are not straiter P. 73. l. 33. for has read hath P. 75. l. 28. for theirs read the. P. 75. l. 29. for their read the. P. 77. l. 17. i. e. as such should be in a Parenthesis P. 84. l. 3. blot out any P. 86. in the Contents of Chap. vii for first read fifth P. 88. l. 3. blot out from P. 99. for with the Gentiles read and their Children P. 89. l. 31. for same read thing P. 105. l. 37. for pai read pain P. 112. l. 28. for and read but. P. 117. l. 19. for with read without P. 118. l. 3. for Mat. read Mal. P. 120. l. 20. blot out so read and since c. P. 201. l. 40. for he that believes shall not be damned read he that believeth not shall be damned P. 250. l. 15. for vers 34. read 3 4. P. 264. l. 2. for born in Sin read born again P. 264. l. 4. blot out do P. 266. l. 40. for Christian read Children P. 239. l. 33. for Lord read Lords P. 293. l. 21. read an external Rite CHAP. I. In answer to what Mr. Owen hath said in his first Chapter SIR AS to what you say about the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledg that they were Seals of the two Covenants viz. of the Covenant of Works and of the Covenant of Grace or free Promise of God it is far fetch'd and very doubtful and as little to the Purpose for which you mention them therefore I shall pass that by 2dly As touching Circumcision being a dark Shadow of the Old Covenant under the Old Dispensation it may be granted but that it was the Seal of the Covenant of Grace which you affirm elsewhere in your Book I do deny it being only a Seal of Abraham's Faith even of that Faith he had being yet Uncircumcised and also that he should be the Father of all that should believe 3dly You say well that those dark Shadows viz. Circumcision c. are abolished the Substance being come that Yoke of Bondage is taken away which proves Circumcision did not appertain to the Covenant of Grace as the Seal of it in common to all Believers for the breaking off of a Seal cancels the Covenant to which it was prefixed as all Men know So that nothing can be more clear than this that Circumcision if it was a Seal of any Covenant as you conceive it was it was a Seal of the Covenant of Works which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear in regard it obliged all that were circumcised to keep perfectly the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. 4thly You say Christ hath ordained in the Gospel a light and easy Burden viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper These two are the only Sacraments you say of the Gospel This is granted and owned herein we do not differ 5thly You say Baptism signifieth our Spiritual Birth the Lord's Supper our Spiritual Growth and Nourishment This we grant also and therefore we say Baptism cannot belong to Infants because they are not in an ordinary way capable of Regeneration tho we deny not that those elect Infants that die are renewed quoad illorum naturas but we know not which they are if we did yet we ought not to baptize them because we have no Precept or Precedent so to do we might therefore as well and by as good Authority give them the Lord's Supper as Bâ—ptism which the antient Fathers when first Pedo-baptism was by Human Authority introduced into the Church you know did for near four hundred Years till the latter end of the Sixth Century 6thly You say Baptism according to the Signification of the Word is Washing and therefore the Apostle saith saved us by the washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered in Heb. 9. 10. in divers Baptisms those were not only by dipping under Water but by sprinkling Water on those baptized as the Apostle teacheth Heb. 9. 19. he took the Blood of the Calves and of Goats with Water and sprinkled the Book and all the People That which the Apostle you say called Baptism in Ver. 10. is in this Verse called the Sprinkling of Water c. Answ 1. I answer tho the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a remote Sense doth take in Washingâ— yet I challenge you and all that know or pretend to know the Greek Tongue whether in every place in the New Testament where the Word is mentioned or any Derivative from it as it refers to Christ's Ordinance of Baptism it doth not directly and properly signify Immersion and accordingly rendred by Beza in his Translation 2dly You greatly wrong that Text Heb. 9. 19. where the Apostle speaks of sprinkling the Blood of Calves and of Goats with Water c. by saying he refers to Ver. 10. where the Apostle speaks of Divers Washings and in thus doing you do not only abuse the Sacred Text but you wrong your own Soul and Conscience and the People also Sir do you find the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in ver 10. in ver 19. where sprinkling is mentioned or is it not in ver 13 19. as also 1 Pet. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We may modestly affirm that no Greek Author whether Heathenish or Christian has ever put Baptizing for Sprinkling or used those Words promiscuously for as in these Scriptures you have cited Heb. 9. 13 19 21. 't is always translated Sprinkling so there is not one place in Scripture wherein the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Baptism nor is there one Scripture where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Sprinkling And therefore tho sometimes the Greek Word doth signify in a remote Sense Washing yet 't is primarily such a washing as is by dipping or plunging as I said before And thus Mr. Wilson in his Dictionary renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tingo c. to dip or plunge into the Water and signifies saith he primarily such a washing as is used in Bucks where Linen is plunged or dipped tho in a remote Sense he hints it signifies other kind of washing but it does not so in the Holy Scripture where the Word is used as referring to Christ's Ordinance of Baptizing 3dly You say Water-Baptism i. e. the Washing of the Flesh signifies the Washing of the Spirit and therefore the Apostle Peter saith Even Baptism doth now save us not the putting away the Filth of the Flesh but the answer of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Christ Answ I answer you confound Regeneration with Baptism the washing of Regeneration is not the washing of Baptism Baptism regenerates no Person But you seem to follow the antient erroneous Fathers who concluded no Person could be saved unless baptized abusing that Text Joh. 3. 5. Unless a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven taking Water there for Baptism In like sort they abused that
Text John 6. 53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you and from thence they gave Infants the Lord's Supper also But suppose that Baptism doth signify or is a figure of the washing of Regeneration yet sprinkling is no form of washing but all know dipping is and the safest way of washing 2dly You mention Fierâ— Baptism or the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Fire Mat. 3. 11. This Scripture you say was fulfilled when the Holy Ghost came upon the Disciples in the appearance of Fiery Tongues Acts 2. 3. This Baptism was not say you by plunging in Fire but by sprinkling or pouring of Fire you mean the Holy Spirit upon them which sate upon each of them which is a Fiery washing which purifieth the Soul c. I answer Tho the Baptism of the Spirit was by pouring forth of the Spirit yet they were overwhelmed or immersed with it like as Dust may be poured upon a dead Corps until it is covered all over or quite buried therein So the Baptism of the Holy Ghost at the Day of Pentecost signifies the miraculous Effusion of the Holy Ghost The Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Learned Casaubon is to dip plâ—â—ge c. in which sense saith he the Apostles might be truly said to have been baptized for the House in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost so that the Apostles might seem to have been plunged into it as in a large Fish-Pond Sir 't is not the sprink ing of the Spirit that is the Baptism of the Spirit for they had doubtless some sprinklings of the Spirit before they were baptized with it Moreover Oecumenius on Acts 2. saith A Wind filled the whole House that it seemed like a Fish-pond because 't was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Spirit Thus you may see that this no ways helps you to make Sprinkling or Rantizing Baptism 3dly You mention the Baptism of Blood or Sufferings I will repeat your Words Baptism of Blood of this Baptism doth Christ ask the Children of Zebedee Are you able to drink of the Cup that I drink of and to be baptized with the Baptism that I am baptized with Mat. 20. 22. This Cup and this Baptism are the same viz. the Sufferings of Christ of which his Disciples were to be Partakers You intimate that Baptism is a Witness of our Spiritual Resurrection and of our Resurrection at the last Day you mention 1 Cor. 15. 29 c. Answ Therefore say I it must be so administred as it may represent our Rising again First from a Death in Sin to a Life in Grace And Secondly from the Dead or out of our Graves in the Earth at the last Day But Sprinkling doâ—h not this cannot do this In sprinkling a little Water on the Face there is no resemblance or representation of rising up out of the Grave of Sin or from the Dead nor out of the Grave aâ— the last Day the Baptism of Sufferings signifies great Afflictions and from the Literal Signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 great Afflictions or Troubles are taken for and figurately called Baptism as Vossius shews Not every light Affliction is the Baptism of Afflictions but like that of David Psal 32. 6. He drew me out of deep Waters Hence great Afflictions are called Waves Thy Waves and thy Billows are gone over me Psal 42. 7. See Pool's Annotations on Mat. 20. 22. To be baptized is saith he to be dipped in water Metaphorically to be plunged in Afflictions So that neither of these Metaphorical Baptisms will do you any Service to justify your Tradition of sprinkling or pouring a little Water but contrariwise quite overthrows your pretended Baptism As to what you say in the next place of your three manner of ways of the Administration of Baptism in your first Chapter it doth not concern our present Purpose 't is true John the Baptist baptized into him that was to come so in that respect it differ'd from the Administration of it after the Death and Resurrection of our blessed Lord and no doubt from the Commission it appears Baptism was to be administred to the end of the World into the Name of the Father Son and holy Spirit and no other ways CHAP II. Containing some Remarks upon Mr. Owen's second Chapter AS to what you have wrote in your second Chapter about the Continuation of Water-Baptism in the Church until Christ's coming the second time or to the end of the World I approve generally of your Arguments and in that matter we are of your mind tho much more might be added to confirm that great Truth but pray Sir remember 't is Christ's Baptism of Believers which he only instituted that doth remain not Infants Baptism much less Infants Rantism which was neither instituted nor allowed by our blessed Lord. And because some of your Arguments for the Continuation of Baptism mentioned in your second Chapter tend to overthrow your Infant Baptism I shall make some Remarks upon them They are taken from your 4 th Proof you argue thus viz. Water Baptism is to continue in the Church if we consider the Ends of it 1. You say Christ hath ordained Baptism to be a Sign of our Repentance and therefore 't is called the Baptism of our Repentance Mark 1. 4. Repentance is a remaining Duty therefore the Baptism of Repentance is to remain Remark If Baptism be a siâ—n of Repentance to the Person baptized then the Person baptized ought to be a Person capable to repent and when baptized to have what is signified therein but Infants as such have not the Grace of Repentance when baptized so they are not capable to repent 2dly You say It is an Evidence of our Faith in Christ Mark 16. 16. Acts 8. 37 38. and therefore it is to remain as long as Faith is to remain on the Earth Remark If Baptism is an Evidence of our Faith in Christ then it must only belong to Believers How can it be an Evidence of Faith in Infants who are not capable to believe they know not the Object of Faith nor can they exert any Act of Faith It must be an Evidence to the Subject when baptized and so the Scriptures you cite hold forth He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. it doth not say he that is baptized and believeth If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayst Not if thou shalt believe hereafter but if thou dost believe now It appertains to such who have Faith when baptized and it evidences such a Faith to the Person nay Faith is required of them before they are to be baptized And so saith the Church of England 3dly You say It is the Bond of Holiness 1 Pet. 3. 21. the Apostle exhorts the Christians to be dead unto Sin and alive unto Righteousness There is a Virtue in the Ordinances of God answerable to
But they that despise and slight the Baptism of Infants despise neither the Baptism of John nor Christ because neither John nor our blessed Saviour commanded Infants to be baptized nor did they ever baptize one Child as we read of if you can prove they did do it we will say no more but will soon baptize our Children Thus I have done with all I thought necessary to remark or take notice of that is contained in your second Chapter CHAP. III. Shewing Baptizing is Dipping not sprinkling nor pouring a little Water SIR AS to what is contain'd in the second Chapter of your Book concerning the Continuation of Christ's Baptism of Water in the Church I shall say no more to that in that we agree and are one but we differ about what Baptism of Water is you would have it to be Sprinkling which indeed is not Baptism but Rantism for that you know is the Greek Word for Sprinkling 2. As also we differ about the true and proper Subjects of it according to our Saviour's Institution and since you begin with that you call the Manner or external Form of Administration of Baptism I shall follow you herein and shall first repeat your Words and then reply Thus you begin viz. Some judg that the whole Body ought to be dipped in Water and all other ways to be unlawful Others judg say you the sprinkling of Water on the Face of him that is baptiz'd to be sufficient especially in these cold Climates for even as in the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is one Moâ—sel of Bread and one Spoonful of Wine sufficient for to signify the Spiritual Food that is had in Christ even so in the Sacrament of Baptism the sprinkling of a little Water on him that is baptized signifies the Virtue of the Blood of Christ as effectually as Rivers of Water I answer Certainly you cannot be ignorant of what many learned Pedo-baptists have said in Opposition to what you here speak for tho both the holy Sacraments are very significant of Christ's Sufferings and of those spiritual Benefits we receive from him yet they are of different Signification First The Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper holds forth in a lively Figure the breaking of Christ's Body and the pouring forth of his precious Blood and this indeed may as well he represented by a small quantity of Bread and Wine as by much yet a little Water will not serve in Baptism 1. Because ' â—is positively said that John was baptizing in Enon near Salim John 3. 23. because there was much Water there Certainly the Holy Ghost would not have given this as the Reason why John baptized near Enon viz. because there was much Water in that place if a little Water namely a Spoonful or two would have been sufficient or two or three Quarts It seems plainly deducible from this Text it cannot be administred with a little Water but contrariwise it doth require much Water Secondly Pray consider that as the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper holds forth or represents symbolically the breaking of the Body of Christ and the shedding of his Blood and to that purpose it was in part instituted even so the Sacrament of Baptism holds forth in as lively Figure that our blessed Lord was dead buried and rose again and to this end this holy Ordinance was also instituted as also to shew forth our Death unto Sin and Vivification to Newness of Life as by and by shall be abundantly proved both from the holy Scriptures and a multitude of learned Men that hold infant-Infant-Baptism therefore since a little Water cannot in this Ordinance represent Christ's Burial and Resurrection it follows directly that a little Water will not serve to baptize Persons in but that it must be administred in Rivers Ponds or places where there is much Water i. e. so much Water as that the Body may be buried or covered all over therein But to proceed you say Neither is dipping or sprinkling essential unto this Ordinance but washing with Water or putting Water on the Body for the word Baptism signifies in the Greek washing with Water as we cited say you from Heb. 9. 10. Answ I answer now you have given away your Cause at once or I am mistaken for if neither dipping nor sprinkling be essential unto this Ordinance but washing what is become of your Baptism Sir all dipping in Water is washing tho all washing is not dipping in that you hurt us not but your sprinkling is not washing If a Woman should sprinkle her foul Linen with a few drops of Water would that be deem'd a washing of them Again if Sprinkling be not essential to Baptism you have no Baptism at all take away the Body of a Tree and there is no Tree That thing can't be where the essential part of it is wanting And now that the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify dipping and such a washing as is by dipping we shall plainly shew evince and demonstrate and confirm it by such Arguments and Authors that no unprejudiced sober Person can any longer well remain doubtful about this matter and then we will examine your Objections I shall prove baptizing or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not sprinkling nor pouring of Water upon the Body but dipping or plunging the Body all over in Water and that 1st From the proper literal and direct Signification of the Greek Word Baptizo and the Testimonies of Learned Men. 2dly From the Practice of Primitive Times 3dly From the Consideration of what is signified and represented in Baptism 4thly From those Typical Baptisms spoken of in the Scriptures 5thly From the nature of those Metaphorical Baptisms mentioned viz. the Baptism of the Spirit and that of Afflictions To proceed to prove the first Scapula and Stephens two as great Masters of the Greek Tongue as most we have do tell you in their Lexicons that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizo from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bapto signifies mergo immergo item tingo quod fit immergendo inficere imbuere viz. to dip plunge overwhelm put under cover over to dye in Colour which is done by plunging Grotius says it signifies to dip over Head and Ears Pasor an Immersion dipping or Submersion Vossius says it implies a washing the whole Body Mincaeus in his Dictionary saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Latin Baptismus in Dutch Doopsit or Doopen Baptismus or Baptism to dive or duck in Water and the same with the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabal which the Septuagint or Seventy Interpreters render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizo to dip This Casaâ—bon saith was the right of way Baptizing that Persons were plunged into the Water which the very word Baptizo sufficiently demonstrates which as it does not extend so far as to sink down to the bottom to the hurt of the Person so it is not to swim upon the Superficies of the Water Baptism ought to be
administred by plunging the whole Body into the Water The late famous and most learned in all the Oriental Tongues Dr. Du-Veil in his literal Explanation of the Acts Chap. 1. 5. saith the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizo is to dip as if it were to dye Colours and any Dyer will tell you if there is any small bit of Cloth not dipped it is not dyed Leigh in his Critica Saâ—râ— saith the native and proper Signification of the word is to dip into the Water or plunge under Water Mat. 3. 6. Acts 8. 38. for which also he quotes Casaâ—bon Bullinger Zanchy Spanhemius he saith withaâ—… that some would have it signify washing which Sense 〈◊〉 he saith opposed affirming that it was not otherwise so than by Consequence for the proper Signification was such a dipping or plunging as Dyers use for dying of Cloth Salmasius saith That is not Baptism which they give to Children but Rantism Beza on Mat. 3. 11. saith the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizo signifies to dye by dipping or washing Selden saith that the Jews took that Baptism wherein the whole Body was not baptized to be void Ainsworth speaks to the same purpose as I shall shew you Mr. Daniel Rogers says that a Minister is to dip in Water the Party baptized as the meetest Act the word Baptizo notes it for saith he the Greeks wanted not words to express any other Act besides dipping if the Institution could bear it What Resemblance of the Burial and Resurrection of Christ is in sprinkling mark that all Antiquity and Scripture saith he confirms that it was dipping If you would saith Dr. Du-Veil attend to the proper Signification of the word in the Synod of Caelichyth Anno 816. where Wolfred Archbishop of Canterbury presided Let saith he the Presbyters beware that when they administer the Sacrament of Baptism they do not pour Water upon the Heads of the Infants but let them be always plunged in the Font according to the Example of the Son of God himself who was plunged in the Waters of Jordan Thus must the Ceremony be performed according to order See Dr. Du-Veil on the Acts Chap. 2. p. 5 6 7. The said learned Doctor saith in the same place The constant Practice of the universal Church till the time of Clement V. who was crowned Pope Anno 1305 under whom first of all the second Synod of Ravenna approved the Abuse brought into some Churches about an hundred Years before that Baptism without any necessity should be administred by Aspersion Hence it came to pass that contrary to the Analogy or intended Mystical Signification of this Sacrament all the West for the most part has in this Age the use of Rantism that is Sprinkling instead of Baptism as Zepper speaks to the great Scandal of the Greeks and Russians who to this day plunge into the Water those they baptize and deny any one to be rightly baptized who is not plunged into the Water according to the Precept of Christ as we find in Sylvester Squropulus Dr. Taylor saith The Custom of the Antient Church was not Sprinkling but Immersion in pursuance of the Sense of the word Baptizing and the Commandment and Example of our blessed Saviour Salmasius in his Notes of divers upon Sulpitius Severus saith that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Immersion not Sprinkling Nor did the Antients otherwise baptize than by single or treble Immersion as in the Greek Church to this day saith he the Person to be baptized is plunged over Head and Ears The same thing does Peter Avetabolis testify of the Asian Christians inhabiting Iberia and Colchi St. Ambrose saith Water is that wherein the Body is plunged to wash all Sin away there all Vice is buried In a Book inscribed Reformation of Ecclesiastical Laws printed at London 1641. 't is expressed in these words While we are plunged in the Water the Death and Burial of Christ is recommended to us that we openly testify that Sin lies dead and buried in us The Raman Order published by the Writers concerning Ecclesiastical â—eremoniâ—s says the Presbyters enter into the Fountain Within unto the Water and the Males are first baptized and then the Femaies Luther saith The Name of Baptism is a Greek Word it may be termed Dipping when we dip something in Water that it may be wholly covered with Water and altho saith he that Custom is now altogether abolished among the most part for neither do they dip the whole Children but only sprinkle them with a little VVater they ought nevertheless to be dipp'd and presently drawn out again The Germans also call Baptism Taâ—ff from Deepness which they call Tieff in their Tongue as if it were meet saith our Author that those be dipp'd deeply who are baptized John Bugenhagius Pomeranus both a Fellow and Successor in the Ministry of Luther at Wittenburgh whom Thuanus and Zanchias witness to have been a very moderate godly and learned Man affirms that he was desired to be a VVitness at Hamburgh in the Year 1529. that when he had seen the Minister only sprinkle the Infant wrapt in Swadling-Clothes on the top of the Head he was amazed because he neither had heard or seen or saw any such thing nor yet read in any History except in case of necessity in Bed-rid Persons Hence in a General Assembly therefore of all the Ministers that were convened he did ask of a certain Minister John Frize by Name who was sometimes Minister of Lubec how the Sacrament of Baptism was administred at Lubec who for his Piety and Candor did answer that Infants were baptized naked at Lubec after the same fashion altogether as in Germany but from whence and how that peculiar manner of baptizing had crept into Hamburgh he was ignorant At length they did agree among themselves that the Judgment of Luther and of the Divines at Wittenburg should be demanded about this Point which thing being done Luther wrote back to Hamburgh that the Sprinkling was an Abuse they ought to remove Thus plunging was restored at Hamburgh yet is that Climate cooler than onrs Mr. Jos Mede saith there was no such thing as Sprinkling or Rantism mark used in Baptism in the Apostles days nor many Ages after He had spoken more properly if he had said there was no Rantism used in the Apostles days but Baptism than to say no Rantism used in Baptism since he well knew they are two distinct and different Acts It cannot be Baptism at all if it be only Rantism or Sprinkling Immersion or Dipping being the very thing not an Accident as I hinted but an Essential so absolutly necessary that it cannot be the Act or Ordinance without it If I command my Maid to dip my Handkerchief into the Water and she only takes a little Water in her Hand and sprinkles a few drops upon it doth she do what I command her was that the thing or is it not another Act Even so 't is here you
do not the thing you rantise and baptize none unless you dip them into the Water Chamier also faith the antient use of Baptism was to dip the whole Body into the Element therefore did John baptize in a River Dr. Hammond in his Annotations upon John 13. 10. saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an Immersion or washing the whole Body and which answereth to the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for dipping in the Old Testament and therefore tells us upon Mat. 3. that John baptized in a River viz. in Jordan Mark 1. 5. in a Confluence of Water John 3. 23. because 't is said there was much Water which the Greeks called the Lakes where they used to wash Also saith he the Antients called their Baptisterions or the Vessels containing their Baptismal Water Columbethras viz. swimming or diving places being very large with Partitions for Men and Women The Learned Mr. Pool or those Learned and Reverend Divines concerned in perfecting his most excellent Annotations on the holy Bible says a great part of those who went out to hear John were baptized that is dipped in Jordan on John 3. 6. and on Mat. 28. 20. say they the first Baptism of which we read in Holy Writ was dipping the Person baptized The Dutch Translation according to their Language reads it dipping Mat. 3. 16. Ende Jesus Gedoopt zijn de is terstont Opgeklomen vit hit wâ—er And when Jesus was dipp'd he came out of the Water And Ver. 6. Ende wierden van hemge doopt in de Jordan And were dipped of him in Jordan Hence they called John the Baptist John the Dipper In Verse 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 word Baptisma Mr. 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. But 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 are none of the Subjects Christ commanded to be dipp'd in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost 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. IV. Proving Baptism is Dipping by the Practice of John Baptist Christ and his Apostles 2dly FRom the Practice of the Primitive Times I have already 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 antient manner of baptizing was that the whole Body was dipp'd into the Water So saith the Assembly in their Annotations Nav 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 Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water John 3. 23. But some strive to contradict the Holy Ghost by making People believe there was not much Water in that place Because the Original reads not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much Water but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Waters that is say they many Sâ—…ms or Rivolets Answer What difference is there between much VVater and many Waters If they were Streams and Rivolets tho not deep yet if they were but a little while stopped with a Dam they would soon rise to be deep enough to swim 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 because intimating plainly that the Ordinance could not 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 't is objected Sandy's Travels tell us that they were so shallow as not to reach above the Ankles Answ 1. Must we believe God's Word or a lying Traveller the Scripture saith there was much Water 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 this 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 if any seek after this manner to contradict the sacred Text to defend their Childish Practice of Rantism they 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 Ergo a little Water will not serve to baptize in 2dly 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 he 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 dipped into Jordan and that is and was the Act and nothing else besure 3dly They went down both into the Water both Philip and the Eunuch Acts 8. What need had there been
for them so to have done had Baptism been sprinkling Sure Philip would not have put that Noble Person who was a Man of great Authority under Caâ—dace 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 Men make void the Command of Christ by their 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 Church's part to cleave to the Institution which is dipping especially it being not lest 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 disordered Error if he cleave not to the Institution O what abundance of 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 Casanbon 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 maintain'd 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 consess 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 VVho 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 many with the scurrilous Name of Anabaptists c. altho we are as much against rebaptizing as any People in the VVorld can be The Learned Cajetan upon Mat. 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 Mat. 3. calls Baptism dipping and says the Parties baptized were dipped not sprinkled To close with this take one Argument If the Baptizer and the Baptized in the days of Christ and his Apostles went both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipped 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 dipped Ergo Baptism is not Sprinkling but Dipping CHAP. V. Proving that Baptism is plunging or burying in Water the whole Body in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Wherein Mr. Owen's Arguments for sprinkling and his Objections against Immersion or Dipping are fully answered REader thou mayst see that tho the remote Sense of the common word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may refer to pouring of Water yet the proper and genuine Sense of that word is dipping or such a washing as is by dipping which is abundantly proved as you have heard both by the Scriptures and Consent of a great Cloud of Witnesses amongst the Learned both Anâ—…nt and Modern Therefore what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith in the beginning of his third Chapter viz. That it is uncertain whether in the New Testament the Apostles baptized by dipping or sprinkling is not true it being evident it was by dipping and no other way For where-ever the word Baptism is used I say again in the New Testament as it refers to Christ's Ordinance of Baptism it signifies dipping or plunging into the Water nor can he prove the Jews washed their Hands and Cups only by pouring Water on them tho Elijah might have Water poured on his Hand we commonly wash our Hands and Cups by dipping them into the Water And so did the Jews as Mr. Ainsworth affirms 2dly Sir what you say concerning that Typical Baptism in the Cloud and Sea you have heard also fully answered and that makes not for sprinkling nor pouring But more to that hereafter 3dly What you say concerning the Signification of Baptism that it holds forth two things 1. The Blood of Christ 2. The Spirit of Christ is far fetch'd for the Lord's Supper holds forth the Blood of Christ and we have no Ordinance ordain'd by Christ to hold forth in a Figure the sprinkling or pouring forth of the Spirit if Man has invented such a thing so be it The Papists found out seven Sacraments with their significant Signs as they tell you and they have the same Parity of Reason to maintain their Sacraments without any Warrant from God's Word as our Pedobaptists have for their baptizing or rather rantizing or sprinkling of Babes True the Apostle speaks of sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus but Baptism is no Figure of that as you have heard but primarily of the Death â—urial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ Sir you say Sprinkling is lawful because it is very probable that the Apostles themselves did baptize by pouring or sprinkling Water Acts 2. 41. Then they that gladly received the word were baptized and the same day there were added unto them three thousand Souls It is not you say very probable that these three thousand were plunged over Head and Ears in VVater How could Peter and the rest of the Apostles even twelve Men baptize three thousand in one day yea in one half day how could they change their Apparel c. Answ 1. I answer wonder no more how three thousand Persons shou'd be baptized i. e. dipped in that short time 't is sufficient for any Christian to believe it because the Holy Ghost hast said it 2. But whereas you say there were but twelve Men to administer it that is not true there were the seventy Disciples no doubt with them who were Ministers and there might very probably be many more 3. However since Baptism is Immersion
