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
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
But they that despise and slight the Baptism of Infants despise neither the Baptism of John nor Christ because neither John nor our blessed Saviour commanded Infants to be baptized nor did they ever baptize one Child as we read of if you can prove they did do it we will say no more but will soon baptize our Children Thus I have done with all I thought necessary to remark or take notice of that is contained in your second Chapter CHAP. III. Shewing Baptizing is Dipping not sprinkling nor pouring a little Water SIR AS to what is contain'd in the second Chapter of your Book concerning the Continuation of Christ's Baptism of Water in the Church I shall say no more to that in that we agree and are one but we differ about what Baptism of Water is you would have it to be Sprinkling which indeed is not Baptism but Rantism for that you know is the Greek Word for Sprinkling 2. As also we differ about the true and proper Subjects of it according to our Saviour's Institution and since you begin with that you call the Manner or external Form of Administration of Baptism I shall follow you herein and shall first repeat your Words and then reply Thus you begin viz. Some judg that the whole Body ought to be dipped in Water and all other ways to be unlawful Others judg say you the sprinkling of Water on the Face of him that is baptiz'd to be sufficient especially in these cold Climates for even as in the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is one Moâ—sel of Bread and one Spoonful of Wine sufficient for to signify the Spiritual Food that is had in Christ even so in the Sacrament of Baptism the sprinkling of a little Water on him that is baptized signifies the Virtue of the Blood of Christ as effectually as Rivers of Water I answer Certainly you cannot be ignorant of what many learned Pedo-baptists have said in Opposition to what you here speak for tho both the holy Sacraments are very significant of Christ's Sufferings and of those spiritual Benefits we receive from him yet they are of different Signification First The Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper holds forth in a lively Figure the breaking of Christ's Body and the pouring forth of his precious Blood and this indeed may as well he represented by a small quantity of Bread and Wine as by much yet a little Water will not serve in Baptism 1. Because ' â—is positively said that John was baptizing in Enon near Salim John 3. 23. because there was much Water there Certainly the Holy Ghost would not have given this as the Reason why John baptized near Enon viz. because there was much Water in that place if a little Water namely a Spoonful or two would have been sufficient or two or three Quarts It seems plainly deducible from this Text it cannot be administred with a little Water but contrariwise it doth require much Water Secondly Pray consider that as the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper holds forth or represents symbolically the breaking of the Body of Christ and the shedding of his Blood and to that purpose it was in part instituted even so the Sacrament of Baptism holds forth in as lively Figure that our blessed Lord was dead buried and rose again and to this end this holy Ordinance was also instituted as also to shew forth our Death unto Sin and Vivification to Newness of Life as by and by shall be abundantly proved both from the holy Scriptures and a multitude of learned Men that hold Infant-Baptism therefore since a little Water cannot in this Ordinance represent Christ's Burial and Resurrection it follows directly that a little Water will not serve to baptize Persons in but that it must be administred in Rivers Ponds or places where there is much Water i. e. so much Water as that the Body may be buried or covered all over therein But to proceed you say Neither is dipping or sprinkling essential unto this Ordinance but washing with Water or putting Water on the Body for the word Baptism signifies in the Greek washing with Water as we cited say you from Heb. 9. 10. Answ I answer now you have given away your Cause at once or I am mistaken for if neither dipping nor sprinkling be essential unto this Ordinance but washing what is become of your Baptism Sir all dipping in Water is washing tho all washing is not dipping in that you hurt us not but your sprinkling is not washing If a Woman should sprinkle her foul Linen with a few drops of Water would that be deem'd a washing of them Again if Sprinkling be not essential to Baptism you have no Baptism at all take away the Body of a Tree and there is no Tree That thing can't be where the essential part of it is wanting And now that the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify dipping and such a washing as is by dipping we shall plainly shew evince and demonstrate and confirm it by such Arguments and Authors that no unprejudiced sober Person can any longer well remain doubtful about this matter and then we will examine your Objections I shall prove baptizing or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not sprinkling nor pouring of Water upon the Body but dipping or plunging the Body all over in Water and that 1st From the proper literal and direct Signification of the Greek Word Baptizo and the Testimonies of Learned Men. 2dly From the Practice of Primitive Times 3dly From the Consideration of what is signified and represented in Baptism 4thly From those Typical Baptisms spoken of in the Scriptures 5thly From the nature of those Metaphorical Baptisms mentioned viz. the Baptism of the Spirit and that of Afflictions To proceed to prove the first Scapula and Stephens two as great Masters of the Greek Tongue as most we have do tell you in their Lexicons that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizo from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bapto signifies mergo immergo item tingo quod fit immergendo inficere imbuere viz. to dip plunge overwhelm put under cover over to dye in Colour which is done by plunging Grotius says it signifies to dip over Head and Ears Pasor an Immersion dipping or Submersion Vossius says it implies a washing the whole Body Mincaeus in his Dictionary saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Latin Baptismus in Dutch Doopsit or Doopen Baptismus or Baptism to dive or duck in Water and the same with the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabal which the Septuagint or Seventy Interpreters render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizo to dip This Casaâ—bon saith was the right of way Baptizing that Persons were plunged into the Water which the very word Baptizo sufficiently demonstrates which as it does not extend so far as to sink down to the bottom to the hurt of the Person so it is not to swim upon the Superficies of the Water Baptism ought to be
for them so to have done had Baptism been sprinkling Sure Philip would not have put that Noble Person who was a Man of great Authority under Caâ—dace 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 Men make void the Command of Christ by their 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 Church's part to cleave to the Institution which is dipping especially it being not lest 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 disordered Error if he cleave not to the Institution O what abundance of 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 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 Casanbon 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 maintain'd 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 consess 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 VVho 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 many with the scurrilous Name of Anabaptists c. altho we are as much against rebaptizing as any People in the VVorld can be The Learned Cajetan upon Mat. 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 Mat. 3. calls Baptism dipping and says the Parties baptized were dipped not sprinkled To close with this take one Argument If the Baptizer and the Baptized in the days of Christ and his Apostles went both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipped 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 dipped Ergo Baptism is not Sprinkling but Dipping CHAP. V. Proving that Baptism is plunging or burying in Water the whole Body in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Wherein Mr. Owen's Arguments for sprinkling and his Objections against Immersion or Dipping are fully answered REader thou mayst see that tho the remote Sense of the common word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may refer to pouring of Water yet the proper and genuine Sense of that word is dipping or such a washing as is by dipping which is abundantly proved as you have heard both by the Scriptures and Consent of a great Cloud of Witnesses amongst the Learned both Anâ—…nt and Modern Therefore what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith in the beginning of his third Chapter viz. That it is uncertain whether in the New Testament the Apostles baptized by dipping or sprinkling is not true it being evident it was by dipping and no other way For where-ever the word Baptism is used I say again in the New Testament as it refers to Christ's Ordinance of Baptism it signifies dipping or plunging into the Water nor can he prove the Jews washed their Hands and Cups only by pouring Water on them tho Elijah might have Water poured on his Hand we commonly wash our Hands and Cups by dipping them into the Water And so did the Jews as Mr. Ainsworth affirms 2dly Sir what you say concerning that Typical Baptism in the Cloud and Sea you have heard also fully answered and that makes not for sprinkling nor pouring But more to that hereafter 3dly What you say concerning the Signification of Baptism that it holds forth two things 1. The Blood of Christ 2. The Spirit of Christ is far fetch'd for the Lord's Supper holds forth the Blood of Christ and we have no Ordinance ordain'd by Christ to hold forth in a Figure the sprinkling or pouring forth of the Spirit if Man has invented such a thing so be it The Papists found out seven Sacraments with their significant Signs as they tell you and they have the same Parity of Reason to maintain their Sacraments without any Warrant from God's Word as our Pedobaptists have for their baptizing or rather rantizing or sprinkling of Babes True the Apostle speaks of sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus but Baptism is no Figure of that as you have heard but primarily of the Death â—urial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ Sir you say Sprinkling is lawful because it is very probable that the Apostles themselves did baptize by pouring or sprinkling Water Acts 2. 