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
Truth of Christ O how are we beholden to the Jewish Talmud and Jewish Rabbins for our Infant-Baptism Nay which is worst of all how is Christ beholden to them for that rare Invention that had said so much for it and made it so common a Practice among them that it saved him the Pains to give the least Directions about it But is not this next to Blasphemy Can any Man in his right Wits think our Lord Jesus should confirm a vile Tradition and Innovation of the Jews or take His great Ordinance and Sacrament of Baptism from the superstitious fabulous and erronious Custom of their Doctors and Rabbins Besides was Baptism to be preached or practised by none but the Jewish People doth it not belong to the Gentiles too Did not our Saviour command his Disciples to go into all Nations and make Disciples and baptize them c. Was it his Mind that Infants should be baptized and yet say nothing of it because it was a common Custom and Practice among the Jews But Sir what must the Gentiles do to know this to be their Duty I mean those Gentiles who received the Christian Faith viz. that they ought to baptize their Children who did not know nor ever heard of that Jewish Custom Or dare you say our New Testament is not authentick or sufficient to teach us the whole of Gospel-Duties and Obedience without the Jewish Talmud You should not 't is plain only have said the New Testament is not without the Old the Rule of our Practice but also that the New Testament and the Old without the Jewish Talmud is not sufficient and then you had done your business at once Are you not ashamed thus to go about to blind and deceive the poor People Is not the whole Mind of Jesus Christ even all his Laws and Precepts or his whole Counsel plainly contained in his blessed Word But would you have People be wise above what is written and teach Men to reflect upon the Care and Faithfulness of the blessed Jesus in leaving out of the sacred Bible one great Truth of God and leave us to find it out by going to search the Jewish Traditions 4. If it was a Custom among the Jews it must be a sacred Custom I mean a Custom that God appointed and commanded them to observe or else a human Tradition or vain Custom If it had been a Mosaical Rite given by God himself to the Jews Christ besure abolished it and nailed it to his Cross with all its fellows and 't is gone for ever since he hath not given it out a new Take this Argument That Custom among the Jews that God never commanded nor is any where given by Moses unto them who was faithful in all his House was no Ordinance of God but a meer human Tradition But the Custom among the Jews of baptizing the Heathen and their Children who were admitted into their Church was never commanded of God nor any where given unto them by Moses who was faithful in all his House Ergo That Custom was no Ordinance of God but a meer human Tradition 5. Lastly take what a worthy and learned Author of your own Communion hath said in Confutation of this foolish and absurd Argument for Pedo-baptism 't is Sir Norton Knatchbull Knight and Baronet The thing saith he is uncertain that it cannot be said of the Rabbins that there were not several among them who differed very much about this matter for Rabbi Eliezar expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first that I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews for Rabbi Eliezar who was contemporary with Rabbi Joshua if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte circumcised and not baptized was a true Proselyte for so we read of the Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Jacob that they were circumcised but not baptized But Rabbi Joshua affirms that he who was baptized not he that was circumcised was a true Proselyte To whom shall I give Credit to Eliezar who asserts what the Scripture confirms or to Joshua who affirms what is no where to be found in Scripture But the Rabbins upheld Joshuah's side and what wonder was it for it made for their business that is for the Honour of the Jewish Religion that the Christians should borrow their Ceremonies from them But when I see Men of great Learning in these times fetching the Foundations of Truth from the Rabbins I cannot but hesitate a little For whence was the Talmud sent us they are the words of Buxtorf in his Synagoga Judaica that we should give Credit thereto that from thence we should believe that the Law of Moses either can or ought to be understood much less the Gospel to which they were profess'd Enemies For the Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors and the Foundation of Jewish Fables it was brought to Perfection and held for authentick five hundred Years after Christ therefore it is unreasonable to rest upon the Testimony of it And that which moves me most Josephus to omit all the Fathers that lived before the Talmud was finished who was a Jew and contemporary with Rabbi Eliezar who also wrote in particular of the Rites Customs and Acts of the Jews is altogether silent in this matter So that it is an Argument to me next to a Demonstration that two such eminent Persons both Jews and living at the same time the one should positively deny and the other makes mention of Baptism among the Jews Besides if Baptism in the modern sense were in