Light Broke Forth in Wales Expelling Darkness, Chapter 13
CHAP XIII.
In Anſwer to Mr. James Owen's 11th Chapter and 6th Argument, concerning thoſe Baptiſms that were under the Law; proving that Chriſt's Ordinance of Baptiſm is a pure Goſpel-Inſtitution, and that it was not in being tell he appointed it in the Goſpel-days.
…, what you have ſaid in your 11th Chapter, which contains your 8th Argument, tho it may ſeem new to ſome, I ſhall ſhew it is nothing at all to the purpoſe.
You ſay, the Form of Baptiſm was before the Law, and under the Law; and from thence infer that Children ought to be baptized under the Goſpel.
Anſw. 1. You may infer from the ſame Ground and Argument, that Clothes, Pots, Tables and Veſſels ought to be baptized under the Goſpel, as an Ordinance of Chriſt, becauſe they were dipped, waſhed or baptized before and under the Law.
2. Moreover, you may infer as well that Unbelievers, yea the worſt of Men and Cattle alſo, ought to be baptized under the Goſpel, becauſe Noah and his Children were baptized in the Ark, among which was curſed Chan: you intimate that Cham was baptized upon his Father's Faith; ſo that it appears the Father's Faith will not only ſave the Infant-Seed of Believers, but ſave them when they are Adult Perſons alſo.
But were not the Beaſts and the Fowls baptized and ſaved by the Ark as well as Noah and his Children, and his Son Cham? But as touching that Text 1 Pet. 3. 10. how the Ark of Noah might be a Figure of Baptiſm, I ſhall ſpeak to that more fully by and by.
3. Becauſe all ſorts of Waſhings or Dippings are in the Greek Tongue Baptizing, doth it therefore follow that all ſorts of Baptiſms, Dippings, or Waſhings, are formally Chriſt's Ordinance of Baptiſm?
Mr. Burkitt, a great Pedo-baptiſt, and all other learned Men, aſſert, that to the true Form and Requiſites of Goſpel-Baptiſm theſe ſeveral things are neceſſary.
1. The Perſon baptizing, or the Adminiſtrator ought to be a lawful Miniſter, one authorized and commiſſionated by Chriſt ſo to do.
2. The Party baptized muſt be a Subject fitly qualified for Baptiſm.
3. The Element in which the Party is baptized muſt be Water.
4. True Goſpel-Baptiſm muſt be adminiſtred in the Name, or into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt.
Now, Sir, was there any Perſon either young or old, before the Law or under the Law, thus baptized?
(You ſay) that Jacob received little Children into God's Covenant by Baptiſm, becauſe he ſaid unto his Houſhold, Put away the ſtrange Gods that are among you, and be ye clean, and change your Garments? Gen. 35. 2.
Anſw. 1. Was this Command given to his little Children, or had they corrupted themſelves with Idolatry, or by worſhipping ſtrange Gods, or who did he appoint to baptize his Babes?
2. What tho the Hebrew word ſignifies cleanſing or waſhing with Water, was it therefore formally the Ordinance of Baptiſm? Did ever any Man argue after this manner before? 'tis a ſign you want Proofs for your Childiſh Baptiſm in the New Teſtament that you go to Geneſis for it, and to ſuch, a remote Text that includes nothing of the Controverſy.
But (you ſay) Circumciſion was abominable in the ſight of the Gentiles, becauſe the Children of Jacob made it to be an Ordinance of Mortality unto the Sichemites, Gen. 34. and the greateſt part of Jacob's Houſhold were Gentiles, therefore Jacob received their Wives and Children into God's Covenant through waſhing of Water, or Baptiſm; and according to the Example of Jacob they uſed to baptize all the Gentiles that received Circumciſion; for their wise Men ſp… thus, None are Proſelytes until circumciſed and baptized. Light…. vol 1. p. 210. And they baptized the Children with the Parents; little ones are to be baptized according to the Ordinance of the Counſel. M…n. in Light.
Anſw. 1. If this be ſo, that the Baptiſm of Children was among the Jews, or in the Jewiſh Church from the beginning, why do you plead for Baptiſm to come in the room of Circumciſion? it appears your Infant-Baptiſm is near or altogether as old as Circumciſion it ſelf, therefore it could not come in the room of that.
