Circumcision signified the taking away the Sins of the Flesh or the Circumcision of the Heart but Baptism signifies the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ which Circumcision did not 13. Circumcision was to be a Partition-Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile but Baptism testifieth that Jew and Gentile Male and Female Barbarian and Seythian Bond and Free are all one in Christ Jesus Therefore there are divers Disparities and different Significations between Circumcision and Baptism 4. And what tho we should grant that Circumcision was then the initiating Ordinance and Baptism is so now in Gospel-Times i. e. an Ordinance of Initiation yet Circumcision initiated none into the Jewish Church but such who were by express and positive Command of God to be circumcised who were only Male-Infants for the Females were initiated without it even so Baptism tho it be an initiating Ordinance yet none are to be initiated thereby but only those who by the express Command are required to be baptized and they are only such who believe or make Profession of their Faith Sir Precepts that are meerly positive greatly differ you know well enough from Precepts that are purely Moral in their own nature Laws that are of meer positive Right wholly depend upon the absolute Will and Pleasure of the great Legistator and in all Cases and Circumstances we must keep to the express words of the Institution we must venture to do no more nor less nor do any thing in any other manner than God hath commanded as appears in Nadab and Abihu and Uzzah's Cases the first for offering of strange Fire which thing God commanded them not tho God in express words no where forbid them so to do were cut off Levit. 10. 1 2. When God commanded Abraham to circumcise on the eighth day did he not virtually forbid him to do it on the seventh or ninth day Therefore this sort of reasoning of yours is meerly sophistical and you do but darken Counsel with Words without Knowledg Again 't is affirmed by you and other Pedo-baptists That God hath no where declared that Infants should be excluded you mean he hath no where forbid in express words the baptizing of Infants No more say I has he forbid Honey Wine Oil Salt and Spittle to be used in Baptism the former was used by some of the Antient Fathers and the latter is still in the Romish Church Where are we forbid to baptize Bells and consecrate Water as the Papists do to make it holy Water Also where are Infants excluded from the Lord's-Table If therefore any thing may be done in God's Worship which you suppose is not forbid and bears also some proportion in Signification with Jewish Rites all Popish Rites and Ceremonies may be let in at the same Door For the Pope Miter Popish Vestures Candle and Candlesticks c. they no doubt will tell you are of like Signification with the High-Priest under the Law with the Priest's Vestures and other Ceremonies among the Jews Whither will this lead you 't is dangerous to be led by such a Guide But to proceed we will come to that grand Proof for Infant-Baptism you mention i. e. That Baptism doth come in the room of Circumcision which is in Col. 2. 11 12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands by the Circumcision of Christ buried with him in Baptism c. It is affirmed That the Design of the Apostle here is to take the Colossians off from the old Sacrament of Circumcision He informs them that there was no Reason why they should be fond of it because they were compleat without it Christ having substituted a new Circumcision in the room of it namely Baptism and accordingly Christians may now be said by Baptism to be spiritually circumcised as the Jews were said to be spiritually baptized Answ This Exposition of this Text there is no ground to admit of the Apostle speaks of the Power or Virtue of Christ's Circumcision His Design is to shew we are compleat in Christ and have him on he mentions Faith as well as Baptism or such a Faith that should always attend Baptism and therefore Infant-Baptism from hence cannot be proved or inferred nor the least ground for such a bold Conclusion from hence viz. That Baptism came in the room of Circumcision 1. For first the Apostle 't is true excludes Circumcision but 't is upon another account viz. by shewing Circumcision was a Figure of the Circumcision of the Heart as Rom. 2. 28 29. Phil. 3. 3. and since they had the same signified thereby the Rite or Sign ceased And as I have formerly replied in Answer to this Text so I must say to you all that can well be asserted from this Scriptare where the Apostle brings in Baptism is no more than this viz. That where Baptism is rightly administred upon a proper Subject it represents the Spiritual and Mystical Circumcision of the Heart i. e. That the Soul is dead to Sin or hath put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ which may refer to the Power of his Death in the blessed Effects thereof by the effectual Sin-killing Operations of the Spirit on the Heart And as being dead to Sin we are buried with Christ in Baptism both in Sign and Token of Christ's Burial i. e. covered all over in the Water which is a clear Symbol of his Burial also in Signification i. e. that we being dead and buried with Christ in Baptism so are to rise with him by the Faith of the Operation of God and both these are held forth in true Baptism The Apostle doth not mention Baptism to come in the room of Circumcision but to shew that these believing Colossians had through Christ by the Spirit obtained the Antitype thereof or thing figured out in the Circumcision of the Flesh which Baptism did clearly represent But since this is so strenuously urged afresh tho so often answered I will be at the trouble to transcribe once more what Dr. Taylor late