him in Jordan Hence they call John the Baptist John the Dipper In vers 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 Baptisma 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. Your Church also in the Common-Prayer saith Dipping into the Water is the proper as I conceive signification of the Word 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 were none of the Subjects Christ commanded to be dipt in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit 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. VIII Proving that to baptize is to dip or plunge the Body all over into the Water from the Practice of the Primitive Gospel-Days I Have 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 ancient manner of Baptizing was that the whole Body was dipp'd into the Water So saith the Assembly in their Annotations Nay 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 Aenon near Salim viz. because there was much Water John 3.23 But you strive to contradict the Holy Ghost by making People believe there was not much Water in that place p. 59. Because the Original reads not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much Water but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Waters that is say you many Streams or Rivolets Answ What difference is there between much Water and many Waters If they were Streams and Rivolets though not deep yet if they were but a little while stopp'd with a Dam they would soon rise to be deep enough to swin 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 be-because intimating plainly that the Ordinance could noâ— 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 say you Sandy's Travels tells us that they were so shallow as not to reach above the â—â—kles Answ 1. Must we believe God's Word or a lying Traveller the Scripture saith there was much 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 your 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 for your seeking after this manner to contradict the Sacred Text to defend your childish Practice of Rantism you 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 therefore a little Water will not serve to baptize in 2. 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 it 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 dipp'd into Jordan and that is and was the Act and nothing else be sure 3. They went down both into the 〈◊〉 both Philip and the Eunuch Acts 8. What 〈◊〉 had there been for them so to have done had Baptism been Sprinkling Sure Philâ—â— would not have put that Noble Person who was a Man of great Authority under Candace Queen of the Ethiopians to that great trouble to come out of his Chariot if to sprinkle a little Water on his Face might have done and to go down into the Water and dip him sure Philip would on this occasion have dispensed with Immersion and let Aspersion or Rantism have served considering he was a great Person and on a Journey he might have fetch'd a little Water in his Hand or otherwise and have sprinkled him in his Chariot as some Ministers do now in their publick Places of Worship And thus you and they make void the Command of Christ by your Traditions to the abuse of Christian-Baptism and reproach of us that keep to his Sacred Institution Mr. Daniel Rogers a most worthy Writer says in a Treatise of his It ought to be the Churches part to cleave to the Institution which is Dipping especially it being not left Arbitrary by our Church to the Discretion of the Minister but required to Dip or Dive And further saith That he betrays the Church whose Minister he is to a disorder'd Error if he cleave not to the Institution O what abundance of the Betrayers of the Truth and of Churches too have we in these as well as in former Days How little is the Institution of Christ or Practice of
beginning of the Practice of it you hereby contradict what you have said about those Jewish Baptisms which you say were long in use before our Saviour's time and from hence he spoke so little of Infant-Baptism if it were so how was this in the Infancy of Baptism 3. Then was the Ordinance in its Beauty and Primitive Purity indeed in its Virgin Glory and it was soon after the Apostles time corrupted as well as other Truths were We ought to go to the Original Copy to the Primitive or first Institution and Practice Is not Christ's Precept our only Rule and his own Practice our sure and certain Pattern VVere not the Saints to keep the Ordinances and commanded so to do as they were first delivered to them As to the Situation of the River Jordan is a Figment 't is not said he came up from the VVater but that he came up out of the Water therefore had been in it 4. As to what you say that John baptized in Aenon because there was much Water that the word signifies many Waters I have answered that already but take one word or two more here True the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies many Waters but not little Rivolets but rather the tumultuousness and raging of the Seas which fully signifies the abundance and confluence of Waters contrary to what you affirm See Rev. 14.2 where you have the same original words so Rev. 19.6 5. And lastly as to your Arguments against re-baptizing I pass them over you might have saved your self that Pains for we as I told you before are as much against re-baptizing as you can be or for any to renounce their true Baptism your Arguments therefore in that are good And now from the whole take two 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 Subiects 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 â—â—wness of Life therefore Infants are not the Subjects thereof 4. There is yet one Proof further to make it yet clearer that Baptism is Immersion 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 Sin wherein the Fathers were buâ—â—ed 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 Persons going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea the great Receptable 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 seemed 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 Knatchbul 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 though 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 5. And lastly That Baptism is Dipping or Plunging or a being buried in the Water appears by those metaphorical Baptisms we read of which are two-fold 1 st The Baptism of the Holy Spirit 2 dly The Baptism of Afflictions 1. Saith John 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 Effusion 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 seemed like a Fish-Pond because it was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost 2. We read of the Baptism of Afflictions I have a Baptism to be baptized with and how am I straitned till it be accomplished From the literal Signification of the word baptizo immergo 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 deep Waters Hence great Afflictions are called Waves Thy Waves 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 Signification of the Greek word baptizâ— which signifies to dip then Sprinkling is not baptizing but thâ— former is true Ergo Sprinkling is not baptizing CHAP. X. Containing some brief practical Vse of the whole with seasonable Counsel to Parents c. 1. FRom hence I infer that those who have only been sprinkled or