2. I have read, I muſt confeſs, in ſome Authors, that the Jews did receive their Proſelytes both by Circumciſion and Baptiſm; but you ſeem to intimate that old Jacob was ſo wiſe to diſmiſs Circumciſion to his Gentile Proſelvtes. (becauſe Sim…on and Levi made it ſo odious) and did contrive or inſtitute Baptiſm in its room, as the only Rite to receive them into God's Covenant. I muſt confeſs Jacob had many Failings, but I never heard him thus charged, and rendered guilty of ſuch an Abomination before.
How, Sir! could he lay aſide God's holy Ordinance of Circumciſion at his Will and Pleaſure, and that too becauſe his Sons had brought a Reproach upon it; and did he deviſe a new Ordinance, namely Baptiſm, in its room? What an abominable Innovation had he been guilty of ſhould he have done this thing, which you ſeem poſicively to affirm?
3. Nay, and this is not the worſt of Jacob's Sins neither; for it appears by your plain words, that you ſuppoſe that the Jews from this Example of Jacob, uſed to baptize all the Gentiles that received Circumciſion, tho it appears the Jews did not follow the Example of Jacob in throwing Circumciſion away, and exchange it for Baptiſm, yet by Jacob's Example did baptize all their Gentile Proſelytes, whether Men, Women and children; ſo that he cauſed them to ſet up, or add a Tradition of his own deviſing to God's Inſtitution: For I challenge you or any Man under Heaven, to prove that God commanded Jacob or any Patriarch, or Jewiſh Rabbies, to baptize any Proſelyte either young or old when received into their Church.
4. Behold, you Pedo-baptiſts, the Riſe and Foundation of your Infant-Baptiſm according to Mr. Owen's Conceit! Why? where have we it, even in Noah's Ark, wherein the whole World were baptized! For let me thus argue, If all the World in Noah's Ark both rational and irrational Creatures were baptized, then Infants may be baptized. nay and all Unbelievers, and Cattel alſo; but the former is true, Ergo. But if we have not the Riſe of it here. we have in Gen. 35. 2. Then ſaid Jacob unto his Houſhold, and unto all that were with him, Put away the ſtrange Gods that are among you, and be you clean, and change your Garments.
5. Now from Jacob's bidding them to be clean, Mr. C… infers, he commands them all to be baptized (but without any Authority or Command of God) even all his Houſhold, Jews and Gentiles, Men, Women and Children, Believers and Unbelievers.
Pray take the Conſequence or Inference from hence ('tis better perhaps to prove Infant-Baptiſm, than from those whole …ouſholds ſaid to be baptized in the New Teſtament.)
Jacob commanded all his Houſhold, and all that were with him to be baptized, among which were Gentiles and their Children, therefore we Gentiles and our Children may be baptized. Yea, and our Men-Servants and Maid Servants, tho they be Negro's, whether they believe or not; for Jacob perhaps had ſome groſs Idolaters in his Houſhold, therefore the worſt of Men as well as little Children may be baptized.
Honoured Britains! you have ſeen but little of this Controverſy in your Language: But Mr. Owen, ſeeing the old Argument; which the Aſſerters of Infant-Baptiſm have brought, to be too weak to eſtabliſh it to be of God, and from Heaven, out of the New Teſtament; he hath found out new ones never heard of by me before, I mean this of Jacob's commanding his whole Houſhold, and all that were with him, to be clean, that is, ſaith he, to be baptized all of them. So that Infant-Baptiſm hath its Riſe not from the Command of Chriſt, but from the Command of Jacob, and that not from Circumciſion, for Jacob laid that aſide becauſe his two Sons had cauſed Circumciſion to be odious and hateful to the Gentiles, he therefore contrived Baptiſm in its ſtead. O when will this Man ceaſe to pervert the holy and righteous way of God in his Inſtitution of Believers Baptiſm!
6. I find alſo that Mr. James Owen hath found out the firſt Riſe or Original of that human Tradition of the Jews in baptizing their Gentile Proſelytes, both Men, Women and Children. But I am very ſorry it is fathered upon holy Jacob
Mr. Burkitt I muſt confeſs makes that Cuſtom that was among the Jews a grand Argument for Infant-Baptiſm; and, as if the New Teſtament without the Old was not a ſufficient Rule for the Practice of Goſpel-Baptiſm, but that we muſt have recourſe to the Old Teſtament as well as the New.
