should be in all the members of the true Gospel Church and not of God's taking under the Gospel whole Families into Covenant with himself either into an outward external Covenant or into a spiritual or new Covenant relation with himself 'T is true God perhaps hath sometimes called whole Families both Parents Children and Servants and converted them all but alass how many Families are there where may be but one is called and in sacred Covenant with God may be the Husband and not the Wife the Wife and not the Husband the Child and not either of the Parents are so called and taken into Covenant with God Pray worthy Brittains consider well what God speaks of his Promise under the Gospel I will take one of a City and two of a Family and will bring you to Zion Jer. 3. 14. Not in Gospel times whole Families no no this God may do but 't is more then he hath promised or as to matter of Fact is so he doth frequently speak in another I may speak here as the Apostles speaks in another Case you see your calling Brethren how not many whole Families are called 3. Because God made a Covenant with Abraham and his natural Seed as such as a Covenant of peculiarality and also with him made or renewed the Covenant of Grace setting him up as a covenanting Head on a double respect doth it follow that every believing Man is set or placed by the Lord as a like Covenant head to all his natural Off-spring Till Mr. Owen hath proved this he saith nothing to the purpose In the Covenant of Circumcision that appertained to all Abraham's natural Seed were many external Priviledges and Promises made of which Circumsion was given as a Sign or Token as particularly the Land of Canaan c. But what Priviledges and Promises hath God granted to Believers Children as such in Gospel times which Baptism gives them an assurance of the sign is nothing without the substance or thing signified Believers have the substance or the things signified in Baptism so have not Infants in their pretended Baptism nor many of them ever after 4. Whereas you call for a plain Scripture to prove that the Children of the Faithful are rent from the Head of the Family you mistake the Business you must prove that in the Gospel Dispensation Children and Servants or whole Housholds are taken with the Heads of those Housholds into Covenant with God What whole Nation is taken into Covenant with God as the whole House or Nation of Israel was under the Law prove that there is such a Nation and we will grant that all the Families in that Nation are also in Covenant for in that universal Family all particular Families must needs be comprehended You proceed to the Gospel times and mention Zacheus who as soon as converted the Lord Jesus said this day is Salvation comé to this House for as much as he also is a Son of Abraham Luke 19. 9 10. 1. Ans I answer you do your Business effectually if you can prove that so soon as the Father believes Salvation comes to belong to all that are in his House I thought you argued for some external Priviledge only for the Children upon their Parents Faith but it appears 't is no less then Salvation it self even eternal Salvation for it was such a Salvation that came to Zacheus that day O happy Children of Believers if this were true For then it follows that all the Children of the faithful must of necessity be saved whether they in their own Persons believe or not nay and happy Servants too for they must all be saved because part of the Family but what credit is there to be given to a Man that talks after the manner as you do is this true or false for what do you mean less then what I say and doth Eternal Salvation come to all in that Family or House when the Head of it doth believe you ought to repent for spreading such grand errors among the People Christ you say explaineth Abraham's Covenant in Gen. 19. which God made with him and his Family or his Seed because he was a Son to Abraham as if he should say though this Man hath been a great Sinner and though he hath been chief Publican yet because he did repent and receive the mediator of the Covenant of Grace Abraham's Covenant and the Priviledges thereof do belong unto him and to his Houshold He is a Son of Abraham therefore Abraham's Covenant belongs to him in the same Latitude to him and his Seed many judge that Zacheus was one of the Gentiles for usually such were Publicans and this they gather from these words of Christ 〈◊〉 so much as he also is a Son of Abraham he also though he is not a natural Seed to Abraham yet he is one of his Spiritual Seed and therefore Abraham's Covenant belongs unto him and his Houshold c. Ans I answer your own explanation of this Text overthrows all you strive to prove were it but considered 1. For you grant he was not one of the natural Seed of Abraham now we say that all that do believe are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham and so such to whom the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham and consequently eternal Life doth belong for the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham cannot miss of eternal Salvation the promise is sure to all the Seed Rom. 4. 16. Now then if your Eyes were opened you might quickly see that Abraham was a two-fold Father and that he had a two-fold Seed you know that all Abrahams natural Seed and the natural Seed of Believers are not the Spiritual Seed of Abraham nor have the promise of Salvation sure to them 2. From hence it appears Salvation could not come to Zacheus Children if he had any unless they as well as himself did believe and receive by Faith the Blessing of the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham because none are Abraham's Sons or Spiritual Seed but Believers only whether Jews or Gentiles if you be Christs then you are Abraham's Seed 3. Therefore if Salvation came to every individual Person in Zacheus Family they all did believe as well as himself though it be not expressed But 4. Salvation might be said to come to his House because the Saviour and means of Salvation was that day come to his House 5. Salvation might be said to come to his House that day though it came only to Zacheus himself it coming to the head of the Family it may be said to come to his House and yet not to every particular Person in that House but you bring in this Objection viz. but what is this to Baptism You answer if Salvation came to his House or Family then Baptism belonged unto them 2. It is probable that Zacheus and his Houshold were baptized before by John for the Publicans came to be baptized of him Luke 3. 12. and 7. 29. 1. Ans I answer you may be
then also there would be a Knowledgâ— still of Men after the Flesh which the Apostle Paul disclaims 2 Cor. 5. 17. Moreover the Jews who were broken off are still the Natural Seed of Abraham and if therefore this Holiness was an External Relative Federal Holiness they are in that sense holy as much as any Children of a believing Gentile can be said to be but this 't is evident is not that Holiness of which the Apostle speaks nor is there any such Holiness under the Gospel-Dispensation spoken of Thus Reader I have examined Mr. Owen's Exposition of this Text and have found it to be a false Exposition and a palpable Abuse of the sacred Text and have opened the Text I hope truly It therefore follows from what I have said in Opposition to what Mr. Owen saith in the Close of the ninth Chapter as here followeth 1. That by the Natural Branches that receive Virtue and Fatness from the Root before Christ came were not meant the Natural Seed of Abraham as such because no ungodly Person did or doth or can receive the Virtue and Fatness of the true Olive-Tree or saving Blessings of the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham What Virtue or Fatness is in a simple external federal Profession or Holiness either in the Jewish or Christian Religion as it respects only a Separation to visible Church-Membership 2. It appears also that the Jews that believed in Christ tho they were not broken off of the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham yet they and their Children stood no longer in that Legal and External Covenant of Peculiarity which God made with Abraham and the whole House of Israel but that that old Covenant is dissolved 3. That those Jews that believed not and their Children are broken off from being any more in any Covenant-Relation to God as his People and that for their Unbelief 4. It also appears that none of the Gentiles are received or graffed into Christ and into the true Olive or into the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham but only such that believe not them and their Fleshly Seed as such but they themselves and their Children also that do believe even none but such who by Faith partake of the Fatness that is the best of Blessings that appertains to the Covenant of Grace not external Blessings and Privileges only no no they are not the Fatness i. e. the best and the choicest of Covenant-Blessings but Union with Christ Justification Pardon of Sin Adoption and Eternal Life in these things consists the Fatness of the true Olive which Believers Seed as such partake not of nor any but the Elect and called ones of God according to his Eternal Purpose only 5. It also appears that those Jews that shall be called and graffed in again into their own Olive-Tree shall be none but the Elect and that their own Olive-Tree doth not refer to the external Privileges of the Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham's Natural Seed as such but shall receive of the Fatness of their own Olive-Tree which is the Covenant of Grace for that primarily was made with Abraham's Natural Seed that believe and belongs to all God's Elect also as their own and proper Olive whether Jews or Gentiles So that when the Jews are called we may be sure they will plead no external Privileges of their old dissolved Covenant but come in upon the Terms of the Gospel with their Children that believe and none else And if the Controversy of Infants right to Baptism and Church-Membership ceaseth not till they shall be called and come in who will then renounce the old Federal Right and all Old Testament external Privileges be sure it will cease then CHAP. XII In Answer to Mr. Owen's 10th Chapter and 7th Argument viz. that the Infants of the Faithful as such ought to be baptized because they can partake of those things prefigured in Baptism TAke Mr. Owen's 7th Argument which runs thus viz. If the Children of the Faithful can partake of the Blessings figured in Baptism they ought to be Partakers of Baptism also if the invisible Grace belongeth unto them the visible Sign cannot be denied unto them c. Answ If we should grant that the Children of the Faithful as such can and do partake of the Blessings figured in Baptism yet it doth not follow they ought to be baptized because there is no Precept or Example for it in the New Testament For may not I argue thus viz. If the Children of the Faithful can partake of the Blessing prefigured in the Lord's-Supper they ought to partake of the Lord's Supper if the invisible Grace belongs to them the visible Sign cannot be denied unto them This Argument is therefore as forcible to bring our Children to the Lord's Table as it is to Baptism Baptism signifies three things which you say little Children can partake of 1st You say it signifies Remission of Sins through the Virtue of the Blood of Christ Mark 1. 4. Acts 2. 3 8. This you say belongs to little Children in two manner of ways 1. They have need of pardoning Grace 2. Many of them receive Remission of Sin for many of them that die go to Heaven Answ 1. Your first Argument hath as much in it for the baptizing of Infidels and their Children as for the Children of Believers for do not they need pardoning Grace 2. As to your second Reason Do all the Children of Believers that die go to Heaven and do none of the Children of Unbelievers go thither Dare you affirm that all Unbelievers Children that die are damned if not why may they not be baptized as well as the Children of Believers 3. But do you baptize no Children of Believers but such that die do not many of them live and prove ungodly when grown up that you baptize Two things you must prove if you say any thing here to the purpose 1. That all dying Infants of Believers are elected and so shall 〈◊〉 saved 2. That all they that go to Heaven or shall be saved â—ay nay ought to have both Baptism and the Lord's-Supper administred to them Nay and it follows also that you ought only to baptize those Children of Believers that died or such that you have ground to believe are elected to Salvation according to your own Argument But let me tell you if you knew what Children of Believers or Unbelievers are elected yet you ought no more to baptize them than to give the Lord's-Supper 'T is not Election I tell you again that gives any a right to Baptism but the positive Command of Christ Might not Mâ—lchisedec or Job have said our Children do need what was prefigured in Circumcision therefore we will circumcise them would that have justified them if they had presumed to have done it without God's Command for the Command and meer positive Precept to circumcise was only given to Abraham and it only extended to himself and his Male Children or such