Bishop of Down hath said to this Argument of yours and others before you about Circumcision viz. That Baptism is the Antitype of it or that it came in the room thereof The Argument saith he from Circumcision is invalid upon infinite Considerations Figures and Types prove nothing unless a Command go along with them or some thing express to signify such to be their Purpose for the Deluge of Waters and Ark of Noah were Figures of Baptism saith Peter If therefore the Circumstances of the one be drawn to the other we shall make Baptism a Prodigy rather than a Rite The Paschal Lamb was a Figure of the Eucharist which succeeds the other as Baptism doth Circumcision But because there was in the Manducation of the Paschal Lamb no Prescription of Sacramental Drink shall we conclude from hence the Eucharist is to be administred in one kind To which let me add Because Children Servants and all in the House might
he mean every individual Person or some of all sorts of Jews and Gentiles So Paul saith All seek their own c. Vid. Glassi Illerici Philolog Sacr. and also our late Annotators the word or term All they tell you is here twice repeated Mat. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. it is enough to let us know that in Scripture 't is signisicative no farther than many for say they it cannot be imagined that every individual Person in Jerusalem and all the Regions round about Jordan went to hear John the Baptist 2. You forget that Text John 3. 26. Behold him that thou bearest witness of c. the same baptizeth and All Men come unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to Jesus Christ Also 't is said John 4. 1 2. That Jesus made and baptized more Disciples than John If John baptized them all and Jesus baptized them all then they were all twice baptized or all re-baptized and if so were indeed properly all Ana-baptists Sir in both places it intends but some You worthy and beloved Britains take heed how you are led by a Man that argues so preposterously I doubt not but he may be a good Man but under a Cloud of Darkness 3. Sir how Dr. Lightfoot or you can prove that John preached but two Years and a half I see not but had he every day baptized an hundred he might with much Ease have done it in the space of four hours time or thereabouts But alas neither he nor our Saviour had so many Disciples as you imagine the Number of the Disciples after the Resurrection of Christ as we read Acts 1. were but an hundred and twenty that were together perhaps there might be some few more in some other parts 4. But you I perceive contradict the Holy Ghost in saying that John sprinkled them i. e. rantized them for Ranâ—izing in the Original as I presume you know is sprinkling in English Sir I appeal to your Conscience whether it be not so Sprinkling and pouring is one thing and baptizing another and a quite different Act. I affirm Sprinkling is not Baptizing say what you will You in the next place mention that which we object concerning Philip and the Eunuch who went both down into the Water when the Eunuch was baptized To this you answer and say How doth that follow Could they not go into the Water without plunging in it We read in Gen. 24. 45. say you that Rebecca went down into the Well Does it follow that she was plunged in it You will say of your Maid-Servant when she goes to draw Water she went down into the River your meaning is not that she was plunged there I answer Rebecca might properly be said to go down into the Well because in some Wells there are several Steps or Stairs before we come to the Water 't is not said she went into the Water Also who of us could say when our Servant-Maid went to draw Water or fetch Water from a River she went into the River if any do say so they speak not truly but indeed do lie Sir take heed what you say the Holy Ghost doth not say they went down to the Water but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both went down into the Water and he baptized him i. e. dipp'd him not rantiz'd him You bring in our Objection against your Sprinkling taken from Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12 13. viz. we are said to be buried with Christ in Baptism into Death To this you say We bury by casting Earth on the Body and the pouring of Water you say doth represent it it cannot be said one was buried that was fallen under Water or Earth unless he remains there for a time he that descendeth into a Coal-pit is under the Earth but is not buried by reason he cometh out from thence immediately dipping therefore doth not signify a Burial unless he that is dipped remains for a time under the Water I answer 'T is true we do bury by casting Earth on the dead Body but 't is so much Earth as covers the Corps all over or else 't is not buried So if you pour Water on a Child until it is covered all over in Water it may truly be said that Child was buried in the Water altho the burying in Baptism is not by pouring Water in great abundance until it is covered but by going into the Water and there to be dipped or plunged all over so that all may see the Body is buried under Water as truly symbolically and as properly as if it had been buried in the Water Or 2. Tho a Person be laid in the Grave and covered all over with Earth tho it be but two Minutes he may as truly and properly be said to be buried as he that lies there three Days or a thousand Years But you would have Baptism to be no proper Representation of a Burial unless the Person baptized lies so long till he be drowned Sir Baptism doth represent the Death of Christ and of the old Man or Body of Sin which is as sufficiently held forth by a Minute or two as by many Days 3. And now utterly to put to silence your vain Objections I shall give the Sense of a whole Cloud of Witnesses as to the proper Exposition of those Texts Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12 13. by and by but if my honest Country-men do think you have given a better Sense of the Words than all those Learned Men I will say no more You say the Resemblance then between Baptism doth not stand in the dipping of the Body so much as in the End of the Ordinance in making us Partakers of Christ's Death of his Life and of his Ascension and of his sitting on the Right hand of God Baptism makes us to be planted together in the Likeness of his Death yet there are none you say that plants Bodies in Water by baptizing them Rom. 6. 