To which I anſwer; That tho in ſome Points of Faith and Practice the Old Teſtament and the New together is the Rule by which we ought to walk, yet his Trumpet and yours in this caſe gives an uncertain Sound: For in reſpect of Practice, were there not many Laws and Precepts given to the People of the Jews, which no ways in the leaſt concerns us or God's Spiritual Iſrael under the Goſpel? If you explain your ſelf no better, you may ſoon ſubvert the People, and carry them away to Judaiſm with a witneſs; …y and inſtead of baptizing Children upon ſuch a Childiſh and Erroneous foot of Account, make them think they ought to circumciſe them, as ſome of late here in England were deluded to do. Therefore we ſay, as to all Precepts of the Goſpel that are meer poſitive Laws, the New Teſtament is our only Rule without the Old. Chriſt alone is our Law-giver, and him and not Moſes we are only to hear and hearken unto; tho as to matter of Faith the Old Teſtament may be uſeful to us in many reſpects, and alſo all Precepts that are purely Moral in their own Nature; The Old Teſtament is a Rule to us as well as the New, which I might ſhew in many reſpects, not only touching the Law of the Decalogue, but alſo about days of Prayer, ſinging God's Praiſes, Faſting-days, &c. But for any to intimate in the Caſe of Baptiſm, that the Old Teſtament is a Rule of Practice, or in reſpect of Jewiſh Church-Memberſhip, ſuch ſtrangely betray their Ignorance, as will further appear hereafter. For that Circumciſion was a meer Legal or Jewiſh Rite, I ſhall evidently anon fully prove.
You and Mr. Burkitt, with other Pedo-baptiſts, affirm, that ſo little is ſaid in the New Teſtament about baptizing Infants, becauſe the Cuſtom of baptizing them was common, and the Practice conſtant in the Jewiſh Church, at and before our Saviour's time. Whilſt Circumciſion was the covenanting Sign, Baptiſm was the purifying Ceremony among the Jews; for when any of the Gentiles were admitted into the Jewiſh Church, both Parents and Children were firſt circumciſed, and then waſhed in token of cleanſing them from the Filth of their Heatheniſm: So that Baptiſm among the Jews conſtantly went along with Circumciſion till our Saviour's time.
Anſw. 'Tis a ſign of a bad Cauſe when Men are forced to try their Wits after ſuch a ridiculous manner to make out what they have to prove. Pray, was that Cuſtom among the Jews of baptizing Infants, when any of the Gentiles were admitted into the Jewiſh Church, commanded of God? Had God given the Jews any ſuch Law or Precept? Or was it one of their own Traditions, who in their own Wiſdom, without any Warrant from their great Prophet and Law-giver, deviſed that Ceremony, poſſibly to waſh away the Filth of Heatheniſm, as your Predeceſſors in like manner, without any Command or Warrant of Jeſus Chriſt, deviſed the baptizing of Infants to waſh away the Filth of Original Sin? Doth not our bleſſed Saviour ſay that they had made void the Commandments of God through their Traditions? I do affirm, it was never given them as a Law or Precept by the great God, nor do you attempt once to prove any ſuch thing; for there is not the leaſt ſhadow of any ſuch thing in all the Old Teſtament, therefore it was a meer Human Tradition.
2. Can any wiſe Man who would do nothing in God's Service without a ſufficient Rule or Warrant from the Word of God, think this a good Argument for Infant Baptiſm? I muſt tell you (as I have already told the Athenian, Society, with whom I had to do in this matter) that a Popiſh Tradition is every way as good as a Jewiſh one. You were better plead thus, the Romiſh Church without any Warrant from God's Word, received Infant-Baptiſm as an unwritten Ap…ſtolical Tradition, and in ſome Councils early: Qui… que parvulos re…ens ab uteris Matrum baptizandos eſſe …, A…ma eſto. Milev. Can 2. and anathemized or curſed all who ſhould deny that new-born Infants were to be baptized, therefore we may baptize Infants. Why do you fly to the fabulous and idle Traditions of the Jewiſh Rabbins for your Childiſh Baptiſm, ſince you have the Teſtimony of ſo many Romiſh Doctors and General Councils, who poſitively affirm you ought to baptize your children? Sure the Authority of the latter is as good as the former.