also saith Baptism is a sign of present Regeneration not future Now how inconsistent is this Infant Baptismal-Covenant to the Covenant of Grace and also to the nature of that Baptismal-Covenant Believers or true justified Persons enter into when baptized according to Christ's Institution Nothing can be more clear than this viz. that Infant 's Baptismal-Covenant is of the same nature with the Covenant of Circumcision viz. a conditional legal Covenant Do this and thou shalt live perform the Obligation and thou shalt be justified but do it not and you shall be damned or be cut off So that Infant-Baptism established the old legal conditional Covenant Let such who hold the Doctrine of Free-Grace consider it and also see whether it doth not render the Covenant of Grace different in its nature in respect had to Believers themselves and to their Children For Believers themselves receive Christ as Sinners by Faith only without any previous Qualification or promissory Covenant that Christ hath obliged them to enter into But their Infants are put upon previous conditional Qualifications which must be performed by them before justified Indeed had Christ ordained Baptism to oblige us to believe to repent to die to Sin to be regenerate as the Pedo-Baptist speak of their Baptism doth do it was something to their purpose but the contrary plainly appears Were these things carefully considered I am sure Infant-Baptism would fall to the ground for the nature of their pretended Baptismal Covenant is quite repugnant to the true Baptismal Covenant Christ instituted therefore pernicious Besides how are those baptized Infants in the Covenant of Grace as Mr. Owen and others say and yet Baptism as to the main Desâ—â—n and End of it in their cloudy Conceits and Apprehensions is to oblige them to believe c. that they may actually be in the Covenant of Grace The good Lord give you Understanding in all things and bless to your Profit what I have wrote and praise God for that Readiness that was in your Brethren and Countrymen to be at the great Charge of the Publication of this Answer to Mr. Owen He saith in the Title of his Book Childrens Baptism is from Heaven Strange yet no where instituted nor any Authority for it or ever owned from Heaven certainly you will find it is of Men and sprang out of the Antichristian Apostacy Search the Scripture be like the Noble Bereans Acts 16. 11. Who with all Readiness of Mind received the Truth and searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so Brethren I shall add no more but commit you to God and intreat you to read this Book over and over without Prejudice and if you receive any Light by it give God the Glory for I desire to be nothing yet am willing still to serve you and the Interest of Christ who shall subscribe my self your Servant for Jesus Sake Soâ—thwark London this 11th of the 11th Month 1606 Benj. Keach To all Godly Anti-pedo-baptists especially to them in South and North-Wales the Author of this Treatise wishes Grace Mercy and Peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ Beloved in our dear Redeemer AT your desire I have as the Lord hath helped me answered Mr. James Owen ' s Book in which he hath cast many false and slanderous Reflections on you and all other Anti-Pedo-Baptists but I have forborn returning Railing for Railing tho perhaps some of my Words may seem a little too sharp but his way of Writing called for it I hope the Translators of his Book first out of Welch into Engiish and again the Translation of my Answer out of English into Welch is done faithfully if it be according to the true Sense and Purport of his Words and Meaning the different placing of Words he can have no ground to cavil at but of that I am not capable to judge because I understand not the Welch Tongue He seems to reflect very severely upon some of your Conversations as if you wanted that true Piety that becomes your Holy Profession and also as if you wanted Charity but I hope it is his own uncharitable Spirit that led him out thus to write and that you are People who rest not on the Form of Godliness without the Power and that you also love all in whom you see the Image of Christ The Truth is he of all Men might have forborn such a Charge considering how short himself appears in that respect having laboured to cast you and all Anti-Pedo-Baptists out of the Universal Church and chargeth us who dipp believing Men and Women in the Name c. with Adultery and Murder O that the Lord would open his Eyes and give him true Repentance Brethren this Answer hath swelled much bigger than you expected which I am my self troubled at But pray pardon me in this case Because this Controversy was never before printed in the Welch Tongue as I am informed as it is here I was therefore willing the Godly in Wales or any of the Antient Britains that desired Information herein might see the main Arguments that other Pedo-Baptists have brought for Infant-Baptism fully answered The Substance therefore of Mr. Burkitt ' s late Book is in this also answered and divers others nay there is scarcely an Argument that hath been brought for Infant-Baptism formerly or of late but 't is here answered Also I have in following Mr. Owen in his Repetitions been forced to repeat some things often which may add to the Bulk but they being chiefly some of the main Points I did it on purpose to the end they might have the greater Influence upon the Reader Moreover I have shewed that most of Mr. Owen ' s Arguments for the baptizing of Children tend every way as forcibly to prove they ought to partake of the Lord's Supper also which I desire may be carefully weighed and considered I have often repeated that on purpose And now to conclude Let me desire you to labour to adorn the Holy Gospel you profess with a sutable and becoming Conversation 't is not an External Ordinance that signifies any thing without true Faith and a Godly Life You have Lamps but O see you have Oyl in your Vessels not that I blame you for your great Zeal for this precious tho despised Truth of Christ considering what a Glorious and Illustrious Institution or Blessed Ordinance it is as appears 1. By the Obedience of our Blessed Saviour himself unto it which puts a great Lustre and Glory upon it 2. In that it is called a fulfilling of that Righteousness which the Holy Gospel calls for and such who fail herein are imperfect touching their doing the whole Will of God 3. In that it was so gloriously owned at the Baptism of our Saviour by the Father nay by the whole Trinity By the Father by a Voice from Heaven The Son by his actual Obedience to it as our Example when we believe The Holy Ghost by descending like a Dove in a visible manner and
the End for which they are ordained c. Remark Still Reader know that it is a Bond to the Adult only Infants are not able to die to Sin nor live unto Holiness They cannot answer a good Conscience by the Resurrection of Christ from the dead Ordinances have no more Virtue in them to an Infant than if you should water a dead Tree There can be no increase in Holiness without the Grace of Holiness in the Habit be first infused and if the Seed of Holiness be first infused in Infants before Baptism or in Baptism that Seed would remain in them and appear as soon as they come to Understanding 1 Joh. 3. 9. But that any such Seed or vital Principle is either way in Infants as such whether Infants of Believers or others appears not but contrary-wise nothing appears in them when grown up but the cursed Seed of Sin and so it will until their Natures be changed by Divine Grace 4thly You say Baptism is a sign of Union with Christ we were baptized into him For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ Gal. 3. 27. Again the Apostle saith We are all baptized into one Body 1 Cor. 12. 13. Christ is the Head of the Body the Faithful are the Members those that are in everlasting Union with him which is signified in Baptism Can they desire to be in one Body with Christ who are not willing to be baptized into this Union Remark Have Infants as such Union with Christ If they have they would all partake of the Blessings of that Union and be all saved because the Branch that is savingly united to the Vine Christ partakes of the Virtue that is in him and it is an indissolvable Union like that between the Father and the Son John 17. 21 23. You say the Union is everlasting and this is signified in Baptism Now what is the Sign without the Thing signified Sir no doubt elect Infants that die have Union with Christ in a way we are ignorant of but what is this to the Infants of Believers as such I will appeal to your own Conscience whether you believe any one Infant you baptize or rather rantize or sprinkle that lives hath spiritual Union with Christ before or in Baptism or Rantism for if they had they do not after they are grown up need any inspired Habit or the Seed of Grace to be infused into them in order to such Union Without Faith there is no Union with Christ and there can be no Faith without Knowledg there is no spiritual Marriage to Christ without a Consent which Infants are not capable of Moreover why do you speak of Persons being not willing to be baptized when the Subject of Baptism you contend for is a poor ignorant Babe Can Infants be willing Sir what you speak has weight in it to the Adult to Believers but signifies nothing for the Continuation of Baptism to Infants but rather that it ought to be rejected as not being of God 5thly You say Baptism signifies Remission of Sins Mark 1. 4. Be baptized every one of you saith Peter in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sins So Ananias said unto Paul Arise and be baptized and wash away thy Sins calling upon the Name of the Lord Acts 22. 16. â—nd are not they say you unthankful to the Grace of Gâ—… which offereth them a Seal of Absolution and they â—…ll not receive it c. Remark Baptism is a sign of Remission of Sin to none but Believers who have Repentance and therefore Peter exhorted those Jews first to repent Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sins Such only here have the Promise of Remission that do and can repent and to such only ought the Sign to be given who have the Thing signified which are not Infants but Believers Is Absolution and the Seal of it offered unto Infants and do they refuse to receive it Sir were your Eyes open'd you would soon see you apply all you say to the wrong Subjects You exhort the Subjects of Baptism to be thankful leâ—t they despise the Seal of Pardon Now take from your Reasoning this following Argument viz. Such Persons that Baptism belongs unto may neglect and despise the Ordinance and Seal of Pardon but Infants cannot neglect or despise the Ordinance and Seal of Pardon Ergo Baptism doth not belong to Infants 6thly Baptism is you say a Condition of the Promise of Salvation He that believeth and is baptized shall be â—…d Mark 16. 16. 