nor now do our Women put on a Shirt or any thing upon the Infant and then wash it but they apply the Water immediately to the Body I am sure it should be so in Baptism Vossius gives us large Testimonies out of Antient Writers how that Men Women and Children in those Countries were all Baptised De Baptis p. 350. I wonder the Anabaptists should be so angry with Mr. Baxter because he saith they Baptise naked the Women only had a little covering before them yea they had a Mystery in the pulling off their Clothes to shew their pulling off the Old Man some where I have read after their Dipping they were Annointed When a tumult arose in the City about Chrysolstom how the Women that were about Baptising ran away naked with other things there we may read Certainly God's Institutions are such that we may Celebrate them at Noon-day before all Men let them be Spectators and if this must be the way let them Baptise for me and Annoint too if they please So that Modesty and Life be preserved I am of Cyrian's and Austin's mind in this Point who left it indifferent so you do not absolutely tye us up to one and deny all Baptism by Dipping Cypr. 249. Aust 10.3 p. 207. Other Divines have answered this more fully and therefore I break off Here a Question falls in which I never did so much as think of till now I say Mr. Mode That Water in Baptism he saith hath no respect to the blood of Christ that it doth concur in the Mystery by way of efficacy and merit he grants but not as the thing there figured for that is the Spirit This may help as to the manner of Baptising I thought both Spirit and Blood he denies the latter and saith the Church of England doth so also as he thinks The Question is new to me I shall hardly propound my thoughts 1. If cleansing of the Soul from Sin be the thing Baptism holds out then what doth primacily properly and effectually cleanse is there signifyed but the Antecedent is true Cleansing is as much given to the Blood of Christ as to the Spirit 1 Joh. 1.7 Apoc. 1.5 Hebr. 9.14.22 Almost all things were purged by Blood 2ly We read three times Mark 1.4 Luke 3.3 Acts 2.38 that Remission of Sins is signifyed and Sealed in Baptism but how can this be if there is no respect to his Blood in Baptism Without Blood there is no Remission Heb. 9.22 Why is it called Baptism for remission of sins 3ly Why are we said in Baptism to have Communion with Christ in his Death and buryed with him in Baptism Rom. 6.3 It should rather be said buryed with the Spirit if the Spirit only be signifyed Doth not the Death of Christ comprehend in it the effusion of his Blood 4ly It is certain that in the Types of the Old Testament by Water the blood of Christ was signifyed Numb 19.9 The Water is said to be a Purification for Sin In the Hebrew it's a Sin the word often used for a Sin Offering the Dutch render it It is an Expiation Have not that Fountain Zech. 13.1 set open a respect to the blood of Jesus all the Interpreters I see respect both his Blood and Spirit Why not then so in Baptism 5ly As we are filthy are we not as guilty Is there nothing in the Ordinance to respect our guilt then it were sad yea guilt being upon us can God give out the blessing of Regeneration to us till in order his justice be first satisfied though Regeneration and Pardon are simul tempore To say it concurrs by way of efficacy and merit so it doth in any Ordinance to make it effectual But Remission of Sins being in a special manner sealed up in this Ordinance which is only by Christs Blood methinks the Element should have a respect to his Blood The utter Abolition of Sin both guilt and power is given to the Blood of Christ alone but taking away guilt is not given to the Spirit 6ly Out of the side of our Blessed Lord when he was pierced came Blood and Water Joh. 19.34 There is our Pardon and Sanctification If both these be signified in our Baptism why is not that Blood and Water of his signifyed in this Water in Baptism Hence Alcinus's Baptism was signified in the passion of Christ by the Water and Blood which came from his side Several Verses he hath upon it Cent. 6. p. 112. In That Tract which go under Cyprian's Name Baptizabantur in nube mari Hebraei jam Spiritu sancto sanguine Christi mundatur a peccatis populus Dei De Resur Chri. Hence Ambrose speaking of Baptism Ideoqque legisti quod tres Testes in Baptismate unum sunt aqua sanguis spiritusqui si unum horum detrahas non stat Baptismatis Sacramentum quid enim est aqua sine cruce Christi Deris qui c. 4. Hence Luther Baptizari nihil aliud est quum reseo illo precioso sanguine Christi lanari mundari Res significata in Baptismo est sanguis Christi Walaeu to 1. p. 84. I could produce more Authors The Application of the Blood of Christ and the renewing of the