3. But is it ſo indeed, did our Saviour ſay nothing of Infant Baptiſm? or, as you hint, leave ſo little of it in the New Teſtament, becauſe it was the conſtant Cuſtom among the Jews to baptize the Children of Heathens before they admitted them into their Church? What Dr. Hammond, Taylor, and Lightfoot have ſaid upon that account, is to their Shame and Reproach rather than to their Honour, tho I know it was their laſt Refuge, when they ſaw your Scripture-Proofs would not prove it to be a Truth of Chriſt. O how are we beholden to the Jewiſh Talmud and J…wiſh Rabbins for our Infant-Baptiſm! Nay, which is worſt of all, how is Chriſt beholden to them for that rare Invention, who had ſaid ſo much for it, and made it ſo common a Practice among them, that it ſaved him the Pains to give the leaſt Directions about it? But is not this next to Blaſphemy? Can any Man in his right Wits think our Lord Jeſus ſhould confirm a Tradition and Innovation of the Jews? Or take his great Ordinance of Baptiſm from the Superſtitious, Fabulous and Erroneous Cuſtom of their Doctors and Rabbins? Beſides, was Baptiſm to be preached or practiſed by none but the Jewiſh People? Doth it not belong to the Gentiles too? Did not our Saviour command his Diſciples to go into all Nations, and make Diſciples, and baptize them? &c. Was it in his Mind that Infants ſhould be baptized, and yet ſay nothing of it, becauſe it was a common Cuſtom and Practice among the Jews? But, pray, what muſt the Gentiles do to know this to be their Duty? (I mean thoſe Gentiles who received the Chriſtian Faith) viz. that they ought to baptize their Children who did not know, nor ever heard of that Jewiſh Cuſtom? Or dare you ſay our New Teſtament is not authentick, or ſufficient to teach us the whole of Goſpel-Duties, and Obedience, without the Jewiſh Talmud? You ſhould not ('tis plain) only have ſaid the New Teſtament is not without the Old the Rule of our practice; but alſo that the New Teſtament, and the Old, without the Jewiſh Talmud, is not ſufficient, and then you had done your Buſineſs at once. VVhy are not Men aſhamed thus to go about to blind and deceive the poor People?
Is not the whole Mind of Jeſus Chriſt, even all his Laws and Precepts, or his whole Counſel, plainly contained in his Bleſſed VVord? But would you have People be wiſe above what is written, and teach Men to reflect upon the Care and Faithfulneſs of the Bleſſed Jeſus, in leaving out of the Sacred Bible one great Truth of God, and leave us to find it out by going to ſearch the Jewiſh Tradition?
4. If it was a Cuſtom among the Jews, it muſt be a Sacred Cuſtom, I mean a Cuſtom that God appointed and commanded them to obſerve, or elſe a Human Tradition or vain Cuſtom: And if it had been a Moſaical Rite, given by God himſelf to the Jews, Chriſt then be ſure aboliſhed it, and nailed it to his Croſs, with all its Fellows, and 'tis gone for ever, ſince he hath not given it out a new.
Take this Argument,
That Cuſtom among the Jews, that God never commanded, nor is any where given by Moſes unto them, who was faithful in all his Houſe, was no Ordinance of God, but a meer Human Tradition: But the Cuſtom …ng the Jews of baptizing the Heathen and their Children … were admitted into their Church, was never Comm… of God, nor any where given unto them by Moſes, who was faithful in all his Houſe.
Ergo, That Cuſtom was no Ordinance of God, but a meer Human Tradition.