'T is true say you the Promise is not only to Baptism nor is it also to Faith only but to Faith and Baptism Dost thou not desire to be saved Why then despisest thou one of the Means of Salvation Thou sayst if I believe I shall be saved tho not baptized with Water Christ saith otherwise that thou must believe and be baptized if thou wilt be saved 'T is true the Apostle saith to the Goaler Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved Acts 16. 31 32. but so soon as he believed he was baptized The Unbelief and Haughtiness of thy Heart maketh thee to reject this holy Ordinance c. Remark How can you make Baptism a Condition of Salvation to Infants who are no ways capable to answer it neither Faith nor Baptism is required of them nor are their Parents commanded to baptize them But 't is true such as believe are required to be baptized and such as reject it and will not be baptized tho the proper Subjects do reject the Counsel of God and may endanger their Salvation or at least it calls into question if convinced of it i. 〈◊〉 that it is their Duty the truth of their Grace that they neither unfeignedly believe in nor love Jesus Christ therefore Sir so soon as a Child is grown up and doth believe he should be baptized not before for we have a perfect Rule to walk by Arg. 2. Where there is no Law there is no Transgression But there is no Law to baptize Infants Ergo It is no Transgression not to baptize them Where God hath no Mouth to speak we should have no Ear to hear Arg. 3. To act in the Service of God without Authority from his Word is a Sin But they that baptize Infants do act in the Service of God without Authority from his Word Ergo It is a Sin to baptize Infants Would not Abraham have sinned if he had circumcised his Females or to have circumcised his Males on the 7 th or 9 th day because the express Command was to Males and on the eighth day so the express Command of Christ is to be baptized when made Disciples if we believe if we repent or when we believe and bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance You add That they that despise Water-Baptism despise not John's Baptism but the Baptism of Christ therefore their Sin is the greater Remark
Justice in which Christ for our sakes for a while was in a manner swallowed up abiding under the Water how little time soever denotes his Descent into Hell even the very deepest of Lifelesness lying in the sealed or guarded Sepulchre where he was accounted as one dead Rising out of the VVater holds forth to us a lively Similitude of that Conquest which this dead Man got over Death In like manner saith he 't is therefore meet that we being baptized into his Death and buried with him should rise also with him to go on in a new Life Thus far And let all thinking and serious Christians carefully consider since this sacred Ordinance was appointed to be thus significant as this and other Learned Men observe what a sad and lamentable thing it is that the true Baptism should be changed from dipping into sprinkling which neither doth nor can hold forth these great Mysteries for which purpose our Saviour ordained it For 't is evident Rantism or Sprinkling doth not bear any Proportion to these Mysteries nor can they be signified thereby What Figure of a Burial of Christ or of the old Man is there in sprinkling a few drops of VVater on a Person 's Face Or what Representation is there in that Act of a Resurrection O how is Christ's holy Baptism abused by this devised Rantism and the Signification thereof destroyed the Lord open your Eyes or the Eyes of my godly and impartial Reader This shews you clearly what Christ's true Baptism is as also the true Subject But to proceed St. Ambrose saith VVater is that wherein the Body is plunged to wash away all Sins there all Sins saith he are buried We suppose he means 't is a Sign of this i. e. that all Sin is buried Moreover Chrysostom saith that the Old Man is buried and drown'd in the Immersion under Water and when the baptized Person is afterwards raised up out of the Water it represents the Resurrection of the New Man to Newness of Life and therefore concludes the contrary Custom being not only against Ecclesiastical Law but against the Analogy and Mystical Signification of the Sacrament is not to be complied with It has been too long as I have formerly noted God grant Men more Light to see their Error and abhor to do so any more Kecker says That Immersion not Aspersion was the first Institution of Baptism as it doth saith he plainly appear from Rom. 6. 3. And say I VVhere hath Christ since the first Institution instituted Aspersion or Sprinkling in the stead or room of Immersion or Dipping or given Orders to change that significant Sign into the insignificant Foppery of Sprinkling Ought not we to keep the Ordinances as they were first instituted and given to the Saints Is not God's Word to be our Rule in all Points of Faith and Practice to the End of the World Has Christ given any Men or Church a Dispensation to change his Laws and Ordinances or make them void by these Traditions or set up their Post by his Post How doth God complain by the Prophets against his People of old for presuming to change his Laws Deut. 12. 13 God gave particular Command to make an Altar of Gold to offer Incense Exod. 40. 5. and he commanded Exod. 20. 24 25. that his Altar should be made of Earth or rough Stone but in Isa 65. 3. he reproves their horrid Transgressions and Disobedience in acting contrary to his express Institution A People saith God that provoketh me to Anger continually to my Face that sacrificeth in Gardens and burneth Incense upon Altars of Brick You may think that was no great Error instead of Gold or Stone to make Altars of Brick but what saith God they for this c. provoke me continually to my Face O tremble ye who adventure to transgress God's Precept in as bad or worse a manner Who commanded you to baptize or dip Believers in the Name of the Father c. and you rantize or sprinkle Infants Aâ—as you know not how you hereby provoke God! altho he is yet silent and doth not manifest his Displeasure yet know he is a jealous God and hath the like Zeal for his Gospel-Institutions as ever he had of those under the Law and may manifest it too in his own time But to proceed and call in for more Witnesses against your Practice Daillâ— on the Fathers saith that it was a Custom heretofore in the antient Church to plunge those they baptized over Head and Eâ—…s in the VVater And saith he Tertullian in his third Book de 〈◊〉 Mil. Cyprian in his seventieth Epistle p. 211 c. and others testify it Dr. Cave saith that the Party baptized was wholly immerged or put under the VVater which was the almost constant and universal Custom of those Times whereby they did most notably and significantly express the great Ends and Effects of Baptism For as in immerging there are in a manner three several Acts the putting the Person into the VVater his abiuing under the VVater and his rising up again thereby representing Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection and in our Conformity thereupto our dying to Sin the Destruction of its Power and our Resurrection to a new course of Life So by the Person 's being put into the Water was lively represented the putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh c. by his being under it which is a kind of Burial into the Water his entering into a State of Death or Mortification like as Christ remained for sometime under the State or Power of Death therefore 't is said As many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his Death c. And then by Immersion or rising up out of the Water is signified his entering upon a new course of Life that like as Christ was raised up by the Glory of the Father so we should walk in Newness of Life Thus Dr. Cave We are said saith PaÌ„raeus to die and to be buried with Christ in Baptism And further shews that the external Act of being buried in Water is a lively Emblem of the internal Work of Regeneration St. Bernard saith Immersion is a Representation of Christ's Death and Burial Against all these Testimonies and multitudes more of the best and most Learned Writers Mr. Burkitt objects as follows and you seem to argue after the same manner these are his words viz. If Baptism administred by pouring Water on the Face representing the whole Person doth answer the Use and End of Baptism as well as when administred by aipping or plâ—nging then dipping is not essentially and absolutely necessary in the Act of baptizing but the one answereth the Use and End of baptizing as well as the other therefore the one cannot be more essential than the other What is the End and Use of Baptism but to represent to our Minds 〈◊〉 Effusion of Christ's Blood for to take away the Guilt of Sin and the pouring forth of the Spirit for the purging
Author Therefore Sir that Baptism is any thing else than dipping plunging or washing which is done by dipping we do utterly deny For as the cutting off a little bit of the Foreskin of the Flesh or not the twentieth part round is not Circumcision so sprinkling a little Water on the Face is not Baptism True you call it Baptism and will do so tho 't is nothing less nor more than Rantism 't is not the Thing nor does it answer in Signification I may tell you again that the Jews instead of circumcising the Foreskin of their Childrens Flesh might have as well presumed to dispense with that and only have paired off the Nails of the Fingers of their Male Infants and have called that Circumcision as you may call sprinkling or pouring a little Water Baptism But may be you 'l say in Circumcision they weâ—â— to draw Blood so say I they might in cutting the Nails of their Childrens Fingers nay and they might better plead that the Things signified in Circumcision might be as well answered in that new Device the Nails being a sort of Excrement they might say signified the taking away the Filth of Sin or Corruption of Nature as the great Mysteries signified by Baptism or Dipping can be represented by sprinkling or pouring Furthermore they might possibly plead the same Pretences you do viz. The cutting off the Foreskin of the Flesh put the Infants to great Pain nay may be they might fancy it would cost them their Lives nay call it Murder and therefore let pairing of their Nails serve As you it seems fear dipping would endanger the Lives of Infants and therefore make sprinkling to serve instead thereof But to proceed 2. I am in amaze to see these Men speak so fully and clearly to this glorious Truth i. e. that the great thing Christ ordained Baptism to represent is his Death Burial and Resurrection together with the baptized Person 's Death to Sin and his rising again to walk in Newness of Life and yet both those shameful Abuses amongst you and other Churches are not rectified viz. 1. That Sprinkling which doth not cannot answer or represent those Gospel-Mysteries should not be rejected 2. That Infants should be once deem'd the proper Subjects of Baptism since nothing of a Death to Sin nor rising again to walk in Newness of Life can appear in them For as the Learned observe Baptism is a Symbol of present not future Regeneration 'T is an outward Sign of that inward Death unto Sin which the Party baptized passed under then or ought to have done when or before he is baptized They then professed themselves to be dead to Sin i. e. even when they were buried with Christ in their Baptism for the Argument of the Apostle lies in that respect How shall we that are dead unto Sin live any longer 〈◊〉 Knowing that so many of 〈◊〉 who have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his Death both in Sign and Signification And therefore as Dr. Sherlock says rising out of that watery Grave a new born Creature denotes not only what they should be hereafter but what they were actually at that time So that as this Text and Arguments drawn therefrom utterly condemn Sprinkling as not being Christ's Baptism so it excludes Infants from being the Subjects thereof because in them appears no such Death to Sin nor can they be said to come out of that watery Grave as new born Creatures To these Testimonies I shall only add one or two more See that most learned Anonymous French Writer in his Answer to the famous Bishop of Meaux 'T