Spirit without both which our State cannot be happy I think may both be signified and these either by Dipping or powering of Water The sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus set out of old by the Ceremonial sprinkling is a famous Sentence in the Gospel Heb. 12.24 and 1 Pet. 1.2 so the powering out of the Spirit Tit. 3.5 6. Ezek. 36.25 Isa 52.15 Joel 2.28 29. Prov. 1.23 The Abolishing of Sin is the end of all Lord what a do is here before we can be delivered from the misery we have brought ourselves into what an Evil is Sin now this is not set down one way but several waies in Scripture sometimes by mortification or the Death of Sin Dipping sets out that Buried with Christ sometimes by cleansing and by purging Heb. 9.14 1 Jo. 1.9 Apoc. 1.5 But the grave do not represent that we do not use to purge and cleanse by Burying but this we do by powring Water upon our Hands upon Rooms Tables c. we can cleanse that way purge me with Hyssop Psal 51.7 How was that Levit. 14.6 7. Numb 19.18 not by Dipping Whither then you Dip or pour Water Here is 1. The same Sign or Element 2ly Here is the same thing signified the Spirit and Blood of Christ 3ly The same end aimed at the taking away or purgeing of Sin nor did I ever contend with any Man about Dipping but to deny all Baptism unless by Dipping and so set up Rebaptising and to administer Baptism only to Adult persons excluding all the Children of Believing Parents This I could never yield to To conclude though I was moved to publish my Notes by some Friends yet had I not received this Challenge for so I may call it by this Letter I think I should never have done it because I knew Men far more able than my self had done more service than I could do in the Controversie I wish the Anabaptists before they had Condemned and wrote against Infant-baptism had well studyed and well improved their Parental and Infant-baptismal Covenant followed God close for the benefits and waited though they found temptations and did not meet with all they would and reproved others for neglecting and vigorously stirred up people to the serious improvement of them Then had they done good service to Christ and his Church Whereas by the course they have taken they have increased our Divisions a thing deeply to be lamented which I shall never live to see healed I shall only desire the Anabaptists to give me answer to these two Questions clearly from Scripture Quest 1. Since God was so Gracious to make a Covenant with Abraham and his Seed and it did then consist with his Wisdom to Constitute his Church of Parents and Children while the Parents did believe in the Messiah to come why may it not consist with his Grace to continue that Covenant and with his Wisdom still to Constitute his Gospel-Church of Parents and Children the Jews now believing in Christ come If God hath plainly declared his pleasure to the contrary tell us where and we are satisfied but you must produce other Scriptures then you have done yet Quest 2. If God hath repealed his Covenant with the Believing Jews Seed turned their Children out of the Church and deny them Baptism though the Jews truly Believe in Christ come what hath God left in the room of these that carry any shew of his Blessing or good Will towards their Children during their Infant State As to their Internall and Eternal State the Infants were in as good a State then as now Christ is Yesterday to Day and the same for ever the Lamb slain for the Foundation of the World Apoc. 13.8 But as to their visible State how come they to be in the same condition that we Gentiles and our Children were in Ephes 2.12 Before Christ came and we believed in him I state the Question concerning the Jews Believing in Christ come As for the Believing Gentiles I shall let them alone till I see how you prove the casting out of the Seed of the Believing Jews FINIS
no question had all those Authors which my Author quotes that wrote before him if not many more which we have not And did not that learned pious Father understand them as well as my Author or any Anabaptist now in England And though he was no Christian himself yet was not he acquainted with the practice of the Greek Churches in his time better than our Anabaptists Now he saith the practice of Infant-baptism was so universal in the Church Austin l. 1. de peccat mer. renis c. 26. De baptis contra Denat l. 2. c. 7. l. 4. c. 24. that it could not but come from the Apostles Ecclesia semper habuit c. The Church ever heard it saith he Had not Austin spoke true there was one did watch him Pelagius who would have told him of it to purpose for that Practice stood in Pelagius's way but Pelagius did not deny it And whereas my Author doth not regard the Writers as to this Controversie