doth this and then 2. what external priviledges of the Church do your Infants as such receive that are as you say baptized you will not own them for Brethren and Sisters until they are Converted you will not give them the Lords Supper until they are converted they are not by the Lord's appointment brought under any Obligation by being baptized and then as few of your Children 't is plain become godly as of ours pray shew us when you write again what blessings or priviledges your Infants do receive by their Rantism or Baptism as you call it What uncharitableness is it then in us to deny our Infants that thing which you cannot prove if they had it would do them any manner of good Nay Sir I shall prove before I have done with you that it may do them much hurt 5. Those that are against Infant Baptism and for renewing of it you say are guilty of a great ingratitude towards God we know that ingratitude is a great Sin against the Lord Unthankfulness for Temporal blessings provokes him to Anger Rom. 1. 21. Luke 17. 17 18. how much more for Spiritual blessings and priviledges Is it not great ingratitude in us to despise our birth-right The Scripture puts a reproachful Character upon Esau c. Answ All this is to no purpose 't is but begging the Question viz. That Infant Baptism is God's Ordinance and a birthright priviledge which we utterly deny for tho' Baptism be a priviledge by Christs positive Command it only belonging to the Second Birth not to the First Thou art guilty of a great Sin say you by making a division in the Body of Jesus Christ there is one Body and one Baptism Eph. 4. 4 〈◊〉 And they cannot be divided whereas by denying of the first Baptism thou breakest the Unity of that Body to the which Christ is Head thou breakest thy self off from the Vine and witherest as an unfruitful Branch which will not be better although it be Watered again thou breakest thy self off not from this Congregation or another only but from the Universal Catholick Church in every Age and Countrey upon the Face of the Earth which is cleansed with the washing of Water through the Word Eph. 5. 26. and continuing in the Union of Baptism Canst thou think this to be a small sin for thee to rent thy self from the Body of Christ though stolen Water be sweet at this time and Bread eaten in secret be pleasant Know and see that it will be evil and bitter in the end for thee to cast thy self out of the Church of the Living God the Pillar and ground of Truth 1. Answ I answer untill I came hither in your Book I did not fully perceive your bitter Spirit O that God would appear and give you a better temper of Heart Who is uncharitable now if Charity be the Bond of perfectness How imperfect is my Brother Owen Must we all who deny Infant Baptism be Condemned as utter cast aways and not be lookt upon so much as Members of the Universal Church 'T is well it is not in your power to reprobate us and our Children 2. But stay a little are all that own Infant Baptism or have been baptized in every Age and Nation of the Earth the Body of Christ and Church of the living God Do you indeed own the Popish Church or is not the Church of Rome in your Judgment however part of the Body of Christ And are not you in Union with that Church and all Churches that own Infant Baptism in the World it followeth it must be so I think 't is time for you most Worthy Britains to have a Jealous Eye towards this Man for if he be not in actual Communion with the Church of Rome yet his principles lead him out so to be for he seems to own all the Churches to be the Body of Christ who were and are baptized in Infancy nay and that those Churches and none but them to make up the whole Mystical Universal Church of God He seems to reprobate all those Christians that deny Infant Baptism or are disjoyned from his Universal Catholick Church of baptized Infants I know his Reverend Brethren in London are Men of more Charity and abhor such positions as he now lays down I cannot think that his principles allow Salvation to any that are not in Union with the visible Universal Church that own Infant baptism 't is time to thrâ—w this Idol away 3. Is it a sin to divide from the Church of Rome or from the Church of England or not to continue of their Communion Are not you one that have separated your self from both and more immediately from the last But I suppose you own them both to be true Churches tho you have separated your self but if so how can you clear your self of abominable Schism for you have made a division in that Body which you declare is the Body of Christ and Church of the living God Can those things for which you have made this division justifie your Selâ—â—m Sir tho we believe there are many Holy and Gracious Christians of the Communion of the Church of England and that they are Members of the Invisible Universal Church yet we do not believe the Church of England nor any National Church is an orderly true Constituted Visible Church of Jesus Christ and therefore we separated from them but this it appears is not your belief 4. Your Judgment is it appears that no Person can be a Member of the Universal Catholick Church that was not baptized and so United to her in Infancy or Sprinkled when an Adult Person i. e. he must own Infant Baptism Sir I never met with a Man like your self as I can remember of less Charity and yet you cry our against us for want of Charity 5. I do affirm that that one Baptism that Unites to the Visible Church not to the Universal Church is the Baptism of Believers and not that of Infants And to prove it take this argument If that Baptism the Apostles administred and on which they received all Persons into the Visible Church was the Baptism of the Adult or that of Believers only then the baptism of the Adult or that of Believers only is that one and first Baptism but the baptism which the Apostles administred and on which they received all Persons into the Visible Church was the baptism of the Adult or that of Believers only Ergo The Baptism of the Adult or that of Believers is that one or only Baptism of Christs Visible Church for those Members of the visible Church in the Primitive times that were washed in Baptismal Water professed themselves washed also in Christs Blood and they that were sincere had the thing signified as well as the Sign when they were baptized but Infants never made any such profession therefore Infant Baptism was not the first and one Baptism that Christ left in his Church 6. It is true that those that deny