is most certain saith he that Baptism hath not hitherto been administred otherwise than by sprinkling by the most of Protestants but truly this sprinkling is an Abuse This Custom which without an accurate Examination they have retained from the Romish Church in like manner as many other things makes their Baptism very defective It corrupteth its Institution and antient Use and that Nearness of Similitude which is needful should be betwixt it and Faith Repentance and Regeneration This Reflection of Mr. Bossuet deserveth to be seriously considered to wit saith he that this use of plunging hath continued for the space of a whole thousand and three hundred Years Hence we may understand that we did not carefully as it was meet examine things which we have received from the Roman Church Calvin saith That Baptism is a form or way of Burial and none but such as are already dead to Sin or have repented from dead Works are to be buried From these words I note 1. That Sprinkling is not the form of Baptism because not the form of a Burial 2. That Infants are not the true Subjects of Baptism because not such as are already dead to Sin or have repented from dead Works and indeed as they are not able they are not required so to do by Christ The last Author I shall quote is learned Zanchy There are two Parts saith he in Regeneration Mortification and Viâ—ification that is called a Burial with Christ this is called a Resurrection with Christ The Sacrament of both these is Baptism in which we are overwhelmed or buried and after that do come forth and rise again It may not be said truly but sacramentally of all that are baptized that they are buried with Christ and raised with him but only of such as have true Faith Now we may appeal to all the World whether Zanchy and all the rest do not clearly and evidently testify the same thing that we assert viz. That Baptism is and can be no other Act than Immersion or Dipping since Sprinkling all must confess doth not represent in a lively Figure the Burial and Resurrection of Christ nor our dying or being dead to Sin and Vivification to Newness of Life saith he Sacramentally i. e. Analogically in respect of the near Resemblance between Baptism and a Death and Resurrection And this I say cannot be said of them that are sprinkled only for if in respect of Mortification and Vivification they may be denominated buried and raised with Christ which cannot be said of Infants yet that outward Rite or Sign cannot denominate them so much as Sacramentally buried and raised with Christ for there is not so much as any likeness of such things in it but in true Baptism viz. total dipping the Body in Water and raising it again there is a lively Figure held forth to our very sight And as Zanchy saith It cannot be said of all nor indeed of any that they are thus sacramentally dead buried and risen with Christ but only of such as have true Faith Therefore Infants are excluded by his own Argument What you say that none plant Bodies in Water by baptizing them seems strange and not the words of a learned Man because dipping is a Figure of planting us into Christ spiritually and of Christ's Death and Resurrection must the Body of a Man be a Tree None graft Bodies into a Vine
Ordination as the Jews had Are we under the Promises of heaping up Gold and Silver and if we are obedient to live in Peace and to be saved from our external Enemies for many such like Privileges and Promises the Jews and their Children had under the Law The truth is your External Federal Holiness Root and Olive-Tree will-afford but little Fatness either to our selves or Children considered distinct and apart from Spiritual Blessings and Holiness What is a simple external Profession good for without true Grace and a saving Interest in Christ and Assurance of Eternal Life What more doth it serve to do than to blind and deceive the Souls of such external and carnal Professors What is an Ordinance without the God of the Ordinance What is the Sign without the Thing signified What is the Lamp without Oil or a Cabinet without the Jewel or a Shell without a Kernel or the Name of a Christian without the true Nature of a Christian You say The first Parents sanctified the whole Nation of the Jews not with true Holiness in the Heart for many of them were wicked but with a Federal Holiness because they and their Seed were separated to the Lord in an External Covenant I am glad to see you open the Eyes of your People now they may see what little good that federal Holiness and the Covenant with Abraham can do to their Infants 't is but only to give them a Name that they may be called Christians Is this the Promise that belongs to the Faithful and their Children Is this the Blessing of Abraham that is come upon the Gentiles Are they not Spiritual Blessings Is it not Spiritual and Heart-Holiness Is it only to be in an external manner by an external Covenant and visible Profession separated to be the Lord's and called his when indeed and in truth spiritually and savingly they are not so Is this that Covenant confirm'd by the Oath of God that gives you such strong Consolation touching your Infants as such as before you pleaded for 4. Moreover do you not own by what you here affirm that there were two Covenants made with Abraham since that Covenant which was made with the whole Lump or whole House of Israel was as you positively assert not a spiritual but an external Covenant Sure I am you do believe there was a spiritual and an eternal Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and all his true spiritual Seed and that he was a Root spiritually holy by virtue of that spiritual and true Gospel-Covenant God made with him and as the whole Lump were all federally holy in a Spiritual Sense as himself was and as he had first Fruits given to him who were spiritually and truly holy also so there are many Branches still that daily spring out of that Spiritual Root and Spiritual Covenant that are federally and spiritually holy as the Root was holy Sure there was a Covenant made with Abraham and of which he is considered as a common Root or common Head and from which Root and Olive-Tree it is impossible any one of his Spiritual Seed can be cut off for if not so How is the Promise sure to all the Seed Rom. 4. 16. and how is that Covenant a ground of strong Consolation to all the Heirs of the Promise as Heb. 6. 17 18 19. 5. But the truth is the purport of your Exposition of this dark Text all may see is to prove the Gospel-Church to be as extensive wide and large or every way of the same Nature and Latitude with the National Church of the Jews and therefore you plead for the Fleshly Seed as such to be received as Members thereof Sir I know you not but I thought you had held for the Congregational Way but the truth is Infants Church-Membership is only calculated for a National Church and therefore best sutes with Presbyterism and Episcopacy You say the Jews and their Children were broke off and the Gentiles and their Children were received into the same Privileges which the Jews had c. Answer 1. If you would prove that the Gospel-Church is National consisting of whole Parishes Families and Kingdoms you must bring Proof for this Constitution from the New Testament Show where Christ instituted or ordained such a Church-state or what whole Gentile Nations consisting of Believers and their Children and Unbelievers or ungodly Persons professing Christianity and their Children were constituted by the Apostles a Gospel-Church for evident it is all believing or godly Jews and their Children and all ungodly Jews who owned the Jewish Religion and their Children were Members of the National Church of Israel under the Law 2. Also prove that if such a Gospel-Church Constitution can be proved out of the New Testament that therefore all the external Privileges and Rites of the Jews must belong unto such a Gentile Nation and Gospel-Church that did belong to the National Church of the Jews Must they have the same Rites and Privileges and yet not the same Is Baptism Circumcision 3. If it came as you dream in the room of it then it would follow that Baptism belongs only to Male-Infants if not so 't is not the same Privilege but differs greatly you must have therefore some word of Institution or some good Authority from Christ to enlarge this Privilege so far as to allow it to Females also 4. And why this Privilege only had not the Jews and their Children many other external Privileges besides Circumcision Why must not the Gentiles and their Children that are grafted in as you suppose in their room receive all the Privileges as well as one or two You have done your Work by halves 5. Besides what you say that the first Parents sanctified the whole Nation of the Jews is false It was not they that separated or sanctified them but God himself i. e. by his absolute Command and holy Institution therefore you must prove the like Command and Institution for such a National Church under the Gospel as was under the Law Sir I desire no better Task than to prove the Gospel-Church consists of none by Christ's Appointment and Institution but only Adult Persons believing and professing Faith in Jesus Christ incorporated together in a holy Covenant And when you write again lay down your Arguments to confute what I here say and I shall God sparing my Life be ready through his Assistance to give you an Answer which will utterly throw away your Infant Church-Membership And since the old Covenant and old Covenant Church-state is taken away and dissolved by the establishing of the Gospel-Covenant and Gospel-Church you must bring your Arguments and Proof from Christ's last Will and Testament or all you do will signify nothing Now Reader having shewed thee that the Exposition Mr. Owen hath given of this Metaphorical Scripture is false and inconsistent with the Truth as it is in Jesus I shall give thee my Thoughts of the true Purport of it and in regard I have once
have done your Business but Sir doth not this Argument of yours as strongly prove that all wicked and ungodly people may be baptized also ye Swearers Whoremongers Murderers yea the worst of Men for can we think there were none such in Jerusalem Iudah nor in all the Regions round about yea that we may baptize Pagans and Infidels for no doubt but there were some of all Nations at Jerusalem 2. You affirm that John baptized the whole Nation of the Jews even every Man Woman and Child or else I mistake you now if this were so how it is said that Christ made and baptized more Disciples then John John 4. 1. John 3. 26. 't is said that Jesus baptized and all Men came to him How did John baptize all and Christ baptize more of the People then John what think you were they rebaptized certainly you will make them all proper Anabaptists besides if John baptized all the Jews where were those three thousand that St. Peter and the other Disciples baptized Acts 2. 40 41 42. were they not dwellers at Jerusalem and notwithstanding Christ baptized more Disciples then John yet 't is said Acts 1. 13. that the number of the Disciples that were at Jerusalem were but about one Hundred and Twenty 3. I have shewed that according to Scripture Rhetorick frequently by a Synecdoche a part is put for the whole and sometimes the far lesser part also 'T is said All the Cattel in Egypt died Exod. 9. 6. that is all that were in the Field Also Christ saith When he was lifted up he would draw all men unto him Joh. 12. 32. Doth that intend all universally So Paul saith All seek their own And Christ saith Ye shall be hated of all men for my name sake See these Scriptures Exod. 32. 3 26. Jer. 6. 3. 1 Cor. 10. 7. Isa 2. 2 3. Acts 2. 