i. e. dipping and the Text says they were baptized it follows they were dipped into the Water What you say about Ananias baptizing Paul and of Paul's baptizing the Jaylor proves nothing 't is meer stuff that deserves no Answer You say Paul was baptized in his Lodging when he was sick Answ It is not said he was sick nor that he was baptized in his Lodging read the Text again true 't is said after he was baptized he received Strength I have known multitudes of weak Persons baptized by dipping in frosty Weather in our cold Climate and never took any harm thereby We say Baptism is Dipping and among many other Reasons we argue it must needs be so administred because John the Baptist baptized in Jordan and in Enon near Salim because there was much Water there Mat. 3. 13. John 3. 23. You answer If some were baptized by dipping others were baptized by pouring Water on them as we proved say you before therefore both ways are lawful I answer 1. 'T is well our way of dipping is owned by you as lawful and a right way then do you and all others take heed how you speak against us who so administer the holy Ordinance of Baptism it appears we err not in so doing by your own Confesson 2. But whereas you say you have proved that some were in the Primitive Time baptized by pouring Water on them we have shewed your Proofs to be too short and invalid 3. The way of the Administration of Christ's sacred Ordinance was but one and the same in all the Churches of the Saints and if some were baptized by dipping and others by sprinkling or pouring Water upon them then the Ordinance must have different Significations which could not be answered on some Persons unless 〈◊〉 they were both dipped and sprinkled and had water poured upon them which is preposterous to imagine for such that were dipped or buried under the VVater were thereby made in Sign and Signification conformable to the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ which we have so fully proved to be one great End of Baptism that it cannot be denâ—ed and such who were only sprinkled they were taught thereby the sprinkling of Christ's Blood and of the Spirit as you would have the Ordinance to signify without any ground from God's VVord Now how unlikely it is that both these ways were used this being considered I shall leave to all wise and considerate Persons to think upon You say in the next place That the Scripture doth not say in any place when they were baptized they were dipped If say you those that are against sprinkling say that they gather so much by Consequence from the fore-cited Scriptures they ought to remember their rejecting Scriptural Consequences when they are used by us for proving Infant-Baptism c. Answ If I had not a Learned Man to deal with I should not marvel Sir Is not Baptisin a Greek VVord VVhat difference between Baptism and Baptisma Is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek and is it not in English to dip VVhat need of Consequences here Had our Translators truly translated that word they must have render'd it as the Dutch have as I mentioned before viz. Ende Jesus gedoopt zijnde is ter-stont opgeklomen vit hit wter and when Jesus was dipp'd he came out of the Water Mat. 3. 16. and ver 6. Ende wierden van hemge doopt in de Jordan And were dipped of him in Jordan Hence the Dutch call John the Baptist John the Dooper John the Dipper As to your Consequences we always deny that they are genuine or naturally drawn from those Scriptures to which you refer But whereas you say we have nothing for dipping which is of the Essence of Baptism as we do affirm it is but Consequences it is too bold an Assertion not being true as by this time my honest Country men may see if they are impartial Persons They think say you that John baptized by dipping because he baptized in Jordan they can never prove that was the Cause for the Scripture doth not say what was the occasion why he baptized in Jordon Answ Sir look into your Greek Testament once again and read Mark 1. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Jordan VVould it be proper to say he sprinkled them or poured VVater on them into Jordan It is proper to say he dipped them into Jordan and that is Baptism and nothing else as it refers to Christ's Ordinance viz. a washing by dipping or plunging into Jordan or into the VVater 2. Tho the Scripture doth not say in so many words that that was the occasion of John's baptizing into Jordan Yet Sir remember and tremble at that Text John 3. 23. for there it is by the Holy Ghost given as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water there plainly denoting that a little VVater will not serve to administer holy Baptism but so much as will cover or bury the whole Body You add It being very doubtful whether those People that came unto him were dipped or plunged for there went out unto him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the Regions round about Jordan and were baptized by him We cannot judg you say that he baptized less than an hundred thousand Men and Women c. there were you say much more People in those Countries but it being impossible for him to dip or plunge so many Men in so short time of his Ministry which continued but three Years and of these three Years he lay in Prison half a Year so that he did neither preach or baptize but for two Years and a half Vid. Lightf vol. I. p. 234. If he had baptized fifty every day on these two Years and a half which is not probable he could do the whole you say is but forty five thousand six hundred and twenty five but he baptized much more which could not be done by dipping or plunging therefore it is reasonable for us you say to judg that he sprinkled or poured Water on them c. Answ As to what you say here it seems very strange to me that you should once imagine that John baptized all the People universally in Jerusalem and Judea without Exception Why did not you put in all the Infants too as well as Men and Women I had lately to do with one Mr. Exel who asserted that in a Treatise of his which with Shame enough to him I gave an Answer unto I am sorry you have no better Skill in Scripture-Rhetorick where frequently per Synecdochen vel totius vel partis a part is put for the whole or the whole for the part as 't is said God would have all Men to be saved i. e. some of all sorts and degrees as Kings Noble-Men Old Young Rich Poor c. So 't is said Christ when he was lifted up he would draw all Men unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 12. 32. Doth
he mean every individual Person or some of all sorts of Jews and Gentiles So Paul saith All seek their own c. Vid. Glassi Illerici Philolog Sacr. and also our late Annotators the word or term All they tell you is here twice repeated Mat. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. it is enough to let us know that in Scripture 't is signisicative no farther than many for say they it cannot be imagined that every individual Person in Jerusalem and all the Regions round about Jordan went to hear John the Baptist 2. You forget that Text John 3. 26. Behold him that thou bearest witness of c. the same baptizeth and All Men come unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to Jesus Christ Also 't is said John 4. 1 2. That Jesus made and baptized more Disciples than John If John baptized them all and Jesus baptized them all then they were all twice baptized or all re-baptized and if so were indeed properly all Ana-baptists Sir in both places it intends but some You worthy and beloved Britains take heed how you are led by a Man that argues so preposterously I doubt not but he may be a good Man but under a Cloud of Darkness 3. Sir how Dr. Lightfoot or you can prove that John preached but two Years and a half I see not but had he every day baptized an hundred he might with much Ease have done it in the space of four hours time or thereabouts But alas neither he nor our Saviour had so many Disciples as you imagine the Number of the Disciples after the Resurrection of Christ as we read Acts 1. were but an hundred and twenty that were together perhaps there might be some few more in some other parts 4. But you I perceive contradict the Holy Ghost in saying that John sprinkled them i. e. rantized them for Ranâ—izing in the Original as I presume you know is sprinkling in English Sir I appeal to your Conscience whether it be not so Sprinkling and pouring is one thing and baptizing another and a quite different Act. I affirm Sprinkling is not Baptizing say what you will You in the next place mention that which we object concerning Philip and the Eunuch who went both down into the Water when the Eunuch was baptized To this you answer and say How doth that follow Could they not go into the Water without plunging in it We read in Gen. 24. 45. say you that Rebecca went down into the Well Does it follow that she was plunged in it You will say of your Maid-Servant when she goes to draw Water she went down into the River your meaning is not that she was plunged there I answer Rebecca might properly be said to go down into the Well because in some Wells there are several Steps or Stairs before we come to the Water 't is not said she went into the Water Also who of us could say when our Servant-Maid went to draw Water or fetch Water from a River she went into the River if any do say so they speak not truly but indeed do lie Sir take heed what you say the Holy Ghost doth not say they went down to the Water but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both went down into the Water and he baptized him i. e. dipp'd him not rantiz'd him You bring in our Objection against your Sprinkling taken from Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12 13. viz. we are said to be buried with Christ in Baptism into Death To this you say We bury by casting Earth on the Body and the pouring of Water you say doth represent it it cannot be said one was buried that was fallen under Water or Earth unless he remains there for a time he that descendeth into a Coal-pit is under the Earth but is not buried by reason he cometh out from thence immediately dipping therefore doth not signify a Burial unless he that is dipped remains for a time under the Water I answer 'T is true we do bury by casting Earth on the dead Body but 't is so much Earth as covers the Corps all over or else 't is not buried So if you pour Water on a Child until it is covered all over in Water it may truly be said that Child was buried in the Water altho the burying in Baptism is not by pouring Water in great abundance until it is covered but by going into the Water and there to be dipped or plunged all over so that all may see the Body is buried under Water as truly symbolically and as properly as if it had been buried in the Water Or 2. Tho a Person be laid in the Grave and covered all over with Earth tho it be but two Minutes he may as truly and properly be said to be buried as he that lies there three Days or a thousand Years But you would have Baptism to be no proper Representation of a Burial unless the Person baptized lies so long till he be drowned Sir Baptism doth represent the Death of Christ and of the old Man or Body of Sin which is as sufficiently held forth by a Minute or two as by many Days 3. And now utterly to put to silence your vain Objections I shall give the Sense of a whole Cloud of Witnesses as to the proper Exposition of those Texts Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12 13. by and by but if my honest Country-men do think you have given a better Sense of the Words than all those Learned Men I will say no more You say the Resemblance then between Baptism doth not stand in the dipping of the Body so much as in the End of the Ordinance in making us Partakers of Christ's Death of his Life and of his Ascension and of his sitting on the Right hand of God Baptism makes us to be planted together in the Likeness of his Death yet there are none you say that plants Bodies in Water by baptizing them Rom. 6. 5. Answ We shall in our next Chapter finally determine this great Point and plainly shew you by manifest Arguments together with the joint Consent and Agreement of a multitude of Learned Men that were and are Pedo-baptists that the Resemblance between Death Burial and Resurrection and Baptism doth stand in the outward Sign of Dipping as well as in our partaking of the Blessing of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection All know in the Ordinance of the Lord's-Supper the Signs are significant and no true Protestant will admit of such an Administration of it in which the breaking of Christ's Body and the shedding of his Blood is not clearly represented to the sight of our Eyes Why is the Popish way of the Administration rejected who deny the Laity the Cup if there ought not to be an exact keeping to the direct Signs as well as to bear in Mind the Thing signified thereby Nay Sir I find you in your third Chapter to justify your sprinkling stifly by arguing for an Agreement between the Sign and the Thing
signined and that Baptism was not ordained to be a Sign or Symbol of the sprinkling Christ's Blood but of his Death Burial and Resurrection It shall God assisting be further demonstrated Now let this be considered That as in the Lord's-Supper it is such a quantity of Bread and Wine that is to be used that may represent his Body broken and his Blood shed and as that Sacrament was appointed to that very end and purpose so in like manner we also say so much Water must be used as may represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of our blessed Saviour But one Mr. Burkitt a Pedo-baptist saith in his Treatise of Infant-Baptism That in the Sacraments it is not the quantity of Elements but the Significancy of them that ought to be attended to in Circumcision saith he it was not the quantity of Flesh cut off so much as the Signification of it c. and you seem to express your self to the same purpose Answ To which I returned him this Answer viz. There must be so much Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper that may represent Christ's Body broken and so much Wine as may in Sign as well as Signification held forth the pouring forth of Christ's precious Blood or else the End of Christ is not answered in that Sacrament and so likewise must the Burial and Resurrection of Christ be in Sign as well as our Death to Sin and rising again to Newness of Life is represented in holy Baptism Should the People of Israel in Circumcision only have cut off a little bit of the Fore-skin of the Flesh and not round quite off or only have paired off the Nails of their 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 But the Vanity and Sinfulness of this Assertion of Mr. Burkitt's and yours will yet be now further laid open in this Chapter only there is one thing before I proceed on that I shall add a word or two unto as touching what you say concerning those Washings that were used under the Law which are called Baptisms which you say were done by sprinkling which is not true we utterly deny any of those Washings which are called Baptisms were either sprinkling or pouring of Water on them but total dipping of their whole Body And so the Reverend Mr. Ainsworth a Man very Learned in all Jewish Rites and Ceremonies affirms on Levit. 11. 31. see his Annotat. on that Text these are his words viz. All that are unclean whether Men or Vessels are not cleansed but by dipping or baptizing in Water and wheresoever the Law speaketh of washing a Man's Flesh or washing of Clothes for Uncleanness it is not but by dipping the whole Body therein And whether they be Men or Vessels there may not be any thing between them and the Water to keep them asunder as Clay Pitch or the like that cleaveth to the Body or Vessel if there be then saith he they are unclean and their washing profiteth them not He cites for this Maim Mikvaoeh c. 1. § 12. Sir what is become of your sprinkling of Cups Pots and Brazen Vessels among the Jews when 't is said they washed or baptized them it appears their way in washing was total dipping or else they were not clean And now to proceed to prove Christ's Baptism in Water is by Immersion by Dipping to represent in Sign his Death Burial and Resurrection and in Signification to hold forth our Death unto Sin and rising again to walk in Newness of Life who are baptized I shall add it in this place First From the Scripture Secondly By the Consent Agreement and Arguments of a Cloud of Witnesses both Antient Fathers and Modern Divines and worthy Protestant Writers 1. The first Scripture is Rom. 6. 3 4 5 6. Therefore we are buried with him in Baptism c. The Saints or whole Church of the Romans were to reckon themselves dead to Sin and bound to live no longer therein and that because by Baptism as in a lively Figure they held forth the same thing so that it appears Baptism hath a twofold Signification 1. There is in it when truly and rightly administred not only a Representation of Christ's Burial and Resurrection but 2. Also it signifies our Death unto Sin and our rising again to walk in Newness of Life and indeed the Apostle makes use of this as an Argument to press Newness of Life the thing signified in Baptism upon them all as if he should say As many of us as are baptized must know this that we are baptized into Christ's Death and therefore must die to Sin and live a new Life But we have all been baptized or buried with him in Baptism therefore must all of us die to Sin and live a new Life Our late Annotators on the place say thus He seems to allude to the manner of baptizing in those warm Countries which was say they to dip or plunge the Party baptized and as it were to bury him for a while under Water Cajetan upon the same Text says We are buried with Christ by Baptism unto Death by our burying he declares our Death by the Ceremony of Baptism because he that is the Party baptized is put under Water and by this carries a Similitude of him that was buried who was put under the Earth Now because none are buried but dead Men from this very thing that we are buried in Baptism we are assimilated to Christ buried or when he was buried The Assembly 〈◊〉 their Annotations on this Text of Scripture say likewise thus viz. In this Phrase the Apostle sâ—…s to allude to the antient manner of baptizing which 〈◊〉 to dip the Party baptized and as it were to bury them under Water for a while and then raise them up again out of it to represent the Burial of the old-Man and the Resurrection to Newness of Life The same saith Diodate Tilenus a great Protestant Writer speaks fully in this case Baptism saith he is the first Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ in which there is an exact Analogy between the Sign and the Thing signified The outward Rite in Baptism is threefold 1. Immersion into the Water 2. Aciding under the Water 3. A Resurrection out of the Water The Form of Baptism viz. External and Essential is no other than an Analogical Proportion which the Signs keep with the Thing signified thereby For the Property of the Water washing away the Defilements of the Body does in a most sutable Similitude set forth the Efficacy of Christ's Blood in blotting out of Sin so dipping into the Water in a most lively Similitude sets forth the Mortification of the old Man and rising out of the Water the Vivification of the new Man The same plunging into the Water saith he holds forth to us that horrible Gulph of Divine
Justice in which Christ for our sakes for a while was in a manner swallowed up abiding under the Water how little time soever denotes his Descent into Hell even the very deepest of Lifelesness lying in the sealed or guarded Sepulchre where he was accounted as one dead Rising out of the VVater holds forth to us a lively Similitude of that Conquest which this dead Man got over Death In like manner saith he 't is therefore meet that we being baptized into his Death and buried with him should rise also with him to go on in a new Life Thus far And let all thinking and serious Christians carefully consider since this sacred Ordinance was appointed to be thus significant as this and other Learned Men observe what a sad and lamentable thing it is that the true Baptism should be changed from dipping into sprinkling which neither doth nor can hold forth these great Mysteries for which purpose our Saviour ordained it For 't is evident Rantism or Sprinkling doth not bear any Proportion to these Mysteries nor can they be signified thereby What Figure of a Burial of Christ or of the old Man is there in sprinkling a few drops of VVater on a Person 's Face Or what Representation is there in that Act of a Resurrection O how is Christ's holy Baptism abused by this devised Rantism and the Signification thereof destroyed the Lord open your Eyes or the Eyes of my godly and impartial Reader This shews you clearly what Christ's true Baptism is as also the true Subject But to proceed St. Ambrose saith VVater is that wherein the Body is plunged to wash away all Sins there all Sins saith he are buried We suppose he means 't is a Sign of this i. e. that all Sin is buried Moreover Chrysostom saith that the Old Man is buried and drown'd in the Immersion under Water and when the baptized Person is afterwards raised up out of the Water it represents the Resurrection of the New Man to Newness of Life and therefore concludes the contrary Custom being not only against Ecclesiastical Law but against the Analogy and Mystical Signification of the Sacrament is not to be complied with It has been too long as I have formerly noted God grant Men more Light to see their Error and abhor to do so any more Kecker says That Immersion not Aspersion was the first Institution of Baptism as it doth saith he plainly appear from Rom. 6. 3. And say I VVhere hath Christ since the first Institution instituted Aspersion or Sprinkling in the stead or room of Immersion or Dipping or given Orders to change that significant Sign into the insignificant Foppery of Sprinkling Ought not we to keep the Ordinances as they were first instituted and given to the Saints Is not God's Word to be our Rule in all Points of Faith and Practice to the End of the World Has Christ given any Men or Church a Dispensation to change his Laws and Ordinances or make them void by these Traditions or set up their Post by his Post How doth God complain by the Prophets against his People of old for presuming to change his Laws Deut. 12. 13 God gave particular Command to make an Altar of Gold to offer Incense Exod. 40. 5. and he commanded Exod. 20. 24 25. that his Altar should be made of Earth or rough Stone but in Isa 65. 3. he reproves their horrid Transgressions and Disobedience in acting contrary to his express Institution A People saith God that provoketh me to Anger continually to my Face that sacrificeth in Gardens and burneth Incense upon Altars of Brick You may think that was no great Error instead of Gold or Stone to make Altars of Brick but what saith God they for this c. provoke me continually to my Face O tremble ye who adventure to transgress God's Precept in as bad or worse a manner Who commanded you to baptize or dip Believers in the Name of the Father c. and you rantize or sprinkle Infants Aâ—as you know not how you hereby provoke God! altho he is yet silent and doth not manifest his Displeasure yet know he is a jealous God and hath the like Zeal for his Gospel-Institutions as ever he had of those under the Law and may manifest it too in his own time But to proceed and call in for more Witnesses against your Practice Daillâ— on the Fathers saith that it was a Custom heretofore in the antient Church to plunge those they baptized over Head and Eâ—…s in the VVater And saith he Tertullian in his third Book de 〈◊〉 Mil. Cyprian in his seventieth Epistle p. 211 c. and others testify it Dr. Cave saith that the Party baptized was wholly immerged or put under the VVater which was the almost constant and universal Custom of those Times whereby they did most notably and significantly express the great Ends and Effects of Baptism For as in immerging there are in a manner three several Acts the putting the Person into the VVater his abiuing under the VVater and his rising up again thereby representing Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection and in our Conformity thereupto our dying to Sin the Destruction of its Power and our Resurrection to a new course of Life So by the Person 's being put into the Water was lively represented the putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh c. by his being under it which is a kind of Burial into the Water his entering into a State of Death or Mortification like as Christ remained for sometime under the State or Power of Death therefore 't is said As many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his Death c. And then by Immersion or rising up out of the Water is signified his entering upon a new course of Life that like as Christ was raised up by the Glory of the Father so we should walk in Newness of Life Thus Dr. Cave We are said saith PaÌ„raeus to die and to be buried with Christ in Baptism And further shews that the external Act of being buried in Water is a lively Emblem of the internal Work of Regeneration St. Bernard saith Immersion is a Representation of Christ's Death and Burial Against all these Testimonies and multitudes more of the best and most Learned Writers Mr. Burkitt objects as follows and you seem to argue after the same manner these are his words viz. If Baptism administred by pouring Water on the Face representing the whole Person doth answer the Use and End of Baptism as well as when administred by aipping or plâ—nging then dipping is not essentially and absolutely necessary in the Act of baptizing but the one answereth the Use and End of baptizing as well as the other therefore the one cannot be more essential than the other What is the End and Use of Baptism but to represent to our Minds 〈◊〉 Effusion of Christ's Blood for to take away the Guilt of Sin and the pouring forth of the Spirit for the purging
of which Jonas after a Burial of three days was set at liberty and the Cloud and the Red Sea in which the People of Israel are said to have been baptized i. e. not washed mark but buried for they were all Types of the same thing as Baptism viz. not the washing away of Sin but of the Death and Resurrection of Christ and our own to which the Apostles the Fathers the Scholasticks mark and all Interpreters agree The thing saith he is so apparent as not to need any Testimonies but because there are not a few who do not vulgarly teach this Doctrine it will not be superfluous to produce some of those innumerable Testimonies that I may saith he not seem to speak without Book And First Let us begin with St. Paul Rom. 6. 3. Know ye not that so many of you that have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his Death Therefore we are buried with him in Baptism into his Death c. Else what shall they do that are baptized for the Dead if the Dead rise not As if he had said If there be no Resurrection why are we baptized In vain does the Church use the Symbol of Baptism if there be no Resurrection The like Testimonies frequently occur among the Fathers saith he Ignatius saith That believing in his Death we may be made Partakers of his Resurrection by Baptism Baptism was given in Memory of the Death of our Lord we perform the Symbols of his Death mark not of pouring forth his Blood or holy Spirit or sprinkling the Spirit on us or the Blood of Christ No no this that Author says is not signified in Baptism but the Burial and Resurrection of Christ which sprinkling no manner of ways can represent Justin Martyr saith We know but one saving Baptism in regard there is but one Resurrection from the dead of which Baptism is an Image And from hence say I we know not Infants Rantism or Sprinkling for this is none of Christ's true Baptism Christ's Baptism is but one and 't is that of Believers and 't is not sprinkling but dipping to signify Christ's Burial and Resurrection He goes on and cites other Authors Hear Paul exclaiming They past through the Sea and were all baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea He calls Baptism the Passage of the Sea for it was a flight of Death caused by Water To be baptized and so plunged and to return up and rise out of the Water is a Symbol of the Descent into the Grave and returning from thence Baptism is a Pledg and Representation of the Resurrection Baptism is an Earnest of the Resurrection Immersion is a Representation of Death and Burial Innumerable are the Testimonies saith Sir Norton which might be added but these I think sufficient to prove that Baptism is an Image of the Death and Resurrection of Christ from whence we acknowledg the Mystery of our Religion saith he Christ's Deity and Humanity and of the Faithful who are baptized in his Faith from Death in Sin to Newness of Life which if they lead in this World they have a most assured Hope that being dead they shall hereafter rise to Glory with Christ Thus Sir Norton Knatchbul a worthy Knight Mr. Perkins saith The dipping of the Body signifies Mortification or Fellowship with Christ in his Death the staying under the Water signifies the Burial of Sin and coming out of the Water the Resurrection from Sin to Newness of Life In another Treatise of his he saith the antient Custom of baptizing was to dip as it were to dive all the Body of the baptized in Water Rom. 6. Council of Laodicea and Neocesarea And here let me add what Reverend Dr. Sharp the present Archbishop of York hath lately delivered in a Sermon preached before the Queen's Majesty on Easter-day March the 27th 1692. And this in antient Times was taught every Christian saith he in and by his Baptism Whenever a Person was baptized he was not only to profess his Faith in Christ's Death and Resurrection but he was also to look upon himself as obliged in Correspondence therewith to mortify his former carnal Affections and to enter upon a new State of Life And the very form of Baptism saith he did lively represent this Obligation to them For what did their being plung'd under Water signify but their undertaking in Imitation of Christ's Death and Burial to forsake all their former evil Courses as their ascending out of the Water did their Engagement to lead a holy spiritual Life This our Apostle doth more than once declare to us thus Rom. 6. 3 4. We are buried saith he with Christ by Baptism unto Death that like as Christ was raised up by the Glory of the Father so we should walk in Newness of Life Thus far Dr. Sharp his Sermon on Phil. 3. 10. pag. 9. Dr. Fowler now Lord Bishop of Glocester on Rom. 6. 3 4. saith Christians being plunged into the Water signifies their undertaking and obliging themselves in a spiritual Sense to be buried with Jesus Christ in an utter renouncing and forsaking all their Sins that so answering to his Resurrection they may live a holy and a godly Life Design of Christianity p. 90. Also Dr. Sherlock Dean of St. Paul's on Rom. 6. 3 4. saith Our Conformity to the Death and Resurrection of our Saviour consists in dying to Sin and walking in Newness of Life Which saith he St. Paul tells us is represented by the external Ceremony of Baptism and rising out of his watery Grave a new born Creature Charity without Usury p. 1. And unto these let me add what the Pious and Reverend Dr. Tillotson late Archbishop of Canterbury hath wrote speaking of the same Text Rom. 6. 3 4. Antiently saith he those who were baptized put off their Garments which signified their putting off the Body of Sin and were immersed and buried in the Water to represent the Death of Sin and then did rise up again out of the Water to signify their Entrance upon a new Life And to these Customs the Apostle alludes when he says How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his Death c. 1. 'T is a hard case you neither will believe the holy Scripture the Antient Fathers and Modern Divines nor other learned Prelates of the Church of England who are yet living but contrary to the nature and tendency of holy Baptism plead for Sprinkling and condemn Dipping and cast Reproach upon it and say also that the Thing signified thereby is the pouring forth of Christ's Blood or the sprinkling and pouring out of the holy Spirit notwithstanding we prove from the Scripture and with the Testimony of all these great Men that Baptism signifies the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and not any of those things you affirm as your own Conceit without the Testimony of any learned or approved
yet the grafting of a Person into Christ is represented by that Allusion or Metaphorical Expression Must the Sign and the Thing signified be all one and the same thing Thus we see in opposition to what you say in the close of your third Chapter that it is very plain and manifest that dipping is absolutely necessary and of the Essence of Baptism it 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alas Sir in all the New Testament where we read of sprinkling the Greek as I said before renders it rantizing not baptizing 〈◊〉 Christ has ordained Rantism to represent the sprinkling of his Blood or the sprinkling of his Spirit prove it we deny it and have sufficiently proved he has appointed Baptism to represent his Death Burial and Resurrection and that sprinkling is not baptizing But for a farther Satisfaction of the impartial Reader take a few Syllogistical Arguments Arg. 1. If Baptism was ordained to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ in a lively Figure then Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism But Baptism was ordained to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ in a lively Figure therefore Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism This Argument we have proved to be true in every part of it Arg. 2. If Baptism was appointed to hold forth or represent in a lively Figure the Person 's Death to Sin who is baptized or his present Regeneration not future and his rising again to walk in Newness of Life then Infants cannot be the Subjects thereof But Baptism was appointed to hold forth or represent in a lively Figure the Person 's Death to Sin who is baptized or his present Regeneration not future and his rising again to walk in Newness of Life Therefore Infants are not the Subjects thereof 4. There is yet one Proof further to make it yet clearer that Baptism is dipping or plunging and nothing else and that is taken from those Typical Baptisms spoken of in the holy Scripture 1. That of the Red Sea wherein the Fathers were buried as it were unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud See Pool's Annotations on the Place Others says he more properly think the Apostle uses this Term in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptism as it was used the Person going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea the great Receptable of Water tho the Water at that time was gathered on heaps on the other side of them yet they seemed buried in the Water as Persons seem'd buried in the Water were in that Age when they were baptized 2. The second Typical Baptism was that of Noah's Ark See Sir Norton Knatchbull whom I quoted before saith he Noah's Ark and Baptism were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection not a Sign of the washing away of Sin tho so taken metonymically but a particular Signal of the Resurrection of Christ Of this again saith he is Baptism a lively and emphatical Figure as also was the Ark of Noah out of which he returned as from a Sepulchre From hence I infer this Argument following Arg. 3. If those Typical Baptisms spoken of in the Scriptures signified Immersion or an Overwhelming or a Burial then is Sprinkling no true Baptism But those Typical Baptisms c. did signify Immersion or an Overwhelming or a Burial Therefore Sprinkling is no true Baptism Again that Baptism is dipping or plunging or a being buried in the Water appears by those Metaphorical Baptisms we read of which are twofold 1st The Baptism of the Holy Spirit 2dly The Baptism of Afflictions 1st Saith John the Baptist I indeed baptize you with Water but he shall baptize you with the holy Spirit and Fire Now 't is not the sanctifying Gifts of the Spirit which every Godly Person receives that is the Baptism of the Spirit but as the Learned observe the miraculous Effusions of the holy Spirit like that at Pentecost Acts 1. 4 5. shall be baptized The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Casaubon is to dip or plunge c. in which Sense saith he the Apostles might be truly said to have been baptized for the House in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost So that the Apostles might seem to have been plunged into it as in a large Fish-pond 'T is not a sprinkling of the Spirit that is the Baptism of the Spirit for so doubtless the Apostles had the Spirit before they were said to be baptized with it Oecumenius on Acts 2. saith A Wind filled the whole House that it seem'd like a Fish-pond because it was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost 2dly We read of the Baptism of Afflictions I have a Baptism to be baptized with and how am I straiâ—ned till it be accomplished From the literal Signification of the word baptizâ— immergo as I shewed before to plunge under overwhelm great Afflictions come to be called Baptism and signifies as Vossius shews not every light Affliction but like that of David Psal 32. 6. he drew me out of the deep Waters Hence great Afflictions are called Waves Thy Wazes and thy Billows are gone over me Psal 42. 7. 'T is spoken of Christ's Sufferings who was as it were drowned drenched or overwhelmed in Afflictions and Sufferings Every small Affliction is not the Baptism of Afflictions but great and deep Afflictions suffering even unto Blood and Death Pool's Annotations say to be baptized is to be dipped in Water metaphorically to be plunged in Afflictions I shall close this also with another Argument Arg. 4. If those Metaphorical Baptisms which we read of in God's Word as the Baptism of the Spirit and of Afflictions and Sufferings are taken from the literal and genuine Signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immergo which signifies to dip then sprinkling is not baptizing but the former is true Ergo sprinkling is not baptizing CHAP. V. Wherein Mr. Owen's Argument for infant-Infant-Baptism taken from the Covenant God made with Abraham is examined and totally confuted SIR YOu in your fourth Chapter come to consider and enquire who are the proper Subjects of Baptism or who they are that ought to be baptiz'd And first you say that Baptism doth not belong to all Men but to the Faithful and their Seed He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. When the Eunuch ask'd Philip See here is Water what doth hinder me to be baptized He answered If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayst Acts 8. It is plain say you that Baptism belongeth to them that believe but say you how doth it appear that Baptism doth belong to the Seed of such that will appear you say 1. From God's Covenant 2. From Circumcision under the Law 3. From Christ's Command to baptize all Nations 4. Because they are holy 5. Because Christ blessed them 6. Because the Gentiles were ingrafted into the Privileges of the Jews 7.