5. Answ We shall in our next Chapter finally determine this great Point and plainly shew you by manifest Arguments together with the joint Consent and Agreement of a multitude of Learned Men that were and are Pedo-baptists that the Resemblance between Death Burial and Resurrection and Baptism doth stand in the outward Sign of Dipping as well as in our partaking of the Blessing of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection All know in the Ordinance of the Lord's-Supper the Signs are significant and no true Protestant will admit of such an Administration of it in which the breaking of Christ's Body and the shedding of his Blood is not clearly represented to the sight of our Eyes Why is the Popish way of the Administration rejected who deny the Laity the Cup if there ought not to be an exact keeping to the direct Signs as well as to bear in Mind the Thing signified thereby Nay Sir I find you in your third Chapter to justify your sprinkling stifly by arguing for an Agreement between the Sign and the Thing
of which Jonas after a Burial of three days was set at liberty and the Cloud and the Red Sea in which the People of Israel are said to have been baptized i. e. not washed mark but buried for they were all Types of the same thing as Baptism viz. not the washing away of Sin but of the Death and Resurrection of Christ and our own to which the Apostles the Fathers the Scholasticks mark and all Interpreters agree The thing saith he is so apparent as not to need any Testimonies but because there are not a few who do not vulgarly teach this Doctrine it will not be superfluous to produce some of those innumerable Testimonies that I may saith he not seem to speak without Book And First Let us begin with St. Paul Rom. 6. 3. Know ye not that so many of you that have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his Death Therefore we are buried with him in Baptism into his Death c. Else what shall they do that are baptized for the Dead if the Dead rise not As if he had said If there be no Resurrection why are we baptized In vain does the Church use the Symbol of Baptism if there be no Resurrection The like Testimonies frequently occur among the Fathers saith he Ignatius saith That believing in his Death we may be made Partakers of his Resurrection by Baptism Baptism was given in Memory of the Death of our Lord we perform the Symbols of his Death mark not of pouring forth his Blood or holy Spirit or sprinkling the Spirit on us or the Blood of Christ No no this that Author says is not signified in Baptism but the Burial and Resurrection of Christ which sprinkling no manner of ways can represent Justin Martyr saith We know but one saving Baptism in regard there is but one Resurrection from the dead of which Baptism is an Image And from hence say I we know not Infants Rantism or Sprinkling for this is none of Christ's true Baptism Christ's Baptism is but one and 't is that of Believers and 't is not sprinkling but dipping to signify Christ's Burial and Resurrection He goes on and cites other Authors Hear Paul exclaiming They past through the Sea and were all baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea He calls Baptism the Passage of the Sea for it was a flight of Death caused by Water To be baptized and so plunged and to return up and rise out of the Water is a Symbol of the Descent into the Grave and returning from thence Baptism is a Pledg and Representation of the Resurrection Baptism is an Earnest of the Resurrection Immersion is a Representation of Death and Burial Innumerable are the Testimonies saith Sir Norton which might be added but these I think sufficient to prove that Baptism is an Image of the Death and Resurrection of Christ from whence we acknowledg the Mystery of our Religion saith he Christ's Deity and Humanity and of the Faithful who are baptized in his Faith from Death in Sin to Newness of Life which if they lead in this World they have a most assured Hope that being dead they shall hereafter rise to Glory with Christ Thus Sir Norton Knatchbul a worthy Knight Mr. Perkins saith The dipping of the Body signifies Mortification or Fellowship with Christ in his Death the staying under the Water signifies the Burial of Sin and coming out of the Water the Resurrection from Sin to Newness of Life In another Treatise of his he saith the antient Custom of baptizing was to dip as it were to dive all the Body of the baptized in Water Rom. 6. Council of Laodicea and Neocesarea And here let me add what Reverend Dr. Sharp the present Archbishop of York hath lately delivered in a Sermon preached before the Queen's Majesty on Easter-day March the 27th 1692. And this in antient Times was taught every Christian saith he in and by his Baptism Whenever a Person was baptized he was not only to profess his Faith in Christ's Death and Resurrection but he was also to look upon himself as obliged in Correspondence therewith to mortify his former carnal Affections and to enter upon a new State of Life And the very form of Baptism saith he did lively represent this Obligation to them For what did their being plung'd under Water signify but their undertaking in Imitation of Christ's Death and Burial to forsake all their former evil Courses as their ascending out of the Water did their Engagement to lead a holy spiritual Life This our Apostle doth more than once declare to us thus Rom. 6. 