that were in his House or Family or bought with his Money Therefore all this arguing of yours is weak and groundless In vain therefore is that which you say to sinful Parents that delivered Corruption to their Children that they should administer Medicines unto them and so give them the Ordinance of Baptism which Christ hath appointed for that end that they might not fall into the bottomless Piâ— Answ 1. You must prove Christ hath appointed Baptism for Children do that and your Work is done 2. Prove that Baptism is the Medicine to cure the Disease of Original Sin and to save Children or Adult Persons either from falling into the bottomless Piâ— You seem to frighten Parents into the Belief of your Tradition Can any thing save either young or old from Hell but the Blood and Merits of Christ through the Sanctification of the Spirit which Baptism can be but a Figure of 't is not the Medicine nor is it appointed to any to be a Figure of that c. but to Believers only who certainly have the things signified 2dly Baptism you say signifies the pouring forth of the Holy Ghost Acts 2. 38. Tit. 3. 5. and 't is certain that little Children can receive the Holy Ghost from their Mothers Womb Luke 1. 15. Answ We deny that Baptism signifies the pouring of the Holy Spirit the Scriptures you cite prove no such thing It signifies as I have shewed the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ with our Death unto Sin or Mortification of Sin and rising again to a new Life What tho the Promise is made to Christ and his Seed in Isa 44. 3. 59. 11. Are Infants of Believers as such the Seed of Christ and in the Covenant of Grace The Promise of pouring forth of the Spirit is only made to Believers and to such of their Seed that believe or to all the Elect of God Prove that Infants of Believers as such in the Gospel-days received the Holy Spirit God can 't is true give his Spirit to a Babe in the Womb and may be to one or two Babes he might do it so he once also opened the Mouth of an Ass must all Asses therefore speak with Man's Voice You say 3dly Baptism signifies Regeneration and 't is possible say you that Children may be regenerated What can hinder the unspeakable Grace of God's working upon their Hearts Jeremiah was sanctified in his Mother 's Womb. Answ I answer Pagans and Infidels may be regenerated 't is possible what can hinder God's working upon their Hearts Nay and 't is probable too God will do it when he affords the Gospel to them and when they are regenerated let them be baptized when they have the thing signified let them have the Sign also Mr. Baxter saith Baptism is a 〈◊〉 of present not future Regeneration Baptism was not appointed of Christ to be a Sign of that which might or might not be in the true Subject of it hereafter but of that Regeneration that was certainly wrought in the Person before baptized If thou believest if thou hast true Faith or art a converted Man thou â—…st Acts 8. not if that hereafter thou mayst be a Believer â—ut if thou art now one that dost believe You say God can easily give holy Qualities to the Souls of Children Cannot God restore his own Image to little Children I do not say all the Children of the Faithful receive the Grace of Regeneration in their Infancy it is evident to the contrary many of them being wicked but on the other hand the Work of Grace appeareth very early day by day in others of them Answ If this he so your Cause is gone How Are not all the infants of Believers regenerated and in Covenant with God Why then do you baptize all even such that have not the thing signified when baptized nor ever after till they die Worthy Britains see here Mr. Owen does acknowledg that the Infants of Believers as such are not in Covenant for all that are in the Covenant of Grace and have a right to the Seal of it are regenerated alas what is the Seal but a Seal of Regeneration and so of eternal Salvation Ephes 1. 13 14. Chap. 4. 30. But you say In others Regeneration appears very early day by day that is in some little Children Answ 2. But are not some Children of ungodly Parents as early wrought upon and born again as the Children of the godly why then may not their Children also be baptized You say Mr. Eliot in his Book called Tears of Repentance speaks of two Indian Children who were converted before three Years old Sir these were not the Children of Godly Parents 3. Admit that to be true and that God sometimes doth regenerate Children at three or four Years of Age. Such Children I can baptize by the Authority of Christ's Commission or by Virtue of his holy Precept and none but such Children that do believe have any right thereunto You say Solomon was very young when the Lord loved him Answ No doubt but the Lord loved his Elect before they were born even from Everlasting but what of this yet when they are called and regenerated and not till then they ought to be baptized In a word that which renders Persons capable of Baptism are the Prerequisites of Baptism or those things that are