being the Children of Abraham as such gave them a right to Circumcision or rather the meer positive Command of God to Abraham To this they gave no Answer Query 2. Whether Circumcision could be said to be a Seal of any Mans Faith save Abraham's only seeing 't is only called the Seal of the Righteousness of his Faith and also of the Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised To this the Athenian Society answer amongst the Ancient Hereticks they never met with such a strange position as this viz. that the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith was the priviledge of Abraham only Is this an answer Besides they mistake it is not a Position but a Question Furthermore 't is said that Abraham received the sign of Circumcision not only as a Seal of the Righteousness of that Faith he had being yet uncircumcised but also Mark that he might be the Father of all that believe Was this the priviledge of any save Abraham only Query 3. What do you conceive Circumcision did or Baptism doth seal or doth make sure to Infants since a Seal usually makes firm all the blessings and priviledges contained in that Covenant 't is affixed to The Athenians answer It Seals and did seal to all that did belong to Christ Life and Salvation but to such as do not it Seals nothing at all To which I reply How dare any Man Seal the Covenant of Salvation to such who have not that Faith Abraham had before he received that Seal It was not a Seal of that Faith he might have or might not have afterwards but of that Faith he had before he received it Secondly I affirm Baptism is no Seal at all of Salvation for if it was and of God's appointment all that are Sealed would be saved even Simon Magus but many who are Baptized may perish eternally and do no doubt Query 4. I demand to know what those external priviledges are Infants partake of in Baptism seeing they are denyed the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and all other external Rites whatsoever If you say when they believe they shall partake of those priviledges and blessings so say I shall the Children of unbelievers Turks and Pagans as well as they The Athenian Society answer We insist not upon external priviledges 't is forrein to the Matter 1. Ans If you insist not on internal priviledges nor on external priviledges that are Sealed to Infants that are Baptized what does their Baptism signifie Just nothing but which is worse 't is a prophanation of Christ's Holy significant Ordinance of Baptism and this indeed is worst of all Query 5. If the fleshly Seed or Children of believing Gentiles as such are to be counted the Seed of Abraham I Query whither they are his Spiritual Seed or his Natural Seed if not his Spiritual Seed nor his Natural Seed what right can they have to Baptism or Church Membership from any Covenant Transaction God made with Abraham The Athenians answer They are his Spiritual Seed Visible for so far only belongs to us to Judge and therefore they have a right to the Seal of that Covenant Reply What they say cannot be true because the Scripture positively saith that such who are the spiritual Seed of Abraham have the Faith of Abraham and walk in the Steps of Abraham and are Christ's Gal. 3. ult But Infants of Believers as such cannot be said to have the Faith of Abraham nor to walk in Abrahams Steps c. 2. Such who are Abrahams Spiritual Seed are in the Election of Grace and are always his Seed not for so long but for ever we can judge none to be Abraham's Spiritual Seed but such only in whom these Signs appear before mentioned but none of those Signs appear nor can appear in Infants therefore we cannot judge they are his Spiritual Seed to whom the Seal of the Covenant of Grace of right does belong Query 6. Whither the Children of Believers are in the Covenant of Grace absolutely or but conditionally if only conditionally what further priviledge have they above the Children of unbelievers Query 7. Whither those different Grounds upon which the right of Infant Baptism is pretended by the Ancient Fathers of Old and the Modern Divines doth well agree with an Institution that is a meer positive right wholly depending on the Sovereign will of the Legislator and whether this doth not give just cause to all to question its authority 1. Some Pedo-baptists asserted it took away Original Sin and such who denyed it were Anathematized 2. Some affirm that Children are in Covenant and being the Seed of Believers are Faederally Holy therefore to be Baptized 3. Another sort of Pedo-baptists say they ought to be baptized by vertue of their Parents Faith 4. Another sort Baptize them upon the Faith of their Sureties 5. Others say by the Faith of the Church as Austin Bernard c. 6. Others say they have Faith themselves i. e. Habitual Faith and therefore must be baptized 7. Some say it is only an Apostolical unwritten Tradition But others deny that and say it may be proved from the Scripture 8. Others say 't is a Regenerating Ordinance and Infants are thereby put into a savable State Others say the Infants of Believers are born therefore safe before in Covenant with their Parents To this Query they say nothing pretending they had answer'd it before Query 8. Whither that can be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither precept nor example nor plain and undeniable Consequences for it in all God's Word nor promise made to such who do it nor threats pronounced on such as neglect it Their answer is there About Womens Receiving the Sacrament c. Query 9. Whether in matter of meer positive Right such as Baptism is we ought not to keep expresly and punctually to the Revelation of the Will of the Law-giver They answer yes Reply Then your Cause is lost for God's Word expresly directs us to Baptize only such who are first Taught or made Disciples by Teaching or who make a profession of their Faith and Dipping is the express Act of Baptizing as practised in the New Testament which a great Clound of Witnesses testifie Query 10. Whether the Baptism of Infants be not a dangerous Error since it tends to deceive poor Ignorant People who think they are thereby made Christians and Regenerated and so never look after any other Regeneration or Baptism that represents or or holds forth the inward work of God's Grace They answer They never tell them they are made Christians throughly c. Then I Appeal to all Men who have Read the Old Church Catechism In my Baptism wherein I was made a Child of God a Member of Christ and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of God 11. Since we read but of one Baptism in Water and that one Baptism is that of the Adult i. e. such who profess Faith c. How can Infant Baptism or rather Rantism be an Ordinance of Christ 12.
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-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
late here in England were deluded to do Therefore we say as to all Precepts of the Gospel that are meer positive Laws the New Testament is our only Rule without the Old Christ alone is our Law-giver and him and not Moses we are only to hear and hearken unto tho as to matter of Faith the Old Testament may be useful to us in many respects and also all Precepts that are purely Moral in their own Nature The Old Testament is a Rule to us as well as the New which I might shew in many respects not only touching the Law of the Decalogue but also about days of Prayer singing God's Praises Fasting-days c. But for any to intimate in the Case of Baptism that the Old Testament is a Rule of Practice or in respect of Jewish Church-Membership such strangely betray their Ignorance as will further appear hereafter For that Circumcision was a meer Legal or Jewish Rite I shall evidently anon fully prove You and Mr. Burkitt with other Pedo-baptists affirm that so little is said in the New Testament about baptizing Infants because the Custom of baptizing them was common and the Practice constant in the Jewish Church at and before our Saviour's time Whilst Circumcision was the covenanting Sign Baptism was the purifying Ceremony among the Jews for when any of the Gentiles were admitted into the Jewish Church both Parents and Children were first circumcised and then washed in token of cleansing them from the Filth of their Heathenism So that Baptism among the Jews constantly went along with Circumcision till our Saviour's time Answ 'T is a sign of a bad Cause when Men are forced to try their Wits after such a ridiculous manner to make out what they have to prove Pray was that Custom among the Jews of baptizing Infants when any of the Gentiles were admitted into the Jewish Church commanded of God Had God given the Jews any such Law or Precept Or was it one of their own Traditions who in their own Wisdom without any Warrant from their great Prophet and Law-giver devised that Ceremony possibly to wash away the Filth of Heathenism as your Predecessors in like manner without any Command or Warrant of Jesus Christ devised the baptizing of Infants to wash away the Filth of Original Sin Doth not our blessed Saviour say that they had made void the Commandments of God through their Traditions I do affirm it was never given them as a Law or Precept by the great God nor do you attempt once to prove any such thing for there is not the least shadow of any such thing in all the Old Testament therefore it was a meer Human Tradition 2. Can any wise Man who would do nothing in God's Service without a sufficient Rule or Warrant from the Word of God think this a good Argument for Infant Baptism I must tell you as I have already told the Athenian Society with whom I had to do in this matter that a Popish Tradition is every way as good as a Jewish one You were better plead thus the Romish Church without any Warrant from God's Word received Infant-Baptism as an unwritten Apâ—stolical Tradition and in some Councils early Quiâ—…que parvulos reâ—ens ab uteris Matrum baptizandos esse 〈◊〉 Aâ—…ma esto Milev Can 2. and anathemized or cursed all who should deny that new-born Infants were to be baptized therefore we may baptize Infants Why do you fly to the fabulous and idle Traditions of the Jewish Rabbins for your Childish Baptism since you have the Testimony of so many Romish Doctors and General Councils who positively affirm you ought to baptize your children Sure the Authority of the latter is as good as the former 3. But is it so indeed did our Saviour say nothing of Infant Baptism or as you hint leave so little of it in the New Testament because it was the constant Custom among the Jews to baptize the Children of Heathens before they admitted them into their Church What Dr. Hammond Taylor and Lightfoot have said upon that account is to their Shame and Reproach rather than to their Honour tho I know it was their last Refuge when they saw your Scripture-Proofs would not prove it to be a Truth of Christ O how are we beholden to the Jewish Talmud and Jâ—wish Rabbins for our Infant-Baptism Nay which is worst of all how is Christ beholden to them for that rare Invention who had said so much for it and made it so common a Practice among them that it saved him the Pains to give the least Directions about it But is not this next to Blasphemy Can any Man in his right Wits think our Lord Jesus should confirm a Tradition and Innovation of the Jews Or take his great Ordinance of Baptism from the Superstitious Fabulous and Erroneous Custom of their Doctors and Rabbins Besides was Baptism to be preached or practised by none but the Jewish People Doth it not belong to the Gentiles too Did not our Saviour command his Disciples to go into all Nations and make Disciples and baptize them c. Was it in his Mind that Infants should be baptized and yet say nothing of it because it was a common Custom and Practice among the Jews But pray what must the Gentiles do to know this to be their Duty I mean those Gentiles who received the Christian Faith viz. that they ought to baptize their Children who did not know nor ever heard of that Jewish Custom Or dare you say our New Testament is not authentick or sufficient to teach us the whole of Gospel-Duties and Obedience without the Jewish Talmud You should not 't is plain only have said the New Testament is not without the Old the Rule of our practice but also that the New Testament and the Old without the Jewish Talmud is not sufficient and then you had done your Business at once VVhy are not Men ashamed thus to go about to blind and deceive the poor People Is not the whole Mind of Jesus Christ even all his Laws and Precepts or his whole Counsel plainly contained in his Blessed VVord But would you have People be wise above what is written and teach Men to reflect upon the Care and Faithfulness of the Blessed Jesus in leaving out of the Sacred Bible one great Truth of God and leave us to find it out by going to search the Jewish Tradition 4. If it was a Custom among the Jews it must be a Sacred Custom I mean a Custom that God appointed and commanded them to observe or else a Human Tradition or vain Custom And if it had been a Mosaical Rite given by God himself to the Jews Christ then be sure abolished it and nailed it to his Cross with all its Fellows and 't is gone for ever since he hath not given it out a new Take this Argument That Custom among the Jews that God never commanded nor is any where given by Moses unto them who was faithful in all his House