41. Then they that gladly received the word were baptized and the same day there were added unto them three thousand Souls It is not you say very probable that these three thousand were plunged over Head and Ears in VVater How could Peter and the rest of the Apostles even twelve Men baptize three thousand in one day yea in one half day how could they change their Apparel c. Answ 1. I answer wonder no more how three thousand Persons shou'd be baptized i. e. dipped in that short time 't is sufficient for any Christian to believe it because the Holy Ghost hast said it 2. But whereas you say there were but twelve Men to administer it that is not true there were the seventy Disciples no doubt with them who were Ministers and there might very probably be many more 3. However since Baptism is Immersion
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
he mean every individual Person or some of all sorts of Jews and Gentiles So Paul saith All seek their own c. Vid. Glassi Illerici Philolog Sacr. and also our late Annotators the word or term All they tell you is here twice repeated Mat. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. it is enough to let us know that in Scripture 't is signisicative no farther than many for say they it cannot be imagined that every individual Person in Jerusalem and all the Regions round about Jordan went to hear John the Baptist 2. You forget that Text John 3. 26. Behold him that thou bearest witness of c. the same baptizeth and All Men come unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to Jesus Christ Also 't is said John 4. 1 2. That Jesus made and baptized more Disciples than John If John baptized them all and Jesus baptized them all then they were all twice baptized or all re-baptized and if so were indeed properly all Ana-baptists Sir in both places it intends but some You worthy and beloved Britains take heed how you are led by a Man that argues so preposterously I doubt not but he may be a good Man but under a Cloud of Darkness 3. Sir how Dr. Lightfoot or you can prove that John preached but two Years and a half I see not but had he every day baptized an hundred he might with much Ease have done it in the space of four hours time or thereabouts But alas neither he nor our Saviour had so many Disciples as you imagine the Number of the Disciples after the Resurrection of Christ as we read Acts 1. were but an hundred and twenty that were together perhaps there might be some few more in some other parts 4. But you I perceive contradict the Holy Ghost in saying that John sprinkled them i. e. rantized them for Ranâ—izing in the Original as I presume you know is sprinkling in English Sir I appeal to your Conscience whether it be not so Sprinkling and pouring is one thing and baptizing another and a quite different Act. I affirm Sprinkling is not Baptizing say what you will You in the next place mention that which we object concerning Philip and the Eunuch who went both down into the Water when the Eunuch was baptized To this you answer and say How doth that follow Could they not go into the Water without plunging in it We read in Gen. 24. 45. say you that Rebecca went down into the Well Does it follow that she was plunged in it You will say of your Maid-Servant when she goes to draw Water she went down into the River your meaning is not that she was plunged there I answer Rebecca might properly be said to go down into the Well because in some Wells there are several Steps or Stairs before we come to the Water 't is not said she went into the Water Also who of us could say when our Servant-Maid went to draw Water or fetch Water from a River she went into the River if any do say so they speak not truly but indeed do lie Sir take heed what you say the Holy Ghost doth not say they went down to the Water but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both went down into the Water and he baptized him i. e. dipp'd him not rantiz'd him You bring in our Objection against your Sprinkling taken from Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12 13. viz. we are said to be buried with Christ in Baptism into Death To this you say We bury by casting Earth on the Body and the pouring of Water you say doth represent it it cannot be said one was buried that was fallen under Water or Earth unless he remains there for a time he that descendeth into a Coal-pit is under the Earth but is not buried by reason he cometh out from thence immediately dipping therefore doth not signify a Burial unless he that is dipped remains for a time under the Water I answer 'T is true we do bury by casting Earth on the dead Body but 't is so much Earth as covers the Corps all over or else 't is not buried So if you pour Water on a Child until it is covered all over in Water it may truly be said that Child was buried in the Water altho the burying in Baptism is not by pouring Water in great abundance until it is covered but by going into the Water and there to be dipped or plunged all over so that all may see the Body is buried under Water as truly symbolically and as properly as if it had been buried in the Water Or 2. Tho a Person be laid in the Grave and covered all over with Earth tho it be but two Minutes he may as truly and properly be said to be buried as he that lies there three Days or a thousand Years But you would have Baptism to be no proper Representation of a Burial unless the Person baptized lies so long till he be drowned Sir Baptism doth represent the Death of Christ and of the old Man or Body of Sin which is as sufficiently held forth by a Minute or two as by many Days 3. And now utterly to put to silence your vain Objections I shall give the Sense of a whole Cloud of Witnesses as to the proper Exposition of those Texts Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12 13. by and by but if my honest Country-men do think you have given a better Sense of the Words than all those Learned Men I will say no more You say the Resemblance then between Baptism doth not stand in the dipping of the Body so much as in the End of the Ordinance in making us Partakers of Christ's Death of his Life and of his Ascension and of his sitting on the Right hand of God Baptism makes us to be planted together in the Likeness of his Death yet there are none you say that plants Bodies in Water by baptizing them Rom. 6. 5. Answ We shall in our next Chapter finally determine this great Point and plainly shew you by manifest Arguments together with the joint Consent and Agreement of a multitude of Learned Men that were and are Pedo-baptists that the Resemblance between Death Burial and Resurrection and Baptism doth stand in the outward Sign of Dipping as well as in our partaking of the Blessing of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection All know in the Ordinance of the Lord's-Supper the Signs are significant and no true Protestant will admit of such an Administration of it in which the breaking of Christ's Body and the shedding of his Blood is not clearly represented to the sight of our Eyes Why is the Popish way of the Administration rejected who deny the Laity the Cup if there ought not to be an exact keeping to the direct Signs as well as to bear in Mind the Thing signified thereby Nay Sir I find you in your third Chapter to justify your sprinkling stifly by arguing for an Agreement between the Sign and the Thing