required by Christ to be in the true Subjects thereof which are Faith and the Profession of it or Faith and Repentance You may be capable of being made a Justice of Peace but you must not exercise that Office without a lawful Commission So let our Children be capable of what they will or may yet without a Warrant from God's Word they ought not to be admitted to Baptism the Lord's Supper nor to any other Gospel-Ordinance God can give sacred Habits and Qualities to a Child we deny not but till he doth it you are not to give them the Signs of those gracious Qualities and if there be no visible Signs or Demonstrations of those sacred Qualities in such Infants you baptize that render them Believers 't is at best but a mock Baptism Object If we knew that little children are regenerated we would baptize them This is your Objection against your self as if we argued thus Answ No Sir you mistake us if we did know little Infants were regenerate which is impossible for us to know 〈◊〉 I doubt not but that those Infants that go to Heaven are made holy in some secret way unknown to us because no unclean â—…ng can enter into Heaven yet we durst not baptize them because we want Authority to do it Put to come to your Answer That say you cannot be certainly known of the Adult therefore by this Objection none can be baptized 'T is sufficient in this case that the Promise of God belongs to the Infantâ—… of the Faithful They are Members of the visible Church through which the Line of Gâ—… Election runneth Rom. 9. 4 5. Chap. 11. 7. Answ.
nor in Baptism but by Faith only Therefore when our Children are called of God or do believe in Christ they have right to the Inheritance which Baptism is a sign of and what signifies the sign without the thing signified You our Brethren the Pedo-baptists give your Children the Name but not the Nature of Christ what is the lofty Title of Earl or Duke and no Estate suteable to that fancy'd Honour Mr. Owen saith We are Stewards over the House of God and we ought to protect the Feeble and Afflicted we are Shepherds and our duty is to provide for the Lambs of the Flock lest any cast them out of the Fold Reply It is required in Stewards that they be Faithful and to see that they give no portion of their Masters Goods to any but to such he hath directed and commanded them so to do Now Christ hath commanded his Stewards or Ministers no more to give Infants the Holy Ordinance of Baptism than the Lord's Supper He therefore that doth it let him answer it when our Lord comes 2. Are our Infants Lambs in Christ's Fold or feeble and afflicted Christians in Christ's Spiritual Family Infants are committed to Ministers care who are Natural Fathers but not as Ministers God never made his Ministers Stewards to take care of and to be Nurses of little Infants True â—ew born Babes in Christ or Babes in Grace they are to provide for and take the care of those Lambs they must see not cast out of Christ's Fold when they are received in by Baptism c. VVe are Builders saith he and we ought to build the VValls of Jerusalem working with one Hand in the VVork and with the other holding a VVeapon Neh. 4. 17. And we must not reject those small or little Stones which the Father received into the old Building whom the Son received into the new Building and will be received by the Holy Ghost Mat. 19. Luke 1. 44. who maketh them lively Stones of Jerusalem that is Above and these Stones by some are cast into an unclean place without the City Levit. 14. 40. God doth raise up Children unto Abraham See Mat. 3. 9. Reply Because the old Jerusalem by God's appointment was built with dead Stones which was a Type of the New will he without Christ's Authority build his New and Spiritual Jerusalem with such Materials We deny not but that God did receive Infants as such into his old Building But doth not St. Peter tell us the Gospel-Temple is built up with Spiritual Stones lively or living Stones i. e. Men and VVomen spiritually quickned by Divine Grace or renewed by the Holy Spirit Let him prove if he can that Christ received into the Gospel-Church any one Infant and tho we deny not but elect Infants that die may be lively Stones in Jerusalem Above I mean Heaven yet it follows no more from thence that Infants ought to be baptized than that they ought to partake of the Lord's Supper Moreover evident it is that John in Mat. 3. 