all are to perish with the using after the Commandments and Doctrines of Men Col. 2. 21 22. 2. You say before they had their re-baptization they we more Charitable in their Judgment but afterwards they are usuallâ— of a strict and narrow Judgment Judging hard and uncharitably of them that are not of their perswasion therefore this Opinion that quencheth Love is not of God 1 Cor. 13. I do not say of them all that their Love to the Brethren waxeth colder when they are baptized but of the greatest part of them the virtue of the Grace of God overcometh the vertue of this Opinion and keepeth them from falling into the same Temptation of uncharitableness with others 1. Answ None of us were ever re-baptized pray cease your hard and uncharitable Pen and Tongue 2. Our Charily is greater far then that Mans whose Opinion about Infant Baptism leads him to cast all out of the Holy Catholick Church who disown Infant Baptism and are baptized as Believers 3. We have so much Charity to all godly Christians that are pedo-baptists that we own them to be our Brethren and Members of the Mystical Body of Christ and have the like Love to them as to those who are of our own perswasion in the point of Baptism even to all where we see the Image of God 4. If any among us are too uncharitable yet assure your self it is not this Ordinance of Christ which they own that naturally leads them forth so to be but 't is from the corruption of their own hearts therefore you do very ill to Father it on their Opinion 5. But as to Communion at the Lord's Table we believe we are limited and bounded therein by the rule of God's Word and 't is not for want of Charity to your Churches we cannot have Church Communion with you` tho' all other Communion of Saints we can have with you but 't is because we would walk orderly as God directeth us in the Gospel and I should be sorry to hear any of my Brethren to be of another mind I am for Catholick Communion and Charity with all Saints tho' not for Church Communion with any that are unbaptized as I believe you all are that have only had Infants Rantism 3. There are others since their re-baptization say you go further and have fallen from one delusion into another some set up free will others denying the Christian Sabbath others against Catechizing of Children c. 1. Answ 'T is very uncharitable in you to reflect upon the whole party of Baptized Believers from the errours of some that are of our Opinion in respect of Baptism 2. You may see a Confession of our Faith and a late Narrative of the result of a General Assembly of Pastors Ministers and Messengers of 107 Churches in which we Testifie against free-will and do abhor that Notion and own the Christian Sabâ—… viz. the first day of the Week and vindicate the Catechising of Children have also published a Catechism to that end and do bewail the neglect of that great Duty where ever it is found to be neglected either among us or others 2. But are there no free-willers nor Baxterians among you whose principles are much the same if not something worse why then do you thus reflect on us Require plain Answers say you from them unto these Questions and cause them to prove all from the Holy Scriptures the God of all Grace settle you in the present Truth that ye might bring forth Fruits meet to your Baptism Thus you end your Book Answ You have had plain Answers unto all your Questions and many other Questions for you to Answer and we have proved all we say from the Scriptures from whence you will never prove your Practice of Infant Baptism whilst the World standeth And now the good Lord open your eyes and the eyes of your Sons and Daughters to see their Error and shew you the Ancient Footsteps of the Flock that you and they may feed besides the Shepherds Tents and increase Love and Charity among us all which is too much wanting O where is the power of godliness Many can spy the Mote in their Brothers Eye CHAP. XXIV Containing some brief practical use of the whole precedent Treatise with seasonable Counsel to Parents c. NOw Reader from what thou hast heard or read in this Treatise and answer to Mr. James Owen 1. I may infer that all those who have only been Sprinkled or Rantized who are afterwards Baptized when they Believed are not re-baptized as Mr. Owen doth affirm nor do they renounce their Baptism tho' they do renounce the practice and Human Tradition of Sprinkling of Infants or Adult Persons 2. We may also infer that 't is a hard thing to restore a lost Ordinance or to reform about a long standing Custom and Tradition of Men. 1. Do all you Pious Parents bless God for Christ and the Gospel and for all those priviledges he hath bestowed upon you and upon your Children who when they are grown up set under the precious and clear Preaching of Christ Crucified Be sure improve these blessings and take heed that you walk in all things according to the rule of God's Word and do not follow a Multitude to do evil tho' some of them are good Men. O tremble to do any thing in God's Worship without lawful authority from him I mean precept or example from his Word do not adventure to Baptize much less to Rantize your