erroneous Principles into the World as must be own'd 〈◊〉 acknowledged by all There 's more cause to â—earâ—tis your practice of â—â—â—tizing of Infants might lead them to disown Water-Baptism because they can find no mention of any such Practice in the Scripture May not they be miâ—â—ed to deny any Water-Baptism at all since they see such a multitude to assert that to be Christ's Ordinance which the Scripture is â—holly silent about But to proceed in Pag. 2. you say The great Controversy between you and us liâ— in your second Proposition which is this viz. Prop. 2. That not only those who do actually prosess Faith in Jesus Christ but the Infants of such Professors may and ought to be baptized Answ Reader observe that Mr. Burkitt does grant that such who do actually profess Faith may nay ought to be baptized It appears he â—wns our practice of baptizing Adult Person who actually profess-Faith in Jesus Christ But he says more i. e. Not only such Persons may and ought to be baptized but the Infants of such who profess Faith also And to prove this hold Assertion he lays down this Hypothâ—tical Syllogisâ— viz. If the Infants of the Jews were partakers of Ciâ—cumcision the Infants of Christians may and ought to partake of Baptism But the Jewish Infants were partakers of Circâ—mcision therefore Christian Infants may and ought to partake of Baptism Answ Sir must we believe it is so because you speak and write it You give no proof of your 〈◊〉 Proposition which is utterly denied Might not I state another Argument as good as yours nay may be better yet both prove nothing I argue thus 1. If the Jewish Infants had Right to the Possession of the Land of Canaan the Infants of Christiâ—â—s have a Right to the Possession of the Land of Canaan But the former is true Ergo. And if this were so let us make another holy War aâ—d take possession of it for our Children 2. Take a second Argument of the like nature with yours viz. If all the Sons of the Priests of God under the Law had an undeniable Right to the Priesthood and many other external Priviledges then the Sons of the Ministers of Christ have a Right to the Ministry under the Gospel and many other external Priviledges But the former is true Ergo. Ob. Your Logick will do you no good if you Argue no better I must tell you that which gave the Male Infants of the Jews a Right to Circumcision was not their bare being the Infants of the Jews not because their Infants weâ—â— in that legâ—l Coveâ—ant with their Parents but rather the express and positive Command of God to Abraham for evident it is no Godly Marâ—â— Children before 〈◊〉 days had any Right to be Circumcised And had Abraham or the Jews Circumcised their 〈◊〉 Infants without such a Commission or Command from God â—hey had no doubt been guilty of Will-worship 〈◊〉 and in like mâ—nner If God 〈…〉 required Christians to 〈…〉 Infants 〈…〉 be no Precept nor Exampâ—e 〈…〉 the Holy Biblâ— it must 〈…〉 worship in them so to 〈◊〉 But God 〈…〉 or required Christians to Baptize their Infants there is no 〈◊〉 nor Example for any such Practice 〈◊〉 all the Holy Bible Ergo it is Willâ—worship in them so to do I shall proceed to your second 〈◊〉 viz. If Baptism suceeds in the room of Câ—rcuâ—cision then as the Jewish Infants were Circumcised so the Infants of Christians may and ought to be Baptized But Baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision therefore 〈◊〉 their Children were Circumcised 〈◊〉 so may 〈◊〉 be Baptized now Answ 1. I answer There is no necessity that a Gospel Ordinance must succeed in the 〈◊〉 of a Legal or Jewish Ordinance therefore I deny your Mâ—â—â—r What if 〈◊〉 that no Ordinance succeeds in the room of Circumcision Were there not many other Rites and Ordinances under the Law or Old Testament besides Circumcision And yet you cannot find or once imagine any Gospel-Rite or Ordinance to come in the room of them respectively for that then it would follow there would be as many Christian Riâ—es Precepts and Ordinances as there were Jewish Rites Precepts and Ordinances which as oâ—â— observes were more than three hundred 2. Besides as Dr. Taylor observes If Baptism came in the room of Circumcision you 〈◊〉 baptize your Children always on the eighth day and you must not baptize your Female Infants at all because none but Male Infants were then circumcised 3. And whereas you say Baptism signifies the same things that Circumcision did it is not true as will appear to all understanding Men if they consider these Particulars following which are so many Disparities viz. 1. Circumcision was a Shadow of Christ to come Baptism is a Sign he is already come was dead and buried 2. Circumcision was a Sign of the Covenant made with Abraham and his natural Seed Baptism is a Sign of the peculiar spiritual Priviledges made to Saints as such and no others 3. Circumcision was a Domestick Action i.e. to be done in the House Baptism an Ecclesiastick belonging to the Gospel-Church 4. Circumcision was to be done by the Parents in that respect Baptism is to be done only by Gospel-Ministers 5. Circumcision was the cutting off the Fore-skin of the Flesh which drew Blood Baptism is to be done by dipping the whole Body into the Water without drawing of any Blood 6. Circumcision belonged to Male Children only Baptism belongs to Males and Females also 7. Circumcision was to be done precisely on the eighth day Baptism is not limited to any precise day 8. Circumcision made a visible Impression on the Body which the Party might perceive when he came to Age of Understanding Baptism leaves no Impression on the Body 9. Circumcision belonged to Abraham's House to his Male Infants only or sucâ— who were bought with his Money and not the Male Infants of any other godly Men in his days unless they join themselves to his Family Baptism belongs to Believers in all Nationâ— 10. Circumcision bound those who came under that Rite to keep the whole Law of Moses Baptism signifies we are delivered from that Yoke of Bondage 11. If Circumcision signified the same things and consequently particularly the sealing the Covenant of Grace then those 〈◊〉 were circumcised needed not to be baptized because sealed before with the same seal of that which signified the same thing but Christ and all his Apostles and many others who were circumcised were nevertheless baptized 12. Circumcision signified the taking away the Sins of the Flesh or the Circumcision of the Heart but Baptism signifies the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ which Circumcision did not 13. Circumcision was to be a Partition-Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile but Baptism testifieth that Jew and Gentile Male and Female Barbarian and Scythian Bond and Frâ—e are all one in Christ Jesus Therefore there are invers Disparities and different Significations between Circumcision and Baptism â— And
Truth of Christ O how are we beholden to the Jewish Talmud and Jewish Rabbins for our Infant-Baptism Nay which is worst of all how is Christ beholden to them for that rare Invention that had said so much for it and made it so common a Practice among them that it saved him the Pains to give the least Directions about it But is not this next to Blasphemy Can any Man in his right Wits think our Lord Jesus should confirm a vile Tradition and Innovation of the Jews or take His great Ordinance and Sacrament of Baptism from the superstitious fabulous and erronious Custom of their Doctors and Rabbins Besides was Baptism to be preached or practised by none but the Jewish People doth it not belong to the Gentiles too Did not our Saviour command his Disciples to go into all Nations and make Disciples and baptize them c. Was it his Mind that Infants should be baptized and yet say nothing of it because it was a common Custom and Practice among the Jews But Sir what must the Gentiles do to know this to be their Duty I mean those Gentiles who received the Christian Faith viz. that they ought to baptize their Children who did not know nor ever heard of that Jewish Custom Or dare you say our New Testament is not authentick or sufficient to teach us the whole of Gospel-Duties and Obedience without the Jewish Talmud You should not 't is plain only have said the New Testament is not without the Old the Rule of our Practice but also that the New Testament and the Old without the Jewish Talmud is not sufficient and then you had done your business at once Are you not ashamed thus to go about to blind and deceive the poor People Is not the whole Mind of Jesus Christ even all his Laws and Precepts or his whole Counsel plainly contained in his blessed Word But would you have People be wise above what is written and teach Men to reflect upon the Care and Faithfulness of the blessed Jesus in leaving out of the sacred Bible one great Truth of God and leave us to find it out by going to search the Jewish Traditions 4. If it was a Custom among the Jews it must be a sacred Custom I mean a Custom