was no Ordinance of God but a meer Human Tradition But the Custom â—…ng the Jews of baptizing the Heathen and their Children 〈◊〉 were admitted into their Church was never Commâ—… 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 Lastly Take what a VVorthy and Learned Author hath said in Confutation of this foolish and absurd Argument for Pedo bâ—ptism 't is Sir Norton Knatchbul Kt. and Baronet The Thing saith he is uncertain that it cannot be said of the Râ—bbins that there were not several among them who differed very much about this matter for Rabbi Eliâ—zar 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 Raâ—bi 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 aâ—…ms what is no where to be found in Scripture But the Rabbins upheld Joshua'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 heâ—…ate a little For whence was the Talmud sent as they are the Words of Buxtors 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 a 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 make no mention of Baptism among the Jews Besides if Baptism in the Modern Sense were in use among the Jews in Antient Times why did the Pharisees ask John Baptist Why dost 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 Sir Norton Knatchbull in his Notes printed at Oxford Anno Dom. 1677. with the Licence 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 was 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 You say The Israelites and their Children were baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea 1 Cor. 10. 2 3. That Israel going under the Cloud and through the Sea that was say you a Baptism unto them The Cloud rained upon them and the Sea dropped upon them which was as a High Wall round about them 2. This Baptism under the Cloud and in the Sea signifyeth in its Essence the same thing with the Baptism of the Gospel viz. the Lord Jesus Christ and his Blessings The Spiritual Washings in the Sea and the Spiritual Drink from the Rock signified the same thing even Christ he was the Substance of all the Types under the Law The Pillar of Cloud and the Pillar of Fire did foreshew the Baptism of Water and the Baptism of Fire or of the Holy Spirit the falling of the Water from the Cloud signified the pouring of the Holy Ghost c. 3. The Children were baptized with their Parents with the Baptism of Moses they were all baptized unto Moses c. Answer Two Things are to be done to disprove what you say here 1. That the Rain falling from the Cloud was not that which was the Figure of Baptism 2. That this Text doth not prove Infants to be the Subject of Baptism First If Persons may be said to be baptized when it rains upon them How many times have you and I been so baptized Besides Do you think it never rained upon the â—…ites before they passed through the Sea And Secondly Prove if you can it did then either rain upon them from the Cloud or that the Sea dropped upon them 't is but your own ungrounded Supposition Thirdly Prove that Rain falling upon them can in any Sense be called a Washing or Baptism Therefore let the Reader consider well what our Annotators speak on this Place see Mr. Pool's Annotations on 〈◊〉 Cor. 10. 2 3. Others saith he more probably think that the Apostle useth this Term in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptism as it was then used the Persons baptized going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea that great Receptacle of Water though the Water at that time was gathered on Heaps on either side of them yet they seemed buried in the Water as Persons in that Age were when baptized Thus spake your Brethren who compleated Mr. Pool's Annotations They tell you in what Sense the Fathers were said to be baptized unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud Here is nothing of sprinkling pouring or raining on them but they were as it were buried in the Sea and under the Cloud and so it represents Immersion or Dipping which is Christ's true Baptism We are buried not sprinkled with Christ in Baptism both in the Sign and also in Signification to shew he was dead buried and rose again for us and that we are dead to Sin and ought to walk in Newness of Life But do not mistake the Fathers being said to be baptized to Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud was
the beginning of the World to receive whole Housholds into Covenant the Children were received in with their Parents even so Noah and his Family were in the same Covenant for his sake his Family was received with him into the Ark and were baptized with him in the Waters of the Flood Abraham believed and his whole Family was received into God's Covenant with him Gen. 17. Heb. 11. 7. 1 Pet. 3. 20 21. Not himself and his Seed but his Men-Servants and Maid-Servants and of the Gentiles that were willing to receive the true Religion and their Seed Gen. 17. 23. Exod. 12. 40. And so God's Covenant continued in the Families of the Faithful until the coming of Christ for near four thousand Years If any say that the Dispensation is altered and the Members rent from the Head of Families let them shew a plain Scripture for it 1. Ans I answer As touching that Covenant God made with Noah and his Family it was not only made with him and his Family but with all the World for they were the Representatives of all that should live on the Earth nay and not only Mankind but with Fowls of the Air and Beasts of the Field See Gen. 9. 8 9 10 11 12. And God spake unto Noah and to his sons Verse 8. And I behold I will establish my covenant with you and your Seed after you Verse 9. And with every living creature that is with you of the fowl of the cattel and of every beast of the earth with you from all that go out of the ark to every beast of the earth Ver. 10. And I will establish my covenant with you neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth Verse 11. Now to what purpose do you mention this Covenant or the temporal Salvation of Noah's Family in the Ark May be Noah's Family or some of them were saved with that external Salvation for his sake yet this proves not that his Faith extended to the Spiritual Salvation of the Souls of his Children for he had a cursed Cham to one of his Sons his Faith could not save him 2. As to the Ark being a Type of Baptism or that his Family were baptized in the Ark this as I have once before told you doth as much tend to prove that all the World may be baptized even the good and bad and Cattle also as any in particular for all in the Ark were as truly baptized as any that were in it 3. Had you said Noah's Family was a Type of the Gospel-Church you had spoken something to the purpose for so Expositors intimate and not without good Reason And 1. As all his Familily were received into the Ark so all the Members of the Gospel-Church were by Faith to be received into Christ the Anti-Type of the Ark. 2. As Noah built the Ark according to the Commandment of God so Christ built his Church and did every thing according to the Commandment of his Father 3. Noah took many Trees well hewen and fitted to build the Ark so Christ takes many Believers who are Spiritually well hewed and fitted by the Word and Spirit to build his Church who are called trees of righteousness chosen People as Noah built the Ark of such Trees or Wood God himself chose 4. As some clean and unclean Beasts were received into the Ark yea and a Cham who was an ungodly Person so this might figure forth that some unsanctified Persons tho' not by God's appointment would get into or be received into the Gospel-Church And 5. As all that were not received into the Ark perished so all who get not Spiritually into Christ by Faith or are not Members of the visible or invisible Church shall be damned and perish eternally 6. As Noah's Ark was sometimes no doubt overwhelmed or covered with Waves and those that were in it so all true Believers that are Members of the true Gospel-Church ought to be dipped baptized or overwhelmed in Water And as Sir Norton Knatchbal observes The Ark was a Figure of the Resurrection Speaking of that Text Mr. Owen cites 1 Pet. 3. 20. saith he Baptism which now saves us by Water that is by the assistance of Water is Antipical of the Ark of Noah and it doth not signifie the laying down of the filth of the Flesh but the Covenant of a good Conscience towards God while we are plunged in the Water which is to testifie our belief of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ so that there is a manifest Antithesis between these words by Water and by the Resurrection Nor is the Elegancy of it displeasing The Ark of Noah not the Flood was a Type of Baptism and Baptism was the Anti-type of the Ark not as if Baptism is a washing away of the Filth of the Flesh by Water wherein it answers not all to the Ark but as it is the Covenant of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Christ in the belief of which Resurrection we are saved as they were saved by the Ark of Noah for the Ark and Baptism were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection so that the proper End of Baptism ought not to be understood as if it were a Sign of the washing away of Sin altho' it be thus oftentimes taken Metonymically in the New Testament and by the Fathers but a particular Signal of the Resurrection by Faith in the Resurrection of Christ of which Baptism is a lively and emphatical Figure as also was the Ark out of which Noah returned as from the Sepulchre to a new Life Thus far Sir Norton Knatchbal in his Notes printed at Oxford 1677 who though a great Pedo-Baptists yet denyed sprinkling or pouring to be Baptism Now this hath teaching in it and shews the Sente of the Apostle Peter's Words very fully no doubt ut to tell the World because God saved and covenanted with Noah's Family therefore God takes whole Families in Gospel times into Covenant argues great darkness 2. As to Abraham's Family we deny not but his Family was taken into Covenant with God even his natural Seed as such but it was a covenant of peculiarity for simply considered as a Family they were not taken into the Covenant of Grace because there where some godly Families that had no lot or part in that Covenant but we having fully opened the twofold Covenant God made with Abraham at the beginning I shall not renew the Argument again But worthy Brittains let this be well considered by you that as Noah's Family and Abraham's Family were taken into Covenant with God and other whole Housholds under the Law and the whole House and Nation of Israel so they were Types of the Gospel Church even as the whole House or Family of Abraham or whole House and Family of Israel were typically relatively and federally holy it did prefigure that true spiritual Holiness that in Gospel times
untill we become Adult Persons and do believe in him he hath left us an Example how we should follow his steps Mr. Owen brings in his Fifth Objection against his Doctrine and practice of Infant Baptism viz. If Infant Baptism belongs to Infants why do not you give them the Lords Supper Take his answer Because saith he the Apostle Commands those that receive the Lords Supper to examine themselves and to discern the Body of the Lord which little Children cannot do Answ I answer And as the Apostle Commands all that receive the Lords Supper to examine themselves and to discern the Lords Body so likewise John Baptist the Lord Jesus and his Apostles too Commanded all that received baptism to believe and repent and to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance which little Babes cannot do Repent and be Baptized every one of you Acts 2. 37. If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayest Acts 8. 37. that is be baptized 2. You say Baptism is the Sacrament of our Regeneration and of our Admission into the Church of God the Lord's Supper is a Sacrament of our Growth and Spiritual Food 1. I answer this quite overthrows your Infant Baptism unless you Presbyterians do believe as the Church of England doth or at leastwise what they affirm viz. that Baptism doth regenerate the Child is Baptism an Ordinance or Sacrament of Regeneration i. e. to regenerate Persons or to hold forth that regeneration or the New Birth is wrought in such that are baptized why then do you baptize Infants who are not the Subjects of Regeneration Can they die to Sin and are they raised up out of the Water new Born Creatures to walk in newness of Life 2. If your Infants are new born or born again by Baptism no doubt the Food of the new Creature viz. the Lord's Supper ought to be given to them The first Sacrament holds forth 't is clear a Person born again or a Babe of Grace the other is Food fit and proper for that New born or Regenerated Person that he may grow thereby therefore they belong both to one and the same Subjects and neither of them it appears from hence do belong to Infants but 3. Are all the Infants that you baptize let in as Members of your Church are they absolutely Members of your Congregations as having the Ordinance of Admission is the Door of God's House opened to them How can you then say I deny them the priviledge of true and lawful Members shall your little Members your Lambs in Christ's Fold being New Born be starved what shall the regenerated Babe not be fed with the Food of their Fathers House 4. But if thus what number of Members have you in your Churches that have not their Names in your Church-book nor perhaps never looked after when grown up nor cast out though prophane and Wicked for do you cast out or exclude all such Children you baptized when grown up if not what polluted Churches are yours Infant Baptism was doubtless contrived to encrease National Churches or to make national Churches and it doth tend indeed to increase and continue that Christian Religion that is in Name only and not in Power you have its true in England by meer necessity lost your National Constitution and are become Congregational whether you will or no but Infant Baptism will not accord with a congregation Constitution nor do such Churches so constituted that are for Infant Baptism own their Babes to be proper and true Members of their Churches so far as I can learn what then signifies your Sacrament of Admission if they are not in truth admitted and owned as Members and allowed the Food and Priviledges of such 3. You say it was formerly though Circumcision belonged to Infants yet the Paschal Lamb belonged not but to the Adult Answ I answer this is denyed prove if you can that the little Children in the Jewish Church were not admitted to eat of the Passover it is positively said Exod. 12. 34. That the whole House were to eat thereof even a Lamb for an House and I find a great Writer asserting the same thing that little Children did eat thereof they were to bring their Children once or twice a Year before the Lord and I see no ground you have to say that none but Adult Persons did eat thereof 2. But let that be as it will that which was or might be the right of Jewish Church-Members or not their right is no rule for us in the Gospel Church as I have sufficiently prov'd and besure all baptized Persons who are regular Members of a Gospel Church cannot be denyed the Lord's Supper without Sin So much to your Answers to our Objections you might might have brought twice as many more CHAP. XX. In Answer to Mr. James Owen's 17 Chapter wherein the Antipedo Baptists are cleared of those foul Charges he hath cast upon them and 't is proved that to deny Infant Baptism is no Sin nor are those guilty of Murther nor Adultery that baptize or dip Men and Women in Water in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit as Mr. Owen charges them but contrariwise it is proved that to Baptize or Rantize Infants is an unlawful Practise and very Sinful YOU say you shall demonstrate in this Chapter how great the Sin is of those that are tempted to deny the Baptism which they receive in their Infancy and that suffer themselves to be baptized again there are many People that know not the nature of their first Baptism and are perverted to renounce it thinking that they do please God in so doing but they fall into Temptation and the Snares of the Devil who is the Author of Errors and Father of falshood Answ I hope by this time the Reader may discern how great an error 't is to call Rantism or Sprinkling Baptizing and that Infant Baptism is also an error being a meer human innovation this I have prov'd and theresore 't is so far from being a Sin to disown it and cast it away that it is every good Christians Duty so to do that would in all things walk by the rule of God's Word And for Mr. Owen to charge our People after this manner as if we were perverted and insnared by the Devil in denying our Infants Baptism is just as the Papists used to charge the Protestants that disowned the human Traditions and the vain Fopperies of their rotten Church and thunder'd out their Bulls against them 1 You say they are guilty of great Sin insomuch that they neglect to make a right use of their first Baptism Infant Baptism putteth them under continual Vow to the Lord and they are bound to renew their Vows to take the Lord to be a God unto them as soon as they come to age Answ 'T is true you brought them under an Obligation or a Vow to take the Lord to be their God in their Infancy but why did you do it unless you had any Warrant or
behind who is it you cast this reproach upon Is it upon us Or is it not upon Christ himself Did not our Lord Jesus Institute this Ordinance of Baptizing i. e. of dipping the Bodies of Men and Women in water Sir were not those Men and Women that were Baptized in the Apostolical times Dipped Do you descent from all the Ancient and Modern Divines I have Quoted a multitude of them in this Treatise who positively assert this matter to which Chapter I refer my Reader Ambrose saith water is that wherein the Body is plunged Chrysostom saith That the Body baptized is burried in the Water Basil the Great and Dr. du Veil saythe same Bernard saith Immersion is a representation of Death and Burial The Assembly in their Annotations say That the Ancient manner of Baptizing was to Dip the Party baptized and as it were bury them under the Water See Pools Annotat. On Mat. 3. 6. and were baptized of him in Jordan that is saith he Dipped in Jordan and on Rom. 6. 34. he says The Ancient manner of baptizing in those warm Countreys was to Dip or plunge the party baptized Cajetan Daille On the Fathers Tilenus Luther Calvin Perkins Zanchy Paraeus Dr. Cave Dr. Sharp Dr. Fowler Dr. Sherlock the Three last are yet living and many more I have Quoted do all say Baptizing is Dipping Dr. Tillotson late Bishop of Canterbury saith That anciently those who were baptized put off their Cloaths and were immersed and buryed in the Water Now Sir if to baptize by Dipping be Murther do not you charge the occasion of this Murther upon Christ who Ordained baptism or dipping Men and Women in Water what work have you made for Repentance Obj. May be you will object and sâ—y that you own that baptism was dipping in those warm Climates 1. Answ Did not our Saviour send his Disciples into all the World or to Teach all Nations baptizing them that is Dipping them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost 2. Did he send them with this Commission only into warm Climates or Countreys and not into cold Countreys God forbid for there is no other Commission given by Christ to make Disciples by Teaching them and then to baptize them but this only doth not this Commission reach England were all cold Countreys excluded 3. Did Christ give out two Commissions one for warm Climates and to Dip them c. and another for cold Countreys to Teach and Sprinkle them or rather Sprinkle them and then Teach them for so your practice inverts the Order of Christ's great Commission did Christ say go into Hot Countreys and Teach and Baptize Disciples and go into Cold Countreys and Teach and Rantize them What an imperfect Commission doth your practice render the Commission of Christ to be 4. Who gave Men power to change his Commission Baptizing into Rantizing or Sprinkling What an account can you give to him of this at the great Day Or hath the Church or Ministers power to alter Christ's great Commission and so alter or add too and diminish from the words of his Book Sir tremble at the thoughts of these things See Rev. 22. 18. As to Mr. Cradock it seems if he hath wrote as you intimate that he was under great temptation but 't is no marvel we can tell you of some Men and of as great a Name as he that would have the Anabaptists and Independants too to have no liberty to meet together to Preach nor write Books and would have the chief Magistrate to Imprison and Banish them c. Obj. Where as you bring in this as your Objection they may tarry until Summer 1. We answer there is no need of that because what you speak of the danger of baptizing in Winter is absolutely false 2. I know not but there may be as many or more baptized in the Winter than in the Summer You say as soon as they are made Disciples they are commanded to be baptized Acts 24. 41. and ch 8. 38. Answ This is our practice but why do not you stay till then i. e. untill your Children are Disciples it is evil to stay longer then the time and no evil to do it sooner then the time Christ hath appointed 9. This form of Baptizing by Dipping of the People naked or near naked you say is a breach of the Seventh Commandment Thou shalt not commit adultery Mat. 5. 28. This Commandment prohibiteth not only the Act of Adultery but every occasion and provocation thereto every immodest and unreverend Action is a degree of Adultery the Heart of Man is deceitful and desperately wicked Jer. 17. 9. therefore we ought to take heed of every occasion of Sin David fell into Adultery by beholding Bathsheba washing c. 2 Sam. 11. 2. Thus we see that God would not have his People be naked in the Congregation or half naked for there is but little difference between both Exod 20. 26. and ch 28. 42. but they that rebaptize by Dipping the People in publick put off the greatest part of their Cloaths the re-baptizer and He or She that is baptized is near naked which might be a temptation to him that is the Baptizer and to the Spectators if the temptation will not take hold on the Minister who is but Flesh and Blood as others are such a behaviour before a mixt Congregation brings him under a reproach and maketh the worship of God contemptible 1. Answ I answer I am grieved that a Minister and I hope a godly Man should be thus left to himself or be under no better conduct about this matter but thus to add sin to sin whilst he writes about divine things 2. Pray Mr. Owen what is the purport of your Charge now in recriminating and vilifying the Sacred Ordinance of Dipping or Baptizing of Believers this Odium must fall as well on the Primitive Churches and Holy Apostles as upon us you see all your Brethren generally as one Man nay the whole assembly of Divines affirm that in the Primitive times the manner of baptizing was by dipping of the Body all over in Water tho' they would restrain it to those Hot Countreys Will you charge the Holy Apostles and all the Ministers of the Primitive Churches with Adultery Or do you think we in these Cold Climates have not convenient Cloaths to put on People that are to be baptized as they had in those Warm Countreys 3. But if this was all it were not so sad altogether for it was our Lord Jesus worthy Britains who Ordained and appointed Men and Women who are Believers to be Dipped in the Water in his Name and 't is a hard case there is no way to answer this holy Command and Ordinance but the People that do it must be guilty of Adultery must we go into the water naked or half naked Is their a necessity for it Are there no Cloaths to be had or no modest Garments for Men and Women to be provided
and vivification to a New Life but in the Rantizing or Sprinkling of an Infant there is not cannot be a lively Representation of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection c. Arg. 26. That pretended Baptism that pretends to frustrate the glorious end and design of Christ in his Instituting of Gospel Baptism or cannot answer it is none of Christ's Baptism but the pretended baptism of Infants tends to frustrate the glorious end and design of Christ in Instituting of Gospel Baptism Ergo. The Major will not be denied As to the Minor all generally confess the end and design of Christ in Instituting the Ordinance of Baptism was in a lively Figure to represent his Death Burial and Resurrecton with the Persons Death unto Sin and his rising again to walk in newness of Life that is baptized as the Sacrament of the Supper was ordained to represent his Body was broke and his blood was shed But that a lively Figure of Christs Death Burial and Resurrection appears in Sprinkling a little Water on the Face I see not and as done to an Infant there can no Death to sin and rising again to walk in Newness of Life be signified and therefore Christs design and end therein is frustrated Arg. 27. If Baptism be Immersion as to the proper and genuine Signification of the word Baptizo as also of those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms and the Spiritual Signification thereof then Sprinkling cannot be Christs true Baptism But Immersion is the proper and genuine signification of the word Baptizo and also of those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms spoken of and the spiritual signification thereof Ergo Sprinkling is not Christ's true Baptism 1. That the proper and genuine signification of the word Baptizo is Immersion or to Dip c. We have fully proved which is also confessed by all Learned in that Language 2. That the Typical Baptism viz. that of the Red Sea wherein the Fathers were buried as it were unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud appears from Pools Annotations 1 Cor. 10. 2. Others saith he more probably think that the Apostle useth this Term in regard of the great Analogy betwixâ— Baptism as it was then used the Persons going down into the Waters and being Dippâ—d and the Israelites going down into the Sea the great receptacle of water tho' the water at that time was gathered on heaps on either side of them yet they seemed buried in the water as Persons in that Age were when they were baptized c. The second was that of Noahs Ark See Sir Norton Knatchbul who I before Quoted and shall here again recite his words The Ark of Noah and Baptism saith he were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection not the Sign of the washing away of Sin tho' so taken Metonymically but a particular signal of the Resurrection of Christ Of this Baptism is a Lively and Emphatical Figure as also was the Ark of Noah out of which he returned as from a Sepulchre to a New Life 3. Metaphorical Baptism is that of the Spirit and of affliction The first signifies not a Sprinkling of the Spirit but the great Effusion of the Spirit like that at Pentecost Acts 1. 4 5. Shall be Baptized c On which words Causabon speaks thus See Dr. Du Veil on Acts 2. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to Dip or Plungâ— as it were to die Colours in which sense saith he the the Apostles might be truly said to have been baptized for the House in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost so that the Apostles might seem to have been plunged into it as into a large Fish-Pond Also Decumentus on Acts 2. saith A wind filled the whole House that it seemed like a â—iâ—h-Pond because it was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost And the Baptism of afflictions are those great depths or overwhelmings of afflictions like that of our Saviours magnis componere parva no part free Mat. 20. 22. where you have the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and like that of David who saith God drew him out of deep waters 4. The spiritual signification thereof is the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ and of our Death to sin and vivification to a New Life This being so it follows undeniably that Sprinkling cannot be Christs true baptism it must be Immersion and nothing else And in the last place finally to confirm that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to Dip both from the â—…teral and spiritual signification thereof as also from those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms mentioned in the Scripture I might add further that this evidently appears from the practice of John Baptisâ— and the Apostles of Christ who baptized in Rivers and where there was much water and also because the Baptizer and Baptized are said to go down into the water not down to the water and came up out of the water John Baptist is said to baptize them into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—ordan as the Greek renders it which shews it Dipping and not Sprinkling Would it be proper to say he Sprinkled them into Jordan The Lord open the Eyes of those who see not to consider these things Sir I expect your answer to these Arguments particularly if you make any reply to what I have said in confutation of your Treatise and see you do your business better the next time for as yet you have not proved Infant Baptism to be from Heaven as I hope the unprejudiced Reader will conclude I shall say no more at present but leave all I have said to the blessing of God hoping in a little time he will vanquish by the light of his sacred word your Scripture less practice of Infant Baptism out of the World clear up the Truth of his own despised Ordinance That Wisdom may 〈…〉 of her Children and God may be Honoured to whom be Glory now and for ever more Amen FINIS †Worthy Britains see how Mr. Richard Baxter hath out down Infant Baptism with his own Sword can Infants shew their consent to be married to Christ or profess Faith in him ☞ * Read the Table of the Authors at the beginning of this Book Mr. Daniel Williams in his Book called the vanity of youth page 131. Mr. Williams Worthy of blame as well as Mr. Burkit The danger of Infants Baptismal Covenant layd open * Perkins on Gal. c. 3. p. 256.