that wrote after the Third Centuary I am very confident there is no Author that wrote in the three first Centuaries that have any thing in them to oppose the baptizing of the Infants of believing Parents but on the contrary some of them speak for it They that read the most ancient Writers next the Apostles may see the subject matter they treated upon did not give them any occasion to speak of Infant-Baptism they had other Points in hand As to the old Britains I was a little startled to read them brought against Infant-Baptism the Proof my Author brings out of Fabianus I did read in him but I much question the truth of Fabianus because Mr. Fox giving us an account what Austin the Monk required of the British Bishops when he came into England tells us He required that they should Preach the Gospel to the English-men and that they should among themselves reform certain Rites and usages in their Church specially for keeping Eastertide and Baptizing after the manner of Rome Mr. Fox quotes several Authors besides Fabianus for this But that passage That they should give Christendom to children which Fabianus reports he doth not mention To Baptize after the manner of Rome to use their Ceremonies in Baptism and to baptize Children differ much I searched what Ceremonies were then used in Rome in Gregory's time and no wonder though the British Bishops rejected them But that the old Britains were against Infant-Baptism is very false which I thus prove What year God first sent the Gospel into England the Learned do not agree there seem to be strong grounds to believe that it was before King Lucius sent to Eleutherius B. of Rome some say it was An. 156 others 169 others 170 others 180. The Contest between Austin and Pelagius was about 417 in the 63 year of Austins life as Bucolcerus gathers Pelagius denied Original Sin upon that denied Infant-Baptism as being superfluous not because Infants cannot believe which is the sole Argument of our Anabaptists Pelagius a learned man would have slighted such an Argument as this Austin proves Infants to be guilty of Original Sin from the universal practice of the Church to take away Original Sin they did baptize Infants Now this Infant-baptism saith Austin The Church ever had it ever held it De verb. Apo. Ser. 10. they received this from the faith of their Ancestors and this will it keep with perseverance to the end Let Pelagius who was a Britain answer this Britany had received the Gospel 240 years before this Contest Pelagius knew the practice of his own Country and if it had been true that the old Britains did not baptize Infants as my Author saith why did not Pelagius Confute Austin charge him with falshood the Britains do not baptize Infants ergo it is not the practice of the Universal Church This being an Argument Austin did so urge and put so much stress upon it Pelagius would have removed it if he could But so far was Pelagius and his followers from denying what Austin affirmed that Celestius a Pelagian in a Book which he put â—orth at Rome hath these words which Austin quotes out of it We do confess that Infants ought to be baptized for remission of sins according to the rule of the Vniversal Church and according to the sentence of the Gospel â—hough Caelestius do not mention the Text â—et by the following words we may plainâ—y see he means John 3.5 Except a man be â—orn again of Water and of the Spirit So that according to this Pelagian here is Scripture ground and the Rule of the Vniversal Church for infant-Infant-Baptism So then for the old Britains they were not against Infant-baptism Now then for the Waldenses were I to charge any Opinion or practice upon other Churches I should first look to the Confession of their Faith then I may boldly charge them or not As we have a few Anabaptistical Writers in England should their Books a hundred years hence fall into the hands of Anabaptists in foreign parts should they then assirm that the Church of England or the Churches in England were Anabaptists would not this be false and take it as a wrong done unto us View the Confession of Faith of the Church of England of the Assembly of Divines of the Independents in England in New England all their Confessions declare for Infant-baptism Thus should my Author have done if he would deal honestly with the Waldenses produce their Confession of Faith and the Article in which they condemn Infant-baptism In the Articles which I have read over I find no such thing but that Baptism ought to be Administred only with pure Water without any mixture of hallowed Oyl The Ministers in the Vallies of Piemont in the year 1532 when the Anabaptists in Germany were risen up in the 17th Article of their Confession declare for Infant-baptism The Churches