than that of the Adult that it is a dangerous Error and therefore of no Use at all but the contrary viz. a very sinful thing 1. Reader can that be useful or any ways beneficial which Christ never commanded or required to be done in his Name but is unrighteously fathered upon him to the utter making void his own Ordinance of baptizing Believers 2. Can that have any Usefulness in it that brings Guilt upon the Parents in doing it making them guilty of Will-Worship or of a humane Tradition 3. Can that be useful that brings poor Babes into such a Covenant which Christ never ordained for them to enter into and to which they never directly nor indirectly consented nor approved of and which they are utterly unable to keep and which giveth them no Strength to perform nor is there one promise of God made to assist or help them to do it and yet for not keeping of it they are charged with Perjury with Self-murder nay with Hell and Damnation 4. Can that be of use to Infants that basely beguiles and deceives them causing them when grown up to think they were thereby made Christians and become the Children of God Members of Christ and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven nay regenerated and from hence never look after any other Work of Grace nor Regeneration but conclude all is well with them 5. Can that be a useful thing which the doing of is a palpable Alteration of the Words of Christ's Commission and so inverts that holy Order left by him for baptizing who requires none to be baptized before they are first taught and made Disciples 6. Can that be of any Use to an Infant which you nor no Man else can prove from God's Word to have any Use and Blessing in it to them 7. Can an humane Rite or Tradition think you save poor Children or a little Water sprinkled on the Face wash away Original Sin 8. Can Water beget Children to Christ or can that be useful to them which they have only the bare Sign of and not the thing signified viz. the Sign of Regeneration but not Regeneration it self a Sign of Grace but not Grace it self you give them the Shell but no Kernel the Name of Christian but no Nature of a Christian making that you call Christ's Baptism as Dr. Taylor saith á Sign without Effect and like the Figtree in the Gospel full of Leaves but no Fruit 9. Can that be useful that tends to make the Gospel-Church National and confounds the Church and the World together which ought to be Congregational a holy and separate People like a Garden inclosed 10. Can Baptism be more useful to Infants than to adult Believers notwithstanding the Scripture saith that the Person baptized doth not only believe but call upon the Name of the Lord Acts 22.16 can Infants do that 11. Can Infant-Baptism be more useful than that of Believers and yet Baptism an Ordinance of the Soul's Marriage with Christ And is not that as Mr. Baxter saith a strange Marriage where there is nothing signified of Consent And are Infants able so to do 12. Can Infant-Baptism be more useful than that of Believers and yet Baptism called the Answer of a good Conscience Can a little Babe answer a good Conscience by being baptized in Obedience to Christ and to shew forth his Death and Resurrection 13. Can Infant-Baptism be more useful than that of Believers Whereas the first has no Promise of God made unto it and yet the other hath many as Acts 2.36.37 38. Mark 16.16 14. Can that be a useful thing that frustrates the sacred and spiritual Ends of Baptism which we have shewed are many but as administred to poor Babes 't is rendred wholly of none Effect and an insignificant thing Lastly Mr. Perkins hints that Baptism signifies two things 1. Our Union with Christ 2. Our Communion with him Now how doth this appear in Infants as such as it does in Believers CHAP. VII Shewing that the Baptists are falsly called Anabaptists they being as much against rebaptizing as Mr. Burkit or any other Men or People whatsoever shewing that Infants who have only had a little Water sprinkled or poured on their Faces c. are not baptized but rantized Proving Baptism is Immersion and without the Person 's Body is dipped or covered all over in the Water he is not baptized from the literal genuine and proper Signification of the Greek Word Baptizo 1. IN Page 42 you say That you will endeavour to satisfy such who were baptized as you call it in their Infancy that they were rightly baptized 2. And that such who have been once duly and rightly baptized ought not to be rebaptized or baptized again Answ That which you say in the first Place we do utterly deny though we readily grant you what you say against rebaptizing for we are as much against it as you can be But to prove your first Proposition you proceed to shew the several Requisites necessary to denominate a Person rightly baptized 1. The Person baptizing ought to be a lawful Minister authorized and commissioned by Christ and the Governors of his Church 2. The Party baptized you say must be a Subject qualified for Baptism c. 3. That the Element made use of must be Water 4. It ought to be done before credible Witnesses 5. Lastly Baptism ought to be administred in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Answ 1. I grant all you say here though how you can prove there were Witnesses by when Ananias baptized Saul or when Philip baptized the Eunuch I know not yet I believe 't is necessary there should be in all ordinary Cases credible Witnesses by 2. But Sir how doth this comport with the Rantism of Infants For 1 st That they are not Subjects fitly qualified for Baptism I have fully proved and have detected your Argument concerning Baptism coming in the room of or succeeding Circumcision 2 dly I shall now prove your sprinkling or pouring Water on the Subject either on the Face or any part of the Body is not baptizing but rantizing Then answer you Allegations Objections base Reflections and false Calumnies cast upon Mr. Tredwell and indeed on the Baptists in general And in order to the effectual doing of this take a Passage or two out of the ancient Fathers c. St. Gregory saith That that is not said to be reiterated which is not certainly demonstrated to have been rightly and duly done And in another Place saith he If there be an Offence taken at the Truth it is much better that Offence be taken than that the Truth should be deserted The Custom of the Churches ought to submit to the Words of Christ not the Words of Christ to be wrested to the Custom of the Church in regard the Words of Christ are the Foundation upon which all Customs are to be built See the famous Dr. Du-Veil on the Acts. Tertullian
says Whatsoever savours contrary to Truth is Heresy though it be an ancient Custom These Maxims saith Du-Veil so agreeable to Reason whosoever 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 Rantism that is Sprinkling substituted in its room by a vulgar Use or rather Abuse Mr. Perkins saith if the external Form of Administration be observed a Person baptized by an Heretick must not be baptized again Nor is it to be doubted saith that famous Divine John Forbes but that they are again to be baptized who before have only received a vain Washing and not the true Sacrament of Baptism Sir To baptize a Person a Believer again who was baptized before we say is sinful and unlawful But since yours is no Baptism but meer Rantism I need say no more to this and that 't is so I shall first prove from the proper genuine and literal Signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptiso that comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dip signifies mergo immergo submergo obruo item tingo quod fit immergendo that is to immerge plunge under over-whelm as also to dip which is done by plunging We grant in a less proper or more remote Sense because things that are said to be washed are commonly dipped or plunged all over in Water it is put for washing Luke 11.38 Heb. 9.10 Mark 7.4 You say pag. 52 as for the Derivative word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes it signifies to dip or plunge sometimes to wash or cleanse citing ver 9 10. Yet we say it no where signifies to sprinkle You know the Greeks have another Word to express Sprinkling viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rantizo as Heb. 9.19 and sprinkled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both the Book and the People 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Heb. 9.13 Sprinkling the Vnclean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 1 Pet. 1.2 And sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The like in many other Places And so that we dare modestly assert that no Greek Author of any Credit whether Heathenish or Christian has ever put Baptizing for Sprinkling or used those Words promiscuously for as in these Scriptures we have cited Heb. 9.13 19 21 c. 't is always translated Sprinkling So there is not one Place in Scripture wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rantizo is rendred to baptize nor is there one Scripture wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizo is rendred Sprinkling And whereas you say the word sometimes signifies Washing We say notwithstanding it does yet 't is such a Washing as is by Dipping or Plunging as I said before Thus Mr. Wilson in his Dictionary renders baptizo derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bapto ringo to dip or plunge into the Water and signifies saith he primarily such a kind of washing as is used in Bucks where Linen is plunged or dip'd though in a remote Sense he hints it signifies other kind of Washing You say Pag. 49. That we ought to distinguish betwixt that which is of the Essence of Baptism and that which only is accidental in Baptism the Word and Element say you are of the Essence of Baptism Answ We say with you that if Accidents or meer Accessories be wanting in Baptism yet there may be true Baptism notwithstanding but we assert that Dipping or Plunging belongs to the Thing Act or Essence of Baptism not an Accident but so essential that 't is no true Baptism if the Body is not dipped or plung'd into the Water therefore the Word and Element are not so the Essence of Baptism unless there be so much Water used as to cover the Body all over in it Rantizing is Rantizing and Baptizing is Baptizing they are two different things and the one will never be the other while the World stands And tho you dare affirm that the Child that is only Rantized i. e. Sprinkled is Baptized yet you cannot prove it and altho you do assert it and attempt to make it out yet a multitude of learned Writers and Criticks in the Greek Tongue do fully contradict you Scapula and Stephens two as great Masters of the Greek Tongue as most we have do tell you in their Lexicons that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mergo immergo item tingo quod fit immergendo inficere imbuere viz. to dip plunge overwhelm put under cover over to die 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 implieth a washing the whole Body Mincaeus in his Dictionary saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptiso to dip This Casaubon saith was the Rite of 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to dip as if it were to dye Colour and any Dyer will tell you if there is any small bit of Cloth not dipped it is not dyed Leigh in his Critica Sacra 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 Casaubon Bullinger Zanchy Spanhemius he saith withal that some would have it signify washing which sense Erasmus 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 Clothes 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 Mr. Daniel Rogers says That a Minister is to dip in Water the Party baptized as the meetest Act the word baptize 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 confirm that it
was Dipping If you would saith Dr. Du-Veil attend to the proper Signification of the word in the Synod of Celichyth 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 Acts Chap. 2. p. 76. The said learned Doctor saith in the same place the constant Practice of the universal Church till the time of Clem. 5. who was crowned Pope An. 1305. under whom first of all the second Synod of Ravenna approved the Abuse introduced 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 mark any one to be rightly baptized who is not plunged into the Water according to the Precept of Christ as we find in Sylvester Sguropulus Dr. Taylor saith The Custom of the Ancient Church was not Sprinkling but Immersion in pursuance of the sense of the word Baptizing in the Commandment and Example of our blessed Saviour Salmasius in his Notes of divers upon Sulpitius Severus saith That the word Baptizein signifies Immersion not Sprinkling Nor did the Ancients otherwise baptize than by single or treble Immersion 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 Avitabolis testify of the Asian Christians inhabiting Iburia 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 viz. 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 Roman Order published by the Writers concerning Ecclesiastical Ceremonies say the Presbyters enter into the Fountain within unto the Water and the Males are first baptized and then the Females Luther saith The Name of Baptism is a Greek word it may be turned a Dipping when we dip something in Water that it may be wholly covered with Water And although 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 Water they ought nevertheless to be dipt and presently drawn out again The Germans also call Baptism Tâ—â—ff from deepness which they call Tieff in their Tongue as if it were meer saith my Author that those be dipt deeply who are baptized John Bugenhagius Pomeranus both a Fellow and Successor in the Ministry of Luther at Wittenburgh whom Thuanus and Zanchius witness to have been a very moderate godly and learned Man affirms That he was desired to be a Witness at Hamburgh in the Year 1529. That when he had seen the Minister only sprinkle the Infant wrapped in Swathling-Cloaths on the top of the Head he was amazed because he neither had heard nor 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 sometime 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 hath crept into Hamburgh he was ignorant At length they did agree among themselves that the Judgment of Luther and of the Divines of Wittenburgh should be demanded about this Point Which thing being done Luther wrote back to Hamburgh That this Sprinkling was an Abuse which they ought to remove Thus Plunging was restored at Hamburgh yet is that Climate cooler than ours Mr. Joseph Mede saith That there was no such thing as Sprinkling or Rantism mark used in Baptism in the Apostles days nor many Ages after He had spoke more proper 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 absolutely 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 commanded her was that the thing or is it not another Act Even so 't is here you do not the thing you Rantize and Baptize none unless you dip them into the Water Chamier also saith The ancient 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. 3.1 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 Ancients called their Baptisterions or the Vessels containing their Baptismal-Water Columbethras viz. a Swimming or Diving-place 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 Matth. 28.20 say they It is true the first Baptism of which we read in Holy Writ was by 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 wter And when Jesus was dipp'd he came out of the Water And vers 6. Ende wierden van hemge doopt in de Jordan And were dipped of
