But they that despise and slight the Baptism of Infants despise neither the Baptism of John nor Christ because neither John nor our blessed Saviour commanded Infants to be baptized nor did they ever baptize one Child as we read of if you can prove they did do it we will say no more but will soon baptize our Children Thus I have done with all I thought necessary to remark or take notice of that is contained in your second Chapter CHAP. III. Shewing Baptizing is Dipping not sprinkling nor pouring a little Water SIR AS to what is contain'd in the second Chapter of your Book concerning the Continuation of Christ's Baptism of Water in the Church I shall say no more to that in that we agree and are one but we differ about what Baptism of Water is you would have it to be Sprinkling which indeed is not Baptism but Rantism for that you know is the Greek Word for Sprinkling 2. As also we differ about the true and proper Subjects of it according to our Saviour's Institution and since you begin with that you call the Manner or external Form of Administration of Baptism I shall follow you herein and shall first repeat your Words and then reply Thus you begin viz. Some judg that the whole Body ought to be dipped in Water and all other ways to be unlawful Others judg say you the sprinkling of Water on the Face of him that is baptiz'd to be sufficient especially in these cold Climates for even as in the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is one Moâ—sel of Bread and one Spoonful of Wine sufficient for to signify the Spiritual Food that is had in Christ even so in the Sacrament of Baptism the sprinkling of a little Water on him that is baptized signifies the Virtue of the Blood of Christ as effectually as Rivers of Water I answer Certainly you cannot be ignorant of what many learned Pedo-baptists have said in Opposition to what you here speak for tho both the holy Sacraments are very significant of Christ's Sufferings and of those spiritual Benefits we receive from him yet they are of different Signification First The Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper holds forth in a lively Figure the breaking of Christ's Body and the pouring forth of his precious Blood and this indeed may as well he represented by a small quantity of Bread and Wine as by much yet a little Water will not serve in Baptism 1. Because ' â—is positively said that John was baptizing in Enon near Salim John 3. 23. because there was much Water there Certainly the Holy Ghost would not have given this as the Reason why John baptized near Enon viz. because there was much Water in that place if a little Water namely a Spoonful or two would have been sufficient or two or three Quarts It seems plainly deducible from this Text it cannot be administred with a little Water but contrariwise it doth require much Water Secondly Pray consider that as the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper holds forth or represents symbolically the breaking of the Body of Christ and the shedding of his Blood and to that purpose it was in part instituted even so the Sacrament of Baptism holds forth in as lively Figure that our blessed Lord was dead buried and rose again and to this end this holy Ordinance was also instituted as also to shew forth our Death unto Sin and Vivification to Newness of Life as by and by shall be abundantly proved both from the holy Scriptures and a multitude of learned Men that hold Infant-Baptism therefore since a little Water cannot in this Ordinance represent Christ's Burial and Resurrection it follows directly that a little Water will not serve to baptize Persons in but that it must be administred in Rivers Ponds or places where there is much Water i. e. so much Water as that the Body may be buried or covered all over therein But to proceed you say Neither is dipping or sprinkling essential unto this Ordinance but washing with Water or putting Water on the Body for the word Baptism signifies in the Greek washing with Water as we cited say you from Heb. 9. 10. Answ I answer now you have given away your Cause at once or I am mistaken for if neither dipping nor sprinkling be essential unto this Ordinance but washing what is become of your Baptism Sir all dipping in Water is washing tho all washing is not dipping in that you hurt us not but your sprinkling is not washing If a Woman should sprinkle her foul Linen with a few drops of Water would that be deem'd a washing of them Again if Sprinkling be not essential to Baptism you have no Baptism at all take away the Body of a Tree and there is no Tree That thing can't be where the essential part of it is wanting And now that the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify dipping and such a washing as is by dipping we shall plainly shew evince and demonstrate and confirm it by such Arguments and Authors that no unprejudiced sober Person can any longer well remain doubtful about this matter and then we will examine your Objections I shall prove baptizing or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not sprinkling nor pouring of Water upon the Body but dipping or plunging the Body all over in Water and that 1st From the proper literal and direct Signification of the Greek Word Baptizo and the Testimonies of Learned Men. 2dly From the Practice of Primitive Times 3dly From the Consideration of what is signified and represented in Baptism 4thly From those Typical Baptisms spoken of in the Scriptures 5thly From the nature of those Metaphorical Baptisms mentioned viz. the Baptism of the Spirit and that of Afflictions To proceed to prove the first Scapula and Stephens two as great Masters of the Greek Tongue as most we have do tell you in their Lexicons that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizo from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bapto signifies mergo immergo item tingo quod fit immergendo inficere imbuere viz. to dip plunge overwhelm put under cover over to dye in Colour which is done by plunging Grotius says it signifies to dip over Head and Ears Pasor an Immersion dipping or Submersion Vossius says it implies a washing the whole Body Mincaeus in his Dictionary saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Latin Baptismus in Dutch Doopsit or Doopen Baptismus or Baptism to dive or duck in Water and the same with the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabal which the Septuagint or Seventy Interpreters render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizo to dip This Casaâ—bon saith was the right of way Baptizing that Persons were plunged into the Water which the very word Baptizo sufficiently demonstrates which as it does not extend so far as to sink down to the bottom to the hurt of the Person so it is not to swim upon the Superficies of the Water Baptism ought to be
signined and that Baptism was not ordained to be a Sign or Symbol of the sprinkling Christ's Blood but of his Death Burial and Resurrection It shall God assisting be further demonstrated Now let this be considered That as in the Lord's-Supper it is such a quantity of Bread and Wine that is to be used that may represent his Body broken and his Blood shed and as that Sacrament was appointed to that very end and purpose so in like manner we also say so much Water must be used as may represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of our blessed Saviour But one Mr. Burkitt a Pedo-baptist saith in his Treatise of Infant-Baptism That in the Sacraments it is not the quantity of Elements but the Significancy of them that ought to be attended to in Circumcision saith he it was not the quantity of Flesh cut off so much as the Signification of it c. and you seem to express your self to the same purpose Answ To which I returned him this Answer viz. There must be so much Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper that may represent Christ's Body broken and so much Wine as may in Sign as well as Signification held forth the pouring forth of Christ's precious Blood or else the End of Christ is not answered in that Sacrament and so likewise must the Burial and Resurrection of Christ be in Sign as well as our Death to Sin and rising again to Newness of Life is represented in holy Baptism Should the People of Israel in Circumcision only have cut off a little bit of the Fore-skin of the Flesh and not round quite off or only have paired off the Nails of their Childrens Fingers with a little Skin with it would that have answered the Mind of God in that Rite or they have been born with in pleading it might as well answer Circumcision in Signification But the Vanity and Sinfulness of this Assertion of Mr. Burkitt's and yours will yet be now further laid open in this Chapter only there is one thing before I proceed on that I shall add a word or two unto as touching what you say concerning those Washings that were used under the Law which are called Baptisms which you say were done by sprinkling which is not true we utterly deny any of those Washings which are called Baptisms were either sprinkling or pouring of Water on them but total dipping of their whole Body And so the Reverend Mr. Ainsworth a Man very Learned in all Jewish Rites and Ceremonies affirms on Levit. 