Light broke forth in WALES Expelling DARKNESS OR THE Englishman's Love to the Antient Britains BEING An ANSWER to a BOOK Intituled Children's Baptism from Heaven published in the Welch Tongue by Mr. James Owen Wherein his Twelve Arguments for the baptizing of the Children of the Faithful are examined and confuted and infant-Infant-Baptism overthrown Also proving that Baptizing is Dipping the whole Body in Water in the Name of the Father c. And that Believers are only the Subjects of Baptism In which the Anti-pedo-baptists are cleared from all those unjust Reproaches and Calumnies cast upon them by the said Mr. Owen By BENJAMIN KEACH Bernard Serm. 66. in Cantica Irrident nos quia Baptizamus infantes quod oramus pro mortuis quòd sanctorum suffragia postulamus Mat. 3. 16. Ende Jesus gedoopt zijnde is terstont opgeklomen yit hit Water Taken out of the Dutch Testament in English thus And when Jesus was dipped he came out of the Water London Printed and sold by William Marshal at the Bible in Newgate-street 1696. To all Godly Christians who are Pedobaptists in South and North-VVales Grace Mercy and Peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ You Worthy Brethren and Antient Britains I Kindly salute you in the Bowels of Christian Love and Sincere Affections I cannot but love all who have the Image of my Heavenly Father stampt upon their Souls 'T is not your Opinion of Pedo-Baptism tho an Error that shall alienate my Heart from you nor restrain that Catholick Love that should run in all the Veins of every one that is born of God tho I am an Enemy to your Opinion and Practice in that case yet a dear Lover of your Persons and precious Souls And I have so much Charity to believe that 't is through Ignorance you err in that Matter and that God hath for some wise ends hid the truth of his Holy Ordinance of Gospel-Baptism at present from you and do hope did you see otherwise you would practise otherwise Charity thinketh no evil c. 1 Cor. 13. One Reason oâ— my writing this Epistle to you is to answer what Mr. James Owen in his Epistle to his late Treatise hath wrote unto you in which there are several Positions and â—â—sound Notions laid down and asserted by him which I am persuaded I ought to detect and witness against as well as answer his Book which are not only contained in his Epistle to you but that also to the Reverend Mr. Samuel Jones To confirm Infant-Baptism upon the Covenant of Grace he asserts in his Epistle to Mr. Jones these words viz. I being desired and importuned by you to maintain this present Truth which seâ—teth forth Infants Right unto the Privileges of the New Covenant a Truth builded upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets even as antient as the Covenant of Grace which was made with Adam and his Seed c. Answ Doth Mr. Owen think that we deny that any our Children have right to the Covenant of Grace God forbid the Controversy lies not there for all our Children that are elected are decretively in the Covenant of Grace also vertually by the Death and Merits of Jesus Christ and also actually they are and shall be in it when they believe or when they have Union with Christ but that the Children of the Faithful as such or as so considered are in the Covenant of Grace we do utterly deny 2. If the Covenant of Grace was made with Adam and his Natural Seed as such will it not follow that he owns Universal Salvation Can any Perish that are in the Covenant of Grace Is not that an everlasting Covenant well ordered in all things and â—â—re 2 Sam. 23. 5. and is not the Promise sure to all the seed Rom. 4. 16. it being not only confirmed to them all by the Promise but also by the Oath of God Heb. 6. 13 18. 17. But 3. Doth not the Covenant and Promise to Adam run only to Christ Jesus or referr to him who is there meant by the Seed of the Woman True we will allow that it comprehendeth also all the Elect of God in a large sense but primarily and directly to Christ personally considered But can any think this Promise is limited to the Carnal Seed of Believers or runs so My Brethren There are two Seeds the one is called The Seed of the Woman which we affirm is only Christ and all the Elect in him and to all these the Covenant of Grace doth appertain and to no more as to the Special Blessings and Privileges thereof The other are called The Seed of the Serpent who are the Ungodly which proceed some of them from the Loins of the Faithful as well as from the Loins of the Wicked for as some Unbelievers Seed are in the Election of Grace so some of the Seed of Believers are none of the Elect. But to proceed saith he if the Children of the Faithful are out of the Covenant of Grace they have no Hope and are without God in the World Answ We and all our Children by Nature were dead in Sins and Trespasses and Children of Wrath as others and so without Hope and without God in the World Eph. 2. 13. before we Believed this was our Condition and are not our Children naturally in this state But what tho yet when God calls them renews them and translates them out of the First-Adam and grafts them into the Second-Adam they have the same Hope and the same God to be their God as we have Again He saith Doubtless the First Covenant doth condemn them because of Original Sin and if without interest in the Covenant of Grace the Wrath of God abideth on them but God forbid that we should think there 's more Vertue in the First-Adam to Condemnation than there is in the Second Adam to Save Answ The case is plain the First-Adam and all his as so considered were lost being Children of Wrath and of Condemnation And the Second-Adam and all his are or shall be saved being Children of the Promise and of Eternal Salvation But doth Mr. Owen think that all the Children of the Faithful as such are the Seed or Children of the Second-Adam I say again Are all our Children in the Election of Grace or doth Election run only in that Line If the First-Adam had stood we and our Children would have stood Doth Faith in the Second-Adam make the Condition of our Children worser than it should be through the Obedience of the First Adam Answ Must God save all the Children of the First-Adam by the Obedience of the Second because if Adam had stood none of his Children had fallen What Doctrine is this You out do all the Arminians I have yet met with but O! the Riches of God's Sovereign Grace to any of the lost Seed of Rebellious Mankind If this you intend not yet is every Believer a like common or publick Head to his natural Off-spring as Adam was to his Christ
tho we grant that many Doctrinal Truths may be drawn or inferred by Consequences from many Texts of Scripture See Reverend Mr. Greenhil on Ezek. chap. 11. Vol. 2. p. 412. VVhat is clearly held out unto us in the Gospel saith he let us consent in and walk answerably in what is dark and doubtful let us forbear each other and stay till God reveals more If we cannot unite in all let us unite in what is clear Things Fundamental are clearest laid down in the word they are expresly commanded or held forth in Scripture whether they are Matters of Faith or Practice they are not drawn out by remote Consequences and strength of Men's Parts but immediately from or in the VVord Thus Mr. Greenhill Now we all agree that Baptism tho it be not a Fundamental of Salvation yet 't is a Fundamental of Church-Constitution there can be no true right orderly Gospel-Church without Baptism Therefore it is necessary that this should be laid down plainly in the Word of God and so it is We must first be made Disciples and then be baptized Mat. 28. 19 20. John 4. 1. first believe and then be baptized Mark 16. 16. Repent and be baptized Acts 2. 37. If thou believest thou mayest Acts 8. 37. Can any Man forbid Water that these should not be baptized Acts 10. 47. When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of Grd and the Name of Jesus Christ they were baptized both Men and Women Acts 8. 12. So Acts 16. 30 31. Acts 18. 8. Rom. 6. 3 4. And as touching those Consequences that Mr. Owen and others draw from some Scriptures to prove Infants Baptism you will find in the ensuing Answer those Consequences do not arise naturally from those Texts but are only his own ungrounded Suppositions and mistaken Apprehensions Mr. Owen in his Epistle to the Courteous Welshmen saith The greatest part of the true Church judg that the Children of the Faithful have a right to Baptism because they are in the Covenant of God This Opinion is agreeable to the Scriptures as it appears saith he in this Book Reply What Covenant is it he means Our Children as such are in I know not they are not in the Covenant of Grace for if all the Children of the Faithful were in the Covenant of Grace they must be all saved This I have in this Treatise fully proved there is none can fall finally away that are in this Covenant Besides if they were in the Covenant of Grace why must they have Baptism administred to them from this foot of Account and not the Lord's Supper and all other Privileges of the Church 2. They are not in the Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham's Natural Seed as such or with the whole House of Israel for that was a Typical Covenant and is taken away Mr. Owen saith they are in the outward Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace Rep. Let him prove if he can that the Children of Believers have more Privileges by the outward Dispensation of the Gospel than the Children of Unbelievers have where the Gospel is preach'd Those who lived under the outward Dispensation of the Law who believed in Christ to come or were elected were in the Covenant of Grace and none but they only and so 't is now none but the Elect and such that believe are in the Covenant of Grace Will Mr. Owen seal all New Covenant-Blessings to all his Natural Seed whether elected or not elected since the inward and Spiritual Blessings of the said Covenant by his own words belong only to the Elect Mr. Owen bids you to seek for a meek and humble and self-denying Spirit Reply This Counsel is good therefore be not too confident you are in the Right your Teachers are but Men and God may for some Reasons best known to himself hide Believers Baptism at present from them He bids you also to beware of a distemper'd Zeal that is not after Knowledg it is saith he a Wild-Fire that wasteth Churches and Countries c. Reply Such I fear hath been that Zeal he and others have shewed for Infant-Baptism For it will appear I hope in this Treatise that his Zeal is not according to the knowledg of God's Word Despise not saith Mr. Owen thy Faithful Teachers obey them and submit to them for they watch for thy Soul Reply As you ought not to despise your Teachers but to submit to them in the Lord so you ought not to Idolize them nor follow them any farther than they follow Christ For you must know that Men tho Ministers are not your Rule of Faith and Practice but God's Word Moreover know that you must give an account of your selves to God others will not be suffered to speak for you at the Great Day He bids you look upon little Children as part of their Natural Parents and comprehended in the Promise made unto good Parents 1. Reply This he hath also asserted elsewhere in his Book which you will find answered in this 2. Strange Are Children part of their Parents so that when the Parents believe the Children believe and when the Parents obey God's Command the Children obey it also and when the Parents have a Promise of Pardon and Peace the Children have right to the same Promise What strange Doctrine in this Are not we and our Children distinct Persons Shall not a whole Believer be saved I profess I cannot well see that it can be so if any of our Children who are a part of us do perish for ever And doth it follow because in the Covenant of Peculiarity God made with the whole House of Israel the Parents and Children were comprehended therefore they must be all comprehended in the Covenant of Grace also and made Members of the Gospel-Church He cites Deut. 4. 37 40. And because be loved thy Fathers therefore he chose their Seed after them VVhat of this Mr. Owen can never prove that God hath chosen any one Nation both Parents and Children since that time to be a peculiar People in a Covenant-Relation with himself as he chose the Natural Seed of Abraham it was a Typical Church and figured forth the true Spiritual Seed or true Israel of God Therefore that Church-State ceased at the Death of Christ when the Partition-wall was broken down And the extent of the Promise now and Gospel 〈◊〉 â—…es only runs to Believers and to their Children 〈…〉 or who do believe whether Jews or Gentiles 〈…〉 and to no more Unde◠〈…〉 Mr. Owen the extent of God's Coveâ—…â—…ople his Covenant is with them and their 〈…〉 was the Covenant of Grace which God made 〈…〉 Gen. 3. 15. and 4. 25. And the Covenant 〈…〉 â—ade with Noah Gen. 9. 9. with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. 〈◊〉 Isaac Gen. 28. 4. and with Jacob Gen. 35. 12. And in the same manner was his Covenant with David and his Seed 2 Sam. 7. 12. and 22. 51. in this Eternal Covenant he rejoiced on his Death-Bed 2 Sam. 23. 5.
the End for which they are ordained c. Remark Still Reader know that it is a Bond to the Adult only Infants are not able to die to Sin nor live unto Holiness They cannot answer a good Conscience by the Resurrection of Christ from the dead Ordinances have no more Virtue in them to an Infant than if you should water a dead Tree There can be no increase in Holiness without the Grace of Holiness in the Habit be first infused and if the Seed of Holiness be first infused in Infants before Baptism or in Baptism that Seed would remain in them and appear as soon as they come to Understanding 1 Joh. 3. 9. But that any such Seed or vital Principle is either way in Infants as such whether Infants of Believers or others appears not but contrary-wise nothing appears in them when grown up but the cursed Seed of Sin and so it will until their Natures be changed by Divine Grace 4thly You say Baptism is a sign of Union with Christ we were baptized into him For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ Gal. 3. 27. Again the Apostle saith We are all baptized into one Body 1 Cor. 12. 13. Christ is the Head of the Body the Faithful are the Members those that are in everlasting Union with him which is signified in Baptism Can they desire to be in one Body with Christ who are not willing to be baptized into this Union Remark Have Infants as such Union with Christ If they have they would all partake of the Blessings of that Union and be all saved because the Branch that is savingly united to the Vine Christ partakes of the Virtue that is in him and it is an indissolvable Union like that between the Father and the Son John 17. 21 23. You say the Union is everlasting and this is signified in Baptism Now what is the Sign without the Thing signified Sir no doubt elect Infants that die have Union with Christ in a way we are ignorant of but what is this to the Infants of Believers as such I will appeal to your own Conscience whether you believe any one Infant you baptize or rather rantize or sprinkle that lives hath spiritual Union with Christ before or in Baptism or Rantism for if they had they do not after they are grown up need any inspired Habit or the Seed of Grace to be infused into them in order to such Union Without Faith there is no Union with Christ and there can be no Faith without Knowledg there is no spiritual Marriage to Christ without a Consent which Infants are not capable of Moreover why do you speak of Persons being not willing to be baptized when the Subject of Baptism you contend for is a poor ignorant Babe Can Infants be willing Sir what you speak has weight in it to the Adult to Believers but signifies nothing for the Continuation of Baptism to Infants but rather that it ought to be rejected as not being of God 5thly You say Baptism signifies Remission of Sins Mark 1. 4. Be baptized every one of you saith Peter in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sins So Ananias said unto Paul Arise and be baptized and wash away thy Sins calling upon the Name of the Lord Acts 22. 16. â—nd are not they say you unthankful to the Grace of Gâ—… which offereth them a Seal of Absolution and they â—…ll not receive it c. Remark Baptism is a sign of Remission of Sin to none but Believers who have Repentance and therefore Peter exhorted those Jews first to repent Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sins Such only here have the Promise of Remission that do and can repent and to such only ought the Sign to be given who have the Thing signified which are not Infants but Believers Is Absolution and the Seal of it offered unto Infants and do they refuse to receive it Sir were your Eyes open'd you would soon see you apply all you say to the wrong Subjects You exhort the Subjects of Baptism to be thankful leâ—t they despise the Seal of Pardon Now take from your Reasoning this following Argument viz. Such Persons that Baptism belongs unto may neglect and despise the Ordinance and Seal of Pardon but Infants cannot neglect or despise the Ordinance and Seal of Pardon Ergo Baptism doth not belong to Infants 6thly Baptism is you say a Condition of the Promise of Salvation He that believeth and is baptized shall be â—…d Mark 16. 16. 'T is true say you the Promise is not only to Baptism nor is it also to Faith only but to Faith and Baptism Dost thou not desire to be saved Why then despisest thou one of the Means of Salvation Thou sayst if I believe I shall be saved tho not baptized with Water Christ saith otherwise that thou must believe and be baptized if thou wilt be saved 'T is true the Apostle saith to the Goaler Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved Acts 16. 31 32. but so soon as he believed he was baptized The Unbelief and Haughtiness of thy Heart maketh thee to reject this holy Ordinance c. Remark How can you make Baptism a Condition of Salvation to Infants who are no ways capable to answer it neither Faith nor Baptism is required of them nor are their Parents commanded to baptize them But 't is true such as believe are required to be baptized and such as reject it and will not be baptized tho the proper Subjects do reject the Counsel of God and may endanger their Salvation or at least it calls into question if convinced of it i. 〈◊〉 that it is their Duty the truth of their Grace that they neither unfeignedly believe in nor love Jesus Christ therefore Sir so soon as a Child is grown up and doth believe he should be baptized not before for we have a perfect Rule to walk by Arg. 2. Where there is no Law there is no Transgression But there is no Law to baptize Infants Ergo It is no Transgression not to baptize them Where God hath no Mouth to speak we should have no Ear to hear Arg. 3. To act in the Service of God without Authority from his Word is a Sin But they that baptize Infants do act in the Service of God without Authority from his Word Ergo It is a Sin to baptize Infants Would not Abraham have sinned if he had circumcised his Females or to have circumcised his Males on the 7 th or 9 th day because the express Command was to Males and on the eighth day so the express Command of Christ is to be baptized when made Disciples if we believe if we repent or when we believe and bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance You add That they that despise Water-Baptism despise not John's Baptism but the Baptism of Christ therefore their Sin is the greater Remark
Author Therefore Sir that Baptism is any thing else than dipping plunging or washing which is done by dipping we do utterly deny For as the cutting off a little bit of the Foreskin of the Flesh or not the twentieth part round is not Circumcision so sprinkling a little Water on the Face is not Baptism True you call it Baptism and will do so tho 't is nothing less nor more than Rantism 't is not the Thing nor does it answer in Signification I may tell you again that the Jews instead of circumcising the Foreskin of their Childrens Flesh might have as well presumed to dispense with that and only have paired off the Nails of the Fingers of their Male Infants and have called that Circumcision as you may call sprinkling or pouring a little Water Baptism But may be you 'l say in Circumcision they weâ—â— to draw Blood so say I they might in cutting the Nails of their Childrens Fingers nay and they might better plead that the Things signified in Circumcision might be as well answered in that new Device the Nails being a sort of Excrement they might say signified the taking away the Filth of Sin or Corruption of Nature as 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 of 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 amaze 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 and yet both those shameful Abuses amongst you and other Churches are not rectified viz. 1. That Sprinkling which doth not cannot answer or represent those Gospel-Mysteries should not be rejected 2. That Infants should be once deem'd the proper Subjects of Baptism since 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 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 unto Sin live any longer 〈◊〉 Knowing that so many of 〈◊〉 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 watery 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 watery Grave as new born Creatures To these Testimonies I shall only add one or two more See that most learned Anonymous French 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 antient 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 From these words I note 1. 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 Viâ—ification that is called a Burial with Christ this is called 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 there is 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 thus sacramentally dead buried and risen with Christ but only of such as have true Faith Therefore Infants are excluded by his own Argument What you say that none plant Bodies in Water by baptizing them seems strange and not the words of a learned Man because dipping is a Figure of planting us into Christ spiritually and of Christ's Death and Resurrection must the Body of a Man be a Tree None graft Bodies into a Vine
dying Infants from Original Sin by virtue of his Blood in a way unknown unto us Must we deny Original Sin or own Infant-Baptism does cleanse from it Strange Divinity you prove nothing 4. You say all were not regenerated in Circumcision but God blessed his own Ordinance in his own time for the Regeneration of his Elect c. So say you not that all are regenerated in Baptism but because Baptism sheweth the necessity of Regeneration and being effectual in time unto all those that are elected for working Regeneration in them Answ 1. You say all were not regenerated in Circumcision and so not that all are say you regenerated in Baptism c. Sir take heed you do not deceive the Souls of People I deny that ever any one Soul was regenerated in Infancy either in Circumcision or Baptism nor did God ever ordain either of those external Ordinances to regenerate young or old 2. I know the Scripture and worthy Divines hold forth that Baptism is a Sign of present Regeneration they that ought to be baptized i. e. Believers do rise out of the watery Grave as Dr. Sherlock asserts new born Creatures but thus do not Infants whom you baptize or rather rantize 3. Prove if you can that God ever blessed Circumcision or Baptism to the Regeneration of any Elect Infants when grown up But if none but Elect Infants are the Subjects of Baptism why do you baptize as you call it all the Infants of Believers Are all their Children elected and none but theirs Are not many Children of Unbelievers elected Why then are such not to be baptized as well as the Children of the Faithful Sir we know not who are elected till called and Baptism belongs to none but such who can make a Profession of their Faith and give Evidence of effectual Calling and present Regeneration You write but your own Phantasie not God's unerring and certain Truth 4. You say Abraham's Heart was circumcised before the Flesh of his Fore-skin but you intimate his Childrens Flesh was circumcised before their Hearts were circumcised In the same manner you say our Ancestors the Gentiles were first Fruits unto Christ and were regenerated before baptized but their Seed are baptized before they are regenerated To Abraham you say it was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace he had and of the Righteousness of his Faith before circumcised but to his Seed it was a Sign of the Righteousness of Faith they were bound to receive for Justification after they were circumcised and so you speak of Believers Seed in respect of Baptism Answ 1. I answer Abraham only received Circumcision as a Seal of the Righteousness of his Faith c. But prove that Circumcision did bind all his Children to receive by Faith Justification 't is a bold Assertion I have proved that Circumcision did not appertain to the Covenant of Grace but to the external or fleshly Covenant God made with Abraham and in him with the whole Nation of the Jews and therefore 't is positively affirmed by the Apostle That such that were circumcised were bound to keep the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. not to receive by Faith Justification Your Parallel between Circumcision and Baptism 't is true well futes with the Human Contrivance of those that first invented Infant-Baptism who would thereby fain make the Gospel-Church National as the Jewish Church was and confirm the old Church-Right and Church-Membership which is taken away and a new Church-state erected which doth not consist of Believers and their Carnal Seed as such but only of the Spiritual Seed of Abraham who are Believers or living Stones who are built up a Spiritual House 1 Pet. 2. 5 6. The Gospel-Church is not National but Congregational say what you please to the contrary 2. Therefore as the Faithful at first among the Gentiles and Jews too received Baptism as Believers being regenerated before baptized so must we unless you have a new Gospel or fresh Authority to change the Administration of Gospel-Ordinances and the Gospel-Church I thought the Water as it just came forth of the Fountain was most pure you do but plead for the muddy Water that has run through the Popish Stream You say Circumcision was a Sign of Admission into the Church of God every Male did come in through that Door the uncircumcised had no right to the Privileges of the visible Church So you would have Baptism to run Answ 1. 'T is not true what you say Circumcision was not the Door into the Jewish Church they were all born Members of that National Church and therefore their Females were as truly Members that were not required to be circumcised as their Males 2. Tho we grant Baptism is the initiating Ordinance into the Gospel-Church yet it admits of no Members but Believers only if any others upon a false Faith get into it they have no just Right thereto and when discovered are to be put out 3. Sir tremble at the Thoughts of what you say It is not we but Christ in his Blessed Gospel that excludes Infants or the Natural Seed of Believers as such from being Members of the Gospel-Church he hath shut up that Door viz. by Generation i. e. being the Seed of Abraham or Seed of Believers as such and hath opened the Door of Regeneration 'T is we that believe and our Children that the Lord our God shall call and none else 4. Sir Circumcision was so far from being any such a Privilege as you intimate that the Apostle calls it such a Yoke of Bondage that neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear Act. 15. And in Answer to what you say p. It was not for their Sin nor the Sin of their Parents that Infants are excluded or not received into the Gospel-Church but because it was the good Pleasure of God to erect another and more spiritual Church-state and to remove the old Way and Typical Church-state of Israel 5. Therefore for you to intimate as if we were so unnatural as to cast our Children out of God's House is not to be indured it doth but reflect on the Wisdom of God we are more faithful to our Children and not like the Ostritch than you for we would not allow them that Right which God hath not nor make them think in Baptism they were regenerated and made Members of God's Church and so deceive and put them upon a Temptation not to seek out for any other Regeneration and Gospel-Right to Church-Membership You say Circumcision was an Obligation to put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh and say you Baptism putteth us under the same Obligation c. Answ Baptism can oblige none to put off the Body of Sin but such that are the true Subjects of it by virtue of Christ's holy Institution which are only Believers such who before baptized have received the Spirit of God so to do But you without any Warrant from Christ would put this hard Obligation on your poor Infants whereas
Circumcision signified the taking away the Sins of the Flesh or the Circumcision of the Heart but Baptism signifies the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ which Circumcision did not 13. Circumcision was to be a Partition-Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile but Baptism testifieth that Jew and Gentile Male and Female Barbarian and Seythian Bond and Free are all one in Christ Jesus Therefore there are divers Disparities and different Significations between Circumcision and Baptism 4. And what tho we should grant that Circumcision was then the initiating Ordinance and Baptism is so now in Gospel-Times i. e. an Ordinance of Initiation yet Circumcision initiated none into the Jewish Church but such who were by express and positive Command of God to be circumcised who were only Male-Infants for the Females were initiated without it even so Baptism tho it be an initiating Ordinance yet none are to be initiated thereby but only those who by the express Command are required to be baptized and they are only such who believe or make Profession of their Faith Sir Precepts that are meerly positive greatly differ you know well enough from Precepts that are purely Moral in their own nature Laws that are of meer positive Right wholly depend upon the absolute Will and Pleasure of the great Legistator and in all Cases and Circumstances we must keep to the express words of the Institution we must venture to do no more nor less nor do any thing in any other manner than God hath commanded as appears in Nadab and Abihu and Uzzah's Cases the first for offering of strange Fire which thing God commanded them not tho God in express words no where forbid them so to do were cut off Levit. 10. 1 2. When God commanded Abraham to circumcise on the eighth day did he not virtually forbid him to do it on the seventh or ninth day Therefore this sort of reasoning of yours is meerly sophistical and you do but darken Counsel with Words without Knowledg Again 't is affirmed by you and other Pedo-baptists That God hath no where declared that Infants should be excluded you mean he hath no where forbid in express words the baptizing of Infants No more say I has he forbid Honey Wine Oil Salt and Spittle to be used in Baptism the former was used by some of the Antient Fathers and the latter is still in the Romish Church Where are we forbid to baptize Bells and consecrate Water as the Papists do to make it holy Water Also where are Infants excluded from the Lord's-Table If therefore any thing may be done in God's Worship which you suppose is not forbid and bears also some proportion in Signification with Jewish Rites all Popish Rites and Ceremonies may be let in at the same Door For the Pope Miter Popish Vestures Candle and Candlesticks c. they no doubt will tell you are of like Signification with the High-Priest under the Law with the Priest's Vestures and other Ceremonies among the Jews Whither will this lead you 't is dangerous to be led by such a Guide But to proceed we will come to that grand Proof for Infant-Baptism you mention i. e. That Baptism doth come in the room of Circumcision which is in Col. 2. 11 12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands by the Circumcision of Christ buried with him in Baptism c. It is affirmed That the Design of the Apostle here is to take the Colossians off from the old Sacrament of Circumcision He informs them that there was no Reason why they should be fond of it because they were compleat without it Christ having substituted a new Circumcision in the room of it namely Baptism and accordingly Christians may now be said by Baptism to be spiritually circumcised as the Jews were said to be spiritually baptized Answ This Exposition of this Text there is no ground to admit of the Apostle speaks of the Power or Virtue of Christ's Circumcision His Design is to shew we are compleat in Christ and have him on he mentions Faith as well as Baptism or such a Faith that should always attend Baptism and therefore Infant-Baptism from hence cannot be proved or inferred nor the least ground for such a bold Conclusion from hence viz. That Baptism came in the room of Circumcision 1. For first the Apostle 't is true excludes Circumcision but 't is upon another account viz. by shewing Circumcision was a Figure of the Circumcision of the Heart as Rom. 2. 28 29. Phil. 3. 3. and since they had the same signified thereby the Rite or Sign ceased And as I have formerly replied in Answer to this Text so I must say to you all that can well be asserted from this Scriptare where the Apostle brings in Baptism is no more than this viz. That where Baptism is rightly administred upon a proper Subject it represents the Spiritual and Mystical Circumcision of the Heart i. e. That the Soul is dead to Sin or hath put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ which may refer to the Power of his Death in the blessed Effects thereof by the effectual Sin-killing Operations of the Spirit on the Heart And as being dead to Sin we are buried with Christ in Baptism both in Sign and Token of Christ's Burial i. e. covered all over in the Water which is a clear Symbol of his Burial also in Signification i. e. that we being dead and buried with Christ in Baptism so are to rise with him by the Faith of the Operation of God and both these are held forth in true Baptism The Apostle doth not mention Baptism to come in the room of Circumcision but to shew that these believing Colossians had through Christ by the Spirit obtained the Antitype thereof or thing figured out in the Circumcision of the Flesh which Baptism did clearly represent But since this is so strenuously urged afresh tho so often answered I will be at the trouble to transcribe once more what Dr. Taylor late Bishop of Down hath said to this Argument of yours and others before you about Circumcision viz. That Baptism is the Antitype of it or that it came in the room thereof The Argument saith he from Circumcision is invalid upon infinite Considerations Figures and Types prove nothing unless a Command go along with them or some thing express to signify such to be their Purpose for the Deluge of Waters and Ark of Noah were Figures of Baptism saith Peter If therefore the Circumstances of the one be drawn to the other we shall make Baptism a Prodigy rather than a Rite The Paschal Lamb was a Figure of the Eucharist which succeeds the other as Baptism doth Circumcision But because there was in the Manducation of the Paschal Lamb no Prescription of Sacramental Drink shall we conclude from hence the Eucharist is to be administred in one kind To which let me add Because Children Servants and all in the House might
