doth this and then 2. what external priviledges of the Church do your Infants as such receive that are as you say baptized you will not own them for Brethren and Sisters until they are Converted you will not give them the Lords Supper until they are converted they are not by the Lord's appointment brought under any Obligation by being baptized and then as few of your Children 't is plain become godly as of ours pray shew us when you write again what blessings or priviledges your Infants do receive by their Rantism or Baptism as you call it What uncharitableness is it then in us to deny our Infants that thing which you cannot prove if they had it would do them any manner of good Nay Sir I shall prove before I have done with you that it may do them much hurt 5. Those that are against Infant Baptism and for renewing of it you say are guilty of a great ingratitude towards God we know that ingratitude is a great Sin against the Lord Unthankfulness for Temporal blessings provokes him to Anger Rom. 1. 21. Luke 17. 17 18. how much more for Spiritual blessings and priviledges Is it not great ingratitude in us to despise our birth-right The Scripture puts a reproachful Character upon Esau c. Answ All this is to no purpose 't is but begging the Question viz. That Infant Baptism is God's Ordinance and a birthright priviledge which we utterly deny for tho' Baptism be a priviledge by Christs positive Command it only belonging to the Second Birth not to the First Thou art guilty of a great Sin say you by making a division in the Body of Jesus Christ there is one Body and one Baptism Eph. 4. 4 〈◊〉 And they cannot be divided whereas by denying of the first Baptism thou breakest the Unity of that Body to the which Christ is Head thou breakest thy self off from the Vine and witherest as an unfruitful Branch which will not be better although it be Watered again thou breakest thy self off not from this Congregation or another only but from the Universal Catholick Church in every Age and Countrey upon the Face of the Earth which is cleansed with the washing of Water through the Word Eph. 5. 26. and continuing in the Union of Baptism Canst thou think this to be a small sin for thee to rent thy self from the Body of Christ though stolen Water be sweet at this time and Bread eaten in secret be pleasant Know and see that it will be evil and bitter in the end for thee to cast thy self out of the Church of the Living God the Pillar and ground of Truth 1. Answ I answer untill I came hither in your Book I did not fully perceive your bitter Spirit O that God would appear and give you a better temper of Heart Who is uncharitable now if Charity be the Bond of perfectness How imperfect is my Brother Owen Must we all who deny Infant Baptism be Condemned as utter cast aways and not be lookt upon so much as Members of the Universal Church 'T is well it is not in your power to reprobate us and our Children 2. But stay a little are all that own Infant Baptism or have been baptized in every Age and Nation of the Earth the Body of Christ and Church of the living God Do you indeed own the Popish Church or is not the Church of Rome in your Judgment however part of the Body of Christ And are not you in Union with that Church and all Churches that own Infant Baptism in the World it followeth it must be so I think 't is time for you most Worthy Britains to have a Jealous Eye towards this Man for if he be not in actual Communion with the Church of Rome yet his principles lead him out so to be for he seems to own all the Churches to be the Body of Christ who were and are baptized in Infancy nay and that those Churches and none but them to make up the whole Mystical Universal Church of God He seems to reprobate all those Christians that deny Infant Baptism or are disjoyned from his Universal Catholick Church of baptized Infants I know his Reverend Brethren in London are Men of more Charity and abhor such positions as he now lays down I cannot think that his principles allow Salvation to any that are not in Union with the visible Universal Church that own Infant baptism 't is time to thrâ—w this Idol away 3. Is it a sin to divide from the Church of Rome or from the Church of England or not to continue of their Communion Are not you one that have separated your self from both and more immediately from the last But I suppose you own them both to be true Churches tho you have separated your self but if so how can you clear your self of abominable Schism for you have made a division in that Body which you declare is the Body of Christ and Church of the living God Can those things for which you have made this division justifie your Selâ—â—m Sir tho we believe there are many Holy and Gracious Christians of the Communion of the Church of England and that they are Members of the Invisible Universal Church yet we do not believe the Church of England nor any National Church is an orderly true Constituted Visible Church of Jesus Christ and therefore we separated from them but this it appears is not your belief 4. Your Judgment is it appears that no Person can be a Member of the Universal Catholick Church that was not baptized and so United to her in Infancy or Sprinkled when an Adult Person i. e. he must own Infant Baptism