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
more nor with any who are of your Spirit but if you write again let it be in Love and not in Wrath not hard Words but hard Arguments and you will not offend your abused Friend and Servant who wishes well to your Soul John Tredwel Preston-Place April 30 1692. A Certificate under the Hands of several sober and impartial Persons WHereas Mr. Burkit of Mildin in the County of Suffolk hath in his late Book called An argumentative and practical Discourse of Infant-Baptism very unjustly reproached the People called Anabaptists and particularly Mr. John Tredwell Preacher of God's Word declaring that he the said Tredwell hath lately at Kittle-Baston in the said County of Suffolk baptized several Persons in a nasty Horse-pond into which the Filth of the adjacent Stable occasionally flows and that the People baptized in the said Pond came forth with much Mud and Filthiness upon them c. We whose Names are hereunto subscribed do solemnly certify and declare to the whole World that those Reports and Assertions of the said Mr. Burkit are uttâ—rly and notoriously false for we taking a strict View of the said Pond and Stable find the Dung or Filth of the said Stable runs the quite contrary way from the Pond into the Road. Moreover we solemnly certify and declare that the Persons who were baptized in the said Pond came forth without the least Speck or Spot of Dirt or Filth upon their Clothes the Water being clean In witness whereof we have set our Hands this 3d Day of May 1692. John Tyril sen Gent. Baptists William Brown Not Bapt. Samuel Denny David Sare jun. Thomas Cable Thomas Game William Steward William Boram Thomas We le Thomas Boss  John Noble THE EPISTLE TO THE READER Christian Reader IT grieves and afflicts my very Soul to see such Strifes Animosities and Bitterness of Spirit amongst Christians because of that Difference there is amongst us in respect of some Truths of Jesus Christ in a time when we are all threatned by the common Enemy I am afraid it is the Fore-runner of a dismal Hour which is coming upon us But indeed of all who have of late come forth against us called Anabaptists none have shewed a worser Spirit than this Mr. Burkit who writes himself Rector of Mildin in Suffolk and that which troubles me the more is what I have lately heard by a worthy Gentleman concerning him i. e. That he is look'd upon as a sober Person and one also well affected to the present Government would all his Brethren in that respect were like-minded But in this Attempt of his I know not what he aims at Should we not all unite together in Love and Affection and strive to promote Peace and Concord and not tear one another in pieces after this manner I am sure this cannot tend to the Honour of God which he has done nor to the Service of the Church or State but we have been provoked by him to vindicate our selves and therefore none who are unprejudiced can blame us Should we suffer our selves to be loaded with Reproach and Infamy and not endeavour in a just way to clear our selves and that Truth of Christ we are so well established in from the certain Testimony of the sacred Scripture and must we be exposed for making God's Word our only Rule herein as a corrupt and erronious sort of People because we affirm from thence Believers only are the true Subjects of Baptism and that Baptizing is Dipping and not Rantising especially since 't is well known in all the Articles of Religion we are acknowledged to be sound and orthodox and that by our Adversâ—ries themselves only this is the out-cry you deny Infant-Baptism The reason of which Reader thou wilt see if thou dost but weigh well what is said in the ensuing Treatise And now to you my Brethren who own this despised Truth of Christ viz. The Baptism of Believers let me give you one Caution i. e. Take heed you are not ashamed of Christ or to own his holy Appointment or his Servants because reproached by ill Men or others through undue Prejudice left Christ be ashamed of you when he comes at the last Day in the Glory of the Father with all his holy Angels Reader there are two things I would desire thee to note First That I have repeated some of my Answers to Mr. Burkit often partly because he repeats the same Arguments and partly because I would indeavour to make it clearly to appear that many or most of his Arguments he brings to prove Infants ought to be baptized do as fully and as apparently tend to prove Infants ought to receive the Lord's Supper therefore I have drawn almost upon every like Occasion the same Inferences for that as he hath for the other which I intreat you to consider well of Secondly Whereas you will find both Hebrew Greek Latin German Dutch as well as English made use of other more or less in the insuing Answer I would not have you think I understand all those Languages but I have had the Assiâ—tance of a Learned Person tho in that case only who is my Friend and Acquaintance that so the Work might the more fully and effectually be done I 'll say no more but leave it to the Blessing of God and thy serious Examination and remain yours in the Lord's Service in the Work of the Gospel Benjamin Keach From my House near Horsly-down Southwark May 12 1692. THE Rector Rectified and Corrected OR Infant-Baptism Unlawful CHAP. I. Disproving the Arguments for Infant-Baptism taken from Circumcision With several Arguments proving the Covenant of Circumcision no Gospel-Covenant Confuting also the Arguments for Infant-Baptism from the pretended Jewish-Baptism AS to you Six Propositions I shall begin with the first and so speak to them in order Proposition I. Your first is this viz. That Baptism by Water is a Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Jesus Christ for the solemn admission of the Party baptized into the visible Church and to be a Sign and Seal unto them of the Covenant of Grace Answ You and I are thus far agreed save only I deny that Baptism is any where in God's Word called a Seal of the Covenant of Grace for if it was then all Persons baptized have all the Blessings of the Covenant of Grace made sure to them I know no other Seal of the Covenant of Grace but the Holy Spirit I mean that seals those Covenant-Blessings and Spiritual Priviledges to our Souls see Ephes 1. 13 14. Chap. 4.30 Whereas you say the Quakers who disown any Baptism in Water were once our Proselytes is not true of the greatest part of them tho some few of them might depart from that Faith and Profession we are of Many others of them you cannot be ignorant come from you and some from the Presbyterians c. Nor could our Practice of baptizing none but Believers or such who make a Profession of Faith midwive their evil and