in those Vallies kept chaste to Christ from the Apostles times and were long before the Waldenses were named they were called Waldenses but this was a Nick-name put upon them by their Adversaries to make the World believe that their Religion was but a Novelty Morland p. 12. In the Confession of the Faith of the Waldenses in Bohemia so Vergerius three times calls them the 12th Article Declares for Infant-baptism Anno 1535. As the Anabaptists rose up so the Churches drew up their Confessions against them The Ministers in their Preface to their Confession write That some malicious Spirits because they would cast all the Odium upon them that they could did reckon them amongst the Anabaptists But they answer Nos ex factione Anabaptistarum non esse nemini ignotum est All men know they were none of that Faction nor had any thing to do with the Anabaptists The Doctrine they confessed in their Churches they held and owned before the name of the Anabaptists was so much as heard of So that my Author hath plainly abused both the old Britains and the Waldenses
belong they may be Baptised But to the Children of Believing Parents the Promise of the renewing Spirit doth belong as it did to the Jews Therefore the Children of Believing Parents may be Baptised That there can be Regeneration without the Spirit no Christian will affirm That there can be a Heavenly Inheritance without Regeneration the Scripture denies That the Spirit of God cannot Regenerate an Infant he must be a strange Christian if any at all who dares say it If John was filled with the Spirit from his Mothers Womb God can give his Spirit to other Infants though in a less measure As to the Text 1 Cor. 7.14 that Text hath been so cleared by our Divines that I wonder my Author should not be fatisfied but to come up with his Ligitimacy as if that were the sense of Children being Holy When as 1st The Apostle is not writing to a Corinthian Husband that had two Wives but only one Wife as 12 13 14. v. so that if that Text Mat. 2.15 could be brought to prove a Matrimonial-Holiness then they were Holy and Children Holy before the Gospel came but this is a Holiness arising from one of the Parents being a Believer Besides Joseph Benjamin Solomon and divers others were never called Bastards or thought to be so though Jacob and David had more Wives then one 2ly Then all the Children in Corinth though the Parents were lawfully Marryed were Bastards before the Gospel came 3ly When then the Apostle writes to the Saints in Corinth 1 Cor. 1 2. 2 Cor. 1.1 the meaning is to you that are Legitimate and not Bastards in Corinth What difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here Neither do your examples from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 help you at all For 1st By an Antiphrasis or Euphemismus the words signifies the quite contrary Bless and Curse Holy and Vnclean or Sodomite as we Translate 2ly The words are so used in an opposite sense in several other Scriptures that prove one another 3ly The sense of the Text forces us so to render their signification 1. But then you must Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by some word which is quite contrary to Holiness so that one expel the other Contraria sunt pellentis naturae but Legitimacy and Holiness are not contraries in respect of this Subject for he may be Legitimate and Holy too I know you must then read else were your Children unclean but now they are unclean This is good Sense 2. As the word Holy is never taken in the Holy Page for Legitamacy nor can you justify it by any Text as we can the former clearly by several Texts A Seed according to God's Institution in Marriage according to his appointment Ordination in Mat. 2.15 and the Holy Seed Ezra 9.2 differ very much besides as I said the Children of the Corinthians were Holy if that were the Sense before the Gospel came 3. Nor is there the least pressing necessity why it should not be taken as in the Scriptures I mention Nay there is a presing necessity to force that it cannot be meant Legitimacy because it follows upon the Faith of one Parent which Legitimacy doth not For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you say alwaies signifies Authority yet 1 Cor. 11.15 I suppose you mean the tenth it signifies a Vail Ans Who translated the word so I have viewed nine Translators and they render it Power as we do A Metonimy of the Subject we know there is the meaning being a covering in sign that she is under the Authority of her Husband Gen. 24.65 A Phrase whereby the thing signified is ascribed to the Sign the propriety of the word is here meant and intended that she shew her self to be under Authority The Acthiopick Translation to give the Sense turn the Substantive into