5. See Glassius Illiricus and other Tropical Writers Also read Philologiae Sacra and our last Annotators on the Holy Bible called Pool's Annotations on this Text. The Term All say they here twice repeated is enough to let us know that 't is often in Scripture significative no farther than Many For it cannot be imagined that every individual Person in Jerusalem and the Regions round about Jordan went to hear John the Baptist but a great many From hence it appears That it is no ground for Mr. Owen to affirm that by all Jerusalem and all Judea c. must be intended every individual Person both Men Women and Children but rather some of all Sorts Degrees Sexes c. It shews that Multitudes went to hear him and many were baptized by him in Jordan confessing their Sins with unfeigned Repentance But you say the Text doth not tell us what manner of Confession this was whether in Words or Works Their submission to Baptism was an actual Confession of their Uncleanness and that they stood in need of Washing it cannot be thought that it was a Confession in Words because one Man could not receive a particular Confession from the whole Country if they made a Confession in Words It is like one made it in the Names of others even as the Priests did in the Names of all the People Levit. 16. 21. Thus the Parents might confess their Sins for themselves and their Children c. 1. Ans. Let Mr. Baxter's Arguments serve to confute you here he tells you That from Scripture and the universal Practice of the ancient Church That Faith and a Confession of Faith yea a verbal Confession was requirad oi all that were baptized With the heart man believeth and with the mouth confession is made to salvation Rom. 10. 10. 2. Certainly you are strangely left to blindness of Mind about this Matter Did ever any Man except your self and one Mr. Excel whom I answered lately affirm That all ungodly and unbelieving Men and Women that were willing to be baptized were proper and fit Subjects of Sacred Baptism For all Men may see that this Argument of yours is for their Baptism and as forcible to prove they ought to be baptized as 't is to prove the Baptism of Infants For if John baptized all the whole Country even every individual Person then Ministers now may baptise all in all Nations even all the World let them be what they will Turks Pagans Infidels Swearers Drunkards and Idolaters Thieves Murtherers if they will but promise to turn from their Sins and repent whether they do it or no yet if your Argument be good they ought to be baptized But how contrary to this is that which all your Brethren generally assert viz. That in the Primitive Times when the Gospel was first preached and Churches planted all that were first baptized were Believers Saints and godly Persons and upon their Faith their Children were as they say baptitized also which is that we deny tho' they are right as to what theyspeak in respect of Believers themselves but siuce we have so fully refuted what you say of Baptizing adult Persons that are Unbelievers I will say no more of that in this place 3. 'T is evident what you affirm is false viz. That John baptized the whole Country even every individual Person and that by a plain Instance Is it not said That the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves being not baptized of him Luke 7. 30. That is faith our Annotators not receiving John's Doctrine of Repentance for the remission of Sins and bringing forth Fruits worthy of amendment of Life not submitting to Baptism as a Testimony of such a Repentance For John's Baptism signifieth his whole Administration See Pool's Annotations on that Place All may see what a kind of Confession it was John's Baptism required it was more than a verbal Confession of Sin even the Fruits of a changed Heart and a new Life And where this Doctrine of his was not received and these Fruits appeared not John would not baptize them And now to conclude with this Chapter in opposition to what Mr. Owen saith from the whole it clearly doth follow That John Baptist did not baptize the whole Country nor any one Infant no not any one Person but such who believed and seemed at the least to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance And as he says John's Baptism was the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ it followeth that no Infant ought to be baptized and that the external Privileges of the Gospel are restrained and not so large as were the outward Rites and Privileges of the Jewish Church tho' the Spiritual Privileges of the Gospel are larger and more extensive than those of the Law were CHAP. XVI In which it is proved That the Children of the Faithful as such ought not to be baptized because 't is said whole Housholds were baptized Being an Answer to what Mr. James Owen hath said in his 13th Chapter and so a Confutation of his Tenth Argument for Infant Baptism MR. Owen saith it was God's way from
sure when Zacheus believed in Christ he was a proper Subject of Gospel Baptism so were all that believed who were in his House but the Text doth not say that every particular Person that were in his House believed or that Salvation came so to his House but if it did no doubt they were all upon their believing baptized 2. But you may well say what is this to Baptism since he and all his House were baptized before even when he was in his Sins and a notorious Sinner the chief of the Publicans it is probable say you sure Sir 't is more then probable it was impossible that Zacheus and his Family should escape Baptism when John had baptized all the whole Country before all yea every individual Person that dwelt in Jerusalem Judea and all the Regions round about The truth is this is very impertinently brought in to prove Infant Baptism what doth it signifie that Salvation was come to Zacheus that day and not until then seeing John's Commission was to baptize all whether Godly or Ungodly Believers or Unbelievers whether Salvation was come to them or not let the Reader observe what darkness and ignorance this Man shews Peter say you when he first planted the Christian Religion among the Jews exhorted them saying be baptized every one of you for the promise is to you and to your Children Ans This of the promise being unto them and to their Children we have fully already answered but why doth Peter command these Jews who doubtless dwelt at Jerusalem to be baptized seeing John Baptist had baptized them and their Children before as you have positively asserted what must they be all rebaptized what inconsistency is there in your arguing 2. The latitude of this Command be baptized every one of you is no further then to all them that he commands to repent nor is the promise to any of their Children but such that the Lord our God shall all the Parents right and interest to the promise of the Holy Spirit Remission of Sins and eternal Life spring from their Interest in Christ by Faith and at that Door comes in the right and interest of all their Children or Off-spring that are called by the effectual operations of the word and spirit of God 't is the promise made to all the true spiritual Seed of Abraham but are the natural Seed of Abraham and the natural Seed of Believers as such or as so considered the spiritual Seed of Abraham 3. the promise here meant and the duty of being baptized are as you say of the same Latitude thus you argue viz. be baptized you and your Children for the promise is unto you and to your Children we so are to understand the Words the Promise and the Duty being of the same Latitude if the Promise belongeth unto them and their Children then bapâ—â—â—â—â— Ans I answer what is the promise but the Holy-Ghost and eternal Life and such that receive this Promise viz. the holy Spirit as an earnest of eternal Life we deny not are to be baptized and if no Child hath any other right to the Duty but such who have received the same Promise through Faith ziz remission of Sin and of the Holy Spirit then no Children but such that repent and believe ought to be baptized seeing the Promise and Duty runs to the Children or Off-spring as it runs to the Parents In the same manner you say when Peter planted the first Church among the Gentiles as might be gathered from the words of the Angel to Cornelius being the first Fruits of the Church of the Gentiles Acts 11. 13. send Men to Joppa and call for Simon whose Sir-name is Peter who shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy House shall be saved the Gospel bringeth Salvation to him and to all his House Cornelius well knew the meaning of the Words for he being a proselite to the true Religion before that time though uncircumcised yet received the severe Commandment of Noah the substance of which might be seen Gen. 9. 1. God's Covenant was with Noah and his Seed c. 1. Ans I answer 't is said Peter should tell Cornelius words whereby he and all his House shall be saved but it must be such of his House that could hear and understand those Words Peter should tell them he shall tell thee and tell all thy House Words whereby you shall be saved but not unless he and they of his House believed and pray observe is it not said he was a devout Man and one that feared God with all his House Acts 10. 2. all his House the Holy-Ghost here intends were such who were of understanding and did fear God as well as himself also Cornelius said to Peter now we are all here to hear what things are commanded thee of God all his House were capable to hear c. Moreover is it not said while Peter yet spake these words the Holy Ghost fell on them which heard the word Verse 44. and all these were commanded to be baptized viz. that had received the Holy-Ghost for their reception of the Holy-Ghost is that argument the Apostle uses to command them to be baptized Verse 47 can any Man forbid water that those should not be baptized which have received the Holy-Ghost as well as we and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Verse 48 them that did believe them that had received the Holy-Ghost them that spake with Tongues and magnified God and if it was every individual Person in his House let it be so the greater Grace of God was manifested but here are no Children mentioned in Infancy that were baptized 2. Besides I wonder at you 't is said Peter should tell Cornelius words whereby he and all his House should be 〈◊〉 sure you do not believe what you seem to plead for pray answer when the Parent believes and is saved or assured of Salvation are all his Children and whole Family by his Faith brought into the like stars of Salvation shall they all be saved also Through his Faith the external Priviledges of the Covenant that your Brethren talk of that is something but I know not what by virtue of their Parents Faith it is not however that which you plead for you tell us when Cornelius heard words whereby he came to be saved all his Family through his Faith were saved also if you do not this I profess I know not what you mean by what you have written but if this be your meaning I hope no Body will believe you because all know it is utterly false 3. But the greater wonder comes at last viz. it appears Cornelius and his Houshold because a Gentile had right to Baptism by the Covenant and Commandment of God to Noah not by virtue of Abraham's Covenant the Truth is one is as good an Argument for Baptism as the other but was the Covenant God made with Noah the Covenant of Grace if it was all the
