GOLD REFINED; OR, Baptism in its Primitive Purity. Proving Baptism in Water an Holy Institution of Jesus Christ, and to continue in the Church to the End of the World. WHEREIN It is clearly evinced, That Baptizo, or Baptism, is not Aspersion or Sprinkling, or pouring a little Water upon the Face, or any other part of the Body: But that it is Immersion, or dipping the whole Body, etc. Also that Believers are only the true Subjects (and not Infants) of that holy Sacrament. Likewise Mr. Smythies' Arguments for Infant-Baptism in his late Book, entitled, The Non-Communicant, (and all other Objections) fully answered.  
By BENJ. KEACH, Author of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A Key to open Scripture-Metaphors.  Isa. 1. 22. Thy Silver is become Dross. 
London, Printed for the Author, and are to be sold by Nathaniel Crouch, at the sign of the Bell in the Poultry. 1689.   

THE EPISTLE To all that love our Lord Jesus Christ in Sincerity.  
IT may possibly be a little wondered at, that I should write at this time any thing upon this Subject, which may seem to revive the Controversy, of which little has been written of late Years; it may therefore seem necessary I should speak something by way of Apology for myself. First of all, I must tell you, that this Treatise was wrote the last Summer, although it had no Birth till now, and many know what Provocations I had about that time to write in behalf of our Practice in respect of Baptism: having heard how a worthy Minister (whom I respect and honour) who liveth not far off from me, had publicly preached up the baptising of little Babes, bearing very hard upon those of our Persuasion; and could I have had a friendly Conference with him, 'tis like this had not seen the Sun. Besides, we were challenged to dispute the Point with some Ministers of the Church of England much about the same time, not far from London: But though they had rendered us as odious as they well could (and as if we had nothing to say for our Practice, viz. for baptising Men and Women) yet when all came to all, none of them would appear to defend what they had spoken, which caused some to conclude it did behoove me, or some other to write something about it. Moreover, a godly Friend (of some Eminency in London) sent for me to his House (who, though a Baptist, yet walks with our Brethren called Independents) and desired me that I would be pleased to write a Sheet or two upon Baptism, chiefly to show what it was, sith he perceived many good People were mistaken therein, and did, as he conceived, take that to be Baptism, or Baptising, which was not the thing, he having examined what the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo did signify, and found by Lexicons, and by conferring with Scholars, it did not signify Aspersion, Sprinkling, nor pouring, nor any other Washing than Immersion, or total dipping of the Body in Water; and therefore did conclude it necessary this thing should be further opened, and would have me to conser with one able Person who well understood the Greek Tongue about it, which I was willing to do: Nay, and besides all this, when we wrote our Key to open Scripture-Metaphors, we promised the Reader we would write something concerning this very matter, as you may see if you read Pag. 38. Part 2. which, though it be above six Years ago, we never performed till now. All these things considered together, with that great Impulse of Spirit I found to do it, I thought I had a sufficient Call to undertake the Work, although I know it has been more effectually managed by far abler Pens some Years since, yet I conclude (with others) a short Tract of a small Price might come into more Hands than bigger Volumes would do.  
Moreover I must confess, I have not a little wondered to see so many Eminent Fathers, and famous Divines, both Ancient and Modern, speaking so clearly as to the literal, proper and genuine Signification of the word Baptizo, and yet finding so many wise and learned Men of late so strangely contradicting themselves by their own Practice. I am sure if Prejudice and Partiality were laid aside, and Men would deal faithfully with their own Consciences, they must confess our Practice of Immersion (or dipping Believers in Water in the Name of the Father, etc.) must of necessity be congruous both with the literal and spiritual Signification of the word Baptism, and Practice of the Apostles and Primitive Church; and so it will be found one day, and that they have no just cause given them to reproach or charge us as they do: who laying the Foundation of their own House false, or not according to the Pattern; and not contented so to do neither, but vilify and reproach them who build exactly according to the Direction of the Master-Builder: We marvel how they can satisfy themselves to keep up that Practice of theirs of Rantism, since there is nothing to be said in the Defence of it from God's Word; and if once it was laid aside (with the wrong Subject) as an unwarrantable Rite, and they would cleave to the Primitive Institution and Practice, what a glorious Reformation in point of Church-Constitution and Discipline would there be! and what a sweet Harmony and Union would follow amongst us! for there has been no one thing that hath caused like Contention in the Church for many Years, as this of Infants-sprinkling hath. If our Brethren would but lay this seriously to Heart, I can't but think it would put them to a stand or pause about it. It had need lie clear in the Word of God, since so great a stress as the Foundation of their Church in such an eminent manner (in respect of its Constitution) is laid upon it, and it being that main thing that obstructs and hinders that blessed Union and Fellowship amongst so many good Christians as it doth, who hardly in any other things differ at all in any Article of Faith or Practice. And whereas our Brethren seem to fly for Refuge to that indirect and remote Signification of the word Baptizo of washing, yet how apparent is it, that it means no other Wa●●● but such as is by dipping, swilling, or total wet●●●● that thing, Part, Member, or Person all over ●it. Water, that is said to be baptised; for though all dipping or baptising may be called a washing, yet all washing is not dipping, etc. In a proper sense the word Baptise, Wilson in his Dictionary saith, is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Tingo, to dip, or plunge into the Water, and signifieth primarily such a kind of washing as is used in Bucks where Linen is plunged and dipped, etc. But how evident it is, that sprinkling, or pouring is no such washing, viz. baptising.  
Ainsworth upon Leu. 15. 5. says, to baptise, or wash his Flesh, as is expressed ver. 13, 16. meaneth his whole Body; likewise (saith a great Author) the Hebrews affirm in every place, where it is said in the Law of bathing the Flesh, and washing the clothes of the Unclean, it is not meant but of baptising the whole Body, etc. but if the Greek word would bear sprinkling or pouring, yet that will not justify Men thus to baptise, because not according to the Usage of the Primitive Church; nor doth it answer or reach the Signification of this Ordinance, which is the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, together with our Death to Sin, and rising with him to walk in newness of Life; to represent which great Mystery, it was ordained, as you will find if you read this Treatise. I have been the larger upon this, because if Baptism is nothing less, nor more, nor any other Act than Immersion, or total dipping the whole Body, etc. than abundance of godly Christians must seek after true Baptism; neither can Infants, it appears from hence, be the Subjects of it, sith their tender Bodies can't bear it in these cold Climates, without palpable danger of their Lives, as our Opposites confess, and formerly, by woeful Experience, found to be so. Jesus Christ never appointed an ●●●●nance to destroy the Lives of any of his Creatures. ●ut why will not our Brethren keep to the great Institution, and exact Rule of the Primitive Church? Must we content ourselves with that Light which the Church had in respect of this and other Gospel-truths' at the beginning of the Reformation,— since God hath brought forth greater (to the praise of his own rich Grace) in our Days? And why should a Tradition of the Antichristian State, be so zealously defended? The Church will never certainly appear in its Primitive Glory, till this Rubbish be removed; which is nothing less than to take a Stone of Babylon, and lay it in Zion for a Foundation. Besides, it doth not a little reflect upon the Honour of the Lord Jesus, thus to derogate from his holy Law, who is appointed Heir of both Worlds; who hath settled in his Church that Religion, and every Ordinance thereof, which must remain unalterable to the end of Time, or Consummation of all things. He (as our Annotators well say) is the Builder of God's House, propagating a holy (not a fleshly) Seed for himself; and hath appointed, and fixed on the Matter and Form thereof, as seemed good in his own sight, who is the brightness of the Father's Glory, and express Image of his Person, etc. And what an account our Brethren or others will be able to give to him, for presuming to do any thing contrary to the Apostolical Constitution, when he comes to judge the Quick and the Dead, I know not.  
As touching that great Argument for Infant-Baptism, taken from the Covenant made with Abraham, though something is here said in Answer, and enough hath been said by others formerly, yet I must acquaint the Reader, there is a most excellent Treatise prepared, written by a very worthy and judicious Person (and ready for a timely Birth) wherein that grand Objection, and all others are answered (beyond what any I think have hitherto do●●.) But if we should grant all they say of Abraham's Fleshly Seed, and Foe●● Holiness, yet that will not prove Children to have a Right to Baptism, because Baptism (as well as Circumcision was) is a mere positive Law, and wholly depends on the Will and Pleasure of the Lawgiver: which is in this Treatise opened and asserted again and again, and not without good Reason. But lest I should keep the Reader too loong at the Door, I shall conclude this Epistle with my hearty Prayers, that God would be pleased in Mercy to open our brethren's Eyes, or ours, wherein either they or we lie short as touching any part of God's Will, and let us strive to live in Love and Concord together, wherein we do, or can agree. 'Tis Truth I contend for, and that Truth which was once delivered to the Saints, and shall, I hope, whilst I am in the Body, who now (as well as formerly) subscribe myself thy Servant for Jesus sake,  
Aug. 6. 1688. Benj. Keach.   

Advertisement.  
IF any desire to be furnished that excellent Book, written some times since by Mr. William Kiffin, proving no unbaptised Person ought to be admitted to the Lord's Table; may have them at Mr. Nath. Crouch's, at the sign of the Bell in the Poultry, or at the Author's House in Southwark:   
Gold Refined; or; Baptism in its Primitive Purity.  

CHAP. I. Wherein the Baptism of Water is proved to be that intended in the Commission, and so a standing Ordinance till the End of the World.  
I Having for many Years last passed observed with what strength of Argument some worthy Christians have laboured to defend the Sacred Ordinance of Baptism; and how they have endeavoured to refine it from all Human Mixtures, to the great Satisfaction and Establishment of many Persons in the Land; yet notwithstanding, finding how that still a Multitude of gracious People remaing very ignorant about it, and other● very obstinately and reproachfully do slight and contemn it, casting very scandalous and scurrilous Reflections upon those who practise it according to the Primitive Institution, both from the Pulpit and the Press: I have been put upon writing something further in the Defence of ourselves and Practice herein.  
And that I may the more regularly proceed in this Work, I shall endeavour to prove Baptism in Water to be that Baptism which is intended in the Commission; and therefore to abide as an undoubted and standing Ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ until his second Coming, or the End of the World.  
First of all, 
Water Baptism an Institution of Christ.  it may be necessary to show you, that this Ordinance was instituted and ordained by our Lord Jesus, and given forth by him soon after he rose from the Dead, and a little before he ascended into Heaven; see Mat. 28. 18, 19, 20. Mark 16. 16. And Jesus came, and spoke unto them, saying, All Power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always even to the end of the World. The Lord Jesus first of all asserteth his Power and Authority. Secondly, he delegates a Power to his Disciples. Thirdly, he subjoins a gracious Promise to them.  
1. The Power and Authority which he asserteth to himself is, all Power in Heaven and Earth; Power to institute and appoint Laws and Ordinances, how and after what manner God ought in Gospel-Times to be worshipped; Power to give Repentance and Remission of Sins; Power to congregate, to teach, and govern his Church as the supreme Lord, Head, and Ruler thereof; yea, and Power to give Eternal Life to whomsoever he pleaseth. This was inherent in him as God blessed for ever, given to him as our Mediator, given to him when he came into the World, but more especially confirmed to him and manifested to be given him at his Resurrection, and Ascension into Heaven. And having declared himself Supreme Lord and Lawgiver, He  
2. Delegates a Power to his Disciples, Go ye therefore and teach all Nations, baptising them; the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples, that must be by preaching the Gospel to them, instructing them in the Principles of the Christian Faith, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always to the end of the World, that's the Promise. These are the words of the great Commission, which contains part of the last Will and Testament of the ever blessed Jesus, the glorious Testator of the New Covenant, wherein Baptism is found and expressly given forth, and with as great Authority, and in as solemn a manner as ever was any Precept or Ordinance that we read of in all the Book of God.  
Object. But 'tis not said, baptise them in Water, it may therefore intend the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.  
Answ. To which we answer; As 'tis not said baptise them with Water, so 'tis not said baptise them with the Holy Spirit: They were commanded to baptise, that's evident; and that it was Water our Saviour did require them to baptise with, and not the Spirit, we prove,  
First, Because the Baptism of the Holy Spirit was never by our Saviour or his Apostles commanded, it was never enjoined as a Precept or Duty to be done, but was always mentioned as a Promise, He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire. And again, Ye shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost not many days hence: It argues great Weakness, or else Wilfulness, that Men should see no better how to distinguish between a Baptism that was commanded as a Duty to be done, and a Baptism promised, which was never enjoined as a Duty.  
Secondly, It cannot mean the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, because the Disciples of Christ (nor no Man under Heaven) had ever any such Power delegated or given to them, as to baptise with the Holy Ghost; 'tis strange Persons should be so blind and bold to think (much less to assert) that mere Men can give the Holy Spirit, or administer that Baptism, as if the Holy Ghost was at the disposal of the Will of Man, or that Men know whom to give it to, which indeed only lies hid in the Breast of God himself, who bestows it to whom and in what manner he pleaseth. And therefore,  
Thirdly, We do affirm from the Authority of God's Word, that to baptise with the Holy Spirit is the peculiar Prerogative Royal of Jesus Christ, and that he did never empower any Disciple of his to give it, He shall baptise you with the Holy Spirit. The Father by him, and he immediately by himself in his own Person distributes or gives forth of the Spirit according to the good Pleasure of his Will, without imparting with this Sovereign Prerogative, or peculiar Power to any other. Now since Christ's Disciples could not baptise with the Spirit, and yet are commanded to baptise, it follows clearly it must be Water.  
Object. Doth not the Apostle show that Men had Power to give the Spirit? what else is the meaning of these words, he therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit? it appears that Persons who preached ministered the Spirit.  
Answ. By the Spirit is meant the Gospel, or Word of Christ: as the Law is called the Letter, so is the New Testament called the Ministration of the Spirit, 2 Cor. 3. 6. The words that I speak unto you, saith Christ, are Spirit, etc. Doth God (as if the Apostle should say) concur with our Ministry, and give the Spirit to those who hear it, and help us to work Miracles to confirm it? And is this done by our preaching the Law, or by the hearing of Faith, that is, the Word of Faith, viz. the Gospel, see vers. 2. or by preaching the Word of Christ?  
Fourthly, The Baptism in the Commission cannot intend that of the Holy Ghost; because the Spirit's Baptism signifies the miraculous Effusion, or extraordinary Gifts thereof (and not the saving Influences, Graces, and Operations of it) which but a few, and those too in the Primitive Time, did partake of; but the Baptism in the Commission is enjoined on all that are made Disciples in all Nations, and in every Age, even to the end of the World.  
Fifthly, It must be Water-Baptism, because our Saviour joineth it with Repentance and Believing. Now all along in order of Practice these two went together both before this time and also afterwards. You may be sure had it been any other Baptism, it would never have been thus joined together in order of words, with that Baptism that was so united in order of Practice with Repentance and Faith, without the least intimation of any thing by our Saviour to the contrary.  
Sixthly, Because 'tis a Baptism that is to be administered in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and Holy Spirit, how can any with the least shadow of Reason, suppose it should be meant of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, sith it is to be administered in the Name of the Holy Spirit? Were any ever baptised with the Holy Spirit in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? The Spirit was that with which they were baptised; and therefore not baptised in the Name of the Spirit.  
Seventhly, The only way further to remove this Objection, is to observe what the practice of the Disciples was after the Ascension of Christ in the execution of this great Commission: What was it they baptised with? See Acts 8. 36. And they came to a certain Water; and the Eunuch said, See, here is Water. Vers. 28. They went both down into the Water, and Philip baptised him. Acts 10. 47, 48. Can any Man forbid Water, that these should not be baptised?— And he commanded them to be baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus. That Baptism which in the Commission the Lord Jesus commanded his Disciples to baptise with, was the Baptism which they after his Ascension did baptise with; and that it was Water the Scriptures we have now cited do evidently show; certainly the Apostles well understood what Baptism it was their blessed Master did command them to administer.  
Eighthly, Besides, were it not the Baptism of Water which was given to them in the Commission, Matth. 28. 19, 20. They did that in his Name, i. e. by his Authority, which they had no Authority to do, for other Commissions they had not, this being the only place where Water-baptism is mentioned, as being instituted and given in Commission to them to administer, and to all other Disciples and Ministers of Christ to the end of the World. 
Water Baptism an Ordinance of Christ to the end of the World.   
Now, Secondly, that this Holy Ordinance of Baptism doth continue to the end of the World is evident,  
First, Because whatsoever is given forth by Jesus Christ, is given forth by him as he is King, and Mediator of the New Covenant, and as part of his last Will and Testament; and his last Will and Testament, I hope, all will grant stands in full force and virtue, and every Part and Branch of it unalterable to the end of the World: Though it be a Man's Covenant, or Testament, yet if it be confirmed, no Man disannulleth, or addeth thereto 
* Gal. 3. 15. . How much more dangerous than is it for any to disannul, alter, add to, or diminish from the last Will and Testament of the Lord Jesus the Son of God, who received Commandment from the Father what he should say and speak 
† Joh. 12. 49. ; And was faithful to him that appointed him, as a Son over his own House 
| Heb. 3. 5. ?  
Secondly, The Arguments that Men bring against the continuation of Baptism, tend to root out all other Ordinances of the Lord Jesus as well as this. Why may they not deny Preaching to continue, as well as Baptising, since Teaching is commanded by no other Authority than this? Are they not both expressly given forth and joined together by our Saviour in this his last and great Commission?  
May I not argue thus; If Teaching continues to the end of the World, Baptism continues? But Teaching none denies to continue, Ergo Baptism continues. Do but observe the conjunction between Teaching and Baptising in the Commission, Go, teach all Nations, baptising them; and again, teaching them, etc. Baptism is fenced in on both sides, 'tis secured, one would think, (as our Lord Jesus has placed it) from all Force and Violence whatsoever; and that such must be impudently bold as dare attempt to raze it out, or seek to disannul it, and make it of none effect.  
Thirdly, The Promise that is subjoined in express words, in the Commission, clearly proves the continuation of this Ordinance; And lo, I am with you always to the end of the World; not to the end of that Age only as some affirm. See our late Annotators on these words, 
Continuation of Pool's A●not. on ●at. 28: 1●, 20.  I am, and I will be with you; and those who succeed you in the Work of the Ministry, being called of me thereunto, I will be with you, protecting you in that Ordinance, and blessing you, and all other my faithful Ministers, that labour for making me and my Gospel known, with success to the end of the World; not of this Age only, but till the end of the World— or till the World shall be determined, and the New Heavens and the New Earth shall appear.  
Fourthly, The practice of the Apostles and Disciples of Christ, after his Ascension into Heaven, clearly proves, that the Baptism of Water doth continue; for how frivolous is that Objection that some make against it, viz. it was to abide no longer than till the Baptism of the Spirit (which say they was Christ's Baptism) took place, seeing it is so evident and plain in the Acts of the Apostles, and in divers other places, that it was both taught and practised, after that great Effusion, or pouring forth of the Holy Spirit, which was the Baptism promised, and was first of all made good to the Apostles and Saints of God at Jerusalem; When the Day of Pentecost was fully come, and they were all with one accord in one place 
* Acts 2. 1, 〈◊〉, 3. ; by the help and power of which Spirit St. Peter preached to those Jews that had put Christ to death: At the hearing of which Sermon, many of them being pricked in their Hearts, cried out, What shall we do? Then said Peter, Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of Sins, and ye shall receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit. Now the Baptism here enjoined on these Penitents, could not be that of the Spirit; for how absurd would that render the reading of the words, Repent, and be baptised with the Spirit, and ye shall receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit.  
Fifthly, But to make it appear yet more fully, that Baptism in Water continued after the coming of the Spirit, or great Effusion of the Holy Ghost, see, Acts 10. 'tis said, While Peter yet spoke these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the Word, (that was on Cornelius and those with him). And they of the Circumcision, which believed, were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because on the Gentiles also was poured out the Gift of the Holy Ghost, Vers. 45. For they heard them speak with Tongues, and magnified God. Then answered Peter, vers. 46. Can any Man forbid Water, that these should not be baptised, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? vers. 47. And he commanded them to be baptised in the Name of the Lord, vers. 48. Here the very Persons who were baptised with the Holy Spirit, were commanded in the Name (that is, by the Authority) of the Lord Jesus, to be baptised in Water; and it was a thing that no Man did or ought to deny to be their indispensable Duty; so that the highest Gifts or Endowments of the Holy Ghost, cannot excuse or exempt any Persons from this Blessed Ordinance of Baptism in Water; and how bold and daring must that Man needs seem to be, who shall adventure to say, 'tis a low and carnal thing, and I forbid it to such who have the Spirit's Baptism. I would to God this were laid to Heart, for such Men are certainly grown to a great degree of Pride and Arrogance, as well as it argues palpable Blindness, Infidelity and Disobedience, and that they have lost their Way, and go astray in untrodden Paths, who shall speak at such a rate.  
Object. But say some, The Baptism mentioned by you in both these places, was done in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and not in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and so not according to the Commission, and therefore not the same Baptism.  
Answ. To be baptised in the Name of Jesus Christ, 
Jewel B. of Sal. Sect. 9 in Conf●t. Harding.  is to be baptised as Christ Instituted, Commanded, and Ordained; and as a Learned Person saith, These words, In the Name of Christ, signifies no more that Baptism was administered only in the Name of Christ, not of the Father and the Holy Ghost, than these words, Paul a Servant of Jesus Christ, argues, that he was a Servant of Christ only, and not of the Father and Holy Ghost also: Or as if those words of Paul to the Keeper of the Prison, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, should be thought to free him from a necessity of believing in the other two Persons: for as he that believes aright in Jesus Christ, believes also in the Father and Holy Spirit; so he that is baptised in a right manner, is baptised in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But because the Lord Jesus more immediately, and as our Sovereign Lord, Lawgiver and Mediator, instituted and gave forth this Command, they are said to be baptised in his Name, meaning, they were baptised by his Authority.  
Peter, 
Cyprian Epist. 73. ad Jubaian.  saith Cyprian, makes mention of Jesus Christ; not as if the Father were to be omitted, but that the Son might be joined to the Father, etc.  
And St. Austin saith, 
Augustin. lib. 3. against Maxim. Bp. of the Arrians, c. 17.  They were commanded to be baptised in the Name of Christ; and though the Father and Holy Ghost were not mentioned, yet we understand they were not otherwise baptised, than in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Why dost thou not apprehend, when it is said of the Son, All things were made by Him, that the Holy Ghost also, though not mentioned, is there likewise understood?  
To be baptised into Christ Jesus, 
Eulogius of Alexandria l. 2. contra Novatian, apud Photium in Bibliotheca.  (saith Eulogius) signifies, to be baptised according to the Precept of Christ, that is, into the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And that other [into his Death] is typically representing his Death in Baptism. The same Patriarch, in the same place, a little before saith thus, What is said in the Acts, of those that had received the Baptism of John, that they were baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus, denotes, that they were baptised according to the Institution and Doctrine of the Lord Jesus; that is to say, they were baptised into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For so the Lord Jesus Christ taught and commanded his Disciples to baptise, Mat. 28. 19, 20.  
Object. Notwithstanding what we have said yet, saith the Objector, John Baptist opposeth his Baptism to the Baptism of Christ; which could not have been done, if the Baptism with Water was an inseparable Companion of Christ's Doctrine; How could John say, Verily, I baptise you with Water, but he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost? etc. Moreover, if Christ had been commanded to baptise with Water as well as John, the words would have run thus, Verily, I baptise you with Water only, but he shall baptise you also with the 〈◊〉.  
Answ. Thus to distinguish the Baptism of Water, and that of the Spirit, into John's and Christ's, and oppose these two one to the other, as if the one of these were destructive to the other, as if that of John's were his own, and none of Christ's, 
See Mr. S. F's Baptism before or after Faith.  is very ridiculous, and argues great darkness in the understanding of these opposers of Water-baptism, for 'tis undeniably evident, that this of Water (as well as that of the Spirit) was given forth by Christ himself, and as part of his last Will and Testament, to abide together with teaching, believing and repenting to the end of the World.  
These Men would fain have us believe, that the Baptism of Water was the Baptism of John's, and none of Christ's, but as if John had instituted it, and not Christ, and as if John were the Author of it, and Christ the Finisher; whereas nothing is more clear that Christ, (considered as God) was the Author, and the first that ordained, appointed and instituted it to be administered by John; and after John's decease, yea, and after his own Death, and Resurrection too, gave order to its continuance. And for the observation of it amongst all Nations, our late Annotators also on Mat. 3. 5. agree with us exactly herein, He (that is, John) was sent to baptise in Water; so as from this time (say they) the Institution of the Sacrament of Baptism must be dated.  
Nothing can be more evident, than that the Baptism with Water was Christ's Baptism; and howbeit it is called John's, as John was the first Minister and Messenger from Christ to begin it, For, 
Mat. 3. 1.  behold, I send my Messenger, and he shall prepare my way before me, saith Christ, Mal. 3. 1. It was Christ's Appointment in whose Name, and not in John's, it was begun and dispensed always even in that juncture wherein John himself was living; and one would think Men could not be so blind to suppose it ceased in John, sith our Lord Jesus after his Death and Resurrection, gives special Command for the continuation of it, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, in all Nations to the end of the World: And in regard also that the Apostles after Christ's Ascension into Heaven preached the same Doctrine of Repentance, and commanded such who were discipled to be baptised in Water 
* Act. 2. 39 & 8. 16. & 10. 47. , in the Name of the Lord Jesus, which signifies, as we have already showed, nothing less than according to the Institution of Christ, and that glorious Commission they had received from him.  
Therefore John Baptised only as Christ's Servant, and it was from Heaven he received Commission to Baptise; and our Lord's Submission to it himself as administered by John, to fulfil all righteousness, (that is, as one observes, the Righteousness of his own Law, i. e. the Gospel, to be an Example to us, and the Father's glorious Approbation of his Son in his Obedience herein, by a Voice from Heaven at the time of his coming out of the Water) one would think might put an end to these foolish Objections.  
Jesus Christ we say, owned Water-baptism to be his Ordinance, by subjecting himself to it, though administered by his servant John; and the Father ratified it also, as well as the Holy Ghost, the one by that Voice from Heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; and the other in coming down, or descending (in a visible manner) like a Dove, and lighting upon him 
* Mat. 3. 16, 17.  And certainly had not this Ordinance been to abide, our Saviour would not have given such a Commission a little before he ascended into Heaven for the continuance of it to the World's end. Nay, if it had been to cease, he would doubtless have given some hint of it, and have told his Disciples plainly when at Jerusalem, they should be anointed with Power from on High, they should go and Preach the Gospel to all the World, or make Disciples of the Nations, but not baptise them any more, for that the way of Repentance and Faith, and the Spirit's Baptism, was all the Baptism they should teach and instruct the People in. Moreover, had Peter known this to have been the Mind of his Blessed Master, he would doubtless have said to them, Act. 2. (when they asked what they should do?) Repent, and believe in Christ for the remission of your Sins, but in the Name of Jesus Christ be not baptised in Water never a one of you, as some while since every Penitent was required to be, for that was a Dispensation and Baptism of John, and had its time for a while, merely to prepare the Way of Christ, but now is abolished and out of date; ye must forsake John's old Administration of Water-baptism, that being a carnal and low thing, and look wholly to a higher and more sublime Baptism, i. e. that of the Holy Ghost: And had he known this to be the Mind of his Master, would not he rather have said concerning Cornelius, and those with him, Acts 10. (instead of saying, Who can forbid Water?) Who can require Water, that these Persons should be Baptised, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?  
No doubt had Water-Baptism ceased, or been abolished, we should have had some discovery of it as well as we have of the Ceasing of Circumcision and other Rites of the Mosaical Law; for the Apostles, we find, were as ready, and as careful to make known the Cessation of such Rites, as Carnal Ordinances that were not to abide in the Church, as they were in establishing and confirming all those Precepts they knew were to continue to the end of the World.  
If therefore, I say, Water-Baptism must not have remained, or if it were not, according to Christ's Will and Testament an inseparable Companion of his Doctrine, we should have had some hint or intimation of it, either by Christ's own Mouth, or by the Mouths of his Apostles, who were to deliver and command nothing to People, but what they had received of the Lord Jesus, or what was commanded them of the Lord as concerning the Cessation of that Service, or any Toleration of any one Person to omit it, but as we find it given forth by Christ, and practised by his Apostles and Primitive Saints, even from the beginning of it, which was in John's baptising in Water. So we find it, ad jure, to continue as part of his Mind and Testament, amongst other things, not a tittle of which Testament is yet annihilated, nor shall, till he come to take an account of all Men in respect of their Obedience or Disobedience, as to the preceptory part of his Will contained therein.  
But furthermore, whereas these Objectors seem to intimate, that Jesus Christ was not commanded, or commissionated from the Father to baptise with Water as John was, because 'tis said by John, I verily baptise you with Water, but he shall baptise you with the Holy Spirit; as if Christ had nothing to do to meddle with the Baptism of Water as any Ordinance of his, or to give any order about it, or had any more power to dispense or enjoin it, than John had power to meddle in, or take upon him to baptise with the Spirit, which peculiarly belonged to Christ, as that of Water peculiarly belonged to John.  
To what they speak upon this account, we must say, and tell them, that Jesus Christ had Command and Commission from the Father, as Mediator, to give forth and enjoin Water-baptism, though he committed the actual Administration of it to his Disciples; for sith he commanded them to do it, and so Baptised, saith an eminent Writer, per alios at least, if not per se; read John 3. 22. And after these things came Jesus and his Disciples into the Land of Judea, and there he tarried with them, and baptised. And John also was baptising in Enon near Salim, etc. vers. 23. Which is more fully explained, Chap. 4. 2. When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptised more Disciples than John, though Jesus himself baptised not, but his Disciples. Now if he had not received Command from the Father thus to do, his Testimony is not true; which to say, as the same Author observes, were Blasphemy; for ●ote, what he affirms, John 12. For I have not spoken of myself, but the Father which sent me, he gave me a Commandment what I should say, and what I should speak— Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto, me, so I speak. Wherefore since he did, by the Hands of his Disciples, baptise in Water in Judea, and made and baptised more Disciples than John, he did it by Command from his Father: And indeed 'tis evident that the People generally flocked to him for the Administration of Water-baptism at last, and left John, insomuch as he in his Ministry, even of Water-baptism, increased, and John decreased, John 3. 26, 27. Those words of John, in Answer to the Jews, do plainly intimate no less, but that this very thing was intended by those Expressions of his, though there might be more than this meant, And they came to John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest Witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all Men come to him. John answered, A Man can receive nothing, except it be given him from Above. Vers. 28. Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but I am sent before him.— He must increase, but I must decrease, vers. 30. Doth he baptise? as if John should say, that is a sign he is sent of God: and do all Men come to him? do they rather go to him to be baptised than come to me? Why 'tis no more than what I have told you, He shall increase, but I must decrease; He and his Ministry must and shall flourish, or increase in Honour, and Dignity, and Reputation in the World; He is the Rising Sun, to give you notice of which, I was but as the Morning Star; He must shine every day more and more. I have had my time, and near finished my Course, but do not think that the Baptism of Water shall cease with me; for as he baptizeth, and riseth more and more in Esteem and Honour; so he will do, and his ministration of this very Ordinance will increase and be magnified in his Hands, more than it has been in mine. I hope none will think it absurd to understand John's words after this manner, for it must necessarily be taken in this sense, in any solid understanding, I verily baptise you with Water only; as if he should say, but he shall baptise you also with the Holy Spirit. He is empowered to dispense higher Matters to you than Water only, with which he baptizeth (as you tell me) as well as I, though not himself, but his Disciples; I can go no further than to that outward Administration of Water, but he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost. In which words John doth not oppose his Baptism to the Baptism of Christ, as if that which is called his, were none of Christ's, but rather that John might magnify the Person of Christ above himself; as who should say, I can but dispense with the bare outward Sign, but Christ, who though he came after me, yet is preferred before me, in whose Name, and not in my own, I baptise, and whose the Baptism is that I dispense, and not my own; he is able, besides the Sign, to vouchsafe you the very Thing signified.  
The Baptism then of Water, in the Name of Christ, together with Repentance from dead Works, and Faith in his Name, John Baptist was the first Minister to begin, in which respect it was called sometimes his; but he left it, after a while, to Christ himself and his Disciples to carry on, who all, till Christ was actually crucified, preached and practised the selfsame things that John did, as did the Disciples after his Resurrection.  
All the difference between the administration of Baptism, as dispensed by John and the Disciples of Christ, before Christ's Death and Resurrection, and the Administration of it afterwards were only in some Circumstantials; which briefly take as follows.  
1. The Baptism in Water which was Christ's, and of which John was but a Minister, together with Christ's other Disciples before Christ's Death, etc.  
Was then the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins by Christ, who was to come, i. e. e'er long, to suffer Death, be buried, and rise again.  
2. But after Christ had suffered, it is the Baptism of Repentance, and Faith, for the Remission of Sins by Christ that is already come, hath died, was buried, and is risen again for our Justification; they baptised into Christ to suffer; now we are baptised into Christ who hath suffered.  
3. Neither can this seem strange to any Man, sith the Doctrine which John, Christ himself, and his Disciples, preached before our Saviour suffered, differed in the same respect also, for they all then preached Repentance, Faith and Salvation by Christ, to suffer.  
But had John lived till Christ had suffered, he would have preached Repentance, and Faith, and administered Baptism as we now do, viz. in and by Christ, who hath suffered; and this is all the difference, I say, that I know of, (which is only circumstantial) between the preaching the Gospel, and baptising, before the Death of Christ, and that after his Death; wherefore the word of the Gospel under John, and after Christ's Death and Resurrection, is called the very same Word; and the Word that Peter preached to Cornelius and his House, is said to begin from John's Baptism, as the same Word which John came preaching; so that the Baptism with which John came baptising, continues still, and was preached and practised by Command from Christ, by the Mouth of Peter, on Disciples believing, in that very place Acts 10. 
Acts 10. 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41.  And this not in honour of John, as some frivolously affirm, but as a thing which ought to be done, as in force anew from the Lord Jesus, in whose Name Peter administered it, and not without Warrant from Christ so to do; He commanded them to be baptised in the Name of the Lord.  
Object. But doth not Paul positively affirm, he was not sent to baptise, but to preach the Gospel, 1 Cor. 1. 17. and that he thanked God he baptised no more of them than Crispus and Gaius, and the Household of Stephanus?  
Answ. Paul cannot mean, Christ sent him not at all to baptise; or, that the Gospel he was commanded to preach, had not Baptism enjoined to be preached and practised, as an inseparable Companion of it, (because his Lord and Master, as we have showed, hath joined Preaching and Baptising together in his great Commission) Mat. 28. 19, 20. and so to continue to the End of the World.  
Moreover, Teaching and Baptism, Faith and Baptism, Repentance and Baptism were always preached and practised together: But he means this of Baptising was not his chief business; nor did Christ require him absolutely to the actual dispensing of the Ordinance of Baptism with his own Hands, but to preach the Gospel, in which Baptism as well as Repentance and Faith were contained, and as a sacred Ordinance thereof, which he was sent to preach as well as any other Gospel-Institution, and that he did preach it, otherwise he could not have said as he did, Acts 20. that he had not shunned to declare the whole Counsel of God, and so, that it was done too by himself or some other, but it was not in his Commission, that he must administer it in but his own P●rion; for it is evident, the Administration or Act of Baptising was not tied up to the Apostles, or to the more ordinary Ministers, but that any faithful gifted-Disciples might administer it as well as they; nor doth the Efficacy of Baptism depend in the least upon the Quality of the Person administering of it, whether it be Paul, Apollo's, or Cephas, or any other Disciple much inferior to them in Capacity or Office, it is no matter; for Ananias, a private Disciple, baptised; and Philip, who was no other than a Deacon, or Overseer of the poor, baptised many in the City of Samaria, Act. 8. so that we find in the Primitive Times the simple Act of baptising was a Work inferior, servile and subservient to that of preaching the Gospel, or Doctrine of Repentance, Faith and Baptism in Christ's Name for Remission of Sins, which was the great Work the Apostles were more especially sent to do, yet baptise they sometimes did, (when probably it was desired of them, or when the Multitudes to be baptised were so great that it required their help with others to do it;) nor is it rational to believe that Peter himself and the eleven did baptise all the three thousand, Act. 2. without the hands of the 120; though at that occasion the Apostles might baptise some likewise, there is no reason to doubt.  
When therefore Paul says, Christ sent him not to baptise, he intends not, that that Ordinance was none of those things he had in Commission to meddle with (for had it been so, he went beyond his Commission in baptising those few he did baptise with his own Hands, which were absurd to think, sith he was so faithful a Servant of Jesus Christ, and positively affirms, that he would not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ had not wrought by him) to make the Gentiles obedient by Word or Deed: 
Rom. 15. 18.  The words [not sent] do not import not at all, as appears by these Scriptures, John 6. 27. 1. Tim. 2. 14. Ephes. 6. 12. therefore he must mean not chiefly, or only sent to baptise, but to preach the Gospel; or not sent personally to do it, as I might further make appear in respect of Christ himself, who, as Mediator of the New Testament, (as hath been proved) received Command from the Father to baptise; but yet in the like sense it might be said, he was not commanded to baptise, i. e. personally to dispense the Ordinance himself, for had he received such a Commission, he had not fulfilled it; for howbeit, it is said he baptised more Disciples than John, yet he himself dispensed Baptism to none with his own Hands, John 4. 1, 2. but by the Hands of his Disciples.  
If what we have said here in Answer to this Objection were well considered, it will appear to confute such who object against the practice of Baptism, for want of a due and lawful Minister or Administrator, endued with an extraordinary Call and Power to work Miracles.  
Sith the Act of baptising is a more inferior thing than that of preaching the Gospel, and that any gifted Disciple may baptise; all that is recorded of Ananias' fitness or qualification (who baptised Paul) is, that he was a Disciple, Acts 9 10. And there was a certain Disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and there is no cause to doubt but many such Disciples were employed in baptising those 3000 converted by Peter's Sermon, Acts 2. so that there is no reason to tie up this Administration to ordinary Ministers or Pastors of Churches, much less to the great Apostles, or such who have an extraordinary Mission, sith Paul saith he was not sent to baptise, intimating, as you heard, that that work was not limited to the Apostolical Office, or that it must be done by Men extraordinarily qualified and called forth, and none else.  
Moreover, whereas 'tis said by some, that he who takes upon him to baptise, aught to have Power to work Miracles as the Apostles did; this seems very strange, seeing the Text saith expressly, 
Joh. 10. 41.  that John the Baptist, the first and most eminent Baptizer, did no Miracle, yet the People made no Objection against him, or his Power to baptise notwithstanding.  
Quest. But had not John an express Commission to baptise?  
Answ. That his Baptism was from Heaven, or that he did receive Command to baptise, 'tis evident; yet we read not when or how he received such Commission; but let his Commission be what it would, and never so full, it could not be fuller or more plain than the Commission we have lest us Jesus Christ, Mat. 28. 19, 20. Go, teach all Nations, baptising them— and lo, I am with you always, to the end of the Word.  
Now as this Commission authorises the Disciples of Jesus Christ to preach to the end of the World, so it equally empowers them to baptise; and the same Argument that is brought against baptising, viz. not having an extraordinary Mission, holds as strong against Preaching, and the practice of all Ordinances whatsoever as well as that; therefore how dangerous a thing is it for any to plead for the noncontinuance of Baptism in the Church, or to say it ceased when the extraordinary Gifts ceased, sith there is no other Commission that enjoins Christ's Disciples to preach, etc. but that which as well enjoins them to baptise those who are discipled by the Word.  
Object. But since the practice of Baptism in Water was lost in the Apostasy, how could it be restored again without a new Mission?  
Answ. That makes against the Restoration of other Gospel-Ordinances. which were lost as well as Baptism, in respect of the Purity of them, as practised in the Primitive Times: But as the Children of Israel had lost for many Years the Ordinance of the Feast of Tabernacles, 
Neh. 8. 14, 15.  yet by reading in the Book of the Law there was such a thing required, they immediately revived it and did as they found it written without any new Mission, or extraordinary Prophet to authorise them so to do; even so ought we to act, God's Word being a Warrant sufficient to justify us in so doing.   