away the Filth of it Now says he and you to the same purpose the sprinkling of the Blood of Christ and the pouring forth of the holy Spirit upon the Infant are more fully and plainly represented by Baptism as administred by sprinkling than by dipping He says further That if the inward and spiritual Grace signified by Baptism be more lively represented by sprinkling than by dipping then surely sprinkling is not only lawful but more expedient than dipping but the inward and spiritual Grace signified by Baptism to wit the cleansing the Soul by the Grace and Spirit of Christ is more lively represented by sprinkling than by dipping therefore more expedient and accordingly we find Almighty God himself often expressing the Mercy of Sanctification by this Action Ezek. 36 25 Theu will I sprinkle clean Water upon you and ye shall be clean c. Ansew 1. To this I answer where the Thing signified is not the Sign is a nullity but your Thing signified in sprinkling VVater on the Face of an Infant viz. the holy Spirit and Graces of it does not appear in those Infants you so sprinkle Ergo Your Sign is a nullity If Grace was in them so much as in the Habit of it when they are grown up the Act and Fruits of the Spirit and Faith would shew themselves for Grace is an active and lively Principle where-ever it is infused 2. And I positively deny that the End and Use of Baptism is or can be represented by sprinkling or pouring of VVater but by what I have said and produced by the Testimony of the Scripture and almost all Learned Men both Antient Fathers and Modern Divines I have fully shewed the contrary 3. I thought the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper had been instituted by Christ to signify the Effusion or pouring forth his precious Blood and not Baptism VVill you confound the Use and End of one Sacrament with the other to maintain your own Innovation and Abuse of Christ's holy Baptism 4. Might not the Jews who instead of making Altars of Gold or Stone made them Altars of Brick say that Altars of Brick might serve as well to answer the Use and End of burning Incense Nay may be they might say they had not the other to do it and therefore built their Altars of Brick But would this Pretence do No no what saith the Almighty God They provoke me continually to my Face Also might not others argue thus about the Sacrament of the Supper viz. VVhat need we have VVine If we use Mum or some other Red Liquor instead of the Fruit of the Grape it will answer the Use and End of that Sacrament as well as VVine O whither would this lead us 5. VVe utterly deny that Baptism was ordain'd or instituted by Christ to signify either the pouring forth of his Blood or the pouring forth of the holy Spirit and must tell you that you affirm what you please without any Proof from God's VVord But by the way let the Reader observe how you go from sprinkling to pouring VVater on the Face of Infants I question whether you ever do so or not but if you should that would be no more Christ's Baptism than sprinkling You are not to devise new Signs or Symbols of Spiritual Mysteries of which God speaks nothing in his VVord nor ever instituted to such Ends. I affirm he has appointed no Rite or Ordinance in the Gospel to represent the sprinkling or pouring forth of the holy Spirit The Papists have you know seven Sacraments and they tell us of the Use and End of them and how wonderfully significant they are and yet all the Use and Signification of them were the Contrivances of their own wicked Hearts And I must tell you that they prove what they do and say for their Sacraments as well as you do As to what you speak of pouring or sprinkling take what Tho. Aquinas most excellently hath said on this account It belongs to the Signifier says he to determine what Sign is to be used for the Signification But God it is who by things sensible signifies spiritual things in the Sacrament Christ hath ordained Baptism to be a Sign Symbol or lively Representation of his own Death Burial and Resurrection as I have proved and confirmed by a Cloud of Witnesses Will God endure or suffer Men think you to invent out of their own Brains new Signs and Symbols of Divine Gospel-Mysteries and then father them upon him and call them his Ordinances Nay more be so bold as to say these are more useful and answer better the End of God than those which he himself instituted For thus you and other Pedo-baptists speak of Sprinkling viz. 't is not only lawful but more expedient than Dipping And hereby you seem to teach God Wisdom or to magnify yours above his Be astonished O Heavens Be thou horribly amazed O Earth Were ever any Men thus bold before First You contrive a new Rite and new Significations of it which God never appointed to represent such things and then say 't is more expedient than Christ's Ordinance of dipping which was instituted by him for other Ends and Significations whereas the whole Body of all learned Men and Christians witness to and testify the contrary Pray take what Sir Norton Kâ—atchbul hath wrote in direct opposition to what you affirm Saith he Baptism which now saves us by Water speaking of the Text in 1 Pet. 3. 21. that is by the assistance of Water and is antitypical of the Ark of Noah does not signify the laying down the Filth of the Flesh but the Covenant of a good Conscience towards God while we are plunged in the Water which is to testify our Belief of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ so that there is a manifest Antithesis between these words by Water and by the Resurrection Nor is saith he the Elegancy of it displeasing As if he should say the Ark of Noah not the Flood was a Type of Baptism and Baptism was an Antitype of the Ark Not as if Baptism is a washing away of the Filth of the Flesh by Water wherein it answers not at all to the Ark but as it is the Covenant of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Christ in the belief of which Resurrection we are saved as they were saved by the Ark of Noah for the Ark and Baptism were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection so that the proper End mark of Baptism ought not to be understood as if it were a Sign of the wishing away of Sin although it be thus oftentimes taken Metonymially in the New Testament and by the Fathers but a particular Signal of the Resurrection by Faith in the Resurrection of Christ of which Baptism is a lively and emphatical Figure as also was the Ark out of which Noâ—h returned as from a Sepulchre to a new Life and therefore not unaptly called by Philo the Captain of the new Creation and the Whale's Belly out
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.
sure when Zacheus believed in Christ he was a proper Subject of Gospel Baptism so were all that believed who were in his House but the Text doth not say that every particular Person that were in his House believed or that Salvation came so to his House but if it did no doubt they were all upon their believing baptized 2. But you may well say what is this to Baptism since he and all his House were baptized before even when he was in his Sins and a notorious Sinner the chief of the Publicans it is probable say you sure Sir 't is more then probable it was impossible that Zacheus and his Family should escape Baptism when John had baptized all the whole Country before all yea every individual Person that dwelt in Jerusalem Judea and all the Regions round about The truth is this is very impertinently brought in to prove Infant Baptism what doth it signifie that Salvation was come to Zacheus that day and not until then seeing John's Commission was to baptize all whether Godly or Ungodly Believers or Unbelievers whether Salvation was come to them or not let the Reader observe what darkness and ignorance this Man shews Peter say you when he first planted the Christian Religion among the Jews exhorted them saying be baptized every one of you for the promise is to you and to your Children Ans This of the promise being unto them and to their Children we have fully already answered but why doth Peter command these Jews who doubtless dwelt at Jerusalem to be baptized seeing John Baptist had baptized them and their Children before as you have positively asserted what must they be all rebaptized what inconsistency is there in your arguing 2. The latitude of this Command be baptized every one of you is no further then to all them that he commands to repent nor is the promise to any of their Children but such that the Lord our God shall all the Parents right and interest to the promise of the Holy Spirit Remission of Sins and eternal Life spring from their Interest in Christ by Faith and at that Door comes in the right and interest of all their Children or Off-spring that are called by the effectual operations of the word and spirit of God 't is the promise made to all the true spiritual Seed of Abraham but are the natural Seed of Abraham and the natural Seed of Believers as such or as so considered the spiritual Seed of Abraham 3. the promise here meant and the duty of being baptized are as you say of the same Latitude thus you argue viz. be baptized you and your Children for the promise is unto you and to your Children we so are to understand the Words the Promise and the Duty being of the same Latitude if the Promise belongeth unto them and their Children then bapâ—â—â—â—â— Ans I answer what is the promise but the Holy-Ghost and eternal Life and such that receive this Promise viz. the holy Spirit as an earnest of eternal Life we deny not are to be baptized and if no Child hath any other right to the Duty but such who have received the same Promise through Faith ziz remission of Sin and of the Holy Spirit then no Children but such that repent and believe ought to be baptized seeing the Promise and Duty runs to the Children or Off-spring as it runs to the Parents In the same manner you say when Peter planted the first Church among the Gentiles as might be gathered from the words of the Angel to Cornelius being the first Fruits of the Church of the Gentiles Acts 11. 13. send Men to Joppa and call for Simon whose Sir-name is Peter who shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy House shall be saved the Gospel bringeth Salvation to him and to all his House Cornelius well knew the meaning of the Words for he being a proselite to the true Religion before that time though uncircumcised yet received the severe Commandment of Noah the substance of which might be seen Gen. 9. 