3 4. We are buried saith he with Christ by Baptism unto Death that like as Christ was raised up by the Glory of the Father so we should walk in Newness of Life Thus far Dr. Sharp his Sermon on Phil. 3. 10. pag. 9. Dr. Fowler now Lord Bishop of Glocester on Rom. 6. 3 4. saith Christians being plunged into the Water signifies their undertaking and obliging themselves in a spiritual Sense to be buried with Jesus Christ in an utter renouncing and forsaking all their Sins that so answering to his Resurrection they may live a holy and a godly Life Design of Christianity p. 90. Also Dr. Sherlock Dean of St. Paul's on Rom. 6. 3 4. saith Our Conformity to the Death and Resurrection of our Saviour consists in dying to Sin and walking in Newness of Life Which saith he St. Paul tells us is represented by the external Ceremony of Baptism and rising out of his watery Grave a new born Creature Charity without Usury p. 1. And unto these let me add what the Pious and Reverend Dr. Tillotson late Archbishop of Canterbury hath wrote speaking of the same Text Rom. 6. 3 4. Antiently saith he those who were baptized put off their Garments which signified their putting off the Body of Sin and were immersed and buried in the Water to represent the Death of Sin and then did rise up again out of the Water to signify their Entrance upon a new Life And to these Customs the Apostle alludes when he says How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his Death c. 1. 'T is a hard case you neither will believe the holy Scripture the Antient Fathers and Modern Divines nor other learned Prelates of the Church of England who are yet living but contrary to the nature and tendency of holy Baptism plead for Sprinkling and condemn Dipping and cast Reproach upon it and say also that the Thing signified thereby is the pouring forth of Christ's Blood or the sprinkling and pouring out of the holy Spirit notwithstanding we prove from the Scripture and with the Testimony of all these great Men that Baptism signifies the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and not any of those things you affirm as your own Conceit without the Testimony of any learned or approved
Author Therefore Sir that Baptism is any thing else than dipping plunging or washing which is done by dipping we do utterly deny For as the cutting off a little bit of the Foreskin of the Flesh or not the twentieth part round is not Circumcision so sprinkling a little Water on the Face is not Baptism True you call it Baptism and will do so tho 't is nothing less nor more than Rantism 't is not the Thing nor does it answer in Signification I may tell you again that the Jews instead of circumcising the Foreskin of their Childrens Flesh might have as well presumed to dispense with that and only have paired off the Nails of the Fingers of their Male Infants and have called that Circumcision as you may call sprinkling or pouring a little Water Baptism But may be you 'l say in Circumcision they weâ—â— to draw Blood so say I they might in cutting the Nails of their Childrens Fingers nay and they might better plead that the Things signified in Circumcision might be as well answered in that new Device the Nails being a sort of Excrement they might say signified the taking away the Filth of Sin or Corruption of Nature as the great Mysteries signified by Baptism or Dipping can be represented by sprinkling or pouring Furthermore they might possibly plead the same Pretences you do viz. The cutting off the Foreskin of the Flesh put the Infants to great Pain nay may be they might fancy it would cost them their Lives nay call it Murder and therefore let pairing of their Nails serve As you it seems fear dipping would endanger the Lives of Infants and therefore make sprinkling to serve instead thereof But to proceed 2. I am in amaze to see these Men speak so fully and clearly to this glorious Truth i. e. that the great thing Christ ordained Baptism to represent is his Death Burial and Resurrection together with the baptized Person 's Death to Sin and his rising again to walk in Newness of Life and yet both those shameful Abuses amongst you and other Churches are not rectified viz. 1. That Sprinkling which doth not cannot answer or represent those Gospel-Mysteries should not be rejected 2. That Infants should be once deem'd the proper Subjects of Baptism since nothing of a Death to Sin nor rising again to walk in Newness of Life can appear in them For as the Learned observe Baptism is a Symbol of present not future Regeneration 'T is an outward Sign of that inward Death unto Sin which the Party baptized passed under then or ought to have done when or before he is baptized They then professed themselves to be dead to Sin i. e. even when they were buried with Christ in their Baptism for the Argument of the Apostle lies in that respect How shall we that are dead unto Sin live any longer 〈◊〉 Knowing that so many of 〈◊〉 who have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his Death both in Sign and Signification And therefore as Dr. Sherlock says rising out of that watery Grave a new born Creature denotes not only what they should be hereafter but what they were actually at that time So that as this Text and Arguments drawn therefrom utterly condemn Sprinkling as not being Christ's Baptism so it excludes Infants from being the Subjects thereof because in them appears no such Death to Sin nor can they be said to come out of that watery Grave as new born Creatures To these Testimonies I shall only add one or two