do not the thing you rantise and baptize none unless you dip them into the Water Chamier also faith the antient use of Baptism was to dip the whole Body into the Element therefore did John baptize in a River Dr. Hammond in his Annotations upon John 13. 10. saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an Immersion or washing the whole Body and which answereth to the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for dipping in the Old Testament and therefore tells us upon Mat. 3. that John baptized in a River viz. in Jordan Mark 1. 5. in a Confluence of Water John 3. 23. because 't is said there was much Water which the Greeks called the Lakes where they used to wash Also saith he the Antients called their Baptisterions or the Vessels containing their Baptismal Water Columbethras viz. swimming or diving places being very large with Partitions for Men and Women The Learned Mr. Pool or those Learned and Reverend Divines concerned in perfecting his most excellent Annotations on the holy Bible says a great part of those who went out to hear John were baptized that is dipped in Jordan on John 3. 6. and on Mat. 28. 20. say they the first Baptism of which we read in Holy Writ was dipping the Person baptized The Dutch Translation according to their Language reads it dipping Mat. 3. 16. Ende Jesus Gedoopt zijn de is terstont Opgeklomen vit hit wâ—er And when Jesus was dipp'd he came out of the Water And Ver. 6. Ende wierden van hemge doopt in de Jordan And were dipped of him in Jordan Hence they called John the Baptist John the Dipper In Verse 1. Ende in die dayen quam Jonnes de dooper predikenn in de woeffijue van Judea In English thus In those days came John the Dipper preaching in the Wilderness of Judea Had our Translators translated the Greek word into our English Tongue as the Dutch have done it into theirs it would have been read in our Bible John the Dipper and for baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. it would have been read dipping them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and then the People would not have been deceived but they have not translated the Greek word at all but left it in its Original Language What difference is there between Baptism and the Greek word Baptisma Mr. Ball in his Catechism doth not only say Faith was required of such who did desire Baptism but also that the Party baptized was washed by dipping c. But to close with this I argue thus viz. Since our Saviour sent his Disciples to teach and baptize or dip in the Name c. into all Nations viz. into cold Countries as well as hot and seeing Infants tender Bodies cannot bear dipping without palpable danger of their Lives it follows clearly that they are none of the Subjects Christ commanded to be dipp'd in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost To conclude with this take one Argument viz. If the proper literal and genuine Signification of the Greek word baptizo is dipping or to dip then sprinkling is not baptizing But the proper literal and genuine Signification of the Greek word baptizo is dipping or to dip Ergo Sprinkling is not Baptizing CHAP. IV. Proving Baptism is Dipping by the Practice of John Baptist Christ and his Apostles 2dly FRom the Practice of the Primitive Times I have already shewed that John Baptist baptized in the River Jordan who was the first that received Commission to baptize And Diodate on Mat. 3. says he plunged them in Water Piscator also saith the antient manner of baptizing was that the whole Body was dipp'd into the Water So saith the Assembly in their Annotations Nav say I it had been a vain and needless thing for them to go to Rivers to baptize if it had been only to sprinkle a little Water on the Face for a Quart of Water might have served to have rantized a great number And had Sprinkling or Rantizing been the Ordinance there is no Reason left to conceive why they should go to Rivers nor would the Spirit of God have given that as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water John 3. 23. But some strive to contradict the Holy Ghost by making People believe there was not much Water in that place Because the Original reads not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much Water but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Waters that is say they many Sâ—…ms or Rivolets Answer What difference is there between much VVater and many Waters If they were Streams and Rivolets tho not deep yet if they were but a little while stopped with a Dam they would soon rise to be deep enough to swim in as Experience shews But 't is enough there he baptized saith the Holy Spirit for there was much Water or many Waters there for or because intimating plainly that the Ordinance could not be administred with a little Water but that it required many Waters or much Water a great deal more than a Bason could hold or you hold in your Hand 2. But 't is objected Sandy's Travels tell us that they were so shallow as not to reach above the Ankles Answ 1. Must we believe God's Word or a lying Traveller the Scripture saith there was much Water or many Waters and he says there was but a little 2. In some shallow Rivolets we daily see that in some places the Water is deep and might it not be so in that and this Traveller might not so curiously search or examine the matter 3. Or might there not be a great Confluence of Water then as Dr. Hammond words it and yet but little or shallow Water now or when Sandys was there Time alters Rivers as well as other things But if any seek after this manner to contradict the sacred Text to defend their Childish Practice of Rantism they deserve greatly to be blamed Take this Argument If the Holy Ghost gives it as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water then a little Water will not serve to baptize in But the Holy Ghost gives this as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water Ergo a little Water will not serve to baptize in 2dly But to proceed Mark 1. 9. 't is said Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan Now saith a Learned Man on the place It had been Nonsense for St. Mark to say that Jesus was baptized in Jordan if he had been sprinkled because the Greek reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Jordan Could Jesus be said to be sprinkled into the River Jordan 't is proper to say he was dipped into Jordan and that is and was the Act and nothing else besure 3dly They went down both into the Water both Philip and the Eunuch Acts 8. What need had there been
i. e. dipping and the Text says they were baptized it follows they were dipped into the Water What you say about Ananias baptizing Paul and of Paul's baptizing the Jaylor proves nothing 't is meer stuff that deserves no Answer You say Paul was baptized in his Lodging when he was sick Answ It is not said he was sick nor that he was baptized in his Lodging read the Text again true 't is said after he was baptized he received Strength I have known multitudes of weak Persons baptized by dipping in frosty Weather in our cold Climate and never took any harm thereby We say Baptism is Dipping and among many other Reasons we argue it must needs be so administred because John the Baptist baptized in Jordan and in Enon near Salim because there was much Water there Mat. 3. 13. John 3. 23. You answer If some were baptized by dipping others were baptized by pouring Water on them as we proved say you before therefore both ways are lawful I answer 1. 'T is well our way of dipping is owned by you as lawful and a right way then do you and all others take heed how you speak against us who so administer the holy Ordinance of Baptism it appears we err not in so doing by your own Confesson 2. But whereas you say you have proved that some were in the Primitive Time baptized by pouring Water on them we have shewed your Proofs to be too short and invalid 3. The way of the Administration of Christ's sacred Ordinance was but one and the same in all the Churches of the Saints and if some were baptized by dipping and others by sprinkling or pouring Water upon them then the Ordinance must have different Significations which could not be answered on some Persons unless 〈◊〉 they were both dipped and sprinkled and had water poured upon them which is preposterous to imagine for such that were dipped or buried under the VVater were thereby made in Sign and Signification conformable to the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ which we have so fully proved to be one great End of Baptism that it cannot be denâ—ed and such who were only sprinkled they were taught thereby the sprinkling of Christ's Blood and of the Spirit as you would have the Ordinance to signify without any ground from God's VVord Now how unlikely it is that both these ways were used this being considered I shall leave to all wise and considerate Persons to think upon You say in the next place That the Scripture doth not say in any place when they were baptized they were dipped If say you those that are against sprinkling say that they gather so much by Consequence from the fore-cited Scriptures they ought to remember their rejecting Scriptural Consequences when they are used by us for proving Infant-Baptism c. Answ If I had not a Learned Man to deal with I should not marvel Sir Is not Baptisin a Greek VVord VVhat difference between Baptism and Baptisma Is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek and is it not in English to dip VVhat need of Consequences here Had our Translators truly translated that word they must have render'd it as the Dutch have as I mentioned before viz. Ende Jesus gedoopt zijnde is ter-stont opgeklomen vit hit wter and when Jesus was dipp'd he came out of the Water Mat. 3. 16. and ver 6. Ende wierden van hemge doopt in de Jordan And were dipped of him in Jordan Hence the Dutch call John the Baptist John the Dooper John the Dipper As to your Consequences we always deny that they are genuine or naturally drawn from those Scriptures to which you refer But whereas you say we have nothing for dipping which is of the Essence of Baptism as we do affirm it is but Consequences it is too bold an Assertion not being true as by this time my honest Country men may see if they are impartial Persons They think say you that John baptized by dipping because he baptized in Jordan they can never prove that was the Cause for the Scripture doth not say what was the occasion why he baptized in Jordon Answ Sir look into your Greek Testament once again and read Mark 1. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Jordan VVould it be proper to say he sprinkled them or poured VVater on them into Jordan It is proper to say he dipped them into Jordan and that is Baptism and nothing else as it refers to Christ's Ordinance viz. a washing by dipping or plunging into Jordan or into the VVater 2. Tho the Scripture doth not say in so many words that that was the occasion of John's baptizing into Jordan Yet Sir remember and tremble at that Text John 3. 23. for there it is by the Holy Ghost given as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water there plainly denoting that a little VVater will not serve to administer holy Baptism but so much as will cover or bury the whole Body You add It being very doubtful whether those People that came unto him were dipped or plunged for there went out unto him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the Regions round about Jordan and were baptized by him We cannot judg you say that he baptized less than an hundred thousand Men and Women c. there were you say much more People in those Countries but it being impossible for him to dip or plunge so many Men in so short time of his Ministry which continued but three Years and of these three Years he lay in Prison half a Year so that he did neither preach or baptize but for two Years and a half Vid. Lightf vol. I. p. 234. If he had baptized fifty every day on these two Years and a half which is not probable he could do the whole you say is but forty five thousand six hundred and twenty five but he baptized much more which could not be done by dipping or plunging therefore it is reasonable for us you say to judg that he sprinkled or poured Water on them c. Answ As to what you say here it seems very strange to me that you should once imagine that John baptized all the People universally in Jerusalem and Judea without Exception Why did not you put in all the Infants too as well as Men and Women I had lately to do with one Mr. Exel who asserted that in a Treatise of his which with Shame enough to him I gave an Answer unto I am sorry you have no better Skill in Scripture-Rhetorick where frequently per Synecdochen vel totius vel partis a part is put for the whole or the whole for the part as 't is said God would have all Men to be saved i. e. some of all sorts and degrees as Kings Noble-Men Old Young Rich Poor c. So 't is said Christ when he was lifted up he would draw all Men unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 12. 32. Doth
