Man think that our blessed Saviour who declared all things plainly from his Father and was faithful as a Son over his own House would leave any positive Law or Precept of the Gospel so dark that there is no way to understand it but by Consequences 2. But secondly our main Objection lies against your pretended Consequences for we positively deny that any of your Inferences or Consequences which you bring to prove Infant-Baptism do naturally follow from the Scripture-Texts to which you refer or from whence you draw them and blame us not since your own Brethren such too as Dr. Hammond Dr. Taylor Bishop of Down c. do affirm that those Scriptures from whence you draw your Consequences for this Practice are not naturally drawn therefrom but are very uncertain and doubtful if you know not this it will appear you have read but little of them 3. As touching Prayer that is a Branch of Natural Religion or a Moral Duty and therefore quite different from this the Controversy is about yet that it is positively enjoined and commanded in the Gospel also we deny not Pray always pray without ceasing and for every thing give Thanks What can be more plain Besides we sin not if we pray thrice a day or seven times a day therefore Prayer is unadvisedly and improperly mentioned by you upon this account 4. As touching Womens receiving the Lord's-Supper that is proved more than by Consequences Let a Man examine himself i. e. Man or Woman for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek and Adam in the Hebrew signify There is one Mediator between God and Man Is not the Woman comprehended as clearly as the Man Are not Male and Female all one in Christ Jesus Gal. 3.28 And as we have lately told your caviling Brethren the Athenian Society did you never read of the Figure Sylepsis or Conceptio that comprehends the less worthy under the more worthy indignioris sub digniore As for Example Quid tu soror facitis ego mater miseri perimus tu uxor qui adfuistis testes estete and is no less true in Divinity See that full Text 1 Cor. 6.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they two shall be one Flesh Mary the Mother of Jesus and the other good Women who were Christ's Disciples were of the number of the hundred and twenty Disciples who brake Bread with the three thousand that were added to them Acts 2. 'T is said Acts 8.12 They were baptized both Men and Women Now such a Consequence as this we deny not viz. Women were Disciples Women were baptized and therefore broke Bread for all who were true Disciples of Christ and baptized had an undoubted Right to the Lord's-Supper Bring us such Grounds and Consequences for your Infant-Baptism and Church-Membership and we will contend with you no more But to satisfy the Reader more fully as to this I desire him to see Mr. Danvers Answer to Mr. Blindman 5. As to the first day of the Week being the day appointed for Christians to observe under the Gospel in the Worship and Service of God we have Proof enough without Consequences Sir we always affirm an Apostolical Practice or a Gospel-Precedent is of like nature and of equal Authority with a Gospel Precept Do we not read Acts 2.1 2. that when the day of Pentecost was fully come the Disciples were all gathered together with one accord in one place which was the first Day of the Week And was not this their assembling on that day as the day of the Christian Sabbath ratified and confirmed from Heaven by that wonderful Effusion of the Holy Ghost or extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit And is it not said Acts 20.7 the Church came together on the first Day of the Week to break Bread And doth not the Apostle exhort the Church at Corinth 1 Cor. 16.1 2. upon the first Day of the Week to make Collections or to gather and lay in store for the Poor as he had given Orders to the Churches of Galatia this they could not do if they met not on that Day And what tho we cannot prove without Consequences that he who was the Lord of the Sabbath did change the Day c seeing we have such plain and express Examples or Precedents for the Observation of the first Day of Week and none but that in the times of the Gospel Therefore now we say 6. Could you give us but one Example one Precedent in all the New Testament that any one Infant was baptized we would give up the Cause but as you can give us none so you cannot give us any Consequences that without the abuse of the Scripture naturally flow from the Texts to which you refer therefore all this stir in mentioning these particular Cases are remote to your Business and prove nothing they being not like parallel Cases to yours But to come to your Argument for Infant-Baptism which you would have to run parallel with that for Womens receiving the Lord's-Supper I will repeat them both and then reply to the last All Christ's Disciples ought to partake of his Supper Women are Disciples therefore to partake of his Supper You proceed All Christ's Disciples ought to be baptized but some Children are his Disciples therefore to be baptized 1. I deny your Minor you say some Children are Disciples the Scripture you bring to prove it is Acts 15.1 8 10. Answ That Scripture proves no such thing the Yoke that was laid on the Neck of those Disciples were Men or Adult Persons or Gentile Saints they were such Disciples those false Brethten would have laid the Yoke of Circumcision upon 2. A Disciple is one taught or instructed as the genuine and proper Signification of that word holds forth but Infants have no Understanding and therefore are not able to be made Disciples by teaching Your second Proof is their Parents Dedication of them to Christ I answer Parents have no Warrant from God's Word to dedicate their Children to Christ by Baptism nor doth that Dedication infuse any Divine Habits into them or the least Light Knowledg or Understanding therefore that Dedication cannot render them to be Disciples Your third Proof is Christ's gracious Acceptation of them at their hands Answ I answer Christ only laid his Hands upon some Children who were brought to him and blessed them but this doth not prove they are Disciples or that he baptized any Infant But more of this hereafter I proceed to your second grand Argument Pag. 8. CHAP. II. Wherein the grand Argument for Infant-Baptism taken from the Covenant made with Abraham is fully confuted Proving the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Grace wherein both Mr. Burkit and the Athenian Society are clearly answered The Legal Covenant and Fleshly Seed being under the Gospel both cast out the Plea for Pedo-baptism from the old Covenant-Right is vanquished I Come now to examine your second grand Argument for the Baptism of Infants