9. the Text Mr. Owen quotes doth deny such to have a right to Baptism that were the Seed or Children of Abraham according to the Flesh Think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father The Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham tho it gave right to his Male-Infants to Circumcision yet it gives no right to Gospel-Baptism to any either Young or Old Male nor Female God can raise up of Stones Children to Abraham i. e. such that have no Descent from Abraham So that it appears Fleshly Descent in Gospel Times signifies not any thing as to Gospel-Church-Membership Worthy Britains Search the Scriptures and be not mistaken about the Covenant God made with Abraham you will find the Covenant of Grace was one and the same from the beginning and it was always held forth by way of a Free Promise first to Adam and so to Abraham c. but there was a Covenant made with Noah and tho it was full of Mercy to him and all Mankind yet that was not simply in it self the Covenant of Grace So also there was a Covenant made with Abraham and his Natural Seed as such which we call a Covenant of Peculiarity or which peculiarly did appertain to his Natural Seed or Off-spring to which Covenant Circumcision did belong which was distinct to the Free Promise or Covenant of Grace which God made with him and with all the Elect in him You may assure your selves that that Covenant in which there was mutual Restipulation between God and Abraham and his Carnal Seed or between God and the whole House of Israel and upon the Condition of Obedience thereunto Life length of Days and the Earthly Canaan was promised and upon their Disobedience Temporal Death was threatned was not the Covenant of Grace tho it might be given in subserviency to the Gospel-Covenant or the Covenant of Faith And so it was as a School-master to bring them to Christ 'T is only the Holy Spirit thro Faith that actually intiles us or our Children to the Covenant of Grace We must believe and our Children must believe before either we or they can be actually in this Blessed Covenant so as to have right to Baptism I mean such of them that live c. Also know as I said before that it is not the Covenant of Grace simply considered in it self that gives any Person a right to Gospel-Baptism but the meer positive and express Command Will and Pleasure of Christ the only Lawgiver For the Covenant of Grace gave no Godly Man or his Male-Children in Abraham's Time or before or after any right to Circumcision but only God's Command to Abraham which ran to those that proceeded from Abraham's Loins or were bought with his Money Brethren Can any think that Abraham could purchase Men with Money and that way bring them into the Covenant of Grace No 't is nothing but the Purchase of Christ's Blood can do that In a word it is evident that should we grant all that Mr. Owen and other Pedo-Baptists say That all the Children of Believers were in very deed in the Covenant of Grace yet it would not follow from thence that our Infants should be baptized any more than that they ought to have the Lord's Supper given to them as I said before because both those Ordinances as Circumcision was are absolutely of meer positive Right Therefore we must know that 't is the Will and Command of Christ in the New Testament that Infants ought to be baptized if they have right thereunto but since there is not the least Intimation given in all God's Word that 't is his Pleasure they should be baptized it must be a piece of Will-worship to do it Object But whereas 't is objected it may be gathered from Consequences that 't is our Duty to baptize them I answer In point of instituted Worship or for any meer positive Legal or Gospel Ordinance there ought to be an express Precept
done it already in my answering of Mr. Burkitt I shall proceed to lay down his Argument and my Answer and that will bring me to the Business directly The Argument which Mr. Burkitt and with him other Pedo-baptists raises to maintain their Scriptureless Practice of Babes-Baptism from this Text is this viz. If saith he the Infants of Christian Parents are federally holy then they are Subjects qualified for Baptism But the Scripture pronounces such Children federally holy therefore they are qualified for Baptism and may be admitted Rom. 11. 16. If the Root be holy the Branches are also holy c. Where by the Root saith he we are to understand Abraham Isaac and Jacob and by the Branches their Posterity the People of the Jews Now forasmuch saith he as the Jews the Natural Branches are for their Unbelief broken off and the believing Gentiles are graffed in their stead and succeed in their Privileges in the sense that they were holy not with an internal and inherent Holiness passing by Natural Generation from Parent to Child but with an external Relative Covenant-Holiness grounded on the Promise made to the Faithful and their Seed Answ 1. I deny the Major and say If Children of Believers were federally holy under the Gospel yet they are not qualified for Baptism because 't is not that which gives them right thereto or qualifies them for it but what Christ hath ordained and appointed as the alone proper and meet Qualification which is not that External Relative Covenant-Holiness he talks of which the New Testament speaks nothing of as I shall shew by and by but actual Faith Regeneration or inherent Holiness which is the Thing signified by Baptism therefore a thousand such Arguments will do no good since Baptism is of meer Positive Right 'T is Christ's own Law must decide the Controversy viz. What Qualifications are required of such who by his Authority and Law ought to be baptized Let any Pedo-baptist prove if he can that such an External Federal Holiness qualifies any Person for Gospel-Baptism for if such Federal and External Holiness qualifies Persons for Baptism then the Jews before cast off might have been admitted to Baptism since they had then such a kind of Federal Holiness which kind of Holiness none can prove Believers Children are said to have under the Gospel but if it qualified them not for Baptism it cannot qualify our Children for Baptism And that it did not qualify them is evident see Mat. 3. 