that God appointed and commanded them to observe or else a human Tradition or vain Custom If it had been a Mosaical Rite given by God himself to the Jews Christ besure abolished it and nailed it to his Cross with all its fellows and 't is gone for ever since he hath not given it out a new Take this Argument That Custom among the Jews that God never commanded nor is any where given by Moses unto them who was faithful in all his House was no Ordinance of God but a meer human Tradition But the Custom among the Jews of baptizing the Heathen and their Children who were admitted into their Church was never commanded of God nor any where given unto them by Moses who was faithful in all his House Ergo That Custom was no Ordinance of God but a meer human Tradition 5. Lastly take what a worthy and learned Author of your own Communion hath said in Confutation of this foolish and absurd Argument for Pedo-baptism 't is Sir Norton Knatchbull Knight and Baronet The thing saith he is uncertain that it cannot be said of the Rabbins that there were not several among them who differed very much about this matter for Rabbi Eliezar expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first that I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews for Rabbi Eliezar who was contemporary with Rabbi Joshua if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte circumcised and not baptized was a true Proselyte for so we read of the Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Jacob that they were circumcised but not baptized But Rabbi Joshua affirms that he who was baptized not he that was circumcised was a true Proselyte To whom shall I give Credit to Eliezar who asserts what the Scripture confirms or to Joshua who affirms what is no where to be found in Scripture But the Rabbins upheld Joshuah's side and what wonder was it for it made for their business that is for the Honour of the Jewish Religion that the Christians should borrow their Ceremonies from them But when I see Men of great Learning in these times fetching the Foundations of Truth from the Rabbins I cannot but hesitate a little For whence was the Talmud sent us they are the words of Buxtorf in his Synagoga Judaica that we should give Credit thereto that from thence we should believe that the Law of Moses either can or ought to be understood much less the Gospel to which they were profess'd Enemies For the Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors and the Foundation of Jewish Fables it was brought to Perfection and held for authentick five hundred Years after Christ therefore it is unreasonable to rest upon the Testimony of it And that which moves me most Josephus to omit all the Fathers that lived before the Talmud was finished who was a Jew and contemporary with Rabbi Eliezar who also wrote in particular of the Rites Customs and Acts of the Jews is altogether silent in this matter So that it is an Argument to me next to a Demonstration that two such eminent Persons both Jews and living at the same time the one should positively deny and the other makes mention of Baptism among the Jews Besides if Baptism in the modern sense were in use among the Jews in ancient Times why did the Pharisees ask John Baptist Why doest thou baptize if thou art not Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet do they not plainly intimate that Baptism was not in use before and that it was a received Opinion among them that there should be no Baptism till either Christ or Elias or that Prophet came So far the renowned Sir Norton Knatchbull in his Notes printed at Oxford Anno Dom. 1677. with the License of the Vice-Chancellor a very learned Man and a Son of the Church of England Sir what think you now of your Jewish Custom of baptizing the Heathens and their Children who were admitted to their Church Do you think there is not need that Infant-Baptism should be mentioned in the holy Scripture had it been a Truth Is this uncertain Story of the Jewish Custom sufficient for you to build your Faith and Practice upon when the Truth of the Story as to matter of Fact may justly be doubted but if it was true it is but a rotten Foundation to build one of the great Sacraments of Christ upon viz. a vile profane and human Tradition of the Jewish Rabbins I have been the larger on this matter because the Men you mention as Dr. Hammond Taylor and Lightfoot some People have in such Veneration who were the Persons you need not doubt the learned Sir Norton confuted and also because your Brethren the Athenian Society
Natural Seed of Abraham and Policy of Israel Ergo 'T is a mix'd Covenant To make this clear 't is evident that that Promise was Evangelical belonging to those the Gospel belongeth to Gen. 17.5 I have made thee a Father of many Nations And so is that 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 unto 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 in Gal. 3.29 And if ye be Christ's then are you Abraham 's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise See also Acts 3.25 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 thy Seed after thee the Land wherein thou art a Stranger all 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 Abram saying Vnto thy Seed have I given this Land from the River of Egypt unto the great River Euphrates Can you be so ignorant as to affirm this Covenant and 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 two-fold Covenant one made with â—â—s Natural Seed the other with his Spiritual Seed And this is fully signified by Sarah and Hagar the Free-Woman and the Bond-Woman and their Sons Isaac and Ishmael Gal. 4.22 Secondly The Seed of Abraham iâ— many ways so called 1. Christ is called the Seed of Abraham as I said before Gal. 3.16 by way of Eminency 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 Natural Seed of Abraham to whom the Inheritance did accrue this was Isaac Gen. 21.22 4. We read of 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 these four respects add if you can a fifth 1. As the Promise refers to Christ so they cannot be included who is Abraham's Seed in a special manner to whom God promised he would be a God to and impart all Blessings of the Covenant unto according to that glorious Compact or Covenant of Redemption made between him and the Father before the World began upon the account of his blessed Undertakings as our Mediator and Surety that so he might impart all those purchased Blessings and Priviledges to all who believe in him or where given to him by the Father 2. As â—â—e Promise refers to the Elect Seed or such who have the Faith of Abraham and walk in his steps it cannot include the Infant-Seed of Believing Gentiles as such 3. As the Promise refers to Isaac who was Abraham's own natural Son according to the Flesh as well as according to the Promise they are not the Seed of Abraham 4. As Ishmael and the Sons of Keturah were the Seed of Abraham so the Infant-Seed of believing Gentiles are not the Seed of Abraham If you can add a fifth sort of Abraham's Seed I mean such who are so called from the Scripture pray do when you write again And from hence I thus argue If the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the Natural Seed nor the Spiritual Seed of Abraham then 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 Gentiles as such are not the Natural nor Spiritual Seed of Abraham Ergo they can have no right to Baptism nor Church-Membership by virtue of any Covenant-Transaction God made with Abraham Your Brethren called the Athenian Society in p. 2. of their Athenian Gazette affirm The Children of Believers are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham till they by Actual Sin unrepented of are otherwise 1. To which I answer Then some of the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham may perish eternally and the Promise is not sure to all his Spiritual Seed which is directly contrary to what St. Paul affirms in Rom. 4.16 Therefore it is of Faith that it might be by Grace to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed not to that only which is of the Law but to that also which is of the Faith of Abraham who is the Father of us all From whence I argue All they that are in that Gospel-Covenant which God made with Abraham or who are his true Spiritual Seed have the Promise of everlasting Life made sure to them But all the Infant-Seed of Believers as such have not the Promise of everlasting Life made sure to them Ergo The Infant-Seed of Believers as such are not in that Gospel-Covenant God made with Abraham nor his true Spiritual Seed Take another If all the true Spiritual-Seed of Abraham have the Faith of Abraham and walk in the Steps of Abraham even that Faith Abraham had before he was Circumcised then the Infant-Seed of Believers as such are not the Spiritual Seed of Abraham But the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham have the Faith of Abraham and walk in the Steps of Abraham even that Faith Abraham had before he was Circumcised Ergo The Infant-Seed of Believers as such are not the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham As to the Major see Rom. 4.11 12. The Minor cannot be denied no Man in his right Wits will affirm the Infants of Believers as such have the Faith