CHAP. II. Showing what Baptism is from the literal and true genuine and proper Signification of the word Baptism.  
IN showing the signification of the word Baptism, we will, with all Impartiality, give the Judgement of the Learned; 'tis a Greek word, therefore let us see what the Learned in that Tongue generally have, and do affirm to be the express signification thereof: And such hath been our care and pains, together with a Friend of mine, (some time since deceased 
* Mr. Delaune. , who was several months in my House) as to examine the Writings of divers eminent Men upon this Account, amongst which are Scapula and Stephanus, Pasor, Minshew, and Leighs Critica Sacra; Grotius, Vossius, Casaubon, Selden, Mr. Daniel Rogers, Mede, Chamiers, Dr. Taylor, Dr. Hammond, Dr. Cave, Hefychius, Budaeus, Beza, Erasmus, Buchanan, Luther, Illyricus, Zanchy, Glassius, etc. who with many other Learned Men, nay all indeed who are impartial, agree with one Voice, that the primary, proper, and literal signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Baptiso is mergo, immergo, submergo, obr●o, item tingo quod fit immergendo, that is, in English, to immerge, plunge under, overwhelm, as also to dip, which is done by plunging.  
True in a less proper or remote sense, because thing that are washed, are commonly dipped or covered all over in Water, it is put for washing, Luke 11. 38. Heb. 9 10. Mark 7. 4. And we dare modestly assert, that no Greek Author of any credit, whether Heathenish or Christian, has ever put Baptising for Sprinkling, or used those words promiscuously; the Greeks have a peculiar word to express Sprinkling, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rantizo, which as a Learned 
* S. Fisher.  Author observes, is ever used in Scripture by the Holy Spirit, when he speaks of such a thing as 〈…〉 yea, 'tis used three times in one Chapter, viz. Heb. 9 13, 19, 21. and is always translated Sprinkling: Neither is there, saith he, any one place of Scripture, wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered to baptise, or used to signify baptising: Neither is there one Scripture wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Baptizo, is rendered Sprinkling, or used to signify such a thing as Sprinkling. This being so, and certainly so it is; How strangely hath the World, and many Godly Christians, been deceived, thinking they have been Baptised, when in truth they never were to this day, but only Rantized.  
We have had many long and tedious Disputes, and perplexed Controversies, about the true. Form or Manner of Baptising, whereas the thing in difference, is properly not the Manner or Form of Baptising, but what Baptism is; for, as one observes, A Man may ride many ways, viz. East, West, etc. backward, forward, apace, or slowly, etc. yet all this is riding still, whilst the Man moves to and fro on Horseback, because the very formality of that Action of riding, consists is being carried by a Beast; but while he moves upon his own Legs up and down, you cannot at that time denominate him riding. In like manner a Man may be Baptised [Anglicè, Dipped] or put under the Water many ways, viz. forward, backward, sideway, towards the right Hand or Left, with a quick or slow Motion, and yet all the while be Baptised; if he is put under the Water, for in such respect the Form or manner of Baptising, i.e. Dipping, doth consist: the manner of Baptising is one thing, and the manner of Rantizing is another: Sprinkling is Sprinkling, let it be done how you please, but it never was, nor never will be Baptising.  
And that Baptism is any thing else than Dipping, or Washing, which is by plunging or dipping, we do utterly deny; for as the cutting off a little bit of the Foreskin of the Flesh, and not the twentieth part round, is not Circumcision; 
Circumcision, ● cutting the foreskin round about quite off.  so sprinkling a little Water on the Face is not Baptism: As it would be ridiculous, and very absurd to call that Circumcision, so it is as false and ridiculous to call Sprinkling, Baptising.  
If Accidentals, or mere Accessaries, be wanting unto Baptism (saith one) there may be right Baptism notwithstanding, but abstract the absolutely Necessaries, 'tis not only none of the Baptism of Christ, but truly not any Baptism at all.  
Object. But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though it signifies not to Sprinkle, yet not only to Dip and overwhelm in Water, but also to Wash, and so 'tis rendered in the Lexicons, as must be acknowledged by you.  
Answ. If the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do signify to wash, yet it is a real total washing, only such a washing as is by Dipping, Plunging, or swilling the Subject in Water, and that signification is far off from Sprinkling: Can any thing be said to be truly washed, that hath only a little Water sprinkled upon it?  
The best Lexicons, and most eminent Critics, 
Danvers Treatise of Baptism, 2d. Edit. p. 182.  as well as the holy Scripture, do most plainly decide the Controversy, as Mr. Danvers and others observe.  
Scapula and Stephens, two as great Masters of the Greek Tongue as most we have, do tell us, in their Lexicons, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies mergo, immergo, obruo; item tingo, quod sit immergendo, inficere imbuere, viz. to dip, plunge, overwhelm, put under, cover over, to die in colour, which is done by plunging.  
Grotius says it signifies to dip over Head and Ears. 
Grotius.   
Pasor, An Immersion, Dipping, or Submersion. 
Pasor.   
Vossius says, It implieth a washing the whole Body. 
Vossius.   
Mincoeus in his Dictionary, says, 
Mincaeus.  that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is in the Latin Baptismus, in the Dutch Doopset, 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 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Baptiso to dip, as these Texts in the old Testament show, Gen. 37. 31. Exod. 12. 22. Leu. 4. 6. and 17. 14. Deut. 33. 24. Num. 16. 18. 2 King. 5. 14, etc.  
This, saith Casaubon, 
Casaubon.  was the Rite of Baptising, 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 is it not to swim upon the Superficies— Baptism aught to be administered by plunging the whole Body in Water.  
Also I find our late Famous, 
Dr. Duveil.  Learned, and Reverend Dr. Duveil, in his Literal Explanation of the Acts, Chap. 1. vers. 5. citing the same Author in these words, The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says Casaubon, is to dip or plunge, as if it were to die Colour.  
Leigh in his Critica Sacra, 
Liegh.  saith, its native and proper signification, is to dip into the Water, or to plunge under Water, Mat. 3. 6. Acts 8. 38. and that it is taken from a Dyer's Fat, and imports a dying, or giving a fresh Colour; for which also he quotes Casaubon, Bucanan, Bullinger, Zanchy, Spanhemius: He saith withal, that some would have it signify Washing; which sense Erasmus, he saith, opposed, affirming that it was not otherwise so, than by Consequence; for the proper signification was such a dipping or plunging, as Dyers use for dying of Clothes.  
Salmasius saith, 
De prim. papae, p. 193.  that that is not Baptism which they give to Children, but Rantism.  
Beza, 
Beza.  on Mat. 3. 11. saith, the word Baptizo signifies to dye, by dipping or washing.  
Selden saith, 
De Jure Nat. etc. l. 2. c. 2.  That the Jews took that Baptism wherein the whole Body was not baptised, to be void.  
Mr. Daniel Rogers saith, 
Treatise of Sacr. par. 1. c. 8. p. 177.  That the Minister is to dip in Water, as the meetest Act the word Baptizo notes it, for the Greeks wanted not other words to express any other Act besides Dipping, if the Institution could bear it. What resemblance of the Burial and Resurrection of Christ is in Sprinkling? All Antiquity and Scripture confirm, that it was Dipping.  
If you would, saith Dr. Taylor, 
Rule of Conscience, l. 3. c. 4.  attend to the proper signification of the word, Baptism signifies plunging in Water, or dipping with washing.  
In the Synod of Celichyth, 
An. D. 816.  where Wolfred Archbishop of Canterbury presided, as 'tis cited by Dr. Duveil, it was ordered that the Presbyters should take heed, that when they administered the Sacrament of Baptism, they should not do it by pouring Water, but always by plunging, according to the Example of the Son of God, who was plunged in the Waters of Jordan.  
The same Learned Author affirms, this was the constant practice of the Universal Church, till the time of Clement the 5th, who was crowned Pope, saith he, Anno 1305, under whom first of all the Second Synod of Ravenna approved the Abuse introduced into some Churches, about an hundred Years before that Baptism, without any Necessity, should be administered by Aspersion. Hence, saith he, it came to pass, that contrary to the Analogy, or intended mystical signification of this Sacrament, all the West, for the most part in this Age, they use Rantism, that is, Sprinkling instead of Baptism, as Zepper speaks, to the great scandal of the Greeks and Russians, who to this day plunge into the Water those they Baptise, 
Conc. Flor. §. 9 c. 9 & lib. of Infant Baptism, p 693.  and deny any one rightly baptised, who is not plunged into the Water, according to the Precept of Christ, as we may find in Sylvester, Sguropalus, and Cassander; the Custom of the Ancient Church was not Sprinkling, but Immersion, in pursuance of the sense of the word Baptizo in the Commandment, and of the Example of our Blessed Saviour, 
Ductor Dubit. l. 3. c. 4. Reg. 15. Num. 9 St. Martin's Life, N. 16.  saith Dr. Taylor.  
The Greek word Baptein, (saith Salmasius) ftom which the word Baptizein derives, signifies Immersion; nor did the Ancients otherways Baptise.  
Mr. Joseph Mede saith, 
Diatribe on Titus 3. 2.  that there was no such thing as Sprinkling or Rantism used in Baptism in the Apostles Days, nor many Ages after: He had spoke more proper if he had said, there was no Rantism used in the Apostles Days but Baptism, than to say no Rantism used in Baptism, sith he could not be ignorant but that they are two distinct Actions, and it cannot be Baptism at all if it be only Sprinkling or Rantism as is now used, Dipping or Immersion being the very Thing, not an Accident, but an Essential, so absolutely necessary, that it can't be the thing without it.  
The ancient Use of Baptism, 
Pan. Cathol. Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 2.  saith Chamier, was to dip the whole Body into the Element, therefore did John baptise in a River.  
Neither is it amiss to give you what Dr. 
Annotat. on John 13. Mat. 3.  Hammond speaks upon this account in his Annotations upon John 13. 10. where he 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 Matth. 3. 1. that John baptised in a River, viz. in Jordan, Mark 1. 5. in a Confluence of Water, as Aenon, John 3. 23. because 'tis said there was much Water; which he further makes out by the Name by which the Greeks called the Lakes where they used to wash; also the Ancients, he says, called their Baptisterions, or the Vessels containing their Baptismal Water, Columbethras, viz. swimming or diving-places, being made very large with Partitions for Men and Women.  
To all these famous Authors, it may do well to add our late Annotations, begun by the Learned Mr. Pool, newly printed, 
Pool' s Annotat.  see what they say on Mat. 3. 6. A great part of those who went out to hear John were baptised, that is, dipped in Jordan, and on Mat. 28. 20. say they, it is true, the first Baptism of which we read in holy Writ, were by Dipping the Persons baptised.  
The Dutch Translation, according to their Language, reads Dipping.  
Matth. 3. 20. Jesus ge doopt zijnde, is terstont opge-klommon vit haet Water.  
And when Jesus was dipped he came out of the Water; hence they, for John the Baptist, read John the Dipper; and for he baptised them, he dipped them. Why our Translators, who have been so faithful and exact generally in all things (as is acknowledged by all Learned Godly Men in the translating the holy Bible) should leave the word Baptism (it being a Greek Word) and not translate it into our Language, as the Dutch have done into theirs, I know not, unless it were to favour their own Practice of Bantising or Sprinkling, which the word Baptise will in no wise bear, as is confessed by a whole cloud of Witnesses.  
Mr. Ball in his Catechism renders it washing by Dipping. 
Ball.   
See also Dr. Ames in his Marrow of Divinity. 
Book 1. Cap. 40.   
Mr. Wilson 
Wilson.  in his Dictionary saith, to baptise, is to dip into the Water, or to plunge one into the Water.  
Also in the Common-Prayer-Book dipping into the Water is given as the proper and primary Signification of the word.  
We will leave this to the Consideration of all thinking Men, it being so, i. e. that Baptism is Dipping or Plunging the Body all over in Water, whether Infants can be the Subjects of it, sith their tender Bodies cannot bear being plunged thus into the Water in cold Climates, without palpable danger of their Lives.   

CHAP. III. Proving that Baptism is dipping, plunging, and covering the Body all over in Water from the Practice of the Primitive Times.  
CErtainly no better course or way in the next place we can take to find out what Baptism is, than to examine the Scripture, and see what the thing was which the Saints practised in the Primitive Time, where we read they did baptise, or were baptised: for as the Jews in Circumcision all along were to practise that Rite, as it was commanded, and practised by Abraham; and keep the Passeover as it was given to them from the Lord by Moses, together with all other Ordinances and Services whatsoever, it behoved them to observe the first or Primitive Institution and Practice of every particular Duty, and were not to derogate from thence in any thing whatsoever; and for their adulterating any of the Ordinances of God, they brought themselves under the Wrath of God, and many heavy Judgements from him, as the Old Testament doth sufficiently witness; so it behoveth us, I say, to see to the first or Primary Institution and Practice of Baptism in the Gospel-Time, that being a Pattern or Rule to us, and to all Christians to the end of the World, in respect of every Gospel-Ordinance; and if we derogate from that Rule, we must expect to meet with sharp Rebuke from the Almighty first or last. Now that that Ordinance which is called Baptism, is Immersion, Dipping, or Plunging into Water, will appear, if we observe the Practice of John the Baptist, who was the first that was sent by Christ to baptise; read Mat. 3. 6. he 'tis positively said baptised in a River, viz. in the River Jordan.  
Diodate on this place in his Annotations, 
Diodate Annotat.  saith he plunged them in Water; and our late Annotators say he dipped them in Jordan. 
Pool's Annotat.   
Moreover 'tis said that John was baptising in Aenon near Salim; 
Joh. 3. 23.  the Reason is given, because there was much Water. Now if it had not been dipping or covering the Body in Water, this could be no reason, for a little Water would have served to sprinkle thousands, as Cornelius à Lapide notes.  
Piscator on this Passage saith, 
See Mr. Gosnold's Doctrine of Baptism, pag. 20.  that Baptism was dipping the Body in Water.  
Also our late Annotators 
* Pool' s Annot. on Joh. 3. 23.  upon the place say thus, viz. It is from hence apparent, that both Christ and John baptised by dipping the Body in the Water, else they need not have sought places where had been a great plenty of Water. They say well, and less they could not speak unless they would stifle their Consciences, or offer Violence to their Reason: but if they had from hence said, it is apparent that Christ and John Baptised, and not Rantized Persons, they had come off better, and had undeceived the People.  
Secondly, 'Tis said when our blessed Saviour was baptised by John in Jordan, 
Mat. 3. 16.  he went up straightway out of the Water, 
Acts 8. 38, 39  etc. and Philip and the Eunuch 'tis said went both down into the Water, and that they came up out of the Water.  
The Assembly in their Annotations on this Text, say, they were wont to dip the whole Body; and Piscator on the place (as I find him quoted by a worthy Divine) saith, the ancient manner of Baptism was that the whole Body was dipped into the Water.  
Certainly it had been a vain and weak thing for them to have gone down into the River to be sprinkled with a little Water.  
There is no ground to think they would ever have done so, if Sprinkling or Rantism had been the Ordinance required of them, the manner was not to apply Water to the Subject, as some do, but the Subject to (nay into) the Water.  
In Mark 1. 9 'Tis said, Jesus was baptised of John in Jordan: Now, saith one on this place, it had been nonsense for Mark to say that Jesus was baptised in Jordan, if it had been sprinkling, because the Greek reads it into Jordan, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, could Jesus be said to be sprinkled into Jordan? 'tis proper to say he was baptised, that is, dipped into Jordan, and that was the Act and nothing else, as all the Learned acknowledge.  
Moreover, Philip needed not to have put that noble Person, who was a Man of great Authority under Candace Queen of the Ethiopians, to the trouble to come out of his Chariot (if Sprinkling had been Baptism) and to go into the Water and dip him; or if Sprinkling might have done as well as Dipping, sure Philp would on this occasion have dispensed with Immersion, and let Rantism have served, considering he was a great Man and on a Journey; he might have fetched a little Water in his hand and have sprinkled him in the Chariot. But as Philip had preached Baptism to him, so there is like ground to think that the Eunuch very well understood what it was, and readily submitted to it; but if Sprinkling would not excuse them, I know not how any Christian can think it may excuse us in these days; we have no Reason to think Christ Jesus, or his Apostles, did do or teach any thing in vain, yet so we must conclude, if he went into a River to receive no more than Sprinkling; and so we must think of Philip and the Eunuch also.  
But to proceed, here I cannot well omit that which Mr. Daniel Rogers, 
Roger's in his Treatise of the two Sacraments, part 1. chap. 5.  a most worthy English Writer, hath said in a Treatise of his, It ought (saith he) to be the Church's part to cleave to the Institution, which is Dipping, especially it being not left arbitrary by our Church to the Discretion of the Minister; but required to dip or dive: And further saith, that he betrays the Church, whose Officer he is, to a disordered Error, if he cleave not to the Institution, which is to Dip. What abundance of Betrayers of the Truth and Church too have we in these days? How little is the Institution or Practice of the Primitive Christians minded amongst many good Men? and where is the Spirit of Reformation? And doubtless that famous Author, and Learned Critic Casaubon was in the right; will you have his words; I doubt not, 
Casaubon on Mat. 3. 11.  saith he, but, contrary to our Church's Intention, this Error having once crept in, is maintained still by the Carnal Ease of such as, looking more at themselves than at God, stretch the Liberty of the Church in this case deeper and further than either the Church herself would, or the Solemnness of this Sacrament may well and safely admit.— Afterwards further saith, I confess myself unconvinced by Demonstration of Scripture for Infants Sprinkling.  
But Oh! how hard is it to retract an Error which has been so long and generally received, especially when there is Carnal Ease and Profit attending the keeping of it up, and when the contrary Practice, I mean dipping, is looked upon so contemptible a thing, and those who do it are daily, by the ignorance of foolish Men, reproached and vilified, as it is now as well as in former days.  
Acts. 8. 38.— And they went both down into the Water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptised him.  
We may see, 
Calvin on Act. 8. 38.  saith Calvin, what fashion the Ancients had to administer Baptism, for they plunged the whole Body into the Water: The use with us is now, saith he, that the Minister casts a few drops of Water only upon the Body, o● upon the Head.  
And upon John's baptising in Aenon near Salim, Joh. 3. 23. saith the same Calvin, From this place we may gather that John and Christ administered Baptism by plunging the whole Body into the Water.  
The Learned Cajetan upon Mat. 3. 5. saith, 
Cajetan on Mat. 3. 5.  Christ ascended out of the Water; therefore Christ was baptised by John, not by sprinking or by pouring Water upon him, but by Immersion, that is, by dipping or plunging into the Water.  
Moreover, 
Muscul. on Mat. 3.  Musculus on Mat. 3. calls Baptism Dipping, and saith, the Parties baptised were dipped, not sprinkled.  
Object. But it is still objected, Sprinkling is Baptising, say you what you will; and Baptism signifies Sprinkling as well as Dipping.  
Answ. To this we always answer, and again say and testify, that the Greek word to sprinkle, is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rantizo; and that the Translators themselves never so much as once, in all the New Testament, render Baptism, Sprinkling; and where is the Man that affirms the word signifies Sprinkling?  
Object. But the word Baptizo will bear Washing.  
Answ. We answer then, 'Tis such washing as is done by dipping; so much as is baptised, or washed, is dipped, and your Rantism is no washing; and we also say, and that too with good Authority, that though the word Baptizo doth sometimes allow of that Acceptation, yet it is not the direct, immediate, genuine, and primary signification of it, for that is to dip, or plunge, as you see in the Lexicons. But at the best 'tis but indirectly, collaterally, by the by (as one observes) so meant, or improperly and remotely, that it so signifies: And we ask, Whether when we try any Matter by the signification of the word as 'tis in the Original, we shall go to the direct, original, prime, and proper, or to the occasional, remote, indirect and improper signification to be tried by? Your practice it seems is built only upon the indirect, improper and remote acceptation of the word, and therefore is at best only an uncouth, indirect, improper and far-fetched practice; and indeed, as the word is found in Scripture, respecting Christ's Ordinance of Baptism, it is evident to all what it signifies.  
Object. But the Pharisees, Mark 7. 4. held the washing of Hands, Vessels, Cups, Pots, and Beds, etc. and there Washing are called Baptism.  
Answ. Yea, and what then, for, saith Mr. Wilson, to baptise, is to dip or plunge primarily, and signifies such a washing as is used in Bucks wherein Linen is plunged and dipped; and thus they washed their Vessels, Hands, and Cups, viz. they swilled, rinsed, cleansed, and totally washed, dipped, or wetted them all over with Water, or else you may be sure it could never be said they baptised them. But, Sirs, whoever washeses Hands, Cups, Pots, or Beds, by sprinkling a few Drops of Water upon them? there is no washing by such a kind of Sprinkling. O that you would give over such Arguing, since the practice of Baptism in the Primitive Times doth, as you have heard, evidently show that the Baptised were always dipped all over in Water; Certainly 'tis no Baptism at all, if not so administered.  
Object. Doth it follow that we must Baptise so now? That was in a hot Country; but we live in a cool Climate, and when Children were Dipped, some of them died; and God will have Mercy, not Sacrifice.  
Answ. Ought you not to make God's Word your Rule? Have you a Dispensation to make the Commandments of God void by your Traditions? We conclude, the Institution of Christ and the Practice of the Primitive Church, aught to be followed in all things as near as we can. But you say this is a cold Climate: Pray, Sirs, did not Christ, when he gave forth his Commission to his Apostles, to teach and make Disciples, and Baptise, bid them go into all the World, and into all Nations? Were they not to go into cold Countries as well as Hot? And, were they not to teach the same Doctrine, and administer the same Ordinances alike wherever they come? Or, did he tell them they should Baptise those in hot Countries that were Disciples, and Rantize such who received the Word in cold Countries? Unless you can prove this, I am sure all you say is nothing.  
Certainly you were as good never pretend to Baptise, but wholly deny it, and cast it off as a low and carnal Thing, as some do, as to do another thing in the room of it, which Christ never commanded, and call it his Ordinance; Which we do declare and testify, by the Authority of God's Word, and a great Cloud of Witnesses, who all understand the Greek Tongue, (may be better than some of you do) that 'tis no Baptism at all, but a thing of Man's devising brought in, in the room of Christ's Baptism, and unjustly fathered upon him.  
Sirs, How dare you, In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, say, I Baptise thee, etc. when you do but Rantize the Person? for you neither dip the Person, nor wash him. Has the Holy Trinity given you any Authority so to do? For God's sake, for time to come, use the Names of those Persons by whose Authority it was first set on foot and given forth, till you can show you have Authority from Jesus Christ to sprinkle, or pour a little Water upon the Face of a poor Infant, or an adult Person. Nor is it any marvel, when they did dip poor Children in Water, that some of them died, sith they are not the true Subjects of Baptism; if they had, no doubt God would have preserved them, as well as he did those Babes whom once he required to be Circumcised. Can any believe God would command any such thing to be done, that should endanger the Life of a Child? that was doubtless a just Rebuke for the profanation of Christ's blessed Ordinance; he will one day, I fear, say, Who hath required this at your hands? Nay, and who knows what Judgements and Wrath may come upon this Land for the abominable abuse of the Sacred Institution of Baptism. God many times shows Men their Sin, by the punishment he brings upon them, if you are so fond of Humane Traditions and Innovations.  
Object. But why must the whole Body be dipped? may not the Head be sufficient, that being the principal Part?  
Answ. I must confess, in a late Discourse I had with a Minister of the Church of England, he pleaded for this, seeing he could not defend Rantism. But to give a direct Answer, pray consider whether it be the Person, (viz. the Man or Woman) or part of the Person that Christ commanded to be baptised; if not the whole Body, why might it not serve only to wash or dip the Hands? But if it were the Hands only, or the Feet, or the Head only that was to be Baptised, i. e. dipped, a small Vessel of Water would have served, and no need for Christ or John to have gone into Rivers and Places where there was much Water, to baptise.  
2. It is not said, John baptised him, i. e. our blessed Saviour, not part of him: But as the blessed Virgin bore him in her Womb, and brought him forth, and laid him in a Manger; so John baptised, or dipped him, that is, his whole Body into Jordan, or in the River Jordan. Moreover, 'tis said, Acts 8. 12. They were baptised, both Men and Women, (that is, the Bodies, the whole Bodies of those Men and Women) and not some Part or Members of them: If this be not granted, we shall be run into many strange Absurdities almost every where in reading the Scriptures.  
3. To put this out of doubt, 'tis evident the whole Body ought to be dipped or baptised, because (as we shall show in the next Chapter) Baptism is a Figure of the Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, nay, called a Burial. Now a Person is not said to be buried, that is not totally covered in the Earth; no more can a Man be said to be baptised, except he be covered all over in the Water.  
4. We have showed how all the Learned agree, and positively assert, that Baptism was administered in the Primitive Times, by a total dipping the Body in Water. And indeed at first, when this Innovation of Rantism came in, they used to sprinkle the Body all over, being sure it was not one Part, but the whole Body that was to be baptised, and so they Rantized the whole Body. But you are gone here too, for you in (your Practice, and in your own Sense) Baptise but the Face only; so that all your People are unbaptised Persons, as evident as any thing can be, take it how you will, if it should be granted. I mean, that Sprinkling is Baptism.   