use among the Jews in ancient Times why did the Pharisees ask John Baptist Why doest thou baptize if thou art not Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet do they not plainly intimate that Baptism was not in use before and that it was a received Opinion among them that there should be no Baptism till either Christ or Elias or that Prophet came So far the renowned Sir Norton Knatchbull in his Notes printed at Oxford Anno Dom. 1677. with the License of the Vice-Chancellor a very learned Man and a Son of the Church of England Sir what think you now of your Jewish Custom of baptizing the Heathens and their Children who were admitted to their Church Do you think there is not need that Infant-Baptism should be mentioned in the holy Scripture had it been a Truth Is this uncertain Story of the Jewish Custom sufficient for you to build your Faith and Practice upon when the Truth of the Story as to matter of Fact may justly be doubted but if it was true it is but a rotten Foundation to build one of the great Sacraments of Christ upon viz. a vile profane and human Tradition of the Jewish Rabbins I have been the larger on this matter because the Men you mention as Dr. Hammond Taylor and Lightfoot some People have in such Veneration who were the Persons you need not doubt the learned Sir Norton confuted and also because your Brethren the Athenian Society
declared all things plainly from the Father and was faithful as a Son over his own House 2. That which is not contained in his last Will and Testament in this and other matters is sufficient to declare his Mind and Will in the Negative And so you know 't is in all last Wills and Testaments among Men if it be not expressed in the Affirmative it needs not be expressed in the Negative and if not because 't is not forbidden it may be done so may a hundred things more nay many Jewish Rites and Popish Innovations too for where are they forbid The sum therefore of our Answer to all you say upon this account is this The Privileges which are Rites Ordinances or Sacraments are not so many as you would have or so many as the Jews of old had nor are they to be administred according as you fancy or approve of or according to your Reasonings but according to God's express Appointment Rightly doth Mr. Ball in his forementioned Book speak Posit 3 4. p. 38. But in whatsoever Circumcision and Baptism do agree or differ we must look to the Institution and neither stretch it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord had made it for he is the Instituter of the Sacraments according to his good Pleasure and it is our part to learn of him both to whom how and to what end the Sacraments are to be administered how they agree and wherein they differ in all which we must affirm nothing but what God hath taught us and as he hath taught us Were it not thus how could we deny or oppose the Papists seven Sacraments or condemn Salt Oil Spittle to be used in Baptism which they use in it seeing these are not forbid But well saith Tertullian Is it lawful because it is not forbidden 't is therefore not lawful because 't is not commanded You say Pag. 10. before you end this Argument Let me suggest one thing more to your Considerations namely What a mighty Stumbling-Block this Doctrine of the Anabaptists lays in the way of the Jews Conversion to Christianity Will this say you encourage a Jew's Conversion to embrace the Religion of Jesus to tell him of the high and glorious Privileges that he shall be interested in himself upon his believing on him but for his Children they are cast out Answ Did this stumble them in the Apostolical Days who were told that Circumcision availed nothing nor Vncircumcision the truth is if Circumcision availed nothing but was a Yoke of Bondage then why should that stumble them It might be a greater Stumbling-block in their way to tell them their Church-State and all their Privileges are now gone and now they must not look upon themselves better than the Gentiles no more Scepter in Judah no Land of Canaan no Temple no High-Priest the Levites Sons as such now no more Ministers no Succession of Priest-hood What of all this when they hear of better Privileges for them And that their Infants who die may go to Heaven tho not circumcised nor baptized and if they live to be Men and Women and do believe or God doth please to call them the Promise of Pardon of Sin and of the holy Spirit is to them and that they shall be saved Acts 2. 39. Are not they and all others told that old things are passed away and all things are become new c. 2 Cor. 5.16 Wherefore henceforth we know no Man after the Flesh it seems then that heretofore there had been a knowledg of Persons after the Flesh and 't is plain there was that because the Jews were of the natural or fleshly Seed of Abraham and were therefore all of them admitted to the Privilege of external Church-Membership while others were exempted But we see the Apostle resolves henceforth to disclaim any such Value Esteem Preference or Knowledg of them or any others upon the account of meer fleshly Descent And to this very purpose immediately subjoins in the following Verse Therefore if any Man be in Christ he is a new Creature old things now are past away and all things are become new the old Church and old Church-membership Privileges