habitual Faith as well as the Infants of Believers Also may not Pagans especially those who may come where the Gospel is preached be potentially Believers and be baptized before they believe upon the same Argument 3. If they had the Habit of true Faith that Habit would appear afterwards and they would need no other Sacred Habits to be infused into them but we see in Infants baptized as you call it when grown up the Evil Habits of Sin but no Sacred Habits of Grace or Divine Faith or Seed of Regeneration sown into them at all What is in the Root will shew it self in the Branches and Fruit but we having fully answered this weak Assertion already shall say no more to it now You add That Infants born within the Bosom of the Church of believing Parents tho Faith of the Parents is to them at present instead of an outward Profession in their own Persons for say you though no Child is saveable by its Parents Faith yet the Child is baptizable by virtue of its Parents Faith because the Parent receives the Promise of God both for himself and his Seed Acts 2.39 1. I answer Let all Men judg of that Confusion which attends your Arguing and Arguments for Infant-Baptism One while the absolute Ground and Plea you bring to prove it is the Covenant made with Abraham Sir If that will do and be sufficient stand by it but alas you dare not trust the whole Structure on that crazy Foundation therefore now you go to the immediate Faith of the Parents and thus without any Ground or Authority from God's Word you build your childish Practice upon your own Dream Why not as your Church teaches upon the Faith and Profession of the Sureties why the Faith of the immediate Parents Those Texts you mention Acts 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 as we shall hereafter shew prove not what you here affirm nor any thing like it 2. If the Parents Faith will serve for the Child why not the Parents Baptism serve for the Child as well Take again what the Bishop of Down hath wrote on this Argument of yours Some say saith he Infants have an Imputative Faith but then so let the Sacraments be too that is if they have the Parents Faith or the Churches then so let Baptism be imputed also by derivation from them and as in their Mother's Breast they live upon their Mother's Nourishment so they may upon the Baptism of their Parents or their Mother the Church for since Faith is necessary to the susception of Baptism and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the Matter such as is the Faith such must be the Sacrament for there is no proportion between an actual Sacrament and an imputative Faith this being immediate and necessary in order to that ' Thus far Dr. Taylor 3. I wonder as I have formerly said what Faith 't is you suppose to be in Infants When will your Trumpet give a certain Sound Is it the Faith of the Church as Thomas Aquinas asserts which is intailed upon all who are within the Pale thereof or in her Bosom to use your words Or is it an imputative Faith from the Parents as Musculus you and others maintain Or is it the Faith of the Gossips or Sureties as your Church says i. e. others believe for them Wonder O Heavens and be astonished O Earth are these thy Teachers O England Have they a justifying Faith as Mr. Baxter intimates Or a dogmatical Faith only as in Mr. Blake's sense Some say 't is a Physical Faith some a Metaphysical and some a Hyperphysical Faith Some say they are born Believers others say they are made Believers by Baptism See what Confusion you Pedo-Baptists are in An actual Faith you dare not say they have because they have no Act of Understanding Besides how can any Man know they have Faith since he never saw any sign of it neither was he told it by any that could tell Object But then Pag. 19. you bring in our Objection Infants are not capable of Ministerial Teaching therefore not of Baptismal Washing because Teaching must go before Baptizing according to the order of the words in our Saviour's Commission Mat. 28.19 Go teach all Nations baptizing them c. Your Answer is That it is a mighty Weakness to infer from the order of the words the necessary order of things St. Matthew sets Teaching before Baptizing but St. Mark sets Baptizing before Teaching Mark 1.4 so that no conclusive Argument can be drawn from hence either way Answ I answer you discover a great Abuse of the sacred Scripture Sir doth St. Mark Chap. 1.4 set Baptizing before Teaching Pray good Reader observe the Text John did baptize in the Wilderness and teach the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins 1. Doth this Text in the order of words say John taught Persons to be baptized and then to repent if what you say were true so the order of words must have been and then he had indeed taught contrary to our Saviour's Doctrine in the Commission in order of words as recorded by St. Mat. 28.19 'T is called saith our Annotators the Baptism of Repentance because Repentance was the great thing he taught nay and taught Repentance absolutely necessary in all who came to be baptized by him The order of words are very conclusive here and must not be inverted without palpable danger of God's Displeasure John called upon all who came to his Baptism to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance and the order of words here do not contradict this for because Repentance was pre-requisite to Baptism it is called the Baptism of Repentance and so the order of the words if understood shews 〈◊〉 that Repentance went before baptizing which directly agrees with St. Mat. 28.19 Go teach all Nations baptizing them that is such who have been taught or discipled and this was according to Christ's own Practice Joh. 4.1 2. Jesus made and baptized more Disciples than John mark Reader they were all Disciples which John and our Saviour baptized Jesus made them first Disciples and so did John and then baptized them Had John Baptist our Saviour or his Apostles baptized one Infant or one Adult Person who made no Profession of Faith the order of words were not so conclusive and demonstrative but that they never did as we read of Where therefore the order of Words and order of Practice go together and exactly agree they ought not to be inverted and he that doth it is greatly culpable before God as I might shew in the Administration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper the order of words are Christ first took the Bread and brake it and then the Cup Would any dare to invert this order of words and first take the Cup c. they may as well attempt so to do as to put Baptizing before Teaching Take what Mr. Perkins hath said concerning the order of words in