yet the grafting of a Person into Christ is represented by that Allusion or Metaphorical Expression Must the Sign and the Thing signified be all one and the same thing Thus we see in opposition to what you say in the close of your third Chapter that it is very plain and manifest that dipping is absolutely necessary and of the Essence of Baptism it 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alas Sir in all the New Testament where we read of sprinkling the Greek as I said before renders it rantizing not baptizing 〈◊〉 Christ has ordained Rantism to represent the sprinkling of his Blood or the sprinkling of his Spirit prove it we deny it and have sufficiently proved he has appointed Baptism to represent his Death Burial and Resurrection and that sprinkling is not baptizing But for a farther Satisfaction of the impartial Reader take a few Syllogistical Arguments Arg. 1. If Baptism was ordained to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ in a lively Figure then Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism But Baptism was ordained to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ in a lively Figure therefore Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism This Argument we have proved to be true in every part of it Arg. 2. If Baptism was appointed to hold forth or represent in a lively Figure the Person 's Death to Sin who is baptized or his present Regeneration not future and his rising again to walk in Newness of Life then Infants cannot be the Subjects thereof But Baptism was appointed to hold forth or represent in a lively Figure the Person 's Death to Sin who is baptized or his present Regeneration not future and his rising again to walk in Newness of Life Therefore Infants are not the Subjects thereof 4. There is yet one Proof further to make it yet clearer that Baptism is dipping or plunging and nothing else and that is taken from those Typical Baptisms spoken of in the holy Scripture 1. That of the Red Sea wherein the Fathers were buried as it were unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud See Pool's Annotations on the Place Others says he more properly think the Apostle uses this Term in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptism as it was used the Person going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea the great Receptable of Water tho the Water at that time was gathered on heaps on the other side of them yet they seemed buried in the Water as Persons seem'd buried in the Water were in that Age when they were baptized 2. The second Typical Baptism was that of Noah's Ark See Sir Norton Knatchbull whom I quoted before saith he Noah's Ark and Baptism were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection not a Sign of the washing away of Sin tho so taken metonymically but a particular Signal of the Resurrection of Christ Of this again saith he is Baptism a lively and emphatical Figure as also was the Ark of Noah out of which he returned as from a Sepulchre From hence I infer this Argument following Arg. 3. If those Typical Baptisms spoken of in the Scriptures signified Immersion or an Overwhelming or a Burial then is Sprinkling no true Baptism But those Typical Baptisms c. did signify Immersion or an Overwhelming or a Burial Therefore Sprinkling is no true Baptism Again that Baptism is dipping or plunging or a being buried in the Water appears by those Metaphorical Baptisms we read of which are twofold 1st The Baptism of the Holy Spirit 2dly The Baptism of Afflictions 1st Saith John the Baptist I indeed baptize you with Water but he shall baptize you with the holy Spirit and Fire Now 't is not the sanctifying Gifts of the Spirit which every Godly Person receives that is the Baptism of the Spirit but as the Learned observe the miraculous Effusions of the holy Spirit like that at Pentecost Acts 1. 4 5. shall be baptized The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Casaubon is to dip or plunge c. in which Sense saith he the Apostles might be truly said to have been baptized for the House in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost So that the Apostles might seem to have been plunged into it as in a large Fish-pond 'T is not a sprinkling of the Spirit that is the Baptism of the Spirit for so doubtless the Apostles had the Spirit before they were said to be baptized with it Oecumenius on Acts 2. saith A Wind filled the whole House that it seem'd like a Fish-pond because it was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost 2dly We read of the Baptism of Afflictions I have a Baptism to be baptized with and how am I straiâ—ned till it be accomplished From the literal Signification of the word baptizâ— immergo as I shewed before to plunge under overwhelm great Afflictions come to be called Baptism and signifies as Vossius shews not every light Affliction but like that of David Psal 32. 6. he drew me out of the deep Waters Hence great Afflictions are called Waves Thy Wazes and thy Billows are gone over me Psal 42. 7. 'T is spoken of Christ's Sufferings who was as it were drowned drenched or overwhelmed in Afflictions and Sufferings Every small Affliction is not the Baptism of Afflictions but great and deep Afflictions suffering even unto Blood and Death Pool's Annotations say to be baptized is to be dipped in Water metaphorically to be plunged in Afflictions I shall close this also with another Argument Arg. 4. If those Metaphorical Baptisms which we read of in God's Word as the Baptism of the Spirit and of Afflictions and Sufferings are taken from the literal and genuine Signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immergo which signifies to dip then sprinkling is not baptizing but the former is true Ergo sprinkling is not baptizing CHAP. V. Wherein Mr. Owen's Argument for Infant-Baptism taken from the Covenant God made with Abraham is examined and totally confuted SIR YOu in your fourth Chapter come to consider and enquire who are the proper Subjects of Baptism or who they are that ought to be baptiz'd And first you say that Baptism doth not belong to all Men but to the Faithful and their Seed He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. When the Eunuch ask'd Philip See here is Water what doth hinder me to be baptized He answered If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayst Acts 8. It is plain say you that Baptism belongeth to them that believe but say you how doth it appear that Baptism doth belong to the Seed of such that will appear you say 1. From God's Covenant 2. From Circumcision under the Law 3. From Christ's Command to baptize all Nations 4. Because they are holy 5. Because Christ blessed them 6. Because the Gentiles were ingrafted into the Privileges of the Jews 7.
tho we grant that many Doctrinal Truths may be drawn or inferred by Consequences from many Texts of Scripture See Reverend Mr. Greenhil on Ezek. chap. 11. Vol. 2. p. 412. VVhat is clearly held out unto us in the Gospel saith he let us consent in and walk answerably in what is dark and doubtful let us forbear each other and stay till God reveals more If we cannot unite in all let us unite in what is clear Things Fundamental are clearest laid down in the word they are expresly commanded or held forth in Scripture whether they are Matters of Faith or Practice they are not drawn out by remote Consequences and strength of Men's Parts but immediately from or in the VVord Thus Mr. Greenhill Now we all agree that Baptism tho it be not a Fundamental of Salvation yet 't is a Fundamental of Church-Constitution there can be no true right orderly Gospel-Church without Baptism Therefore it is necessary that this should be laid down plainly in the Word of God and so it is We must first be made Disciples and then be baptized Mat. 28. 19 20. John 4. 1. first believe and then be baptized Mark 16. 16. Repent and be baptized Acts 2. 37. If thou believest thou mayest Acts 8. 37. Can any Man forbid Water that these should not be baptized Acts 10. 47. When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of Grd and the Name of Jesus Christ they were baptized both Men and Women Acts 8. 12. So Acts 16. 30 31. Acts 18. 8. Rom. 6. 3 4. And as touching those Consequences that Mr. Owen and others draw from some Scriptures to prove Infants Baptism you will find in the ensuing Answer those Consequences do not arise naturally from those Texts but are only his own ungrounded Suppositions and mistaken Apprehensions Mr. Owen in his Epistle to the Courteous Welshmen saith The greatest part of the true Church judg that the Children of the Faithful have a right to Baptism because they are in the Covenant of God This Opinion is agreeable to the Scriptures as it appears saith he in this Book Reply What Covenant is it he means Our Children as such are in I know not they are not in the Covenant of Grace for if all the Children of the Faithful were in the Covenant of Grace they must be all saved This I have in this Treatise fully proved there is none can fall finally away that are in this Covenant Besides if they were in the Covenant of Grace why must they have Baptism administred to them from this foot of Account and not the Lord's Supper and all other Privileges of the Church 2. They are not in the Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham's Natural Seed as such or with the whole House of Israel for that was a Typical Covenant and is taken away Mr. Owen saith they are in the outward Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace Rep. Let him prove if he can that the Children of Believers have more Privileges by the outward Dispensation of the Gospel than the Children of Unbelievers have where the Gospel is preach'd Those who lived under the outward Dispensation of the Law who believed in Christ to come or were elected were in the Covenant of Grace and none but they only and so 't is now none but the Elect and such that believe are in the Covenant of Grace Will Mr. Owen seal all New Covenant-Blessings to all his Natural Seed whether elected or not elected since the inward and Spiritual Blessings of the said Covenant by his own words belong only to the Elect Mr. Owen bids you to seek for a meek and humble and self-denying Spirit Reply This Counsel is good therefore be not too confident you are in the Right your Teachers are but Men and God may for some Reasons best known to himself hide Believers Baptism at present from them He bids you also to beware of a distemper'd Zeal that is not after Knowledg it is saith he a Wild-Fire that wasteth Churches and Countries c. Reply Such I fear hath been that Zeal he and others have shewed for Infant-Baptism For it will appear I hope in this Treatise that his Zeal is not according to the knowledg of God's Word Despise not saith Mr. Owen thy Faithful Teachers obey them and submit to them for they watch for thy Soul Reply As you ought not to despise your Teachers but to submit to them in the Lord so you ought not to Idolize them nor follow them any farther than they follow Christ For you must know that Men tho Ministers are not your Rule of Faith and Practice but God's Word Moreover know that you must give an account of your selves to God others will not be suffered to speak for you at the Great Day He bids you look upon little Children as part of their Natural Parents and comprehended in the Promise made unto good Parents 1. Reply This he hath also asserted elsewhere in his Book which you will find answered in this 2. Strange Are Children part of their Parents so that when the Parents believe the Children believe and when the Parents obey God's Command the Children obey it also and when the Parents have a Promise of Pardon and Peace the Children have right to the same Promise What strange Doctrine in this Are not we and our Children distinct Persons Shall not a whole Believer be saved I profess I cannot well see that it can be so if any of our Children who are a part of us do perish for ever And doth it follow because in the Covenant of Peculiarity God made with the whole House of Israel the Parents and Children were comprehended therefore they must be all comprehended in the Covenant of Grace also and made Members of the Gospel-Church He cites Deut. 4. 37 40. And because be loved thy Fathers therefore he chose their Seed after them VVhat of this Mr. Owen can never prove that God hath chosen any one Nation both Parents and Children since that time to be a peculiar People in a Covenant-Relation with himself as he chose the Natural Seed of Abraham it was a Typical Church and figured forth the true Spiritual Seed or true Israel of God Therefore that Church-State ceased at the Death of Christ when the Partition-wall was broken down And the extent of the Promise now and Gospel 〈◊〉 â—…es only runs to Believers and to their Children 〈…〉 or who do believe whether Jews or Gentiles 〈…〉 and to no more Unde◠〈…〉 Mr. Owen the extent of God's Coveâ—…â—…ople his Covenant is with them and their 〈…〉 was the Covenant of Grace which God made 〈…〉 Gen. 3. 15. and 4. 25. And the Covenant 〈…〉 â—ade with Noah Gen. 9. 9. with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. 〈◊〉 Isaac Gen. 28. 4. and with Jacob Gen. 35. 12. And in the same manner was his Covenant with David and his Seed 2 Sam. 7. 12. and 22. 51. in this Eternal Covenant he rejoiced on his Death-Bed 2 Sam. 23. 5.