tho we grant that many Doctrinal Truths may be drawn or inferred by Consequences from many Texts of Scripture See Reverend Mr. Greenhil on Ezek. chap. 11. Vol. 2. p. 412. VVhat is clearly held out unto us in the Gospel saith he let us consent in and walk answerably in what is dark and doubtful let us forbear each other and stay till God reveals more If we cannot unite in all let us unite in what is clear Things Fundamental are clearest laid down in the word they are expresly commanded or held forth in Scripture whether they are Matters of Faith or Practice they are not drawn out by remote Consequences and strength of Men's Parts but immediately from or in the VVord Thus Mr. Greenhill Now we all agree that Baptism tho it be not a Fundamental of Salvation yet 't is a Fundamental of Church-Constitution there can be no true right orderly Gospel-Church without Baptism Therefore it is necessary that this should be laid down plainly in the Word of God and so it is We must first be made Disciples and then be baptized Mat. 28. 19 20. John 4. 1. first believe and then be baptized Mark 16. 16. Repent and be baptized Acts 2. 37. If thou believest thou mayest Acts 8. 37. Can any Man forbid Water that these should not be baptized Acts 10. 47. When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of Grd and the Name of Jesus Christ they were baptized both Men and Women Acts 8. 12. So Acts 16. 30 31. Acts 18. 8. Rom. 6. 3 4. And as touching those Consequences that Mr. Owen and others draw from some Scriptures to prove Infants Baptism you will find in the ensuing Answer those Consequences do not arise naturally from those Texts but are only his own ungrounded Suppositions and mistaken Apprehensions Mr. Owen in his Epistle to the Courteous Welshmen saith The greatest part of the true Church judg that the Children of the Faithful have a right to Baptism because they are in the Covenant of God This Opinion is agreeable to the Scriptures as it appears saith he in this Book Reply What Covenant is it he means Our Children as such are in I know not they are not in the Covenant of Grace for if all the Children of the Faithful were in the Covenant of Grace they must be all saved This I have in this Treatise fully proved there is none can fall finally away that are in this Covenant Besides if they were in the Covenant of Grace why must they have Baptism administred to them from this foot of Account and not the Lord's Supper and all other Privileges of the Church 2. They are not in the Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham's Natural Seed as such or with the whole House of Israel for that was a Typical Covenant and is taken away Mr. Owen saith they are in the outward Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace Rep. Let him prove if he can that the Children of Believers have more Privileges by the outward Dispensation of the Gospel than the Children of Unbelievers have where the Gospel is preach'd Those who lived under the outward Dispensation of the Law who believed in Christ to come or were elected were in the Covenant of Grace and none but they only and so 't is now none but the Elect and such that believe are in the Covenant of Grace Will Mr. Owen seal all New Covenant-Blessings to all his Natural Seed whether elected or not elected since the inward and Spiritual Blessings of the said Covenant by his own words belong only to the Elect Mr. Owen bids you to seek for a meek and humble and self-denying Spirit Reply This Counsel is good therefore be not too confident you are in the Right your Teachers are but Men and God may for some Reasons best known to himself hide Believers Baptism at present from them He bids you also to beware of a distemper'd Zeal that is not after Knowledg it is saith he a Wild-Fire that wasteth Churches and Countries c. Reply Such I fear hath been that Zeal he and others have shewed for Infant-Baptism For it will appear I hope in this Treatise that his Zeal is not according to the knowledg of God's Word Despise not saith Mr. Owen thy Faithful Teachers obey them and submit to them for they watch for thy Soul Reply As you ought not to despise your Teachers but to submit to them in the Lord so you ought not to Idolize them nor follow them any farther than they follow Christ For you must know that Men tho Ministers are not your Rule of Faith and Practice but God's Word Moreover know that you must give an account of your selves to God others will not be suffered to speak for you at the Great Day He bids you look upon little Children as part of their Natural Parents and comprehended in the Promise made unto good Parents 1. Reply This he hath also asserted elsewhere in his Book which you will find answered in this 2. Strange Are Children part of their Parents so that when the Parents believe the Children believe and when the Parents obey God's Command the Children obey it also and when the Parents have a Promise of Pardon and Peace the Children have right to the same Promise What strange Doctrine in this Are not we and our Children distinct Persons Shall not a whole Believer be saved I profess I cannot well see that it can be so if any of our Children who are a part of us do perish for ever And doth it follow because in the Covenant of Peculiarity God made with the whole House of Israel the Parents and Children were comprehended therefore they must be all comprehended in the Covenant of Grace also and made Members of the Gospel-Church He cites Deut. 4. 37 40. And because be loved thy Fathers therefore he chose their Seed after them VVhat of this Mr. Owen can never prove that God hath chosen any one Nation both Parents and Children since that time to be a peculiar People in a Covenant-Relation with himself as he chose the Natural Seed of Abraham it was a Typical Church and figured forth the true Spiritual Seed or true Israel of God Therefore that Church-State ceased at the Death of Christ when the Partition-wall was broken down And the extent of the Promise now and Gospel 〈◊〉 â—…es only runs to Believers and to their Children 〈…〉 or who do believe whether Jews or Gentiles 〈…〉 and to no more Unde◠〈…〉 Mr. Owen the extent of God's Coveâ—…â—…ople his Covenant is with them and their 〈…〉 was the Covenant of Grace which God made 〈…〉 Gen. 3. 15. and 4. 25. And the Covenant 〈…〉 â—ade with Noah Gen. 9. 9. with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. 〈◊〉 Isaac Gen. 28. 4. and with Jacob Gen. 35. 12. And in the same manner was his Covenant with David and his Seed 2 Sam. 7. 12. and 22. 51. in this Eternal Covenant he rejoiced on his Death-Bed 2 Sam. 23. 5.
for them so to have done had Baptism been sprinkling Sure Philip would not have put that Noble Person who was a Man of great Authority under Caâ—dace Queen of the Ethiopians to that great trouble to come out of his Chariot if to sprinkle a little Water on his Face might have done and to go down into the Water and dip him Sure Philip would on this occasion have dispensed with Immersion and let Aspersion or Rantism have served considering he was a great Person and on a journey he might have fetch'd a little Water in his Hand or otherwise and have sprinkled him in his Chariot as some Ministers do now in their publick Places of Worship and thus Men make void the Command of Christ by their Traditions to the abuse of Christian Baptism and Reproach of us that keep to his sacred Institution Mr. Daniel Rogers a most worthy Writer says in a Treatise of his It ought to be the Church's part to cleave to the Institution which is dipping especially it being not lest Arbitrary by our Church to the Discretion of the Minister but required to dip or dive And further saith That he betrays the Church whose Minister he is to a disordered Error if he cleave not to the Institution O what abundance of Betrayers of the Truth and of Churches too have we in these as well as in former days How little is the Institution of Christ or Practice of the Primitive Churches minded by many good Men Where is the Spirit of Reformation And doubtless that famous Author and Learned Critick in the Greek Tongue Casanbon was in the right Take his words I doubt not saith he but contrary to our Church's Intention this Error having once crept in is maintain'd still by the carnal Ease of such as looking more at themselves than at God stretch the Liberty of the Church in this case deeper and further than either the Church her self would or the Solemness of this Sacrament may well and safely admit Afterwards he saith I consess my self unconvinced by Demonstrations of Scripture for Infants sprinkling The truth is the Church gave too great Liberty she had no Power to alter in the least matter but to have kept exactly to the Institution She says dipping or sprinkling that spoils all that Addition gives Encouragement VVho will dip the Person that can believe the Church that sprinkling may serve And O! how hard is it to retract an Error which hath been so long and so generally received especially when Carnal Ease and Profit attends the keeping of it up and also when the true way of baptizing is reproached and look'd upon to be so contemptible a Practice and those who own it and dare not act otherwise vilified and reproached by many with the scurrilous Name of Anabaptists c. altho we are as much against rebaptizing as any People in the VVorld can be The Learned Cajetan upon Mat. 3. 5. saith Christ ascended out of the Water therefore Christ was baptized by John not by sprinkling or pouring Water upon him but by Immersion that is by dipping or Plunging into the Water Moreover Musculus on Mat. 3. calls Baptism dipping and says the Parties baptized were dipped not sprinkled To close with this take one Argument If the Baptizer and the Baptized in the days of Christ and his Apostles went both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipped then is Baptism not Sprinkling but Dipping But the Baptizer and the Baptized in the days of Christ and his Apostles went both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipped Ergo Baptism is not Sprinkling but Dipping CHAP. V. Proving that Baptism is plunging or burying in Water the whole Body in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Wherein Mr. Owen's Arguments for sprinkling and his Objections against Immersion or Dipping are fully answered REader thou mayst see that tho the remote Sense of the common word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may refer to pouring of Water yet the proper and genuine Sense of that word is dipping or such a washing as is by dipping which is abundantly proved as you have heard both by the Scriptures and Consent of a great Cloud of Witnesses amongst the Learned both Anâ—…nt and Modern Therefore what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith in the beginning of his third Chapter viz. That it is uncertain whether in the New Testament the Apostles baptized by dipping or sprinkling is not true it being evident it was by dipping and no other way For where-ever the word Baptism is used I say again in the New Testament as it refers to Christ's Ordinance of Baptism it signifies dipping or plunging into the Water nor can he prove the Jews washed their Hands and Cups only by pouring Water on them tho Elijah might have Water poured on his Hand we commonly wash our Hands and Cups by dipping them into the Water And so did the Jews as Mr. Ainsworth affirms 2dly Sir what you say concerning that Typical Baptism in the Cloud and Sea you have heard also fully answered and that makes not for sprinkling nor pouring But more to that hereafter 3dly What you say concerning the Signification of Baptism that it holds forth two things 1. The Blood of Christ 2. The Spirit of Christ is far fetch'd for the Lord's Supper holds forth the Blood of Christ and we have no Ordinance ordain'd by Christ to hold forth in a Figure the sprinkling or pouring forth of the Spirit if Man has invented such a thing so be it The Papists found out seven Sacraments with their significant Signs as they tell you and they have the same Parity of Reason to maintain their Sacraments without any Warrant from God's Word as our Pedobaptists have for their baptizing or rather rantizing or sprinkling of Babes True the Apostle speaks of sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus but Baptism is no Figure of that as you have heard but primarily of the Death â—urial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ Sir you say Sprinkling is lawful because it is very probable that the Apostles themselves did baptize by pouring or sprinkling Water Acts 2. 41. Then they that gladly received the word were baptized and the same day there were added unto them three thousand Souls It is not you say very probable that these three thousand were plunged over Head and Ears in VVater How could Peter and the rest of the Apostles even twelve Men baptize three thousand in one day yea in one half day how could they change their Apparel c. Answ 1. I answer wonder no more how three thousand Persons shou'd be baptized i. e. dipped in that short time 't is sufficient for any Christian to believe it because the Holy Ghost hast said it 2. But whereas you say there were but twelve Men to administer it that is not true there were the seventy Disciples no doubt with them who were Ministers and there might very probably be many more 3. However since Baptism is Immersion
signined and that Baptism was not ordained to be a Sign or Symbol of the sprinkling Christ's Blood but of his Death Burial and Resurrection It shall God assisting be further demonstrated Now let this be considered That as in the Lord's-Supper it is such a quantity of Bread and Wine that is to be used that may represent his Body broken and his Blood shed and as that Sacrament was appointed to that very end and purpose so in like manner we also say so much Water must be used as may represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of our blessed Saviour But one Mr. Burkitt a Pedo-baptist saith in his Treatise of Infant-Baptism That in the Sacraments it is not the quantity of Elements but the Significancy of them that ought to be attended to in Circumcision saith he it was not the quantity of Flesh cut off so much as the Signification of it c. and you seem to express your self to the same purpose Answ To which I returned him this Answer viz. There must be so much Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper that may represent Christ's Body broken and so much Wine as may in Sign as well as Signification held forth the pouring forth of Christ's precious Blood or else the End of Christ is not answered in that Sacrament and so likewise must the Burial and Resurrection of Christ be in Sign as well as our Death to Sin and rising again to Newness of Life is represented in holy Baptism Should the People of Israel in Circumcision only have cut off a little bit of the Fore-skin of the Flesh and not round quite off or only have paired off the Nails of their Childrens Fingers with a little Skin with it would that have answered the Mind of God in that Rite or they have been born with in pleading it might as well answer Circumcision in Signification But the Vanity and Sinfulness of this Assertion of Mr. Burkitt's and yours will yet be now further laid open in this Chapter only there is one thing before I proceed on that I shall add a word or two unto as touching what you say concerning those Washings that were used under the Law which are called Baptisms which you say were done by sprinkling which is not true we utterly deny any of those Washings which are called Baptisms were either sprinkling or pouring of Water on them but total dipping of their whole Body And so the Reverend Mr. Ainsworth a Man very Learned in all Jewish Rites and Ceremonies affirms on Levit. 11. 31. see his Annotat. on that Text these are his words viz. All that are unclean whether Men or Vessels are not cleansed but by dipping or baptizing in Water and wheresoever the Law speaketh of washing a Man's Flesh or washing of Clothes for Uncleanness it is not but by dipping the whole Body therein And whether they be Men or Vessels there may not be any thing between them and the Water to keep them asunder as Clay Pitch or the like that cleaveth to the Body or Vessel if there be then saith he they are unclean and their washing profiteth them not He cites for this Maim Mikvaoeh c. 1. § 12. Sir what is become of your sprinkling of Cups Pots and Brazen Vessels among the Jews when 't is said they washed or baptized them it appears their way in washing was total dipping or else they were not clean And now to proceed to prove Christ's Baptism in Water is by Immersion by Dipping to represent in Sign his Death Burial and Resurrection and in Signification to hold forth our Death unto Sin and rising again to walk in Newness of Life who are baptized I shall add it in this place First From the Scripture Secondly By the Consent Agreement and Arguments of a Cloud of Witnesses both Antient Fathers and Modern Divines and worthy Protestant Writers 1. The first Scripture is Rom. 6. 