Rites and Ordinances and a new Church-State new Ordinances new Rites a new Seed and a new way of Introduction unto the participation of Gospel-Priviledges and Church-membership and if this should stumble them who can help it We know they have stumbled upon as bad Rocks as this Moreover denying Infants any right to Gospel-Ordinances cannot fill the Mouths of Jewish Children with clamorours and passionate Complaints against Christianity because they could not see Jewish Children had such benefit by Circumcision as you intimate no no they must yield to the Soveraign Will of the great Lord and plead for no more Privileges nor any otherwise than he sees good to ordain and appoint I am sure if what you say was true it is enough to fill the Mouths of poor Unbelievers Children among us who are Gentiles with clamorous Complaints against their Parents if they did regard what you say and doubtless there are more of them I mean more Children born of Ungodly Parents than such born of Godly Parents And what may they say and how may they expostulate their own Condition Alas alas sad is our State our Parents were wicked and ungodly People and we are by that means left of God to us belongs no Covenant no Sacraments nor hopes of Mercy God hath taken none but the Children of Godly Persons into Covenant We were baptized alas but had no right to it our Condition is as bad as the State of the Children of Pagans and Turks Sir if People did consider well the Purport of your Doctrine they must needs have their Hearts rise against you Nay all or most Children may be in a doubt whether their Parents were truly godly and so in Covenant or not for if not you must fly to some other Argument to prove their Baptism and Church-Privileges than that of their Parents being in Covenant True the case under the Law was another thing for if their Parents were Jews or the natural Seed of Abraham whether godly or not yet they knew they had right to those external Privileges And so much to your Absurdities and they are returned on your own Head In pag. 11. you lay down your Arguments to prove the Covenant made with Abraham was a Covenant of Grace 1. From the Language and Expression of it 2. From the Duration of it 3. From the Blessings by it 1. Your first Note is this The Language and Expression of it Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God unto thee and to thy Seed after thee Now say you is not this a pure Gospel-Phrase and shews it to be a Covenant with Abraham in Christ I pray how comes the Almighty God who upon the Breach of the Covenant of Works made with us in Adam became our enraged Enemy to be a God unto fallen Man any
than that of the Adult that it is a dangerous Error and therefore of no Use at all but the contrary viz. a very sinful thing 1. Reader can that be useful or any ways beneficial which Christ never commanded or required to be done in his Name but is unrighteously fathered upon him to the utter making void his own Ordinance of baptizing Believers 2. Can that have any Usefulness in it that brings Guilt upon the Parents in doing it making them guilty of Will-Worship or of a humane Tradition 3. Can that be useful that brings poor Babes into such a Covenant which Christ never ordained for them to enter into and to which they never directly nor indirectly consented nor approved of and which they are utterly unable to keep and which giveth them no Strength to perform nor is there one promise of God made to assist or help them to do it and yet for not keeping of it they are charged with Perjury with Self-murder nay with Hell and Damnation 4. Can that be of use to Infants that basely beguiles and deceives them causing them when grown up to think they were thereby made Christians and become the Children of God Members of Christ and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven nay regenerated and from hence never look after any other Work of Grace nor Regeneration but conclude all is well with them 5. Can that be a useful thing which the doing of is a palpable Alteration of the Words of Christ's Commission and so inverts that holy Order left by him for baptizing who requires none to be baptized before they are first taught and made Disciples 6. Can that be of any Use to an Infant which you nor no Man else can prove from God's Word to have any Use and Blessing in it to them 7. Can an humane Rite or Tradition think you save poor Children or a little Water sprinkled on the Face wash away Original Sin 8. Can Water beget Children to Christ or can that be useful to them which they have only the bare Sign of and not the thing signified viz. the Sign of Regeneration but not Regeneration it self a Sign of Grace but not Grace it self you give them the Shell but no Kernel the Name of Christian but no Nature of a Christian making that you call Christ's Baptism as Dr. Taylor saith á Sign without Effect and like the Figtree in the Gospel full of Leaves but no Fruit 9. Can that be useful that tends to make the Gospel-Church National and confounds the Church and the World together which ought to be Congregational a holy and separate People like a Garden inclosed 10. Can Baptism be more useful to Infants than to adult Believers notwithstanding the Scripture saith that the Person baptized doth not only believe but call upon the Name of