of such that are like to them Answ If by the Kingdom of God you mean the visible Church 't is utterly denied when you write again prove it that the visible Church under the Gospel is made up of Infants tho we deny not that the Gospel Church is made up of such who like little Infants are meek humble and harmless Persons in Malice all Believers should be as little Children CHAP. XI In Answer to Mr. James Owen's 9th Chapter and sixth Argument proving that Infants ought not to be baptized although the Gentiles were grafted into the true Olive when the Jews were broken off containing a true Exposition of Rom. 11. 15 16 c. ROM 11. 15 16 17. For if the first Fruit be holy the Lump is also holy and if the Root be holy so are the Branches And if some of the Branches be broken off and thou being a wild Olive Tree wert graffed in amongst them and with them partakest of the Root and Fatness of the Olive-Tree c. In this remarkable Scripture the Apostle you say sheweth 1. That the Jews while they were God's visible Church were a holy Nation not only the Parents but the Children also all the Branches were holy because the Root was holy the Root was Abraham and others of the Fathers Rom. 11. 28. Isa 51. 1 2. because they were in Abraham's Covenant the Parents and the Children were holy being separated a peculiar People unto God In this sense they were holy because the first Fruit even Abraham was holy the whole Lump also was holy Abraham believed and received God's Covenant to him and his Seed being the first Fruit of the Jews even as the first Fruits offered to the Lord Levit. 2. 3 9 10 17. so did the Faith of the first Parents sanctify 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 2. You say They that received the Gospel continued to be holy Branches upon the same holy Root they and their Seed were in Abraham's Covenant even as before nor one Branch was cut off neither small or great until they refused the Lord Jesus they that were broken off were cut off by reason of Unbelief Rom. 11. 20. Because of their Unbelief they were broken off therefore they that believed in Christ were not cut off and if they were not cut off then they were in Union with the Root as being Partakers of the Fatness of the Root as before they and their Children were Partakers of their old Privileges being holy Branches not broken off The Anti-pedo-baptists do cut off the Branches whom God never cut off viz. the Seed of the Faithful they lop off the fruitful Tree in the Vineyard and lay the Ax upon the Root and upon the Branches thereof in a presumptuous manner 3. You say the Jews refused the Grace of God in the Gospel God refused that Nation not only the Parents but the Children also God spared not the Natural Branches but hath broken them off Rom. 11. 17. not from the invisible Church of which the unbelieving were not Members None are Members of the invisible Church saving the Elect. God refused none of the Parents Rom. 11. 2. 2 Tim. 2. 9. God hath not cast away his People which he foreknew the Foundation of God standeth sure therefore they were cut off through Unbelief from being the visible Church of the which they and their Children were Members The Gentiles were graffed in their room Rom. 11. 17. they and their Children were broken off and the Gentiles and their Children shall be graffed in for they were received into the same Privileges which the Jews had the same Privileges belong unto them in the same Latitude for they were graffed into that Root from which the Jews were cut off c. Answ 1. I answer you had need be a good Expositor of a Metaphorical Place of Scripture that ground so great an Argument upon it we used to say Metaphors serve for Illustration but are not Argumentative they do not prove a Truth tho they may illustrate it therefore 't is strange you build an Institution an Ordinance nay a Sacrament as it is called upon a Metaphorical place of Scripture 2. Many things in Metaphorical and Parabolical Scripture run not parallel with that they are brought to illustrate therefore run not on all four as Divines observe 3. We will however examine your pretended Argument from this mysterious place of Scripture It was well if you had minded what St. Paul speaks in the 25th Verse For I would not Brethren that you should be ignorant of this great Mystery lest ye should be wise in your own Conceits c. But that you are ignorant of this mysterious Text and Matter contained in it I doubt not but to make appear and it is to be feared from thence you are wise in your own Apprehension But to proceed if all the Branches viz. the Children of the whole House of Israel were holy then the Children of the unbelieving Jews were holy also who were of that Lump you speak of and if so why do you argue from hence for the federal Holiness of the Children of Believers Sir under the Law there was a Federal and Typical Holiness but the Children of Godly Parents now or the whole Lump you say is holy by reason of the Covenant made with Abraham tho not spiritually holy yet federally holy because all that were in that external Covenant and Church-state of the Jews were holy If by Federal Holiness which was in the Jewish Church you mean no more than external Church-Membership not spiritual Holiness and spiritual Privileges then their Loss by being cut off is not so great as the Apostle intimates nor is the Fatness of Abraham's Covenant and true Olive so sweet as you elsewhere affirm nor is it so great a Blessing for the Gentiles to be graffed into such a Root or Olive-Tree that affords no better Oil. What signifies Federal External Holiness without true Spiritual Holiness it will do us nor our Children no more good than the same External Federal or Covenant Holiness did do to the wicked Jews and their Children under the Law no nor so much neither for they had by that external Covenant many Earthly or External Blessings as they were possessed by that Covenant of the Land of Canaan and Common-wealth of the Jews as a National Church which external Privileges believing nor unbelieving Gentiles and their Seed have not under the Gospel therefore that is not true which you affirm viz. The same Privileges belonging to the Gentiles and their Children in the same Latitude for they were graffed into the same Root Sir have we Gentiles a Worldly Sanctuary a holy external Temple a Land flowing with Milk and Honey a Political Government and Governours from among our selves as we are a Gospel-Church by God's
directly lie under his Promise and believing things which are matter of Practice which depends wholly upon Christ's mere positive Command we must have some Ground or Foundation from God's Word to believe 't is a Truth which you blame us for not believing and we declare that we see we have no Ground no Foundation to build our Faith nor Practice upon in the case of Infant Baptism and are we guilty of unbelief from hence what Divinity is this you preach and publish to the World you would have us act upon an implicite Faith or believe as the Church believes do you not talk like a Son of the Church of Rome 2. Find the Woman that had the Issue of Blood no Command no Example nor no Promise to believe Christ would â—…er Do you believe what you seem to affirm did the never see nor hear of any Person that Christ had cured sure you cannot imagine any such thing the could not have believed unless she had some good Ground did she not know the power of Christ was great if we had but heard of one Infant baptized by Christ or his Apostles upon the Faith of their Parents as we find some Children were healed by the Faith of their Parents we should not be such unbelievers as we now are about Infant Baptism You say the Woman of Canaan comes boldly with her Child unto Christ for to receive benefit though she was not invisible Covenant with God and Christ commended her Faith and received her Daughter her Faith breaks through all impediments Mar. 15. 22. 28. Her Faith was great who against Hope believed in Hope is not thy unbelief great who destroyest the foundation of Hope touching thy Children O question not the promise of God through unbelief but be strong in Faith giving Glory to God 1. Answ Must we boldly bring our Children to Baptism without any authority from Christ because the Woman of Canaan come bodily to him to have her Daughter healed of her Boldly Disease she had ground for her Faith but we have none for such a Practice 2. Do we destroy the foundation of our Hope about the State of our Infants because we dare not baptize them without a word from Christ or without Authority from him No Sir we have ground to hope our Children that Die are as happy as yours tho' never Baptised and that from Gods word Hath not Christ said Of such are the Kingdom of Heaven no doubt God hath comprehended Infants in his eternal electing Love that Die for whom he also gave his Son and in some secret way doth Sanctifie them or makes them meet for glory above and we have as much ground to hope that God will give Grace to those Children of ours that live as you have to hope he will give Grace to yours Doth your Baptism save your Infants Will you say with the Old Erroneous Fathers and Blind Papists that Baptism washes away Original Sin Your expressions look that way I am afraid of you Ought we not to believe say you for our Children that Christ will receive them Is he more unready to administer Spiritual Blessings than he was in administring Temporal Blessings to the Children of the Faithful Answ Let Christ receive whom he pleases He will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy And receive and Bless whom he will receive and Bless no doubt his Sovereign Grace is extended to many of the Children of the Faithful now as formerly but what of this because he healed some little Children in the days of his Flesh of their Bodily Distempers Will you therefore baptize them without any Authority received from him you may if you please as well argue thus viz. Jesus Christ Fed many little Children with Temporal Food when he Fed the multitude therefore they must come to the Lords Table and be fed with Spiritual Food Is this to argue like a Man of Wisdom and Learning 3. They are guilty you say of Pride thus you charge those that deny Infant Baptism The humble submitteth to every Revelation of the Will of God say you God hath left divers things obscure in the Scripture that we might search them and judge humbly of our Selves who know things only in part seeing through a Glass in a parable Is it not great pride that a simple Man should take upon him to teach God how to speak in his Word let the Lord speak his Mind clearer about Childrens Baptism or else we will note believe him say some is not this a proud reasoning of the Heart of Man The humble Heart searcheth the Scriptures and considereth the agreement of one Scripture with another believing the consistency of the Old Testament with the new and fearing every untrodden Path there be great Truths as secret Treasure