3 4 5 6. Therefore we are buried with him in Baptism c. The Saints or whole Church of the Romans were to reckon themselves dead to Sin and bound to live no longer therein and that because by Baptism as in a lively Figure they held forth the same thing so that it appears Baptism hath a twofold Signification 1. There is in it when truly and rightly administred not only a Representation of Christ's Burial and Resurrection but 2. Also it signifies our Death unto Sin and our rising again to walk in Newness of Life and indeed the Apostle makes use of this as an Argument to press Newness of Life the thing signified in Baptism upon them all as if he should say As many of us as are baptized must know this that we are baptized into Christ's Death and therefore must die to Sin and live a new Life But we have all been baptized or buried with him in Baptism therefore must all of us die to Sin and live a new Life Our late Annotators on the place say thus He seems to allude to the manner of baptizing in those warm Countries which was say they to dip or plunge the Party baptized and as it were to bury him for a while under Water Cajetan upon the same Text says We are buried with Christ by Baptism unto Death by our burying he declares our Death by the Ceremony of Baptism because he that is the Party baptized is put under Water and by this carries a Similitude of him that was buried who was put under the Earth Now because none are buried but dead Men from this very thing that we are buried in Baptism we are assimilated to Christ buried or when he was buried The Assembly 〈◊〉 their Annotations on this Text of Scripture say likewise thus viz. In this Phrase the Apostle sâ—…s to allude to the antient manner of baptizing which 〈◊〉 to dip the Party baptized and as it were to bury them under Water for a while and then raise them up again out of it to represent the Burial of the old-Man and the Resurrection to Newness of Life The same saith Diodate Tilenus a great Protestant Writer speaks fully in this case Baptism saith he is the first Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ in which there is an exact Analogy between the Sign and the Thing signified The outward Rite in Baptism is threefold 1. Immersion into the Water 2. Aciding under the Water 3. A Resurrection out of the Water The Form of Baptism viz. External and Essential is no other than an Analogical Proportion which the Signs keep with the Thing signified thereby For the Property of the Water washing away the Defilements of the Body does in a most sutable Similitude set forth the Efficacy of Christ's Blood in blotting out of Sin so dipping into the Water in a most lively Similitude sets forth the Mortification of the old Man and rising out of the Water the Vivification of the new Man The same plunging into the Water saith he holds forth to us that horrible Gulph of Divine
of which Jonas after a Burial of three days was set at liberty and the Cloud and the Red Sea in which the People of Israel are said to have been baptized i. e. not washed mark but buried for they were all Types of the same thing as Baptism viz. not the washing away of Sin but of the Death and Resurrection of Christ and our own to which the Apostles the Fathers the Scholasticks mark and all Interpreters agree The thing saith he is so apparent as not to need any Testimonies but because there are not a few who do not vulgarly teach this Doctrine it will not be superfluous to produce some of those innumerable Testimonies that I may saith he not seem to speak without Book And First Let us begin with St. Paul Rom. 6. 3. Know ye not that so many of you that have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his Death Therefore we are buried with him in Baptism into his Death c. Else what shall they do that are baptized for the Dead if the Dead rise not As if he had said If there be no Resurrection why are we baptized In vain does the Church use the Symbol of Baptism if there be no Resurrection The like Testimonies frequently occur among the Fathers saith he Ignatius saith That believing in his Death we may be made Partakers of his Resurrection by Baptism Baptism was given in Memory of the Death of our Lord we perform the Symbols of his Death mark not of pouring forth his Blood or holy Spirit or sprinkling the Spirit on us or the Blood of Christ No no this that Author says is not signified in Baptism but the Burial and Resurrection of Christ which sprinkling no manner of ways can represent Justin Martyr saith We know but one saving Baptism in regard there is but one Resurrection from the dead of which Baptism is an Image And from hence say I we know not Infants Rantism or Sprinkling for this is none of Christ's true Baptism Christ's Baptism is but one and 't is that of Believers and 't is not sprinkling but dipping to signify Christ's Burial and Resurrection He goes on and cites other Authors Hear Paul exclaiming They past through the Sea and were all baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea He calls Baptism the Passage of the Sea for it was a flight of Death caused by Water To be baptized and so plunged and to return up and rise out of the Water is a Symbol of the Descent into the Grave and returning from thence Baptism is a Pledg and Representation of the Resurrection Baptism is an Earnest of the Resurrection Immersion is a Representation of Death and Burial Innumerable are the Testimonies saith Sir Norton which might be added but these I think sufficient to prove that Baptism is an Image of the Death and Resurrection of Christ from whence we acknowledg the Mystery of our Religion saith he Christ's Deity and Humanity and of the Faithful who are baptized in his Faith from Death in Sin to Newness of Life which if they lead in this World they have a most assured Hope that being dead they shall hereafter rise to Glory with Christ Thus Sir Norton Knatchbul a worthy Knight Mr. Perkins saith The dipping of the Body signifies Mortification or Fellowship with Christ in his Death the staying under the Water signifies the Burial of Sin and coming out of the Water the Resurrection from Sin to Newness of Life In another Treatise of his he saith the antient Custom of baptizing was to dip as it were to dive all the Body of the baptized in Water Rom. 6. Council of Laodicea and Neocesarea And here let me add what Reverend Dr. Sharp the present Archbishop of York hath lately delivered in a Sermon preached before the Queen's Majesty on Easter-day March the 27th 1692. And this in antient Times was taught every Christian saith he in and by his Baptism Whenever a Person was baptized he was not only to profess his Faith in Christ's Death and Resurrection but he was also to look upon himself as obliged in Correspondence therewith to mortify his former carnal Affections and to enter upon a new State of Life And the very form of Baptism saith he did lively represent this Obligation to them For what did their being plung'd under Water signify but their undertaking in Imitation of Christ's Death and Burial to forsake all their former evil Courses as their ascending out of the Water did their Engagement to lead a holy spiritual Life This our Apostle doth more than once declare to us thus Rom. 6. 3 4. We are buried saith he with Christ by Baptism unto Death that like as Christ was raised up by the Glory of the Father so we should walk in Newness of Life Thus far Dr. Sharp his Sermon on Phil. 3. 10. pag. 9. Dr. Fowler now Lord Bishop of Glocester on Rom. 6. 3 4. saith Christians being plunged into the Water signifies their undertaking and obliging themselves in a spiritual Sense to be buried with Jesus Christ in an utter renouncing and forsaking all their Sins that so answering to his Resurrection they may live a holy and a godly Life Design of Christianity p. 90. Also Dr. Sherlock Dean of St. Paul's on Rom. 6. 3 4. saith Our Conformity to the Death and Resurrection of our Saviour consists in dying to Sin and walking in Newness of Life Which saith he St. Paul tells us is represented by the external Ceremony of Baptism and rising out of his watery Grave a new born Creature Charity without Usury p. 1. And unto these let me add what the Pious and Reverend Dr. Tillotson late Archbishop of Canterbury hath wrote speaking of the same Text Rom. 6. 3 4. Antiently saith he those who were baptized put off their Garments which signified their putting off the Body of Sin and were immersed and buried in the Water to represent the Death of Sin and then did rise up again out of the Water to signify their Entrance upon a new Life And to these Customs the Apostle alludes when he says How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his Death c. 1. 'T is a hard case you neither will believe the holy Scripture the Antient Fathers and Modern Divines nor other learned Prelates of the Church of England who are yet living but contrary to the nature and tendency of holy Baptism plead for Sprinkling and condemn Dipping and cast Reproach upon it and say also that the Thing signified thereby is the pouring forth of Christ's Blood or the sprinkling and pouring out of the holy Spirit notwithstanding we prove from the Scripture and with the Testimony of all these great Men that Baptism signifies the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and not any of those things you affirm as your own Conceit without the Testimony of any learned or approved
Bodies of your Vows O shew them the Mercy of God! the Church of God is willing to receive them O rent them not from the Mystical Body of which they are Members See pag. Answ You Godly Parents take heed what Doctrine you receive you cannot cast your Infants out of the Invisible and Mystical Body of Christ if they are in it nor cast them out of the Covenant of Salvation No no that 's not in the Power of Mortals We cannot receive them or bring them into the Covenant of Salvation nor make them Members of Christ's Invisible and Mystical Body None can do that but God himself Christ himself 't is preposterous Stuff strange Doctrine this poor Man troubles you with Good Men may in some things be blinded and misled Try his Doctrine search the Scriptures take nothing upon trust without trial As to your bringing of your Children into the Visible Church so as to be Members thereof and to have right to the holy Sacraments they must come in at the Door of Regeneration not by Generation even at the same Door you came in at if you are true Members thereof and O therefore pray for your Children they are dear to you bring them up in the Fear of God command them to seek after the Knowledg of their Natural State and to know and believe in Jesus Christ and set them a good Example I know not what better Counsel to give you concerning your Children Secondly To you that are Unbelievers who have Children Do not fear the State of those dear Babes of yours that die in Infancy you have no cause to doubt of their Happiness but your Children may be saved that die in their Infancy as well as the Infants of faithful and godly Parents Also the Infants of Godly People are no more holy than yours if your Marriage was good and lawful for Marriage is honourable in all it belongs to Unbelievers and is God's holy Ordinance to them as well as 't is to Believers But O let it be your Care and chief Business to get true Faith in Jesus Christ for Matrimonial Sanctification in your selves or the Holiness of Legitimation in your Children will add nothing to yours or their Salvation but till you and your Off-spring do believe and are spiritually holy and sanctified by the Blood of Christ through Faith of the Operation of God neither you nor they have any right to the Sign which is Baptism for as we deny the Infants of Believers as such have any right to Baptism so be sure your Children have no right thereto yet the Promise is to you and your Children or Off-spring whenever the Lord is pleased to call either you or your Children by the preaching of the Word c. CHAP. X. Proving in Opposition to what Mr. James Owen saith that Children have no right to be baptized altho Christ blessed them MR. Owen quotes Mark 10. 13 14 15 16. And 〈◊〉 brought little Children to him that he should touch them that he would put his Hand upon them and pray Mat. 19. 13. And his Disciples rebuked those that brought them but when Jesus saw it he was displeased and said Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven c. Saith Mr. Owen Let us consider in this remarkable Scripture who were those that were brought to the Lord Jesus the Text says they were little Children suchas were taken up in Arms as we translate the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore saith he it being evident that those Children brought as it is probable by the Godly Parents unto Christ were very little they themselves were not of Age to come unto him nor profess Faith in him 2. Why were they brought to Christ that he should put his Hands on them and pray They that brought them to Christ did believe they could receive a Blessing by laying of Hands and Prayers of Christ altho the little Children understood not at present what Christ had done to them As saith he Parents brought their Children to â—hrist to bless them so do we bring them to Christ by Baptism to receive a Blessing Why cannot they receive a Blessing from him now as in the days of his Flesh Are his Bowels straitned towards them Answ What doth this prove touching the Lawfulness of Infant-Baptism we acknowledg and readily grant that they were little Children that were brought to Christ and that he 〈◊〉 his Hands upon them and blessed them but is this a Warrant for us to Baptize our little Children You say As those Parents brought their Children to Christ to bless them so do you bring them to Christ by Baptism Answ. And with shame you may speak it unless you had Authority to Christ so to do Who hath required this thing 〈◊〉 our Hands May you not as the Ancient Fathers did by the sâ—me Argument bring little Children to the Lord Jeâ—us by bringing them to the holy Sacrament of the Lord's â—upper Also you have as much ground from God's Word to do that as to bring them to the Sacrament of Baptism No doubt they were brought to Christ to be healed of some Bodily Distemper for the Lord blessed and healed Diseases by laying his Hand on the Sick and we all know that they are capable of that Blessing 〈◊〉 not of the holy Sacraments which alâ—ne belong to Adult Persons that believe and are able to examine themselves True Christ's Bowels are not straitnâ—d now he is in Heavan to young or old but what oâ— thâ—… Wisdom did not lead him to baptize little Children and he knows how to let out his Bowels towards them without your reaching him Will you direct the Almighty or have Christ to bless an Human Invention Were iâ— his Appointment he would no doubt bless it to little Children but that you will never be able to prove and it argues you have a bad Caâ—se in hand in that you make use of such Childish Arguments to prove it and bring Texts so remote from the Business You say Christ prayed for them whom the Father had given him John 17. 9. and if the Children of the Faithful not of the World but are Christ's we should suffer them to come to him and receive his Mark which is Baptism Answ 1. Are all the Infants of Believers given unto Christ and so not of this World Do you believe it Sir all that the Father hath given to Christ shall come unto him and every Soul of them shall be saved Now do all the Children of the Faithful come to Christ and shall they all be saved or are you not to be rebuked and sharply reproved for what you write to blind the Eyes and deceive the Children of the Faithful to make them think their State is good and safe when perhaps they are in the Gall of Bitterness and Bond of Iniquity Had not Abraham an Ishmael Isaac an Esau and David an Absalom O and what ungodly Persons do daily