9. where some of the Branches of this Root came to John Baptist to be baptized and he refused to admit them with these words i. e. Think not to say within your selves We have Abraham to our Father For I say God is able of these Stones to raise up Children to Abraham Ver. 10. And now also is the Ax laid to the Root of the Tree From whence it plainly appears that that External Relative Holiness which qualified under the Old Testament Persons for Circumcision and Jewish Church-Membership will not qualify Old nor Young under the New Testament for Baptism and Gospel-Church-Membership 2. I also deny his Minor and say the Scripture of the New Testament doth not pronounce the Children of believing Parents federally holy The Text Rom. 11. 16. speaks not one word of Infants nor one word of such a kind of federal Holiness Dr. Thomas Goodwin who was a very Learned Man urging that Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. tho a Pedo-baptist In the New Testament saith he there is no other Holiness spoken of but Personal or Real by Regeneration about which he challenged all the World to shew to the contrary And Sir with your favour if you cannot from any place of the New Testament prove there is any such Holiness spoken of you are to be blamed for bringing in a private and an unwarrantable Interpretation of that Text. I find there are various Interpretations of what is meant by the Root in that place 1. Some understand it of the Covenant 2. Some of Christ 3. Some of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. 4. Some of Abraham only What if I agree with the last and say Abraham is the Root But what Root why the Root of all his true Spiritual Seed And if so the Holiness of the Branches was real in word and spiritual for such Holiness as is in the Root is in the Branches and indeed for want of Faith or of that Real and Spiritual Holiness in many of his Natural Branches for he was a twofold Root or Father as I have before proved they were rejected or broken off for their Unbelief and the Gentiles by Faith were graffed in they having obtained the Fatness of the Root or the Faith and Righteousness of their Father Abraham who was the Root or Father of all that believe The truth is as Mr. Tombs observes The Holiness here meant is first in respect of God's Election Holiness personal and inherent in God's Intention Ephes 1. 4. Secondly It is also Holiness derivative not from any Ancestors but Abraham not as a Natural Father but as a Spiritual Father or Father of the Faithful and so derived from the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham And thus it appears you have darkened this illustrious Scripture thinking to prove a Holiness that the New Testament knows nothing of applying the Holiness in the Text to Federal Relative c. Holiness in respect to outward Dispensation only in the visible Church which is meant of saving Graces into the invisible and make every believing Parent alike Head or Root to his Posterity with Abraham to his Seed which we deny But let the Jews Covenant and Standing before they were broken off be what it would I am sure no Gentile is graffed into Christ but by actual Faith nor can any be graffed into the Gospel Church without the Profession of such Faith therefore you do but beat the Air. The Jews 't is true were broken off by their Unbelief and were also no more a Church nor is there any such kind of Church constituted under the Gospel as theirs was viz. a National Church for they amongst the Jews who were the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham receiving Christ by Faith were planted into the Gospel Church and between them and Gentile Believers Now there is no difference Jew and Gentile stand in the Church now by Faith not by external Covenant Privilege Right or Holiness Thou standest by Faith O Believer Mark not by Birth-Privilege but by Faith saith one yet not thy Seed by thy Faith but thou thy self 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 then they have right in the Church and thou shalt be excluded And tho under the Law we deny not but that the Natural Seed or Progeny of Abraham were all holy with an External Ceremonial or Typical Holiness and consequently they were admitted