more See that most learned Anonymous French Writer in his Answer to the famous Bishop of Meaux 'T is most certain saith he that Baptism hath not hitherto been administred otherwise than by sprinkling by the most of Protestants but truly this sprinkling is an Abuse This Custom which without an accurate Examination they have retained from the Romish Church in like manner as many other things makes their Baptism very defective It corrupteth its Institution and antient Use and that Nearness of Similitude which is needful should be betwixt it and Faith Repentance and Regeneration This Reflection of Mr. Bossuet deserveth to be seriously considered to wit saith he that this use of plunging hath continued for the space of a whole thousand and three hundred Years Hence we may understand that we did not carefully as it was meet examine things which we have received from the Roman Church Calvin saith That Baptism is a form or way of Burial and none but such as are already dead to Sin or have repented from dead Works are to be buried From these words I note 1. That Sprinkling is not the form of Baptism because not the form of a Burial 2. That Infants are not the true Subjects of Baptism because not such as are already dead to Sin or have repented from dead Works and indeed as they are not able they are not required so to do by Christ The last Author I shall quote is learned Zanchy There are two Parts saith he in Regeneration Mortification and Viâ—ification that is called a Burial with Christ this is called a Resurrection with Christ The Sacrament of both these is Baptism in which we are overwhelmed or buried and after that do come forth and rise again It may not be said truly but sacramentally of all that are baptized that they are buried with Christ and raised with him but only of such as have true Faith Now we may appeal to all the World whether Zanchy and all the rest do not clearly and evidently testify the same thing that we assert viz. That Baptism is and can be no other Act than Immersion or Dipping since Sprinkling all must confess doth not represent in a lively Figure the Burial and Resurrection of Christ nor our dying or being dead to Sin and Vivification to Newness of Life saith he Sacramentally i. e. Analogically in respect of the near Resemblance between Baptism and a Death and Resurrection And this I say cannot be said of them that are sprinkled only for if in respect of Mortification and Vivification they may be denominated buried and raised with Christ which cannot be said of Infants yet that outward Rite or Sign cannot denominate them so much as Sacramentally buried and raised with Christ for there is not so much as any likeness of such things in it but in true Baptism viz. total dipping the Body in Water and raising it again there is a lively Figure held forth to our very sight And as Zanchy saith It cannot be said of all nor indeed of any that they are thus sacramentally dead buried and risen with Christ but only of such as have true Faith Therefore Infants are excluded by his own Argument What you say that none plant Bodies in Water by baptizing them seems strange and not the words of a learned Man because dipping is a Figure of planting us into Christ spiritually and of Christ's Death and Resurrection must the Body of a Man be a Tree None graft Bodies into a Vine
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
they will you do not speak of any external Covenant right to Baptism but of Salvation it self 2. You do not speak of Infants as such but of all in the Family or Houshold viz. comprehending adult Sons and Daughters Men Servants or Maid Servants adult persons it appears from hence in the primitive times were baptized by virtue of the Parents Faith as well as Babes nay and were saved also by the Faith of the head of the Family 3. Doth it not also follow that your ignorance of God's Covenant with Abraham is very great for if it be as you say then all Abraham's Seed according to the Flesh must be saved because he as the Head of his Family believed but doth not the Scripture say in opposition to this that though the number of the Children of Israel be as the Sand of the Sea yet but a Remnant shall be saved 4. May not this Doctrine of yours also corrupt and tend to ruine many poor Souls both Children and Servants who live in Families where the Heads of those Families do believe and are Godly may not they say we shall be saved though we believe not because we dwell in a Family where the Head viz. our Father our Master doth believe Mr. Owen assures us we shall all be saved because our Father or Master believes be astonish'd Oh ye Heavens is this your proof for Infant Baptism Worthy Brittains this may sufficiently shew you that the Covenant that God made with Abraham namely the Covenant of Circumsion which was made with him and his natural Seed as such was no Covenant of Salvation and so not the Covenent of Grace 't is so plain you need not doubt of it because multitudes that were in that Covenant perished though Circumcision was a Seal of Abrahams Faith yet not a Seal of the Covenant of Grace to his Seed as such because if it were it would have Sealed to them all the righteousness of Faith and eternal Life which we know it never did to multitudes of them But very remarkable 't is to see how Mr. Owen doth in the very next place both conhimself and overthrow his Argument as to the purport of it he brings in this Objection Object All his Family believed vers 34. Take his Answer Ans I answer saith he so were the adult the whole House sometimes signifies those of the adult in a Family it is said of Sampson that all his Fathers House buried him that is saith he those that were of age in his Fathers House for the little Children could not go into the Land of the Philistines to bury his Body c. It is said saith he of Cornelius that he was a devout Man fearing God with all his House that is all the adult in his Houshold so the Goaler believed with all his Houshold viz. all that were of age to believe 2. And we are not to think saith Mr. Owen all these Housholds to be barren which were baptized by the Apostles there were not many Housholds in those Ages without Children in them for the greatest part of their Riches was their Bond Servants and the Children born of them and those Children were in God's Covenant even as free-born Children Gen. 17. 