are said to do and perform the same and all the Effects and Saving Benefits thereof do undoubtedly redound to all the Elect and all this is Signified and Sealed in Baptism to every Elected Sinner whether Infant or Adult And I cannot but reckon it a strange Infatuation on those who lay such stress on the Dutch Translators in the point of John the Dooper wherein silly and weak People do not a little Glory and Brag that they should put such Sleights and Contempt on the Dutch Annotators those great Lights of the World in matter of Infants right to Baptism of Abraham's Covenant being a Covenant of absolute Grace of Circumcision being the Initial Seal thereof and Baptism succeeding in the room thereof with sundry other material points in Gospel Religion wherein they are Sound and Orthodox Yet in nothing must our Dr. and his Adherents make use of the Dutch only John the Dooper John the Dooper And in this Commission de Salve Dopende Dipping them And what ground hath our Dr. to conclude that had our English Translators turned the words about Baptism into Dipping as the Dutch Translators have done If it be as he saith that therefore it must necessarily be so in the Original or how will he prove the Dutch Translators nearer to Infallibility than our English Translators were or that our English Translators would have been more Infallible than they were in case they had Translated John the Baptist Johannes de Dooper and in the Commission Baptizing them de Salve Dopende Dipping them Secondly if to imitate and set forth Christs Burial be the design of the Apostle then must it necessarily follow that it is Mens duty to imitate it in all the Circumstances of a Burial as well as in some Christ when he was Buried he was wholly Passive he did not go into the Grave himself but was laid in by others so must Persons be in Baptism they must be wholly Passive they must not go into the Water â—hemselves but must be laid under the Water by the Administrator of Baptism Christ when Buried was left in the Grave so must the Person in Baptism he must be left under the Water as long as Christ continued in the Grave which was three Days and three Nights If any shall say it is absurd and ridiculous to think or say that these Circumstances should be attended or imitated by Believers in Water-Baptism I say so too ad do farther say and affirm that it is altogether as absurd and ridiculous for any to affirm and teach that for Believers to set forth and imitate Christs Burial is the Apostles design in the above-mentioned Scriptures If Anabaptists will be peremptory in asserting and teaching that to set forth and imitate Christs Burial in those places is the scope and design of the Apostle they must give me leave to be as peremptory as they in affirming that unless they imitate Christs Burial in the Circumstances now mentioned their Baptism about which so great and confused a noise is made in the World is but a meer ludicrous or mock Baptism for that they do not imitate Christ in their Baptism in those Circumstances which are so essentially necessary to sâ—t forth and represent his Death and Burial in case it be as they hold it is To which I add that our Baptizing by pouring out or sprinkling Water on the Subject doth every way more exactly represent and set forth a Burial than that of Dipping and Plunging the whole Body under Water The truth of this will appear if the Particulars following be seriously and without prejudice considered First In Dipping and Plunging into the Water the Party Baptized is Active in going himself into the Water which indeed ought not to be the Ordinance of Water-Baptism being in all respects a Passive Ordinance wherein the Subject is to be wholly Passive as the Soul is in the Work of Regeneration The Work of Conversion or Regeneration is the Inward and Spiritual Baptism Administred by Christ In this wonderful Work the Dead Sinner hath no hand in effecting or producing the same it is wholly done by Christ the Administrator thereof So in the outward Ordinance of water-Water-Baptism which is no more than the outward Sign or Seal of the Inward the Minister of the Gospel in Administring Baptism must only be Active the Subject must put forth no Act at all The Party going himself into the Water doth not represent and set forth a Dead Man in Pouring out or Sprinkling Water on the Subject the Party is wholly Passive as is a Dead Man when Buried Again in Dipping and Plunging the Party Baptized is applyed to the Water not the Water to the Party which is contrary to the manner of Burials which all Men know is to lay the Corps on its Back in the Grave and to Pour out or Sprinkle the Earth on it In Baptizing by Sprinkling or Pouring out Water the Party is laid on his Back and the Water poured out or sprinkled on him The Party Dead is never thrust into the Earth but the Earth or Mould is poured out on him Now whether of these two ways of Baptizing by Dipping and Plunging or that of Pouring out or Sprinkling Water upon do more lively and exactly set forth and represent a Burial let any who have not lost their Senses Judge As to the second Metaphor viz. A Resurrection I humbly conceive that what here follows may suffice to shew that as Anabaptists do not at all hold forth or â—epresent the Death and Burial of Christ in â—â—eir going into the Water in their way so neither do they set forth and represent his Resurrection as they fancy they do First It is most certain that when the time determined by God's Decree for Christ's remaining in a State of Death was accomplisht according to the Holy Scriptures he raised up himself from the Grave No Hand of Men or Angels helpt to raise him So that plain it is if the Scriptures they alledge for this be to be taken in a literal Sense then must it needs follow that as he that Administers Baptism by Dipping or Burying the whole Body under Water doth Administer Baptism in that way of Burying under the Water to the end the Party so Baptized might lively set forth the Death and Burial of Christ so he must leave the Party Buried in the Water to raise up himself that so he might represent Christ in his raising up himself from the Grave If this were practised it would not be hard to guess how many Proselites they would get to join with them in this their Fantastical new Mode of Baptizing And truly for my part I cannot see how they can be excused from doing the one as well as the other seeing that the Metaphor must be Prosecuted in all its parts as well as in some And thus they may see what they are like to get by building their Confidence on misunderstood and wrested Metaphors I come now to the Doctor 's third
Medium whereby he labours to prove that the right way of Baptizing under the Gospel is and must be by Dipping and Plunging the whole Body under Water viz. The Practice of the first Baptizers In this he is as full of Confidence as he was in the other two I have now dismist and I hope in the Goodness of God it will plainly be demonstrated that in this also he and his Adherents do pervert the Scriptures which gives us the account of the first Baptizers as they most certainly do the other Scriptures which they bring to justifie and make good their Soul deluding Dreams He begins with John the Baptist Page 10. where he tells his Reader that it doth appear that Dipping is the right way of Baptizing from the first Baptizers The first mention saith he of this Ordinance of Holy Baptism we have in Mat. 3.1 where John the Dipper is mentioned and so he goes on in a strange kind of Rapsody warbling out his so much affected Note Dipping and Plunging I shall not be concerned to follow the Dr. Pedetentim step by step in his Pedantick way least I should be found guilty of the same empty Tautologies wherewith his so much admired Epistle abounds The ground of his mistake herein is the wrong Etymology he gives of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he and his mistaken Testimonies take to signifie and mean Dipping and Plunging the whole Body under Water This Etymologie of his I have overthrown as the Reader may see if he look back to the first Head of the Dispute viz. the Etymologie of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall not repeat but go on to confirm the truth of the Etymologie I have given of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the word of God and the best Greek Authors by such Arguments as I hope in Christ will prove irrefragable The first shall be grounded on the necessity of John Baptist his Harmonizing with the Pen-men of the Old-Testament in all the parts of his Ministry if the Dr. will grant as he must if he speak truth that his John the Dooper was a true and faithful Prophet of God he must of necessity grant that John did run parallel with Moses and the other Prophets This the Dr. must either grant or deny if he grant that John did run exactly parallel with Moses and the other Prophets then is it beyond all contradiction that John administred Baptism by pouring out or sprinkling Water on the Persons he Baptized for most certain it is that Moses under the Ceremonial Dispensation did apply all the Legal Washings and Purifications by Water which all had a Typical relation to Christ to come as John's Baptism also had by pouring out or sprinkling the Water The Prophets also witness those two great Prophets Esa and Ezek. they foretold of the manner how God would apply to his People the two great Benefits accrewing by his Sons Mediatorial Sacrifice viz. Justification and Sanctification which was to be by Sprinkling as will evidently appear by Esa 52.15 Then shall he Sprinkle many Nations c. and Ezek. 36.25 Then will I Sprinkle clean Water upon you c. In these places the Spirit of Christ in his Prophets had an Eye to the Baptismal Washings of the New-Testament Dispensation Now if John Baptist did in all the parts of his Ministry Harmonize with Moses and the other Prophets he did undoubtedly Baptize by pouring out or sprinkling Water on those he Baptized for most certain it is as hath been already observed pouring out or sprinkling was the mode or way of application of all the Ceremonial Washings which were used before John's Baptism If the Dr. and his Adherents deny that John did run exactly parallel with Moses and the other Pen-men of Holy Scriptures then is John the Dooper by them made a false Prophet and all who from John take up and practise the mode of Dipping the whole Body under Water as the only right Baptism are Self-condemned in that they do herein follow one who contradicted the Spirit of God in the other Prophets And so hereby it appears how much John the Baptist is obliged to the Dippers of our Age who rather than they will lose their silly Opinion will have the Spirit of Truth to speak Nonsense yea contradict himself and John the greatest of all the other Prophets because the immediate fore-runner of Christ to be a false Prophet This Stain they will never be able to wash off their Name any other way than by honestly acknowledging that John did in all the parts of his Ministry Harmonize with Moses and the other Prophets the which if they once grant as they must if they speak by the Holy Ghost then is their Cause lost and John no more to be Stiled John the