that Faith gives Right which is the Root of Holiness in the Adult Answ We do deny that Holiness I mean true Gospel-Holiness simply in it self without Christ's Command gives right to Baptism No Sir you go too fast Holiness did not give right to Circumcision but the meer positive Command of God to Abraham for if it did Lot Job c. had as much right to Circumcision and their Male Infants as Abraham and his Male Infants but that Holiness gave no right to Circumcision simply considered in it self appears because as I have before shewed all the Male Infants of those wicked Persons that sprang from Abraham's Loins by Natural Generation had as undoubted right to Circumcision by virtue of God's Command to Abraham as had those holy Mens Male Children that were of his Natural Seed Moreover 't is neither Faith the Seed nor Holiness the Fruit that gives right to Baptism simply considered but the positive Command of Jesus Christ which I affirm indeed runs to such who have Faith Repentance and true actual Holiness but not a Civil or Matrimonial Holiness as this is of which the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 7. 14. as will appear by and by Else were your Children unclean but now are they holy But how will it appear that they i. e. that Children are holy say you the Holy Ghost saith so in 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unclean but now are they holy The Apostle in these words say you answereth a Question proposed by the believing Corinthians Whether it was lawful for them to live in the State of Matrimony with those that were Infidels they questioned this not without Cause because Ezra commanded both the Idolatrous Wives and Children to be cast off Ezra 9. 1 2 3 4. Paul say you answereth that they ought not to do the like because the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the believing Wife and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the believing Husband 2. You say that Children born in such a State are holy as if both were believing and this you deny to be Legitimation or not being Bastards but that it is a Federal or Covenant-Holiness Such that were not in God's Covenant you intimate were unclean Isa 52. 1. Answ 1. Prove your Infants as such are in the Covenant of Grace We deny not but all Elect Infants are decretively in that Covenant but are your Infants or Infants of the Faithful as such in the Covenant of Grace If not they are not in this sense holy 2. Are there not many Children of Unbelievers elected If so are they not holy also and if so why not baptized as well as your Infants by your Argument from hence 3. Prove when you write again if you can that there is any External Relative Federal Holiness of Persons or of Things in the times of the Gospel as there was under the Law we deny it I affirm all External Relative and Federal Holiness was but a Ceremonial Typical Holiness and will you bring in Ceremonial Relative Holiness into the Gospel Church The Gentiles and their Children being not circumcised under the Law we grant were in that sense unclean But will you call all Unbelievers Children unclean now for the Unbelievers Children you deny to be Subjects of Baptism You say they are unclean that are excluded from the Privileges of the Church of God it was not for any unclean Person to come into the Congregation altho say you their Uncleanness was but Ceremonial Answ Sir God shewed Peter that Jews and Gentiles are now all one in Gospel-times Circumcision nor Uncircumcision renders Persons clean or unclean None now are cleansed or accounted clean but such who believe or have Faith in Christ All that you say about unclean Persons and things under the Law signifies nothing to the purpose in hand because the Holiness under the Law was either Ceremonial or Typical which none can or dare plead for under the Gospel-Dispensation seeing the Substance and Antitype is now come 1. Now in Gospel-times there is no Ceremonial Uncleanness of Persons and therefore in that respect no Holiness of Persons The Leper was unclean and he that touch'd a dead Corps was unclean c. Swines Flesh was unclean and many other Beasts that are not so now The First-born was holy then but not so now 2. There was Pollution or Uncleanness of Places the House of a Leper was unclean and his Garments unclean So there was Holiness of Places the Sanctuary was holy the Temple was holy which were either by external Consecration or typically so But now there is no Place so unclean nor holy In Gospel-times there 's no such Consecration of Places Persons or Things 3. Vessels were unclean and Vessels were holy but not so under this Dispensation 4. All the whole House of Israel was holy by way of Legal Separation or Consecration to the Lord tho they were wicked Persons in respect of Spiritual Sanctification but no Member of the Gospel-Church that is a false Professor is accounted holy or called holy by the Lord holy now because not allowed by the Gospel to be a Member They are not consecrated to the Lord or set apart as Members of a Congregational Church under the Gospel tho such were if Israelites and of the Jewish Church called holy by the Lord. Then these things being so as indeed and in truth it is acknowledged to be and that by our Godly Brethren whether Presbyterians or Independants what is become of your Exposition of this Text You say little Children are unclean by reason of natural Corruption but by God's Covenant and washing with Water c. they shall be clean Answ 1. True all that are born of Women are spiritually polluted and no doubt but such Infants that die who are saved God doth through the Blood of Christ sanctify them in some mysterious way not known to us but not by Baptism Prove that Baptism washes away Sin either in old or young if you can Who dares to affirm that when Peter saith Baptism washeth not away Sin or the spiritual Filthiness of the Flesh 1 Pet. 3. 21. 2. If God in a Covenant-way by Baptism washeth away the Uncleanness of your Infants then they were not holy or clean by being born of believing Parents and if holy because they are their Seed then no need of Baptism to wash them 3. And how come they to lose that Holiness afterwards or is it only the Defilement or Uncleanness of Actual Sin that lies upon your Children who are polluted when grown up for if Baptism washes away any Corruption of Sin in your Infants 't is Original Corruption and doth that return again to them afterwards so as to be charged upon them All Sin in true sanctified Persons by Faith in Christ's Blood is washed away and pardoned as touching the Guilt and Filth thereof and shall never so return as to be charged upon them to their Condemnation Is it thus with your baptized Infants in respect of Original Sin
no real but Typical Baptism 2. This Place proves not that Infants are the Subjects of Gospel Baptism 1. 'T is said all our Fathers were baptized but 't is nor said their Children were baptized unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud 2. But you intimate there were many Children with them as they passed through the Sea To which I answer so there were many wicked Men also all the Israelites were not godly Persons but many among them were prophane and ungodly People Besides there was a mixt People passed through the Sea with the Fathers also may be some of the Egyptians and others of other Nations and much Cattle also and these were all baptized as truly as were the little Children May we baptize such therefore we have as much ground from hence to baptize such as you have to baptize your Babes nay more ground if the Rain falling upon the Israelites was that which baptized them 't is a Question whether any Rain might fall on little Babes if it fell on their Parents for the Parents might cover them by holding some thing over their Heads and Bodies c. 3. The same Persons which the Apostle saith were baptized in the Sea and under the Cloud are also said to eat the same Spiritual Meat and to drink the same Spiritual Drink Now did not the Children partake of the Lord's Supper I mean that Typical Lord's Supper This Text therefore proves as strongly that you may give them the Lord's Supper as Baptism because they ate of the Manna that fell from Heaven and drank of the Water that came from the Rock 4. The design of the Apostle here is to forewarn the Saints at Corinth to take heed lest they fell as the Fathers fell in the Wilderness and to caution them the more effectually he shews them that the Fathers who fell not the Children in the Wilderness had like great Privileges with them viz. a Typical Baptism and also a Typical Lord's Supper Therefore nothing of this matter concerned their little Babes nor ours neither As to what you say of whole Housholds being baptized in the New Testament in this Chapter I shall refer my Answer to that Chapter of yours where you particularly insist upon that weak Argument You say the Parents and their Children were baptized by giving of the Law upon Mount Sinai Exod. 19. 10. Go to the People and sanctify them and let them wash their Clothes Now the washing of their Clothes and the washing of the Flesh went together Lev. 15. 5 6. wash his Clothes and wash himself in Water Being thus washed the Apostle saith that all the People entred into God's Covenant by Baptism Heb. 9. 19. For when Moses had spoken every Precept to the People according to the Law he took the Blood of Calves and of Goats with Water and sprinkled both the Book and the People The Apostle calls this Sprinkling Baptism Heb. 9. 10. divers Baptisms c. Answ I answer you have once already to your great Reproach and I fear contrary to the Light of your own Conscience asserted that which is false I appeal to you and all that can read the Greek whether that word in Heb. 9. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divers washings which I deny not may be read divers baptisms is the same word in Heb. 9. 19. viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sprinkling the Book and all the People is it there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Speak and confess your Ignorance or else acknowledg your Sin in going about to deceive the People by making them believe that sprinkling is in Greek Baptism or baptizing For tho washing in Heb. 9. 10. is Baptism or baptizing yet in Heb. 9. 19. sprinkling both the Book and People you must needs know is in the Greek rantizing 2. And what tho these divers washings are called Baptisms I have shew'd once already from a Faithful and Learned Author namely Mr. Henry Ainsworth that all those Legal Washings were by total dipping of the whole Body Take his Words again on Levit. 11. 32. All that are unclean whether Men or Vessels are not cleansed but by dipping or baptizing in Water and wheresoever the Law speaketh of washing a Man's Flesh or washing of Clothes for Uncleanness it is by dipping the whole Body therein and whether they be Men or Vessels there may not be any thing between them and the Water to keep them asunder as Clay Pitch or the like that cleaveth to the Body or Vessel if there be then they are saith he unclean and their washing profiteth them not Maim Mikvaoth chap. 1. § 12 21. Take heed what you affirm for the future This Man you and all know was well acquainted with Jewish Rites and Ceremonies and what can be a more full Confutation of what you affirm of Jewish Washings or Baptisms But where we read of sprinkling of Blood and Water 't is not baptizing unless baptizing and rantizing be both one and the same Word and Thing which we utterly deny 3. What tho the People were washed even all the whole Congregation Was not that a Typical Church and did it not typify that all true Believers must be washed in the Blood of Christ in Justification and also washed by the Holy Spirit in Sanctification These Things were held forth thereby and not Baptism You would make one thing that is a Figure or Shadow a Type of another thing that is also it self but a Shadow or Figure for Baptism signifies Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection and our Death unto Sin and Viâ—ification to a new Life But those Types were Shadows of good things to come even of Christ he was the Substance of them all they must I say prefigure a Substance not a Shadow 4. In a word all your labour is here lost about those divers Legal Baptisms and Rites under the Old Testament and of Children being in that Covenant because they were all Types even that all the Elect or all that believe in Christ should be washed in Christ's Blood or have his Blood sprinkled upon them and be sanctified by his Spirit Also it was a legal external and Typical Covenant and an external Typical Church holding forth the true Spiritual Gospel-Church and that like as Circumcision and those divers washings did belong to the whole House of Israel whether Godly or not So all the true Israel under the Gospel Dispensation should have the Substance and Anti-type of them and when any have attained to Faith in Christ and have what is signified in Baptism then and not till then they ought to be baptized but this not simply because they are in Covenant or have the thing signified in Baptism but because of the express and positive Command of Christ I say again nothing can give being to an Ordinance that wholly depends on a meer positive Rite but the express Will and Command of the Law-giver To conclude with this I infer 1. From the whole in Opposition to what
Mr. Owen saith it plainly appears that the sprinkling of VVater is not Baptism 2. That God receives all into the Covenant of Grace and Gospel Church through the Spiritual washing of Regeneration and Sanctification of the Spirit and that such only by Christ's positive Command ought to be baptized 3. That there was no Gospel-Baptism no Baptism of Christ under the Law but that 't is a pure positive Command and Institution of our Lord Jesus in the Gospel 4. That God received none of his People under the Law into Covenant through Baptism or through sprinkling of Water and Blood And that the sprinkling of Blood was a Figure of the Atonement of Christ's bloody Sacrifice and the sprinkling of Water of the sanctifying Virtue of the Spirit in Sanctification and not that Gospel-Baptism was signified thereby 5. That 't is only the meer positive Command of Christ in the New Testament that gives being and a just Right to Gospel-Baptism 6. That tho the Children with their Parents were taken into the Legal or Typical Jewish Church by God's positive Command that being a National and Typical Church yet no Children or Parents are by the positive Command of Christ in the New Testament to be received into the Gospel-Church but only those of them that believe and are washed in the Blood of Christ and sanctified by the Sacred Water of the Holy Ghost sith the Church of God now is not National but Congregational not consisting of the Fleshly as such but the Spiritual Seed of Abraham And since there being no Precept nor Precedent in all the New Testament that any one Infant was baptized or taken into the Gospel-Church it follows 't is an Human Tradition 7. That the Covenant on Sinai and the Ceremonial Law was not the Covenant of Grace tho given in subserviency thereunto and the latter a clear Figure of the Covenant of Grace and held it forth to all such who by Faith could see beyond those Sacrifices to the Anti-type of them Lastly Mr. Owen saith If Children were baptized formerly into Covenant ought they not to be baptized into his Covenant now especially because the Grace of the Covenant being enlarged under the Dispensation of the Gospel and the Privileges being more extensive I answer He doth but beg the Question asserting that which he proves not nor is ever able to prove viz. 1. That Children were baptized into the Covenant under the Law What Pedo-baptist ever asserted this before And in vain doth he affirm it now especially since he cannot prove sprinkling is Baptism 2. That all Infants were received into Covenant with God by Legal sprinkling and not till then but certainly all the Infants of the Jews were born Members of that National Church therefore not received into that Church and Covenant by Circumcision which most of the Assertors of Childrens Baptism do affirm much less not by sprinkling Blood and Water upon them Yet that sprinkling of Blood and Water might I deny not be a Sign that they and the whole House of Israel were God's Legal Covenant People and so the Type of the whole Spiritual Israel who should be washed in the Blood of Christ or Blood of the New Covenant and sanctified by his Spirit as is said before 2. Moreover evident it is that tho the Covenant of Grace in the Dispensation of it under the Gospel is enlarged and the Spiritual Privileges more extensive than were the Privileges of the Legal Covenant and Legal Church yet the external Privileges are less and not so extensive now as was theirs How many outward and earthly Privileges had the Jews and Ministers of God under the Law more than the Saints and Ministers of Christ have now Many of which I have reckoned up in the beginning of this Treatise Thus I close with your Eighth Argument CHAP XIV Proving that Children have no Right to Baptism from John the Baptist's Administration of Baptism in Opposition to what Mr. James Owen saith in his 12th Chapter That John baptized no Infants neither according to the Practice of the Jewish Church nor by virtue of any Commission he had from God that sent him Containing an Answer to Mr. Owen's 9th Argument for Pedo-Baptism MR. Owen saith If John baptized Infants Baptism doth always belong unto them for the Baptism of John and the Baptism of the Apostles were the same in the Substance of it He baptized in the Name of Christ to come and they baptized in the Name of Christ that was come Answ If you can prove John baptized Infants you do your Business indifferent well Now say you What we are to prove in this Chapter is that John baptized Infants to manifest this let it be considered 1. John the Baptist came not to nullify the Covenant of Abraham but rather to fulfil it and the Covenant of Abraham was that God would be a God to his People and to their Seed all the Visible Church of the Jews were in this Covenant John warneth them that they trusted not in the Privileges of this Covenant by living ungodly Lives he doth not in any Place make void this Covenant but rather confirms it saying God will raise other Children to Abraham if the Jews brought not forth Fruit meet for Repentance he came to baptize the Seed of Abraham which were all of them in the Covenant of God not only the Parents but the Children also Therefore their Children had the same right to Baptism as their Parents had Answ 1. I deny not but the whole House of Israel were in Covenant with God both Parents and Children and so abode till the old Covenant and old Covenant-Seed were cast out but What saith the Scripture Cast out the Bond-woman and her Son Gal. 4. 30. Now the Apostle tells you by the Bond-woman is meant the Sinai Covenant and by her Son the natural Seed of Abraham as such Gal. 4. 22 23 24 25. 2. This Grant of yours proves that the Jewish Covenant which took in all the People both Parents and Children was not the Covenant of Grace because but a finall number of the Jews were in God's Election and so in the Covenant of Grace See Dr. Owen on the Hebrews 3d Vol. Pag. 256. The Covenant of Grace in Christ is made only with the Israel of God the Church of the Elect. Pag. 291. The new Covenant is made with all who effectively and eventually are made Partakers of it and if they are not so with whom the New Covenant is made it comes short of the Old in Efficacy who were actual Partakers of the benefit of that that is of those external Benefits 3. Nor doth that which you mention help you viz. that in that Covenant made with Abraham and the whole House of Israel 't is said God would be their God or a God to Abraham and to his Seed in their Generations For First God may be said to be the God of a People divers manner of ways as Dr. Bates observes 1. Upon the account of
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.