Laſtly, Take what a VVorthy and Learned Author hath ſaid in Confutation of this fooliſh and abſurd Argument for Pedo b…ptiſm, 'tis Sir Norton Knatchbul, Kt. and Baronet. The Thing, ſaith he, is uncertain, that it cannot be ſaid of the R…bbins, that there were not ſeveral among them who differed very much about this matter; for Rabbi Eli…zar expreſly contradicts Rabbi Joſhua, who was the firſt that I know of who aſſerted this ſort of Baptiſm among the Jews; for Rabbi Eliezar who was Contemporary with Ra…bi Joſhua, if he did not live before him, aſſerts that a Proſelyte Circumciſed, and not Baptized, was a true Proſelyte: for ſo we read of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob, that they were Circumciſed, but not Baptized. But Rabbi Joſhua affirms, that he who was Baptized, not he that was Circumciſed, was a true Proſelyte. To whom ſhall I give Credit, to Eliezar who aſſerts what the Scripture confirms, or to Joſhua who a…ms what is no where to be found in Scripture? But the Rabbins upheld Joſhua's Side, and what Wonder was it? For it made for their Buſineſs; that is, for the Honour of the Jewiſh Religion, that the Chriſtians ſhould borrow their Ceremonies from them. But when I ſee Men of great Learning in theſe Times fetching the Foundations of Truth from the Rabbins, I cannot but he…ate a little: For whence was the Talmud ſent, as they are the Words of Buxtorſ, in his Synagoga Judaica, that we ſhould give Credit thereto, that from thence we ſhould believe that the Law of Moſes either can or ought to be underſtood? Much leſs the Goſpel, to which they were profeſs'd Enemies. For the Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors, and the Foundation of Jewiſh Fables; it was brought to Perfection, and held for authentick five hundred Years after Chriſt: Therefore it is unreaſonable to reſt upon the Teſtimony of it. And that which moves me moſt, Joſephus (to omit all the Fathers that lived before the Talmud was finiſhed) who was a Jew, and a Contemporary with Rabbi Eliezar, who alſo wrote in particular of the Rites, Cuſtoms and Acts of the Jews, is altogether ſilent in this Matter. So that it is an Argument to me, next to a Demonſtration, that two ſuch Eminent Perſons, both Jews, and living at the ſame Time, the one ſhould poſitively deny, and the other make no mention of Baptiſm among the Jews. Beſides, if Baptiſm, in the Modern Senſe, were in uſe among the Jews in Antient Times, why did the Phariſees ask John Baptiſt, Why doſt thou baptize if thou art not Chriſt, nor Elias, nor that Prophet? Do they not plainly intimate that Baptiſm was not in uſe before, and that it was a received Opinion among them, that there ſhould be no Baptiſm till either Chriſt, or Elias, or that Prophet came? So far Sir Norton Knatchbull, in his Notes printed at Oxford, Anno Dom. 1677. with the Licence of the Vice-Chancellor, a very Learned Man, and a Son of the Church of England. Sir, What think you now of your Jewiſh Cuſtom of baptizing the Heathens, and their Children, who were admitted to their Church? Do you think there was not need that Infant-Baptiſm ſhould be mentioned in the Holy Scripture, had it been a Truth? Is this uncertain Story of the Jewiſh Cuſtom ſufficient for you to build your Faith and Practice upon, when the Truth of the Story, as to Matter of Fact, may juſtly be doubted? But if it was true, it is but a rotten Foundation to build one of the great Sacraments of Chriſt upon, viz. a vile, profane and Human Tradition of the Jewiſh Rabbins.
You ſay, The Iſraelites and their Children were baptized in the Cloud, and in the Sea, 1 Cor. 10. 2, 3. That Iſrael going under the Cloud, and through the Sea; that was, ſay you, a Baptiſm unto them: The Cloud rained upon them, and the Sea dropped upon them, which was as a High Wall round about them.
2. This Baptiſm under the Cloud, and in the Sea, ſignifyeth, in its Eſſence, the ſame thing with the Baptiſm of the Goſpel, viz. the Lord Jeſus Chriſt and his Bleſſings: The Spiritual Waſhings in the Sea, and the Spiritual Drink from the Rock, ſignified the ſame thing; even Chriſt he was the Subſtance of all the Types under the Law. The Pillar of Cloud, and the Pillar of Fire, did foreſhew the Baptiſm of Water, and the Baptiſm of Fire, or of the Holy Spirit; the falling of the Water from the Cloud, ſignified the pouring of the Holy Ghoſt, &c.