Dooper but John the Baptizer From what hath been said I argue thus if John Baptist did in all the parts of his Ministry Harmonize and agree with Moses and the other Prophets then did he administer Baptism by pouring out or sprinkling Water upon those he Baptized But John Baptist did in all the parts of his Ministry Harmonize and agree with Moses and the other Prophets Therefore John Baptist did administer Baptism by pouring out or sprinkling Water on those he Baptized A second Argument shall be grounded on impossibility thus that way of Baptizing which is impossible to be practised without a miraculous strength of Body was never commanded by Christ nor practised by John but to Baptize the many Multitudes which came to John's Baptism by Dipping the whole Body under Water was a thing altogether impossible seeing John had no miraculous strength of Body to render him capable of such an arduous and difficult Administration Therefore that way of Baptizing by Dipping the whole Body under Water was never commanded by Christ nor practised by John The major Proposition will not be denyed the Assumption will readily be subscribed as an unquestionable truth if Men who plead for that way of Dipping will be but ingenious in doing two things First in lifting up in their Arms cleverly from the Earth the many Corpulent-Bodies which offer themselves to Baptism lay them under the Water and there hold them until the Administrator pronounce the words of Institution I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Secondly in sincerely acknowledging what experience teaches them concerning this Practice these two Particulars comply'd in will I doubt not put the matter now in Debate out of all Question that to Baptize in that way of taking up in the Arms and laying under Water the most Corpulent Bodies who offer to Baptism and to hold them under the Water till the words of Institution be pronounced is a thing altogether impossible not only in respect of the Administrator whose Bodily Strength must in an ordinary way sink and fail in lifting and holding up so long such massy ponderous weights And also in respect of
the Subject who must undoubtedly be in great fear and in apparent danger of being let fall if not of being Suffocated or Smothered in the Water And strange it is to me that Arminians who plead so much for the universal Love and Mercy of God to Mankind in general should not see how full of Reflection on God this Principle of theirs is which makes the God of Love and Mercy the Author of such a Mode or Way of Baptizing which is not possible to be practised without apparent Danger both to Health and Life of both the Subject and the Administrator too I conclude this Argument with the Saying of Judicious Sydenham viz That if Baptism be to be Administred in that way of Dipping only Happy are those who live in hot Climates or who have Bodies of Brass A third Argument may be grounded on Scandal thus That Mode or Way of Baptizing which is both Immodest and tends to Excite Lustful Motions and Carnal Desires in Men and Women cannot be commanded by Christ neither was the same ever practised by John But that way of Baptizing by Dipping the whole Body under Water is both Immodest and tends to Excite Lustful Motions and Carnal Desires in Men and Women Therefore that Mode of Baptizing by Dipping the whole Body under Water was never commanded by Christ neither was the same ever practised by John He who commands all Matters relating to Divine Worship to be done decently and in order 1 Cor. 14.40 and who commands Believers to abstain from all appearance of Evil 1 Thes 5.22 can never be the Author of such Disorderly Practises as thwart and contradict his own general Rules Now whether it be not an Immodest and unseemly Sight to see a mixt Company of Men and Women stand in Garments to use Mr. Sydenham's Expression next to Nakedness it self Let any not bereav'd of common Modesty Judge And whether the Administrator can possibly handle the Female Sex as he doth when actually Dipping them and not feel the risings and motions of Concupiscence in his Nature I leave to Thinking Persons to Determine and Judge Again in the fourth place to add no more let the last Argument be grounded on the Analogie which is and must be between the Baptism of John and that of Christ The Argument is thus framed If Christ's way and manner of Administring the Inward Spiritual Baptism whereof that of John was but the Outward Visible Sign be by Sprinkling or Pouring out upon Then John did certainly Baptize by Sprinkling or Powering out the Water on those he Baptized But Christ's way and manner of Administring the Inward Spiritual Baptism is by Sprinkling or Pouring out upon Therefore John did certainly Baptize by Sprinkling or Pouring out Water on those he Baptized If there was a necessity that John should Harmonize with Moses the Ceremonial Law and the Prophets I cannot see any reason why he should not be as greatly concern'd to Harmonize with Christ himself And seeing that the manner of Christ's Administring the Inward and Spiritual Baptism is by Pouring out and Sprinkling the Graces of the Spirit upon the Souls of the Elect in the Work of Regeneration why John the forerunner of Christ should Administer his Baptism which was but an External Sign or Christ's by Dipping or Plunging the whole Body into the Water can never be demonstrated by all the Wit and conceited Skill in our Doctor though he were as well Verst in all the Roots and Heemantique Nouns of the Hebrew Tongue as his so much admired Robertson was And if the Doctor will not be offended I am very desirous to know if his so highly commended and admired Robertson was by his so great Excellency in the Hebrew and Greek Tongues more Infallibly acquainted with the Mind of the Holy Ghost than other Men and that Mr. Robertson did certainly believe that the Etymology which he gave of the word Baptizo was Infalible as he said How came it to pass that the Learned Robertson did not Renounce that Baptism which he received in Infancy and by Sprinkling I think I knew Master William Robertson as well as Dr. Russel and during the time of my Acquaintance with him I am sure he was far enough from Anabaptism All the Skill he had in the Tongues with his Acquaintance in the Arts did not convince him that the Baptism he received in Infancy and by Sprinkling was a Nullity as the Doctor holds it is But to return to John the Dooper I think fit to assure the Doctor that I own my self bound to believe John himself rather than Doctor Russel or any of those Learned Men he so greatly Brags of The words of John are so plain that I can see no need of a Commentator to explain their Sense he tells us in Mar. 1.8 and in Mat. 3.11 that he did Baptize with Water but that Christ should Baptize with the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do both intend and signify the very same way and manner of Administration All the difference between John and Christ in both their Baptisms is in the Subject Matter viz. In the outward Water and the inward Grace John he did Administer Water the outward Sign but Christ he did Administer the Spiritual Grace But as touching the manner it was most certainly the very same in both Now if the Doctor grant as he must if he speak Truth that Christ doth Administer the Inward and Spiritual Baptism by Pouring out or Sprinkling the Graces of the Holy Ghost he will find it altogether Incongruous and no way agreeing with the Analogie of Faith to hold or assert that John did Administer the outward Sign in such a manner as was directly contrary to Christ There must be necessarily an Harmonious Agreement between the Sign and the Thing signified thereby which can never be in case Christ Baptizes by or with Pouring out or Sprinkling and John should Baptize by Dipping or Plunging into As Christ applies the Graces of the Spirit to the Soul in Conversion not the Soul to the Spirit so in the outward Baptism John he apply'd the Water the outward Sign to the Person not the Person to the Water For making the Thing or Point now in Debate obvious and plain to the meanest Capacity let it be seriously considered how plain and express the Scriptures are in affirming that Christ's way or manner in Administring the Spiritual Baptism is by Pouring out and Sprinkling the Holy Spirit on the Souls which he Regenerates but never by applying the Souls to the Holy Spirit Read without prejudice Tit. 3.5 6. Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he hath saved us by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath powered on us the very same word is made use of in Acts 2.17 And it shall come to pass in the
Gospel in Hebrew a meer Non-sequitur What though those words be not in Matthew I hope he will not deny that they are in Jo. 20.21 there the Spirit of God hath recorded them and why the Dr. should look to find them in Matthew I know no reason or wherefore his Learned Friend Mr. Robertson should take on him to place the Words recorded by John between the 18th and 19th of Mat. 28. I cannot conceive But whatever moved Robertson to so presumptuous an Act in taking on him to alter things of this Nature as if by his Skill in the Hebrew Tongue he thought himself able to rectifie the Order in which the Holy Ghost hath set down his own Mind in Writing I doubt not but the Dr. was well pleased with so Palpable an Aberration and all for the love and liking he hath to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabal he Dipped and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Velammddu Disciple ye By what I have said it is easie to judge that could the Dr. but have his will in two things First that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo doth alway signifie the very same thing with its Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Secondly that Matthew did write his Gospel in the Hebrew Tongue and that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vetabelu otham and Dip ye them were the very words of Matthew All the Art in Men and Angels could never hinder but that Dipping the whole Body under the Water must needs be the only right way of administring the outward Baptism But both these on which he erects his tottering structure of Anabaptism I utterly deny and do fairly offer and sincerely promise him that if he can confute by Gods Word the Arguments laid down to prove him mistaken in both I will forthwith renounce my Baptism received in Infancy and by Sprinkling as a meer Nullity and not only so but I will in Pulpit and Print too Declare to the World that I am fully convinced that Dipping the whole Body under Water is the only right way of administring Water-Baptism under the New-Testament Dispensation And this I hope with the offer made him in clearing up the Etymology of the word Baptizo will prove as generous an offer as he made to Master James As touching what is usually Objected from Mat. 3.16 concerning Christ's coming up out of the Water And from Acts 8.38 39. concerning Philip and the Eunuch going down into and coming up again out of the Water I need say but two things First For any to affirm possitively what the Word of God affirms not is to me a sure Argument of an Ignorant Rash and