Sir I never met with a Man like your self as I can remember of less Charity and yet you cry our against us for want of Charity 5. I do affirm that that one Baptism that Unites to the Visible Church not to the Universal Church is the Baptism of Believers and not that of Infants And to prove it take this argument If that Baptism the Apostles administred and on which they received all Persons into the Visible Church was the Baptism of the Adult or that of Believers only then the baptism of the Adult or that of Believers only is that one and first Baptism but the baptism which the Apostles administred and on which they received all Persons into the Visible Church was the baptism of the Adult or that of Believers only Ergo The Baptism of the Adult or that of Believers is that one or only Baptism of Christs Visible Church for those Members of the visible Church in the Primitive times that were washed in Baptismal Water professed themselves washed also in Christs Blood and they that were sincere had the thing signified as well as the Sign when they were baptized but Infants never made any such profession therefore Infant Baptism was not the first and one Baptism that Christ left in his Church 6. It is true that those that deny
Text John 6. 53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you and from thence they gave Infants the Lord's Supper also But suppose that Baptism doth signify or is a figure of the washing of Regeneration yet sprinkling is no form of washing but all know dipping is and the safest way of washing 2dly You mention Fierâ— Baptism or the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Fire Mat. 3. 11. This Scripture you say was fulfilled when the Holy Ghost came upon the Disciples in the appearance of Fiery Tongues Acts 2. 3. This Baptism was not say you by plunging in Fire but by sprinkling or pouring of Fire you mean the Holy Spirit upon them which sate upon each of them which is a Fiery washing which purifieth the Soul c. I answer Tho the Baptism of the Spirit was by pouring forth of the Spirit yet they were overwhelmed or immersed with it like as Dust may be poured upon a dead Corps until it is covered all over or quite buried therein So the Baptism of the Holy Ghost at the Day of Pentecost signifies the miraculous Effusion of the Holy Ghost The Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Learned Casaubon is to dip plâ—â—ge c. in which sense saith he the Apostles might be truly said to have been baptized for the House in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost so that the Apostles might seem to have been plunged into it as in a large Fish-Pond Sir 't is not the sprink ing of the Spirit that is the Baptism of the Spirit for they had doubtless some sprinklings of the Spirit before they were baptized with it Moreover Oecumenius on Acts 2. saith A Wind filled the whole House that it seemed like a Fish-pond because 't was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Spirit Thus you may see that this no ways helps you to make Sprinkling or Rantizing Baptism 3dly You mention the Baptism of Blood or Sufferings I will repeat your Words Baptism of Blood of this Baptism doth Christ ask the Children of Zebedee Are you able to drink of the Cup that I drink of and to be baptized with the Baptism that I am baptized with Mat. 20. 22. This Cup and this Baptism are the same viz. the Sufferings of Christ of which his Disciples were to be Partakers You intimate that Baptism is a Witness of our Spiritual Resurrection and of our Resurrection at the last Day you mention 1 Cor. 15. 29 c. Answ Therefore say I it must be so administred as it may represent our Rising again First from a Death in Sin to a Life in Grace And Secondly from the Dead or out of our Graves in the Earth at the last Day But Sprinkling doâ—h not this cannot do this In sprinkling a little Water on the Face there is no resemblance or representation of rising up out of the Grave of Sin or from the Dead nor out of the Grave aâ— the last Day the Baptism of Sufferings signifies great Afflictions and from the Literal Signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 great Afflictions or Troubles are taken for and figurately called Baptism as Vossius shews Not every light Affliction is the Baptism of Afflictions but like that of David Psal 32. 6. He drew me out of deep Waters Hence great Afflictions are called Waves Thy Waves and thy Billows are gone over me Psal 42. 7. See Pool's Annotations on Mat. 20. 