Children any more whatever Mr. Owen or any Man on Earth saith unless you can find it written in your Bibles God hath not commanded you to bring them into a baptismal Covenant in their Infancy nor made any promise of blessing to assist them in performing that Covenant if you do bring them into it of your own Head voiuntarily If you do and will do this thing notwithstanding you have no authority from God's Word to do it Pray consider what I have said in this Treatise about this devised and unwarrantable Covenant by which you may heap up much guilt upon your selves and lay such a Load and Burden upon your Children that you are not aware of Mr. Williams's frightnes them with the Sin of Perjury who violate this Covenant may not this tend to drive them into despair and God will never charge them with Perjury since he never commanded them to enter into any such Covenant Your Children who when grown up if wicked and ungodly have too much guilt both Original sin and Actual sin lying upon them there is little need to add to their Burden for their want of Light and by Reading of such Mens Books they may perhaps thus charge themselves Mr. Dan. Williams says 't is the damning sin no no the Damning sin is the breach of God's Law and particularly the sin of unbelief Nay and doth not his words Imply that when your Children are grown up and they by Light received from God's word should be couvinced they were never baptized
Speak Sir your Mind freely the next time for God willing I shall be ready for you O when will you cease to corrupt the Word of God by your Tradition You say Mr. Tombs saith If Children are Members of the visible Church they ought to be baptized I do not remember Mr. Tombs saith so and if they are Members of the visible Church before baptized they cannot be made Members by Baptism 'T is absurd to say to a Man Come into this House or to say Bring such a Child into the House that is in it before For Baptism say you is the Door through which we come into the Church of God Those that say they are not Members of the Church of God ought you say to shew us a plain Scripture for their casting out if they can of one Church since Adam until this latter Age of which little Children were Members c. And again you say if they were cast out how comes it to pass that there is not one word in Scripture mentioned of it call for a Scripture from those that would shake your Faith concerning this Prerogative Answ 1. I have answered this already We say and prove that Infants were never received at all into the Gospel-Church therefore cannot be said to be cast out of it 2. We deny what you affirm without any Proof viz. That Infants were always Members of the Visible Church since Adam Prove if you can they were received as Members before that Typical Church-state which was constituted in Abraham's Family 3. The First-born of Israel were holy the Priests Sons had a right to the Ministery or Priesthood shew when they were cast out and lost both those Prerogatives and that very way you must take to answer will serve to answer your self in respect of Infants Church-Membership The Answer must be this the National Church and Church-Membership and Priesthood of the Jews are dissolved and taken away and thereby all those external Rites and Prerogatives the Jewish Children had are gone 4. These were as Legacies left in the old Will in the old Testament but there is a new Will made or Christ hath made his last Will and Testament and in this his last Will and Testament none of these external Rites or Prerogatives as you call them are left to Infants Sir there is no need in a new Will in the last Will and Testament to mention Negatives that is not usual not what is not left but only in the Affirmative what is left therefore in vain is this Flourish it will do your People who are shaken in their Belief of your Tradition no good 5. You bid them call for a Scripture from those that oppose their Practice in the Negative i. e. that forbid Infants Church-Membership or speak where they were cast out O how dangerous is your Doctrine May not the Papists say to them also Where do you read holy Water and holy Garments are forbid Moses commanded the People to be sprinkled with Water and many other Rites that were among the Jews We say the Papists call for Scripture where those things are forbid which they have among them or when God cast them out of the Church What Human Tradition may not be let into the Church at this Door You say the unbelieving Jews would have stumbled if Paul had cast out their Children from the Church and put them in the same Condition as the Children of Infidels Answ 'T is your mistake he told them plainly that the Children of the Flesh were not the Children of God i. e. of the Promise or of the true Gospel-Church as such Rom. 9. 5 6 7. yet they stumbled not nay shewed them they and their Children had no external Privileges above the Gentiles and that Circumcision availed them nothing and yet the believing Jews stumbled not at his Doctrine Sir no doubt when the Jews are called they will not be of your mind to plead the old Covenant-right of their Children being Members as such You say That we judg the Adult holy because they are separated unto the Lord in a Profession of Holiness altho it be too often an Hypocritical Profession and shall we not say you judg the Children of the Faithful to be holy whom God so called c. Answ 1. God called the whole House of Israel holy because he separated them to himself both Parents and Children in a legal Church-state whether the Parents were Believers or faithful Persons or real Saints or not but God in the Gospel hath separated none to be Members of the Gospel-Church but such that are Adult Persons Believers in â—ued with real Holiness There is I tell you again no Fleshly Relative Federal Holiness under the Dispensation of the Gospel spoken of disprove it if you can 2. As to the Holiness of Infants born in lawful Wedlock they are by the Lord called holy or a Godly Seed Mal. 2. 