Bastardy the Holiness can be meant of no other than Legitimation Nor is this any more an unlikely sense sith Barstards were reckoned among unclean Persons Deut. 23.2 and the Apostle's Expression is allusive to the Jewish speaking and Estimation and why it should be thought strange that Holy should signify Legitimation I know not when as Mal. 2.51 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Seed of God is rendred by some Pedo-baptists a holy Seed we read it a godly Seed which were such Children you cannot deny born in lawful Marriage And that we are not alone touching this sense of the Words and Matter pray take the Testimony of divers Learned Men who yet held Infant-Baptism but found this Text remote to the business of proving it Jerom as I find him quoted by a Learned Man saith Because of God's Appointment Marriage is holy See Chameri § 50. Sic Ambrosium Thomam Anselmum exposuisse tunc Suarez appellat literalem sensum That Ambrose Thomas Anselm so expounded it and this Suarez calls the literal sense Melancthon in his Commentary upon this place saith thus Therefore Paul answers that the Marriages are not to be pulled asunder for their unlike Opinions of God if the impious Person do not cast away the other And for Comfort he adds as a reason the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the believing Wife Meat is sanctified for that which is holy in use that is granted to Believers of God things prohibited under the Law as Swines Flesh and a Woman in her Pollution were called unclean The Connexion of the Argument is this If the use of Marriage should not please God your Children would be Bastards and so unclean but your Children are not Bastards therefore the use of Marriage pleaseth God and how Bastards were unclean in a peculiar matter the Law shews Deut. Thus far Melancthon Camerarius gives the same sense as Chamier observes Musculus in his Comment on the place confesseth that he had formerly abused this place against the Anabaptists Camera on the place saith For the unbelieving Husband hath been sanctified an unusual change of the Tense that is sanctified in the lawful use of Marriage for without this saith he it would be that their Children should be unclean that is infamous and not legitimate who so are holy that is during the Marriage are without all blot of Ignominy Erasmus upon the place saith thus Infants born of such Parents as one being a Christian the other not are legitimately holy for the Conversion of either Husband or Wife doth not dissolve the Marriage which was made when both were in Unbelief Nay I find a very learned Divine to affirm the Ancients expounded this place no otherwise None saith he that ever I met with expound it of federal Holiness till the Controversy of the Anabaptists in Germany arose And Sir since you are so ingenuous as to confess in Pag. 25. that the unbelieving Husband is sanctified in respect of Conjugal Relation to the Wife in a way of Marriage in which so far you agree with these learned Men and this being so how come you to assert 't is federal Holiness that is said to be in the Children What we say it appears is not a racking of the Scripture to maintain a private Opinion therefore what you speak is not true and tho the word holy refers here to what we affirm with others yet the Apostle speaks truly Tho 't is granted the Children of Heathens born in lawful Wedlock are no more Bastards than the Children of Christians for if the Marriage were made void it would render their Children to be unclean or base born And what tho the Greek word doth signify in so many places you mention spiritual Sanctification and Separation to God shew us where it signifies external relative federal Holiness in the New Testament Yet as one observes the word is not bound up to that sense as you seem to intimate for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for Castimoniam servo as Stephanus in his Thesaurus observes out of Demosthenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where a Priest of Bacchus speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am holy and pure from the Compâ—â—â— of Man and the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chaste to be chaste to make chaste Chastity coming from the same Root with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reverence or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to admire as Grammarians conceive are used for Holiness very frequently both in Scripture and in all sorts of Greek Writers So that what you say as to the Signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy that it cannot be taken for legitimate is fully cleared and we justified from your unjust Accusation viz. that we wrested the word to favour our private Opinion neither are we out in our Logick as you infer but now the Inference may be that you are weak in your Greek And to conclude But if it doth signify holy as you say why might not the Children of such as the Apostle speaks of be said to be holy as well as the Infidel of unbelieving Wife is said to be sanctified what is the difference between Holy and sanctified CHAP. IV. Wherein the Argument for Infant-Baptism taken from the constant and universal Practice of the Church