And Lastly I find variety of other Scriptures fully assuring me that I do rightly understand his Mind and Will as thus revealed in his first establishing this Covenant with Abraham the Father of the Faithful and his Seed in their Generations And from the whole I would now ask Where are those far-fetch'd Consequences that our Opposers talk of that we are forced to make use of for the Proof of Infant-Baptism Let but Abraham's Covenant be rightly understood taking in all other Scriptures confirming the Practice we plead for and here will be found no other Consequences than what are necessary to a right Use and Improvement of any Command or Promise whatsoever contained in the Scriptures And what should hinder then but that this Controversy at last should come to a Period I have only further to touch in brief upon a Sheet of Paper lately come forth in opposition to the Practice of Infant-Baptism by an Anonymous Author the desire of some that I should return an Answer unto which hath occasioned the foregoing Pages Who the Author is I have as yet no intimation I shall only say That if he be one that hath assumed the Work of a Teacher among the Men of his Perswasion he hath done prudently in concealing his Name but if he be a private Member of any of their Congregations as I suppose he may be he might have made himself known For who will expect from any more than they have received or might justly be expected to have attained to He seems to be and I hope is one of those for whom I have heartily wished that they had a greater share in those Abilities that some of that Perswasion have attained to But be he who he will he attempts to prove these two things 1. That Baptism ought to be administred universally by Dipping or Plunging the whole Body under Water 2. That grown Persons professing their Faith and Repentance are the only true Subjects of Baptism As to the first I shall say but little did not he or any other of his Perswasion make that manner of Baptizing simple and absolutely necessary to the Truth and Validity of that Ordinance and annul it when otherwise administred they should meet with little opposition from me I doubt not but Baptism as so administred is true Baptism and was at least sometime so administred in Primitive Times and a considerable Time after but that our Lord Christ doth indispensably require it to be so administred universally that I deny and doubt not but that Baptism administred either by pouring Water on or washing the Face with Water yea or sprinkling Water upon the Face supposing the right Form of Baptism to be observed is true Baptism and valid to all its Ends and Purposes and need not be repeated and I judg that our Lord Christ expresseth Baptism by a Word that will admit of a different manner of administring it But for this I shall refer this good Man and all others that desire Satisfaction to my Answer to Mr. Danvers pag. 143 to the end All that he hath added to what others have said is an Observation he hath made that in the Dutch Testament John the Baptist is called John the Dooper But of how little Consideration that is is obvious unto all The utmost that can be made of it is only this That one Man or at least very few that translated the Bible into Dutch judged it best so to render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what signifieth the Judgment of One or a few Men Suppose our English Translators had rendred it John the Washer as they might have done would this Man have taken their Translation as a certain Determination of this Controversy But I shall refer the Reader to the Place mentioned as also to Mr. Walker's Treatise of this Subject the best that I judg is extant And if any be yet unsatisfied they have the liberty from me to act according to the Light they have received provided they do not plead the Manner of Administring that Ordinance against the dueness of Infant-Baptism The Manner of administring that Ordinance concerns not the Subjects of it Whence it is most unreasonable and absurd to plead the Manner of Administring Baptism against our Practice Let the Subjects be determined and let every one act according to his own Light in the Manner of Administring that Ordinance But to proceed The other Thing that he attempts to prove is That only grown Persons professing Faith and Repentance are the true Subjects of Baptism And as for this I shall not say much Those that will impartially peruse and weigh what I have already said they imitating the Noble Bereans Acts 17. will as I judg see it wholly needless Indeed for such as Mr. Grantham who cannot see Blessedness promised to the Nations in that Covenant Gen. 17.7 I shall despair of their discerning the Mind and Will of our Lord Christ contended about though appearing in the clearest Noon-Light of Divine Revelations But for those who have Eyes to see Truth when brought to Light I shall not be so uncharitable to suppose that what this Honest Man hath said will raise the least Hesitations in their Minds about the Interest of the Infant-Seed of Believers in the Covenant or their Right to Baptism