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
Name of the Father c. he had no cause to fear or doubt of any Harm 3. I have known sickly and weak Persons baptized in this colâ— Climate and yet received not the least hurt thereby Your second Text is Acts 16.33 where 't is said The Jaylor was baptized the same Hour of the Night and Paul newly washed of his Sores by his Stripes Answ This is such silly reasoning that 't is not worth naming He was not so sore but he might go into the Water to baptize the Jaylor and those in his House And though in the same Hour of the Night it was done also What of that might there not be a River or Pond near his House Sir this must be believed since Baptism is Immersion and you are filled with Prejudice and Incredulity if you believe it not 3. The other Text is that of 3000 baptized in the same day Acts 2.41 Can any Body believe in or near Jerusalem that great City there was not Water enough to baptize so many Persons And could not the twelve Apostles and the seventy Disciples dip more than 3000 Persons in one day Sir 't is enough the Holy Ghost says they were baptized that is Dipped not Rantized therefore you do but go about to contradict the Holy Spirit and fight with your own Shadow Your fourth Argument against the Necessity Dipping is taken from the difficulty of the thing in some Countries in regard they have not you say scarce Water enough to drink not a River or Brook in many miles 2. In regard of the danger of the thing doubtless say you our Saviour who prefers Mercy before Sacrifice allows the Administration of the Ordinance in such a way as is consistent with his Peoples Lives which must in some Countries especially at some Seasons of the Year be in extream danger c. Mentioning an Act made by the Senate at 〈◊〉 in Switzerland That if any Anabaptist dipp'd any of their People he should be punish'd with drowning Answ 1. You should have told us what Countries they are who have not Water enough to baptize People in I know generally 't is said by Writers that those Countries that are without Water are unhabitable 2. But if they have Rivers or Ponds though not in a 〈…〉 no doubt such who are convinced 't is their Duty to be baptized by Christ's Commission would never stick at their labour to go forty or fifty Miles to have it done for 't is said by some Writers our Saviour went above forty Miles to be baptized of John in the River Jordan 3. As to the Danger we say what you affirm is â—â—lse 〈◊〉 thousands in this Nation by their own Experience and Knowledg can justify there is no Danger at all attending the Dipping or Baptizing the Adult who profess Faith in Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 although it be done in the sharpest or coldest Season of the Year many thousands of Persons of both Sexes and some ancient others weak and sickly have been baptized in very cold Weather and yet we do challenge all the World to bring an Instance of any Harm any one Person ever received thereby And since the Bodies of Infants cannot bear it 't is a good Argument they were not the Subjects Christ intended c. 4. Might not the Jews have pleaded for such a kind of Circumcision as I mentioned before as the pairing the Nails of their Childrens Fingers and not to cut the Foreskin of their Flesh with the same Argument you speak of viz. God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice for you know who said A bloody Husband thou art to me because of this Circumcision 5. May be there were such wicked Men at Zurick in Switzerland who might make such an Act That such who baptized People should be drown'd Answ What then we have had as bad Acts here also in England or worse who made an Act That those who held such Doctrine which they call'd Heresy should be burn'd And others of later Date That such who assembled together above the number of Five to Preach or Pray should be Fined Imprisoned or their Goods taken away 'T is no marvel to hear of such a Law wicked Men always hated Christ's Truth and People Your fifth Argument against Dipping is a terrible one indeed if true viz. Because it has a tendency towards the breach of the 6 th and 7 th Commandment Thou shalt not Kill Thou shalt not commit Adultery You positively assert That Baptism by Dipping of some Persons and in some Places may expose to all those Hazards and infallibly destroy and make an end of thousands Answ As to the Sin of Murder what I have now said it appears it has no tendency to that and therefore you shew a most unjust and malicious Spirit against Christ's Sacred Institution by what you speak here not one Soul was ever destroyed thereby that ever you heard of or I either True should you baptize Infants who are not the Subjects you may fear it might destroy them indeed and it would be a presumptuous Act so to do because not commanded but you may be sure God will own his own Ordinance And us to what you speak concerning Adultery that shews the like envious bitter and vile Temper who do you charge can't you take a Woman by the Hand without having unclean Thoughts in your Heart Those whom we baptize have decent Clothes upon them Therefore this Practice of ours according to our