13 23. so are they also under the Gospel they are Abraham's Seed through the Faith of their Parents and Heirs as before Col. 1. 12. Gal. 3. 29. Ans 1. I need give no further Answer touching this argument concerning what you say of whole Housholds you have effectually answered your self you affirm that by whole Housholds or Families in the Scripture sometimes none but the adult are comprehended or meant and that Instance of Sampson doth sufficiently prove it little Children could not go to bury his dead Body though 't is said all his Fathers House buried him So say we by whole Houses that were said to be baptized none are meant but those adult Persons who believed 2. You say and confess that Cornelius and all his House feared God and that the Goaler and all his House believed that is all the adult say you believed or that were at age to believe this may serve to clear up the matter touching all the other whole Housholds that were said to be baptized God constrains you to speak the Truth here though it be to overthrow your whole Argument 2. But what you speak in the next place is not true viz. that Parents and their Children and Bond Servants and their Children were under the Law and under the Gospel times also in the Covenant of Grace through the Faith of their Parents For notwithstanding the Bond-men and their Male Children were commanded to be Circumcised that were in Abraham's Family and that were as Proselytes received into other Families of the Jews under the Law yet they were not Heirs of the Land of Canaan none but the natural Seed of Abraham could haue any possession therein according to that Covenant of peculiarality God made with the fleshy Seed of Abraham as such which typified forth that none but Believers or the elect of God who are the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham were the true Heirs of the Promise and of the Heavenly Canaan will you say that all the natural Seed of Abraham and Bond-Men and their Children as such and also all the natural Seed of Believers as such are the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham sure God will take of this Vail from your Eyes and open your understanding if you look to him by Prayer and search the Scripture with a canded desire after the knowledge of this matter 3. You will find a great difference between the Covenant that peculiarly did appertain to the natural Seed of Abraham as such and the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and his true Spiritual Seed as such 4. I have proved that neither Abraham's Faith nor the Parents Faith intitles any of their natural Seed as such to the inheritance or blessings purchased by Jesus Christ viz. Justification Adoption Pardon of Sin and eternal Life no no the Children of the Flesh as such these are not the Children of God but the Children of the promise are counted for the Seed viz. those that are the elect of God only Rom. 9. 6 7 8 9. are the Children of the premise and Heirs of Glory the promise runs Gal. 3. 16. not to Seeds as of many but to thy Seed which is Christ i. e. Christ personally considered primarily and then to Christ mystically considered that is all that are spiritually united to him therefore the Apostle saith Verse 29. if ye be Christs then are you Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the promise or according to the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham 5. This must be so because the Covenant of Grace is well ordered in all things and sure see once again Rom. 4. 14. for if they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the promise of no effect no need of Faith if the legal Covenant can save
to cover all their nakedness even Hands and Feet also if it be needful sure Sir you must suppose somewhat of this kind or there is no room left for you to cast contempt and reproach upon the Ordinance it self but to blame the people they do not provide convenient Garments on purpose that so they may not commit Adultery when they come to be Baptized 4. Sir had you seen our People baptized you had not been guilty of bearing false witness the Second time Reader pray take notice that we provide comely Cloaths for the Administer both from Head to Foot and our Men also that are baptized have Cloaths provided for them and for the Women Gowns and Petty-coats are made on purpose and they go into the water drest more decently perhaps then many Women come into Christian assemblies therefore this is a most unworthy Charge Mr. Owen casts upon us tho' he doth but follow the steps of Dr. Featly and Mr. B. but 't is worse in him at this time of the Day then in them then because our use and practice here is now more generally known And these things being so how can we in Dipping or Baptizing of Women be guilty of Adultery or any of the Spectators Can't you take a Woman dressed in modest and decent Cloaths by the Hand without having an unclean thought in your Heart you may as well charge some Tradesmen in the Exercise of their Trades with Adultery indeed did we as Mr. B. once falsly said baptize Women naked or as you say near or half naked which are both notorious untruths there might have been some colour for what you say but if there be need to Dip the whole Body say you as they say there is what rule have they in the Scripture to baptize the Cloaths with the Body the few Cloaths they have about them are dipped before the Body is dipped 1. Answ All Men may perceive of what a contentious contradicting quarelsome Spirit you are of one while you strive to expose Christ's Sacred Ordinance to reproach and us with it as if we baptized Persons naked and then presently seem to allow that we do not so but that they whom we baptize have Cloaths on but now the Cloaths are baptized and then ask what Scripture we have for this 2. 