in all Ages which is Mr. Burkit 's last Argument is fully answered and Antiquity proved on our side YOur sixth and last Argument for Infant-Baptism is this viz. That which has been the constant and immemorial Practice of the Church of God in all Ages of the World is unquestionably an Ordinance of God and agreeable to his Will But Infants Initiation or the Admission of Infants into the Jewish Church by Circumcision and into the Christian Church by Baptism has been the immemorial Practice of the Universal Church from the Days of Abraham to this day Therefore it is undeniably an Ordinance of God and agreeable to his Will Answ 1. Though this Syllogism is not good I mean true in Form yet I shall pass that by and give you a full Answer But why do you confound things together I mean Initiation and Baptism as if no Children were initiated into the Jewish Church without Circumcision for 't is not so the Females were initiated without Circumcision or Baptism or any other external Rite so far as we read of But as to Infants being admitted Members of the Jewish Church we deny nor and all your Arguments from thence I have already answered your Business is to prove they were admitted into the Gospel-Church and that by Baptism The Church of Christ under the Gospel is more Spiritual than that under the Law I tell you again 't is not National not Members by Generation but by Regeneration not those born of the Flesh but those born of the Spirit And pray read what Reverend Dr. Owen hath said in his Catechism about Government p. 106. Our Lord Jesus Christ saith he
weak an Allusion or Similitude as ever was brought to illustrate a matter For first it supposes that Christ gave a very obscure dark and doubtful Commission for if all were to be sheared that the Shepherd was to mark the Shepherd could not err in refusing to mark the Lambs because not capable of shearing for so it is here all are by Christ's Commission to be first taught who are to be baptized 2. You suppose in Christ's Fold there are no Lambs if no Infants are admitted to be of his Church or Flock which is absurd Were they Infants that Christ commanded St. Peter to feed when he bad him feed his Lambs Joh. 21.15 Or were they Infants that Christ is said to carry in his Bosom Isa 40.11 The Scripture you cite He shall feed his Flock like a Shepherd he shall gather his Lambs with his Arms and carry them in his Bosom Do not all Expositors tell you by Lambs in these places are meant young Converts who are by St. Peter called new-born Babes 1 Pet. 2.1 2. and who denies but many such are in Christ's Fold and these Lambs we say may and ought to be baptized 3. Who told you Baptism is Christ's Ear-mark by which Christ's Sheep are distinguished from the Devils Goats I affirm this is no certain and distinguishing Mark to know the Sheep and Lambs of Christ from the Devil's Goats Was not Simon Magus baptized was that a Mark to know he was a Sheep of Christ Thousands may be baptized have that Ear-mark and yet be in the Gall of Bitterness and in the Bond of Iniquity and be the Goats of the Devil Christ himself in John 10. lays down divers distinguishing Marks of his Sheep but makes not the least mention of this True when a Believer is baptized and doth all other things Christ had commanded that is no doubt one mark that he is one of Christ's Sheep but the distinguishing Mark is Regeneration and that of having his Spirit in our Hearts and leading a godly Life Now if any Man have not the Spirit of Christ the same is none of his Nom. 8.9 As to Infants who die in their Infancy who doubts but they may be happy since Christ says of such are the Kingdom of Heaven i. e. Kingdom of Glory but this is no more ground for you to baptize them than as I have often said to give them the Lord's Supper Does it follow because some Infants may belong to the Kingdom of Glory they are Members therefore of the visible Church and so Lambs of Christ's Fold on Earth And this brings me to your next which is your fourth Argument viz. If Infants 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 Priviledg of Subjects amongst which the Seal of the Covenant is not the least Answ 1. We answer and argue thus to the first part of your Proposition viz. If many of the Jews and others who were ungodly Persons were capable of Christ's Blessing i. e. of being healed of their bodily Diseases they were Subjects of Baptism Is this sound arguing What further Blessing Christ did vouchsafe to Infants when he laid his Hands upon them we know not for that was the way Christ took oft-times in the healing the Sick and so he blessed many Persons that never were baptized as we read of 2. We as I just now told you do deny Infants are Subjects of the visible Church therefore if by the Kingdom of Grace you intend not that you beat the Air you 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 another and are to have Fellowship with the Saints and Houshold of God as well as Baptism But say you or take the Argument thus viz. Those whom Christ invites to him and are received by him his Ministers may not refuse nor put from them But Infants are 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 p. 21. Answ 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 May his Ministers therefore receive all such into their Communion 2. In the days of Christ when he was on 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 so you dare not receive Infants I mean into your Communion of the Eucharist c. 