CHAP. IU. Proving that Baptism is Dipping, Plunging, or Burying the whole Body in Water, In the Name, etc. from the Spiritual or Metaphorical signification of this Gospel-Ordinance or Administration.  
TO make it appear yet more fully, that Baptism is not sprinkling, pouring, nor any other thing, than dipping, plunging, or covering of the Body in Water, we shall proceed to examine what it was ordained for by our Lord Jesus Christ, to hold forth, or to be a Sign or Representation of; for like as in the Holy Sacrament of the Supper, it behoveth us to know, what the breaking of the Bread, and pouring forth of the Wine signifies, or are Figures of; so in like manner we ought (with as great care) to endeavour to know what is held forth, or represented to us, as the Holy Signs of the Blessed Sacrament of Baptism; for as all true Christians readily do confess and agree with us, that the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper is not, cannot be rightly nor truly administered, if the great Ends and Design of Jesus Christ, in the Institution of it, are not answered thereby, or▪ what it was ordained and appointed to signify, plainly held forth and represented in its administration; but it is contrariwise a great abuse and profanation of it; and from hence we, and all true Protestants, always say, Let us keep to the exact words of the Institution, and manner of its first Celebration, that so the great Things signified, both by the breaking the Bread, and pouring forth the Wine, may clearly appear, and be represented in the Administration thereof.  
Now then, this is that which we affirm, viz. That as the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was ordained to hold forth the breaking of Christ's Body, and the pouring forth of his Blood; So in like manner the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted and appointed, to hold forth Christ was really dead, buried, and that he arose again for our Justification. And that this is so, we shall not only prove it from the plain Authority of God's Word, but by the joint Testimony of almost all famous Writers and Divines we have met with, Ancient or Modern. And indeed we cannot but be much affected with the great Love and Goodness of our Blessed Saviour in the Institution of these two great Ordinances, it being his gracious Design and Condescension, hereby to hold forth, or preach, as I may say, to the very sight of our visible Eyes by these fit and proper Mediums, the glorious Doctrine of his Death, Burial, and Resurrection, which in the Ministration of the Word, is preached or held forth to the hearing of our Ears, that so we might the better and more effectually be established and grounded in the sure and steadfast belief thereof; which is indeed absolutely necessary to Salvation, as the Apostle doth plainly testify, 1 Cor. 15. 1. 2, 3, 4. Moreover, Brethren, I declare unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you, which also you received, and wherein you stand, vers. 1.  
By which also you are saved, if you keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain, vers. 2.  
For I delivered unto you first of all, that which I also received, how Christ died for our Sins, according to the Scripture, vers. 3.  
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, vers. 4.  
This being so, let none blame us for contending so earnestly for this Ordinance according to the Primitive Purity, or its Original Glory, wherein, according to the gracious Design of Jesus Christ we daily receive, in beholding the Administration of this Sacrament, (as well as in the Lord's Supper what is represented to us) such a blessed establishment in the Truth of the Doctrine of Christ's Death, Burial, and Resurrection, as well as in many other Respects, the Profit and Use appears to us, no Ordinance being more significant, or ordained upon more weighty and glorious Purposes and Designs: for certainly, if we consider the grand Errors and Heresies of the present Age, so boldly maintained amongst us, (by those deceived People who cry up the Light within to be the True Christ; or that the Light or Power in that Person, called Jesus of Nazareth, distinct and apart from the Body that was Crucified, etc. is all the Christ they own) it will clearly convince us how gracious Christ was to appoint this Ordinance, besides the Word to confirm us in the Belief, that the True Saviour was a Man, and that he did die, and was buried, and rose again, which we see in a Figure represented before our Eyes, in the administration of this Ordinance, And that this is signified in Baptism, we shall now prove;  
First, From the Scripture.  
Secondly, By the Consent and Agreement of a Cloud of Witnesses.  
1. The first Scripture is Rom. 6. Therefore we are buried with Christ in Baptism: He seems, 
Pools Annotat.  say our late Annotators, to allude to the manner of Baptising in those warm Eastern Countries, which was to dip or plung the Party baptised, and as it were to bury him for a while under Water.  
Cajetan, 
Cajetan.  upon this place, saith, we are buried with him by Baptism into Death. By our Burying he declares our Death by the Ceremony of Baptism: because he that is baptised is put under Water, and by this carries a Similitude of him that was buried, who was put under the Earth now, because none are buried but dead Men— from this very thing that we are buried in Baptism, we are assimulated to Christ buried, or when he was buried.  
The Assemblies Annotations on this place of Scripture say likewise thus, 
Assemblies Annotat.  i. e. in this Phrase the Apostle seemed to allude to the ancient manner of Baptising, which was to dip the Party baptised, and as it were to bury them under Water for a while, and then raise them up again out of it, to represent the Burial of the Old Man and our Resurrection to newness of Life: the same saith Diodat?  
Tilenus, 
Tilenus' in his Disput. p. 886, 889 890. on Rom. 3. 4●  a great Protestant Writer, speaks fully in this case; Baptism, saith he, is the first Sacrament of the New Testament, instituted by Christ, in which there is an exact Analogy between the Sign and the Thing signified; the outward Rite in Baptism is threefold.  
1. Immersion into the Water.  
2. Abiding under the Water.  
3. A Resurrection out of the Water.  
The Form of Baptism, viz. internal and essential, is no other than the Analogical Proportion which the Signs keep with the Things signified thereby; for the Properties of the Water in washing away the Defilements of the Body, do in a most suitable Similitude set forth the Efficacy of Christ's Blood in blotting out of Sins; so dipping into the Water doth in a most lively Similitude set forth the Mortification of the old Man, and rising out of the Water, the Vivification of the new Man: The same plunging into the Water, saith he, holds forth to us that horrible Gulf of Divine Justice, in which Christ, for our sakes, was for a while in a manner swallowed up— abiding under the Water (how little time soever) denotes his Descent into Hell 
* Or Grave.  even the very deepest of Lifelesness, which lying in the sealed or guarded Sepulchre, he was accounted as one dead; rising out of the Water, holds forth to us a lively Similitude of that Conquest which this dead Man got over Death— in like manner, saith he, 'tis therefore meet that we being baptised into his Death and buried with him, should rise also with him, and so go on in a new Life.—  
St. Ambrose saith Water is that wherein the Body is plunged to wash all Sin away, 
Ambrose.  there all Sin is buried: we suppose he means 'tis a Sign of this, to show that all Sin is buried.  
Many other of the Ancient Fathers speak to the same purpose, 
See Dr. Du Veil on Acts 2.  as is observed by the famous Sir Norton Knatchbul in his Learned Notes printed at Oxford, 1677. (cited by Dr. Du Viel) the sense and meaning of Peter (saith he) that Baptism, which now saves us by Water, that is, by the assistance of Water, and is Antitypical to the Ark of Noah, does not signify the laying down the Filth of the Flesh in the Water, but the Covenant of a good Conscience towards God, while we are plunged in the Water, which is the true use of Water in Baptism, thereby to testify our Belief in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ; so that there is a manifest Antithesis between these words by Water, and by the Resurrection; Nor is 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 Baptism is a washing away 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 Chrst, 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 of Baptism ought not to be understood as if it were a sign of the washing away of Sin, although it be thus oftentimes taken metonymically 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 Noah returned as from the Sepulchre to a new Life, and therefore not unaptly called by Philo, the Captain of the new Creature: And the Whale's Belly out of which Ionas, after a burial of three days, was set at liberty: And the Cloud and the Red-Sea in which the People of Israel are said to have been baptised; that is, not washed, but buried; for they were all Types of the same thing as Baptism, viz. not the washing away of Sin, but of the Death and Resurrection of Christ, and our own; to which the Apostles, the Fathers, the Scholasticks, and all Interpreters agree. The thing is so apparent as not to need any Testimonies. But because there are not a few who do not vulgarly teach this Doctrine, it will not be superfluous to produce some of these innumerable Testimonies, that I may not seem to speak without Book; and first let us begin with St. Paul, Know ye not that so many of you that have been baptised into Christ, 
Rom. 6. 3, 4.  were baptised into his Death? therefore we are buried with him in Baptism into Death, 
Col. 2. 12.  etc. Else what shall they do that are baptised for the Dead, 
1 Cor. 15. 29.  if the Dead rise not at all? As if he had said, if there be no Resurrection, Why are we baptised? In vain does the Church use the Symbol of Baptism if there be no Resurrection. The like Testimonies frequently occur among the Fathers— 
* Ignat. Epist. ad Tral. id Epist. ad Philadelp.  that believing in his Death we may be made Partakers of his Resurrection by Baptism. Baptism was given in Memory of the Death of our Lord; we perform the Symbols of his Death and Resurrection in Baptism.  
We know but one saving Baptism, in regard there is but one Death for the World, 
Justin Martyr.  and one Resurrection from the Dead, of which Baptism is an Image.  
Here Paul exclaiming, 
Basil the Great.  they passed through the Sea, and were all baptised in the Cloud, and in the Sea 
† Basil of Seleucia. ; he calls Baptism the Passage of the Sea; for it was a flight of Death caused by the Water.  
To be baptised, 
Chrysostom. Ambros.  and so plunged, and to return up, and rise out of the Water, is a Symbol of the descent into the Grave, and return from thence.  
Baptism is a Pledge and Representation of the Resurrection 
‖ Lactant. Bernard. ; Baptism is an Earnest of the Resurrection; Immersion is a Representation of Death and Burial. Innumerable are the Testimonies which might be added. But these I think sufficient to prove that Baptism is an Image of the Death and Resurrection of Christ, (from hence we acknowledge the Mystery of our Religion, his Deity and Humanity) and of all the Faithful who are baptised in his Faith, from Death to Sin, to newness of Life, which if they lead in this World, they have a most assured hope, that being dead they shall hereafter rise to Glory with Christ:— Which things if so, what Affinity is to be seen between a Burial and a Washing, that Christian Baptism should be thought to draw its Original from Jewish Lotions? for if it were true that the end of our Baptism were to signify a Washing, or Ablution; or if it were true, that the Jews of old did admit their Children or Proselytes into their Church, by the administration of any diving, as it is asserted by many Learned Persons of late Days; yet to prove that our Baptism is indeed an Image of Death, and Resurrection, not of washing, enough hath been said. Thus far Sir Norton Knatchbul.  
And indeed, what this great Man hath asserted, and clearly demonstrated, doth fully detect our Brethren, who argue for their Childish Rantism, affirming, Though Dipping was the Baptism that was practised in the Primitive Time; yet it doth not from thence follow, that Dipping is essential to Baptism; they are the words of our late Annotators on Mat. 3. 6. The Reason they give is, 
See Continuat. of Pool's Annotat. on Mat. 3. 6.  Because, the washing of the Soul with the Blood of Christ, the thing, say they, signified by Baptism, being expressed by Sprinkling, or pouring Water, as well as by Dipping, or being buried in Water.  
In Answer, 
St. Bernard.  we say with St. Bernard, viz. Immersion is a Representation of Death and Burial.  
But saith the famous Dr. Duveil, 
Dr. Duveil, on Acts 2. 38. p. 78. Aquinas.  To substitute in the room of Immersion, either Sprinkling, or any other way of applying Water to the Body to signify the same thing, is not in the Power of the Dispenser's of God's Mysteries, or of the Church, for that, (saith he) as Thomas Aquinas excellently well observes, It belongs to the Signifier 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. To which let me add, Shall frail and silly Man seek out, or contrive new Rites, or Signs, having other significations than ever the great Lawgiver appointed or intended, and call them by his Name, viz. Ordinances or Sacraments of Christ? Will God, I say, ever, think you, suffer any Man, to invent, out of his own Brains, new Signs or Symbols of Divine Gospel-Mysteries, and father them upon him? What Ordinance hath he ordained to signify the sprinkling of the Blood of Christ? this cannot certainly stand with his Care, Wisdom, and Faithfulness; you may as well, no doubt, and be as far justified, to contrive some other proper and fit Signs or Figures of other Gospel-Mysteries, and call them Sacraments of Christ, as to change his Holy Institution of Immersion, or Dipping, designed and ordained by him, chiefly as it most clearly appears to represent his Death, Burial, and Resurrection into Sprinkling, or Pouring, and make it represent washing in, or sprinkling with the Blood of Christ, and then say, and not blush, It may serve as well.  
Object. But do you not acknowledge Baptism to signify our being washed in the Blood of Christ?  
Answ. In Answer to this, we do say, in a more remote sense, Baptism doth hold forth our being washed or bathed in Christ's Blood, which we doubt not but is signified in that of Titus 3. 5. by the washing of Regeneration; and in Heb. 10. 22. Yet certainly Sir Norton Knatchbul is in the right, The proper end of Baptism, saith he, ought not to be understood, as if it were a Sign of the washing away of Sin, although it be oftentimes taken thus Metonymically in the New Testament. This therefore, we say, Washing is not at all the main or principal thing, or such as is immediately, or primarily, but only remotely, and secondarily signified thereby. But the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ, which is the Rise and Root, the Original and Meritorious Cause of all the Good we partake of, is the principal Thing signified hereby. But what advantage is it to you that are only for Rantism, for us to own Washing is signified by Baptism, sith Sprinkling can, as you use it, in no proper manner represent Washing? But suppose it did answer in that, yet it cannot be Baptism, because it cannot, nor does it in any respect represent the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ; nor our death to Sin, and rising again in a Figure, to walk in newness of Life; which Baptism we have showed was appointed to do, and therefore can be no other but Immersion, Dipping and Plunging, or covering the Body in Water, which doth resemble, and most lively hold forth the Things signified thereby to our sight.  
Yea these Matters, viz. Christ's Death, Burial, and Resurrection, are the cardinal or great Things to be considered; for as in the Lord's Supper remotely many Things may be signified to us, yet all the Things cannot plainly be represented to our Eyes; but such Things that are the more immediate Significations of it are the proper Cause of all the rest, viz. Christ Crucified, and our feeding on him by Faith, or the breaking of his Body, and the pouring forth of his Blood, are most lively set forth and represented to our visible sight: So in Baptism likewise, the main and more immediate Significations, which are the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of our Blessed Saviour, with our death unto Sin, and vivification to a new Life, is clearly resembled, though the Fruit of his Death, and Remission of Sin, and Purging, etc. are consequently gathered from it also.  
Calvin saith, 
Calvin. l. 4. c. 16.  Baptismum esse sepulturam, in quum nulli msi jam mortui mortuo tradendi sunt; i. e. That Baptism is a form or way of Burial, and none but such as are already dead to Sin, or have repent from dead Works, are to be buried.  
Also Learned Zanchy, 
Zanchy.  I find, writes thus on Col. 2. 12. Of Regeneration, saith he, there are two parts, Mortification and Vivification, that is called a Burial with Christ, this a Resurrection with Christ; the Sacrament of both these, saith he, is Baptism, in which we are overwhelmed or buried, and after that do come forth and rise again: It may not be said truly, but sacramentally, of all that are Baptised, that they are buried with Christ, and raised with him, but only of such as have true Faith.  
Now we may appeal to all the World, whether Zanchy doth not clearly and evidently testify the same thing which we assert, viz. that Baptism is and can be no other than Immersion, or Dipping, sith Sprinkling, all must confess, doth not represent, in a lively Figure, the Burial and Resurrection of Christ, nor our dying, or being dead to Sin, and Vivification to Newness of Life, saith he, Sacramentally, i. e. Analogically; and in respect of the near Resemblance, yet truly to be buried with, and raised with Christ. This, we say, cannot be said of them that are sprinkled only; for if in respect of Mortification, and Vivification, they may be denominated, buried, and raised with Christ, yet that outward Rite and Ceremony cannot of itself denominate them so much as Sacramentally buried and raised with Christ, for there is not so much as any likeness of such Things in it. But in true Baptism, viz total dipping the Body in Water, and raising it again, it is in a lively Figure held forth to our sight.  
Moreover Chrysostom saith that the old Man is buried and drowned in the Immersion under Water; 
Chrysostom.  and when the Baptised Person is afterwards raised up from the Water, it represents the Resurrection of the new Man to newness of Life, and therefore concludes (saith my Author) that the contrary Custom, being not only against Ecclesiastical Law, but against the Analogy and Mystical Signification of the Sacrament, it is not to be complied with.  
It has been too long, God grant Men Light to see their Error, and do so no more. 
Prim. Christianity, p. 320.   
Also Dr. Cave saith that the Party baptised was wholly immerged, or put under the Water, which was the almost constant and universal Custom of those Times, whereby they did most notably and significantly express the great Ends and Effects of Baptism; for, as in immerging there are in a manner three several Acts, the putting the Person into the Water, his abiding under the Water, and his rising up again, thereby representing Christ's Death, Burial, and Resurrection; and in our Conformity thereunto, our dying to Sin, the destruction of its Power, and our Resurrection to a new course of Life. By the Person's being put into the Water, was lively represented the putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh, etc. by his being under it, which is a kind of Burial into Water, his entering into a state of Death, or Mortification, like as Christ remained for some time under the State or Power of Death; therefore it is said, as many as are baptised into Christ, are baptised into his Death, etc. And then, by his Emersion, or rising up out of the Water, is signified his entering upon the new course of Life; that like as Christ was raised by the Glory of the Father, so we should wal● in newness of Life.  
We are said (saith Paraeus) 
Paraeus upon Ursi●, p. 375.  to die, and to be buried with Christ in Baptism— and further shows, that the external Act of being buried in Water in Baptism, is a lively Emblem of the Internal Work of Regeneration.  
This, 
Austin.  saith Augustin, speaking of these things, is by a Sacramental Metonimy, and the meaning of it is, not that one thing is changed really into another, but because the Sign doth so lively resemble the thing signified.  
Thus all Men may see how the Learned agree with us, that these Scriptures do hold forth Baptism to be a lively Resemblance of Christ's Death, Burial and Resurrection, and not of the spiritual things signified only, viz. our Mortification of Sin, and rising to Holiness in a way of likeness to Christ's Death and Resurrection, but also the outward Rite or Form of Administration of the Sign itself— to be done in a way of likeness or lively Resemblance to them both; so that either our Brethren and other Pedo-Baptists must deny the Apostle speaks here at all of the Ordinance of Baptism, or else confess they have no Baptism; I mean none of Christ's Sacrament of Baptism, their's not answering nor representing any such things that Baptism was appointed to do, and still does among those Christians and Churches who have it according to the Primitive Institution restored to them, and practised by them.  
We are, saith Mr. Leigh [buried with him in Baptism unto Death:] Baptism, 
Annotat. on Rom. 6. 4.  saith he, is an Instrument not only of thy Death with Christ, which is the kill of Sin, but also of thy Burial with him, etc. He alludes to the manner in which Baptism was then administered, which was to plunge them in Water; the plunging of them into Water which were baptised, was a Sign of their Death and Burial with Christ.  
Dr. Jer. Taylor, late Bishop of Down, 
Dr. Tailor, in his Book of Proph. p. 242.  in his Plea for the Baptists saith, This indeed is truly to be baptised, when it is both in the Symbol and in the Mystery; whatsoever is less than this, is but the Symbol only, a mere Ceremony, an opus operatum, a dead Letter, an empty Shadow, an Instrument without an Agent to manage, or force to actuate it.   

CHAP. V. Proving Baptism to be Immerging or Dipping, from those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms spoken of in Scripture.  
THat we might remove every stumbling-block out of the way, if possible, we shall show you what those Metaphorical Baptisms spoken of in the Scripture do hold forth.  
1. We read of the Baptism of Afflictions or Sufferings, 
Woy great Afflictions are called Baptism.  Mat. 20. 22, 23. Mark 10. 38. Luk. 12. 50. I have a Baptism to be baptised with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! From the literal Signification of the word Baptizo, viz. drown, immerge, plunge under, overwhelm, great Afflictions come to be called Baptism, and signifies, as Vo●lius shows, not every light Affliction, but that which is vehement and overwhelming, as there are Waves of Persecution and Tribulation mentioned in Scripture; so such as are drowned and overwhelmed by them may seem in a mystical way to be baptised; the reason of the Metaphor is taken from many deep Waters to which Calamities are compared; He drew me out of great Waters, saith David, Psal. 32. 6. I am come into deep Waters where the Floods overflow me, Psal. 69. 1, 2. and hence great Afflictions are called Waves, or compared to the Waves of the Sea that overflow, T●y Waves and thy Billows are gone over me, Psal. 42. 7. Christ spoke of his Suffering, who was as it were drowned, or drenched, or overwhelmed in Misery, no part free: every Suffering is not the Baptism of Suffering, but great and deep Afflictions, suffering unto Blood and Death, in opposition to a lesser degree or measure of them, being dipped and plunged into Afflictions.  
Mr. Wilson on the Baptism of Affliction renders it to plunge into Afflictions or Dangers as it were, saith he, into deep Waters; so that it appears also from this Metaphorical Notion of Baptism, to baptise is to dip, or overwhelm, or cover the Body in Water. 
See Continuation of Mr. Pool's Annotat. on Mat. 20. 22▪  See what our last and best Annotators positively affirm on Matth. 20. 22. To be baptised, is to be dipped in Water, say they, Metaphorically; to be plunged in Afflictions. I am, saith Christ, to be baptised with Blood, overwhelmed with Sufferings and Afflictions; are you able so to be? etc.  
2. We read of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Fire: 
Mat. 3. 11. Mark 1. & Luk. 3. 16.  I indeed baptise you with Water, saith John, but he shall baptise you with the Holy Spirit and with Fire. Now the Question is, What we are to understand to be meant by the Baptism of the Holy Ghost? whether the sanctifying Gifts and Graces of the Spirit are intended hereby, which all the Godly receive? or those extraordinary Gifts or miraculous Effusions of the Holy Ghost only, which many received in the Primitive Times?  
I know some are ready to make use of the Baptism of the Spirit to justify their Rite of Sprinkling or Pouring, because God is said to pour the Spirit upon his People, and to sprinkle them with clean Water, which we do grant does intend the Graces of the Holy Spirit.  
But certainly if they did consider the ground and reason why Persons were said to be baptised with the Spirit, they would soon perceive this Argument would utterly fail them likewise, or stand them in no stead.  
For we do affirm that every Believer who hath the Holy Spirit, 
What it is to be baptised with the Spirit.  cannot be said to be baptised with the Spirit; like as every one that is under Afflictions and Sufferings, cannot be said to be baptised with Sufferings, as we have showed.  
But in the first place, it is necessary to understand the difference between the Baptism commanded and the Baptism promised; the Baptism commanded is that of Water, the Baptism promised was that of the Spirit. Our Saviour after his Resurrection gave forth his Commission to his Disciples, to teach and baptise, and then being assembled together with them, 
Mat. 28. 20  commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait fo● the Promise of the Father, which, said he, ye ha●● heard of me, Acts 1. 4. What was that? why 'tis expressed in the fifth Verse, Ye shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost not many days hence; and this was made good to them on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2. 1, 2 3. which was no other than the Spirit in an extraordinary manner, or the miraculous Gifts thereof; these the Apostles and believing Jews received first, and in the tenth Chapter of the Acts the same extraordinary Gifts, 
Act. 10. 46.  or Baptism of the Spirit, the believing Gentiles received, I mean Cornelius, and those with him, for they spoke with Tongues and magnified God: and Peter saith, Chap. 11. And as I spoke unto them, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the first; then, saith he, I remembered the word, etc. Ye shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost, ver. 15, 16.  
Now no other Gifts of the Spirit than these great, and extraordinary, and miraculous Effusions of the Spirit we do conclude is or can be intended or meant by the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. And that you may see we are not alone in this Opinion, see what Dr. Du Veil saith on Acts 1. 4, 5. shall be baptised, 
Dr. Du Veil on Act. 1. 4, 5.  the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says Casaubon, is to dip or plunge, as if it were to die Colours; in which sense, saith he, the Apostles might be truly said to have been baptised; 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 Fishpond.  
Hence Oecumenius on Acts 2. saith, 
Oecumenius on Acts 2. 2.  a Wind filled the whole House, that it seemed like a Fishpond, because it was promised to the Apostles, that they should be baptised with the Holy Ghost.  
To the same effect, 
See Key to open Script. Metaphors, lib. 4. p. 36.  saith another, as is noted in our Book of Metaphors, Baptism is put for the miraculous Effusion of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, and other Believers in the Primitive Church, because of the Analogical Immersion or Dipping, for so Baptizo signifies; for the House where the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles was so filled that they were (as it were) drowned in it; or the reason of the Metaphor saith he may be from the great plenty and abundance of those Gifts in which they were wholly immerged, as the Baptised are dipped under Water.  
And it appears by what Mr. Del●un hath written and translated out of Tropical Writers, 
Philologia Sacra, p. 190.  that Glassius and others assert the same things.  
And so likewise Mr. Gosnold, 
Treat. of Bapt. p. 62.  a worthy and learned Man, understood it, speaking of those Scriptures; We have here cited, saith he, these places diligently compared together, evidently show that the Baptism of the Spirit is a distinct Baptism from that of Water, and hath no Reference at all to the inward sanctifying Graces of the Spirit; but notes out the most extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit that ever were given to the Sons of Men, therefore called the Baptism of the Spirit.  
Object. But yet this Baptism however was by a pouring forth of the Spirit, and why may not Baptism be administered so?  
Answ.. 'Tis evident 'twas not by a sprinkling or dropping of the Spirit, and therefore no ways for your turn; and though it was by a pouring out, or a pouring forth of the Spirit, yet in such sort that the House in which they were is said to be filled, and so they immerged or baptised with it: But however, all confess this was but a Metaphorical Baptism, and therefore your Argument from hence at best is but far fetched, and signifies nothing, for 'tis a strange way to go to the Metaphorical Notion of a word to prove a Practice that is contrary to the literal and proper Signification thereof. Moreover, if this be granted which we have hinted here, it may serve to detect the Error of some Men who own no other Baptism than that of the Spirit, and think that the ordinary Gifts and Graces of the Spirit is the Baptism of the Spirit, which there is no ground, as I can see, to believe; nor was there any other Baptism to continue to the end of the World, but that of Water without doubt, sith the Baptism of the Holy Spirit was given only to the Apostles and Saints in the Primitive Time for the Confirmation of the Gospel, as these Scriptures show, Mark 16. 16, 17, 18, 20. Heb. 2. 3, 4. Therefore let such take care who say they have the true Baptism, and are baptised with the Spirit, left they are found Liars, and to be indeed without any Baptism at all; for though the Saints before that great Effusion of the Spirit, nay before Christ was manifested in the Flesh, had the Holy Spirit, and some of them in a glorious manner; yet, as some learned Men observe, they were not said to be baptised with it: so likewise Believers in these days have the Spirit of Christ in the ordinary Gifts and Graces thereof, yea and the Promise of Christ is, that the Blessed Spirit the Comforter shall abide with us for ever, yet are not we, nor any now baptised with it, nor have any (as I humbly conceive) since those miraculous and extraordinary Gifts ceased in the Church.  
Thirdly, There is another Typical or Metaphorical Baptism spoken of, viz. the Children of Israel, or the Fathers are said to be baptised to Moses in the Cloud, and in the Sea, 1 Cor. 10. Some have of late intimated, That the Rain that fell from the Cloud, sprinkled them as they passed through the Sea, and from hence would have Baptism to be Sprinkling: Truly, if that was a Baptism, viz. it raining upon them, the People may save their Money, and never go to Priest ●or Minister more to christian their Children, for 'tis but to carry them abroad when it reins, and they will be so baptised; and it will be as true a Baptism, no doubt: for the using the Name of the Father, etc. doth not make Baptism, though true Baptism can't be warrantably administered without mentioning the Names of the Sacred Trinity. But we must conclude, there was something else than that which these Men suppose in that Case, which caused the Apostle to say, Our Fathers were baptised unto Moses, in the Cloud, and in the Sea. It was doubtless a Type and plain Figure of Gospel-dipping, or burying in Water; for they were overwhelmed, 'tis evident, as it were, in the Cloud, and in the Sea.  
And we must give our late Annotators their due at this turn also, 
See Continuation of Mr. Pool's Annotat. on 1 Cor. 10. 1, 2.  for they speak much the sense of the Spirit of God in that place; pray take their own words, after they have given the sense of divers Learned Men upon the Text; this they fix upon us to be most probably the meaning of the Scripture; Others, say they, most probably think, that the Apostle maketh use of this term, in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptism, (as it was then used) the Persons going down into the Waters, being dipped in them; and the Israelites going down into the Sea, the great Receptacle of Water, though the Waters at that time were gathered on heaps on either side of them; yet they seemed buried in the Waters, as Persons in that Age were when they were baptised.— A very plain Figure doubtless, they having the Water on each side of them; and to which they might have added, the Watery Cloud over them, whether it broke down upon them or no, they were, as it were, buried in the Cloud and in the Sea; so that this Notion of Typical Baptism makes nothing for Sprinkling.  
And thus we hope we have fully evinced, and clearly proved, to all unbyass'd Men, what Baptism is you have heard.  
First, It is immerging, or dipping into the Water, from the proper, literal, and genuine signification of the word Baptizo.  
Secondly, From the manner of Baptising in the Primitive Times.  
Thirdly, From the Spiritual Signification of the Holy Ordinances of Baptism, together with the great Design and End of Christ in the Institution of it.  
Fourthly and lastly, From the Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms we read of in the Scriptures. We shall now proceed to speak of the Persons who are the true Subjects of Baptism in the next place.   