11. 31. see his Annotat. on that Text these are his words viz. All that are unclean whether Men or Vessels are not cleansed but by dipping or baptizing in Water and wheresoever the Law speaketh of washing a Man's Flesh or washing of Clothes for Uncleanness it is not but by dipping the whole Body therein And whether they be Men or Vessels there may not be any thing between them and the Water to keep them asunder as Clay Pitch or the like that cleaveth to the Body or Vessel if there be then saith he they are unclean and their washing profiteth them not He cites for this Maim Mikvaoeh c. 1. § 12. Sir what is become of your sprinkling of Cups Pots and Brazen Vessels among the Jews when 't is said they washed or baptized them it appears their way in washing was total dipping or else they were not clean And now to proceed to prove Christ's Baptism in Water is by Immersion by Dipping to represent in Sign his Death Burial and Resurrection and in Signification to hold forth our Death unto Sin and rising again to walk in Newness of Life who are baptized I shall add it in this place First From the Scripture Secondly By the Consent Agreement and Arguments of a Cloud of Witnesses both Antient Fathers and Modern Divines and worthy Protestant Writers 1. The first Scripture is Rom. 6. 3 4 5 6. Therefore we are buried with him in Baptism c. The Saints or whole Church of the Romans were to reckon themselves dead to Sin and bound to live no longer therein and that because by Baptism as in a lively Figure they held forth the same thing so that it appears Baptism hath a twofold Signification 1. There is in it when truly and rightly administred not only a Representation of Christ's Burial and Resurrection but 2. Also it signifies our Death unto Sin and our rising again to walk in Newness of Life and indeed the Apostle makes use of this as an Argument to press Newness of Life the thing signified in Baptism upon them all as if he should say As many of us as are baptized must know this that we are baptized into Christ's Death and therefore must die to Sin and live a new Life But we have all been baptized or buried with him in Baptism therefore must all of us die to Sin and live a new Life Our late Annotators on the place say thus He seems to allude to the manner of baptizing in those warm Countries which was say they to dip or plunge the Party baptized and as it were to bury him for a while under Water Cajetan upon the same Text says We are buried with Christ by Baptism unto Death by our burying he declares our Death by the Ceremony of Baptism because he that is the Party baptized is put under Water and by this carries a Similitude of him that was buried who was put under the Earth Now because none are buried but dead Men from this very thing that we are buried in Baptism we are assimilated to Christ buried or when he was buried The Assembly 〈◊〉 their Annotations on this Text of Scripture say likewise thus viz. In this Phrase the Apostle sâ—…s to allude to the antient manner of baptizing which 〈◊〉 to dip the Party baptized and as it were to bury them under Water for a while and then raise them up again out of it to represent the Burial of the old-Man and the Resurrection to Newness of Life The same saith Diodate Tilenus a great Protestant Writer speaks fully in this case Baptism saith he is the first Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ in which there is an exact Analogy between the Sign and the Thing signified The outward Rite in Baptism is threefold 1. Immersion into the Water 2. Aciding under the Water 3. A Resurrection out of the Water The Form of Baptism viz. External and Essential is no other than an Analogical Proportion which the Signs keep with the Thing signified thereby For the Property of the Water washing away the Defilements of the Body does in a most sutable Similitude set forth the Efficacy of Christ's Blood in blotting out of Sin so dipping into the Water in a most lively Similitude sets forth the Mortification of the old Man and rising out of the Water the Vivification of the new Man The same plunging into the Water saith he holds forth to us that horrible Gulph of Divine
only is the publick Head of his Seed a Believer's Faith objectively justifies and saves himself only not his Children Could Reverend Mr. Jones find no better a Pen to defend his Cause of Pedo-Baptism My Faith may be said to unite me to Christ but doth it also unite my Child to Christ Whatsoever good Children do receive from their believing Parents besure the Parent 's Faith doth not render his Child a Believer but however my Faith doth not make the Condition of my Child worser than it was and it may not make the Condition of my Child better for all the good Counsel Education good Example and Prayers some Children have from their Godly Parents they make them not the better 'T is not in him that willeth nor in him that runneth but in God that sheweth Mercy You intimate what Cause there is of bitter Sorrow in the Churches of God that the Major part of their Children are out off from the Covenant of Salvation Answ Our Doctrine cuts off not one Child of any Believer that is in the Covenant of Salvation if God hath elected the major part of the Children of the Faithfull we say they shall be saved 'T is impossible for any to cut off one of God's Elect. But what is this to their Children as such or to the positive Right any of our Infants have to Baptism Do you cut off your Infants from the Covenant of Salvation because you will not give them the Blood of the Covenant I mean the Lord's Supper Brethren Both the Sacraments are Ordinances that are of meer positive Right viz. depending as to the Subjects and all Matters thereunto belonging upon the Sovereign Will and Pleasure of the Lord Jesus the great Law-giver and as they that come to one Ordinance are to examine themselves and to discern the Lord's Body So all they that come to the other are to believe in Christ and to repent from dead Works You mistake 't is not the Eternal Covenant of Grace that you say you stand up in the Gap to maintain but you strive to introduce in Gospel-Times an external relative Covenant according to the Flesh like that Covenant of Peculiarity which God made with Abraham and his Natural Seed as he was a publick Head and Father of the whole House of Israel or of the National Political and Typical Church of the Jews Nay you would fain have all the Seed of Believers to be in that Covenant that peculiarly and absolutely did belong to the Natural Seed of Abraham as such and none else Now 't is this thing which we deny we say that there was a twofold Covenant made with Abraham signified by Sarah and Agar And tho there was Grace and Mercy in both yet the Covenant of Grace or Free Promise was not made to Seeds as of many i. e. not to all the natural Seed of Abraham or Seed of Believers as such but primarily it was made to Christ and in him to all the Elect who alone are in the Eternal Covenant of Grace That the Election takes hold both of some of Believers Seed and some of the Seed of Unbelievers is evident and tho God may comprehend in his Eternal Love more of our Seed than of the Seed of Unbelievers yet I have proved in this Treatise and Reply to Mr. Owen that the Covenant of Grace and the Election of God runs nor to the Seed of the Faithful as such and also that Believers Seed nor Unbelievers Seed until they believe in Christ ought to be baptized nor taken into the Visible Church because 't is not the Covenant of Grace considered as such that gives any Person a Right to Baptism but the meer positive Command of our Lord Jesus Christ whose express Command and Commission injoins none to be baptized but such who are Believers or such who are discipled by preaching the Word Mat. 28. 