hath laid down as an Everlasting Rule That unless a Man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.3 requiring Regeneration as an indispensable Condition in a Member of his Church a Subject of his Kingdom for his Temple is now built of living Stones 1 Pet. 2.5 Men spiritual and savingly quickned from their Death in Sin and by the Holy Ghost whereof they are Partakers made a meet Habitation for God Ephes 2.21 22. 1 Cor. 3.16 2 Cor. 6.16 which vital Supplies from Christ its Head encreaseth in Faith and Holiness edifying it self in Love And saith Dr. Taylor they that baptize Children make Baptism to be wholly an outward Duty a Work of the Law a carnal Ordinance it makes us adhere to the Letter without regard of the Spirit to be satisfied with Shadows to return to Bondage to relinquish the Mysteriousness the Substance and Spirituality of the Gospel which Argument is of so much the more consideration because under the Spiritual Covenant or Gospel of Grace if the Mystery goes not before the Symbol which it does when the Symbols are signations of Grace as the Sacraments are yet it always accompanies it but never follows in order of Time And this is clear in the perpetual Analogy of Holy Scripture The Lord open your Eyes Sir I am perswaded you speak as you believe But to proceed You come in pag. 26. to the gospel-Gospel-Church 1. From the Command of Christ 2. From the Practice of the Apostles 3. From the constant usage of the Primitive Church after the Apostles 1. That Infants were to be admitted into the Christian Church you say appears from our Saviour's express Command in the words of the Commission Mat. 28.19 Go disciple all Nations baptizing them that is go and proselyte all the Gentile Nations without distinction of Country Sex or Age whatsoever make the Gospel-Church as large as you can Answ 1. Who is so blind as he who is not willing to see It is evident to all Men who understand what they read that none are to be baptized by the virtue and plain meaning of our Saviour's Commission but such only who are first made Disciples as I have proved or as St. Mark renders it such who believed And that 't is so I have already proved 1. From the Practice of Christ John 4.1 he first made Disciples and then baptized them 2. From the Practice of the Apostles who always required Faith and Repentance of such they by virtue of their Commission did baptize as Acts 2.37 8.27 10.47 3. From the Nature of the Ordinance it self it being a sign of that inward Grace the Person baptized ought to have 4. From the Nature of the Gospel-Church it being only built up of living Stones and to be no larger than Christ appointed it But say you pag. 27. doubtless had our Saviour here intended the exclusion of Infants out of the Visible Church he would have acquainted her with this Alteration Christ being faithful to him that appointed him as was Moses in all his House Heb. 3.2 Answ I must retort it back upon you with much better Reason Doubtless say I had our Saviour intended the admission of Infants he would at this time have acquainted his Disciples and so us that it was his Will they should be received since as you well say he was so faithful and the rather because he commanded his Disciples to receive into his Church such who were taught or made Disciples When he commanded Abraham to circumcise his Male-Infants Abraham knew well enough he was not to circumcise his Females though he received no Negative Law in the case What is not commanded I say again is forbid especially in all Instituted Worship or else whither shall we run Thus your first Proof is gone having nothing in it 2. Baptizing Infants appears in the Christian Church you say from the Practice of the Apostles who baptized whole Families i. e. Lydia and her Houshold Acts 16.15 the Jaylor and all his c. Answ 1. If there were no Families or Housholds but in which there are some Infants you might have some pretence for what you infer from hence but how palpable is it that there are every where many whole Families in which there is no Infant or Child in Non-age and this being so what certain Conclusion or Consequence can be drawn from hence 2. Besides you know by a certain Figure called a Synecdoche a part is put for the whole as Isa 7.2 5 8 9. the Tribe of Ephraim is put for all Israel 'T is said All Jerusalem and Judea went out to be baptized by John in Jordan In 1 Sam. 1.21 22. the Text saith expresly The Man Elkanah and all his House went up to offer unto the Lord yet in the next Verse 't is as expresly said That Hannah and her Child Samuel went not up and yet 't is said all his House went up 3. As touching the Jaylor's House 't is positively said Paul preached to him and to all that were in his House do you think he preached to his Infants if he had any And to put the Matter out of doubt 't is said He rejoiced believing in God with all his House as well as 't is said He was baptized and all his 4. And as touching Lydia we still say 't is uncertain whether she was a Maid Widow or Wife but if she was married and had Children 't is very unlikely if Babes that they were at that time with her because she was far from her proper Dwelling nay many Miles from it for she was of the City Thyatira vers 14. but when Paul preached to her she was at Philippi where she was merchandizing being a seller of Purple Can we suppose she carried her little Babes so far to Market Besides those of her House were called Brethren who were baptized with her therefore sure Children cannot be here meant vers 40. Will you Sir build your practice of baptizing of little Babes from such uncertain Conclusions when 't is uncertain whether she had Children or no or if she had whether they were with her at that time or not Our denying of it is as good as your affirming it yet 't is plain she had Servants or some who are called her Houshold therefore that is impertinent you mention in p. 28. And thus it appears to all impartial Persons that there is nothing in your second Proof touching the Practice of the Gospel-Church here 's no mention made of one Infant baptized nor the least Colour of Reason to conclude there were in those Families But you in the next place put us upon searching the Scripture to prove a Negative i. e. that there were none baptized in Infancy you might as well bid us search and see if we can find there were not one Infant who broke Bread or were not ordained an Elder or Pastor of a Church How can we prove they did not make use of Honey
or Oil in Baptism which some of the Ancient Fathers used as Mr. Perkins notes or Salt and Spittle which Practice is still as I said before in the Romish Church Where is the extream Vnction forbid or Auricular Confession or to use Beads in Prayer and a hundred more such Romish Popperies may these things be therefore done Because we read not they are forbid I thought adding to God's Word was forbidden Rev. 22. But we will repeat your Words to see the Strength of your Argument Search the Scripture and produce me say you one Instance if you can from the time St. John the Baptist to the Death of St. John the Evangelist which was more than threescore Years during which time many thousands of Infants were grown up to Maturity and make it appear they were not baptized in their Infancy or that their Baptism was deferred till riper Years or that there is any Divine Command for the delaying the Baptism of Children of Christian Parents until they are grown up and I will frankly yield the Cause Bravely spoken Answ I must retort this Argument back again upon you also and shew 't is a great Argument against Infant-Baptism and not for it For say I let it be considered that since there was such a long Space of time as 60 Years and much longer between John Baptist and the Death of John the beloved Disciple or John the Evangelist during which time many thousands of Infants were born of baptized Believers both Jews and Gentiles Now Reader pray observe Mr. Burkit says in the Gospel-Day and when our Saviour sent his Disciples first to preach they were to teach or make Disciples of those they baptized but upon the Parents believing and being baptized he says their Children were admitted to Baptism also Now say I since many Parents thus taught and baptized had Multitudes of Infants born to them How comes it about that we read not of one of their Infants were baptized no not from the time of John Baptist to the Death of John the Evangelist Can any Man think had any Infants been baptized that God would not have left some account of it to put the matter out of doubt especially since it was never taught doctrinally or commanded certainly it could not stand consistent with the Care Wisdom and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ to have hid and concealed such a Practice had there been one Infant by his Authority or Allowance baptized But since the Scripture is silent in it we may assure our selves 't is not the Will of God Infants should be baptized Also if those who were to be baptized were first to be taught were first to repent and believe then it follows clearly that Baptism must be deferred till Children were of ripe Years and able so to do We come to what you say in pag. 28. where you tell us of a cloud of Witnesses for Infant-Baptism in the Churches after the Apostles time Answ And so you may if you pass the first 2 or 3 hundred Years after Christ and many Errors besides which crept amain into the Churches But pray remember Sir now you are without Book you are forced to quit the Holy Bible that sacred History and great Charter of the Church and therefore all your Proof out of humane History which may be true or may not be true signifies just nothing But you had best take heed lest we carry the Cause against you here too i. e. for the first Centuries we will examine your Authors and humane Testimonies The first is Vossius a later Writer I know not but you may have Ireneus and St. Cyprian out of him I do confess Ireneus lived not above 200 Years after Christ or in the second Century Thus you and others cite him viz. Omnes venit Christus per semetipsum salvare omnes qui per eum renascuntur ad Deum Infantes parvulos juniores seniores In English thus Jesus Christ came to save all by himself all who by him are born again unto God Infants and little ones Young and Old Answ Reader pray observe here is not a word of one Infant baptized but Mr. Burkit infers it from his Words so that we have nothing but Consequence yet neither from God's Word nor the Words of Man Christ no doubt came to save some of all sorts of Men and who doubts but he came to save Infants and little ones young and old But why must those Words who are born again be applied to Infant-Baptism The Scope of Ireneus in that Chapter is to refute the Grosticks who said that Christ did not exceed one and thirty Years of Age against whom Ireneus alledged that Christ lived in every Age of Infancy Youth Old and Age that by his Age and Example he might sanctify every Age. So that here Ireneus speaks not of being born again by Baptism for he saith Omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum i. e. I say all which are born again by him to God i. e. by Christ not as if he had baptized Infants but because he i. e. Christ was an Infant that by the Example or Vertue of his Age he might sanctify Infants as the whole Discourse in Latin plainly shews viz. Magister ergo existens Magistri quoque habebat aetatem non reprobans nec supergrediens hominem neque solvens suam legem in se humani generis sed omnem aetatem sanctificans per illam c. 2. As to Cyprian he lived as I find it in History about 248 or 300 Years after Christ and should I tell the Reader what Corruptions and Errors were let in about that time he would not wonder to hear Infants were allowed Baptism yet we have Cyprian against Cyprian It is true as far as I can gather in his time Infant-Baptism was first introduced without any Ground or Warrant from Christ and it was as strongly opposed which appears by the Debates and Doubts about it 3. The third humane Authority you bring is that cursed Decree of the Milevetan Council that all who denied Infant-Baptism should be Anathema accursed If you come but a little lower you have Proof enough in the Popish Councils Decrees and Canons But 't is to be observed that those Fathers pleaded for Infant-Baptism as that which took away Original Sin and gave Children the Eucharist too in the first Sacrament abusing that Text John 3.5 and in the other that in John 6.53 These are all your humane Proofs from the Churches after the Primitive Apostolical Days which you bring and I doubt not but to give you better and more Authentick Authority from some of the ancient Fathers against Infant-Baptism than you have brought for it and some of them nearer the Apostles Days too The first is Justin Martyr though I have him not yet take his Words as they are cited by Mr. Richard Baxter's Saints Rest Cap. 8. Sect. 5. I will declare unto you how we offer up our selves
