be baptized after Repentance and Faith according to the Commission and that there is no instance to be found of any other teaching that then such should be baptized and no other And for any to introduce another practice it is not only contrary to Christs Commission but contradictious to the Apostles teachings CHAP. III. Wherein believers Baptisme is proved the only Baptisme from the example and practise of the primitive Saints ACTS 2.41 THen they that gladly received his Word were baptized III. From the example of primative Saints Acts 8.12 But when they believed Philip Preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized both Men and Women Verse 37.32 And Philip said if thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayst And he answered and said I believe that Iesus Christ is the Son of God And he commanded the Chariot to stand still and they went down both into the Water both Philip and the Eunuch and he baptized him Acts 18 8. And Crispus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue believed on the Lord with all his House and many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized Acts 22.14 And Ananias said unto Paul the God of our fathers hath chosen thee that thou shouldest know his will and see the just fine shouldst hear the voice of his mouth And now why tarriest thou Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord Acts 9.18 And he arosâ— forthwith and was baptiqed Which is also confirmed by the following Testimonies Luther Luther de Sacrament Tom. 3. fol. 168. saith That in times past it was thus that the Sacrament of Baptisme was administred to none except it were to those that acknowledged and confessed their faith and know how to rehearse the same and that it was necessary to be done because the Sacrament was constituted externally to be used that the faith be confest and made known to the Church Bulling Bullinger in his House-book 48. Sermon Baptisme saith he hath no prescribed time by the Lord and therefore it is left to the free choice of the faithfull Those that believed at the Preaching of Peter upon the day of Pentecost as also the Eunuch whom Philip baptized Cornelius the Captain Paul the Apostle at Damascus Lydia the seller of Purple a Woman that feared God the Keeper of the Prison at Philippi and other more as well Women as Men so soon as they tasted the gifts of Christ and believed his Word presently desired to be baptized Mr. Baxter further in his 16. Mr. Bax. Argument against Mr. Blake in the aforesaid 2d Disputation P. 149. saith most significantly If there can be no example given in Scripture of any one that was baptized without the profession of a saving Faith nor any precept for so doing then must we not baptize any without it But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent In proof whereof he produces the several Scripture examples of Persons that were baptized which saith he might afford us so many several Arguments but I shall put them together viz. First John as I have shewed you required the profession of true Repentance and that his Baptisme was for the remission of sin Secondly when Christ layeth down the Apostolical Commission the Nature and Order of the Apostles work is first to make them Disciples and then to Baptize them into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as before That it was saving Faith that was required of the Jews Jews and professed by them Acts 2.38 is plain in the Text. The Samaritans Samaritans believed and had great Joy and were baptized into the name of Jesus Christ Acts 8.12 whereby it appeareth that it was both the Vnderstanding and Will that were both changed and that they had the profession even of a saving Faith yea even Simon himself 37. v. The Condition upon which the Eunuch Eunuch must be baptized was if he believed with all his Heart which he professed to do and that was the Evidence Philip expected Paul Paul was baptized after true conversion Acts 9.18 The Holy Ghost fell on the Gentiles before they were baptized Acts 10.44 Lydia Lydias Heart was opened before she was baptized and she was one the Apostles judged faithful to the Lord and offered to them the Evidence of her faith Acts 16.30 The example also of the Jaylor Jaylor is very full to the resolution of the Question in hand He first asketh Wrat he shall do to be saved The Apostle answereth him Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and thy House So that it was a saving saith that is here mentioned He rejoyced and believed with all his House and was baptized the same hour of the night or straight way Crispus Crispus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue believed on the Lord with all his House And many of the Chrinthians hearing Corinth believed and were baptized Acts 18.8 Philip Philip. in Acts 8.37 is determining a Question and giveth this in as the decision If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayst And to say that this is but de Bone esse meaning that it includes not the Negative otherwise thou mayst not is to make Philip to have deluded and not decided or resolved In a word saith he I know of no one word in Scripture that giveth us the least intimation that ever man was baptized without the profession of a saving Faith Thus Faâ— Mr. Baxter who to save us the labour hath himself you see given such an exact Catalogue of the Examples of the baptized in the Scripture among whom as he so well observes there is not one to be found that answered not Christs Commission and the Apostles Precept in a professed Faith and Repentance But 't is said he mentions only such as were baptized aged That is very true and the reason is because the Scripture affords examples of none other as he confesseth But Secondly By his own grant in the words beforegoing If Philips answer was decisive and not delusive all others are excluded And that none but such as are capable to give some demonstration that they believe with all their Heart ought to be admitted to Baptism CHAP. IV. Wherein believers are proved to be the only subjects of Baptisme IV. From the Spiritual ends of the Ordinance from the Spiritual ends of the Ordinance THe first End or Use we shall ment on is 1. To be a Sign of the Mysteries the Gospeâ— that the Baptized might have that represented in a Sign or Figure and preacht to his Eye in the Ordinance which had been preacht to his Ear and Heart by the Word and Spirit of God respecting the whole Mystery of the Gospel and his Duty and Obligation therein A Sign being as Paraeus observeth some outward thing appearing to the Sense through which some inward thing is at the same time
any of them and whether it is not contradictious to common sence and Experience for any to assert it For what Repentance or Faith are they capable to profess What present Regeneration can they evidence What Testimony of a good Conscience can they give in striking or keeping Covenant with God herein And how can they embrace or improve the Covenant on Gods part for Pardon Purging Justification Sanctification and Salvation And therefore is Mr. Faxter forced to confess in his plain Scripture proof p. 301. That as to the Ends of Baptisme they are rather to be fetched from the Aged then Infants and that because the aged 1. are the most fully capable Subjects 2. The most Excellent and Eminent Subjects 3. Of whom the Scripture fully speaks c. But on the contrary as for Infants Baptisme be acknowledgeth in the same place that the Scripture speaketh darkly of it Yea that it is so dark in the Scripture that the Controversy is thereby become not only hard but so hard as he saith he finds it Wherein if he hath not said more in a few words for the baptizing of Believers and against that of Infants then all his great book can answer Let all the world judge though he calls it in contradiction hereto plain Scripture Proof for Infants Church-Membership and Baptisme CHAP. V. Wherein the Baptisme of believers is proved to be the only Baptisme from the New-testament-dispensation so differing from that of the old THe Old Testament Church Fifthly from the new Testament Dispensation we find was national consisting of the Natural and Fleshly Seed of Abraham Therefore were Infants by the Ordinance of Circumcision added thereto Wherein they had a worldly Sanctuary Carnal Ordinances a Temporary Priesthood and multitude of Ceremonies The New-testament-church was by Christs appointment to be a separated people out of the Nations consisting only of the Spiritual Seed of Abraham and therefore believers upon profession of Faith by the Ordinance of Baptisme were added thereto Acts 2.31 1 Cor. 12.13 Wherein aâ— in the Spiritual house the true Tabernacle they partake of Spiritual Ordinances in Communion of Spiritual Members And by an unchangeable Priesthood do offer Spiritual Sacrifices and Worship God as true Wroshippers in Spirit and Truth And therefore upon this change you have John Baptist discharging that Priviledge of Abrahams natural Seed that admitted into the old Church from any such Rite in the new Mat. 3.9 c. telling them in express terms That now in Gospel dayes they must not say within themselves That they have Abraham for their Father viz. That they are the Children of a