you cannot prove viz. that baptism is
the Seal of the Covenant of Grace for hath the Covenant of Grace any other Seal that Seals to us all the Blessings of that Covenant save the Holy Spirit only the Spirit of God is called a Seal Eph. 1. 13 14. Chap. 4. 30. but so is not baptism called any where 2. If all your Children have the Seal of the Covenant of Grace or all the blessings thereof sealed up to them shall they not be all saved all know a Seal confirms and gives an assurance of all the Priviledges Blessings and Profits that are contained in that Covenant to which it is prefix'd 3. You falsly also apply that Text in Ezek. 16. 5 6 7. that is not applicable to our Infants as such but to God's Israel or Believers who were once like that wretched Infant cast out in its Blood but God entered into Covenant with us and washed us c. But are all believers Children washed in the Blood of Christ no doubt they are in the Covenant of Grace that go to Heaven that die in Infancy but the rest remain polluted in their Original and actual pollution until they believe in Christ Jesus and are negenerated by Divine Grace tho' they are baptized for that washeth them not 4. Set time a part say you for earnest praying praying to the Lord for to forgive the Sins of your Child to Sanctifie his Nature and bless the Ordinance of Baptism unto him c. Answ Prayer is good and a great Duty 't is to pray for our Children but take heed how you pray their baptism may be blessed since Christ did not appoint any Baptism for them in Infancy hath he promised any blessing to that or will he bless an Invention of Men 5. When the Minister doth baptize thy Child do thou act Faith in God's Covenant for thy self and thy Child c. Ans How can you act Faith in doing that which God hath made no promise unto you or to your Children believers that are baptized may act Faith indeed 1. Because Christ commandeth them to be baptized Mat. 28. 19 20. Acts 2. 37. 2. Because he hath promised unto them great blessings in Baptism Mark 16. 16. Acts 2. 37 38. but there is neither a precept for nor promise made unto Infants Baptized 1. Speedily do it stay not as Moses did to Circumcise his Child Exod. 4. 24. the which had like to cost him his life it is true God bindeth us not at this time to the Eighth day as he did the Jews yet we ought not to delay Vid. Cypr. Fidem Ep. 59. Answ Make not more speedy hast then good speed or more hast then God directeth you why not delay since God no where saith on the Eighth Day nor at a year Old nor three years Old but when they believe then they ought to rise indeed and not tarry and be baptized but since you have no Scripture for this advise you Quote Cyprian who would not have the Adult delay if he speaks it of Infants he is no rule for us the Ordinance was corrupted in his time where is it written in Gods Word Moses had a command to Circumcise his Son on the Eighth Day therefore he ought not to delay longer but what is this to your case 2. Cheerfully as one Marrieth his Child with the Lord Jesus Christ Answ Cheerfully do it no do it not at all on your peril For 't is as Mr. Baxter saith a strange Marriage where there is nothing of consent 3. Publickly say you before the Congregation Answ And yet not ashamed shew your authority first Your other advice seems tolerable good save what you speak concerning your Infant Baptism in Teaching your Children the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and giving them good examples and in putting them into godly Families in doing thus you may expect a blessing from God but none of these things will add any vertue to their Infant Baptism to make that any ways effectual to them so much only shall suffice as toy our 18th Chapter CHAP. XXIII In answer to Mr. James Owens 19th Chapter wherein he gives advice to Children with an answer to his Queries that he would have the Antipedobaptists to reply unto CHildren bless the Lord for the priviledges of your Baptism God hath taken you into Covenant say you with your Parents he hath prevented you with the blessings of goodness and made you nigh who being by Nature a far off ye are no more Strangers and Foreigners but fellow Citizens with the Saints and the Houshold of God Eph. 2. 19. 1. Answ Must they bless God that their Parents deceived them with false hopes of priviledges which neither they nor your selves know what they are or for putting a cheat upon them to make them think their State is better thereby and yet cannot prove it from Gods Word so to be How doth God prevent them with blessings of Goodness by your Rantizing them doth your pretended baptism insuse grace or gracious habits unto them or what to 〈◊〉 or is â—t the blessings of that Vow you brought them under voluntarily without any authority from God 2. Are you not afraid to affirm that Children by their baptism are by the Lord made neer unto him and made thereby Children of God who were by Nature Children of Wrath and no more Strangers and Foreigners c. If this was so shall they not be all Saved Can any thing bring Children near to God and make them fellow-Heirs and Citizens with the Saints but a Sacred Work of God's Spirit upon their Souls and doth your Baptism do this 2. Can such that are no more Strangers to God c. ever perish Is there a possibility of Final falling from a State of true Grace and if it be thus ought not your Children to have all the priviledges of the Houshold of God the Lords Supper c. 3. Will you attribute those High and Sublime Priviledges that belong to believers who are only born of the Spirit to your poor Babes that yet remain Children of Wrath and unrenewed by the Grace of God is not this a ready way to blind the Eyes of your Children and ruine their Souls if they should believe you herein You are under that Gracious Providence say you which watcheth over the Church c. 1. Answ You must first prove them Members of the Church and not only Members but all of them elected Persons for they are such Members that the special Providence of God is over 2. You say they have a share in the daily prayers that are put up for the Church of God Psalm 72. 15. Prayers shall be made for him and daily shall he be praised Psalm 51. 13. Do good in thy good pleasure to Zion and build the Walls of Jerusalem Gal. 6. 16. As many as walk according to this rule peace on them and mercy on the Israel of God If you had been without baptism you should have been without and so without any share in these prayers Answ I