19 20. Mark 16. 16. John 4. 1. Acts 2. 37. Acts 8. 12 14. Acts 8. 37. Acts 10. 47. Acts 16. 30 31. Acts 18. 8. Rom. 6. 3 4. Mr. Owen tells Mr. Jones who he says hath the Tongue of the Learned that his desire was that he would be a Disputant for those Weaklings who are not able to dispute for themselves Reply He tells us one while that Mr. Jones desired and importuned him to write his Treatise and at another time he says his Will and Desire was that Mr. Jones should do it As touching the Reverend Mr. Samuel Jones I have had such an account of him by a Worthy Minister that I am fully satisfied that had he wrote on this Subject we should have had no such bitter Reflections or ill Treatment as we meet withal from this Man He hath dipped his Pen into Gall and Wormwood and hath made work for Repentance besides I am informed that Mr. Jones neither put him upon this Work nor approves of it tho perhaps when he saw his Forwardness he might say Go on and do it Sirs those Weaklings he means need no such a Disputant he hath done them no service nor the Church of God either we throw none of them out of that Eternal Covenant of which he speaks nor can Men nor Angels do it such of our Infants that are in the Eternal Covenant are safe enough But we deny that our Infants are in that Covenant of Peculiarity which God made with Abraham and his natural Seed as such And this I doubt not but you will find in the insuing Answer sufficiently proved Moreover He says He stands up in the gap to maintain the Eternal Covenant which God made with the Faithful and their Seed Great is the Truth and it will overcome Reply He should not boast before he puts off his Armour that may be a Truth in a Man's Opinion which is a gross Error in it self You will when you have read our Answer the better judg whether he hath prov'd the Baptism of Infants to be from Heaven as in the Title of his Book he asserts it is He farther says We are Fathers and the Law of Nature teacheth us to preserve the Inheritance of our Children Reply Our Affections are not less to our Children than his we are Fathers also but are not willing to give an Inheritance to our Children which of right belongs not unto them Grace nor gracious Privileges in the New Covenant come to be the Inheritance of our Children in a Natural way as they are our Off-spring tho evident it is in the Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham the Jews and their Seed as such had an Inheritance given them by the Lord i. e. many Legal and External Privileges besides the Land of Canaan which Circumcision was a Token or Sign of but we and our Children have no right to that Inheritance They had the Shadow we and our Children that believe have the Substance they had the Shell we the Kernel The true Inheritance is by Faith that it might appear to be of Grace and not in Circumcision
for them so to have done had Baptism been sprinkling Sure Philip would not have put that Noble Person who was a Man of great Authority under Caâ—dace Queen of the Ethiopians to that great trouble to come out of his Chariot if to sprinkle a little Water on his Face might have done and to go down into the Water and dip him Sure Philip would on this occasion have dispensed with Immersion and let Aspersion or Rantism have served considering he was a great Person and on a journey he might have fetch'd a little Water in his Hand or otherwise and have sprinkled him in his Chariot as some Ministers do now in their publick Places of Worship and thus Men make void the Command of Christ by their Traditions to the abuse of Christian Baptism and Reproach of us that keep to his sacred Institution Mr. Daniel Rogers a most worthy Writer says in a Treatise of his It ought to be the Church's part to cleave to the Institution which is dipping especially it being not lest Arbitrary by our Church to the Discretion of the Minister but required to dip or dive And further saith That he betrays the Church whose Minister he is to a disordered Error if he cleave not to the Institution O what abundance of Betrayers of the Truth and of Churches too have we in these as well as in former days How little is the Institution of Christ or Practice of the Primitive Churches minded by many good Men Where is the Spirit of Reformation And doubtless that famous Author and Learned Critick in the Greek Tongue Casanbon was in the right Take his words I doubt not saith he but contrary to our Church's Intention this Error having once crept in is maintain'd still by the carnal Ease of such as looking more at themselves than at God stretch the Liberty of the Church in this case deeper and further than either the Church her self would or the Solemness of this Sacrament may well and safely admit Afterwards he saith I consess my self unconvinced by Demonstrations of Scripture for Infants sprinkling The truth is the Church gave too great Liberty she had no Power to alter in the least matter but to have kept exactly to the Institution She says dipping or sprinkling that spoils all that Addition gives Encouragement VVho will dip the Person that can believe the Church that sprinkling may serve And O! how hard is it to retract an Error which hath been so long and so generally received especially when Carnal Ease and Profit attends the keeping of it up and also when the true way of baptizing is reproached and look'd upon to be so contemptible a Practice and those who own it and dare not act otherwise vilified and reproached by many with the scurrilous Name of Anabaptists c. altho we are as much against rebaptizing as any People in the VVorld can be The Learned Cajetan upon Mat. 3. 5. saith Christ ascended out of the Water therefore Christ was baptized by John not by sprinkling or pouring Water upon him but by Immersion that is by dipping or Plunging into the Water Moreover Musculus on Mat. 3. calls Baptism dipping and says the Parties baptized were dipped not sprinkled To close with this take one Argument If the Baptizer and the Baptized in the days of Christ and his Apostles went both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipped then is Baptism not Sprinkling but Dipping But the Baptizer and the Baptized in the days of Christ and his Apostles went both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipped Ergo Baptism is not Sprinkling but Dipping CHAP. V. Proving that Baptism is plunging or burying in Water the whole Body in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Wherein Mr. Owen's Arguments for sprinkling and his Objections against Immersion or Dipping are fully answered REader thou mayst see that tho the remote Sense of the common word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may refer to pouring of Water yet the proper and genuine Sense of that word is dipping or such a washing as is by dipping which is abundantly proved as you have heard both by the Scriptures and Consent of a great Cloud of Witnesses amongst the Learned both Anâ—…nt and Modern Therefore what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith in the beginning of his third Chapter viz. That it is uncertain whether in the New Testament the Apostles baptized by dipping or sprinkling is not true it being evident it was by dipping and no other way For where-ever the word Baptism is used I say again in the New Testament as it refers to Christ's Ordinance of Baptism it signifies dipping or plunging into the Water nor can he prove the Jews washed their Hands and Cups only by pouring Water on them tho Elijah might have Water poured on his Hand we commonly wash our Hands and Cups by dipping them into the Water And so did the Jews as Mr. Ainsworth affirms 2dly Sir what you say concerning that Typical Baptism in the Cloud and Sea you have heard also fully answered and that makes not for sprinkling nor pouring But more to that hereafter 3dly What you say concerning the Signification of Baptism that it holds forth two things 1. The Blood of Christ 2. The Spirit of Christ is far fetch'd for the Lord's Supper holds forth the Blood of Christ and we have no Ordinance ordain'd by Christ to hold forth in a Figure the sprinkling or pouring forth of the Spirit if Man has invented such a thing so be it The Papists found out seven Sacraments with their significant Signs as they tell you and they have the same Parity of Reason to maintain their Sacraments without any Warrant from God's Word as our Pedobaptists have for their baptizing or rather rantizing or sprinkling of Babes True the Apostle speaks of sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus but Baptism is no Figure of that as you have heard but primarily of the Death â—urial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ Sir you say Sprinkling is lawful because it is very probable that the Apostles themselves did baptize by pouring or sprinkling Water Acts 2. 