godly Parent No that which mâ—ght have served turn under Moses will not a vail nor must not be admitted now under Christ Nothing now but fruits meet for Repentance give right to the Bapâ—isme of Repentance and nothing short of the Spirits birth can orderly admit to Water-birth and Spiritual Ordinances And the Genuine Reason Christ himself gave to that Doctor in Israel though yet it seems ignorant of the Mystery of the new birth which only gives the right of admission into the New testament church Because saith he that which is born of the flesh is but flesh Regeneration being not entailed to Generation To which purpose therefore Dr. Owen Dr. Owen very excellently in his Catechisme about Government p. 106. Our Lord Jesus Christ hath laid down saith he as an Everlasting Rule that unless a man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.3 Requiring Regeneration as an indispensible condition in a Member of his Church a Subject of his Kingdom for his Temple is now to be built of Living Stones 1 Pet. 2.5 Men Spiritually and savingly quickned from their death in sin and by the Holy Ghost whereof they are partakers made a meet habitation for God Eph. 2 21 22 1 Cor. 3.16 2 Cor. 6.16 Which receiving Vital supplies from Christ its Head increaseth in faith and holiness edifying it self in love Thus far the Doctor Under the Law Ceremony Shadow Letter and Carnal Seed suited to Carnal Ordinances But when the substance and Spirit was come under the Gospel then only a spiritual Seed as most meet and suitable must attend the spiritual Worship and spiritual Ordinances Dr. Tayl. And herein doth Dr. Taylor very well accomodate this Truth P. 242. They saith he that baptize Children make Baptisme to be wholly an outward Duty a Work of the Law a Carnal Ordinance it makes us adhere to the Letter without regard of the Spirit to be satisfyed with Shadows to return to Bondage to relinquish the mysteriousness the substance and spirituality of the Gospel which Argument is of sâ— much the more consideration becausâ— under the Spiritual Covenant or thâ— Gospel of Grace if the Mystery goâ—â— not before the Symbol which doeâ— when the Symbols are consignations oâ— Grace as the Sacraments are yet iâ— always accompanies it but never followâ— in order of time And this is cleâ— in the perpetual Analogy of Holy Scripture CHAP. VI. Wherein Believers Baptisme is confirmed to be the only true Baptisme from the constitution of the Primitive Churches who were formed not of Ignorant Babes but of professing Men and Women that upon Baptisme were joyned together to observe all the Ordinances of Christ which is also further evidenced by the Dedications of the Epistles to the Churches as well as Contents of the same THe Truth whereof appears not only from the Order directed unto in Christs Commission 6. From the constitution of the Primitive Churches which as already observed requires that men be first taught in the Faith 2. That then they be baptized into the Faith And then thirdly that they be edified or taught in the Faith viz. in the place of teaching the Church or School of Christ The contemning which Order as Mr. Baxter saith is to contemn all Rules of Order Sect. 1 But also from the pattern and example the Apostles gave in observation of the aforesaid direction in planting the New Testament Churches we read of As first the Church of Jerusalem Jerusalem Acts 2.41 42. Then they that gladly received his Word were baptized and the same day there were added to them 3000. Souls The them that they were added to appear to be the Baptized Disciples mentioned Acts. 1.15 21 22. And so they continued in the Apostles Doctrine fellowship breaking of Bread and Prayers Where you have the order fully observed 1. Receiving or believing the Word 2. Baptizing 3. Church fellowship in Doctrine breaking Bread and Prayer And so in like manner you will find the self-same order was observed in all the Churches As Secondly The Church of Samaria Samaria Acts 8.12 Where it is said that when the Samaritans believed Philp Preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus they were baptized both Men and Women but not a Word of Children Thirdly The Church at Cesarea Cesarea Acts 10 47 48.
appear substantial Arguments for the Baptists and full and clear Evidence against themselves for is not the Commission it self fully owned the Order of it and Practice upon it viz. That Persons ought first to be taught in the faith before they are to be baptized into the same and that none in the Apostles times and for some Ages after were otherwise baptized and that it is ridiculous yea prophane for any otherwise to practice and that there was neither Precept nor Example for the baptizing of Infants who as confest are so capable either of themselves or any for them to answer the great ends thereof but owned to be a practice taken up and enjoyned several Ages after as many of the forecited Pedobaptists both Papists and Protestants have confessed and will more fully and particularly appear in the next part And what is or can be said more by the Baptists themselves in confirmation of of their way and Practice Thus we have dispatcht the first part and may it not now be recommended to the Conscience of the impartial unprejudiced Reader whether this first assertion viz That Believers Baptisme is only to be esteemed Christs Ordinance of Baptisme is not substantially made good not only from clear and undeniable Scripture and Reason But from most pregnant Authohities of learned men and most of them parties themselves End of the first Part. Infants Baptism Disproved The Second Part disproves Infants Baptism under this Head viz. That the Baptising of Infants is no Ordinance of Jesus Christ which is made good in the seven following Chapters CHAP. I. Wherein the Scriptures total silence about Infants Baptism is observed with the necessity of Scripture-warranty to authorize every Ordinance and that by the confession of Parties themselves IF Infants Baptism had been any Appointment or Ordinance of Jesus Christ No Scripture for Baptising Infants there would have been some Precept Command or Example in the Scripture to warrant the same but in as much as the Scripture is so wholly silent therein there being not one syllable to be found in all the New Testament about any such practice it may well be concluded to be no Ordinance of Jesus Christ for where the Scripture hath no tongue we ought to have no ear according to that known Maxime To practise any thing in the Worship of God as an Ordinance of his without an Institution ought to be esteemed Will-worship and Idolatry And that there is neither Precept or Example for any such thing as Infants Baptism in the Scripture The Parties themselves owning it we have the ingenuous confession of Parties themselves viz. Magdib The Magdiburgenses in Cent. 1. L. 2. p. 496. do say That concerning the baptising of the Adult both Jews and Gentiles we have sufficient proof from Acts 2.8.10.16 chapters but as to the baptising of Infants they can meet with no Example in the Scriptures Luther Luther in Pâ—still saith Young Children hear not nor understand the Word of God out of which Faith cometh and therefore if the Commandment be followed Children ought not to le baptized And again In his Epistle of Anabaptism saith We cannot prove by any place of Scripture that Children do believe neither do the Scriptures clearly and plainly with these or the like words say Baptize your Children for they believe wherefore we must needs yeeld to those that drive us to the Letter because we find it no where written Erasmus Erasmus in his Book of the Union of the Church saith It is no where expressed in the Apostolical Writings that they baptized Children And again upon Rom. 6. Baptising of young Infants was not in use saith he in St. Paul 's time And again In his 4th Book De Ratione Concio saith That they are not to be condemned that doubt whether Childrens Baptism was ordained by the Apostles Calvin Calvin in his 4th Book of Institutes Chap. 16. confesseth That it is no where expresly mentioned by the Evangelists that any one Child was by the Apostl's hands baptized Bucer Bucer upon Mat. saith That Christ no where commanded to baptize Infants Staphilus Staphilus in Epitome saith That young Children should be baptized is not expressed in the holy Scriptures Choelens Choelens De Bapt. Parvulorum saith That Jesus took a Child and placed him in the midst of them what Child was it I think it was not a young or new-born Child and that the same was not baptized For Infants were not in those dayes baptized but such as being come to their full growth confessed their sins Melancthon Melanct. in his Treatise concerning the Doctrine of Anabaptists writeth That there is no plain Commandment in the holy Scriptures that Children should be baptized Zwinglius Zwing In his Book of the Movers of Sedition speaking of baptizing of Children So it is saith he That there is no plain words of the Scripture whereby the same is commanded These latter Quotations from the Germane Doctors you have in an old Dutch Author called A very plain and well-grounded Treatise concerning Baptisme Englished 1618. Mr. Daniel Rogers Mr. Rogers in his Treatise about