hath laid down as an Everlasting Rule That unless a Man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.3 requiring Regeneration as an indispensable Condition in a Member of his Church a Subject of his Kingdom for his Temple is now built of living Stones 1 Pet. 2.5 Men spiritual and savingly quickned from their Death in Sin and by the Holy Ghost whereof they are Partakers made a meet Habitation for God Ephes 2.21 22. 1 Cor. 3.16 2 Cor. 6.16 which vital Supplies from Christ its Head encreaseth in Faith and Holiness edifying it self in Love And saith Dr. Taylor they that baptize Children make Baptism to be wholly an outward Duty a Work of the Law a carnal Ordinance it makes us adhere to the Letter without regard of the Spirit to be satisfied with Shadows to return to Bondage to relinquish the Mysteriousness the Substance and Spirituality of the Gospel which Argument is of so much the more consideration because under the Spiritual Covenant or Gospel of Grace if the Mystery goes not before the Symbol which it does when the Symbols are signations of Grace as the Sacraments are yet it always accompanies it but never follows in order of Time And this is clear in the perpetual Analogy of Holy Scripture The Lord open your Eyes Sir I am perswaded you speak as you believe But to proceed You come in pag. 26. to the Gospel-Church 1. From the Command of Christ 2. From the Practice of the Apostles 3. From the constant usage of the Primitive Church after the Apostles 1. That Infants were to be admitted into the Christian Church you say appears from our Saviour's express Command in the words of the Commission Mat. 28.19 Go disciple all Nations baptizing them that is go and proselyte all the Gentile Nations without distinction of Country Sex or Age whatsoever make the Gospel-Church as large as you can Answ 1. Who is so blind as he who is not willing to see It is evident to all Men who understand what they read that none are to be baptized by the virtue and plain meaning of our Saviour's Commission but such only who are first made Disciples as I have proved or as St. Mark renders it such who believed And that 't is so I have already proved 1. From the Practice of Christ John 4.1 he first made Disciples and then baptized them 2. From the Practice of the Apostles who always required Faith and Repentance of such they by virtue of their Commission did baptize as Acts 2.37 8.27 10.47 3. From the Nature of the Ordinance it self it being a sign of that inward Grace the Person baptized ought to have 4. From the Nature of the Gospel-Church it being only built up of living Stones and to be no larger than Christ appointed it But say you pag. 27. doubtless had our Saviour here intended the exclusion of Infants out of the Visible Church he would have acquainted her with this Alteration Christ being faithful to him that appointed him as was Moses in all his House Heb. 3.2 Answ I must retort it back upon you with much better Reason Doubtless say I had our Saviour intended the admission of Infants he would at this time have acquainted his Disciples and so us that it was his Will they should be received since as you well say he was so faithful and the rather because he commanded his Disciples to receive into his Church such who were taught or made Disciples When he commanded Abraham to circumcise his Male-Infants Abraham knew well enough he was not to circumcise his Females though he received no Negative Law in the case What is not commanded I say again is forbid especially in all Instituted Worship or else whither shall we run Thus your first Proof is gone having nothing in it 2. Baptizing Infants appears in the Christian Church you say from the Practice of the Apostles who baptized whole Families i. e. Lydia and her Houshold Acts 16.15 the Jaylor and all his c. Answ 1. If there were no Families or Housholds but in which there are some Infants you might have some pretence for what you infer from hence but how palpable is it that there are every where many whole Families in which there is no Infant or Child in Non-age and this being so what certain Conclusion or Consequence can be drawn from hence 2. Besides you know by a certain Figure called a Synecdoche a part is put for the whole as Isa 7.2 5 8 9. the Tribe of Ephraim is put for all Israel 'T is said All Jerusalem and Judea went out to be baptized by John in Jordan In 1 Sam. 1.21 22. the Text saith expresly The Man Elkanah and all his House went up to offer unto the Lord yet in the next Verse 't is as expresly said That Hannah and her Child Samuel went not up and yet 't is said all his House went up 3. As touching the Jaylor's House 't is positively said Paul preached to him and to all that were in his House do you think he preached to his Infants if he had any And to put the Matter out of doubt 't is said He rejoiced believing in God with all his House as well as 't is said He was baptized and all his 4. And as touching Lydia we still say 't is uncertain whether she was a Maid Widow or Wife but if she was married and had Children 't is very unlikely if Babes that they were at that time with her because she was far from her proper Dwelling nay many Miles from it for she was of the City Thyatira vers 14. but when Paul preached to her she was at Philippi where she was merchandizing being a seller of Purple Can we suppose she carried her little Babes so far to Market Besides those of her House were called Brethren who were baptized with her therefore sure Children cannot be here meant vers 40. Will you Sir build your practice of baptizing of little Babes from such uncertain Conclusions when 't is uncertain whether she had Children or no or if she had whether they were with her at that time or not Our denying of it is as good as your affirming it yet 't is plain she had Servants or some who are called her Houshold therefore that is impertinent you mention in p. 28. And thus it appears to all impartial Persons that there is nothing in your second Proof touching the Practice of the Gospel-Church here 's no mention made of one Infant baptized nor the least Colour of Reason to conclude there were in those Families But you in the next place put us upon searching the Scripture to prove a Negative i. e. that there were none baptized in Infancy you might as well bid us search and see if we can find there were not one Infant who broke Bread or were not ordained an Elder or Pastor of a Church How can we prove they did not make use of Honey
new Device the Nails being a sort of Excrement they might say signified the taking away the Filth of Sin or Corruption of Nature better than the great Mysteries signified by Baptism or Dipping can be represented by Sprinkling or Pouring Furthermore they might possibly plead the same Pretences you do viz. the cutting off the Foreskin of the Flesh put the Infants to great Pain nay may be they might fancy it would cost them their Lives nay call it Murder and therefore let pairing off their Nails serve as you it seems fear Dipping would endanger the Lives of Infants and therefore make Sprinkling to serve instead thereof But to proceed 2. I am in a-maze to see these Men speak so fully and clearly to this glorious Truth i. e. that the great thing Christ ordained Baptism to represent is his Death Burial and Resurrection together with the baptized Person 's Death to Sin and his rising again to walk in newness of Life that both those shameful Abuses in your Church and among other Churches also are not rectified viz. 1 st That Sprinkling which doth not cannot answer or represent those Gospel-Mysteries should not be rejected 2 dly That Infants should be once deemed the proper Subjects of Baptism sith nothing of a Death to Sin nor rising again to walk in newness of Life can appear in them For as the Learned observe Baptism is a Symbol of present not of future Regeneration 't is an outward Sign of that inward Death unto Sin which the Party baptized passed under then or ought to have done when or before he is baptized They then professed themselves to be dead to Sin i. e. even when they were buried with Christ in their Baptism for the Argument of the Apostle lies in that respect How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein knowing that so many of us who have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his Death both in Sign and Signification And therefore as Dr. Sherlock says rising out of that watry Grave a new-born Creature denotes not only what they should be hereafter but what they were