Presumptuous Spirit Reader mark the words And Jesus when he was Baptized went up straightway out of Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from not out of the water The Text doth not say in downright Terms that Christ was Dipt under the Water neither doth it appear from Acts â— 38 39. that the Eunuch was Dipt onâ— the Doctor and his Adherents will â—ve it to be so right or wrong Secondly There is nothing more certain than that a Person may be said properly enough to go down into the Water though he go not in above Shooe or Ancle deep which I doubt not was practised by both John and by Philip in the places above-mentioned and that for the better conveniency of catching hold of the Water with their Hands in order to Sprinkle or Pour out the same on those they Baptized And that which may convince any Man not prepossest with Prejudice against the Truth I here contend for that this was the Practise of John and all the first Baptizers so much brag'd of by the Dr. is the Impossibility of the Spirit 's being the Author of any though the least Contradiction in any part of God's Worship Hence I argue That which can no way be prov'd or made good by express Testimony of God's Word or deduced therefrom by sound and necessary Consequence is an Invention in God's Worship which God will Reject and Abominate as not appointed by him But Dipping the whole Body under Water in Baptism can no way be provâ—â— made good by express Testimony of Goâ— Word nor yet by sound or necessarâ— Consequence deduced therefrom Therefore Dipping the whole Body uâ—der Water in Baptism is an Invention in God's Worship which God will Reject and Abominate because not appointed by him The major Proposition will not be denied That which secures the Minor and proves the Conclusion to be the Truth which all the Wit of the Adversary will never be able to prevail against is the Scriptures silence in that it no where gives an express Witness or Testimony heretâ— And the Impossibility of that being prov'â— a sound Consequence from God's Word which makes God the Author of Self-Contradiction The Word of God no where commands Dipping in Baptism neither doth it say in express terms that either John or any of the Apostles did Baptize by Dipping under the Water Reader Keep the Adversary close to this where doth the word Dip appear either in the command of Christ when speaking of Baptizing or in any Instance of Persons Baptized by Joâ— or the Apostles If thou keep close to this the Enemy will retreat and fly to Consequence 〈◊〉 the which if he doth as no doubt he will 〈◊〉 pursue him with a Holy Courage be not a◠〈◊〉 of his daring Brags How do yo prove that 〈◊〉 sound and Scriptural Consequence which 〈◊〉 the Holy Spirit of God the Author of Self-â—â—â—â—â—adiction â—hat thus it is will evidently appear the Adâ—â—â—sary can no way avoid it If thou urge with an Holy Zeal for Truth what is Graphically set down in God's own Word concerning the manner of Application of the Blood of the Sacrifices and the Waters of Purifications both which had a Typical Relation to the Spiritual Baptism Administred by the Spirit of Christ These were applied under the Ceremonial Administration by Sprinkling not by Dipping as hath been before observed The Prophets who foretold of Christ and the great Benefits which should come by him to Believers under the Gospel They set it forth by Sprinkling witness â—sa 52.15 and Ezek. 36.25 and in the Gospel â—e are assured that the Spirit of Christ doth apply â—he inward Spiritual Baptism by Sprinkling or Pouring out the Graces of his Spirit on the Soul in the Work of Regeneration see Tit. 3.6 Now to affirm that Christ either commands Dipping or that he himself was Dipp'd in Baptism what is it but to affirm that Christ's Spirit doth contradict himself What is pretended for Dipping from John 3.23 hath nothing in it to help their Cause but what empty Conceit and Unscriptural Confidence supply John saith the Adversary was Baptizing in Aenon because there was much Water there Therefore he Baptized by Dipping the whole Body under the Water The stress or weight of the Argument is laid on a fond Conceit that much Water there signifies and â—â—ports Greatness and Depth of Water which plainly appears to be otherwise witness the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many Waters denoting ra◠〈◊〉 Rivulets or Springs of Water wherewith thaâ— abounded than that the Waters of that place deep And it was I doubt not for Conveniencâ— that John left Bethabarah a place of deeper Vâ— because Aenon was every way more convenienâ— commodious for the multitudes o People which oâ— daily to his Baptism Piscator's Note upon the place may not here 〈◊〉 either improper or impertinent to the Purpose iâ— hand Videntur significari plures Rivi non autem unuâ— Magnum Flumen Many Rivulets not one grâ—â—â— Floâ— or Water seems here to be signified saith that Learâ—ed Author with whom agrees the best Geographeâ— who give the Description of that place I conclude my Treatise against Dipping in Baâ—tism with that Saying of Godly and Judicious Sâ—denham If saith he there be any absolute need of Diâ—ping it is to cool the heat of those Mens Spirits who deâ— Baptism to be true or right Baptism because not Aâ—ministred by Plunging or Dipping Reader Observe that as in the Sacrament of thâ— Lord's Supper it is not so much the Quantity of thâ— Wine drunk in that Ordinance by a Believer 〈◊〉 the Quality which signifies and represents the Blooâ— of Christ Christ doth not tye a Believer up to such or sucâ— a quantity of Winâ— to be drunk in remembrance oâ— his Blood-shed but only commands Wine to 〈◊〉 drunk leaving to the Discretion of the Believâ— what quantity to drink So in water-Water-Baptism it is not the depth or quâ—tity of Water which is necessary to right Baptism real Water it matters not how small the quantâ— be so there be but a Sprinkling or Pouring out Water on the Subject to represent the Sprinkliâ—â— or Pouring out of the Graces of God's Spirit on tâ— Elect Soul in Effectual Calling FINIS
change lyes or consists which in Divinity is called Justification The Second is Goâ—s quickening and renewing the inward Powers and Faculties of the Soul by communicating a principle of Spiritual Life to the Sinner in every of the Souls faculties within I do not mean or intend that in this work of Regenerating the Sinner the Natural faculties concreated with the Nature of Adam are destroyed or annihilated but that the Predominancy of those vitious qualities inhering in the Souls faculties is overpowered by the Sanctification of the Spirit and a contrary Principle of saving and unloosable Grace is communicated to every of these faculties in the Soul whereby the new Principle communicated maintains its own Being in those respective Faculties and this through the continual supply of the Spirit which produced the change and making continual resistance against that Vice and Corruption as yet remaining in the same Faculties where the new Creature is appointed to War and Combat until that Sinless Perfection promised in the Covenant of Grace supersede and dispossess that indwelling Corruption in the Soul under which the new Creature continues to groan until a perfect release come This is called Sanctification and when the set time prefixt in Gods Decree for calling an Elect Sinner is come what produceth this great change I will suppose the Sinner to be come to the Years of Manhood capable of acting or exercising his natural Faculties doth his will or his reason help the Almighty in producing so miraculous a change can the Eye of this Sinners blind reason and understanding see into or comprehend the hidden Mystery of that Wisdom manifested and set forth in that stupendious and astonishing contrivance of Gods justifying and reconciling to himself an Apostate Rebel Sinner by the imputed Righteousness of another can the Eye of blind reason be capable of this can the Will of this dead Sinner incline or move it self towards the Sinners own Conversion to be a Coadjutor or Fellow-helper to forward or help the Almighty in effecting this strange and miraculous change can it possibly be that Spiritual or Corporal Blindness can cure it self or that Enmity and Rebellion can change its own Nature Let the experience of every rightly assured Believer speak to this If then nothing in the poor dead Sinner neither the use of his natural reason nor yet any activity in his unrenewed Will doth contribute any help to produce so wonderful a change the work must needs be entirely Gods own work From which I argue in the behalf of poor Infants if God can and doth freely pardon and blot out the Millions of actual Sins added to the original guilt of an adult Sinner if he can and doth freely and most graciously impute the Righteousness of his Son and by thus doing justifies an adult Sinner If God can and doth by the irresistable efficacy of his own Holy Spirit renew the faculties of the Soul of an adult Sinner which is as I may say steeped and even soaked in Vitiosity and actual Pollution cannot the same Almighty Just Wise and Gracious God do and effect the like change in and upon a poor helpless Infant though that Infant understand not what is done to it neither is capable of contributing any help towards so great a change From what hath been here offered to consideration to me it is evident and plain that when Men cry out and say Infants while Infants are uncapable of Regeneration because they want the use of reason c. they speak most injuriously and ignorantly against God himself as if he could not or would not effect that in and for an Elect Infant which he doth for an adult Sinner as the justifying and renewing an adult Sinner hath no dependence on the reason will or speech of a grown Sinner even so the want of actual reason activity of Will or Speech in an Infant cannot possibly hinder God from effecting this great and gracious work in and upon an Elect Infant though the poor Infant can do nothing towards so great a change The Subject Recipient of this work of Regeneration is every way Passive the adult as well as the Infant Agreeable to this Act of Gods in changing a Sinner is that Ordinance of water-Water-Baptism whose principal use is twofold First to signifie and represent his own gracious dealing with the Sinner Baptized in Pardoning all his Sins for Christs sake whose Blood represented by the Water in Baptism was shed for the Remission of the Sins of all comprehended in that Covenant of Grace whereof Baptism is a Seal And Secondly that it may be a Seal to confirm to the Baptized if Elect all the gracious Promises of the same Covenant of Grace as Gods work upon the Soul of a true Convert is in respect of the Sinner wholly Passive so Baptism the outward Sign and Seal of Gods Covenant of Grace is altogether Passive And as the Wisdom of Christ saw fit to appoint the Element of material Water to be used in Baptism as above all the other Elements most suited to the design of that Ordinance because of the Analogie and resemblance which is between Water and the Blood of Christ so no mode or way of administring this water-Water-Baptism doth so exactly and to the life set forth the freeness of Gods Grace and Mercy exhibited in the Covenant of Grace then the act of Sprinkling or pouring out the Water on the Party Baptized By this way of Sprinkling under the Gospel there is a sweet and orderly Harmony kept between the Pen-men of Gods Word both under the Old and New-Testament Dispensation with whom whoever studys to agree in applying the Water of Holy Baptism they will be at length found to be in the right how many and black Censures soever are heapt on them by injudicious Spirits The Spirit of God in the work of Regeneration applys the Spiritual Baptism by Sprinkling or pouring out of his Graces on the Soul There must be an Analogie kept between the thing signified and the outward Sign Against what hath been laid down to prove Infants right to Baptism the Seal of Gods Covenant many things are objected I will for brevity sake contract the Objections with my Answers to as few particulars as possibly I can Object 1. In the Words of the Grand Commission there is not one word concerning Infants Mat. 28.19 Go ye and Teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name c. This seems too weak though well meaning Minds to be unanswerable But in the strength of him who gave out this Grand Commission I hope to shew how wretchedly the Objector is mistaken herein In order whereto let two things be seriously and warily considered First that albeit Christ the Lord doth not mention Infants in particular yet he includes them in the Words of the general Commissionâ— Go Teach all Nations Baptizing them c. Here the Lord commands expresly that all such as belong to Gods Covenant with Abraham Gen. 7.7 shall be Baptized Namely all