Baptism Part 29 confesseth himself to be unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it Mr. Baxter Mr. Baxter himself that wrote that Book called Plain Scripture-proof for Infants Church-Membership and Baptism yet in contradiction thereto in the same Book p. 3. confesseth That Infants Baptism is not plainly determined in the Scriptures And again in the Defence of the Principles of Love in the Epistle saith That he having had more invitation to study the Point throughly and to treat of it largly than most that are offended herein that they must give him leave to say that he knoweth it to be a very difficult Point Dr. Taylor Dr. Taylor Lib. Proph. p. 239 saith It is against the perpetual Analogy of Christ's Doctrine to baptize Infants for besides that Christ never gave any Precept to baptize them nor ever himself nor his Apostles that appears did baptize any of them All that either he or his Apostles said concerning it requires such previous dispositions to Baptism of which Infants are not capable and those are Faith and Repentance And not to instance in those innumerable places that require Faith before Baptism there needs no more but this one of our Blessed Saviour He that believes and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be condemned Plainly thus Faith and Baptism will bring a man to Heaven but if he hath no Faith Baptism shall do him no good so that if Baptism be necessary so is Faith much more for the want of Faith dawns absolutely it is not said so of the want of Baptism The necessity of Scripture Authority to warrant every Ordinance Thus you have it acknowledged by Adversaries themselves that there is neither Precept President or Example in Scripture for baptising of Infants And in the next place you have it
further owned That there is a necessity for Scripture-Authority to warrant every Ordinance and Practice in Divine Worship viz. Luther Luther upon Gal. 1.9 saith There ought no other Doctrine to be delivered or heard in the Church besides the pure Word of God that is the holy Scriptures let other Teachers and Hearers with their Doctrines be accursed Calvin Calvin Lib 4. Inst Cap. 8. Serm. 8. Let this be a firm Axiom saith he That nothing is to be accounted the Word and Will of God to which place should be given in the Church but that which is first contained in the Law and the Prophets and after in the Apostolical Writings Basil Basil in his Sermon de Fide saith That it would be an Argument of Infidelity and a most certain sign of pride if any man should reject things written and should introduce things not written Austin Austin himself saith Detrabe Verbum quid est Aqua nisi Aqua Take away the Word what is the Water but plâ—â—n Water If the Word of Institutiâ—â— be wanting what doth the Element of Water signifie Theophilact Theophil Lib. 2. Paschal It is saith he the part of a Diabolical Spirit to think any thing Divine without the Authority of the holy Scripâ—ures Tertul. Tertu Contra Hermog I do adore saith he the fulness of the Scripture Let Hermogines shew that it is written if it be not written Let him fear the wee destined to those who add or detract And Mr. Ball Mr. Ball. very excellently to to this purpose in his Answer to the New-England Elders p. 38 39. saying We must for every Ordinance look to the Institution and neither stretch it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it for he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure and it is our parts to learn of him both to whom how and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred in all which we must affirm nothing but what God hath taught us and as he hath taught us The sixth Article of the Churh of England The sixth Article of the Church of England saith very fully to this Point That the Holy Scriptures do contain all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required by any man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite and necessary to Salvation We shall conclude this Chapter with that notable Observation that Bellarmine makes in the Case upon the Anabaptists calling for plain Scripture-proof for the Baptising of Infants from them who so exactly require it from others and will not in any other case admit the omission thereof in his Book De Bapt. Lib. 1. Bellarm. c. 8. where he saith That though the Argument of the Anabaptists from defect of Command or Example have great force against the Lutherans forasmuch as they use that Principle every where viz. That the Rite which is not in Scripture having no Command or Example there is to be rejected Yet is it of no force against Catholicks who conclude that Apostolical Tradition is of no less Authority with us than the Scripture for the Apostl's speak with the same Spirit with which they did write But that this of baptising of Infants is an Apostolical Tradition we know whence we know the Apostolick Scripture to be the Apostolick Scripture viz. from the Testimonies of the Antient Church Objection The Objection that is usually brought under this Head is That there is no express Command or Example for Womens receiving the Lord's Supper yet who doubts of a good ground from consequential Scripture for their so doing Answer In Answer whereto you 'l find there is both Example and Command for the Practice viz. 1. From Example Acts 1.14 where we read that Mary and other Women were gathered together and that these Women together with the rest of the Disciples were all together in one place and continued stedfastly in the Apostl's Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers Chap. 2.42 44. it being expresly said That all that believed were together 2. It appears from command 1 Cor. 11.28 Let a man examine himself and so let him eat the Greek word signifieth a Man or a Woman the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word of the Common Gender as appears 1 Tim. 2.4 5. There is one Mediator betwixt God and Man and Woman there is the same word used Gal. 3.28 There is neither Male nor Femâ—le but ye are all one in Christ Let but as good proof appear for Infants Baptism and it shall suffice CHAP. II. Wherein by an Historical Account of Infants Baptism in its Rise and Establishment viz. when by whom and to what ends instituted it doth appear that there was no authentick Practice thereof for 300 nor any humane Aâ—thority enjoyning it till 400 years after Christ Together with an account also of its growth and how and by what lying Authorities it was with many superstitious Rites founded upon Apostolical Tradition with the impious and ridiculous fooleries added to it in every Age. FRom the learned Authorities before given we have gained thus much That as there was no Precept in Scripture for the baptizing of Infants so neither was there the least Practice to be found thereof in the Apostl's dayes as was so ingenuously before confessed by the Magdiburgenses Luther Calvin Erasmus Rogers c. Secondly That the approved Practice and known Custom of the Primitive Church was to baptize the Adult as all Ages acknowledge and only they at least for the first Ages as so fully attested by Eusebius Beatus Rhenanus Lud. Vives Bullinger Haimo the Neocaesarian Councel c. Thirdly That not only the Children of Pagans were as the Catachumens to be instructed and taught in the Faith in order to their Baptism but the Children of the Christians also as those famous Instances given from the Fourth Century by Field Naucler Daille Grotius Walafrid Strabo Taylor and others Fourthly The next thing we shall make appear is that as there was no Scripture-Authority to inforce it so there was no Humane-Authority to enjoyn it till above 400 years after Christ though to justifie that injunction Apostolical-Tradition to supply the want of Scripture-Institution was pretended whereof you have by the way this following account out of the three first Centuries CENT I. The first and most antient pretended Authority that hath been urged to prove Infants Baptism to be an Apostostolical Tradition The first pretended prooff for Apostolical Tradition is Dionisius the Areopagite is that of Dionysius the Areopagite Paul's Convert at Athens who flourished as is supposed about the 70th year of this Century Who as the Story tells us after his converse with Paul was sent by Clement Bishop of Rome to preach the Gospel in the West with Saturninus Lucianus Rusticus and others and that his Lot was