CHAP. VI Proving Believers, or Adult Persons, only to be the Subjects of Baptism, from Christ's great Commission, Mat. 28.  
WE having clearly evinced and proved what Baptism is, and that Rantism is not the Ordinance, 'tis clearly another Act; nor is Baptism any other thing than Immerging, Dipping, or Plunging the Body all over in Water: And this being so, we may from the whole infer, that all those who have been only sprinkled, whether as Children, or Adult, are all Unbaptized Persons, and will certainly be so found in the Day of the Lord; let their Teachers affirm or say what they will for their calling it Baptism, does not make it to be so: for suppose the Jews, or the Offspring of Abraham, to whom God commanded Circumcision, instead of doing that Act, should have devised some other Thing in the room of it, as the pairing off the Nails of their Children at eight days old, and have given that Act the name of Circumcision, would that have made it Circumcision? And truly, they might have as good a Plea, no doubt, for such an Invention, considering how dangerous and grievous a thing Circumcision was to little Children, as the first Inventors of Sprinkling a little Water on the Face of a Babe could pretend unto, in changing Baptism into Rantism.  
Now, in the next place it behoveth us to inquire, who or what kind of Persons they are, that our Lord Jesus Christ hath required to be baptised; and there is no better way certainly to know this, than to go to the great Commission, Matth. 28 19, 10. All Power, saith Christ, is given to me in Heaven and Earth. Go ye therefore, teach all Nations, baptising them, etc.  
1. First observe, that this Commission was given forth by Christ, just as he came out of the Grave, or rose from the Dead. Certainly what he said at other times, should with all care be minded, he being the Son of God; but much more now at this time. If God should have sent a Saint from the Dead, to let us know what we should do, would we not give all diligent heed to him? but much more to Jesus Christ.  
2. In the second place, especially considering the Power and Authority he testifies the Father had given to him as Mediator, viz. to be Head and chief Governor of his Church; or King and Lawgiver in all Spiritual Things and Matters over the Souls and Consciences of Men, all Power to dispose of all things in Heaven and Earth, or Power over Men and Angels, i. e. Power to make and give forth Laws, Statutes, and Ordinances, how, and after what manner God ought by us to be worshipped in Gospel-days, a Power that is given to him alone, whose Laws and Appointments none have any Power to dispense with, nor change or alter the Administration of to the end of the World; Go ye therefore, teach all Nations, baptising them, etc.  
3. Observe what is Antecedent to Baptism, Teach all Nations; there must be teaching, they must be first Taught, or made Disciples, for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as is well known and confessed by all, doth signify, to discipulize, or make Disciples, and next baptise them. And this also we find was his own practice, first to make Disciples, and then to baptise them; John 4. 1, 2. Jesus ('tis said there) made and baptised more Disciples than John; it is not rantize them, and then teach or make Disciples of them, as the manner of some now-adays is, and for a long time has been.  
Lord, that ever Men should be so bold and presumptuous, as once to attempt to alter or change any thing of this Holy or Great Commission, or adventure to do Things contrary to what is given forth here by Jesus Christ, as King and Lawgiver of the New Testament. What will they say when God rises up? What will they answer him when he visiteth them? Job 31. 14.  
4. Note the Extent of the Commission here given by Christ to his Disciples, Go teach all Nations, baptising them, 
Mark 16. 15.  Go into all Nations; or, as Mark has it, Into all the World, East as well as West, North as well as South, into Cold Countries as well as Hot, and make Disciples wherever you come, and Baptise them, etc. not Rantize them; not dip them in hot Climates, and sprinkle them in Cold.  
5. Observe in whose Name they are required to baptise, viz. in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; into the Name, so the Greek: In the Name doth not only import the naming of the Names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but in the Authority, and into the Profession of the Blessed Trinity, of the one Divine Being, dedicating the Persons baptised (saith our Annotators) to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But how dare any presume to Rantize a Babe that is uncapable to be taught or made a Disciple by teaching? In the Name of the Glorious Trinity, can they say and prove it, Christ hath given them any such Authority? I am sure they have no Warrant nor Authority so to do, from this Blessed Commission of Jesus Christ— It was by dipping of Adult Persons then— But it was in an hot Country, 
Object.  say our late Annotators, where at any time, without the danger of Persons Lives, it might be so done.  
Doth not our Blessed Saviour's Words immediately following fully answer this Objection, 
Answ.  and, lo I am with you always to the end of the World? Has not Christ Power to preserve, protect, and uphold all such Persons which he commands to be Baptised? Nay, can we think Christ would institute an Ordinance to destroy the Lives of any Persons? Besides, we know he has preserved thousands in this cold Climate; nay, and never did I hear of any one Person that received the least Hurt or Damage by being Baptised according to the Commission of Christ; though some have gone into the Water in the time of the great Frost, and at other Times of bitter Frost and Snow; nay, and Persons very Aged, and of both Sexes, and some that have been very weak and sickly— though our Adversaries have falsely reported to the contrary. But can they be so 〈◊〉 left to themselves, to think this will be a good 〈◊〉 for them, for changing this Ordinance of Jesus Christ, when he comes to call all Men to an account? certainly they will find themselves deceived.  
But say our late Annotators, 
Pool' s Annotat. on Mat. 28. 20.  Where it might be, we judge it reasonable, and most resembling our burial with Christ, by Baptism into Death, but we can't think it necessary, for God loveth Mercy rather than Sacrifice.  
Answ. Sirs, wherefore do you judge it reasonable, and not necessary? Is it not necessary for you to do what Christ hath commanded, and when at no time there is any danger of the Lives of Persons? If you will follow your Master's Command, and only Baptise such who are made Disciples, viz. believing Men and Women; is it not necessary for you to do Christ's Work, as Christ has required? Is it necessary you should alter any of his Holy Laws, and make void one of the great Sacraments of the New Testament by your Traditions? I pray, my dear Brethren, consider more seriously of it.  
From hence it is evident, that those who ought to be Baptised, are Disciples, and none else; and that a Disciple is one that is a Believer, one that is taught, or has learned of Christ; The Disciples were first called Christians in Antioch, 
Pool' s Annotat. on Acts 11. 26.  Acts 11. 26. Not only, say our Annotators, as Scholars were called amongst the Greeks from their Masters, viz. Platonists, Pythagor●ans, to teach us whom we profess to learn of, and be instructed by, but to mind us of our Unction, for Christians are Anointed ones, 1 John 2. 2●. Such Disciples are the true Subjects of Baptism.  
Yea, Christ (saith Mr. Baxter) in his Commission, 
Baxter on Confirmation and Restauration, pag. 27.  directeth his Apostles to make Disciples, and then baptise them, promising, That he that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved.  
And in another Book of his, speaking of the same Commission, 
See Mr. Tomes' Book, called Felo de se. Baxter's Dispute of Right to Sacraments, p. 149.  This, saith he, is not like some occasional mention of Baptism, but is the very Commission itself of Christ to his Disciples, for Preaching and Baptising, and purposely expresseth their several Works, in their several Places and Order.  
Their first Task is, To make Disciples, saith he, which are by Mark called Believers.  
The second Work is, To Baptise them; whereto is annexed the Promise of Salvation.  
The third Work is, 
See Danvers on Baptism, p. 2, 3.  To teach them all other things, which are after to be learned in the School of Christ. To contemn this Order, (saith he) is to contemn all Rules of Order: for where can we expect to find it, if not here? I profess my Conscience is fully satisfied from this Text, that there is one sort of Faith even Saving, that must go before Baptism, the profession whereof the Minister must expect: What can any Baptist say more?  
Let Mr. Baxter tell us what difference there is between contemning that Order Christ hath left in his great Commission, and a direct derogating from it, or acting quite contrary to it: And is not this so, viz to Rantize or Sprinkle, instead of Baptise and Sprinkle first, before they are taught or made Disciples? nay, and such too, who are not capable to be taught or made Disciples of: Is no● this to flight, is not to contemn Christ's Order in his Commission? for sith Christ appoints such, that by Teaching are made Disciples to be Baptised, he excludes all other the institution of Christ in this his Commission, being doubtless a perfect Rule; and those who do otherwise, follow their own Inventions.  
I find Mr. Danvers citys Mr. Perkins, 
Danvers Book of Baptism, p. 3, 4. Perkins.  (I have not that Book of Mr. Perkins) speaking to this purpose, on the words of the Commission, Teach all Nations, baptising them, etc. I explain these Terms, saith he, thus: Mark, first of all it is said, Teach; that is, make Disciples, by calling them to believe and repent. Here we are to consider the Order which God observes in making with Men a Covenant in Baptism.  
First of all he calls them by his Word, and Commands to believe, and to repent. In the  
Second place, God makes his Promise of Mercy and Forgiveness. And,  
Thirdly, He Seals his Promise by Baptism.— They, saith he, that know not, nor consider this Order which God used in Covenanting with them in Baptism, deal preposterously, overslipping the Commandment of Repenting and Believing.  
It appears to me as if God will sometimes make Men speak the Truth whether they will or no, and confirm his own blessed Order, though they contradict their own Practice thereby.  
Paraeus (the same Person saith) upon Mat. 3. 5. shows, 
Paraeus.  that the Order was, that Confession as a Testimony of True Repentance go first, and then Baptism for Remission of Sins afterwards.  
What Commission our Brethren have got, who sprinkle Children, I know not, let them fetch a thousand Consequences, and unwarrantable Suppositions for their Practice, it signifies nothing, if Christ has given them no Authority or Rule to do what they do in his Name. Natural Con●sequences from Scripture we allow, but such which flow not naturally from any Scripture we deny; Can any think Christ would leave one of the great Sacraments of the New Testament, not to be proved without Consequences. For I am sure there is no Baptism to be administered before the Profession of Faith in the Commission, nor no where else in Christ's New Testament; and that Faith is required in the second place as pre-requisite unto Baptism, is very plain from Mark 16. 16. They must be Believers, none are fit Subjects of Baptism, but they that believe, and are capable to believe; He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved, etc. not he that is baptised, and then believes. Take heed you do not invert Christ's Order; and if there is no Baptism to be found in the New Testament to be practised before Faith, much less Sprinkling or Rantism is there required.   

CHAP. VII. Proving Believers to be the only true Subjects of Baptism, from the Apostles Doctrine, and the Practice of the Primitive Churches.  
WE read that the Apostles, according to the Commission Christ gave them, preached the Gospel of the Kingdom, having received the Spirit from on high, and began at Jerusalem as he had commanded them, and so endeavoured to make Men and Women Disciples, i. e. bringing them to the sense and sight of their Sins, and knowledge of their lost and miserable condition by Nat●●e, as being unconverted and without Christ; and in Acts 2. where Peter preached the first Sermon that was preached after the Ascension of the Lord Jesus, And when they heard this (the Text saith) they were pricked in their Hearts, and sai● unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles, Men and Brethren, what shall we do? then said Peter, REPENT AND BE BAPTISED every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the Remission of Sins, and ye shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, etc.  
And then they that gladly received the Word, were baptised; and the same day there was added to them about three thousand Souls.  
Pray observe the Footsteps of this Flock, I mean the manner of the Constitution of this Church, it being the first Church that was planted in the Gospel-days, it was the Church at Jerusalem, and indeed the Mother-Church; for evident it is, all other Gospel-Churches sprang at first from this, and hence some conceive the Apostle calls this Church Jerusalem above, 
* Gal. 4. 26. , being the Mother of us all, said to be above, not only because she was in her Constitution from Heaven, or by Divine and Evangelical Institution, but also might be said to be above in respect of Dignity or Privilege, being first constituted, and having the first Fruits of the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit poured out upon them; and besides, having all the great Apostles at first as Members with her; and hence 'tis that all other Churches were to follow the Church of God that was in Judea, and were commended in so doing, and certainly 'tis the Duty of all Churches so to walk unto the end of the World.  
But to proceed, Acts 8. we find Philip, being by the Providence of God cast into Samaria, he preaches Jesus Christ to them, and when they believed Philip, 
Act. 8. 12.  preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the Name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised both Men and Women: not till they were Disciples, and did believe, were any baptised: [Men and Women,] not Children, not them and their little Babes; if Philip had so done, he had acted contrary to his Master's Commission. In the same Chapter we find he preached Christ to the Eunuch also, 
Act. 8. 36, 37.  And they came to a certain Water; and the Eunuch said, See, here is Water, what doth hinder me to be baptised? ver. 37. And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine Heart, thou mayst. And the Eunuch answered, and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God: And they both went down into the Water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptised him. There must be Faith or no Baptism, thou mayst or thou oughtest, 'tis lawful, or according to Christ's Law, 
Pools Annotat. on. Act. 8. 37.  i. e. his Commission. A Verbal Profession is not sufficient, say our late Annotators on this place. Philip in God's Name requires a Faith as with all the Heart, and not such as Simon Magus had, who is said to believe, and be baptised, vers. 13. this was (say they) the only thing necessary, either then or now if rightly understood.  
How was it known, 
Baxter on Confirmat. p. 27.  saith Mr. Baxter, but by their Profession, that the Samaritans believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the Name of Jesus Christ, before they were baptised both Men and Wome▪ and, saith ●he, Philip caused the Eunuch to profess before he would baptise him, that he believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God.  
Moreover, 
Act. 10. 45, 47, 48.  in the tenth of the Acts we find Cornelius and those with him were first made Disciples by Peter's preaching, and the Spirit's powerful Operation, and then were baptised; Who can forbid Water (saith he) that thest should not be baptised, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as me? And he commanded them to be baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus; that is, by the Authority of Christ according to the Commission. 
Acts 16. 31, 32, 33.  So in Acts 16. when the poor trembling Jailor was made a Disciple, i. e. did believe with his whole House on the Lord Jesus Christ, he was with his whole House baptised; so Lydia believed and was baptised, Acts 16. 14. the like in Acts 18. Crispus believing on the Lord, 
Acts 18. 8.  and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptised.  
The Chief Ruler believed with all his House and were baptised, he believed, his House believed, the Jailor believed, all runs in their believing, all must by believing be made Disciples, or not be baptised.  
Luther saith that in Times past, 
Luther, Tom. 3. fol. 168. cited by Mr. Danvers, p. 8. on Baptism.  the Sacrament of Baptism was administered to none except it were to those that acknowledged and confessed their Faith, and knew how to rehearse the same, and why are they now?  
See Mr. Baxter in his sixteenth Argument against Mr. Blake, 
Baxter's 2d Disputation, p. 149.  if there can be no Example given in Scripture of any one that was baptised without the Profession of a saving Faith or any Precept for so doing, then must we not baptise any without.  
But, saith he, the Antecedent is true, therefore so is the Consequent.  
1. I have, saith he, showed you, John required the Profession of true Repentance, and that his Baptism was for Remission of Sins.  
2. When Christ layeth down the Apostolical Commission, the Nature and Order of the Apostles Work, it is first ●o make them Disciples, and then to baptise them in the Name, etc.  
That it was saving Faith that was required of the Jews and professed by them, Acts 2. 38. is plain in the Text.  
The Samaritans believed, and had great Joy, and were baptised, etc.  
The Condition upon which (saith he) the Eunuch must be baptised was, if he believed with all his Heart.  
Paul was baptised after Conversion, Acts 9 18.  
The Holy Ghost fell on the Gentiles before they were baptised, Acts 10. 44.  
Lydia's Heart was opened before she was baptised, and was one the Apostle judged faithful, Acts 16. 14.  
So he goes over with all the Scriptures we have mentioned, proving they were Believers, and none else, that all along in the New Testament were baptised; 'tis strange to me that the Man should have such clear Light and plead for the Commission, and the Practice of the Primitive Christians, and yet dare attempt to sprinkle Children, having neither a Command from Christ, or a Precedent from the Apostles for any such thing.  
Object. I know 'tis objected Baptism was administered only to Believers in the Apostles time, but that was the Infancy of the Church.  
Answ. I am not a little troubled to hear any Man to argue after this manner; for though it be granted in the Apostles days the Church was newly constituted, and so might be said to be new born; yet to say that was the Infancy of the Church, (as Infancy imports in our common Acceptation, Weakness or Imperfection) is a false and foolish Assertion.  
1. Because that was in truth the time of the Church's greatest Glory, Perfection and Beauty, and very soon after the Apostles fell asleep, the Church, though she grew older, yet she decayed, and Corruptions crept in; the Church might in that respect be compared to a glorious Flower, that as soon as ever it is blown and quite put forth it is in its Glory, and let it stand a while and it soon fades, and loses much of its Lustre and Beauty; even so did the Church of God: 
Acts 20.  and it was foretold also by the Apostles, it would so after their departure come to pass, by the entering in of grievous Wolves who should not spare the Flock, i. e. the Church; 
2 Thess. 2. 7.  nay, the Spirit of Antichrist, (Paul saith,) or Mystery of Iniquity, did even then work in the Apostles days. 
1 John 2. 18.  And St. John speaks to the same purpose, Little Children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many Antichrists, whereby we know that this is the last time: and indeed all generally believe the Church continued not a pure Virgin to Christ much longer than one hundred Years after his Death; now then shall any presume to say that was the Infancy of the Church, as if the Church arrived to clearer Light, Strength, and Glory in aftertimes.  
But, 2. Had not the Gospel-Church in that Age the extraordinary Apostles with it, like to whom never any rose after to succeed them; nay such who were conversant with the Lord Jesus after he rose from the Dead, 
Acts 1. 3.  and spoke to him mouth to mouth, 
Act. 10. 41.  and did eat and drink with them? as Peter saith, Acts 10.  
3. Had not the Church then extraordinary Gifts, nay, such an infallible Spirit and Presence of Christ with her, that her Sons could clearly discern Spirits, and know when they speak, and when the Spirit spoke in them? Now speak I, not the Lord.  
4. Was not that Church set up to be a Pattern, or perfect Copy, after which all succeeding Churches were to write? can we think that others ever attained to the like, much less to greater Light and Knowledge than they? These things considered, fully show the folly and weakness of this Assertion and Objection.  
But if Believers were the only Subjects of Baptism in the Primitive Time, and this was according to the Commission of Christ and Practice of those days, how came this Order and Administration to be altered and changed, I mean by whose Authority? nay, and which is worst of all, 
〈…〉  if that Infant-Baptism may be deemed to be a Divine Rite, or an Ordinance of God, sith 'tis not recorded in the Scripture, nor practised in the Apostles Time, it renders not only the Gospel-Church weak and imperfect, but Christ himself unfaithful, or less faithful than Moses, who was but the Servant, and yet lest nothing dark or unwritten which God commanded him, but did do every thing exactly according to the Pattern showed him in the Moun●.  
Nay, and by the same Argument (since Infant-Baptism was not instituted by Christ, no● practised in the Primitive Church) and yet may be admitted as a Divine Ordinance of Christ, and so practised by Christians▪ why may not all, or many other Rites and Sacraments owned and maintained in the Romish Church, be admitted also? But,  
Object. I have heard some say, Is it my where forbid?  
Answ. To which I answer, where are such things as Cross, Salt, spital, and Sureties, etc. forbid? At this Door what Inventions and Innovations may not come in, or be admitted, of such a dangerous Consequence is this, that it would undo us all!  
Object. But say you at that time, i. e. at the first preaching the Gospel and planting Churches, Adult Persons were baptised only because they were before they believed either Jews or Heathens; but when they believed and were baptised, their Children had a right to Baptism likewise.  
Answ. This is soon said, but hardly, nay not at all to be proved. For it cannot be their children's right without Authority or Command from Christ: for if we should grant all our Brethren say concerning Abraham's Seed, and of their children's being in Covenant, this will not justify their Practice of baptising them, if they argue thus till Doomsday, except Christ hath left them a Precept, or his Church a Precedent so to do; for Abraham's Seed, though they were such a thousand times over, had no right to Circumcision until he received the word of Command to circumcise them from the great God. Nor had Lot, and other godly Men in that day, any right to that Ceremony who were not of Abraham's Family, because God limited his Command to himself, his Sons, and Servants, or such who were bought with Money, and so came into his House.  
Secondly, We des●re it may be considered that the History we have of the Gospel-Church in the Apostles days from the first planting of the Church at Jerusalem, till St. John received his Revelations, contains more than ●ifty Years, and there was no ●ewer than three thousand Persons baptised at once in that first Church; so that we may conclude there were many thousands of Believers who doubtless had many Children born unto them during the time of the Gospel 〈◊〉 in the History we have recorded in the New Testament, and yet we read not of one of their Children upon the account of federal Holiness, and their Parents covenanting with God, baptised; and can any be so blind as to think the holy God would have left this thing so in the dark without the least hint or intimation, had it been any of his Mind or Counsel that Believers Seed should be baptised? I am sure they cannot say it, without reflecting upon the Faithfulness, Care, and Wisdom of God.   

CHAP. VIII. Proving Believers the only true Subjects of Baptism from the special ends of this holy Sacrament.  
WHat the special end and use of Baptism is, comes next in order to be considered, wherein it will more fully and clearly appear that no Infant in Nonage ought by any means to be baptised.  
First of all, it was ordained to be a Sign 〈…〉 the Baptised of some inward 〈…〉 viz. of the Person's Death unto 〈…〉 to a new Life buried with 〈…〉 i. e. Christ doth certainly 〈…〉 immediately (if not wholly) in 〈…〉 Scripture to that outward Sign 〈…〉 that in which there is a plain Representation of the Mystery and inward Grace, we are said to be buried and risen both in Signification, and also in lively Representation of the inward and spiritual Burial and Resurrection with Christ.  
Secondly, Here is mention made of the Sign, and of the Thing signified. And as for that which is spoken of under this Expression, Buried in Baptism, 'tis delivered as a M●dium (saith one) whereby, as a Motive whereunto, and as a Reason wherefore, as an Image and Representation, wherein we are both to read, 
Rom. 6. 3, 4, 5, 6.  and remember, and also practise and perform that other; for, do but mark, how shall we that are dead to Sin, (i. e. should be) live any longer therein? Know ye not, that as many of you as were baptised into Christ, i. e. into, or in token of an Interest in him, and of a Oneness and Fellowship with him by Faith, are baptised into his Death? i.e. in token of such a Communion with the Power of his Death, as to kill Sin, and crucify the old Man, so that henceforth we should not serve Sin? therefore hence it is, saith he, that in Baptism, (i. e. the outward Sacrament) we are buried with him, i. e. outwardly, visibly, bodily in Water into his Death, i. e. in token and resemblance of our dying unto Sin by virtue of his Death? That we should be ever practically mindful of this, That like as Christ rose again after he was dead, so we should rise to a new Life; for if we have been planted together in the likeness of his Death, (i. e. signally in outward Baptism, spiritually, and really in the inward Work of Death unto Sin, &c, performed by the Spirit upon the Soul) we shall be also in the likeness of his Resurrection.  
Thirdly, This Burial and Resurrection that is immediately expressed by these words, Buried with him in Baptism, wherein ye are also risen with him, is made a Motive, Argument, and Incitement to the spiritual Death and Resurrection; for therefore are we persuaded to die to Sin and live righteously, because in Baptism we are buried in Water, and raised again, in token that we ought so to do; and to this end are we baptised, and buried, and raised therein, and so interested into all the other Benefits of Christ's Death, Remission of Sins, and Salvation, viz. that we should die to Sin and live holily, and to the end also that we may thereby be put in mind so to do.  
Now if this Death and Burial in Baptism be to this end, viz. to teach us, and show us how we must die to Sin: Then I infer two things,  
First, That the burial in Baptism, here spoken of, is not the Death to Sin; for the Motive, and things we are moved to do, are two; and so are the Sign, and the Thing signified.  
Secondly, That Infants are not capable Subjects of Baptism: for this Sacrament calls for Understanding, and Judgement, and Senses to be exercised in all that partake thereof, or else the whole work will be altogether insignificant. Therefore, saith one, to carry a poor Babe to Baptism, is as much as to carry it to hear a Sermon.— A Sign, 
Pareus.  as Pareus observeth, is some outward thing appearing to the Sense, through, which some inward thing is at the same time apprehended by the Understanding.  
Therefore, saith Mr. Perkins, 
Perkins Case of Consc. p. 177.  the preaching of the Word, and the administration of Sacraments are all one in substance; for in the one the Witness of God is seen, and in the other heard.  
Secondly, Another end of Baptism is, that it might be a signal Representation of a Believers Union with Christ, hence called a being baptised into Christ, and a putting on of Christ.  
As many as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ, and are all one in Christ Jesus, 
Baxter on Confirm. p. 32.  saith Mr. Baxter, and are Abraham's Seed, and Heirs according to Promise, Gal. 3. 27, 28, 29.  
This speaks the Apostle of the probability grounded on a credible Profession, etc.  
And further, saith he, our Baptism is the Solemnising of our Marriage with Christ, and 'tis a new and strange kind of Marriage where there is no Profession of Consent.  
Now if this be true which Mr. Baxter affirms, and I see no cause to doubt of it; (most worthy Men, as well as Scripture, agreeing in this case with him) how absurd and ridiculous a thing is the Invention of Infant-Baptism, sith all Men know they are not capable to signify their Consent of Marriage with Christ; if any thing in the World cuts in pieces the very Sinews of Infant's Baptism 'tis this; for there is a Contract made between both Parties before the Solemnisation of Marriage; and how can a Babe of two or ten days old do that? 'tis a strange Marriage if it be not done, though more strange indeed without the other. But may be some will say 'tis a Marriage by Proxy or Sureties, as Princes sometimes are married.  
Answ. Sometimes there has been some such like Action done I must confess: But does not the Prince actually consent so to be married? But all this while, who has required any thing of this at our Hands? Are not Sureties in Baptism a mere human Invention? and have not our Brethren cast it away as such?  
The third end of Baptism, as Mr. Perkins observes, is this, viz. 'Tis a Sign to Believers of the Covenant on God's part of the washing away of our Sins in the Blood of Christ; we see, saith lie▪ what is done in Baptism, the Covenant of Grace is solemnised between God and the Party baptised; and in this Covenant something belongs to God, and something to the Party baptised. Are Infants capable thus to covenant with God? though we doubt not but it is so in some good sense between the Almighty and a Believer, who is the only Subject, i. e. there is indeed a mutual Stipulation on both Parties in that Solemnity, but an Infant can do nothing herein.  
Baptism, saith Bullinger, 
Bullinger upon Acts 2. 38.  is an Agreement or Covenant of Grace which Christ enters into with us when we are baptised, etc.  
Fourthly, Baptism is called the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins; one end of this Ordinance therefore is this, viz. To testify the Truth of our Repentance, and to engage us thereby to bring forth Fruits meet for amendment of Life.  
As their Sins are not forgiven them, 
Baxter on Confirm. p. 30, 31.  saith Mr. Baxter, till they are converted; so they must not be baptised for the Forgiveness of Sins, till they profess themselves converted, seeing to the Church non esse & non apparere is all one. Repentance towards God, and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, is the sum of that preaching that makes Disciples, Acts 20, 21. Therefore both these must by Profession seem to be received, before any at Age are Baptised. And that no other, say I, besides them at Age ought to be baptised, by this very Argument is very clear and evident.  
Bullinger, 
Bullinger on Act. 2. 38.  as he is quoted by Mr. Baxter, I find speaketh thus, viz. To be baptised in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, saith he, is by a Sign of Baptism, to testify that we do believe in Christ for the Remission of Sins: First, mark, it is not only an Engagement to believe hereafter; but the Profession, saith he, of a present Faith. Secondly, And that not a common Faith, but that which hath Remission of Sin.  
Farewell to Infant Baptism; a present Faith is required of such that are to be baptised, nay, and more, a present profession of it too. Infants have neither Faith, nor can they profess it, Ergo they are not to be baptised.  
Fifthly, Another End of Baptism is, (as one well observes) to evidence present Regeneration; whereof, saith he, 
Tit. 3. 5. Baxter in his Disput. with Mr. Blake, p. 117. as quoted by Mr. Danvers.  it is a lively Sign or Symbol— Hence 'tis called the Washing of Regeneration; what signifies the Sign, where the Thing signified is wanting? Baptism is frequently called the Lave● of Regeneration, it being a Sign or Figure of it to the Person Baptised.  
Christ hath instituted no Baptism, saith Mr. Baxter, but what is to be a Sign of present Regeneration; but to Men that profess not a Justifying Faith, it cannot be administered as a Sign of Regeneration. Therefore he hath instituted no Baptism to be administered to such. Does not this Argument make void the Baptism of Infants, as well as Adult Unbelievers, by the Ancients? Let Mr. Baxter take it again, but with a very little alteration. Christ hath instituted no Baptism but what is to be a Sign of present Regeneration; but to little Babes that profess not a justifying Faith, it cannot be administered as a Sign of present Regeneration, therefore he hath instituted no Baptism to be administered to Infants. The stress of the Argument lies in the Institution of Christ, in that no Baptism is instituted and commanded by Christ, but what is a Sign of present Regeneration, not Future; therefore Infant-Baptism can be no Baptism of Christ.  
Sixthly, Baptism is called, An Answer of a good Conscience, 
1 Pet. 3. 21.  by the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead; or the Covenant of a good Conscience by the Resurrection of Christ, (as saith Sir Norton Knatchbul, in his Learned Notes printed at Oxford, 1677.) in the belief of which Resurrection we are saved, saith he, as they were saved by the Ark. But now Infants cannot Covenant thus, nor Witness thus in Baptism by a Belief of the Resurrection, (which saith the said famous Learned Man) Baptism is an emphatical Figure, or a particular Signal of, to the Person baptised.  
See what our Late Annotators speak upon the place; 
Pool' s Annotat. on Tit. 3. 5.  In Baptism, say they, there is a solemn Covenant, or mutual Agreement between God and the Party baptised, wherein God offers, applieth, and seals his Grace, stipulating or requiring the Parties acceptance of that Grace, and devoting himself to his Service; and when he, out of a good Conscience doth engage and promise this, which is to come up to the terms of the Covenant, that my be properly called the Answer of a good Conscience— it seems, say they, to be an allusion to the manner of Baptising, where the Minister asked the Party to be Baptised concerning his Faith in Christ; and he accordingly answered him, Dost thou believe? I believe, etc. Acts 8. 37. Now, are Children capable to do any of this? Can they covenant with God? Can they answer a good Conscience, by believing the Resurrection of Christ? or can Baptism appear to be a Symbol of it to them? No, nor indeed can Rantism be so to any other, I mean to the Adult.  
Seventhly, Baptism hath another End and Use assigned to it, viz. That the Party baptised may have an orderly entrance into the Visible Church, and so have a right to partake of all other Ordinances and Privileges thereof, as breaking of Bread, etc. This hereafter I shall make fully appear; nor is it any other thing than is generally owned by Christians, and eminent Men; but Infants cannot be admitted to those Privileges, viz. to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, etc. and therefore ought not to be baptised; for he that has right to one, cannot be denied the other, by any Ground or Authority from God's Word.   