him in Jordan Hence they call John the Baptist John the Dipper In vers 1. Ende in die dayen quam Jonnes de Dooper predikenn in de woeffijue van Judea In English thus In those days came John the Dipper preaching in the Wilderness of Judea Had our Translators translated the Greek word into our English Tongue as the Dutch have done it into theirs it would have been read in our Bible John the Dipper and for Baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. it would have been read Dipping them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and then the People would not have been deceived but they have not translated the Greek word at all but left it in its Original Language What difference is there between Baptism and the Greek Baptisma Ball in his Catechism doth not only say Faith was required of such who did desire Baptism but also that the Party baptized was washed by Dipping c. Your Church also in the Common-Prayer saith Dipping into the Water is the proper as I conceive signification of the Word To close with this I argue thus viz. Since our Saviour sent his Disciples to Teach and Baptize or Dip in the Name c. into all Nations viz. into Cold Countries as well as Hot and seeing Infants tender Bodies cannot bear Dipping without palpable danger of their Lives it follows clearly that they were none of the Subjects Christ commanded to be dipt in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit To conclude with this take one Argument viz. If the proper literal and genuine signification of the Greek word Baptizo is Dipping or to dip then Sprinkling is not Baptizing But the proper literal and genuine signification of the Greek word Baptizo is Dipping or to dip Ergo Sprinkling is not Baptizing CHAP. VIII Proving that to baptize is to dip or plunge the Body all over into the Water from the Practice of the Primitive Gospel-Days I Have shewed that John Baptist baptized in the River Jordan who was the first that received Commission to baptize And Diodate on Mat. 3. says He plunged them in Water Piscator also saith The ancient manner of Baptizing was that the whole Body was dipp'd into the Water So saith the Assembly in their Annotations Nay say I it had been a vain and needless thing for them to go to Rivers to baptize if it had been only to sprinkle a little Water on the Face for a quart of Water might have served to have rantized a great number And had Sprinkling or Rantizing been the Ordinance there is no reason left to conceive why they should go to Rivers nor would the Spirit of God have given that as the Reason why John baptized in Aenon near Salim viz. because there was much Water John 3.23 But you strive to contradict the Holy Ghost by making People believe there was not much Water in that place p. 59. Because the Original reads not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much Water but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Waters that is say you many Streams or Rivolets Answ What difference is there between much Water and many Waters If they were Streams and Rivolets though not deep yet if they were but a little while stopp'd with a Dam they would soon rise to be deep enough to swin in as Experience shews but 't is enough there he baptized saith the Holy Spirit for there was much Water or many Waters there for or be-because intimating plainly that the Ordinance could noâ— be administred with a little Water but that it required many Waters or much Water a great deal more than a Bason could hold or you hold in your Hand 2. But say you Sandy's Travels tells us that they were so shallow as not to reach above the â—â—kles Answ 1. Must we believe God's Word or a lying Traveller the Scripture saith there was much or many Waters and he says there was but a little 2. In some shallow Rivolets we daily see that in some Places the Water is deep and might it not be so in that and your Traveller might not so curiously search or examine the Matter 3. Or might there not be a great Confluence of Water then as Dr. Hammond words it and yet but little or shallow Water now or when Sandys was there Time alters Rivers as well as other Things But for your seeking after this manner to contradict the Sacred Text to defend your childish Practice of Rantism you deserve greatly to be blamed Take this Argument If the Holy Ghost gives it as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water Then a little Water will not serve to baptize in But the Holy Ghost gives this as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water therefore a little Water will not serve to baptize in 2. But to proceed Mark 1.9 't is said Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan Now saith a Learned Man on the Place it had been nonsense for St. Mark to say that Jesus was baptized in Jordan if it had been sprinkled because the Greek reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Jordan Could Jesus be said to be sprinkled into the River Jordan 't is proper to say he was dipp'd into Jordan and that is and was the Act and nothing else be sure 3. They went down both into the 〈◊〉 both Philip and the Eunuch Acts 8. What 〈◊〉 had there been for them so to have done had Baptism been Sprinkling Sure Philâ—â— would not have put that Noble Person who was a Man of great Authority under Candace Queen of the Ethiopians to that great trouble to come out of his Chariot if to sprinkle a little Water on his Face might have done and to go down into the Water and dip him sure Philip would on this occasion have dispensed with Immersion and let Aspersion or Rantism have served considering he was a great Person and on a Journey he might have fetch'd a little Water in his Hand or otherwise and have sprinkled him in his Chariot as some Ministers do now in their publick Places of Worship And thus you and they make void the Command of Christ by your Traditions to the abuse of Christian-Baptism and reproach of us that keep to his Sacred Institution Mr. Daniel Rogers a most worthy Writer says in a Treatise of his It ought to be the Churches part to cleave to the Institution which is Dipping especially it being not left Arbitrary by our Church to the Discretion of the Minister but required to Dip or Dive And further saith That he betrays the Church whose Minister he is to a disorder'd Error if he cleave not to the Institution O what abundance of the Betrayers of the Truth and of Churches too have we in these as well as in former Days How little is the Institution of Christ or Practice of
the Primitive Churches minded by many good Men Where is the Spirit of Reformation And doubtless that famous Author and learned Critick in the Greek Tongue Casaubon was in the Right take his words I doubt not saith he but contrary to our Church's Intention this Error having once crept in is maintained still by the carnal Ease of such as looking more at themselves than at God stretch the Liberty of the Church in this case deeper and further than either the Church her self would or the solemness of this Sacrament may well and safely admit Afterwards he saith I confess my self unconvinced by Demonstrations of Scripture for Infants Sprinkling The truth is the Church gave too great Liberty she had no Power to alter in the least Matter but to have kept exactly to the Institution She says Dipping or Sprinkling that spoils all that Addition gives encouragement Who will Dip the Person that can believe the Church that Sprinkling may serve And O how hard is it to retract an Error which hath been so long and so generally received especially when carnal Ease and Profit attends the keeping of it up and also when the true way of Baptizing is reproached and look'd upon to be so contemptible a Practice and those who own it and dare not act otherwise vilified and reproached by such as you with the scutillous Name of Anabaptist c. although we are as much against Rebaptizing as any People in the World can be The Learned Cajetan upon Matth. 3.5 saith Christ ascended out of the Water therefore Christ was baptized by John not by sprinkling or pouring Water upon him but by Immersion that is by Dipping or Plunging into the Water Moreover Musculus on Matth. 3. calls Baptism Dipping and saith the Parties baptized were dipp'd not sprinkled To close with this take one Argument If the Baptizer and the Baptized in the Days of Christ and his Apostles wenâ— both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipp'd then is Baptism not Sprinkling but Dipping But the Baptizer and the Baptized in the Days of Christ and his Apostles went both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipp'd Ergo Baptism is not Sprinkling but Dipping CHAP. IX 〈◊〉 Baptism is Dipping Plunging or Burying of the whole Body in Water in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost from the Spiritual signification of Baptism AS touching your last five Arguments against Rebaptizing I see no ground to except against what you say there only I shall take a brief view here of your six General Propositions p. 49. And as to you first I have and shall yet further make it appear that Dipping is not an Accident but an essential part of Baptism viz. 't is no Baptism at all if not done by Immersion or Dipping 2 ly Whereas you say the way or manner of applying Water is not positively determined in the Holy Scripture cannot be gathered either from the signification of the Word or from the significancy of the Ceremony Answ This as to the first part viz. as to the signification of the Greek word we have fully confuted and as to the significancy of the Ordinance we shall forthwith in this Chapter make most evidently appear 3 ly You say There is a probability that Baptism was administred in the Apostles Times by Immersion or Dipping so there is likewise a probability that it was done by Aspersion or Sprinkling Answ We have and shall yet further prove that there is not the least probability that in the Apostles time Baptism was ever administred by Aspersion but by Immersion You confess in hot Countries it was done by dipping and that that Country where they baptized 〈◊〉 which we read was a hot Country so that 〈◊〉 â—hat Reason by your own Argument they 〈◊〉 by Immersion and not by Aspersion 4 thly You say you do not oppose the Lawfulness of Dipping in some cases but the Necessity of Dipping in all cases Answ We have and shall prove the necessity of Dipping in all cases and that 't is no baptism at all if not so done let your Church say what she pleases 5 thly You say that none ought to put a Divine Institution upon any Rite at their own â—â—easure when it is in its own nature indifferent and consequently lay such stress upon dipping as to pronounce the Baptism of all the Reformed Churches throughout the World null and void ought to prove it an unchangable Rite Answ This makes against your self and all Pedo-baptists in the World How dare you change a Divine Institution of Jesus Christ change his Law and holy Ordinance and substitute another thing in its stead and room And if the Laws and Institutions of Christ in their own nature are not unchangeable what may not Men do and yet be blameless this opens a door to make all Christ's Institutions null and void But Sir we have shewed in this Treatise that for 1300 Years in most parts of the World Immersion was only used and some learned Pedo-Baptists have shewed that Rantism is utterly to be rejected as an Innovation and an insignificant Ceremony 6 thly That in the Sacraments it is not the Quantity of Elements but the Significancy of them that ought to be attended in Circumcision it was not the Quantity of Flesh cut off so much as the Signification of it c. Answ In the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper we grant 't is not the Quantity of Bread and Wine is to be observed if so be it be administred in that order and manner Christ hath ordained viz. to represent his Body broken and his Blood poured forth The like we will say also in Baptism we need not go where there is more Water than what will serve to baptize or dip the Person all over so that it may represent the Burial and Resurection of Christ which was the very thing it was appointed to hold forth or represent when administred 2. Should the People of Israel as I have shewed in Circumcision only have cut a little bit of the fore-skin of the Flesh and not round or quite off or only have paired off the Nails of the Childrens Fingers with a little Skin with it would that have answered the Mind of God in that Rite or they have been born with in pleading it might as well answer Circumcision in Signification The Vanity and Sinfulness of this Assertion you will see fully in this Chapter laid open and detected But I shall now proceed to your first Argument against Dipping Say you such an Application of Water in the Administration of Baptism as the Spirit of God in Scripture expresly calls baptizing is lawful and sufficient to the use in Baptism But sprinkling or pouring Water upon the Party baptized without Dipping is by the Spirit of God in divers Scriptures expresly called baptizing Therefore it is lawful and sufficient and Dipping is not necessary Answ