are not straiter P. 73. l. 33. for has read hath P. 75. l. 28. for theirs read the. P. 75. l. 29. for their read the. P. 77. l. 17. i. e. as such should be in a Parenthesis P. 84. l. 3. blot out any P. 86. in the Contents of Chap. vii for first read fifth P. 88. l. 3. blot out from P. 99. for with the Gentiles read and their Children P. 89. l. 31. for same read thing P. 105. l. 37. for pai read pain P. 112. l. 28. for and read but. P. 117. l. 19. for with read without P. 118. l. 3. for Mat. read Mal. P. 120. l. 20. blot out so read and since c. P. 201. l. 40. for he that believes shall not be damned read he that believeth not shall be damned P. 250. l. 15. for vers 34. read 3 4. P. 264. l. 2. for born in Sin read born again P. 264. l. 4. blot out do P. 266. l. 40. for Christian read Children P. 239. l. 33. for Lord read Lords P. 293. l. 21. read an external Rite CHAP. I. In answer to what Mr. Owen hath said in his first Chapter SIR AS to what you say about the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledg that they were Seals of the two Covenants viz. of the Covenant of Works and of the Covenant of Grace or free Promise of God it is far fetch'd and very doubtful and as little to the Purpose for which you mention them therefore I shall pass that by 2dly As touching Circumcision being a dark Shadow of the Old Covenant under the Old Dispensation it may be granted but that it was the Seal of the Covenant of Grace which you affirm elsewhere in your Book I do deny it being only a Seal of Abraham's Faith even of that Faith he had being yet Uncircumcised and also that he should be the Father of all that should believe 3dly You say well that those dark Shadows viz. Circumcision c. are abolished the Substance being come that Yoke of Bondage is taken away which proves Circumcision did not appertain to the Covenant of Grace as the Seal of it in common to all Believers for the breaking off of a Seal cancels the Covenant to which it was prefixed as all Men know So that nothing can be more clear than this that Circumcision if it was a Seal of any Covenant as you conceive it was it was a Seal of the Covenant of Works which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear in regard it obliged all that were circumcised to keep perfectly the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. 4thly You say Christ hath ordained in the Gospel a light and easy Burden viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper These two are the only Sacraments you say of the Gospel This is granted and owned herein we do not differ 5thly You say Baptism signifieth our Spiritual Birth the Lord's Supper our Spiritual Growth and Nourishment This we grant also and therefore we say Baptism cannot belong to Infants because they are not in an ordinary way capable of Regeneration tho we deny not that those elect Infants that die are renewed quoad illorum naturas but we know not which they are if we did yet we ought not to baptize them because we have no Precept or Precedent so to do we might therefore as well and by as good Authority give them the Lord's Supper as Bâ—ptism which the antient Fathers when first Pedo-baptism was by Human Authority introduced into the Church you know did for near four hundred Years till the latter end of the Sixth Century 6thly You say Baptism according to the Signification of the Word is Washing and therefore the Apostle saith saved us by the washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered in Heb. 9. 10. in divers Baptisms those were not only by dipping under Water but by sprinkling Water on those baptized as the Apostle teacheth Heb. 9. 19. he took the Blood of the Calves and of Goats with Water and sprinkled the Book and all the People That which the Apostle you say called Baptism in Ver. 10. is in this Verse called the Sprinkling of Water c. Answ 1. I answer tho the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a remote Sense doth take in Washingâ— yet I challenge you and all that know or pretend to know the Greek Tongue whether in every place in the New Testament where the Word is mentioned or any Derivative from it as it refers to Christ's Ordinance of Baptism it doth not directly and properly signify Immersion and accordingly rendred by Beza in his Translation 2dly You greatly wrong that Text Heb. 9. 19. where the Apostle speaks of sprinkling the Blood of Calves and of Goats with Water c. by saying he refers to Ver. 10. where the Apostle speaks of Divers Washings and in thus doing you do not only abuse the Sacred Text but you wrong your own Soul and Conscience and the People also Sir do you find the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in ver 10. in ver 19. where sprinkling is mentioned or is it not in ver 13 19. as also 1 Pet. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We may modestly affirm that no Greek Author whether Heathenish or Christian has ever put Baptizing for Sprinkling or used those Words promiscuously for as in these Scriptures you have cited Heb. 9. 13 19 21. 't is always translated Sprinkling so there is not one place in Scripture wherein the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Baptism nor is there one Scripture where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Sprinkling And therefore tho sometimes the Greek Word doth signify in a remote Sense Washing yet 't is primarily such a washing as is by dipping or plunging as I said before And thus Mr. Wilson in his Dictionary renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tingo c. to dip or plunge into the Water and signifies saith he primarily such a washing as is used in Bucks where Linen is plunged or dipped tho in a remote Sense he hints it signifies other kind of washing but it does not so in the Holy Scripture where the Word is used as referring to Christ's Ordinance of Baptizing 3dly You say Water-Baptism i. e. the Washing of the Flesh signifies the Washing of the Spirit and therefore the Apostle Peter saith Even Baptism doth now save us not the putting away the Filth of the Flesh but the answer of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Christ Answ I answer you confound Regeneration with Baptism the washing of Regeneration is not the washing of Baptism Baptism regenerates no Person But you seem to follow the antient erroneous Fathers who concluded no Person could be saved unless baptized abusing that Text Joh. 3. 5. Unless a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven taking Water there for Baptism In like sort they abused that
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
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
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
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
yet the grafting of a Person into Christ is represented by that Allusion or Metaphorical Expression Must the Sign and the Thing signified be all one and the same thing Thus we see in opposition to what you say in the close of your third Chapter that it is very plain and manifest that dipping is absolutely necessary and of the Essence of Baptism it 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alas Sir in all the New Testament where we read of sprinkling the Greek as I said before renders it rantizing not baptizing 〈◊〉 Christ has ordained Rantism to represent the sprinkling of his Blood or the sprinkling of his Spirit prove it we deny it and have sufficiently proved he has appointed Baptism to represent his Death Burial and Resurrection and that sprinkling is not baptizing But for a farther Satisfaction of the impartial Reader take a few Syllogistical Arguments Arg. 1. If Baptism was ordained to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ in a lively Figure then Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism But Baptism was ordained to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ in a lively Figure therefore Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism This Argument we have proved to be true in every part of it Arg. 2. If Baptism was appointed to hold forth or represent in a lively Figure the Person 's Death to Sin who is baptized or his present Regeneration not future and his rising again to walk in Newness of Life then Infants cannot be the Subjects thereof But Baptism was appointed to hold forth or represent in a lively Figure the Person 's Death to Sin who is baptized or his present Regeneration not future and his rising again to walk in Newness of Life Therefore Infants are not the Subjects thereof 4. There is yet one Proof further to make it yet clearer that Baptism is dipping or plunging and nothing else and that is taken from those Typical Baptisms spoken of in the holy Scripture 1. That of the Red Sea wherein the Fathers were buried as it were unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud See Pool's Annotations on the Place Others says he more properly think the Apostle uses this Term in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptism as it was used the Person going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea the great Receptable of Water tho the Water at that time was gathered on heaps on the other side of them yet they seemed buried in the Water as Persons seem'd buried in the Water were in that Age when they were baptized 2. The second Typical Baptism was that of Noah's Ark See Sir Norton Knatchbull whom I quoted before saith he Noah's Ark and Baptism were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection not a Sign of the washing away of Sin tho so taken metonymically but a particular Signal of the Resurrection of Christ Of this again saith he is Baptism a lively and emphatical Figure as also was the Ark of Noah out of which he returned as from a Sepulchre From hence I infer this Argument following Arg. 3. If those Typical Baptisms spoken of in the Scriptures signified Immersion or an Overwhelming or a Burial then is Sprinkling no true Baptism But those Typical Baptisms c. did signify Immersion or an Overwhelming or a Burial Therefore Sprinkling is no true Baptism Again that Baptism is dipping or plunging or a being buried in the Water appears by those Metaphorical Baptisms we read of which are twofold 1st The Baptism of the Holy Spirit 2dly The Baptism of Afflictions 1st Saith John the Baptist I indeed baptize you with Water but he shall baptize you with the holy Spirit and Fire Now 't is not the sanctifying Gifts of the Spirit which every Godly Person receives that is the Baptism of the Spirit but as the Learned observe the miraculous Effusions of the holy Spirit like that at Pentecost Acts 1. 4 5. shall be baptized The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Casaubon is to dip or plunge c. in which Sense saith he the Apostles might be truly said to have been baptized for the House in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost So that the Apostles might seem to have been plunged into it as in a large Fish-pond 'T is not a sprinkling of the Spirit that is the Baptism of the Spirit for so doubtless the Apostles had the Spirit before they were said to be baptized with it Oecumenius on Acts 2. saith A Wind filled the whole House that it seem'd like a Fish-pond because it was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost 2dly We read of the Baptism of Afflictions I have a Baptism to be baptized with and how am I straiâ—ned till it be accomplished From the literal Signification of the word baptizâ— immergo as I shewed before to plunge under overwhelm great Afflictions come to be called Baptism and signifies as Vossius shews not every light Affliction but like that of David Psal 32. 6. he drew me out of the deep Waters Hence great Afflictions are called Waves Thy Wazes and thy Billows are gone over me Psal 42. 7. 'T is spoken of Christ's Sufferings who was as it were drowned drenched or overwhelmed in Afflictions and Sufferings Every small Affliction is not the Baptism of Afflictions but great and deep Afflictions suffering even unto Blood and Death Pool's Annotations say to be baptized is to be dipped in Water metaphorically to be plunged in Afflictions I shall close this also with another Argument Arg. 4. If those Metaphorical Baptisms which we read of in God's Word as the Baptism of the Spirit and of Afflictions and Sufferings are taken from the literal and genuine Signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immergo which signifies to dip then sprinkling is not baptizing but the former is true Ergo sprinkling is not baptizing CHAP. V. Wherein Mr. Owen's Argument for Infant-Baptism taken from the Covenant God made with Abraham is examined and totally confuted SIR YOu in your fourth Chapter come to consider and enquire who are the proper Subjects of Baptism or who they are that ought to be baptiz'd And first you say that Baptism doth not belong to all Men but to the Faithful and their Seed He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. When the Eunuch ask'd Philip See here is Water what doth hinder me to be baptized He answered If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayst Acts 8. It is plain say you that Baptism belongeth to them that believe but say you how doth it appear that Baptism doth belong to the Seed of such that will appear you say 1. From God's Covenant 2. From Circumcision under the Law 3. From Christ's Command to baptize all Nations 4. Because they are holy 5. Because Christ blessed them 6. Because the Gentiles were ingrafted into the Privileges of the Jews 7.