15. And did he make one i. e. one Wife yet he had the residue of the Spirit and wherefore one that he might seek a Godly Seed that is a godly or holy Seed by Legitimation whether the Man or the Woman joined together in holy Matrimony are Believers or Unbelievers their Seed is a godly or holy Seed in this respect and not only the Seed of the Faithful as you intimate but the Seed of Unbelievers also and so not a Federal or Spiritual Holiness as you would have it The Seed born to the Faithful say you in lawful Wedlock are a godly and holy Seed God calleth such his Children that were born to them Ezek. 16. 20 21. As it was formerly even so it is under the New Testament those that are separated unto the Lord by Baptism are called a holy Nation Answ It follows then by your Argument that the Children of Unbelievers born in lawful Wedlock are not a holy Seed that is they are Bastards or Cast-aways but you must first prove their Marriage unlawful and the Holiness here mentioned such you speak of before you carry this Point 2. All the Children of the whole House of Israel were typically and federally holy then in that National Church you confound typical federal Holiness and Matrimonial Holiness together which are quite remote in their nature 3. We say all Believers baptized under the Gospel are spiritually holy and are called 1 Pet. 2. 7. a holy Nation a Royal Priesthood but this holy Nation consisteth of none but Adult Persons that believe who are called lively Stones building up a spiritual House 1 Pet. 2. 5 6. not a National Church consisting of Parents and their Fleshly Seed as such as under the Law But if for Argument-sake we should grant all that were in the Gospel-times received as Members in the visible Church should be called holy in Charity from that Profession they made yet this will do you no good until by God's Ordination you can prove that the Infants of Believers were received as Members into the Church in Gospel-times as they were into
the National Church of the Jews under the Law You say that Paul calleth the Christians in his Epistles to the Churches of the Gentiles Saints Rom. 1. 7. a Cor. 1. 1. because they were separated by Covenant and the Obligation of Baptism to be the Lord's and not only the believing Parents but the Children also are Saints and for this you cite this Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. But now are they holy Answ Prove that the Infants of Believers were comprehended amongst the Saints Paul wrote unto and that they were Church-Members we utterly deny it and must People believe it on your bare Testimony In whose Authority and Power then must stand their Faith in this matter Sir you bring the Text in Controversy only to prove your Assertion Is this to act like a wise and learned Man If the Holiness in the Text renders Infants to be Saints prove your Exposition from some other Scripture which if you cannot do give up the Point and confess your Mistake and Ignorance for no Scripture is of any private Interpretation i. e. but that it may be confirmed by some other place or places of sacred Scripture And now because Mr. Burkitt a learned Pedo-baptist in his late Book for Infant-Baptism argues from this Text as you do and I have fully in answering him answered you both I shall here repeat his Arguments and my Reply he says Paul in these words answers the Corinthians Scruple you say the Apostle in these words answers a Question proposed by the believing Corinthians viz. Whether such as had Heathen and Infidel Wives ought to put them away with their Children as in the days of Ezra The Apostle resolves them that they ought not For saith he the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the believing Husband How sanctified Not in her Name but in her Use says Mr. Burkitt so as that they might lawfully cohabit and converse together And for your Children they are holy not with an Inherent Internal Personal Holiness for the holiest Man-child is born in Sin and by Nature a Child of Wrath but with an External Relative Federal Holiness they are not common and unclean like the Children of Infidels but fit to be partakers of the Privileges of the Church which the Children of Infidels are not Thus Mr. Barkitt Now I answer as I have answered him you can't be ignorant but that you know well enough this Text hath been fully opened by divers learned Men as well Pedobaptists as Anti-pedobaptists who prove the Holiness here spoken of is no such External Relative Federal Holiness you dream of In the first place you speak right it was about that very matter that the Corinthians wrote to St. Paul viz. Whether the believing Husband might live or cohabit with the unbelieving Wife c. So that the Scope and Coherence of the Text opens the matter and shews what Holiness 't is the Apostle intends viz. a Matrimonial Holiness for should he make their Marriage void their Children would be unclean or illegitimate i. e. Bastards for tho 〈◊〉 true the case was not as Mr. Burkitt says concerning Men and Whores but about Husbands and Wives yet he honestly says it was about the Lawfulness of their Marriage as in Ezra's time when some were commanded to put their Wives away because their Marriage was unlawful Now such say we as is the Sanctification or Holiness of the unbelieving Wife or Husband is the Sanctification or Holiness of the 〈◊〉 and that Mr. Burkitt grants to be a Matrimonial Sanctification so as that they might lawfully cohabit together a Man and Wife And indeed if the Children had from hence an External Relative Federal Holiness it would follow also that the unbelieving Husband and Wife had such an External