Saviour's Institution cannot endanger our own nor our Neighbour's Chastity as your slanderous Pen says Pag. 56. we performing the Ordinance with all Gravity and Modesty imaginable before many Witnesses But then say you the Clothes are baptized What then were not Grave-Clothes always buried with the Person that was laid in the Grave Or doth it follow because the Clothes were buried the Body of the Man or Woman was not buried also If you pour Water on the Face of a Child the good Women will tell you you will baptize the Child's fine Clothes also nay have you never sprinkled or rantized the Childrens fine Clothes or Dresses when you as you call it have baptized them But who do you by arguing thus reflect upon and reproach is it not the holy and ever blessed Jesus who gave forth the Law i. e. to dip Believers or to plunge them in Water in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and do you not acknowledg in the Primitive Times and in hot Countries Baptism was done by Dipping Why then pray consider do you think they were in those times baptized naked if so may you not charge them with the Sin of Adultery as you do in a wicked and ungodly manner charge us We read of Women in the Scripturâ— who were baptized that is as we have proved dipped Therefore Sir there is no need to endeavour further to prove they were dipped for if the Word had been truly translated according to the literal genuine and proper
Signification thereof we should have read it they were dipped both Men and Women Acts 8.12 and so the Dutch have translated it in their Language Maer do sy Philippo getrofden die Euangeliam van het koninckrycke Godts ende van don name Jesus Christi verkondigh de wier den sy de doopt begde manan endevrouwen In English thus When they heard Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ they were dipped both Men and Women But you say that which may be lawful and modest in one Country may be sinful and immodest in another c. Answ Did not our Lord Jesus Christ send his Disciples to Teach and Baptize in all Countries not to Rantize in cool Countries and baptize in hot And dare you without blushing say or intimate 't is immodest and a sinful thing to do what he hath commanded in any one Country in the World because it may be possibly censured condemned or accounted so by the Sons of Belial wicked and ungodly Men and Women Besides have you not granted the Case so far that in hot Countries they did dip pray was not that a hot Country was it not in Judea the same Country our Saviour lived when on Earth By what you say here it may appear that you say and unsay the same thing and seem to deny any were baptized in and about the Land of Canaan by dipping or any where else tho you contradict all the Learned both the Greek and Latin Fathers and all thâ— eminent Divines Bishops and Doctors I have quoted out of their Writings I even am sick of such an impertinent Antagonist As to your sixth and last Argument That God hath blessed and highly honoured the Administration of your way of Babes Rantism to the Comfort and Advantage of Multitudes Answ 'T is wholly without Proof or Demonstration and nothing but a bold presumptive and rash Assertion of your own God has suffered it long 't is true as he hath some other human Rites and Traditions but you cannot prove he has blessed either it or them to any one Soul's profit And when did God ever honour Infant-Baptism for formerly they were baptized i. e. dipped God did honour the Baptism of the Adult highly when our Saviour being ' about thirty Years old was baptized by John for the Heavens were opened and a Voice heard This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased and the Holy Ghost came down upon him And so in Acts 8.12 14. those Men and Women who believed and were baptized the holy Spirit was given unto nay and so highly hath God honoured the baptizing of Believers that there is a Promise of Forgiveness of Sâ—â— and of the receiving the holy Spirit nay of Salvation made to them that believe and are baptized Acts 2.37 38. Mark 16.16 But there is no Promise made to Infants that are Baptized much less to such who are but only Rantized 1. As to your Objection in Pag. 57. about the Dutch rendering baptizing dipping 't is not their Annotators but 't is their Translators and that too from the literal and proper Signification of the Greek Word therefore you say nothing to weaken what we have said upon that account 2. And as touching what you speak i. e. that in Pag. 57. viz. That Baptism signifies the Death and Burial of Christ we and a Cloud of Witnesses therefore say that 't is Dipping because that is a most lively Representation of his Death Burial and Resurrection But you say Baptism may signify the Death of Christ and be so administred as lively to represent the Death of our Saviour without the exposing those who are baptized to the danger of Death and may signify Christ's Burial too without sending the Person baptized to his Grave even in Sprinkling there is a plain Representation of Christ's Death for the pouring forth of the Water not unfitly represents the pouring forth the Earth upon the dead Body Answ If you did pour Water upon the Child indeed until it was quite buried or covered all over in Water you had said something tho that is not the way of baptizing neither but dipping or plunging yet that would I must confess represent a Burial But is the dead Body buried so soon as a handful of Earth is poured upon him if you should say it no body would believe you the Body must be covered under the Earth before it can be said to be buried and so must the Person baptized be covered under the Water or 't is not baptized for as otherwise there is no actual Burial in the first so there is no Representation of a Burial in the second But say you if you will closely follow the Metaphor of a Burial in all Particulars then as the Person buried is altogether passive and laid in the Grave only