CHAP. IX. Containing several other Arguments, proving, why not Infants, but Believers only, are the true Subjects of Baptism.  
IF there is no word of Institution, 
1. Argument.  or any thing in the Commission of Christ for Baptising Infants, but of Believers only, than not Infants but Believers only ought to be Baptised.  
But there is no word of Institution, or any thing in the Commission of Christ, for baptising Infants, but of Believers only; Ergo, not Infants, but Believers only are the Subjects of Baptism.  
The Major Proposition is undeniable: for if Infants may be baptised in the Name, etc. without any Authority from Christ, or word of Institution, or the least intimation of it in the great Commission, what Innovation can we keep out of the Church? This is enough to cause any Protestant to renounce his Religion, and cleave to the Romish Communion, who asserts the Church's Power is such, that without a word of Institution, she may do the Lord knows what.— Nor do they, as far as I can find, assert Infant-Baptism from the Authority of the Scripture; but from the Power Christ has left in the Church, in which they seem more honest than some Protestants, that pretend to maintain this Rite, by plain Scripture-proof, without the least shadow or intimation of any such thing, to the palpable Reproach of the Christian Religion.  
As to the Minor, 'tis evident, and owned by the Learned, that those who are enjoined to be baptised, in the Commission, Matth. 28. are first to be taught, or made Disciples: But Infants cannot be made Disciples, being uncapable of teaching; therefore there is nothing in that Commission of Infant-Baptism: If they have any other word of Institution or Commission, let them produce it, we profess we know of none.  
Object. Christ commanded his Disciples to baptise all Nations; Children are part of the Nations, therefore may be baptised: Thus you see we have Authority to baptise Children from the great Commission.  
Answ. Let me have the same liberty to argue, and see what will follow, viz. Christ commanded his Disciples to baptise all Nations; but Turks, Pagans, and Infidels, with their Children, are part of the Nations, Ergo, Turks, Pagans, and Infidels, and their Children, may be baptised also. Sir, I will appeal to you, is not this Inference as good and as justifiable as yours? Come put it to your Consciences; Can you suppose any should be baptised by virtue of the words of Christ in the Commission, but Disciples only?  
Object. Well, what though that be so? yet we affirm, that Infants are Disciples, and therefore may be baptised.  
Answ. What if we shall grant you that Infants are Disciples, (which we can never do, it being utterly false) yet they are not such Disciples that Christ in the Commission requires to be baptised▪ because they were to be made Disciples, by being taught; and that Infants cannot be said to be, we are sure.  
The Lord Jesus hath plainly excluded Infants in his Commission from this Administration, according to ordinary Rule; for in that he commands the them to Baptise Disciples, upon preaching first to them, it follows, that none but such who are so taught, and so by teaching made Disciples, are by virtue of the Commission, to be baptised; Infants, after an ordinary rate are uncapble of understanding the Gospel, when preached, and therefore are uncapable of being made Disciples thereby, and there is no other way, according to ordinary Rule, of being made Disciples but by that means: And this the Apostles could easily understand, as knowing that under the term Disciple, in common speech, and in the whole New Testament, those only are meant, who being taught, professed the Doctrine preached by such a one as John's Disciples, Christ's Disciples, and the Disciples of the Pharisees, etc. and accordingly the Apostles administered Baptism. And in that Christ appoints, these to be Baptised, we say, he excludes all others; for the Institution, Commission, and Commandment of Jesus Christ, is most certainly the only Rule, according to which we are to administer the Sacrament of Baptism, and all other Holy Things; and they that do otherwise, open a Door to all Innovations, and follow their own Inventions, and are guilty of Will-worship. If you should say, Infants are Disciples seminally in and by their Pa●ents: as if Believers could beget Believers, ●or Disciples of Christ by natural Generation, is absurd and ridiculous, the Christian Church being not made up of Persons by mere Humane Birth, but Spiritual Regeneration. And to say that Infants are born Disciples by the relation to the Covenant, and so have the Seal set on them, without any precedent Teaching, is but an unapproved Dictate; as if a Title to Baptism were in its Nature a Seal of the Covenant, which the Scripture no where affirms; nor is there any Rule for baptising of Persons because of Relation to the Covenant, sith Baptism wholly depends upon a positive Institution.  
Object. But you further argue, that Infants are called Disciples, Act. 15. 10. Because the Yoke laid upon the Necks of the Disciples, was Circumcision; and Circumcision belonged to Infants, ergo, Infants are Disciples.  
Answ. To this we Answer, That there is no colour of Ground or Reason of giving the Name of Disciples from that Text to Infants: for though true, they are called Disciples, upon whose Necks the false Brethren would have put that Yoke of Circumcision; yet what's this, sith Adult Believers of the Gentiles also were required by the Jews to be circumcised, as Timothy, Act. 16. 3. And though it be granted that they would have had Infants, as well as the converted Gentiles, to be circumcised, yet the putting the Yoke of Circumcision, is not actual Circumcision in the Flesh; for that the Jews, as well as their Children, were able to bear for many Ages. But the Yoke of Circumcision is the necessity of it upon men's Consciences, and therewith to oblige them to keep the whole Law of Moses, or they could not be saved; and this was not that which they would have put upon Children, but upon the Disciples, i. e. the faithful Brethren in Christ Jesus.  
If Faith and Repentance be required as prerequisite of all them that are to be baptised; 
Arg. II.  then none but Believers ought to be baptised— but Faith and Repentance is required of all such; Ergo, etc.  
The Major Proposition cannot be denied, without a palpable violation of Christ's Precept, and by the same Rule that Infants may be baptised, notwithstanding this absolute prerequisite, Unbelievers may, invalidate the Rule of Christ, or render it defective, and you give all away to the Enemy. The Minor has been sufficiently proved.  
If thou believest, thou may'st, else he might not; 
Acts 8.  that it seems was absolutely necessary, Repent, and be baptised every one of you, Act. 2. 36, 37. and, those of the Church of England say the same thing.  
In the Rubric, What is required of Persons that are to be baptised? that's the Question.  
Answer, Repentance, whereby they forsake Sin; and, Faith, whereby they steadfastly believe the Promise of God made to them in that Sacrament.  
If there be no Precedent in the Scripture, (as there is no Precept) that any besides such who professed Faith and Repentance, 
Arg. III.  were baptised; then none but such aught to be baptised: but there is no Precedent that any besides such who professed Faith and Repentance were baptised; Ergo, none but such aught.  
Had Infant-Baptism been any Appointment or Institution of Christ, we should certainly either have had Precept or Example in the Scripture to warrant the same; but in as much as the Holy Scripture is wholly silent therein, there being not one Example, or the least Syllable to be found for any such Practice, we may be sure it is none of Christ's Ordinance.  
If our Brethren have any Precedent or Example for it, let them show it, for we declare and testify, there is none as we know of.  
And that there is neither Precept nor Example for Infant's Baptism, we have it confessed by many of them who were for it.  
Erasmus saith, 
Union of the Church.  It is no where expressed in the Apostolical Writings, that they baptised Children. And again, upon Rom. 6. Baptising of young Infants was not, saith he, in use in St. Paul's Time.  
Calvin also confesseth, 
4th Book of Instit. c. 16.  it is no where expressly mentioned by the Evangelists, that any one Child was baptised by the Hands of the Apostles.  
Ludovicus Vives saith, 
De Civit. Dei, lib. 1. cap. 27.  None of old were wont to be baptised but in a grown Age; and who desired it, and understood what it was.  
The Magdeburgenses, 
Magdeb. in Cent. 1. l. 2. p. 496.  as I find them quoted by Mr. Danvers, do say, that concerning the baptising of the Adult, both Jews and Gentiles, we have sufficient Proof from the 2d, 8th, 10th, and 16th Chapters of the Acts; but as to the baptising of Infants they can meet with no Example in Scripture.  
Dr. Taylor saith, 
Lib. Proph. p. 239.  It is against the perpetual Analogy of Christ's Doctrine to baptise Infants; for besides that, Christ never gave any Precept to baptise them, nor ever himself, nor his Apostles (that appears) did baptise any of them: All that either he or his Apostles said concerning it, requires such previous Dispositions to Baptism, of which Infants are not capable, and those are Faith and Repentance. And not to instance in those innumerable places that require Faith before Baptism there needs no more but this one of our blessed Saviour: He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be condemned: plainly thus Faith and Baptism will bring a Man to Heaven; but if he hath no Faith, Baptism shall do him no good: so that if Baptism, saith he, be necessary, so is Faith much more; for the want of Faith damns absolutely, it is not said so of the want of Baptism.  
If Paul declared the whole Counsel of God unto the Churches and Primitive Christians, 
Arg. IU.  and yet never declared or made known to them Infants Baptism. Then Infants Baptism is none of the Counsel of God. But Paul did declare unto the Churches and Primitive Christians the whole Counsel of God, but never declared any thing to them of Infant's Baptism. Ergo.  
The Major Proposition can't fairly be denied: and as to the Minor, see Acts 20. 27. For I have not shunned, saith he, to declare unto you all the Counsel of God. It appears by the Context, that he concluded he could not be pure from the Blood of all Men, if he had not been faithful in this matter, i. e. in making known all the whole Will of God to them. Paul was the great Apostle of the Gentiles, and he spoke these words to a Gentile Church, viz. the Church at Ephesus, and therefore it is the more remarkable, God hath by his Mouth made known all things that are necessary for us to know or understand of his Counsel, or our Duty. See our late Annotators on this Verse.  
God's Decree to save all that believe in Christ, 
Pools Annotat. on Act. 20. 27.  or the whole Doctrine of Christianity, as it directs to an holy Life; whatsoever▪ God requires of any one in order to a blessed Eternity: this is that which (say they) the Pharisees rejected, Luke 7. 30. and so do all wicked and ungodly Men, who refuse to take God's Counsel, or to obey his Command. Now Baptism is that part of God's Counsel which the Pharisees rejected against themselves. Moreover in Chap. 19 it appears he opened and explained that great Ordinance to those Christians at Ephesus, at the first Plantation of the Church there, but not a word of their Duty to baptise their Infants; nor was there any reason he should, it being none of God's Counsel.  
If whatsoever is necessary to Faith or Practice, 
Arg. V.  is left in the written Word, or made known to us in the Holy Scripture, that being a complete and perfect Rule, and yet Infant-Baptism is not contained or left therein, then Infant-Baptism is not of God. But whatsoever is necessary to Faith or Practice, is left in the written Word, or made known to us in the Holy Scripture, etc. and yet Infant-Baptism is not contained therein. Ergo, Infant-Baptism is not of God.  
That the Holy Scripture contains in it all things that are necessary for us to believe and practise in order to Eternal Life, is acknowledged by all worthy Men both Ancient and Modern; and that Infant's Baptism is not contained in the holy Scripture we have proved.  
The holy Scriptures, 
Athanasius against the Gentiles.  saith Athanasius, being inspired from God, are sufficient to all Instructions of Truth.  
Isychius saith, 
Isychius lib. 5. 6. 16. on Levit.  Let us which will have any thing observed of God, search no more but that which the Gospel doth give unto us.  
All things, 
Chrys. on 2 Thes. & 2 Tim. 3.  saith Chrysostom, be plain and clear in the Scripture; and what things soever be needful, are manifest there.  
If there be any thing needful to be known or not to be known, we shall learn it by the Holy Scriptures; if we shall need to reprove a Falsehood, we shall fetch it from thence; if to be corrected, to be chastened, to be exhorted, or comforted; to be short, if ought lack, that aught to be taught or learned, we shall also learn it out of the same Scriptures.  
Augustin saith, 
Aug. to the Brethren in the Wilderns.  Read the Holy Scriptures, wherein ye shall find fully what is to be followed, and what to be avoided.  
And again he saith, 
Lib. 2. of Christian Doctrine, c. 3.  In these therefore, which are evidently contained in the Scriptures, are found all things which contain Faith, manner of living, Hope and Love.  
Let us seek no farther than what is written of God our Saviour, 
In his 198 Epistle to Fortunat.  lest a Man would know more than the Scriptures witness.  
Luther saith, 
Luther upon Gal. 1. 9  there ought no other Doctrine to be delivered, or heard in the Church, besides the pure Word of God, that is the Holy Scriptures, let other Teachers, and Hearers, with their Doctrine be accursed.  
Basil saith, 
Basil in his Sermon the side.  that it would be an Argument of infidelity, and a most certain sign of Pride, if any Man should reject any things written, and should introduce things not written.  
Let this, 
Calvin. l. 4. Instit. c. 8. Sermon 8.  saith Calvin, be a firm Axiom, that nothing is to be accounted the Word and Will of God to which place should be given in the Church, but that which is contained in the Law and Prophets, and after in the Apostolical Writings.  
It is, 
Theoph. lib. 2. Paschal.  saith Theophilact, the part of a Diabolical Spirit to think any thing Divine, without the Authority of the Holy Scripture.  
Bellarmine saith, 
Bellarm. in his Book de Bapt. l. 1. c. 8.  that though the Arguments of the Anabaptists, from the defect of Command or Example, have a great force against the Lutherans, for as much as they use that Rite everywhere, having no Command or Example theirs is to be rejected; yet is it of no force against Catholics, who conclude the Apostolical Tradition is of no less Authority with us than the Scripture; for the Apostles speak with the same Spirit with which they did write; but this of baptising of Infants is an Apostolical Tradition, etc.  
And lastly, to close with this Argument, take what Mr. Ball saith, 
Mr. Ball in his Answer to the New-England Elders, p. 38, 39  We must for every Ordinance look to the Institution (saith he) and neither stretch it wider, nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it; for he is the Institutor of the Sacraments, according to his own pleasure, and 'tis our part to learn of him both to whom, how, and for what end the Sacraments are to be administered; in all which we must affirm nothing but what God hath taught us, and as he taught us. If this worthy Man speak Truth, as be sure he did, and his Doctrine be embraced, certainly our Brethren must never sprinkle, nay baptise, one Child any more.  
If no Man or Woman at any time or times were by the Almighty God, 
Arg. VI  Jesus Christ, nor his Apostles neither commended for baptising any one Child or Children, nor reproved for neglecting to baptise such; then Infants Baptism is not of, nor from God.  
But no Man or Woman was at any time or times either commended by the Almighty God, etc. for baptising any one Child or Children, nor reproved for neglecting to baptise such. Ergo, Infant's Baptism is not of, nor from God.  
This Argument remains good and unanswerable, unless they can show us that there is some Gospel-Ordinance and universal Duty enjoined on Men, that no Man or Woman was ever commended for doing it, nor reproved for neglecting it: when they can show that, this Argument will be invalid.  
That Doctrine that reflects upon the Honour, 
Arg. VII.  Care and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ our blessed Mediator and glorious Lawgiver, or renders him less faithful than Moses, and the New Testament in one of its great Ordinances, nay Sacraments to lie more dark and obscure in God's Word than any Law or Ordinance of the Old Testament did, cannot be of God. But the Doctrine of Infant's Baptism reflects upon the Honour, Care, and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ, etc. or renders him less faithful than Moses, and the New Testament in one of its great Ordinances, nay Sacraments to lie more dark and obscure in God's Word than any Law or Ordinance of the Old Testament. Ergo, Infant's Baptism cannot be of God. The Major certainly none will deny.  
The Minor is easily proved: Can any thing reflect more upon the Honour of Christ, etc. than this? as if he should neglect to speak out his Mind and Will to us plainly, or be so careless about it, that sorry Man is forced to try his Wit to supply what is defective and wanting in this Matter in Christ's Word; for he is strangely left of God and benighted, who will not confess Infant Baptism to need much of humane Craft and Cunning to make it out from Christ's New Testament; and when he has done all, he leaves it as doubtful as he found it in the Judgement of indifferent Persons. Did Moses deal thus with the Children of Israel? No, no. How careful was he to deliver every Law, Statute, and Ordinance exactly, particularly the Law of the Passover! Do but read how careful and circumspect he was in that, in all respects and matters relating to it. Nay, and the Wisdom of God was such, to leave nothing then in the dark, but gave order that all Things might be made plain, that he that run might read it, and he that did read, might know the Duty, i. e. the Statu●e or Ordinance, (though in many things they might need instruction how in a right Spirit to be found in it, and what it signified.) But I dare affirm, no Man who reads the New Testament, from the beginning of Matthew to the end of the Revelations, a thousand times over, shall ever from that Holy Word, or any place or part of it, find it to be his Duty to baptise his Child; the Word of God is powerful in convincing Men of their Duties, as well as of their Sins; but in this it fails, it has no Power to convince men's Consciences. The Faith of Persons must stand in the Wit and Subtlety of Men, in respect of Infant-Baptism, and not in the Power of God, and efficacy of his blessed Word. Let some show us the Person, who only by reading the New Testament was convinced of Infant-Baptism; though, 'tis true, divers by reading of the Writings of Learned Men, and their subtle and sophistical Arguments, (for so I must call them) have been persuaded to believe it to be of God.— Yet, after all, some of them have plainly signified the great Ground and Argument they build upon, is this, viz. Because such and such Learned, Godly, and Wise Men, assert it to be a Truth of Christ. So that it appears very clear, they build their Faith herein, not upon the Authority of God's Word, but upon the Credit and Authority of Men. But certainly it must needs, as I said, reflect upon the Honour and Faithfulness of Christ, to conclude Infant-Baptism to be of God: for can any think the Lord Jesus would leave so great an Ordinance, or Sacrament, of the New Testament, so obscure and dark in his Sacred Word, had it been his Mind that Believers should baptise their Children, since the Apostle magnifies Christ's Faithfulness, who is the Son, above that of Moses, who was but the Servant? And Moses verily was faithful in all his House as a Servant, for a Testimony of those things which were to be spoken after, Hebr. 3. 5. But Christ as a Son over his own House, etc. ver. 6. and therefore was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, ver. 3.  
Besides, do but consider what Darkness and Confusion the Asserters of Infant-Baptism seem to be in, about the Proof and Right they say Children have to it.  
1. Some of them say, it depends wholly upon the Authority of the Church.  
2. Others dare not baptise them, but as Believers and Disciples, and therefore affirm they have Faith, etc.  
3. Others can't believe this; and therefore though they likewise baptise them as Believers, yet get Sureties to stand for them.  
4. Others say, they have a Right by the Faith of their Parents: some are for baptising all Children, others none but the Children of Believers.  
5. One says, if either of their Parents are Believers they may be baptised; some say both Father and Mother, both must be godly Persons and in the Covenant of Grace, or else the Child has no Right to be baptised. No marvel when Men have lost their way, they are thus lost in a Wilderness.  
That Ordinancé God has made no Promise to Persons in their Obedience thereto, 
Arg. VIII.  nor denounced any Threatening or Punishment on such who slight, neglect, and contemn it, it is no Ordinance of God. But God has made no Promise to Persons who baptise their Children, nor denounced no Threatening or Panishment on those who slight, neglect and contemn it. Ergo, Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God.  
Let any such who assert Infant-Baptism, show us a Promise to the Obedient herein, or a Threatening denounced against the Disobedient thereto, and we will say no more. There are Promises made to Believers in their being baptised, that's evident; and Punishments threatened on such who reject the Counsel of God in that respect, the like there is in respect of any other Gospel-Ordinance, but none of this in the Case of Infant-Baptism.   

CHAP. X. Wherein the great Arguments, and pretended Scripture-Proofs for Infant-Baptism, concerning the Covenant Circumcision, and Infants Church-membership, are Examined, and Answered.  
ONE main and great Argument the Pedobaptists bring for that practice is this, viz.  
Children of Believers are in Covenant, 
I. Argument from the Covenant made with Abraham.  as well as their Parents. The Covenant made with Abraham was the Covenant of Grace, or Gospel-Covenant, to which the Seal of Circumcision was annexed; and as Circumcision belonged to the Children of the Faithful under the Law, so Baptism belongs to the Children of the Faithful under the Gospel, or else the Privileges under the Gospel would be less than those were under the Law.  
Answ. There hath been enough said, over and over, by Mr. Tombs, Mr. Danvers, and many others, to detect and utterly vanquish the weakness of this Argument.  
As, first, it hath been proved, that the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and his Seed, doth not intend his Carnal Seed according to the Flesh; but his Spiritual Seed, or such who had the Faith of Abraham. And one would think the Apostle might be believed in his expounding that Text, viz. To Abraham and to his Seed were the Promises made, Gal. 3. 16. He saith not, And to Seeds, as of many, but as of one, And to they Seed, which is Christ. Compare this with Christ's, then are ye Abraham's Seed, and Heirs. according to the Promise And again, in Rom. 9 7, 8. he saith, Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham, are they all Children; but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called. That is, they which are the Children of the Flesh, these are not the Children of God: but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed.  
Could the Apostle in plainer words have detected the Error of these Men, if he had met with them in his day? 'Tis true, he did meet with some, viz. the Jews, or Abraham's natural Seed, who were so blind as thus to argue from the Covenant made with Abraham; and concluded, they were the true Seed and Children of God, because they were the Offspring of Abraham according to the Flesh. But as John Baptist first endeavoured to undeceive them, when he saw the Scribes and Pharisees coming to his Baptism— by saying, 
Mat. 3. 7, 8, 9  Think not to say with in yourselves, ye have Abraham to your Father, etc. So in the next place, our Blessed Saviour himself, in John. 8. likewise showed them their great Error and Mistake herein, and that they might be the Children of the Devil, notwithstanding they were the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh, and thought themselves safe as being in that Covenant made with him.  
The Covenant of Grace there made with Abraham and his Seed, extends to none but the Holy and Elect Seed, to none but the Spiritual Seed, to such who are Christ's, or true Believers in Christ only. Now if the Covenant of Grace comprehends none of Abraham's carnal or fleshly Seed, but the spiritual Seed only, to what purpose is there so many Shears of Paper printed by Mr. Baxter, Mr. Sidenham, etc. to prove the carnal Seed of Believers to have right to the Seal of the Covenant? Their Business is to prove all Believers Children to be in the Covenant in the first place, or all they say is nothing.  
But, Secondly, if they could prove all the Children of Believers to be in that Covenant made with Abraham, yet it doth not from thence follow neither, that therefore their Children may be baptised, unless they can show the Lord Jesus hath enjoined them so to be, because Baptism wholly depends upon the Authority of Christ's Institution, or positive Prescription. 'Tis not enough for any to say, if Children are in Covenant, they may be baptised. Who tells them so? Hath Christ any where required it? doth he say they ought, or that it belongs to them? Had it been Abraham's Duty to circumcise his Children, because they were in Covenant with him, before God gave him a positive Law so to do; certainly, had he done it without any Command of God, and have called it God's Ordinance, he had ceased being called any more Faithful Abraham. Come, Sirs, your Consequences and Conclusions you have so long made a noise of, will make no Gospel-Precept, nor hold equal weight with the Balance of the Sanctuary.  
For, thirdly, pray consider, Were there not divers in the Covenant of Grace, i. e. in that Spiritual, or Gospel-Covenant God made with Abraham, in that very day and time that the Law of Circumcision was given forth? and yet they were not, from that Ground, to be circumcised, nor were they at all circumcised, because God did not command them so to be? Was not Lot a Godly Man, and in the same Covenant of Grace? together with Melchisedec and others I might mention? These were in Covenant, and yet without the Seal, as you call it; we do not read they were circumcised. And do you not think that many of the Females of Abraham's offspring were in that Covenant of Grace? yet they had no right to Circumcision, the Seal (as you called it) of the Covenant, because none but Males were required or commanded to be circumcised. Suppose Abraham should have gone without a Command or Word from God, and have Circumcised his Females, and have reasoned after the rate you do, viz.  
My Female children are in Covenant; and since the Covenant belongs to them, the Seal of the Covenant belongs to them, which is, Circumcision, therefore I will circumcise them also; would God have allowed him to do any such Act, think you? You will reply, I am sure that God would never have born with Abraham in doing any such thing, because he must have done it without a Command.  
And, pray, how can you think he will bear with you in Baptising Children of Believers, sith you have no more Command from God so to do, than Abraham had to Circumcise his Female Children?  
You reply, They are in Covenant, and therefore to them belongs the Seal of the Covenant; even so say we, his Females might be in the same Covenant, and yet you would have condemned such an Act in him, though grounded upon the very same foot of an Account, which you stand upon your own Justification in, and acknowledge no Fault, but contrariwise blame, nay, reproach us for holding an Error, because we cannot do and practise as you do in this case, without any Authority from God's Word.  
4ly. To prove further, that the Right of Circumcision wholly depended upon the absolute Will, Pleasure, and Sovereignty of God, as Baptism now doth; and that his Will, and not ours, nor any Consequence that may be drawn from being in the Covenant, can give a Person a right thereto, without his Command or allowance; 'tis to be considered, that there were those commanded to be Circumcised, who were not (as there is probable ground to believe) in that holy and blessed Covenant of Grace, God said his Covenant should not be established with Ishmael, but with Isaac, yet he was Circumcised, Gen. 17. 20, 21, 25. Gal. 4. 29, 30. The same might be said of Esau, and thousands more of Abraham's Carnal Seed: It was, it appears from hence, God's Sovereign Will and Pleasure that gave right to Circumcision, and not being in the Covenant.  
Quest. But was not Circumcision a Seal of the Covenant of Grace under that Dispensation, as Baptism is now a Seal of the same Covenant under this Dispensation?  
Answ. No, for Circumcision was only a Seal to Abraham's Faith, or a Confirmation of that Faith he had long before he was Circumcised; but so it could not be said to be to any Infant that had no Faith. It was indeed a Sign put into the Flesh of Infants; but a Sign, and Seal too only to Abraham, witnessing to him that he had a Justifying Faith; but to the Truth of the Promises, there was 'tis evident, a twofold Covenant made with Abraham, 1. That he should be the Father of many Nations, and that the Land in which he was a Stranger should be given to his Seed; these Promises seem to relate to his Carnal Seed.  
2. That he should be the Father of the Faithful, Rom. 4. 11. Heir of the World, Rom. 4. 13. and that in him, and in his Seed all the Families of the Earth should be blessed, that is, Jesus Christ, Gal. 3. 16. Now none could receive Circumcision as such a Seal to them, but Abraham, because none before circumcised had such a Faith, which entitled them to such singular Promises: The Apostle in the fourth of the Ro●ans shows, that Abraham was not justified by Works, nor by Circumcision, but by Faith, which he had long before he was circumcised; and so but a Seal or Confirmation of that Faith he had before, and to assure him of the Truth of the Promises made to him and to his Carnal and Spiritual Seed.  
You ought not therefore to call Circumcision a Seal to any but to Abraham, neither ought you to call it a Seal of any other thing to him than what the Scripture calls it a Seal of, viz. And he received Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised, Rom. 4. 11.  
And that you may see we are not alone in this matter, 
Chrysost. Theophilact. Pag. 117.  see what Chrysostom and Theophilact, as I find them quoted by Mr. Danvers; It was called a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, because it was given to Abraham as a Seal and Testimony of that Righteousness which he had acquired by Faith. Now this seems to be the Privilege of Abraham's alone, and not to be tranferred to others; as if Circumcision in whom ever it was were a Testimony of Divine Righteousness; for it was the Privilege of Abraham that he should be the Father of all the Faithful, as well uncircumcised as circumcised, being already the Father, having Faith in Uncircumcision, he received first the sign of Circumcision, that he might be the Father of the Circumcised. Now because he had this Privilege, in respect of the Righteousness which he had acquired by Faith, therefore the sign of Circumcision was to him a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith; but to the rest of the Jews it was a sign that they were Abraham's Seed, but not a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, as all the Jews also were not the Fathers of many Nations.  
Moreover, it is evident a Seal is a Confirmation of that which a Person hath made over to him, and it doth insure him of it. Now to call Circumcision a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, 'tis all one as to say all that were circumcised, were assured of all the Blessings of that Covenant, then must all that were circumcised be pardoned and saved; and so also would it follow in the case of Baptism, were that acknowledged to be a Seal to all those that are baptised of the new Covenant. But in a word, we know nothing called a Seal of the New Covenant, but the holy Spirit, which the Saints were said to be sealed with after they believed, Ephes. 1. 13. & 4. 30. unto the day of Redemption; God by setting his Seal upon us assures us that we are his, and that we shall have Eternal Life.  
Baptism is called a Figure, but no where a Seal and a Sign or Figure proper only to such who have Understanding to discern the Spiritual things and Mysteries that are represented thereby, and wrought in them.  
Object. Say what what you will, the Promise and Covenant of Grace was to Abraham and his natural Offspring.  
Answ. Why do you not believe the Apostle who tells you the quite contrary, and that he said not of Seeds as of many, but to thy Seed, which is Christ?  
But it you will have it as you say, see what absurd Consequences will follow and arise from your Notion: And first take what Calvin saith, 
Calvin on Gen. 17. 7.  'Tis manifest, saith he, that the Promise understood of Spiritual Blessings pertaineth not to the Carnal Seed of Abraham, but to the Spiritual, as the Apostle himself saith, Rom. 4. 8, 9 for if you understand the Carnal Seed, saith he, than that Promise will belong to none of the Gentiles, but to those alone who are begotten of Abraham and Isaac according to the Flesh; 
Estius. Anno Gen. 17. 7.  by this it appears you go about to shut out yourselves and Children too from having any part in that Covenant made with Abraham.  
Secondly, If God made the Covenant of Grace with Abraham and his Carnal or Fleshly Offspring, and so with all Believers and their Children, than all their Offspring must have saving Grace bestowed upon them and a new Heart, because these things are some of the chief Blessings contained in the new Covenant.  
Now do you see that all the Children of Believers have the Grace of God bestowed upon them, so that they are new Creatures? certainly no, for as Abraham had his Ishmael, and Isaac his Esa●, and David his Absolom, so have most or many Believers wicked and ungodly Children, and so they live and die to the great Grief of their Souls: You can't think that God fails in his Promise, and that the Covenant of Grace is not so firm and sure as the Scripture declares it to be, one of them will follow, or you must conclude yourselves mistaken in your Notion: But certainly they cannot miss of Grace if Mr. Blake is right; 
Agr. Blake, p. 6.  for, saith he, Christianity is hereditary; that as the Children of a Nobleman are Noble, the Child of a Freeman free, of a Turk a Turk, and of a Jew; a Jew so 
* If he had said, Those who are born of the Spirit are spiritual, he had spoke Truth.  the Child of a Christian is a Christian. We will grant him they are so called, but withal must tell him, the Children of Christian People are by Nature the Children of Wrath as well as others.  
Fourthly, This would render Grace to be a Birth-Priviledg, as Mr. Danvers observes, and Regeneration tied to Generation, contrary to the Scripture and all good Doctrine; as if a Believer doth not only beget a Child in natural Generation, but a Saint also.  
Fifthly, Then the Apostle spoke not true in saving the Children of the Flesh, these are not the Children of God, i. e. of the Promise, Rom. 9  
Sixthly, And it also would follow, that all the whole Offspring of Believers shall be saved, without you will assert the Doctrine of James Arminius, that there is a falling away from Grace.  
Seventhly, And would it not follow also, that all the Children of Believers know God, and need not be taught, 
Jer. 31. 34.  saying, Know the Lord, for (you know who saith) they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them; that is, all those who are in the New Covenant, which you say all Believers Children are, even in the same Covenant of Grace made with Abraham.  
Eighthly, And then it follows also that the Covenant of Grace and Spiritual Blessings made with Abraham, is tied up to Believers and their Seed only; and if so, what will become of all poor Unbelievers and their perishing Offspring?  
Object. But does not Baptism come in the room of Circumcision, the one being a Figure of the other?  
Answ. There is no ground so to believe, since the Scripture gives not the least hint of any such thing.  
1. For first, if it had, then when Baptism came in and was in force, Circumcision must have ceased immediately: but after Baptism was commanded and administered, we find Circumcision in being, and was not disannulled till the Death and Resurrection of our Saviour. Now it would have vanquished, as Shadows do, as soon as Baptism the Antitype came in force, had it been a Type or Figure of Baptism, or come in the room of it.  
2. If Baptism had come in the room of Circumcision, than the Church of God under the Gospel would have been just like the National Church of the Jews, viz. made up of the Fleshly Seed; 
1 Pet. 2. 4, 5, 6, 7.  but the Apostle shows thè contrary, it consists of lively Stones, that is, a spiritual and not a carnal Seed.  
3. Then Males only and no Females would have been baptised; because none but Male Children were to be circumcised, as God commanded.  
4. Circumcision was administered on Abraham's natural Seed without any Profession of Faith; but none are to be admitted to Baptism but by a Profession of Faith, Repentance and Regeneration.  
The first Birth, or being born in a fleshly way by Carnal Generation, gave Abraham's natural Seed a Right to Circumcision; whereas the Spiritual Birth or Regeneration gives a Right only to Baptism according to Christ's Commission, as we have proved.  
5. 'Tis evident Circumcision figured forth another thing, viz. the Destruction of the Body of Sin by Jesus Christ, and the Circumcision of the Heart, and therefore not Baptism, etc.  
Very full and most excellently you have to this Point Dr. Taylor, 
Dr. Tailor Bishop of Down, p. 228.  who saith, That the Argument from Circumcision is invalid upon infinite Considerations: Figures and Types prove nothing, unless a Command go along with them, or some Express to signify such to be their purpose; for the Deluge of Waters, and the Ark of Noah were a Figure of Baptism, said Peter; and if therefore the Circumstances of the one should be drawn to the other, we should make Baptism a Prodigy rather than a Rite. The Paschal Lamb was a Type of the Eucharist, which succeeds the other, as Baptism doth to Circumcision; but because there was in the Manducation of the Paschal Lamb, no Prescription of Sacramental Drink, shall we thence conclude that the Eucharist is to be administered but in one kind? And even in the very instance of this Argument, supposing a Correspondency of the Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism, yet there is no Correspondency of Identity; for although it were granted, that both of them did consign the Covenant of Faith, yet there is nothing in the Circumstance of children's being circumcised that so concerns that Mystery, but that it might very well be given to Children, and yet Baptism only to Men of Reason, because Circumcision lest a Character in the Flesh, which being imprinted upon Infants did its work to them when they came to Age; and such a Character was necessary, because there was no word added to the Sign; but Baptism imprints nothing that remains on the Body, and if it leaves a Character at all, it is upon the Soul, to which also the Word is added, which is as much a part of the Sacrament, as the Sign itself: for both which Reasons it is requisite that the Parties baptised should be capable of Reason, that they may be capable both of the word of the Sacrament, and the impress made upon the Spirit; since therefore the Reason of this Parity does wholly fail, there is nothing left to infer a necessity of complying in this Circumstance of Age any more than in the other Annxes of the Type; then the Infant must also precisely be baptised upon the eighth day, and Females must not be baptised, because not circumcised: but it were more proper if we would understand it right to prosecute the Analogy, form the Type to the Antitype by way of Letter, and Spirit, and Signification. And as Circumcision figures Baptism, so also the Adjuncts of the Circumcision, shall signify something spiritual in the Adherences of Baptism; and therefore as Infants were circumcised, so spiritual Infants shall be baptised, which is spiritual Circumcision; for therefore Babes had the Ministry of the Type, to signify that we must, when we give our Names to Christ, become Children in Malice, and then the Type is made complete, etc. Thus far the Doctor.  
Quest. But why may ●ot Infants be baptised now as well as Children were circumcised heretofore?  
Answ.. 
Levit, 10, 1, 2.  You may as well ask, why Nadab and Abihu might not have offered strange Fire, or why might not the Priest? carry the Ark in a Cart.— The Reason why they ought to do neither of those things were, because God commanded them not so to do. In like manner, say we, Children must not be baptised, because God hath given no Command to do it. Circumcision was expressly commanded, both as to the Subject, Time, Age and Sex, which was as you have heard, the Male Children at eight days old, 
Gen. 17. 10, 12, 14.  with a severe Penalty of the Parents Disobedience.  
But there is not one hint, or the least colour of ground for the baptising of Infants in all the New Testament, as hath been proved; and yet the Gospel is, as one observes, as express in the matter of Baptism, as first, touching the Subject Men and Woman: Secondly, As to the Time, viz. when they believe: Thirdly, As to the Qualifications of Baptism, i. e. Faith and Repentance: Fourthly, As to the end and use of it, to signify the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ, with our Death unto Sin, and rising again to newness of Life. Can any think the Servant should be so careful to give Directions from God in every case about the circumcising of Children under the Law, and the Son of God not to be as express in all parts of instituted Worship and our Duties under the Gospel? This can't be thought; see what the Apostle saith, which we before hinted, Heb. 3. 5, 6.  
Quest. But Children were Members of the Jewish Church as well as Adult Persons, 
Mr. Smythies Unworthy Communicant, p. 88  sith Mr. Smythies, and so say other Pedo-Bap●isto, as 〈◊〉 Ba●ter, and many more; and since they were comprehended with their Parents in that Church-state 〈◊〉 are so still▪ under the Gospel, and therefore to 〈…〉.  
Answ. That Children were then admitted Members of the Jewish Church is granted, and 'tis as evident that God hath now quite pulled down that House of his, (I mean that National Church-state) and broke up House-keeping, and turned the Bondwoman and her Son, (i. e. the Fleshly Seed, Servants and Infants) all out of doors; the natural Branches are broken off, and God hath now built him a new, a glorious, and more spiritual House, into which he admitteth none as his Houshold-Servants to dwell in his Spiritual Family, but Believers only, or such as profess so to be: 
1 Pet. 2. 5▪  Ye also (saith Peter) as lively Stones, are built up a Spiritual House, etc. and that the old House, the Jewish Church-state, with all the Appurtenances, Rites, and Privileges of it, is pulled down, and a new one built, into which Infants are not to be admitted, is very evident from what the Apostle speaks, Heb. 7. 12. For the Priesthood being changed; there is made of necessary a Change also of the whole Law, which must needs include Circumcision with all the Appurtenances and Privileges belonging to it. And therefore as Infants Church-membership came in with the Law of Circumcision, so it went out and was disannulled with it; they were, 'tis true, of the Household of old, but it was by a positive Law: Show us the like now and you do your business, or else you say nothing; For evident it is that what Privileges soever are given to any Persons by an Act of Parliament, which said Law was to continue in force for so long a time and no longer, when that time is expired and another Parliament makes a new Law, wherein many things are contained that were in the first, but those certain Privileges given to those Persons in the former Law, are left out in this latter Act, it would 〈◊〉 be a folly for any of them to 〈◊〉 those Privileges by virtue of a Law that is gone, and now not in force. Or if a Man should have a Legacy bequeathed to him by the Will and Testament of his Friend, and yet afterwards his Friend sees cause to make another Will, which is his last Will and Testament, and in the last Will leaves him quite out and gives him no such Legacy, it would be a foolish thing for him to sue for the Legacy left him in the first Will, which is void in Law by his Friends last Will and Testament. Just so it is here; there was an old Law wherein Infants were admitted to the Privileges of being Members of the National Church of the Jews, and so also it was in the old or former Will and Testament; but that Law was to continue but till Christ came, and now he has made a new Law wherein Infant-Church-membership is quite left out, and the Lord Jesus has made another Will, his last Will and Testament, wherein the old Privilege is not be queathed to Infants: Now is it not folly in you to plead for that old Privilege that was in the former Testament? you must find your Infant-Church-membership in the New Testament, as must also the Seventh-day-Sabbath-Men the old Jewish Sabbath 
* For though a time for the Worship of God is moral, yet the seventh day of the Week was a mere positive Law, given only to the People of Israel. , or else they and you too say nothing, but render yourselves weak and strangely be-clouded: and certain I am, there is now no Institution, no Law, no Prescription, no Rule, no Example for keeping the Seventh-day-Sabbath in the new Law, in the new and last Will and Testament of Jesus Christ; nor no Institution, no Law, no Precept, no Example contained therein for Infant-Church-membership, no not the least hint or intimation that Infants should be fellow-Citizins with the Saints, and of the Household, of God, neither are they so to be accounted till they believe, and are to do Service in the House: for though we account our Children of our Family notwithstanding they can't do any Service therein, yet that is no Argument they may be Members of God's Church, unless by any Law or Institution God has made them so to be. The Household of God is called the Household of Faith, or a Family that consisteth of Believers; therefore unless you can prove Infants to be Believers, they are not of this House; for all that are to have admission there must be Believers, or profess themselves so to be, 
Baxter on Confirmation.  as Mr. Baxter acknowledges, or else no place for them there, which Infants cannot do.  
Object. But it is still objected, that as the Jews and their Children were broken off, so the Gentiles and their Children are engrafted in their room, as Rom. 11. 20. because of Unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by Faith, etc.  
Answ. We answer, that the Reason why the Jews and their Children were broken off, was not because they had not believing Parents, for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were still the Parents of them all, they were Abraham's Seed, according to the Flesh, when they were broken off as well as before; but the true reason was, because the terms of standing in the Church were now altered: For before the Gospel-Dispensation came, they stood Members of the old Jewish Church, though as much unbelieving for many Generations, as they were when they were broken off; but now Abraham's Church-state is at an end, and all the Privileges and Immunities cease, the Jewish Church must give way to the Gospel-Church, the Messiah being come, and about to build him up a new and more glorious and spiritual House, into which none are of right to enter but such as are professed Believers; for the old House or Jewish Church-state was not intended to abide for ever, but only until the time of Reformation, and then the Law must be changed, yea the Covenant changed, which they not believing, nor closing in with, were broken off, they being willing to abide in the old House still, and to remain Church-Members upon the account of a mere fleshly and natural Birth, crying out, Abraham is our Father, 
Rom. 8.  and we are his Seed, and are free, and never were in Bondage, wherefore they were broken off, and that whether they would or not, by reason of their Unbelief; that is, because they would not believe Christ was the true Messiah, and that the old Covenant and all the Privileges thereof were flying away, the Substance and true Antitype of all those Shadows being come, viz. the Lord Jesus Christ.  
So that thus they were broken off by Unbelief, and thou and thine, O Gentile Believer, stand by Faith, mark it, thou standest by Faith; not by virtue of any Birth-Priviledg whatsoever, but by Faith, thy standing is by Faith; yet not thy Seed by thy Faith, but thou thyself by thine, and they by their own; Faith is that by which (thou standing and not thy Seed) hast right to stand in the Church, and not they; but if thy Seed have Faith, and thou hast none, they have right in the Church, and thou shalt be excluded.  
Most certain it is, that under the Law the natural Seed or Progeny of Abraham, were all holy with an External, Ceremonial, or Typical Holiness, and consequently they were then all admitted to an external Participation of Church-Priviledges. But remarkable to this purpose is that Passage of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 5. 16. Wherefore henceforth know we no Man after the Flesh; it seems then, that heretofore there had been a knowledge taken of Persons after the Flesh; and 'tis as plain there was, that becuase the Jews were of the natural or fleshly Seed of Abraham, they were therefore all of them admitted to the Privilege of an external Church-membership, while others were exempted. But we see the Apostle resolves henceforth to disclaim any such cognizance of them, or any others upon the account of a mere fleshly Descent: And to this very purpose immediately subjoins in the following Verse, Therefore if any Man be in Christ, he is a new Creature: old things are passed away, all things are become new; the old Church, and old Church-membership, Rites, Ordinances and Privileges, and a new Church-state, new Ordinances, a new Seed, and new way of Introduction unto the Participation of the Privilege of Church-membership now under this new and more glorious Dispensation, viz. the Gospel: Nothing but a new Creature will serve the turn; for God expects that they that worship him, do now worship him in Spirit and is Truth; the Privilege of being admitted into God's House, and to stand before his Presence in the actual Celebration of Gospel-Ordinances, being now entailed only upon the Spiritual Seed, even such who as lively Stones are built up a spiritual House, a holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual Sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ; 1 Pet. 2. 3, 4, 5. or such at least as make a visible Profession thereof.  
And therefore, when this new and more spiritual Dispensation was about to be actually introduced and established, John who was the Harbinger of it gives sufficient notice thereof; and to this purpose deals plainly with the Jews, i. e. the Pharisees and Sadduces that came to be baptised of him, and tells them upon this account, Mat. 3. 9, 10. Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our Father: For I say unto you, that God is able of these Stones to raise up Children to Abraham. And now also is the Axe laid unto the root of the Trees: Therefore every Tree that bringeth not forth good Fruit, is hewn down, and cast into the Fire. It cannot be denied but that they had Abraham to their Father as much now as before, only the terms of their standing in that Church was now changed; so that every Tree now of whatsoever natural Stock or external Production, that bringeth not forth good Fruit, must be hewn down; and the reason is rendered for that, Now the Axe is laid to the root of the Trees, mark it, now 'tis so; it was not so before, the Axe was never till now laid thus unto the root of the Trees: which must needs be understood in reference to that Birth and Fleshly Privilege spoken of before, which they had so long boasted of, as the whole Context shows. But now God is resolved to make other manner of work of it under the Gospel-Dispensation than he did before. Now the root of the Trees are struck at, a Bar put, natural Descent or Extraction from a Religious Root, (i.e. Godly Parents) will not now serve turn, as in time past it did, to give any true Right or Title to Church-Priviledges. Moreover, if God now will not suffer any of the natural Branches to abide on their own natural Stock, viz. Abraham, be sure he will not admit any Gentiles, that are not natural Branches of Abraham, to be grafted into the good Olive, without Faith and Regeneration.  
Object. But if Children may not be baptised, this makes the Privilege of Believers Children under the Gospel less than was theirs under the Law; for their Children were admitted Members of the visible Church by Circumcision; and we cannot but conclude, that our Privileges for ourselves and for our Children, are at least as large, great and comfortable as theirs, and therefore our Infants are to be baptised.  
Answ. To this we reply, that we do not doubt but that our Privileges, in respect of the Covenant of Grace, and all Spiritual Blessings are as great and comfortable as theirs were; but the Covenant of Grace, the Blessings and Divine Privileges thereof, were neither made to the Jews natural Posterity, nor to ours; and although Circumcision was a Privilege in some respect to the Jews above what the Heathens had, 
Act. 15. 10.  yet it is termed by the Apostle an intolerable Yoke; Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Necks of the Disciples, which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear? Their Children were not circumcised as Children of Believers, and so sealed with a new Covenant-Seal, as being made new Covenant-childrens thereby; Circumcision did not confer Grace, nor make them Heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven, it was therefore no more than an external Privilege to the natural Lineage and Seed of Abraham, as a typical and shadowy thing, whereby his Posterity was to be marked, to distinguish them from all the Nations of the Earth, and to keep that Line clear, from whence Christ according to the Flesh was to come, and to be a Sign in their Flesh to put them in mind that God would perform the Promise of the Messiah made to Abraham, and also to oblige them to keep the Law; for he that was circumcised was a Debtor to keep the whole Law.  
Hence it was the Jewish Christians, instead of looking upon Circumcision to be a Privilege upon a spiritual account, could not but acknowledge it a great Mercy they were delivered from it; and hence 'tis the Apostle exhorts the Saints to stand fast in that Liberty in which Christ had made them free, 
Gal. 5. 1, 2, 3, 4.  and not be entangled again in the Yoke of Bondage.  
Neither ought such a thing (as Mr. Danvers observes) to be any more esteemed the loss of a Privilege than our not enjoying literally a Holy Land, City, Temple, a Succession of High-Priests, and Priesthood, by Generation or Lineal Descent. (For you know their Children were Priests successively in their Generations, a Levite begat a Priest or Minister, as well as they and other Tribes begat Church-Members.)  
Now though all these outward Privileges are gone, yet our Privileges being more spiritual, are greater both to ourselves and Offspring; they looked for Christ to come as held forth under many dark Types and Shadows, we are assured he is come and has accomplished what was foretold of him, We behold in the Glass of the Gospel as with open face the Glory of the Lord; 
2 Cor. 3. 18.  all those Types are explained and spiritualised to us, viz. Circumcision, the Worldly Sanctuary, Tabernacle, the Candlestick, Table, Shewbread, Cherubims, Mercy-seat, etc. which things and many more were Figures for the time then present, and were Shadows of good things to come, but the Body or Substance of them is Christ, who hath put an end to them, and must we now needs find out some other carnal or external Rites to come in the room or stead of these or some of these, or else think our Privileges are less than theirs? whereas indeed our Privileges it appears are enlarged, and far greater than theirs were, and hence they longed many of them to see those things that we see, etc. Instead of being a fleshly Nation we are a holy 〈◊〉, a holy City, a spiritual and holy Temple, a Royal Priesthood, and holy (not carnal) Church-Members; Church-Members by Regeneration not by Generation, not by the first Birth, but by the new and second Birth; if we and our Children have not the same Privileges don't let us complain, whereas God hath been more rich and bountiful to us, we and our Children sit under the clear and glorious Revelation and Ministration of the Gospel, can we or ours be losers by this Change? Alas! as far as Christ excels Moses and Aaron, the Gospel the Law, the Antitype the Type, the spiritual Birth the carnal, the extent of all Nations the Confines of Judea; so far, saith one are we better and not worse, and our Privileges not lesser but far greater; our Children have great advantages in having such Parents and Ministers to instruct them, to pray for them, and to set before them a good Example; besides, as soon as capable, they with others have the Gospel preached clearly to them, and Grace offered and tendered universally to all far and near, with Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the Waters, etc. Isa. 55. 1. The Spirit also is in a glorious manner communicated, to enable them and others to believe now in the Gospel-days. The Law was hard, Do this, and live; and Circumcision laid them under a Bond to do and keep all that God in his Law required, yea and under a Curse if they continued not in all things that were there enjoined, which brought them into miserable Bondage and Captivity; but now 'tis but to believe, and thou shalt be saved: the Spirit saith, the Scripture was not yet given— to wit, in that manner nor measure as afterwards, 
Joh. 7. 39  because Christ was not yet glorified.  
So that it is no Absurdity to grant that the Jews might have Privileges in some things more than we; and yet our Case and Condition with our Children, to speak simply, better than theirs, though the Covenant of Grace is not enlarged nor lessened in respect of the substance of it; the Promises of Grace are still belonging to the Elect, to those that were given to Christ, to Believers, and to no other, nor never were; but the Privileges we have above them do abundantly recompense the defect of those Privileges of theirs, whether real or supposed: And the truth is, Privileges are so arbitrary and various, depending so much upon the Sovereignty of God, that he gives them as he thinks good, and ofttimes takes them away without assigning any special Reason of it; so that no Arguments can be drawn safely, as our Brethren do, viz. God gave such a Privilege to the Jews, therefore we must have such a Privilege too, except we can prove it is God's Will it should be so. This Argument therefore is of no force, without an Institution, here we are again, and here we will stand; Circumcision wholly depended upon a positive Law; 'tis in vain therefore to attempt to prove, that because the Jews had a Privilege to circumcise their Children, therefore we must have a Privilege to baptise our Infants, sith they had a Command to do what they did, and we have none; besides, we have showed there is no Scripture that proves the Baptism of Infants is a Privilege granted by the Lord in lieu of Circumcision, it being indeed no Duty or Privilege at all.  
Lastly, before I close with this, take what Mr. Danvers says, 
Danvers on Bapt. p. 180.  If it should be taken (saith he) for granted, that Circumcision was a Seal of the New Covenant belonging to all the Children of Israel; then would not the baptising of the Children of Believers answer it, neither amount to so great a Privilege, nor be equivalent to it for these Reasons:  
1st, There were all the Families and Tribes of Israel (and all proselyted Strangers) with their Children, without distinction of good or bad, to be circumcised: But here only one of a City, and two of a Tribe; for Believers are but thin sown, and the Children of Unbelievers and wicked Men are to receive no such benefit in the Judgement of many.  
And, 
Besides, they are at a loss to know what to do if the Father only, or the Mother only is a Believer.  2dly, You would be very short in another respect, as being at an utter uncertainty when you have a right Subject; for if the Parent is an Hypocrite, or no elect Person, which is out of your reach to understand, you cannot know whether the Child be fit for Baptism; for the Seed of a wicked Man you must not meddle with by any means; whereas there was not the least doubt or scruple in Israel as to the Subject, for the Father being one of Abraham's Seed and circumcised, it was an infallible mark they were right.  
And, 3dly, neither can the Child when he is grown up have any certain knowledge that such a Ceremony had passed upon him in Infancy, he having no infallible mark thereof; whereas the circumcised Infant had an infallible Character and Mark in his Flesh, to assure him that he had received that Rite.  
Object. But what hope can we have of our Infants if they must not be admitted unto Christian Baptism, nor reputed as Members of the common Body and Church of the Faithful?  
Answ. We answer; First, if the hope of the Parent for the Child's Salvation be grounded upon the Administration of an external Rite or Ordinance in Infancy, than neither had the Patriarches for above two thousand Years any hope of their Children, sith they had neither Circumcision, Baptism, nor any other External Rite, which we find otherwise by Noah's Prophecy, Gen. 9 26, 27.  
Secondly, We ask, whether God hath left it in the Power of the Parent to save or destroy the Soul of his Child, which your Doctrine doth import?  
Thirdly, We demand what hopes are intended, and by what Scriptures the same are annexed to the Administration of an Ordinance in Infancy?  
Fourthly, We do say there is a ground of hope in Believers in behalf of their Children, which is grounded upon plain Scripture without baptising them.  
Fifthly, Doth Baptism confer Grace or regenerate the Child? Though some have ignorantly asserted that, yet we find many of you of another mind.  
Sixthly, This Argument seems to carry in it this Conclusion, i. e. That Christian People by Infant's Baptism are assured according to Gospel-grounds of the Salvation of their Children: But there is no Proof for it, it is but a Fancy, and we suppose 'tis not received as a Truth by many that oppose us in this Point.   