1. God's Covenant was with Noah and his Seed c. 1. Ans I answer 't is said Peter should tell Cornelius words whereby he and all his House shall be saved but it must be such of his House that could hear and understand those Words Peter should tell them he shall tell thee and tell all thy House Words whereby you shall be saved but not unless he and they of his House believed and pray observe is it not said he was a devout Man and one that feared God with all his House Acts 10. 2. all his House the Holy-Ghost here intends were such who were of understanding and did fear God as well as himself also Cornelius said to Peter now we are all here to hear what things are commanded thee of God all his House were capable to hear c. Moreover is it not said while Peter yet spake these words the Holy Ghost fell on them which heard the word Verse 44. and all these were commanded to be baptized viz. that had received the holy-Holy-Ghost for their reception of the holy-Holy-Ghost is that argument the Apostle uses to command them to be baptized Verse 47 can any Man forbid water that those should not be baptized which have received the Holy-Ghost as well as we and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Verse 48 them that did believe them that had received the Holy-Ghost them that spake with Tongues and magnified God and if it was every individual Person in his House let it be so the greater Grace of God was manifested but here are no Children mentioned in Infancy that were baptized 2. Besides I wonder at you 't is said Peter should tell Cornelius words whereby he and all his House should be 〈◊〉 sure you do not believe what you seem to plead for pray answer when the Parent believes and is saved or assured of Salvation are all his Children and whole Family by his Faith brought into the like stars of Salvation shall they all be saved also Through his Faith the external Priviledges of the Covenant that your Brethren talk of that is something but I know not what by virtue of their Parents Faith it is not however that which you plead for you tell us when Cornelius heard words whereby he came to be saved all his Family through his Faith were saved also if you do not this I profess I know not what you mean by what you have written but if this be your meaning I hope no Body will believe you because all know it is utterly false 3. But the greater wonder comes at last viz. it appears Cornelius and his Houshold because a Gentile had right to Baptism by the Covenant and Commandment of God to Noah not by virtue of Abraham's Covenant the Truth is one is as good an Argument for Baptism as the other but was the Covenant God made with Noah the Covenant of Grace if it was all the
cause against you here too i. e. for the first Centuries we will examine your Authors and humane Testimonies The first is Calvin a latter Writer I know not but Ireneus and Cyprian might be both had out of him I do confess Ireneus lived not above Two Hundred Years after Christ or in the second Century thus he and many others cite him viz. Omnes venit Christus per semet ipsum salvare omnes qui per eum renascuntur ad Deum Infantes parvulos Juniores Seniores In English thus Christ Jesus came to save all by himself all who by him are born again unto God Infants and little ones Young and Old Ans Reader pray observe here is not a word of one Infant baptized but this Man infers it from his Words so that we have nothing but Consequences neither from God's Word nor the words of Man Christ no doubt came to save some of all sorts of Men and who doubts but he came to save Infants and little ones Young and Old But why must these Words who are born again be applyed to Infant Baptism The scope of Ireneas in that Chapter is to refute the Gnosticks who said that Christ did not exceed One and Thirty Years of age against whom Ireneus alledged that Christ lived in every age i. e. of Infancy Youth and old Age that by his Age and Example he might sanctifie every age So that here Ireneus speaks not of being born again in Baptism for he saith Omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum i. e. I say all which are born again by him to God i. e. by Christ not as if he had baptized Infants but because he i. e. Christ was an Infant that by the example or virtue of his Age he might sanctifie Infants as the whole Discourse in Latin plainly shews viz. Magister ergo existens Magistri quoque habebat atatem non reprobans nec super grediens hominem neque solvens suam legem in se humani generis sed omnem etatem sanctificans per illam c. 2. As to Cyprian he lived as I find it in History about 248 or 300 Years after Christ and should I tell the Reader what Corruptions and Errors were let in about that time he would not wonder to hear Infants were allowed Baptism Yet we have Cyprian against Cyprian It is true as far as I can gather in his time Infant Baptism was first introduced without any Ground or Warrant from Christ and it was as strongly opposed which appears by the Debates and Doubts about it 3. The third humane Authority that is brought by Mr. Burkit is that cursed decree of the Milevetan Council that all who denyed Infant Baptism should be Anathema accursed If he comes but a little lower he hath proof enough in the Popish Councils Decrees and Canors But 't is to be observed that those Fathers pleaded for Infant Baptism as that which took away Original Sin and gave Children the Eucharist too in the first Sacrament abusing that Text John 3. 5. and in the other that in John 6. 53. These are all the humane Proofs from the Churches after the primitive Apostolical days which Mr. Burkit brought and I doubt not but to give better and more Authentick Authors of the ancient Fathers against Infant Baptism than hath been brought for it and some of them nearer the Apostles days too The first is Justin Martyr though I have him not yet take his Words as they are cited by Mr. Richard Baxters Saints Rest Chap. 8. Sect. 5. I will declare unto you how we offer up our selves unto God after that we are renewed through Christ those amongst us that are instructed in the Faith and believe that which we teach them is true being willing to live according to the same We do admonish them to fast and pray for forgiveness of Sinns and we also pray with them and when they are brought by us into the Water and there as we were new born are they also by the new Birth received and then in calling upon God the Father the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost they are washed in Water c. the Food we call the Euchrist to which no Man is admitted but only he that believeth the Truth of the Doctrine being washed in the laver of Regeneration for Remission of Sinns and so liveth as Christ hath taught this you see saith Mr. Baxter is no new way 4. You cite Origen who was you say famous in the year 230 who saith in Hom. 8 in Levit. de Infantibus baptizandis Ecclesia traditionem accepit ab Apostolis theChurch received infant Baptism by Tradition from the Apostles we have proved you say before this was a Scripture Tradition for the Apostles baptized little Children Ans We may cite Origen against Origen so little credit is to be given to History in this case about him and some other of the Fathers for I find Origen saith viz. they that are rightly baptized are washed unto Salvation but so was not Simon Magus he that is baptized unto Salvation receives the Water and the Holy Ghost which Simon did not but Water only Hom. 6. upon Ezek. â—…1 6. v. 4. Mountanus p. 36. 37. and in his Commentary upon Rom. 6. saith the same Origen such Baptism that was accompanied with crucifying the Flesh and rising again to newness of Life was the approved Baptism I must confess that Dr. Taylor saith that Origen and Austin are the only Witnesses that asserted Infant Baptism to be an Apostolical Tradition but it appears by Erasmus that Origen's writings were greatly corrupted by Russinus and made to speak sometimes for Infant Baptism See Jacob Merciâ—gus p. 283. 291. and Montanus p. 29. to 35 42 43. Sir had you proved Infant Baptism from the Scripture and that the Apostles baptized Infants you need not go to Humane History that is so uncertain and no Rule for us 5. Gregory of Nazianzum who you say was famous about the year 370 beareth witness for Infant Baptism saith he omni aetati Baptisma convenit Baptism is answerable unto every Age. And again da infantis custodiam give Infants the Baptism of the Trinity and that will be a great and excellent Guard unto them Ans I find a worthy Author that quotes this Gregory speaking quite the contrary thing in his third Oration saith he the baptized used in the first place to confess their Sins and to renounce the Devil and all his Works before many Witnesses and that none were baptized of old but they that did confess their Sins and how dangerous it was headlong and without due Preparation to partake thereof He therefore adviseth that the Baptism of Infants be deferred till they did not only make Confession of their Faith but were to desire the same see Dr. Taylor p. 239. Now worthy Britains what signifyeth the citing of such Fathers when we cannot be certain that we have their true writings God hath preserved his sacred