Relative Federal Holiness likewise and that would open the same Door to baptize the unbelieving Husband or Wife For may not another Person argue thus The unbelieving Husband is holy or sanctified by the believing Wife and therefore by virtue of her Faith may and ought to be baptized Mr. Burkitt reads to the believing Husband and indeed I find the Greek word is elsewhere so rendred Let us consider how the Apostle speaks viz. with respect to a thing present or past therefore he useth the Preterperfect Tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified Yea in probability he speaks of Sanctification even when both were Unbelievers or Infidels for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thrice in the Preterperfect Tense and he mentions the Unbeliever distinctly but the Believer without the Expression of his Faith under the Title of Husband or Wife and saith your Children in Discrimination with Difference as well those they had before one was a Believer as since and if so then the Children born to them whilst both were Unbelievers were as holy as such born after one became a Believer and what Holiness was in the Children then think you even no other than what is in all Children born in lawful Wedlock whether their Parents are Believers or Unbelievers And this sense is the more confirmed in that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sanctification is the same with Chastity 1 Thess 4. 7. so that the sense is the unbelieving Husband is sanctified to his Wife that is lawfully or chastly used as a Husband without Fornication in respect of his own Wife whether Believer or Unbeliever and therefore not to be refused And this sense only serves for the Apostle's purpose The Words are a Reason why they might lawfully live together the Reason must be taken from that which was not contingent but certain Therefore let them live together for tho one be an Unbeliever yet Marriage continues still they are Husband and Wife and sanctified to each other in respect of their chast Enjoyment of each other and it is no Sin in them to company together notwithstanding the Unbelief of one Party for Marriage is honourable among all even Unbelievers and the Bed undefiled Heb. 13. 4. and Holiness and Honour are Terms as one observes of like sense in this matter 1 Thess 4 7. Now this being granted which indeed must of necessity then the Uncleanness must be understood of Bastardy and the Holiness of Legitimation as Mat. 2. 15. for no other Holiness necessarily follows to their Children in that their Parents Marriage is lawful See the Apostle's Conclusion Else were your Children unclean you leave out Else for you mention Children as another Doubt which was in the Corinthians about them which cannot be gathered from the Text nor Scope of it but else were your Children unclean is brought in a an Argument to prove that which he saith last as the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews for the terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elsewhere are Argumentative as much as Quoniam because thâ—n used So 1 Cor. 15. 14. 29. Rom. 11. 16. to prove that which went before and here the Argument is ab absurdo from an Absurdity which would follow if the thing to be proved
Ordination as the Jews had Are we under the Promises of heaping up Gold and Silver and if we are obedient to live in Peace and to be saved from our external Enemies for many such like Privileges and Promises the Jews and their Children had under the Law The truth is your External Federal Holiness Root and Olive-Tree will-afford but little Fatness either to our selves or Children considered distinct and apart from Spiritual Blessings and Holiness What is a simple external Profession good for without true Grace and a saving Interest in Christ and Assurance of Eternal Life What more doth it serve to do than to blind and deceive the Souls of such external and carnal Professors What is an Ordinance without the God of the Ordinance What is the Sign without the Thing signified What is the Lamp without Oil or a Cabinet without the Jewel or a Shell without a Kernel or the Name of a Christian without the true Nature of a Christian You say The first Parents sanctified the whole Nation of the Jews not with true Holiness in the Heart for many of them were wicked but with a Federal Holiness because they and their Seed were separated to the Lord in an External Covenant I am glad to see you open the Eyes of your People now they may see what little good that federal Holiness and the Covenant with Abraham can do to their Infants 't is but only to give them a Name that they may be called Christians Is this the Promise that belongs to the Faithful and their Children Is this the Blessing of Abraham that is come upon the Gentiles Are they not Spiritual Blessings Is it not Spiritual and Heart-Holiness Is it only to be in an external manner by an external Covenant and visible Profession separated to be the Lord's and called his when indeed and in truth spiritually and savingly they are not so Is this that Covenant confirm'd by the Oath of God that gives you such strong Consolation touching your Infants as such as before you pleaded for 4. Moreover do you not own by what you here affirm that there were two Covenants made with Abraham since that Covenant which was made with the whole Lump or whole House of Israel was as you positively assert not a spiritual but an external Covenant Sure I am you do believe there was a spiritual and an eternal Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and all his true spiritual Seed and that he was a Root spiritually holy by virtue of that spiritual and true Gospel-Covenant God made with him and as the whole Lump were all federally holy in a Spiritual Sense as himself was and as he had first Fruits given to him who were spiritually and truly holy also so there are many Branches still that daily spring out of that Spiritual Root and Spiritual Covenant that are federally and spiritually holy as the Root was holy Sure there was a Covenant made with Abraham and of which he is considered as a common Root or common Head and from which Root and Olive-Tree it is impossible any one of his Spiritual Seed can be cut off for if not so How is the Promise sure to all the Seed Rom. 4. 