That the primary literal proper and genuine Signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to dip we have abundantly proved by a great Cloud of learned Witnesses and this indeed I see you dare not deny saying in Pag. 51. that the Primitive Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to dye or give a new Colour All know that which is dyed in the Dyers Fat is dipped all over but whereas you say it signifies also sometimes to wash we have shewed 't is no other washing than is by a total dipping or plunging the Thing or Person all over in Water And therefore now to proceed I shall further prove Baptism is no other Act but Dipping or burying the Body under the Water You say Pag. 52. We read of divers Washings under the Law in the Original it is divers Baptisms Now say you what were those Washings but Sprinklings no Persons were dipp'd in Blood c. Answ We deny 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 positively affirms on Levit. 11.31 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 Cloaths 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 they are saith he unclean and their washing profiteth them not Maim in Mikvaoth What can be a more full Confutation of what you affirm But Sir where we read of sprinkling of Blood the word is not there baptizing And now I shall proceed further to prove that Baptism or baptizing is not Sprinkling but Dipping or plunging into the Water in the Name of the Father c. and besides all we have already said clearly make this appearâ—â—rom the spiritual Signification thereof or what in a lively Figure or Symbol is held forth thereby And first to proceed let it be in the fear of God considered that as the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper doth in a lively Figure represent the breaking of Christ's Body and the pouring forth of his precious Blood so and in like manner the Sacrament of Baptism doth signify and hold forth the Death Burial and Resurrection of the same Lord Jesus Christ and the holding forth and confirming of these two great Gospel-Truths was doubtless the end of our Saviour in ordaining both these Gospel-Ordinances that so Christ crucified with his Burial and Resurrection might not only in the Ministry of the Word be preach'd to the hearing of our Ears but by these two Institutions be also preach'd as it were to the seeing of our Eyes And that Baptism doth hold forth this together with our Death unto Sin and rising again to walk in newness of Life I shall prove in the next place and that First From express places of Scripture Secondly By the Consent Agreement and Arguments of a Cloud of Witnesses both Ancient 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 Buriâ—â— 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 were baptized into Christ's Death and therefore must die to Sin and live a neâ— 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 into 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 in their Annotations on this Text of Scripture say likewise thus viz. In this Phrase the Apostle seems to allude to the ancient manner of baptizing which was 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 three-fold 1. Immersion into the Water 2. Abiding under the Water 3. A Resurrection out of the Water The Form of Baptism viz. external and essential is no other than the Analogical Proportion which the Signs keep with the things signified thereby for the Properties of the Water washing away the Defilements of the Body does in a most suitable Similitude set forth the Efficacy of Christ's Blood in blotting out of Sin so diping 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 which lying in the sealed or guarded Sepulchre he was accounted as one dead Rising out of the Water 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 and to go on in a new Life Thus far Tilenus 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 those 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 Water 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 Water is that wherein the Body is plunged to wash away all Sin there all Sin saith he is 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 drowned 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 where 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 to any Men or Church a Dispensation to change his Laws and Ordinances or make them void by their Traditions or to set up their Post by his Post How doth God complain by the Prophet against his People of Old for presuming to change his Laws in 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 Altars should be made of Earth or rough Stone But in Isa 65.3 he reproves their horrid Transgression and Disobedience in acting contrary to his express Institution A People saith God that provoke me to Anger continually to my Face that sacrificeth in Gardens and burn 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 Alas you know not how you hereby provoke God although 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 further Witnesses against your Practice Daille on the Fathers saith That it was a Custom heretofore in the ancient Church to plunge those they baptized over Head and Ears in the Water as saith he Tertullian in his third Book De Cor. Mil. Cyprian in his seventh Ep. p. 211. c. and others testify Dr. Cave saith That the Party baptized was wholly immerged or put under the Water 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 Water his abiding under the Water and his rising up again thereby representing Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection And in our Conformity thereunto 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 puting 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 entring into a State of Death or Mortification like as Christ remained for some time under the State or Power of Death therefore it is said as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his Death c. And then by Emersion or rising up out of the Water is signified his entring 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 We are said saith Paraeus 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 Death and Burial Against all these Testimonies and multitudes more of the best and most learned Writers and plain Scriptures you in pag. 52. bring in your second Argument against Dipping Arg. 2. If Baptism administred by pouring Water on the Face represents the whole Person doth answer the Use and End of Baptism as well as when administred by Dipping or Plunging then Dipping is not essentially and absolutely necessary in the Act of baptizing But the one answers the Use and End of Baptism as well as the other therefore the one cannot be more necessary than the other What is the Use and End of Baptism but to represent to our Minds the Effusion of Christ's Blood for to take away the Guilt of Sin and the pouring forth of the Holy Spirit for the purging away the Filth of it Now say you 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 ad administred by Sprinkling than by Dipping If say you the inward and spiritual Grace signified by Baptism be more lively represented by Sprinkling than by Dipping then surely Sprinkling is not only as lawful but more expedient than Dipping but the
inward and spiritual Grace signified by Baptism to wit the cleansing of 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 that Mercy of Sanctification by this Action Ezek. 36.25 Then will I sprinkâ—â— clean Water upon you and ye shall be clean c. Answ 1. By denying your minor Proposition Sprinkling doth not answer the Use and End of Baptism as what I have said and produced by the Testimony of the Scripture and almost all learned Men both ancient Fathers and modern Divines fully shews the contrary 2. 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 Will you confound the Use and End of one Sacrament with the other to maintain your own Innovation and Abuse of Christ's Holy Baptism 3. Might not the Jews who instead of making Altars of Gold of Stone made them Altars of Brick say that Altars of Brick might serve as well to answer the Vse 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 Almighty God They provoke me continually to my Face Also might not others argue thus about the Sacrament of the Supper viz. What need we have Wine If we use Mum or some other red Liqour instead of the Fruit of the Grape it will answer the Use and End of that Sacrament as well as Wine O! whither would this lead us 4. We utterly deny that Baptism was ordained 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 Word But by the way let the Reader observe how you go from Sprinkling to plead for pouring Water 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 Word 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 wonderful significant they are and yet all their Use and Expediency of them were the Contrivances of their own wicked Hearts And I must tell you that they prove what they do and say of those Sacraments as well as you do 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 speak of Sprinkling viz. 't is not only lawful but more expedient than Dipping p. 55. And hereby you seem to teach God Wisdom or to magnify yours above his Be astonished O Heavens and be thou horribly amazed O Earth Was ever any Man 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 Knatchbul 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. 3.20 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 washing away of Sin although it be thus often-times 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 Sepulcher to a new Life and therefore not unaptly called by Philo the Captain of the New Creation And the Whales Belly out 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 is 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 these 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 in Water 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 all 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 and of your Church too 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 ancient 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 Arch-Bishop of York hath lately delivered in a Sermon preached before the Queen's Majesty on Easter-day March 27 1692. And this in antient times was taught every Christian saith he in and by his Baptism When ever 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 plunged 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 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 die and 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 godly Life Also Dr. Sherlock Dean of St. Pauls 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 warry Grave a new-born Creature And unto these let me add what the Reverend Dr. Tillotson the present Arch-Bishop of Canterbury hath wrote speaking of the same Text Rom. 6.3 4. Anciently saith he those who were baptized put off their Garments which signified the putting off the Body of Sin and were immers'd 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 that 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 no nor those learned Prelates and Doctors of your own Church who 〈…〉 living but contrary to the nature and tendeâ—â—y 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 or 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 Resorrection of Jesus Christ and not any of those things you affirm as your own Concein without the Testimony of any learned or approved 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 Fingerâ— of their Male Infants and have called that Circumcision as you may call sprinkling or pouring a little Water Baptism But may be you will say in Circumcision they were 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
beginning of the Practice of it you hereby contradict what you have said about those Jewish Baptisms which you say were long in use before our Saviour's time and from hence he spoke so little of Infant-Baptism if it were so how was this in the Infancy of Baptism 3. Then was the Ordinance in its Beauty and Primitive Purity indeed in its Virgin Glory and it was soon after the Apostles time corrupted as well as other Truths were We ought to go to the Original Copy to the Primitive or first Institution and Practice Is not Christ's Precept our only Rule and his own Practice our sure and certain Pattern VVere not the Saints to keep the Ordinances and commanded so to do as they were first delivered to them As to the Situation of the River Jordan is a Figment 't is not said he came up from the VVater but that he came up out of the Water therefore had been in it 4. As to what you say that John baptized in Aenon because there was much Water that the word signifies many Waters I have answered that already but take one word or two more here True the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies many Waters but not little Rivolets but rather the tumultuousness and raging of the Seas which fully signifies the abundance and confluence of Waters contrary to what you affirm See Rev. 14.2 where you have the same original words so Rev. 19.6 5. And lastly as to your Arguments against re-baptizing I pass them over you might have saved your self that Pains for we as I told you before are as much against re-baptizing as you can be or for any to renounce their true Baptism your Arguments therefore in that are good And now from the whole take two 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 Subiects 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 â—â—wness of Life therefore Infants are not the Subjects thereof 4. There is yet one Proof further to make it yet clearer that Baptism is Immersion 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 Sin wherein the Fathers were buâ—â—ed 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 Persons going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea the great Receptable 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 seemed 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 Knatchbul 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 though 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 5. And lastly That Baptism is Dipping or Plunging or a being buried in the Water appears by those metaphorical Baptisms we read of which are two-fold 1 st The Baptism of the Holy Spirit 2 dly The Baptism of Afflictions 1. Saith John 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 Effusion 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 seemed like a Fish-Pond because it was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost 2. We read of the Baptism of Afflictions I have a Baptism to be baptized with and how am I straitned till it be accomplished From the literal Signification of the word baptizo immergo 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 deep Waters Hence great Afflictions are called Waves Thy Waves 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 Signification of the Greek word baptizâ— which signifies to dip then Sprinkling is not baptizing but thâ— former is true Ergo Sprinkling is not baptizing CHAP. X. Containing some brief practical Vse of the whole with seasonable Counsel to Parents c. 1. FRom hence I infer that those who have only been sprinkled or