London going to a Dispute about Infants-Baptism told his friend He was going to hear a Miracle viz. Infants Baptism to be proved by Scripture And the Ground and Reason why they do so firmly own this Truth to the Protestants upon that subject is but the better to inforce and introduce their many other Traditions there being nothing else for that But whereas some object That Bellarmine and others do also bring Scripture for it Becan Becâ—n Lib. 1. c. 2. Sec. 24. answers That some things may be proved out of Scripture when the Churches sence is first heard about the Interpretation thereof for so he saith it is concerning Infants Baptism which is proved from John 3.5 Except a man be born of Water and the Spirit c. But the sense whereby to prove it it only manifest by Tradition And it is confirmed in the Canon Law and Schoolmen That Infants-Baptism was not reckoned perfect till the Bishop laid on hands which was called Confirmation viz. of the imperfect Baptism in Infancy and therefore saith Caistans Caistans secundum Jewel That an Infant wanting Instruction in the Faith hath not perfect Baptism Tom. prec p. 86. Dr. Field Dr. Field Lib. 4. P. 375. saith That Infants-Baptism is therefore called a Tradition because it is not expresly delivered in the Scriptures that the Apostles did baptise Infants or that they should do so The Oxford Divines Oxford Divines in a full Convocation Jan. 1647. say That without the consentaneous judgment and practice of the Universal Church they should be at a lâ—ss when they are called upon for proof in the point of Baptizing Infants Mr. Tombes Dr. Prideaux Dr. Pridâ— Controv. Theol. Sec. 392. Infants Baptism saith he rests upon no other Divine right than Episcopacy viz. Diocesan Episcopacy in use in these Nations Mr. Baxter Mr. Baxter in Defence of the Principles of Love p. 7. saith That the Anabaptists are Godly men that differ from us in a Point so difficult that many of the Papists and Prelatists have maintained That it is not determined in Scripture but dependeth upon the Tradition of the Church Though he saith he is of another mind himself To which many more might be added to prove to you That Apostolical Tradition for want of Scripture hath been urged as the principal and first ground of this Practice And not only for this but for all other Rites and Ceremonies as well those that have been already declared as Chrysme Exorcisme Consignation and innumerable more as those that have not yet been heard of or declared for as a late learned Author excellently observes That the Papists Dr. Owen in point of Tradition do herein very much exceed the Jews those old Tradition mongers who so made void the Law of God in their days by it For they tell us plainly that now their whole Oral Law is written and that they have no reserve of Authentick Traditions not yet declaâ—r'd But here the Romanists saith he fail us for although they have given us heaps upon heaps of their Traditions yet they plead that they have still an inexhaustible treasure of them laid up in their Church-stores â— breast of their Holy Father to be drawn forth at all times as occasion shall require And which Principle hath been the means of their Apostacy and is the great Engin whereby they are rendered incurable therein Dr. Owen his Proleg P. 67. Dr. Taylor D. Taylor P. 237. argues so fully and strenuously upon this point of Tradition that I cannot pass him by who saith Tradition by all means must supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical that Infants were baptized But at this saith he we are not much moved For we who rely upon the written Word of God as sufficient to establish all true Religion do not value the allegation of Tradition And however the world goes none of the Reformed Churches can pretend this Argument for this Opinion Because they who reject Tradition when it is against them must not pretend it in the least for them but if we allow the Topick to be good yet how will it be verified For so far as can yet appear it relies wholly upon the Testimony of Origen for from him Austin had it Now a Tradition Apostolical if it be not consigned with a fuller testimony than of one person whom all other Ages have condemned of many Errors and whos works saith Erasmus are so spurious that he that reads them is uncertain whether he read Origen or Ruffinus Therefore will obtain so little reputation amongst those who know that things have upon greater Authority been pretended to be received from the Apostles but falsly that it will be a great Argument that he is ridiculous and weak that shall be determined by so weak Probation in matters of so great concernment But besides that the Tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolical we have very good evidence from Antiquity That it was the Opinion of the Primitive Church That Infants ought not to be Baptized which saith he is clear in the Canon of the Council of Neocaesarca which he mentions at large in the original Greek Determining that none ought to be baptized without giving an account of their Faith and desiring the same That tie Traditons for Inf. Bapt. are fabulous Thus far Dr. Taylor In the next place we shall give you some account of the insufficiency and weakness if not the wickedness of those first Authorities that have been leaned upon to prove this Practice to be an Apostolical Tradition and which appearing fabulous all others depending upon the same necessarily fall to the ground whereof you have four or five of the principal of them and which may be useful to the Protestants whatever they are to the Papists viz. The first and earliest we meet with to prove Infants-Baptism to be an Apostolical Tradition is that of Dyonisius the Arâ—opagite mentioned already P. 109. quoted by Bellarmin Tom. 3. Lib. 8. Cassander in his Book de Bapt. and many other learned Papists for Authentick proof that Infants-Baptism was Apostolical out of his Ecclesiastical Hiâ—rarchy c. But that this was a piece of Forgery put upon the world may yet further more fully appear to you in that which followeth viz. This Dionysius the Areopagite living at Athens Dionysius Areopag who some will have to be Bishop of Corinth though Eusebius calls him Bishop of Athens for you must know according to Eusebius and Dorotheus all men of Name in the New Testament must be Bishops of some place or other and therefore they can tell you not only the Names of the seventy Disciples but what Bishopricks each did belong unto Now this Person being an Athenian must be supposed to be a learned Greek Philosopher and therefore upon none more fitly in this Age could be fathered all those Philosophical Tracts that are put upon him and amongst which you have two of
D. Tayler p. 240. speaking so much my mind and the truth herein saith he Whether Infants have Faith or no is a Question to be disputed by persons that care not how much they say and how little they prove First Personal and Actual Faith they have none for they have no acts of Understanding and besides how can any man know that they have since he never saw any sign of it neither was he told so by any that cold tell Secondly Some say they have Imputative but then so let the Sacrament be too that is if they have the Parents faith or the Churches then so let Baptism be imputed also by deriuation from them and as in their Mothers Womb and while they hang on their Mothers Breasts they live upon their Mothers Nourishment So they may upon the Baptism of their Parents or their Mother the Church For since Faith is necessary to the susception of Baptisme and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the matter up such as the Faith such must be the Sacrament for there is no proportion between an actual Sacrament and an imputative Faith this being in immediate and necessary order to that And whatsoever can be said to take off from the necessity of Actual Faith all that and much more may be said to excuse from the actual susception of Baptisme The first of these devices was that of Luther and his Scholars the second of Calvin and his and yet there is a third Device which the Church of Rome teaches and that is that Infants have habitual Faith but who told them so How can they prove it What Revelation or Reason teacheth any such thing Are they by this habit so much as disposed to an actual Belief without a new Master Can an Infant sent into a Mahumetan Province be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a Man than if he had not been baptized Are there any Acts precedent concomitant or consequent to this pretended Habit This strange Invention is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority But the Men are to be excused unless there were a better To which saith he this Consideration may be added That if Baptisme be necessary to the Salvation of Infants as the Fathers of old and the Church of Roms and England since upon whom is the imposition laid To whom is the Command given To the Parents or the Children Not to the Parents for then God hath put the Salvation of innocent Babes into the Power of others and Infants may be damned for their Fathers carelesness or malice It follows that it is not necessary at all to be done to them to whom it cannot be prescribed as a Law and in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably entrusted to others with the appendent necessity and if it be not necessary it is certain it is not reasonable and most certain it is no where in terms prescribed and therefore it is presumed that Baptism ought to be understood and administred according as other Precepts are with reference to the capacity of the subject and the reasonableness of the thing And again to this purpose p. 242. And if any Man runs for succour to that exploded Cresphugeton that Infants have Faith or any other inspired Habit of I know not what or how we desire no more advantage in the world than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason common Sense and all the Experience in the World The Argum. from federal Holiness examined 4. Argum. From Federal