say I as much ground as Dr. Taylor says for the one as for the other and there is the same Parity of Reason to conclude as they err'd in the one so they did in the other Why do you not from hence give Infants the Lord's Supper the reason you give I have before proved insignificant As to your third Demonstration it is not denied her that Infant-Baptism was received in the Church in the third and fourth Century with many other Fopperies but that does you no Kindness the Church was adulterated from the true Apostolical Faith and Practice in many respects in those and after Times downward Your fourth Demonstration is this viz. Pag. 33. If it was a gross Error in the Primitive Fathers to admit Infants to Baptism then they in suffering such an Error to pass uncensured and uncondemned were guilty of the greatest Impiety c. Answ What then I ask you whether you do not believe for several Centuries those Fathers who admitted Infants to the Lord's Supper without censuring or condemning it were not guilty also of as great Impurity Besides did not the same Fathers hold other Errors see Mr. Perkin's Demonst of the Problem pag. 488. these are his words viz. And whereas some Fathers viz. Ireneus Justin Clement Tertullian held that the Law of Nature had Power to save the Gentiles without Christ And again he saith The Fathers have Errors yea and that sometimes gross ones Doth not History tell us the Fathers used other Rites also and that in Baptism See Perkins p. 549. The Fathers saith he used some other Rites and Ceremonies which are now omitted as kissing of the Child which was baptized in Cyprian l. 3. ep 8. use of Milk and Hony use of Milk and Wine Hierom. in Isa cap. 55. It was an use for the Baptizer to blow in the Face of the baptized and the Party baptized used to exufflate the Devil whom he renounced What Credit is to be given to such Fathers They gave the Eucharist to Children likewise You say the Church of England is for Infant-Baptism Article 27. also the French Dutch Bohemian Helvetian Churches What of all this why did you not put in the Church of Rome with them 't is clear the Church of the Hebrews a Church at Rome in the Apostles days the Church of the Corinthians Galatians Philippians Ephesians Colossians Sardis Smyrna Pergamus Philadelphia and Laodicea owned it not We must go to the Fountain and not to the muddy Stream to drink pure Water From the beginning it was not so But say you if now the Anabaptists can believe that Almighty God has suffered all his Churches Ancient and Modern and that in all parts of the World to fall into one and the same destroying Practice They have a Power which I shall never envy namely of believing what they please pag. 34. Answ 1. You take that for granted which you prove not viz. That all these Churches who hold Infant-Baptism are true Churches of Christ Sir I must tell you we have not such a Power of Faith as to believe that 2. Doth not the Apostle declare that a general Apostacy from the true Apostolical Faith and Doctrine would after his days ensue And hath not the Church of Rome that Mother of Harlots made all the Earth drunk with her Cup for near 1200 Years or more and corrupted all those Churches more or less with her poisonous Errors and false Doctrines Rites and Ceremonies and yet Almighty God hath suffered her for so long a time and many other Errors among Protestants 3. See Mr. Tombs his Answer to this For if the whole Church might err saith he in one Age it may also in all Ages collectively considered the Promises being no more to the Church in all Ages collectively considered than in each Age distributively considered nor any means given to them after the Apostles collectively considered to keep them from Error than to each distributively yea the Churches nearer the Apostles had more means to keep them from Error than other Ages yet they err'd in Doctrine and Discipline as many Writers shew As for the Promise Mat. 16.18 it is not true of the whole Church visible the Gates of Hell have and do prevail against her so but of the invisible and yet the Promise is not to the invisible that they shall not err but they shall not err finally to Damnation which if they did then the Gates of Hell should indeed prevail against them 4. Your Church and all those other Churches mentioned by you have other Errors besides this and yet God suffers you and them to continue at present in those Errors for Reasons best known to himself nor do we say we are without any Errors or any Church on Earth we pretend to no Infallibility But in the Point of Baptism we are right by your own Concession I mean as to the baptizing of Believers 5. And lastly We do not say this Error of yours about Infant-Baptism is a Soul-damning Error God forbid tho it doth tend to destroy too far the nature of the holy Sacrament of Baptism and so also a right Gospel-Church according to the Apostolical Constitution making your Church National when the Gospel-Churches planted by Christ and his Apostles were Congregational So much in Answer to all your Arguments for the lawfulness of Infants-Baptism CHAP. VI. Shewing Infant-Baptism is of no use at all in opposition to what Mr. Burkit affirms but contrariwise sinful i. e. it being an Error hath also many evil and bad Consequences attending it With some Reflections on Infants Baptismal Covenant as asserted by Mr. Dan. Williams as well as this Author Mr. Burkit YOU say the Anabaptists assert Infant-Baptism is unlawful because 't is unuseful Children understanding no more than Brute Beasts what is done to them therefore you may as warrantably baptize a Beast as a Child Pag. 34. And then say pag. 35. That Infant-Baptism is greatly advantagious as an Act of Initiation into the visible Church Answ 1. You have no Warrant to baptize a Child but who of the Anabaptists ever said such words as you here mention dare you accuse your Neighbours falsly 't is a bad and unseemly Comparison But 't is no marvel we meet with it from such as you who are prejudiced against us some of your Brethren formerly charged us with baptizing naked God will judg between us and you in his due time Answ 2. You should have proved it an Institution or an Appointment of Christ but that you have not yet done nor never will True were Infant-Baptism ordained by Christ to be an initiating Rite into the Gospel-Church doubtless it had been useful 3. But what good doth your baptizing them do them what Priviledge of the Church do you allow them I know not one if indeed it did adopt the Child to be a Son or Daughter of God you say something or if God had appointed it to be a Sign or
than that of the Adult that it is a dangerous Error and therefore of no Use at all but the contrary viz. a very sinful thing 1. Reader can that be useful or any ways beneficial which Christ never commanded or required to be done in his Name but is unrighteously fathered upon him to the utter making void his own Ordinance of baptizing Believers 2. Can that have any Usefulness in it that brings Guilt upon the Parents in doing it making them guilty of Will-Worship or of a humane Tradition 3. Can that be useful that brings poor Babes into such a Covenant which Christ never ordained for them to enter into and to which they never directly nor indirectly consented nor approved of and which they are utterly unable to keep and which giveth them no Strength to perform nor is there one promise of God made to assist or help them to do it and yet for not keeping of it they are charged with Perjury with Self-murder nay with Hell and Damnation 4. Can that be of use to Infants that basely beguiles and deceives them causing them when grown up to think they were thereby made Christians and become the Children of God Members of Christ and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven nay regenerated and from hence never look after any other Work of Grace nor Regeneration but conclude all is well with them 5. Can that be a useful thing which the doing of is a palpable Alteration of the Words of Christ's Commission and so inverts that holy Order left by him for baptizing who requires none to be baptized before they are first taught and made Disciples 6. Can that be of any Use to an Infant which you nor no Man else can prove from God's Word to have any Use and Blessing in it to them 7. Can an humane Rite or Tradition think you save poor Children or a little Water sprinkled on the Face wash away Original Sin 8. Can Water beget Children to Christ or can that be useful to them which they have only the bare Sign of and not the thing signified viz. the Sign of Regeneration but not Regeneration it self a Sign of Grace but not Grace it self you give them the Shell but no Kernel the Name of Christian but no Nature of a Christian making that you call Christ's Baptism as Dr. Taylor saith á Sign without Effect and like the Figtree in the Gospel full of Leaves but no Fruit 9. Can that be useful that tends to make the gospel-Gospel-Church National and confounds the Church and the World together which ought to be Congregational a holy and separate People like a Garden inclosed 10. Can Baptism be more useful to Infants than to adult Believers notwithstanding the Scripture saith that the Person baptized doth not only believe but call upon the Name of the Lord Acts 22.16 can Infants do that 11. Can Infant-Baptism be more useful than that of Believers and yet Baptism an Ordinance of the Soul's Marriage with Christ And is not that as Mr. Baxter saith a strange Marriage where there is nothing signified of Consent And are Infants able so to do 12. Can Infant-Baptism be more useful than that of Believers and yet Baptism called the Answer of a good Conscience Can a little Babe answer a good Conscience by being baptized in Obedience to Christ and to shew forth his Death and Resurrection 13. Can Infant-Baptism be more useful than that of Believers Whereas the first has no Promise of God made unto it and yet the other hath many as Acts 2.36.37 38. Mark 16.16 14. Can that be a useful thing that frustrates the sacred and spiritual Ends of Baptism which we have shewed are many but as administred to poor Babes 't is rendred wholly of none Effect and an insignificant thing Lastly Mr. Perkins hints that Baptism signifies two things 1. Our Union with Christ 2. Our Communion with him Now how doth this appear in Infants as such as it does in Believers CHAP. VII Shewing that the Baptists are falsly called Anabaptists they being as much against rebaptizing as Mr. Burkit or any other Men or People whatsoever shewing that Infants who have only had a little Water sprinkled or poured on their Faces c. are not baptized but rantized Proving Baptism is Immersion and without the Person 's Body is dipped or covered all over in the Water he is not baptized from the literal genuine and proper Signification of the Greek Word Baptizo 1. IN Page 42 you say That you will endeavour to satisfy such who were baptized as you call it in their Infancy that they were rightly baptized 2. And that such who have been once duly and rightly baptized ought not to be rebaptized or baptized again Answ That which you say in the first Place we do utterly deny though we readily grant you what you say against rebaptizing for we are as much against it as you can be But to prove your first Proposition you proceed to shew the several Requisites necessary to denominate a Person rightly baptized 1. The Person baptizing ought to be a lawful Minister authorized and commissioned by Christ and the Governors of his Church 2. The Party baptized you say must be a Subject qualified for Baptism c. 3. That the Element made use of must be Water 4. It ought to be done before credible Witnesses 5. Lastly Baptism ought to be administred in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Answ 1. I grant all you say here though how you can prove there were Witnesses by when Ananias baptized Saul or when Philip baptized the Eunuch I know not yet I believe 't is necessary there should be in all ordinary Cases credible Witnesses by 2. But Sir how doth this comport with the Rantism of Infants For 1 st That they are not Subjects fitly qualified for Baptism I have fully proved and have detected your Argument concerning Baptism coming in the room of or succeeding Circumcision 2 dly I shall now prove your sprinkling or pouring Water on the Subject either on the Face or any part of the Body is not baptizing but rantizing Then answer you Allegations Objections base Reflections and false Calumnies cast upon Mr. Tredwell and indeed on the Baptists in general And in order to the effectual doing of this take a Passage or two out of the ancient Fathers c. St. Gregory saith That that is not said to be reiterated which is not certainly demonstrated to have been rightly and duly done And in another Place saith he If there be an Offence taken at the Truth it is much better that Offence be taken than that the Truth should be deserted The Custom of the Churches ought to submit to the Words of Christ not the Words of Christ to be wrested to the Custom of the Church in regard the Words of Christ are the Foundation upon which all Customs are to be built See the famous Dr. Du-Veil on the Acts. Tertullian