16. and how is that Covenant a ground of strong Consolation to all the Heirs of the Promise as Heb. 6. 17 18 19. 5. But the truth is the purport of your Exposition of this dark Text all may see is to prove the Gospel-Church to be as extensive wide and large or every way of the same Nature and Latitude with the National Church of the Jews and therefore you plead for the Fleshly Seed as such to be received as Members thereof Sir I know you not but I thought you had held for the Congregational Way but the truth is Infants Church-Membership is only calculated for a National Church and therefore best sutes with Presbyterism and Episcopacy You say the Jews and their Children were broke off and the Gentiles and their Children were received into the same Privileges which the Jews had c. Answer 1. If you would prove that the Gospel-Church is National consisting of whole Parishes Families and Kingdoms you must bring Proof for this Constitution from the New Testament Show where Christ instituted or ordained such a Church-state or what whole Gentile Nations consisting of Believers and their Children and Unbelievers or ungodly Persons professing Christianity and their Children were constituted by the Apostles a Gospel-Church for evident it is all believing or godly Jews and their Children and all ungodly Jews who owned the Jewish Religion and their Children were Members of the National Church of Israel under the Law 2. Also prove that if such a Gospel-Church Constitution can be proved out of the New Testament that therefore all the external Privileges and Rites of the Jews must belong unto such a Gentile Nation and Gospel-Church that did belong to the National Church of the Jews Must they have the same Rites and Privileges and yet not the same Is Baptism Circumcision 3. If it came as you dream in the room of it then it would follow that Baptism belongs only to Male-Infants if not so 't is not the same Privilege but differs greatly you must have therefore some word of Institution or some good Authority from Christ to enlarge this Privilege so far as to allow it to Females also 4. And why this Privilege only had not the Jews and their Children many other external Privileges besides Circumcision Why must not the Gentiles and their Children that are grafted in as you suppose in their room receive all the Privileges as well as one or two You have done your Work by halves 5. Besides what you say that the first Parents sanctified the whole Nation of the Jews is false It was not they that separated or sanctified them but God himself i. e. by his absolute Command and holy Institution therefore you must prove the like Command and Institution for such a National Church under the Gospel as was under the Law Sir I desire no better Task than to prove the Gospel-Church consists of none by Christ's Appointment and Institution but only Adult Persons believing and professing Faith in Jesus Christ incorporated together in a holy Covenant And when you write again lay down your Arguments to confute what I here say and I shall God sparing my Life be ready through his Assistance to give you an Answer which will utterly throw away your Infant Church-Membership And since the old Covenant and old Covenant Church-state is taken away and dissolved by the establishing of the Gospel-Covenant and Gospel-Church you must bring your Arguments and Proof from Christ's last Will and Testament or all you do will signify nothing Now Reader having shewed thee that the Exposition Mr. Owen hath given of this Metaphorical Scripture is false and inconsistent with the Truth as it is in Jesus I shall give thee my Thoughts of the true Purport of it and in regard I have once
a right to baptism since 't is a meer positive Command of Christ 10. Ask him whether ungodly Parents that spring from Abraham's Loyns by Isaac-in their Generations were not as much obliged by God's positive Command to Abraham to Circumcise their Male Children as the Faithful and Godly Parents were obliged to Circumcise theirs this being so 11. Ask him why all ungodly persons and unbelievers ought not now to Baptize their Children as well as believers should baptize theirs 2. You bid your Children ask such that deny Infant Baptism can they prove from Scripture that Christ came in to the World to make the condition of Children worser then it was before Ans Tell Mr. Owen he hath had this Question answered in this Treatise over and over viz. Tell him the Spiritual Priviledges of Children now are more then theirs were under the Law So that our Children lose no Divine and Spiritual blessings or priviledges which the Children of the Faithful once had God hath the same love to and care of our Children under the Gospel as he had to theirs under the Law but the Temporal blessings of the Jewish Children and their External or Earthly priviledges then were more then our Children have in Gospel times the Gospel Church being established upon better promises theirs were under the promise of heaping up Gold and Silver and possessing outward peace and to enjoy a Land that flowed with Milk and Honey True the external or outward dispensation of the Gospel Covenant which our Children are under far exceeds theirs for the clearness of Light and Revelation of Christ and for other Spiritual priviledges ours excells Besides no doubt but the Children of believers under the Gospel far exceed the priviledges of unbelievers by the blessings of a Godly Education and the like But we say it was not the Covenant of Grace that gave right to Circumcision under the Law but the positive Law and Command of God so 't is not the Covenant of Grace that gives right to baptism but Christs positive Command which runs not unto our Children untill they do believe and bid Mr. Owen prove that Infant baptism doth make the condition of Children any ways better then the condition of our Children who never were baptized 3. Were not little Children say you the first Martyrs that lost their Lives for the sake of Christ Mat. 2. 