on the account of that their Interest But yet let us take a brief view of what he hath said to prove his Assertion And he attempts to prove it three ways 1. From Scripture 2. By Reason grounded upon Scripture 3. From certain Absurdities which he supposes will follow upon our Practice 1. For Scripture And thus he would prove his Assertion two ways 1. From the Scriptures recording the Baptism of grown Persons without making mention of the Baptism of their Infants And he Instances in those that were baptized by John Baptist the Disciples of Christ and Philip. To which I will say only two Things 1. Supposing that some of them had Infants How doth our Author know but that they were baptized though the Scripture records it not We find no record of the Apostles Baptism and yet undoubtedly they were baptized But 2. Suppose that they had Infants and they were not Baptized that doth not at all prejudice the Cause of Paedobaptism For let it be considered that all these excepting the Eunuch who undoubtedly then had no Infants at least with him whose Baptism we have now respect unto their Infants as well as themselves had been before circumcised and the Parents might and it was necessary they should be baptized but their Children might not neither was it necessary that they should having already the Token of the Covenant applied to them which as yet was not laid aside But it may be said So had their Parents But to that I say 'T was necessary that their Parents should be Baptized as an Obligation to and whereby they did in a special manner visibly own and acknowledg That that very Person viz. Jesus Christ was the
four next Chapters are wholly taken up in Attempts to prove that it 's only Baptism by dipping or plunging the whole Body into Water which is true Baptism I shall not say much to this having already given a clear account of the Grounds on which I judg that our Lord Christ hath not indispensably tied up his Church to that manner of administring that Ordinance which Mr. Keach may consider if he please At present I shall only observe a few things in those Attempts made by our Author and pass on First I cannot but observe how he will needs oppose Rantism or Sprinkling to Dipping or Plunging or immerging the whole Body under Water as tho that were if not the only yet the main and most principal used manner of Pedo-Baptists administring that Ordinance hence he strenuously applies himself to prove that there is a difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot signify to sprinkle and this I suppose he doth ad faciendum populum seeing he cannot but know that many if not most or all Pedo-baptists especially who conscienciously make the Word their Rule administer that Ordinance by washing or pouring Water upon the Face of the Party baptized whether Infant or Adult Secondly It may be observed That whereas our Author insists so much upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to prove that baptizing must necessarily be by slipping or plunging under the Water and that as essential unto true Baptism It is certain and himself acknowledges it that this word is of a large Signification First It signifies to Die and this seems to be its first and most native Signification This some of his own Authors and others might be mentioned do affirm and answerably it signifies to plunge Tingendi causa in order to Dying or giving some new Colour the primitive word being taken from a Dyers Fat Hence we read in Prophane Authors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tingere lanas to die Wool so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 double-dyed Purple Hence it will follow that barely to dip or plunge into Water is not the first or primary Signification of the Word It notes something more than a bare dipping or plunging into Water it notes such a Dipping or Plunging as whereby the thing dipped or plunged may receive a new Die or Colour which it had not before 2ly It signifies barely to dip or plunge and it signifies dipping or plunging because things died are dipped or plunged into that Liquor or Liquid Matter they are dyed in 3ly It signifies to wash so Mr. Lee one of the Authors cited by Mr. Keach tells us that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Hesychus Stephanus Scapula and Budeus the great Masters of the Greek Tongue make good by very many Instances and Allegations out of Classick Writers importeth no more than Ablution or Washing so that according unto these great Masters of the Greek Tongue Ablution or Washing is as â—roper a Signification of this word as dipping or plunging Hence for any to argue meerly from the Signification of the Word is exceeding weak and utterly unconvincing But 3dly It may be observed that whereas our Author saith that when it signifies Washing it is such a Washing as is done by dipping so much as is washed it must be said it is otherwise Take it only of washing the Hands tho other things might be mentioned so the washing the Hands or the Feet of the Priest under the Law is included in those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned Hebrews 9.10 compared with Exod. 30.18 So the Pharisees washing their hands before Meat is called Baptisme Luk. 11.38 where it 's said they marvelled that he meaning Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he had not been baptized Now it is certain in washing their Hands they did not always if ordinarily dip or plunge them into the Water but had Water poured upon them see 2 Kings 3.11 So that the word according unto its use in the Scripture may be rendred very fitly to wash and signifies such washing as is by pouring Water on the Party or Subject washed I shall not fear to affirm that the washing one Part of the Body by pouring Water is according to the Scripture-Acceptation of the word true Baptism Doctor Owen who understood the Greek as well as most in his Day if not as any in any former Age tells us That Baptism is any kind of washing whether by dipping or sprinkling putting the thing to be washed into the Water or applying Water unto it see Heb. 9.10 And how invalid then is his Argument taken from the bare signification of the word 4thly It may be observed that whereas our Author tells us that Dr. Du-Veil affirms that the constant Practice of the Universal Church till about the Year 1305 was to baptize by Immersion it must be said that suppose Mr. Keach doth faithfully cite him he was under a very great Mistake the contrary may be evidenced past all rational Contradiction only to instance in those at present called Clinici which were such as were baptized on their Beds of whom we read at least 1000 Years before that and hence note 5thly The utter Improbability that our Lord Christ should bind up his Church to such a manner of administring this Ordinance as would necessarily exclude many thousands from it or expose them to apparent danger of Life as in the case of Infants the dueness of whose Baptism I hope hath been sufficiently proved so in the case of Persons in extream old Age under lingring Sickness and Weakness especially such who have lived Valitudinarian Lives all their days but he seems evidently to have used this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which admits of different Modes of administring this Ordinance either by dipping or plunging or washing whether by pouring Water upon the Subject or otherwise applying Water unto it and a liberty of administring it either way hath constantly been maintained in the Church I shall only further note in the last place that whereas our Opponents generally insist upon John 3.23 where the Evangelist gives the Reason of John's baptizing in Aenon to be the muchness of Water being there and it must be granted they are somewhat countenanced in their Notion by our late Annotators and some others this I would say that neither the Learned Annotator upon that Book nor our Brethren seem duly to consider the Original for it is not there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much Water but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Waters many Streams or Rivolets of Waters and Travellers tell us they were so shallow as not to reach above the Ankle see Sandys Travels so that the Evangelist giving that as the reason of John's baptizing there viz. because there were many Waters seems rather to imply that several were imployed in baptizing than that Baptism was administred by Immersion the small quantity of Water there hardly admitting that way of administring
true Messias promised to their Fathers Hence it is no way absurd nor the least prejudice to the Cause of Infant-Baptism to grant that none of the Infant-Seed of believing Jews till the absolute abrogation and laying aside of Circumcision was published and fully made known to the Church were baptized But now after the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ when Circumcision was wholly laid aside we still find when Parents were Baptized their Housholds peculiarly including their Children were Baptized with them But it may be our Author will say he doth not argue meerly from the Scriptures not mentioning the Baptism of Infants but from that taken in Conjunction with John's Preaching Repentance and Christ's making Disciples by teaching them and the Apostles requiring Faith of those that they Baptized But to that I Answer Both John Baptist our Lord and the Apostles having to do with grown Persons they did and it was necessary they should preach Repentance teach and instruct them before they baptized them and upon their professing their Faith and Repentance administer that Ordinance to them But what is that to Infants They might have and had by virtue of their Parents Faith an Interest in the Covenant and upon that account had a right to Baptism which when Circumcision was laid aside and Baptism instituted was applied to them But 2. He would prove his Assertion from the Commission given by our Lord Christ to his Apostles But to that having so fully proved that the Commission doth not exclude but on the other hand include Infants supposing their Interest in the Covenant and yet the fitness and meetness of our Lord Christ's expressing