what tho we deny not but that Circumcision was then the inâ—â—lating Ordinance and Baptism is so now in Gospel-times i. e. an Ordinance of Initiation yet Circumcision initiated none into the Jewish Church but such who were by the express and positive Command of God to be circumcised who were only Male Infants for the Females were initiated without it even so Baptism tho it be an initiating Ordinance yet none are to be initiated thereby not only those who by the express Command of God are required to be baptized and they are only such who believe or make a Profession of their Faith Sir Precepts that are merely positive greatly differ you know well enough from Precepts that are purely moral in their own nature Laws that are of meer positive Right wholly depend upon the absolute Will and Pleasure of the great Legislator and in all Cases and Circumstances we must keep to the express words of the Institution we must venture to do no more nor no less nor do any thing in any other manner than God hath commanded as appears in Nadab and Abâ—hu and Vzzah's case the first for offering of strange Fire which thing God commanded them not tho God in express words no where forbid them so to do were cut off Levit. 10. 1 2. When God commanded Abraham to circumcise on the eighth day did he not virtually forbid him to do it on the seventh or ninth day Therefore this sort of reasoning of yours is meer sophistical and you do but darken Counsel with words without Knowlâ—dg You say in Pag. 4. That God hath no where declared that Infants should be excluded You mean he has no where forbid in express words the baptizing of Infants no more say I has he forbid Hony Wine Oil Salt and Spittle to be used in Baptism the former was used by some of the ancient Fathers and the latter is still in the Romish Church Where are we forbid to baptize Bells and consecrate Water as the Papists do to make it holy Water Also where are Infants excluded from the Lord's-Table If therefore any thing may be done in God's Worship which you suppose is not forbid and bears also some proportion in Signification with Jewish Rites all Popish Rites and Ceremonies may be let in at the same Door for the Pope Miter Popish Vestures Candle and Candlesticks c. they no doubt will tell you are of like Signification with the High-Priest under the Law with the Priest's Vestures and other Ceremonies among the Jews Whither will this lead you 't is dangerous to be led by such a Guide But to proceed we will come to that grand Proof of yours for Infant Baptism in Pag. 4. which you intimate will put the Matter out of all dispute namely That Baptism doth come in the room of Circumcision which is Col. 2. 11 12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands by the Circumcision of Christ buried with him in Baptism You say The Design of the Apostle here is to take the Colossians off from the old Sacrament of Circumcision He informs them that there was no reason why they should be fond of it because they were compleat without it Christ having substituted new Circumcision in the room of it namely Baptism and accordingly Christians may now be said by Baptism to be spiritually circumcised as the Jews were said to be spiritually baptized Answ Your Exposition of this Text there is no ground to admit of the Apostle speaks of the Power or Virtue of Christ's Circumcision His design is to shew we are compleat in Christ without Circumcision or Jewish Ordinances and to shew how we are compleat in Christ and have put him on he mentions Faith as well as Baptism or such a Faith that should always attend Baptism and therefore Infant-Baptism from hence cannot be proved or inferred nor the least ground for your bold Conclusion from hence viz. That Baptism came in the room of Circumcision 1. For first the Apostle 't is true excludes Circumcision but 't is upon another account viz. by shewing Circumcision was a Figure of the Circumcision of the Heart as Rom. 2. 28 29. Phil. 3.3 and since they had the thing signified thereby the Rite or Sign ceased And as I have lately replied to some of your Brethren in answer to this Text so I must say to you all that can well be asserted from this Scripture where the Apostle brings in Baptism is no more than this viz. That where Baptism is rightly administred upon a proper Subject it represents the spiritual and mystical Circumcision of the Heart i. e. that the Soul is dead to Sin or hath put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ which may refer to the Power of his Death in the blessed Effects thereof by the effectual Sin-killing Operations of the Spirit on the Heart And as being dead to Sin we are buried with Christ in Baptism both in sign and token of Christ's Burial i. e. covered all over in the Water which is a clear Symbol of his Burial also in Signification i. e. that we being dead and buried with Christ in Baptism so are to rise with him by the Faith of the Operation of God and both these are held forth in true Baptism The Apostle doth not mention Baptism to come in the room of Circumcision but to shew that these believing Colossians had through Christ by the Spirit obtained the Antitype thereof or thing figured out in the Circumcision of the Flesh which Baptism did clearly represent But since this is so strenuously urged by you afresh tho so often answered I will be at the trouble to transcribe once more what Dr. Taylor late Bishop of Down hath said to this Argument of yours and others before you about Circumcision viz. That Baptism is the Antitype of it or that it came in the room thereof The Argument saith he from Circumcision is invalid upon infinite Considerations Figures and Types prove nothing unless a Command go along with them or some Express to signify such to be their purpose For the Deluge of Waters and Ark of Noah were Figures of Baptism saith Peter If therefore the Circumstances of the one be drawn to the other we shall make Baptism a Prodigy rather than a Rite The Paschal Lamb was a Figure of the Eucharist which succeeds the other as Baptism doth Circumcision But because there was in the Manduâ—ation of the Paschal Lamb â—o Prescription of Sacramental Drink shall we conclude from hence the Eucharist is to be administered in one kind To which let me add Because Children Servants and all in the House might eat of the Passeover must our Children and all in our Houses eat of the Eucharist or Supper of the Lord But saith the Doctor and in this very Instance of this Argument suppose a Correspondency of the Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism yet there is no Correspondency of Identity for
signify that Moses his Law is abolished and the Doctrine of Christ established 4. Circumcision signified the Promise of the Land of Canaan but Baptism Eternal Life by Christ And indeed saith he if this Argument be not warily and restrainedly understood an Egg is laid out of which manifest Judaism may be hatched but if it be taken restrainedly 〈◊〉 no more follows thence but that Baptism and Circumcision in some things hold forth the same which is more plainly said of 〈◊〉 Ark 1 Pet. 3.21 and of the Red Sea and Cloud 1 Cor. 10.2 And yet we say not that Baptism succeeded into their place much less do we infer any Rite to be instituted in their stead respecting the same Persons yea verily it is to be seriously thought on 1. That by such Arguments drawn from Analogies not conceived by the Holy Ghost but drawn out of our Wit a new kind of instituting Rites to wit from Analogies is brought in besides our Lord's Precepts and the Apostles Examples 2. This being once said by a like parity of Reason and Arguing it will be lawful to bring into the Christian Church under other Names and Forms the whole Burden of Jewish Rites yea almost out of what you will to conclude what you will For who shall put a Bound to Mens feigning Analogies when they go beyond the Lord's Precepts and the Apostles Examples It is well known that the Divine Appointment of Tythes to be paid and many other things in the Writings of Divines are asserted by this kind of Argument besides the Rule of the Lord's Precept and the Apostles Example 3. Hereby will the Opinion of the Papists be confirmed who affirm from 1 Cor. 10.11 the Sacraments of the Jews to be Types of the Sacraments of Christians which is rejected by Divines that dispute against Bellarmine 4. This manner of arguing will countenance the Arguments of the Papists for an Vniversal Bishop because the Jews had such and justify a Linen Garment at Mass because there was such among the Jews and for Holy Water Purification of Women Easter Pentecost and many more such Ceremonies for which the Papists do in like manner argue as appears out of Durandus's Rationals and other Interpreters of Rituals among the Papists Yea what hindereth but we may give Children the Lord's Supper if we argue this way since Samuel Jesus Christ under Age were partakers of the Passeover And of right all the Males were thrice in the Year to appear before the Lord and therefore it is certain they did eat the Passeover and it shall be afterwards shewed that the place 1 Cor. 11.28 will not avoid this Inconvenience if the Text Mat. 28.19 may be shifted off as Pedo-Baptists use to do Lest any Man take this for a light Suggestion I will add that grave godly and learned Men have often warned that we are to take heed that we do not rashly frame Arguments from Analogy among others in their late Writings in the English Tongue John Paget in his Defence of Church-Government Part 1. Chap. 3. Pag. 8 and elsewhere John Ball in his Reply to the Answer of the New-England Elders unto the Nine Positions Posit 2. p. 14. Lastly It is to be considered again and again how by these Argumentations the Consciences of Men may be freed from the danger of Will-Worship and polluting so remarkable an Ordinance of Christ as Baptism is especially this Care lies on them who by Prayer Sermons Writings Covenants and Oaths do deter Christians from Humane Inventions in God's Worship diligently and it is to be hoped sincerely Thus far that Reverend Divine who though I knew not what he had said till after I had wrote as before in answer to you yet finding him so fully to strengthen what I have said I thought good to add his Excellent Lines In the close of your 4 th Page you recite an Objection brought by us viz. That there was an express Command in so many Words for Circumcision but there is no such Command for Infant-Baptism Gen. 17.9 requires Infants to be Circumcised shew us but such a Text in all the New Testament that says 〈◊〉 Infants be Baptized Thus you have stated our Objection to which you give a threefold Answer I acknowledg say you that in the New-Testament though it be not wholly silent yet it speaks very little touching the Case of Infant-Baptism and that for two Reasons 1. Because the Old-Testament speaks so much in their Case therefore the New-Testament speaks so little The Old-Testament plainly informs us that Children in their Infancy were admitted Members of the