Covenant of Faith or Grace How is it then that the Apostle Paul says the Law is not of Faith also the Covenant of Grace giveth Life But I argue thus The Law could not give Life Ergo The Law was not a Covenant of Grace So much for the first Note or Observation 2. The second Observation is The Duration or Continuance of this Covenant made with Abraham the Lord calls â—t an Everlasting Covenant c. Answ This might have been left out only it adds to the Number this is answered by the Objector himself be he who he will in saying the Hebrew word for Everlasting sometimes signifies no more than a long Continuance of Time We know it very well and those Mosaical Rites that ended in Christ are said to be for everlasting But when the Lord saith he will be a Person 's God for ever and ever or everlastingly it denotes his being so to all Eternity But God never said he would be the God everlastingly or to all Eternity to all who were concern'd in the Covenant of Circumcision nor was he Ishmael's God so tho circumcised and has he not cast off that whole Nation of the Jews with whom he made that Covenant and is not so their God now tho he is I confess to all Eternity or everlastingly the God of all Abraham's Spiritual Seed viz. all true Believers in Christ 3. The third and last Argument or Note to prove the Covenant of Circumcision a Covenant of Grace is taken from the Benefits and Blessings conveyed by it To be a God unto him and to his Seed and that everlastingly is a most comprehensive Gospel-Blessing for hereby say they God gives a Person an Interest in all that he is and in all that he has so far as can be communicated to a Creature This Blessing promised to Abraham comprehends Christ Grace Holiness here and Glory and Happiness hereafter And accordingly we find the Apostle Heb. 8. uses the same Expression with this of God's to Abraham I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a People Answ This is idem bis idem culpandum est the same again which is already answered Is God everlastingly a God to Abraham and to all his Fleshly Seed and to Believers who are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham and to all their Fleshly Seed I say is this so Does God give himself all he is and all he has to every Believer and to all his Fleshly Seed Have all their Children or every one of them Christ Grace Holiness here and Glory and eternal Happiness hereafter Or are they not to be justly blamed who jumble things so confusedly together 'T is true the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and all his true Spiritual Seed who are the Elect have Interest in all God is and has so far as it can be communicated to Creatures and we know they have Christ as well as are Christ's as Paul notes Gal. 4. and Grace here and shall have Glory hereafter But a multitude of Abraham's Natural Off-spring and the Natural Off-spring of Believers has neither Christ nor Grace nor shall be saved but perish eternally Therefore this may serve for an Answer with what I have proved before touching the nature of that twofold Covenant made with Abraham Let us come to what is further asserted If the Covenant which God made with Abraham be one and the same with the Covenant of Grace then our Infant-Seed have right to Baptism Answ This has been urged before and I have already answered it only I shall add a Passage or two of Martin Luther's Paul therefore concludeth with this Sentence saith he They which are of Faith are the Children of Abraham That Corporal Birth or Carnal Seed makes not the Children of Abraham before God As if he would say there is none before God accounted as the Child of this Abraham who is the Servant of God whom God hath chosen and made righteous by Faith through Carnal Generation but such Children must be given before God as he was a Father but he was a Father of Faith was justified and pleased God not because he could beget Children after the Flesh not because he had Circumcision under the Law but because he believed in God He therefore that will be a Child of the believing Abraham must also himself believe or else he is not a Child of the Elect the believing and the justified Abraham but only the begetting Abraham which is nothing else but a Man conceived born and wrapt in Sin without the Forgiveness of Sin without Faith without the Holy Ghost as another Man is and therefore condemned such also are the Children carnally begotten of him having nothing in them like unto their Father but Flesh and Blood Sin and Death therefore these are all damned This glorious boasting then we are the Seed of Abraham is to no purpose Thus far and much more to the same purpose he excellently debates upon Mr. Perkins on the Galatians concerning the Covenant mâ—de with Abraham The Seed of Abraham saith he is the Seed not of the Flesh but of the Promise And this Seed is first Christ and then all that believe in Christ for all these are given to Abraham by Promise and Election of God Moreover this Seed is not many as Paul observeth but one It is objected that the word Seed is a Name collective and signifies the whole Posterity of Abraham Answ It doth sometimes saith he but not always for Eve saith of Sâ—th God hath given me another Seed Again he saith this one particular Seed of Abraham is Christ Jesus here call'd by the Name Christ first and principally the Mediator and then secondarily all Jews and Gentiles believing that are fit and grafted into Christ by Faith St. Paul saith the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are the Seed of Abraham Rom. 9. 8. Now this Covenant we grant thus made with Abraham is one and the same with the Covenant of Grace but what does this signify to the Infants or Fleshly Seed of Believers as such And thus I shall pass to your next Argument You say the Children of the Faithful are in God's Covenant because Christ is the Mediator of a better Covenant which was established upon better Promises Heb. 8. 6 c. But say you if the Children of the Faithful are excluded from the Covenant then the Covenant is worse and not a better Covenant It was a great Prerogative of Children being in Covenant Rom. 9. 4. for the Promises of God belonged to them but if the Covenant be shortened in Privileges how is it a better Covenant c. Answ 1. I answer It is granted by us that the Children of the Jews whether they were believing Jews or unbelieving Jews godly Persons or ungodly Persons they were in that external Covenant God made with Abraham's Natural Seed as such or with the whole House of Israel under the Old
external Privileges of the Covenant of Grace who only partake of Baptism and not of the Lord's-Supper Is not Faith required of all such that ought to be baptized as well as it iâ— required in all that partake of the Lord's Supper to examine themselves neither of which Infants are capable to do It iâ— manifest that the Children of the Faithful as such are not in the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham but that there was a twofold Covenant made with him and that the Covenant of Grace only appertains to the Elect of God whether they be Children of Believers or Children of Unbelieverâ— which is not known to us until they are grown up and are brought by the Spirit of God under special Vocation and Regeneration and that they are the Adult only viz. such as believe that have right to Baptism but that not by virtue of the Covenant of Grace but by virtue of the positive Command of Christ in the New Testament Sir you mistake again it was not by virtue of the Covenant of Grace that Persons had right to Circumcision for if so then Lot and Melchisedec and Abraham's Males as soon as they were born had a right to it as also his Females nothing gave right to Abraham's Male-Infanâ—s to Circumcision but the meer positive Command of God to him which extended only to those Males in his own House or bought with his Money and not till the eighth day for such that died before the eighth day tho Males had no right to be circumcised nor had his Females any right thereto so none but Believers when they can give an account of their Faith by virtue of Christ's express and positive Command ought to be baptized Pray remember the Covenant of Grace as such gives no right to Baptism for if it did all Believers or Elect Persons had right to it from the first Introduction or Declaration of it to Adam upon the Fall No no it is a pure Gospel-Ordinance and meerly positive and only depends upon the Will and Pleasure of the Law-giver Jesus Christ Honoured Britains who inhabit North and South Wales let me intreat you to consider how false the Conclusion is that Mr. Owen draws concerning the Right the Infants of the Faithful have to Baptism namely that if they are in the Covenant of Grace then they ought to be baptized For as he nor no Man else can prove the Infants of Believers as such are in the Covenant of Grace so it would not follow were that granted that they ought to be baptized it being not the Covenant of Grace but the express and positive Command of Christ that gives Persons just Right thereunto Suppose Christ had not commanded Believers to be baptized would any Man have adventured to baptize them or conclude it was their Duty because they were in Covenant with God Or would Abraham have been circumcised himself because in the Covenant of Grace had he not received a positive Command so to be Certainly he was long in the Covenant of Grace before he was circumcised and did not sin thereby because God had not given that Precept to him until he was old Moreover it was the express Command of God that gave right to his Male-Infants to be circumcised and not only those of his Seed that were in the Covenant of Grace but Ishmael and others who were not Children of the Promise or in the Covenant of Grace were circumcised and also it was not Lot's Duty tho in the Covenant of Grace to be circumcised because not one that dwelt in Abraham's Family or his Natural Seed nor commanded by the Lord to be circumcised or to circumcise his Infants CHAP. VII Proving Infant-Baptism is not lawful because Circumcision under the Law belonged unto the Male-Infants of the Jews containing an Answer to Mr. James Owen's first Chapter IF say you Circumcision under the Law belonged unto Infants then Baptism under the Gospel belongeth unto them for even as Circumcision was so Baptism is the Seal of the same Covenant of Grace and signifieth the same things Answ 1. I answer If Circumcision did not belong to Infants under the Law any otherwise than by express and positive Command of God which gave them right thereto then if God hath not commanded Believers to baptize their Infants it is not their Duty to baptize them but their Sin if they do it But I have proved it was the express Command of God only that gave Male-Infants proceeding from Abraham's Loâ—â—s Authority to be circumcised and God hath given no such Command to Believers to baptize their Infants therefore Baptism doth not belong to the Infants of Believers as such under the Gospel as Circumcision did belong to Male-Infants under the Law 2. I have proved Circumcision was not the Seal of the Covenant of Grace tho it was a Seal to Abraham of the Righteousness of his own Faith yea of that Faith he had being not circumcised A Seal I have shewed gives an undoubted Right of all those Blessings and Privileges to those Persons to whom the said Covenant is sealed and so it did to Abraham but it was no Seal of the Blessings of the Covenant of Grace to Ishmael Esau and many thousands more who were commanded to be circumcised Were this therefore true that Mr. Owen asserts That Circumcision was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace to all that were circumcised in Infancy then they were all saved even all the Males that proceeded from Abraham's Loins many of which proved as vile and wicked Men as most that ever lived in the World Nor Reader is Baptism a Seal of the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel for if so it would seal all Gospel-Blessings to all Persons that are baptized who then were it so but would be baptized and baptize his Children Brethren the holy Spirit only is the Seal of the Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant vid. Ephes 1 13 14. cap. 4. 