untill we become Adult Persons and do believe in him he hath left us an Example how we should follow his steps Mr. Owen brings in his Fifth Objection against his Doctrine and practice of Infant Baptism viz. If Infant Baptism belongs to Infants why do not you give them the Lords Supper Take his answer Because saith he the Apostle Commands those that receive the Lords Supper to examine themselves and to discern the Body of the Lord which little Children cannot do Answ I answer And as the Apostle Commands all that receive the Lords Supper to examine themselves and to discern the Lords Body so likewise John Baptist the Lord Jesus and his Apostles too Commanded all that received baptism to believe and repent and to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance which little Babes cannot do Repent and be Baptized every one of you Acts 2. 37. If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayest Acts 8. 37. that is be baptized 2. You say Baptism is the Sacrament of our Regeneration and of our Admission into the Church of God the Lord's Supper is a Sacrament of our Growth and Spiritual Food 1. I answer this quite overthrows your Infant Baptism unless you Presbyterians do believe as the Church of England doth or at leastwise what they affirm viz. that Baptism doth regenerate the Child is Baptism an Ordinance or Sacrament of Regeneration i. e. to regenerate Persons or to hold forth that regeneration or the New Birth is wrought in such that are baptized why then do you baptize Infants who are not the Subjects of Regeneration Can they die to Sin and are they raised up out of the Water new Born Creatures to walk in newness of Life 2. If your Infants are new born or born again by Baptism no doubt the Food of the new Creature viz. the Lord's Supper ought to be given to them The first Sacrament holds forth 't is clear a Person born again or a Babe of Grace the other is Food fit and proper for that New born or Regenerated Person that he may grow thereby therefore they belong both to one and the same Subjects and neither of them it appears from hence do belong to Infants but 3. Are all the Infants that you baptize let in as Members of your Church are they absolutely Members of your Congregations as having the Ordinance of Admission is the Door of God's House opened to them How can you then say I deny them the priviledge of true and lawful Members shall your little Members your Lambs in Christ's Fold being New Born be starved what shall the regenerated Babe not be fed with the Food of their Fathers House 4. But if thus what number of Members have you in your Churches that have not their Names in your Church-book nor perhaps never looked after when grown up nor cast out though prophane and Wicked for do you cast out or exclude all such Children you baptized when grown up if not what polluted Churches are yours Infant Baptism was doubtless contrived to encrease National Churches or to make national Churches and it doth tend indeed to increase and continue that Christian Religion that is in Name only and not in Power you have its true in England by meer necessity lost your National Constitution and are become Congregational whether you will or no but Infant Baptism will not accord with a congregation Constitution nor do such Churches so constituted that are for Infant Baptism own their Babes to be proper and true Members of their Churches so far as I can learn what then signifies your Sacrament of Admission if they are not in truth admitted and owned as Members and allowed the Food and Priviledges of such 3. You say it was formerly though Circumcision belonged to Infants yet the Paschal Lamb belonged not but to the Adult Answ I answer this is denyed prove if you can that the little Children in the Jewish Church were not admitted to eat of the Passover it is positively said Exod. 12. 34. That the whole House were to eat thereof even a Lamb for an House and I find a great Writer asserting the same thing that little Children did eat thereof they were to bring their Children once or twice a Year before the Lord and I see no ground you have to say that none but Adult Persons did eat thereof 2. But let that be as it will that which was or might be the right of Jewish Church-Members or not their right is no rule for us in the Gospel Church as I have sufficiently prov'd and besure all baptized Persons who are regular Members of a Gospel Church cannot be denyed the Lord's Supper without Sin So much to your Answers to our Objections you might might have brought twice as many more CHAP. XX. In Answer to Mr. James Owen's 17 Chapter wherein the Antipedo Baptists are cleared of those foul Charges he hath cast upon them and 't is proved that to deny Infant Baptism is no Sin nor are those guilty of Murther nor Adultery that baptize or dip Men and Women in Water in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit as Mr. Owen charges them but contrariwise it is proved that to Baptize or Rantize Infants is an unlawful Practise and very Sinful YOU say you shall demonstrate in this Chapter how great the Sin is of those that are tempted to deny the Baptism which they receive in their Infancy and that suffer themselves to be baptized again there are many People that know not the nature of their first Baptism and are perverted to renounce it thinking that they do please God in so doing but they fall into Temptation and the Snares of the Devil who is the Author of Errors and Father of falshood Answ I hope by this time the Reader may discern how great an error 't is to call Rantism or Sprinkling Baptizing and that Infant Baptism is also an error being a meer human innovation this I have prov'd and theresore 't is so far from being a Sin to disown it and cast it away that it is every good Christians Duty so to do that would in all things walk by the rule of God's Word And for Mr. Owen to charge our People after this manner as if we were perverted and insnared by the Devil in denying our Infants Baptism is just as the Papists used to charge the Protestants that disowned the human Traditions and the vain Fopperies of their rotten Church and thunder'd out their Bulls against them 1 You say they are guilty of great Sin insomuch that they neglect to make a right use of their first Baptism Infant Baptism putteth them under continual Vow to the Lord and they are bound to renew their Vows to take the Lord to be a God unto them as soon as they come to age Answ 'T is true you brought them under an Obligation or a Vow to take the Lord to be their God in their Infancy but why did you do it unless you had any Warrant or
Authority from God for to do such a thing in his Name without his Authority is Sinful 2. You might better have stayed till they came to Age of understanding and if you would bring them under a Vow have caused them then to have entered into a Covenant to take the Lord to be their God and no doubt your Children might more dread to break such a Vow they consented to and freely made then a Covenant or Vow you caused them to enter into in their Infancy to which they never consented but perhaps you will say you have no Ground nor Authority from Gods word to do that as much every way as you have in Infancy to baptize them which we say is no Baptism at all much less Christ's true Baptism therefore God thereby oblieged them not to do what you speak but it is their Duty when grown up if God gives them Faith to cast it away as an humane Tradition and to enter into God's Holy Baptismal Covenant as Believers according to Christ's great Commission 3. Christs Baptism or the Baptism of Believers was not ordained to oblige Persons who are in their natural State whether young or old to be come the Lord or to be regenerated or to die to Sin c. but as being his or regenerated before baptized their baptismal Covenant obligeth them to walk as the Lord's People in newness of Life so that it appears that Infants baptismal Covenant is directly repugnant in the end and design of Christ's true Baptismal Covenant as I have more fully eâ—enceâ— in the Epistle to this Book Dedicated to all Godly Pedo-Baptists to which I refer the Reader You say you see the greatest part of Children when they come to Age be either ignorant or inconsiderate of their Baptismal Vows c. for which you blame Ministers and Housholders in not Catechising and Teaching them and thus say you Satan tempts them to cast the Blame upon their Baptism c. Ans You may see what a vain thing an human invention is what impression can that make on the Conscience of Persons when Grown up that God never Commanded nor promised to bless 2. But take heed you do not father that upon the Devil which is done by Jesus Christ 't is not Satan that tempts us to cast a slight on Infant Baptism or makes us looâ— upon it as an insignificant thing but 't is through Christ's gracious influences by opening our Eyes to see 't is a meer humane rite and invention of Man 's own Brain therefore we threw it away and entered into a new and true Baptismal Covenant and many others also do day by day You say you appeal to the Consciences of those that are rebaptized is not the thing thus Let their Consciences dictate and reprove them say you of this sinful Carelesness that they never made a right use of their first Baptism if they had received profit from the first they would not have at all renounced it Ans 1. I will take this appeal to be made to me though never re-baptized even to my Conscience and I do solemnly declare I doubt not but all my Brethren can speak the same thing that the reason why we cast off our Infant Baptism or rather Rantism was because we were fully convinced it was no Ordinance of Christ and therefore knew it could be of no 〈◊〉 to us 2 You mistake it seems as if you dreamed that the most of those that cast off Infant Baptism were People of 〈◊〉 and also seem to intimate as if such of your People when grown up that are pious who do choose the Lord to be their God do it by virtue of their Baptismal Vow no no that had no such effect upon them 't is only the Grace of God in them 't is by vertue of his Spirit and evident 't is that the persons generally that first doubt about the truth of Infant Baptism are persons of Religion and Piety therefore 't is not for want of Religion or Zeal for God they throw away Infant Baptism but it is from their Religion and Love to God and Zeal to his Name that so they may not be guilty of adding to his Word or taking that for Christ's true Baptism which is none of it Is it a Sin to cast off Mens inventions 2. They are guilty you say of great Sin by prophaning the Ordinance of Christ is it a small thing to prophane Sacred Things although some do so through ignorance Baptism is a sacred thing which ought to be received but once one Lord one Faith one Baptism Eph. 4. 