Holiness examined The other Scriptures we shall speak to are those that are supposed to hold cut a Covenant-Right to the Children of Believers and from whence Arguments are drawn for the Baptizing of them which are principally 1 Cor. 7.14 Gen. 17.7 compared Rom. 4.11 and Acts 2.39 From whence it is asserted That the Children of Believers being a holy Seed and in Covenant that to them therefore belong the Seals of the Covenant which we shall examine with care and circumspection so much stress being laid thereon And as previous to our Answer thereto shall in the fir place take notice that this way of arguing hath been the new way which since the Reformation hath been taken up to prove Infants-Baptism by Antiquity of the Argum. from Federal Holiness For when the unsoundness and rotteness of the antient ground of Infants-Baptisme appeared they being loath to part with the Tradition endeavoured to build it upon this new Foundation for when it was discovered that Infants might be saved without Baptism and that they were not damned if they died without it and that the Sacrament did not give Grace by the bare work done nor took not away Original Sin it was high time to lay a new Foundation for it or else it would have faln therefore is this new way of Covenant-Holiness found out upon which our Congregational-Men especially both in Old as well as New-England seem to go of which Zwinglius about 120 years since forasmuch as I can learn was the first Founder wherein he was singular from all that went before him And which he seems himself to owne in his Book of Baptisme Tom. 2. Fol. 57. Saying That all those who have from the Apostles times written of Baptism have not in a few things erred from the scope he having it seems found out a way freer from Error and Exception than all the Tracts of the Antients Having observed to you the Antiquity of this new Foundation we shall in the next place weigh and consider the Arguments themselves The First and chiefest is from 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your Children unclean The Arguments from Foederal-holiness examined 1 Cor. 7.4 but now are they holy From whence this Argument is raised That they who are holy with a Covenant-holiness may be baptized But the Infants of Believers are holy with a Covenant-holiness for it is said in the Text but now are they holy therefore they may be baptized In which Argument we have these two things asserted but not at all proved First that the holiness in the Text is a federal or Covenant holiness Secondly That Federal or Covenant holiness qualifies Infants for Baptism Both which are positively denied upon the following Grounds First Because the Holiness in the Text be it what it will whether Moral Federal or Matrimonial is neither here or elswhere assigned to be a ground of baptizing Children upon it being only the ground laid down in the Institution that can warrant the same The Female as well as the Male Children under the Law had all of them a Legal or Federal Holiness yet must none of them be Circumcised because God had not so ordained And for twenty Generations before the Law Circumcision was neither administred to Male or Female for the like Reason It being Gods Word only not our Reason or the Inventions or Persuasions of Learned Men that can warrant our practice in Gods
it is manifest that the Promise understood of Spiritual blessing pertaineth not to the Carnal Seed of Abraham but to the Spiritual as the Apostle himself saith Rom. 4. 9. Chap. For if you understand the Carnal Seed saith he then that Promise will belong to none of the Gentiles but to those alone who are begotten of Abraham and Isaac according to the Flesh Estius Ann. Gen. 17.7 Ainsworth on Gen. 12.7 Ainsw thy Seed That is all the Children of Promise the Elect who only are counted Abrahams Seed Rom. 9.7 8. And in Christ are Heirs by Promise as well the Gentileâ— as the Jews Dr. Owen Dr. Owen in his Book called the Doctrine of Saints perseverance in Chap. 4. arguing from the Covenant of Grace to prove the unchangableness of the love of God begins with Gen. 17.7 saying That the effectual dispensation of the Grace of the Covenant is peculiar tâ— them only who are the Children of Promise the Remnant of Abraham according to Election with all that in alâ— Nations were to be blessed by him and his Seed Jesus Christ Ishmael though Circumcised was to be put out and not to be Heir with Isaac and a little after he writes thus what blessing then was here made over to Abraham All the blessings saith he that from God are conveyed in and by his seed Jesus Christ iâ— whom both he and we are blessed are wrapped therein what they are the Apostle tells you Eph. 1.13 They are all Spiritual blessings if perseverance if the continuance of the love and favour of God towards us be a Spiritual blessing both Abraham and all his Spiritual Seed all faithfull ones throughout the world are blessed with it in Jesus Christ and if Gods continuing to be a God to them for ever will enforce this blessing being but the same thing in another expression it is here likewise asserted Amesius Amesius de Praedest Chap 8. Ser. 6. saith There are many of the Seed of Abraham to whom the word of Promise doth not belong as Ishmael and Ishmaelites But if so there be many of the Seed of Abraham to whom the word of Promise doth not belong Then the rejection of many Jews who are of the Seed of Abraham doth not make void the word of Promise From whence may we not safely conclude that if the natural Posterity of Abraham were not within the Covenant of Grace by vertue of the Promise Gen. 17.7 Then much less are our natural Posterity but the former is true Rom. 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12. so is the latter To which we might add divers others but let these suffice And from the contrary perswasion what dismal Consequences would arise The evil Consequences of the contrary For if God made his Covenant of Grace with the Posterity of Believers as this Doctrine asserts Then all the Posterity of Believers should certainly have Crace bestowed upon them for it is the Covenant of God which doth convey Grace Rom. 4.16 2 Cor â— 30. None missing of Grace from Goâ— faithfulness which Mr. Blake doth 〈◊〉 confidently affirm Mr. Bla. P. 6. saying Thâ— Christianity is hereditary that as tâ— Children of a Noble man is Noble tâ— Child of a Free man Free of a Turk Turk and of a Jew a Jew so the Chiâ— of a Christian is a Christian in contrâ—diction not only of Scripture whicâ— saith we are Children of wrath bâ— Nature but of all former and latter experience Then would Grace be a Birth Prâ—viledge and Regeneration as before tyed to Generation contrary to Jâ— 3.3 Jo. 1.12 13. Then must all the Posterity of Believers be saved without you will necessitate the Doctrine to be true thâ— men may fall from Grace Then must we tie up and confine thâ— Grace of Gods Covenant to the Children of Believers only and then whaâ— hope for the Children of unbelieverâ— contrary to the Experience of all Ageâ— For was not Grace extended to thâ— Gentiles who were not the Children oâ— Believers when the natural Brancheâ— the Children of believing Abraham were â—ut off Then is the Covenant of Grace it self overthrown concluding an Interest without faith Rom. 4.14 deriving a Tiâ—le by natural Generation And as to the other Scripture of the 2. Acts 38 39. Act. 2.38 answ urged as a Parallel to the other It is so indeed rightly understood but not at all in the sence supposed For first it is to be observed that the promise there made is the giving the Sperit called the promise of the Father prophecied of by Joel 2.28 and doth follow the receiving of Christ in the Gospel Eph. 1.13 Gal. 3.14 and the obeying his commands Acts 5.32 Therefore in the 38. Ver. Peter exhorts them to Repentance and faith in order to the receiving of it because the Promise is to them and their Children viz. to the Jews and to them that are afar off to the Gentiles also eâ—even as many of both as the Lord should call therefore the Promise is not made but upon condition of Calling and Faith and Baptisme Secondly It is remarkable that the Apostle doth first exhort to Repentance then to Baptisme shewing the order that Christ had directed to in the Commission neither is the Promisâ— mentioned as though of it self it gave right to Baptisme without Repentance but as a Motive why they should repent and be baptized that they mighâ— also as others had done before theâ— Eyes be made partakers of the Holâ— Spirit which the Prophets had foretold and Christ had promised where in Infants neither capable of Faith Repentance and Calling are not concerned in the Text and by Childrâ—â— spoken of are no other meant then thâ— posterily of the Jews for who know not that they are so called and that mâ— Child is my Child though 40. or 50 years old upon which Text Dr. Hamond in his Resolution concerning Infaâ—â— Baptisme Dr. Ham Sect. 81. hath to this purpose In the next place saith he 〈◊〉 attempted the disproving of all Arguments brought in defence of Pedobaptisâ— from Peters words Acts 2.39 Tâ— which saith the Dr. I answer That 〈◊〉 any have made use of that unconcludeâ—â— Argument I have nothing to say in defence of them I think the practise is founded upon better Basis then so and the word Children there is really the posterity of the Jews and not particularly their Infant Children And Dr. Talor upon this Scripture Dr. Tal. Page 233. saith That the words mentioned in St. Peters Sermon which are the only Records of the Promise are interpreted upon a weak mistake The Promise belongs to you and your Children therefore Infants are actually receptive of it in that capacity that is the Argument but the Reason of it is not yet discovered nor ever will for to you and your Children is to you and your Posterity to you and your Children when they are of the same capacity in which you are receptive of the Promise But he that whenever the word