1. 〈◊〉 answer tho we cannot as the apostles could not certainly or inâ—… know who were truly regenerated or are true Believers yet they baptized none but such in whom they saw such Signs of Grace that made them in Charity to believe or hope they were Believers they made a 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 ession of their Faith but in little â—…bes there appear no Signs of Grace nor can they make any Confession of their Faith where there is no Knowledg there can be no Fâ—… 2. And whereas you say they are Members of the visible Church under the Gospel it is false the Gospel-Church doth 〈◊〉 consist of whole Nations and Families as did the Jewish Church under the Law in a natural way The Gospel Church is a Spiritual House not consisting of Babes in a way of Generation 〈◊〉 of Spiritual Babes in a way of Râ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. 5 6. 3. Nor doth the Promise run to any but to them whom the â—ord shall cal Acts 2 39 even to Jews and their 〈◊〉 that are called and so to the 〈◊〉 that sometimes were aâ—ar off Ephes 2. 4. As touching Election 't is strange to me that you should affirm that that runneth in the Fleshly Line of Believers and their Seed as such and cite that Text to prove it Rom. 9. 4 5. in which St. Paul proves directly the contrary 〈◊〉 e. Not as tho the Word of God hath taken none Effect for they are not all Israel that are of Israel ver 6. Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called ver 7. That is they which are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed ver 8. Sir tho the Covenants and Promises did belong to the Israelires yet you may see how the Apostle doth explain it even to none but to the Elect or only to such that God by his Spirit through the Power and Virtue of the Promise should regenerate and cell by his Grace Therefore in Opposition to what you say none were accounted Abraham's Seed and Children of the Promise but such that were in Christ Gal. 3. â—lt You say all the Children of the Faithful are under the Promise but God administreth the Grace of the Promises to the Elect only and to many of them in their Infancy But because we know not upon whom the Election falleth it is the Will of God that we should baptize all that are under the Promise Answ 1. If all the Children of the Faithful are under the Promise they are all elected because the Promise to whomsoever 't is made is sure to all the Seed see Rom. 4. 16. If it be the natural Seed as such 't is sure to all them and not one of the Seed of Believers shall perish but if it be meant only of the true spiritual Seed then 't is sure only to them for those to whom the promise is made 't is confirmed unto by the Word and Oath of God that so the Heirs of the Promise might have strong Consolation Heb. 6. 18. Therefore those to whom the Promise belongs the Grace therefore or Blessing of that Promise God will bestow upon or else his Promise is made void and of none Effect Prove that there are any who are under the Promise or are Children of the Promise and yet God doth not administer the Grace of the Promise unto them are any the Children of the Promise and not elected 2. But whereas you say the Grace of the Promise is given to some in Insancy we deny it except to such that die in Infancy and do you disprove us if you can But 3. The worst of all comes at last Sir where is it written what you so boldly affirm viz. Because you know not upon when the Election falleth it is the Will of God that you should baptize all that are under the Promise And you affirm that all the Children of Believers are under the Promise I argue thus If it be God's Will that all the Children of the Faithful should be baptized it is revealed in his Word but this is not revealed in his Word no nor that any one of them whilst Infants ought to be baptized therefore 't is not his Will they should 4. May not we by your Argument baptize Unbelievers in whom no Grace appears because we do not know how the Election runs they may be under the Promise and in the Election as far as we know What a preposterous way of arguing is this of yours But no more to your 10th Chapter and 7th Argument for your Childrens Baptism CHAP XIII In Answer to Mr. James Owen's 11th Chapter and 6th Argument concerning those Baptisms that were under the Law proving that Christ's Ordinance of Baptism is a pure Gospel-Institution and that it was not in being tell he appointed it in the Gospel-days 〈◊〉 what you have said in your 11th Chapter which contains your 8th Argument tho it may seem new to some I shall shew it is nothing at all to the purpose You say the Form of Baptism was before the Law and under the Law and from thence infer that Children ought to be baptized under the Gospel Answ 1. You may infer from the same Ground and Argument that Clothes Pots Tables and Vessels ought to be baptized under the Gospel as an Ordinance of Christ because they were dipped washed or baptized before and under the Law 2. Moreover you may infer as well that Unbelievers yea the worst of Men and Cattle also ought to be baptized under the Gospel because Noah and his Children were baptized in the Ark among which was cursed Chan you intimate that Cham was baptized upon his Father's Faith so that it appears the Father's Faith will not only save the Infant-Seed of Believers but save them when they are Adult Persons also But were not the Beasts and the Fowls baptized and saved by the Ark as well as Noah and his Children and his Son Cham But as touching that Text 1 Pet. 3. 10. how the Ark of Noah might be a Figure of Baptism I shall speak to that more fully by and by 3. Because all sorts of Washings or Dippings are in the Greek Tongue Baptizing doth it therefore follow that all sorts of Baptisms Dippings or Washings are formally Christ's Ordinance of Baptism Mr. Burkitt a great Pedo-baptist and all other learned Men assert that to the true Form and Requisites of gospel-Gospel-Baptism these several things are necessary 1. The Person baptizing or the Administrator ought to be a lawful Minister one authorized and commissionated by Christ so to do 2. The Party baptized must be a Subject fitly qualified for Baptism 3. The Element in which the Party is baptized must be Water 4. True gospel-Gospel-Baptism must be administred in the Name or into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Now Sir was there any Person either young or old
no real but Typical Baptism 2. This Place proves not that Infants are the Subjects of Gospel Baptism 1. 'T is said all our Fathers were baptized but 't is nor said their Children were baptized unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud 2. But you intimate there were many Children with them as they passed through the Sea To which I answer so there were many wicked Men also all the Israelites were not godly Persons but many among them were prophane and ungodly People Besides there was a mixt People passed through the Sea with the Fathers also may be some of the Egyptians and others of other Nations and much Cattle also and these were all baptized as truly as were the little Children May we baptize such therefore we have as much ground from hence to baptize such as you have to baptize your Babes nay more ground if the Rain falling upon the Israelites was that which baptized them 't is a Question whether any Rain might fall on little Babes if it fell on their Parents for the Parents might cover them by holding some thing over their Heads and Bodies c. 3. The same Persons which the Apostle saith were baptized in the Sea and under the Cloud are also said to eat the same Spiritual Meat and to drink the same Spiritual Drink Now did not the Children partake of the Lord's Supper I mean that Typical Lord's Supper This Text therefore proves as strongly that you may give them the Lord's Supper as Baptism because they ate of the Manna that fell from Heaven and drank of the Water that came from the Rock 4. The design of the Apostle here is to forewarn the Saints at Corinth to take heed lest they fell as the Fathers fell in the Wilderness and to caution them the more effectually he shews them that the Fathers who fell not the Children in the Wilderness had like great Privileges with them viz. a Typical Baptism and also a Typical Lord's Supper Therefore nothing of this matter concerned their little Babes nor ours neither As to what you say of whole Housholds being baptized in the New Testament in this Chapter I shall refer my Answer to that Chapter of yours where you particularly insist upon that weak Argument You say the Parents and their Children were baptized by giving of the Law upon Mount Sinai Exod. 19. 10. Go to the People and sanctify them and let them wash their Clothes Now the washing of their Clothes and the washing of the Flesh went together Lev. 15. 5 6. wash his Clothes and wash himself in Water Being thus washed the Apostle saith that all the People entred into God's Covenant by Baptism Heb. 9. 19. For when Moses had spoken every Precept to the People according to the Law he took the Blood of Calves and of Goats with Water and sprinkled both the Book and the People The Apostle calls this Sprinkling Baptism Heb. 9. 10. divers Baptisms c. Answ I answer you have once already to your great Reproach and I fear contrary to the Light of your own Conscience asserted that which is false I appeal to you and all that can read the Greek whether that word in Heb. 9. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divers washings which I deny not may be read divers baptisms is the same word in Heb. 9. 19. viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sprinkling the Book and all the People is it there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Speak and confess your Ignorance or else acknowledg your Sin in going about to deceive the People by making them believe that sprinkling is in Greek Baptism or baptizing For tho washing in Heb. 9. 10. is Baptism or baptizing yet in Heb. 9. 19. sprinkling both the Book and People you must needs know is in the Greek rantizing 2. And what tho these divers washings are called Baptisms I have shew'd once already from a Faithful and Learned Author namely Mr. Henry Ainsworth that all those Legal Washings were by total dipping of the whole Body Take his Words again on Levit. 11. 32. All that are unclean whether Men or Vessels are not cleansed but by dipping or baptizing in Water and wheresoever the Law speaketh of washing a Man's Flesh or washing of Clothes for Uncleanness it is by dipping the whole Body therein and whether they be Men or Vessels there may not be any thing between them and the Water to keep them asunder as Clay Pitch or the like that cleaveth to the Body or Vessel if there be then they are saith he unclean and their washing profiteth them not Maim Mikvaoth chap. 1. § 12 21. Take heed what you affirm for the future This Man you and all know was well acquainted with Jewish Rites and Ceremonies and what can be a more full Confutation of what you affirm of Jewish Washings or Baptisms But where we read of sprinkling of Blood and Water 't is not baptizing unless baptizing and rantizing be both one and the same Word and Thing which we utterly deny 3. What tho the People were washed even all the whole Congregation Was not that a Typical Church and did it not typify that all true Believers must be washed in the Blood of Christ in Justification and also washed by the Holy Spirit in Sanctification These Things were held forth thereby and not Baptism You would make one thing that is a Figure or Shadow a Type of another thing that is also it self but a Shadow or Figure for Baptism signifies Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection and our Death unto Sin and Viâ—ification to a new Life But those Types were Shadows of good things to come even of Christ he was the Substance of them all they must I say prefigure a Substance not a Shadow 4. In a word all your labour is here lost about those divers Legal Baptisms and Rites under the Old Testament and of Children being in that Covenant because they were all Types even that all the Elect or all that believe in Christ should be washed in Christ's Blood or have his Blood sprinkled upon them and be sanctified by his Spirit Also it was a legal external and Typical Covenant and an external Typical Church holding forth the true Spiritual Gospel-Church and that like as Circumcision and those divers washings did belong to the whole House of Israel whether Godly or not So all the true Israel under the Gospel Dispensation should have the Substance and Anti-type of them and when any have attained to Faith in Christ and have what is signified in Baptism then and not till then they ought to be baptized but this not simply because they are in Covenant or have the thing signified in Baptism but because of the express and positive Command of Christ I say again nothing can give being to an Ordinance that wholly depends on a meer positive Rite but the express Will and Command of the Law-giver To conclude with this I infer 1. From the whole in Opposition to what
Mr. Owen saith it plainly appears that the sprinkling of VVater is not Baptism 2. That God receives all into the Covenant of Grace and Gospel Church through the Spiritual washing of Regeneration and Sanctification of the Spirit and that such only by Christ's positive Command ought to be baptized 3. That there was no gospel-Gospel-Baptism no Baptism of Christ under the Law but that 't is a pure positive Command and Institution of our Lord Jesus in the Gospel 4. That God received none of his People under the Law into Covenant through Baptism or through sprinkling of Water and Blood And that the sprinkling of Blood was a Figure of the Atonement of Christ's bloody Sacrifice and the sprinkling of Water of the sanctifying Virtue of the Spirit in Sanctification and not that Gospel-Baptism was signified thereby 5. That 't is only the meer positive Command of Christ in the New Testament that gives being and a just Right to Gospel-Baptism 6. That tho the Children with their Parents were taken into the Legal or Typical Jewish Church by God's positive Command that being a National and Typical Church yet no Children or Parents are by the positive Command of Christ in the New Testament to be received into the Gospel-Church but only those of them that believe and are washed in the Blood of Christ and sanctified by the Sacred Water of the Holy Ghost sith the Church of God now is not National but Congregational not consisting of the Fleshly as such but the Spiritual Seed of Abraham And since there being no Precept nor Precedent in all the New Testament that any one Infant was baptized or taken into the Gospel-Church it follows 't is an Human Tradition 7. That the Covenant on Sinai and the Ceremonial Law was not the Covenant of Grace tho given in subserviency thereunto and the latter a clear Figure of the Covenant of Grace and held it forth to all such who by Faith could see beyond those Sacrifices to the Anti-type of them Lastly Mr. Owen saith If Children were baptized formerly into Covenant ought they not to be baptized into his Covenant now especially because the Grace of the Covenant being enlarged under the Dispensation of the Gospel and the Privileges being more extensive I answer He doth but beg the Question asserting that which he proves not nor is ever able to prove viz. 1. That Children were baptized into the Covenant under the Law What Pedo-baptist ever asserted this before And in vain doth he affirm it now especially since he cannot prove sprinkling is Baptism 2. That all Infants were received into Covenant with God by Legal sprinkling and not till then but certainly all the Infants of the Jews were born Members of that National Church therefore not received into that Church and Covenant by Circumcision which most of the Assertors of Childrens Baptism do affirm much less not by sprinkling Blood and Water upon them Yet that sprinkling of Blood and Water might I deny not be a Sign that they and the whole House of Israel were God's Legal Covenant People and so the Type of the whole Spiritual Israel who should be washed in the Blood of Christ or Blood of the New Covenant and sanctified by his Spirit as is said before 2. Moreover evident it is that tho the Covenant of Grace in the Dispensation of it under the Gospel is enlarged and the Spiritual Privileges more extensive than were the Privileges of the Legal Covenant and Legal Church yet the external Privileges are less and not so extensive now as was theirs How many outward and earthly Privileges had the Jews and Ministers of God under the Law more than the Saints and Ministers of Christ have now Many of which I have reckoned up in the beginning of this Treatise Thus I close with your Eighth Argument CHAP XIV Proving that Children have no Right to Baptism from John the Baptist's Administration of Baptism in Opposition to what Mr. James Owen saith in his 12th Chapter That John baptized no Infants neither according to the Practice of the Jewish Church nor by virtue of any Commission he had from God that sent him Containing an Answer to Mr. Owen's 9th Argument for Pedo-Baptism MR. Owen saith If John baptized Infants Baptism doth always belong unto them for the Baptism of John and the Baptism of the Apostles were the same in the Substance of it He baptized in the Name of Christ to come and they baptized in the Name of Christ that was come Answ If you can prove John baptized Infants you do your Business indifferent well Now say you What we are to prove in this Chapter is that John baptized Infants to manifest this let it be considered 1. John the Baptist came not to nullify the Covenant of Abraham but rather to fulfil it and the Covenant of Abraham was that God would be a God to his People and to their Seed all the Visible Church of the Jews were in this Covenant John warneth them that they trusted not in the Privileges of this Covenant by living ungodly Lives he doth not in any Place make void this Covenant but rather confirms it saying God will raise other Children to Abraham if the Jews brought not forth Fruit meet for Repentance he came to baptize the Seed of Abraham which were all of them in the Covenant of God not only the Parents but the Children also Therefore their Children had the same right to Baptism as their Parents had Answ 1. I deny not but the whole House of Israel were in Covenant with God both Parents and Children and so abode till the old Covenant and old Covenant-Seed were cast out but What saith the Scripture Cast out the Bond-woman and her Son Gal. 4. 30. Now the Apostle tells you by the Bond-woman is meant the Sinai Covenant and by her Son the natural Seed of Abraham as such Gal. 4. 22 23 24 25. 2. This Grant of yours proves that the Jewish Covenant which took in all the People both Parents and Children was not the Covenant of Grace because but a finall number of the Jews were in God's Election and so in the Covenant of Grace See Dr. Owen on the Hebrews 3d Vol. Pag. 256. The Covenant of Grace in Christ is made only with the Israel of God the Church of the Elect. Pag. 291. The new Covenant is made with all who effectively and eventually are made Partakers of it and if they are not so with whom the New Covenant is made it comes short of the Old in Efficacy who were actual Partakers of the benefit of that that is of those external Benefits 3. Nor doth that which you mention help you viz. that in that Covenant made with Abraham and the whole House of Israel 't is said God would be their God or a God to Abraham and to his Seed in their Generations For First God may be said to be the God of a People divers manner of ways as Dr. Bates observes 1. Upon the account of
that it is which John the Baptist speaketh now is the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees think not to say within your Selves we have Abraham to our Father so that all their Confidence that they had in Abraham's Covenant Temple and Tabernacle and such things are burnt up and so they have no Root left them to stand upon and this is one thing intended by the Root Again he saith the Lord hath cut us off from hope in the righteousness of our Parents and from boasting of Ordinances again saith he this we read of Mal. 4. 1. it is spoken of the ministry of John the Baptist which did burn as an Oven against all the Scribes and Pharisees and left them neither the Root of Abraham's Covenant nor the branch of their own good Works he cutteth them off from Abraham's Covenant c. and by cutting them off from the Root he leaveth them no Ground to trust on Cotton on the Covenant pag. 177 and p. 21 22. How direct is this to the purpose and it as fully othroweth all that you speak in this Argument this Reverend Author Concludes that Abraham's Covenant made with his natural Seed as such was cut down by John though the Tree was not yet removed nor the Chaff blown or fanned away but you would make the People believe John confirmed that old Covenant right and baptized all the Jews upon the Authority of Abraham's Covenant as if instead of cutting the Tree down at the Root he was about to plant it afresh or uphold its standing which had it been so he would have rather said think to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father for upon that foot of Account I am to baptize you all you being all in God's Covenant though you be a Generation of Vipers But how directly contrary to this Doctrine of yours did John preach to them ' and clearly took them off of any such a pretended right to Baptism viz. because they were in Covenant with Abraham You say John did not cut down one Branch of that Covenant Mr. Cotton says he cut down the Tree at the Root you say he baptized Infants upon that foot of account but since God's Word speaks not one word of any such thing 'T is plain you assert your own Fancies or groundless suppositions There is no doubt say you but that Parents brought their Children with them to the Baptism of John for God commanded them to bring their Children with them into the Congregation Deut. 29. 10 11 12 c. their Zeal was great for their Children Acts 15. 12. and 21. 20. therefore say you if John refused their Children they would not so willingly have come to his Baptism They brought their Children to Christ therefore they brought their Children to the Baptism of John Ans I answer you say no doubt but they brought their Chldren to John's Baptism but without doubt they did not say I because if they had it would without doubt have been written but since it is no where written that they did do it nor of John's baptizing one Infant there is no doubt but we are in the right viz. John baptized no Infants nor any but penitent Persons because he required Repentance and the Fruits of it in all that came to his Baptism Moreover 2. Because all Israel their little ones their Wives and Strangers the hewer of Wood and drawer of Water entered into that legal Covenant with God Deut. 29. 10. 11. 12. doth it follow that we in the Gospel times must bring all our Children and Servants to Baptism and the Lord's Supper they had a command from God to do what they did and that old Covenant Church state required them so to do but God hath no more required us to bring our Infants to Baptism then he hath required us to Circumcise them or give our first born to the Lord which was God's command to them under the Law Baptism I tell you again being of meer positive Right you can draw no such Conclusions for what you plead for 't is only their Duty to be baptized that Christ commanded to be baptized and that is those that are made Disciples by the word preached or those that believe in Christ or that profess Faith in him and 't is the New Testament only must inform us who are the subjects of Gospel Ordinances that depend only upon Laws meerly positive according to the Sovereign Pleasure of the institutor of them or holy Law-giver Jesus Christ You say they brought their Children to Christ therefore they brought them to John's Baptism Answer If John had wrought Miracles and healed the Sick I doubt not but they would have brought their Children to him to have them healed as well as they brought them to Christ but John wrought no Miracles also our Saviour was a healing the Sick when they brought Children to him and it may fairly be inferred they brought little Children that were distemper'd to him to have him lay his Hands upon them which was his way in healing the Sick as I have said before You say Infant Baptism was an usual thing in the Jewish Church several hundred years before the time of John and tell us a story of Moses Ben Maimon who colected the Rites of the ancient Jewish Church Answer I have answered that already you having urged that argument before 'T is evident it was no other but a Jewish hamane Tradition if it be as you say for God never commanded the Jews to baptize Infants though you before would make your unwary Reader think that Jacob invented it I am sorry to see such stuff from a Man of Learning What credit is to be given to the Jewish Talmud what one Jewish Rabbi affirms concerning this matter I have shewed another seems to deny Rabbi Joshua confesseth that the Jews baptized Infants after the order of the Counsel not by any Authority from God by Moses or any of his Holy Prophets but shall we think John Baptized Infants by vertue of any human Tradition that was among the Jews Sir a popish Tradition is of as good authority as a Jewish one you may affirm the Papists for many hundred years baptized Infants but where is it written in God's Word that God commanded the Jews to baptize their Proselites or that Christians ought to baptize their Infants to the Law and Testament the sacred Scripture is a perfect Rule You say John baptized little Children for he baptized the whole Nation in general whereof Children were a great part he refused none that came or were brought to him Mat. 3. 5 6. then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the Regions round about Jordan and were baptized of him in Jordan Now say you if John baptized all Jerusalem and all Judea and all the Regions round about Jordan and all the People it is certain he baptized Infants unless we think there were no Children in Jerusalem c. Answer I answer now you think you
to cover all their nakedness even Hands and Feet also if it be needful sure Sir you must suppose somewhat of this kind or there is no room left for you to cast contempt and reproach upon the Ordinance it self but to blame the people they do not provide convenient Garments on purpose that so they may not commit Adultery when they come to be Baptized 4. Sir had you seen our People baptized you had not been guilty of bearing false witness the Second time Reader pray take notice that we provide comely Cloaths for the Administer both from Head to Foot and our Men also that are baptized have Cloaths provided for them and for the Women Gowns and Petty-coats are made on purpose and they go into the water drest more decently perhaps then many Women come into Christian assemblies therefore this is a most unworthy Charge Mr. Owen casts upon us tho' he doth but follow the steps of Dr. Featly and Mr. B. but 't is worse in him at this time of the Day then in them then because our use and practice here is now more generally known And these things being so how can we in Dipping or Baptizing of Women be guilty of Adultery or any of the Spectators Can't you take a Woman dressed in modest and decent Cloaths by the Hand without having an unclean thought in your Heart you may as well charge some Tradesmen in the Exercise of their Trades with Adultery indeed did we as Mr. B. once falsly said baptize Women naked or as you say near or half naked which are both notorious untruths there might have been some colour for what you say but if there be need to Dip the whole Body say you as they say there is what rule have they in the Scripture to baptize the Cloaths with the Body the few Cloaths they have about them are dipped before the Body is dipped 1. Answ All Men may perceive of what a contentious contradicting quarelsome Spirit you are of one while you strive to expose Christ's Sacred Ordinance to reproach and us with it as if we baptized Persons naked and then presently seem to allow that we do not so but that they whom we baptize have Cloaths on but now the Cloaths are baptized and then ask what Scripture we have for this 2. 'T is enough Christ Commanded Dipping in his Name and we are required to do all things decently 'T is no matter so that the Body is buried in the Water 't is not the Cloaths that we say we baptize but the Person Christs Ordinance of Baptism in one essential part lies in the words of Administration Do you never Sprinkle some drops of Water on the Child 's Fine dresses if you should what doth that signifie you have wrote hard words and Christ is coming to convince all of their ungodly deeds and of all their hard Speeches spoken against him Jude 15. I pray God this Sin be not laid to your Charge Thus I have been helped to take off that reproach and vile slanders cast upon the baptizing Believers and have proved it is not re-baptization therefore let Mr. Owen cast of his slanderous clamarous Pen and Infants Rhantism and repent and return to the Baptism which Christ Instituted and left in his Church to the end of the World and now to make appear the evil and sinfulness of Infant Baptism take what follows which I have transcribed out of my answer to Mr. Burkitt's Book that he wrote for the Baptizing of Children two or three years since CHAP. XXI Shewing that there is no Blessing to be expected in Baptizing Infants but rather the displeasure of the Jealous God demonstrating contrarywise to what Mr. James Owen hath said also Mr. Burkit and Mr. Daniel Williams and all other pedobaptists that it is avery sinful and an unlawful practice AS Mr. Owen hath laboured in vain to shew the usefulness of Infant Baptism so Mr. Burkit a Learned Minister of the Church of England who in his late Treatise for Infant Baptism also did see page 35 36 37 38. of his Book 1. Mr. Burkitt saith Children are hereby Interested in all the prayers of the Church 1. Answ If you pray for them as Members of the visible Church what ground have you so to do from Gods word since God in the Gospel times had not made them Members thereof 2. Can't we pray for our Children tho' as yet they are not Members that they may become Members thereof 2. He saith by vertue of this admission they have interest in the special providence of God Answ No doubt but God doth exercise his special Care and Providence over all Elect Infants but not the more for your baptizing them without his authority or Command much less Infants of Believers as such 3. He says Hereby the Church stands nearer to them then to the rest of mankind c. mentioning that Text Ifa 54. 13. Thy Children shall be all taught of God 1. Answ Neither you nor Mr. Burkitt nor any pedobaptists in the World can bring Infants nearer to God nor his Church by any act done by you without any rule left by Christ 2. Does that Text Isa 54. 13. refer to Infants of Believers as such or to those godly and new re-born Children who being born in sin are indeed her Spiritual Children 4. He saith Irfant Baptism is an act of Dedication c. Answ Who commanded you this way to Dedicate your Children to the Lord Will you Teach the Almighty or are you wiser than he Doth he in his word require you so to do 2. May not the Papists say as well that those Persons they bring under their voluntary Vows are thereby Dedicated unto God 5. Mr. Burkitt saith 'T is great advantage to Infants as 't is an Act of restipulation that is saith he a Child at baptism enters into Covenant with God Answ I answer Poor Babes 't is without their knowledge and consent or God's appointment which is worst of all or they being able to perform it then nor many of them ever after God never giving them his Grace so to do But wo to them if they do not perform this Covenant if Mr. Burkitt and Mr. Daniel Williams say true he says in his Catechism as followeth That those Children who perform not their Baptismal Covenant do 1. They reject Christ 2d They renounce the Blessings of the Gospel 3dly that 't is Rebellion against their Maker 4thly That 't is ingratitude and perjury against their Redeemer 5thly Gross injustice to their Parents 6thly That 't is self-killing Cruelty to their own Souls 7thly 'T is he saith a damning Sin nay it s the heart of all Sin Is this indeed the love you Pedo-baptists have to your poor Infants What bring them into such a Covenant without their knowledge and consent or God's appointment and then threaten them if they break it with Hell and Damnation and what not Do you know they are all Elect Persons and so such that God will