qualifies them for it but what Christ hath ordained and appointed as the alone proper and meet qualification which is not that external relative Covenant-Holiness you talk of which the New-Testament speaks nothing of as I shall shew by and by but actual Faith Regeneration or Inherent-Holiness which is the thing signified by Baptism therefore a thousand such Arguments will do you no good since Baptism is of meer positive Right 'T is Christ's own Law must decide the Controversy viz What Qualifications are required of such who by his Authority and Law ought to be baptized prove if you can such an external Federal-Holiness qualifies any Persons for Gospel-Baptism for if such federal or external Holiness qualifies Persons for Baptism then the Jews before cast off might have been admitted to Baptism since they had then such a kind of federal Holiness which kind of Holiness you cannot prove Believers Children are said to have under the Gospel but if it qualified them not for Baptism it cannot qualify our Children for Baptism And that is did not qualify them is evident see Mat. 3.9 where some of the Branches of this Root came to John Baptist to be baptized and he refused to admit them with these words i. e. Think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father for I say God is able of these Stones to raise up Children to Abraham Ver. 10. And now also is the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees From whence it plainly appears that that external relative Covenant-Holiness which qualified under the Old-Testament Persons for Circumcision and Jewish Church-membership will not qualify Old nor Young under the New-Testament for Baptism and Gospel Church-membership 2. I also deny your Minor and say the Scripture of the New-Testament doth not pronounce the Children of believing Parents federally Holy The Text Rom. 11.16 speaks not one word of Infants nor one word of such a kind of federal Holiness Mr. Tho. Goodwin who was a very Learned Man urging that Text 1 Cor. 7.14 tho a Pedo Baptist saith in the New-Testament there is no other Holiness spoken of but Personal or Real by Regeneration about which he challenged all the World to shew to the contrary And Sir with your Favour if you cannot from any place of the New-Testament prove there is any such Holiness spoken of you are to be blamed for bringing in a private and an unwarrantable Interpretation of that Holy Text. I find there are various Interpretations of what is meant by the Root in that place 1. Some understand it of the Covenant 2. Some of Christ 3. Some of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. 4. Some of Abraham only What if I agree with the last and say Abraham is the Root but what Root Why the Root of all his true spiritual Seed And if so the Holiness of the Branches was real in word and spiritual for such Holiness as is in the Root is in the Branches And indeed for want of Faith or of that real and spiritual Holiness in many of his natural Branches for he was a two-fold Root or Father as I before have proved they were rejected or broken off for their Vnbelief and the Gentiles by Faith were grafted in they having obtained the Fatness of the Root or the Faith and Righteousness of their Father Abraham who was the Root or Father of all that believe The Truth is as Mr. Tombs observes the Holiness here meant is first in respect of God's Election Holiness personal and inherent in God's Intention Ephes 1.4 Secondly It is also Holiness derivative not from any Ancestors but Abraham not as a natural Father but as a spiritual Father or Father of the Faithful and so derived from the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham And thus it appears you have darkened this illustrious Scripture thinking to prove a Holiness that the New-Testament knows nothing of applying the Holiness and Insection to outward Dispensations only in the visible Church which is meant of saving Graceâ— into the invisible and make every believing Parent a like Root to his Posterity with Abraham to his Seed which we deny But let the Jews Covenant and standing before they were broken off be what it would I am sure no Gentile is grafted into Christ but by actual Faith nor can any be grafted into the Gospel-Church without the profession of such Faith therefore you do but beat the Air. The Jews 't is true were broken off by their Unbelief and were also no more a Church nor is there any such kind of Church constituted under the Gospel as theirs was viz. a National Church for they amongst the Jews who were the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham receiving Christ by Faith were planted into the Gospel-Church and between them and Gentile Believers Now there is no difference Jew and Gentile stand in the Church now by Faith not by external Covenant Privilege-Right or Holiness Thou standest by Faith O Believer mark not by Birth-Privilege but by Faith Thy standing is by Faith saith one yet not thy Seed by thy Faith but thou thy self by thine and they by their own Faith is that by which thou standing and not thy Seed hast right to stand in the Church and not they but if thy Seed have Faith and thou hast none then they have right in the Church and thou shalt be excluded And though under the Law we deny not but that the natural Seed or Progeny or Abraham were all Holy with an external Ceremonial or Typical Holiness and consequently they were then admitted to an external Participation of Church-Privileges Yet now 't is otherwise Old things are past away now we know no Man after the Flesh 2 Cor. 5.16 That Church-State is dissolved and manner of admission into it by external Birth-Privilege c. so that this Text doth not help you I shall further open this place of Scripture 1. 'T is evident the Apostle is in the 9th and 10th Chapters to the Romans a treating of the Election of Grace and of that Covenant of Grace and Election God made with Abraham these were his People which he had not cast away chap. 10.1 and of this sort God had 7000 in Elias's Days ver 4. Even so saith he at this present time also there is a Remnant according to the Election of Grace ver 5. Hence he says What then Israel hath not obtained c. But the Election hath c. ver 7. He further shews that abundance of the natural Seed of Abraham were broken off How were they broken off Why by their Unbelief they not receiving Christ but rejecting the Gospel and New-Church-State were broken off but that the Gentiles might not boast over them the Apostle shews there is ground left to believe all those that belong to the Election of Grace shall in God's due time be brought in and so partake of the Blessings of the Gospel-Covenant or Covenant of Grace made with Abraham And to prove this in ver
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
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
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