you would attend to the proper signification of the word Baptisme signifies plunging in Water or dipping with washing Mr. Joseph Mede in his Diatribe on Titus 3.2 saith M. Mede That there was no such thing as Sprinkling or Rantisme used in Baptisme in the Apostles dayes nor many ages after them I might add many more Dr. Ham but shall conclude with that observable Remark that Dr. Hammond gives us hereon in his Annotations viz. upon Jo. 13.10 Telling us That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an Immersion or wasâ—ing the whole Body and which answereth to the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for dipping in the Old Testament And therefore upon Mat. 3.1 tells us That John Baptized in a River viz. Jordan Mark 1.5 in a confluenâ—â— of much Wuter as Aenon Joh. 3.23 Because it is added there was much Water upon which account he saith That as the Greeks called the Lakes where they used to wash 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the Ancients called their Baptisterioâ—s or the Vessels containing their Baptismâ— Water Columbethras viz. swmiming 〈◊〉 diving places being made very large witâ— partitions for Men and Women And upon Mark 7.4 tells us That the Washing or Baptizing of Cups Vessels Bedâ— c. was no other then a putting them iâ— to the Water all over rinsing them I have carefully examined all the places in the Old Testament where the word Dipping or Baptizing is meâ—tioned and do find it is expressed by the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mincaeus and Dr. Hamond observes and which always signifies to dip the word rendred washing being by another word as the following Scriptures will inform you Gen. 37.31 Exod. 12.22 Lev. 4.6 17.14.6.16.51 Lev. 9 9. Deut. 33.24 Joh. 3.5 Num. 16.18 2 King 5.14 which are all the places I can find the word used in in the Old Testament The word generally used for washing in the Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies such a washing as taketh away filth from persons or things by swilling rinsing or rubbing as Buxtorfius and Leigh and which answereth to all the three words for washing that we meet with in the Greek viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a washing of the Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hands and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clothes as Stephens saith in his Thesaurus which word you find in very many places in the Old Testament as Exod. 30.19 20. Exod. 25. Lev. 14.8 9.16.24 c. which signification and sence of the word is emphatically confirmed to us by the several Metaphors used by the Holy Spirit in Scripture in allusion hereto viz. for Persons to be plunged into great sufferings they are said to be Baptized therein Mark 10.38 And so for persons that were indued with great measures of the Spirit they are said to be Baptized therewith Acts. 1.5 The Children of Israel being incompassed with the Cloud over their Head and the divided Sea on both sides were said to be Baptized in the Cloud and Sea 1 Cor 10. And Baptized persons are said to be deâ—d and buried in allusion to putting men into the Earth and covering them therewith none of which can hold good by sprinkling 2. From the Scripture practice Secondly It appears to be so from the practice and usage we find hereof in Scripture and the opinion of the learned upon it First in the Story of Christs Baptisme we read Mat. 3.5 Mat. 3.5 That Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be Baptized of him and Ver. 16. And when he was Baptized he went up straight way out of the Water C jetan The learned Cajetan upon the place saith Christ ascended out of the Water therefore Christ was Baptized by John not by sprinkling or by pouring Water upon him but by Immersion that is by dipping or plunging in the Water A second Scripture considerable is that of Joh 3.23 John 3.23 And John was Baptizing in Aenon near Salim and the Reason why he pitcht upon this place is given because there was much Water there Piscator Piscator upon the place sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies many Rivers as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Singular number signifies the River of Jordan this saith he is mentioned to signifie the Ceremony of Baptisme which John used in dipping or plunging the whole Body of Man standing in the River whence saith Christ being Baptized by John in Jordan is said to ascend out of the Water Calvin Calvin upon these words saith That from this place you may gather that John and Christ administred Baptisme by plunging the whole body into the Water A Third Scripture worthy our notice Acts 2.36 is Acts 8.36 38. As they went on their way they came unto a certain Water and the Eunuch said see here is Water and they went both down into the Water both Philip and the Eunuch and he Baptized him and when they were come up out of the Water upon which place Calvin Calvin saith We see what fashion the Ancients had to administer Baptisme for they plunged the whole Body into the Water The use is now saith he that the Minister casts a few drops of Water only upon the Body or upon the Head A Fourth Scripture we shall mention is Rom 6.4 Rom. 6.4 Buried with him in Baptisme where the Apostle elegantly alludes to the Ceremony of Baptizing in our death and Resurrection with Christ Cajetan Cajetan upon the place saith Thus we are Buried with him by Baptisme into death By our Burying he declares our Death from the Ceremony of Baptisme because he who is Baptized is put under the Water and by this carries a similitude of him that is Buried who is put under the Earth Now because none are Buried but dead men from this very thing that we are Buried in Baptisme we are assimulated to Christ buried or when he was Buried Tilenus Tilenus in his disputation P. 886 889 890. A learned Protestant Writer gives a most remarkable Testimony in the Case Baptisme saith he iâ— the first Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ in which with a most Pat and Exact Analogy between the Sign and the thing signified those that are in Covenant are by the Minister washed in Water The outward Rite in Baptisme is Three old 1. Immersion into the Water 2. Abiding under the Water 3. Resurrection out of the Water The form of Baptisme viz. Internal and Essential is no other then the Analogical proportion which the signs keep with the things signified thereby For the properties of the Water in washing away the defilements of the Body do in a most suitable similitude set forth the efficacy of Christs Blood in blotting out of sins so dipping into the Water doth in a most lively similitude set forth the mortification of the old man and rising out of the Water the Vivication of the new The same plunging into the Water holds forth to
Rom. 6 4. Therefore we are buryed with him by Baptisme into Death proving from thence That Dipping or plunging was the proper Ceremony and Rite in the Ordinance and how naturally Arguments did arise from that Sign in Baptisme to inforce Holiness and Mortification the thing signified thereby Object But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you so much stand upon signifies if not to sprinkle yet not only to dip and overwhelme but also to wash as Mark 7.4 The washing of Hands Cups Pots Vessels Beds and Tables which we hope you will grant may be done without dipping or plunging in Water Answ That Baptisme in a sence is washing I no ways doubt for you cannot dip a thing but you may be said to wash it therefore in allusion hereto 't is said Acts 22. Arise and be bapzed and wash away thy sins and Tit. 3. The washing of Regeneration and Heb. 10. Bodies washed with pure VVater And so in dipping of Clothes they wash them And so here by dipping of unclean Hands Pots Cups Vessels and Beds for Tables are not there the word being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as in your Margent signifies a Bed but never a Table as a Learned Critick observes they are also washed Object But Hands Cups Vessels and Beds may be washed though not dipt Answ It is true they may though not from this Scripture the word being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for though all dipping is washing yet all washing is not dipping in a proper sence for Water sprinkled or poured upon a thing may be so called in an improper sence though it is a very unusual thing so to deal with unclean Hands Beds or Vessels And I presume you will account her but a Slut and give her no thanks for her pains that having unclean Hands Vessels Beds or Clothes to wash doth only sprinkle or pour a little water upon them as though that would serve the turn and doth not our familiar experience tell us that to dip our dirty hands in Water rinsing them is the most effectual way to wash them and that sprinkling or pouring a little water will not do the business Therefore are we to take washing here in this 7. Mark 4. to be dipping in a proper sence as the word imports and as most agreeable to known Custom and Use for neither the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wash nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sprinkle are ever taken to dip or baptize nor is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simply taken for washing by pouring or sprinkling that I can find The divers washings mentioned Heb. 9.10 may well be explained from Lev. 1.9 13. 