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 you say in Pag. 21. of your Book I affirm there was then other ordinary ways of coming to Christ than by Admission into his Church Christ invited the worst of Sinners to him who nevertheless did not receive him therefore there are some who must be excluded whom Jesus Christ graciously invited Your Appeal for Proof of this Argument to St. Mark 10.13 Suffer little Children to come unto me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven doth not your business they do not belong to the Kingdom of Grace i. e. the Church for if they did belong to or were of the visible Church as such then you need not by Baptism make them belong unto it If Christ owns them Subjects or Members of his Visible Church you by Baptism have no need I say to add them to it for if as they are the Seed of Believers they are already fidem soederis not only in Covenant with God but also belong to his Kingdom or Church upon Earth All the World may see you go about but to give them that very Right or Privilege which they had before and without Baptism Doth Christ say you 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 sorts of Persons into his Arms of Mercy to heal their bodily Distempers of which 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
hath laid down as an Everlasting Rule That unless a Man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.3 requiring Regeneration as an indispensable Condition in a Member of his Church a Subject of his Kingdom for his Temple is now built of living Stones 1 Pet. 2.5 Men spiritual and savingly quickned from their Death in Sin and by the Holy Ghost whereof they are Partakers made a meet Habitation for God Ephes 2.21 22. 1 Cor. 3.16 2 Cor. 6.16 which vital Supplies from Christ its Head encreaseth in Faith and Holiness edifying it self in Love And saith Dr. Taylor they that baptize Children make Baptism to be wholly an outward Duty a Work of the Law a carnal Ordinance it makes us adhere to the Letter without regard of the Spirit to be satisfied with Shadows to return to Bondage to relinquish the Mysteriousness the Substance and Spirituality of the Gospel which Argument is of so much the more consideration because under the Spiritual Covenant or Gospel of Grace if the Mystery goes not before the Symbol which it does when the Symbols are signations of Grace as the Sacraments are yet it always accompanies it but never follows in order of Time And this is clear in the perpetual Analogy of Holy Scripture The Lord open your Eyes Sir I am perswaded you speak as you believe But to proceed You come in pag. 26. to the Gospel-Church 1. From the Command of Christ 2. From the Practice of the Apostles 3. From the constant usage of the Primitive Church after the Apostles 1. That Infants were to be admitted into the Christian Church you say appears from our Saviour's express Command in the words of the Commission Mat. 28.19 Go disciple all Nations baptizing them that is go and proselyte all the Gentile Nations without distinction of Country Sex or Age whatsoever make the Gospel-Church as large as you can Answ 1. Who is so blind as he who is not willing to see It is evident to all Men who understand what they read that none are to be baptized by the virtue and plain meaning of our Saviour's Commission but such only who are first made Disciples as I have proved or as St. Mark renders it such who believed And that 't is so I have already proved 1. From the Practice of Christ John 4.1 he first made Disciples and then baptized them 2. From the Practice of the Apostles who always required Faith and Repentance of such they by virtue of their Commission did baptize as Acts 2.37 8.27 10.47 3. From the Nature of the Ordinance it self it being a sign of that inward Grace the Person baptized ought to have 4. From the Nature of the Gospel-Church it being only built up of living Stones and to be no larger than Christ appointed it But say you pag. 27. doubtless had our Saviour here intended the exclusion of Infants out of the Visible Church he would have acquainted her with this Alteration Christ being faithful to him that appointed him as was Moses in all his House Heb. 3.2 Answ I must retort it back upon you with much better Reason Doubtless say I had our Saviour intended the admission of Infants he would at this time have acquainted his Disciples and so us that it was his Will they should be received since as you well say he was so faithful and the rather because he commanded his Disciples to receive into his Church such who were taught or made Disciples When he commanded Abraham to circumcise his Male-Infants Abraham knew well enough he was not to circumcise his Females though he received no Negative Law in the case What is not commanded I say again is forbid especially in all Instituted Worship or else whither shall we run Thus your first Proof is gone having nothing in it 2. Baptizing Infants appears in the Christian Church you say from