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 't is 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 spâ—… thus None are Proselytes until circumcised and baptized Lightâ— 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 Mâ—â—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 Simâ—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. Câ—… 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 't is better perhaps to prove Infant-Baptism than from those whole â—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 â—…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
that it is which John the Baptist speaketh now is the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees think not to say within your Selves we have Abraham to our Father so that all their Confidence that they had in Abraham's Covenant Temple and Tabernacle and such things are burnt up and so they have no Root left them to stand upon and this is one thing intended by the Root Again he saith the Lord hath cut us off from hope in the righteousness of our Parents and from boasting of Ordinances again saith he this we read of Mal. 4. 1. it is spoken of the ministry of John the Baptist which did burn as an Oven against all the Scribes and Pharisees and left them neither the Root of Abraham's Covenant nor the branch of their own good Works he cutteth them off from Abraham's Covenant c. and by cutting them off from the Root he leaveth them no Ground to trust on Cotton on the Covenant pag. 177 and p. 21 22. How direct is this to the purpose and it as fully othroweth all that you speak in this Argument this Reverend Author Concludes that Abraham's Covenant made with his natural Seed as such was cut down by John though the Tree was not yet removed nor the Chaff blown or fanned away but you would make the People believe John confirmed that old Covenant right and baptized all the Jews upon the Authority of Abraham's Covenant as if instead of cutting the Tree down at the Root he was about to plant it afresh or uphold its standing which had it been so he would have rather said think to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father for upon that foot of Account I am to baptize you all you being all in God's Covenant though you be a Generation of Vipers But how directly contrary to this Doctrine of yours did John preach to them ' and clearly took them off of any such a pretended right to Baptism viz. because they were in Covenant with Abraham You say John did not cut down one Branch of that Covenant Mr. Cotton says he cut down the Tree at the Root you say he baptized Infants upon that foot of account but since God's Word speaks not one word of any such thing 'T is plain you assert your own Fancies or groundless suppositions There is no doubt say you but that Parents brought their Children with them to the Baptism of John for God commanded them to bring their Children with them into the Congregation Deut. 29. 10 11 12 c. their Zeal was great for their Children Acts 15. 12. and 21. 20. therefore say you if John refused their Children they would not so willingly have come to his Baptism They brought their Children to Christ therefore they brought their Children to the Baptism of John Ans I answer you say no doubt but they brought their Chldren to John's Baptism but without doubt they did not say I because if they had it would without doubt have been written but since it is no where written that they did do it nor of John's baptizing one Infant there is no doubt but we are in the right viz. John baptized no Infants nor any but penitent Persons because he required Repentance and the Fruits of it in all that came to his Baptism Moreover 2. Because all Israel their little ones their Wives and Strangers the hewer of Wood and drawer of Water entered into that legal Covenant with God Deut. 29. 10. 11. 12. doth it follow that we in the Gospel times must bring all our Children and Servants to Baptism and the Lord's Supper they had a command from God to do what they did and that old Covenant Church state required them so to do but God hath no more required us to bring our Infants to Baptism then he hath required us to Circumcise them or give our first born to the Lord which was God's command to them under the Law Baptism I tell you again being of meer positive Right you can draw no such Conclusions for what you plead for 't is only their Duty to be baptized that Christ commanded to be baptized and that is those that are made Disciples by the word preached or those that believe in Christ or that profess Faith in him and 't is the New Testament only must inform us who are the subjects of Gospel Ordinances that depend only upon Laws meerly positive according to the Sovereign Pleasure of the institutor of them or holy Law-giver Jesus Christ You say they brought their Children to Christ therefore they brought them to John's Baptism Answer If John had wrought Miracles and healed the Sick I doubt not but they would have brought their Children to him to have them healed as well as they brought them to Christ but John wrought no Miracles also our Saviour was a healing the Sick when they brought Children to him and it may fairly be inferred they brought little Children that were