by others in like manner the Party baptized say you ought to put neither Foot nor Leg nor Thigh into the Water but the Dipper ought to take him up in his Arms and lay his entire Body into the Water c. Answ Are you not blame-worthy to write after this sort O that you were more wise and dreaded the holy Majesty of God! Is it not said They went both down into the Water both Philip and the Eunuch and he that is Philip baptized or dipped him this is the Rule not to take the Person up into our Arms yet 't is the Administrator notwithstanding that buries the Person in the VVater his going into it himself doth not baptize him tho he should go in as high as his VVaste but the Administrator does it You know Metaphors do not go as we use to say on all four nor must they be strained further than the design and purport of the holy Spirit but you by sprinkling destroy and utterly make void that sacred Allusion of the Holy Ghost which is not to be born with Baptism is no Representation of a Burial at all if Sprinkling be it And if you have heard that some have been kept so long under the VVater till as you say almost choaked or buried alive I suppose 't is not the first Untruth you have heard In Pag. 58 and 59. about Christ's not being baptized till thirty Years of Age you say Christ was circumcised at eight days old and altho he was not baptized in his Infancy yet he was baptized in the Infancy of Baptism also you intimate that some expound the words for his coming up out of the Water that the Situation of the River Jordan was beneath the place where John was teaching Answ Circumcision was then in force now 't is gone therefore in that Christ could not be an Example for us but in Baptism which is an Ordinance of the New Testament he is our Example and Pattern as his Precept is our Rule in that we should follow his Steps 2. And let me tell you if it was in the Infancy of Baptism you mean the
beginning of the Practice of it you hereby contradict what you have said about those Jewish Baptisms which you say were long in use before our Saviour's time and from hence he spoke so little of Infant-Baptism if it were so how was this in the Infancy of Baptism 3. Then was the Ordinance in its Beauty and Primitive Purity indeed in its Virgin Glory and it was soon after the Apostles time corrupted as well as other Truths were We ought to go to the Original Copy to the Primitive or first Institution and Practice Is not Christ's Precept our only Rule and his own Practice our sure and certain Pattern VVere not the Saints to keep the Ordinances and commanded so to do as they were first delivered to them As to the Situation of the River Jordan is a Figment 't is not said he came up from the VVater but that he came up out of the Water therefore had been in it 4. As to what you say that John baptized in Aenon because there was much Water that the word signifies many Waters I have answered that already but take one word or two more here True the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies many Waters but not little Rivolets but rather the tumultuousness and raging of the Seas which fully signifies the abundance and confluence of Waters contrary to what you affirm See Rev. 14.2 where you have the same original words so Rev. 19.6 5. And lastly as to your Arguments against re-baptizing I pass them over you might have saved your self that Pains for we as I told you before are as much against re-baptizing as you can be or for any to renounce their true Baptism your Arguments therefore in that are good And now from the whole take two 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 Subiects 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 â—â—wness of Life therefore Infants are not the Subjects thereof 4. There is yet one Proof further to make it yet clearer that Baptism is Immersion 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 Sin wherein the Fathers were buâ—â—ed 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 Persons going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea the great Receptable 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 seemed 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 Knatchbul 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 though 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 5. And lastly That Baptism is Dipping or Plunging or a being buried in the Water appears by those metaphorical Baptisms we read of which are two-fold 1 st The Baptism of the Holy Spirit 2 dly The Baptism of Afflictions 1. Saith John 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 Effusion 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 seemed like a Fish-Pond because it was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost 2. We read of the Baptism of Afflictions I have a Baptism to be baptized with and how am I straitned till it be accomplished From the literal Signification of the word baptizo immergo 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 deep Waters Hence great Afflictions are called Waves Thy Waves 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 Signification of the Greek word baptizâ— which signifies to dip then Sprinkling is not baptizing but thâ— former is true Ergo Sprinkling is not baptizing CHAP. X. Containing some brief practical Vse of the whole with seasonable Counsel to Parents c. 1. FRom hence I infer that those who have only been sprinkled or