4. therefore those that renew their Baptism take the name of God in Vain c. Answ I answer is it not a great Sin to change the Holy Ordinance of Christ from Baptism to Rantism or in English from dipping the whole Body in Water to the sprinkling a little Water on the Face and to change the true Subject from a Believer to an Infant is not this to prophane a most holy Ordinance and a sacred Thing and 't is no doubt a great Evil though done ignorantly because you sprinkle them into the Name of the Father Son and holy-Holy-Ghost without his Authority God never commanded it at your Hands is not this to prophane his most Holy and Sacred Name and since it appears there is but one Baptism in Water and you cannot deny but do own Believers Baptism was at first instituted and appointed of Christ it plainly then follows that Infant Baptism is none of Christs Institution 't is no Baptism of Christ 't is not that one Baptism he appointed and ordained we own but one Baptism and that is the Baptism of Believers if you have got another look you to that for there is but one Lord one Faith and one Baptism Eph. 4. 4. 3. They are you say guilty of unbelief unless God telleth them in totidem verbis baptize your Children they will believe not Faith looketh upon every beck of the Lord the least appearance of his Will the Woman which had the bloody Issue believed if she could but touch the Garment of the Lord Jesus she should be whole though she had neither a Promise nor Command nor a particular Example provoking her in so doing c. Ans I answer will you charge us with unbelief because we cannot believe that to be a Truth for which we have neither Command nor Example nor for which there can be no good Consequence nor Inference drawn from any Text of Scripture nor in doing of which we have no promise nor are they which do it under any threatning in all the book of God this seems very strange must we believe Infant Baptism because you and others say it is a Truth by the same argument we must or may believe all Popish Rites divised Fables and Ceremonies what innovations may not your Faith take hold of according to what you speak here is there no difference in believing in Christ in things respecting matters of Faith which
resting upon our Blessed Lord this was the time when he was gloriously sealed Mat. 3. 16 17. 4. In that hereby all baptized Believers do signify their stedfast Faith in the Blessed Trinity and do devote themselves to serve and worship the Three Persons in the Godhead Mat. 28. 19 20. 5. Because it doth so clearly bold forth and confirm us in the stedfast Belief of the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and of our Resurrection at the last Day Rom. 6. 3 4. 6. Also considering the many great and gracious Promises made to such Believers who are baptized as Mark 16. 16. Acts 2. 37 38. 7. Considering what a significant Ordinance it is in respect had to that Death to Sin and Vivification to a new Life in all its true and proper Subjects together with that Obligation it lays them under Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12 13. 8. That it is particularly called the Counsel of God and such who refused to be baptized are left on Sacred Record under that black Odium of rejecting the Counsel of God Luke 7. 30. 9. 'T is a great Ordinance appears in that it is an Initiatory Ordinance into the Visible Church Acts 2. 41 42. 10. In that those who were baptized with the Holy Spirit were nevertheless commanded to be baptized with Water Acts 10. 48. The highest Gifts of the Spirit cannot exempt Persons from their Obedience hereunto Moreover we have herein also Fellowship with Christ in his Death and Resurrection Therefore let none rob you of Christ's own Baptism be not cheated with a listle filthy Dross of Christ's pure Gold nor endure to see your Lord's Wine mixt with filthy Puddle-Water Yet carry it with all Christian Charity Love and Humility towards all Godly Christians that differ in this Matter from you and strive to walk as you are obliged by your Holy Baptism to do then will God have Glory and you have Peace to whose Holy Care Blessing and Protection I shall commit you and remain your unworthy Brother in the Sacred Bonds of the Gospel Benj. Keach A TABLE of divers Authors cited in this Treatise in each Chapter and under many particular Heads First THAT Baptizing is to dip as to the literal proper and genuine Signification of the Greek Word and asserted so to be by these Authors following as cited in this Treatise Chap. 1. chap. 2. chap. 3. chap. 4. Casaubon quoted by Dr. Du Veil on Acts Chap. 1. ver 5. pag. 10 11. cited in this Treatise Chap. 1. p. 4. O'ecumenius on Acts 2. ver 2. quoted also by Dr. Du Veil on Acts p. 11. cited in this Book Chap. 1. p. 4. Scapula and Stephens see their Lexicons cited in this Treatise Chap. 3. p. 12. Grotius Pasor Vossius quoted by Mr. H. D. his second Edition of his Treatise p. 182. Mincaeus in his Dictionary Dr. Du Veil in his literal Exposition of the Acts Chap. 1. 5. and his Exposit on Mat. 3. 5. Leigh in his Critica Sacra all cited in this Book Chap. 3. pag. 12. Bullinger Zanchy Spanhemius Erasmus See Mr. Leigh Critica sacra and Dr. Du Veil on Acts. cited in this Book p. 12. Cajetan upon Mat. 3. 5. cited in this Book Chap. 4. p. 20. Salmasius in his Book Deprim p. 193. see his Notes upon Sulpitius Severus cited in this Treatise Chap. 3. p. 13. lin 1. Beza on Matth. 3. 11. cited in this Book p. 13. Selden De Jure Nat. c. L. 2. c. 2. cited in this Treatise p. 13. Ainsworth upon Levit. Chap. 11. 32. cited in this Treatise p. 13. What is cited p. 13 14. of Luther the German and John Bugenhagius is taken out of Dr. Du Veil p 76. Dan. Rogers in his Treatise of Sacraments Part 1. Chap. 8. p. 177. cited in this Treatise p. 13. Synod of Celichyth Anno 816. as quoted by Dr. Du Veil on the Acts Chap. 2. p. 75 76 77. cited in this Book Chap. 3. p. 13. Dan. Rogers Treatise of the Sacraments P. 1. Chap. 5. cited here p. 19. Dr. Jer. Taylor Ductor Dubit l. 3. c. 4. Numb 9. Rule of Conscience l. 3. c. 4. cited in this Book p. 13 14. Zepper quoted by the same Doctor Sylvester Squropulus also quoted by Dr. Du Veil on Act. 2. cited in this Treatise p. 13. St. Ambrose Lib. de Initiandis and as quoted by Sir Norton Knatchbul in his Notes Printed at Oxon 1677. also quoted by Dr. Du Veil on Act. 2. p. 78. Musculus on Matth. 3. 5. cited here p. 20. Luther Latin Tom. 1. Fol. 71. cited in this Book Chap. 3. p. 14. John Bugenhagius Pomeranus as quoted by Dr. Du Veil out of a Book Printed in the German Tongue Printed 1542. cited in this Treatise p. 14. Mr. Joseph Mede Diatrib on Titus 3. 2. cited here Chap. 3. p. 15. Casaubon on Matth. 3. 11. cited here in p. 19. Chamier Pan. Cathol Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 2. Ser. 6. cited in this Book p. 15. Diodate on Matth. 3. Dr. Hammond in his Annot. on Matth. 3. 10. cited here p. 15. Mr. Pool's Annot. on Mat. 3. 6. Mat. 28. 2. John 3. 23. cited in this Book p. 16. Mr. Ball in his Catechism cited here p. 16. Dutch Testament on Mat. 3. 16. cited here p. 16. Secondly That Baptism is dipping or burying of the whole Body in Water to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ and our Death to Sin and Vivification to a new Life Authors that assert this follow Assembly in their Annotations on Rom. 6. 3 4. Pool's Annotations on Rom. 6. 3 4. here cited Chap. 5. p. 29 30. Tilenus in his Disputation p. 886 889 890. all cited in this Book Chap. 4 5. p. 30 31. Piscator cited in this Treatise p. 17. Cajetan upon Rom. 6. 3 4. cited in this Treatise Chap. 5. p. 29 30. Keckerman Syst Theol. l. 3. c. 8. cited in this Book p. 31. St. Ambrose Basil the Great Basil Seleucia Chrysostom Lactant. Bernard Justin Martyn All quoted by Sir Norton Knatchbull see his Book cited in this Treatise p. 35 36 37. Ignatius Epist ad Tral id Epist ad Philadelph Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity p. 320. cited in this Treatise p. 22. Dallie on the Fathers L. 2. p. 148. cited in this Book p. 32. Paraeus upon Ursin p. 375. cited in this Treatise p. 33. Mr. Perkins on Galat. Vol. 2. chap. 3. p. 257. Vol. 1. chap. 33. p. 74. Dr. Sharp present Archbishop of York see his Sermon on Phil. 3. 10. p. 9. Dr. Fowler present Lord Bishop of Gloucester in his Book Design of Christianity p. 90. Dr. Sherlock Dean of Paul's Charity without Usury p. 1. cited here p. 38 39. Dr. Tillotson Late Archbishop of Canterbury in his Book Sermons on several Occasions the fifth Edition p. 188 189. cited here p. 39. Anonymous French Author cited by Dr. Du Veil on Acts p. 292 293. Calvin L. 4. c. 16. cited in this Book Chap. 5. p. 41. Zanchy on Col. 2. 12. cited in