distemper'd to him to have him lay his Hands upon them which was his way in healing the Sick as I have said before You say Infant Baptism was an usual thing in the Jewish Church several hundred years before the time of John and tell us a story of Moses Ben Maimon who colected the Rites of the ancient Jewish Church Answer I have answered that already you having urged that argument before 'T is evident it was no other but a Jewish hamane Tradition if it be as you say for God never commanded the Jews to baptize Infants though you before would make your unwary Reader think that Jacob invented it I am sorry to see such stuff from a Man of Learning What credit is to be given to the Jewish Talmud what one Jewish Rabbi affirms concerning this matter I have shewed another seems to deny Rabbi Joshua confesseth that the Jews baptized Infants after the order of the Counsel not by any Authority from God by Moses or any of his Holy Prophets but shall we think John Baptized Infants by vertue of any human Tradition that was among the Jews Sir a popish Tradition is of as good authority as a Jewish one you may affirm the Papists for many hundred years baptized Infants but where is it written in God's Word that God commanded the Jews to baptize their Proselites or that Christians ought to baptize their Infants to the Law and Testament the sacred Scripture is a perfect Rule You say John baptized little Children for he baptized the whole Nation in general whereof Children were a great part he refused none that came or were brought to him Mat. 3. 5 6. then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the Regions round about Jordan and were baptized of him in Jordan Now say you if John baptized all Jerusalem and all Judea and all the Regions round about Jordan and all the People it is certain he baptized Infants unless we think there were no Children in Jerusalem c. Answer I answer now you think you
imagine yet the necessity of this Sacament is very great and the profit and advantage very considerable See Dr. du Veil Act. 2. page 87. Tertullian saith Whatsoever savours contrary to Truth is heresy though it be an Ancient Custom Thus you see the Learned though they own not rebaptization where baptism at first was duly administred yet such who at first received only a pretended baptism ought to be truly baptized to baptize a Believer again is sinful and very unlawful thing but since yours is no Baptism but only Rhantism our practice is no rebaptization for as you do not the Act so 't is not done on the proper subject 7. They are guilty say you that is such as deny Infant Baptism of a great sin by giving offence to many that were baptized in their Infancy tempting them to think that they are not under any vows unto God and that their baptism bindeth them not to a new course of Life if People judge themselves free from their baptismal Obligation O! How naked come they to Satans Temptations c. Answ I answer if you take an offence at us because we cast away an humane Tradition we cannot help that ought we to obey Man rather then God Judge ye 2. 'T is the force of Scripture arguments or the power of Gods Word that provoked us and many Thousands more to throw off the Innovation and sinful practice of Infant Baptism and dare you say it was Satan that tempted us no I fear 't is Satan or worldly profit or to free themselves from reproach that tempts some of the pedobaptists to continue the practice of that devised Custom 'T is not Satans use nor interest to tempt Men to own Christs blessed Institutions and cast off Mens Inventions but endeavour to keep them Ignorant of the first and to hold up the second which was let in us in the time of the Apostacy of the Church which 't is evident is a Pillar to uphold National Churches and not only Popish but some Protestant Constitutions also 3. We are not tempted by Satan but perswaded by the Lord and through the Power and Authority of his Word to believe that God brought us not under that Vow or Obligation in Infancy tho' you 't is true do it and so do the Papists bring People under Vows and Obligations to live a single Life and do other things all tending to Piety and Holyness as they tell you but God never brought them under any such Vows or Obligations And tho' an human Obligation may have some force on the Conscience especially when People think 't is Gods Covenant yet ought not the blind People among the Papists to be told that those Covenants are Human and not Covenants God brought them under Hath not God ways enough and such that are sufficient to Oblidge our Children to die to Sin and live a new Life but doth he need Man's Supplements shall man teach God and will you Father your Baptismal Obligation on God as that which he requires Infants to come under without the least Shaddow of proof from his blessed Word I must tell you all voluntary Vows are by Christ in the times of the Gospel forbid Mat. 5. 