takes on him to Usurp the Seat of Judgment in passing Sentence on all the Holy Learned and Orthodox Divines and Protestant Martyrs and Churches who are gone to Glory in the unshaken Belief that the Infants of Believing Parents have an unquestionable right to Baptism and that they are as capable of the Seal of Baptism as they are of the Grace of Gods Covenant signified thereby But that the Lords Supper belongs to none but to Adult and actual Believers who are capable of those qualifications required in a worthy Communicant such as Self-examination with reference to his State Godward his faith in Christ his progress in a Holy Life his discerning the Lords Body his keeping up a lively Communion with Father Son and Spirit in that Ordinance and judging ones self in case of short coming in Holy Duties These are the qualifications required to be in one who comes to the Lords Supper of which any not in a Dream may judge an Infant cannot be capable while an Infant I humbly hope no judicious Christian will censure me as rash and uncharitable if I judge those Preachers fitter for a Shop-board than a Pulpit who are not able or willing to discern or distinguish between Milk and strong Meat and who will deny to Infants the Milk of Holy Baptism whereof they are capable and whereto by Gods Covenant they have right because they are uncapable of receiving and digesting the strong Meat of the Lords Supper Object 8. If Infant-Baptism were God's Ordinance and were accompanied with his Blessing to the Infant how comes it to pass that so many Baptized in Infancy prove so Carnal and loose in their Lives and Conversations Answ Hereto I reply in three Particulars wherewith I shall shut up the present Dispute First It is with many Believers Infants now under the Gospel as it was with Abraham and his Infants of old Some are their Children by fleshly Generation only who Ishmael-like prove Mockers and Scoffers at Holiness and Haters of God and good Men These notwithstanding the Relation they stand in to the Church by Virtue of their Baptismal Vow and the External Profession they make in the Visible Church for a time being left to the darkness and folly lodged in their corrupted Nature they give themselves over to all kind of Looseness Baptism now is no more to be faulted on this account than Circumcision was formerly When the Children of believing Gentiles do actually violate God's Covenant and depart from him then will God do with them as he did with Abraham's Carnal Seed c. Secondly As some of the Children of believing Parents who were Baptiz'd in Infant State prove loose and vain so Blessed be God a great many prove Holy and Upright Walkers with God manifesting in their Lives and Conversations the lively Coppy of that Spiritual Circumcision wrought by the Spirit in their Hearts when Converted which was Signified and Sealed by that Baptism which they were made Partakers of when Infants Thirdly and lastly If from the vain and sinful Practise of some Baptiz'd in Infancy Infant-Baptism must be disallow'd as no Institution of God how strong an Argument will this prove to overthrow the Baptizing grown Professors For if I mistake not the Opposers of Infant-Baptism must own will they nill they that many of those Baptiz'd in their way have notwithstanding their shining Profession and their high Pretensions to the Work of the Spirit within fallen most foully and never recover'd again And thus I have according to the Wisdom given from above endeavoured to clear up from God's Word that Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17.7 is most certainly the Covenant of Grace I have also prov'd from the same Word that Circumcision was the Seal of that Covenant And that Baptism under the Gospel is now succeeded or come in the room thereof I have endeavoured to prove that the Infants of believing Gentiles have as real a Right to Baptism as Abraham's Seed had to Circumcision under that dark Dispensation And whether the Answers I have given to the most material Objections I find brought against infant-Infant-Baptism be pertinent and convincing I leave to the Judicious and Unprejudic'd to Judge CHAP. V. AMong all the Rash and Presumptuous Assertors of Dipping the whole Body under Water being the only right Mode or Manner of Baptizing none hath made a greater noise or a fairer shew of being herein Infalible than one William Russel who styles himself Medicinae Doctor Accademiae Cantabrigiensis This Author with a more than ordinary Confidence hath boldly asserted that Dipping c. is the only right Mode of Baptizing commanded by Christ in the New Testament and practised by John the Baptist and all the Apostles and Primitive Christians This crude or raw Assertion of his he labours to support and make good by a fourfold Medium First The Etymologie of the Greek word the Holy Ghost useth to express Dipping by Secondly Those Metaphors used in Holy Scriptures to represent it to our Understanding Thirdly The Practise of the first Baptizers Fourthly The words of the Grand Commission given by our Saviour in Mat. 28.19 To demonstrate the falseness of his Assertion and to discover to Weak and Injudicious People the great Mistakes whereon he bottoms his Assertion is the design of my present Undertaking But before I attack this Goliah in examining what he can get from the four Particulars above mentioned which may cause Simple and empty Brains to think and conceit this Accademical Doctor Invincible and Unanswerable in what he hath so Peremptorily asserted for the Truth of God I will lay down two things by way of Premise whereof I desire the Reader who is unwilling to be deceiv'd to take notice The first is That not so much the bare Letter of Scripture as the sense and meaning of the Spirit therein is the Word of God by which Truth and Error are to be Try'd and Judg'd I have often said and I am very bold in affirming that that Sense or Interpretation which any Man or Men give of any Text of God's Word which thwarts and contradicts the Analogie of Faith that Sense or Interpretation is from the Spirit of Satan not from God be the same never so plausible and pleasing to the Sons of Men and be the Authors never so highly esteem'd of for both their Piety and Learning There is a sweet and an harmonious Concord and Agreement between all the parts of God's Revealed Religion though but few Comparatively can see it to be so The Doctrine and Institutions of God in all the particulars of his Instituted Worship are plain easy and obvious to the Eye which the Spirit of Christ hath Anointed But to such Men and Women who are Destitute of the Spirit of Christ nothing in Religion appears to them but Nonsense and seeming Contradictions which is the Reason why so many thousands in England c. Stagger and Reel with a Spiritual Vertigo in the Principles of the Protestant Religion wherein both they and their
Only Right manner of Baptism which all Believers are to practise under the Gospel This he labours though in vain to make good by the Etymologie of the word which the Spirit uses to express Baptism by The word in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which saith the Dr. is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Dip or Plunge a thing under water This signification of the Primitive word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he confirms by Human Testimony he begins with Learned Mr. Leigh to whose Critica Sacra he refers his Reader in Quoting whom he deals with his Reader as he did in Quoting Servetus he saith that Servetus Dy'd at Geneva for his Opinion but hides from his Reader the horrid Blasphemies for which he Dyed So here the Dr. designedly Curtails the Observations of Mr. Leigh on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 telling his Reader so much out of Mr. Leigh as he thinks makes for his Cause but leaving out what of Mr. Leigh he knows makes full against him which I must needs say is the trick of a Deceiver And by these kind of shifts he and the most Crafty of his Party do endeavour to underprop their sinking Cause bearing poor simple folk in hand that the Eminently Learned and Godly Men whom they Quote were of the Anabaptists Perswasion Now to let his unfairness appear herein I here set down what of Leigh he quotes and what of him he omits The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Mr. Leigh is derived from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tingo to Dip or Plunge into the Water and signifieth primarily such a kind of washing as is used in Bucks where Linnen is plunged and dipt Thus far the Dr. Quotes Leigh and who would not think by reading so much of Leigh and looking no further as the Dr. no doubt would have his Reader but that Leigh in his Critica Sacra was of the Drs. judgment herein Now follows the Learned Leighs Observations on the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet saith he it is taken more largely meaning Baptizo for any kind of washing rinsing or cleansing even where there is no Dipping at all for which he Quotes Mat. 3.11 I indeed Baptize you with Water c. Mat. 20.22 Are ye able to be Baptized with c. Mar. 7.4 And when they come from the Market except they wash they eat not Luke 3.16 Acts 1.5 Acts 11.16 and 1. Cor. 10.2 In all which Scriptures Mr. Leigh doth acknowledge that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Derivative is of a larger signification then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it s Primative and intends such a washing as is done without Dipping and why should this be concealed from the Reader As for Zeppeorus Alstedius