3. The Children were baptized with their Parents, with the Baptiſm of Moſes, they were all baptized unto Moſes, &c.
Answer. Two Things are to be done to diſprove what you ſay here.
1. That the Rain falling from the Cloud, was not that which was the Figure of Baptiſm.
2. That this Text doth not prove Infants to be the Subject of Baptiſm.
Firſt, If Perſons may be ſaid to be baptized when it rains upon them, How many times have you and I been ſo baptized? Beſides, Do you think it never rained upon the …ites before they paſſed through the Sea?
And Secondly, Prove if you can it did then either rain upon them from the Cloud, or that the Sea dropped upon them; 'tis but your own ungrounded Suppoſition.
Thirdly, Prove that Rain falling upon them, can in any Senſe be called a Waſhing or Baptiſm.
Therefore let the Reader conſider well what our Annotators ſpeak on this Place; ſee Mr. Pool's Annotations on … Cor. 10. 2, 3. Others, ſaith he, more probably think that the Apoſtle uſeth this Term, in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptiſm, (as it was then uſed) the Perſons baptized going down into the Waters, and being dipped in them, and the Iſraelites going down into the Sea, that great Receptacle of Water; though the Water at that time was gathered on Heaps on either ſide of them, yet they ſeemed buried in the Water, as Perſons in that Age were when baptized. Thus ſpake your Brethren who compleated Mr. Pool's Annotations. They tell you in what Senſe the Fathers were ſaid to be baptized unto Moſes, in the Sea, and under the Cloud. Here is nothing of ſprinkling, pouring, or raining on them; but they were, as it were, buried in the Sea, and under the Cloud; and ſo it repreſents Immerſion or Dipping, which is Chriſt's true Baptiſm. We are buried (not ſprinkled) with Chriſt in Baptiſm, both in the Sign and alſo in Signification; to ſhew he was dead, buried, and roſe again for us, and that we are dead to Sin and ought to walk in Newneſs of Life.
But do not miſtake, the Fathers being ſaid to be baptized to Moſes in the Sea, and under the Cloud, was no real, but Typical Baptiſm.
2. This Place proves not that Infants are the Subjects of Goſpel Baptiſm.
1. 'Tis ſaid all our Fathers were baptized, but 'tis nor ſaid their Children were baptized unto Moſes in the Sea, and under the Cloud.
2. But you intimate, there were many Children with them as they paſſed through the Sea.
To which I anſwer, ſo there were many wicked Men alſo; all the Iſraelites were not godly Perſons, but many among them were prophane and ungodly People: Beſides, there was a mixt People paſſed through the Sea with the Fathers alſo, may be ſome of the Egyptians, and others of other Nations, and much Cattle alſo; and theſe were all baptized as truly as were the little Children.
May we baptize ſuch therefore? we have as much ground from hence to baptize ſuch, as you have to baptize your Babes, nay more ground, if the Rain falling upon the Iſraelites was that which baptized them; 'tis a Queſtion whether any Rain might fall on little Babes, if it fell on their Parents, for the Parents might cover them by holding ſome thing over their Heads and Bodies, &c.
3. The ſame Perſons which the Apoſtle ſaith were baptized in the Sea, and under the Cloud, are alſo ſaid to eat the ſame Spiritual Meat, and to drink the ſame Spiritual Drink. Now did not the Children partake of the Lord's Supper, I mean that Typical Lord's Supper? This Text therefore proves as ſtrongly that you may give them the Lord's Supper as Baptiſm, becauſe they ate of the Manna that fell from Heaven, and drank of the Water that came from the Rock.
4. The deſign of the Apoſtle here is, to forewarn the Saints at Corinth to take heed leſt they fell as the Fathers fell in the Wilderneſs; and to caution them the more effectually, he ſhews them that the Fathers who fell (not the Children) in the Wilderneſs, had like great Privileges with them, viz. a Typical Baptiſm, and alſo a Typical Lord's Supper.
Therefore nothing of this matter concerned their little Babes, nor ours neither. As to what you ſay of whole Houſholds being baptized in the New Teſtament in this Chapter, I ſhall refer my Anſwer to that Chapter of yours where you particularly inſiſt upon that weak Argument.