of such that are like to them Answ If by the Kingdom of God you mean the visible Church 't is utterly denied when you write again prove it that the visible Church under the Gospel is made up of Infants tho we deny not that the Gospel Church is made up of such who like little Infants are meek humble and harmless Persons in Malice all Believers should be as little Children CHAP. XI In Answer to Mr. James Owen's 9th Chapter and sixth Argument proving that Infants ought not to be baptized although the Gentiles were grafted into the true Olive when the Jews were broken off containing a true Exposition of Rom. 11. 15 16 c. ROM 11. 15 16 17. For if the first Fruit be holy the Lump is also holy and if the Root be holy so are the Branches And if some of the Branches be broken off and thou being a wild Olive Tree wert graffed in amongst them and with them partakest of the Root and Fatness of the Olive-Tree c. In this remarkable Scripture the Apostle you say sheweth 1. That the Jews while they were God's visible Church were a holy Nation not only the Parents but the Children also all the Branches were holy because the Root was holy the Root was Abraham and others of the Fathers Rom. 11. 28. Isa 51. 1 2. because they were in Abraham's Covenant the Parents and the Children were holy being separated a peculiar People unto God In this sense they were holy because the first Fruit even Abraham was holy the whole Lump also was holy Abraham believed and received God's Covenant to him and his Seed being the first Fruit of the Jews even as the first Fruits offered to the Lord Levit. 2. 3 9 10 17. so did the Faith of the first Parents sanctify 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 2. You say They that received the Gospel continued to be holy Branches upon the same holy Root they and their Seed were in Abraham's Covenant even as before nor one Branch was cut off neither small or great until they refused the Lord Jesus they that were broken off were cut off by reason of Unbelief Rom. 11. 20. Because of their Unbelief they were broken off therefore they that believed in Christ were not cut off and if they were not cut off then they were in Union with the Root as being Partakers of the Fatness of the Root as before they and their Children were Partakers of their old Privileges being holy Branches not broken off The Anti-pedo-baptists do cut off the Branches whom God never cut off viz. the Seed of the Faithful they lop off the fruitful Tree in the Vineyard and lay the Ax upon the Root and upon the Branches thereof in a presumptuous manner 3. You say the Jews refused the Grace of God in the Gospel God refused that Nation not only the Parents but the Children also God spared not the Natural Branches but hath broken them off Rom. 11. 17. not from the invisible Church of which the unbelieving were not Members None are Members of the invisible Church saving the Elect. God refused none of the Parents Rom. 11. 2. 2 Tim. 2. 9. God hath not cast away his People which he foreknew the Foundation of God standeth sure therefore they were cut off through Unbelief from being the visible Church of the which they and their Children were Members The Gentiles were graffed in their room Rom. 11. 17. they and their Children were broken off and the Gentiles and their Children shall be graffed in for they were received into the same Privileges which the Jews had the same Privileges belong unto them in the same Latitude for they were graffed into that Root from which the Jews were cut off c. Answ 1. I answer you had need be a good Expositor of a Metaphorical Place of Scripture that ground so great an Argument upon it we used to say Metaphors serve for Illustration but are not Argumentative they do not prove a Truth tho they may illustrate it therefore 't is strange you build an Institution an Ordinance nay a Sacrament as it is called upon a Metaphorical place of Scripture 2. Many things in Metaphorical and Parabolical Scripture run not parallel with that they are brought to illustrate therefore run not on all four as Divines observe 3. We will however examine your pretended Argument from this mysterious place of Scripture It was well if you had minded what St. Paul speaks in the 25th Verse For I would not Brethren that you should be ignorant of this great Mystery lest ye should be wise in your own Conceits c. But that you are ignorant of this mysterious Text and Matter contained in it I doubt not but to make appear and it is to be feared from thence you are wise in your own Apprehension But to proceed if all the Branches viz. the Children of the whole House of Israel were holy then the Children of the unbelieving Jews were holy also who were of that Lump you speak of and if so why do you argue from hence for the federal Holiness of the Children of Believers Sir under the Law there was a Federal and Typical Holiness but the Children of Godly Parents now or the whole Lump you say is holy by reason of the Covenant made with Abraham tho not spiritually holy yet federally holy because all that were in that external Covenant and Church-state of the Jews were holy If by Federal Holiness which was in the Jewish Church you mean no more than external Church-Membership not spiritual Holiness and spiritual Privileges then their Loss by being cut off is not so great as the Apostle intimates nor is the Fatness of Abraham's Covenant and true Olive so sweet as you elsewhere affirm nor is it so great a Blessing for the Gentiles to be graffed into such a Root or Olive-Tree that affords no better Oil. What signifies Federal External Holiness without true Spiritual Holiness it will do us nor our Children no more good than the same External Federal or Covenant Holiness did do to the wicked Jews and their Children under the Law no nor so much neither for they had by that external Covenant many Earthly or External Blessings as they were possessed by that Covenant of the Land of Canaan and Common-wealth of the Jews as a National Church which external Privileges believing nor unbelieving Gentiles and their Seed have not under the Gospel therefore that is not true which you affirm viz. The same Privileges belonging to the Gentiles and their Children in the same Latitude for they were graffed into the same Root Sir have we Gentiles a Worldly Sanctuary a holy external Temple a Land flowing with Milk and Honey a Political Government and Governours from among our selves as we are a Gospel-Church by God's
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
have done your Business but Sir doth not this Argument of yours as strongly prove that all wicked and ungodly people may be baptized also ye Swearers Whoremongers Murderers yea the worst of Men for can we think there were none such in Jerusalem Iudah nor in all the Regions round about yea that we may baptize Pagans and Infidels for no doubt but there were some of all Nations at Jerusalem 2. You affirm that John baptized the whole Nation of the Jews even every Man Woman and Child or else I mistake you now if this were so how it is said that Christ made and baptized more Disciples then John John 4. 1. John 3. 26. 't is said that Jesus baptized and all Men came to him How did John baptize all and Christ baptize more of the People then John what think you were they rebaptized certainly you will make them all proper Anabaptists besides if John baptized all the Jews where were those three thousand that St. Peter and the other Disciples baptized Acts 2. 40 41 42. were they not dwellers at Jerusalem and notwithstanding Christ baptized more Disciples then John yet 't is said Acts 1. 13. that the number of the Disciples that were at Jerusalem were but about one Hundred and Twenty 3. I have shewed that according to Scripture Rhetorick frequently by a Synecdoche a part is put for the whole and sometimes the far lesser part also 'T is said All the Cattel in Egypt died Exod. 9. 6. that is all that were in the Field Also Christ saith When he was lifted up he would draw all men unto him Joh. 12. 32. Doth that intend all universally So Paul saith All seek their own And Christ saith Ye shall be hated of all men for my name sake See these Scriptures Exod. 32. 3 26. Jer. 6. 3. 1 Cor. 10. 7. Isa 2. 2 3. Acts 2. 5. See Glassius Illiricus and other Tropical Writers Also read Philologiae Sacra and our last Annotators on the Holy Bible called Pool's Annotations on this Text. The Term All say they here twice repeated is enough to let us know that 't is often in Scripture significative no farther than Many For it cannot be imagined that every individual Person in Jerusalem and the Regions round about Jordan went to hear John the Baptist but a great many From hence it appears That it is no ground for Mr. Owen to affirm that by all Jerusalem and all Judea c. must be intended every individual Person both Men Women and Children but rather some of all Sorts Degrees Sexes c. It shews that Multitudes went to hear him and many were baptized by him in Jordan confessing their Sins with unfeigned Repentance But you say the Text doth not tell us what manner of Confession this was whether in Words or Works Their submission to Baptism was an actual Confession of their Uncleanness and that they stood in need of Washing it cannot be thought that it was a Confession in Words because one Man could not receive a particular Confession from the whole Country if they made a Confession in Words It is like one made it in the Names of others even as the Priests did in the Names of all the People Levit. 16. 21. Thus the Parents might confess their Sins for themselves and their Children c. 1. Ans. Let Mr. Baxter's Arguments serve to confute you here he tells you That from Scripture and the universal Practice of the ancient Church That Faith and a Confession of Faith yea a verbal Confession was requirad oi all that were baptized With the heart man believeth and with the mouth confession is made to salvation Rom. 10. 10. 2. Certainly you are strangely left to blindness of Mind about this Matter Did ever any Man except your self and one Mr. Excel whom I answered lately affirm That all ungodly and unbelieving Men and Women that were willing to be baptized were proper and fit Subjects of Sacred Baptism For all Men may see that this Argument of yours is for their Baptism and as forcible to prove they ought to be baptized as 't is to prove the Baptism of Infants For if John baptized all the whole Country even every individual Person then Ministers now may baptise all in all Nations even all the World let them be what they will Turks Pagans Infidels Swearers Drunkards and Idolaters Thieves Murtherers if they will but promise to turn from their Sins and repent whether they do it or no yet if your Argument be good they ought to be baptized But how contrary to this is that which all your Brethren generally assert viz. That in the Primitive Times when the Gospel was first preached and Churches planted all that were first baptized were Believers Saints and godly Persons and upon their Faith their Children were as they say baptitized also which is that we deny tho' they are right as to what theyspeak in respect of Believers themselves but siuce we have so fully refuted what you say of Baptizing adult Persons that are Unbelievers I will say no more of that in this place 3. 'T is evident what you affirm is false viz. That John baptized the whole Country even every individual Person and that by a plain Instance Is it not said That the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves being not baptized of him Luke 7. 30. That is faith our Annotators not receiving John's Doctrine of Repentance for the remission of Sins and bringing forth Fruits worthy of amendment of Life not submitting to Baptism as a Testimony of such a Repentance For John's Baptism signifieth his whole Administration See Pool's Annotations on that Place All may see what a kind of Confession it was John's Baptism required it was more than a verbal Confession of Sin even the Fruits of a changed Heart and a new Life And where this Doctrine of his was not received and these Fruits appeared not John would not baptize them And now to conclude with this Chapter in opposition to what Mr. Owen saith from the whole it clearly doth follow That John Baptist did not baptize the whole Country nor any one Infant no not any one Person but such who believed and seemed at the least to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance And as he says John's Baptism was the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ it followeth that no Infant ought to be baptized and that the external Privileges of the Gospel are restrained and not so large as were the outward Rites and Privileges of the Jewish Church tho' the Spiritual Privileges of the Gospel are larger and more extensive than those of the Law were CHAP. XVI In which it is proved That the Children of the Faithful as such ought not to be baptized because 't is said whole Housholds were baptized Being an Answer to what Mr. James Owen hath said in his 13th Chapter and so a Confutation of his Tenth Argument for Infant Baptism MR. Owen saith it was God's way from