Visible Church Now what need is there that the same thing be repeated over again in the New-Testament for it is not the Old-Testament alone nor the New-Testament alone but both together that contain the Rule of Faith and Practice c. Answ 1. You speak an Untruth for the New-Testament speaks nothing at all touching Infant-Baptism if a Man read it over a thousand times he shall not find one Word or the least Hint given of it therefore the New-Testament contrary to what you boldly affirm is wholly silent in the Case of Infant-Baptism and Church-Membership 'T is a shame for a Man who calls himself a Minister to speak falsly but much more to publish Falshoods to the World In this Mr. Rector you must be corrected If you fly to your pretended Consequences you shall find by and by God assisting that that Refuge will fail you in the Case for Consequences in many Cases drawn naturally from the Premises to which they refer we readily admit of though not in the Case of meer positive Precepts 2. As to your first Reason why the New-Testament speaks no more in the Case of Infants which is as you conceive because the Old-Testament speaks so much that the Infant-Seed of Believers should be owned as Covenant Servants as Deut. 29.10 12. and were admitted Members of that Visible Church I must tell you Sir by way of Answer this will do you no good for the Reasons following 1. Because Baptism is as I have told you already a meer positive Precept and the Rite thereof as well as Circumcision cannot be known but by the express Declaration or Manifestation of the Will and Mind 〈◊〉 God in his written Word Abraham knew not that it was his Duty he ought to Circumcise his Children till God gave him his positive and express Command to do it and then also it was none but his Male Children and God gave Directions to him when and wherefore he should Circumcise them And therefore there is the same parity of Reason why the Great God should give us under the Gospel the like positive Law for baptizing our Children under the Gospel together with the Time when and the Reason wherefore as he did to them in the case of Circumcision had it been his Pleasure we should Baptize our Children but since he hath not required any thing of this Nature of us under the Gospel his requiring
Truth of Christ O how are we beholden to the Jewish Talmud and Jewish Rabbins for our Infant-Baptism Nay which is worst of all how is Christ beholden to them for that rare Invention that had said so much for it and made it so common a Practice among them that it saved him the Pains to give the least Directions about it But is not this next to Blasphemy Can any Man in his right Wits think our Lord Jesus should confirm a vile Tradition and Innovation of the Jews or take His great Ordinance and Sacrament of Baptism from the superstitious fabulous and erronious Custom of their Doctors and Rabbins Besides was Baptism to be preached or practised by none but the Jewish People doth it not belong to the Gentiles too Did not our Saviour command his Disciples to go into all Nations and make Disciples and baptize them c. Was it his Mind that Infants should be baptized and yet say nothing of it because it was a common Custom and Practice among the Jews But Sir what must the Gentiles do to know this to be their Duty I mean those Gentiles who received the Christian Faith viz. that they ought to baptize their Children who did not know nor ever heard of that Jewish Custom Or dare you say our New Testament is not authentick or sufficient to teach us the whole of Gospel-Duties and Obedience without the Jewish Talmud You should not 't is plain only have said the New Testament is not without the Old the Rule of our Practice but also that the New Testament and the Old without the Jewish Talmud is not sufficient and then you had done your business at once Are you not ashamed thus to go about to blind and deceive the poor People Is not the whole Mind of Jesus Christ even all his Laws and Precepts or his whole Counsel plainly contained in his blessed Word But would you have People be wise above what is written and teach Men to reflect upon the Care and Faithfulness of the blessed Jesus in leaving out of the sacred Bible one great Truth of God and leave us to find it out by going to search the Jewish Traditions 4. If it was a Custom among the Jews it must be a sacred Custom I mean a Custom that God appointed and commanded them to observe or else a human Tradition or vain Custom If it had been a Mosaical Rite given by God himself to the Jews Christ besure abolished it and nailed it to his Cross with all its fellows and 't is gone for ever since he hath not given it out a new Take this Argument That Custom among the Jews that God never commanded nor is any where given by Moses unto them who was faithful in all his House was no Ordinance of God but a meer human Tradition But the Custom among the Jews of baptizing the Heathen and their Children who were admitted into their Church was never commanded of God nor any where given unto them by Moses who was faithful in all his House Ergo That Custom was no Ordinance of God but a meer human Tradition 5. Lastly take what a worthy and learned Author of your own Communion hath said in Confutation of this foolish and absurd Argument for Pedo-baptism 't is Sir Norton Knatchbull Knight and Baronet The thing saith he is uncertain that it cannot be said of the Rabbins that there were not several among them who differed very much about this matter for Rabbi Eliezar expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first that I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews for Rabbi Eliezar who was contemporary with Rabbi Joshua if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte circumcised and not baptized was a true Proselyte for so we read of the Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Jacob that they were circumcised but not baptized But Rabbi Joshua affirms that he who was baptized not he that was circumcised was a true Proselyte To whom shall I give Credit to Eliezar who asserts what the Scripture confirms or to Joshua who affirms what is no where to be found in Scripture But the Rabbins upheld Joshuah's side and what wonder was it for it made for their business that is for the Honour of the Jewish Religion that the Christians should borrow their Ceremonies from them But when I see Men of great Learning in these times fetching the Foundations of Truth from the Rabbins I cannot but hesitate a little For whence was the Talmud sent us they are the words of Buxtorf in his Synagoga Judaica that we should give Credit thereto that from thence we should believe that the Law of Moses either can or ought to be understood much less the Gospel to which they were profess'd Enemies For the Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors and the Foundation of Jewish Fables it was brought to Perfection and held for authentick five hundred Years after Christ therefore it is unreasonable to rest upon the Testimony of it And that which moves me most Josephus to omit all the Fathers that lived before the Talmud was finished who was a Jew and contemporary with Rabbi Eliezar who also wrote in particular of the Rites Customs and Acts of the Jews is altogether silent in this matter So that it is an Argument to me next to a Demonstration that two such eminent Persons both Jews and living at the same time the one should positively deny and the other makes mention of Baptism among the Jews Besides if Baptism in the modern sense were in use among the Jews in ancient Times why did the Pharisees ask John Baptist Why doest thou baptize if thou art not Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet do they not plainly intimate that Baptism was not in use before and that it was a received Opinion among them that there should be no Baptism till either Christ or Elias or that Prophet came So far the renowned Sir Norton Knatchbull in his Notes printed at Oxford Anno Dom. 1677. with the License of the Vice-Chancellor a very learned Man and a Son of the Church of England Sir what think you now of your Jewish Custom of baptizing the Heathens and their Children who were admitted to their Church Do you think there is not need that Infant-Baptism should be mentioned in the holy Scripture had it been a Truth Is this uncertain Story of the Jewish Custom sufficient for you to build your Faith and Practice upon when the Truth of the Story as to matter of Fact may justly be doubted but if it was true it is but a rotten Foundation to build one of the great Sacraments of Christ upon viz. a vile profane and human Tradition of the Jewish Rabbins I have been the larger on this matter because the Men you mention as Dr. Hammond Taylor and Lightfoot some People have in such Veneration who were the Persons you need not doubt the learned Sir Norton confuted and also because your Brethren the Athenian Society
Man think that our blessed Saviour who declared all things plainly from his Father and was faithful as a Son over his own House would leave any positive Law or Precept of the Gospel so dark that there is no way to understand it but by Consequences 2. But secondly our main Objection lies against your pretended Consequences for we positively deny that any of your Inferences or Consequences which you bring to prove Infant-Baptism do naturally follow from the Scripture-Texts to which you refer or from whence you draw them and blame us not since your own Brethren such too as Dr. Hammond Dr. Taylor Bishop of Down c. do affirm that those Scriptures from whence you draw your Consequences for this Practice are not naturally drawn therefrom but are very uncertain and doubtful if you know not this it will appear you have read but little of them 3. As touching Prayer that is a Branch of Natural Religion or a Moral Duty and therefore quite different from this the Controversy is about yet that it is positively enjoined and commanded in the Gospel also we deny not Pray always pray without ceasing and for every thing give Thanks What can be more plain Besides we sin not if we pray thrice a day or seven times a day therefore Prayer is unadvisedly and improperly mentioned by you upon this account 4. As touching Womens receiving the Lord's-Supper that is proved more than by Consequences Let a Man examine himself i. e. Man or Woman for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek and Adam in the Hebrew signify There is one Mediator between God and Man Is not the Woman comprehended as clearly as the Man Are not Male and Female all one in Christ Jesus Gal. 3.28 And as we have lately told your caviling Brethren the Athenian Society did you never read of the Figure Sylepsis or Conceptio that comprehends the less worthy under the more worthy indignioris sub digniore As for Example Quid tu soror facitis ego mater miseri perimus tu uxor qui adfuistis testes estete and is no less true in Divinity See that full Text 1 Cor. 6.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they two shall be one Flesh Mary the Mother of Jesus and the other good Women who were Christ's Disciples were of the number of the hundred and twenty Disciples who brake Bread with the three thousand that were added to them Acts 2. 