Plutarch and Nazianzen on whom the Dr. lays no small stress I hope he will allow us the same liberty he takes to himself viz. to Quote such Testimonies as make for us The Learned Dr. featly Quoted by Mr. Leigh tells us that Christ no where requireth Dipping but only Baptizing which word saith he Hesychius Stephanus Scapula and Budeus the great Masters of the Greek Tongue make good by very many Instances and Allegations out of Classick Writers that the word importeth no more then Ablution or Washing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say they in their Lexicons and Commentaries Lavo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lavatio Ablutio which may be done without Dipping As touching the Greek Lexicon Publisht and recommended by Joseph Caryl George Cokayne Ralph Venning William Dell Matthew Barker William Adderly Matthew Mead Henry Jessey All that I shall or need to say is this viz. that albeit I own my self bound to Reverence and Honour the hoary Head when found in the way of Truth and Righteousness yet it must still be with the reservation of the honour and respect which I owe to God that Ancient of Days their Father and mine who alone and not the Learning and Wisdom of Men though the Greatest and Holiest is the Father of their Faith and mine I am not insensible that some Learned and good Men have granted that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth indifferently signifie any kind of Washing by pouring out or sprinkling Water upon or by Dipping or Plunging into the Water and this they have grounded on the native Signification of the Primitive word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But with becoming modesty and due veneration to their Reverend Names I must crave leave in telling the World that for a World I cannot be of their Opinion herein until I receive greater and clearer light from the Spirit and Word of God concerning this matter and that for the reasons here following First the apparent difference I find between the two Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Letters and Syllables let the words be observed in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primitive I can find but 2 Syllables 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bap-to but in the Derivative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I find three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo and as in the Active so also in the Passive Voice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bap-to-mai hath three Syllables whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the Passive of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath four Syllables 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bap-ti-zo-mai Now that the 2 words should both in Active and Passive Voice so apparently differ in Letters Syllables and sound of the words and yet that both the words should signifie and import the very same thing is to me such a Riddle that indeed I cannot see how the same can be unfolded unless by the elucidating Art and skill of Dr. Russel The Learned know very well that in the Hebrew and Greek Tongues the change of a Letter or a Syllable doth greatly alter the Sense and Import of Words and why it should not be so here I cannot see any solid reason to the contrary only it is the Will and Pleasure of our Dr. and his Adherents in this Cause that it must and shall be so right or wrong as appears by his Arminian Confidence almost in every Page where he mentions the Word Baptize where he peremptorily beggs the Question taking for granted that which will never be granted by any unless by Brainless Heads or wilful underminers of the Gospel viz. that the Derivative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth always in the Gospel signifie and import the very same thing with Bapto viz. to Dip or Plunge the whole Body under Water But that which will farther clear the matter and put the Truth I here contend for out of the reach of all Scriptural Contradiction is the Practice of the Holy Ghost who is better Etymologist than our Dr. and then all the Arminian and other Heretical Criticks who in pretence of giving the Native and Genuine sense of Words in the Scripture have forc't a wrong sense from the Original on purpose to lay a firm foundation on which they may build
their Heterodox and Soul deluding Doctrines I find that when the Holy Ghost would express the Act of Dipping or Plunging into he doth it only by the Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never by the Derivative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that I can find For Proof whereof let those Scriptures Quoted by the Dr. himself in Page 11. be without prejudice lookt into and seriously weighed Rev. 19.13 He had his Vesture dipt in Blood Mat. 26.23 He that dippeth his hand with me in the Dish Luke 16.24 That he may dip the tip of his finger in Water And in John 13.26 it is saith the Dr. twice used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dipped 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when he had Dipped Here in these places the Holy Ghost expresseth the Aâ—t Dip or Plunge into by the Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo the Derivative Secondly again on the contrary when the Holy Ghost expresseth Baptism by washing he doth it by the Derivative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never by the Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bapto For Proof hereof let the places of Scripture already quoted out of Leigh's Critica Sacra be consulted in all which places the Spirit speaks of Baptism but not a word of Dipping and that by the Derivative word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo never by the Primitive Bapto Seeing then it hath pleased the Holy Ghost to express Dipping or Plunging into by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo and that he hath expressed Baptism by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think none but Fools or mad Men will blame me for resolving to believe the Holy Ghost in this matter before I believe Dr. Russel and all the human Testimonies he hath quoted to make good his Cause though he were able to quote a Million of Authors as Witty and Learned as his so much admired Servetus and Castellio The Premisses considered I hope the Dr. will not be displeased for making this fair and generous offer to him and all who espouse his Unscriptural Cause viz. that if he or they can shew such a solid and convincing reason as doth not contradict the Analogie of Faith why or wherefore the Holy Ghost should not in any of those Scriptures where he expresseth Dipping express Dipping by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Derivative but only by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primitive and why he should not express Baptism in any of the places of Scripture above quoted by the Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bapto but always by Baptizo in case both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primitive and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 its Derivative do signifie the very same thing viz. to Dip or Plunge under the Water And I do faithfully promise him to own my self mistaken and him to be herein in the right If he cannot I then hope his misguided Proselytes as well as himself will ingeniously own themselves mistaken and persist no longer in fighting against the truth of God From the difference between the two words in Letters Syllables and Sound as also from the Practice of the Holy Ghost in using both the words in the N. T I thus Argue Major If the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do apparently differ in Letters Syllables and Sound and if the Holy Ghost do always express the Act of Dipping and Plunging by Bapto never by Baptizo and Baptism by Baptizo never by Bapto then the word Bapto must signifie to Dip and Plunge but never to Baptize and the word Baptizo must signifie to Baptize but never to Dip or Plunge under Water Assump But the words Bapto and Baptizo do apparently differ in Leâ—ters Syllables and Sound and the Holy Ghost doth always express the Act of Dipping or Plunging by Bapto never by Baptizo and Baptism by Baptizo never by Bapto Conclusion Ergo the word Bapto must signifie to Dip or Plunge but never to Baptize and the word Baptizo must signifie to Baptize but never to Dip or Plunge under Water Besides this Argument others shall be laid down to confirm this when I come to speak to his third viz. the Practice of the first Baptizers In the 2d place our Dr. will have Baptizing to be only by Dipping or Plunging the whole Body under Water The Proof he gives to make good his Assertion herein are those Metaphors used in Holy Scripture To represent it to our understanding he Instances in two in Page 8 viz Burial and Resurrection He tells his Reader there that our Lord Jesus hath not burdened us under the Gospel with a multitude of Ceremonies as it was in the Oeconomy of the Jews under the Legal Dispensation but only with some few and those very Significant this being a more Spiritual Dispensation Before I meddle in speaking to his Metaphors I â—ill take liberty to tell the World that alâ—eit Christ doth not burden us with a multitude of Ceremonies now as under the Oeconomy of the Jews under the Legal Dispensation yet this one Ceremonie of Baptism will prove a heavier Yoke to Believers now then Circumcision with all the whole Body of Ceremonies appertaining to that Legal Dispensation in case it must be Administred by Dipping and Plunging the whole Body under Water as Anabaptists say it must I come now to his Metaphors the first whereof he saith is that of a Burial For this he and all of his Perswasion quote Rom. 6.4 and Colos 2.12 Buried with him in Baptism unto Death From this Metaphor of a Burial the Dr. and all his Party do hold and teach for an infallible truth that the Scope and Design of the Apostle in the two places now quoted is to teach and set forth the mode and manner how Christ was Buried to the end Believers should in Baptism imitate the same This if I mistake them not as I am very confident I do not is the sense and meaning wherein he and all Anabapâ—ists take those Scriptures In Answer to whom I affirm that this their sense of those places is senseless and meerly forc't to serve their own turn in proving that Dipping and Plunging in Baptism is the only true and right Baptism Now to discover their Mistake and Error herein I shall offer but two things to consideration The first is to shew the Scope and Design of the Apostle in those places which is not as they fondly and injudiciously imagine to shew that Christ was Baptized by dipping or that Believers are to be so Baptized But the Scope and Design of the Apostle in those places is to set forth and prove that Suretyship Union which is between Christ the Mediatorial Head and all the Members of his Body Mystical there being no one Act of Obedience either Active or Passive which Christ the Mediator performed in the assumed Nature but all his Members