CHAP. XI. Wherein many other pretended Scripture-Poofs and Arguments for the baptising of Infants are answered, as that, Suffer little Children to come unto me, etc. and, Except a Man be born of Water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the Kingdom of God, etc.  
THE next main Proof that is brought for Infant-Baptism, is taken from Mat. 19 14. Suffer little Children, and forbid them not to come unto me: for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.  
Object. 
Christ blessed little Children, 'tis not said he baptised them: Nay, 'tis said he baptised not any with his own hands, Joh. 4. 1, 2. therefore no Infants.  The Kingdom of Heaven belongs to Infants, which is the greater; therefore, say you, Baptism belongs to them also, which is the lesser.  
Answ. 1. That the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to little Children we have no cause to doubt: But that they have a right to Baptism therefore, is denied; May not our Brethren infer from the greater to the lesser thus as well, viz. Infants belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, which is the greater; thererefore to them belongeth the Lord's Supper, which is the lesser: and sure we are, that those who are fit Subjects of Baptism ought not to be denied the Sacrament of Bread and Wine. How often must we tell you that Baptism wholly depends, as to Subject, Time, End, and manner of Administration, on the words of Institution? 'tis a positive Law, we must go to the Pleasure, and Will, and Design of the Lawmaker: what may not Men infer after this sort?  
2. Were these little Children be ye sure the Children of Believers? If you can't prove this, what signifies all you say? and how this can be made appear I see not; for though Christ was then in the Coast of Judea, yet that they were Children of Godly Parents is a great Question.  
3. If it should be granted they were Believers Children, yet it doth not appear how little these Children were, we have no account of their Age. And as the Learned observe, the Greek work doth not always signify a little Child or Infant, as appears by 2 Tim. 3. 15. where the same word is used, they might be such who might be capable of teaching as far as we know.  
But since Dr. Jer. Taylor, 
Dr. Tailor, p. 230.  Bishop of Down, hath so fully answered this Objection, pray take what he saith upon the place.  
From the Action of Christ's blessing Infants, saith he, to infer that they were baptised, proves nothing so much, as there is a want of better Arguments: for the Conclusion would with more probability be derived thus, i. e. Christ blessed Children and so dismissed them, but baptised them not, therefore Infants are not to be baptised. But let this be as weak as its Enemy, yet that Christ did not baptise them, is an Argument sufficient, that he hath other ways of bringing them to Heaven than by Baptism; he passed an Act of Grace upon them by Benediction and Imposition of Hands. And therefore although neither Infants, nor any Man, in p●ris naturalibus, can attain to a Supernatural End without the addition of some Instrument, or Means of God's appointing, ordinarily and regularly; yet where God hath not appointed a Rule nor an Order, as in the case of Infants we contend he hath not, the Argument is invalid.  
And as we are sure God hath not commanded Infants to be baptised; so we are sure God will do them no Injustice, nor damn them for what they cannot help, viz. if the Parents baptise them not.  
Many thousand ways there are, by which God can bring any reasonable Soul to him; but nothing is more unreasonable than because he hath tied all Men of Years and Discretion to this way, therefore we of our own Heads shall carry Infants to him that way, without his directions: the Conceit is poor and low, and the Action consequent to it is bold and venturous; let him do what he please with Infants, we must not. Thus far the Doctor.  
A second Scripture brought formerly by Doctor Featly, and of late by divers others, is that in Joh. 3. 5. Except a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.  
Object. There is no other way to regenerate and save Infants but by this of Baptism, and so to add them to the Church, therefore they ought to be baptised.  
In some, 
Ambros. New Birth in p. 13.  saith Mr. Isaac Ambrose, the new Birth is wrought before Baptism, as in the Eunuch, etc. in others is the new Birth wrought in Baptism, 〈◊〉 indeed is the Sacrament of the new Birth, and Sea● of Regeneration, but howsoever in Pedo-Baptism, we see the outward Seal, yet we seel not the manner of the inward working, for this also is the secret of the Spirit.  
Answ. There is no pretended Proof for Infant-Baptism brought by the Asserters of it, that I wonder at more than this, especially considering how fully and excellently they are detected by several able Men of their own Party, yet notwithstanding it seems to abide as a standing Doctrine in the National Church, as witness their Catechism— Baptism, wherein I was made a Member of Christ, a Child of God, and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven. Pray see how excellently the late famous Stephen Charnock detects this Error; 
Charnock on Regener. last sol. p. 75.  It is not, saith he, External Baptism (speaking of Regeneration) many Men take Baptism for Regeneration, the Ancients usually give it this term: One calls our Saviour's Baptism his Regeneration— this confers not Grace, but engageth to it: outward Water cannot convey inward Life. How can Water, an external thing, work upon the Soul in a physical manner? Neither can it be proved, that ever the Spirit of God is tied by any Promise, to apply himself to the Soul in a gracious Operation, when Water is applied to the Body. If it were so, that all that were baptised were regenerated, than all that were baptised should be saved, or else the Doctrine of Perseverance falls to the ground. Baptism is a means of conveying this Grace, when the Spirit is pleased to operate with it; but it doth not work as a physical Cause upon the Soul as a ●rge doth upon the Humours of the Body: for 'tis the Sacrament of Regeneration, as the Lord's-Supper is of Nourishment. As a Man cannot be said to be nourished without Faith, so he cannot be said to be a new Creature without Faith: Put the most delicious Meat into the Mouth of a dead Man, you do not nourish him, because he wants a Principle of Life to concoct or digest it. Faith only is the Principle of spiritual Life, and the Principle which draws Nourishment from the Means of God's Appointment. Some indeed say, that Regeneration is conferred in Baptism upon the Elect, and exerts itself afterwards in Conversion; but how so active a Principle as a Spiritual Life, should lie dead and asleep so long, even many Years, which intervene between Baptism and Conversion, is not easily conceivable. Thus far Mr. Charnock: others we find to agree with him herein.  
Amesius saith, 
Amesius in Bell. Enervat. Tom. 3. l. 2. c. 3.  outward Baptism cannot be a Physical Instrument of infusing Grace, because it hath it not in any wise in itself.  
Our late Annotators agree directly with these; nay, Dr. Owen saith, 
Pool's Annotat. on Joh. 3. 5.  that the Father of Lies himself could not well have invented a more pernicious Opinion, or which might pour in a more deadly Poison into the Minds of Sinners. 
Dr. Owen in his Theol. l. 6. c. 5. p. 477.   
If Baptism were meant here, than no Man can be saved without being baptised.  
But none does the business better than the Learned Bishop Tailor; For, 
Dr. Tailor's Liber. of Proph. p. 231.  saith he, the Water and Spirit in this place, signifies the same thing; and by Water is meant the Effects of the Spirit cleansing and purifying the Soul, as it appears in its parallel place, Christ's baptising with the Holy Ghost and with Fire: for although this was literally fulfilled in the day of Pentecost; yet morally there is more in it; for it is the sign of the Effect of the holy Spirit, and his Productions upon the Soul: And you may as well conclude, that Infants must also pass through the Fire, as through the Water. And that we may not think this a trick to elude the pressure of this place, Peter saith the same thing: For where he saith that Baptism saves us, he adds by way of Explication (not the washing away of the Filth of the Flesh, but the Answer of a good Conscience towards God) plainly saying that it is not Water, or the purifying of the Body, but cleansing of the Spirit that doth that which is supposed to be the Effect of Baptism. But to suppose it meant of external Baptism, yet this no more infers a necessity of Infant-Baptism, than the other words of Christ infer a necessity to give them the holy Communion, Joh. 6. 53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye have no Life in you; and yet we do not think these words a sufficient Argument to communicate with them: if any Man therefore will do us Justice, either let them give both Sacraments to Infunts, as some Ages of the Church did, or neither: for the Wit of Man is not able to show a disparity in the Sanction, or in the Energy of its Expressions. And therefore they were honest that understood the Obligation to be parallel, and performed it accordingly; and yet because we say they were deceived in one Instance, and yet the Obligation (all the World cannot reasonably say but) is the same they are honest and reasonable that do neither: and sure the Ancient Church did with an equal Opinion of necessity give them the Communion, and yet now adays Men do not; Why should Men be more burdened with a Prejudice and a name of Obliquity for not giving Infants one Sacrament, more than you are disliked for not affording them the other? Thus far Dr. Taylor. If what these great Men say is not sufficient utterly to invalidate this pretended Proof of Infant-Baptism, we know not what to say.  
A third Proof they bring to prove the baptising of Babes, 
The Proof from whole Households examined.  is taken from those places that speak of the baptising of whole Households, as the Jailor and his House, Lydia and her House, etc.  
Object. Whole Households we read were baptised, therefore some Children were in the Primitive Time baptised.  
Answ. To which we answer, that the Consequence is not natural from the Antecedent, unless you can prove there were no whole Households but in which were some little Babes; make that appear, and this is the best Argument you can bring.— But the contrary is very evident; for how many hundred Households or Families are there in this City in which there are no little Children, but all Adult Persons? which being so▪ how uncertain is your Inference?  
Secondly, But suppose there were Children in those Households (for usually in Scripture by a Figure which is called Synecdoche) the whole is put for part, or a part for the whole.  
Hence we read Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the Regions about ●ordan went out to be baptised of John; that is, many of those places in Jerusalem, Judea, and in those Regions.  
So 'tis said, 1 Sam. 1. 21, 22, 23. That Elkanah, and all his House went up to offer unto the Lord yearly Sacrifice, etc. yet, vers. 22. 'tis as expressly said, that Hannah and her Child went not up, who were part of his House, yet 'tis said all his House (or Household) went up. Exod. 9 6. 'tis said, All the Cattle of Egypt died, that is, all that were in the Field, see Chap. 14. 26, 28. and chap. 9 26. I could give you many other Examples of the same nature wherein the whole is taken but for part; And from hence 'tis that Dr. Hammond grants, that no concluding Argument can be deduced from the baptising whole Households, to baptise Children; and therefore, in his Judgement, Arguments drawn from hence are better waved, than made use of by the Defenders of Infant-baptism. And certainly the Doctor judges but rationally therein (saith a worthy and Learned Man) because a clear Word of Institution (or plain Precedents) ought to be the ground of the practice of all Gospel-Ordinances, especially in the case of Baptism, one of the great Sacraments of the New Testaments.  
Thirdly, We will see in the next place what the Holy Ghost hath left on Record concerning those whole Households that are said to be Baptised.  
First, The Jaylor's Household, Acts 16. 33. He was Baptised, and all his. Whether he had any Children 'tis a great Question; [his] may refer to his Wife, Servants, and Domestic Friends and Relations, etc. However, 'tis expressly said, that Paul and Silas spoke unto him the Word of the Lord, and to all that were in his House; certainly they did not preach to little Babes: And, Vers. 34. 'tis said, He rejoiced, believeng in God with all his House. Observe, (1.) he and all his House had the Gospel preached to them. (2.) He and all his House believed: And (3.) he and all his House rejoiced; as well as 'tis said, He and all his were baptised.  
Can there be any Reason given, saith Mr. Gosnold, why [his] vers. 33. should be larger than [all his House] vers. 32, 34. these two Verses being a Key to the 33d Verse, (saith he) and this Household a Key to all the other?  
The second Household is that of Crispus, 
The Second whole Household.  Acts 18. 8. And Crispus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue, believed in God with all his House: and many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and were baptised. All that is said of his Household, is, that they believed; besides, the scope of the Text shows, none were baptised, but such who first believed; and they, we say, and none but they, are true Subjects of Baptism, that believe.  
The third Household, is the Household of Stephanus; I baptised, 
The third whole Household.  saith Paul, the Household of Stephanus, 1 Cor. 1. 16. And, he saith, the House of Stephanus was the first Fruits of Acaia, and that they had addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints, which little Children were not capable to do, Chap. 16. 15.  
The fourth Household is that of Lydia, 
The fourth Household.  Acts 16. 14, 15. Whether this good Woman was a Maid, Widow, or Wife, is uncertain: If she had been a married Woman, 'tis much there is no mention made of her Husband: Besides, she is reckoned the Head of the Family [her] Household; which would not have been, saith Mr. Gosnold, if at this time she had a Husband. Grant, saith he, she were a Widow, yet she might have no Children; or if any, they might be grown up; and to such Children we deny not Baptism upon profession of Faith. Besides, she was at this time from her own Dwelling, and that many miles distant, for she was of the City of Thyatira; but now was at the City of Philippi, where she was a merchandizing, being a seller of Purple. Grant she had Children, how unlikely a matter is it, saith he, that she should carry them about with her, trading so many miles distant? But, finally, to resolve the Doubt, the last Verse of this Chapter, calls them of the House of Lydia Brethren; They entered into the House of Lydia; and when they had 〈◊〉 the Brethren, they comforted them, and departed. Who now can conclude rationally, that any Children were in any of these Households? 'Tis a ha●d case Men are forced to fly to such weak and unlikely grounds to prove their practice; but as the Proverb goes, A poor Shift is better than none at all.  
The next Proof they bring to prove Infant-Baptism, is from Acts 2. 39 The Promise is to you, and to your Children, etc.  
The Pedo baptists would said have this Promise to be a Promise of External Privilege, 
The Promise is to 〈◊〉 and to 〈…〉 Act. 2. 3●. 〈◊〉  and such as gives Children of Believers a right to Baptism: but that there is no such thing in the least to be proved from this place, we shall make appear by opening the Text.  
First, 'Tis evident that Peter preached this Sermon to the Jews, and to many of them who had a hand in murdering the Lord of Life and Glory: And this he laid home, and pressed upon their Consciences very close; and they being pricked in their Hearts, cried out, Men and Brethren, what shall we do? If it be thus, 
Act. 2. 37.  we are lost Men and undone. No: as if Peter should say, Do not despair, upon your Repentance there is Mercy for you. Then said Peter unto them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you, for the Remission of Sins, and ye shall receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit— For the Promise is unto you. Ay, this is good News indeed, they might say; But what will become of our Children, our Offspring? for we have wished that his Blood might not only be upon ourselves, but also upon our Children. Well, what tho? let not this terrify you, neither as to drive you into despair; for the Promise is not only to you who repent, etc. but to your Children, or Offspring also; your Posterity shall not be lost, for the Promise is unto them as it is to you, viz. if they repent; and not only to them of your Race or Posterity, but also to all that are afar off, 
Eph. 2. 13.  meaning the Gentiles, who were said to be sometimes afar off. But now if they would know who of their Children, and those who were afar off, the Promise was made unto: In the close of the Verse, he resolves them in these words, Even to as many as the Lord our God shall call.  
The Promise therefore here evident, is that of the Spirit, and all the Divine Graces and Blessings of it, which was promised, and first tendered unto the Jews and their Offspring, upon unfeigned Repentance, and turning to God; or being effectually called and brought over, to close in with the Tenders of Mercy; and then to the Gentiles, who in like manner should be wrought upon, or effectually called: This Promise was not made to their Children, as Believers Seed, nor to them, or any other, uncalled by the Lord, but with this express Proviso, Even so many as the Lord our God shall call. Which Calling, or effectual Work of Grace upon their Souls, made them capable Subjects of Baptism: Nor are the words, to you and your Children, mentioned as an acknowledgement of a Privilege to them above others, being Abraham's Seed according to the Flesh, but by reason doubtless of their Wish. Mat. 27. 25. His Blood he on us, and on our Children.  
Nor is there the least intimation given of a right to Baptism to them, or their Children, as the Children of Believers, but as an Exhortation to them and theirs, to repent, and be baptised, as their Duty, for their Benefit and Soul-advantage, the Promise being not mentioned; as though of itself it gave a title to Baptism, either to them or their Offspring, without Repentance. But as a Motive, why both they and their Children should actually repent, and be baptised, i. e. because in so doing, they would be in the way of obtaining Remission of Sin, and receive the Holy Spirit, the two grand Branches of the Promise here mentioned. Which Duty of Repentance little Children being not capable of performing, are not therefore according to this direction of the Apostle the proper Subjects of such an Ordinance.  
By Children, here saith, a Learned Man, is not meant their Infants, but the Posterity of the Jews: And so Dr. Hammond grants it, and therefore confesseth this place a very unconcluding Argument for Infant-Baptism.  
And, says he, though by Children be here meant the Posterity of the Jews, yet not the natural or carnal Seed neither, but the Spiritual; as appears by the last words in the verse, viz. Even to as many as the Lord our God shall call.  
So that it is very evident, that this Text is grossly abused, by such as infer from hence a title to Baptism, for Children of Believers, by virtue of a Promise to them as such; whereas it is manifest from the whole scope of the Context, that it is only an encouragement to the Jews against Dispair, by reason of their crucifying the Son of God, letting them know that yet there was hope of Mercy and Pardon for them and their Children, 
Pools Annot. on Act. 2. 39  upon the respective Repentance of both, or either of them. And to the same purpose our late Annotators I find give it, speaking of this Text.  
A Fifth pretended Scripture-proof for Infant-Baptism, 
The Proof for Infant-Baptism— (Else were your Children unclean, etc.) answered.  is taken from 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unclean, but now are they Holy.  
Object. From hence 'tis asserted, That the Children of Believers are holy with a Federal or Covenant-Holiness, and therefore to be baptised.  
Answ. To this we answer, That the same sort of Holiness which is ascribed to the Children, is to be understood in reference to the unbelieving Husband, or the unbelieving Wife, who are both said to be sanctified by their respective Yoke-fellows; which cannot be meant of a federal or a Covenant-holiness, but that which is matrimonial: For if we must understand it of a Covenant-holiness, than it will follow, that the unbelieving Wife, or unbelieving Husband may, upon the same ground lay claim to Baptism as well as their Children, which yet yourselves will not grant. Besides, it is evident from the words themselves, in which the Term Husband and Wife are twice used, which shows, that the Holiness is from the conjugal Relation, and cannot be meant of any other than Legitimation. And the term unbeliever is also twice used, and said to be Sanctified, which can have no other sense but this, that the unbelieving Yoke-fellow is sanctified, or made meet in respect of conjugal use, to his or her Yoke-fellow: And so though the one be an Unbeliever, yet they might comfortably enough live together in lawful Wedlock. See our late Annotators; 
Pool's Annotat. on 1 Cor. 7. 14.  I rather think (say they) it signifies brought into a State that the Believer, without Offence to the Law of God, may continue in a married Estate with such a Yoke-fellow; for else, saith the Apostle, your Children were unclean, that is, would be accounted illegitimate. But now this being determined, that the Husband is thus sanctified to the Wife, and the Wife to the Husband, though the one be an Unbeliever, hence it follows, that your Children are holy; that is, lawfully begotten, which is the only sense opposite to the Determination, ver. 12, 13. It was, 'tis plain, about this matter those Saints at Corinth wrote to the Apostle, and therefore according to the scope of the place it cannot intend any thing else. And as for the use of the word Holy for Legitimate, that it is in this sense used elsewhere in the Scripture is evident from Mal. 2. 15. where a Seed of God, or a Godly Seed, can be understood in no other sense than that of a lawful Seed, in opposition to those born by Polygamy.  
Neither ought any Man to infer Federal Holiness to be intended here, unless he can prove from some other Text in the New Testament any such Holiness to be in Children, i. e. because Parents are Believers and in the Covenant of Grace, their natural Seed must therefore be so esteemed, and have the like Right to Gospel-Baptism as the Children under the Law had to Circumcision, which is no where to be found in all the New-Testament, but the quite contrary, as has been proved; and therefore this Interpretation ought not to be admitted, 
2 Pet. 1. 20.  but utterly to be rejected in regard of what the Apostle Peter asseres.  
How false and ridiculous therefore is that which Mr. 
Smythies' Non-communicant, p. 88  Smythies hath lately affirmed: Whensoever, saith he, God enters into Covenant with the Parent, he enters into Covenant with the Children of that Parent; that is, the Children were included in the Covenant, and the Blessings of that Covenant belonged to the Children as well as to the Parent. They that will build their Faith upon such kind of Men deserve to be deceived, who speak what they please, and prove nothing; as if this was so because Mr. Smythies says it. I must charge it upon him as false Doctrine, (1.) As being quite contrary to the Nature of the Gospel-Dispensation and Constitution of the New Testament-Church, wherein the Fleshly Seed are rejected and cast out in respect of Church-Priviledges and Ordinances. (2.) What is this but to entail Grace to Nature, and Regeneration to Generation? in opposition to what our Saviour saith, John 3. 3. and Paul, Ephes. 2. 1, 2. (3.) It also contradicts all men's Experience. How palpable is it that Godly Men have wicked Children now adays as well as in former times? What, wicked Children, and yet in the Covenant of Grace! Or, were they in it, and are they now fallen out of it? What a Covenant then do you make that sure and everlasting Covenant of Grace to be?  
Besides, we have many learned Men and Commentators of our Mind upon this Text, 
Mr. Danvers Treat▪ of Bapt. p. 165, 166.  as Mr. Danvers observes and quotes them.  
Austin saith, it is to hold without doubting; whatsoever that Sanctification was, it was not of Power to make Christians and remit Sins.  
Ambrose upon this place, 
Ambrose.  saith, the Children are holy because they are born of lawful Marriage.  
Melancthon in his Commentary upon this same Text saith thus, 
Melanct.  Therefore Paul answers, that their Marriages are not to be pulled asunder for their unlike Opinions of God; if the impious Person do not cast away the other; and for comfort he adds as a Reason, The unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the believing Wife. Meat is sanctified; for that which is holy in use, that is, it is granted to Believers from God; so here he speaks of the use of Marriage to be holy, and to be granted of God. Things prohibited under the Law, as Swine's Flesh, and a Woman in her Pollution, were called unclean. The Connexion of this, if the use of Marriage should not please God, your Children would be Bastards, and so unclean: But your Children are not Bastards, therefore the use of the Marriage pleaseth God: And how Bastards were unclean in a peculiar manner the Law shows, Deut. 23.  
Camtrarius in his Commentary upon this place also saith, 
Camerar.  (for the unbelieving Husband hath been sanctified, an unusual change of the Tense, that is) sanctified in the lawful use of Marriage; for without this, saith he, it would be that their Children should be unclean, that is, infamous and not legitimate, who so are holy, that is, during the Marriage are without all blot of Ignominy.  
Erasmus saith likewise, 
Erasmus.  Infants born of such Parents as one being a Christian, the other not, are holy legitimately; for the Conversion of either Wife or Husband doth not dissolve the Marriage which was made when both were Unbelievers.  
What Reason now had Dr. Featly and others to contemn this Exposition of the Text, considering what we and so many Learned Men have declared as touching this matter? for a more fuller Answer read Mr. Danvers, p. 166, 167, 168, 169.  
But after all, should it be allowed that the Holiness in this Text is indeed to be taken for a Faederal or Covenant-Holiness, yet we cannot therefore grant that this is a sufficient Proof for Infant-Baptism; for let the Holiness be what it will, whether Moral, Faederal, or Matrimonial, neither of these is any where assigned to be a ground of baptising Infants; the Institution, 
Baptism only a positive Law; who the Subjects of it, are depends wholly upon the Will of God, etc.  Commission, and Practice of the Apostolical Church being that alone that can warrant the same: 'Tis God's Word only, not men's Reason, conceited Grounds and Inferences, that can justify a Practice, or make a Gospel-Ordinance; if all therefore was granted which you affirm of the Covenant made with Abraham of Circumcision and Faederal-Holiness, yet Infant-Baptism is gone, unless you can prove God hath from this ground commanded you to baptise your Children, or that they were for this Reason admitted to Baptism in the Apostles Time (for all your Arguments from thence prove as strongly, that your Infants may partake of the Lord's-Supper, etc.) But that any thing less than a Profession of Faith and Repentance is or can be a sufficient ground for baptising any Person, young or old, we do deny, sith the New Testament is the only Rule or perfect Copy, by the Authority of which we ought to act and perform all Duties of instituted Worship, and administer Sacraments, etc. which are more positive Precepts, and depend only upon the Will and Pleasure of the Lawmaker. So much to this pretended Proof of Infant-Baptism.  
A sixth Proof of Infant-Baptism is grounded upon Mark 16. 16. He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned.  
Now they affirm that Infants are Believers, and therefore are to be baptised.  
Mr. Smythies says, Infants are Believers in a sense, or else they could not be saved, 
Mr. Smythies' Argument, that Infants are Believers.  nor have right to the Promises of Christ in the Gospel; and if they are in any sense such Believers as are entitled to Salvation, they are such Believers as have a right to Baptism; if the Estate belongs to a Child in the Cradle, the Indentures and Seals of that Estate belong to him likewise: the Child of a Believer may as well be called a Believer, as the Child of a Proselyte was called a proselyte: if God gives Children but the denomination of Believers, it is sufficient to entitle them to Baptism. Thus Mr. Smythies.  
But how does it appear that Infants are Believers in any sense? is there any Argument or Scripture brought by this Man to prove them so to be? if he can prove they have Faith and do believe in Christ, he will do more than all the Men that ever lived on Earth could do, I mean Children, as such in common and in an ordinary way, to be Believers. True, nothing is too hard for God to do: he that can make an Ass to speak, can as well cause a Babe to believe: But how does it appear God has given them either the Habit of Faith, or the Act of Faith, or Faith in any sense to render them to be Believers? But 'tis intimated they are Believers by their Parent's Faith: why may not their Parent's Baptism serve as well as their Parent's Faith, and they receive the Lord's Supper for them in their Names also, and that be imputed to the Children by virtue of their Parent's Faith? And what though the Estate belongs to the Child in the Cradle, together with the Indenture and Seals of that Estate; Is it required the Child in the Cradle should therefore set his Seal to the Indenture? is that requisite, or would it make the Estate the more firm or sure to him? But when you can prove Grace and Salvation to be Hereditary, and that the Father's being a Believer and a godly Person, all his Children must needs be such too, you do your business.  
Secondly, But why do you say Children must be Believers, or else they can't be saved? who told you so? 
Faith nor Baptism is not required of Infants, yet they may be saved.  Because Faith in Adult Persons is required as necessary in them, if they are saved. Can't God save poor Infants without they also do believe? has God told you he cannot, or will not save them except they believe? I must confess I wonder at your Ignorance and daring Boldness: God, 
Dr. Tailor, p. 230.  as Dr. Taylor observes, may have many ways to magnify his Grace through Jesus Christ to them which we know not of; and what have you to do with the Secrets of God? who made you one of his Privy-Council? you may as well say, unless they repent they cannot be saved from Christ's words, Luke 13. 3, 5. and that they must be obedient and take up the Cross, for these things are required of Adult Persons that would be saved as well as believing.  
Thirdly, Prove that God has given Children the Denomination of Believers; or if it was granted he hath, would it therefore ●ollow they may be baptised? certainly no, for we read of many who were said to believe 
* See Joh. 2. 23, & cap. 8. 30, 31, 44. , they had some kind of Faith, and so in some sense had the denomination of 〈◊〉, and yet had no right to Baptism, for such aught to have 〈◊〉 Faith, or to believe with all their Hearts, 〈◊〉 Philip said to the Eunuch, Act. 8. who are fit Subjects of that Ordinance, or have a sufficient Title to it: and would not that believing (in any sense) you speak of, that entitles them to Salvation, give them as good a right to the Lord's-Supper as to Baptism? Come, Sir, you can't infer a right to an Ordinance from what grounds you please. Baptism depends wholly, I say again, upon the Authority of a positive Law, and express words of Institution 
* I am forced to repeat this often, because there is the like occasion given, and it is a full Answer to all such Inferencse. ; and none but such who are made Disciples by preaching, or who do actually believe, aught from thence to be baptised.  
I wonder what Faith 'tis you suppose to be in Infants? is it the Faith of the Church, as Tho. Aquinas asserts, which is entailed upon all within the pale thereof? Or is it an Imputitive Faith from the Parents in Covenant, as Musculus and others maintain? Or, is it the Faith of the Gossip or Surety, as many of your Church say, i. e. others believe for them? Have they a justifying Faith, 
What Confusion is here among the Pedo-Baptists?  as Mr. Baxter intimates? or a dogmatical Faith only, as in Mr. Blake's Sense? Some, as Mr. Danvers observes, say 'tis a Physical, some a Metaphysical, and some a Hyperphysical Faith. Some say they are born Believers, others say they are made Believers by Baptism. Now when you tell us what Faith they have, we shall the better understand you, and give you an Answer.  
A Personal and actual Faith, 
Dr. Taylor.  saith Dr. Taylor, they have not, for they have no Acts of Understanding; besides, how can any Man know they have Faith, since he never saw any sign 〈◊〉, neither was he told so by any that could tell. Secondly, saith he, Some say they have Imputative Faith: But then so let the Sacraments be too, that is, if they have the Parent's Faith or the Churches, than so let Baptism be imputed also by derivation from them: And as in their Mother's Womb, and while they hang upon their Mother's Breasts, they live upon their Mother's Nourishment; so they may upon the Baptism of their Parents, or their Mother the Church: for since Faith is necessary to the susception of Baptism (and they themselves confess it, by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the matter;) such as the Faith, such must be the Sacrament: for there is no proportion between an actual Sacrament, and an Imputative Faith, this being in immediate and necessary order to that. This saith the Bishop.  
We know there are some argue stiffly for Infants having habitual Faith; but as the said Doctor saith, Are there any Acts precedent, concomitant, or consequent to this pretended Habit? this strange Invention, saith he, is absolutely without Art, without Scripture, Reason, or Authority. But the Men are to be excused, unless they had any better Arguments to defend their Practice; they are forced to confess the Truth in the main, viz. That Faith is required of Persons to be baptised, and therefore they do what they can to prove Infants do believe. But I will conclude this with what the said Doctor further saith, 
Dr. Tailor, p. 242.  And if any Man runs for Succour to that exploded Cresphugeton, that Infants have Faith, or any other inspired Habit of I know not what, or how, we desire no more advantage than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason, common Sense, and all the Experience in the World.   