'T is said Acts 8.12 They were baptized both Men and Women Now such a Consequence as this we deny not viz. Women were Disciples Women were baptized and therefore broke Bread for all who were true Disciples of Christ and baptized had an undoubted Right to the Lord's-Supper Bring us such Grounds and Consequences for your Infant-Baptism and Church-Membership and we will contend with you no more But to satisfy the Reader more fully as to this I desire him to see Mr. Danvers Answer to Mr. Blindman 5. As to the first day of the Week being the day appointed for Christians to observe under the Gospel in the Worship and Service of God we have Proof enough without Consequences Sir we always affirm an Apostolical Practice or a Gospel-Precedent is of like nature and of equal Authority with a Gospel Precept Do we not read Acts 2.1 2. that when the day of Pentecost was fully come the Disciples were all gathered together with one accord in one place which was the first Day of the Week And was not this their assembling on that day as the day of the Christian Sabbath ratified and confirmed from Heaven by that wonderful Effusion of the Holy Ghost or extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit And is it not said Acts 20.7 the Church came together on the first Day of the Week to break Bread And doth not the Apostle exhort the Church at Corinth 1 Cor. 16.1 2. upon the first Day of the Week to make Collections or to gather and lay in store for the Poor as he had given Orders to the Churches of Galatia this they could not do if they met not on that Day And what tho we cannot prove without Consequences that he who was the Lord of the Sabbath did change the Day c seeing we have such plain and express Examples or Precedents for the Observation of the first Day of Week and none but that in the times of the Gospel Therefore now we say 6. Could you give us but one Example one Precedent in all the New Testament that any one Infant was baptized we would give up the Cause but as you can give us none so you cannot give us any Consequences that without the abuse of the Scripture naturally flow from the Texts to which you refer therefore all this stir in mentioning these particular Cases are remote to your Business and prove nothing they being not like parallel Cases to yours But to come to your Argument for Infant-Baptism which you would have to run parallel with that for Womens receiving the Lord's-Supper I will repeat them both and then reply to the last All Christ's Disciples ought to partake of his Supper Women are Disciples therefore to partake of his Supper You proceed All Christ's Disciples ought to be baptized but some Children are his Disciples therefore to be baptized 1. I deny your Minor you say some Children are Disciples the Scripture you bring to prove it is Acts 15.1 8 10. Answ That Scripture proves no such thing the Yoke that was laid on the Neck of those Disciples were Men or Adult Persons or Gentile Saints they were such Disciples those false Brethten would have laid the Yoke of Circumcision upon 2. A Disciple is one taught or instructed as the genuine and proper Signification of that word holds forth but Infants have no Understanding and therefore are not able to be made Disciples by teaching Your second Proof is their Parents Dedication of them to Christ I answer Parents have no Warrant from God's Word to dedicate their Children to Christ by Baptism nor doth that Dedication infuse any Divine Habits into them or the least Light Knowledg or Understanding therefore that Dedication cannot render them to be Disciples Your third Proof is Christ's gracious Acceptation of them at their hands Answ I answer Christ only laid his Hands upon some Children who were brought to him and blessed them but this doth not prove they are Disciples or that he baptized any Infant But more of this hereafter I proceed to your second grand Argument Pag. 8. CHAP. II. Wherein the grand Argument for Infant-Baptism taken from the Covenant made with Abraham is fully confuted Proving the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Grace wherein both Mr. Burkit and the Athenian Society are clearly answered The Legal Covenant and Fleshly Seed being under the Gospel both cast out the Plea for Pedo-baptism from the old Covenant-Right is vanquished I Come now to examine your second grand Argument for the Baptism of Infants
new Covenant which God would make with the House of Israel which should not be according to the old he goes on and tells us what God would do in that Covenant-day that he would put his Law into their inward parts and write it in their Hearts And they shall teach no more every Man his Neighbour and every Man his Brother saying Know the Lord for they shall all know-me from the least of them unto the greatest of them saith the Lord c. And indeed in this very respect the Gospel-Covenant is not according to the old as the Lord said it should not be as well as in divers other cases for many of those who were in the old Covenant to which Circumcision did appertain were Infants tho all of them were not taken in by Circumcision for Female Infants were received into that old Covenant without it Now these Children who were taken into that Covenant did not know the Lord. Infants having no Understanding know not their right Hand from their left it is therefore impossible they should know the Lord and therefore also there was a necessity after they were in that Covenant that they should be taught to know the Lord First that God is and what a God he is and so to know him as to fear him and serve him in Sincerity But in the Gospel-Covenant God promised it should be otherwise all who were received into that Covenant should be Adult Persons or such who did know the Lord which plainly implies no ignorant Infant should be taken into that Covenant and be a Member of that Church-State for if so then it would follow such would have the like need to be taught to know the Lord as they had in the old Covenant Church-State And remakable it is that this Text doth clearly intimate that all who should be taken into the Gospel-Covenant or Gospel-Church should be discipled or taught first to know God for to be taught or discipled is all one and the same thing which agrees with Christ's great Commission Matth. 28.19 20. where he gave Directions who or what kind of Persons they were to be that he would have his Apostles receive into his gospel-Gospel-Church and that they should be all of them first taught or made Disciples and as such be baptized is clearly declared Now that this Text in Jer. 31. refers to the Gospel-Covenant is evident see Heb. 8.7 8 9 10. That Covenant that was a part or branch of the old Covenant or Covenant of Works was not a Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant But the Covenant of Circumcision was a part or branch of the old Covenant or Covenant of Works Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant The Major cannot be denied The Minor is easily proved That which bound or obliged all those who were under it or did it to keep the whole Law and was also abrogated or taken away by Christ with all the other Rites and Shadows of the old Covenant was a part or branch of the said old Covenant But Circumcision bound or obliged all who were circumcised to keep the whole Law and also the same Rite of Circumcision was abrogated with all other Rites and Shadows of the old Covenant by Christ Ergo Circumcision was a part or branch of the old Covenant See Gal. 5 〈◊〉 testify to every Man that is circumcised that he is a Debtor to keep the whole Law That Covenant which was in its nature and quality as much a Covenant of Works as the Covenant made with Adam or the Sinai-Covenant was not a Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant whereof Christ is the Mediator But the Covenant of Circumcision was in its nature and quality as much a Covenant of Works as that Covenant made with Adam or the Sinai-Covenant Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision waâ— not a Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant Read Reverend Mr. Philip Cary's Desence and Proof of the substance of this Argument in his just Reply to Mr. John Flavel p. 59 60. Thus he says and doubeless speaks the truth viz. That Adam's Covenant was a Covenant of Works cannot rationally be denied for as much as Life was implicitly promised unto him upon his Obedience and Death was explicitly threatn'd in case of his Disobedience upon these terms he was to stand or fall And that the Sinai-Covenant was of the same nature he hath in the said Treatise clearly proved both of them requiring perfect Obedience and neither of them admitting of Faith in a Redeemer the Sinai-Covenant commanded perfect Obedience under the pain of a Curse Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that is written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. It accepted as he shews of no short Endeavours nor gave any Strength and is called a Ministration of Death and of Condemnation 2 Cor. 3. And moreover 't is called in express terms the old Covenant which God made with the Children of Israel when he brought them up out of the Land of Egypt Heb. 8.9 Also the new Covenant is said to be directly contrary unto it or not according to it but opposed thereto and that there was no Righteousness by it nor Life for as the Apostle shews if there had Christ is dead in vain and besides the Apostle says 't is done away Now all these things being considered Mr. Flavel 't is evident doth but beat the Air and darken Counsel and all that he hath said in his last Book in answer to that worthy Gentleman Mr. Cary deserves no further Answer Now saith he that the Covenant of Circumcision is of the same stamp is evident for tho God promised to be a God to Abraham and to his Seed Gen. 17. 7 8. as he did also in the Sinai-Covenant to the same People in the Wilderness yet still it was upon condition of Obedience with an answerable threatning in case of Disobedince ver 9 10. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy Seed after thee Every Man-Child shall be circumcised And ver 14. The uncircumcised Male-Child whose Flesh of his sore-Skin is not circumcised that Soul shall be cut off from his People he hath broken my Covenant The same terms saith he with the former Besides 't is evident that Circumcision indiâ—pensibly obliged all that were under it to a perfect universal Obedience to the whole revealed Will of God as I hinted before Gal. 5.3 And as the Terms were the same so were the Promises that which was the great Promise of the Covenant of Circumcision was the Land of Canaan and God to be their God in fulfilling that earthly Promise to Abraham's Natural Seed upon the Condition of the keeping that Covenant on their parts That which Mr. Flavel hath said in his last Reply in his Book called A succinct and seasonable
to plead those Priviledges by virtue of a Law that is gone and now not in any force But to come a little nearer the case in a more apt Simile Suppose a Man should have a Legacy bequeathed to him by the Will and Testament of his Friend and yet afterwards his Friend sees good to make another Will which is his last Will and Testament and in this last Will and Testament he leaves him quite out not mentioning his Name bequeathing no such Legacy to him would it not be folly in him to sue for that Legacy left him in the first Will and Testament Sir the Case is thus in hand we read of two Covenants or Testaments an Old and a New a First and a Second Now in the Old Will or Old-Testament Infants were admitted to the Priviledg of Church-Membership in that Legal or National Church of the Jews And National Church-Priviledges are now made null and void by the Gospel-Covenant which is Christ's last Will and Testament in which Infant Church-Membership is quite left out their Names not being mentioned as having right to any Gospel-Ordinance as Baptism the Lord's Supper c. If we would know the Mind of God herein we must of necessity have reâ—ourse to Christ's last Will and Testament since the Gospel is so called and that the first or old is taken away and there is no Man can prove any one old Rite that did appertain to the natural Off-spring of Abraham or Believers remains to them which is not mentioned in the new or last Will and Testament of Jesus Christ 't is plain they had or least wise some of them other external Priviledges besides that of Circumcision and yet I see no Man contend for any one Rite but only this they call the Seal of the Covenant Why might not Ministers plead for all their Sons to have right to the Ministry since that Priviledg was given them in the Old-Testament And for all Male-Children that open the Womb to be holy to the Lord which Blessing belonged to them under the Law and also plead for the Tenths and First-fruits c. I desire you and the Athenian Society carefully to consider this and weigh what we have said we have shewed you and them how Infants who were once in Covenant that is in the Jewish or old Covenant are cast out or left out for indeed they were never admitted into the New-Testament-Church but since they are not put in and the old Covenant and old Church-Membership being cast out and gone in vain is it for any to plead their Right by an abrogated Law Besides you say Circumcision was the Seal of that Covenant by virtue of which Infants had a Right to Church-Membership if so 't is evident that Covenant is gone because 't is cancelled for the tearing off or breaking off the Seal we all look â—pon the cancelling the Covenant