10. You proceed to shew in several respects that Circumcision and Baptism signify the same things 1. You say because Original Corruption cometh by Natural Generation 2. Because we are born in Uncleanness we must be washed in our Infancy Answ 1. Supposing that Circumcision did and Baptism doth signify the Corruption or Filthiness of Original Sin or Uncleanness must we therefore baptize our Infants without any Authority Command or Example in God's Word 2. Doth Baptism wash away Original Corruption I know the Papists assert it doth do this but how do they or you prove it Baptism St. Peter saith doth not wash away the Filthiness of the Flesh or Corruption of Natural Pollution 1 Pet. 3. 21. 3. Your Reverend Brother Mr. Stephen Charnock fully proves that Baptism is not Regeneration that can't cleanse from Sin Answer his Arguments in his Book of Regeneration What tho those Baptists in Germany you speak of understood that the antient erring Fathers that introduced Infant-Baptism did bring it in to wash away Original Sin Cannot Christ cleanse Elect
dying Infants from Original Sin by virtue of his Blood in a way unknown unto us Must we deny Original Sin or own Infant-Baptism does cleanse from it Strange Divinity you prove nothing 4. You say all were not regenerated in Circumcision but God blessed his own Ordinance in his own time for the Regeneration of his Elect c. So say you not that all are regenerated in Baptism but because Baptism sheweth the necessity of Regeneration and being effectual in time unto all those that are elected for working Regeneration in them Answ 1. You say all were not regenerated in Circumcision and so not that all are say you regenerated in Baptism c. Sir take heed you do not deceive the Souls of People I deny that ever any one Soul was regenerated in Infancy either in Circumcision or Baptism nor did God ever ordain either of those external Ordinances to regenerate young or old 2. I know the Scripture and worthy Divines hold forth that Baptism is a Sign of present Regeneration they that ought to be baptized i. e. Believers do rise out of the watery Grave as Dr. Sherlock asserts new born Creatures but thus do not Infants whom you baptize or rather rantize 3. Prove if you can that God ever blessed Circumcision or Baptism to the Regeneration of any Elect Infants when grown up But if none but Elect Infants are the Subjects of Baptism why do you baptize as you call it all the Infants of Believers Are all their Children elected and none but theirs Are not many Children of Unbelievers elected Why then are such not to be baptized as well as the Children of the Faithful Sir we know not who are elected till called and Baptism belongs to none but such who can make a Profession of their Faith and give Evidence of effectual Calling and present Regeneration You write but your own Phantasie not God's unerring and certain Truth 4. You say Abraham's Heart was circumcised before the Flesh of his Fore-skin but you intimate his Childrens Flesh was circumcised before their Hearts were circumcised In the same manner you say our Ancestors the Gentiles were first Fruits unto Christ and were regenerated before baptized but their Seed are baptized before they are regenerated To Abraham you say it was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace he had and of the Righteousness of his Faith before circumcised but to his Seed it was a Sign of the Righteousness of Faith they were bound to receive for Justification after they were circumcised and so you speak of Believers Seed in respect of Baptism Answ 1. I answer Abraham only received Circumcision as a Seal of the Righteousness of his Faith c. But prove that Circumcision did bind all his Children to receive by Faith Justification 't is a bold Assertion I have proved that Circumcision did not appertain to the Covenant of Grace but to the external or fleshly Covenant God made with Abraham and in him with the whole Nation of the Jews and therefore 't is positively affirmed by the Apostle That such that were circumcised were bound to keep the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. not to receive by Faith Justification Your Parallel between Circumcision and Baptism 't is true well futes with the Human Contrivance of those that first invented Infant-Baptism who would thereby fain make the Gospel-Church National as the Jewish Church was and confirm the old Church-Right and Church-Membership which is taken away and a new Church-state erected which doth not consist of Believers and their Carnal Seed as such but only of the Spiritual Seed of Abraham who are Believers or living Stones who are built up a Spiritual House 1 Pet. 2. 5 6. The Gospel-Church is not National but Congregational say what you please to the contrary 2. Therefore as the Faithful at first among the Gentiles and Jews too received Baptism as Believers being regenerated before baptized so must we unless you have a new Gospel or fresh Authority to change the Administration of Gospel-Ordinances and the Gospel-Church I thought the Water as it just came forth of the Fountain was most pure you do but plead for the muddy Water that has run through the Popish Stream You say Circumcision was a Sign of Admission into the Church of God every Male did come in through that Door the uncircumcised had no right to the Privileges of the visible Church So you would have Baptism to run Answ 1. 'T is not true what you say Circumcision was not the Door into the Jewish Church they were all born Members of that National Church and therefore their Females were as truly Members that were not required to be circumcised as their Males 2. Tho we grant Baptism is the initiating Ordinance into the Gospel-Church yet it admits of no Members but Believers only if any others upon a false Faith get into it they have no just Right thereto and when discovered are to be put out 3. Sir tremble at the Thoughts of what you say It is not we but Christ in his Blessed Gospel that excludes Infants or the Natural Seed of Believers as such from being Members of the Gospel-Church he hath shut up that Door viz. by Generation i. e. being the Seed of Abraham or Seed of Believers as such and hath opened the Door of Regeneration 'T is we that believe and our Children that the Lord our God shall call and none else 4. Sir Circumcision was so far from being any such a Privilege as you intimate that the Apostle calls it such a Yoke of Bondage that neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear Act. 15. And in Answer to what you say p. It was not for their Sin nor the Sin of their Parents that Infants are excluded or not received into the Gospel-Church but because it was the good Pleasure of God to erect another and more spiritual Church-state and to remove the old Way and Typical Church-state of Israel 5. Therefore for you to intimate as if we were so unnatural as to cast our Children out of God's House is not to be indured it doth but reflect on the Wisdom of God we are more faithful to our Children and not like the Ostritch than you for we would not allow them that Right which God hath not nor make them think in Baptism they were regenerated and made Members of God's Church and so deceive and put them upon a Temptation not to seek out for any other Regeneration and Gospel-Right to Church-Membership You say Circumcision was an Obligation to put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh and say you Baptism putteth us under the same Obligation c. Answ Baptism can oblige none to put off the Body of Sin but such that are the true Subjects of it by virtue of Christ's holy Institution which are only Believers such who before baptized have received the Spirit of God so to do But you without any Warrant from Christ would put this hard Obligation on your poor Infants whereas
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
then also there would be a Knowledgâ— still of Men after the Flesh which the Apostle Paul disclaims 2 Cor. 5. 17. Moreover the Jews who were broken off are still the Natural Seed of Abraham and if therefore this Holiness was an External Relative Federal Holiness they are in that sense holy as much as any Children of a believing Gentile can be said to be but this 't is evident is not that Holiness of which the Apostle speaks nor is there any such Holiness under the Gospel-Dispensation spoken of Thus Reader I have examined Mr. Owen's Exposition of this Text and have found it to be a false Exposition and a palpable Abuse of the sacred Text and have opened the Text I hope truly It therefore follows from what I have said in Opposition to what Mr. Owen saith in the Close of the ninth Chapter as here followeth 1. That by the Natural Branches that receive Virtue and Fatness from the Root before Christ came were not meant the Natural Seed of Abraham as such because no ungodly Person did or doth or can receive the Virtue and Fatness of the true Olive-Tree or saving Blessings of the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham What Virtue or Fatness is in a simple external federal Profession or Holiness either in the Jewish or Christian Religion as it respects only a Separation to visible Church-Membership 2. It appears also that the Jews that believed in Christ tho they were not broken off of the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham yet they and their Children stood no longer in that Legal and External Covenant of Peculiarity which God made with Abraham and the whole House of Israel but that that old Covenant is dissolved 3. That those Jews that believed not and their Children are broken off from being any more in any Covenant-Relation to God as his People and that for their Unbelief 4. It also appears that none of the Gentiles are received or graffed into Christ and into the true Olive or into the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham but only such that believe not them and their Fleshly Seed as such but they themselves and their Children also that do believe