though it be granted that 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 Infant 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 a 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 they 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 Type 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 Type 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 the hands of his Disciples baptize many Persons nay more Disciples than John as it is said Joh. 4.1 2. And was not Circumcision them 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 thâ— 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 â—ccording 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 Since I wrote this Answer to what you have said touching Circumcision 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 takâ— as here 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 into the place and room of Circumcision then Baptism belongs to them that Circumcision belonged to but the Antecedent is true therefore the Consequence 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 place 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 Act. 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 John 4.1 2. before Circumcision of right ceased 3. It may be understood as if Baptism did succeed into 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 〈◊〉 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 any 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 and also risen together through the Faith of the Operation of God that raised him from the Dead In some things Baptism doth not succeed into the place of Circumcision in respect of signification For 1. Circumcision did signify Christ to come of Isaac according to the Flesh Gen. 17.10 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 Rom. 3.1 but Baptism signifies that all that believe whether Jews or Gentiles are one in Christ Gal. 3.28 3. Circumcision signified that Moses his Law was to be observed Gal. 5.3 but Baptism doth
If the Image of God consisting in Holiness was received by the Soul in the first Creation without the Soul's Contribution to the Production of it Why may not the same Image of God be restored to the Soul in the second Creation without the Soul's Concurrence and Co-operation to the Restitution of it for why may not the Spirit of God produce in an Infant that imperfect â—egeneration whereof we are now speaking as well as he did that perfect Holiness in which our first Parents were originally created 1. I answer Were there not a dangerous Sting in the Tail of some of your impertinent Interrogations I might pass them all by without any further Answer than I have before given you Sir who questions the Power of God who is a free Agent and may do what he pleases He may 't is true regenerate an Infant or change the Nature of a Child in its Mother's Womb and may be doth change or regenerate the depraved Nature of those Infants who die in their Infancy but who knows what Infants they are he thus works upon and fits for Heaven Secret things I tell you again belong to him 2. But should God tell us which Infants Hearts and Natures he hath thus renewed yet that can be no ground or warrant to us to give them the Sacrament of Baptism no more than the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and you know well enough the first Fathers of the declining Church brought in Infant-Baptism to wash away that Pollution of their Nature or free them from the Guilt of Original Sin and also those Fathers gave the same Infants the Lord's Supper and had indeed as good Authority from God's Word to do the one as the other And assure your self they shamefully erred in both because both were done without any Warrant or Allowance from God But Sir how inconsistent are you with your self even just now you tell us that the Infants of Believers are in Covenant with God as well as their Parents and are therefore holy and from that ground ought to be baptized But now it seems as if that Argument was gone with you and notwithstanding that federal Holiness they are unclean and unless they have actually sanctifying Grace and their filthy Natures are changed they cannot be saved You just play the part of a Fencer and resolve to try your Skill with every Weapon one while you are a Presbyterian another time a Church-of England-Man But Sir speak doth Baptism change the Nature or regenerate the Child or doth it not the Seed which St. John speaks of he affirms remains in those Persons in whom it is wrought sow'd or infused see 1 Joh. 3.9 And no doubt was there indeed such a Divine Habit or Seed of Grace infused into Infants in their Baptism but it would appear in their Lives when grown up Such as is the Cause such is the Effect or Product that is produced i. e. if Regeneration was wrought in all the Infants you Rantize Holiness would be the Effect of it when they come to Age of Understanding but all Men see the contrary i. e. they shew their evil and unclean Natures as soon nay before they can speak plain therefore you preach false Doctrine if you affirm that Baptism renovates or changes their Nature Nay and were it so all that are baptized would be saved Shall one Soul who passes through Regeneration miss of Salvation Reverend Stephen Charnock tho a Pedo-baptist speaks more like a Divine and Logician than you do See his Book on Regenerat sol p. 75. saith he Many Men take Baptism for Regeneration the Ancients usually give it this term one calls our Saviour's Baptism his Regeneration this confers not Grace but ingageth to it outward Water cannot convey inward Life How can Water an external thing work upon the Soul in a Physical manner Neither can it be proved that ever the Spirit oâ— God is tied by any Promise to apply himself to the Soul in a gracious Operation when Water is applied to the Body If it were so that all that were baptized were regenerated then all that were baptized should be saved or else the Doctrine of Perseverance falls to the ground And again he says That some indeed say that Regeneration is conferred in Baptism upon the Elect and exerts it self afterwards in Conversion But how so active a Principle as a spiritual Life should lie dead and asleep so long even many Years which intervene between Baptism and Conversion is not easily conceivable So far Mr. Charnock 'T is well you call it an imperfect Regeneration Abortive or a Monster no doubt for Baptism forms no Child of God if it did