erroneous Principles into the World as must be own'd 〈◊〉 acknowledged by all There 's more cause to â—earâ—tis your practice of â—â—â—tizing of Infants might lead them to disown Water-Baptism because they can find no mention of any such Practice in the Scripture May not they be miâ—â—ed to deny any Water-Baptism at all since they see such a multitude to assert that to be Christ's Ordinance which the Scripture is â—holly silent about But to proceed in Pag. 2. you say The great Controversy between you and us liâ— in your second Proposition which is this viz. Prop. 2. That not only those who do actually prosess Faith in Jesus Christ but the Infants of such Professors may and ought to be baptized Answ Reader observe that Mr. Burkitt does grant that such who do actually profess Faith may nay ought to be baptized It appears he â—wns our practice of baptizing Adult Person who actually profess-Faith in Jesus Christ But he says more i. e. Not only such Persons may and ought to be baptized but the Infants of such who profess Faith also And to prove this hold Assertion he lays down this Hypothâ—tical Syllogisâ— viz. If the Infants of the Jews were partakers of Ciâ—cumcision the Infants of Christians may and ought to partake of Baptism But the Jewish Infants were partakers of Circâ—mcision therefore Christian Infants may and ought to partake of Baptism Answ Sir must we believe it is so because you speak and write it You give no proof of your 〈◊〉 Proposition which is utterly denied Might not I state another Argument as good as yours nay may be better yet both prove nothing I argue thus 1. If the Jewish Infants had Right to the Possession of the Land of Canaan the Infants of Christiâ—â—s have a Right to the Possession of the Land of Canaan But the former is true Ergo. And if this were so let us make another holy War aâ—d take possession of it for our Children 2. Take a second Argument of the like nature with yours viz. If all the Sons of the Priests of God under the Law had an undeniable Right to the Priesthood and many other external Priviledges then the Sons of the Ministers of Christ have a Right to the Ministry under the Gospel and many other external Priviledges But the former is true Ergo. Ob. Your Logick will do you no good if you Argue no better I must tell you that which gave the Male Infants of the Jews a Right to Circumcision was not their bare being the Infants of the Jews not because their Infants weâ—â— in that legâ—l Coveâ—ant with their Parents but rather the express and positive Command of God to Abraham for evident it is no Godly Marâ—â— Children before 〈◊〉 days had any Right to be Circumcised And had Abraham or the Jews Circumcised their 〈◊〉 Infants without such a Commission or Command from God â—hey had no doubt been guilty of Will-worship 〈◊〉 and in like mâ—nner If God 〈…〉 required Christians to 〈…〉 Infants 〈…〉 be no Precept nor Exampâ—e 〈…〉 the Holy Biblâ— it must 〈…〉 worship in them so to 〈◊〉 But God 〈…〉 or required Christians to Baptize their Infants there is no 〈◊〉 nor Example for any such Practice 〈◊〉 all the Holy Bible Ergo it is Willâ—worship in them so to do I shall proceed to your second 〈◊〉 viz. If Baptism suceeds in the room of Câ—rcuâ—cision 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 〈◊〉 their Children were Circumcised 〈◊〉 so may 〈◊〉 be Baptized now Answ 1. I answer There is no necessity that a Gospel Ordinance must succeed in the 〈◊〉 of a Legal or Jewish Ordinance therefore I deny your Mâ—â—â—r What if 〈◊〉 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 Riâ—es Precepts and Ordinances as there were Jewish Rites Precepts and Ordinances which as oâ—â— observes were more than three hundred 2. Besides as Dr. Taylor observes If Baptism came in the room of Circumcision you 〈◊〉 baptize your Children always on the eighth day and you must not baptize your Female Infants at all because none but Male Infants were then circumcised 3. And whereas you say 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 Priviledges 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 Fore-skin 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 sucâ— 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 Nationâ— 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 〈◊〉 were circumcised needed not to be baptized because sealed before with the same seal of that which signified the same thing but Christ and all his Apostles and many others who were circumcised were nevertheless baptized 12. 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 Scythian Bond and Frâ—e are all one in Christ Jesus Therefore there are invers Disparities and different Significations between Circumcision and Baptism â— And
new Device the Nails being a sort of Excrement they might say signified the taking away the Filth of Sin or Corruption of Nature better than the great Mysteries signified by Baptism or Dipping can be represented by Sprinkling or Pouring Furthermore they might possibly plead the same Pretences you do viz. the cutting off the Foreskin of the Flesh put the Infants to great Pain nay may be they might fancy it would cost them their Lives nay call it Murder and therefore let pairing off their Nails serve as you it seems fear Dipping would endanger the Lives of Infants and therefore make Sprinkling to serve instead thereof But to proceed 2. I am in a-maze to see these Men speak so fully and clearly to this glorious Truth i. e. that the great thing Christ ordained Baptism to represent is his Death Burial and Resurrection together with the baptized Person 's Death to Sin and his rising again to walk in newness of Life that both those shameful Abuses in your Church and among other Churches also are not rectified viz. 1 st That Sprinkling which doth not cannot answer or represent those Gospel-Mysteries should not be rejected 2 dly That Infants should be once deemed the proper Subjects of Baptism sith nothing of a Death to Sin nor rising again to walk in newness of Life can appear in them For as the Learned observe Baptism is a Symbol of present not of future Regeneration 't is an outward Sign of that inward Death unto Sin which the Party baptized passed under then or ought to have done when or before he is baptized They then professed themselves to be dead to Sin i. e. even when they were buried with Christ in their Baptism for the Argument of the Apostle lies in that respect How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein knowing that so many of us who have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his Death both in Sign and Signification And therefore as Dr. Sherlock says rising out of that watry Grave a new-born Creature denotes not only what they should be hereafter but what they were actually at that time So that as this Text and Arguments drawn therefrom utterly condemn Sprinkling as not being Christ's Baptism so it excludes Infants from being the Subjects thereof because in them appears no such Death to Sin nor can they be said to come out of that watry Grave as new-born Creatures To these Testimonies I shall only add one or two more and pass to your Obiections See that most learned Anonymous French Protestant Writer in his Answer to the famous Bishop of Meaux 'T is most certain saith he that Baptism hath not hitherto been administred otherwise than by Sprinkling by the most of Protestants But truly this Sprinkling is an Abuse This Custom which without an accurate Examination they have retained from the Romish Church in like manner as many other things makes their Baptism very defective It corrupteth its Institution and ancient Use and that nearness of Similitude which is needful should be betwixt it and Faith Repentance and Regeneration This Reflection of Mr. Bossuet deserveth to be seriously considered to wit saith he that this Use of Plunging hath continued for the space of a whole thousand and three hundred Years hence we may understand that we did not carefully as it was meet examine things which we have received from the Roman Church Calvin saith That Baptism is a form or way of Burial and none but such as are already dead to Sin or have repented from dead Works are to be buried 1. From whose words I note that Sprinkling is not the Form of Baptism because not the Form of a Burial 2. That Infants are not the true Subjects of Baptism because not such as are already dead to Sin or have repented from dead Works and indeed as they are not able they are not required so to do by Christ The last Author I shall quote is Learned Zanchy There are two parts saith he in Regeneration Mortification and Vivification that is called a Burial with Christ this a Resurrection with Christ The Sacrament of both these is Baptism in which we are overwhelmed or buried and after that do come forth and rise again It may not be said Truly but Sacramentally of all that are baptized that they are buried with Christ and raised with him but only of such as have true Faith Now we may appeal to all the World whether Zanchy and all the rest do not clearly and evidently testify the same thing that we assert viz. That Baptism is and can be no other Act than Immersion or Dipping since Sprinkling all must confess doth not represent in a lively Figure the Burial and Resurrection of Christ nor our dying or being dead to Sin and vivification to newness of Life saith he Sacramentally i. e. Analogically in respect of the near resemblance between Baptism and a Death and Resurrection And this I say cannot be said of them that are sprinkled only for if in respect of Mortification and Vivification they may be denominated buried and raised with Christ which cannot be said of Infants yet that outward Rite or Sign cannot denominate them so much as Sacramentally buried and raised with Christ for there is not so much as any likeness of such things in it but in true Baptism viz. total dipping the Body in Water and raising it again it is in a lively Figure held forth to our very sight And as Zanchy saith It cannot be said of all nor indeed of any that they are 〈◊〉 sacramentally dead buried and risen with Christ but only of such as have true Faith Therefore Infants are excluded by his own Argument And thus your first and second Arguments against â—ipping are fully answered in the 52 d and 53 d pages of your Book Your third Argument or Objection against Dipping is this viz. If Dipping were essentially and absolutely necessary in Baptism then in all the Baptism recorded in Scripture we should meet with full Proof or at least with fair Probability that the Parties Baptized were all Dipped But say you in several Instances of Baptized Persons recorded in Scripture we meet with no such Proof but the contrary Ergo c. The Textâ— you cite are first Acts 9.18 19. That Paul was baptized in his Lodgings being sick and weak c. Answ 1. Both these things you affirm without any Ground or Authority from the Text. For first the Text does not say he was baptized in his Lodgings therefore you strive to make the Scripture speak what it doth not See Reader the 18 th Verse and you may find Mr. Burkit speaks an Untruth or that which the Text says not 2. 'T is false also in that you say he was sick or weak tho he might be somewhat weakened and amazed by the good Hand of God upon him But if he had been weak yet when God commanded him to be baptized or dipp'd in Water In the
Name of the Father c. he had no cause to fear or doubt of any Harm 3. I have known sickly and weak Persons baptized in this colâ— Climate and yet received not the least hurt thereby Your second Text is Acts 16.33 where 't is said The Jaylor was baptized the same Hour of the Night and Paul newly washed of his Sores by his Stripes Answ This is such silly reasoning that 't is not worth naming He was not so sore but he might go into the Water to baptize the Jaylor and those in his House And though in the same Hour of the Night it was done also What of that might there not be a River or Pond near his House Sir this must be believed since Baptism is Immersion and you are filled with Prejudice and Incredulity if you believe it not 3. The other Text is that of 3000 baptized in the same day Acts 2.41 Can any Body believe in or near Jerusalem that great City there was not Water enough to baptize so many Persons And could not the twelve Apostles and the seventy Disciples dip more than 3000 Persons in one day Sir 't is enough the Holy Ghost says they were baptized that is Dipped not Rantized therefore you do but go about to contradict the Holy Spirit and fight with your own Shadow Your fourth Argument against the Necessity Dipping is taken from the difficulty of the thing in some Countries in regard they have not you say scarce Water enough to drink not a River or Brook in many miles 2. In regard of the danger of the thing doubtless say you our Saviour who prefers Mercy before Sacrifice allows the Administration of the Ordinance in such a way as is consistent with his Peoples Lives which must in some Countries especially at some Seasons of the Year be in extream danger c. Mentioning an Act made by the Senate at 〈◊〉 in Switzerland That if any Anabaptist dipp'd any of their People he should be punish'd with drowning Answ 1. You should have told us what Countries they are who have not Water enough to baptize People in I know generally 't is said by Writers that those Countries that are without Water are unhabitable 2. But if they have Rivers or Ponds though not in a 〈…〉 no doubt such who are convinced 't is their Duty to be baptized