CHAP. XII. Containing an Answer to several other Arguments brought for Infant-Baptism.  
Object. 1. 
Mr. Sidenham's Treatise.  THough there is no plain Scriptures for Infant-Baptism, yet it may be proved by Consequences; you, it appears, deny direct Consequences from Scripture to be mandatory, and so obliging, and of Divine Authority.  
Answ. We affirm, that in all positive or instituted Worship (such as Baptism is) which wholly depends upon the mere▪ Will and Pleasure of the Lawgiver, it is absolutely necessary there should be an express Command, or plain and clear Examples, though in other respects we allow of natural Deductions and Consequences from Scripture for the confirming and enforcing of Duties, and for the Comfort and Instruction of God's People. But as there is neither express Command nor Example for Infant-Baptism; so it can't be proved by any Consequence or Inference, that naturally and 〈◊〉 r●●s from any Scripture, as we have proved, nor does draw any such Consequences to prove it.  
Object. 2. But there is nothing in all the New Testament against Infant-Baptism, saith 〈◊〉▪ Smythies. If indeed our Saviour had declared that Infants should not be baptised, or if we had read of the Apostles Refusal of them; then, etc. There is no hint from any express word dropped from Christ, saith Mr. Sidenham, or his Apostles, nor any Phrase which doth forbid such an Act.  
Answ. We will answer with Tertullian: For this is a certain Rule, saith he, if it be said 'tis lawful because the Scripture doth not forbid it; it may equally be retorted, it is therefore not lawful, because the Scripture doth not command it. That which is done in the Worship and Service of God without any express Word dropped from Christ or his Apostles, nor any Phrase which doth signify it is his Will and Mind it ought to be done, is unlawful and no better than Will-worship. Must Christ forbid Infant-Baptism? must he declare in plain words they ought not to be baptised, or else may they, ought they to be baptised? Is this good Divinity with Mr. Smythies? Certainly this Man can't long keep out of the Romish Communion: Hath our Saviour declared indeed that you shall not have Crucifixes, Beads, Altars, and that you shall not use Salt, spital, Oil, or Chrism in Baptism? that ye shall not go on Pilgrimages, nor pray for the Dead? Hath Christ, I say, or his Apostles, as you read, forbid these things, and many more of like nature? Or, did God forbid Nadab and Abihu to offer strange Fire, who were destroyed for doing it? Levit. 10. 1, 2. Did God forbid Abraham to circumcise his Female Children, or forbid him to circumcise his Male Children on the ninth day? and might he therefore do these things— because God did no where tell him he should not do so? The like might be said concerning Bowing at the naming of the Name of Jesus, Cross in Baptism, Surplice in reading the Service, Kneeling at the Sacrament, set Forms of Prayer; you do these things because not forbidden, and why not admit of other Rites and Innovations as well as these? Moreover, what express word against Infants receiving the Sacraments? Besides, are Bells forbidden to be baptised? hath Christ said indeed, ye shall not baptise Bells? is it therefore lawful to baptise them? You will object, May be that Bells are not ●it nor capable Subjects of such an Ordinance? But why are they not? wherein are they uncapable? Can you not sprinkle a little Water upon a Bell, and use the words of Institution in as solemn a manner as you do when you sprinkle a Child (baptise it as you say)? But are they uncapable because there is no word of Institution, nothing from the Mouth of Christ or his Apostles, to justify such a Practice? We say the same in respect of your baptising Children; and if you say, Bells are not capable of the use and end of Baptism; we have proved the like concerning Infants. If God had pleased, he could have made them by an Institution capable of some sacred usefulness, yea capable of Relative Holiness or Consecration, as Aaron's Bells; Nay, and since we read of Bells of the Horses that should be Holiness to the Lord, Zech. 14. 20. Why may not that Text be a Proof that Bells in Churches should be baptised, and so made holy likewise? There are those you know who plead for that Practice (and have baptised them for many Ages) and they say there is as much ground from Scripture to do that, as there is to 〈◊〉 Children, both depending, as they will tell you, upon the Authority of the Church.  
Sad it is that such a Gap as this should be opened to all or any Inventions or Traditions of Men: remember who it was that said, Add thou not to his Word. That God has in all Ages testified his Abhorrence of Will-worship, and that from this very reason, because he commanded them not: 
Jer. 7. 31.  'tis evident they have built the high places of Tophet, etc. which I commanded them not, neither came it into my Heart. 
Ezek. 43. 8.  For this cause God threatened Judgements upon Israel; They have set their Threshold by my Thresholds, and their Post by my Posts, wherefore I have consumed them.  
God discovers his severe Displeasure against them, not for neglecting any part of his Worship that he had commanded them, but for their Presumption in adding other things thereto, calling them his Ordinances, which he had not appointed nor commanded them. Will-worship (Sir) is an horrible Sin, when he who is to perform the Duty shall dare to appoint the Laws: Implying a peremptory purpose of no further observance, than may consist with the allowance of his own depraved Judgement and Self-Interest; whereas true Obedience must be grounded on the Authority of that Power that commands not the liking or approbation of the Subject. Some Men will obey so far as it consists with their Interest, and alter, add to, or diminish from, as they see good.  
1. This savours of horrible Pride: Shall Man prescribe unto God ways how he shall be worshipped?  
2. Moreover, this of Will-worship was that very Sin that overthrew the Nation of Israel; see Isa. 24. 5, 〈…〉 the Ordinances, etc.  
3. And it also is said to wound the Heart of God, Ezek. 6. 9 namely, their superstitious and corrupt Mixtures in his Worship. And,  
4. This renders the Service of Men abominable, when they make void the Commands of God by their Traditions, and all they do to be in vain, for so saith our Saviour, In vain they worship me, teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men.  
Object. 3. But is it to be imagined, saith Mr. Smythies, that our Saviour, who took little Children up in his Arms, should allow no Ordinance for them by which they should be admitted into his Church?  
Answ. Must he needs baptise them because he took them up in his Arms? and because he blessed them, must he receive them into his Church? We have proved that they are not capable Subjects of Gospel-Church-membership, neither did our Saviour baptise any with his own Hands, Joh. 4. 1, 2. therefore not those Children he took up into his Arms; nor is this any proof in the least, i. e. that Christ must allow them an Ordinance, because he showed them the favour to take them up into his Arms. 'Tis said he looked upon the young Man, and loved him; must he therefore make him a Member of his Church, whether he was sitly qualified for it or no? Christ showed many great Favours unto divers Persons, that we do not read he admitted into his Church. He may show one Favour to you, and yet deny you another which you may not be capable of receiving.  
Young Children, 
●uther in Post●l.  saith Luther, hear not, nor understand the Word of God, out of which Faith cometh; and therefore if the Commandment be followed, Children ought not to be baptised.  
Besides, they might be Children able to receive Instruction as far as you know, for such we take some times up into our Arms. 
Tertullian in his Book of Bapt. ●ap. 18.  Tertulllan, speaking of this place, saith, Indeed the Lord said, do not ye hinder them to come unto me, let them come therefore, while they grow to Years, let them come while they learn, and while come, let them be taught; let them become Christians, when they are able to know Christ: Why doth innocent Age hasten to the Remission of Sins? Men will deal more warily in Worldly Assairs; so that they who are not trusted with an Earthly Inheritance are trusted with an Heavenly one; let them ask for Salvation that thou mayst appear to have given it to him. See our further Answer to this Text, Cope. 9  
Object. 4. But Infants were commonly baptised before. How can we, saith Mr. Smythies, imagine that our Saviour sent to baptise Nations in which Infants before had commonly been baptised, and yet intent they should be excluded?  
Answ. This is a new kind of Argument, but proves nothing.  
For first, 'Tis denied that Infants by any Command of God were ever baptised in any Nation, no not amongst the Jews, much less among the Gentile Nations; but if they had been baptised before, he might as well have in●erred (and much better) Infants Right to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and have said, Can we imagine Christ would have excluded them from that, considering they were before admitted to the Passeover (which there is no great cause to question.)  
But secondly, We reason thus; If they were before baptised, either they were baptised as it was a Jewish Rite and Custom, or else as an Heathenish one: If Baptism of Infants before was a Jewish Rite, it was either appointed of God, or else a Tradition of their own: If it was a Tradition of their own, can you suppose our Saviour would go about to own and establish a Jewish Innovation, or one of their human Traditions? and if it were an Appointment of God, it is very much that no Man ever found it out before in all the Old Testament.  
But thirdly, If there had been any such legal Ordinance, it had been abrogated, with all other Jewish Ceremonies, which stood (as the Apostle shows) in Meats and Drinks, 
Heb. 9 10.  and divers Washings, and Carnal Ordinances imposed on them until the time of Reformation. All those divers Washings that were under the Law it is evident ceased in the Establishment of the new Testament; and therefore how abominable false is that which Mr. Smythies says concerning Gospel-Baptism?  
Object. 5. Our Saviour, (says he Pag. 88) took this Ordinance from the Custom of the Jews, who were wont to baptise those who forsook Heathenism and embraced the true Religion. And whensoever they made Proselytes, they did not only baptise the Parent, but the Child likewise.  
Answ. Did any Man assert till now the Baptism of Christ to be a Legal Rite, or rather that it sprung from Human Tradition? for 'tis evident the Jews were not required to baptise them by any Appointment of God: for Circumcision was the Rite by which Proselytes (who were Males) were added to the Jewish Church.  
Besides, doth not our Saviour plainly intimate, that John's Baptism was directly from Heaven, and not of Men? And if Baptism had been so frequently practised amongst the Jews, wherefore did they say to John, Why dost thou baptise, if thou art not that Christ, nor Elias? Joh. 1. 25. But doth not Christ say, that the Doctrine he taught, he received from the Father who sent him? not from Moses nor the Jews: 
John 12.  I have not spoken (saith he) of myself; but the Father which sent me, gave me Commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. Now Baptism is positively called a Principle of his Doctrine, 
Heb. 6. 1, 2, 3.  it was he that instituted it and gave it forth, Mat. 28. 19, 20. as a pure Gospel-Ordinance, as the alone Sovereign Lord and Lawgiver of his Church. Moreover, if all those divers Washings and carnal Ordinances amongst the Jews are abolished, as you heard before; how came this supposed Jewish Rite to escape? These things considered, we may perceive 'tis Ignorance through Tradition that makes a Pedo-baptist, or rather a No-Baptist, and not Ignorance (as he affirms) through length of time that makes an Anabaptist (falsely so called) Pag. 91. But 'tis the knowledge of God's Word, through the help of the Spirit, by which they, whom he so calls, come to cast off that unwritten Tradition of Babes Rantism, and to own no Baptism but that which Christ hath commanded, and was practised in the Apostolical Church.  
And whereas he affirms the baptising of Children was all along used in the Primitive Church by the Holy Martyrs, etc.  
We answer, It was never practised till the Church came to adulterate the holy Institutions of Christ, and fell away to Error and Superstition.  
For, 
Curcellaeus ●nstitut. Relig. Christian. l. 1. c. 12.  saith Curcellaeus, in the two first Centuries after Christ, Infant-Baptism was altogether unknown; but in the third and fourth it was allowed by some few; in the fifth and following Ages, it was generally received into Custom.  
And if the Custom of the Church is enough to justify Infant-Baptism, it will oblige us as to receive many other Traditions or Ceremonies likewise.  
Object. 6. But there are divers very learned Men who hold Infant-Baptism.  
Answ. And are there not many very learned Men who are against baptising them? who say 'tis an Invention of Men and no Ordinance of Jesus Christ? Besides, were not the Pharisees and Lawyers learned Men, who rejected the Counsel of God against themselves, being not baptised? God's purpose is to confound the Wisdom of Man. If Learning once comes to be made an Idol of, God may leave those learned Men to themselves, and let them grope in Midday as in the Night, notwithstanding all their Light, Knowledge, and Learning.  
Besides, there are learned Men of all Opinions, many learned Cardinals, Priests, and Jesuits in the Church of Rome, yet you will not make that an Argument to believe Transubstantiation, and other Errors maintained by them.  
Object. 6. But there are many very holy and pious Men, yea Pastors of Churches, that are for the baptising of little Infants▪ Nay, and why should so few learned Men be of your way if it were a Truth, for most speak against those of your Persuasion?  
Answ. 1. The more cause of Grief. But what though I must tell you God's Word is to be your Guide, and not Men: every Man must give an account to God for himself.  
Moreover, some Godly Men who have had great Light, and were glorious Reformers too in their day, yet lay short of some great Things and Duties; as Jehosaphat, etc. who did not remove nor pull down the high Places.  
2. Light and Knowledge of Divine Truths have broken forth gradually. When Reformation first begun, those godly Men laboured to restore the doctrinal part of the Gospel, and yet great Corruptions remained in point of Discipline (which Errors God hath since by degrees discovered.)  
3. Had the best and late Reformers (for such you will find at last the Baptists to be in point of the Administrations of God's House and holy Temple) been generally learned Men, 'tis very like this Truth would have been more readily received among such (I mean learned Persons) than we see now it is, so hard a thing is Self-denial.  
4. Moreover, the base Reproaches cast upon the true way of Baptising, hath doubtless laid a great many of good Men under Temptations, there being hardly any one Truth that has been rendered more odious and contemptible than Baptising, (i e. dipping of Men and Women in Water) though 'tis generally acknowledged by all, that no other Action then that was practised in the Gospel-days in the Administration of this Ordinance.  
5. Some say those Errors or unsound Principles (as I look upon them to be) maintained by divers Baptists (who I doubt not are godly Christians) have likewise hindered the Reception and Promulgation of this blessed Gospel-Institution among many worthy Persons, 
For the Doctrine of freewill; Falling away totally from a state of true Grace, etc. are not looked upon as capital Errors, viz. such as will exclude Men out of the Kingdom of Heaven.  and kept them may be from endeavouring their Satisfaction herein; tho 'tis strange that should be a stumbling Block to any, sith there were many Christians in the Apostles Times, who in many things did descent and differ (in as great matters) one from another: besides, there are Men almost of all Persuasions that hold those very Principles.  
6. Others think the Remissness of some of the Baptised Churches about taking care of their Ministers hath contributed something to it also: for nothing lies more clear in God's Word, than that those who preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel; yea, have a comfortable Maintenance, i. e. that they may be wholly sequestered to the Work of the Ministry (and be in a capacity to give to others, 
1 Cor. 9 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.  and so show themselves Examples in Hospitality); and that their poor Wives and Children after their Decease, 
Matth. 10. 10.  may not be exposed to Want and Poverty. But I am glad to see it, 
Luk. 9 3.  our Churches are now daily enlightened into this indispensable Duty, and do endeavour to reform accordingly; and would they also labour to follow the Primitive Saints in singing of Psalms, and Hymns, and spiritual Songs 
* Eph. 5. 18, 19 , I do not doubt but it would add to their Comfort and Glory, 
Col. 3. 16.  and many more than now do would join with us 
† Some good Christians are not willing to take up one Ordinance, and so join in with the Baptists, and thereby lose another which they believe is as great, and a most sweet and Soul-consolating one. .  
7. But to proceed: Be sure the Examples of the best Men under Heaven will never be a Plea sufficient for any in the day of Judgement, in doing any thing in God's Worship that he has not commanded (or given grounds for the Observation of) or in their neglecting doing of that which he hath expressly required. Shall any be allowed at the last day to plead thus, viz. such and such good Men and able Ministers did say this was a Truth and my Duty? surely no.  
8. When Reformation is required of Men in so great a case as this, viz. that which tends to the razing the whole Constitution or standing of their Church, which has been also of such a long continuation; it calls for great Resolution, Courage, and Self-denial, which is hard for some Men to arrive at; considering also what great Persons and Reformers have been on their side; and they not seriously minding the words of the wise Man, 
Prov. 4. 18.  where he says, that the Path of the Just is as a shining Light, that shineth more and more to the perfect day; the Church as it was then looked out of the Wilderness but as the Morning, and but as fair (comparatively) as the Moon; 
Cant.  but since (blessed be God) greater Light hath broken forth, yea to such a degree that now she seems to be come forth as clear as the Sun, etc. And sad it is to see Men content themselves to walk only in that Light those worthy Christians had in the Morning of the Reformation, and refuse to follow and embrace a higher and more clear, and Sun-sshining Glory. They might be accepted then, since their Day did not afford greater Manifestations of Truth in those respects; but it may not excuse our Brethren, nor may they be accepted in following them, sith Truth is broke forth more perspicuously in these latter times.  
Object. The People called Anabaptists lie under great Reproaches, as if you baptised People naked.  
Answ.. 
Dr. Featly and Mr. Baxter formerly contracted no small Gild and Shame to themselves upon this respect; see Dipper▪ dipped, writ by Featly.  'Tis no more than our Saviour foretold should befall his own People and faithful Followers, They shall speak all manner of Evils against you falsty for my Name sake, etc. I am not ignorant what odious Lies and Reproaches have been cast upon us in respect of baptising Men and Women naked: whereas 'tis notoriously known to be utterly false and abominable, which thousands can testify to the contrary, who are of different Persuasions to us, who daily see Persons of both Sexes baptised by us, always in very comely and decent Garments, provided on purpose upon that account.  
Object. You have been formerly stigmatised and accused, as if you were against Magistrates, or refuse to obey Kings, and such as are in Authority; and refuse lawful Oaths: What say you to the Munster-Story?  
Answ. These things our Enemies know to be false and vile Slanders, our Confessions of Faith from time to time do witness the contrary; What People plead for Subjection to Government and Magistrates which God has set over us, more than we always do? And as touching that old Munster-Story of John of Leyden, etc. they that read the best Histories of that business, may find many things to be false which are charged against those Anabaptists: besides, the Story of them was either written (as some have very well observed) by the malicious Papists, their old mortal Enemies; or else by envious Protestants, who are willing to take up any base Reports, and improve tho●e S●●ries to blast the Reputation of the whole Party. Alas, I could here soon recite some Writings of inveterated Spirits, who have in as base a manner vilified and calumniated the Episcopals, nay and the Presbyterians, and Independents also, giving Instances both in respect of their vile Principles and Practices. Certainly 'tis a shame for any good Men to take up a Charge against so great a Party of godly Christians from the venomous Pens of such shameless Persons.  
But suppose the Munster-Story as to matter of Fact were true, and that some of those Anabaptists were very ill Men, and guilty of several immoral Actions, and held great Errors, yet how unreasonable and uncharitable a thing is it to render all those People of that Persuasion in those times, and also since to be as bad and as like guilty? especially considering that the Principle and Practice of baptising believing Men and Women in itself is so harmless a thing, and no ways tends to lead Persons to such Evils? For by the same Rule might not the best and most holy Church and People in the World, or ever were in the World, be censured and reproached, and neither the Church of the Jews, nor the Gospel-Church in the Apostles days escape, sith in the first there were very ill Persons, as Chora, Dathan, and Abiram, and many others, and in the last a Judas, a Diatrophes, an incestuous Person 
* 1 Cor. 5. 1, 2. , who was guilty of worse or more shameful Fornication then what was amongst the Gentiles, as the Apostle affirms? Besides, as Mr. Danvers observes, those of the same Opinion in former times are acknowledged to be godly and good Men, or have an honourable Character given them, and this too by the ample and authentic Testimony from their greatest Enemies; he citys Rai●trus, the Bloody Inquisitor of those in France, and Baronius, and Cassander of those in Germany; nay, and Mr. Baxter● himself, who, though he has been found free enough in his Reproaches, yet to give him his due, is pleased to witness to our Innocency in this Nation, take his own words: saith he, 
Baxter in his Book Principle of Love, p. 7.  That Anabaptists are godly Men that differ from us in a Point so difficult, that many of the Papists and Prelatists have maintained, that it is not determined in the Scripture, but dependeth upon Tradition of the Church: And I know as good and sober Men of that Mind, as of theirs who are most against them, etc. And again he saith, that Augustin, and many Children of Christians were baptised at Age; and that the Controversy is of so great difficulty, that if in all such cases none that differ be tolerated, we may not live together in the World or Church, but endlessly excommunicate or prosecute one another. But blessed be God we need not the Testimony of Men, having the Testimony of our own Consciences (which is our rejoicing) as the Apostle saith, 
2 Cor. 1. 12.  that in Simplicity and godly Sincerity, not by fleshly Wisdom, but by the Grace of God, we have had our Conversation in the World. Tho there may be some of our Communion who may be under Gild and gross Enormities, and mistaken Principles and Notions, to our great Grief and Sorrow (as well as amongst other Communities of godly Christians) but Charity will cover a multitude of Faults.  
Object. 8. But you lay too much stress upon Baptism?  
Answ. What some may do, I know not, but I am sure generally, we lay no more stress upon it than we ought; we say, it is a Duty incumbent upon all Believers— a holy Ordinance of Christ, one of the great Sacraments of the New Testament, and they that reject it, do reject part of the Counsel of God. Yet we do not lay such stress upon it, as some do upon Infant Baptism. We do not say, Men cannot be saved, unless they be baptised; provided they do not sin against their light and clear convictions of their own Consciences. 'Tis evident there are those who have asserted, That Infants that die unbaptised, shall not, cannot be saved; which certainly is abominable to affirm: For were it our duty to baptise our Children, yet can any think, that the omission of our duty to them herein, can exclude them the Kingdom of Heaven? but 'tis evident it is not required, they are not the subjects of it.  
Object. 'Tis no where said, that Women received the Lords Supper, yet 'tis given to them: Why may not Infants be Baptised as well, though there is nothing mentioned of their being Baptised in the Scripture.  
Answ. To this we Answer, That there is ground enough from the Scripture, for Women who are baptised Believers, to receive the Lord's Supper; Let a Man examine himself, and so let him eat, saith the Apostle, viz. Man or Woman. For so the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies. There is one Mediator between God and Man. Is not Woman as well as Man intended there? If there come into your Assembly a Man having a Gold Ring, etc. A double-minded Man is unstable in all his ways. Are not Women as well as Men, comprehended and meant in those places as well as Men, though not expressed?  
2. Were not Women as well as Men (who believed) Baptised? 
Act. 8. 12.  Were not Women Disciples, and commanded to be made discipline by the preaching of the Gospel in the Commission, 
Mat. 28. 19, 20.  as well as Men?  
And are not Males and Females all o●● in Christ Jesus? Is not this a mere trifling Vanity, and nought but a piece of Foolery and Deceit, to darken Counsel with words without Knowledge?  
Women were Baptised; we read of Lydia, an honourable Woman that was Baptised. And when they heard this, 
Acts 8. 12.  'tis said, they were baptised both Men and Women. And they that were required to be Baptised, and did partake of that Ordinance, continued together in the Apostles Doctrine, and in Fellowship, and in breaking of Bread and Prayer. This sufficiently proves Women received the Lord's Supper.  
When shall we see the like proof for Babes Baptism?  
Were not Women Members of the Chur●●▪ and does not the Holy Supper belong to all ●●●●lar Members thereof? This Objection seems to represent these Men like a person almost drowned, who catches hold of any little Twig, or Flag, to help him: But, Brethren, these things will never do your business.  
Object. If we have no Scripture-Example to baptise Infants: no more have you for the baptising such Persons as you do baptise, viz. those of Age, whose Parents were baptised and educated from their Youth in the Christian Religion; for evident it is, those we read of in the New Testament who were baptised, were such who were newly Converted either from Judaisme, or Paganism, to Christianity.  
Answ. What though we have no Example in the Scripture of any besides such you speak of that were baptised, (that ●eing the very beginning of that Gospel-Admini●●●ation) yet is not the Commission a perfect Rule to succeeding Ages, as well as it was to that present Age? Evident it is that by virtue of the Commission, none were to be baptised but such as are discipled, or first taught, before admitted to that Ordinance. If the person be a Believer, we have no ground to refuse him, because his Parents were Jews or Heathens; so we have no reason to receive others at all the more, because their Parents were Christians.  
2. Can you prove that difference as to the state of the Parents (in respect of what you speak of) doth give you a warrantable ground to act contrary to the order and nature of the great Commission? Matth. 28. 19, 20. By the authority of which, the Apostles did baptise (and all Ministers ought to administer the same Ordinance to the end of the World.) The nature and order of the Commission cuts this Objection to pieces: For if the person be a Disciple, a Believer, he is to be baptised, let his Parents be Jews, Heathens, or Christians, 'tis all one. If you had the like grounds to baptise Infants, we should contend no longer with you.  
3. When you can prove the Faith of the Parents, or their subjection to the external Rite of Baptism, adds any spiritual advantage to their Children, or such as gives them a right to Baptism, we will give up the Controversy.—  
Object. But whereas you say, Baptism was always done by dipping the Body all over in Water, how can that be, since some were baptised in Houses?  
Answ. I answer, That is a fancy, a thing asserted without the least shadow of ground, though no less Men than our late worthy Annotators seem to affirm this very thing; for notwithstanding the Jailor, 
Acts 16. 23.  and those of his, were baptised the same hour of the Night, etc. Yet can any suppose they could not go out of the House so late? might there not be a Pond, or some River near? whithersoever they went, or wheresoever it was done, it is no matter, they were baptised; which has been sufficiently proved to be Immersion, or dipping the Body in Water.  
Object. But say what you will, the Baptism of Infants is of God; for there was a multitude of Children of old baptised to Moses in the Cloud, and in the Sea.  
Answ. We have showed you that was but tropically called Baptism; and also that Baptism is a pure New-Testament Ordinance; tho 'tis like that (as some Learned Men have said) might be a Type of this Ordinance, they being as it were buried or overwhelmed in the Sea, and under the Cloud. But if that may justify Infant Baptism, it will allow you to baptise Unbelievers also; for there was a multitude of mixed People who went through the Sea with Israel, besides much cattle, And a mixed multitude went up also with them, and Flocks, and Herds, even very much cattle, Exod. 12. 38. All these were doubtless baptised metaphorically and typically, as well us Children under the Cloud, and in the Sea; therefore this can be no proof for Infant-Baptism.   