33 34. You ought not to bring your selves nor Children under any such voluntary and promisory Oaths Vows or Obligations you must see you are Commanded to do it or have clear Authority from the Lord to do this thing before you do it God doth require Believers and their Children when they believe to come under a baptismal Vow or Obligation but not till then But do not think the purport of our Doctrine herein is to open a Door for young People to Sin God forbid the Obligations which God in his Word and godly Parents and Ministers by the authority of God's Word lay upon them are sufficient when the Lord works with them to oblige them to repent believe and lead a new Life without your volunrary and unwarrantable Obligation laid upon them in Infancy that you have no ground to believe God will ever bless to the end you design it unless he had commanded it will you do Evil that Good may come on it 8. Baptizing by dipping the whole Body into cold Water as you say in these cold Climates is a breach of the sixth Commandment Thou shalt not kill for it is certain that many tender and sickly Bodies cannot suffer to be dipped in cold Water in the time of Winter without being pernicious to their Lives especially when it is Snow and Frost we are not to tempt the Lord thinking that God will do Miracles for the saving of our Lives he worketh ordinarily through appointed means in such an occasion as this Mr. Cradock judged that the chief Magistrate should hinder People to be dipped least it should be pernicious to the Subjects Lib. page 108. Ans. I answer this is a high charge you accuse us of Murther directly in breaking the Sixth Commandment but you forget how hereby you positively break the Ninth Commandment Thou shalt not bear fase witness against thy Neighbour Exod. 20. 16. prove what you say or else with deep sorrow confess your abominable and false accusation Do you know for certain that any one Person either Man or Woman was ever killed or came to any hurt that was baptized that is dipped in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit in cold winterly weather you must produce your witnesses or you are horribly guilty in the sight of God and Man you say 'T is certain that many tender and sickly Bodies cannot suffer to be Dipped in cold Water without being pernicious to their Lives c. Sir I have my self baptized many hundreds of Men and Women and some at all times of the year yea in times of bitter Frost and Snow when the Ice was first broken and Persons that were of a weak sickly Constitution and Women big with Child and others near Seventy years Old yea some near Eighty years Old and I never knew any to suffer the least harm thereby but many have found their Health better afterward Yea I heard a Reverend Minister very lately say that he knew an Ancient Woman in Kent that was Bed-ridden for some time who could not be satisfied until she was baptized and baptized she was and upon it grew strong and went about and lived some years after in Health and Strength according to her age also for the space of forty years I have heard of or known some Thousands baptized at all Seasons of the year of both Sex and never heard of any that received the least prejudice to their Health thereby much less that it cost them their Lives Therefore palpable it is you are guilty of slander back-biting and abominable calumny bearing false Witness against your Innocent Neighbours and 't is well if it be not out of malice and that not only to us but also to Christ's Holy Ordinance of Dipping Believers in his Name 2. But the worst is
but it appears now this only served for their Infant State they may fall out of the Covenant of Grace and be damned notwithstanding their being once in the covenant of Grace and saved with their Parents unless they do actually believe c. 2. But if they had dyed in their Infancy perhaps they would have perished had not their Parents believed is this your meaning certainly if they are such that are Elected they shall be Saved tho' they had dyed in Infancy tho' their Parents believed or not believed doth the Parents believing procure their Salvation and the Parents not believing obstruct their Childrens Salvation and so bring on them Damnation if so the Salvation and Damnation of their Children in Infancy is put into the hands or Faith of their Parents 3. And if this be so wo to the poor Babes of unbelievers must they be all Damned Can 't Christ save such Children by his Merits and Righteousness nor Sanctifie them that die in their Infancy unless their Parents do believe and baptize them and dare you say he will not what strange Doctrine is this and by what authority do you assert those things which your Doctrine leads you out to do 4. True all our Children are Obliged by the Lord when they come to Years of understanding to remember their Creator and to Fear Love Believe and Serve him by the Authority and Command of his Blessed Word but not by virtue of any Baptismal Vow he hath appointed for them in Infancy to come under or enter into the State of Children in Infancy may through Christs Merits be fast enough if they