in the field of the Scripture which the Humble searcheth and findeth but the Proud despiseth and comes short thereof Answ I answer Is it Pride in us not to believe that to be a truth that is no where revealed in Scripture or is it not folly in you to believe such a thing to be of God's appointment and yet upon the most diligent Search that can be made into God's Word nothing can be found therein to prove it so to be 2. Because some things that are matter of Faith I say again or some Truths of the Gospel do lie obscure and in dark parables in the sacred Scripture doth it follow that one of Christs great Gospel Institutions nay one of the great Sacraments as they are called doth lie so dark and obscure therein also this is strange Moses who gave out the Laws of the Old Testament from God as a Servant made every thing plain that is he shewed them plainly what the command and precept was so that he that run might read it and will any Man think that our Lord Jesus who was as faithful as a Son over his whole House would be less faithful and leave an Ordinance so dark and obscure that there is not any Precept nor Example in all the New Testament for any such thing did Christ ever give forth Gospel Precepts in dark Parables Wonder O Heavens 8. We say Infant Baptism is not layd down in the Scripture obscurely or darkly but do affirm in the holy fear of God that it is not at all to be found therein and it may appear to all that you cannot prove that it is if God never so darkly had declared it we would receive it but because he hath neither plainly nor obscurely revealed That 't is his Institution we do reject it and we shall not be charged with Pride in so doing 't is I fear too evident that you are left in this Case by the Lord to believe a lie and may be because you will not believe nor receive the plain Revelation of the baptism of Believers tho' no one Truth lies more clear and plain in God's Sacred Word 4. Is it pride in you because you will not own the Common-Prayer and
this Book Chap. 5. p. 41. Thirdly Baptism is Dipping according to the purport of those Typical Baptisms spoken of in the Scripture Authors that assert this Sir Norton Knatchbull see the quotations before cited upon this account in this Book p. 43. Pool's Annotations on 1 Cor. 10. 1 2 3. Thomas Aquinas as quoted by Dr. Du Veil cited here p. 35. Fourthly Baptism is Dipping of the whole Body in Water according to the purport of those Metaphorical Baptisms spoken of in the Scripture Authors that assert this mentioned in this Treatise Casaubon as quoted by Dr. Du Veil on Act. 1. 5. p. 10. cited in this Treatise p. 44. Oecumenius on Act. 2. cited here p. 44. Vossius Pool's Annotations on Matth. 20. 22. both cited in this Book p. 44. In Chapter 8. concerning Christ's Commission two Authors are mentioned p. 97 98. Mr. Perkins on Gal. Vol. 2. Chap. 3. p. 25. Mr. Baxter ' s Right of Baptism p. 149 150. In Chap. 9. p. 119 c. You have an account of the Authors who Assert that the Holiness mentioned 1 Cor. 7. 14. is Matrimonial Holiness Jerom. Chameri Sect. 50. Sic Ambrosius Thomas Anselmus Suarez Melancthon in his Commentary upon this place of Scripture viz. 1. Cor. 7. 14. Camerarius Musculus in his Comment on 1 Cor. 7. 14. Camera Erasmus upon the place viz. 1 Cor. 7. 14. THE TABLE OF THE CHIEF HEADS CHAP. I. REmarks on Mr. Owen's first Chapter sâ—ewing his abuse of the Text Heb. 9. 19 opening the proper Signification of the Greek word Baptizo Page 1. to 5 CHAP. II. Mr. Owen's Argument for the Continuation of Baptism turned against his Insant Baptism Page 5. to 9 CHAP. III. Proving Baptism is Immersion or Baptizing is Dipping from the proper signification of the Greek word Page 9. to 16 CHAP. IV. Proving Baptizing is Dipping from the Practice of John Baptist Christ and his Apostles Page 17. to 20 CHAP. V. Proving Baptizing is dipping the whole Body in Water from the signification of Baptism Page 20 to 44 CHAP. VI. Mr Owen's Argument for Infant Baptism from the Covenant God made with Abraham answered Page 45. to 79 CHAP. VII Mr. Owen's Arguments to prove Infant Baptism from Circumcision answered Page 80. to 96 CHAP. VIII Mr. Owen's Argument taken from Christ's Commission Matth. 28. 19 20. answered Page 96. to 108 CHAP. IX Proving the holiness spoken 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your children unclean but now they are holy is not Federal or Spiritual holiness but the holiness of Legitimative or Matrimonial holiness Page 109. to 125 CHAP. X. Opening the purport of that Text of Christ's Blessing little Children in answer to Mr. Owen's Argument taken from thence for Infant Baptism Page 125. to 134 CHAP. XI Opening the nature of that holiness Rom. 11. 16. If the root be holy so are the branches and Mr. Owen's Argument for Infant Baptism from thence answered Page 134. to 147 CHAP. XII In answer to Mr. Owen's 10th Chapter and his Argument that Children can partake of those things prefigured in Baptism Page 147. to 154 CHAP. XIII In answer to Mr. Owen's Arguments for Infant Baptism from those Tipical Baptisms under the Law or Old Testament Page 154. to 170 CHAP. XIV In answer to Mr. Owen's Argument for Infant Baptism from John Baptist's Baptizing all the people of the Jews as he asserteth Page 171. to 188 CHAP. XVI In answer to Mr. Owen's 13th Chap. concerning those whole housholds said to be Baptized in the New Testament P. 189. to 213 CHAP. XVII In answer to Mr. Owen's 14th Chapter about the Baptism of Infants in the first Centuries after the Apostles proving no Infants Baptized in the two first Centuries Page 214. to 227 CHAP. XVIII Proving Infant Baptism no excellent way to Plant the Christian Religion in answer to Mr. Owen's 15th Chapter shewing it was only contrived to uphold National Churches and so a sinful practice Page 228. to 239 CHAP. XIX In which those Objections Mr. Owen mentioned against Infant Baptism as brought by us are considered with a Reply to his Answers Page 234. to 237 CHAP. XX. In answer to Mr. Owen's Slanders and Reproaches cast upon the Antipedobaptists proving Dipping Believers in Christ's name does not render us guilty of Murther and Adultery and Infant Baptism further proved a very sinful practice P. 238. to 262 CHAP. XXI Shewing that there is no Blessing to be expected in Infant Baptism with an answer to Mr. Burket and Mr. Daniel Williams in his Book called Vanity of Youth P. 263. to 276 CHAP. XXII In Answer to Mr. James Owen's 18th Chapter wherein he sheweth the Duty of Parents to their Children proving in opposition to what he says that Parents ought not to consecrate their Infants to the Lord by Baptism Page 276 to 280 CHAP. XXIII In answer to Mr. James Owen's 19th Chapter wherein he gives advice to Children with an answer to his Queries that he would have the Anti-pedobaptists to reply unto Page 280 to 293 CHAP. XXIV Containing some practical Use of the whole Treatise with seasonable Counsel to Parents Page 293 to 298 CHAP. XXV Containing several Queries for Mr. James Owen to answer Page 298 to 305 CHAP. XXVI Containing divers Arguments to disprove Pedo-baptism and to prove the Baptism of Believers which Mr. Owen is desired to answer when he writes again Page 305 to the end By reason this Treatise was printed at several Presses the Author could not attend them whereby many Faults have escaped and Mispointings which spoils the Sense ERRATA PAge 7. Line 27. add in all that live P. 12. l. 23. for of way read way of P. 13. l. 26. for pag. 5 6 7. read pag. 75 76 27. being Citations out of Dr. Du Veil P. 16. l. 5. for John read Matthew P. 34. l. 10. for and read but. P. 31. l. 3. for almost all read many P. 45. Chap. 5. read Chap. 6. P 46. l. 37. read his Natural Seed P. 48. l. 17. add as such i e. his Spiritual Seed as such P. 5. l. 2. blot out all P. 50. l. 20. for many read any P. 51. l. 9. and 15. for a Covenant read the Covenant P. 51. l. 11. read the Infant-Seed of believing Gentiles as such P. 51. l. 22. for a Covenant read the Covenant P. 51. l. 41. for 1st read 2d P. 52. l. 41. for a Covenant read the Covenant P. 53. l. 39. read Gospel-Church and Covenant and so l. 40. P. 54. l. 16. for a Covenant read the Covenant Note If in any other place you find a Covenant read the Covenant P. 56. l. 43 for Preservation read Perseverance P. 57. l. 28. blot out it was a sign of for pag. 56. read 59. P. 59. l. 9. for Land read Law P. 61. l. 3. blot out for P. 62. l. 37. blot out now P. 63. for this is read is this P. 65. l. 3. blot out all and for Churches read Church P. 67. l. 40. for and read but. P. 68. read
Because they can partake of that which is signified by Baptism 8. From the form of Baptism under the Law 9. Because John baptized Infants according to the Practice of the Jewish Church 10. Because the Apostles baptized whole Houses 11. Because the Christian Church baptized Infants in every Age. 12. Because 't is a vertuous means to plant the Christian Religion Sir I shall examine all your Grounds and answer each of your Argumenrs in order And first of all that of the Covenant with Abraham You argue thus viz. Abraham and his Seed were under the Covenant of Grace we the Gentiles are a Seed to Abraham and the Covenant of Grace belongeth as extensively unto us as it did to Abraham even to us and to our Children and if the Children of the Faithful are in the Covenant of Grace can any Man forbid them the Seal of the Covenant viz. Baptism Answ 1. I answer 't is well you cannot deny that Baptism belongs to the Faithful viz. to Believers we then are right who baptize such and if Faith both in order of Words and in order of Practice in the Apostolical Days preceded Baptism then none but Believers ought to be baptized but by your own Confession Faith both in order of Words and Practice in the Apostolical Days did precede Baptism 't is not he that is baptized and afterwards believes but contrary ways he that believeth and is baptized Faith is required as prerequisite to Baptism in all that Christ enjoins Baptism upon which Infants are not capable of 2. As to your first Argument for Believers Seed to be baptized from the Covenant made with Abraham I shall shew it is invalid and will do you no Service First Because there was a twofold Covenant made with Abraham one with his Natural Seed as such the other with his true Spiritual as such So that what you say that Abraham and his Seed were in the Covenant of Grace viz. his Spiritual Seed is not denied by us but that all his Natural were in the Covenant of Grace the Apostle denies and shews the contrary Rom. 9. 6 7 8. Now if I prove there were two Covenants made with Abraham what is become of all you have said in respect of this matter And that it is so let what followeth be considered 1. We affirm that the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham is not the same or one intire Covenant 2. We shall consider whether there be the same reason of Circumcision and of Baptism 1st We say there was a Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant made with Abraham and all Believers in him or all his true Spiritual Seed 2dly But the Covenant of Circumcision or that Covenant God made with his Natural Seed as such was a distinct Covenant from the Covenant of Grace these two Covenants were signified to Abraham by Sarah and Hagar as the Apostle shews in plain words Gal. 4. 24. Which things are an Allegory for these are the two Covenants c. And now fully and plainly to prove this great Truth viz. that there were two Covenants made with Abraham take this Argument Arg. If the Covenants take their Denomination from the Promises and the Promises are distinct viz. some Evangelical belonging to those that the Gospel belongs unto and others Domestick or Civil Promises especially and absolutely respecting the House and Natural Seed of Abraham and Policy of Israel then there were two Covenants made with Abraham but this is so Ergo c. To make it clear and prove it it is evident that that Promise was Evangelical belonging to the Gospel-Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. 5. I have made thee a Father of many Nations And so is that Promise Gen. 15. 5. So shall thy Seed be in which it is promised that there shall be of the Nations many or a great number that shall be Abraham's Spiritual Children by believing Rom. 4. 17 18. Also it was Evangelical which we find in Gen. 12. 3. And in thy Seed shall all the Kindreds of the Earth be blessed These 't is evident respect all Gospel-Believers who are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham See Gal. 3. 8. And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Heathen through Faith preached the Gospel to Abraham saying In thee shall All the Nations of the Earth be blessed And more directly to Christ who is the Seed of Abraham as Gal. 3. 16. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made He saith not And to Seeds as of many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ that is to Christ as the Head and Surety of the Covenant of Grace and so primarily and directly to him and then in him to all who are his according to that Gal. 3. 29. And if you be Christ's then are ye Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise See also Acts 2. 25. 2. Moreover that the Domestick and Civil Promises were many is plain As 1. Of multiplying the Seed of Abraham 2. The Birth of Isaac 3. Of the Continuation of the Covenant with Isaac 4. Of the coming of Christ out of Isaac 5. The Bondage of the Israelites in Egypt and their Deliverance out from thence and of their possessing the Land of Canaan Gen 15. 18. Gen. 17. 8. And I will give unto thee and to â—â—y Seed after thee the Land wherein thou art a Stranger 〈◊〉 the Land of Canaan for an everlasting Possession and I will be their God So Gen. 15. 18. In that same day God made a Covenant with Abraham saying Unto thy Seed have I given this Land from the River of Egypt unto the great River Eupâ—rates Can you be so ignorant as to affirm this Covenant-Contract made with Abraham was made with the Natural Seed of believing Gentiles Nay or that it was made to Abraham's Spiritual Seed Compare these Scriptures with Acts 7. 4 5 6 7 8. and thus it appears the Covenant made with Abraham is a mixt Covenant or a twofold Covenant one made with his Natural Seed the other with his Spiritual â—eed and this is fully signified by Sarah and Hagar the Free Woman and Bond Woman and their Sâ—ns Isaac and Ishmael Gal 4. 22. Secondly The Seed of Abraham is many ways so called 1. Christ is called the Seed of Abraham as I said before Gal. 3. 16. by way of Emmency as he is the Head and Surety of the Gospel-Covenant 2. All the Elect Rom. 9. 7. all Believers Rom. 4. 11 12 16 17 18. Gal 3. 29. If ye be in Christ then are ye Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise 3. There was a Natura Seed of Abraham to whom the Inheritance did accure this was Isaac Gen. 21. 22. 4. We read or another Natural Seed of Abraham to whom the Inheritance it is positively said did not belong as Ishmael and the Sons of Keturah Gen. 15. 5. But now can the Infant-Seed of Believers as such be said to be the Seed of Abraham in any of
was no Ordinance of God but a meer Human Tradition But the Custom â—…ng the Jews of baptizing the Heathen and their Children 〈◊〉 were admitted into their Church was never Commâ—… of God nor any where given unto them by Moses who was faithful in all his House Ergo That Custom was no Ordinance of God but a meer Human Tradition Lastly Take what a VVorthy and Learned Author hath said in Confutation of this foolish and absurd Argument for Pedo bâ—ptism 't is Sir Norton Knatchbul Kt. and Baronet The Thing saith he is uncertain that it cannot be said of the Râ—bbins that there were not several among them who differed very much about this matter for Rabbi Eliâ—zar expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first that I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews for Rabbi Eliezar who was Contemporary with Raâ—bi Joshua if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte Circumcised and not Baptized was a true Proselyte for so we read of the Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Jacob that they were Circumcised but not Baptized But Rabbi Joshua affirms that he who was Baptized not he that was Circumcised was a true Proselyte To whom shall I give Credit to Eliezar who asserts what the Scripture confirms or to Joshua who aâ—…ms what is no where to be found in Scripture But the Rabbins upheld Joshua's Side and what Wonder was it For it made for their Business that is for the Honour of the Jewish Religion that the Christians should borrow their Ceremonies from them But when I see Men of great Learning in these Times fetching the Foundations of Truth from the Rabbins I cannot but heâ—…ate a little For whence was the Talmud sent as they are the Words of Buxtors in his Synagoga Judaica that we should give Credit thereto that from thence we should believe that the Law of Moses either can or ought to be understood Much less the Gospel to which they were profess'd Enemies For the Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors and the Foundation of Jewish Fables it was brought to Perfection and held for authentick five hundred Years after Christ Therefore it is unreasonable to rest upon the Testimony of it And that which moves me most Josephus to omit all the Fathers that lived before the Talmud was finished who was a Jew and a Contemporary with Rabbi Eliezar who also wrote in particular of the Rites Customs and Acts of the Jews is altogether silent in this Matter So that it is an Argument to me next to a Demonstration that two such Eminent Persons both Jews and living at the same Time the one should positively deny and the other make no mention of Baptism among the Jews Besides if Baptism in the Modern Sense were in use among the Jews in Antient Times why did the Pharisees ask John Baptist Why dost thou baptize if thou art not Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet Do they not plainly intimate that Baptism was not in use before and that it was a received Opinion among them that there should be no Baptism till either Christ or Elias or that Prophet came So far Sir Norton Knatchbull in his Notes printed at Oxford Anno Dom. 1677. with the Licence of the Vice-Chancellor a very Learned Man and a Son of the Church of England Sir What think you now of your Jewish Custom of baptizing the Heathens and their Children who were admitted to their Church Do you think there was not need that Infant-Baptism should be mentioned in the Holy Scripture had it been a Truth Is this uncertain Story of the Jewish Custom sufficient for you to build your Faith and Practice upon when the Truth of the Story as to Matter of Fact may justly be doubted But if it was true it is but a rotten Foundation to build one of the great Sacraments of Christ upon viz. a vile profane and Human Tradition of the Jewish Rabbins You say The Israelites and their Children were baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea 1 Cor. 10. 2 3. That Israel going under the Cloud and through the Sea that was say you a Baptism unto them The Cloud rained upon them and the Sea dropped upon them which was as a High Wall round about them 2. This Baptism under the Cloud and in the Sea signifyeth in its Essence the same thing with the Baptism of the Gospel viz. the Lord Jesus Christ and his Blessings The Spiritual Washings in the Sea and the Spiritual Drink from the Rock signified the same thing even Christ he was the Substance of all the Types under the Law The Pillar of Cloud and the Pillar of Fire did foreshew the Baptism of Water and the Baptism of Fire or of the Holy Spirit the falling of the Water from the Cloud signified the pouring of the Holy Ghost c. 3. The Children were baptized with their Parents with the Baptism of Moses they were all baptized unto Moses c. Answer Two Things are to be done to disprove what you say here 1. That the Rain falling from the Cloud was not that which was the Figure of Baptism 2. That this Text doth not prove Infants to be the Subject of Baptism First If Persons may be said to be baptized when it rains upon them How many times have you and I been so baptized Besides Do you think it never rained upon the â—…ites before they passed through the Sea And Secondly Prove if you can it did then either rain upon them from the Cloud or that the Sea dropped upon them 't is but your own ungrounded Supposition Thirdly Prove that Rain falling upon them can in any Sense be called a Washing or Baptism Therefore let the Reader consider well what our Annotators speak on this Place see Mr. Pool's Annotations on 〈◊〉 Cor. 10. 2 3. Others saith he more probably think that the Apostle useth this Term in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptism as it was then used the Persons baptized going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea that great Receptacle of Water though 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 baptized Thus spake your Brethren who compleated Mr. Pool's Annotations They tell you in what Sense the Fathers were said to be baptized unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud Here is nothing of sprinkling pouring or raining on them but they were as it were buried in the Sea and under the Cloud and so it represents Immersion or Dipping which is Christ's true Baptism We are buried not sprinkled with Christ in Baptism both in the Sign and also in Signification to shew he was dead buried and rose again for us and that we are dead to Sin and ought to walk in Newness of Life But do not mistake the Fathers being said to be baptized to Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud was
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
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