the Practice of the Apostles who baptized whole Families i. e. Lydia and her Houshold Acts 16.15 the Jaylor and all his c. Answ 1. If there were no Families or Housholds but in which there are some Infants you might have some pretence for what you infer from hence but how palpable is it that there are every where many whole Families in which there is no Infant or Child in Non-age and this being so what certain Conclusion or Consequence can be drawn from hence 2. Besides you know by a certain Figure called a Synecdoche a part is put for the whole as Isa 7.2 5 8 9. the Tribe of Ephraim is put for all Israel 'T is said All Jerusalem and Judea went out to be baptized by John in Jordan In 1 Sam. 1.21 22. the Text saith expresly The Man Elkanah and all his House went up to offer unto the Lord yet in the next Verse 't is as expresly said That Hannah and her Child Samuel went not up and yet 't is said all his House went up 3. As touching the Jaylor's House 't is positively said Paul preached to him and to all that were in his House do you think he preached to his Infants if he had any And to put the Matter out of doubt 't is said He rejoiced believing in God with all his House as well as 't is said He was baptized and all his 4. And as touching Lydia we still say 't is uncertain whether she was a Maid Widow or Wife but if she was married and had Children 't is very unlikely if Babes that they were at that time with her because she was far from her proper Dwelling nay many Miles from it for she was of the City Thyatira vers 14. but when Paul preached to her she was at Philippi where she was merchandizing being a seller of Purple Can we suppose she carried her little Babes so far to Market Besides those of her House were called Brethren who were baptized with her therefore sure Children cannot be here meant vers 40. Will you Sir build your practice of baptizing of little Babes from such uncertain Conclusions when 't is uncertain whether she had Children or no or if she had whether they were with her at that time or not Our denying of it is as good as your affirming it yet 't is plain she had Servants or some who are called her Houshold therefore that is impertinent you mention in p. 28. And thus it appears to all impartial Persons that there is nothing in your second Proof touching the Practice of the Gospel-Church here 's no mention made of one Infant baptized nor the least Colour of Reason to conclude there were in those Families But you in the next place put us upon searching the Scripture to prove a Negative i. e. that there were none baptized in Infancy you might as well bid us search and see if we can find there were not one Infant who broke Bread or were not ordained an Elder or Pastor of a Church How can we prove they did not make use of Honey
to God after that we are renewed through Christ those amongst us that are instructed in the Faith and believe that which we teach them is true being willing to live according to the same we do admonish to fast and pray for Forgiveness of Sins and we also pray with them And when they are brought by us into the Water and there as we were new born are they also by new Birth renewed and then in calling upon God the Father the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit they are washed in Water c. This Food we call the Eucharist to which no Man is admitted but only he that believeth the Truth of the Doctrine being washed in the Laver of Regeneration for Remission of Sins and so liveth as Christ hath taught and this saith Mr. Baxter is you see no new way '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 understanding Persons baptized in this Age that is to say in the 2 d Century Walafrid Strabo Eccl. Hist c. 26. Vicecom l. 1. c. 30. Tertullian in his Book of Baptism speaking of that Text Suffer little Children to come unto me saith 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 mayst appear to have given it to him Dr. Taylor saith thus The Truth of the Business is as there was 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 Canon that was made in the Milevetan 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 tho that is no Argument for us to think so yet none of them ever pretend 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 accompanied 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 pag. 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 pitiful 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 riper Age. And as touching Origen's Works and many more of the Ancient Fathers there is great cause to doubt about them because as Mr. Perkins notes no Greek Copies thereof are extant and many other Books said to be written by such and such Fathers are spurious and never wrote by them See Perkins Great Basil in his Book of the Holy Spirit Chap. 12. saith Faith and Baptism are the two Means of Salvation inseparably cleaving together for Faith is perfected by Baptism but Baptism is founded by Faith and by the same Names 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 unto 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-Veil on Act. cap. 8. p. 278. Zonaras saith The Babe will then need Baptism when it can chuse it Gregory Nazianzen in his 4 th