a Verb but hower this doth not at all suit your design In the word Holy here is no Metonimy Sign or thing signified I see nothing of moment more to answer and I doubt not my Author hath been better answered by others though I saw none till I had done SECT VII THen my Author proceeds to the manner of Baptising and tells us what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies quotes Bishop Taylor Doctor Hammond and many that say it signifies Immersion and who is so ignorant that knows not this but is my Author so knowing that he can prove it signifies only Immersion or dowzing a person over head and cars did Bishop Taylor and Doctor Hammond Baptise so and only so let him enquire Why did not my Author prove that the word signifies only so in Heb. 9.10 1 Cor. 10.2 something you would say to this but 't is pittyful Mark 7.4 Luke 11.38 the Pharisee marvelled that Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had not first Baptised before Dinner How the Jews use to wash hands you may guess by 2 Kings 3.11 when Elisha waited on Elijah He powred water on the hands of Elijah did not Elijah then Baptise or wash his hands was not the Bason and Ewer and the little Cisterns with Water common in England and in some places still to this day and do we not wash by letting of Water run upon our hands or powring upon them That the Holy Ghost is signified you tell us and threetimes Baptising with the Holy Ghost is expressed by powering of the Holy Ghost What our Authors have said about their practice in hotter Countries where Baptism was first Instituted you know there they did commonly wash you were bound by the Law to wash 2 Sam. 11. ◠4 with Levit 15.19 and 18 19. So Pharaoh's Daughter Exod. 2.5 but in our cold Climates this is not so common However to me it seems strange that there should be so much stress put upon Baptism and so much upon the manner of Baptising as the Anabaptists lay and yet the Holy Page hath not Recorded how it should be performed To Baptise an Infant I could do as Mr. Chancy did in New-England and as of old they did in England as an Antient Gentleman of good quality in Suffolk told me He remembred the practice by a good token One Infant was so fowled with its green Excrement when it came to be Dipped a handsome sight in a Congregation when we are about Holy Things that he could not forget it but how to Baptise an Adult person and heavy Body I cannot tell If they go into the Water into the Element they Baptise themselves so far as their body is in the Water The Baptist doth not Dip that part As for their Clothes I hope they do not go in with them to Baptise or Wash them certainly there ought to be an immediate Aplication of the Sign the Water to the Body that our Baptism hath a reference to the Ezek. 16.4 I see several Men conclude and have shown us how this Custom of Washing new born Babes was derived almost to all Nations but neither then
by these I will never believe it God is gracious God is faithful what ever we think of him in our dark hours I will rather believe they did not follow close their improvement of these for I meet but with very few even good Christians tho' they hate Anabaptism that do improve them as they ought No wonder then tho' Men cry out Abrahams Covenant is Null and Infant-Baptism Null when they never improved them so found no good by them and now turn Anabaptists I know Christians that lie under some Temptations may and do expect more from the Covenant Promise and Sacraments than God intended or the Scripture holds forth they would make one Scripture contradict another If God gives in but a little and will suffer us to lie under our Temptations but yet will supply us with so much from his Covenant that we are able to hold up our hands in the day of Battel that our Hearts are kept close to him and do not in the least depart from him If we cannot get the fatted Calf and Musick c. Luke 15.23 which some Christians have if we can but get a Kid and have a Father to own us at last 't is worth our Beleiving Praying and Writing What it was that Woman a noted Midwife I knew expected to find at the Lords Supper I know not but it seems she found it not whereupon she forsooke the Lords Table with this blasphemous Speech A Man may find as much good by a Loaf in the Bakers Shop as by the Bread in the Lords Supper for she had been often there and could find no good Hearing of this Speech I inquired after her by those who had been long acquainted with her I know not whether I saw her after I heard it they took her alwaies for a civil Woman but did not think she was acquainted with the work of Regeneration but that made me to wonder the more for such persons commonly take up their Priest in the work done in above partaking of the Ordinance