they will you do not speak of any external Covenant right to Baptism but of Salvation it self 2. You do not speak of Infants as such but of all in the Family or Houshold viz. comprehending adult Sons and Daughters Men Servants or Maid Servants adult persons it appears from hence in the primitive times were baptized by virtue of the Parents Faith as well as Babes nay and were saved also by the Faith of the head of the Family 3. Doth it not also follow that your ignorance of God's Covenant with Abraham is very great for if it be as you say then all Abraham's Seed according to the Flesh must be saved because he as the Head of his Family believed but doth not the Scripture say in opposition to this that though the number of the Children of Israel be as the Sand of the Sea yet but a Remnant shall be saved 4. May not this Doctrine of yours also corrupt and tend to ruine many poor Souls both Children and Servants who live in Families where the Heads of those Families do believe and are Godly may not they say we shall be saved though we believe not because we dwell in a Family where the Head viz. our Father our Master doth believe Mr. Owen assures us we shall all be saved because our Father or Master believes be astonish'd Oh ye Heavens is this your proof for Infant Baptism Worthy Brittains this may sufficiently shew you that the Covenant that God made with Abraham namely the Covenant of Circumsion which was made with him and his natural Seed as such was no Covenant of Salvation and so not the Covenent of Grace 't is so plain you need not doubt of it because multitudes that were in that Covenant perished though Circumcision was a Seal of Abrahams Faith yet not a Seal of the Covenant of Grace to his Seed as such because if it were it would have Sealed to them all the righteousness of Faith and eternal Life which we know it never did to multitudes of them But very remarkable 't is to see how Mr. Owen doth in the very next place both conhimself and overthrow his Argument as to the purport of it he brings in this Objection Object All his Family believed vers 34. Take his Answer Ans I answer saith he so were the adult the whole House sometimes signifies those of the adult in a Family it is said of Sampson that all his Fathers House buried him that is saith he those that were of age in his Fathers House for the little Children could not go into the Land of the Philistines to bury his Body c. It is said saith he of Cornelius that he was a devout Man fearing God with all his House that is all the adult in his Houshold so the Goaler believed with all his Houshold viz. all that were of age to believe 2. And we are not to think saith Mr. Owen all these Housholds to be barren which were baptized by the Apostles there were not many Housholds in those Ages without Children in them for the greatest part of their Riches was their Bond Servants and the Children born of them and those Children were in God's Covenant even as free-born Children Gen. 17. 13 23. so are they also under the Gospel they are Abraham's Seed through the Faith of their Parents and Heirs as before Col. 1. 12. Gal. 3. 29. Ans 1. I need give no further Answer touching this argument concerning what you say of whole Housholds you have effectually answered your self you affirm that by whole Housholds or Families in the Scripture sometimes none but the adult are comprehended or meant and that Instance of Sampson doth sufficiently prove it little Children could not go to bury his dead Body though 't is said all his Fathers House buried him So say we by whole Houses that were said to be baptized none are meant but those adult Persons who believed 2. You say and confess that Cornelius and all his House feared God and that the Goaler and all his House believed that is all the adult say you believed or that were at age to believe this may serve to clear up the matter touching all the other whole Housholds that were said to be baptized God constrains you to speak the Truth here though it be to overthrow your whole Argument 2. But what you speak in the next place is not true viz. that Parents and their Children and Bond Servants and their Children were under the Law and under the Gospel times also in the Covenant of Grace through the Faith of their Parents For notwithstanding the Bond-men and their Male Children were commanded to be Circumcised that were in Abraham's Family and that were as Proselytes received into other Families of the Jews under the Law yet they were not Heirs of the Land of Canaan none but the natural Seed of Abraham could haue any possession therein according to that Covenant of peculiarality God made with the fleshy Seed of Abraham as such which typified forth that none but Believers or the elect of God who are the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham were the true Heirs of the Promise and of the Heavenly Canaan will you say that all the natural Seed of Abraham and Bond-Men and their Children as such and also all the natural Seed of Believers as such are the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham sure God will take of this Vail from your Eyes and open your understanding if you look to him by Prayer and search the Scripture with a canded desire after the knowledge of this matter 3. You will find a great difference between the Covenant that peculiarly did appertain to the natural Seed of Abraham as such and the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and his true Spiritual Seed as such 4. I have proved that neither Abraham's Faith nor the Parents Faith intitles any of their natural Seed as such to the inheritance or blessings purchased by Jesus Christ viz. Justification Adoption Pardon of Sin and eternal Life no no the Children of the Flesh as such these are not the Children of God but the Children of the promise are counted for the Seed viz. those that are the elect of God only Rom. 9. 6 7 8 9. are the Children of the premise and Heirs of Glory the promise runs Gal. 3. 16. not to Seeds as of many but to thy Seed which is Christ i. e. Christ personally considered primarily and then to Christ mystically considered that is all that are spiritually united to him therefore the Apostle saith Verse 29. if ye be Christs then are you Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the promise or according to the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham 5. This must be so because the Covenant of Grace is well ordered in all things and sure see once again Rom. 4. 14. for if they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the promise of no effect no need of Faith if the legal Covenant can save
cause against you here too i. e. for the first Centuries we will examine your Authors and humane Testimonies The first is Calvin a latter Writer I know not but Ireneus and Cyprian might be both had out of him I do confess Ireneus lived not above Two Hundred Years after Christ or in the second Century thus he and many others cite him viz. Omnes venit Christus per semet ipsum salvare omnes qui per eum renascuntur ad Deum Infantes parvulos Juniores Seniores In English thus Christ Jesus came to save all by himself all who by him are born again unto God Infants and little ones Young and Old Ans Reader pray observe here is not a word of one Infant baptized but this Man infers it from his Words so that we have nothing but Consequences 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 these Words who are born again be applyed to Infant Baptism The scope of Ireneas in that Chapter is to refute the Gnosticks who said that Christ did not exceed One and Thirty Years of age against whom Ireneus alledged that Christ lived in every age i. e. of Infancy Youth and old Age that by his Age and Example he might sanctifie every age So that here Ireneus speaks not of being born again in 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 virtue of his Age he might sanctifie Infants as the whole Discourse in Latin plainly shews viz. Magister ergo existens Magistri quoque habebat atatem non reprobans nec super grediens hominem neque solvens suam legem in se humani generis sed omnem etatem 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 that is brought by Mr. Burkit is that cursed decree of the Milevetan Council that all who denyed Infant Baptism should be Anathema accursed If he comes but a little lower he hath proof enough in the Popish Councils Decrees and Canors 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 the humane Proofs from the Churches after the primitive Apostolical days which Mr. Burkit brought and I doubt not but to give better and more Authentick Authors of the ancient Fathers against Infant Baptism than hath been 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 Baxters Saints Rest Chap. 8. Sect. 5. I will declare unto you how we offer up our selves unto 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 them to fast and pray for forgiveness of Sinns 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 the new Birth received and then in calling upon God the Father the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost they are washed in Water c. the Food we call the Euchrist 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 Sinns and so liveth as Christ hath taught this you see saith Mr. Baxter is no new way 4. You cite Origen who was you say famous in the year 230 who saith in Hom. 8 in Levit. de Infantibus baptizandis Ecclesia traditionem accepit ab Apostolis theChurch received infant Baptism by Tradition from the Apostles we have proved you say before this was a Scripture Tradition for the Apostles baptized little Children Ans We may cite Origen against Origen so little credit is to be given to History in this case about him and some other of the Fathers for I find Origen saith viz. they that are rightly baptized are washed unto Salvation but so was not Simon Magus he that is baptized unto Salvation receives the Water and the Holy Ghost which Simon did not but Water only Hom. 6. upon Ezek. â—…1 6. v. 4. Mountanus p. 36. 37. and in his Commentary upon Rom. 6. saith the same Origen such Baptism that was accompanied with crucifying the Flesh and rising again to newness of Life was the approved Baptism I must confess that Dr. Taylor saith that Origen and Austin are the only Witnesses that asserted Infant Baptism to be an Apostolical Tradition but it appears by Erasmus that Origen's writings were greatly corrupted by Russinus and made to speak sometimes for Infant Baptism See Jacob Merciâ—gus p. 283. 291. and Montanus p. 29. to 35 42 43. Sir had you proved Infant Baptism from the Scripture and that the Apostles baptized Infants you need not go to Humane History that is so uncertain and no Rule for us 5. Gregory of Nazianzum who you say was famous about the year 370 beareth witness for Infant Baptism saith he omni aetati Baptisma convenit Baptism is answerable unto every Age. And again da infantis custodiam give Infants the Baptism of the Trinity and that will be a great and excellent Guard unto them Ans I find a worthy Author that quotes this Gregory speaking quite the contrary thing in his third Oration saith he the baptized used in the first place to confess their Sins and to renounce the Devil and all his Works before many Witnesses and that none were baptized of old but they that did confess their Sins and how dangerous it was headlong and without due Preparation to partake thereof He therefore adviseth that the Baptism of Infants be deferred till they did not only make Confession of their Faith but were to desire the same see Dr. Taylor p. 239. Now worthy Britains what signifyeth the citing of such Fathers when we cannot be certain that we have their true writings God hath preserved his sacred