41. Then they that gladly received the word were baptized and the same day there were added unto them three thousand Souls It is not you say very probable that these three thousand were plunged over Head and Ears in VVater How could Peter and the rest of the Apostles even twelve Men baptize three thousand in one day yea in one half day how could they change their Apparel c. Answ 1. I answer wonder no more how three thousand Persons shou'd be baptized i. e. dipped in that short time 't is sufficient for any Christian to believe it because the Holy Ghost hast said it 2. But whereas you say there were but twelve Men to administer it that is not true there were the seventy Disciples no doubt with them who were Ministers and there might very probably be many more 3. However since Baptism is Immersion
he mean every individual Person or some of all sorts of Jews and Gentiles So Paul saith All seek their own c. Vid. Glassi Illerici Philolog Sacr. and also our late Annotators the word or term All they tell you is here twice repeated Mat. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. it is enough to let us know that in Scripture 't is signisicative no farther than many for say they it cannot be imagined that every individual Person in Jerusalem and all the Regions round about Jordan went to hear John the Baptist 2. You forget that Text John 3. 26. Behold him that thou bearest witness of c. the same baptizeth and All Men come unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to Jesus Christ Also 't is said John 4. 1 2. That Jesus made and baptized more Disciples than John If John baptized them all and Jesus baptized them all then they were all twice baptized or all re-baptized and if so were indeed properly all Ana-baptists Sir in both places it intends but some You worthy and beloved Britains take heed how you are led by a Man that argues so preposterously I doubt not but he may be a good Man but under a Cloud of Darkness 3. Sir how Dr. Lightfoot or you can prove that John preached but two Years and a half I see not but had he every day baptized an hundred he might with much Ease have done it in the space of four hours time or thereabouts But alas neither he nor our Saviour had so many Disciples as you imagine the Number of the Disciples after the Resurrection of Christ as we read Acts 1. were but an hundred and twenty that were together perhaps there might be some few more in some other parts 4. But you I perceive contradict the Holy Ghost in saying that John sprinkled them i. e. rantized them for Ranâ—izing in the Original as I presume you know is sprinkling in English Sir I appeal to your Conscience whether it be not so Sprinkling and pouring is one thing and baptizing another and a quite different Act. I affirm Sprinkling is not Baptizing say what you will You in the next place mention that which we object concerning Philip and the Eunuch who went both down into the Water when the Eunuch was baptized To this you answer and say How doth that follow Could they not go into the Water without plunging in it We read in Gen. 24. 45. say you that Rebecca went down into the Well Does it follow that she was plunged in it You will say of your Maid-Servant when she goes to draw Water she went down into the River your meaning is not that she was plunged there I answer Rebecca might properly be said to go down into the Well because in some Wells there are several Steps or Stairs before we come to the Water 't is not said she went into the Water Also who of us could say when our Servant-Maid went to draw Water or fetch Water from a River she went into the River if any do say so they speak not truly but indeed do lie Sir take heed what you say the Holy Ghost doth not say they went down to the Water but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both went down into the Water and he baptized him i. e. dipp'd him not rantiz'd him You bring in our Objection against your Sprinkling taken from Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12 13. viz. we are said to be buried with Christ in Baptism into Death To this you say We bury by casting Earth on the Body and the pouring of Water you say doth represent it it cannot be said one was buried that was fallen under Water or Earth unless he remains there for a time he that descendeth into a Coal-pit is under the Earth but is not buried by reason he cometh out from thence immediately dipping therefore doth not signify a Burial unless he that is dipped remains for a time under the Water I answer 'T is true we do bury by casting Earth on the dead Body but 't is so much Earth as covers the Corps all over or else 't is not buried So if you pour Water on a Child until it is covered all over in Water it may truly be said that Child was buried in the Water altho the burying in Baptism is not by pouring Water in great abundance until it is covered but by going into the Water and there to be dipped or plunged all over so that all may see the Body is buried under Water as truly symbolically and as properly as if it had been buried in the Water Or 2. Tho a Person be laid in the Grave and covered all over with Earth tho it be but two Minutes he may as truly and properly be said to be buried as he that lies there three Days or a thousand Years But you would have Baptism to be no proper Representation of a Burial unless the Person baptized lies so long till he be drowned Sir Baptism doth represent the Death of Christ and of the old Man or Body of Sin which is as sufficiently held forth by a Minute or two as by many Days 3. And now utterly to put to silence your vain Objections I shall give the Sense of a whole Cloud of Witnesses as to the proper Exposition of those Texts Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12 13. by and by but if my honest Country-men do think you have given a better Sense of the Words than all those Learned Men I will say no more You say the Resemblance then between Baptism doth not stand in the dipping of the Body so much as in the End of the Ordinance in making us Partakers of Christ's Death of his Life and of his Ascension and of his sitting on the Right hand of God Baptism makes us to be planted together in the Likeness of his Death yet there are none you say that plants Bodies in Water by baptizing them Rom. 6. 5. Answ We shall in our next Chapter finally determine this great Point and plainly shew you by manifest Arguments together with the joint Consent and Agreement of a multitude of Learned Men that were and are Pedo-baptists that the Resemblance between Death Burial and Resurrection and Baptism doth stand in the outward Sign of Dipping as well as in our partaking of the Blessing of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection All know in the Ordinance of the Lord's-Supper the Signs are significant and no true Protestant will admit of such an Administration of it in which the breaking of Christ's Body and the shedding of his Blood is not clearly represented to the sight of our Eyes Why is the Popish way of the Administration rejected who deny the Laity the Cup if there ought not to be an exact keeping to the direct Signs as well as to bear in Mind the Thing signified thereby Nay Sir I find you in your third Chapter to justify your sprinkling stifly by arguing for an Agreement between the Sign and the Thing