Word from Corruption but not the Humane History of the Fathers 2. But should this Father and St. Austine and others that followed them be for Infant Baptism what will this avail the asserters of Infant Baptism seeing the Church was before their times so greatly corrupted and many grand Errors brought in the Tradition of God Fathers and God Mothers one of the Church of England hath lately shewed to be near as early in the Church as Infant baptism which Mr. Owen will not therefore receive to be an Apostolical Tradition 3. We readily grant that Infant baptism is of great Antiquity of more then Thirteen Hundred years standing so are many other abominable Errors Practices and corrupt Ceremonies but from the beginning it was not so viz. 't is not to be found in Holy Scripture it is none of Christs Institution therefore an Human Invention nor was it practised in the Two first hundred years after Christ as I shall now prove out of as good Authors as any Mr. Owen hath or can produce 1. 'T is said Justin Martyr was Converted about 30 years after the Apostle John and by the Order then used in the Church It appears there was no Infant baptism thought of Walafrid Strabo as I find him cited by a great Historian says that there was no Children but aged and understanding Persons Baptized in this Age that is to say in the Second Century Wal. Strabo Eccl. Hist cap. 26. Vicecom l. 1. c 30. Tertullian in his Book of Baptism speaking of that Text Suffer little Children to come unto me saith he Indeed the Lord said do not hinder them to come unto me Let them come therefore while they grow to Years and while come let them be Taught let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ Why doth Innocent Age hasten to the Remission of Sins Men will deal more warily in Worldly affairs So that they who are not trusted with an Earthly Inheritance are trusted with an Heavenly one Let them ask for Salvation that thou mayest appear to have given it to them Dr. Taylor saith that the Truth of the business is as there is no Command of Scripture to oblige Children to the susception of it so the necessity of Pedo-Baptism was not determined in the Church till the Canons that was made in the Milevitan Council a provincial in Africa never till then I grant saith he it was practised in Africa before that time and they or some of them thought well of it And though that is no argument for us to think so yet none of them ever pretended it to be necessary nor to have been a precept of the Gospel St. Austin was the first that ever preached it to be necessary and it was in his Heat and Anger against Pelagius Thus Dr. Taylor Ignatius in his Discourse about Baptism asserts that it ought to be accompanyed with Faith Love and Patience after Preaching H. Montanus p. 45. and Jacob Dubois p. 16. to 22. and Dutch Martyrology where Ignatius's Letters are mentioned to Polycarp Tralensis to them of Philadelphia Dr. Taylor saith in his Disswasive against Popery p. 118. printed 1667 one of his last pieces Thus viz. That there is a Tradition to baptize Infants relies but upon two Witnesses Origen and Austin and the latter having it from the former it lies upon a single Testimony which saith he is a pittiful argument to prove a Tradition Apostolical He is the first that spoke of it but Tertullian that was before him seems to speak against it which he would not have done if it had been an Apostolical Tradition and that it was not so is but too certain if there be any Truth in the Words of Ludovicus Vives who says that anciently none were baptized but Persons of ripe Age. Great Bazil in his Book of the Holy Spirit Cap. 12. saith Faith and Baptism are the two means of Salvation inseparably cleaving together for Faith is not perfected by Baptism but Baptism is founded by Faith and by the same Name both things are fulfilled for as we believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit so also we are baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit and indeed there goeth before a Confession leading us to Salvation but Baptism followeth sealing our Confession and Covenant The same Churches Teacher saith the learned Dr. Du-Veil in his Third Book against Eunomius speaketh thus viz. Baptism is the Seal of Faith Faith is the Confession of the Godhead it is necessary we should first Believe and then be sealed in Baptism Du veilon Acts c. 8. p. 278. Zonaras saith the Babe will then need Baptism when it can chuse it Gregory Nazianzen in his Fourth Oration saith Dr. Du-Veil Of those who dye without Baptism gives us an Instance in those to whom Baptism was not administred by reason of Infancy And the same Nazianzen though he was a Bishops Son being a long time bred up under his Fathers care was not saith the said Dr baptized till he came to Man's Age. In like manner saith he Basil the Great that was born of devout Parents and instructed from his Childhood was not baptized until a Man p. 280. Also saith he John of Antioch called afterwards Chrysostom was born of Christian Parents as the truer Opinion is tutored by the famous Bishop Miletius was not yet baptized till he was One and Twenty Years of Age. Hierom also Ambrose and Austin who were born of Christian Parents and consecrated to Christian Discipline even from their Childhood were not baptized before thirty years of age as Dr. Taylor Bishop of Down asserts in his Twelfth Section of the Life of Christ Now Sir here are Examples enough that do prove in the primitive times Children of baptized Believers were not baptized but had their Baptism delayed till they themselves believed and gave an account of their Faith Had it been the constant custom of the Godly to baptize Infants would not these think you have been in their Infancy baptized Grotius as I find him quoted by Dr. Du-Veil saith The Primitive Churches did not baptize Infants see Grotius's Notes on the Gospel Nay saith the same great and learned Author it doth most plainly appear by the right of baptizing in the Romish Church for baptism is to be asked before the Person to be baptized do enter into the Church which the surety does in the Infants Name a clear distinct confession of Faith is required which the same surety rehearseth in the Infants Name i. e. a Renouncing of the World its Pomps the Flesh and the Devil We may by this perceive from whence the Original of our old Church Catechism came But this is a clear Argument saith the Dr. to prove of old the Persons who were to be baptized themselves asked Baptism in their own Name and of their own choice and professed their own Faith In the Neo-Cesarean Council it was framed thus As to those who are big with Child they ought to be baptized
doth this and then 2. what external priviledges of the Church do your Infants as such receive that are as you say baptized you will not own them for Brethren and Sisters until they are Converted you will not give them the Lords Supper until they are converted they are not by the Lord's appointment brought under any Obligation by being baptized and then as few of your Children 't is plain become godly as of ours pray shew us when you write again what blessings or priviledges your Infants do receive by their Rantism or Baptism as you call it What uncharitableness is it then in us to deny our Infants that thing which you cannot prove if they had it would do them any manner of good Nay Sir I shall prove before I have done with you that it may do them much hurt 5. Those that are against Infant Baptism and for renewing of it you say are guilty of a great ingratitude towards God we know that ingratitude is a great Sin against the Lord Unthankfulness for Temporal blessings provokes him to Anger Rom. 1. 21. Luke 17. 17 18. how much more for Spiritual blessings and priviledges Is it not great ingratitude in us to despise our birth-right The Scripture puts a reproachful Character upon Esau c. Answ All this is to no purpose 't is but begging the Question viz. That Infant Baptism is God's Ordinance and a birthright priviledge which we utterly deny for tho' Baptism be a priviledge by Christs positive Command it only belonging to the Second Birth not to the First Thou art guilty of a great Sin say you by making a division in the Body of Jesus Christ there is one Body and one Baptism Eph. 4. 4 〈◊〉 And they cannot be divided whereas by denying of the first Baptism thou breakest the Unity of that Body to the which Christ is Head thou breakest thy self off from the Vine and witherest as an unfruitful Branch which will not be better although it be Watered again thou breakest thy self off not from this Congregation or another only but from the Universal Catholick Church in every Age and Countrey upon the Face of the Earth which is cleansed with the washing of Water through the Word Eph. 5. 26. and continuing in the Union of Baptism Canst thou think this to be a small sin for thee to rent thy self from the Body of Christ though stolen Water be sweet at this time and Bread eaten in secret be pleasant Know and see that it will be evil and bitter in the end for thee to cast thy self out of the Church of the Living God the Pillar and ground of Truth 1. Answ I answer untill I came hither in your Book I did not fully perceive your bitter Spirit O that God would appear and give you a better temper of Heart Who is uncharitable now if Charity be the Bond of perfectness How imperfect is my Brother Owen Must we all who deny Infant Baptism be Condemned as utter cast aways and not be lookt upon so much as Members of the Universal Church 'T is well it is not in your power to reprobate us and our Children 2. But stay a little are all that own Infant Baptism or have been baptized in every Age and Nation of the Earth the Body of Christ and Church of the living God Do you indeed own the Popish Church or is not the Church of Rome in your Judgment however part of the Body of Christ And are not you in Union with that Church and all Churches that own Infant Baptism in the World it followeth it must be so I think 't is time for you most Worthy Britains to have a Jealous Eye towards this Man for if he be not in actual Communion with the Church of Rome yet his principles lead him out so to be for he seems to own all the Churches to be the Body of Christ who were and are baptized in Infancy nay and that those Churches and none but them to make up the whole Mystical Universal Church of God He seems to reprobate all those Christians that deny Infant Baptism or are disjoyned from his Universal Catholick Church of baptized Infants I know his Reverend Brethren in London are Men of more Charity and abhor such positions as he now lays down I cannot think that his principles allow Salvation to any that are not in Union with the visible Universal Church that own Infant baptism 't is time to thrâ—w this Idol away 3. Is it a sin to divide from the Church of Rome or from the Church of England or not to continue of their Communion Are not you one that have separated your self from both and more immediately from the last But I suppose you own them both to be true Churches tho you have