You ſay, the Parents and their Children were baptized, by giving of the Law upon Mount Sinai, Exod. 19. 10. Go to the People, and ſanctify them, and let them waſh their Clothes. Now the waſhing of their Clothes and the waſhing of the Fleſh went together, Lev. 15. 5, 6. waſh his Clothes, and waſh himſelf in Water. Being thus waſhed, the Apoſtle ſaith, that all the People entred into God's Covenant by Baptiſm, Heb. 9. 19. For when Moſes had ſpoken every Precept to the People according to the Law, he took the Blood of Calves and of Goats, with Water, and ſprinkled both the Book and the People. The Apoſtle calls this Sprinkling, Baptiſm, Heb. 9. 10. divers Baptiſms, &c.
Anſw I anſwer, you have once already to your great Reproach, and I fear contrary to the Light of your own Conſcience, aſſerted that which is falſe; I appeal to you, and all that can read the Greek, whether that word in Heb. 9. 10. foreign, divers waſhings, which I deny not may be read divers baptiſms, is the ſame word in Heb. 9. 19. viz. foreign, ſprinkling the Book and all the People, is it there foreign, or foreign? Speak and confeſs your Ignorance, or elſe acknowledg your Sin in going about to deceive the People, by making them believe that ſprinkling is in Greek Baptiſm or baptizing: For tho waſhing in Heb. 9. 10. is Baptiſm or baptizing, yet in Heb. 9. 19. ſprinkling both the Book and People, you muſt needs know is in the Greek rantizing.
2. And what tho theſe divers waſhings are called Baptiſms, I have ſhew'd once already from a Faithful and Learned Author, namely Mr. Henry Ainſworth, that all thoſe Legal Waſhings were by total dipping of the whole Body.
Take his Words again on Levit. 11. 32. All that are unclean, whether Men or Veſſels, are not cleanſed but by dipping or baptizing in Water; and whereſoever the Law ſpeaketh of waſhing a Man's Fleſh, or waſhing of Clothes for Uncleanneſs, it is by dipping the whole Body therein: and whether they be Men or Veſſels, there may not be any thing between them and the Water, to keep them aſunder, as Clay, Pitch, or the like, that cleaveth to the Body or Veſſel; if there be, then they are, ſaith he, unclean, and their waſhing profiteth them not. Maim Mikvaoth, chap. 1. § 12, 21.
Take heed what you affirm for the future: This Man, you and all know, was well acquainted with Jewiſh Rites and Ceremonies; and what can be a more full Confutation of what you affirm of Jewiſh Waſhings or Baptiſms? But where we read of ſprinkling of Blood and Water, 'tis not baptizing, unleſs baptizing and rantizing be both one and the ſame Word, and Thing, which we utterly deny.
3. What tho the People were waſhed, even all the whole Congregation, Was not that a Typical Church, and did it not typify that all true Believers muſt be waſhed in the Blood of Chriſt in Juſtification, and alſo waſhed by the Holy Spirit in Sanctification? Theſe Things were held forth thereby, and not Baptiſm. You would make one thing that is a Figure or Shadow, a Type of another thing that is alſo it ſelf but a Shadow or Figure; for Baptiſm ſignifies Chriſt's Death, Burial, and Reſurrection, and our Death unto Sin, and Vi…ification to a new Life. But thoſe Types were Shadows of good things to come, even of Chriſt, he was the Subſtance of them all; they muſt I ſay prefigure a Subſtance, not a Shadow.
4. In a word, all your labour is here loſt about thoſe divers Legal Baptiſms and Rites under the Old Teſtament, and of Children being in that Covenant, becauſe they were all Types; even that all the Elect, or all that believe in Chriſt, ſhould be waſhed in Chriſt's Blood, or have his Blood ſprinkled upon them, and be ſanctified by his Spirit: Alſo it was a legal external and Typical Covenant, and an external Typical Church, holding forth the true Spiritual Goſpel-Church; and that, like as Circumciſion and thoſe divers waſhings, did belong to the whole Houſe of Iſrael, whether Godly or not.