from Abraham in a lineal way by Generation or in respect had to any Covenant God made with him or his fleshly Seed as such that Covenant and Covenant right being taken away he took away the first that he might establish the second Heb. 10. 9. for the Priest-hood being charged there is made of necessity a change also of the Law Heb. 7. 12. there is therefore now no knowing or esteeming of Persons after that old Covenant manner the new Covenant being quite different or not according to the old which run to Abraham's Fleshly Seed as such they must now believe and their Children must believe before admitted as Members into the Gospel Church therefore if any Man be in Christ he is a new Creature old things are passed away and all things are become new 2 Cor. 5. 17. if any Person be grafted into Christ or into the Gospel Church he must have Faith and be a new Creature or be of the New Creation as the Greek word holds forth â—ay saith he though we have known Christ after the Flesh that is a Son of the Jewish Church or esteemed him upon that account Yet henceforth we know him or prefer him in that respect no more this was that Doctrine 〈◊〉 preached and 't is very probable it was as much from hence that they charged him for perswading Men contrary to the Law as upon any other Consideration whatsoever therefore all your flourish on this respect is vain but since you make so great a stir about the baptizing of whole Housholds I shall add something farther to clear up this Matter and I argue thus viz. 1. If there were no Families or Housholds but in which there are some Infants you might have some pretence for what you infer from hence but how palpable is it that there are every where many whole Families in which there is no Infant or Child in nonage and this being so what certain Conclusion or Consequence can he drawn from hence 2. Besides you know by a Synecdecha a part is put for the whole as Isa. 7. 2 5 8 9. the Tribe of Ephraim is put for all Israel 't is said all Jerusalem and Judah went out to be baptized by John in Jordan In 1 Sam. 1 21. 22. the Text saith The Man Elkanah and all his House went up to offer unto the Lord yet in the next Verse 't is said expresly That Hannah and her Child Samuel went not up nay you have shewed us a Family or whole House that were said to bury the Body of Sampson and yet you tell us the little Children were not included in that Expression all his House 3. As touching the Goalers House 't is positively said Paul preached to him and to all that were in his House do you think he preached to his Infants if he had any but to put the matter out of doubt 't is said he rejoyced believing in God with all his House as well as 't is said he was baptized and all his 4. Touching Lydia we say 't is uncertain whether she was a Maid Widow or Wife but if she was Married and had Children 't is very unlikely if Babes that they were at that time with her because she was far from her proper dwelling nay many Miles from it for she was of the City of Thiatira verse 14. but when Paul preached to her she was at Philippi where she was Merchandizing being a seller of Purple Can we suppose she carried her little Babes so far to Market Besides those of her House were called Brethren who were baptized with her therefore sure Children cannot be here meant will you build your Practice of baptizing little Babes from such uncertain Conclusions when 't is doubtful whether she had any Children or no Or if she had whether they were with her at that time or not our denying of it is as good as your affirming of it yet 't is plain she had Servants or some who are called her Houshold therefore what you say is impertinent upon this account And thus it appears to all impartial Persons that there is nothing in this argument touching the practice of the Gospel Church hear 's no mention made in baptizing whole Housholds of one Infant baptized nor the least color of reason to conclude there were Mr. Burkit is so unreasonable as to put us upon searching the Scripture to prove a Negative i. e. that there were none baptized in Infancy we might as well have desired him to give proof that there never was any Infant ordained an Elder or Pastor of a Church or how can we prove they did not make use of Honey or Oil in Baptism which some of the ancient Fathers used as Mr. Perkins Notes or Salt or Spittle which practice is still in the Romish Church Where is the extream â—unction forbid or auricular Confession or the use of Beads in Prayer and a hundred more such Romish Fopperies May these things be therefore done because we read not that they are forbid I thought adding to God's Word was forbidden Rev. 22. But says Mr. Burkit search the Scripture and produce me any one instance if you can from the time of St. John the Baptist to the time of St. John the Evangelist which was more than threescore Years during which time many Thousands of Infants were grown up to maturity and make it appear there were not any baptized in their Infancy or that their Baptism was deferred till riper years or that there is any divine Command for the delaying the baptism of Children of Christian Parents until they are grown up and I will frankly yield the Cause Bravely spoken Ans I must retort this argument back again on him and must say it is a great argument against Infant Baptism and not for it for say I let it be considered that since there was such a long space of time as 60 Years and more between John Baptist and the Death of John the beloved Disciple or John the Evangelist during which time many Thousand of Infants were born of baptized Believers both of Jews and Gentiles yet we read not of one Infant of them that was baptized Reader observe Mr. Burkit says in the Gospel day and when our Saviour sent his Disciples first to preach they were to teach or make Disciples of those they baptized but upon the Parents believing and being baptized he says their Children were admitted to Baptism also Now say I since many Parents thus taught and baptized had multitudes of Infants born to them how comes it about that we read not of one of their Infants that were baptized no not from the time of John Baptist to the Death of John the Evangelist Can any Man think had any Infants been baptized that God would not have left some account of it to put the matter out of doubt especially since it was never taught Doctrinally nor Commanded Certainly it could not stand consistent with the Care Wisdom and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ to have
hid and concealed such a Practice had there been one Infant by his Authority or Allowance baptized But since the Scripture is silent in it we may assure our Selves 't is not the will of God Infants should be be baptized Also if those who were to be baptized were first to be taught were first to repent and believe Then it follows clearly that Baptism must be deferred till Children were ofripe Years and able so to do and did not Mary delay the baptizing of the Holy Child Jesus As to the House of Crispus you your self acknowledge they all believed these are your words viz. it is true all the House of Crispus were Believers viz. Adult Persons but say you were all the Housholds of the Faithful Barren c. Ans No doubt but in some of those Housholds were Children they might not be all Barren without Children yet their Children might be grown up to maturity but you your self have proved that whole Houses may be said to be baptized and yet none but the Adult in those Housholds might be baptized seeing the Scripture you quoted saith that Sampson was buried by all his Fathers House yet none of the little Children in that House could be concerned in that matter As to the House of Stephanas you say well they are called the first Fruits of Achaia I beseech you Brethren ye know the Houshold of Stephanas that is the first Fruits of Achaia and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the Saints 1 Cor. 16. 15. that you submit your selves to such vers 16. Ans They that is the whole Houshold gave themselves up to administer to the Saints but besure little Babes could not do that nor ought the Adult to submit themselves to little Children or esteem and reverence them for acts of Charity You bring in this Objection viz. we do not read of any Infant that were in those Housholds to which you answer if the Housholds of the Corinthians when the Apostle baptized them were so barren what need had the Apostle to write unto them that their Children were holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. it is more than probable that Children were in every Houshold that was baptized Ans Now you go over again with your former argument and repeat the same things which I have again and again answer'd about the Childs being in Covenant after the Head of the Family or the Parents do believe 2. I say 't is very probable there might be no Children in non-age in those Housholds because 't is said the whole House had believed 3. If there were yet by your own grant all the House might be said to be baptized and yet no little Children baptized that might be in those Housholds because all is often taken but for a part 4. But will you said I build an Ordinance upon a probability and on uncertain Consequences nay one of the sacred Institutions of the Gospel called one of the two great Sacraments thereof that Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. we have already answered Now from the whole we shall draw Conclusions in opposition to yours 1. That the Covenant that God made with Noah and his Family was a Covenant made with all the World and so not the Covenant of Grace though there was Mercy and Grace contained in it to all Mankind and to the Fowls of the Air and Beasts of the Field also 2. That God's taking all Abraham's Family or Household into Covenant as such it was only a Covenant that peculiarly appertained to his natural Seed and it had many Temporal Blessings and Priviledges attending it which no Houshold under the Gospel can pretend unto and of this Covenant Circumcision was a sign and that Circumsion was only given to be a Seal of the righteousness of Faith to Abraham only and not to little Children 3. That the whole House of Israel as such or the whole Nation of the Jews under the Law were all as so considered then the Church of God and that the Gospel Church consisteth not of whole Housholds or any one whole Nation it being not of an National Constitution but Congregational only consisting of none but of believers baptized upon the profession of their Faith who are called the Houshold of Faith 4. That the whole House of Israel was a typical Church who were holy with a Ceremonial and Typical Holiness signifiing that all the Members of the Gospel Church should be spiritually and savingly Holy 5. That God in the Gospel times though now and then he is pleased to call by his Grace all or the greatest part of whole Families yet contrary to the old Covenant he usually now takes but two of a City and one of a Family and brings them into his true Gospel Sion 6. That the first Churches were only planted of such that believed some out of one Family and some out of other Families and that out of the Jewish Church and such that were called of the Gentile Nations 7. That the Parents Faith saves none of his Household either Children or Servants nor gives them any right to Gospel Baptism 8. Lastly one would think these things to be clear enough to give Satisfaction to all that desire Satisfaction about Infant Baptism and that there is not the least shadow of proof for it from what our Brethren argue from whole Families who were said to be baptized if we compare Scripture with Scripture for as we find no Precept nor Example for Infant Baptism so not any Consequence for it that is naturally drawn from any Text of Holy Scripture to which the Pedo-Baptists do refer CHAP. XVII Proving that Children ought not to be Baptized because they were baptized in divers Centuries or Ages under the Apostacy of the Church when most of Christs Institutions were corrupted wherein it is also proved that for the two first Hundred Years after Christ no Infants were baptized containing an Answer to Mr. James Owen's 14 Chapter and 11 Argument to prove Infant Baptism THus Mr. Owen begins in his 14th Chapter of his Book viz. the Children of the Faithful were baptized in every Age of the Church of God since the Apostles time until this latter Age as I can prove at large if it were profitable for the unlearned Reader I shall set down some Examples Ans 8. Your argument is that Children ought to be baptized because they were baptized in every age of the Church since the Apostles time Ans 1. Give one Instance if you can out of approved History of one Infant baptized in the first or second Century but pass by Two or Three Hundred Years after Christ and many errors besides this of Infant Baptism crept amain into the Churches But pray remember now you are without Book you are forced to quit the Holy Bible the Sacred History and great Charter of the Church and therefore all your proof out of Humane History which may be true or may not be true signifies nothing But you had best take heed lest we carry the
Word from Corruption but not the Humane History of the Fathers 2. But should this Father and St. Austine and others that followed them be for Infant Baptism what will this avail the asserters of Infant Baptism seeing the Church was before their times so greatly corrupted and many grand Errors brought in the Tradition of God Fathers and God Mothers one of the Church of England hath lately shewed to be near as early in the Church as Infant baptism which Mr. Owen will not therefore receive to be an Apostolical Tradition 3. We readily grant that Infant baptism is of great Antiquity of more then Thirteen Hundred years standing so are many other abominable Errors Practices and corrupt Ceremonies but from the beginning it was not so viz. 't is not to be found in Holy Scripture it is none of Christs Institution therefore an Human Invention nor was it practised in the Two first hundred years after Christ as I shall now prove out of as good Authors as any Mr. Owen hath or can produce 1. 'T is said Justin Martyr was Converted about 30 years after the Apostle John and by the Order then used in the Church It appears there was no Infant baptism thought of Walafrid Strabo as I find him cited by a great Historian says that there was no Children but aged and understanding Persons Baptized in this Age that is to say in the Second Century Wal. Strabo Eccl. Hist cap. 26. Vicecom l. 1. c 30. Tertullian in his Book of Baptism speaking of that Text Suffer little Children to come unto me saith he Indeed the Lord said do not hinder them to come unto me Let them come therefore while they grow to Years and while come let them be Taught let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ Why doth Innocent Age hasten to the Remission of Sins Men will deal more warily in Worldly affairs So that they who are not trusted with an Earthly Inheritance are trusted with an Heavenly one Let them ask for Salvation that thou mayest appear to have given it to them Dr. Taylor saith that the Truth of the business is as there is no Command of Scripture to oblige Children to the susception of it so the necessity of Pedo-Baptism was not determined in the Church till the Canons that was made in the Milevitan Council a provincial in Africa never till then I grant saith he it was practised in Africa before that time and they or some of them thought well of it And though that is no argument for us to think so yet none of them ever pretended it to be necessary nor to have been a precept of the Gospel St. Austin was the first that ever preached it to be necessary and it was in his Heat and Anger against Pelagius Thus Dr. Taylor Ignatius in his Discourse about Baptism asserts that it ought to be accompanyed with Faith Love and Patience after Preaching H. Montanus p. 45. and Jacob Dubois p. 16. to 22. and Dutch Martyrology where Ignatius's Letters are mentioned to Polycarp Tralensis to them of Philadelphia Dr. Taylor saith in his Disswasive against Popery p. 118. printed 1667 one of his last pieces Thus viz. That there is a Tradition to baptize Infants relies but upon two Witnesses Origen and Austin and the latter having it from the former it lies upon a single Testimony which saith he is a pittiful argument to prove a Tradition Apostolical He is the first that spoke of it but Tertullian that was before him seems to speak against it which he would not have done if it had been an Apostolical Tradition and that it was not so is but too certain if there be any Truth in the Words of Ludovicus Vives who says that anciently none were baptized but Persons of ripe Age. Great Bazil in his Book of the Holy Spirit Cap. 12. saith Faith and Baptism are the two means of Salvation inseparably cleaving together for Faith is not perfected by Baptism but Baptism is founded by Faith and by the same Name both things are fulfilled for as we believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit so also we are baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit and indeed there goeth before a Confession leading us to Salvation but Baptism followeth sealing our Confession and Covenant The same Churches Teacher saith the learned Dr. Du-Veil in his Third Book against Eunomius speaketh thus viz. Baptism is the Seal of Faith Faith is the