That Circumcision the Seal as you call it is broken off I am sure you cannot deny Sir what is then become of your Covenant for incovenanting Children Object But may be you will object and say that you do not contend for that particular Rite or Institution but of a visible Church-Membership of Infants perpetual in all Ages and an indefinite Seal 1. Reply How doth it appear the Infants of the Godly before Abraham's time had any right to visible Church-Membership or what Seal had they 2. Such a Right is a meer Figment like Idea 〈◊〉 all Institutions merely positives are of such a Rite in particular and an initial Seal is meerly positive as Signs that are not natural but by the Will of the Appointer and therefore there is no initial Seal indefinite Sir now you have no way left but to see since the old Covenant is cancelled whether you can find the Baptism of Infants in the New Testament and there taught laid down and prefix'd to it as Circumcision was to the old Do that and you do all do not that and all you do is just nothing But you in Pag. 9. raise up many Absurdities that follow this that Infants are cast out or not taken into the Gospel-Church Then Infants say you are in a worse condition since the coming of Christ than they were before and are Losers by him instead of Gainers altho the number more â— Answ You should before you brought this pretended Absurdity upon us have shewed what Advantage did accrue to Infants by Circumcision and how that added to the goodness of their Condition it put them 't is plain to a great deal of Pain and the Apostle says it was a Yoke of Bondage which neither they nor their Fathers could bear Being Members of that Church did not save them nor purge away Original Sin c. tho I doubt not it served for the end God appointed it yet I say how did it add to the goodness of Infants Condition 2. Then say you the Privileges of the Gospel are straiter and narrower than those of the Law Answ If you once imagine that the outward or external Privileges of the Gospel are larger or so large as those were under the Law you are greatly mistaken The Jews and Jewish Teachers or Priests had many external Privileges which Christians and Ministers under the Gospel have not they had a lovely Country promised to them a Land that flowed with Milk and Hony outward Peace Riches and gathering of Wealth were Privileges belonging to them but we under the Gospel have no such Privileges but are to expect Persecution and what not Yet our Privileges are better and greater tho more spiritual 't is a Covenant established upon better Promises our Children when grown up sit under the clear and glorious Light of the Gospel which they and theirs then had held forth but in dark Shadows Moreover Then the Church-State was confin'd to the natural Seed of Abraham c. But now all in all Nations who repent and believe the Gospel the poor Gentiles are now become Fellow-Heirs indeed our spiritual Priviledges do infinitely excel theirs but not in Externals now greater Infusions of the holy Spirit O Sir what Priviledges had the Gentiles or their Children then is not the case mended with us 3. You say If it were the Will of God Infants under the Gospel should be reckoned as out of his Covenant who were in Covenant then it follows say you that our Saviour was unfaithful or forgetful to his Church in that he never acquainted her with this Alteration but not one word by way of Prohibition do we find in all the New Testament from whence we may conclude that Christ's not repealing the Practice of initiating Infants nor forbidding their Admission into the Church by Baptism c. Answ 1. I answer had it been the Will of God that Infants should under the Gospel be admitted into the Church by Baptism Christ you might rather say had been forgetful or unfaithful in not giving the least intimation of his Mind and Pleasure therein who
qualifies them for it but what Christ hath ordained and appointed as the alone proper and meet qualification which is not that external relative Covenant-Holiness you talk of which the New-Testament speaks nothing of as I shall shew by and by but actual Faith Regeneration or Inherent-Holiness which is the thing signified by Baptism therefore a thousand such Arguments will do you no good since Baptism is of meer positive Right 'T is Christ's own Law must decide the Controversy viz What Qualifications are required of such who by his Authority and Law ought to be baptized prove if you can such an external Federal-Holiness qualifies any Persons for Gospel-Baptism for if such federal or external Holiness qualifies Persons for Baptism then the Jews before cast off might have been admitted to Baptism since they had then such a kind of federal Holiness which kind of Holiness you cannot prove Believers Children are said to have under the Gospel but if it qualified them not for Baptism it cannot qualify our Children for Baptism And that is did not qualify them is evident see Mat. 3.9 where some of the Branches of this Root came to John Baptist to be baptized and he refused to admit them with these words i. e. Think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father for I say God is able of these Stones to raise up Children to Abraham Ver. 10. And now also is the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees From whence it plainly appears that that external relative Covenant-Holiness which qualified under the Old-Testament Persons for Circumcision and Jewish Church-membership will not qualify Old nor Young under the New-Testament for Baptism and Gospel Church-membership 2. I also deny your Minor and say the Scripture of the New-Testament doth not pronounce the Children of believing Parents federally Holy The Text Rom. 11.16 speaks not one word of Infants nor one word of such a kind of federal Holiness Mr. Tho. Goodwin who was a very Learned Man urging that Text 1 Cor. 7.14 tho a Pedo Baptist saith in the New-Testament there is no other Holiness spoken of but Personal or Real by Regeneration about which he challenged all the World to shew to the contrary And Sir with your Favour if you cannot from any place of the New-Testament prove there is any such Holiness spoken of you are to be blamed for bringing in a private and an unwarrantable Interpretation of that Holy Text. I find there are various Interpretations of what is meant by the Root in that place 1. Some understand it of the Covenant 2. Some of Christ 3. Some of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. 4. Some of Abraham only What if I agree with the last and say Abraham is the Root but what Root Why the Root of all his true spiritual Seed And if so the Holiness of the Branches was real in word and spiritual for such Holiness as is in the Root is in the Branches And indeed for want of Faith or of that real and spiritual Holiness in many of his natural Branches for he was a two-fold Root or Father as I before have proved they were rejected or broken off for their Vnbelief and the Gentiles by Faith were grafted in they having obtained the Fatness of the Root or the Faith and Righteousness of their Father Abraham who was the Root or Father of all that believe The Truth is as Mr. Tombs observes the Holiness here meant is first in respect of God's Election Holiness personal and inherent in God's Intention Ephes 1.4 Secondly It is also Holiness derivative not from any Ancestors but Abraham not as a natural Father but as a spiritual Father or Father of the Faithful and so derived from the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham And thus it appears you have darkened this illustrious Scripture thinking to prove a Holiness that the New-Testament knows nothing of applying the Holiness and Insection to outward Dispensations only in the visible Church which is meant of saving Graceâ— into the invisible and make every believing Parent a like Root to his Posterity with Abraham to his Seed which we deny But let the Jews Covenant and standing before they were broken off be what it would I am sure no Gentile is grafted into Christ but by actual Faith nor can any be grafted into the Gospel-Church without the profession of such Faith therefore you do but beat the Air. The Jews 't is true were broken off by their Unbelief and were also no more a Church nor is there any such kind of Church constituted under the Gospel as theirs was viz. a National Church for they amongst the Jews who were the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham receiving Christ by Faith were planted into the Gospel-Church and between them and Gentile Believers Now there is no difference Jew and Gentile stand in the Church now by Faith not by external Covenant Privilege-Right or Holiness Thou standest by Faith O Believer mark not by Birth-Privilege but by Faith Thy standing is by Faith saith one yet not thy Seed by thy Faith but thou thy self by thine and they by their own Faith is that by which thou standing and not thy Seed hast right to stand in the Church and not they but if thy Seed have Faith and thou hast none then they have right in the Church and thou shalt be excluded And though under the Law we deny not but that the natural Seed or Progeny or Abraham were all Holy with an external Ceremonial or Typical Holiness and consequently they were then admitted to an external Participation of Church-Privileges Yet now 't is otherwise Old things are past away now we know no Man after the Flesh 2 Cor. 5.16 That Church-State is dissolved and manner of admission into it by external Birth-Privilege c. so that this Text doth not help you I shall further open this place of Scripture 1. 'T is evident the Apostle is in the 9th and 10th Chapters to the Romans a treating of the Election of Grace and of that Covenant of Grace and Election God made with Abraham these were his People which he had not cast away chap. 10.1 and of this sort God had 7000 in Elias's Days ver 4. Even so saith he at this present time also there is a Remnant according to the Election of Grace ver 5. Hence he says What then Israel hath not obtained c. But the Election hath c. ver 7. He further shews that abundance of the natural Seed of Abraham were broken off How were they broken off Why by their Unbelief they not receiving Christ but rejecting the Gospel and New-Church-State were broken off but that the Gentiles might not boast over them the Apostle shews there is ground left to believe all those that belong to the Election of Grace shall in God's due time be brought in and so partake of the Blessings of the Gospel-Covenant or Covenant of Grace made with Abraham And to prove this in ver