16. If God Honoured them to be the first Witnesses for Christ being baptized in Blood will he deny them water Baptism 1. Answ Were they only the Children of Believers that Herod Murthered how will you prove that but suppose it was so doth it follow from thence that we ought to baptize them without a Command why do you not say and will not Christ allow our Children the Ordinance that holds forth the Shedding of his Blood as well as Baptism that holds forth he was Buried c. 4. If the Baptism of Infants be evil why doth the Devil say you Tempt Witches or Sorcerers to deny that Baptism And what is the reason that Satan cannot have any power over them until they renounce their Baptism and after that they have not any strength to resist him any longer as several of them confessed Park of Witches Vol. 3. page 640. 1. Answ Ask Mr. Owen why the Devil doth not love nor can't endure Popish Holy-water or is such a fearful enemy to that as the Papists say it hath often been manifest is the Consecration of Water therefore of God's appointment Why may we not give credit to the Papists as well as unto Witches and Sorcerers 2. Because he cannot prove Infant Baptism from Arguments from Heaven will he go for Arguments to prove it to be Christs Ordinance taken from Hell 3. The Devil is a crafty and subtle Adversary doth not he do this to make People love and approve of their Infant Baptism which no doubt Christ never appointed 4. However this Testimony is given only by Witches and Sorcerers and what ground have we to believe them 5. Ask them will they give you assurance that you will be better Christians by receiving of their baptism if they say you will be the better answer them that you see several of them growing worse after their re-baptization 1. Answ Ask Mr. Owen whether there are not more People that were Baptized or rather Rantized in Infancy that prove vile and ungodly then among them that were baptized upon the profession of their Faith 2. What assurance can he give to Infants or to their Parents that the Children they baptize shall be better Christians thereby Also how will he prove that the Children of believers who were baptized in Infancy prove generally better Christians then the Children of those Believers that did not baptise them in their Infancy 3. Ask him if the baptism of believers upon the profession of their Faith as Christ commanded be the worse because some like Simon Magus take it up and prove ill Members and scandalous in their Lives 1. Say you tho' they are Members of a Congregation walking by the Rule of the Gospel before they had their re-baptization they after break the Unity of the Body they were Members of by separating themselves Baptism is an Ordinance of Unity but re-baptization is the breaking off the Unity of Churches 1. Answ Why do you use such Tautologies and needless repetitions you had this before and I have answered it we deny our baptism to be re-baptization and have proyed your Rantism is no Baptism at all 2. Infant Rantism 't is true Unites National Churches and Churches Built upon that or the like Constitution and so it Unites many false and Anti-christian Churches I must confess as the Church of Rome and some others in the World much of the same nature but 't is the baptism of Christ viz. that of believers that Unites together according to the order of the Gospel all the Members of a true Gospel Church and the denying of Infant baptism and being baptized upon a profession of Faith does but break the Union of Churches of the Saints that are formarly true and orderly gathered according to the Institution of Christ and the rule of the Gospel For was not the first Gospel Church at Jerusalem gathered out of the National Church of the Jews of Persons that repented believed and upon the profession of that Faith Baptized that is Dipped in Water in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost also the Church in Samaria Acts 8. and that in Acts 10. and that at Corinth Acts 16. and that at Ephesus Acts 19. and ought not all Churches so to be gathered to the end of the World ought we not to separate from such Churches that do not hold the Ordinances that appertain to Church Constitution as they were first delivered to the Saints and from such who are guilty also of an Human Innovation ought we to partake of other Mens Sins or ought we not to keep our selves pure Touch not Tast not Handle not which