A Brief and Plain DISCOVERY OF THE Falseness and Unscripturalness OF ANABAPTISM As the same is now Practised by those of that Perswasion Wâ—â—â—â—in are plainly Proved from God's Word the Five Particulars here Handled I. That God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17.7 is the Covenant of Grace whereby all God's Elect are Saved II. That Circumcision was the Initiatory Seal of that Covenant to Abraham and his Church-Seed during that Dispensation III. That water-Water-Baptism is now under the Gospel succeeded in the room thereof IV. That the Gentile Believers and their Infant-Seed have as Real a Right to the same Covenant of Grace and the Seal thereof as had Abraham and his Infant-Seed V. That Sprinkling or Pouring-out Water on the Subject of Baptism is the Undoubted Right Way of Administring Baptism under the Gospel By Ja. Barry an Unworthy Minister of the Gospel LONDON Printed for the Author 1699. TO THE Impartial and Unprejudiced READER Who desires to be Rightly Inform'd in the Nature and Design of God's Covenant with Abraham his Friend in the behalf of Himself and all his Ecclesiastical or Church Seed both among Jews and Gentiles to the End of the World Courteous Reader IF the Spirit of Grace Reigns in thy Heart thou wilt I doubt not readily believe me especially when I most Solemnly Profess as if I were immediately to be call'd to the Bar of the Great Judge that no Prejudice ' or Hatred against the Persons of the People who without any Warrant from God's Word Style themselves Baptists and Baptiz'd Churches of Christ hath stirr'd me up to appear in Print in Opposing those Pernicious Principles which the Men of that Perswasion do with so much Violence and unscriptural Zeal Teach and Maintain I sincerely Bless God that his good Spirit hath taught me to distinguish between Persons and the Errors which they hold and maintain Their Persons I love and am really griev'd that I love them no more than I do And I hope neither they nor any others will be Angry with me for so doing But their Errors in Religion I do from my Heart abominate and loath because hateful to God and all good Men who know and understand them so to be And for thus doing I neither fear a Frown from God nor yet Blame from any Man truly-wise who is able to distinguish Truth from Error That I shall be Censur'd and uncharitably Reflected on for what I have done in Printing this small Tract I am not Insensible I am very sure none will thus do but such as eitheir know not or care not what they say These kind of Blows I am taught to ward off with a Religious Scorn and a Holy Contempt resoluing in Christ's Strength to pursue and hold fast the Truth of God let who will Bark and Cavil against it It was the saying of Valerius Maximus Aequo Animo ferenda sunt Imperitorum Convitia ad Honesta vadenti Contemnendus est Iste Contemplus The Reproaches saith he of the Ignorant and Unskilful are to be born with an even or patient Mind And he that intends to advance towards Good and Honest things must Contemn their Contempt That somewhat will come out in answer hereto I question not if the Men of that Principle have not lost their old Wont but my Comfort and Confidence being built on the Rock of Ages I never fear a Confutation from any nay all of that Perswasion who Breath on the Earth until they procure from Heaven another Gospel which is Diametrically opposit to the Gospel delivered by the Son of God which I am sure will never be I have made no Deviation from the good old Way chalkt out by Abraham's God wherein the Prophets and Apostles with all the Primitive Churches who are gon to Heaven walkt in that I know of If I have I do faithfully promise that upon the discovery of my Error I will own my self therein mistaken I have been for several Years past importun'd by many Serious and Godly Christians to Print what now I expect to be Blam'd for but never found my self thereto inclin'd till of late not that I Question any part of what I have Printed being God's Truth but indeed the variety of Tryals and sharp Afflictions which haâ—e Incessantly followed me since call'd to the Sacred Office both in my Native City Dublin and also in England have kept me back together with my own great Aversion to appear in Print in any Matters Controversal But observing of late how strangely Anabaptism spreads both in City and Country and being fully convinc'd that Ignorance of and Vnacquaintedness with the Covenant of Grace was and still is that which hath given advantage to the Preachers of that Way in drawing Proselites after them I have in Conscience of my Duty both to God and Men Improv'd my poor Talent in Explaining and Opening up the Nature and Design of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham in Gen. 17.7 in hopes that God will Bless the Plainness and Brevity therein us'd to inform poor Ignorant and Vnthinking Souls how wretchedly they are imposed upon by Preachers of that Perswasion who have themselves as great need to be Instructed and Taught what the deep Mysteries of the Covenant of Grace be as the poor Tongue-ty'd Bades whom they in vain Labour to exclude and shut out from the Benefits and Seal of that Covenant in the Visible Churches of Christ As their denying Abraham's Covenant to be the Covenant of Grace administers just ground of suspecting whether they have any other than dark and confus'd Notions about the Doctrine of God's Free Grace so much spoken of in Pulpit and Print So their Vnmercifulness and Hard-heartedness to the Infants of Believing Parents in not allowing such to be accounted of the number of God's Elect meerly because of the Incapacity of such to make an open Profession of Faith and Repentance themselves administers just ground of suspecting whether they be Orthodox in the Doctrine of Election I am very sure the State of Infancy can neither null or make void the Electing Decree of God nor yet render the Elect Infant any way uncapable of that Grace of God's Covenant to which he is Elected or of the Seal of that Covenant of Grace in the Church Visible for any to hold or say it doth is to Reflect on the most High God and to make him a mutable Agent like to a Fickle Man contrary to Mal. 3.6 Rom. 11.29 and unavoidably to send all Elect Infants to Hell who Die Infants contrary to Mar. 10 14. Jo. 6.39 Rom. 11.7 All that I shall farther say is only to â—eg and Pray thee for the Lord's sake for thy own Souls sake and for that Love and Tenderness which the Law of Nature especially that of Grace obliges thee to have for poor Infants if thou be a Parent consider well and weigh Judiciously in the Ballance of God's Sanctuary the Arguments laid down in this small Tract to prove what I have therein undertaken If
if he granâ— that Circumcision was the Seal of Abrahams Covenant I have what I was to prove if he deny it to be the Seal of that Covenant then it lyes at his Door to demonstrate what was the Seal of that Covenant If he say that that Covenant had no Seal at all He will thereby not only gainsay the Word of God but also speak against reason for all Men know it is an essential property of a Covenant to have a Seal to confirm the matter contained in the Covenant Arg. 2. If Circumcision is by God himself called the Seal of the Covenant then is it beyond all Controversy the Seal of the Covenant But Circumcision is by God himself called the Seal of the Covenant Therefore Circumcision is beyond all controversy the Seal of the Covenant For Proof of the Argument compare Acts 7 8 with Gen. 17 10. To which I will only add Rom. 4 11 which will put the matter in Dispute beyond the reach of all Dispute The Words are plain and express in calling Circumcision the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith which plainly proves two things First That Circumcision is a Seal of the Covenant made with Abraham Secondly That the Covenant of which Circumcision was the Seal was the Covenant of Grace and no other CHAP. III. That Water-Baptism succeeded or came in the room of Circumcision under the Gospel Dispensation I prove by 3 convincing Arguments Arg. 1. IF there be no other Initiatory Seal appointed by Christ â—nder the Gospel but Water-Baptism then is Water-Baptism come or suceeeded in the room of Circumcision to be the initiating Seal under the Gospel But there is no other initiatory Seal appointed by Christ under the Gospel but Water-Baptism Therefore Water-Baptism is come or succeeded in the room of Circumcision to be the initiatory Seal under the Gospel The truth and strength of this Argument will the more clearly appear by duly considering that Circumcision was under the dark Dispensation of the Law the initiating Seal of the Covenant which will not cannot be denyed unless by Men who understand or care not what they say That Water-Baptism is and must be so now must of necessity be acknowledged by all who own that the Lords Supper succeeded or came in the room of the Passeover I humbly conceive no Wise Man will oppose me in saying that the Churches of the New-Testament have as great need of an initiating Seal of the Covenant of Grace as had the Church of the Jews under the Old And if Baptism be not that Seal I know not what is for that Circumcision is now abrogated and abolished under the Gospel none can deny and that some other visible sign must succeed or come in its room must be granted by them who acknowledge that the Lords Supper succeeded or came in the room of the Passeover Arg. 2. If the Adversaries themselves do practically own Baptism to be the initiating Seal of the Gospel Covenant then Baptism is the initiating Seal of the Gospel Covenant But the Adversaries themselves do â—ractically own Baptism to be the initiating Seal of the Gospel Covenant Therefore Baptism is the initiating Seal of the Gospel Covenant Those I here dispute against before they can overthrow this Argument must abandon their own practice in making Baptism by Dipping the Door of Entrance into their Churches by which Practice they Unchurch all other Churches who are not of their own Perswasion It is well known in London and else where where Anabaptism is practised that they make Baptism by Dipping the form of a right Gospel Church on which account it is they refuse Communion in the Lords Supper with the most Sanctified Believers if they are not Dipt after their Mode 'T is true that some of that Perswasion would seem more moderate and charitable than others of that way while they make Saintship the only term of Church Communion These seem not to lay such stress on Baptism as the rest of that Perswasion do they will admit to the Lords Supper with them those of other Perswasions though not Baptized in their way but how such will be able to justify their practice in admitting Unbaptized Persons to the Lords Supper I cannot understand to me it is plain that there is the same parity of reason for keeping back an Unbaptized Person from the Lords Table as there was for keeping back an Uncircumcised Person from the Passover of Old The first of these viz. Baptism is the visible Badge of our Union with Christ in Regeneration as Circumcision was to the Believing Jews The other viz. the Lords Supper is the visible Badge of our Communion and Fellowship with Christ as the Passover of Old was to the Believing Circumcised Jews Now as Communion is a fruit of Union and follows after