6.27 28. 15.6 Exod. 30.19 to be such as was done by baptizing in water not sprinkling with or pouring water upon And in the 2 Kings 5.10 the Prophet bids Naaman go and wash in Jordain seven times and accordingly Ver. 14. 't is said in obedience hereto and in explanation of that kind of washing the Prophet intended he went and Baptized himself seven times in Jordain Therefore for any to shun the proper true Genuine sence and build a practise upon an uncouth indirect unusual and at best an Allegorical sence is no other then as the Proverb is To leave the Kings High way and to take Hedge and Ditch And besides if you will follow the Allusion do you not wash all that is unclean whether of Hands Cup Vessel or Bed but the whole man is all unclean every Member and every Part therefore all and every Part ought to be washed and not the Head and Face only as you expect to have all your sins washed away and every Member cleansed by Faith in Christs Blood As well as in this Figure to represent that as every Member hath lived to sin should here also die be buried raised and quickned spiritually with Christ in firm assurance of Christs Resurrection and confident expectation of the whole mans being to be raised and glorified in the Resurrection of the Just And to which purpose we have Dr. Goodwin M. Good in his support of faith P. 54. very excellently viz. That the eminent thing signified and represented in Baptisme is not simply the blood of Christ as it washeth us from our sins but there is a farther representation therein of Christs Death Burial and Resurrection in the Baptized being first buried under water and then rising out of it and this is not in a bare conformity to Christ but in a representation of a Communion with Christ in that his Death and Resurrection Therefore it is said We are buried with him in Baptisme and whrein we are risen with him c. And moreover here it is that the answer of a good Conscience which is made the inward effect of this Ordinance of Baptisme 1 Pet. 3.21 Is there also attributed to Christs Resurrection as the thing signified and represented in Baptisme and as the cause of that answer of a good Conscience even Baptisme doth now also save us c. As for the Cavils of unseemliness and hazarding of health to the weak they are as the fruits of Carnal wisdom unbelief and shunning the Cross so no other then to reproach the wisdom of Christ that so ordained and himself so practised telling us that however the world may call it undecent that it is a comely thing therein to follow him in the fulfilling of Righteousâ—ess And as for that of unseemliness they that have or shall see the decency of the Practise will sufficiently vindicate it from such a Calumney and be able to convince Mr. Baxter or any other Cavilers of their unchristian slanders of that kind already touched And for hazard of Health to the Weak the Constant Known Experience doth amply refute that vain Imagination and Suggestion CHAP. V. Wherein you have an account of several Mischiefs Absurdities and Contradictions that are justly to be charged upon the Practise I. BY its altering Christs Order in the Commission Mat. 28.19 where in teaching Repentance and Faith are required always to precede or go before Baptisme which this makes to proceed or follow after altogether II. By its changing the Subjects of Christs appointment viz. Men and Women of Knowledge and Vnderstanding capable to Evidence Faith and Repentance for ignorant unconverted Babeâ— that know neither good nor evil their right hand from their left III. By frustrating all the Holy and Spiritual Ends of the Ordinance which you have before at large viz. to be a Sign of present Regeneration a dying burying and rising with Christ to be the answer of a good Conscience to be a mutual stipulation or contract then and there entred into betwixt God and the Party as well as a visible entrance into the Church all which as applyed to a poor Ignorant Infant are but mock-shews and utterly insignificant and invalid IV. By its inverting the Order and manner from dipping the whole Man into sprinkling or pouring a little Water
it thrive These worthy Confessors being found Overcomers by the Blood of the Lamb and word of their Testimony not loving their Lives unto the Death as it was experienced in the several Countries in the several Ages hereafter mentioned as at large is given you in P. Perrins Hist Viz. The Sufferings of the Waldenses Churches in Dauphine in the 12 13 14 and 15 Cent. Chap. 3. Their Sufferings in Piâ—dmont in the 14 15 16 Cent. ch 4. Their Sufferings in the Marquisate de Saluces 16 17 Cent. c. 5. Their Sufferings in the New Lands 16 Cent. c. 6. Their Sufferings in Calabria 14. and 16. Cent. c. 7. Their Sufferings in Province 12 13 14 15 16 Cent. c. 8. Their Sufferings in Bohemia 15 Cent. c. 9. Their Sufferings in Austria 14 and 15. Cent. c. 10. Their Sufferings in Germany 13 14 15. Cent. c. 11. Their Sufferings in England 12 13 Cent. c. 12. Their Sufferings in Flaunders 13 Cent. â— 13. Their Sufferings in Poland 12 14. Cent. Chap. 14. Their Sufferings in Paris 13 14. Cent. c. 15. Their Sufferings in Italy 13 14 15. Cent. Chap. 16. Their Sufferings in Dalmatia Croatia Sclavonia Constantinople Greece Philadelphia Digonicia Livonia Sarmatia Bulgaria in the 13. Cent. c. 17. Their Sufferings in Spain 13. C. c. 18. Their Sufferings by the cruel Wars managed against them by Pope Innocent the Third for eighteen Years together in conjunction with many Kings and Princes in the 13 Cent. together with other Wars carried on by other Popes and Kings of France and Spain in the 13 and 14 Cent. with the wonderful detriment that accrued also to the Enemy who lost somtimes an Hundred Thousand Men at a Siege you have largely set forth in Perrin's Hist of the Albigenses in 2 Books Their Sufferings at Merindal Cabriers by Fox p. 201. vol. 2. Their late Sufferings in our time by the Duke of Savoy in the Valleys of Piedmont 1655. is largely set forth by Sir Samuel Morland who was the Agent sent with the English Contribution Having thus finished the Historical Account of these Eminent Worthies I cannot but again remember you That this was the People that bore so great a witness for Believers and so firmly opposed Infants Baptism as by so many Arguments in the Seventh Chapter is made good to you A Postscript UPon the closing of my Papers Mr. Bunions Book in Answer to Mr. Pauls coming to hand called Differences about Baptisme no Far to Communion defending still That Churches may and ought to hold Fellowship with Unbaptised Persons I took my self concerned having briefly hinted to his former to give some short return to this also leaving his manifold Absurdities Contradictions unbrotherly Tauntings and Reflections Contemptions traducings the wisdome of Christ and his holy Appointments to be called to account by that hand that hath so well begun to reckon with him The little that I shall do herein is not to trace him in his Meanders or to answer his Reflections with Reflections but in a few things to discover how he hath darkned Counsel by words without Knowledg and whilst he pretends Brotherly love violates the very Law of Charity and under pretence of pleading for Truth introduceth hainous Error and fundamentally mistakes himself in both his Books Five of Six of which Fundamental Mistakes are here detected and which I conceive may be as full an Answer to both his Books as if Volumes wâ—re written thereto For according to the Maxime Frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per panciora In vain we do that by much which may be done by less which therefore take as followeth viz. Mr. Bunians Fundamental Mistakes 1. Asserts Principles without Scripture to warrant them First By asserting that for a Principle and Practice in the Worship of God that hath neither footing nor Foundation in the Word of God and for which neither Precept nor Example is produced to warrant it A Presumption then which as nothing can savour more of Ignorance and Folly Isai 8.20 Jer. 8.9 so nothing more dangerous and destructive to Religion it self as Mark 7.7 8 9. Secondly 2. Positively contradicts Scripture Precepts and Practice In so positively thwarting and contradicting not only the Wisdom and Authority of Christ in his Commission who enjoynes Baptisme to be the next thing after Faith and Conversion Matth. 