'T is enough Christ Commanded Dipping in his Name and we are required to do all things decently 'T is no matter so that the Body is buried in the Water 't is not the Cloaths that we say we baptize but the Person Christs Ordinance of Baptism in one essential part lies in the words of Administration Do you never Sprinkle some drops of Water on the Child 's Fine dresses if you should what doth that signifie you have wrote hard words and Christ is coming to convince all of their ungodly deeds and of all their hard Speeches spoken against him Jude 15. I pray God this Sin be not laid to your Charge Thus I have been helped to take off that reproach and vile slanders cast upon the baptizing Believers and have proved it is not re-baptization therefore let Mr. Owen cast of his slanderous clamarous Pen and Infants Rhantism and repent and return to the Baptism which Christ Instituted and left in his Church to the end of the World and now to make appear the evil and sinfulness of Infant Baptism take what follows which I have transcribed out of my answer to Mr. Burkitt's Book that he wrote for the Baptizing of Children two or three years since CHAP. XXI Shewing that there is no Blessing to be expected in Baptizing Infants but rather the displeasure of the Jealous God demonstrating contrarywise to what Mr. James Owen hath said also Mr. Burkit and Mr. Daniel Williams and all other pedobaptists that it is avery sinful and an unlawful practice AS Mr. Owen hath laboured in vain to shew the usefulness of Infant Baptism so Mr. Burkit a Learned Minister of the Church of England who in his late Treatise for Infant Baptism also did see page 35 36 37 38. of his Book 1. Mr. Burkitt saith Children are hereby Interested in all the prayers of the Church 1. Answ If you pray for them as Members of the visible Church what ground have you so to do from Gods word since God in the Gospel times had not made them Members thereof 2. Can't we pray for our Children tho' as yet they are not Members that they may become Members thereof 2. He saith by vertue of this admission they have interest in the special providence of God Answ No doubt but God doth exercise his special Care and Providence over all Elect Infants but not the more for your baptizing them without his authority or Command much less Infants of Believers as such 3. He says Hereby the Church stands nearer to them then to the rest of mankind c. mentioning that Text Ifa 54. 13. Thy Children shall be all taught of God 1. Answ Neither you nor Mr. Burkitt nor any pedobaptists in the World can bring Infants nearer to God nor his Church by any act done by you without any rule left by Christ 2. Does that Text Isa 54. 13. refer to Infants of Believers as such or to those godly and new re-born Children who being born in sin are indeed her Spiritual Children 4. He saith Irfant Baptism is an act of Dedication c. Answ Who commanded you this way to Dedicate your Children to the Lord Will you Teach the Almighty or are you wiser than he Doth he in his word require you so to do 2. May not the Papists say as well that those Persons they bring under their voluntary Vows are thereby Dedicated unto God 5. Mr. Burkitt saith 'T is great advantage to Infants as 't is an Act of restipulation that is saith he a Child at baptism enters into Covenant with God Answ I answer Poor Babes 't is without their knowledge and consent or God's appointment which is worst of all or they being able to perform it then nor many of them ever after God never giving them his Grace so to do But wo to them if they do not perform this Covenant if Mr. Burkitt and Mr. Daniel Williams say true he says in his Catechism as followeth That those Children who perform not their Baptismal Covenant do 1. They reject Christ 2d They renounce the Blessings of the Gospel 3dly that 't is Rebellion against their Maker 4thly That 't is ingratitude and perjury against their Redeemer 5thly Gross injustice to their Parents 6thly That 't is self-killing Cruelty to their own Souls 7thly 'T is he saith a damning Sin nay it s the heart of all Sin Is this indeed the love you Pedo-baptists have to your poor Infants What bring them into such a Covenant without their knowledge and consent or God's appointment and then threaten them if they break it with Hell and Damnation and what not Do you know they are all Elect Persons and so such that God will