actually at that time So that as this Text and Arguments drawn therefrom utterly condemn Sprinkling as not being Christ's Baptism so it excludes Infants from being the Subjects thereof because in them appears no such Death to Sin nor can they be said to come out of that watry Grave as new-born Creatures To these Testimonies I shall only add one or two more and pass to your Obiections See that most learned Anonymous French Protestant Writer in his Answer to the famous Bishop of Meaux 'T is most certain saith he that Baptism hath not hitherto been administred otherwise than by Sprinkling by the most of Protestants But truly this Sprinkling is an Abuse This Custom which without an accurate Examination they have retained from the Romish Church in like manner as many other things makes their Baptism very defective It corrupteth its Institution and ancient Use and that nearness of Similitude which is needful should be betwixt it and Faith Repentance and Regeneration This Reflection of Mr. Bossuet deserveth to be seriously considered to wit saith he that this Use of Plunging hath continued for the space of a whole thousand and three hundred Years hence we may understand that we did not carefully as it was meet examine things which we have received from the Roman Church Calvin saith That Baptism is a form or way of Burial and none but such as are already dead to Sin or have repented from dead Works are to be buried 1. From whose words I note that Sprinkling is not the Form of Baptism because not the Form of a Burial 2. That Infants are not the true Subjects of Baptism because not such as are already dead to Sin or have repented from dead Works and indeed as they are not able they are not required so to do by Christ The last Author I shall quote is Learned Zanchy There are two parts saith he in Regeneration Mortification and Vivification that is called a Burial with Christ this a Resurrection with Christ The Sacrament of both these is Baptism in which we are overwhelmed or buried and after that do come forth and rise again It may not be said Truly but Sacramentally of all that are baptized that they are buried with Christ and raised with him but only of such as have true Faith Now we may appeal to all the World whether Zanchy and all the rest do not clearly and evidently testify the same thing that we assert viz. That Baptism is and can be no other Act than Immersion or Dipping since Sprinkling all must confess doth not represent in a lively Figure the Burial and Resurrection of Christ nor our dying or being dead to Sin and vivification to newness of Life saith he Sacramentally i. e. Analogically in respect of the near resemblance between Baptism and a Death and Resurrection And this I say cannot be said of them that are sprinkled only for if in respect of Mortification and Vivification they may be denominated buried and raised with Christ which cannot be said of Infants yet that outward Rite or Sign cannot denominate them so much as Sacramentally buried and raised with Christ for there is not so much as any likeness of such things in it but in true Baptism viz. total dipping the Body in Water and raising it again it is in a lively Figure held forth to our very sight And as Zanchy saith It cannot be said of all nor indeed of any that they are 〈◊〉 sacramentally dead buried and risen with Christ but only of such as have true Faith Therefore Infants are excluded by his own Argument And thus your first and second Arguments against â—ipping are fully answered in the 52 d and 53 d pages of your Book Your third Argument or Objection against Dipping is this viz. If Dipping were essentially and absolutely necessary in Baptism then in all the Baptism recorded in Scripture we should meet with full Proof or at least with fair Probability that the Parties Baptized were all Dipped But say you in several Instances of Baptized Persons recorded in Scripture we meet with no such Proof but the contrary Ergo c. The Textâ— you cite are first Acts 9.18 19. That Paul was baptized in his Lodgings being sick and weak c. Answ 1. Both these things you affirm without any Ground or Authority from the Text. For first the Text does not say he was baptized in his Lodgings therefore you strive to make the Scripture speak what it doth not See Reader the 18 th Verse and you may find Mr. Burkit speaks an Untruth or that which the Text says not 2. 'T is false also in that you say he was sick or weak tho he might be somewhat weakened and amazed by the good Hand of God upon him But if he had been weak yet when God commanded him to be baptized or dipp'd in Water In the
Honour and Faithfulness of Christ since the Apostles to whom he delivered his Commission were Jews and since at the same time it was a continual and setled Custom among the Jews to baptize Men Women and Children of proselyted Heathens and Infants being not exempted out of the Commission To which I have in this Treatise given a full Answer Arg. VIII If there be but one Baptism in Water left by Christ in the New Testament and but one way or manner of Right for all both Parents and Children to be admitted into the Church and that one Baptism in Water is that of the Adult who upon their Profession of Faith ought to be baptized and so admitted into the Church Then none either Parents or Children must be admitted either to Baptism or into the Church without such a Profession of Faith But the former is true There is no need the Scripture should particularly mention the Ends of Pedo-Baptism since there is but one Baptism for all though more Subjects to that one Baptism You run say they too fast and take it for granted that Baptism is only of the Adult Answ Since there is but one Baptism mentioned in Scripture and that is of the Adult and the End â—nd Design of Christ in it is expresly laid down as to that We say therefore there is Reason why the End of Infant-Baptism should be certain and we run not too fast We say the Subjects are but one since the Baptism is but one and manner of Right thereto being but one also Arg. IX 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 not baptizing them then Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God but the former is true Ergo. Your Answer saith The Athenian Society is answered unless you will destroy Laying on of Hands one of the Principles of the Christian Religion none were ever commended 〈◊〉 reproved for ever being or not being subject to that c. Answ Do we â—â—t read in Acts 8.17 Acts 19.6 that those Men and Women who were baptized did subject to Laying on of Hands being Believers as such Sure what is said of their coming under it or submitting to it is spoken to their Commendation However as 't is called a Principle of Christ's Doctrine Heb. 6.1 2. so here are two Precedents of Persons that subjected to it Shew us the like as to Infant-Baptism Arg. X. Baptism is Dipping Infants are not dipped Ergo Infants are not baptized As to the other Arguments sent to the Athenian Society with their Answers I have spoken to several of them in this Treatise and I shall add no more new but â—eâ—ve all I have said to the Blessing of God hoping the time is near when this Truth I contend for will be cleared up to all which is now to enrich despised that Wisdom may be justified of her Children and God may be honoured to whom be Glory now and for ever-more Amen FINIS Faults escap'd the Press Page 10. line 13 14 15. blot out the double Comma's Page 25. line 22. for makes mention read makes no mention There are other Errata's and dispointing which the Reader is desired to correct Arg. 1. Arg. 2. * Exod. 12.3 4. They were to take to them a Lamb according to the number of Souls in the House See Mr. Tomb's Anti-Pedo-Baptism The Pedo-Baptists Argument Mr Tomb's Answer Milevit Conc. Joh. 1.25 * The Athenian Society detected in their 12 Numbers to their fifth Volume Here the Athenian Society may see their first Query fully answered of Infants being once in Covenant and never cast out are in still All Nations takes in Pagans c. and their Children 1 Thess 5.17 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arg. 2. He should have mentioned Circumcision in his Propositions Mr. Burkit's Syllogism not true in form The Covenant God made with Abraham proved to be a mix'd Covenant partly Gospel and partly Legal See Mr. Tombs Exercit. p. 2. Arg. 1. The Athenian Society confuted Arg. 2. Arg. 3. Covenant of Circumcision no Covenant of Grace Arg. 1. Being the Children of Abraham as such gave them no right to Circumcision Arg. 3. Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham belonged to the ungodly as well as the godly Arg. 4. All in the new Covenant need not be taught to know the Lord. A necessity that Infants be taught to know the Lord. Arg. 5. The Covenant of Circumcision a Covenant of Works Circumcision obliged Persons to keep the whole Law Arg. 6. Covenant of Circumcision of the same nature with the Sinai-Covenant Mr. Flavel answered in what he says in his Book p. 217. The Sinai Covenant called the Old or first Covenant in the Scripture See Mr. Tombs The New Covenant had divers Additions or Transcripts or divers Ministrations Arg. 7. Faith not reckoned to Abraham â—â— Circumcision Arg. 8. Covenant of Faith and that of Circumcision contradistinguished Arg. 9. Circumcision a Yoke of Bondage Infants saved by the Covenant of Redemption or by Christ's Vndertakings Circumcision a Priviledg on condition of keeping the Law Infants the Members once of the Jewish-Church yet not of the Gospel-Church Arg. 10. The Old Covenant and Old Covenant-Seed both cast out Heb. 10.9 The Old Church-state of the Jews is gone 1 Pet. 2.5 Infant Church-Membership came in with the Old Covenant and is gone with it I had this Simile once before but because it is so full I repeat it The Athenian Society's first Query more fully answered External Privileges under the Law greater than ours under the Gospel Mr. Ball 's Posit 3 4 p. 38. The old Covenant and Church of the Jews dissolved See Mr. Cary's Solemn Call Pedo-baptists Argument for Believers Seed c. of ill consequence Mr. Burkits first Argument to prove the Covenant of Circumcision a Gospel-Covenant All God's Covenanting Transactions since the Fall are by means of the Mediator The Sinai Covenant a Covenant of Works Mr. Burkits 2d Arg. Mr. Burkits 3d Arg. The happy State of all in the Covenant of Grace Mart. Luther on Gal. 3. p. 115. Perkins Vol. 2. cap. 3 on Galat. p. 242. Mr. Burkits third Argument to prove Infant Baptism Infants had the Lord's Supper formerly given to them Seed or Habit of Grace remains where infused and its Effects will appear * As if Christ passed through Regeneration or change of Nature Baptism makes no Persons Christians * These words be cites were wrote by Dr. Taylor Pool's Annotat. Athenian Society say Females were circumcised by some People formerly Infants may be capable to be saved and yet not capable Subjects of Baptism Baptism cannot save the Souls of Infants The Parents Baptism may serve for the Child as well as the Parents Faith Various thoughts among Pedo-Baptists what Faith Infants have See Mr. Danvers Perkins 2 vol. cap. 3. on Gal. p. 257. Baxter's Right of Baptism p. 149 150. Mr. Burkit's sense of the order of
the Primitive Churches minded by many good Men Where is the Spirit of Reformation And doubtless that famous Author and learned Critick in the Greek Tongue Casaubon was in the Right take his words I doubt not saith he but contrary to our Church's Intention this Error having once crept in is maintained still by the carnal Ease of such as looking more at themselves than at God stretch the Liberty of the Church in this case deeper and further than either the Church her self would or the solemness of this Sacrament may well and safely admit Afterwards he saith I confess my self unconvinced by Demonstrations of Scripture for Infants Sprinkling The truth is the Church gave too great Liberty she had no Power to alter in the least Matter but to have kept exactly to the Institution She says Dipping or Sprinkling that spoils all that Addition gives encouragement Who will Dip the Person that can believe the Church that Sprinkling may serve And O how hard is it to retract an Error which hath been so long and so generally received especially when carnal Ease and Profit attends the keeping of it up and also when the true way of Baptizing is reproached and look'd upon to be so contemptible a Practice and those who own it and dare not act otherwise vilified and reproached by such as you with the scutillous Name of Anabaptist c. although we are as much against Rebaptizing as any People in the World can be The Learned Cajetan upon Matth. 3.5 saith Christ ascended out of the Water therefore Christ was baptized by John not by sprinkling or pouring Water upon him but by Immersion that is by Dipping or Plunging into the Water Moreover Musculus on Matth. 3. calls Baptism Dipping and saith the Parties baptized were dipp'd not sprinkled To close with this take one Argument If the Baptizer and the Baptized in the Days of Christ and his Apostles wenâ— both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipp'd then is Baptism not Sprinkling but Dipping But the Baptizer and the Baptized in the Days of Christ and his Apostles went both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipp'd Ergo Baptism is not Sprinkling but Dipping CHAP. IX 〈◊〉 Baptism is Dipping Plunging or Burying of the whole Body in Water in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost from the Spiritual signification of Baptism AS touching your last five Arguments against Rebaptizing I see no ground to except against what you say there only I shall take a brief view here of your six General Propositions p. 49. And as to you first I have and shall yet further make it appear that Dipping is not an Accident but an essential part of Baptism viz. 't is no Baptism at all if not done by Immersion or Dipping 2 ly Whereas you say the way or manner of applying Water is not positively determined in the Holy Scripture cannot be gathered either from the signification of the Word or from the significancy of the Ceremony Answ This as to the first part viz. as to the signification of the Greek word we have fully confuted and as to the significancy of the Ordinance we shall forthwith in this Chapter make most evidently appear 3 ly You say There is a probability that Baptism was administred in the Apostles Times by Immersion or Dipping so there is likewise a probability that it was done by Aspersion or Sprinkling Answ We have and shall yet further prove that there is not the least probability that in the Apostles time Baptism was ever administred by Aspersion but by Immersion You confess in hot Countries it was done by dipping and that that Country where they baptized 〈◊〉 which we read was a hot Country so that 〈◊〉 â—hat Reason by your own Argument they 〈◊〉 by Immersion and not by Aspersion 4 thly You say you do not oppose the Lawfulness of Dipping in some cases but the Necessity of Dipping in all cases Answ We have and shall prove the necessity of Dipping in all cases and that 't is no baptism at all if not so done let your Church say what she pleases 5 thly You say that none ought to put a Divine Institution upon any Rite at their own â—â—easure when it is in its own nature indifferent and consequently lay such stress upon dipping as to pronounce the Baptism of all the Reformed Churches throughout the World null and void ought to prove it an unchangable Rite Answ This makes against your self and all Pedo-baptists in the World How dare you change a Divine Institution of Jesus Christ change his Law and holy Ordinance and substitute another thing in its stead and room And if the Laws and Institutions of Christ in their own nature are not unchangeable what may not Men do and yet be blameless this opens a door to make all Christ's Institutions null and void But Sir we have shewed in this Treatise that for 1300 Years in most parts of the World Immersion was only used and some learned Pedo-Baptists have shewed that Rantism is utterly to be rejected as an Innovation and an insignificant Ceremony 6 thly That in the Sacraments it is not the Quantity of Elements but the Significancy of them that ought to be attended in