how come Simon Magus who was baptized to miss of Regeneration Acts 8.13 And indeed this is an easy way to Heaven I mean if there is no need of further Regeneration than that poor Babes have in Baptism I know your Church saith that an Infant is made thereby a Child of God a Member of Christ and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven Sad Doctrine God deliver England from such Guides as teach the common People Nay all who will be led or taught by them that Baptism makes them Christians and so never teach them to look after any other Regeneration tho such whom you baptize as you call it if they live when they are grown up prove wicked and ungodly Persons or carnal Worldlings Sir take heed what you do lest the Blood of your deceived and miserable People be required at your hands Is not this to heal the hurt of your People slightly and to cry Peace Peace when there is no Peace This is the Sting I saw in the Tail of your Argument You ask many Questions Why may not this be so and Why may not that be so Who taught you thus to argue what do you prove But that which troubles me most is this viz. That after you have put forth these unlearned and weak Questions you draw Conclusions therefrom with daring Boldness after this manner viz. What an high Affront then do these Men give to the Omnipotency of the holy Spirit who affirm that it is as vain a thing to hope and pray that Almighty God should regenerate an Infant with his holy Spirit as to expect that he should illuminate a Stone or a Tree pag. 16. But say you if Infants are found capable Subjects of regenerating Grace and Remission of Sin as I hope appears then surely they are capable of Baptism for the outward visible Sign ought not to be denied to such as are capable of the inward spiritual Grace Answ 1. Sir you are to be rectified Do we deny the Omnipotency of the holy Spirit none of us never doubted of the Power of the Spirit in regenerating an Infant if he pleases so to do but you are to prove God doth do it and that by Baptism too for that 's the thing you seem to contend for which we deny we say God can of
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
meet that we being baptized into his Death and buried with him should rise also with him and to go on in a new Life Thus far Tilenus 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 those 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 Water 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 Water is that wherein the Body is plunged to wash away all Sin there all Sin saith he is 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 drowned 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 where 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 to any Men or Church a Dispensation to change his Laws and Ordinances or make them void by their Traditions or to set up their Post by his Post How doth God complain by the Prophet against his People of Old for presuming to change his Laws in 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 Altars should be made of Earth or rough Stone But in Isa 65.3 he reproves their horrid Transgression and Disobedience in acting contrary to his express Institution A People saith God that provoke me to Anger continually to my Face that sacrificeth in Gardens and burn 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 Alas you know not how you hereby provoke God although 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 further Witnesses against your Practice Daille on the Fathers saith That it was a Custom heretofore in the ancient Church to plunge those they baptized over Head and Ears in the Water as saith he Tertullian in his third Book De Cor. Mil. Cyprian in his seventh Ep. p. 211. c. and others testify Dr. Cave saith That the Party baptized was wholly immerged or put under the Water 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 Water his abiding under the Water and his rising up again thereby representing Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection And in our Conformity thereunto 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 puting 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 entring into a State of Death or Mortification like as Christ remained for some time under the State or Power of Death therefore it is said as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his Death c. And then by Emersion or rising up out of the Water is signified his entring 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 We are said saith Paraeus 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 Death and Burial Against all these Testimonies and multitudes more of the best and most learned Writers and plain Scriptures you in pag. 52. bring in your second Argument against Dipping Arg. 2. If Baptism administred by pouring Water on the Face represents the whole Person doth answer the Use and End of Baptism as well as when administred by Dipping or Plunging then Dipping is not essentially and absolutely necessary in the Act of baptizing But the one answers the Use and End of Baptism as well as the other therefore the one cannot be more necessary than the other What is the Use and End of Baptism but to represent to our Minds the Effusion of Christ's Blood for to take away the Guilt of Sin and the pouring forth of the Holy Spirit for the purging away the Filth of it Now say you 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 ad administred by Sprinkling than by Dipping If say you the inward and spiritual Grace signified by Baptism be more lively represented by Sprinkling than by Dipping then surely Sprinkling is not only as lawful but more expedient than Dipping but the