away the Filth of it Now says he and you to the same purpose the sprinkling of the Blood of Christ and the pouring forth of the holy Spirit upon the Infant are more fully and plainly represented by Baptism as administred by sprinkling than by dipping He says further That if the inward and spiritual Grace signified by Baptism be more lively represented by sprinkling than by dipping then surely sprinkling is not only lawful but more expedient than dipping but the inward and spiritual Grace signified by Baptism to wit the cleansing the Soul by the Grace and Spirit of Christ is more lively represented by sprinkling than by dipping therefore more expedient and accordingly we find Almighty God himself often expressing the Mercy of Sanctification by this Action Ezek. 36 25 Theu will I sprinkle clean Water upon you and ye shall be clean c. Ansew 1. To this I answer where the Thing signified is not the Sign is a nullity but your Thing signified in sprinkling VVater on the Face of an Infant viz. the holy Spirit and Graces of it does not appear in those Infants you so sprinkle Ergo Your Sign is a nullity If Grace was in them so much as in the Habit of it when they are grown up the Act and Fruits of the Spirit and Faith would shew themselves for Grace is an active and lively Principle where-ever it is infused 2. And I positively deny that the End and Use of Baptism is or can be represented by sprinkling or pouring of VVater but by what I have said and produced by the Testimony of the Scripture and almost all Learned Men both Antient Fathers and Modern Divines I have fully shewed the contrary 3. I thought the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper had been instituted by Christ to signify the Effusion or pouring forth his precious Blood and not Baptism VVill you confound the Use and End of one Sacrament with the other to maintain your own Innovation and Abuse of Christ's holy Baptism 4. Might not the Jews who instead of making Altars of Gold or Stone made them Altars of Brick say that Altars of Brick might serve as well to answer the Use and End of burning Incense Nay may be they might say they had not the other to do it and therefore built their Altars of Brick But would this Pretence do No no what saith the Almighty God They provoke me continually to my Face Also might not others argue thus about the Sacrament of the Supper viz. VVhat need we have VVine If we use Mum or some other Red Liquor instead of the Fruit of the Grape it will answer the Use and End of that Sacrament as well as VVine O whither would this lead us 5. VVe utterly deny that Baptism was ordain'd or instituted by Christ to signify either the pouring forth of his Blood or the pouring forth of the holy Spirit and must tell you that you affirm what you please without any Proof from God's VVord But by the way let the Reader observe how you go from sprinkling to pouring VVater on the Face of Infants I question whether you ever do so or not but if you should that would be no more Christ's Baptism than sprinkling You are not to devise new Signs or Symbols of Spiritual Mysteries of which God speaks nothing in his VVord nor ever instituted to such Ends. I affirm he has appointed no Rite or Ordinance in the Gospel to represent the sprinkling or pouring forth of the holy Spirit The Papists have you know seven Sacraments and they tell us of the Use and End of them and how wonderfully significant they are and yet all the Use and Signification of them were the Contrivances of their own wicked Hearts And I must tell you that they prove what they do and say for their Sacraments as well as you do As to what you speak of pouring or sprinkling take what Tho. Aquinas most excellently hath said on this account It belongs to the Signifier says he to determine what Sign is to be used for the Signification But God it is who by things sensible signifies spiritual things in the Sacrament Christ hath ordained Baptism to be a Sign Symbol or lively Representation of his own Death Burial and Resurrection as I have proved and confirmed by a Cloud of Witnesses Will God endure or suffer Men think you to invent out of their own Brains new Signs and Symbols of Divine Gospel-Mysteries and then father them upon him and call them his Ordinances Nay more be so bold as to say these are more useful and answer better the End of God than those which he himself instituted For thus you and other Pedo-baptists speak of Sprinkling viz. 't is not only lawful but more expedient than Dipping And hereby you seem to teach God Wisdom or to magnify yours above his Be astonished O Heavens Be thou horribly amazed O Earth Were ever any Men thus bold before First You contrive a new Rite and new Significations of it which God never appointed to represent such things and then say 't is more expedient than Christ's Ordinance of dipping which was instituted by him for other Ends and Significations whereas the whole Body of all learned Men and Christians witness to and testify the contrary Pray take what Sir Norton Kâ—atchbul hath wrote in direct opposition to what you affirm Saith he Baptism which now saves us by Water speaking of the Text in 1 Pet. 3. 21. that is by the assistance of Water and is antitypical of the Ark of Noah does not signify the laying down the Filth of the Flesh but the Covenant of a good Conscience towards God while we are plunged in the Water which is to testify our Belief of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ so that there is a manifest Antithesis between these words by Water and by the Resurrection Nor is saith he the Elegancy of it displeasing As if he should say the Ark of Noah not the Flood was a Type of Baptism and Baptism was an Antitype of the Ark Not as if Baptism is a washing away of the Filth of the Flesh by Water wherein it answers not at all to the Ark but as it is the Covenant of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Christ in the belief of which Resurrection we are saved as they were saved by the Ark of Noah for the Ark and Baptism were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection so that the proper End mark of Baptism ought not to be understood as if it were a Sign of the wishing away of Sin although it be thus oftentimes taken Metonymially in the New Testament and by the Fathers but a particular Signal of the Resurrection by Faith in the Resurrection of Christ of which Baptism is a lively and emphatical Figure as also was the Ark out of which Noâ—h returned as from a Sepulchre to a new Life and therefore not unaptly called by Philo the Captain of the new Creation and the Whale's Belly out
you know nor whether ever God will give them his Spirit or Grace to enable them so to do And as one Pedo-baptist lately saith If they do not discharge this Obligation viz. their Baptismal Covenant they are guilty of Perjury and 't is the damning Sin O cruel Parents you list your Infants into the Spiritual War by your pretended Baptism and arm them not The Graces of the Spirit are the Believers Spiritual Armour and Weapons these they have when listed I mean baptized but Infants as such have not this Armour on when baptized Alas poor Babes they have too much Guilt upon them naturally O the Weight that lies upon them but you Pedo-baptists add to it by your Tradition of a Baptismal Covenant that God never appointed them to come under Therefore you object How can Children be bound to that which they are ignorant of You answer They were ignorant of the Bond of Circumcision and yet were bound over to the Law to take him to be their God and to depart from the ways of Sin c. Answ Because God obliged and bound over the Jews by Circumcision in their Infancy in that Legal Covenant to love the Lord their God with all their Hearts to take him to be their God and to depart from all the ways of Sin nay to keep the Law perfectly which shewed the necessity of Christ's Righteousness and Merits which was nevertheless upon this respect a Yoke of Bondage which Yoke by Christ we and our Children are delivered from Will you adventure to bring your poor Children under another like Yoke of Bondage Christ's Yoke is easy and his Burden is light because he gives all that are to be baptized his Spirit and a changed Heart to love God and cleave to him and serve him but you make his Yoke as hard as the Yoke of Circumcision by putting Baptism on your poor Infants to oblige them thereby to be regenerated and love God with all their Hearts before Grace in the Habit of it is infused into them and all this without the least Authority from Christ or the Gospel O cruel Parents Sirs who hath required this at your Hands You shall hear more of this hereafter You do intimate that 't is true Circumcision did oblige to keep the Law perfectly since the Law but from the beginning it was not so for say you Circumcision was not of Moses but of the Fathers Joh. 7. 