Confession of the Godhead it is necessary we should first Believe and then be sealed in Baptism Du veilon Acts c. 8. p. 278. Zonaras saith the Babe will then need Baptism when it can chuse it Gregory Nazianzen in his Fourth Oration saith Dr. Du-Veil Of those who dye without Baptism gives us an Instance in those to whom Baptism was not administred by reason of Infancy And the same Nazianzen though he was a Bishops Son being a long time bred up under his Fathers care was not saith the said Dr baptized till he came to Man's Age. In like manner saith he Basil the Great that was born of devout Parents and instructed from his Childhood was not baptized until a Man p. 280. Also saith he John of Antioch called afterwards Chrysostom was born of Christian Parents as the truer Opinion is tutored by the famous Bishop Miletius was not yet baptized till he was One and Twenty Years of Age. Hierom also Ambrose and Austin who were born of Christian Parents and consecrated to Christian Discipline even from their Childhood were not baptized before thirty years of age as Dr. Taylor Bishop of Down asserts in his Twelfth Section of the Life of Christ Now Sir here are Examples enough that do prove in the primitive times Children of baptized Believers were not baptized but had their Baptism delayed till they themselves believed and gave an account of their Faith Had it been the constant custom of the Godly to baptize Infants would not these think you have been in their Infancy baptized Grotius as I find him quoted by Dr. Du-Veil saith The Primitive Churches did not baptize Infants see Grotius's Notes on the Gospel Nay saith the same great and learned Author it doth most plainly appear by the right of baptizing in the Romish Church for baptism is to be asked before the Person to be baptized do enter into the Church which the surety does in the Infants Name a clear distinct confession of Faith is required which the same surety rehearseth in the Infants Name i. e. a Renouncing of the World its Pomps the Flesh and the Devil We may by this perceive from whence the Original of our old Church Catechism came But this is a clear Argument saith the Dr. to prove of old the Persons who were to be baptized themselves asked Baptism in their own Name and of their own choice and professed their own Faith In the Neo-Cesarean Council it was framed thus As to those who are big with Child they ought to be baptized
have put some of the Texts of Scripture down at large that you cite and doth that Text in Psalm 72. 13. not relate to Jesus Christ personally considered if not only so yet Christ mistical viz. the elect Seed and not to all the Members of the visible Church as such and so also in the other Scriptures and dare you thus abuse the Sacred Scriptures applying these prayers and promises to all your Infants 2. Do your Children as such walk according to that Rule Gal. 6. 16. are they all new Creatures read the Context or do you not falsly apply and interpret these Scriptures 3. And if all unbaptized Persons be without any share in those prayers you your self are without them for you was only Rantized But what stress do you lay upon Baptism Are none Membes of Gods Mystical and Spiritual Sion but such who are baptized 4. Also how do you go about to blind and deceive the Souls of your Children in causing them to believe they are Members of Gods Sion and have part in those prayers when it may be 't is false or no such thing they being some of them when grown up wicked or ungodly 3. Say you as you are Members of the Church of God you have a particular right unto the promises the inheritance of the Church are the promises they belong unto her and not to others as formerly the promises belonged to the Visible Church of the Jews so now to the Visible Church of the Gentiles Rom. 9. 4. Gal. 4. 23. 1. Answ I have proved that our Children as such are not Members of the visible Church no nor ought any of the Children of Believers to be taken into it but such that believe that repent or that are born again 2. If any others viz. such that are not regenerated are taken into the visible Church whether Infants or Adult Persons 't is not by God's appointment and therefore such have no right to the Special and Spiritual promises of God which are the peculiar inheritance of the elect of God 3. The visible Church of the Jews as so considered had many external promises belonging to them that is not deny'd which the Gentile Church hath no right unto but the whole Jewish Church or all her visible Members had not a right to the Spiritual Promises of God They are not all Israel that are of Israel Rom. 9. 6. neither because they are Seed of Abraham are they all Children vers 7. that is they are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed vers 8. You mention the 4 Verse but mention not the Verses I have cited which open the 4th verse and thus you go about to give a false Exposition of the Scripture and deceive the understanding of your poor Children and others also But say you though the whole Members of the visible Church be not partakers of the Grace of the Promises Heb. 4. 1. which are given to the elect only yet all the Members of the visible Church have more right to this Grace then others that are without it being their own Fault if they refuse it Answ You in the first place speak right here but what you speak in your next Words are utterly false 1. You say the whole Members or all the Members of the Visible Church be not partakers of the grace of the promises this is right but why do you say that all the Members of the Visible Church have more right to the promises then those poor Souls who are enquiring the way into the Visible Church in all sincerity of Heart 'T is I fear dangerous for people to set under such a Teacher I affirm that the State of such that are let into the Visible Church who are unsound or carnal Persons is worse then the State of others neither are they under the promises of grace above others for 1. First they conclude perhaps all is well with them and that they are converted because the pastor of the Church nay and the Church her self so judgeth of them and from hence they look not after regeneration or true Convertion but look upon themselves to be Holy or Saints of God now the promises of Grace do not run to these as they do to those that see themselves lost and undone Sinners being far from God and out of the pail of the visible Church therefore you do your Children great Mischief and hurt in taking them into your Churches unless they are Converted and truly gracious 't is no blessing nor benefit to be false Members of the visible Church but what do you mean by the last Clause is it the Sinners sault if he is not elected or can Men obtain Grace if they will True they ought not to refuse God's Call Say you your baptized Children seek a clear understanding of that Obligation and the Vow of your baptism Learn of your Parents and Ministers to know the signification and need of your Baptism ye are given unto Christ and are not your own ye are bound to renounce the Devil and all his Works to renounce the pomps and vanity of this wicked World to renounce the pleasure and lusts of the Flesh you are bound to take God the Father to be your God and chief end taking the Son to be your Lord and Saviour unto you and God the Holy Ghost to be your Sanctifier c. 1. Answ Those that are baptized should understand the Nature of that Obligation before they enter into that Covenant 2. The end of Baptism was Ordained by Christ to shew that the Person baptized is born again is dead to sin not that he ought or is bound afterwards to be Born again no no but after he is baptized he is obliged thereby to walk in newness of life You by baptizing Infants invert the design and end of Baptism how should your Children understand this Obligation when their Parents and Ministers are so ignorant about the nature of that Obligation themselves 3. Believers do thus take God the Father Son and Holy Ghost in baptism to be their God but so do not Infants by any appointment of God 4. It appears that you approve of the Church of Englands Catechism if so all your Baptized Infants are according to your Doctrin in Baptism regenerated and have thereby renounced the Devil and all his Works c. 3. As soon as ye come to Age and Understanding renew your Covenant with God the Lord hath received in his Covenant the Faith of your Parents for you in your Infancy but now ye are of Years if ye your selves will not believe and repent and take God to be a God unto you your baptism will not longer benefit you c. Answ I answer if it be thus your Children are not much beholding to their Parents Faith nor to Covenant Grace you tell them when their Parents believed and were saved all their Children were saved and in covenant with them
be Baptized Arg. 2. If Infant Baptism was never Instituted Commanded or Appointed of God Infants ought not to be Baptized But Infant baptism was never Instituted Commanded or Appointed of God Ergo they ought not to be baptized As to the Major if one thing may be practised as an Ordinance without an Institution or Command of God another thing may also and so any Innovation may be let into the Church As to the Minor If there is an Institution for it c. 'T is either contained in the great Commission Mat. 28. Mark 16. or somewhere else But 't is not contained in the great Commission nor any where else Ergo c. The Major none will deny The Minor I prove thus None are to be baptized by virtue of the Commission but such who are Discipled by the Word as I said before and so the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies If any should say Christ Commanded his Disciples to Baptize all Nations and Infants are part of Nations therefore ought to be baptized I answer Arg. 3. If all Nations or any in the Nations ought to be Baptized before Discipled then Turks Pagans unbelievers and their Children may be Baptized because they are a great part of the Nations but Turks Pagans and unbelievers and their Children ought not to be baptized Ergo c. Besides That Teaching by the Authority of the Commission must go before baptizing we have proved which generally all Learned Men do assert If the Institution is to be found any where else they must shew the place Arg. 4. Faith and Repentance are required of all that ought to be baptized but Infants are not required to Believe and Repent nor are they capable so to do Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Major is clear Acts 2. 8. 10. 16. Chapters and it s also asserted by the Church of Ergland What is required of Persons to be baptized that 's the Question the Answer is Repentance whereby they forsake Sin and Faith whereby they stedfastly believe the promise of God made to them in that Sacrament The Minor cannot be denyed Arg. 5. That practice that tends not to the Glory of God nor the profit of the Child when done nor in aftertimes when grown up but may prove hurtful and of a dangerous Nature to him cannot be a Truth of God but the practice of Infant Baptism tends not to the Glory of God nor 〈◊〉 profit of the Child when Baptized nor in aftertimes when grown up but may be hurtful and of a dangerous Nature to him Ergo See Levit. 10. 1 2. Where Moses told Aaron Because his Sons had done that which God the Lord Commanded them not That God would be Sanctified by all that drew near unto him intimating that such who did that which God Commanded them not did not Sanctifie or Glorifie God therein Can God be glorified by Man's Disobedience or by adding to his Word by doing that which God hath not required Mat. 16. 9. In vain do you Worship me Teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men. And that that practice doth profit the Child none can prove from God's Word And in after times when grown up it may cause the Person to think he was thereby made a Christian c. and brought into the Covenant of Grace and had it sealed to him nay thereby regenerated for so the Athenian Society in their Mercury December 26. plainly intimate and that Infants are thereby ingrafted also into Christs Church Sure all understanding Men know the Baptism of Believers is not called Regeneration but only Metonymically it being a Figure of Regeneration But they Ignorantly affirm also that Infants then have a Federal Holiness as if this imagined Holiness comes in by the Parents Faith or by the Childs Covenant in Baptism which may prove hurtful dangerous to them and cause them to think Baptism confers Grace which is a great error How can water saith Mr. Charnock an external thing work upon the Soul Physically nor can it saith he be proved that ever the Spirit of God is tied by any promise to apply himself to the Soul in a gracious operation when Water is applyed to the Body If it were so then all that were baptized should be saved or else the Doctrine of Perseverance falls to the Ground Some indeed says he say that Regeneration is conferred in Baptism upon the Elect and exerts its self afterwards in Conversion But how so active a Principle as Spiritual Life should lye dead and a sleep so many years c. is not easily conceived On Regen page 75. Arg. 6. If the Church of England says that Faith and Repentance are required of all that ought to be baptized and in so saying speaks truly and yet Infants can't perform those things then Infants ought not to be Baptized But the Church of England says that Faith and Repentance are required of all such c. and speak truly and yet Infants cannot perform these things Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Obj. If it be objected That they affirm they do perform by their Sureties Ans. If Suretiship for Children in Baptism is not required of God and the Sureties do not yea cannot perform those things for the Child then Suretyship is not of God and so signifies nothing but is an unlawful and sinful undertaking but Suretiship in Childrens Baptism is not required of God and they do not cannot perform what they promise Ergo c. Do they or can they cause the Child to forsake the Devil and all his works the Pomps and Vanities of this wicked World and all the sinful Lusts of the Flesh In a word can they make the Child or Children to repent and truly believe in Jesus Christ for these are the things they promise for them and in their Name Alas they want power to do it for themselves and how then should they do it for others Besides we see they never mind nor regard their Covenant in the case and will not God one day say who has required these things at your hands Arg. 7. If there be no president in the Scripture as there is no precept that any Infant was baptized then Infants ought not to be baptized But there is no president that any Infant was baptized in the Scripture Ergo. If there is any precedent or example in Scripture that any Infant was baptized let them shew us where we may find it Erasmus saith 'T is no where expressed in the Apostolical writings that they baptized Children Union of the Church and on Rom. 6. Calvin saith 't is no where expressed by the Evangelists that any one Infant was baptized by the Apostles Instit cap. 16. lib. 4. Ludovicus Vives saith None of Old were wont to be baptized but in grown Age and who desired and understood what it was Vide Lud. The Magdeburgenses say That concerning the bapâ—…ing the Adult both Jews and Gentiles we have sufficient proof Acts. 2. 8 10. 16. Chap.