the Lord Acts 22.16 can Infants do that 11. Can Infant-Baptism be more useful than that of Believers and yet Baptism an Ordinance of the Soul's Marriage with Christ And is not that as Mr. Baxter saith a strange Marriage where there is nothing signified of Consent And are Infants able so to do 12. Can Infant-Baptism be more useful than that of Believers and yet Baptism called the Answer of a good Conscience Can a little Babe answer a good Conscience by being baptized in Obedience to Christ and to shew forth his Death and Resurrection 13. Can Infant-Baptism be more useful than that of Believers Whereas the first has no Promise of God made unto it and yet the other hath many as Acts 2.36.37 38. Mark 16.16 14. Can that be a useful thing that frustrates the sacred and spiritual Ends of Baptism which we have shewed are many but as administred to poor Babes 't is rendred wholly of none Effect and an insignificant thing Lastly Mr. Perkins hints that Baptism signifies two things 1. Our Union with Christ 2. Our Communion with him Now how doth this appear in Infants as such as it does in Believers CHAP. VII Shewing that the Baptists are falsly called Anabaptists they being as much against rebaptizing as Mr. Burkit or any other Men or People whatsoever shewing that Infants who have only had a little Water sprinkled or poured on their Faces c. are not baptized but rantized Proving Baptism is Immersion and without the Person 's Body is dipped or covered all over in the Water he is not baptized from the literal genuine and proper Signification of the Greek Word Baptizo 1. IN Page 42 you say That you will endeavour to satisfy such who were baptized as you call it in their Infancy that they were rightly baptized 2. And that such who have been once duly and rightly baptized ought not to be rebaptized or baptized again Answ That which you say in the first Place we do utterly deny though we readily grant you what you say against rebaptizing for we are as much against it as you can be But to prove your first Proposition you proceed to shew the several Requisites necessary to denominate a Person rightly baptized 1. The Person baptizing ought to be a lawful Minister authorized and commissioned by Christ and the Governors of his Church 2. The Party baptized you say must be a Subject qualified for Baptism c. 3. That the Element made use of must be Water 4. It ought to be done before credible Witnesses 5. Lastly Baptism ought to be administred in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Answ 1. I grant all you say here though how you can prove there were Witnesses by when Ananias baptized Saul or when Philip baptized the Eunuch I know not yet I believe 't is necessary there should be in all ordinary Cases credible Witnesses by 2. But Sir how doth this comport with the Rantism of Infants For 1 st That they are not Subjects fitly qualified for Baptism I have fully proved and have detected your Argument concerning Baptism coming in the room of or succeeding Circumcision 2 dly I shall now prove your sprinkling or pouring Water on the Subject either on the Face or any part of the Body is not baptizing but rantizing Then answer you Allegations Objections base Reflections and false Calumnies cast upon Mr. Tredwell and indeed on the Baptists in general And in order to the effectual doing of this take a Passage or two out of the ancient Fathers c. St. Gregory saith That that is not said to be reiterated which is not certainly demonstrated to have been rightly and duly done And in another Place saith he If there be an Offence taken at the Truth it is much better that Offence be taken than that the Truth should be deserted The Custom of the Churches ought to submit to the Words of Christ not the Words of Christ to be wrested to the Custom of the Church in regard the Words of Christ are the Foundation upon which all Customs are to be built See the famous Dr. Du-Veil on the Acts. Tertullian
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
new Device the Nails being a sort of Excrement they might say signified the taking away the Filth of Sin or Corruption of Nature better than the great Mysteries signified by Baptism or Dipping can be represented by Sprinkling or Pouring Furthermore they might possibly plead the same Pretences you do viz. the cutting off the Foreskin of the Flesh put the Infants to great Pain nay may be they might fancy it would cost them their Lives nay call it Murder and therefore let pairing off their Nails serve as you it seems fear Dipping would endanger the Lives of Infants and therefore make Sprinkling to serve instead thereof But to proceed 2. I am in a-maze to see these Men speak so fully and clearly to this glorious Truth i. e. that the great thing Christ ordained Baptism to represent is his Death Burial and Resurrection together with the baptized Person 's Death to Sin and his rising again to walk in newness of Life that both those shameful Abuses in your Church and among other Churches also are not rectified viz. 1 st That Sprinkling which doth not cannot answer or represent those Gospel-Mysteries should not be rejected 2 dly That Infants should be once deemed the proper Subjects of Baptism sith nothing of a Death to Sin nor rising again to walk in newness of Life can appear in them For as the Learned observe