it so no Person ought to be admitted to the second that is not actually a visible Partaker of the first It is not to be doubted that these who in Charity invite us to the Lords Table with them do account us as Unbaptized Persons while they reckon our Baptism received in Infancy and by Sprinkling but a meer nullity that is no Baptism at all Arg. 3. If Water Baptism have the same end and use assigned it by God as Circumcision had of old viz. to signifie and Seal to Believers and their Infants Elect the truth of their Regeneration c Then Water Baptism hath Succeeded in the room of Circumcision But Water Baptism hath the same end and use Assign'd it by God as Circumcision had of old viz. to signifie and Seal to Believers and their Elect Infants the truth of their Regeneration c. Therefore Water Baptism hath Succeeded in the room of Circumcision This Argument depends on the Right and Genuine Explication of that Text in Colos 2.11 In whom also ye are Circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands in puting off the Body of the sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ Buried with him in Baptism wherein also you are Risen with him through the Faith of the Operation of God who hath raised him from the Dead I shall not here meddle with Explaining this because I shall have occasion to speak to it when I come to Answer the Objections brought against Baptism being come in the room of Circumcision whereto I refer my Reader Against what hath been said concerning Circumcision being the Seal of the Covenant of Grace c. it is Objected thus Object Circumcision was only a Seal of a Temporal Carnal Covenant Sealing only Earthly and Temporal Blessings to the Carnal Church of the Jews Ans To this Objection I Answer in three Particulars 1. I have already proved that God's Covenant with Abraham of which Circumcision was the Seal was and still is the Covenant of Grace and not a Covenant of Works as some Ignorant and Injudicious Teachers would fain have it to be And that meerly on the account of keeping Poor Infants from Baptism which they know could never
all the Male-Seed of the Believer and that without any regard to the Election which is a Secret known only to God about which he would not have us to trouble our Spirits any farther than to give all becoming diligence to make our own Pe sonal Election sure to our sâ—lves As touchiâ—g the Infants of Church Membâ—rs about whom all the Dispute is We are not â—nxiously to be concerned about them whether they be in the Election of God yea or no. It is ground sufficient for us to Bless and thank God for his dealing so Graciously with our Infants in that they with us are taken into the same Covenant and Sealed with the Seal thereof for by Gods dealing thus with Believers Infant-Seed Believers have a good foundation laid whereon to bottom their Hope and Comfort with reference to theiâ— Dying or Deceased Infants and also of wrestling with God in Prayer for their Conversion and Eternal Welfare the which the Enemies to Infant-Baptism do by denying that Infants belong to the Covenâ—nt or have any right to the Promisâ—s thereof till they themselves Bâ—lieve deprive and insensibly sâ—oil themselves of This is most evidently true as will appear if it be sâ—riously consiâ—ered thaâ— all right Prayer is a Plâ—â—â—iâ—g the Promises of Gods Covenant in the Name and Merit of Christ his own Soâ— in and through whom the said Promisâ—s are intail'd on all the Children of Promise Now if my Infant be Sick or Ailing If he be going on in Sin c. how can I by the Anabaptist Principle put up a Prayer to God for him seeing there is no promise of Gods Covenant belongs to him Or how can I comfort my sorrowful Spirit with reference to my Deceased Children if I must look on my dear Babes as Strangers and Enemies to God the which they are by Nature and must remain so for ever in case they be not Partakers of the Grace of Gods Covenant Secondly If none but the Elect have right to Baptism this Objection will fall like a Mill-stone on them who Baptize whole droves of Men and Women of whose Election to Eternal Life neither Baptizer nor Baptized know any more than they know how many Stars in the Firmament so that by thus arguing against poor Tongue-ty'd Infants they may see how they deny Salvation to their own as wâ—ll as others Infants and render themselves uncapable of discharging a good Conscience to their poor Children in putting up daily Petitions to God for them Object 6. We have an open Profession from those we Baptize and that warrants our Baptizing such as offer themselves to join to the Churches You have not the like from Infants Answ I Answer hereto in three particulars First it were well for both Baptizers and Baptized if both the one and the other were better acquainted with the Nature of right Conversion than they are and that they were better grounded in the sound and experimental knowledge of the Covenant of Grace the which if they were I dare boldly say they would not be so precipitant and rash in condemning and despising those poor Infants who are set forth by the Wisdom of God as Patterns and Examples by which grown Persons are to be moulded and sitted for Heaven Neither would they be so forward to offer themselves to Baptism on such slight and evanid Motions as falls short in too many of common Convictions Secondly poor Infants never yet broke or transgressed the Moral Law Personally and that is one great reason why an actual confession of Faith and Repentance is not required of them to qualifie them for Baptism As the Sin of Infants lyes in the imputation of Adams Disobedience and the Pollution of Nature derived by fleshly Generation so their help and remedy lyes in the imputation of Christs Spotless Righteousness to their Persons and his Spirits renewing their inward Faculties in Regenerating them And this twofold work of the Spirit in Justifying and Sanctifying the Elect Infant is plainly signifiâ—d and Sealed in that Ordinance of Baptism to the Infant as well as to a grown â—eliever Thirdly albeit Infants be not able to speâ—k for themselves and to claim that right to the Seal of Gods Covenant which the Covenant it self hath entail'd on them as they are the Church Seed of Believing Parents yet there is one who speaks for them whose Judgment and Testimony of them is more sure and infallible than all other Testimonies of Men and Angels the Lord Jesus I mean who with his Father and God the Holy Ghost contrived and made the Covenant of Grace wherein they are comprehended I will lay down in six Particulars what is the Judgment of Christ concerning Infants as they are concerned in the Covenant First he propounds them as Patterns by which grown Persons must be moulded and fitted for Heaven Mat. 18.3 Secondly declares their right to the Kingdom of God Mar 10.14 For of such is the Kingdom of God Thirdly rebukes most severely his Disciples for hindering Infants being brought to him Mar. 10.14 But when Jesus saw it he was much displeased c. In the Greek it is Eganaktese which signifies to have the Bowels inwardly moved or affected with Grief to be filled with Indignation as Beza renders it Indignatus est to be Stomackt at a Person or a thing which is greatly or highly displeasing A Word which judicious Sydenham observes was never used by Christ in any case or on any occasion besides this of poor Infants to instruct and teach Men No doubt how greatly he was concerned for helpless Infants and how displeased he was at the hardness of his Disciples Hearts against them Oh! that the consideration of this might melt the hard Hearts of such into a Christ like tenderness towards poor Infants Fourthly commands Infants to be brought to him Mar. 10.14 Suffer little Children to come unto me c. Fifthly pronounces them Holy Rom. 11.16 1. Cor. 7.14 Sixthly Blesseth them Mar. 10.16 And he took them up in his Arms laid his Hands upon them and Blessed them These six Particulars laid together and weighed in the Ballance of Gods Sanctuary I leave it to any Man of Sense in Spiritual matters to judge whether is safer to credit this infallible Testimony of the Son of God concerning Infants than to rely on the bare Testimony of a meer Man concerning himself who may in all he pretends to be but a Painted Sepulchre Object 7. If Infants must needs have a right to Baptism because it is a Seal of the Covenant then of necessity they must have a right to the Lords Supper also for that is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace as well as Baptism The Wine in the Supper might as well be poured down the Infants mouth with a Spoon as to sprinkle Water on his face Answ This Objection better becomes a Superannuated Man who borders on perfect Dotage than one who pretends to be a Teacher of ignorant and misguided Souls and not only so but who
last days saith God I will power out my Spirit on all flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both which places are the fulfilling of those Gracious Promises in Esa 44.3 and Joel 2.28 where the Lord promised that he will pour Water on him that is thirsty c. and his Spirit on the Churches Seed The Hebrew word in Esa is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Etzek Ruchi and in Joel the word used to express the same thing by is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eshpoch Eth Ruchi in neither of which places will our Doctor 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vetabe lu Otham And Dip ye them be found The Doctor the better to help his limping Proselites over the Stile of Heresy and Error tells his Reader that the Evangelist Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew Tongue for Proof whereâ—f he sets down his own Opinion that so it is and this Opinion of his he confirms as infallible by the Testimony of Jerom and he thinks the Opinion of the most Learned Men But the Dr. was so wary in this point that he resolved the Reader should not easily find him out in his quotations the which the Dr. knew would easily be done had he fairly directed his Reader to the Book and Page in Jerom where his judgment concerning this matter is exprest and by Naming the Learned Men who were one with him and Jerom in this Opinion His neglect herein forces me to charge him with unfairness to say no worse if that be a true rule in Logick Dolus latet in Vniversalibus that Deceit lyes hid in Universals I am sure the Dr. as well as the rest of his Fraternity who frequently walk in this Path must fall under this Lash the Drs. lothness to Name the Learned Men who were of his Opinion in this causes me to suspect that he means such as his Learned Baptist Servetus and his famous Castellio with those other Arminian and Popish Authors whose Names are in his Book It were worth while for the Reader to observe what shifts the poor Man is put to to prove and make good from Gods word his new though falsly pretended ancient Mode of Baptizing by Dipping and Plunging the whole Body into the Water He tells his Reader that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew the Drs. design being no doubt to make way for his Hebrew words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Dip ye them The root saith he is Tabal which is the third