28.19 But the constant Practice of the Saints in obedience to it As for instance Acts 2.41 it is said Then viz. immediatly they that gladly received his Word were baptised and the same Day added and so continued in Fellowship and breaking of Bread c. Where you have the direct Order kept 1. Teaching 2. Baptizing Then 3. Church Fellowship and Breaking of Bread which is the standing Directory to the Worlds end and not Teaching Church-Fellowship and then Bâ—ptisme after So Acts 22.16 Ananias exhorts Paul after his Confession to arise and be baptised with a Why tarriest thou Though he had eaten nothing of three dayes Acts 9.9 being a Duty that admits not of Delays It was not Arise and go and break Bread with the Church but Arise and be Baptised in the first place And therefore the Jailor Act. 16.33 must after his conversion straitway yea in that same hour of the night without further delay be baptised as a thing not to be neglected for a moment And so also Cornelius in Acts 10.47 though he was Baptized so eminently with the Spirit yet must forthwith be commanded to be baptized with Water a thing by no means to be deserred as Peters words imply who upon his seeing him so filled with the Spirit saith Can any man forbid Water that these should not be Baptised c. No sure no man of Knowledg or Conscience can do it or will admit of delayes therein And the reason hereof is plain Because this was the Listing Espousing Covenanting Ingrafting Implanting Ordinance Believers being expresly said hereby to be planted into Christ Gal. 3.27 and Baptised into Christ Rom. 6.3 And which Baptizing and Planting into Christ is no other but an Orderly entring into the Visible Church or Body of Christ as so fully exprest 1 Cor. 12.12 An Order faithfully to be observed as a Fundamental Practice Heb. 6.2 which must be kept Eph. 2.21 and duly regarded 1 Cor. 11.1 2. upon the severe penalties threatned Mat. 5.19 2 Joh. 9. Act. 3.22 23. And which lies so full and clear in the Scriptures that it hath obtained an universal Consent by most that have owned the Christian Religion and in any Form professed the same whether Papists Protestants Independants Baptists In so much that Mr. Baxter himself in his plain Scripture proof p. 126. saith That if any shall be so impudent as to say it is not the meaning of Christ that Baptizing should immediatly follow Discipling they are confuted by the constant Example of Scripture So that saith he I dare say this will be out of doubt with all rational considerate impartial Christians So
Infants makes not Gospel-Priviledges less then Legal To which I answer not at all for the Reasons following 1. Because they were not Circumcised because they were Children of Believers or Sealed with a new Covenant Seal as being in the new Covenant thereby as before proved but upon the account of a Birth-priviledge as being of the natural Linage and Seed of Abraham as a Typical shadowy thing all whose posterity were to he marked therewith to distinguish them from the Nations and to keep that Line clear from whence Christ according to the Flesh should come and to oblige them to keep the Law c. But no such thing in the Gospel the Body and Substance being come the Shadow was to vanish and pass away no common Father then but Christ and if Christs then Abrahams Seed and Heirs of Promise no Birth priviledge but the new Birth therefore to go back to the national Birth priviledge is so far from being a Priviledge that it iâ— a Bondage rather to return to the Type and Shadow the Antitype and Substance being come 2. Neither ought such a thing to be any more esteemed the loss of a Priviledge then our not enjoying literally a Holy Land City Temple a succession of a High Priest and a Priesthood by Generation or Lineal descent for yâ—u know their Children were Priests successively in their Generation a â—evite begat a Priest or Minister as well as the other Tribes begat Church-Members since all those Types are Spiritualised to us the Believers under the Gospel who are now the Holy Nation the Holy City and Temple the Royal Priesthood and all Church-Members by Regeneration not Generation Therefore we are so far from being loosers by the Bargain that as far as Christ exceeds Moses and Aaron the Gospel the Law the Antitype the Type the Spiritual Birth the Carnal the Extent of all Nations the Confines of Judea so far are we better and not worse Nor thirdly if it should be taken for granted that Circumcision was a Seal of the new Covenant belonging to all the Children of Israel then would not the Baptizing of the Children of Believers answer it Neither amount to so great a Priviledge noâ— be equivalent to it for these Reasons First there were all the Families and Tribes of Israel and all Prosâ—lyted strangers with their Children without distinction of good or bad to be Circumcised But here only one of a City or two of a Tribe for Believers are but thin sown and the Children of unbelievers and wicked men are to receive no such benefit in the judgment of so many And Secondly you â—ould be very short in another respect as being at an utter uncertainty when you had a right Subject for if the Parent was a Hypocrite or no Elect Person which is out of your reach to understand you cannot know whether the Child be fit for Baptisme for the Seed of a wicked man you must not meddle with by any means whereas there was not the least doubt or scruple in Israel as to the Subject for the Father being Circumcised it was an infallible mark they were right And Thirdly neither can the Child when he is grown up have any certain knowledge that such a Ceremony hath past upon him in Infancy he having no Infallible mark thereof whereas the Circumcised Infant had an indelible Character and mark in his flesh to assure him that he had received that Rite By all which demonstrations you may understand that we loose no Priviledge under the Gospel for not Baptizing our Infants though they were Circumcised under the â—aw CHAP. IV. Wherein is made manifest that the Ordained Ceremony of Baptisme is in this of Infants altered and changed and another Rite introduced quite contrary both to the signification of the Word nature of the Ordinance and manifest practice thereof not only in the Apostles time but many Ages after as confest by Parties themselves The Ceremony of Baptisme is by dipping THat the manner and Ceremony of Baptisme ought to be by dipping or plunging the whole Body under Water and not by sprinkling or pouring a little Water on the Face or Head as hath commonly been used especially since the Subjects have been changed from Men to Babes is thus made good viz. First First from the signification of the word from the proper and genuine signification of the word so well agreeing with the ends and use of Baptisme the Ceremony to the Substance Sign to the thing signified The word we call Baptisme and the Latins Baptismus is no other then the Greek word it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being so retained all along as Gomarus observes in the Latin Church and in plain English is nothing else but to dip plunge or cover all over The Truth whereof will more fully appear from our best Greek Lexicons and by the observation of our most eminent Criticks Scapula and Stephens Scapula Steph. two as great Masters of the Greek Tongue as we have any and also great defenders of Infants Baptisme do tell us in their Lexicons that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mâ—rgo imergo submergo obrue item tingo quod fit immergendo inficere imbuere viz. To dip plunge overwhelme put under cover over to die in Colour which is done by plunging Grotius Grotius tells us it signifies to dip over Head and Ears Pasor Pasor an Immersion Dipping or Submersion Vossius Vossius that it implyeth a washing the whole body Mincaus Mincaeus in his Dictionary That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Latin Baptismus in the Dutch Doopsel or Doopen â—nglish Baptisme or Baptime viz. to Dive or Ducâ— in Water and the same wâ—th the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dip Leigh Leigh in his Critica Sacra saith its native and proper signification is to dip into Water or to plunge under Water for which he Cites these Scriptures where so used viz. Mat. 3.6 Acts 8.38 And that it is taken from a Dyers Fat and imports a Dying or giving a fresh Colour and not a bare washing only Rev. 19.13 And for which he quotes Casaubon Bucan Bullinger Zanchy Spanhemius He saith withall That Beza and some others will have it signifie washing and which sence Erasmus opposed affirming that it was my otherwise so then by Consequence for the proper signification was such a dipping or plunging as Dyers use for Dying of Clothes Mr. Daniel Rogers in his Treatise of Sacraments 1. P. C. 8. P. 177. saith Mr. Dan. Rogers That the Minister is to dip in Water as the meetest Act the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes it for the Greeks wanted not other words to express any other Act besides dipping if the Institution could bear it What resemblance of the Burial or Resurrection of Christ is in sprinkling All Antiquity and Scripture saith he confirm that way Dr. Taylor in his Rule of Consc Lib. 3. Ch. 4. Dr. Tayl If