a right to baptism since 't is a meer positive Command of Christ 10. Ask him whether ungodly Parents that spring from Abraham's Loyns by Isaac-in their Generations were not as much obliged by God's positive Command to Abraham to Circumcise their Male Children as the Faithful and Godly Parents were obliged to Circumcise theirs this being so 11. Ask him why all ungodly persons and unbelievers ought not now to Baptize their Children as well as believers should baptize theirs 2. You bid your Children ask such that deny Infant Baptism can they prove from Scripture that Christ came in to the World to make the condition of Children worser then it was before Ans Tell Mr. Owen he hath had this Question answered in this Treatise over and over viz. Tell him the Spiritual Priviledges of Children now are more then theirs were under the Law So that our Children lose no Divine and Spiritual blessings or priviledges which the Children of the Faithful once had God hath the same love to and care of our Children under the Gospel as he had to theirs under the Law but the Temporal blessings of the Jewish Children and their External or Earthly priviledges then were more then our Children have in Gospel times the Gospel Church being established upon better promises theirs were under the promise of heaping up Gold and Silver and possessing outward peace and to enjoy a Land that flowed with Milk and Honey True the external or outward dispensation of the Gospel Covenant which our Children are under far exceeds theirs for the clearness of Light and Revelation of Christ and for other Spiritual priviledges ours excells Besides no doubt but the Children of believers under the Gospel far exceed the priviledges of unbelievers by the blessings of a Godly Education and the like But we say it was not the Covenant of Grace that gave right to Circumcision under the Law but the positive Law and Command of God so 't is not the Covenant of Grace that gives right to baptism but Christs positive Command which runs not unto our Children untill they do believe and bid Mr. Owen prove that Infant baptism doth make the condition of Children any ways better then the condition of our Children who never were baptized 3. Were not little Children say you the first Martyrs that lost their Lives for the sake of Christ Mat. 2. 16. If God Honoured them to be the first Witnesses for Christ being baptized in Blood will he deny them water Baptism 1. Answ Were they only the Children of Believers that Herod Murthered how will you prove that but suppose it was so doth it follow from thence that we ought to baptize them without a Command why do you not say and will not Christ allow our Children the Ordinance that holds forth the Shedding of his Blood as well as Baptism that holds forth he was Buried c. 4. If the Baptism of Infants be evil why doth the Devil say you Tempt Witches or Sorcerers to deny that Baptism And what is the reason that Satan cannot have any power over them until they renounce their Baptism and after that they have not any strength to resist him any longer as several of them confessed Park of Witches Vol. 3. page 640. 1. Answ Ask Mr. Owen why the Devil doth not love nor can't endure Popish Holy-water or is such a fearful enemy to that as the Papists say it hath often been manifest is the Consecration of Water therefore of God's appointment Why may we not give credit to the Papists as well as unto Witches and Sorcerers 2. Because he cannot prove Infant Baptism from Arguments from Heaven will he go for Arguments to prove it to be Christs Ordinance taken from Hell 3. The Devil is a crafty and subtle Adversary doth not he do this to make People love and approve of their Infant Baptism which no doubt Christ never appointed 4. However this Testimony is given only by Witches and Sorcerers and what ground have we to believe them 5. Ask them will they give you assurance that you will be better Christians by receiving of their baptism if they say you will be the better answer them that you see several of them growing worse after their re-baptization 1. Answ Ask Mr. Owen whether there are not more People that were Baptized or rather Rantized in Infancy that prove vile and ungodly then among them that were baptized upon the profession of their Faith 2. What assurance can he give to Infants or to their Parents that the Children they baptize shall be better Christians thereby Also how will he prove that the Children of believers who were baptized in Infancy prove generally better Christians then the Children of those Believers that did not baptise them in their Infancy 3. Ask him if the baptism of believers upon the profession of their Faith as Christ commanded be the worse because some like Simon Magus take it up and prove ill Members and scandalous in their Lives 1. Say you tho' they are Members of a Congregation walking by the Rule of the Gospel before they had their re-baptization they after break the Unity of the Body they were Members of by separating themselves Baptism is an Ordinance of Unity but re-baptization is the breaking off the Unity of Churches 1. Answ Why do you use such Tautologies and needless repetitions you had this before and I have answered it we deny our baptism to be re-baptization and have proyed your Rantism is no Baptism at all 2. Infant Rantism 't is true Unites National Churches and Churches Built upon that or the like Constitution and so it Unites many false and Anti-christian Churches I must confess as the Church of Rome and some others in the World much of the same nature but 't is the baptism of Christ viz. that of believers that Unites together according to the order of the Gospel all the Members of a true Gospel Church and the denying of Infant baptism and being baptized upon a profession of Faith does but break the Union of Churches of the Saints that are formarly true and orderly gathered according to the Institution of Christ and the rule of the Gospel For was not the first Gospel Church at Jerusalem gathered out of the National Church of the Jews of Persons that repented believed and upon the profession of that Faith Baptized that is Dipped in Water in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost also the Church in Samaria Acts 8. and that in Acts 10. and that at Corinth Acts 16. and that at Ephesus Acts 19. and ought not all Churches so to be gathered to the end of the World ought we not to separate from such Churches that do not hold the Ordinances that appertain to Church Constitution as they were first delivered to the Saints and from such who are guilty also of an Human Innovation ought we to partake of other Mens Sins or ought we not to keep our selves pure Touch not Tast not Handle not which
resting upon our Blessed Lord this was the time when he was gloriously sealed Mat. 3. 16 17. 4. In that hereby all baptized Believers do signify their stedfast Faith in the Blessed Trinity and do devote themselves to serve and worship the Three Persons in the Godhead Mat. 28. 19 20. 5. Because it doth so clearly bold forth and confirm us in the stedfast Belief of the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and of our Resurrection at the last Day Rom. 6. 3 4. 6. Also considering the many great and gracious Promises made to such Believers who are baptized as Mark 16. 16. Acts 2. 37 38. 7. Considering what a significant Ordinance it is in respect had to that Death to Sin and Vivification to a new Life in all its true and proper Subjects together with that Obligation it lays them under Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12 13. 8. That it is particularly called the Counsel of God and such who refused to be baptized are left on Sacred Record under that black Odium of rejecting the Counsel of God Luke 7. 30. 9. 'T is a great Ordinance appears in that it is an Initiatory Ordinance into the Visible Church Acts 2. 41 42. 10. In that those who were baptized with the Holy Spirit were nevertheless commanded to be baptized with Water Acts 10. 48. The highest Gifts of the Spirit cannot exempt Persons from their Obedience hereunto Moreover we have herein also Fellowship with Christ in his Death and Resurrection Therefore let none rob you of Christ's own Baptism be not cheated with a listle filthy Dross of Christ's pure Gold nor endure to see your Lord's Wine mixt with filthy puddle-Puddle-Water Yet carry it with all Christian Charity Love and Humility towards all Godly Christians that differ in this Matter from you and strive to walk as you are obliged by your Holy Baptism to do then will God have Glory and you have Peace to whose Holy Care Blessing and Protection I shall commit you and remain your unworthy Brother in the Sacred Bonds of the Gospel Benj. Keach A TABLE of divers Authors cited in this Treatise in each Chapter and under many particular Heads First THAT Baptizing is to dip as to the literal proper and genuine Signification of the Greek Word and asserted so to be by these Authors following as cited in this Treatise Chap. 1. chap. 2. chap. 3. chap. 4. Casaubon quoted by Dr. Du Veil on Acts Chap. 1. ver 5. pag. 10 11. cited in this Treatise Chap. 1. p. 4. O'ecumenius on Acts 2. ver 2. quoted also by Dr. Du Veil on Acts p. 11. cited in this Book Chap. 1. p. 4. Scapula and Stephens see their Lexicons cited in this Treatise Chap. 3. p. 12. Grotius Pasor Vossius quoted by Mr. H. D. his second Edition of his Treatise p. 182. Mincaeus in his Dictionary Dr. Du Veil in his literal Exposition of the Acts Chap. 1. 5. and his Exposit on Mat. 3. 5. Leigh in his Critica Sacra all cited in this Book Chap. 3. pag. 12. Bullinger Zanchy Spanhemius Erasmus See Mr. Leigh Critica sacra and Dr. Du Veil on Acts. cited in this Book p. 12. Cajetan upon Mat. 3. 5. cited in this Book Chap. 4. p. 20. Salmasius in his Book Deprim p. 193. see his Notes upon Sulpitius Severus cited in this Treatise Chap. 3. p. 13. lin 1. Beza on Matth. 3. 11. cited in this Book p. 13. Selden De Jure Nat. c. L. 2. c. 2. cited in this Treatise p. 13. Ainsworth upon Levit. Chap. 11. 32. cited in this Treatise p. 13. What is cited p. 13 14. of Luther the German and John Bugenhagius is taken out of Dr. Du Veil p 76. Dan. Rogers in his Treatise of Sacraments Part 1. Chap. 8. p. 177. cited in this Treatise p. 13. Synod of Celichyth Anno 816. as quoted by Dr. Du Veil on the Acts Chap. 2. p. 75 76 77. cited in this Book Chap. 3. p. 13. Dan. Rogers Treatise of the Sacraments P. 1. Chap. 5. cited here p. 19. Dr. Jer. Taylor Ductor Dubit l. 3. c. 4. Numb 9. Rule of Conscience l. 3. c. 4. cited in this Book p. 13 14. Zepper quoted by the same Doctor Sylvester Squropulus also quoted by Dr. Du Veil on Act. 2. cited in this Treatise p. 13. St. Ambrose Lib. de Initiandis and as quoted by Sir Norton Knatchbul in his Notes Printed at Oxon 1677. also quoted by Dr. Du Veil on Act. 2. p. 78. Musculus on Matth. 3. 5. cited here p. 20. Luther Latin Tom. 1. Fol. 71. cited in this Book Chap. 3. p. 14. John Bugenhagius Pomeranus as quoted by Dr. Du Veil out of a Book Printed in the German Tongue Printed 1542. cited in this Treatise p. 14. Mr. Joseph Mede Diatrib on Titus 3. 2. cited here Chap. 3. p. 15. Casaubon on Matth. 3. 11. cited here in p. 19. Chamier Pan. Cathol Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 2. Ser. 6. cited in this Book p. 15. Diodate on Matth. 3. Dr. Hammond in his Annot. on Matth. 3. 10. cited here p. 15. Mr. Pool's Annot. on Mat. 3. 6. Mat. 28. 2. John 3. 23. cited in this Book p. 16. Mr. Ball in his Catechism cited here p. 16. Dutch Testament on Mat. 3. 16. cited here p. 16. Secondly That Baptism is dipping or burying of the whole Body in Water to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ and our Death to Sin and Vivification to a new Life Authors that assert this follow Assembly in their Annotations on Rom. 6. 3 4. Pool's Annotations on Rom. 6. 3 4. here cited Chap. 5. p. 29 30. Tilenus in his Disputation p. 886 889 890. all cited in this Book Chap. 4 5. p. 30 31. Piscator cited in this Treatise p. 17. Cajetan upon Rom. 6. 3 4. cited in this Treatise Chap. 5. p. 29 30. Keckerman Syst Theol. l. 3. c. 8. cited in this Book p. 31. St. Ambrose Basil the Great Basil Seleucia Chrysostom Lactant. Bernard Justin Martyn All quoted by Sir Norton Knatchbull see his Book cited in this Treatise p. 35 36 37. Ignatius Epist ad Tral id Epist ad Philadelph Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity p. 320. cited in this Treatise p. 22. Dallie on the Fathers L. 2. p. 148. cited in this Book p. 32. Paraeus upon Ursin p. 375. cited in this Treatise p. 33. Mr. Perkins on Galat. Vol. 2. chap. 3. p. 257. Vol. 1. chap. 33. p. 74. Dr. Sharp present Archbishop of York see his Sermon on Phil. 3. 10. p. 9. Dr. Fowler present Lord Bishop of Gloucester in his Book Design of Christianity p. 90. Dr. Sherlock Dean of Paul's Charity without Usury p. 1. cited here p. 38 39. Dr. Tillotson Late Archbishop of Canterbury in his Book Sermons on several Occasions the fifth Edition p. 188 189. cited here p. 39. Anonymous French Author cited by Dr. Du Veil on Acts p. 292 293. Calvin L. 4. c. 16. cited in this Book Chap. 5. p. 41. Zanchy on Col. 2. 12. cited in
this Book Chap. 5. p. 41. Thirdly Baptism is Dipping according to the purport of those Typical Baptisms spoken of in the Scripture Authors that assert this Sir Norton Knatchbull see the quotations before cited upon this account in this Book p. 43. Pool's Annotations on 1 Cor. 10. 1 2 3. Thomas Aquinas as quoted by Dr. Du Veil cited here p. 35. Fourthly Baptism is Dipping of the whole Body in Water according to the purport of those Metaphorical Baptisms spoken of in the Scripture Authors that assert this mentioned in this Treatise Casaubon as quoted by Dr. Du Veil on Act. 1. 5. p. 10. cited in this Treatise p. 44. Oecumenius on Act. 2. cited here p. 44. Vossius Pool's Annotations on Matth. 20. 22. both cited in this Book p. 44. In Chapter 8. concerning Christ's Commission two Authors are mentioned p. 97 98. Mr. Perkins on Gal. Vol. 2. Chap. 3. p. 25. Mr. Baxter ' s Right of Baptism p. 149 150. In Chap. 9. p. 119 c. You have an account of the Authors who Assert that the Holiness mentioned 1 Cor. 7. 14. is Matrimonial Holiness Jerom. Chameri Sect. 50. Sic Ambrosius Thomas Anselmus Suarez Melancthon in his Commentary upon this place of Scripture viz. 1. Cor. 7. 14. Camerarius Musculus in his Comment on 1 Cor. 7. 14. Camera Erasmus upon the place viz. 1 Cor. 7. 14. THE TABLE OF THE CHIEF HEADS CHAP. I. REmarks on Mr. Owen's first Chapter sâ—ewing his abuse of the Text Heb. 9. 19 opening the proper Signification of the Greek word Baptizo Page 1. to 5 CHAP. II. Mr. Owen's Argument for the Continuation of Baptism turned against his Insant Baptism Page 5. to 9 CHAP. III. Proving Baptism is Immersion or Baptizing is Dipping from the proper signification of the Greek word Page 9. to 16 CHAP. IV. Proving Baptizing is Dipping from the Practice of John Baptist Christ and his Apostles Page 17. to 20 CHAP. V. Proving Baptizing is dipping the whole Body in Water from the signification of Baptism Page 20 to 44 CHAP. VI. Mr Owen's Argument for Infant Baptism from the Covenant God made with Abraham answered Page 45. to 79 CHAP. VII Mr. Owen's Arguments to prove Infant Baptism from Circumcision answered Page 80. to 96 CHAP. VIII Mr. Owen's Argument taken from Christ's Commission Matth. 28. 19 20. answered Page 96. to 108 CHAP. IX Proving the holiness spoken 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your children unclean but now they are holy is not Federal or Spiritual holiness but the holiness of Legitimative or Matrimonial holiness Page 109. to 125 CHAP. X. Opening the purport of that Text of Christ's Blessing little Children in answer to Mr. Owen's Argument taken from thence for Infant Baptism Page 125. to 134 CHAP. XI Opening the nature of that holiness Rom. 11. 16. If the root be holy so are the branches and Mr. Owen's Argument for Infant Baptism from thence answered Page 134. to 147 CHAP. XII In answer to Mr. Owen's 10th Chapter and his Argument that Children can partake of those things prefigured in Baptism Page 147. to 154 CHAP. XIII In answer to Mr. Owen's Arguments for Infant Baptism from those Tipical Baptisms under the Law or Old Testament Page 154. to 170 CHAP. XIV In answer to Mr. Owen's Argument for Infant Baptism from John Baptist's Baptizing all the people of the Jews as he asserteth Page 171. to 188 CHAP. XVI In answer to Mr. Owen's 13th Chap. concerning those whole housholds said to be Baptized in the New Testament P. 189. to 213 CHAP. XVII In answer to Mr. Owen's 14th Chapter about the Baptism of Infants in the first Centuries after the Apostles proving no Infants Baptized in the two first Centuries Page 214. to 227 CHAP. XVIII Proving Infant Baptism no excellent way to Plant the Christian Religion in answer to Mr. Owen's 15th Chapter shewing it was only contrived to uphold National Churches and so a sinful practice Page 228. to 239 CHAP. XIX In which those Objections Mr. Owen mentioned against Infant Baptism as brought by us are considered with a Reply to his Answers Page 234. to 237 CHAP. XX. In answer to Mr. Owen's Slanders and Reproaches cast upon the Antipedobaptists proving Dipping Believers in Christ's name does not render us guilty of Murther and Adultery and Infant Baptism further proved a very sinful practice P. 238. to 262 CHAP. XXI Shewing that there is no Blessing to be expected in Infant Baptism with an answer to Mr. Burket and Mr. Daniel Williams in his Book called Vanity of Youth P. 263. to 276 CHAP. XXII In Answer to Mr. James Owen's 18th Chapter wherein he sheweth the Duty of Parents to their Children proving in opposition to what he says that Parents ought not to consecrate their Infants to the Lord by Baptism Page 276 to 280 CHAP. XXIII In answer to Mr. James Owen's 19th Chapter wherein he gives advice to Children with an answer to his Queries that he would have the Anti-pedobaptists to reply unto Page 280 to 293 CHAP. XXIV Containing some practical Use of the whole Treatise with seasonable Counsel to Parents Page 293 to 298 CHAP. XXV Containing several Queries for Mr. James Owen to answer Page 298 to 305 CHAP. XXVI Containing divers Arguments to disprove Pedo-baptism and to prove the Baptism of Believers which Mr. Owen is desired to answer when he writes again Page 305 to the end By reason this Treatise was printed at several Presses the Author could not attend them whereby many Faults have escaped and Mispointings which spoils the Sense ERRATA PAge 7. Line 27. add in all that live P. 12. l. 23. for of way read way of P. 13. l. 26. for pag. 5 6 7. read pag. 75 76 27. being Citations out of Dr. Du Veil P. 16. l. 5. for John read Matthew P. 34. l. 10. for and read but. P. 31. l. 3. for almost all read many P. 45. Chap. 5. read Chap. 6. P 46. l. 37. read his Natural Seed P. 48. l. 17. add as such i e. his Spiritual Seed as such P. 5. l. 2. blot out all P. 50. l. 20. for many read any P. 51. l. 9. and 15. for a Covenant read the Covenant P. 51. l. 11. read the Infant-Seed of believing Gentiles as such P. 51. l. 22. for a Covenant read the Covenant P. 51. l. 41. for 1st read 2d P. 52. l. 41. for a Covenant read the Covenant P. 53. l. 39. read Gospel-Church and Covenant and so l. 40. P. 54. l. 16. for a Covenant read the Covenant Note If in any other place you find a Covenant read the Covenant P. 56. l. 43 for Preservation read Perseverance P. 57. l. 28. blot out it was a sign of for pag. 56. read 59. P. 59. l. 9. for Land read Law P. 61. l. 3. blot out for P. 62. l. 37. blot out now P. 63. for this is read is this P. 65. l. 3. blot out all and for Churches read Church P. 67. l. 40. for and read but. P. 68. read
away the Filth of it Now says he and you to the same purpose the sprinkling of the Blood of Christ and the pouring forth of the holy Spirit upon the Infant are more fully and plainly represented by Baptism as administred by sprinkling than by dipping He says further That if the inward and spiritual Grace signified by Baptism be more lively represented by sprinkling than by dipping then surely sprinkling is not only lawful but more expedient than dipping but the inward and spiritual Grace signified by Baptism to wit the cleansing the Soul by the Grace and Spirit of Christ is more lively represented by sprinkling than by dipping therefore more expedient and accordingly we find Almighty God himself often expressing the Mercy of Sanctification by this Action Ezek. 36 25 Theu will I sprinkle clean Water upon you and ye shall be clean c. Ansew 1. To this I answer where the Thing signified is not the Sign is a nullity but your Thing signified in sprinkling VVater on the Face of an Infant viz. the holy Spirit and Graces of it does not appear in those Infants you so sprinkle Ergo Your Sign is a nullity If Grace was in them so much as in the Habit of it when they are grown up the Act and Fruits of the Spirit and Faith would shew themselves for Grace is an active and lively Principle where-ever it is infused 2. And I positively deny that the End and Use of Baptism is or can be represented by sprinkling or pouring of VVater but by what I have said and produced by the Testimony of the Scripture and almost all Learned Men both Antient Fathers and Modern Divines I have fully shewed the contrary 3. I thought the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper had been instituted by Christ to signify the Effusion or pouring forth his precious Blood and not Baptism VVill you confound the Use and End of one Sacrament with the other to maintain your own Innovation and Abuse of Christ's holy Baptism 4. Might not the Jews who instead of making Altars of Gold or Stone made them Altars of Brick say that Altars of Brick might serve as well to answer the Use and End of burning Incense Nay may be they might say they had not the other to do it and therefore built their Altars of Brick But would this Pretence do No no what saith the Almighty God They provoke me continually to my Face Also might not others argue thus about the Sacrament of the Supper viz. VVhat need we have VVine If we use Mum or some other Red Liquor instead of the Fruit of the Grape it will answer the Use and End of that Sacrament as well as VVine O whither would this lead us 5. VVe utterly deny that Baptism was ordain'd or instituted by Christ to signify either the pouring forth of his Blood or the pouring forth of the holy Spirit and must tell you that you affirm what you please without any Proof from God's VVord But by the way let the Reader observe how you go from sprinkling to pouring VVater on the Face of Infants I question whether you ever do so or not but if you should that would be no more Christ's Baptism than sprinkling You are not to devise new Signs or Symbols of Spiritual Mysteries of which God speaks nothing in his VVord nor ever instituted to such Ends. I affirm he has appointed no Rite or Ordinance in the Gospel to represent the sprinkling or pouring forth of the holy Spirit The Papists have you know seven Sacraments and they tell us of the Use and End of them and how wonderfully significant they are and yet all the Use and Signification of them were the Contrivances of their own wicked Hearts And I must tell you that they prove what they do and say for their Sacraments as well as you do As to what you speak of pouring or sprinkling take what Tho. Aquinas most excellently hath said on this account It belongs to the Signifier says he to determine what Sign is to be used for the Signification But God it is who by things sensible signifies spiritual things in the Sacrament Christ hath ordained Baptism to be a Sign Symbol or lively Representation of his own Death Burial and Resurrection as I have proved and confirmed by a Cloud of Witnesses Will God endure or suffer Men think you to invent out of their own Brains new Signs and Symbols of Divine Gospel-Mysteries and then father them upon him and call them his Ordinances Nay more be so bold as to say these are more useful and answer better the End of God than those which he himself instituted For thus you and other Pedo-baptists speak of Sprinkling viz. 't is not only lawful but more expedient than Dipping And hereby you seem to teach God Wisdom or to magnify yours above his Be astonished O Heavens Be thou horribly amazed O Earth Were ever any Men thus bold before First You contrive a new Rite and new Significations of it which God never appointed to represent such things and then say 't is more expedient than Christ's Ordinance of dipping which was instituted by him for other Ends and Significations whereas the whole Body of all learned Men and Christians witness to and testify the contrary Pray take what Sir Norton Kâ—atchbul hath wrote in direct opposition to what you affirm Saith he Baptism which now saves us by Water speaking of the Text in 1 Pet. 3. 21. that is by the assistance of Water and is antitypical of the Ark of Noah does not signify the laying down the Filth of the Flesh but the Covenant of a good Conscience towards God while we are plunged in the Water which is to testify our Belief of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ so that there is a manifest Antithesis between these words by Water and by the Resurrection Nor is saith he the Elegancy of it displeasing As if he should say the Ark of Noah not the Flood was a Type of Baptism and Baptism was an Antitype of the Ark Not as if Baptism is a washing away of the Filth of the Flesh by Water wherein it answers not at all to the Ark but as it is the Covenant of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Christ in the belief of which Resurrection we are saved as they were saved by the Ark of Noah for the Ark and Baptism were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection so that the proper End mark of Baptism ought not to be understood as if it were a Sign of the wishing away of Sin although it be thus oftentimes taken Metonymially in the New Testament and by the Fathers but a particular Signal of the Resurrection by Faith in the Resurrection of Christ of which Baptism is a lively and emphatical Figure as also was the Ark out of which Noâ—h returned as from a Sepulchre to a new Life and therefore not unaptly called by Philo the Captain of the new Creation and the Whale's Belly out
you know nor whether ever God will give them his Spirit or Grace to enable them so to do And as one Pedo-baptist lately saith If they do not discharge this Obligation viz. their Baptismal Covenant they are guilty of Perjury and 't is the damning Sin O cruel Parents you list your Infants into the Spiritual War by your pretended Baptism and arm them not The Graces of the Spirit are the Believers Spiritual Armour and Weapons these they have when listed I mean baptized but Infants as such have not this Armour on when baptized Alas poor Babes they have too much Guilt upon them naturally O the Weight that lies upon them but you Pedo-baptists add to it by your Tradition of a Baptismal Covenant that God never appointed them to come under Therefore you object How can Children be bound to that which they are ignorant of You answer They were ignorant of the Bond of Circumcision and yet were bound over to the Law to take him to be their God and to depart from the ways of Sin c. Answ Because God obliged and bound over the Jews by Circumcision in their Infancy in that Legal Covenant to love the Lord their God with all their Hearts to take him to be their God and to depart from all the ways of Sin nay to keep the Law perfectly which shewed the necessity of Christ's Righteousness and Merits which was nevertheless upon this respect a Yoke of Bondage which Yoke by Christ we and our Children are delivered from Will you adventure to bring your poor Children under another like Yoke of Bondage Christ's Yoke is easy and his Burden is light because he gives all that are to be baptized his Spirit and a changed Heart to love God and cleave to him and serve him but you make his Yoke as hard as the Yoke of Circumcision by putting Baptism on your poor Infants to oblige them thereby to be regenerated and love God with all their Hearts before Grace in the Habit of it is infused into them and all this without the least Authority from Christ or the Gospel O cruel Parents Sirs who hath required this at your Hands You shall hear more of this hereafter You do intimate that 't is true Circumcision did oblige to keep the Law perfectly since the Law but from the beginning it was not so for say you Circumcision was not of Moses but of the Fathers Joh. 7. 22. Answ Was not the Moral Law from the beginning and were not those that were circumcised bound to keep the Moral as well as the Ceremonial Law How then dare you say and prove it not that from the beginning it was not so i. e. It did not bind Abraham's Natural Seed exactly to keep the Moral Law that is to love God with all their Hearts and their Neighbours as themselves yea to leave and loath all Sin Circumcision I have proved was no Seal nor part of the Covenant of Grace but of and part of the Covenant of Works so that you run into a dangerous Sâ—are and deceive the People unwarily by your Ignorance of the two Covenants made with Abraham and not distinguishing Circumcision from being a Seal to Abraham's Faith and not a Seal in common to all his Children It was a Sign to them in their Flesh but no Seal of the Covenant of Grace You further run a Parallel between Circumcision and Baptism as some others before you have done Pray take my former Answers to all you say here which I have given to other Pedo-baptists upon this foot of account 1. Others formerly have as well as you do now affirmed That Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision 2. They run a Parallel between Circumcision and Baptism and would have them both signify the same thing in an exact Analogy 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Say they which you seem to affirm also If Baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision then as the Jewish Infants were circumcised so the Infants of Christians may and ought to be baptized But Baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision Therefore as their Children were circumcised then so may ours be baptized now Answ 1. There is no necessity that a Gospel-Ordinance must succeed in the room of a Legal or Jewish Ordinance What if I affirm that no Ordinance succeeds in the room of Circumcision Were there not many other Rites and Ordinances under the Law or Old Testament besides Circumcision and yet you cannot find or once imagine any Gospel-Rite or Ordinance to come in the room of them respectively for that then it would follow there would be as many Christian Rites Precepts and Ordinances as there were Jewish Rites Precepts and Ordinances which as one observes were more than three hundred 2. Besides as Dr. Taylor observes If Baptism came in the room of Circumcision you must baptize your Children always on the eighth day and you must not baptize your Females at all because none but Male Infants were then circumcised 3 And whereas you say that Baptism signifies the same things that Circumcision did it is not true as will appear to all understanding Men if they consider these Particulars following which are so many Disparities viz. 1. Circumcision was a Shadow of Christ to come Baptism is a Sign he is already come was dead and buried 2. Circumcision was a Sign of the Covenant made with Abraham and his Natural Seed Baptism is a Sign of the peculiar spiritual Privileges made to Saints as such and no others 3. Circumcision was a Domestick Action i. e. to be done in the House Baptism an Ecclesiastick belonging to the Gospel-Church 4. Circumcision was to be done by the Parents in that respect Baptism is to be done only by Gospel-Ministers 5. Circumcision was the cutting off the Foreskin of the Flesh which drew Blood Baptism is to be done by dipping the whole Body into the Water without drawing of any Blood 6. Circumcision belonged to Male-Children only Baptism belongs to Males and Females also 7. Circumcision was to be done precisely on the eighth Day Baptism is not limited to any precise Day 8. Circumcision made a visible Impression on the Body which the Party might perceive when he came to Age of Understanding Baptism leaves no Impression on the Body 9. Circumcision belonged to Abraham's House to his Male-Infants only or such who were bought with his Money and not the Male-Infants of any other Godly Men in his days unless they join themselves to his Family Baptism belongs to Believers in all Nations 10. Circumcision bound those who came under that Rite to keep the whole Law of Moses Baptism signifies we are delivered from that Yoke of Bondage 11. If Circumcision signified the same things and consequently particularly the sealing the Covenant of Grace then those that were circumcised needed not to be baptized because sealed before with the same Seal or that which signified the same thing but Christ and all his Apostles and many others who were circumcised were nevertheless baptized 12.