by Christ's Commission would never stick at their labour to go forty or fifty Miles to have it done for 't is said by some Writers our Saviour went above forty Miles to be baptized of John in the River Jordan 3. As to the Danger we say what you affirm is â—â—lse 〈◊〉 thousands in this Nation by their own Experience and Knowledg can justify there is no Danger at all attending the Dipping or Baptizing the Adult who profess Faith in Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 although it be done in the sharpest or coldest Season of the Year many thousands of Persons of both Sexes and some ancient others weak and sickly have been baptized in very cold Weather and yet we do challenge all the World to bring an Instance of any Harm any one Person ever received thereby And since the Bodies of Infants cannot bear it 't is a good Argument they were not the Subjects Christ intended c. 4. Might not the Jews have pleaded for such a kind of Circumcision as I mentioned before as the pairing the Nails of their Childrens Fingers and not to cut the Foreskin of their Flesh with the same Argument you speak of viz. God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice for you know who said A bloody Husband thou art to me because of this Circumcision 5. May be there were such wicked Men at Zurick in Switzerland who might make such an Act That such who baptized People should be drown'd Answ What then we have had as bad Acts here also in England or worse who made an Act That those who held such Doctrine which they call'd Heresy should be burn'd And others of later Date That such who assembled together above the number of Five to Preach or Pray should be Fined Imprisoned or their Goods taken away 'T is no marvel to hear of such a Law wicked Men always hated Christ's Truth and People Your fifth Argument against Dipping is a terrible one indeed if true viz. Because it has a tendency towards the breach of the 6 th and 7 th Commandment Thou shalt not Kill Thou shalt not commit Adultery You positively assert That Baptism by Dipping of some Persons and in some Places may expose to all those Hazards and infallibly destroy and make an end of thousands Answ As to the Sin of Murder what I have now said it appears it has no tendency to that and therefore you shew a most unjust and malicious Spirit against Christ's Sacred Institution by what you speak here not one Soul was ever destroyed thereby that ever you heard of or I either True should you baptize Infants who are not the Subjects you may fear it might destroy them indeed and it would be a presumptuous Act so to do because not commanded but you may be sure God will own his own Ordinance And us to what you speak concerning Adultery that shews the like envious bitter and vile Temper who do you charge can't you take a Woman by the Hand without having unclean Thoughts in your Heart Those whom we baptize have decent Clothes upon them Therefore this Practice of ours according to our Saviour's Institution cannot endanger our own nor our Neighbour's Chastity as your slanderous Pen says Pag. 56. we performing the Ordinance with all Gravity and Modesty imaginable before many Witnesses But then say you the Clothes are baptized What then were not Grave-Clothes always buried with the Person that was laid in the Grave Or doth it follow because the Clothes were buried the Body of the Man or Woman was not buried also If you pour Water on the Face of a Child the good Women will tell you you will baptize the Child's fine Clothes also nay have you never sprinkled or rantized the Childrens fine Clothes or Dresses when you as you call it have baptized them But who do you by arguing thus reflect upon and reproach is it not the holy and ever blessed Jesus who gave forth the Law i. e. to dip Believers or to plunge them in Water in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and do you not acknowledg in the Primitive Times and in hot Countries Baptism was done by Dipping Why then pray consider do you think they were in those times baptized naked if so may you not charge them with the Sin of Adultery as you do in a wicked and ungodly manner charge us We read of Women in the Scripturâ— who were baptized that is as we have proved dipped Therefore Sir there is no need to endeavour further to prove they were dipped for if the Word had been truly translated according to the literal genuine and proper
more nor with any who are of your Spirit but if you write again let it be in Love and not in Wrath not hard Words but hard Arguments and you will not offend your abused Friend and Servant who wishes well to your Soul John Tredwel Preston-Place April 30 1692. A Certificate under the Hands of several sober and impartial Persons WHereas Mr. Burkit of Mildin in the County of Suffolk hath in his late Book called An argumentative and practical Discourse of Infant-Baptism very unjustly reproached the People called Anabaptists and particularly Mr. John Tredwell Preacher of God's Word declaring that he the said Tredwell hath lately at Kittle-Baston in the said County of Suffolk baptized several Persons in a nasty Horse-pond into which the Filth of the adjacent Stable occasionally flows and that the People baptized in the said Pond came forth with much Mud and Filthiness upon them c. We whose Names are hereunto subscribed do solemnly certify and declare to the whole World that those Reports and Assertions of the said Mr. Burkit are uttâ—rly and notoriously false for we taking a strict View of the said Pond and Stable find the Dung or Filth of the said Stable runs the quite contrary way from the Pond into the Road. Moreover we solemnly certify and declare that the Persons who were baptized in the said Pond came forth without the least Speck or Spot of Dirt or Filth upon their Clothes the Water being clean In witness whereof we have set our Hands this 3d Day of May 1692. John Tyril sen Gent. Baptists William Brown Not Bapt. Samuel Denny David Sare jun. Thomas Cable Thomas Game William Steward William Boram Thomas We le Thomas Boss  John Noble THE EPISTLE TO THE READER Christian Reader IT grieves and afflicts my very Soul to see such Strifes Animosities and Bitterness of Spirit amongst Christians because of that Difference there is amongst us in respect of some Truths of Jesus Christ in a time when we are all threatned by the common Enemy I am afraid it is the Fore-runner of a dismal Hour which is coming upon us But indeed of all who have of late come forth against us called Anabaptists none have shewed a worser Spirit than this Mr. Burkit who writes himself Rector of Mildin in Suffolk and that which troubles me the more is what I have lately heard by a worthy Gentleman concerning him i. e. That he is look'd upon as a sober Person and one also well affected to the present Government would all his Brethren in that respect were like-minded But in this Attempt of his I know not what he aims at Should we not all unite together in Love and Affection and strive to promote Peace and Concord and not tear one another in pieces after this manner I am sure this cannot tend to the Honour of God which he has done nor to the Service of the Church or State but we have been provoked by him to vindicate our selves and therefore none who are unprejudiced can blame us Should we suffer our selves to be loaded with Reproach and Infamy and not endeavour in a just way to clear our selves and that Truth of Christ we are so well established in from the certain Testimony of the sacred Scripture and must we be exposed for making God's Word our only Rule herein as a corrupt and erronious sort of People because we affirm from thence Believers only are the true Subjects of Baptism and that Baptizing is Dipping and not Rantising especially since 't is well known in all the Articles of Religion we are acknowledged to be sound and orthodox and that by our Adversâ—ries themselves only this is the out-cry you deny Infant-Baptism The reason of which Reader thou wilt see if thou dost but weigh well what is said in the ensuing Treatise And now to you my Brethren who own this despised Truth of Christ viz. The Baptism of Believers let me give you one Caution i. e. Take heed you are not ashamed of Christ or to own his holy Appointment or his Servants because reproached by ill Men or others through undue Prejudice left Christ be ashamed of you when he comes at the last Day in the Glory of the Father with all his holy Angels Reader there are two things I would desire thee to note First That I have repeated some of my Answers to Mr. Burkit often partly because he repeats the same Arguments and partly because I would indeavour to make it clearly to appear that many or most of his Arguments he brings to prove Infants ought to be baptized do as fully and as apparently tend to prove Infants ought to receive the Lord's Supper therefore I have drawn almost upon every like Occasion the same Inferences for that as he hath for the other which I intreat you to consider well of Secondly Whereas you will find both Hebrew Greek Latin German Dutch as well as English made use of other more or less in the insuing Answer I would not have you think I understand all those Languages but I have had the Assiâ—tance of a Learned Person tho in that case only who is my Friend and Acquaintance that so the Work might the more fully and effectually be done I 'll say no more but leave it to the Blessing of God and thy serious Examination and remain yours in the Lord's Service in the Work of the Gospel Benjamin Keach From my House near Horsly-down Southwark May 12 1692. THE Rector Rectified and Corrected OR Infant-Baptism Unlawful CHAP. I. Disproving the Arguments for Infant-Baptism taken from Circumcision With several Arguments proving the Covenant of Circumcision no Gospel-Covenant Confuting also the Arguments for infant-Infant-Baptism from the pretended jewish-Jewish-Baptism AS to you Six Propositions I shall begin with the first and so speak to them in order Proposition I. Your first is this viz. That Baptism by Water is a Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Jesus Christ for the solemn admission of the Party baptized into the visible Church and to be a Sign and Seal unto them of the Covenant of Grace Answ You and I are thus far agreed save only I deny that Baptism is any where in God's Word called a Seal of the Covenant of Grace for if it was then all Persons baptized have all the Blessings of the Covenant of Grace made sure to them I know no other Seal of the Covenant of Grace but the Holy Spirit I mean that seals those Covenant-Blessings and Spiritual Priviledges to our Souls see Ephes 1. 13 14. Chap. 4.30 Whereas you say the Quakers who disown any Baptism in Water were once our Proselytes is not true of the greatest part of them tho some few of them might depart from that Faith and Profession we are of Many others of them you cannot be ignorant come from you and some from the Presbyterians c. Nor could our Practice of baptizing none but Believers or such who make a Profession of Faith midwive their evil and
what tho we deny not but that Circumcision was then the inâ—â—lating 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 the 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 not only those who by the express Command of God are required to be baptized and they are only such who believe or make a Profession of their Faith Sir Precepts that are merely 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 Legislator and in all Cases and Circumstances we must keep to the express words of the Institution we must venture to do no more nor no less nor do any thing in any other manner than God hath commanded as appears in Nadab and Abâ—hu and Vzzah's case 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 meer sophistical and you do but darken Counsel with words without Knowlâ—dg You say in Pag. 4. That God hath no where declared that Infants should be excluded You mean he has no where forbid in express words the baptizing of Infants no more say I has he forbid Hony Wine Oil Salt and Spittle to be used in Baptism the former was used by some of the ancient 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 of yours for Infant Baptism in Pag. 4. which you intimate will put the Matter out of all dispute namely That Baptism doth come in the room of Circumcision which is 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 You say 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 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 Your 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 without Circumcision or Jewish Ordinances and to shew how we are compleat in Christ and have put 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 your 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 thing signified thereby the Rite or Sign ceased And as I have lately replied to some of your Brethren in answer to this Text so I must say to you all that can well be asserted from this Scripture 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 by you 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 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 Manduâ—ation of the Paschal Lamb â—o Prescription of Sacramental Drink shall we conclude from hence the Eucharist is to be administered in one kind To which let me add Because Children Servants and all in the House might eat of the Passeover must our Children and all in our Houses eat of the Eucharist or Supper of the Lord But saith the Doctor and in this very Instance of this Argument suppose a Correspondency of the Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism yet there is no Correspondency of Identity for