40. See thou make all things according to the Pattern shewed thee in the Mount and Lev. 10. 1 2. See how Nadab and Abihu sped for presuming to vary from the Command of God and Uzzah tho' but in small Circumstances as they may seem to us How dare Men adventure this being so to change Baptism from Dipping into Sprinkling and the Subject from an Adult Believer to an Ignorant Babe Add thou not unto his word c. Arg. 15. Whatever practice opens a Door to any Human Traditions in God's Worship is a great Evil and to be avoided But the practice of Infant Baptism opens a Door to any Human Traditions in God's Worship Ergo to Sprinkle or Baptize Infants is a great Evil and ought to be avoided The Major will not be denied The Minor is clear because there is no Scripture ground for it no Command or Example for such a Practice in God's Word and if without Scripture Authority the Church hath power to do one thing she may do another and so ad infinitum Arg. 16 Whatsoever practice reflects upon the Honour Wisdom and Care of Jesus Christ or renders him less faithful than Moses and the New Testament in one of its great Ordinances nay Sacraments to lie more obscure in God's Word than any Law or Precept under the Old Testament cannot be of God But the practice of Infant Baptism reflects on the Honour Care and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ and renders him less faithful than Moses and a great Ordinance nay Sacrament of the New Testament to lie more dark and obscure than any Precept under the Old Testament Ergo Infant Baptism cannot be of God The Major cannot be denyed The Minor is easily proved For he is bold indeed who shall affirm Infant Baptism doth not lie obscure in God's Word One great Party who assert it say it s not to be found in the Scripture at all but 't is an unwritten Apostolical Tradition Others say it lies not the Letter of the Scripture but may be proved by Consequences and yet some great asserters of it as Dr. Hammond and others say those Consequences commonly drawn from divers Texts for it are without demonstration and prove nothing I am sure a Man may Read the Scripture a Hundred times over and never be thereby convinced he ought to baptize his Children though it is powerful to convince Men of all Christian Duties Now can this be a Truth since Christ was more Faithful than Moses and delivered every thing plainly from the Father Moses left nothing dark as to matters of Duty tho' the Precept and Eternal Rites of his Law were numerous even two or three hundred Precepts yet none were at a loss or had need to say is this a Truth or an Ordinance or not for he that Runs may Read it And shall one positive precept given forth by Christ who appointed so few in the New Testament be so obscure as also the Ground and End of it that Men should be confounded about the Proofs of it together with the End and Grounds thereof See Heb. 3. 5 6. Arg. 17. That Custom or Law which Moses never delivered to the Jews nor is any where written in the Old Testament was no Truth of God or of Divine Authority But that Custom or Law to baptize Proselytes either Men Women or Children was never given to the Jews by Moses nor is it any where written in the Old Testament Ergo it was no Truth of God or of Divine Authority and evident it is according to that Forementioned and Worthy Author Sir Norton Knatchbal that the Jewish Rabbins differed among themselves about it for saith he to Cite his very words again Rabbi Eleaezer expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews for Eleazer who was contemporary with Rabbi Joshua if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte Circumcised and not Baptized was a true Proselyte Arg. 18. If Baptism is of Meer positive Right wholly depending on the Will and Sovereign Pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator and he hath not Requi red or Commanded Infants to be baptized then Infants ought not to be baptized but Baptism is of meer positive right wholly depending on the Will and Sovereign pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator and he hath not required or Commanded Infants to be baptized Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized This Argument tends to cut off all the pretended proofs of Pedo-baptism taken from the Covenant made with Abraham and because Children are said to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven it was not the Right of Abraham's Male Children to be Circumcised because they were begotten and born of the Fruit of his Loyns till he received Commandment from God to Circumcise them Had he done it before or without Command from God it would have been Will-worship in him to have done it Moreover this further appearâ— to be so because no godly Mans Children nor others in Abraham's days nor since had any Right thereto but only his Children or such who were bought with his Money or were proselyted to the Jewish Religion because they had no Command from God so to do as Abraham had This being true it follows that if we should grant Infants of believing Gentiles as such were the Seed of Abraham which we deny yet unless God had Commanded them to baptize their Children they ought not to do it and if they do it without a Command or Authority from Christ It will be found an Act of Will-worship in them Arg. 19. All that were baptized in the Apostolical Primitive times were baptized upon the profession of their Faith were baptized into Christ and thereby put on Christ and were all one in Christ Jesus and were Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the promise But Infants as such who are baptized were not baptized upon the profession of their Faith nor did they put on Christ thereby nor are they all one in Christ Jesus and also are not Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to Promise Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Mr. Baxter confirms the substance of the Major these are his words i. e. As many as have been baptized have put on Christ and are all one in Christ Jesus and are Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to the promise Gal. 3. 27 28 29. This speaks the Apostle saith he of the probability grounded on a credible profession c. Baxters Confirm Reconcil page 32. The Minor will stand firm till any can prove Infants by a visible profession have put on Christ are all one in Christ Jesus are Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to the promise Evident it is none are the spiritual Seed of Abraham but such who have the Faith of Abraham and are truly grafted into Christ by a saving Faith If any object we read of some who were baptized who had no saving Faith but were Hypocrites I answer had they appeared to be
such they had not been baptized nor had they a true Right thereto Arg. 20. Baptism is the Solemnizing of the Souls Marriage Union with Christ which Marriage-contract absolutely requires an actual profession of consent but Infants are not capable to enter into Marriage Union with Christ nor to make a profession of an actual consent Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Major our opposites generally grant particularly see what Mr. Baxter saith Our Baptism is our solemnizing of our Marriage with Christ These are his very words page 32. The Minor none can deny no Man sure in his right mind will assert that little Babes are capable to enter into a Marriage Relation with Christ and to make profession of a consent and the truth is he in the next words gives away his Cause viz. and 't is saith he A a new and strange kind of Marriage where there is no profession of consent page 32. How unhappy was this Man to plead for such a New and strange kind of Marriage did he find any little Babe he ever Baptized or rather Rantized to make a profession of consent to be Married to Jesus Christ If any should object he speaks of the Baptism of the Adult I answer his words are these Our Baptism is c. Besides will any Pedo-baptist say That the Baptism of the Adult is the solemnizing of the Souls Marriage with Christ and not the Baptism of Infants Reader observe how our opposites are forced sometimes to speak the Truth tho' it overthrows their own practice of Pedo-baptism Arg. 21. If the Sins of no persons are forgiven them till they are Converted then they must not be baptized for the forgiveness of them till they profess themselves to be Converted but the Sins of no Persons till they are Converted are forgiven Ergo no Person ought to be Baptized for the forgiveness of them till they profess they are Converted Mr. Baxter in the said Treatise lays down the substance of this Argument also take his own words i. e. As their sins are not forgiven them till they are Converted Mark 4. 12. So they must not be baptized for the forgiveness of them till they profess themselves Converted seeing to the Church non esse and non apparere is all one Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus is the Sum of that Preaching that makes Disciples Acts 20. 21. Therefore saith he both those must by a Profession seem to be received before any at Age are baptized page 30 31. and evident it is say I from hence that none but such at Age ought to be baptized Philip caused the Eunuch to profess before he would Baptize him That he believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God Saul had also saith he more than a bare profession before Baptism Acts 9. 5 15 17. page 28. The Promise it self saith he doth expresly require a Faith of our own of all the Adult that will have part in the Priviledges therefore there is a Faith of our own that is the Condition of our Title Mark 16. 16. page 16. He might have added by the force of his Argument therefore Infants should not have the priviledges For I argue thus viz. Arg. 22. If there is but one Baptism of Water left by Jesus Christ in the New Jerusalem or but one condition or manner of Right thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult then Infant Baptism is no Baptism of Christ but there is but one Baptism in Water left by Christ in the New Testament and but one Condition and manner of Right thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult Ergo Infant Baptism is no Baptism of Christ Mr. Baxter saith Faith and Repentance is the condition of the Adult and as to any other condition I am sure the Scripture is silent The way of the Lord is one one Lord one Faith one Baptism Eph. 4. 4. If profession of Faith were not necessary saith Mr. Baxter Coram Ecclesia to Church Membership and Priviledges then Infidels and Heathens would have Right also saith he the Church and the World would be confounded He might have added but Infidels and Heathens have no Right to Church Membership c. Ergo. 'T is a granted case among all Christians saith he that profession is thus necessary the Apostles and Antient Church admitted none without it page 21. And if so why dare any now a days admit of Infants who are uncapable to make profession He adds Yea Christ in his Commission directeth his Apostles to make Disciples and then Baptize them promising He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. page 27. Furthermore he saith If as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his Death and are Buried with him by baptism into Death that like as Christ was raised from the Dead so we also should walk in newness of Life c. Then no doubt saith he but such as were to be baptized did first profess this mortification and a consent to be buried c. In our Baptism we put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ being buried with him and raised with him through Faith quickened with him and haveing all our Trespasses forgiven Coll. 2. 11 12 13. and will any Man says he yea will Paul ascribe all this to those that did not so much as profess the things signified Will Baptism in the Judgment of a wise Man do all this for an Infidel or say I for an Infant that cannot make a profession that he is a Christian page 31 32. he proceeds Arg. 23. The baptized are in Scripture called Men Washed Sanctified Justified they are called Saints and Churches of Saints 1 Cor. 1. 2. all Christians are Sanctified ones page 33. now let me add the Minor But Infants are not in Scripture called Men Washed Sanctified Justified they are not called Saints Churches of Saints Christians nor Sanctified ones Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized If any should say why did you not cite these assertions of Mr. Baxters whilst he was living I answer more then Eighteen years ago I did recite and Print these assertions and many other Arguments of his to the same purpose to which he gave no answer Arg. 24. If there is but one way for all both Parents and Children to be admitted in the Gospel Church to the end of the World and that it is upon profession of Faith to be baptized then both Parents and Children must upon the profession of their Faith be baptized and so admitted c. But there is but one way for all both Parents and Children to be admitted into the Gospel-Church to the end of the World and that is upon the profession of their Faith to be Baptized Ergo. Arg. 25. That cannot be Christ's true baptism wherein there is not cannot be a lively Representation of the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ together with our Death unto Sin