Baptism is a Symbol of present not of future Regeneration 't is an outward Sign of that inward Death unto Sin which the Party baptized passed under then or ought to have done when or before he is baptized They then professed themselves to be dead to Sin i. e. even when they were buried with Christ in their Baptism for the Argument of the Apostle lies in that respect How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein knowing that so many of us who have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his Death both in Sign and Signification And therefore as Dr. Sherlock says rising out of that watry Grave a new-born Creature denotes not only what they should be hereafter but what they were actually at that time So that as this Text and Arguments drawn therefrom utterly condemn Sprinkling as not being Christ's Baptism so it excludes Infants from being the Subjects thereof because in them appears no such Death to Sin nor can they be said to come out of that watry Grave as new-born Creatures To these Testimonies I shall only add one or two more and pass to your Obiections See that most learned Anonymous French Protestant Writer in his Answer to the famous Bishop of Meaux 'T is most certain saith he that Baptism hath not hitherto been administred otherwise than by Sprinkling by the most of Protestants But truly this Sprinkling is an Abuse This Custom which without an accurate Examination they have retained from the Romish Church in like manner as many other things makes their Baptism very defective It corrupteth its Institution and ancient Use and that nearness of Similitude which is needful should be betwixt it and Faith Repentance and Regeneration This Reflection of Mr. Bossuet deserveth to be seriously considered to wit saith he that this Use of Plunging hath continued for the space of a whole thousand and three hundred Years hence we may understand that we did not carefully as it was meet examine things which we have received from the Roman Church Calvin saith That Baptism is a form or way of Burial and none but such as are already dead to Sin or have repented from dead Works are to be buried 1. From whose words I note that Sprinkling is not the Form of Baptism because not the Form of a Burial 2. That Infants are not the true Subjects of Baptism because not such as are already dead to Sin or have repented from dead Works and indeed as they are not able they are not required so to do by Christ The last Author I shall quote is Learned Zanchy There are two parts saith he in Regeneration Mortification and Vivification that is called a Burial with Christ this a Resurrection with Christ The Sacrament of both these is Baptism in which we are overwhelmed or buried and after that do come forth and rise again It may not be said Truly but Sacramentally of all that are baptized that they are buried with Christ and raised with him but only of such as have true Faith Now we may appeal to all the World whether Zanchy and all the rest do not clearly and evidently testify the same thing that we assert viz. That Baptism is and can be no other Act than Immersion or Dipping since Sprinkling all must confess doth not represent in a lively Figure the Burial and Resurrection of Christ nor our dying or being dead to Sin and vivification to newness of Life saith he Sacramentally i. e. Analogically in respect of the near resemblance between Baptism and a Death and Resurrection And this I say cannot be said of them that are sprinkled only for if in respect of Mortification and Vivification they may be denominated buried and raised with Christ which cannot be said of Infants yet that outward Rite or Sign cannot denominate them so much as Sacramentally buried and raised with Christ for there is not so much as any likeness of such things in it but in true Baptism viz. total dipping the Body in Water and raising it again it is in a lively Figure held forth to our very sight And as Zanchy saith It cannot be said of all nor indeed of any that they are 〈◊〉 sacramentally dead buried and risen with Christ but only of such as have true Faith Therefore Infants are excluded by his own Argument And thus your first and second Arguments against â—ipping are fully answered in the 52 d and 53 d pages of your Book Your third Argument or Objection against Dipping is this viz. If Dipping were essentially and absolutely necessary in Baptism then in all the Baptism recorded in Scripture we should meet with full Proof or at least with fair Probability that the Parties Baptized were all Dipped But say you in several Instances of Baptized Persons recorded in Scripture we meet with no such Proof but the contrary Ergo c. The Textâ— you cite are first Acts 9.18 19. That Paul was baptized in his Lodgings being sick and weak c. Answ 1. Both these things you affirm without any Ground or Authority from the Text. For first the Text does not say he was baptized in his Lodgings therefore you strive to make the Scripture speak what it doth not See Reader the 18 th Verse and you may find Mr. Burkit speaks an Untruth or that which the Text says not 2. 'T is false also in that you say he was sick or weak tho he might be somewhat weakened and amazed by the good Hand of God upon him But if he had been weak yet when God commanded him to be baptized or dipp'd in Water In the