If the Image of God consisting in Holiness was received by the Soul in the first Creation without the Soul's Contribution to the Production of it Why may not the same Image of God be restored to the Soul in the second Creation without the Soul's Concurrence and Co-operation to the Restitution of it for why may not the Spirit of God produce in an Infant that imperfect â—egeneration whereof we are now speaking as well as he did that perfect Holiness in which our first Parents were originally created 1. I answer Were there not a dangerous Sting in the Tail of some of your impertinent Interrogations I might pass them all by without any further Answer than I have before given you Sir who questions the Power of God who is a free Agent and may do what he pleases He may 't is true regenerate an Infant or change the Nature of a Child in its Mother's Womb and may be doth change or regenerate the depraved Nature of those Infants who die in their Infancy but who knows what Infants they are he thus works upon and fits for Heaven Secret things I tell you again belong to him 2. But should God tell us which Infants Hearts and Natures he hath thus renewed yet that can be no ground or warrant to us to give them the Sacrament of Baptism no more than the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and you know well enough the first Fathers of the declining Church brought in Infant-Baptism to wash away that Pollution of their Nature or free them from the Guilt of Original Sin and also those Fathers gave the same Infants the Lord's Supper and had indeed as good Authority from God's Word to do the one as the other And assure your self they shamefully erred in both because both were done without any Warrant or Allowance from God But Sir how inconsistent are you with your self even just now you tell us that the Infants of Believers are in Covenant with God as well as their Parents and are therefore holy and from that ground ought to be baptized But now it seems as if that Argument was gone with you and notwithstanding that federal Holiness they are unclean and unless they have actually sanctifying Grace and their filthy Natures are changed they cannot be saved You just play the part of a Fencer and resolve to try your Skill with every Weapon one while you are a Presbyterian another time a Church-of England-Man But Sir speak doth Baptism change the Nature or regenerate the Child or doth it not the Seed which St. John speaks of he affirms remains in those Persons in whom it is wrought sow'd or infused see 1 Joh. 3.9 And no doubt was there indeed such a Divine Habit or Seed of Grace infused into Infants in their Baptism but it would appear in their Lives when grown up Such as is the Cause such is the Effect or Product that is produced i. e. if Regeneration was wrought in all the Infants you Rantize Holiness would be the Effect of it when they come to Age of Understanding but all Men see the contrary i. e. they shew their evil and unclean Natures as soon nay before they can speak plain therefore you preach false Doctrine if you affirm that Baptism renovates or changes their Nature Nay and were it so all that are baptized would be saved Shall one Soul who passes through Regeneration miss of Salvation Reverend Stephen Charnock tho a Pedo-baptist speaks more like a Divine and Logician than you do See his Book on Regenerat sol p. 75. saith he Many Men take Baptism for Regeneration the Ancients usually give it this term one calls our Saviour's Baptism his Regeneration this confers not Grace but ingageth to it outward Water cannot convey inward Life How can Water an external thing work upon the Soul in a Physical manner Neither can it be proved that ever the Spirit oâ— God is tied by any Promise to apply himself to the Soul in a gracious Operation when Water is applied to the Body If it were so that all that were baptized were regenerated then all that were baptized should be saved or else the Doctrine of Perseverance falls to the ground And again he says That some indeed say that Regeneration is conferred in Baptism upon the Elect and exerts it self afterwards in Conversion But how so active a Principle as a spiritual Life should lie dead and asleep so long even many Years which intervene between Baptism and Conversion is not easily conceivable So far Mr. Charnock 'T is well you call it an imperfect Regeneration Abortive or a Monster no doubt for Baptism forms no Child of God if it did how come Simon Magus who was baptized to miss of Regeneration Acts 8.13 And indeed this is an easy way to Heaven I mean if there is no need of further Regeneration than that poor Babes have in Baptism I know your Church saith that an Infant is made thereby a Child of God a Member of Christ and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven Sad Doctrine God deliver England from such Guides as teach the common People Nay all who will be led or taught by them that Baptism makes them Christians and so never teach them to look after any other Regeneration tho such whom you baptize as you call it if they live when they are grown up prove wicked and ungodly Persons or carnal Worldlings Sir take heed what you do lest the Blood of your deceived and miserable People be required at your hands Is not this to heal the hurt of your People slightly and to cry Peace Peace when there is no Peace This is the Sting I saw in the Tail of your Argument You ask many Questions Why may not this be so and Why may not that be so Who taught you thus to argue what do you prove But that which troubles me most is this viz. That after you have put forth these unlearned and weak Questions you draw Conclusions therefrom with daring Boldness after this manner viz. What an high Affront then do these Men give to the Omnipotency of the holy Spirit who affirm that it is as vain a thing to hope and pray that Almighty God should regenerate an Infant with his holy Spirit as to expect that he should illuminate a Stone or a Tree pag. 16. But say you if Infants are found capable Subjects of regenerating Grace and Remission of Sin as I hope appears then surely they are capable of Baptism for the outward visible Sign ought not to be denied to such as are capable of the inward spiritual Grace Answ 1. Sir you are to be rectified Do we deny the Omnipotency of the holy Spirit none of us never doubted of the Power of the Spirit in regenerating an Infant if he pleases so to do but you are to prove God doth do it and that by Baptism too for that 's the thing you seem to contend for which we deny we say God can of
to God after that we are renewed through Christ those amongst us that are instructed in the Faith infant- and believe that which we teach them is true being willing to live according to the same we do admonish to fast and pray for Forgiveness of Sins and we also pray with them And when they are brought by us into the Water and there as we were new born are they also by new Birth renewed and then in calling upon God the Father the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit they are washed in Water c. This Food we call the Eucharist to which no Man is admitted but only he that believeth the Truth of the Doctrine being washed in the Laver of Regeneration for Remission of Sins and so liveth as Christ hath taught and this saith Mr. Baxter is you see no new way 'T is said Justin Martyr was converted about 30 Years after the Apostle John and by the Order then used in the Church it appears there was no Infant-Baptism thought of Walafrid Strabo as I find him cited by a great Historian says That there was no Children but aged understanding Persons baptized in this Age that is to say in the 2 d Century Walafrid Strabo Eccl. Hist c. 26. Vicecom l. 1. c. 30. Tertullian in his Book of Baptism speaking of that Text Suffer little Children to come unto me saith Indeed the Lord said do not hinder them to come unto me Let them come therefore while they grow to Years and while come let them be taught let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ why doth innocent Age hasten to the Remission of Sins Men will deal more warily in worldly Affairs So that they who are not trusted with an earthly Inheritance are trusted with an heavenly one Let them ask for Salvation that thou mayst appear to have given it to him Dr. Taylor saith thus The Truth of the Business is as there was no Command of Scripture to oblige Children to the Susception of it so the necessity of Pedo-Baptism was not determined in the Church till the Canon that was made in the Milevetan Council a Provincial in Africa never till then I grant saith he it was practised in Africa before that time and they or some of them thought well of it And tho that is no Argument for us to think so yet none of them ever pretend it to be necessary nor to have been a Precept of the Gospel St. Austin was the first that ever preached it to be necessary and it was in his Heat and Anger against Pelagius Thus Dr. Taylor Ignatius in his Discourse about Baptism asserts That it ought to be accompanied with Faith Love and Patience after preaching H. Montanus p. 45. and Jacob Dubois p. 16 to 22. and Dutch Martyrology where Ignatius's Letters are mentioned to Polycarp Tralensis to them of Philadelphia Dr. Taylor saith in his Disswasive against Popery pag. 118. printed 1667. one of his last Pieces thus viz. That there is a Tradition to baptize Infants relies but upon two Witnesses Origen and Austin and the latter having it from the former it lies upon a single Testimony which saith he is a pitiful Argument to prove a Tradition Apostolical He is the first that spoke of it but Tertullian that was before him seems to speak against it which he would not have done if it had been an Apostolical Tradition and that it was not so is but too certain if there be any Truth in the Words of Ludovicus Vives who says That anciently none were baptized but Persons of riper Age. And as touching Origen's Works and many more of the Ancient Fathers there is great cause to doubt about them because as Mr. Perkins notes no Greek Copies thereof are extant and many other Books said to be written by such and such Fathers are spurious and never wrote by them See Perkins Great Basil in his Book of the Holy Spirit Chap. 12. saith Faith and Baptism are the two Means of Salvation inseparably cleaving together for Faith is perfected by Baptism but Baptism is founded by Faith and by the same Names both things are fulfilled for as we believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit so also we are Baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit and indeed there goeth before a Confession leading us unto Salvation but Baptism followeth sealing our Confession and Covenant The same Churches Teacher saith the Learned Dr. Du-Veil in his third Book against Eunomius speaketh thus viz. Baptism is the Seal of Faith Faith is the Confession of the Godhead it is necessary we should first believe and then be sealed in Baptism Du-Veil on Act. cap. 8. p. 278. Zonaras saith The Babe will then need Baptism when it can chuse it Gregory Nazianzen in his 4 th Oration saith Dr. Du Veil Of those who die without Baptism gives us an Instance in those to whom Baptism was not admitted by reason of Infancy And the same Nazianzen though he was a Bishop's Son being a long time bred up under his Father's Care was not saith the said Doctor baptized till he came to Man's Age. In like manner saith he Basil the Great that was born of devout Parents and instructed from his Childhood was not baptized until a Man p. 280. Also saith John of Antioch called afterwards Chrysostom was born of Christian Parents as the truer Opinion is tutored by the famous Bishop Meletius was not yet baptized till he was one and twenty Years of Age. Hierom also Ambrose and Austin who were born of Christian Parents and consecrated to Christian Discipline even from their Childhood were not baptized before thirty Years of Age as Dr. Taylor Bishop of Down asserts in his 12 th Section of the Life of Christ Now Sir here are Examples enough that do prove in the Primitive Times Children of Baptized Believers were not baptized but had their Baptism delayed till they themselves believed and gave an account of their Faith Had it been the constant Custom of the Godly to baptize Infants would not these think you have been in their Infancy baptized Grotius as I find him quoted by Dr. Duveil ' saith The Primitive Churches did not Baptize Infants See Grotius his Notes on the Gospel Nay saith the same great and Learned Writer it doth most plainly appear by the right of baptizing used in the Romish Church for Baptism is to be asked before the Person to be baptized do enter into the Church which the Surety does in the Infant 's Name a clear distinct Confession of Faith is required which the same Surety rehearseth in the Infant 's Name i. e. A renouncing of the World its Pomps the Flesh and the Devil We may by this perceive from whence the Original of our old Church-Catechism came But this is a clear Argument saith the Doctor to prove of old the Persons who were to be baptized asked themselves Baptism in their own