22. Answ Was not the Moral Law from the beginning and were not those that were circumcised bound to keep the Moral as well as the Ceremonial Law How then dare you say and prove it not that from the beginning it was not so i. e. It did not bind Abraham's Natural Seed exactly to keep the Moral Law that is to love God with all their Hearts and their Neighbours as themselves yea to leave and loath all Sin Circumcision I have proved was no Seal nor part of the Covenant of Grace but of and part of the Covenant of Works so that you run into a dangerous Sâ—are and deceive the People unwarily by your Ignorance of the two Covenants made with Abraham and not distinguishing Circumcision from being a Seal to Abraham's Faith and not a Seal in common to all his Children It was a Sign to them in their Flesh but no Seal of the Covenant of Grace You further run a Parallel between Circumcision and Baptism as some others before you have done Pray take my former Answers to all you say here which I have given to other Pedo-baptists upon this foot of account 1. Others formerly have as well as you do now affirmed That Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision 2. They run a Parallel between Circumcision and Baptism and would have them both signify the same thing in an exact Analogy 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Say they which you seem to affirm also If Baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision then as the Jewish Infants were circumcised so the Infants of Christians may and ought to be baptized But Baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision Therefore as their Children were circumcised then so may ours be baptized now Answ 1. There is no necessity that a Gospel-Ordinance must succeed in the room of a Legal or Jewish Ordinance What if I affirm that no Ordinance succeeds in the room of Circumcision Were there not many other Rites and Ordinances under the Law or Old Testament besides Circumcision and yet you cannot find or once imagine any Gospel-Rite or Ordinance to come in the room of them respectively for that then it would follow there would be as many Christian Rites Precepts and Ordinances as there were Jewish Rites Precepts and Ordinances which as one observes were more than three hundred 2. Besides as Dr. Taylor observes If Baptism came in the room of Circumcision you must baptize your Children always on the eighth day and you must not baptize your Females at all because none but Male Infants were then circumcised 3 And whereas you say that Baptism signifies the same things that Circumcision did it is not true as will appear to all understanding Men if they consider these Particulars following which are so many Disparities viz. 1. Circumcision was a Shadow of Christ to come Baptism is a Sign he is already come was dead and buried 2. Circumcision was a Sign of the Covenant made with Abraham and his Natural Seed Baptism is a Sign of the peculiar spiritual Privileges made to Saints as such and no others 3. Circumcision was a Domestick Action i. e. to be done in the House Baptism an Ecclesiastick belonging to the Gospel-Church 4. Circumcision was to be done by the Parents in that respect Baptism is to be done only by Gospel-Ministers 5. Circumcision was the cutting off the Foreskin of the Flesh which drew Blood Baptism is to be done by dipping the whole Body into the Water without drawing of any Blood 6. Circumcision belonged to Male-Children only Baptism belongs to Males and Females also 7. Circumcision was to be done precisely on the eighth Day Baptism is not limited to any precise Day 8. Circumcision made a visible Impression on the Body which the Party might perceive when he came to Age of Understanding Baptism leaves no Impression on the Body 9. Circumcision belonged to Abraham's House to his Male-Infants only or such who were bought with his Money and not the Male-Infants of any other Godly Men in his days unless they join themselves to his Family Baptism belongs to Believers in all Nations 10. Circumcision bound those who came under that Rite to keep the whole Law of Moses Baptism signifies we are delivered from that Yoke of Bondage 11. If Circumcision signified the same things and consequently particularly the sealing the Covenant of Grace then those that were circumcised needed not to be baptized because sealed before with the same Seal or that which signified the same thing but Christ and all his Apostles and many others who were circumcised were nevertheless baptized 12.
fathering that on Christ which he never said nor intended When a King say you by his Charter or publick Writing sets at liberty the Inhabitants of some Town are not the Children Partakers of the Charter altho their Names be not particularly in it So it is here the King of Heaven is through the Charter of the Gospel making of us that were Strangers and Foreigners to become Fellow-Citizens with the Saints Eph. 2. 19. and to that end commanding to receive all Nations through Baptism into the Liberty and Privileges of the City of God and will he not receive the Children into the Privileges of their Parents Answ I answer if it be so as you say in all National States Governments and Constitutions and Civil Societies what doth this prove touching the case in hand unless you dare undertake to affirm the Gospel-Church is National and not Congregational Doth the Constitution of the Spiritual Gospel-Church run as in Human and National Constitutions Prove it for I utterly deny it Besides if your Infants as such are Fellow-Citizens with the Saints and are to partake of all the Privileges of the City of God why do you deny them the Lord's-Supper your Similitude proves no more their right to Baptism to one Privilege than another I never yet could understand what Spiritual or Temporal Privileges any Infant receives in Baptism What good doth that do them that have not the Things signified in Baptism There are great Benefits received in such a Grant you speak of in an external Charter but as God hath not commanded Infants to be baptized so not any Benefits can be proved they receive thereby In this you argue as Mr. Burkit hath done before you Reader take his Similitude viz. I demand saith he whether according to the Mind of God gathered from the words of the Commission the Remedy prescribed should be administred only to grown Persons because they only are capable of understanding and believing the Virtue and Efficacy of it Sure every Rational Man among you would conclude his Child capable of the Remedy as well as himself altho ignorant of the Virtue that is in it and only passive in the Administration of it and that it would be Cruelty yea Murder in the Parent to deny the Application of it to all his Children Reply I stand amazed at such Ignorance and Folly Does it follow because Children are capable to receive a Medicine against the Plague or Bodily Distemper are they therefore capable of Baptism and the Lord's Supper If capable of one say I of the other also For as a Man is required to examine himself and to discern the Lord's Body in the Lord's Supper so he is required to repent and to believe in Christ that comes to Baptism I would know how they prove Baptism to be the Medicine appointed to cure the Soul of the Plague of Sin or as Mr. Owen says for their Salvation Is not this to blind the Eyes of the poor People and make them think that an external Ordinance saves the Soul if not thus how can it be Cruelty yea Murder in Parents to deny the Application of Baptism to their Children as Mr. Burkit says The Antient Fathers from that in John 6. 