Authority from God for to do such a thing in his Name without his Authority is Sinful 2. You might better have stayed till they came to Age of understanding and if you would bring them under a Vow have caused them then to have entered into a Covenant to take the Lord to be their God and no doubt your Children might more dread to break such a Vow they consented to and freely made then a Covenant or Vow you caused them to enter into in their Infancy to which they never consented but perhaps you will say you have no Ground nor Authority from Gods word to do that as much every way as you have in Infancy to baptize them which we say is no Baptism at all much less Christ's true Baptism therefore God thereby oblieged them not to do what you speak but it is their Duty when grown up if God gives them Faith to cast it away as an humane Tradition and to enter into God's Holy Baptismal Covenant as Believers according to Christ's great Commission 3. Christs Baptism or the Baptism of Believers was not ordained to oblige Persons who are in their natural State whether young or old to be come the Lord or to be regenerated or to die to Sin c. but as being his or regenerated before baptized their baptismal Covenant obligeth them to walk as the Lord's People in newness of Life so that it appears that Infants baptismal Covenant is directly repugnant in the end and design of Christ's true Baptismal Covenant as I have more fully eâ—enceâ— in the Epistle to this Book Dedicated to all Godly Pedo-Baptists to which I refer the Reader You say you see the greatest part of Children when they come to Age be either ignorant or inconsiderate of their Baptismal Vows c. for which you blame Ministers and Housholders in not Catechising and Teaching them and thus say you Satan tempts them to cast the Blame upon their Baptism c. Ans You may see what a vain thing an human invention is what impression can that make on the Conscience of Persons when Grown up that God never Commanded nor promised to bless 2. But take heed you do not father that upon the Devil which is done by Jesus Christ 't is not Satan that tempts us to cast a slight on Infant Baptism or makes us looâ— upon it as an insignificant thing but 't is through Christ's gracious influences by opening our Eyes to see 't is a meer humane rite and invention of Man 's own Brain therefore we threw it away and entered into a new and true Baptismal Covenant and many others also do day by day You say you appeal to the Consciences of those that are rebaptized is not the thing thus Let their Consciences dictate and reprove them say you of this sinful Carelesness that they never made a right use of their first Baptism if they had received profit from the first they would not have at all renounced it Ans 1. I will take this appeal to be made to me though never re-baptized even to my Conscience and I do solemnly declare I doubt not but all my Brethren can speak the same thing that the reason why we cast off our Infant Baptism or rather Rantism was because we were fully convinced it was no Ordinance of Christ and therefore knew it could be of no 〈◊〉 to us 2 You mistake it seems as if you dreamed that the most of those that cast off Infant Baptism were People of 〈◊〉 and also seem to intimate as if such of your People when grown up that are pious who do choose the Lord to be their God do it by virtue of their Baptismal Vow no no that had no such effect upon them 't is only the Grace of God in them 't is by vertue of his Spirit and evident 't is that the persons generally that first doubt about the truth of Infant Baptism are persons of Religion and Piety therefore 't is not for want of Religion or Zeal for God they throw away Infant Baptism but it is from their Religion and Love to God and Zeal to his Name that so they may not be guilty of adding to his Word or taking that for Christ's true Baptism which is none of it Is it a Sin to cast off Mens inventions 2. They are guilty you say of great Sin by prophaning the Ordinance of Christ is it a small thing to prophane Sacred Things although some do so through ignorance Baptism is a sacred thing which ought to be received but once one Lord one Faith one Baptism Eph. 4. 4. therefore those that renew their Baptism take the name of God in Vain c. Answ I answer is it not a great Sin to change the Holy Ordinance of Christ from Baptism to Rantism or in English from dipping the whole Body in Water to the sprinkling a little Water on the Face and to change the true Subject from a Believer to an Infant is not this to prophane a most holy Ordinance and a sacred Thing and 't is no doubt a great Evil though done ignorantly because you sprinkle them into the Name of the Father Son and Holy-Ghost without his Authority God never commanded it at your Hands is not this to prophane his most Holy and Sacred Name and since it appears there is but one Baptism in Water and you cannot deny but do own Believers Baptism was at first instituted and appointed of Christ it plainly then follows that Infant Baptism is none of Christs Institution 't is no Baptism of Christ 't is not that one Baptism he appointed and ordained we own but one Baptism and that is the Baptism of Believers if you have got another look you to that for there is but one Lord one Faith and one Baptism Eph. 4. 4. 3. They are you say guilty of unbelief unless God telleth them in totidem verbis baptize your Children they will believe not Faith looketh upon every beck of the Lord the least appearance of his Will the Woman which had the bloody Issue believed if she could but touch the Garment of the Lord Jesus she should be whole though she had neither a Promise nor Command nor a particular Example provoking her in so doing c. Ans I answer will you charge us with unbelief because we cannot believe that to be a Truth for which we have neither Command nor Example nor for which there can be no good Consequence nor Inference drawn from any Text of Scripture nor in doing of which we have no promise nor are they which do it under any threatning in all the book of God this seems very strange must we believe Infant Baptism because you and others say it is a Truth by the same argument we must or may believe all Popish Rites divised Fables and Ceremonies what innovations may not your Faith take hold of according to what you speak here is there no difference in believing in Christ in things respecting matters of Faith which
imagine yet the necessity of this Sacament is very great and the profit and advantage very considerable See Dr. du Veil Act. 2. page 87. Tertullian saith Whatsoever savours contrary to Truth is heresy though it be an Ancient Custom Thus you see the Learned though they own not rebaptization where baptism at first was duly administred yet such who at first received only a pretended baptism ought to be truly baptized to baptize a Believer again is sinful and very unlawful thing but since yours is no Baptism but only Rhantism our practice is no rebaptization for as you do not the Act so 't is not done on the proper subject 7. They are guilty say you that is such as deny Infant Baptism of a great sin by giving offence to many that were baptized in their Infancy tempting them to think that they are not under any vows unto God and that their baptism bindeth them not to a new course of Life if People judge themselves free from their baptismal Obligation O! How naked come they to Satans Temptations c. Answ I answer if you take an offence at us because we cast away an humane Tradition we cannot help that ought we to obey Man rather then God Judge ye 2. 'T is the force of Scripture arguments or the power of Gods Word that provoked us and many Thousands more to throw off the Innovation and sinful practice of Infant Baptism and dare you say it was Satan that tempted us no I fear 't is Satan or worldly profit or to free themselves from reproach that tempts some of the pedobaptists to continue the practice of that devised Custom 'T is not Satans use nor interest to tempt Men to own Christs blessed Institutions and cast off Mens Inventions but endeavour to keep them Ignorant of the first and to hold up the second which was let in us in the time of the Apostacy of the Church which 't is evident is a Pillar to uphold National Churches and not only Popish but some Protestant Constitutions also 3. We are not tempted by Satan but perswaded by the Lord and through the Power and Authority of his Word to believe that God brought us not under that Vow or Obligation in Infancy tho' you 't is true do it and so do the Papists bring People under Vows and Obligations to live a single Life and do other things all tending to Piety and Holyness as they tell you but God never brought them under any such Vows or Obligations And tho' an human Obligation may have some force on the Conscience especially when People think 't is Gods Covenant yet ought not the blind People among the Papists to be told that those Covenants are Human and not Covenants God brought them under Hath not God ways enough and such that are sufficient to Oblidge our Children to die to Sin and live a new Life but doth he need Man's Supplements shall man teach God and will you Father your Baptismal Obligation on God as that which he requires Infants to come under without the least Shaddow of proof from his blessed Word I must tell you all voluntary Vows are by Christ in the times of the Gospel forbid Mat. 5. 33 34. You ought not to bring your selves nor Children under any such voluntary and promisory Oaths Vows or Obligations you must see you are Commanded to do it or have clear Authority from the Lord to do this thing before you do it God doth require Believers and their Children when they believe to come under a baptismal Vow or Obligation but not till then But do not think the purport of our Doctrine herein is to open a Door for young People to Sin God forbid the Obligations which God in his Word and godly Parents and Ministers by the authority of God's Word lay upon them are sufficient when the Lord works with them to oblige them to repent believe and lead a new Life without your volunrary and unwarrantable Obligation laid upon them in Infancy that you have no ground to believe God will ever bless to the end you design it unless he had commanded it will you do Evil that Good may come on it 8. Baptizing by dipping the whole Body into cold Water as you say in these cold Climates is a breach of the sixth Commandment Thou shalt not kill for it is certain that many tender and sickly Bodies cannot suffer to be dipped in cold Water in the time of Winter without being pernicious to their Lives especially when it is Snow and Frost we are not to tempt the Lord thinking that God will do Miracles for the saving of our Lives he worketh ordinarily through appointed means in such an occasion as this Mr. Cradock judged that the chief Magistrate should hinder People to be dipped least it should be pernicious to the Subjects Lib. page 108. Ans. I answer this is a high charge you accuse us of Murther directly in breaking the Sixth Commandment but you forget how hereby you positively break the Ninth Commandment Thou shalt not bear fase witness against thy Neighbour Exod. 20. 16. prove what you say or else with deep sorrow confess your abominable and false accusation Do you know for certain that any one Person either Man or Woman was ever killed or came to any hurt that was baptized that is dipped in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit in cold winterly weather you must produce your witnesses or you are horribly guilty in the sight of God and Man you say 'T is certain that many tender and sickly Bodies cannot suffer to be Dipped in cold Water without being pernicious to their Lives c. Sir I have my self baptized many hundreds of Men and Women and some at all times of the year yea in times of bitter Frost and Snow when the Ice was first broken and Persons that were of a weak sickly Constitution and Women big with Child and others near Seventy years Old yea some near Eighty years Old and I never knew any to suffer the least harm thereby but many have found their Health better afterward Yea I heard a Reverend Minister very lately say that he knew an Ancient Woman in Kent that was Bed-ridden for some time who could not be satisfied until she was baptized and baptized she was and upon it grew strong and went about and lived some years after in Health and Strength according to her age also for the space of forty years I have heard of or known some Thousands baptized at all Seasons of the year of both Sex and never heard of any that received the least prejudice to their Health thereby much less that it cost them their Lives Therefore palpable it is you are guilty of slander back-biting and abominable calumny bearing false Witness against your Innocent Neighbours and 't is well if it be not out of malice and that not only to us but also to Christ's Holy Ordinance of Dipping Believers in his Name 2. But the worst is