say I as much ground as Dr. Taylor says for the one as for the other and there is the same Parity of Reason to conclude as they err'd in the one so they did in the other Why do you not from hence give Infants the Lord's Supper the reason you give I have before proved insignificant As to your third Demonstration it is not denied her that Infant-Baptism was received in the Church in the third and fourth Century with many other Fopperies but that does you no Kindness the Church was adulterated from the true Apostolical Faith and Practice in many respects in those and after Times downward Your fourth Demonstration is this viz. Pag. 33. If it was a gross Error in the Primitive Fathers to admit Infants to Baptism then they in suffering such an Error to pass uncensured and uncondemned were guilty of the greatest Impiety c. Answ What then I ask you whether you do not believe for several Centuries those Fathers who admitted Infants to the Lord's Supper without censuring or condemning it were not guilty also of as great Impurity Besides did not the same Fathers hold other Errors see Mr. Perkin's Demonst of the Problem pag. 488. these are his words viz. And whereas some Fathers viz. Ireneus Justin Clement Tertullian held that the Law of Nature had Power to save the Gentiles without Christ And again he saith The Fathers have Errors yea and that sometimes gross ones Doth not History tell us the Fathers used other Rites also and that in Baptism See Perkins p. 549. The Fathers saith he used some other Rites and Ceremonies which are now omitted as kissing of the Child which was baptized in Cyprian l. 3. ep 8. use of Milk and Hony use of Milk and Wine Hierom. in Isa cap. 55. It was an use for the Baptizer to blow in the Face of the baptized and the Party baptized used to exufflate the Devil whom he renounced What Credit is to be given to such Fathers They gave the Eucharist to Children likewise You say the Church of England is for Infant-Baptism Article 27. also the French Dutch Bohemian Helvetian Churches What of all this why did you not put in the Church of Rome with them 't is clear the Church of the Hebrews infant- a Church at Rome in the Apostles days the Church of the Corinthians Galatians Philippians Ephesians Colossians Sardis Smyrna Pergamus Philadelphia and Laodicea owned it not We must go to the Fountain and not to the muddy Stream to drink pure Water From the beginning it was not so But say you if now the Anabaptists can believe that Almighty God has suffered all his Churches Ancient and Modern and that in all parts of the World to fall into one and the same destroying Practice They have a Power which I shall never envy namely of believing what they please pag. 34. Answ 1. You take that for granted which you prove not viz. That all these Churches who hold Infant-Baptism are true Churches of Christ Sir I must tell you we have not such a Power of Faith as to believe that 2. Doth not the Apostle declare that a general Apostacy from the true Apostolical Faith and Doctrine would after his days ensue And hath not the Church of Rome that Mother of Harlots made all the Earth drunk with her Cup for near 1200 Years or more and corrupted all those Churches more or less with her poisonous Errors and false Doctrines Rites and Ceremonies and yet Almighty God hath suffered her for so long a time and many other Errors among Protestants 3. See Mr. Tombs his Answer to this For if the whole Church might err saith he in one Age it may also in all Ages collectively considered the Promises being no more to the Church in all Ages collectively considered than in each Age distributively considered nor any means given to them after the Apostles collectively considered to keep them from Error than to each distributively yea the Churches nearer the Apostles had more means to keep them from Error than other Ages yet they err'd in Doctrine and Discipline as many Writers shew As for the Promise Mat. 16.18 it is not true of the whole Church visible the Gates of Hell have and do prevail against her so but of the invisible and yet the Promise is not to the invisible that they shall not err but they shall not err finally to Damnation which if they did then the Gates of Hell should indeed prevail against them 4. Your Church and all those other Churches mentioned by you have other Errors besides this and yet God suffers you and them to continue at present in those Errors for Reasons best known to himself nor do we say we are without any Errors or any Church on Earth we pretend to no Infallibility But in the Point of Baptism we are right by your own Concession I mean as to the baptizing of Believers 5. And lastly We do not say this Error of yours about Infant-Baptism is a Soul-damning Error God forbid tho it doth tend to destroy too far the nature of the holy Sacrament of Baptism and so also a right Gospel-Church according to the Apostolical Constitution making your Church National when the Gospel-Churches planted by Christ and his Apostles were Congregational So much in Answer to all your Arguments for the lawfulness of Infants-Baptism CHAP. VI. Shewing Infant-Baptism is of no use at all in opposition to what Mr. Burkit affirms but contrariwise sinful i. e. it being an Error hath also many evil and bad Consequences attending it With some Reflections on Infants Baptismal Covenant as asserted by Mr. Dan. Williams as well as this Author Mr. Burkit YOU say the Anabaptists assert Infant-Baptism is unlawful because 't is unuseful Children understanding no more than Brute Beasts what is done to them therefore you may as warrantably baptize a Beast as a Child Pag. 34. And then say pag. 35. That Infant-Baptism is greatly advantagious as an Act of Initiation into the visible Church Answ 1. You have no Warrant to baptize a Child but who of the Anabaptists ever said such words as you here mention dare you accuse your Neighbours falsly 't is a bad and unseemly Comparison But 't is no marvel we meet with it from such as you who are prejudiced against us some of your Brethren formerly charged us with baptizing naked God will judg between us and you in his due time Answ 2. You should have proved it an Institution or an Appointment of Christ but that you have not yet done nor never will True were Infant-Baptism ordained by Christ to be an initiating Rite into the Gospel-Church doubtless it had been useful 3. But what good doth your baptizing them do them what Priviledge of the Church do you allow them I know not one if indeed it did adopt the Child to be a Son or Daughter of God you say something or if God had appointed it to be a Sign or
Righteousness the Shield of Faith and for an Helmet the Hope of Salvation and the Word of God like a Sword in his Hand to cut down all his Enemies Thus by the help of these Sacred Graces of the Spirit he is enabled to fight against Sin the World the Flesh and the Devil But alas you list your poor Babes into this War and make them covenant and vow to forsake the Devil and all his Works the Pomps and Vanities of this Wicked World and all the sinful Lusts of the Flesh but arm them not Did Baptism confer Grace and arm their Souls it was something but who dares assert that or if he does who will or can believe him 6. God hath also promised to assist stand by help and enable all Believers baptized with further supplies of Grace nay they being actually united to Christ have his blessed Influences flowing to them besides the Promises of God the Death Resurrection and Intercession of Christ and the everlasting Covenant of Grace which is ordered in all things and sure firmly secures all their Souls But thus it is not with those poor Babes you bring into this Covenant you are like Pharaoh's Task-masters command the making of Brick but allow them no Straw 4. Again consider how hereby great part of the Nations are perjured I will appeal to the Consciences of all thinking and understanding People whether according to your Principle and Practice it is not so Mourn O England and lament sad is thy Case If these Men speak right or truly what a Multitude in thee have been made to enter into this Covenant who never performed it O Perjured Nation Perjured People and Perjured Pastors for so are all thy debauched drunken swearing and unclean Teachers Are not these perjured also Have they kept their Vow and Covenant Alas Sir instead of mourning for this Sin we may conclude they never thought of it But let them break off their Sins by Righteousness I mean repent and leave those gross Acts of Wickedness of which many both Priest and People are guilty and get renewing Grace and never let them fear this new devised Sin of Perjury For if God's Word convinces of all Sins and doth not convince of this sort of Perjury this is no Perjury I mean the simple breaking of that Covenant though those Sins by which they are said to break it are horrid Treason and Rebellion against the God of Heaven and provoke him to Wrath every Day But God's Word doth convince of all Sins and doth not convince of this sort of Perjury therefore it cannot be Perjury as is affirmed 'T is not this which is the Self-killing-Murder the damning Sin No no but 't is their Unbelief and Contempt of God's Grace or neglecting the great Salvation offered by Christ in the Gospel 5. Baptism administred in Infancy hath you say this singular Advantage above that which is administred at viper Age in that it gives the pious Parent a good ground of hope that his Children dying in Infancy are certainly saved it makes say you that Ordinance a Channel of Grace c. Answ 1. This is like 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 Relicks i. e. in their crossing themselves and in their Holy Water especially in their Agnus 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 Parent But alas how few are there of that sort what hopes hath 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 and that the 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 died before the eighth Day 3. From what Scripture is it these pious though ignorant and deceived Parents may have hope that their Children that die in their Infancy shall be saved and none but theirs who are baptized or rather rantized 4. Will you make Baptism their Saviour can Baptism save them And is it so indeed is it then 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 Vertue 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 the Fool that makes a Vow and afterwards breaks it 5. May not this Doctrine of yours clearly tend to scare and afright poor Parents with fear that all their Babes that die in their Mother's Wombs or before baptized are damned And O in what a sad Condition are all the Children of ungodly and impious Persons whose little Babes you dare not cannot baptize if you are true to your own Principles But that Text may give us a better ground of hope a thousand times concerning the well-being of our dying Infants where our Saviour saith of such are the Kingdom of Heaven And that 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 Idiots in ways we know not of nor are we to trouble our selves about such secret things that are not revealed 6. You say The Practice of Infant-Baptism appears most beneficial because it prevents such shameful and scandalous Neglects of Baptism to the Blemish of Christianity Answ 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 Christ's 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 ran through and examined your fix Particulars which you bring 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
Signification thereof we should have read it they were dipped both Men and Women Acts 8.12 and so the Dutch have translated it in their Language Maer do sy Philippo getrofden die Euangeliam van het koninckrycke Godts ende van don name Jesus Christi verkondigh de wier den sy de doopt begde manan endevrouwen In English thus When they heard Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ they were dipped both Men and Women But you say that which may be lawful and modest in one Country may be sinful and immodest in another c. Answ Did not our Lord Jesus Christ send his Disciples to Teach and Baptize in all Countries not to Rantize in cool Countries and baptize in hot And dare you without blushing say or intimate 't is immodest and a sinful thing to do what he hath commanded in any one Country in the World because it may be possibly censured condemned or accounted so by the Sons of Belial wicked and ungodly Men and Women Besides have you not granted the Case so far that in hot Countries they did dip pray was not that a hot Country was it not in Judea the same Country our Saviour lived when on Earth By what you say here it may appear that you say and unsay the same thing and seem to deny any were baptized in and about the Land of Canaan by dipping or any where else tho you contradict all the Learned both the Greek and Latin Fathers and all thâ— eminent Divines Bishops and Doctors I have quoted out of their Writings I even am sick of such an impertinent Antagonist As to your sixth and last Argument That God hath blessed and highly honoured the Administration of your way of Babes Rantism to the Comfort and Advantage of Multitudes Answ 'T is wholly without Proof or Demonstration and nothing but a bold presumptive and rash Assertion of your own God has suffered it long 't is true as he hath some other human Rites and Traditions but you cannot prove he has blessed either it or them to any one Soul's profit And when did God ever honour Infant-Baptism for formerly they were baptized i. e. dipped God did honour the Baptism of the Adult highly when our Saviour being ' about thirty Years old was baptized by John for the Heavens were opened and a Voice heard This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased and the Holy Ghost came down upon him And so in Acts 8.12 14. those Men and Women who believed and were baptized the holy Spirit was given unto nay and so highly hath God honoured the baptizing of Believers that there is a Promise of Forgiveness of Sâ—â— and of the receiving the holy Spirit nay of Salvation made to them that believe and are baptized Acts 2.37 38. Mark 16.16 But there is no Promise made to Infants that are Baptized much less to such who are but only Rantized 1. As to your Objection in Pag. 57. about the Dutch rendering baptizing dipping 't is not their Annotators but 't is their Translators and that too from the literal and proper Signification of the Greek Word therefore you say nothing to weaken what we have said upon that account 2. And as touching what you speak i. e. that in Pag. 57. viz. That Baptism signifies the Death and Burial of Christ we and a Cloud of Witnesses therefore say that 't is Dipping because that is a most lively Representation of his Death Burial and Resurrection But you say Baptism may signify the Death of Christ and be so administred as lively to represent the Death of our Saviour without the exposing those who are baptized to the danger of Death and may signify Christ's Burial too without sending the Person baptized to his Grave even in Sprinkling there is a plain Representation of Christ's Death for the pouring forth of the Water not unfitly represents the pouring forth the Earth upon the dead Body Answ If you did pour Water upon the Child indeed until it was quite buried or covered all over in Water you had said something tho that is not the way of baptizing neither but dipping or plunging yet that would I must confess represent a Burial But is the dead Body buried so soon as a handful of Earth is poured upon him if you should say it no body would believe you the Body must be covered under the Earth before it can be said to be buried and so must the Person baptized be covered under the Water or 't is not baptized for as otherwise there is no actual Burial in the first so there is no Representation of a Burial in the second But say you if you will closely follow the Metaphor of a Burial in all Particulars then as the Person buried is altogether passive and laid in the Grave only by others in like manner the Party baptized say you ought to put neither Foot nor Leg nor Thigh into the Water but the Dipper ought to take him up in his Arms and lay his entire Body into the Water c. Answ Are you not blame-worthy to write after this sort O that you were more wise and dreaded the holy Majesty of God! Is it not said They went both down into the Water both Philip and the Eunuch and he that is Philip baptized or dipped him this is the Rule not to take the Person up into our Arms yet 't is the Administrator notwithstanding that buries the Person in the VVater his going into it himself doth not baptize him tho he should go in as high as his VVaste but the Administrator does it You know Metaphors do not go as we use to say on all four nor must they be strained further than the design and purport of the holy Spirit but you by sprinkling destroy and utterly make void that sacred Allusion of the Holy Ghost which is not to be born with Baptism is no Representation of a Burial at all if Sprinkling be it And if you have heard that some have been kept so long under the VVater till as you say almost choaked or buried alive I suppose 't is not the first Untruth you have heard In Pag. 58 and 59. about Christ's not being baptized till thirty Years of Age you say Christ was circumcised at eight days old and altho he was not baptized in his Infancy yet he was baptized in the Infancy of Baptism also you intimate that some expound the words for his coming up out of the Water that the Situation of the River Jordan was beneath the place where John was teaching Answ Circumcision was then in force now 't is gone therefore in that Christ could not be an Example for us but in Baptism which is an Ordinance of the New Testament he is our Example and Pattern as his Precept is our Rule in that we should follow his Steps 2. And let me tell you if it was in the Infancy of Baptism you mean the