53. Unless a Man eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood he hath no Life in him gave Infants the Lord's Supper thinking our Saviour like as the Papists do meant that Sacrament when indeed he meant only of seeding by Faith on Christ crucified But however their Argument for giving Infants one Sacrament was as good as yours for giving them the other But when they are as capable to repent and believe and are helped so to do as they are and do eat Bread or receive a Medicine for a Bodily Distemper let them have both Baptism and the Lord's-Supper and till then if God's Word be the Rule of our Faith and Practice and not our own Fancies they ought to have neither yet the Remedy or Medicine which is Christ's Blood we deny not but dying Infants may be capable of tho the way of its Application we know not as to them that is a Secret as to us You know the Church of England positively affirms Repentance whereby a Person for sakes Sin and Faith whereby he stedsastly believes the Promise of God made to him in that Sacrament are required of those that are to be baptized nay and of little Babes too therefore the Sureties answer for them that they do believe and repent or forsake the Devil and all his Works c. the Child answers by Proxy The Church of England baptizes no Child but as a Believer and a true Penitent Person All that are proper Subjects of Baptism are comprehended in the Commission and must be as such whether Adult or Infants who profess Faith and Repentance But you it may be foresaw the Snake in the Grass viz. That Godfathers and Godmothers is a Tradition and none of God's Appointment nor are they able to perform those things for the Child which they promise for him and in his Name And therefore make use of another Argument and would have them baptized without Faith or upon their Parents Faith of which the Church of England speaks nothing As to your Comparison it is not worth mentioning Baptism as I have told you doth not cure the Soul of Sin or save any Person but it 's the Blood of Christ applied by Faith Not that we say no Child can have the Benefit of that Soveraign Remedy because not capable to believe by reason Men and Women must receive it by Faith or perish God as Dr. Taylor observes may have many ways to magnify his Grace through Jesus Christ to them which we know not of who die in their Infancy yet have we no Authority to baptize them any more than to give them the Lord's-Supper Pedo-baptists talk at a strange rate as if they regarded not what they say or affirm while they bring Similitudes to teach People to believe Baptism is the Balm to cure the Contagion of Sin and as if the Application of it saved a little Babe from Hell and they guilty of murdering the Souls of their Children who deny to baptize them I had thought they would not have laid greater Stress upon Childrens Baptism than on Childrens Circumcision since they would fain have them run Parallel-wise Pray what became of the Jews Female Infants were they damned and what became of their Male Infants who died before eight days old for they broke God's Law if they circumcised them tho sick and like to die if they were not full eight days old Let such blush for the sake of their precious Souls and take more care for the time to come to what they write and preach I am grieved to see my blessed Master's great Commission thus inverted and abused Suppose the King should send you with a Commission into a remote Plantation and command you to act and do exactly according to the express
of be said to be holy as well as the Infidel or unbelieving Wife is said to be sanctified What is the difference between holy and sanctified Mr. Owen says If the Children of the Faithful are not Members of the Church of God then they are Members of the Kingdom of Satan who is the Prince of this World If they are without the Church what hopes of Salvation have they there is no Salvation out of the Church Rom. 9. 4. Answ 1. I hope my Antagonist is a Protestant but I must assure my Reader he here maintains a Popish Doctrine which all our worthy Protestant Divines have protested against How is there no Salvation out of the Visible Church God forbid I doubt not but there are many gracious Persons who shall be certainly saved and who do truly believe in Christ that are not Members of any true Gospel Church Will you exclude all from Salvation that are not Members of your Church I cannot think you own the Church of England to be a true Gospel-Church and will you exclude all that are of that Communion from the Kingdom of Heaven 2. But as to Infants they are born Children of Wrath and actually in Satan's Kingdom till God is pleased to sanctify them and those who die in Infancy that are saved no doubt he doth sanctify their unclean Nature but not such as live and remain in Satan's Kingdom until they are regenerated by the Word and Spirit of God after they are grown up to Understanding 3. Therefore some Infants may be Members of the Invisiole Church or Mystical Body of Christ tho not Members of the Visible Church and of this sort there may be among the Children of Unbelievers as well as among the Children of Believers for the Election of Grace runs not only to the Seed of the Faithful say what you please as I said before 4. Therefore you do not well to call Children Dogs if they are not in the Pale of the Visible Church You say the Promises are the Inheritance of the Church not to those that are without and therefore say you if the Children be without they are among Dogs and what Promise belongs to them Rev. 22. 15. and where there is no Promise there is no hope of Salvation c. Answ 1. I answer the Promise runs to Christ and all that the Father hath given him but we do not know who they are until they believe 2. The Promises are not the Inheritance of all that are Members of the Visible Church for they may not belong to some that are in it and they may belong to some others that are not in it You darken Counsel with Words without Knowledg For 1. You distinguish not between the Visible and Invisible Church 2. Also you distinguish not between who are the Lord 's decretively and who are his actually 3. Moreover you distinguish not between external Privileges and true internal spiritual Privileges No external Privileges or outward Church-Membership gives any Man a Right to Salvation nor puts him under the Promise thereof 3. There is hope and ground of hope touching the Salvation of dying Infants tho they are not in Gospel-times of the Visible Church because Christ saith of such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven But pray Sir take heed of what you say You cannot prove that our blessed Saviour spake those words only with reference to the Children of Believers I know no cause why unbelieving Parents should doubt of the Salvation of their dying Infants They may so far as I see have as much ground to hope God's Election may reach their dying Infants as any Believer can have it may reach to theirs What if I should exercise so much Charity as to hope that God hath comprehended in his electing Love all the dying Infants both of Believers and Unbelievers and that through the Blood and Merits of Christ they are sanctified and shall be all saved My Opinion were it so could not justly be condemned by any but I say secret things belong to God and I shall forbear to pass any Judgment in the case but leave it to God but I am sure no Child shall be damned for the Parent 's Fault Can Parents by baptizing their Infants save them Or are they Dogs and must be damned if their Parents baptize them not and dare not do it because Christ hath not commanded them to baptize them 4. Sir what if a Man and his Wife when they were both vile and ungodly People as bad as any that live on Earth should beget many Children and afterwards they both believe and become good Christians is the State of those Children begotten when they believed good and they holy and are the Children they had when they were vile and wicked Persons bad nay so bad as they are to be counted Dogs O that God would open your Eves