Oration saith Dr. Du Veil Of those who die without Baptism gives us an Instance in those to whom Baptism was not admitted by reason of Infancy And the same Nazianzen though he was a Bishop's Son being a long time bred up under his Father's Care was not saith the said Doctor 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 John of Antioch called afterwards Chrysostom was born of Christian Parents as the truer Opinion is tutored by the famous Bishop Meletius 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 12 th 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. Duveil ' saith The Primitive Churches did not Baptize Infants See Grotius his Notes on the Gospel Nay saith the same great and Learned Writer it doth most plainly appear by the right of baptizing used 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 Infant 's Name a clear distinct Confession of Faith is required which the same Surety rehearseth in the Infant 's 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 Doctor to prove of old the Persons who were to be baptized asked themselves Baptism in their own
him in Jordan Hence they call John the Baptist John the Dipper In vers 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 Baptisma 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. Your Church also in the Common-Prayer saith Dipping into the Water is the proper as I conceive signification of the Word 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 were none of the Subjects Christ commanded to be dipt in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit 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. VIII Proving that to baptize is to dip or plunge the Body all over into the Water from the Practice of the Primitive Gospel-Days I Have 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 ancient manner of Baptizing was that the whole Body was dipp'd into the Water So saith the Assembly in their Annotations Nay 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 Aenon near Salim viz. because there was much Water John 3.23 But you strive to contradict the Holy Ghost by making People believe there was not much Water in that place p. 59. Because the Original reads not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much Water but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Waters that is say you many Streams or Rivolets Answ What difference is there between much Water and many Waters If they were Streams and Rivolets though not deep yet if they were but a little while stopp'd with a Dam they would soon rise to be deep enough to swin 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 be-because intimating plainly that the Ordinance could noâ— 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 say you Sandy's Travels tells us that they were so shallow as not to reach above the â—â—kles Answ 1. Must we believe God's Word or a lying Traveller the Scripture saith there was much 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 your 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 for your seeking after this manner to contradict the Sacred Text to defend your childish Practice of Rantism you 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 therefore a little Water will not serve to baptize in 2. 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 it 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 dipp'd into Jordan and that is and was the Act and nothing else be sure 3. They went down both into the 〈◊〉 both Philip and the Eunuch Acts 8. What 〈◊〉 had there been for them so to have done had Baptism been Sprinkling Sure Philâ—â— would not have put that Noble Person who was a Man of great Authority under Candace 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 you and they make void the Command of Christ by your 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 Churches part to cleave to the Institution which is Dipping especially it being not left 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 disorder'd Error if he cleave not to the Institution O what abundance of the 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
rantized who are baptized afterwards when they believe are not rebaptized as you affirm nor do they renounce their Baptism though they do renounce the Practice and humane Tradition of Sprinkling 2. All you pious Parents bless God for Christ and the Gospel and for all those Priviledges he hath bestowed upon you and be sure make God's Word your Rule and tremble to do any thing in his Worship without lawful Authority from him I mean Precept or Example from his Word and do not adventure to baptize much less to rantize your Children whatever Mr. Burkit or any Man on Earth says unless you can find it written in your Bibles God hath not commanded you to bring them into a Baptismal Covenant not made any Promise of Blessing to assist them to perform it If you do so consider what I have said in this Treatise about that devised and unwarrantable Covenant by which you may heap up Guilt upon your selves and lay such a Load and Burden on your Children that you are not aware of and frighten them with the Thoughts of Perjury c. sufficient to drive them into Despair when indeed God