a right to baptism since 't is a meer positive Command of Christ 10. Ask him whether ungodly Parents that spring from Abraham's Loyns by Isaac-in their Generations were not as much obliged by God's positive Command to Abraham to Circumcise their Male Children as the Faithful and Godly Parents were obliged to Circumcise theirs this being so 11. Ask him why all ungodly persons and unbelievers ought not now to Baptize their Children as well as believers should baptize theirs 2. You bid your Children ask such that deny Infant Baptism can they prove from Scripture that Christ came in to the World to make the condition of Children worser then it was before Ans Tell Mr. Owen he hath had this Question answered in this Treatise over and over viz. Tell him the Spiritual Priviledges of Children now are more then theirs were under the Law So that our Children lose no Divine and Spiritual blessings or priviledges which the Children of the Faithful once had God hath the same love to and care of our Children under the Gospel as he had to theirs under the Law but the Temporal blessings of the Jewish Children and their External or Earthly priviledges then were more then our Children have in Gospel times the Gospel Church being established upon better promises theirs were under the promise of heaping up Gold and Silver and possessing outward peace and to enjoy a Land that flowed with Milk and Honey True the external or outward dispensation of the Gospel Covenant which our Children are under far exceeds theirs for the clearness of Light and Revelation of Christ and for other Spiritual priviledges ours excells Besides no doubt but the Children of believers under the Gospel far exceed the priviledges of unbelievers by the blessings of a Godly Education and the like But we say it was not the Covenant of Grace that gave right to Circumcision under the Law but the positive Law and Command of God so 't is not the Covenant of Grace that gives right to baptism but Christs positive Command which runs not unto our Children untill they do believe and bid Mr. Owen prove that Infant baptism doth make the condition of Children any ways better then the condition of our Children who never were baptized 3. Were not little Children say you the first Martyrs that lost their Lives for the sake of Christ Mat. 2. 16. If God Honoured them to be the first Witnesses for Christ being baptized in Blood will he deny them water Baptism 1. Answ Were they only the Children of Believers that Herod Murthered how will you prove that but suppose it was so doth it follow from thence that we ought to baptize them without a Command why do you not say and will not Christ allow our Children the Ordinance that holds forth the Shedding of his Blood as well as Baptism that holds forth he was Buried c. 4. If the Baptism of Infants be evil why doth the Devil say you Tempt Witches or Sorcerers to deny that Baptism And what is the reason that Satan cannot have any power over them until they renounce their Baptism and after that they have not any strength to resist him any longer as several of them confessed Park of Witches Vol. 3. page 640. 1. Answ Ask Mr. Owen why the Devil doth not love nor can't endure Popish Holy-water or is such a fearful enemy to that as the Papists say it hath often been manifest is the Consecration of Water therefore of God's appointment Why may we not give credit to the Papists as well as unto Witches and Sorcerers 2. Because he cannot prove Infant Baptism from Arguments from Heaven will he go for Arguments to prove it to be Christs Ordinance taken from Hell 3. The Devil is a crafty and subtle Adversary doth not he do this to make People love and approve of their Infant Baptism which no doubt Christ never appointed 4. However this Testimony is given only by Witches and Sorcerers and what ground have we to believe them 5. Ask them will they give you assurance that you will be better Christians by receiving of their baptism if they say you will be the better answer them that you see several of them growing worse after their re-baptization 1. Answ Ask Mr. Owen whether there are not more People that were Baptized or rather Rantized in Infancy that prove vile and ungodly then among them that were baptized upon the profession of their Faith 2. What assurance can he give to Infants or to their Parents that the Children they baptize shall be better Christians thereby Also how will he prove that the Children of believers who were baptized in Infancy prove generally better Christians then the Children of those Believers that did not baptise them in their Infancy 3. Ask him if the baptism of believers upon the profession of their Faith as Christ commanded be the worse because some like Simon Magus take it up and prove ill Members and scandalous in their Lives 1. Say you tho' they are Members of a Congregation walking by the Rule of the Gospel before they had their re-baptization they after break the Unity of the Body they were Members of by separating themselves Baptism is an Ordinance of Unity but re-baptization is the breaking off the Unity of Churches 1. Answ Why do you use such Tautologies and needless repetitions you had this before and I have answered it we deny our baptism to be re-baptization and have proyed your Rantism is no Baptism at all 2. Infant Rantism 't is true Unites National Churches and Churches Built upon that or the like Constitution and so it Unites many false and Anti-christian Churches I must confess as the Church of Rome and some others in the World much of the same nature but 't is the baptism of Christ viz. that of believers that Unites together according to the order of the Gospel all the Members of a true Gospel Church and the denying of Infant baptism and being baptized upon a profession of Faith does but break the Union of Churches of the Saints that are formarly true and orderly gathered according to the Institution of Christ and the rule of the Gospel For was not the first Gospel Church at Jerusalem gathered out of the National Church of the Jews of Persons that repented believed and upon the profession of that Faith Baptized that is Dipped in Water in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost also the Church in Samaria Acts 8. and that in Acts 10. and that at Corinth Acts 16. and that at Ephesus Acts 19. and ought not all Churches so to be gathered to the end of the World ought we not to separate from such Churches that do not hold the Ordinances that appertain to Church Constitution as they were first delivered to the Saints and from such who are guilty also of an Human Innovation ought we to partake of other Mens Sins or ought we not to keep our selves pure Touch not Tast not Handle not which
and vivification to a New Life but in the Rantizing or Sprinkling of an Infant there is not cannot be a lively Representation of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection c. Arg. 26. That pretended Baptism that pretends to frustrate the glorious end and design of Christ in his Instituting of Gospel Baptism or cannot answer it is none of Christ's Baptism but the pretended baptism of Infants tends to frustrate the glorious end and design of Christ in Instituting of Gospel Baptism Ergo. The Major will not be denied As to the Minor all generally confess the end and design of Christ in Instituting the Ordinance of Baptism was in a lively Figure to represent his Death Burial and Resurrecton with the Persons Death unto Sin and his rising again to walk in newness of Life that is baptized as the Sacrament of the Supper was ordained to represent his Body was broke and his blood was shed But that a lively Figure of Christs Death Burial and Resurrection appears in Sprinkling a little Water on the Face I see not and as done to an Infant there can no Death to sin and rising again to walk in Newness of Life be signified and therefore Christs design and end therein is frustrated Arg. 27. If Baptism be Immersion as to the proper and genuine Signification of the word Baptizo as also of those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms and the Spiritual Signification thereof then Sprinkling cannot be Christs true Baptism But Immersion is the proper and genuine signification of the word Baptizo and also of those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms spoken of and the spiritual signification thereof Ergo Sprinkling is not Christ's true Baptism 1. That the proper and genuine signification of the word Baptizo is Immersion or to Dip c. We have fully proved which is also confessed by all Learned in that Language 2. That the Typical Baptism viz. that of the Red Sea wherein the Fathers were buried as it were unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud appears from Pools Annotations 1 Cor. 10. 2. Others saith he more probably think that the Apostle useth this Term in regard of the great Analogy betwixâ— Baptism as it was then used the Persons going down into the Waters and being Dippâ—d and the Israelites going down into the Sea the great receptacle of water tho' the water at that time was gathered on heaps on either side of them yet they seemed buried in the water as Persons in that Age were when they were baptized c. The second was that of Noahs Ark See Sir Norton Knatchbul who I before Quoted and shall here again recite his words The Ark of Noah and Baptism saith he were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection not the Sign of the washing away of Sin tho' so taken Metonymically but a particular signal of the Resurrection of Christ Of this Baptism is a Lively and Emphatical Figure as also was the Ark of Noah out of which he returned as from a Sepulchre to a New Life 3. Metaphorical Baptism is that of the Spirit and of affliction The first signifies not a Sprinkling of the Spirit but the great Effusion of the Spirit like that at Pentecost Acts 1. 4 5. Shall be Baptized c On which words Causabon speaks thus See Dr. Du Veil on Acts 2. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to Dip or Plungâ— as it were to die Colours in which sense saith he the the Apostles might be truly said to have been baptized for the House in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost so that the Apostles might seem to have been plunged into it as into a large Fish-Pond Also Decumentus on Acts 2. saith A wind filled the whole House that it seemed like a â—iâ—h-Pond because it was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost And the Baptism of afflictions are those great depths or overwhelmings of afflictions like that of our Saviours magnis componere parva no part free Mat. 20. 22. where you have the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and like that of David who saith God drew him out of deep waters 4. The spiritual signification thereof is the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ and of our Death to sin and vivification to a New Life This being so it follows undeniably that Sprinkling cannot be Christs true baptism it must be Immersion and nothing else And in the last place finally to confirm that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to Dip both from the â—…teral and spiritual signification thereof as also from those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms mentioned in the Scripture I might add further that this evidently appears from the practice of John Baptisâ— and the Apostles of Christ who baptized in Rivers and where there was much water and also because the Baptizer and Baptized are said to go down into the water not down to the water and came up out of the water John Baptist is said to baptize them into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—ordan as the Greek renders it which shews it Dipping and not Sprinkling Would it be proper to say he Sprinkled them into Jordan The Lord open the Eyes of those who see not to consider these things Sir I expect your answer to these Arguments particularly if you make any reply to what I have said in confutation of your Treatise and see you do your business better the next time for as yet you have not proved Infant Baptism to be from Heaven as I hope the unprejudiced Reader will conclude I shall say no more at present but leave all I have said to the blessing of God hoping in a little time he will vanquish by the light of his sacred word your Scripture less practice of Infant Baptism out of the World clear up the Truth of his own despised Ordinance That Wisdom may 〈…〉 of her Children and God may be Honoured to whom be Glory now and for ever more Amen FINIS †Worthy Britains see how Mr. Richard Baxter hath out down Infant Baptism with his own Sword can Infants shew their consent to be married to Christ or profess Faith in him ☞ * Read the Table of the Authors at the beginning of this Book Mr. Daniel Williams in his Book called the vanity of youth page 131. Mr. Williams Worthy of blame as well as Mr. Burkit The danger of Infants Baptismal Covenant layd open * Perkins on Gal. c. 3. p. 256.