and twelfth and last Argument YOU say Infant Baptism is an excellent means which God hath ordained for to plant and continue the Church of God Christ thus commanded his Apostles to gather Churches among the Gentiles by teaching and baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. Mat. 28. 29. Answ I answer The way it appears that Christ commanded his Apostles to gather Churches among the Gentiles is first to teach them and then baptize them you say right whilst you repeat the Text but God hath not commanded to baptize Infants and that way to plant his Church You add It is an excellent means for this end making Children to be Disciples of Christ let none marvel at this because Infants are of the number of Disciples Acts 15. 11. Why tempt ye God to put a yoke on the necks of the Disciples Those Disciples were say you the Faithful and their Seed Answ This is not true The Disciples in the Text you cite refer only to Believers among the Gentiles those false Teachers would have the Brethren be circumcised and they were they only that are called Disciples These Brethren being Gentiles were never circumcised and therefore these false Teachers taught them so to be see Acts 15. 1. 2. Sir I will appeal to your Conscience in this matter Is not a Disciple one that is taught or instructed and can Infants be called Disciples who are not capable of being taught Mr. Baxter saith Such that are made Disciples by teaching are the Subjects of Baptism according to the Commission and he is in the right 3. Doth the baptizing of Infants make them Disciples Doth Christ say baptize and so make them Disciples Or is it not make Disciples and baptize them Mathetusate disciplize and then it follows baptize them You say Christ knoweth how to administer a secret Doctrine to Infants according to his promise Thy Children shall be all taught of the Lord. Answ 1. No doubt but Christ is able to do it But doth he in a secret way administer Instruction to Infants prove it and also how you come to know it for they must be known Disciples visible Disciples that are to be baptized 2. Are they little Infants that Promise refers to i. e. Thy Children shall be all taught of God They are Sion's Children or such that are born of God that are under that Promise not Infants or our Children as such for are all Believers natural Offspring taught of God when Babes or adult either O abominable abuse of the holy Text Baptism say you setteth little Children under a particular obligation to be the Lord's doubtless they can receive such an obligation now as formerly they did Deut. 29. 11 12. And it is as certain that this Bond is a great advantage to make them willing when they come to age God hath presented them by the Grace of his Covenant c. Answ 1. 'T is you pretend to lay them under an obligation but not by Christ's authority prove he hath commanded you so to do 2. Doth Baptism confer Grace you seem to assert this for else how hath God by Baptism prevented them Your sprinkling them with water doth not cannot prevent them I affirm therefore 't is an obligation of man's devising for you cannot prove it is of God's appointment therefore to refuse to bring them under such an obligation is no fantastick thing as you intimate it is You say the mark of the Spirit is upon them Answ Baptism is no mark of the Spirit to any but to such who have the Spirit and what a Mock-Baptism is it to give the Sign where appears no demonstration of the thing thereby signified You say on the other side Satan hath not such an advantage against those that are baptized in their Infancy Answ How doth it appear that Satan hath not such an advantage against your Children as he hath against ours that were never baptized as you call Rantism I am sure our Children generally are as sober and helped to escape Satan's snares as far forth as yours generally are VVill God own or bless an humane Tradition The Woman that Luther mentioned no doubt might think she was obliged to fear God by that sort of Baptism she had when she was an Infant yet God never obliged her to come under that obligation but may be she was baptized when a Believer However the Papists may argue for their voluntary Vows after the same manner viz. it is a great help and an advantage to them to preserve them from sin and temptations of the Devil Infant-Baptism is an excellent means you say to plant the true Religion and to continue the Church by giving an advantage for the Ministers of the Gospel to reason with such when they come to age far better than they can with those that are not baptized that they might call them to remembrance of their baptismal Vow c. Answ This is certainly a grand mistake for instead of its being an advantage to Ministers to reason with such that were baptized in their Infancy to remember their baptismal Vow and so to believe and turn to God 't is apparent it may â—inder them for if those persons when grown up do call to remembrance what you Pedobaptists have taught and told them touching those Blessings and Privileges they then received it may rather take them off from seeking after either Faith or Repentance 1. For you tell them when their Parents believed and were saved they were made partakers of the same Privilege and Blessing also if so what need they concern themselves about getting personal Faith you believe and teach them the Doctrine of final Perseverance no doubt such who are in a state of Grace can never finally fall out of it 2. The Obligation and Vow that lies upon baptized persons according to the Scripture is not that they seek after Regeneration no for it necessarily supposeth that they had that before baptized but it doth bind or oblige them to persevere in Holiness that as they have been buried in Baptism as persons dead to sin so they should walk in newness of life Rom. 6. 3 4. Now you would have your Baptism to oblige your baptized Children to become dead to sin they were not it appears dead when buried with Christ in Baptism but you bury them alive if you baptized them To shew them they must die Sir God never ordained Baptism to such an end or to oblige persons thus to do see Rom. 6. 3. 4 5 6 7 8. Col. 1. 12 13. 3. The Church of England saith That the Child which they baptize is thereby that is in Baptism regenerated and made a Child of God a Member of Christ and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven And what you say implies as much for it must needs be thus if when the Parents believe and are regenerated and saved the Child partakes of the same privilege then the Child believed and was regenerated and saved also Now if this be so what
of this Because some have erred in staying too long before they were baptized Will you make too great haste and bring in little Babes to be baptized without any Ground or Authority from the Word of God So much shall suffice to your Twelfth and Last Argument Now Sir we have heard all your Proofs for the baptizing of Infants you have it seems impannell'd for your Jury to Sit Hear and Determine this Grand Cause Just Twelve and if they could speak they would being all agreed the Cause being also fully opened give their Verdict on our Side and against your Infant-Baptism but let them rather be so many Witnesses of your summoning the Statute Book and great Charter of the Church viz. God's Word having been opened and the Matter cleared We will appeal now to our worthy Reader particularly to the Antient and Noble Britains to make Judgment for themselves For in matters of Faith and Things that concern our Souls every Christian is to judg for himself Impartial Reader weigh well the matter Consider this we must all be judged by the VVord of God If you can find you are commanded to baptize your Children by Jesus Christ in the New Testament or can find any Precept or Precedent for it you may do it Or if what Mr. Owen hath said hath convinced you that Baptism doth not belong to Believers by good Authority he hath shewed from the Holy Scriptures but that Infants are the only Subjects thereof and that Baptism is nor dipping or burying the Body in VVater but only sprinkling or pouring a few Drops of VVater on the Person 's Face then continue in your former Practice till God shall open your Eyes But if you are otherwise perswaded that Mr. Owen is in an Error then I exhort you that believe in Christ to arise and be baptized But lest Mr. Owen should say 't is too soon for you to make Judgment yet pray stay till we have heard his Answers to our Objections and also all what he hath further to say CHAP. XIX Containing an Answer to Mr. James Owen's 16th Chapter proving that our Objections against Infant-Baptism are very weighty and his Answers to them very impertinent and defective MR. Owen begins with his Sixteenth Chapter after this manner viz. Thus have we proved by the Scripture saith he and by several Scriptural Arguments that the Children of the Faithful ought to be baptized if we look upon this Truth in the Light of the Scriptures Above the Objections of themselves will vanish away yet for the sake of the Weak I shall lay down the strongest of them 1. Object There is neither a Command nor Example in the Scripture for the baptizing of Infants To this Mr. Owen answereth viz. There is not one particular Command totidem verbis naming Infant-Baptism and that is not necessary but there is an Universal Command to baptize all Nations of which Children are a great part If there is a Command for the baptizing of the Parents then there is a Command for the baptizing of Infants for the Children are included in the Parents even as Parts of them being Partakers of the Privileges of good Parents and of the Judgments of the wicked Parents 1. Answ I answer Whether you have or have not proved by the Holy Scriptures and Arguments that Infants ought to be baptized is now upon a fair Trial committed to the Judgment of the Impartial Reader 2. We do not require you to bring a Command in totidem verbis or in so many Words Let Infants be baptized But your Inferences are not good for as you have no Precept no Command or any Precedent to baptize them so you can draw no fair and good Consequences for it from any Text of Scripture You bring the Words of the Great Commission Matth. 28. 19 20. Go baptize all Nations Sir Why dare you leave out part of the Words Is it not Go therefore teach all Nations baptizing them c. We have shewed in our Answer to you already that the Commission requires none to be baptized but such who are first taught or made Disciples which Disciples St. Mark calls Believers He that believes and is baptized Mark 16. 16. They are Reader the Words of the same Commission tho differently expressed by these two Great Evangelists and hold forth the same thing viz. That the Gospel is to be preached in all Nations or to all the World and that those that are discipled by preaching or that do believe ought to be baptized and none else 3. Whereas you say that Children are a great part of the Nations and may therefore be baptized this is a fallacious or deceitful Consequence For may not I as before argue thus Unbelievers i. e. Turks Infidels Pagans and their Children are a great part of all Nations therefore may be baptized Sir I appeal to your Conscience Whether this Inference is not as good and true from the Premises as yours 3. But you ask whether there is a command for the baptizing of Parents no doubt of this we and you agree that there is a command to baptize Parents that believe in Christ and to baptize Children too that believe in Christ but say you then there is a command to baptize Infants because they are included in the Parents even as parts of them now this is utterly false and also very ridiculous 't is for any Man to assert it 1. For if this was so it follows whatsoever God commands the Parent he commands the Child then when God commanded Abraham to offer up or slay his Son he commanded the Son to slay himself it would also follow That 2. When God commands the believing Parent to partake of the Lord's Supper he also commands all his Children to partake of the Lord's Supper because they are all included in their Parents 3. If Children are thus a part of their Parents then certainly if the Parents go to Heaven all their Children must go to Heaven likewise for the whole of Believers shall be saved and not a part of them only 4. Also if the Children are included in their Parents and are a part of them why may not the Parents Baptism serve for the Child and then it would also follow that no Man is a compleat and perfect Man without his Children was ever such Stuff by a Man of Parts and Learning published to the World 5. Sir will your Feeding or eating your Food feed your Children besure as much as your believing and being baptized will feed the Souls of your Children 6. Moreover why do you say the Judgments of wicked Parents fall on their Children did not God say that Proverb should be used no more in Israel but the Soul that Sins shall die If Children partake of the punishment of their Parents 't is when they are alike wicked and walk in the same steps their ungodly Parents walked in But you proceed and say that there is no particular command for the baptizing of Women Answ Male and
Authority from God for to do such a thing in his Name without his Authority is Sinful 2. You might better have stayed till they came to Age of understanding and if you would bring them under a Vow have caused them then to have entered into a Covenant to take the Lord to be their God and no doubt your Children might more dread to break such a Vow they consented to and freely made then a Covenant or Vow you caused them to enter into in their Infancy to which they never consented but perhaps you will say you have no Ground nor Authority from Gods word to do that as much every way as you have in Infancy to baptize them which we say is no Baptism at all much less Christ's true Baptism therefore God thereby oblieged them not to do what you speak but it is their Duty when grown up if God gives them Faith to cast it away as an humane Tradition and to enter into God's Holy Baptismal Covenant as Believers according to Christ's great Commission 3. Christs Baptism or the Baptism of Believers was not ordained to oblige Persons who are in their natural State whether young or old to be come the Lord or to be regenerated or to die to Sin c. but as being his or regenerated before baptized their baptismal Covenant obligeth them to walk as the Lord's People in newness of Life so that it appears that Infants baptismal Covenant is directly repugnant in the end and design of Christ's true Baptismal Covenant as I have more fully eâ—enceâ— in the Epistle to this Book Dedicated to all Godly Pedo-Baptists to which I refer the Reader You say you see the greatest part of Children when they come to Age be either ignorant or inconsiderate of their Baptismal Vows c. for which you blame Ministers and Housholders in not Catechising and Teaching them and thus say you Satan tempts them to cast the Blame upon their Baptism c. Ans You may see what a vain thing an human invention is what impression can that make on the Conscience of Persons when Grown up that God never Commanded nor promised to bless 2. But take heed you do not father that upon the Devil which is done by Jesus Christ 't is not Satan that tempts us to cast a slight on Infant Baptism or makes us looâ— upon it as an insignificant thing but 't is through Christ's gracious influences by opening our Eyes to see 't is a meer humane rite and invention of Man 's own Brain therefore we threw it away and entered into a new and true Baptismal Covenant and many others also do day by day You say you appeal to the Consciences of those that are rebaptized is not the thing thus Let their Consciences dictate and reprove them say you of this sinful Carelesness that they never made a right use of their first Baptism if they had received profit from the first they would not have at all renounced it Ans 1. I will take this appeal to be made to me though never re-baptized even to my Conscience and I do solemnly declare I doubt not but all my Brethren can speak the same thing that the reason why we cast off our Infant Baptism or rather Rantism was because we were fully convinced it was no Ordinance of Christ and therefore knew it could be of no 〈◊〉 to us 2 You mistake it seems as if you dreamed that the most of those that cast off Infant Baptism were People of 〈◊〉 and also seem to intimate as if such of your People when grown up that are pious who do choose the Lord to be their God do it by virtue of their Baptismal Vow no no that had no such effect upon them 't is only the Grace of God in them 't is by vertue of his Spirit and evident 't is that the persons generally that first doubt about the truth of Infant Baptism are persons of Religion and Piety therefore 't is not for want of Religion or Zeal for God they throw away Infant Baptism but it is from their Religion and Love to God and Zeal to his Name that so they may not be guilty of adding to his Word or taking that for Christ's true Baptism which is none of it Is it a Sin to cast off Mens inventions 2. They are guilty you say of great Sin by prophaning the Ordinance of Christ is it a small thing to prophane Sacred Things although some do so through ignorance Baptism is a sacred thing which ought to be received but once one Lord one Faith one Baptism Eph. 4. 4. therefore those that renew their Baptism take the name of God in Vain c. Answ I answer is it not a great Sin to change the Holy Ordinance of Christ from Baptism to Rantism or in English from dipping the whole Body in Water to the sprinkling a little Water on the Face and to change the true Subject from a Believer to an Infant is not this to prophane a most holy Ordinance and a sacred Thing and 't is no doubt a great Evil though done ignorantly because you sprinkle them into the Name of the Father Son and Holy-Ghost without his Authority God never commanded it at your Hands is not this to prophane his most Holy and Sacred Name and since it appears there is but one Baptism in Water and you cannot deny but do own Believers Baptism was at first instituted and appointed of Christ it plainly then follows that Infant Baptism is none of Christs Institution 't is no Baptism of Christ 't is not that one Baptism he appointed and ordained we own but one Baptism and that is the Baptism of Believers if you have got another look you to that for there is but one Lord one Faith and one Baptism Eph. 4. 4. 3. They are you say guilty of unbelief unless God telleth them in totidem verbis baptize your Children they will believe not Faith looketh upon every beck of the Lord the least appearance of his Will the Woman which had the bloody Issue believed if she could but touch the Garment of the Lord Jesus she should be whole though she had neither a Promise nor Command nor a particular Example provoking her in so doing c. Ans I answer will you charge us with unbelief because we cannot believe that to be a Truth for which we have neither Command nor Example nor for which there can be no good Consequence nor Inference drawn from any Text of Scripture nor in doing of which we have no promise nor are they which do it under any threatning in all the book of God this seems very strange must we believe Infant Baptism because you and others say it is a Truth by the same argument we must or may believe all Popish Rites divised Fables and Ceremonies what innovations may not your Faith take hold of according to what you speak here is there no difference in believing in Christ in things respecting matters of Faith which
doth this and then 2. what external priviledges of the Church do your Infants as such receive that are as you say baptized you will not own them for Brethren and Sisters until they are Converted you will not give them the Lords Supper until they are converted they are not by the Lord's appointment brought under any Obligation by being baptized and then as few of your Children 't is plain become godly as of ours pray shew us when you write again what blessings or priviledges your Infants do receive by their Rantism or Baptism as you call it What uncharitableness is it then in us to deny our Infants that thing which you cannot prove if they had it would do them any manner of good Nay Sir I shall prove before I have done with you that it may do them much hurt 5. Those that are against Infant Baptism and for renewing of it you say are guilty of a great ingratitude towards God we know that ingratitude is a great Sin against the Lord Unthankfulness for Temporal blessings provokes him to Anger Rom. 1. 21. Luke 17. 17 18. how much more for Spiritual blessings and priviledges Is it not great ingratitude in us to despise our birth-right The Scripture puts a reproachful Character upon Esau c. Answ All this is to no purpose 't is but begging the Question viz. That Infant Baptism is God's Ordinance and a birthright priviledge which we utterly deny for tho' Baptism be a priviledge by Christs positive Command it only belonging to the Second Birth not to the First Thou art guilty of a great Sin say you by making a division in the Body of Jesus Christ there is one Body and one Baptism Eph. 4. 4 〈◊〉 And they cannot be divided whereas by denying of the first Baptism thou breakest the Unity of that Body to the which Christ is Head thou breakest thy self off from the Vine and witherest as an unfruitful Branch which will not be better although it be Watered again thou breakest thy self off not from this Congregation or another only but from the Universal Catholick Church in every Age and Countrey upon the Face of the Earth which is cleansed with the washing of Water through the Word Eph. 5. 26. and continuing in the Union of Baptism Canst thou think this to be a small sin for thee to rent thy self from the Body of Christ though stolen Water be sweet at this time and Bread eaten in secret be pleasant Know and see that it will be evil and bitter in the end for thee to cast thy self out of the Church of the Living God the Pillar and ground of Truth 1. Answ I answer untill I came hither in your Book I did not fully perceive your bitter Spirit O that God would appear and give you a better temper of Heart Who is uncharitable now if Charity be the Bond of perfectness How imperfect is my Brother Owen Must we all who deny Infant Baptism be Condemned as utter cast aways and not be lookt upon so much as Members of the Universal Church 'T is well it is not in your power to reprobate us and our Children 2. But stay a little are all that own Infant Baptism or have been baptized in every Age and Nation of the Earth the Body of Christ and Church of the living God Do you indeed own the Popish Church or is not the Church of Rome in your Judgment however part of the Body of Christ And are not you in Union with that Church and all Churches that own Infant Baptism in the World it followeth it must be so I think 't is time for you most Worthy Britains to have a Jealous Eye towards this Man for if he be not in actual Communion with the Church of Rome yet his principles lead him out so to be for he seems to own all the Churches to be the Body of Christ who were and are baptized in Infancy nay and that those Churches and none but them to make up the whole Mystical Universal Church of God He seems to reprobate all those Christians that deny Infant Baptism or are disjoyned from his Universal Catholick Church of baptized Infants I know his Reverend Brethren in London are Men of more Charity and abhor such positions as he now lays down I cannot think that his principles allow Salvation to any that are not in Union with the visible Universal Church that own Infant baptism 't is time to thrâ—w this Idol away 3. Is it a sin to divide from the Church of Rome or from the Church of England or not to continue of their Communion Are not you one that have separated your self from both and more immediately from the last But I suppose you own them both to be true Churches tho you have separated your self but if so how can you clear your self of abominable Schism for you have made a division in that Body which you declare is the Body of Christ and Church of the living God Can those things for which you have made this division justifie your Selâ—â—m Sir tho we believe there are many Holy and Gracious Christians of the Communion of the Church of England and that they are Members of the Invisible Universal Church yet we do not believe the Church of England nor any National Church is an orderly true Constituted Visible Church of Jesus Christ and therefore we separated from them but this it appears is not your belief 4. Your Judgment is it appears that no Person can be a Member of the Universal Catholick Church that was not baptized and so United to her in Infancy or Sprinkled when an Adult Person i. e. he must own Infant Baptism Sir I never met with a Man like your self as I can remember of less Charity and yet you cry our against us for want of Charity 5. I do affirm that that one Baptism that Unites to the Visible Church not to the Universal Church is the Baptism of Believers and not that of Infants And to prove it take this argument If that Baptism the Apostles administred and on which they received all Persons into the Visible Church was the Baptism of the Adult or that of Believers only then the baptism of the Adult or that of Believers only is that one and first Baptism but the baptism which the Apostles administred and on which they received all Persons into the Visible Church was the baptism of the Adult or that of Believers only Ergo The Baptism of the Adult or that of Believers is that one or only Baptism of Christs Visible Church for those Members of the visible Church in the Primitive times that were washed in Baptismal Water professed themselves washed also in Christs Blood and they that were sincere had the thing signified as well as the Sign when they were baptized but Infants never made any such profession therefore Infant Baptism was not the first and one Baptism that Christ left in his Church 6. It is true that those that deny
Infant baptism deny the Communion of the National Church of which perhaps they were once Members but this is not to make a division in the Mistical Body of Christ nor in a true Constituted Gospel Church 'T is a duty to come out from every false Church Come out of herâ— my People Rev. 18. 4. 7. If baptism be that Ordinance that Unites us into the true Visible Church and Christs baptism be that of Believers then Mr. Owen in denying of believers baptism which I have proved is that one baptism is as much guilty of Sin in hindring that Union by obstructing as much as in him lieth Believers to be baptized and so Unite them to the said true Visible Church of Christ as those that divide from it and is this a small sin but Believers baptism is that Uniting Ordinance without baptism upon profession of Faith no Person according to the rule of the Gospel can be United to a true Visible Church of Christ It is a dangerous thing to hinder persons from Joyning with a true Church as renting from it but so it is not for leaving of a false Church 8. From hence also it appears that our separation from those Churches that are Constituted upon Infant Baptism do but divide from such Churches that are not orderly gathered or Constituted according to the rule of the Gospel and Institution of Jesus Christ and therefore no sin so to do 9. Nay and evident it is that the greatest Body of Mr. Owens Universal Catholick Church is Antichristian For I think none question but the Popish Church which is founded on Infant baptism is for Number more then the Protestant Churches however the Roman Church must be by what he intimates one great part of the Catholick Church or Church of the living God 10. And lastly Mr. Owen mistakes the Waters we drink of who maintain Believers Baptism are not Stolen Waters but Waters lawfully come at being taken out of the Fountain of Gods Word and are part of the Waters of God's Sanctuary and therefore they are sweet to our Souls and our Bread is from our Fathers Table being no other than what all the Children of God did feed upon in the Apostolical Primitive times and his Stolen Water of Infant Baptism may prove bitter at the end notwithstanding his vain boasts but let him see to that may be God may open his Eyes and cause him to Vomit it up by Repentance which I shall rejoyce to hear you say this division is very much alike unto that of the Antient Donatists who were for rebaptizing because they accounted them sinners that first baptized them c. Aâ—sw We are I tell you again as much against rebaptizing as you can be but you want the essentials of Baptism both in respect to the form of baptism and the subjects thereof Sprinkling is not baptizing and Infants are not the true Subjects of Christ's baptism but Believers only You proceed to give out of History the opinion of the Ancient Fathers about rebaptizing Thus saith say you Optatus Et quid vobis visum est non post nos sed post trinitatem baptisma geminare Why do you rebaptize not only after us but after the Trinity Opt. Lib. 5. p. 51. Opt. Lib. 5. page 61. Quicunque a vobis se rebaptizari c. Whoever consenteth to be rebaptized by you he ariseth up certainly but naked because he hath permitted you to deprive him of his Wedding Garment Austin saith Revera enim fieri potest ut sceleratior sit Rebaptizator totius hominis quam solius corporis interemptor Aug. ad Eleusium Ep. 163. It being possible for him who baptizeth the whole Man to be worser then him who killeth the Body only Again Rebaptizare haereticum hominem omnino peccatum est immanissimum It is a sin to rebaptize an Heretick but to rebaptize a Catholick or one in Unity with the Universal Church is a dreadful Sin Aug. de unico Bapt. cap. 13. If any say you judge these are words too harsh let them consider that they are Austin's words and not mine I set them down for to shew the Judgment of the Old Primitive Church about rebaptization Answ I answer these Instances hurt not us for it appears in both these Quotations that the Persons rebaptized were Dipped first when baptized and might be Believers also for in the first that word implyeth no less viz. riseth up denoting he was buried in the Water Your Infants when baptized as you call it cannot be said to rise up and Austins words imply plainly the baptizing the whole Body who baptizeth saith he the whole Man but you only Sprinkle and not the whole Body but the Face only These Instances make against your Rantism or Sprinkling but since you make such a stir in charging us with rebaptization and fain would have us be what we are branded with viz. Anabaptists I shall now shew you the opinion also of some of the Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines about reiterating of baptism Gregory saith l. 1. Ep. 7. That that is not said to be reiterated which is not certainly demonstrated to have been rightly and duely done and in another place saith 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 build hom 7. in Ezechiel Cyprian saith It being more proper for the wise and and those that fear God to obey the manifest and open Truth freely and without delay then obstinately and pertinaciously to resist it Cyprian Epist ad Jubian See Dr. du Veil on Act. cap. 2. Scotus saith Dr. du Veil having alledg'd the Judgment of Alexander the Third touching the baptizing of those of whom it was doubted whether they were baptized or no takes an occasion to recommend three Maxims the First is where there is a possibility the safest way is to be chosen Secondly Where there is no possibility the next to the safest way is to be made use of Thirdly When Impossibility ceases every thing is to be supplied which Impossibility would not admit These Maxims are so agreeable to reason saith the Learned Dr. Du Veil whoever intends to follow will never question but that they ought to be baptized if they have not received that baptism Ordained by Christ but only Rhantism that is the Sprinkling substitued saith he in its room by a vulgar use or rather abuse as Luther calls it thus Dr. Duveil in Historical expost of Acts. cap. 2. page 86. That famous Divine John Forbes saith Nor is it to be doubted but that they again ought to be baptized who before have only received a Vain Washing and not the true Sacrament of Baptism And though it be not so great as the Papists