Bastardy the Holiness can be meant of no other than Legitimation Nor is this any more an unlikely sense sith Barstards were reckoned among unclean Persons Deut. 23.2 and the Apostle's Expression is allusive to the Jewish speaking and Estimation and why it should be thought strange that Holy should signify Legitimation I know not when as Mal. 2.51 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Seed of God is rendred by some Pedo-baptists a holy Seed we read it a godly Seed which were such Children you cannot deny born in lawful Marriage And that we are not alone touching this sense of the Words and Matter pray take the Testimony of divers Learned Men who yet held Infant-Baptism but found this Text remote to the business of proving it Jerom as I find him quoted by a Learned Man saith Because of God's Appointment Marriage is holy See Chameri § 50. Sic Ambrosium Thomam Anselmum exposuisse tunc Suarez appellat literalem sensum That Ambrose Thomas Anselm so expounded it and this Suarez calls the literal sense Melancthon in his Commentary upon this place saith thus Therefore Paul answers that the Marriages are not to be pulled asunder for their unlike Opinions of God if the impious Person do not cast away the other And for Comfort he adds as a reason the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the believing Wife Meat is sanctified for that which is holy in use that is granted to Believers of God things prohibited under the Law as Swines Flesh and a Woman in her Pollution were called unclean The Connexion of the Argument is this If the use of Marriage should not please God your Children would be Bastards and so unclean but your Children are not Bastards therefore the use of Marriage pleaseth God and how Bastards were unclean in a peculiar matter the Law shews Deut. Thus far Melancthon Camerarius gives the same sense as Chamier observes Musculus in his Comment on the place confesseth that he had formerly abused this place against the Anabaptists Camera on the place saith For the unbelieving Husband hath been sanctified an unusual change of the Tense that is sanctified in the lawful use of Marriage for without this saith he it would be that their Children should be unclean that is infamous and not legitimate who so are holy that is during the Marriage are without all blot of Ignominy Erasmus upon the place saith thus Infants born of such Parents as one being a Christian the other not are legitimately holy for the Conversion of either Husband or Wife doth not dissolve the Marriage which was made when both were in Unbelief Nay I find a very learned Divine to affirm the Ancients expounded this place no otherwise None saith he that ever I met with expound it of federal Holiness till the Controversy of the Anabaptists in Germany arose And Sir since you are so ingenuous as to confess in Pag. 25. that the unbelieving Husband is sanctified in respect of Conjugal Relation to the Wife in a way of Marriage in which so far you agree with these learned Men and this being so how come you to assert 't is federal Holiness that is said to be in the Children What we say it appears is not a racking of the Scripture to maintain a private Opinion therefore what you speak is not true and tho the word holy refers here to what we affirm with others yet the Apostle speaks truly Tho 't is granted the Children of Heathens born in lawful Wedlock are no more Bastards than the Children of Christians for if the Marriage were made void it would render their Children to be unclean or base born And what tho the Greek word doth signify in so many places you mention spiritual Sanctification and Separation to God shew us where it signifies external relative federal Holiness in the New Testament Yet as one observes the word is not bound up to that sense as you seem to intimate for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for Castimoniam servo as Stephanus in his Thesaurus observes out of Demosthenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where a Priest of Bacchus speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am holy and pure from the Compâ—â—â— of Man and the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chaste to be chaste to make chaste Chastity coming from the same Root with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reverence or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to admire as Grammarians conceive are used for Holiness very frequently both in Scripture and in all sorts of Greek Writers So that what you say as to the Signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy that it cannot be taken for legitimate is fully cleared and we justified from your unjust Accusation viz. that we wrested the word to favour our private Opinion neither are we out in our Logick as you infer but now the Inference may be that you are weak in your Greek And to conclude But if it doth signify holy as you say why might not the Children of such as the Apostle speaks of be said to be holy as well as the Infidel of unbelieving Wife is said to be sanctified what is the difference between Holy and sanctified CHAP. IV. Wherein the Argument for Infant-Baptism taken from the constant and universal Practice of the Church in all Ages which is Mr. Burkit 's last Argument is fully answered and Antiquity proved on our side YOur sixth and last Argument for Infant-Baptism is this viz. That which has been the constant and immemorial Practice of the Church of God in all Ages of the World is unquestionably an Ordinance of God and agreeable to his Will But Infants Initiation or the Admission of Infants into the Jewish Church by Circumcision and into the Christian Church by Baptism has been the immemorial Practice of the Universal Church from the Days of Abraham to this day Therefore it is undeniably an Ordinance of God and agreeable to his Will Answ 1. Though this Syllogism is not good I mean true in Form yet I shall pass that by and give you a full Answer But why do you confound things together I mean Initiation and Baptism as if no Children were initiated into the Jewish Church without Circumcision for 't is not so the Females were initiated without Circumcision or Baptism or any other external Rite so far as we read of But as to Infants being admitted Members of the Jewish Church we deny nor and all your Arguments from thence I have already answered your Business is to prove they were admitted into the Gospel-Church and that by Baptism The Church of Christ under the Gospel is more Spiritual than that under the Law I tell you again 't is not National not Members by Generation but by Regeneration not those born of the Flesh but those born of the Spirit And pray read what Reverend Dr. Owen hath said in his Catechism about Government p. 106. Our Lord Jesus Christ saith he
to God after that we are renewed through Christ those amongst us that are instructed in the Faith and believe that which we teach them is true being willing to live according to the same we do admonish to fast and pray for Forgiveness of Sins and we also pray with them And when they are brought by us into the Water and there as we were new born are they also by new Birth renewed and then in calling upon God the Father the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit they are washed in Water c. This Food we call the Eucharist to which no Man is admitted but only he that believeth the Truth of the Doctrine being washed in the Laver of Regeneration for Remission of Sins and so liveth as Christ hath taught and this saith Mr. Baxter is you see no new way 'T is said Justin Martyr was converted about 30 Years after the Apostle John and by the Order then used in the Church it appears there was no Infant-Baptism thought of Walafrid Strabo as I find him cited by a great Historian says That there was no Children but aged understanding Persons baptized in this Age that is to say in the 2 d Century Walafrid Strabo Eccl. Hist c. 26. Vicecom l. 1. c. 30. Tertullian in his Book of Baptism speaking of that Text Suffer little Children to come unto me saith Indeed the Lord said do not hinder them to come unto me Let them come therefore while they grow to Years and while come let them be taught let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ why doth innocent Age hasten to the Remission of Sins Men will deal more warily in worldly Affairs So that they who are not trusted with an earthly Inheritance are trusted with an heavenly one Let them ask for Salvation that thou mayst appear to have given it to him Dr. Taylor saith thus The Truth of the Business is as there was no Command of Scripture to oblige Children to the Susception of it so the necessity of Pedo-Baptism was not determined in the Church till the Canon that was made in the Milevetan Council a Provincial in Africa never till then I grant saith he it was practised in Africa before that time and they or some of them thought well of it And tho that is no Argument for us to think so yet none of them ever pretend it to be necessary nor to have been a Precept of the Gospel St. Austin was the first that ever preached it to be necessary and it was in his Heat and Anger against Pelagius Thus Dr. Taylor Ignatius in his Discourse about Baptism asserts That it ought to be accompanied with Faith Love and Patience after preaching H. Montanus p. 45. and Jacob Dubois p. 16 to 22. and Dutch Martyrology where Ignatius's Letters are mentioned to Polycarp Tralensis to them of Philadelphia Dr. Taylor saith in his Disswasive against Popery pag. 118. printed 1667. one of his last Pieces thus viz. That there is a Tradition to baptize Infants relies but upon two Witnesses Origen and Austin and the latter having it from the former it lies upon a single Testimony which saith he is a pitiful Argument to prove a Tradition Apostolical He is the first that spoke of it but Tertullian that was before him seems to speak against it which he would not have done if it had been an Apostolical Tradition and that it was not so is but too certain if there be any Truth in the Words of Ludovicus Vives who says That anciently none were baptized but Persons of riper Age. And as touching Origen's Works and many more of the Ancient Fathers there is great cause to doubt about them because as Mr. Perkins notes no Greek Copies thereof are extant and many other Books said to be written by such and such Fathers are spurious and never wrote by them See Perkins Great Basil in his Book of the Holy Spirit Chap. 12. saith Faith and Baptism are the two Means of Salvation inseparably cleaving together for Faith is perfected by Baptism but Baptism is founded by Faith and by the same Names both things are fulfilled for as we believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit so also we are Baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit and indeed there goeth before a Confession leading us unto Salvation but Baptism followeth sealing our Confession and Covenant The same Churches Teacher saith the Learned Dr. Du-Veil in his third Book against Eunomius speaketh thus viz. Baptism is the Seal of Faith Faith is the Confession of the Godhead it is necessary we should first believe and then be sealed in Baptism Du-Veil on Act. cap. 8. p. 278. Zonaras saith The Babe will then need Baptism when it can chuse it Gregory Nazianzen in his 4 th Oration saith Dr. Du Veil Of those who die without Baptism gives us an Instance in those to whom Baptism was not admitted by reason of Infancy And the same Nazianzen though he was a Bishop's Son being a long time bred up under his Father's Care was not saith the said Doctor baptized till he came to Man's Age. In like manner saith he Basil the Great that was born of devout Parents and instructed from his Childhood was not baptized until a Man p. 280. Also saith John of Antioch called afterwards Chrysostom was born of Christian Parents as the truer Opinion is tutored by the famous Bishop Meletius was not yet baptized till he was one and twenty Years of Age. Hierom also Ambrose and Austin who were born of Christian Parents and consecrated to Christian Discipline even from their Childhood were not baptized before thirty Years of Age as Dr. Taylor Bishop of Down asserts in his 12 th Section of the Life of Christ Now Sir here are Examples enough that do prove in the Primitive Times Children of Baptized Believers were not baptized but had their Baptism delayed till they themselves believed and gave an account of their Faith Had it been the constant Custom of the Godly to baptize Infants would not these think you have been in their Infancy baptized Grotius as I find him quoted by Dr. Duveil ' saith The Primitive Churches did not Baptize Infants See Grotius his Notes on the Gospel Nay saith the same great and Learned Writer it doth most plainly appear by the right of baptizing used in the Romish Church for Baptism is to be asked before the Person to be baptized do enter into the Church which the Surety does in the Infant 's Name a clear distinct Confession of Faith is required which the same Surety rehearseth in the Infant 's Name i. e. A renouncing of the World its Pomps the Flesh and the Devil We may by this perceive from whence the Original of our old Church-Catechism came But this is a clear Argument saith the Doctor to prove of old the Persons who were to be baptized asked themselves Baptism in their own