even none but such who by Faith partake of the Fatness that is the best of Blessings that appertains to the Covenant of Grace not external Blessings and Privileges only no no they are not the Fatness i. e. the best and the choicest of Covenant-Blessings but Union with Christ Justification Pardon of Sin Adoption and Eternal Life in these things consists the Fatness of the true Olive which Believers Seed as such partake not of nor any but the Elect and called ones of God according to his Eternal Purpose only 5. It also appears that those Jews that shall be called and graffed in again into their own Olive-Tree shall be none but the Elect and that their own Olive-Tree doth not refer to the external Privileges of the Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham's Natural Seed as such but shall receive of the Fatness of their own Olive-Tree which is the Covenant of Grace for that primarily was made with Abraham's Natural Seed that believe and belongs to all God's Elect also as their own and proper Olive whether Jews or Gentiles So that when the Jews are called we may be sure they will plead no external Privileges of their old dissolved Covenant but come in upon the Terms of the Gospel with their Children that believe and none else And if the Controversy of Infants right to Baptism and Church-Membership ceaseth not till they shall be called and come in who will then renounce the old Federal Right and all Old Testament external Privileges be sure it will cease then CHAP. XII In Answer to Mr. Owen's 10th Chapter and 7th Argument viz. that the Infants of the Faithful as such ought to be baptized because they can partake of those things prefigured in Baptism TAke Mr. Owen's 7th Argument which runs thus viz. If the Children of the Faithful can partake of the Blessings figured in Baptism they ought to be Partakers of Baptism also if the invisible Grace belongeth unto them the visible Sign cannot be denied unto them c. Answ If we should grant that the Children of the Faithful as such can and do partake of the Blessings figured in Baptism yet it doth not follow they ought to be baptized because there is no Precept or Example for it in the New Testament For may not I argue thus viz. If the Children of the Faithful can partake of the Blessing prefigured in the Lord's-Supper they ought to partake of the Lord's Supper if the invisible Grace belongs to them the visible Sign cannot be denied unto them This Argument is therefore as forcible to bring our Children to the Lord's Table as it is to Baptism Baptism signifies three things which you say little Children can partake of 1st You say it signifies Remission of Sins through the Virtue of the Blood of Christ Mark 1. 4. Acts 2. 3 8. This you say belongs to little Children in two manner of ways 1. They have need of pardoning Grace 2. Many of them receive Remission of Sin for many of them that die go to Heaven Answ 1. Your first Argument hath as much in it for the baptizing of Infidels and their Children as for the Children of Believers for do not they need pardoning Grace 2. As to your second Reason Do all the Children of Believers that die go to Heaven and do none of the Children of Unbelievers go thither Dare you affirm that all Unbelievers Children that die are damned if not why may they not be baptized as well as the Children of Believers 3. But do you baptize no Children of Believers but such that die do not many of them live and prove ungodly when grown up that you baptize Two things you must prove if you say any thing here to the purpose 1. That all dying Infants of Believers are elected and so shall 〈◊〉 saved 2. That all they that go to Heaven or shall be saved â—ay nay ought to have both Baptism and the Lord's-Supper administred to them Nay and it follows also that you ought only to baptize those Children of Believers that died or such that you have ground to believe are elected to Salvation according to your own Argument But let me tell you if you knew what Children of Believers or Unbelievers are elected yet you ought no more to baptize them than to give the Lord's-Supper 'T is not Election I tell you again that gives any a right to Baptism but the positive Command of Christ Might not Mâ—lchisedec or Job have said our Children do need what was prefigured in Circumcision therefore we will circumcise them would that have justified them if they had presumed to have done it without God's Command for the Command and meer positive Precept to circumcise was only given to Abraham and it only extended to himself and his Male Children or such
that were in his House or Family or bought with his Money Therefore all this arguing of yours is weak and groundless In vain therefore is that which you say to sinful Parents that delivered Corruption to their Children that they should administer Medicines unto them and so give them the Ordinance of Baptism which Christ hath appointed for that end that they might not fall into the bottomless Piâ— Answ 1. You must prove Christ hath appointed Baptism for Children do that and your Work is done 2. Prove that Baptism is the Medicine to cure the Disease of Original Sin and to save Children or Adult Persons either from falling into the bottomless Piâ— You seem to frighten Parents into the Belief of your Tradition Can any thing save either young or old from Hell but the Blood and Merits of Christ through the Sanctification of the Spirit which Baptism can be but a Figure of 't is not the Medicine nor is it appointed to any to be a Figure of that c. but to Believers only who certainly have the things signified 2dly Baptism you say signifies the pouring forth of the Holy Ghost Acts 2. 38. Tit. 3. 5. and 't is certain that little Children can receive the Holy Ghost from their Mothers Womb Luke 1. 15. Answ We deny that Baptism signifies the pouring of the Holy Spirit the Scriptures you cite prove no such thing It signifies as I have shewed the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ with our Death unto Sin or Mortification of Sin and rising again to a new Life What tho the Promise is made to Christ and his Seed in Isa 44. 3. 59. 11. Are Infants of Believers as such the Seed of Christ and in the Covenant of Grace The Promise of pouring forth of the Spirit is only made to Believers and to such of their Seed that believe or to all the Elect of God Prove that Infants of Believers as such in the Gospel-days received the Holy Spirit God can 't is true give his Spirit to a Babe in the Womb and may be to one or two Babes he might do it so he once also opened the Mouth of an Ass must all Asses therefore speak with Man's Voice You say 3dly Baptism signifies Regeneration and 't is possible say you that Children may be regenerated What can hinder the unspeakable Grace of God's working upon their Hearts Jeremiah was sanctified in his Mother 's Womb. Answ I answer Pagans and Infidels may be regenerated 't is possible what can hinder God's working upon their Hearts Nay and 't is probable too God will do it when he affords the Gospel to them and when they are regenerated let them be baptized when they have the thing signified let them have the Sign also Mr. Baxter saith Baptism is a 〈◊〉 of present not future Regeneration Baptism was not appointed of Christ to be a Sign of that which might or might not be in the true Subject of it hereafter but of that Regeneration that was certainly wrought in the Person before baptized If thou believest if thou hast true Faith or art a converted Man thou â—…st Acts 8. not if that hereafter thou mayst be a Believer â—ut if thou art now one that dost believe You say God can easily give holy Qualities to the Souls of Children Cannot God restore his own Image to little Children I do not say all the Children of the Faithful receive the Grace of Regeneration in their Infancy it is evident to the contrary many of them being wicked but on the other hand the Work of Grace appeareth very early day by day in others of them Answ If this he so your Cause is gone How Are not all the infants of Believers regenerated and in Covenant with God Why then do you baptize all even such that have not the thing signified when baptized nor ever after till they die Worthy Britains see here Mr. Owen does acknowledg that the Infants of Believers as such are not in Covenant for all that are in the Covenant of Grace and have a right to the Seal of it are regenerated alas what is the Seal but a Seal of Regeneration and so of eternal Salvation Ephes 1. 13 14. Chap. 4. 30. But you say In others Regeneration appears very early day by day that is in some little Children Answ 2. But are not some Children of ungodly Parents as early wrought upon and born again as the Children of the godly why then may not their Children also be baptized You say Mr. Eliot in his Book called Tears of Repentance speaks of two Indian Children who were converted before three Years old Sir these were not the Children of Godly Parents 3. Admit that to be true and that God sometimes doth regenerate Children at three or four Years of Age. Such Children I can baptize by the Authority of Christ's Commission or by Virtue of his holy Precept and none but such Children that do believe have any right thereunto You say Solomon was very young when the Lord loved him Answ No doubt but the Lord loved his Elect before they were born even from Everlasting but what of this yet when they are called and regenerated and not till then they ought to be baptized In a word that which renders Persons capable of Baptism are the Prerequisites of Baptism or those things that are required by Christ to be in the true Subjects thereof which are Faith and the Profession of it or Faith and Repentance You may be capable of being made a Justice of Peace but you must not exercise that Office without a lawful Commission So let our Children be capable of what they will or may yet without a Warrant from God's Word they ought not to be admitted to Baptism the Lord's Supper nor to any other Gospel-Ordinance God can give sacred Habits and Qualities to a Child we deny not but till he doth it you are not to give them the Signs of those gracious Qualities and if there be no visible Signs or Demonstrations of those sacred Qualities in such Infants you baptize that render them Believers 't is at best but a mock Baptism Object If we knew that little children are regenerated we would baptize them This is your Objection against your self as if we argued thus Answ No Sir you mistake us if we did know little Infants were regenerate which is impossible for us to know 〈◊〉 I doubt not but that those Infants that go to Heaven are made holy in some secret way unknown to us because no unclean â—…ng can enter into Heaven yet we durst not baptize them because we want Authority to do it Put to come to your Answer That say you cannot be certainly known of the Adult therefore by this Objection none can be baptized 'T is sufficient in this case that the Promise of God belongs to the Infantâ—… of the Faithful They are Members of the visible Church through which the Line of Gâ—… Election runneth Rom. 9. 4 5. Chap. 11. 7. Answ.