imagine yet the necessity of this Sacament is very great and the profit and advantage very considerable See Dr. du Veil Act. 2. page 87. Tertullian saith Whatsoever savours contrary to Truth is heresy though it be an Ancient Custom Thus you see the Learned though they own not rebaptization where baptism at first was duly administred yet such who at first received only a pretended baptism ought to be truly baptized to baptize a Believer again is sinful and very unlawful thing but since yours is no Baptism but only Rhantism our practice is no rebaptization for as you do not the Act so 't is not done on the proper subject 7. They are guilty say you that is such as deny Infant Baptism of a great sin by giving offence to many that were baptized in their Infancy tempting them to think that they are not under any vows unto God and that their baptism bindeth them not to a new course of Life if People judge themselves free from their baptismal Obligation O! How naked come they to Satans Temptations c. Answ I answer if you take an offence at us because we cast away an humane Tradition we cannot help that ought we to obey Man rather then God Judge ye 2. 'T is the force of Scripture arguments or the power of Gods Word that provoked us and many Thousands more to throw off the Innovation and sinful practice of Infant Baptism and dare you say it was Satan that tempted us no I fear 't is Satan or worldly profit or to free themselves from reproach that tempts some of the pedobaptists to continue the practice of that devised Custom 'T is not Satans use nor interest to tempt Men to own Christs blessed Institutions and cast off Mens Inventions but endeavour to keep them Ignorant of the first and to hold up the second which was let in us in the time of the Apostacy of the Church which 't is evident is a Pillar to uphold National Churches and not only Popish but some Protestant Constitutions also 3. We are not tempted by Satan but perswaded by the Lord and through the Power and Authority of his Word to believe that God brought us not under that Vow or Obligation in Infancy tho' you 't is true do it and so do the Papists bring People under Vows and Obligations to live a single Life and do other things all tending to Piety and Holyness as they tell you but God never brought them under any such Vows or Obligations And tho' an human Obligation may have some force on the Conscience especially when People think 't is Gods Covenant yet ought not the blind People among the Papists to be told that those Covenants are Human and not Covenants God brought them under Hath not God ways enough and such that are sufficient to Oblidge our Children to die to Sin and live a new Life but doth he need Man's Supplements shall man teach God and will you Father your Baptismal Obligation on God as that which he requires Infants to come under without the least Shaddow of proof from his blessed Word I must tell you all voluntary Vows are by Christ in the times of the Gospel forbid Mat. 5. 33 34. You ought not to bring your selves nor Children under any such voluntary and promisory Oaths Vows or Obligations you must see you are Commanded to do it or have clear Authority from the Lord to do this thing before you do it God doth require Believers and their Children when they believe to come under a baptismal Vow or Obligation but not till then But do not think the purport of our Doctrine herein is to open a Door for young People to Sin God forbid the Obligations which God in his Word and godly Parents and Ministers by the authority of God's Word lay upon them are sufficient when the Lord works with them to oblige them to repent believe and lead a new Life without your volunrary and unwarrantable Obligation laid upon them in Infancy that you have no ground to believe God will ever bless to the end you design it unless he had commanded it will you do Evil that Good may come on it 8. Baptizing by dipping the whole Body into cold Water as you say in these cold Climates is a breach of the sixth Commandment Thou shalt not kill for it is certain that many tender and sickly Bodies cannot suffer to be dipped in cold Water in the time of Winter without being pernicious to their Lives especially when it is Snow and Frost we are not to tempt the Lord thinking that God will do Miracles for the saving of our Lives he worketh ordinarily through appointed means in such an occasion as this Mr. Cradock judged that the chief Magistrate should hinder People to be dipped least it should be pernicious to the Subjects Lib. page 108. Ans. I answer this is a high charge you accuse us of Murther directly in breaking the Sixth Commandment but you forget how hereby you positively break the Ninth Commandment Thou shalt not bear fase witness against thy Neighbour Exod. 20. 16. prove what you say or else with deep sorrow confess your abominable and false accusation Do you know for certain that any one Person either Man or Woman was ever killed or came to any hurt that was baptized that is dipped in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit in cold winterly weather you must produce your witnesses or you are horribly guilty in the sight of God and Man you say 'T is certain that many tender and sickly Bodies cannot suffer to be Dipped in cold Water without being pernicious to their Lives c. Sir I have my self baptized many hundreds of Men and Women and some at all times of the year yea in times of bitter Frost and Snow when the Ice was first broken and Persons that were of a weak sickly Constitution and Women big with Child and others near Seventy years Old yea some near Eighty years Old and I never knew any to suffer the least harm thereby but many have found their Health better afterward Yea I heard a Reverend Minister very lately say that he knew an Ancient Woman in Kent that was Bed-ridden for some time who could not be satisfied until she was baptized and baptized she was and upon it grew strong and went about and lived some years after in Health and Strength according to her age also for the space of forty years I have heard of or known some Thousands baptized at all Seasons of the year of both Sex and never heard of any that received the least prejudice to their Health thereby much less that it cost them their Lives Therefore palpable it is you are guilty of slander back-biting and abominable calumny bearing false Witness against your Innocent Neighbours and 't is well if it be not out of malice and that not only to us but also to Christ's Holy Ordinance of Dipping Believers in his Name 2. But the worst is
dying in Infancy are certainly saved it makes say you that Ordinance a Channel of Grace c. 1. Answ This is like to the rest But Sir by what Authority do you assert all these things You know what wonderful Vertue the Papists say is in many of their Popish Rites Ceremonies and Reliques i. e. in their crossing of themselves and in their Holy-water especially in their Agnns Dei But how do they prove it Even as well as you do what you speak here upon this account and we have the same reason to believe them as to believe you in what you speak without Proof or Authority from God's word 2. Pious Parents But alas how few are there of that sort but what hope have the Impious Prophane and ungodly Parent of the Salvation of his dying Children But Sir I thought all the Pious and Believing or Godly Parents Children were born in Covenant with God that their Parents Faith would have secured them whether Baptized or not were not the Jews Female Children saved they were not Circumcised And were not their Male Infants saved who dyed before the Eighth Day 3. From what Scripture is it these Pious though Ignorant and deceiv'd Parents may have hope that their Children that dye in their Infancy shall be saved and none but theirs that are Baptized or rather Rantised 4. Will Pedo-Baptists make Baptism their Saviour Can Baptism save them And is it so indeed Is it in the power of Parents to save or damn their Children And how came Baptism to have such power in it or who made that a Channel of Grace to dying Infants Do you not place that Virtue in an external Rite that only belongs to the Blood of Christ and sanctifying Grace of God's Spirit Mr. Perkins saith That Baptism indeed saveth but saith he that is not the Baptism of Water but the stipulation of a good Conscience by the Resurrection Again he saith the outward Baptism without the inward is no mark of God's Child but the mark of a Fool that makes a Vow and afterwards breaks it 5. May not this Doctrine of theirs clearly tend to scare and affright poor Parents with fear that all their Babes that dye in their Mothers Womb or before baptized are damned And Oh in what a sad Condition are all the Children of the ungodly and impious Persons whose little Babes you dare not cannot Baptise if you are true to your own Principles But that Text may give us better ground of Hopes a Thousand times concerning the well being of our dying Infants where our Saviour saith for of such are the Kingdom of Heaven and that also which you mention I shall go to him he shall not return to me together with the infinite Mercy of God through the virtue of Christ's Blood who can convey help and healing to dying Infants and Ideots in ways we know not of nor are we to trouble our Selves about such secret things that are not revealed 6. Mr. Burkitt saith the practice of Infant Baptism appears most beneficial because it prevents such shameful and scandalous neglects of Baptism to the blemish of Christianity Ans Is it then a shameful scandal to neglect a Tradition of Man For so I have proved Infant Baptism to be Where is the shame that ought to be in Christians that Christs Laws and Precepts are neglected and his precious Ordinance of Baptism exposed to Contempt and Shame as it is by you and Thousands more whilst the Statutes of Omri are zealously kept and observed as the Prophet of old complained I mean humane Rites and Traditions or Statutes like those of Omri instituted by him and Jeroboam which the Wisdom of your Church and many corrupt Churches have been zealous for to this day and thus I have run through and examined Mr. Burkitts Six particulars which he brought to prove the usefulness of Infant Baptism above the baptism of Believers which our Blessed Saviour Instituted and now shall shew you further that Infant Baptism is so far from being more useful then that of the Adult that it is a palpable error and therefore of no use at all but the contrary viz. a very sinful thing 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 Babes into such a Covenant which Christ never Ordained them to enter into and to which they 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 may basely beguile and deceive them causing them when grown up to think they were thereby made Christians and become the Children of God Members of Christ and Inhabitants 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 an usual thing which the doing of it 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 be first Taught and made Disciples 6. Can that be of any use to an Infant which you nor no Man else can prove from Gods 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 Or will God bless a Tradition of Man 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 a Christian but no nature of a Christian making that you call Christ's Baptism as Dr. Taylorsaith a sign without effect and like the Fig-tree 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 enclosed 10. Can Baptism be more useful to Infants then 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 then that of Believers and
being the Children of Abraham as such gave them a right to Circumcision or rather the meer positive Command of God to Abraham To this they gave no Answer Query 2. Whether Circumcision could be said to be a Seal of any Mans Faith save Abraham's only seeing 't is only called the Seal of the Righteousness of his Faith and also of the Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised To this the Athenian Society answer amongst the Ancient Hereticks they never met with such a strange position as this viz. that the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith was the priviledge of Abraham only Is this an answer Besides they mistake it is not a Position but a Question Furthermore 't is said that Abraham received the sign of Circumcision not only as a Seal of the Righteousness of that Faith he had being yet uncircumcised but also Mark that he might be the Father of all that believe Was this the priviledge of any save Abraham only Query 3. What do you conceive Circumcision did or Baptism doth seal or doth make sure to Infants since a Seal usually makes firm all the blessings and priviledges contained in that Covenant 't is affixed to The Athenians answer It Seals and did seal to all that did belong to Christ Life and Salvation but to such as do not it Seals nothing at all To which I reply How dare any Man Seal the Covenant of Salvation to such who have not that Faith Abraham had before he received that Seal It was not a Seal of that Faith he might have or might not have afterwards but of that Faith he had before he received it Secondly I affirm Baptism is no Seal at all of Salvation for if it was and of God's appointment all that are Sealed would be saved even Simon Magus but many who are Baptized may perish eternally and do no doubt Query 4. I demand to know what those external priviledges are Infants partake of in Baptism seeing they are denyed the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and all other external Rites whatsoever If you say when they believe they shall partake of those priviledges and blessings so say I shall the Children of unbelievers Turks and Pagans as well as they The Athenian Society answer We insist not upon external priviledges 't is forrein to the Matter 1. Ans If you insist not on internal priviledges nor on external priviledges that are Sealed to Infants that are Baptized what does their Baptism signifie Just nothing but which is worse 't is a prophanation of Christ's Holy significant Ordinance of Baptism and this indeed is worst of all Query 5. If the fleshly Seed or Children of believing Gentiles as such are to be counted the Seed of Abraham I Query whither they are his Spiritual Seed or his Natural Seed if not his Spiritual Seed nor his Natural Seed what right can they have to Baptism or Church Membership from any Covenant Transaction God made with Abraham The Athenians answer They are his Spiritual Seed Visible for so far only belongs to us to Judge and therefore they have a right to the Seal of that Covenant Reply What they say cannot be true because the Scripture positively saith that such who are the spiritual Seed of Abraham have the Faith of Abraham and walk in the Steps of Abraham and are Christ's Gal. 3. ult But Infants of Believers as such cannot be said to have the Faith of Abraham nor to walk in Abrahams Steps c. 2. Such who are Abrahams Spiritual Seed are in the Election of Grace and are always his Seed not for so long but for ever we can judge none to be Abraham's Spiritual Seed but such only in whom these Signs appear before mentioned but none of those Signs appear nor can appear in Infants therefore we cannot judge they are his Spiritual Seed to whom the Seal of the Covenant of Grace of right does belong Query 6. Whither the Children of Believers are in the Covenant of Grace absolutely or but conditionally if only conditionally what further priviledge have they above the Children of unbelievers Query 7. Whither those different Grounds upon which the right of Infant Baptism is pretended by the Ancient Fathers of Old and the Modern Divines doth well agree with an Institution that is a meer positive right wholly depending on the Sovereign will of the Legislator and whether this doth not give just cause to all to question its authority 1. Some Pedo-baptists asserted it took away Original Sin and such who denyed it were Anathematized 2. Some affirm that Children are in Covenant and being the Seed of Believers are Faederally Holy therefore to be Baptized 3. Another sort of Pedo-baptists say they ought to be baptized by vertue of their Parents Faith 4. Another sort Baptize them upon the Faith of their Sureties 5. Others say by the Faith of the Church as Austin Bernard c. 6. Others say they have Faith themselves i. e. Habitual Faith and therefore must be baptized 7. Some say it is only an Apostolical unwritten Tradition But others deny that and say it may be proved from the Scripture 8. Others say 't is a Regenerating Ordinance and Infants are thereby put into a savable State Others say the Infants of Believers are born therefore safe before in Covenant with their Parents To this Query they say nothing pretending they had answer'd it before Query 8. Whither that can be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither precept nor example nor plain and undeniable Consequences for it in all God's Word nor promise made to such who do it nor threats pronounced on such as neglect it Their answer is there About Womens Receiving the Sacrament c. Query 9. Whether in matter of meer positive Right such as Baptism is we ought not to keep expresly and punctually to the Revelation of the Will of the Law-giver They answer yes Reply Then your Cause is lost for God's Word expresly directs us to Baptize only such who are first Taught or made Disciples by Teaching or who make a profession of their Faith and Dipping is the express Act of Baptizing as practised in the New Testament which a great Clound of Witnesses testifie Query 10. Whether the Baptism of Infants be not a dangerous Error since it tends to deceive poor Ignorant People who think they are thereby made Christians and Regenerated and so never look after any other Regeneration or Baptism that represents or or holds forth the inward work of God's Grace They answer They never tell them they are made Christians throughly c. Then I Appeal to all Men who have Read the Old Church Catechism In my Baptism wherein I was made a Child of God a Member of Christ and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of God 11. Since we read but of one Baptism in Water and that one Baptism is that of the Adult i. e. such who profess Faith c. How can Infant Baptism or rather Rantism be an Ordinance of Christ 12.
be Baptized Arg. 2. If Infant Baptism was never Instituted Commanded or Appointed of God Infants ought not to be Baptized But Infant baptism was never Instituted Commanded or Appointed of God Ergo they ought not to be baptized As to the Major if one thing may be practised as an Ordinance without an Institution or Command of God another thing may also and so any Innovation may be let into the Church As to the Minor If there is an Institution for it c. 'T is either contained in the great Commission Mat. 28. Mark 16. or somewhere else But 't is not contained in the great Commission nor any where else Ergo c. The Major none will deny The Minor I prove thus None are to be baptized by virtue of the Commission but such who are Discipled by the Word as I said before and so the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies If any should say Christ Commanded his Disciples to Baptize all Nations and Infants are part of Nations therefore ought to be baptized I answer Arg. 3. If all Nations or any in the Nations ought to be Baptized before Discipled then Turks Pagans unbelievers and their Children may be Baptized because they are a great part of the Nations but Turks Pagans and unbelievers and their Children ought not to be baptized Ergo c. Besides That Teaching by the Authority of the Commission must go before baptizing we have proved which generally all Learned Men do assert If the Institution is to be found any where else they must shew the place Arg. 4. Faith and Repentance are required of all that ought to be baptized but Infants are not required to Believe and Repent nor are they capable so to do Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Major is clear Acts 2. 8. 10. 16. Chapters and it s also asserted by the Church of Ergland What is required of Persons to be baptized that 's the Question the Answer is Repentance whereby they forsake Sin and Faith whereby they stedfastly believe the promise of God made to them in that Sacrament The Minor cannot be denyed Arg. 5. That practice that tends not to the Glory of God nor the profit of the Child when done nor in aftertimes when grown up but may prove hurtful and of a dangerous Nature to him cannot be a Truth of God but the practice of Infant Baptism tends not to the Glory of God nor 〈◊〉 profit of the Child when Baptized nor in aftertimes when grown up but may be hurtful and of a dangerous Nature to him Ergo See Levit. 10. 1 2. Where Moses told Aaron Because his Sons had done that which God the Lord Commanded them not That God would be Sanctified by all that drew near unto him intimating that such who did that which God Commanded them not did not Sanctifie or Glorifie God therein Can God be glorified by Man's Disobedience or by adding to his Word by doing that which God hath not required Mat. 16. 9. In vain do you Worship me Teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men. And that that practice doth profit the Child none can prove from God's Word And in after times when grown up it may cause the Person to think he was thereby made a Christian c. and brought into the Covenant of Grace and had it sealed to him nay thereby regenerated for so the Athenian Society in their Mercury December 26. plainly intimate and that Infants are thereby ingrafted also into Christs Church Sure all understanding Men know the Baptism of Believers is not called Regeneration but only Metonymically it being a Figure of Regeneration But they Ignorantly affirm also that Infants then have a Federal Holiness as if this imagined Holiness comes in by the Parents Faith or by the Childs Covenant in Baptism which may prove hurtful dangerous to them and cause them to think Baptism confers Grace which is a great error How can water saith Mr. Charnock an external thing work upon the Soul Physically nor can it saith he be proved that ever the Spirit of God is tied by any promise to apply himself to the Soul in a gracious operation when Water is applyed to the Body If it were so then all that were baptized should be saved or else the Doctrine of Perseverance falls to the Ground Some indeed says he say that Regeneration is conferred in Baptism upon the Elect and exerts its self afterwards in Conversion But how so active a Principle as Spiritual Life should lye dead and a sleep so many years c. is not easily conceived On Regen page 75. Arg. 6. If the Church of England says that Faith and Repentance are required of all that ought to be baptized and in so saying speaks truly and yet Infants can't perform those things then Infants ought not to be Baptized But the Church of England says that Faith and Repentance are required of all such c. and speak truly and yet Infants cannot perform these things Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Obj. If it be objected That they affirm they do perform by their Sureties Ans. If Suretiship for Children in Baptism is not required of God and the Sureties do not yea cannot perform those things for the Child then Suretyship is not of God and so signifies nothing but is an unlawful and sinful undertaking but Suretiship in Childrens Baptism is not required of God and they do not cannot perform what they promise Ergo c. Do they or can they cause the Child to forsake the Devil and all his works the Pomps and Vanities of this wicked World and all the sinful Lusts of the Flesh In a word can they make the Child or Children to repent and truly believe in Jesus Christ for these are the things they promise for them and in their Name Alas they want power to do it for themselves and how then should they do it for others Besides we see they never mind nor regard their Covenant in the case and will not God one day say who has required these things at your hands Arg. 7. If there be no president in the Scripture as there is no precept that any Infant was baptized then Infants ought not to be baptized But there is no president that any Infant was baptized in the Scripture Ergo. If there is any precedent or example in Scripture that any Infant was baptized let them shew us where we may find it Erasmus saith 'T is no where expressed in the Apostolical writings that they baptized Children Union of the Church and on Rom. 6. Calvin saith 't is no where expressed by the Evangelists that any one Infant was baptized by the Apostles Instit cap. 16. lib. 4. Ludovicus Vives saith None of Old were wont to be baptized but in grown Age and who desired and understood what it was Vide Lud. The Magdeburgenses say That concerning the bapâ—…ing the Adult both Jews and Gentiles we have sufficient proof Acts. 2. 8 10. 16. Chap.
such they had not been baptized nor had they a true Right thereto Arg. 20. Baptism is the Solemnizing of the Souls Marriage Union with Christ which Marriage-contract absolutely requires an actual profession of consent but Infants are not capable to enter into Marriage Union with Christ nor to make a profession of an actual consent Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Major our opposites generally grant particularly see what Mr. Baxter saith Our Baptism is our solemnizing of our Marriage with Christ These are his very words page 32. The Minor none can deny no Man sure in his right mind will assert that little Babes are capable to enter into a Marriage Relation with Christ and to make profession of a consent and the truth is he in the next words gives away his Cause viz. and 't is saith he A a new and strange kind of Marriage where there is no profession of consent page 32. How unhappy was this Man to plead for such a New and strange kind of Marriage did he find any little Babe he ever Baptized or rather Rantized to make a profession of consent to be Married to Jesus Christ If any should object he speaks of the Baptism of the Adult I answer his words are these Our Baptism is c. Besides will any Pedo-baptist say That the Baptism of the Adult is the solemnizing of the Souls Marriage with Christ and not the Baptism of Infants Reader observe how our opposites are forced sometimes to speak the Truth tho' it overthrows their own practice of Pedo-baptism Arg. 21. If the Sins of no persons are forgiven them till they are Converted then they must not be baptized for the forgiveness of them till they profess themselves to be Converted but the Sins of no Persons till they are Converted are forgiven Ergo no Person ought to be Baptized for the forgiveness of them till they profess they are Converted Mr. Baxter in the said Treatise lays down the substance of this Argument also take his own words i. e. As their sins are not forgiven them till they are Converted Mark 4. 12. So they must not be baptized for the forgiveness of them till they profess themselves Converted seeing to the Church non esse and non apparere is all one Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus is the Sum of that Preaching that makes Disciples Acts 20. 21. Therefore saith he both those must by a Profession seem to be received before any at Age are baptized page 30 31. and evident it is say I from hence that none but such at Age ought to be baptized Philip caused the Eunuch to profess before he would Baptize him That he believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God Saul had also saith he more than a bare profession before Baptism Acts 9. 5 15 17. page 28. The Promise it self saith he doth expresly require a Faith of our own of all the Adult that will have part in the Priviledges therefore there is a Faith of our own that is the Condition of our Title Mark 16. 16. page 16. He might have added by the force of his Argument therefore Infants should not have the priviledges For I argue thus viz. Arg. 22. If there is but one Baptism of Water left by Jesus Christ in the New Jerusalem or but one condition or manner of Right thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult then Infant Baptism is no Baptism of Christ but there is but one Baptism in Water left by Christ in the New Testament and but one Condition and manner of Right thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult Ergo Infant Baptism is no Baptism of Christ Mr. Baxter saith Faith and Repentance is the condition of the Adult and as to any other condition I am sure the Scripture is silent The way of the Lord is one one Lord one Faith one Baptism Eph. 4. 4. If profession of Faith were not necessary saith Mr. Baxter Coram Ecclesia to Church Membership and Priviledges then Infidels and Heathens would have Right also saith he the Church and the World would be confounded He might have added but Infidels and Heathens have no Right to Church Membership c. Ergo. 'T is a granted case among all Christians saith he that profession is thus necessary the Apostles and Antient Church admitted none without it page 21. And if so why dare any now a days admit of Infants who are uncapable to make profession He adds Yea Christ in his Commission directeth his Apostles to make Disciples and then Baptize them promising He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. page 27. Furthermore he saith If as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his Death and are Buried with him by baptism into Death that like as Christ was raised from the Dead so we also should walk in newness of Life c. Then no doubt saith he but such as were to be baptized did first profess this mortification and a consent to be buried c. In our Baptism we put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ being buried with him and raised with him through Faith quickened with him and haveing all our Trespasses forgiven Coll. 2. 11 12 13. and will any Man says he yea will Paul ascribe all this to those that did not so much as profess the things signified Will Baptism in the Judgment of a wise Man do all this for an Infidel or say I for an Infant that cannot make a profession that he is a Christian page 31 32. he proceeds Arg. 23. The baptized are in Scripture called Men Washed Sanctified Justified they are called Saints and Churches of Saints 1 Cor. 1. 2. all Christians are Sanctified ones page 33. now let me add the Minor But Infants are not in Scripture called Men Washed Sanctified Justified they are not called Saints Churches of Saints Christians nor Sanctified ones Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized If any should say why did you not cite these assertions of Mr. Baxters whilst he was living I answer more then Eighteen years ago I did recite and Print these assertions and many other Arguments of his to the same purpose to which he gave no answer Arg. 24. If there is but one way for all both Parents and Children to be admitted in the Gospel Church to the end of the World and that it is upon profession of Faith to be baptized then both Parents and Children must upon the profession of their Faith be baptized and so admitted c. But there is but one way for all both Parents and Children to be admitted into the Gospel-Church to the end of the World and that is upon the profession of their Faith to be Baptized Ergo. Arg. 25. That cannot be Christ's true baptism wherein there is not cannot be a lively Representation of the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ together with our Death unto Sin
before the Law or under the Law thus baptized You say that Jacob received little Children into God's Covenant by Baptism because he said unto his Houshold Put away the strange Gods that are among you and be ye clean and change your Garments Gen. 35. 2. Answ 1. Was this Command given to his little Children or had they corrupted themselves with Idolatry or by worshipping strange Gods or who did he appoint to baptize his Babes 2. What tho the Hebrew word signifies cleansing or washing with Water was it therefore formally the Ordinance of Baptism Did ever any Man argue after this manner before 't is a sign you want Proofs for your Childish Baptism in the New Testament that you go to Genesis for it and to such a remote Text that includes nothing of the Controversy But you say Circumcision was abominable in the sight of the Gentiles because the Children of Jacob made it to be an Ordinance of Mortality unto the Sichemites Gen. 34. and the greatest part of Jacob's Houshold were Gentiles therefore Jacob received their Wives and Children into God's Covenant through washing of Water or Baptism and according to the Example of Jacob they used to baptize all the Gentiles that received Circumcision for their wise Men spâ—… thus None are Proselytes until circumcised and baptized Lightâ— vol 1. p. 210. And they baptized the Children with the Parents little ones are to be baptized according to the Ordinance of the Counsel Mâ—â—n in Light Answ 1. If this be so that the Baptism of Children was among the Jews or in the Jewish Church from the beginning why do you plead for Baptism to come in the room of Circumcision it appears your Infant-Baptism is near or altogether as old as Circumcision it self therefore it could not come in the room of that 2. I have read I must confess in some Authors that the Jews did receive their Proselytes both by Circumcision and Baptism but you seem to intimate that old Jacob was so wise to dismiss Circumcision to his Gentile Proselvtes because Simâ—on and Levi made it so odious and did contrive or institute Baptism in its room as the only Rite to receive them into God's Covenant I must confess Jacob had many Failings but I never heard him thus charged and rendered guilty of such an Abomination before How Sir could he lay aside God's holy Ordinance of Circumcision at his Will and Pleasure and that too because his Sons had brought a Reproach upon it and did he devise a new Ordinance namely Baptism in its room What an abominable Innovation had he been guilty of should he have done this thing which you seem posicively to affirm 3. Nay and this is not the worst of Jacob's Sins neither for it appears by your plain words that you suppose that the Jews from this Example of Jacob used to baptize all the Gentiles that received Circumcision tho it appears the Jews did not follow the Example of Jacob in throwing Circumcision away and exchange it for Baptism yet by Jacob's Example did baptize all their Gentile Proselytes whether Men Women and children so that he caused them to set up or add a Tradition of his own devising to God's Institution For I challenge you or any Man under Heaven to prove that God commanded Jacob or any Patriarch or Jewish Rabbies to baptize any Proselyte either young or old when received into their Church 4. Behold you Pedo-baptists the Rise and Foundation of your Infant-Baptism according to Mr. Owen's Conceit Why where have we it even in Noah's Ark wherein the whole World were baptized For let me thus argue If all the World in Noah's Ark both rational and irrational Creatures were baptized then Infants may be baptized nay and all Unbelievers and Cattel also but the former is true Ergo. But if we have not the Rise of it here we have in Gen. 35. 2. Then said Jacob unto his Houshold and unto all that were with him Put away the strange Gods that are among you and be you clean and change your Garments 5. Now from Jacob's bidding them to be clean Mr. Câ—… infers he commands them all to be baptized but without any Authority or Command of God even all his Houshold Jews and Gentiles Men Women and Children Believers and Unbelievers Pray take the Consequence or Inference from hence 't is better perhaps to prove Infant-Baptism than from those whole â—ousholds said to be baptized in the New Testament Jacob commanded all his Houshold and all that were with him to be baptized among which were Gentiles and their Children therefore we Gentiles and our Children may be baptized Yea and our Men-Servants and Maid Servants tho they be Negro's whether they believe or not for Jacob perhaps had some gross Idolaters in his Houshold therefore the worst of Men as well as little Children may be baptized Honoured Britains you have seen but little of this Controversy in your Language But Mr. Owen seeing the old Argument which the Asserters of Infant-Baptism have brought to be too weak to establish it to be of God and from Heaven out of the New Testament he hath found out new ones never heard of by me before I mean this of Jacob's commanding his whole Houshold and all that were with him to be clean that is saith he to be baptized all of them So that Infant-Baptism hath its Rise not from the Command of Christ but from the Command of Jacob and that not from Circumcision for Jacob laid that aside because his two Sons had caused Circumcision to be odious and hateful to the Gentiles he therefore contrived Baptism in its stead O when will this Man cease to pervert the holy and righteous way of God in his Institution of Believers Baptism 6. I find also that Mr. James Owen hath found out the first Rise or Original of that human Tradition of the Jews in baptizing their Gentile Proselytes both Men Women and Children But I am very sorry it is fathered upon holy Jacob Mr. Burkitt I must confess makes that Custom that was among the Jews a grand Argument for Infant-Baptism and as if the New Testament without the Old was not a sufficient Rule for the Practice of Gospel-Baptism but that we must have recourse to the Old Testament as well as the New To which I answer That tho in some Points of Faith and Practice the Old Testament and the New together is the Rule by which we ought to walk yet his Trumpet and yours in this case gives an uncertain Sound For in respect of Practice were there not many Laws and Precepts given to the People of the Jews which no ways in the least concerns us or God's Spiritual Israel under the Gospel If you explain your self no better you may soon subvert the People and carry them away to Judaism with a witness â—…y and instead of baptizing Children upon such a Childish and Erroneous foot of Account make them think they ought to circumcise them as some of