but as to the baptizing of Infants they can meet with no example in Scripture Magdeb. Cant. l. 2. page 469. Dr. Taylor saith It is against the perpetual Analogie of Christs Doctrine to baptize Infants For besides that Christ never gave any precept to baptize them nor ever himself nor his Apostles that appears did baptize any of them so all that either he or his Apostles said concerning it requires such previous dispositions of baptism of which Infants are not capable viz. Faith and Repentance Lib. proph page 239. Arg. 8. If whatsoever is necessary to Faith and practice is left in the Holy Scripture that being a compleat and perfect Rule and yet Infant Baptism is not contained or to be found therein then Infant Baptism is not of God but whatever is necessary to Faith and Practice is contained in the Holy Scriptures c. but Infant baptism is not to be found therein Ergo. That the Scripture is a perfect Rule c. we have the consent of all the Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines Athanasins saith The Holy Scriptures being Inspirations of God are sufficient to all Instructions of Truth Athan. against the Gentiles Crysostom saith All things be plain and clear in the Scripture and whatsoever are needful are manifest there Chrysost on 2 Thess and 2 Tim. 2. Basil saith That it would be an Argument of Infidelity and a most certain Sign of Pride if any Man should reject any thing written and should Introduce things not written Basil in his Sermon de fide Augustin saith In the Scriptures are found all things which contain Faith manner of Living Hope Love c. Let us saith he seek no farther then what is written of God our Saviour lâ—st a Man would know more that the Scriptures witness Augustin in his 198 Epistles to Fortunatus Theophilact saith It is part of a Diabolical Spirit to think any thing Divine without the Authority of the Holy Scripture Lib. 2. pasch Isychius saith Let us who will have any thing observed of God search no more but that which the Gospel doth give unto us Lib. 5. cap. 16. on Levit. Bellarmin saith That though the Arguments of the Anabaptists from the defect of Command or Example have a great use against the Lutherans for as much as they use that Rite every where and having no Command or Example theirs is to be rejected yet is it of no force against Catholicks who conclude that an Apostolical Tradition is of no less authority with us than the Scripture c. This of baptizing of Infants is an Apostolical Tradition Bell. Lib. de Bapt. 1. cap. 8. Mr. Ball saith We must for every Ordinance look for the Institution and never 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 't is our part to Learn of him both to whom how and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred Ball in his answer of the New-England Elders page 38 39. And as to the Minor 't is acknowledged by our Adversaries it is not to be found in the Letter of the Scripture And as to the Consequences drawn therefrom we have proved they are not Natural from the premises and tho' we will admit of Consequences and Inferences if Genuine yet not in the case of an Institution respecting a practical Ordinance that is of meer positive Right Arg. 9. If Infant Baptism was an Institution of Christ the Pedo-baptists could not be at a loss about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism but the Pedo-baptists are at a great loss and differ exceedingly about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism Ergo 'tis no Institution of Christ As touching the Major I argue thus that which is an Institution of Christ the Holy Scripture doth shew as well the end and ground of the Ordinance as the subject and manner of it but the Scripture speaks nothing of the end and ground of Pedo-baptism or for what reason they ought to be baptized Ergo It is no Institution of Christ The Minor is undeniable some affirm as we have already shew'd that it was to take away Original Sin others say it is theirs right by the Covenant they being the Seed of Believers others say Infants have Faith and therefore have a Right others say they have a Right by the Faith of their Surety Some ground their Right from Apostolical Tradition others upon the authority of Scripture Some say all Children of professed Christians ought to be baptized others say none but the Children of true believers have a Right to it sure if it was an Ordinance of Christ his word would soon end this Controversie Arg. 10. If the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the Natural nor Spiritual Seed of Abraham they can have no Right to Baptism or Church Membership by virtue of any Covenant Transaction God made with Abraham but the Children of Believing Parents as such are not the Natural nor Spiritual Seed of Abraham Ergo. Arg. 11. If no Man can prove from Scripture that any Spiritual benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism 't is no Ordinance of Christ But no Man can prove from Scripture that any spiritual benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism Ergo. Arg. 12. That cannot be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither Command nor Example in all God's Word nor promise to such who do it nor threatning to such who neglect it But there is no Command or Example in all the Word of God for the Baptizing of little Babes nor promise made to such who are Baptized nor threatnings to such who are not Ergo. That the Child lies under a Promise who is Baptized or the Child under any Threatning or Danger who is not Baptized let them prove it since it is denyed Arg. 13. If no Parents at any time or times have been by God the Father Jesus Christ or his Apostles either Commended for Baptizing their Children or Reproved for neglecting to Baptize them then Infant Baptism is no Ordinance of God But no Parents at any time or times have been by God Commended for baptizing of their Children nor reprov'd for neglecting to baptize them c. Ergo Infant Baptism is no Ordinance of God This Argument will stand unanswerable unless any can shew who they were that were ever Commended for Baptizing their Children or Reproved for neglecting it or unless they can shew a Parallel case Arg. 14. If Men were not to presume to alter any thing in the Worship of God under the Law neither to add thereto nor diminish therefrom and God is as strict and jealous of his Worship under the Gospel then nothing ought to be altered in God's Worship under the Gospel but under the Law Men were not to presume so to do and God is as strict and jealous under the Gospel Ergo. The Major cannot be denyed The Minor is clear from Exod. 25.