dying in Infancy are certainly saved it makes say you that Ordinance a Channel of Grace c. 1. Answ This is like to the rest But Sir by what Authority do you assert all these things You know what wonderful Vertue the Papists say is in many of their Popish Rites Ceremonies and Reliques i. e. in their crossing of themselves and in their Holy-water especially in their Agnns Dei But how do they prove it Even as well as you do what you speak here upon this account and we have the same reason to believe them as to believe you in what you speak without Proof or Authority from God's word 2. Pious Parents But alas how few are there of that sort but what hope have the Impious Prophane and ungodly Parent of the Salvation of his dying Children But Sir I thought all the Pious and Believing or Godly Parents Children were born in Covenant with God that their Parents Faith would have secured them whether Baptized or not were not the Jews Female Children saved they were not Circumcised And were not their Male Infants saved who dyed before the Eighth Day 3. From what Scripture is it these Pious though Ignorant and deceiv'd Parents may have hope that their Children that dye in their Infancy shall be saved and none but theirs that are Baptized or rather Rantised 4. Will Pedo-Baptists make Baptism their Saviour Can Baptism save them And is it so indeed Is it in the power of Parents to save or damn their Children And how came Baptism to have such power in it or who made that a Channel of Grace to dying Infants Do you not place that Virtue in an external Rite that only belongs to the Blood of Christ and sanctifying Grace of God's Spirit Mr. Perkins saith That Baptism indeed saveth but saith he that is not the Baptism of Water but the stipulation of a good Conscience by the Resurrection Again he saith the outward Baptism without the inward is no mark of God's Child but the mark of a Fool that makes a Vow and afterwards breaks it 5. May not this Doctrine of theirs clearly tend to scare and affright poor Parents with fear that all their Babes that dye in their Mothers Womb or before baptized are damned And Oh in what a sad Condition are all the Children of the ungodly and impious Persons whose little Babes you dare not cannot Baptise if you are true to your own Principles But that Text may give us better ground of Hopes a Thousand times concerning the well being of our dying Infants where our Saviour saith for of such are the Kingdom of Heaven and that also which you mention I shall go to him he shall not return to me together with the infinite Mercy of God through the virtue of Christ's Blood who can convey help and healing to dying Infants and Ideots in ways we know not of nor are we to trouble our Selves about such secret things that are not revealed 6. Mr. Burkitt saith the practice of Infant Baptism appears most beneficial because it prevents such shameful and scandalous neglects of Baptism to the blemish of Christianity Ans Is it then a shameful scandal to neglect a Tradition of Man For so I have proved Infant Baptism to be Where is the shame that ought to be in Christians that Christs Laws and Precepts are neglected and his precious Ordinance of Baptism exposed to Contempt and Shame as it is by you and Thousands more whilst the Statutes of Omri are zealously kept and observed as the Prophet of old complained I mean humane Rites and Traditions or Statutes like those of Omri instituted by him and Jeroboam which the Wisdom of your Church and many corrupt Churches have been zealous for to this day and thus I have run through and examined Mr. Burkitts Six particulars which he brought to prove the usefulness of Infant Baptism above the baptism of Believers which our Blessed Saviour Instituted and now shall shew you further that Infant Baptism is so far from being more useful then that of the Adult that it is a palpable error and therefore of no use at all but the contrary viz. a very sinful thing Reader can that be useful or any ways beneficial which Christ never Commanded or required to be done in his Name but is unrighteously Fathered upon him to the utter making void his own Ordinance of baptizing Believers 2. Can that have any usefulness in it that brings guilt upon the Parents in doing it making them guilty of Will Worship or of a humane Tradition 3. Can that be useful that brings Babes into such a Covenant which Christ never Ordained them to enter into and to which they directly nor indirectly consented nor approved of and which they are utterly unable to keep and which giveth them no strength to perform nor is there one promise of God made to assist or help them to do it and yet for not keeping of it they are charged with Perjury with self Murder nay with Hell and Damnation 4. Can that be of use to Infants that may basely beguile and deceive them causing them when grown up to think they were thereby made Christians and become the Children of God Members of Christ and Inhabitants of the Kingdom of Heaven nay Regenerated and from hence never look after any other work of Grace nor Regeneration but conclude all is well with them 5. Can that be an usual thing which the doing of it is a palpable alteration of the words of Christ's Commission and so inverts that Holy Order left by him for baptizing who requires none to be baptized before they be first Taught and made Disciples 6. Can that be of any use to an Infant which you nor no Man else can prove from Gods Word to have any use and Blessing in it to them 7. Can an humane Rite or Tradition think you save poor Children or a little Water sprinkled on the Face wash away Original Sin Or will God bless a Tradition of Man 8. Can Water beget Children to Christ or can that be useful to them which they have only the bare sign of and not the thing signified viz. the Sign of Regeneration but not Regeneration it self a sign of Grace but not Grace it self you give them the Shell but no Kernel the name of a Christian but no nature of a Christian making that you call Christ's Baptism as Dr. Taylorsaith a sign without effect and like the Fig-tree in the Gospel full of Leaves but no Fruit. 9. Can that be useful that tends to make the Gospel Church National and confounds the Church and the World together which ought to be Congregational a holy and separate People like a Garden enclosed 10. Can Baptism be more useful to Infants then adult Believers notwithstanding the Scripture saith that the Person baptized doth not only believe but call upon the name of the Lord Acts 22. 16. Can Infants do that 11. Can Infant Baptism be more useful then that of Believers and
a right to baptism since 't is a meer positive Command of Christ 10. Ask him whether ungodly Parents that spring from Abraham's Loyns by Isaac-in their Generations were not as much obliged by God's positive Command to Abraham to Circumcise their Male Children as the Faithful and Godly Parents were obliged to Circumcise theirs this being so 11. Ask him why all ungodly persons and unbelievers ought not now to Baptize their Children as well as believers should baptize theirs 2. You bid your Children ask such that deny Infant Baptism can they prove from Scripture that Christ came in to the World to make the condition of Children worser then it was before Ans Tell Mr. Owen he hath had this Question answered in this Treatise over and over viz. Tell him the Spiritual Priviledges of Children now are more then theirs were under the Law So that our Children lose no Divine and Spiritual blessings or priviledges which the Children of the Faithful once had God hath the same love to and care of our Children under the Gospel as he had to theirs under the Law but the Temporal blessings of the Jewish Children and their External or Earthly priviledges then were more then our Children have in Gospel times the Gospel Church being established upon better promises theirs were under the promise of heaping up Gold and Silver and possessing outward peace and to enjoy a Land that flowed with Milk and Honey True the external or outward dispensation of the Gospel Covenant which our Children are under far exceeds theirs for the clearness of Light and Revelation of Christ and for other Spiritual priviledges ours excells Besides no doubt but the Children of believers under the Gospel far exceed the priviledges of unbelievers by the blessings of a Godly Education and the like But we say it was not the Covenant of Grace that gave right to Circumcision under the Law but the positive Law and Command of God so 't is not the Covenant of Grace that gives right to baptism but Christs positive Command which runs not unto our Children untill they do believe and bid Mr. Owen prove that Infant baptism doth make the condition of Children any ways better then the condition of our Children who never were baptized 3. Were not little Children say you the first Martyrs that lost their Lives for the sake of Christ Mat. 2. 16. If God Honoured them to be the first Witnesses for Christ being baptized in Blood will he deny them water Baptism 1. Answ Were they only the Children of Believers that Herod Murthered how will you prove that but suppose it was so doth it follow from thence that we ought to baptize them without a Command why do you not say and will not Christ allow our Children the Ordinance that holds forth the Shedding of his Blood as well as Baptism that holds forth he was Buried c. 4. If the Baptism of Infants be evil why doth the Devil say you Tempt Witches or Sorcerers to deny that Baptism And what is the reason that Satan cannot have any power over them until they renounce their Baptism and after that they have not any strength to resist him any longer as several of them confessed Park of Witches Vol. 3. page 640. 