granted Case among all Christians that a Profession is thus necessary the Apostles and Antient Church admitted none without it Pag. 17 21. Again he says Pag. 24. We find when John Baptist set up his Ministry he caused the People to confess their Sins And whereas some say that John baptized them that he calleth a Generation of Vipers I answer saith he we will believe that when they prove it It seems rather that he put them back as to those Acts 2. 37. Saith he It is plain that they made an open Profession if you consider 1. That they were openly told the Doctrine which they must be baptized into if they did consent 2. It is said they that received the Word were baptized 3. It is as certain therefore that they first testified their glad reception of the Word 4. VVe may not imagine that Peter was God or knew the Hearts of those thousands and therefore he must know it by their Profession that they gladly received the VVord 5. Their own Mouths cry out for advice in order to their Salvation 6. It had been absurd for the Apostles to attempt to baptize Men that had not first professed their Consent 7. The Scripture saith he gives us not the full Historical Narration of all that was said in such Cases but of so much as was necessary 8. The Institution and Nature of the Ordinance tells us that Baptism could not be adminisired without a Profession to the Adult for they were to be baptized into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Therefore were to profess that they believed in the Father Son and Holy Ghost c. Pag. 25. 9. The constant practice of the universal Church hath given us by infallible Tradition as full assurance of the order of Baptism and in particular of an express Profession and Covenant then made as of any Point that by the Hand of the Church can be received Pag. 26. 10. And it was in those days a more notorious Profession to be so Baptized and to joyn in the Holy Assemblies then now it is when the Profession of Christianity did hazard Mens Liberties Estates and Lives to be openly then Baptized upon covenanting with God the Father Son and Holy Ghost c. Moreover saith he it is said of all that were Baptized being then at Age that they first believed and how could the Baptizers know that they believed but by their Profession pag. 26. Yea 't is said of Simon Magus that he believed and was baptized which though he might really have some historical Faith yet implyeth that he openly professed more then he indeed had or else he had scarce been baptized which hath caused Interpreters to judge that by Faith is meant a profession of Faith And if so then sure a profession of Faith is still necessary p. 27. Yea saith he Christ in his Commission directeth his Apostles to make Disciples and then baptize them promising that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved And who can tell whether a Man be a Disciple a Believer or an Infidel but by his Profession How was it known but by their Profession that the Samaritans believed Phillip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ before they were baptized Acts 8 12. Phillip caused the Eunuch to profess before he would baptize him that he believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God c. Saul had more then a bare Profession before baptized Acts 9. 15 17. Also Cornelius and his Company had more then a Profession for they had the Holy Ghost poured on them speaking with Tongues And it was such a Gift of the Spirit that caused the Apostle to conclude that God had granted the Gentiles Repentance unto Life Acts 11. 8. The Converted Gentiles Acts 13. 48. shewed their belief and gladness p. 27. Gods Order is to the Adult saith he first to send Preachers to proclaim the Gospel and when by that Men are brought so far as to profess or manifest their Eyes are opened and that they are turned from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God then they must be baptized for the remission of Sins As their Sins are not forgiven them till they are converted Mark 4. 12. so they must not be baptized till they profess themselves converted seeing to the Church none esse and none apparere is all one Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ is the summ of that preaching that makes Disciples Acts 20. 21. and therefore both these must by profession seem to be received before any at Age are baptized p. 30. 31. If as many as are baptized are baptized into his death and are buried with him by baptism into his Death that like as Christ was raised from the Dead then we should walk in newness of Life Then no doubt but such as were baptized did first profess this Mortification and consent to be buried and revived with Christ and to live to him in newness of Life Rom. 6. 3 4 5 6. For Paul was never so much for Opus Operatum above the Papists as to think that the baptizing of an Infidel might effect these high and excellent things and he that professeth not Faith nor never did is to the Church an Infidel In our baptism we put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ being buried with him and rising with him through Faith quickned with him and having all our Trespasses forgiven Col. 3. 11 12 13. And will any Man saith he yea will Paul ascribe all this to those that did not profess the things signified or the necessary Condition Will baptism in the Judgment of a wise Man do all this for an Infidel let me add or to an Infant or one saith he that professeth not to be a Christian Baptism is said to save us 1 Pet. 3 21. and therefore they that will be baptized must profess the qualifications necessary to the saved p. 32. The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are put into the Churches Hands and they that are loosed on Earth are loosed in Heaven if the Keys do not err and therefore pastors of the Church must absolve none by Baptism that do not by profession seem absolvable in Heaven they must profess to have the old Man Crucified with Christ that the Bodie of Sin be destroyed that henceforth they might not serve Sin Rom. 6. 5 6 7 8. As many as have been baptized into Christ saith he have put on Christ Jesus and are Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to the Promise Gal. 3. 27 28. This speaks the Apostle of the probability grounded on a credible Profession and therefore it is clear that the profession was presupposed that might support this charitable Judgment Our baptism is the solemnizing of our Marriage with Christ And it s a new and strang kind of Marriage where there is no profession of Consent The baptized are in Scripture
called Men washed Sanctifyed Justifyed They are all called Saints and Churches of Saints all Christians are called sanctifyed ones or Saints therefore it is certain that they professed themselves such Thus far Mr. Richard Baxter Sir I thought fit to confute you in your bold Assertion viz. that John the Baptist baptized all that came to him even those Pharisees that he called a Generation of Vipers by making use of the Sword of Goliah Reader how this Pedo-Baptists Mr. Baxter hath not only overthrown Mr. Owen's argument here for Infant Baptism but utterly hath overthrown Infant Baptism it self 1. For he saith the Commission directeth Christ's Apostles to make Disciples and then baptize them p. 27. 2. He saith the summ of that preaching that maketh Disciples is repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ p. 30 31. Where then is the Commission to baptize Infants Baptism can't make them Disciples nor their Parents Faith neither no 't is the preaching of the word he that has not Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is no Disciple of Christs You must have a new Commission to baptize unbelievers or Infants either before ye ought to do it 6. You say John came to prepare the way of the Lord the end of his baptism was to bind all the People to believe in the Lord Jesus which was to come Faith was not the condition of John's Baptism but the end thereof his Baptism laid a particular obligation on all the Seed of Abraham to receive Christ Childred as well as others were bound to receive him when they came to Age because Baptism was a sign of that obligation c. Answer Could you prove what you say it was something to your Business viz. that John baptized all even ungodly Parents as well as Children which Mr. Baxter from God's word hath fully confuted 2. Also then it must follow that the baptism of John and that baptism administred by the Apostles differed in an essential part which you your self but a little before do utterly deny and affirm that they were both essentially one and the same baptism only one unto him that was to come and the other into him that was come Dead and Risen again Now was not Faith and Repentance the condition of that Baptism administred by the Apostles did not they require Faith and a profession of Faith of all they admitted to Baptism the Scriptures Mr. Baxter cites in the aforementioned Book of his fully proves they did and that those things were prerequisites of it therefore Baptism as administred by John and by the Disciples of Christ was not only to the end they should be obliged to believe and repent but Faith and Repentance was the condition or qualification of all they baptized For John nor the Apostles neither would take a bare verbal profession of Repentance of those that came to Baptism John commanded them to produce the Fruits of Repentance or to bring forth Fruit meet for Repentance and this was his way to prepare the way of the Lord or to prepare a People for the Lord 's Spiritual Building he preached Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand That Vow or Promise in Baptism that you dream of prepares no Man for Christ nor fits any for his Church no. no it must be Conversion Faith and Regeneration it self 7. You say little Children were Members of the Church of God in the time of John none can deny that because Circumsion the Seal of the Covenant was upon them all the Seed of Abraham were at that time God's visible Church and they were his only Church upon Earth they were not out of the Church before they were baptized neither were they received into the Church of God through Baptism as those that were out of it before but the whole Nation were baptized because they were Members of God's visible Church and because little Children were Members of the visible Church the Baptism of John appertained unto them 1. Answer I answer we deny not but the Jewish Infants were Members of God's legal Church but I ask you whether John's Baptism was a legal Ordinance or a pure Gospel Ordinance as Circumcision was prove it we deny it and say it was Evangelical and did not appertain to the Jews or the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh as such 2. If you should prove it was a legal Ordinance yet it doth not follow Infants of the Jews ought to be baptized as their Males were to be Circumcised because there was a clear politive command to circumcise them but none to baptize them 3. If you argue from the right of Circumcision then it follows that none but their male Infants ought to be baptized What authority had John to baptize females whether the adult or Infants as I said refore 4. I am troubled to see how you confound your Peoples understanding was the Jewish Church or the Visible Church of God under the Law and the visible Gospel Church formally and materially one and the same Had the Jews a right to all Gospel Ordinances and Privileges because they abode his legal visible Church till the Death of Christ we grant the invisible Church of God under Law and Gospel is but one and the same but doth not the Gospel Church in its Ordinances Administrations Rights and Piviledges vastly differ from the legal was not the visible Church of God under the Law a National Church made up of the Jewish People only and is the Gospel Church not congregational consisting of both Jews and Gentiles that believe or are born of the Spirit 5. What though John did not make void the Covenant of peculiarity God made with Abraham yet he laid the Ax at the Root and being to prepare matter for a new Church State and his Ministry being Gospel and the Ordinance he administred a Gospel Institution he told the Jews and Pharisees that their being Abraham's Seed or having Abraham to their Father now was no good Plea or Argument for them to plead as a right to this new Administration John's Doctrine did in part finish the Law and the Prophets or old covenant Dispensation though the full period of it was not come till the death of Christ Hence our Saviour saith the Law and the Prophets were untill John and from that time the Kingdom of Heaven began to suffer Violence and Men strove to press into it though its full and perfect beginning was not till our Lord had broken down the middle wall of Partition and nail'd the legal Rites and carnal Ordinances to his Cross and removed that enmity between Jews and Gentiles making both one new Man and so a new Gospel Church pray take what one of your own Brethren a Pedo-Baptist saith of John's Ministration it is Reverend Cotton of New-England Who speaking of this Text Mat. 3. 10. Now also the Ax is laid to the Root of the Trees The first saith he is the Root of Abraham's Covenant which these People trusted upon and of