CHAP. XIII. Showing the evil Consequences, Absurdities, and Contradictions, that attend Infant-Baptism, as 'tis Asserted and Practised.  
Object. BUT what harm is there in Baptising of Children? is it not an innocent thing? can it do the Child any hurt?  
Answ. The harm will be to the Parents and Ministers, who do that in Christ's Name, which they have no Authority from him to do. If it do any harm to Infants, 'tis not till they are grown up, and then it may be a means to blind their Eyes, and cause some of them to conclude, they in Baptism became the Children of God, were regenerated, made Christians, Members of Christ, and Heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven; and cause others to think they were then rightly baptised, and so to look after no other Baptism. Whereas, poor Souls, they are all unbaptized Persons, having never had any Baptism at all but Rantism.  
Pray see what Mr. Danvers hath said upon this Respect.  
1. But is it no harm to alter Christ's Order in the Commission, 
Mr. Danver's Book of Baptism, p. 212, 213, 214.  who requires Faith and Repentance to precede, or go before Baptism; or first to make them Disciples by Teaching, and then to Baptise them? And for Men to invert this Order as to baptise them, & then teach them Repentance and Faith, sure it must be an evil and hurtful thing so to do.  
2. Is it not an evil thing to change the true subjects of Baptism, who are Believing and Understanding Men, to ignorant Babes, who neither know good nor evil?  
3. Is it not an evil thing to frustrate the sacred and spiritual ends of Baptism, which are many, as you have heard; and by administering it to poor Babes, render it wholly an Insignificant thing?  
4. Is it not an evil and a shameful thing to change Baptism into Rantism, from Dipping the whole Body, to Sprinkling or pouring a little Water upon the Face, and to pronounce an Untruth in the Name of the Lord, saying, I baptise thee in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and holy Spirit, you not doing the thing? nor have any Authority so to do, nor to baptise Children at all, much less to sprinkle them.  
5. Is it not an evil and harmful thing, and a great error to say, 
Heb. 9 12, 13.  Baptism takes away Original Sin? whereas nothing can do that, (nor Actual Sin neither) but the Blood of Christ. 
1 Joh. 1. 7.   
6. Is it not a foolish thing and a Lie, to say, Children have Faith, and are Disciples, who are not capable of Understanding? to assert a thing that no Man has any ground to believe, nor can't, without offering violence to his Reason?  
7. Is it not a weak thing, to open a Door into the Church, which Christ hath shut up?  
8. Is it not weak and an absurd thing to say, that Infants can't be Saved except they be Baptised, partly because Christ saith, 
Joh. 3. 3.  Except a Man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God, Baptism, as some of you say, taking away Original Sin? As if it were in the power, and at the will of the Parents to save or damn their Children. For this is intimated by this Notion of yours; If the Parents or Friends baptise the Child, it shall (if it die in its Infancy) be saved; but if they, nor no other, endeavour to get it Baptised, the Child is lost, and must perish.— How can outward Water, 
Charn. on Regenerate. p. 75.  saith Mr. Charnock, convey inward-Life? How can Water, a material thing, work upon the Soul in a Physical manner? Neither can it be proved, That ever the Spirit of God is tied by any Promise, to apply himself to the Soul in its Gracious Operations, when the Body is applied to the Water. (He says, Water applied to the Body.) Because the adult Person (who sat under the preaching of the Word) cannot be saved without Regeneration. Can't God save poor dying Infants, unless the same change by the Spirits Operations pass upon them? Is not God a free Agent? may he not do what he pleases, and magnify his Grace to poor dying Infants, through the Blood of his Son, in other ways than we know of? Do not secret things belong to him, what Vanity is there in the minds of some Men?  
8. Has God ordained Baptism to be an Ordinance to save the Souls of any Persons, either the Adult or Infants? is the Opus operatum of Baptism, think you, a likely way or means to beget or bring forth Children to Christ, or make Disciples of them? Baptism signifies no thing (it being but a Sign) where the inward Grace signified by it is wanting.  
9 Is it not strange that you should say, That none but the Children of Believers ought to be Baptised? And that Baptism is absolutely necessary to Church-Communion, or an initiating Ordinance? And yet commonly take into your Churches, such Persons (that are converted) whose Parents were very wicked and ungodly Persons as any in the Parish, and so lived and died (as far as you know); and yet do you not account their Baptism to ●e sufficient?  
10. Is it not an hurtful and evil thing, to defile and pollute the Church, by bringing in the Fleshy Seed which Christ hath cast out?  
11. Is it not an evil and dangerous thing to lay a foundation of Ignorance and Profaneness, and to confound the World and Church together, which ought to be separated? and to make the Church National, which ought to be Congregational?  
12. Is it not an harmful and evil thing to establish Human Traditions, and make them of equal Authority with Christ's sacred Institutions, and reproach them who will not against their Consciences, do the same things?  
13. Is it not an evil and harmful thing to plead for In●ant Baptism, or rather Rantism, and make it a bone of Contention amongst Christians, and so ●inder the Unity of Churches and godly Christians? For was that Rubbish gone, what a glorious Harmony would follow, even such a Day as would make all our Souls rejoice? for he is blind who can't see that that Relic is the cause of our sad Divisions▪  
14. Is it not an evil and false thing to say, Persons may have Grace and Regeneration before they know God, or are called by his Word and holy Spirit?  
15. Is it not a strange thing to say, Persons may be visible and lawful Members of the Gospel-Church before Conversion; and to deny them one Sacrament, and yet give them another?  
16. Is it not a false thing to say, Persons may believe and be saved by the Faith of others?  
17. Is it not an evil thing and a contradiction to say, Baptism is a Symbol of present Regeneration, and yet apply it to Ignorant and Unconverted Babes, wholly uncapable of Regeneration, in whom none of the things signified thereby, do, or can appear?  
18. Is it not a false thing and a contradiction to say, that Baptism is a lively Figure of Christ's Death, Burial, and Resurrection, and yet do nothing but sprinkle, or pour a little Water upon the Face; by which act, all must confess nothing of such things can thereby be represented?  
19 Is it not a strange and foolish thing to say, Baptism is an Ordinance of the Solemnisation of the Souls Marriage with Christ, and to say, 'tis a strange Marriage where nothing is professed of a Consent; and yet administer it to Babes wholly uncapable so to do?  
20. Is it not a foolish thing to cry out against Traditions, and all Inventions of Men, and yet strive to uphold and maintain them? And doth not these things hinder that glorious Reformation we all long for, and encourage Papists?  
21. Is it not strange Men should say, all the Children of Believersare in Covenant, and that there is no falling from a State of Grace; but that the New Covenant is so well ordered in all things, and sure, that it will secure all that are indeed in it unto Eternal Life; and yet many of these Children, who they say, were in this Covenant, perish in their Sins, dying Unregenerate?  
22. We will conclude this Chapter, as Mr. Danvers does with the words of Dr. Taylor. And therefore, 
Dr. Taylor Lib. Proph. p. 244.  saith he, whoever will pertinaciously persist in his Opinion of Pedo-Baptism, and practise it accordingly, they pollute the Blood of the everlasting Covenant; they dishonour and make a Pageantry of the Sacrament; they ineffectually represent a Sepulchre into the Death of Christ, and please themselves in a Sing without effect: Making Baptism like the Figtree in the Gospel, full of Leaves, but no Fruit. And they Invocate the Holy Ghost in vain, doing as if one should call upon him to illuminate a Stone or a Tree.   

CHAP. XIV. Proving Baptism a great and glorious Ordinance, and that 'tis initiating or an Inlet into the Church.  
THE last thing I shall do, is to prove Believers Baptism a very great and glorious Ordinance, though much despised by Men, nay by many Professors of this Age.  
First of all, 'Tis a Principle of Christ's Doctrine, nay, a Foundation-Principle, viz. of a true Gospel-Church-State; so that according to the Apostolical and Primitive-Institution, a Church cannot be truly gathered without it.  
Secondly, It appears to be a great Ordinance, if we consider the Commission of Christ.  
1. Consider with what Authority our Saviour gave it forth; All Power is given to me in Heaven and Earth: Go ye therefore, teach all Nations, baptising them, etc.  
2. In that it was one of the last things he gave in charge to his Disciples before he went to Heaven. And,  
3. In that he joins it to Teaching, expressing no other Gospel-Ordinances besides, though he gave other Commandments to them, Act. 1.  
4. In that no Ordinance is to be administered in a more solemn manner than this is, viz. in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit.  
We are hereby obliged to believe in, adore, and worship the whole Trinity.  
Thirdly, No Ordinance in all the New-Testament was ever so graced, nor honoured with such a Presence as this was at the Baptism of Christ; the three Persons manifest their Presence at this Solemnity, the Heavens were opened, and a voice heard, 
Mat. 3. 16.  saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; 1. The Father seals it and honours it. 2. The Son is there, and subjects to it, showing what an honourable respect he has to it; nay and came many Miles upon no other Business but to be baptised (as we read of.) 3. The Spirit also descended like a Dove, and rested upon him; the Holy Ghost puts his Seal upon it, and in a glorious manner owns it.  
And then our Saviour saith, it became him to be obedient to it; 'tis, it seems, a becoming Ordinance, it became the Master, and doth it not become the Servant to submit to it? It was not too low for him, and is it too low for thee?  
He said also it was a fulfilling of all Righteousness; that is, it became him to fulfil all the Commands of his Father, or do his whole Will, which it appears he could not have done unless he had been baptised.  
And in that of being a Pattern or Example to us, those who neglect it, neglect a most righteous thing, and do not fill up after their Master.  
Fourthly, 'Tis called a justifying of God, and our Disobedience herein a rejecting the Counsel of God, Luk. 7. 29, 30.  
Fifthly, It appears a great Ordinance, in that the highest, nay the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit can't exempt a Person from his Obedience hereto, as appears in Cornelius' case. Nay, the greater Gifts and Graces a Person hath, the more fit a Subject he is of this Ordinance (as Peter's words do import. 
Act. 10. 47. )  
Sixthly, Consider the great things and Mysteries held forth hereby, viz. the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ, and our dying to Sin, and Duty to walk in newness of Life, it preaches the Gospel to our very sight in a very lively Figure; and therefore a great Ordinance.  
Seventhly, 'Tis a Badge of Christian Profession; and an Ordinance, as Mr. Baxter observes, of the Solemnisation of the Souls Marriage-Union with Christ.  
Eighthly, Consider the great Promises made to those who are obedient to it, amongst other things, 
Mark 16. 16.  Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the World. And again, He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved. If a Prince shall offer a Rebel his Life in doing two things, would he neglect one of them, and say this I will do, but the other is a trivial thing, I'll not do that? Surely no, he would not run the hazard of his Life so foolishly.  
And then in Act. 2. 38. Repent, and be baptised every one of you for Remission of Sin, and ye shall receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit: See what great Promises are made to Believers in Baptism.  
Ninthly, Nay, and Cornelius was warned from Heaven to send for Peter, and, saith the Lord, he shall tell thee what thou shalt do. Now one thing that is expressed, and I think 'tis all that Pet●r told him he should do (besides believing on the Lord Jesus) was to be baptised. Certainly these things demonstrate Baptism to be a great Ordinance; 'tis miraculously confirmed from Heaven (as it were) so to be.  
Tenthly, and lastly; Baptism is an initiating Ordinance, no regular or orderly coming into the Church of God but at this door; and this we shall make appear, therefore a great Ordinance.  
First, 
Acts 2.  'Tis said they that gladly received the Word, were baptised; and the same day there were added to them about three thousand Souls: those who were added unto this Church were first baptised; and observable 'tis, that as this was the first Gospel-Church that was gathered after the Ascension of Christ: so it is set forth as a Pattern to all other Churches; 
1 Thess. 2. 14.  for as others were enjoined, so they were commanded for following the Church of God that was in Judaea.  
Secondly, All along in the New Testament, where we read of the first Plantations of the Churches, we find that all those who became Members respectively, were first upon their Profession of Faith baptised before they were received as Members thereof; as Act. 8. Act. 10. Act. 16. and Act. 18.  
Thirdly, We read of none that were received into the Fellowship of any Church that were not first baptised.  
Fourthly, Because those who were baptised, were said to be baptised into Christ; 
Gal. 3. 27.  Know ye not that so many of us as were baptised into Christ, etc. Rom. 6. 3.  
That is, into his Church or Mystical Body, as our late Annotators intimate, 
Pools Annotat. on Rom. 6. 3.  incorporated, engrafted or planted into Christ, and so to be made Members of his Mystical Body by Baptism.  
By one Spirit we (are said) all to be baptised into one Body, 1 Cor. 12, 13, By one Spirit, that is, by the Authority and Appointment of the Spirit, and by the Guidance, Conduct, and Leadings of the Spirit; not that all that are true Members of the Church are baptised with the holy Spirit, sith the Baptism of the Spirit denotes (as we have elsewhere proved) the extraordinary Gifts or Effusion of the Holy Ghost, which was received in the Apostles days, and which continued not in the Church. And have been all made to drink into one Spirit. In these words he alludes to the Ordinance of the Supper, which you may as well say, is a spiritual eating and drinking only, as so to speak of Baptism; because 'tis said by one Spirit we are all baptised, 'tis not said with one Spirit. Besides, should any assert that the Apostle means the Baptism of the Spirit, and that the ordinary Gifts and Graces of the Spirit is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit; than it would follow that there are two Baptisms left in the Church, which seems to be contrary to what Paul saith. 
Eph. 4. 5.   
Fifthly, Because the Lord Jesus hath joined Faith and Baptism together in the Commission, and both were taught as beginning or fundamental Principles of his Doctrine, or part of those first Rudiments that belongs to every Babe in Christ, or Christian Man and Woman, Heb. 5. 12. & 6. 1, 2. and all those six Principles, 
Pools Annotat. on Heb. 6. 1, 2.  as our late Annotators affirm, are initiating, and so they must be; for if they are Fundamentals, they must either be Fundamentals of Salvation, or else of Church-Communion: Now Baptism cannot be a Fundamental of Salvation, therefore of Church-Communion, how necessary 'tis to lay a sure Foundation no Man can be ignorant.  
Object. It is objected from Rom. 6. 3. that but some only of the Church of the Romans were baptised, because the Apostle saith, as many of● you as were baptised, etc. from thence they would conclude some of them were not.  
Answ. Did the whole Church of the Romans reckon themselves, think you, to be dead to Sin, and bound to live no longer therein? If so, then Baptism, which was a Symbol of those things, belonging to them all; As many as are baptised into Christ, were baptised into his Death, etc. i. e. in token of it: And that they all should become New Creatures, it is as if he should reason thus;  
As many of us as are baptised, must know this, that we were baptised into Christ's Death, and therefore must die to Sin, and live a new Life. But we have all been baptised or buried with Christ in Baptism into his Death; therefore we must all die to Sin, and live a new Life.  
Did the Apostle intent hereby, do you think, to press them all to die to Sin, and live to God? if so, that Argument he uses (you may assure yourselves) reached them all, which it could not do if they had not all been baptised.  
Sixthly, Baptism is an initiating Ordinance, appears, because the way of inchurching Disciples, or Men and Women, was one and the same in all the Churches of the Saints; if some were not received till Baptised, there were no unbaptized Persons ever received at all. But some were not received till baptised, Ergo. The Reason is not only, because the way and order of the Administration of that Ordinance were one and the same in every Church, and so Confusion avoided; but also because there is the like parity of Reason, why all should and ought to be baptised, as there is for some, sith the Ordinance is initiating, and so a great Privilege, and all have right to the thing signified thereby: Besides, those who believe, are required and commanded to be baptised; and that which is the Duty of one Disciple as a Disciple, is the Duty of every Disciple; and by that Argument you may excuse one Man from one Sacrament, viz. Baptism, you may excuse another from the Lord's Table, upon a pretence he doth not see it to be his Duty, and yet admit him, and continue him a Member.  
And that Baptism is an initiating Ordinance, we have all Christians of all Persuasions one with us, they generally assert the same thing.  
Justin Martyr, 
Second Apology to Ant. Pius the Roman Emperor, c. 8. §. 5.  speaking of the Lord's Supper, saith, This Food we call the Eucharist, to which no Man is admitted, but only he that believeth in the Truth of our Doctrine, being washed in the Laver of Regeneration for Remission of Sins, and liveth as Christ hath taught. That is, none were admitted to the Lord's Supper, but such who were first baptised.  
The same is hinted by a late famous Writer concerning Cyprian, and other eminent Fathers, about the 2d & 3d Centuries, viz▪ No unbaptised Persons were admitted to the Communion of the Church.  
Let them, 
August.  saith Austin, (that is, the Catecumen) pass through the Red Sea; that is, be baptised: and let them eat Manna, that is, the Body and Blood of Christ. This shows the practice of the Church in his Days.  
Vrsinus saith, 
Ursin. in his Catechism.  Baptism is a Sacrament of entrance into the Church, whence it cometh, that the Supper is presented to none except first baptised.  
Dr. Cave, 
Antiq▪ Christianae, p. 374.  speaking of the Lord's Supper, saith, From this Sacrament are excluded all unbaptised Persons, and such who live in any known Sin, etc.  
Baptism is, 
Marrow of Diu. p. 181 Elton on Col. 2. 11. p. 291.  saith Dr. Ames, a Sacrament of Initiation.  
Elton on Col. 2. 11. saith also, That Baptism is the Sacrament of Incision, or engrafting into Christ, sealing up our setting into Christ, which is only once done, never after to be done again, etc.  
Mr. Strong says, 
Discourse of the Covenant, p. 226  Baptism is a Sacrament of Initiation, and the Ordinance of visible admission into the Church: And as it is a Sin, saith he, to keep them out whose Right it is; so it is a Sin also to admit them that have no Right, because the Ordinance of Christ is abused and misplaced.  
The Assembly say in their Catechism, 
Assemb. Catechism.  That Baptism is a Sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ;— for the solemn admission of the Party baptised into the Visible Church, etc.  
Every Soldier that must be admitted into an Army, 
Plain. Scripture▪ Proof, p. 24.  saith Mr. Baxter, must be admitted, by listing, as a solemn engaging Sign— So every one that hath right to be solemnly admitted into the Visible Church, must orderly be admitted by Baptism.  
And again he saith, We have no Precept or Example of admitting visible Members any other way; therefore all that must be admitted visible Members, must be baptised.  
I might write a Book of things of this Nature, as touching the Sentiments of worthy Writers, being generally all of the same Belief and Practice; howsoever in other things they may differ from us, and one from another; nor will those of the Church of England, Presbyterians, or Independants, admit any as Members into their Communions, as to partake of the Lord's Supper, except they have been baptised in their sense, they calling Sprinkling, or Pouring, Baptising; which we deny to be the Ordinance.  
Object. How dare you deny a Man admittance into the Church, who is truly Godly, and hath a lively Faith? If he hath a right to Christ, who is signified in the Lord's Supper, may be be denied the Sign, because he is not baptised?  
Answ. How dares any Man, who fears God, attempt to do any thing contrary to the Holy Pattern left in Christ's New Testament? If Baptism was appointed to be an Initiating Ordinance into God's House, 'tis not only a Man's Piety that will serve the turn, he must come into the Church at the Door Christ hath ordained, or not come in at all. If Lot should have offered himself to come into Abraham's Family, (which was then God's Church) do you think Abraham would have admitted him, (though he was a Righteous Man) unless he would first consent to be Circumcised (which was an Initiating Ordinance at that time)? Certainly, no; though he should say he was not convinced of Circumcision, yet that would not have excused him: God's Laws are not to be dispensed with to gratify the Ignorance of Men. 'Tis a Question whether Vzzah knew he ought not to put forth his Hand to support the Ark: Yet for doing that thing, God smote him with Death. Ignorance will not be a sufficient Plea for doing God's Work, 
2 Sam. 6. 6, 7.  in other manner than he has appointed.  
How dares any Man, who loves and desires to honour the Lord Jesus, violate his Holy and Great Commission, Matth. 28. or act and do contrary thereto, who requires all Disciples to be baptised? derogating from the Rule in one thing, opens a Gap to other Disorders, and it renders Christ's Institution a petty and indifferent thing: you may as well dispense (with the neglect, or) with the ignorance of Men in the Lord's Supper, as well as so to do in respect of Baptism; and let them abide Members who refuse to break Bread with the Church, and yet would continue Members, pretending ignorance; perhaps they will tell you, they can answer the End of that Ordinance in breaking their common Bread, etc.  
Object. 
Rom. 14. 1.  But doth not the Apostle say, Such as are weak in the Faith, receive you, etc.  
1. It cannot be meant received into the Church, because they that the Apostle there speaks of, were in the Faith, or visible Profession of the Gospel, and were Members of the Church, though they were weak ones, or but Babes in Christ.  
2. The weakness there meant, was about eating Meats, and observing days, etc. which were in themselves but indifferent things: And will you render the great Sacrament of Baptism like to them? It was no Sin to eat, or not to eat, but so it is not to be subject, or not subject to Christ's Ordinances.  
3. The receiving there intends doubtless no more than this, to let them abide in their Affections, or receive them as poor weak Children to nourish and pity them, and not to censure and judge hardly of their doubtful thoughts.  
But to conclude, since my honoured Friend and Brother, Mr. William Kiffen, hath but lately wrote so excellent a Book upon this very Subject, I shall say no more to it, but refer the Reader for his further satisfaction to that Treatise. But to proceed to a little Improvement: If Baptism be so great an Ordinance as it seems it is, this may reprove all such who slight and despise it, and may stir up all to an honourable esteem of it, and to move such who are convinced of it, speedily to submit thereunto.  
Let me conclude all with one use of Caution to my Brethren, that are baptised as Believers, and yet take liberty to walk in Communion with such Churches as descent from them, in respect of this Ordinance, and sprinkle Babes.  
I am more concerned about you, than any other People; because you seem to pull down with one Hand, that which you Build with the other. Our Brethren with whom you Walk, may be more Excusable than you can be, because they are faithful (I would hope) to their Light; they will not have communion with any Persons, whom they judge in their Consciences are Unbaptised; but you believe those who have been only Sprinkled in Infancy, are all Unbaptized Persons, or otherwise why were you Baptised afterwards? Who can justify you in this Practice? I am persuaded our Brethren cannot, will not do it, if they rightly consider the light or dictates of your Consciences in this Matter: 'tis not what they are in their own Sense, but what they are in your Judgement. Speak, are they Baptised? Or, is not that they call Baptism, in your Consciences a Nullity? Nay, worse, a Tradition of Men? nay, a profanation of the Sacrament of Baptism? How then can you justify yourselves in such a Practice? I have as much charity for our Brethren, I hope, as most of you have, and love and honour them, yet dare not transgress or invert Christ's holy Laws, and Gospel-Order; and therefore take heed what you do. If there were no Baptised Churches with whom you might have Communion, somewhat might be said in your Justification. (For upon a case of necessity that may be lawful, or be permitted to be done, which otherwise is utterly unlawful.) Besides, I hear some of you (daily confess) they believe they are not such Orderly Churches as the Baptised Congregations are, (and that is the sum of what I say and believe concerning them) why then do you choose to have Fellowship with them? Ought you not to follow the best and highest Reformation, and clearest Discovery of God, and to be in the most perfect and complete Order of the Gospel you are able to arrive to the knowledge of? Yet are not you contented to lie short in doing this according to the Sentiments of your Minds and Understandings? Is this the way to that longed-for Reformation? Is not Truth and Righteousness to be joined with Peace and Love? Nay, and doth not my Love run out to our Brethren in a cleaner Channel than yours, (who resolve my Affections shall never pilot my Judgement or Understanding?) I have as great reason to love and honour some of the Congregational Way, as any one Man this day in England; it pleasing God to work upon my Soul, I hope, effectually, when very young under the Ministry of one that is of that Persuasion, who is yet living, and none of the meanest Ministers, now Preaching near this City; whose Name is dear to me, and one I do honour, (and ever shall) as long as I live in the World. Yet nevertheless, my blessed Lord and Saviour, and his Truth, lies nearer my Heart. I speak the more upon this account, not only to deliver your Souls from Temptations, and disorderly Walking; but also, because I know it grieves many very gracious Persons, and weakens the hands of those who carry on the Work of God amongst us; and seems to me to obstruct the further Glory and Reformation of the Church. Yet I am for such Communion with our Brethren, as we may warrantably promote, as to Pray and Preach together, and to love and encourage Grace and Holiness in one another.  
I'll say no more, I have done; only remember that excellent saying of the Apostle, Now I pray you, Brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the Ordinances as I delivered them to you. Would to God I could say so of you. 'Tis not enough to keep the Ordinances of Christ, but so to keep them as at first delivered to the Saints. Let us go forward, and not decline, or seem to draw back in our Zeal and Testimony for the Truth. Let us walk as we have attained; God may bring our Brethren to see wherein they come short, as well as wherein they know they are got before others. I hope, what I have written will be received in good part, and none will be offended; for I can appeal to God, the searcher of all Hearts, I have done all that I have done or writ in this Treatise, in the integrity and uprighness of my Heart, and in sincere love to Christ and his despised Ordinances, and to discharge my Conscience; hoping a Blessing will attend it, and that it will redound to his Glory, and the profit of his Church; and if so, I matter not what Censures I lie under: For, my Record is on high, and my Witness is in Heaven. I am contented to be any thing or nothing, (if I know my own deceitful Heart) that God may be All in all; to whom be Praise and Glory, by Jesus Christ, now and for evermore. Amen.  
FINIS.   

The Table of the Contents.  

Chap. I. BAptism of Water only intended in the Commission, proved, by Eight Reasons, from Page 1, to p. 6. Water-Baptism to continue to the end of the World, from p. 7, 8, 9 Baptised in the Name of Christ, proved to be according to the Commission, p. 11, 12. The Objection, that the Baptism in Water was John's Baptism, Answered, p. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Object. That Paul was not sent to baptise, Answered, p. 20, 22  
Chap. II. Opening the true genuine, literal, proper signification of the word Baptizo, p. 24, 25, 26  
Chap. III. Baptism is Dipping, etc. proved from the practice of the Primitive Church, p. 32, 33, etc.  
Chap. IV. Baptism, Dipping, or Plunging, proved from the Spiritual signification of the Ordinance, p. 42, 43, etc.  
Chap. V. Baptism proved Immerging or Dipping, from the Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms, spoken of in Scripture, p. 56, 57, etc.  
Chap. VI Believers the only subjects of Baptism from the Commission, p. 63, 64, etc.  
Chap. VII. Baptism of Believers proved the only Subjects of it, from the practice of the Primitive Church, p. 76, 77, etc.  
Chap. VIII. Believers the only Subjects from the ends of Baptism, p. 78. Seven ends of Baptism, p. 80  
Chap. IX. Containing Eight Arguments, proving Believers the only Subjects, p. 86, to p. 99  
Chap. X. The Arguments for Infant-Baptism, Answered, p. 100, to 124  
Chap. XI. Other Objections and pretended Proofs for Pedo-Baptism, Answered, p. 125, 126, etc.  
Chap. XII. Answer to several Arguments, p. 146  
Chap. XIII. Showing the evil Consequents of Infants-Baptism, p. 165, 166, etc.  
Chap. XIV. Baptism a great Ordinance, and Initiating, p. 171, 172, etc.