the Primitive Churches minded by many good Men Where is the Spirit of Reformation And doubtless that famous Author and learned Critick in the Greek Tongue Casaubon was in the Right take his words I doubt not saith he but contrary to our Church's Intention this Error having once crept in is maintained still by the carnal Ease of such as looking more at themselves than at God stretch the Liberty of the Church in this case deeper and further than either the Church her self would or the solemness of this Sacrament may well and safely admit Afterwards he saith I confess my self unconvinced by Demonstrations of Scripture for Infants Sprinkling The truth is the Church gave too great Liberty she had no Power to alter in the least Matter but to have kept exactly to the Institution She says Dipping or Sprinkling that spoils all that Addition gives encouragement Who will Dip the Person that can believe the Church that Sprinkling may serve And O how hard is it to retract an Error which hath been so long and so generally received especially when carnal Ease and Profit attends the keeping of it up and also when the true way of Baptizing is reproached and look'd upon to be so contemptible a Practice and those who own it and dare not act otherwise vilified and reproached by such as you with the scutillous Name of Anabaptist c. although we are as much against Rebaptizing as any People in the World can be The Learned Cajetan upon Matth. 3.5 saith Christ ascended out of the Water therefore Christ was baptized by John not by sprinkling or pouring Water upon him but by Immersion that is by Dipping or Plunging into the Water Moreover Musculus on Matth. 3. calls Baptism Dipping and saith the Parties baptized were dipp'd not sprinkled To close with this take one Argument If the Baptizer and the Baptized in the Days of Christ and his Apostles wenâ— both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipp'd then is Baptism not Sprinkling but Dipping But the Baptizer and the Baptized in the Days of Christ and his Apostles went both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipp'd Ergo Baptism is not Sprinkling but Dipping CHAP. IX 〈◊〉 Baptism is Dipping Plunging or Burying of the whole Body in Water in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost from the Spiritual signification of Baptism AS touching your last five Arguments against Rebaptizing I see no ground to except against what you say there only I shall take a brief view here of your six General Propositions p. 49. And as to you first I have and shall yet further make it appear that Dipping is not an Accident but an essential part of Baptism viz. 't is no Baptism at all if not done by Immersion or Dipping 2 ly Whereas you say the way or manner of applying Water is not positively determined in the Holy Scripture cannot be gathered either from the signification of the Word or from the significancy of the Ceremony Answ This as to the first part viz. as to the signification of the Greek word we have fully confuted and as to the significancy of the Ordinance we shall forthwith in this Chapter make most evidently appear 3 ly You say There is a probability that Baptism was administred in the Apostles Times by Immersion or Dipping so there is likewise a probability that it was done by Aspersion or Sprinkling Answ We have and shall yet further prove that there is not the least probability that in the Apostles time Baptism was ever administred by Aspersion but by Immersion You confess in hot Countries it was done by dipping and that that Country where they baptized 〈◊〉 which we read was a hot Country so that 〈◊〉 â—hat Reason by your own Argument they 〈◊〉 by Immersion and not by Aspersion 4 thly You say you do not oppose the Lawfulness of Dipping in some cases but the Necessity of Dipping in all cases Answ We have and shall prove the necessity of Dipping in all cases and that 't is no baptism at all if not so done let your Church say what she pleases 5 thly You say that none ought to put a Divine Institution upon any Rite at their own â—â—easure when it is in its own nature indifferent and consequently lay such stress upon dipping as to pronounce the Baptism of all the Reformed Churches throughout the World null and void ought to prove it an unchangable Rite Answ This makes against your self and all Pedo-baptists in the World How dare you change a Divine Institution of Jesus Christ change his Law and holy Ordinance and substitute another thing in its stead and room And if the Laws and Institutions of Christ in their own nature are not unchangeable what may not Men do and yet be blameless this opens a door to make all Christ's Institutions null and void But Sir we have shewed in this Treatise that for 1300 Years in most parts of the World Immersion was only used and some learned Pedo-Baptists have shewed that Rantism is utterly to be rejected as an Innovation and an insignificant Ceremony 6 thly That in the Sacraments it is not the Quantity of Elements but the Significancy of them that ought to be attended in Circumcision it was not the Quantity of Flesh cut off so much as the Signification of it c. Answ In the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper we grant 't is not the Quantity of Bread and Wine is to be observed if so be it be administred in that order and manner Christ hath ordained viz. to represent his Body broken and his Blood poured forth The like we will say also in Baptism we need not go where there is more Water than what will serve to baptize or dip the Person all over so that it may represent the Burial and Resurection of Christ which was the very thing it was appointed to hold forth or represent when administred 2. Should the People of Israel as I have shewed in Circumcision only have cut a little bit of the fore-skin of the Flesh and not round or quite off or only have paired off the Nails of the Childrens Fingers with a little Skin with it would that have answered the Mind of God in that Rite or they have been born with in pleading it might as well answer Circumcision in Signification The Vanity and Sinfulness of this Assertion you will see fully in this Chapter laid open and detected But I shall now proceed to your first Argument against Dipping Say you such an Application of Water in the Administration of Baptism as the Spirit of God in Scripture expresly calls baptizing is lawful and sufficient to the use in Baptism But sprinkling or pouring Water upon the Party baptized without Dipping is by the Spirit of God in divers Scriptures expresly called baptizing Therefore it is lawful and sufficient and Dipping is not necessary Answ
rise not As if he had said If there be no Resurrection why are we baptized In vain does the Church use the Symbol of Baptism if there be no Resurrection The like Testimonies frequently occur among the Fathers saith he Ignatius saith that believing in his Death we may be made partakers of his Resurrection by Baptism Baptism was given in memory of the Death of our Lord we perform the Symbols of his Death Mark not of pouring forth his Blood or Holy Spirit or sprinkling the Spirit on us or the Blood of Christ No no this that Author says is not signified in Baptism but the Burial and Resurrection of Christ which Sprinkling no manner of ways can represent Justin Martyr saith We know but one saving Baptism in regard there is but one Resurrection from the Dead of which Baptism is an Image And from hence say I we know not Infants Rantism or Sprinkling for this is none of Christ's true Baptism Christ's Baptism in Water is but one and 't is that of Believers and 't is not Sprinkling but Dipping to signify Christ's Burial and Resurrection He goes on and cites other Authors Hear Paul exclaiming they past through the Sea and were all baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea He calls Baptism the Passage of the Sea for it was a flight of Death caused by Water To be baptized and so plunged and to return up and rise out of the Water is a Symbol of the descent into the Grave and returning from thence Baptism is a Pledg and Representation of the Resurrection Baptism is an Earnest of the Resurrection Immersion is a Representation of Death and Burial Innumerable are the Testimonies saith Sir Norton which might be added but these I think sufficient to prove that Baptism is an Image of the Death and Resurrection of Christ from whence we acknowledg the Mystery of our Religion saith he Christ's Deity and Humanity and of all the Faithful who are baptized in his Faith from death in Sin to newness of Life which if they lead in this World they have a most assured Hope that being dead they shall hereafter rise to Glory with Christ Thus Sir Norton Knatchbul a worthy Knight and of your Church too Mr. Perkins saith The dipping of the Body signifies Mortification or Fellowship with Christ in his Death the staying under the Water signifies the burial of Sin and coming out of the Water the resurrection from Sin to newness of Life In another Treatise of his he saith The ancient Custom of Baptizing was to dip as it were to dive all the Body of the Baptized in Water Rom. 6. Council of Laodicea and Neocesarea And here let me add what Reverend Dr. Sharp the present Arch-Bishop of York hath lately delivered in a Sermon preached before the Queen's Majesty on Easter-day March 27 1692. And this in antient times was taught every Christian saith he in and by his Baptism When ever a Person was baptized he was not only to profess his Faith in Christ's Death and Resurrection but he was also to look upon himself as obliged in correspondence therewith to mortify his former carnal Affections and to enter upon a new state of Life And the very Form of Baptism saith he did lively represent this Obligation to them For what did their being plunged under Water signify but their undertaking in imitation of Christ's Death and Burial to forsake all their former evil Courses as their ascending out of the Water did their engagement to lead a holy spiritual Life This our Apostle doth more than once declare to us thus Rom. 6. 3 4. We are buried saith he with Christ by Baptism unto Death that like as Christ was raised up by the Glory of the Father so we should walk in newness of Life Thus far Dr. Sharp Dr. Fowler now Lord-Bishop of Glocester on Rom. 6. 3 4. saith Christians being plunged into the Water signifies their undertaking and obliging themselves in a spiritual sense to die and to be buried with Jesus Christ in an utter renouncing and forsaking all their Sins that so answering to his Resurrection they may live a holy and godly Life Also Dr. Sherlock Dean of St. Pauls on Rom. 6. 3 4. saith Our conformity to the Death and Resurrection of our Saviour consists in dying to Sin and walking in newness of Life Which saith he St. Paul tells us is represented by the external Ceremony of Baptism and rising out of his warry Grave a new-born Creature And unto these let me add what the Reverend Dr. Tillotson the present Arch-Bishop of Canterbury hath wrote speaking of the same Text Rom. 6.3 4. Anciently saith he those who were baptized put off their Garments which signified the putting off the Body of Sin and were immers'd and buried in the Water to represent the Death of Sin and then did rise up again out of the Water to signify their entrance upon a new Life And to these Customs the Apostle alludes when he says How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Know ye not that so many of us that were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his Death c. 1. 'T is a hard case you neither will believe the holy Scripture the Antient Fathers and modern Divines no nor those learned Prelates and Doctors of your own Church who 〈…〉 living but contrary to the nature and tendeâ—â—y of holy Baptism plead for Sprinkling and condemn Dipping and cast reproach upon it and say also that the thing signified thereby is the pouring forth of Christ's Blood or the sprinkling or pouring out of the Holy Spirit notwithstanding we prove from the Scripture and with the Testimony of all these great Men that Baptism signifies the Death Burial and Resorrection of Jesus Christ and not any of those things you affirm as your own Concein without the Testimony of any learned or approved Author Therefore Sir that Baptism is any thing else than dipping plunging or washing which is done by dipping we do utterly deny For as the cutting off a little bit of the Foreskin of the Flesh or not the twentieth part round is not Circumcision so sprinkling a little Water on the Face is not Baptism True you call it Baptism and will do so tho 't is nothing less nor more than Rantism 't is not the thing nor does it answer in signification I may tell you again that the Jews instead of circumcising the Foreskin of their Childrens Flesh might have as well presumed to dispense with that and only have paired off the Nails of the Fingerâ— of their Male Infants and have called that Circumcision as you may call sprinkling or pouring a little Water Baptism But may be you will say in Circumcision they were to draw Blood so say I they might in cutting the Nails of their Childrens Fingers nay and they might better plead that the things signified in Circumcision might be as well answered in that