If Christians be at this Point we expect so much from Promises so much from Ordinances or we have nothing then we may do as she did throw off all Ordinances and Promises too Tho' I am far from attaining what I have sought and desired yet I bless God so much I have attained from my understanding and improving of Abrahams Covenant and my Infant-Baptism that I have but a light esteem of all the Anabaptists Books against them they signifie nothing with me but of this more hereafter Disputing without experiencing signifies little in Divinity to a tempted Soul But this I doubt not to affirm Did Christians set in earnest to their work and labour to improve Abrahams Covenant and their Infant-Baptism they should find as much profit advantage and support to their Souls as any Anabaptists do by their Dipping when Adult But if Ordinances be not improved how can Men expect any good by them When God made that Covenant with Abraham to be the God of him and his Seed and appointed the seal of his Covenant to be Administred to the Infant on the eigth day Might not ought not all the Jews and did not many of them when they came to years of discretion and were taught the meaning of them improve them to their Souls advantage why then may not we as well improve the same Covenant and our Infant-Baptism when we are come to years of discretion to our Spititual advantage when we understand them by our Pastors and Parents teaching If there be such an advantage in Adult-Baptism over there is in Infant-Baptism what is the matter that some of them could say they found no such good by it and I do believe them by their Conversation but especially what is the reason that so many hundreds of them cast off both Infant and Adult-Baptism and deny Baptism altogether for which they were sometime so zealous if there had been such advantage in it they would not have done so wickedly to cast away such an Institution of Christ Secondly A second thing which might occasion this is That so many Children of Godly Parents who were Dedicated to God in Baptism in their Infancy and Parents have bestowed great pains in their Education yet prove wicked The deeper the wounds of such Parents and the sorer the damnation of such Children without Repentance But first We may observe the greatest number of visible yea true Christians in the visible Church consist of the Children of such Parents Since the Flood of Iniquity of late years brake in upon this Nation it hath risen so high that it hath flown into the Houses of Godly Parents more than ever it did since England knew the Gospel This is a Lamentation Secondly Was it not so in Isaac's Family where but two and one naught Thridly We never understood that when God made that Covenant with our Father Abraham and his Seed that he intended to make all his Seed Godly but we understand such a Priviledge in it that neither Parents nor Children who have their Eyes opened will part with it let the Anabaptists write what they please against it Fourthly But do this Disping None deny that Regenerate persons are the subjects of Baptism he must say only else he opposed not us Christins Scrip. pract of Int. c. p. 147 148. and Re-Baptising of Adult persons help it are they all Godly If the Elect and Regenerate be the only Subjects of Babtism as my Author tells me I am sure they are not of Anabaptism to my knowledge unless drunkenness and uncleanness be Notes of Regeneration we shall not need to go to Germany to inquire England will afford proof enough Mr. Baxter hath given us a sad account of some of them enough to make a serious Christian afraid of the Opinion By a serious Christian who came from New-England we are informed That a Sea-man as I remember one being Baptised how long the Baptist held him under Water I know not but so soon as his Head was above Water he wrapt out an Oath so I heard it what do you make account to drown me Thirdly Another is this The great Adversary of Christ and his Church seeing how earnestly the Spirits of good Christians were set for the Reformation of the Church in all Points according to the Holy Scriptures which we profess to hinder this work by dividing of Christians and raising Animosities one against another used this for one Engine Baptising of Infants of Beleiving Parents being the Opinion and Practise of such Christians they must now be thrown by because in the Scriptures we can no where read that Christ gave command to his Apostles to Baptise Infants While I was answering this Book word was sent me That there was one who would Dispute with me in the Congregation expecting his coming and knowing he had thrown away Water-Baptism for an Introduction to my work I laid down Ten Arguments to prove that Water-Baptism was still an Institution of