separated your self but if so how can you clear your self of abominable Schism for you have made a division in that Body which you declare is the Body of Christ and Church of the living God Can those things for which you have made this division justifie your Selâ—â—m Sir tho we believe there are many Holy and Gracious Christians of the Communion of the Church of England and that they are Members of the Invisible Universal Church yet we do not believe the Church of England nor any National Church is an orderly true Constituted Visible Church of Jesus Christ and therefore we separated from them but this it appears is not your belief 4. Your Judgment is it appears that no Person can be a Member of the Universal Catholick Church that was not baptized and so United to her in Infancy or Sprinkled when an Adult Person i. e. he must own Infant Baptism Sir I never met with a Man like your self as I can remember of less Charity and yet you cry our against us for want of Charity 5. I do affirm that that one Baptism that Unites to the Visible Church not to the Universal Church is the Baptism of Believers and not that of Infants And to prove it take this argument If that Baptism the Apostles administred and on which they received all Persons into the Visible Church was the Baptism of the Adult or that of Believers only then the baptism of the Adult or that of Believers only is that one and first Baptism but the baptism which the Apostles administred and on which they received all Persons into the Visible Church was the baptism of the Adult or that of Believers only Ergo The Baptism of the Adult or that of Believers is that one or only Baptism of Christs Visible Church for those Members of the visible Church in the Primitive times that were washed in Baptismal Water professed themselves washed also in Christs Blood and they that were sincere had the thing signified as well as the Sign when they were baptized but Infants never made any such profession therefore Infant Baptism was not the first and one Baptism that Christ left in his Church 6. It is true that those that deny
all are to perish with the using after the Commandments and Doctrines of Men Col. 2. 21 22. 2. You say before they had their re-baptization they we more Charitable in their Judgment but afterwards they are usuallâ— of a strict and narrow Judgment Judging hard and uncharitably of them that are not of their perswasion therefore this Opinion that quencheth Love is not of God 1 Cor. 13. I do not say of them all that their Love to the Brethren waxeth colder when they are baptized but of the greatest part of them the virtue of the Grace of God overcometh the vertue of this Opinion and keepeth them from falling into the same Temptation of uncharitableness with others 1. Answ None of us were ever re-baptized pray cease your hard and uncharitable Pen and Tongue 2. Our Charily is greater far then that Mans whose Opinion about Infant Baptism leads him to cast all out of the Holy Catholick Church who disown Infant Baptism and are baptized as Believers 3. We have so much Charity to all godly Christians that are pedo-baptists that we own them to be our Brethren and Members of the Mystical Body of Christ and have the like Love to them as to those who are of our own perswasion in the point of Baptism even to all where we see the Image of God 4. If any among us are too uncharitable yet assure your self it is not this Ordinance of Christ which they own that naturally leads them forth so to be but 't is from the corruption of their own hearts therefore you do very ill to Father it on their Opinion 5. But as to Communion at the Lord's Table we believe we are limited and bounded therein by the rule of God's Word and 't is not for want of Charity to your Churches we cannot have Church Communion with you` tho' all other Communion of Saints we can have with you but 't is because we would walk orderly as God directeth us in the Gospel and I should be sorry to hear any of my Brethren to be of another mind I am for Catholick Communion and Charity with all Saints tho' not for Church Communion with any that are unbaptized as I believe you all are that have only had Infants Rantism 3. There are others since their re-baptization say you go further and have fallen from one delusion into another some set up free will others denying the Christian Sabbath others against Catechizing of Children c. 1. Answ 'T is very uncharitable in you to reflect upon the whole party of Baptized Believers from the errours of some that are of our Opinion in respect of Baptism 2. You may see a Confession of our Faith and a late Narrative of the result of a General Assembly of Pastors Ministers and Messengers of 107 Churches in which we Testifie against free-will and do abhor that Notion and own the Christian Sabâ—… viz. the first day of the Week and vindicate the Catechising of Children have also published a Catechism to that end and do bewail the neglect of that great Duty where ever it is found to be neglected either among us or others 2. But are there no free-willers nor Baxterians among you whose principles are much the same if not something worse why then do you thus reflect on us Require plain Answers say you from them unto these Questions and cause them to prove all from the Holy Scriptures the God of all Grace settle you in the present Truth that ye might bring forth Fruits meet to your Baptism Thus you end your Book Answ You have had plain Answers unto all your Questions and many other Questions for you to Answer and we have proved all we say from the Scriptures from whence you will never prove your Practice of Infant Baptism whilst the World standeth And now the good Lord open your eyes and the eyes of your Sons and Daughters to see their Error and shew you the Ancient Footsteps of the Flock that you and they may feed besides the Shepherds Tents and increase Love and Charity among us all which is too much wanting O where is the power of godliness Many can spy the Mote in their Brothers Eye CHAP. XXIV Containing some brief practical use of the whole precedent Treatise with seasonable Counsel to Parents c. NOw Reader from what thou hast heard or read in this Treatise and answer to Mr. James Owen 1. I may infer that all those who have only been Sprinkled or Rantized who are afterwards Baptized when they Believed are not re-baptized as Mr. Owen doth affirm nor do they renounce their Baptism tho' they do renounce the practice and Human Tradition of Sprinkling of Infants or Adult Persons 2. We may also infer that 't is a hard thing to restore a lost Ordinance or to reform about a long standing Custom and Tradition of Men. 1. Do all you Pious Parents bless God for Christ and the Gospel and for all those priviledges he hath bestowed upon you and upon your Children who when they are grown up set under the precious and clear Preaching of Christ Crucified Be sure improve these blessings and take heed that you walk in all things according to the rule of God's Word and do not follow a Multitude to do evil tho' some of them are good Men. O tremble to do any thing in God's Worship without lawful authority from him I mean precept or example from his Word do not adventure to Baptize much less to Rantize your Children any more whatever Mr. Owen or any Man on Earth saith unless you can find it written in your Bibles God hath not commanded you to bring them into a baptismal Covenant in their Infancy nor made any promise of blessing to assist them in performing that Covenant if you do bring them into it of your own Head voiuntarily If you do and will do this thing notwithstanding you have no authority from God's Word to do it Pray consider what I have said in this Treatise about this devised and unwarrantable Covenant by which you may heap up much guilt upon your selves and lay such a Load and Burden upon your Children that you are not aware of Mr. Williams's frightnes them with the Sin of Perjury who violate this Covenant may not this tend to drive them into despair and God will never charge them with Perjury since he never commanded them to enter into any such Covenant Your Children who when grown up if wicked and ungodly have too much guilt both Original sin and Actual sin lying upon them there is little need to add to their Burden for their want of Light and by Reading of such Mens Books they may perhaps thus charge themselves Mr. Dan. Williams says 't is the damning sin no no the Damning sin is the breach of God's Law and particularly the sin of unbelief Nay and doth not his words Imply that when your Children are grown up and they by Light received from God's word should be couvinced they were never baptized
but as to the baptizing of Infants they can meet with no example in Scripture Magdeb. Cant. l. 2. page 469. Dr. Taylor saith It is against the perpetual Analogie of Christs 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 so all that either he or his Apostles said concerning it requires such previous dispositions of baptism of which Infants are not capable viz. Faith and Repentance Lib. proph page 239. Arg. 8. If whatsoever is necessary to Faith and practice is left in the Holy Scripture that being a compleat and perfect Rule and yet Infant Baptism is not contained or to be found therein then Infant Baptism is not of God but whatever is necessary to Faith and Practice is contained in the Holy Scriptures c. but Infant baptism is not to be found therein Ergo. That the Scripture is a perfect Rule c. we have the consent of all the Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines Athanasins saith The Holy Scriptures being Inspirations of God are sufficient to all Instructions of Truth Athan. against the Gentiles Crysostom saith All things be plain and clear in the Scripture and whatsoever are needful are manifest there Chrysost on 2 Thess and 2 Tim. 2. Basil saith That it would be an Argument of Infidelity and a most certain Sign of Pride if any Man should reject any thing written and should Introduce things not written Basil in his Sermon de fide Augustin saith In the Scriptures are found all things which contain Faith manner of Living Hope Love c. Let us saith he seek no farther then what is written of God our Saviour lâ—st a Man would know more that the Scriptures witness Augustin in his 198 Epistles to Fortunatus Theophilact saith It is part of a Diabolical Spirit to think any thing Divine without the Authority of the Holy Scripture Lib. 2. pasch Isychius saith Let us who will have any thing observed of God search no more but that which the Gospel doth give unto us Lib. 5. cap. 16. on Levit. Bellarmin saith That though the Arguments of the Anabaptists from the defect of Command or Example have a great use against the Lutherans for as much as they use that Rite every where and having no Command or Example theirs is to be rejected yet is it of no force against Catholicks who conclude that an Apostolical Tradition is of no less authority with us than