the Commission as he hath done that it is wholly superfluous to add any thing more See my Plain Proof of infant-Infant-Baptism p. 73. as also my Answer to Mr. Danvers Chap. 2. p. 25. and therefore shall proceed Our Author offers two Reasons why Baptism is by Dipping Washing or burying the Body all over in Water only to Believers upon a profession of their Faith and Repentance 1. That it is the Positive Law and Soveraign Will and Pleasure of God In Answer to which As to the Manner of Administring Baptism which his two Reasons seem to have a peculiar respect unto having spoken to that already I shall add no more but take his Reasons as respecting the Subjects of Baptism and as to this First I say in a direct Opposition to what he saith That it is not the positive Will or Pleasure of God that Believers only should be baptized but it is alike his positive Will and Pleasure that their Infants should be baptized with them This I have fully proved which I refer him unto and proceed to his Second Reason and that is taken from two Ends of Baptism To which I say that there are other Ends of Baptism with reference to which it is the Will and Pleasure of God that it should be applied to Infants To instance only in these two 1. That by it they may be by a solemn Right or Ordinance of his own Institution dedicated given up and engaged unto God in Christ 2. That in and by it the Benefits and Blessings of the Covenant may be represented and signified and the Promises wherein they are contained ratified and confirmed both to Parents and Children which when they come to Years of Maturity they are to improve as to encourage so to engage themselves personally to close in with the Covenant and give up themselves to God in Christ according to the Tenour of it and thereupon strengthen and confirm their Faith in a believing Application of the Promises to themselves Hence what he saith of all Worship which he saith is not commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ in his Holy Word is vain Worship c. It concerns not us seeing we affirm it is according to the Will of God revealed in his Word That Infants should be baptized But 3. He argues from certain Absurdities which as he supposes will follow upon our Practice Of which I must say in the General that they are all mere Mistakes and Scare-Crows the Effects of a clouded Fancy As 1. That we go to Moses for an Institution of Baptism When as we go not to Moses but to the Covenant of Grace established with our Father Abraham and his Seed in their Generations and confirmed of God in Christ 430 Years before the Law was given by Moses For his Second viz. 2. That our Practice lays a Foundation for a National Church 'T is still a gross Mistake 'T is well known that there are in England and New-England who plead for and live in the Practice of Congregational Churches and yet maintain the Doctrine and Practice of Infant-Baptism and that in a perfect consistency with their Principles and Practice For the Third viz. 3. That it affirmeth the Children of Believers were by Virtue of their Parents Faith in the Covenant of Grace united or ingrafted into Christ contrary to Eph. 2. But that our Practice should contradict the Apostle in that Eph. 2. where all are said to be Children of Wrath which are the Words I suppose he hath reference to supposing our Principles rightly understood is unimaginable Yea it is because we believe them to be Children of Wrath as well as others that we so earnestly contend for their Covenant-Interest and the Dueness of their Baptism up on the Account thereof They may be and are Children of Wrath by Nature as having sinned in Adam and being shapen in Iniquity and conceived in Sin and yet upon their Birth into the World be as the Seed of Believing Parents taken with their Parents into the Covenant of Grace and hereupon have a Right to be implanted into Christ's Mystical Body whereby they are secured during their pure Infant-State from the Effects of that Wrath they were by Nature the Children of And who can assign any shew of Reason why it may not be so They are not the Children of Wrath and in the Covenant of Grace at one and the same instant of Time their State as Children of Wrath precedes their State as in Covenant with God 4. As for the Fourth Absurdity it 's deceiving of Souls I shall only say That if any such thing doth happen 't is from the ignorance or neglect of Parents or those that should instruct them We only affirm That their Covenant-State secures them from the Effects of Wrath during their pure Infancy The Covenant indispensably requiring their personal Faith and Repentance when they come to Years capacifying them to Believe and Repent And what Deceit is here put upon any For his Last Absurdity that still is but his own Fancy proceeding from his Ignorance of the true Doctrine of Infants Covenant-Interest and Baptism Will he but peruse what I have written in my Essay p. 143. c. he may see this Absurdity fully removed out of his Way But Lastly This Our Brother for so I shall own him comes to answer some Objections against what