Die then whether their Parents believe or not and it apppears the Priviledges and Blessings of their Parents Faith doth them no good any longer but only whilst they continue in Infancy 4. You bid your Children that are grown up to live answerable to their Covenant 5. Say you give not place to Temptation in denying your First Baptism Answ Let your Children take heed that they are not blinded by your pretended baptismal priviledge so as to think they are any ways the better for that Young Men and Women 't is not your Patents Faith will interest you in the Covenant of Grace there is a twofold being in that Covenant 1. Decretively 2. Actualy all Gods Elect ones are Decretively in the Covenant of Grace but no one Soul either Man or Woman is actually in it untill they have by Faith Union with Christ O! labour after this Union you are all the Children of Wrath by Nature and your Infant Baptism alters not your State nor had you any right to baptism when you were Infants but if you do believe you may and ought to be Baptized by vertue of Christ's Commission or Authority of God's Word Let not your Faith stand in this matter in the Wisdom of Men but in the Power and Authority of the Word of God to walk according to the Rule of the Holy Scripture herein is not to give way to Temptation but to the dictates of God's Spirit let Mr. Owen say what he will You bid your Children to ask such who deny Infant baptism these following questions 1. Say you ask them Can they prove from the Scripture that the Children of the Faithful were cast out from the Covenant of Grace Let them shew us a plain Scripture for that for if they are not cast out of the Covenant of Grace then baptism the Seal of the Covenant belongeth unto them 1. Answ Young Men and Women pray ask Mr. Owen whether all the Children of the Faithful or their Children as such were and are in the Covenant of Grace 2. If he says they all were and still are in that Couenant ask him whether then it doth not follow that they shall all be saved because the Everlasting Covenant of Grace is well ordered in all things and sure 2. Sam. 23. 5. and the promise of the eternal Life sure to all the true Seed of Abraham Rom. 4. 16. confirmed by the Promise and Oath of God Heb. 6. 13. to the 19th verse 3. Ask him whether the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham are not all Elected to Salvation or the Elect of God 4. Ask him whether there is any final falling away out of the Covenant of Grace or possibility for one of God's Elect eternally to perish 5. Ask him if God did not make a Covenant with Abraham's fleshly Seed as such that peculiarly appertained to them in which the whole House of Israel were taken into an External Legal and Typical Church State and so was a National Church and had many External Priviledges which our Children have not 6. Ask him whether the whole House of Israel both Parents and Children were all in the Covenant of Grace and so God's People by way of Special Love and Eternal Election 7. Ask him whether the Carnal Seed of believers as such are to be taken into the Visible Church in the times of the Gospel as they were under the Law If so ask him why John the Baptist did refuse them 8. Ask him how he can prove that the fleshly Seed of believers as such are the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham Tell him that Mr. Airsworth a Man that he Quotes and a Man of great Learning and tho' a a peao-baptist saith on Gen. 12. 7. thy Seed That is all the Children of the promise the Elect who only are accounted Abraham's Seed Rom 9. 7 8. And in Christ and Heirs according to the promise Gal. 3. 29. And tell him that Dr. Owen in his Book called The Doctrin of the Saints perseverance cap. 4. saith that the effectual Dispensation of the grace of the Covenant is peculiar to them only who are the Children of promise the Remnant of Abraham according to Election with all that in all Nations were to be blessed with him and in his Seed i. e. Jesus Christ Ishmael tho Circumcised was cast out Thus Dr. Owen and say I as Ishmael was cast out tho' Circumcised so Paul saith the bond-woman and her Son is now cast out that is the Old Covenant and Carnal Seed of Abraham as such See Gal. 4. 30. Tell him that Amelius de spraedest chap. 8. Serm 6. A Learned Man saith There are many of the Seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise did not belong then the rejection of many Jews who are of the Seed of Abraham doth not make void the word of promise from whence may we not safely conclude That if the Natural posterity of Abraham were not within the Covenant of Grace by Vertue of the promise Gen. 17. 2. then much less are our Natural Posterity but the former is true therefore the latter 9. Ask him whether the Covenant of Grace simply in its self gave right to Circumcision if so why was not Lot and Melchisedec Circumcised were they not in the Covenant of Grace This being so ask him if he can prove that the Covenant of Grace simply considered in its self gives any