the Scripture c. This of baptizing of Infants is an Apostolical Tradition Bell. Lib. de Bapt. 1. cap. 8. Mr. Ball saith We must for every Ordinance look for the Institution and never 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 pleasure and 't is our part to Learn of him both to whom how and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred Ball in his answer of the New-England Elders page 38 39. And as to the Minor 't is acknowledged by our Adversaries it is not to be found in the Letter of the Scripture And as to the Consequences drawn therefrom we have proved they are not Natural from the premises and tho' we will admit of Consequences and Inferences if Genuine yet not in the case of an Institution respecting a practical Ordinance that is of meer positive Right Arg. 9. If Infant Baptism was an Institution of Christ the Pedo-baptists could not be at a loss about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism but the Pedo-baptists are at a great loss and differ exceedingly about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism Ergo 'tis no Institution of Christ As touching the Major I argue thus that which is an Institution of Christ the Holy Scripture doth shew as well the end and ground of the Ordinance as the subject and manner of it but the Scripture speaks nothing of the end and ground of Pedo-baptism or for what reason they ought to be baptized Ergo It is no Institution of Christ The Minor is undeniable some affirm as we have already shew'd that it was to take away Original Sin others say it is theirs right by the Covenant they being the Seed of Believers others say Infants have Faith and therefore have a Right others say they have a Right by the Faith of their Surety Some ground their Right from Apostolical Tradition others upon the authority of Scripture Some say all Children of professed Christians ought to be baptized others say none but the Children of true believers have a Right to it sure if it was an Ordinance of Christ his word would soon end this Controversie Arg. 10. If the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the Natural nor Spiritual Seed of Abraham they can have no Right to Baptism or Church Membership by virtue of any Covenant Transaction God made with Abraham but the Children of Believing Parents as such are not the Natural nor Spiritual Seed of Abraham Ergo. Arg. 11. If no Man can prove from Scripture that any Spiritual benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism 't is no Ordinance of Christ But no Man can prove from Scripture that any spiritual benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism Ergo. Arg. 12. That cannot be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither Command nor Example in all God's Word nor promise to such who do it nor threatning to such who neglect it But there is no Command or Example in all the Word of God for the Baptizing of little Babes nor promise made to such who are Baptized nor threatnings to such who are not Ergo. That the Child lies under a Promise who is Baptized or the Child under any Threatning or Danger who is not Baptized let them prove it since it is denyed Arg. 13. If no Parents at any time or times have been by God the Father Jesus Christ or his Apostles either Commended for Baptizing their Children or Reproved for neglecting to Baptize them then Infant Baptism is no Ordinance of God But no Parents at any time or times have been by God Commended for baptizing of their Children nor reprov'd for neglecting to baptize them c. Ergo Infant Baptism is no Ordinance of God This Argument will stand unanswerable unless any can shew who they were that were ever Commended for Baptizing their Children or Reproved for neglecting it or unless they can shew a Parallel case Arg. 14. If Men were not to presume to alter any thing in the Worship of God under the Law neither to add thereto nor diminish therefrom and God is as strict and jealous of his Worship under the Gospel then nothing ought to be altered in God's Worship under the Gospel but under the Law Men were not to presume so to do and God is as strict and jealous under the Gospel Ergo. The Major cannot be denyed The Minor is clear from Exod. 25.
40. See thou make all things according to the Pattern shewed thee in the Mount and Lev. 10. 1 2. See how Nadab and Abihu sped for presuming to vary from the Command of God and Uzzah tho' but in small Circumstances as they may seem to us How dare Men adventure this being so to change Baptism from Dipping into Sprinkling and the Subject from an Adult Believer to an Ignorant Babe Add thou not unto his word c. Arg. 15. Whatever practice opens a Door to any Human Traditions in God's Worship is a great Evil and to be avoided But the practice of Infant Baptism opens a Door to any Human Traditions in God's Worship Ergo to Sprinkle or Baptize Infants is a great Evil and ought to be avoided The Major will not be denied The Minor is clear because there is no Scripture ground for it no Command or Example for such a Practice in God's Word and if without Scripture Authority the Church hath power to do one thing she may do another and so ad infinitum Arg. 16 Whatsoever practice reflects upon the Honour Wisdom and Care of Jesus Christ or renders him less faithful than Moses and the New Testament in one of its great Ordinances nay Sacraments to lie more obscure in God's Word than any Law or Precept under the Old Testament cannot be of God But the practice of Infant Baptism reflects on the Honour Care and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ and renders him less faithful than Moses and a great Ordinance nay Sacrament of the New Testament to lie more dark and obscure than any Precept under the Old Testament Ergo Infant Baptism cannot be of God The Major cannot be denyed The Minor is easily proved For he is bold indeed who shall affirm Infant Baptism doth not lie obscure in God's Word One great Party who assert it say it s not to be found in the Scripture at all but 't is an unwritten Apostolical Tradition Others say it lies not the Letter of the Scripture but may be proved by Consequences and yet some great asserters of it as Dr. Hammond and others say those Consequences commonly drawn from divers Texts for it are without demonstration and prove nothing I am sure a Man may Read the Scripture a Hundred times over and never be thereby convinced he ought to baptize his Children though it is powerful to convince Men of all Christian Duties Now can this be a Truth since Christ was more Faithful than Moses and delivered every thing plainly from the Father Moses left nothing dark as to matters of Duty tho' the Precept and Eternal Rites of his Law were numerous even two or three hundred Precepts yet none were at a loss or had need to say is this a Truth or an Ordinance or not for he that Runs may Read it And shall one positive precept given forth by Christ who appointed so few in the New Testament be so obscure as also the Ground and End of it that Men should be confounded about the Proofs of it together with the End and Grounds thereof See Heb. 3. 5 6. Arg. 17. That Custom or Law which Moses never delivered to the Jews nor is any where written in the Old Testament was no Truth of God or of Divine Authority But that Custom or Law to baptize Proselytes either Men Women or Children was never given to the Jews by Moses nor is it any where written in the Old Testament Ergo it was no Truth of God or of Divine Authority and evident it is according to that Forementioned and Worthy Author Sir Norton Knatchbal that the Jewish Rabbins differed among themselves about it for saith he to Cite his very words again Rabbi Eleaezer expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews for Eleazer who was contemporary with Rabbi Joshua if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte Circumcised and not Baptized was a true Proselyte Arg. 18. If Baptism is of Meer positive Right wholly depending on the Will and Sovereign Pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator and he hath not Requi red or Commanded Infants to be baptized then Infants ought not to be baptized but Baptism is of meer positive right wholly depending on the Will and Sovereign pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator and he hath not required or Commanded Infants to be baptized Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized This Argument tends to cut off all the pretended proofs of Pedo-baptism taken from the Covenant made with Abraham and because Children are said to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven it was not the Right of Abraham's Male Children to be Circumcised because they were begotten and born of the Fruit of his Loyns till he received Commandment from God to Circumcise them Had he done it before or without Command from God it would have been Will-worship in him to have done it Moreover this further appearâ— to be so because no godly Mans Children nor others in Abraham's days nor since had any Right thereto but only his Children or such who were bought with his Money or were proselyted to the Jewish Religion because they had no Command from God so to do as Abraham had This being true it follows that if we should grant Infants of believing Gentiles as such were the Seed of Abraham which we deny yet unless God had Commanded them to baptize their Children they ought not to do it and if they do it without a Command or Authority from Christ It will be found an Act of Will-worship in them Arg. 19. All that were baptized in the Apostolical Primitive times were baptized upon the profession of their Faith were baptized into Christ and thereby put on Christ and were all one in Christ Jesus and were Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the promise But Infants as such who are baptized were not baptized upon the profession of their Faith nor did they put on Christ thereby nor are they all one in Christ Jesus and also are not Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to Promise Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Mr. Baxter confirms the substance of the Major these are his words i. e. As many as have been baptized have put on Christ and are all one in Christ Jesus and are Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to the promise Gal. 3. 27 28 29. This speaks the Apostle saith he of the probability grounded on a credible profession c. Baxters Confirm Reconcil page 32. The Minor will stand firm till any can prove Infants by a visible profession have put on Christ are all one in Christ Jesus are Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to the promise Evident it is none are the spiritual Seed of Abraham but such who have the Faith of Abraham and are truly grafted into Christ by a saving Faith If any object we read of some who were baptized who had no saving Faith but were Hypocrites I answer had they appeared to be
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.