1. Answ Ask Mr. Owen why the Devil doth not love nor can't endure Popish Holy-water or is such a fearful enemy to that as the Papists say it hath often been manifest is the Consecration of Water therefore of God's appointment Why may we not give credit to the Papists as well as unto Witches and Sorcerers 2. Because he cannot prove Infant Baptism from Arguments from Heaven will he go for Arguments to prove it to be Christs Ordinance taken from Hell 3. The Devil is a crafty and subtle Adversary doth not he do this to make People love and approve of their Infant Baptism which no doubt Christ never appointed 4. However this Testimony is given only by Witches and Sorcerers and what ground have we to believe them 5. Ask them will they give you assurance that you will be better Christians by receiving of their baptism if they say you will be the better answer them that you see several of them growing worse after their re-baptization 1. Answ Ask Mr. Owen whether there are not more People that were Baptized or rather Rantized in Infancy that prove vile and ungodly then among them that were baptized upon the profession of their Faith 2. What assurance can he give to Infants or to their Parents that the Children they baptize shall be better Christians thereby Also how will he prove that the Children of believers who were baptized in Infancy prove generally better Christians then the Children of those Believers that did not baptise them in their Infancy 3. Ask him if the baptism of believers upon the profession of their Faith as Christ commanded be the worse because some like Simon Magus take it up and prove ill Members and scandalous in their Lives 1. Say you tho' they are Members of a Congregation walking by the Rule of the Gospel before they had their re-baptization they after break the Unity of the Body they were Members of by separating themselves Baptism is an Ordinance of Unity but re-baptization is the breaking off the Unity of Churches 1. Answ Why do you use such Tautologies and needless repetitions you had this before and I have answered it we deny our baptism to be re-baptization and have proyed your Rantism is no Baptism at all 2. Infant Rantism 't is true Unites National Churches and Churches Built upon that or the like Constitution and so it Unites many false and Anti-christian Churches I must confess as the Church of Rome and some others in the World much of the same nature but 't is the baptism of Christ viz. that of believers that Unites together according to the order of the Gospel all the Members of a true Gospel Church and the denying of Infant baptism and being baptized upon a profession of Faith does but break the Union of Churches of the Saints that are formarly true and orderly gathered according to the Institution of Christ and the rule of the Gospel For was not the first Gospel Church at Jerusalem gathered out of the National Church of the Jews of Persons that repented believed and upon the profession of that Faith Baptized that is Dipped in Water in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost also the Church in Samaria Acts 8. and that in Acts 10. and that at Corinth Acts 16. and that at Ephesus Acts 19. and ought not all Churches so to be gathered to the end of the World ought we not to separate from such Churches that do not hold the Ordinances that appertain to Church Constitution as they were first delivered to the Saints and from such who are guilty also of an Human Innovation ought we to partake of other Mens Sins or ought we not to keep our selves pure Touch not Tast not Handle not which
Justice in which Christ for our sakes for a while was in a manner swallowed up abiding under the Water how little time soever denotes his Descent into Hell even the very deepest of Lifelesness lying in the sealed or guarded Sepulchre where he was accounted as one dead Rising out of the VVater holds forth to us a lively Similitude of that Conquest which this dead Man got over Death In like manner saith he 't is therefore meet that we being baptized into his Death and buried with him should rise also with him to go on in a new Life Thus far And let all thinking and serious Christians carefully consider since this sacred Ordinance was appointed to be thus significant as this and other Learned Men observe what a sad and lamentable thing it is that the true Baptism should be changed from dipping into sprinkling which neither doth nor can hold forth these great Mysteries for which purpose our Saviour ordained it For 't is evident Rantism or Sprinkling doth not bear any Proportion to these Mysteries nor can they be signified thereby What Figure of a Burial of Christ or of the old Man is there in sprinkling a few drops of VVater on a Person 's Face Or what Representation is there in that Act of a Resurrection O how is Christ's holy Baptism abused by this devised Rantism and the Signification thereof destroyed the Lord open your Eyes or the Eyes of my godly and impartial Reader This shews you clearly what Christ's true Baptism is as also the true Subject But to proceed St. Ambrose saith VVater is that wherein the Body is plunged to wash away all Sins there all Sins saith he are buried We suppose he means 't is a Sign of this i. e. that all Sin is buried Moreover Chrysostom saith that the Old Man is buried and drown'd in the Immersion under Water and when the baptized Person is afterwards raised up out of the Water it represents the Resurrection of the New Man to Newness of Life and therefore concludes the contrary Custom being not only against Ecclesiastical Law but against the Analogy and Mystical Signification of the Sacrament is not to be complied with It has been too long as I have formerly noted God grant Men more Light to see their Error and abhor to do so any more Kecker says That Immersion not Aspersion was the first Institution of Baptism as it doth saith he plainly appear from Rom. 6. 3. And say I VVhere hath Christ since the first Institution instituted Aspersion or Sprinkling in the stead or room of Immersion or Dipping or given Orders to change that significant Sign into the insignificant Foppery of Sprinkling Ought not we to keep the Ordinances as they were first instituted and given to the Saints Is not God's Word to be our Rule in all Points of Faith and Practice to the End of the World Has Christ given any Men or Church a Dispensation to change his Laws and Ordinances or make them void by these Traditions or set up their Post by his Post How doth God complain by the Prophets against his People of old for presuming to change his Laws Deut. 12. 13 God gave particular Command to make an Altar of Gold to offer Incense Exod. 40. 5. and he commanded Exod. 20. 24 25. that his Altar should be made of Earth or rough Stone but in Isa 65. 3. he reproves their horrid Transgressions and Disobedience in acting contrary to his express Institution A People saith God that provoketh me to Anger continually to my Face that sacrificeth in Gardens and burneth Incense upon Altars of Brick You may think that was no great Error instead of Gold or Stone to make Altars of Brick but what saith God they for this c. provoke me continually to my Face O tremble ye who adventure to transgress God's Precept in as bad or worse a manner Who commanded you to baptize or dip Believers in the Name of the Father c. and you rantize or sprinkle Infants Aâ—as you know not how you hereby provoke God! altho he is yet silent and doth not manifest his Displeasure yet know he is a jealous God and hath the like Zeal for his Gospel-Institutions as ever he had of those under the Law and may manifest it too in his own time But to proceed and call in for more Witnesses against your Practice Daillâ— on the Fathers saith that it was a Custom heretofore in the antient Church to plunge those they baptized over Head and Eâ—…s in the VVater And saith he Tertullian in his third Book de 〈◊〉 Mil. Cyprian in his seventieth Epistle p. 211 c. and others testify it Dr. Cave saith that the Party baptized was wholly immerged or put under the VVater which was the almost constant and universal Custom of those Times whereby they did most notably and significantly express the great Ends and Effects of Baptism For as in immerging there are in a manner three several Acts the putting the Person into the VVater his abiuing under the VVater and his rising up again thereby representing Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection and in our Conformity thereupto our dying to Sin the Destruction of its Power and our Resurrection to a new course of Life So by the Person 's being put into the Water was lively represented the putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh c. by his being under it which is a kind of Burial into the Water his entering into a State of Death or Mortification like as Christ remained for sometime under the State or Power of Death therefore 't is said As many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his Death c. And then by Immersion or rising up out of the Water is signified his entering upon a new course of Life that like as Christ was raised up by the Glory of the Father so we should walk in Newness of Life Thus Dr. Cave We are said saith PaÌ„raeus to die and to be buried with Christ in Baptism And further shews that the external Act of being buried in Water is a lively Emblem of the internal Work of Regeneration St. Bernard saith Immersion is a Representation of Christ's Death and Burial Against all these Testimonies and multitudes more of the best and most Learned Writers Mr. Burkitt objects as follows and you seem to argue after the same manner these are his words viz. If Baptism administred by pouring Water on the Face representing the whole Person doth answer the Use and End of Baptism as well as when administred by aipping or plâ—nging then dipping is not essentially and absolutely necessary in the Act of baptizing but the one answereth the Use and End of baptizing as well as the other therefore the one cannot be more essential than the other What is the End and Use of Baptism but to represent to our Minds 〈◊〉 Effusion of Christ's Blood for to take away the Guilt of Sin and the pouring forth of the Spirit for the purging