preâ—â—â—ted by the ancient Fathers of old and the 〈◊〉 Divines doth well agree with an Institution that is a mere positive Right wholly depending on the sovereign Will of the Legislation doth not give just cause to all â—o question its Authority 1. Some Pedo-Baptists asserted it took away Original Sin and such who denied it were Anathematized 2. Some affirm That Children are in Covenant and being the Seed of Believers are federally â—oly therefore to be baptized 3. Another sort of Pedo-Baptists say They ought to be baptized by virtue 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 Auâ—â—iâ— Bernard c. 6. Others say they have Faith themselves and therefore must be baptized 7. Some say it is a 〈◊〉 Apostolical 〈◊〉 Tradition but others deny that and say it may be proved from the Scripture 8. Others say it is a regenerating Ordinance and Infants thereby are put into a savable Some Others say the Infants of Believers are safe before because in Covenant with their Parents To this Query they say nothing pretending they had answered it before Query 8. Whether 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 Threat denounced on such who neglect it This they say they answered in one of our Arguments Their Answer is there about Womens receiving the Sacrament c. Query 9. Whether in matter of mere positive Right such as Bapâ—ism 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 and direct Act of Baptizing as practised in the New Testament and a great Cloud of Witnesses testify Query 10. Whâ—â—her the Baptism of Infants be not a dangerous Error since it tends to deceive poor ignorant People who think they were thereby made Christians and regenerated and so never look after any other Regeneration nor Baptism that represents or holds forth that inwarâ— Work of God's Grace They answer They never tell them they are made Christians throughly c. Reply 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 Heaven 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. Whether God hath any where commanded or injoined Parents to bring their little Babes of two or ten days old into a Covenant with himself by Baptism since 't is not to be found in all the Scripture If not how can that Covenant oblige their Child when he comes to Age if it be so great a Sin not to perform that Covenant or to renounce the thing it self Whether there is any Covenant appointed by Christ for Infants to enter into unto which no Promise is made of Assistance to perform it nor of Blessing if it be kept nor one Threatning if cast off and disowned 13. What should be the reason that our Translators of the holy Bible should leave the Greek word Baptismâ— or Baptisma â—â—â—ranslated seeing the Dutch have not done so but contrariwise translate for John Baptist John the Dipper and for he baptized them he dipped them The Athenian Society answâ—â— They are the best Judges themselves if we can understand them 't is enough Reply No tho the Learned in the Greek do know what the word Baptizo and Baptisma is yet the Unlearned in that Tongue do not know that 't is to dip or Immersion therefore 't is not enough 14. Whether such who have only been sprinkled ought not to be deemed unbaptized Persons since Aspersion is not Immersion or Rantizing not Baptizing seeing the Greek word signifies to dip and tho sometimes to wash yet such a washing as is by dipping as the Learned confess To this they say Those that doubt may be of the sure side Ten ARGUMENTS against Pedo-Baptism Arg. I. Those that our Saviour commanded in his Commission to be baptized were such who were first discipled by the Word Infants are not discipled by the Word Ergo Infants according to Christ's Command in the Commission ought not to be baptized Arg. II. To believe and repent are required of all that ought to be baptized Infants are not required to believe and repent Ergo They ought not to be baptized Arg. III. The Church of England saith Faith and Repentance is required of such who are to be baptized and she speaks the Truth in so saying and if Infants cannot perform Faith and Repentance then Infants ought not to be baptized But the Church of England says Faith and Repentance is required of such who are to be baptized and she speaks the Truth in so saying and Infants cannot perform Faith and Repentance Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Athenians in Answer to this Argument say The Church of England means only the Adult who are capable c. Reply They mean Infants also why else do they add Yes verily they that is Infants do perform it by their Sureties c. And how true that is I leave to all Men to judg Arg. IV. If there is not one Precedent in all the Scripture as there is no Precept that one Infant was baptized then Infant-Baptism is unlawful But there is not one Precedent in all the Scripture as there is not one Precept that one Infant was baptized Ergo Infant-Baptism is unlawful The Athenians answer Shew us a Precedent for our Wives communicating they mean to receive the Lord's Supper which we have answered already Arg. V. St. Paul declared or made known the whole Counsel of God St. Paul did not declare or make known Infant-Baptism Ergo Infant-Baptism is none of God's Counsel Arg. VI. The holy Scripture being a perfect Rule of Faith and Practice either by Precept or Example makes known every positive Law and Institution of Christ But the holy Scripture doth not make known neither by Precept for Example Infant-Baptism Ergo Infant-Baptism is no Institution of Christ Arg. VII That Doctrine and Practice that reflects on the Honour and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ who was not less faithful than Moses can be no Ordinance of Christ But the Doctrine and Practice of Infant-Baptism reflects on the Honour and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ who was not less faithful than Moses Ergo Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of Christ The Athenian Society answer The Obscurity of the Ordinance of Infant-Baptism does not at all reflect on the
Honour and Faithfulness of Christ since the Apostles to whom he delivered his Commission were Jews and since at the same time it was a continual and setled Custom among the Jews to baptize Men Women and Children of proselyted Heathens and Infants being not exempted out of the Commission To which I have in this Treatise given a full Answer Arg. VIII If there be but one Baptism in Water left by Christ in the New Testament and but one way or manner of Right for all both Parents and Children to be admitted into the Church and that one Baptism in Water is that of the Adult who upon their Profession of Faith ought to be baptized and so admitted into the Church Then none either Parents or Children must be admitted either to Baptism or into the Church without such a Profession of Faith But the former is true There is no need the Scripture should particularly mention the Ends of Pedo-Baptism since there is but one Baptism for all though more Subjects to that one Baptism You run say they too fast and take it for granted that Baptism is only of the Adult Answ Since there is but one Baptism mentioned in Scripture and that is of the Adult and the End â—nd Design of Christ in it is expresly laid down as to that We say therefore there is Reason why the End of Infant-Baptism should be certain and we run not too fast We say the Subjects are but one since the Baptism is but one and manner of Right thereto being but one also Arg. IX If no Parents at any time or times have been by God the Father Jesus Christ or his Apostles either commended for baptizing their Children or reproved for not baptizing them then Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God but the former is true Ergo. Your Answer saith The Athenian Society is answered unless you will destroy Laying on of Hands one of the Principles of the Christian Religion none were ever commended 〈◊〉 reproved for ever being or not being subject to that c. Answ Do we â—â—t read in Acts 8.17 Acts 19.6 that those Men and Women who were baptized did subject to Laying on of Hands being Believers as such Sure what is said of their coming under it or submitting to it is spoken to their Commendation However as 't is called a Principle of Christ's Doctrine Heb. 6.1 2. so here are two Precedents of Persons that subjected to it Shew us the like as to Infant-Baptism Arg. X. Baptism is Dipping Infants are not dipped Ergo Infants are not baptized As to the other Arguments sent to the Athenian Society with their Answers I have spoken to several of them in this Treatise and I shall add no more new but â—eâ—ve all I have said to the Blessing of God hoping the time is near when this Truth I contend for will be cleared up to all which is now to enrich despised that Wisdom may be justified of her Children and God may be honoured to whom be Glory now and for ever-more Amen FINIS Faults escap'd the Press Page 10. line 13 14 15. blot out the double Comma's Page 25. line 22. for makes mention read makes no mention There are other Errata's and dispointing which the Reader is desired to correct Arg. 1. Arg. 2. * Exod. 12.3 4. They were to take to them a Lamb according to the number of Souls in the House See Mr. Tomb's Anti-Pedo-Baptism The Pedo-Baptists Argument Mr Tomb's Answer Milevit Conc. Joh. 1.25 * The Athenian Society detected in their 12 Numbers to their fifth Volume Here the Athenian Society may see their first Query fully answered of Infants being once in Covenant and never cast out are in still All Nations takes in Pagans c. and their Children 1 Thess 5.17 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arg. 2. He should have mentioned Circumcision in his Propositions Mr. Burkit's Syllogism not true in form The Covenant God made with Abraham proved to be a mix'd Covenant partly Gospel and partly Legal See Mr. Tombs Exercit. p. 2. Arg. 1. The Athenian Society confuted Arg. 2. Arg. 3. Covenant of Circumcision no Covenant of Grace Arg. 1. Being the Children of Abraham as such gave them no right to Circumcision Arg. 3. Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham belonged to the ungodly as well as the godly Arg. 4. All in the new Covenant need not be taught to know the Lord. A necessity that Infants be taught to know the Lord. Arg. 5. The Covenant of Circumcision a Covenant of Works Circumcision obliged Persons to keep the whole Law Arg. 6. Covenant of Circumcision of the same nature with the Sinai-Covenant Mr. Flavel answered in what he says in his Book p. 217. The Sinai Covenant called the Old or first Covenant in the Scripture See Mr. Tombs The New Covenant had divers Additions or Transcripts or divers Ministrations Arg. 7. Faith not reckoned to Abraham â—â— Circumcision Arg. 8. Covenant of Faith and that of Circumcision contradistinguished Arg. 9. Circumcision a Yoke of Bondage Infants saved by the Covenant of Redemption or by Christ's Vndertakings Circumcision a Priviledg on condition of keeping the Law Infants the Members once of the Jewish-Church yet not of the Gospel-Church Arg. 10. The Old Covenant and Old Covenant-Seed both cast out Heb. 10.9 The Old Church-state of the Jews is gone 1 Pet. 2.5 Infant Church-Membership came in with the Old Covenant and is gone with it I had this Simile once before but because it is so full I repeat it The Athenian Society's first Query more fully answered External Privileges under the Law greater than ours under the Gospel Mr. Ball 's Posit 3 4 p. 38. The old Covenant and Church of the Jews dissolved See Mr. Cary's Solemn Call Pedo-baptists Argument for Believers Seed c. of ill consequence Mr. Burkits first Argument to prove the Covenant of Circumcision a Gospel-Covenant All God's Covenanting Transactions since the Fall are by means of the Mediator The Sinai Covenant a Covenant of Works Mr. Burkits 2d Arg. Mr. Burkits 3d Arg. The happy State of all in the Covenant of Grace Mart. Luther on Gal. 3. p. 115. Perkins Vol. 2. cap. 3 on Galat. p. 242. Mr. Burkits third Argument to prove Infant Baptism Infants had the Lord's Supper formerly given to them Seed or Habit of Grace remains where infused and its Effects will appear * As if Christ passed through Regeneration or change of Nature Baptism makes no Persons Christians * These words be cites were wrote by Dr. Taylor Pool's Annotat. Athenian Society say Females were circumcised by some People formerly Infants may be capable to be saved and yet not capable Subjects of Baptism Baptism cannot save the Souls of Infants The Parents Baptism may serve for the Child as well as the Parents Faith Various thoughts among Pedo-Baptists what Faith Infants have See Mr. Danvers Perkins 2 vol. cap. 3. on Gal. p. 257. Baxter's Right of Baptism p. 149 150. Mr. Burkit's sense of the order of