such they had not been baptized nor had they a true Right thereto Arg. 20. Baptism is the Solemnizing of the Souls Marriage Union with Christ which Marriage-contract absolutely requires an actual profession of consent but Infants are not capable to enter into Marriage Union with Christ nor to make a profession of an actual consent Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Major our opposites generally grant particularly see what Mr. Baxter saith Our Baptism is our solemnizing of our Marriage with Christ These are his very words page 32. The Minor none can deny no Man sure in his right mind will assert that little Babes are capable to enter into a Marriage Relation with Christ and to make profession of a consent and the truth is he in the next words gives away his Cause viz. and 't is saith he A a new and strange kind of Marriage where there is no profession of consent page 32. How unhappy was this Man to plead for such a New and strange kind of Marriage did he find any little Babe he ever Baptized or rather Rantized to make a profession of consent to be Married to Jesus Christ If any should object he speaks of the Baptism of the Adult I answer his words are these Our Baptism is c. Besides will any Pedo-baptist say That the Baptism of the Adult is the solemnizing of the Souls Marriage with Christ and not the Baptism of Infants Reader observe how our opposites are forced sometimes to speak the Truth tho' it overthrows their own practice of Pedo-baptism Arg. 21. If the Sins of no persons are forgiven them till they are Converted then they must not be baptized for the forgiveness of them till they profess themselves to be Converted but the Sins of no Persons till they are Converted are forgiven Ergo no Person ought to be Baptized for the forgiveness of them till they profess they are Converted Mr. Baxter in the said Treatise lays down the substance of this Argument also take his own words i. e. As their sins are not forgiven them till they are Converted Mark 4. 12. So they must not be baptized for the forgiveness of them till they profess themselves Converted seeing to the Church non esse and non apparere is all one Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus is the Sum of that Preaching that makes Disciples Acts 20. 21. Therefore saith he both those must by a Profession seem to be received before any at Age are baptized page 30 31. and evident it is say I from hence that none but such at Age ought to be baptized Philip caused the Eunuch to profess before he would Baptize him That he believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God Saul had also saith he more than a bare profession before Baptism Acts 9. 5 15 17. page 28. The Promise it self saith he doth expresly require a Faith of our own of all the Adult that will have part in the Priviledges therefore there is a Faith of our own that is the Condition of our Title Mark 16. 16. page 16. He might have added by the force of his Argument therefore Infants should not have the priviledges For I argue thus viz. Arg. 22. If there is but one Baptism of Water left by Jesus Christ in the New Jerusalem or but one condition or manner of Right thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult then Infant Baptism is no Baptism of Christ but there is but one Baptism in Water left by Christ in the New Testament and but one Condition and manner of Right thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult Ergo Infant Baptism is no Baptism of Christ Mr. Baxter saith Faith and Repentance is the condition of the Adult and as to any other condition I am sure the Scripture is silent The way of the Lord is one one Lord one Faith one Baptism Eph. 4. 4. If profession of Faith were not necessary saith Mr. Baxter Coram Ecclesia to Church Membership and Priviledges then Infidels and Heathens would have Right also saith he the Church and the World would be confounded He might have added but Infidels and Heathens have no Right to Church Membership c. Ergo. 'T is a granted case among all Christians saith he that profession is thus necessary the Apostles and Antient Church admitted none without it page 21. And if so why dare any now a days admit of Infants who are uncapable to make profession He adds Yea Christ in his Commission directeth his Apostles to make Disciples and then Baptize them promising He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. page 27. Furthermore he saith If as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his Death and are Buried with him by baptism into Death that like as Christ was raised from the Dead so we also should walk in newness of Life c. Then no doubt saith he but such as were to be baptized did first profess this mortification and a consent to be buried c. In our Baptism we put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ being buried with him and raised with him through Faith quickened with him and haveing all our Trespasses forgiven Coll. 2. 11 12 13. and will any Man says he yea will Paul ascribe all this to those that did not so much as profess the things signified Will Baptism in the Judgment of a wise Man do all this for an Infidel or say I for an Infant that cannot make a profession that he is a Christian page 31 32. he proceeds Arg. 23. The baptized are in Scripture called Men Washed Sanctified Justified they are called Saints and Churches of Saints 1 Cor. 1. 2. all Christians are Sanctified ones page 33. now let me add the Minor But Infants are not in Scripture called Men Washed Sanctified Justified they are not called Saints Churches of Saints Christians nor Sanctified ones Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized If any should say why did you not cite these assertions of Mr. Baxters whilst he was living I answer more then Eighteen years ago I did recite and Print these assertions and many other Arguments of his to the same purpose to which he gave no answer Arg. 24. If there is but one way for all both Parents and Children to be admitted in the Gospel Church to the end of the World and that it is upon profession of Faith to be baptized then both Parents and Children must upon the profession of their Faith be baptized and so admitted c. But there is but one way for all both Parents and Children to be admitted into the Gospel-Church to the end of the World and that is upon the profession of their Faith to be Baptized Ergo. Arg. 25. That cannot be Christ's true baptism wherein there is not cannot be a lively Representation of the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ together with our Death unto Sin