the Commission Mat. 28.19 Other kinds of coming unto Christ in the days of his Flesh than what may be said now Matth. 22.23 35. An Argument against Infant-Baptism from that Text Little Children were brought to Christ Like Reason for Infants receiving the Lord's Supper as to be baptized External federal Holiness gives no right to the Sacraments * This Passage of Mr. Goodwin I have out of Mr. Tombs his Book called Two Treatises p. 67. Mr. Cary's Solemn Call Part of Chap. 11. of the Romans opened This Scripture is to be understood by the main Scope and Drift of the Holy Spirit therein Meaning all the elect Seed or those Abraham was the spiritual Father of were holy The Holiness of the Root and Branches both one viz. true spiritual Holiness 2 Cor. 5.17 The Jews not called according to the Decree of God and his purpose who are in the Election of Grace are holy But one common Root or Father of Believers The Holiness of the Vnbeliever and Child all one and the same See Mr. Tombs Divers Fathers and learned Men assert the Holiness of the Child is meant of a Matrimonial Holiness the Child is legitimate Mr. Tombs You forgot all Ages of the World in your Minor may be you thought of the Ages before Abraham's time Dr. Owen A Passage worth noting Dr. Taylor Libert Proph. p. 242. There are many whole Housholds in which there are no Infants Lydia was far from her own dwelling when she was baptized A Negative is not to be proved 't is unreasonable to desire it Popish Rites not in the Negative forbid Multitude of Infants born to baptized Believers in the Gospel-Days yet we read of none of them on their Parents Faith were baptized Mr. Burkit's Proof of Infant-Baptism from Ireneus is by uncertain Consequence Some say this Council ordained it first 150 Years after Christ The Fathers that writ against Infant-Baptism Walaf Strabo Eccl. Hist c. 16. Vicecom l. 1. c. 30. No Infant-Baptism in the second Century Tertul. in his Book of Baptism cap. 18. Tertul. lived 200 Years after Christ Dr. Taylor Lib. Proph. p. 237. Ignatius Dr. Taylor 's Disswasive against Popery p. 118. Ludovicus Vives Perkins's Prepar of the Probl. p. 491. Great Basil in his Book of Bapt. cap. 12. Zonaras Greg. Nazianzen Grotius's Notes on the Gospel Dr. Du-Veil on Act. cap. 8. p. 282. Anno 311. Canon 6. Dr. Du-Veil on Acts cap. 8. p. 279. Curcaeleus Institut l. 16. c. 1. Athanasius in Serm. 3. contra Arianus Haimo Doctrina Baptismus praecedere decet Apostoli jubentur prius docere baptizare Super 19 cap. Act. Inde cretis de consecrat distinct 4. cap. Antebap Arnob. on Psal 146. Jerom. 400. Mr. Burkit's first Demonstration to prove Infant-Baptism in the days after the Apostles Mr. Burkit's 2d Demonstration to prove Infant-Baptism Mr. Burkit's third Demonstration to prove Infant-Baptism Mr. Burkit's fourth Demonstration to prove Infant-Baptism The Gospel-Churches did not own Infant-Baptism Mr. Burkit's Argument for Pedo-baptism from its long continuance in the World answered 2 Thess 2.3 M. Tomb ' s Anti-pedo-baptism p. 757 758. No Church infallible Infant-Baptism tho a great Error yet not a damning Error Mr. Dan. Williams in his Book called The Vanity of Youth p. 131. Mr. Williams worthy of blame as well as Mr. Burkit The Danger of Infants Baptismal-Covenant laid open Parents observe this well Pedo-Baptists say Infants in their Baptismal-Covenant promise Regeneration Faith c. Mr. Burkit leaves impious Parents without hope of the Salvation of their dying Infants Perkins on Gal. cap. 3. p. 256. Greater Zeal shewed for the Traditions of Men than for Christ's Institutions Micah 6.16 Infant-Baptism no ways useful but hurtful Perkins on Gal. p. 265. Gregory l. 1. Ep. 7. Dr. Du-Veil on Acts p. 86. Tertull. Dr. Du-Veil on Acts 2. p. 86. Perkins Vol. 1. p. 74. Instruct Hist n. 10. c. 14. n. 13. Scapula and Stephanus Wilson Scapula Stephens Grotius Pasor Vossius Mincaeus Casaubon Leigh's Critic Sacra Beza Rogers Dr. Du-Veil Wolfred Arch-bishop of Canterbury Dr. Du-Veil Concil Florent Sect. 9. c. 9. lib. of Infant-Baptism f. 693. Ductor Dubit l. 3. c. 4. numb 9. * St. Martin 's Life N. 16. Lib. de Initiandis Luther's Latin Tom. 1. Fol. 71. The Germans Testimony Dr. Du-Veil Bugenh in his Book printed in the German Tongue 1542. See Dr. Du-Veil on Acts 8. p. 286 287. Diatrib on Titus 3.2 Pan. Cathol Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 2. Pool 's Annotat on Joh. 3.6 Dutch Translation on Mat. 3.16 Assemblies Annotat. on Mat. 3. Reader mark this well Mr. Sam. Fisher Treatise of the Sacraments p. 1. chap. 5. Casaubon on Mat. 3.11 Cajetan on Mat. 3.5 Musculus on Mat. 3.5 Burkit's first Proposition His second Proposition His third Proposition His fourth Proposition His fifth Proposition His sixth Proposition Mr. Burkit's first Argument against Dipping Ainsworth his Annotat. on Levit. 11.32 Hence we read of thin Garments made for them Maim Mikvaoth c. 1. §. 1 2 21. Pool's Annotat Cajetan The Assembly's Annotat Tilenus in his Dispute p. 886 889. on Rom. 3 4. * Or Grave Ambrose Chrysostom Kecker Syst Theol. l. 3. c. 8. Daille on the Fathers l. 2 p. 148. Dr. Cave Paraeus upon Ursin p. 375. Bernard Mr. Burkit's second Argument against Dipping p. 25. of his Book answered Aquinas Sir Nort. Knatchbul in his Notes printed at Oxford 1677. Col. 2.12 1 Cor. 15.29 Ignat. Epist ad Tral id Epist ad Philadelph Justin Martyr Basil the Great Basil of Silencia Chrysostom Lactantius Bernard Perkins 2 Vol. cap. 3. on Gal. p. 257. 1 Vol. cap. 33. p. 74. His Sermon on Phil. 3.10 p. 9. Design of Christianity pag. 90. Charity without Vsury p. 1. Sermons preached on several Occasions 5th Edâ—â— p. 188 189. Rom. 6.3 4 See Dr. Du-Veil on Acts 8. p. 292 293. Calvin l. 4. c. 16. Zanchy on Col. 2.12 Mr. Burkit's third Argument against Dipping answered Mr. Burkit's fourth Argument against Dipping answered How far did some of the Jews go to worship God at Jerusalem Did Christ institute his Ordinance with respect had to the Custom of the Countrâ— The Land of Canaan is a hot Country Mr. Burkit's sixth Argument against Dipping answered Mat. 3.16 Luk. 3.23 'T is so read Reader in the Dutch Testament they have translated the Greek word and our Translators have not 1 Cor. 11.2 Typical Baptisms signify Dipping or Plunging 1 Cor. 10.2 Metaphorical Baptisms signify Dipping or Plunging Mat. 3.11 Casaubon See Philologia sacra p. 190. Matth. 20.22 23. Pool's Annotat on Mat. 20.22 Perkins on Gal. 3. p. 264. Burkit's Reflections on Mr. Tredwell answered The Athenians Answer 'T is a hard case Men must be reckon'd among Hereticks for asking a sober and pious Question The Aâ—henians Answer The Athenians Answer The Athenians Answer Consequences was not in our former Query The Athenians Answer The Athenians Answer The Athenians Answer