are not straiter P. 73. l. 33. for has read hath P. 75. l. 28. for theirs read the. P. 75. l. 29. for their read the. P. 77. l. 17. i. e. as such should be in a Parenthesis P. 84. l. 3. blot out any P. 86. in the Contents of Chap. vii for first read fifth P. 88. l. 3. blot out from P. 99. for with the Gentiles read and their Children P. 89. l. 31. for same read thing P. 105. l. 37. for pai read pain P. 112. l. 28. for and read but. P. 117. l. 19. for with read without P. 118. l. 3. for Mat. read Mal. P. 120. l. 20. blot out so read and since c. P. 201. l. 40. for he that believes shall not be damned read he that believeth not shall be damned P. 250. l. 15. for vers 34. read 3 4. P. 264. l. 2. for born in Sin read born again P. 264. l. 4. blot out do P. 266. l. 40. for Christian read Children P. 239. l. 33. for Lord read Lords P. 293. l. 21. read an external Rite CHAP. I. In answer to what Mr. Owen hath said in his first Chapter SIR AS to what you say about the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledg that they were Seals of the two Covenants viz. of the Covenant of Works and of the Covenant of Grace or free Promise of God it is far fetch'd and very doubtful and as little to the Purpose for which you mention them therefore I shall pass that by 2dly As touching Circumcision being a dark Shadow of the Old Covenant under the Old Dispensation it may be granted but that it was the Seal of the Covenant of Grace which you affirm elsewhere in your Book I do deny it being only a Seal of Abraham's Faith even of that Faith he had being yet Uncircumcised and also that he should be the Father of all that should believe 3dly You say well that those dark Shadows viz. Circumcision c. are abolished the Substance being come that Yoke of Bondage is taken away which proves Circumcision did not appertain to the Covenant of Grace as the Seal of it in common to all Believers for the breaking off of a Seal cancels the Covenant to which it was prefixed as all Men know So that nothing can be more clear than this that Circumcision if it was a Seal of any Covenant as you conceive it was it was a Seal of the Covenant of Works which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear in regard it obliged all that were circumcised to keep perfectly the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. 4thly You say Christ hath ordained in the Gospel a light and easy Burden viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper These two are the only Sacraments you say of the Gospel This is granted and owned herein we do not differ 5thly You say Baptism signifieth our Spiritual Birth the Lord's Supper our Spiritual Growth and Nourishment This we grant also and therefore we say Baptism cannot belong to Infants because they are not in an ordinary way capable of Regeneration tho we deny not that those elect Infants that die are renewed quoad illorum naturas but we know not which they are if we did yet we ought not to baptize them because we have no Precept or Precedent so to do we might therefore as well and by as good Authority give them the Lord's Supper as Bâ—ptism which the antient Fathers when first Pedo-baptism was by Human Authority introduced into the Church you know did for near four hundred Years till the latter end of the Sixth Century 6thly You say Baptism according to the Signification of the Word is Washing and therefore the Apostle saith saved us by the washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered in Heb. 9. 10. in divers Baptisms those were not only by dipping under Water but by sprinkling Water on those baptized as the Apostle teacheth Heb. 9. 19. he took the Blood of the Calves and of Goats with Water and sprinkled the Book and all the People That which the Apostle you say called Baptism in Ver. 10. is in this Verse called the Sprinkling of Water c. Answ 1. I answer tho the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a remote Sense doth take in Washingâ— yet I challenge you and all that know or pretend to know the Greek Tongue whether in every place in the New Testament where the Word is mentioned or any Derivative from it as it refers to Christ's Ordinance of Baptism it doth not directly and properly signify Immersion and accordingly rendred by Beza in his Translation 2dly You greatly wrong that Text Heb. 9. 19. where the Apostle speaks of sprinkling the Blood of Calves and of Goats with Water c. by saying he refers to Ver. 10. where the Apostle speaks of Divers Washings and in thus doing you do not only abuse the Sacred Text but you wrong your own Soul and Conscience and the People also Sir do you find the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in ver 10. in ver 19. where sprinkling is mentioned or is it not in ver 13 19. as also 1 Pet. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We may modestly affirm that no Greek Author whether Heathenish or Christian has ever put Baptizing for Sprinkling or used those Words promiscuously for as in these Scriptures you have cited Heb. 9. 13 19 21. 't is always translated Sprinkling so there is not one place in Scripture wherein the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Baptism nor is there one Scripture where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Sprinkling And therefore tho sometimes the Greek Word doth signify in a remote Sense Washing yet 't is primarily such a washing as is by dipping or plunging as I said before And thus Mr. Wilson in his Dictionary renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tingo c. to dip or plunge into the Water and signifies saith he primarily such a washing as is used in Bucks where Linen is plunged or dipped tho in a remote Sense he hints it signifies other kind of washing but it does not so in the Holy Scripture where the Word is used as referring to Christ's Ordinance of Baptizing 3dly You say Water-Baptism i. e. the Washing of the Flesh signifies the Washing of the Spirit and therefore the Apostle Peter saith Even Baptism doth now save us not the putting away the Filth of the Flesh but the answer of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Christ Answ I answer you confound Regeneration with Baptism the washing of Regeneration is not the washing of Baptism Baptism regenerates no Person But you seem to follow the antient erroneous Fathers who concluded no Person could be saved unless baptized abusing that Text Joh. 3. 5. Unless a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven taking Water there for Baptism In like sort they abused that
Mr. Owen saith it plainly appears that the sprinkling of VVater is not Baptism 2. That God receives all into the Covenant of Grace and Gospel Church through the Spiritual washing of Regeneration and Sanctification of the Spirit and that such only by Christ's positive Command ought to be baptized 3. That there was no Gospel-Baptism no Baptism of Christ under the Law but that 't is a pure positive Command and Institution of our Lord Jesus in the Gospel 4. That God received none of his People under the Law into Covenant through Baptism or through sprinkling of Water and Blood And that the sprinkling of Blood was a Figure of the Atonement of Christ's bloody Sacrifice and the sprinkling of Water of the sanctifying Virtue of the Spirit in Sanctification and not that Gospel-Baptism was signified thereby 5. That 't is only the meer positive Command of Christ in the New Testament that gives being and a just Right to Gospel-Baptism 6. That tho the Children with their Parents were taken into the Legal or Typical Jewish Church by God's positive Command that being a National and Typical Church yet no Children or Parents are by the positive Command of Christ in the New Testament to be received into the Gospel-Church but only those of them that believe and are washed in the Blood of Christ and sanctified by the Sacred Water of the Holy Ghost sith the Church of God now is not National but Congregational not consisting of the Fleshly as such but the Spiritual Seed of Abraham And since there being no Precept nor Precedent in all the New Testament that any one Infant was baptized or taken into the Gospel-Church it follows 't is an Human Tradition 7. That the Covenant on Sinai and the Ceremonial Law was not the Covenant of Grace tho given in subserviency thereunto and the latter a clear Figure of the Covenant of Grace and held it forth to all such who by Faith could see beyond those Sacrifices to the Anti-type of them Lastly Mr. Owen saith If Children were baptized formerly into Covenant ought they not to be baptized into his Covenant now especially because the Grace of the Covenant being enlarged under the Dispensation of the Gospel and the Privileges being more extensive I answer He doth but beg the Question asserting that which he proves not nor is ever able to prove viz. 1. That Children were baptized into the Covenant under the Law What Pedo-baptist ever asserted this before And in vain doth he affirm it now especially since he cannot prove sprinkling is Baptism 2. That all Infants were received into Covenant with God by Legal sprinkling and not till then but certainly all the Infants of the Jews were born Members of that National Church therefore not received into that Church and Covenant by Circumcision which most of the Assertors of Childrens Baptism do affirm much less not by sprinkling Blood and Water upon them Yet that sprinkling of Blood and Water might I deny not be a Sign that they and the whole House of Israel were God's Legal Covenant People and so the Type of the whole Spiritual Israel who should be washed in the Blood of Christ or Blood of the New Covenant and sanctified by his Spirit as is said before 2. Moreover evident it is that tho the Covenant of Grace in the Dispensation of it under the Gospel is enlarged and the Spiritual Privileges more extensive than were the Privileges of the Legal Covenant and Legal Church yet the external Privileges are less and not so extensive now as was theirs How many outward and earthly Privileges had the Jews and Ministers of God under the Law more than the Saints and Ministers of Christ have now Many of which I have reckoned up in the beginning of this Treatise Thus I close with your Eighth Argument CHAP XIV Proving that Children have no Right to Baptism from John the Baptist's Administration of Baptism in Opposition to what Mr. James Owen saith in his 12th Chapter That John baptized no Infants neither according to the Practice of the Jewish Church nor by virtue of any Commission he had from God that sent him Containing an Answer to Mr. Owen's 9th Argument for Pedo-Baptism MR. Owen saith If John baptized Infants Baptism doth always belong unto them for the Baptism of John and the Baptism of the Apostles were the same in the Substance of it He baptized in the Name of Christ to come and they baptized in the Name of Christ that was come Answ If you can prove John baptized Infants you do your Business indifferent well Now say you What we are to prove in this Chapter is that John baptized Infants to manifest this let it be considered 1. John the Baptist came not to nullify the Covenant of Abraham but rather to fulfil it and the Covenant of Abraham was that God would be a God to his People and to their Seed all the Visible Church of the Jews were in this Covenant John warneth them that they trusted not in the Privileges of this Covenant by living ungodly Lives he doth not in any Place make void this Covenant but rather confirms it saying God will raise other Children to Abraham if the Jews brought not forth Fruit meet for Repentance he came to baptize the Seed of Abraham which were all of them in the Covenant of God not only the Parents but the Children also Therefore their Children had the same right to Baptism as their Parents had Answ 1. I deny not but the whole House of Israel were in Covenant with God both Parents and Children and so abode till the old Covenant and old Covenant-Seed were cast out but What saith the Scripture Cast out the Bond-woman and her Son Gal. 4. 30. Now the Apostle tells you by the Bond-woman is meant the Sinai Covenant and by her Son the natural Seed of Abraham as such Gal. 4. 22 23 24 25. 2. This Grant of yours proves that the Jewish Covenant which took in all the People both Parents and Children was not the Covenant of Grace because but a finall number of the Jews were in God's Election and so in the Covenant of Grace See Dr. Owen on the Hebrews 3d Vol. Pag. 256. The Covenant of Grace in Christ is made only with the Israel of God the Church of the Elect. Pag. 291. The new Covenant is made with all who effectively and eventually are made Partakers of it and if they are not so with whom the New Covenant is made it comes short of the Old in Efficacy who were actual Partakers of the benefit of that that is of those external Benefits 3. Nor doth that which you mention help you viz. that in that Covenant made with Abraham and the whole House of Israel 't is said God would be their God or a God to Abraham and to his Seed in their Generations For First God may be said to be the God of a People divers manner of ways as Dr. Bates observes 1. Upon the account of
and twelfth and last Argument YOU say Infant Baptism is an excellent means which God hath ordained for to plant and continue the Church of God Christ thus commanded his Apostles to gather Churches among the Gentiles by teaching and baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. Mat. 28. 29. Answ I answer The way it appears that Christ commanded his Apostles to gather Churches among the Gentiles is first to teach them and then baptize them you say right whilst you repeat the Text but God hath not commanded to baptize Infants and that way to plant his Church You add It is an excellent means for this end making Children to be Disciples of Christ let none marvel at this because Infants are of the number of Disciples Acts 15. 11. Why tempt ye God to put a yoke on the necks of the Disciples Those Disciples were say you the Faithful and their Seed Answ This is not true The Disciples in the Text you cite refer only to Believers among the Gentiles those false Teachers would have the Brethren be circumcised and they were they only that are called Disciples These Brethren being Gentiles were never circumcised and therefore these false Teachers taught them so to be see Acts 15. 1. 2. Sir I will appeal to your Conscience in this matter Is not a Disciple one that is taught or instructed and can Infants be called Disciples who are not capable of being taught Mr. Baxter saith Such that are made Disciples by teaching are the Subjects of Baptism according to the Commission and he is in the right 3. Doth the baptizing of Infants make them Disciples Doth Christ say baptize and so make them Disciples Or is it not make Disciples and baptize them Mathetusate disciplize and then it follows baptize them You say Christ knoweth how to administer a secret Doctrine to Infants according to his promise Thy Children shall be all taught of the Lord. Answ 1. No doubt but Christ is able to do it But doth he in a secret way administer Instruction to Infants prove it and also how you come to know it for they must be known Disciples visible Disciples that are to be baptized 2. Are they little Infants that Promise refers to i. e. Thy Children shall be all taught of God They are Sion's Children or such that are born of God that are under that Promise not Infants or our Children as such for are all Believers natural Offspring taught of God when Babes or adult either O abominable abuse of the holy Text Baptism say you setteth little Children under a particular obligation to be the Lord's doubtless they can receive such an obligation now as formerly they did Deut. 29. 11 12. And it is as certain that this Bond is a great advantage to make them willing when they come to age God hath presented them by the Grace of his Covenant c. Answ 1. 'T is you pretend to lay them under an obligation but not by Christ's authority prove he hath commanded you so to do 2. Doth Baptism confer Grace you seem to assert this for else how hath God by Baptism prevented them Your sprinkling them with water doth not cannot prevent them I affirm therefore 't is an obligation of man's devising for you cannot prove it is of God's appointment therefore to refuse to bring them under such an obligation is no fantastick thing as you intimate it is You say the mark of the Spirit is upon them Answ Baptism is no mark of the Spirit to any but to such who have the Spirit and what a Mock-Baptism is it to give the Sign where appears no demonstration of the thing thereby signified You say on the other side Satan hath not such an advantage against those that are baptized in their Infancy Answ How doth it appear that Satan hath not such an advantage against your Children as he hath against ours that were never baptized as you call Rantism I am sure our Children generally are as sober and helped to escape Satan's snares as far forth as yours generally are VVill God own or bless an humane Tradition The Woman that Luther mentioned no doubt might think she was obliged to fear God by that sort of Baptism she had when she was an Infant yet God never obliged her to come under that obligation but may be she was baptized when a Believer However the Papists may argue for their voluntary Vows after the same manner viz. it is a great help and an advantage to them to preserve them from sin and temptations of the Devil Infant-Baptism is an excellent means you say to plant the true Religion and to continue the Church by giving an advantage for the Ministers of the Gospel to reason with such when they come to age far better than they can with those that are not baptized that they might call them to remembrance of their baptismal Vow c. Answ This is certainly a grand mistake for instead of its being an advantage to Ministers to reason with such that were baptized in their Infancy to remember their baptismal Vow and so to believe and turn to God 't is apparent it may â—inder them for if those persons when grown up do call to remembrance what you Pedobaptists have taught and told them touching those Blessings and Privileges they then received it may rather take them off from seeking after either Faith or Repentance 1. For you tell them when their Parents believed and were saved they were made partakers of the same Privilege and Blessing also if so what need they concern themselves about getting personal Faith you believe and teach them the Doctrine of final Perseverance no doubt such who are in a state of Grace can never finally fall out of it 2. The Obligation and Vow that lies upon baptized persons according to the Scripture is not that they seek after Regeneration no for it necessarily supposeth that they had that before baptized but it doth bind or oblige them to persevere in Holiness that as they have been buried in Baptism as persons dead to sin so they should walk in newness of life Rom. 6. 3 4. Now you would have your Baptism to oblige your baptized Children to become dead to sin they were not it appears dead when buried with Christ in Baptism but you bury them alive if you baptized them To shew them they must die Sir God never ordained Baptism to such an end or to oblige persons thus to do see Rom. 6. 3. 4 5 6 7 8. Col. 1. 12 13. 3. The Church of England saith That the Child which they baptize is thereby that is in Baptism regenerated and made a Child of God a Member of Christ and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven And what you say implies as much for it must needs be thus if when the Parents believe and are regenerated and saved the Child partakes of the same privilege then the Child believed and was regenerated and saved also Now if this be so what