So all the true Iſrael, under the Goſpel Diſpenſation, ſhould have the Subſtance and Anti-type of them; and when any have attained to Faith in Chriſt, and have what is ſignified in Baptiſm, then and not till then they ought to be baptized: but this not ſimply becauſe they are in Covenant, or have the thing ſignified in Baptiſm, but becauſe of the expreſs and poſitive Command of Chriſt. I ſay again, nothing can give being to an Ordinance that wholly depends on a meer poſitive Rite, but the expreſs Will and Command of the Law-giver.
To conclude with this, I infer,
1. From the whole, in Oppoſition to what Mr. Owen ſaith, it plainly appears that the ſprinkling of VVater is not Baptiſm.
2. That God receives all into the Covenant of Grace and Goſpel Church, through the Spiritual waſhing of Regeneration and Sanctification of the Spirit; and that ſuch only by Chriſt's poſitive Command ought to be baptized.
3. That there was no Goſpel-Baptiſm, no Baptiſm of Chriſt under the Law, but that 'tis a pure poſitive Command and Inſtitution of our Lord Jeſus in the Goſpel.
4. That God received none of his People under the Law into Covenant, through Baptiſm, or through ſprinkling of Water and Blood: And that the ſprinkling of Blood was a Figure of the Atonement of Chriſt's bloody Sacrifice, and the ſprinkling of Water of the ſanctifying Virtue of the Spirit in Sanctification, and not that Goſpel-Baptiſm was ſignified thereby.
5. That 'tis only the meer poſitive Command of Chriſt in the New Teſtament, that gives being, and a juſt Right, to Goſpel-Baptiſm.
6. That tho the Children with their Parents were taken into the Legal or Typical Jewiſh Church, by God's poſitive Command, that being a National and Typical Church, yet no Children or Parents are by the poſitive Command of Chriſt in the New Teſtament to be received into the Goſpel-Church, but only thoſe of them that believe and are waſhed in the Blood of Chriſt, and ſanctified by the Sacred Water of the Holy Ghoſt; ſith the Church of God now is not National, but Congregational, not conſiſting of the Fleſhly, as ſuch, but the Spiritual Seed of Abraham.
And ſince there being no Precept nor Precedent in all the New Teſtament, that any one Infant was baptized or taken into the Goſpel-Church, it follows 'tis an Human Tradition.
7. That the Covenant on Sinai, and the Ceremonial Law, was not the Covenant of Grace, tho given in ſubſerviency thereunto, and the latter a clear Figure of the Covenant of Grace, and held it forth to all ſuch who by Faith could ſee beyond thoſe Sacrifices to the Anti-type of them.
Laſtly, Mr. Owen ſaith, If Children were baptized formerly into Covenant, ought they not to be baptized into his Covenant now, eſpecially becauſe the Grace of the Covenant being enlarged under the Diſpenſation of the Goſpel, and the Privileges being more extenſive?
I anſwer, He doth but beg the Queſtion, aſſerting that which he proves not, nor is ever able to prove, viz.
(1.) That Children were baptized into the Covenant under the Law; What Pedo-baptiſt ever aſſerted this before? And in vain doth he affirm it now, eſpecially ſince he cannot prove ſprinkling is Baptiſm.
(2.) That all Infants were received into Covenant with God by Legal ſprinkling, and not till then; but certainly all the Infants of the Jews were born Members of that National Church, therefore not received into that Church and Covenant by Circumciſion (which moſt of the Aſſertors of Childrens Baptiſm do affirm); much leſs not by ſprinkling Blood and Water upon them: Yet that ſprinkling of Blood and Water might, I deny not, be a Sign that they, and the whole Houſe of Iſrael, were God's Legal Covenant People; and ſo the Type of the whole Spiritual Iſrael, who ſhould be waſhed in the Blood of Chriſt, or Blood of the New Covenant, and ſanctified by his Spirit, as is ſaid before.
2. Moreover evident it is, that tho the Covenant of Grace, in the Diſpenſation of it under the Goſpel, is enlarged, and the Spiritual Privileges more extenſive than were the Privileges of the Legal Covenant and Legal Church; yet the external Privileges are leſs and not ſo extenſive now as was theirs: How many outward and earthly Privileges had the Jews and Miniſters of God under the Law more than the Saints and Miniſters of Chriſt have now? Many of which I have reckoned up in the beginning of this Treatiſe. Thus I cloſe with your Eighth Argument.