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 Casaubon 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 maintained 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 confess 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 Who 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 such as you with the scutillous Name of Anabaptist c. although we are as much against Rebaptizing as any People in the World can be The Learned Cajetan upon Matth. 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 Matth. 3. calls Baptism Dipping and saith the Parties baptized were dipp'd not sprinkled To close with this take one Argument If the Baptizer and the Baptized in the Days of Christ and his Apostles wenâ— both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipp'd 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 dipp'd Ergo Baptism is not Sprinkling but Dipping CHAP. IX 〈◊〉 Baptism is Dipping Plunging or Burying of the whole Body in Water in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost from the Spiritual signification of Baptism AS touching your last five Arguments against Rebaptizing I see no ground to except against what you say there only I shall take a brief view here of your six General Propositions p. 49. And as to you first I have and shall yet further make it appear that Dipping is not an Accident but an essential part of Baptism viz. 't is no Baptism at all if not done by Immersion or Dipping 2 ly Whereas you say the way or manner of applying Water is not positively determined in the Holy Scripture cannot be gathered either from the signification of the Word or from the significancy of the Ceremony Answ This as to the first part viz. as to the signification of the Greek word we have fully confuted and as to the significancy of the Ordinance we shall forthwith in this Chapter make most evidently appear 3 ly You say There is a probability that Baptism was administred in the Apostles Times by Immersion or Dipping so there is likewise a probability that it was done by Aspersion or Sprinkling Answ We have and shall yet further prove that there is not the least probability that in the Apostles time Baptism was ever administred by Aspersion but by Immersion You confess in hot Countries it was done by dipping and that that Country where they baptized 〈◊〉 which we read was a hot Country so that 〈◊〉 â—hat Reason by your own Argument they 〈◊〉 by Immersion and not by Aspersion 4 thly You say you do not oppose the Lawfulness of Dipping in some cases but the Necessity of Dipping in all cases Answ We have and shall prove the necessity of Dipping in all cases and that 't is no baptism at all if not so done let your Church say what she pleases 5 thly You say that none ought to put a Divine Institution upon any Rite at their own â—â—easure when it is in its own nature indifferent and consequently lay such stress upon dipping as to pronounce the Baptism of all the Reformed Churches throughout the World null and void ought to prove it an unchangable Rite Answ This makes against your self and all Pedo-baptists in the World How dare you change a Divine Institution of Jesus Christ change his Law and holy Ordinance and substitute another thing in its stead and room And if the Laws and Institutions of Christ in their own nature are not unchangeable what may not Men do and yet be blameless this opens a door to make all Christ's Institutions null and void But Sir we have shewed in this Treatise that for 1300 Years in most parts of the World Immersion was only used and some learned Pedo-Baptists have shewed that Rantism is utterly to be rejected as an Innovation and an insignificant Ceremony 6 thly That in the Sacraments it is not the Quantity of Elements but the Significancy of them that ought to be attended in Circumcision it was not the Quantity of Flesh cut off so much as the Signification of it c. Answ In the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper we grant 't is not the Quantity of Bread and Wine is to be observed if so be it be administred in that order and manner Christ hath ordained viz. to represent his Body broken and his Blood poured forth The like we will say also in Baptism we need not go where there is more Water than what will serve to baptize or dip the Person all over so that it may represent the Burial and Resurection of Christ which was the very thing it was appointed to hold forth or represent when administred 2. Should the People of Israel as I have shewed in Circumcision only have cut a little bit of the fore-skin of the Flesh and not round or quite off or only have paired off the Nails of the Childrens Fingers with a little Skin with it would that have answered the Mind of God in that Rite or they have been born with in pleading it might as well answer Circumcision in Signification The Vanity and Sinfulness of this Assertion you will see fully in this Chapter laid open and detected But I shall now proceed to your first Argument against Dipping Say you such an Application of Water in the Administration of Baptism as the Spirit of God in Scripture expresly calls baptizing is lawful and sufficient to the use in Baptism But sprinkling or pouring Water upon the Party baptized without Dipping is by the Spirit of God in divers Scriptures expresly called baptizing Therefore it is lawful and sufficient and Dipping is not necessary Answ