Circumcision it was not the Quantity of Flesh cut off so much as the Signification of it c. Answ In the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper we grant 't is not the Quantity of Bread and Wine is to be observed if so be it be administred in that order and manner Christ hath ordained viz. to represent his Body broken and his Blood poured forth The like we will say also in Baptism we need not go where there is more Water than what will serve to baptize or dip the Person all over so that it may represent the Burial and Resurection of Christ which was the very thing it was appointed to hold forth or represent when administred 2. Should the People of Israel as I have shewed in Circumcision only have cut a little bit of the fore-skin of the Flesh and not round or quite off or only have paired off the Nails of the Childrens Fingers with a little Skin with it would that have answered the Mind of God in that Rite or they have been born with in pleading it might as well answer Circumcision in Signification The Vanity and Sinfulness of this Assertion you will see fully in this Chapter laid open and detected But I shall now proceed to your first Argument against Dipping Say you such an Application of Water in the Administration of Baptism as the Spirit of God in Scripture expresly calls baptizing is lawful and sufficient to the use in Baptism But sprinkling or pouring Water upon the Party baptized without Dipping is by the Spirit of God in divers Scriptures expresly called baptizing Therefore it is lawful and sufficient and Dipping is not necessary Answ
That the primary literal proper and genuine Signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to dip we have abundantly proved by a great Cloud of learned Witnesses and this indeed I see you dare not deny saying in Pag. 51. that the Primitive Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to dye or give a new Colour All know that which is dyed in the Dyers Fat is dipped all over but whereas you say it signifies also sometimes to wash we have shewed 't is no other washing than is by a total dipping or plunging the Thing or Person all over in Water And therefore now to proceed I shall further prove Baptism is no other Act but Dipping or burying the Body under the Water You say Pag. 52. We read of divers Washings under the Law in the Original it is divers Baptisms Now say you what were those Washings but Sprinklings no Persons were dipp'd in Blood c. Answ We deny those Washings which are called Baptisms were either sprinkling or pouring of Water on them but total dipping of their whole Body and so the Reverend Mr. Ainsworth a Man very learned in all Jewish Rites and Ceremonies positively affirms on Levit. 11.31 these are his words viz. All that are unclean whether Men or Vessels are not cleansed but by dipping or baptizing in Water and wheresoever the Law speaketh of washing a Man's Flesh or washing of Cloaths for Uncleanness it is not but by dipping the whole Body therein And whether they be Men or Vessels there may not be any thing between them and the Water to keep them asunder as Clay Pitch or the like that cleaveth to the Body or Vessel if there be then they are saith he unclean and their washing profiteth them not Maim in Mikvaoth What can be a more full Confutation of what you affirm But Sir where we read of sprinkling of Blood the word is not there baptizing And now I shall proceed further to prove that Baptism or baptizing is not Sprinkling but Dipping or plunging into the Water in the Name of the Father c. and besides all we have already said clearly make this appearâ—â—rom the spiritual Signification thereof or what in a lively Figure or Symbol is held forth thereby And first to proceed let it be in the fear of God considered that as the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper doth in a lively Figure represent the breaking of Christ's Body and the pouring forth of his precious Blood so and in like manner the Sacrament of Baptism doth signify and hold forth the Death Burial and Resurrection of the same Lord Jesus Christ and the holding forth and confirming of these two great Gospel-Truths was doubtless the end of our Saviour in ordaining both these Gospel-Ordinances that so Christ crucified with his Burial and Resurrection might not only in the Ministry of the Word be preach'd to the hearing of our Ears but by these two Institutions be also preach'd as it were to the seeing of our Eyes And that Baptism doth hold forth this together with our Death unto Sin and rising again to walk in newness of Life I shall prove in the next place and that First From express places of Scripture Secondly By the Consent Agreement and Arguments of a Cloud of Witnesses both Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines and worthy Protestant Writers 1. The first Scripture is Rom. 6.3 4 5 6. Therefore we are buried with him in Baptism c. The Saints or whole Church of the Romans were to reckon themselves dead to Sin and bound to live no longer therein and that because by Baptism as in a lively Figure they held forth the same thing So that it appears Baptism hath a twofold Signification 1. There is in it when truly and rightly administred not only a Representation of Christ's Buriâ—â— and Resurrection But 2. Also it signifies our Death unto Sin and our rising again to walk in newness of Life And indeed the Apostle makes use of this as an Argument to press newness of Life the thing signified in Baptism upon them all As if he should say As many of us as are baptized must know this that we were baptized into Christ's Death and therefore must die to Sin and live a neâ— Life But we have all been baptized or buried with him in Baptism therefore must all of us die to Sin and live a new Life Our late Annotators on the place say thus He seems to allude to the manner of baptizing in those warm Countries which was say they to dip or plunge the Party baptized and as it were to bury him for a while under Water Cajetan upon the same Text says We are buried with Christ by Baptism into Death by our burying he declares our Death by the Ceremony of Baptism because he that is the Party baptized is put under Water and by this carries a Similitude of him that was buried who was put under the Earth Now because none are buried but dead Men from this very thing that we are buried in Baptism we are assimilated to Christ buried or when he was buried The Assembly in their Annotations on this Text of Scripture say likewise thus viz. In this Phrase the Apostle seems to allude to the ancient manner of baptizing which was to dip the Party baptized and as it were to bury them under Water for a while and then raise them up again out of it to represent the Burial of the Old Man and the Resurrection to Newness of Life The same saith Diodate Tilenus a great Protestant Writer speaks fully in this Case Baptism saith he is the first Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ in which there is an exact Analogy between the Sign and the thing signified The outward Rite in Baptism is three-fold 1. Immersion into the Water 2. Abiding under the Water 3. A Resurrection out of the Water The Form of Baptism viz. external and essential is no other than the Analogical Proportion which the Signs keep with the things signified thereby for the Properties of the Water washing away the Defilements of the Body does in a most suitable Similitude set forth the Efficacy of Christ's Blood in blotting out of Sin so diping into the Water in a most lively Similitude sets forth the Mortification of the Old Man and rising out of the Water the Vivification of the New Man The same plunging into the Water saith he holds forth to us that horrible Gulph of Divine Justice in which Christ for our sakes for a while was in a manner swallowed up abiding under the Water how little time soever denotes his Descent into Hell even the very deepest of Lifelesness which lying in the sealed or guarded Sepulchre he was accounted as one dead Rising out of the Water holds forth to us a lively Similitude of that Conquest which this dead Man got over Death In like manner saith he 't is therefore