Person Singular of the Preterperfect Tense and signifies he Dipped He Instances in Naaman the Syrian 2. Kings 5.14 Then went he down and Dipped himself seven times in Jordan c. From Naaman the Syrian the Dr. comes per Saltum by a long leap to John Bâ—ptizing in Jordan in Mat. 3.6 you have saith he the same Words again in the Passive Voice which must be rendred in English And were Dipped of him in Jordan And in Ver. 16. you have the same root again as it is applied to our Saviour And Jesus when he was Dipped went up straight way out of the Water The Dr. takes for granted that because Tabal signifies he Dipped and that because Naaman in the place above quoted Dipped himself in Jordan that therefore in Matthew it must needs be Vetabelu Otham and Dip ye them and that John did Dip all he Baptized over Head and Ears in Jordan Am I bound to believe that Matthew did write his Gospel in Hebrew because the Dr. is of the Opinion he did Or must I therefore grant it because Jerom is of his Opinion though neither Jerom nor he gives any solid reasons for that their Opinion Two things convince me that both Jerom the Dr. and his pretended Learned Men were all mistaken in this their Opinion First I find by Reading that the Gospel which Matthew is supposed to have written in Hebrew was never yet seen by any Author and therefore I must mind him of the Maxim as true and applicable in the present case De non apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est Ratio of things not appearing and of things not existing there is the same Reason to be given Secondly if Matthew had written his Gospel in Hebrew he would not have translated into Greek the word Emmanuel in Mat. 1.23 and those whole Sentences Eli Eli Lamma Sabacthani in Mat. 27.46 But suppose I should for Argument sake grant which I utterly deny and challenge the Dr. to make good that Matthew had Written his Gospel in the Hebrew Tongue doth it therefore follow necessarily that the Holy Ghost who is so exact and precise in choosing the most apt and fit words whereby to express his Mind should use the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabal which signifies to Dip and not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rachatz which signifies to Wash or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kibbem which signifies the same I have already demonstrated from the word of God that in all the places of the New-Testament where the Holy Ghost makes mention of Baptism he doth it by the Derivative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to Wash by pouring out or sprinkling Water upon but never by the Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bapto which signifies to Dip or Plunge into And when the Holy Ghost expresseth the Act of Dipping or Plunging into he doth it by the Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to Dip into but never by the Derivative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to wash with by which it plainly appears to me at least that rather than the Dr. will loose his Credit and suffer his rotten Cause to be lost he will rather open door to the old Babel confusion of Tongues resolving Jesuit like to set the Pen-men of Holy Scripture together by the Ears and impose on his credulous Reader a real Belief that what the Holy Ghost hath laid down and plainly exprest in Greek he hath gainsaid and contradicted in Hebrew which Contradiction can never befall the Pen-men of the Holy Scripture nor without Blasphemy be charged on that Holy Spirit by which they were Acted and infallibly Inspired The reason which Jierom gives why Matthew writ his Gospel in Hebrew viz. for the Sake of those Jews which Believed is no reason at all for had it been the Will of God it should be so I know no reason why Peter James and Paul who all three wrote to the Jews which Believed should write in Greek not in Hebrew witness the two Epistles of Peter the Epistle of James and that of Paul to the Hebrews The Dr. pleaseth himself in telling his Reader that in Mr. William Robertson's Hebrew New-Testament he finds these words between the 18th and 19th Verses of Mat. 28 he means And as my Father hath sent me even so also I send you Go ye therefore c. These words he sets down in the Hebrew Character telling his Reader that he finds them not in any Greek Copy An Argument thinks he that Matthew wrote his
be Justified by God's Word should they Judiciously acknowledge that Abraham's Covenant is the Covenant of Grace and that Circumcision was the Seal thereof and that Water Baptism is now come in the room thereof 2. In that some have reflected on that Covenant calling it a carnal Covenant of Works and the Church which was to Observe and Practice Circumcision the Seal thereof a carnal Church all I need to say by way of Reply is to bewail the carnallity of their Uncircumcised Hearts and Lips who have no better or higher Apprehensions of God's Holy Covenant the Grace whereof must bring them to Heaven if ever they come thither and of his so highly Honoured Friends Abraham Isaac and Jacob with all the rest of the Holy Patriarchs Prophets and Godly Believers of that Day than to call it a carnal Covenant and them a carnal Church 3. If Abraham's Covenant was a Covenant of Works to him and his Children then it must needs he so to us Gentile Believers and to our Children now And if so let the Adversary Demonstrate if he can how Abraham or any of that carnal Church as they falsely term it can be supposed to be now in a Saved State Or what ground of hope we Gentile Believers and our Children have that we or any of ours shall go to Heaven when we Die seeing that we are still under the very same Covenant with Abraham which Covenant if it be a Covenant of Works and not of Grace no Salvation can be expected and if the Believers under that dark Dispensation were Carnal and not Spiritual how comes the unerring Wisdom of God to Propound them to Believers under the Gospel for Examples and Patterns of Faith Patience c. Heb. 11. Heb. 12.1 Ja. 5.10 Let it be farther considered that Albeit the Seal of Circumcision Sealed no saving Blessings to the Non-Elect it doth not hence follow that it Sealed no other than Temporal Blessings to the Elect seeing that to them the Heavenly were Typically included in the Earthly As touching the Earthly Blessings which Circumcision Sealed to the Non-Elect they were greater and better than God was any way obliged to give them I am sure than they savingly improved Object We utterly deny that Water-Baptism did succeed and come in the room of Circumcision Answ For confirmation of the Affirmative let the three Arguments already laid down under this Head be seriously and without prejudice considered To which I will only add the Explication of Colos 2.11 12. whereon I have grounded a fourth Argument to prove that Water-Baptism succeeded and came in the room of Circumcision In the place above quoted the Apostle plainly sets forth to the believing Colossians and in them to all believing Gentiles to the Worlds end two things necessary to be known and believed by all true Believers First That they who by a true lively Faith have Embrac'd the Lord Jesus Christ as held forth in the Gospel evidencing their Faith by the Truth of Gospel-Sanctification They and none else who are Adult are made actual Partakers of the true and saving Circumcision effected in the Soul by the Spirit of Christ And which was Externally signified by the outward Circumcision These Believers having now obtained the Spiritual Circumcision are not at all to be Concerned or Troubled that they are not outwardly Circumcised with the Circumcision made with Man's Hands Forasmuch as that which was Externally Signified and Seaâ—ed to the believing Jews by the outward Circumcision is now Internally and Powerfully wrought in their Hearts by the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ Secondly The Apostle sets forth in this place that Water-Baptism is Instituted and Appointed by Christ under the Gospel Dispensation to be to believing Gentiles the same that Circumcision was to the Jews viz. A Visible Sign and Seal of Abraham's Covenant to all his Ecclesiastical Church-Seed among the Gentiles viz. All of that Race who on God's calling them Believe in and Obey the Lord Jesus Christ To these and their Infant-Seed and none else among the Gentiles Baptism doth now under the Gospel Signify and Seal the very same Spiritual Blessings and Church-Priviledges which Circumcision of old did Signify and Seal to the believing Jews and their Infant-Seed This I take to be the Sense and Meaning of the Apostle in that so much controverted place In this Sense I hope I shall Die satisfied And herein I humbly conceive none of the Orthodox will differ from me which Sense being granted it is beyond the reach of all Scriptural contradiction that Water-Baptism was Instituted and Appointed by Christ on purpose to succeed in the room of Circumcision CHAP. IV. Shewing and proving that the Infants of Believing Gentiles now under the Gospel have as real a Right to the Covenant of Grace and to Baptism the now Visible Sign and Seal thereof as had the Children of Abraham according to the Flesh to it and to Circumcision the then Seal of the Covenant of Grace And that they are as capable of the Grace and outward Seal of the Covenant as are the most Adult grown Believers I shall lay down Four Arguments to evince and make good against all Opposition what I now assert Arg. 1. THE first Argument is thus fram'd If God himself did by absolute Soveraign Grace comprehend Abraham's Church-Seed in the Covenant of Grace he made with believing Abraham their Stipulating and Covenanting Father and never since Repeal'd that Gracious Act of his Then the Infants of Abraham's Church-Seed are still Interested in the Covenant of Grace and have as great Right to and are as capable of the Grace and Seal of that Covenant as ever But God himself did by absolute Soveraign Grace comprehend Abraham's Church-Seed in the Covenant of Grace he made with believing Abraham their Stipulating and Covenanting Father which Gracious Act of his was never since Repealed Therefore the Infants of Abraham's Church-Seed are still Interessed in the Covenant of Grace and have as great a Right to and are as capable of the Grace and Seal of that Covenant as ever I cannot see how this Argument can possibly be overthrown but by proving that God did alter and change that Covenant he made with Abraham his Friend for himself and for his Church-Seed The which when the Adversary doth by Evidence of Scripture not abused and perverted I shall then yield the Cause and bewail my Mistake But two things cause in me an unshaken Confidence that this can never be done First The Immutability and Unchangableness of God on which very account he is styled a Covenant-keeping God who never yet cast off any poor Sinner until that Sinner did first actually cast God off the which I think the Adversary dares not deny Secondly The Impossibility of poor Infants actually casting God off and that because of their Incapacity in respect of Age. Arg. 2. If Infants be at all Saved they are Saved by the Grace of God's Covenant made with Abraham which Covenant and the External