never will charge them with Perjury since he never commanded them to enter into any such Covenant Can any Body think when your Children are grown up and they by Light received from God's Word should be convinced they were never baptized at all and so renounce their Infants Rantism that they thereby become guilty of Perjury and must be damned Do not these Men teach such a kind of Doctrine as that is 2 dly 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 or godly Counsel and Admonitions but dread to sprinkle them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost because 't is not done by his Authority nor Appointment Know 't is not in the Power of Man by any external Rite to make your Children Members of Christ or visible Members of his Body Baptism is not Bread for Infants but for Christ's new-born Babes not for your Children as such but such who are the Children of God who are born of his Spirit 3 dly Don't deceive your poor Children and make them believe they are in a good Condition by reason they are the Seed of believing Parents and baptized as these Men call it and so look out for no further Work of Grace nor Regeneration but think they by that pretended Baptism were made Christians even Children of God Members of Christ and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven when in Truth 't is no such thing Nor have you any Cause to doubt but that your Infants who die though not baptized are happy as it appears from what we have said Neither be ye so ignorant to believe Baptism can save your Infants or the Adult either nor let poor Children cry out against their ungodly Parents as Mr. Burkit intimates they may do in pag. 62. Take a Taste of his strange Doctrine thus he says Before your Children are born 1. 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 â— God in Covenant with you and then you may comfortably hope he will be the God of your Seed in their Generations Answ This is a way to bring poor Souls into Covenant that God speaks nothing of in his Word You may be in Covenant and your Children never in it whilst they live nay die out of the Covenant as doubtless many godly Peopleâ— Children do Nor hath God made such a Covenant with every Christian Man and their Seed as he made with Abraham who was the Father of all that Believe but so are not you nor I though we are in Covenant with God and walk in Abraham's steps Those who are in the Election of Grace of your Seed never fear God will interest in his due time with all Covenant-Blessings and Privileges but if any of them are not comprehended in that Election of Grace they being born of your Loins will not cannot bring them into Covenant with God Your Business and your Childrens too is to make your and their 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 Gospel Covenant that God may be your God and their God But mark Mr. Burkit's next words p. 62. O! were but Infants capable of Knowledg how much would they dread being born of wicked Parents Make it your Endeavour before your Children are born to sanctify your Children this is done by Prayer c. Answ 1. This is enough to set Children against their ungodly Parents nay to 〈◊〉 them in their Hearts Alas the Children of wicked Parents I see not but they may be iâ— as good a Condition as the Children of Believers for doubtless God will not destroy poor children for the Fâ—â—â—t and Sins of their Parents 〈◊〉 by your begetting them though gracious you cannot live them so you by begetting them though wicked cannot damn or destroy them There is no reason saith Mr. Perkins that the wickedness of the Parents should prejudice the Child in things pertaining to Eternal Life 2. But if it be aâ— you say that when you are in Covenant your Children are in Covenant doubtless they are in a safe Condition and Baptism to them is 〈…〉 cannot bring them into the Covenant becaâ—â—â— they were in it beâ—â—â—e and therefore 〈◊〉 enough 3. But may not thâ—â— Doctrine puâ—â— just Rebuke â—â—on Unbelievers or Ungodly Persons for once attempting to Marry and beget Children that are in such a sad Condition by reason their Pareâ—â—s were not â—n Covenant wâ—â—â— God! Ought 〈◊〉 nay may they lawfully Mâ—rry this being considered and such dreaâ—â—ul 〈◊〉 following â—â—â—sider how far doth thâ— Covenant Blessing exâ—end If my Grand father in Covâ—â—â—nt â—ho my Fathe◠〈…〉 bâ— very wicâ—ed and ungodly Persons am I not still in Covenâ—â—t and are not my Children iâ— Covenant too Nay if 〈◊〉 was by my Great-Grandfather will not that do as well as if my moâ—◠〈◊〉 Father was in Covenant with God Sir The Opposers of Pedo-â—â—ptism do not creep out of Darkness and 〈…〉 as you scandalously affirm but God hath graciously brought us out of the Darkness you are in and hath given us blessed be his Name the Knowledg and Light of his Word and what his Good-will and Pleasure is in this Matter and mercifully vouchsafed to us a gracious Freedom and Liberty to worship him â—â—cording to our Light and Consciences which â—ou seem troubled at and we are not ashamed to shew our Heads on the House-top nor do we scandalously dip our deluded Proselytes as you with Envy and Prejudice enough say but do at Noon-day to the Honour of God aâ—â— in justification of his Wisdom