Nay if it were as you intimate it may be queried Whether it be not a sinful a wicked and an unlawful thing for two ungodly unbelieving unfaithful Persons to marry since they can beget no Children but such as you call Dogs for you will not say their Children are holy or ought to be baptized nor are in the Pale of the Church But to conclude with this Chapter let me speak a word to you that are Believers and also a word to you that are Unbelievers and I shall pass to the next Argument 1. To you that are Believers and have Children if they are holy and Heirs of Heaven as they are begotten and born of your Bodies as Mr. Owen and other Pedobaptists assert then you need not trouble your Thoughts about your dying Infants tho they are not baptized for 't is not Baptism makes them holy by Mr. Owen's Concession but because they are your Children 't is by your Faith they are holy as he blindly supposes 2. And since Baptism doth not belong to them Christ no where having commanded you to baptize them nor can it add any thing to their Salvation I charge you in the Fear of God baptize them not 3. But do not believe Mr. Owen nor any other Man in what he says unless he can prove it from God's Word I tell you from Christ's own Words you have ground of hope touching the State of your dying Infants but not because they are your Children but because of such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven and they may be in God's eternal Election of Grace For as Dr. Taylor saith and I mentioned before God may have many ways to apply the Blood of Christ to save and sanctify dying Infants which we know not of but we are not any more required to haptize them or to give them one Sacrament than we are required to give them the other viz. the Lord's-Supper and this he will one day know to be a Truth tho now he sees it not O! saith Mr. Owen cast them not out from the Church of God out of the Covenant of Salvation they are your dear Children Children of your
and vivification to a New Life but in the Rantizing or Sprinkling of an Infant there is not cannot be a lively Representation of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection c. Arg. 26. That pretended Baptism that pretends to frustrate the glorious end and design of Christ in his Instituting of Gospel Baptism or cannot answer it is none of Christ's Baptism but the pretended baptism of Infants tends to frustrate the glorious end and design of Christ in Instituting of Gospel Baptism Ergo. The Major will not be denied As to the Minor all generally confess the end and design of Christ in Instituting the Ordinance of Baptism was in a lively Figure to represent his Death Burial and Resurrecton with the Persons Death unto Sin and his rising again to walk in newness of Life that is baptized as the Sacrament of the Supper was ordained to represent his Body was broke and his blood was shed But that a lively Figure of Christs Death Burial and Resurrection appears in Sprinkling a little Water on the Face I see not and as done to an Infant there can no Death to sin and rising again to walk in Newness of Life be signified and therefore Christs design and end therein is frustrated Arg. 27. If Baptism be Immersion as to the proper and genuine Signification of the word Baptizo as also of those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms and the Spiritual Signification thereof then Sprinkling cannot be Christs true Baptism But Immersion is the proper and genuine signification of the word Baptizo and also of those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms spoken of and the spiritual signification thereof Ergo Sprinkling is not Christ's true Baptism 1. That the proper and genuine signification of the word Baptizo is Immersion or to Dip c. We have fully proved which is also confessed by all Learned in that Language 2. That the Typical Baptism viz. that of the Red Sea wherein the Fathers were buried as it were unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud appears from Pools Annotations 1 Cor. 10. 2. Others saith he more probably think that the Apostle useth this Term in regard of the great Analogy betwixâ— Baptism as it was then used the Persons going down into the Waters and being Dippâ—d and the Israelites going down into the Sea the great receptacle of water tho' the water at that time was gathered on heaps on either side of them yet they seemed buried in the water as Persons in that Age were when they were baptized c. The second was that of Noahs Ark See Sir Norton Knatchbul who I before Quoted and shall here again recite his words The Ark of Noah and Baptism saith he were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection not the Sign of the washing away of Sin tho' so taken Metonymically but a particular signal of the Resurrection of Christ Of this Baptism is a Lively and Emphatical Figure as also was the Ark of Noah out of which he returned as from a Sepulchre to a New Life 3. Metaphorical Baptism is that of the Spirit and of affliction The first signifies not a Sprinkling of the Spirit but the great Effusion of the Spirit like that at Pentecost Acts 1. 4 5. Shall be Baptized c On which words Causabon speaks thus See Dr. Du Veil on Acts 2. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to Dip or Plungâ— as it were to die Colours in which sense saith he the the Apostles might be truly said to have been baptized for the House in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost so that the Apostles might seem to have been plunged into it as into a large Fish-Pond Also Decumentus on Acts 2. saith A wind filled the whole House that it seemed like a â—iâ—h-Pond because it was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost And the Baptism of afflictions are those great depths or overwhelmings of afflictions like that of our Saviours magnis componere parva no part free Mat. 20. 22. where you have the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and like that of David who saith God drew him out of deep waters 4. The spiritual signification thereof is the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ and of our Death to sin and vivification to a New Life This being so it follows undeniably that Sprinkling cannot be Christs true baptism it must be Immersion and nothing else And in the last place finally to confirm that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to Dip both from the â—…teral and spiritual signification thereof as also from those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms mentioned in the Scripture I might add further that this evidently appears from the practice of John Baptisâ— and the Apostles of Christ who baptized in Rivers and where there was much water and also because the Baptizer and Baptized are said to go down into the water not down to the water and came up out of the water John Baptist is said to baptize them into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—ordan as the Greek renders it which shews it Dipping and not Sprinkling Would it be proper to say he Sprinkled them into Jordan The Lord open the Eyes of those who see not to consider these things Sir I expect your answer to these Arguments particularly if you make any reply to what I have said in confutation of your Treatise and see you do your business better the next time for as yet you have not proved Infant Baptism to be from Heaven as I hope the unprejudiced Reader will conclude I shall say no more at present but leave all I have said to the blessing of God hoping in a little time he will vanquish by the light of his sacred word your Scripture less practice of Infant Baptism out of the World clear up the Truth of his own despised Ordinance That Wisdom may 〈…〉 of her Children and God may be Honoured to whom be Glory now and for ever more Amen FINIS †Worthy Britains see how Mr. Richard Baxter hath out down Infant Baptism with his own Sword can Infants shew their consent to be married to Christ or profess Faith in him ☞ * Read the Table of the Authors at the beginning of this Book Mr. Daniel Williams in his Book called the vanity of youth page 131. Mr. Williams Worthy of blame as well as Mr. Burkit The danger of Infants Baptismal Covenant layd open * Perkins on Gal. c. 3. p. 256.