22. To be baptized is saith he to be dipped in water Metaphorically to be plunged in Afflictions So that neither of these Metaphorical Baptisms will do you any Service to justify your Tradition of sprinkling or pouring a little Water but contrariwise quite overthrows your pretended Baptism As to what you say in the next place of your three manner of ways of the Administration of Baptism in your first Chapter it doth not concern our present Purpose 't is true John the Baptist baptized into him that was to come so in that respect it differ'd from the Administration of it after the Death and Resurrection of our blessed Lord and no doubt from the Commission it appears Baptism was to be administred to the end of the World into the Name of the Father Son and holy Spirit and no other ways CHAP II. Containing some Remarks upon Mr. Owen's second Chapter AS to what you have wrote in your second Chapter about the Continuation of Water-Baptism in the Church until Christ's coming the second time or to the end of the World I approve generally of your Arguments and in that matter we are of your mind tho much more might be added to confirm that great Truth but pray Sir remember 't is Christ's Baptism of Believers which he only instituted that doth remain not Infants Baptism much less Infants Rantism which was neither instituted nor allowed by our blessed Lord. And because some of your Arguments for the Continuation of Baptism mentioned in your second Chapter tend to overthrow your Infant Baptism I shall make some Remarks upon them They are taken from your 4 th Proof you argue thus viz. Water Baptism is to continue in the Church if we consider the Ends of it 1. You say Christ hath ordained Baptism to be a Sign of our Repentance and therefore 't is called the Baptism of our Repentance Mark 1. 4. Repentance is a remaining Duty therefore the Baptism of Repentance is to remain Remark If Baptism be a siâ—n of Repentance to the Person baptized then the Person baptized ought to be a Person capable to repent and when baptized to have what is signified therein but Infants as such have not the Grace of Repentance when baptized so they are not capable to repent 2dly You say It is an Evidence of our Faith in Christ Mark 16. 16. Acts 8. 37 38. and therefore it is to remain as long as Faith is to remain on the Earth Remark If Baptism is an Evidence of our Faith in Christ then it must only belong to Believers How can it be an Evidence of Faith in Infants who are not capable to believe they know not the Object of Faith nor can they exert any Act of Faith It must be an Evidence to the Subject when baptized and so the Scriptures you cite hold forth He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. it doth not say he that is baptized and believeth If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayst Not if thou shalt believe hereafter but if thou dost believe now It appertains to such who have Faith when baptized and it evidences such a Faith to the Person nay Faith is required of them before they are to be baptized And so saith the Church of England 3dly You say It is the Bond of Holiness 1 Pet. 3. 21. the Apostle exhorts the Christians to be dead unto Sin and alive unto Righteousness There is a Virtue in the Ordinances of God answerable to
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
fathering that on Christ which he never said nor intended When a King say you by his Charter or publick Writing sets at liberty the Inhabitants of some Town are not the Children Partakers of the Charter altho their Names be not particularly in it So it is here the King of Heaven is through the Charter of the Gospel making of us that were Strangers and Foreigners to become Fellow-Citizens with the Saints Eph. 2. 19. and to that end commanding to receive all Nations through Baptism into the Liberty and Privileges of the City of God and will he not receive the Children into the Privileges of their Parents Answ I answer if it be so as you say in all National States Governments and Constitutions and Civil Societies what doth this prove touching the case in hand unless you dare undertake to affirm the Gospel-Church is National and not Congregational Doth the Constitution of the Spiritual Gospel-Church run as in Human and National Constitutions Prove it for I utterly deny it Besides if your Infants as such are Fellow-Citizens with the Saints and are to partake of all the Privileges of the City of God why do you deny them the Lord's-Supper your Similitude proves no more their right to Baptism to one Privilege than another I never yet could understand what Spiritual or Temporal Privileges any Infant receives in Baptism What good doth that do them that have not the Things signified in Baptism There are great Benefits received in such a Grant you speak of in an external Charter but as God hath not commanded Infants to be baptized so not any Benefits can be proved they receive thereby In this you argue as Mr. Burkit hath done before you Reader take his Similitude viz. I demand saith he whether according to the Mind of God gathered from the words of the Commission the Remedy prescribed should be administred only to grown Persons because they only are capable of understanding and believing the Virtue and Efficacy of it Sure every Rational Man among you would conclude his Child capable of the Remedy as well as himself altho ignorant of the Virtue that is in it and only passive in the Administration of it and that it would be Cruelty yea Murder in the Parent to deny the Application of it to all his Children Reply I stand amazed at such Ignorance and Folly Does it follow because Children are capable to receive a Medicine against the Plague or Bodily Distemper are they therefore capable of Baptism and the Lord's Supper If capable of one say I of the other also For as a Man is required to examine himself and to discern the Lord's Body in the Lord's Supper so he is required to repent and to believe in Christ that comes to Baptism I would know how they prove Baptism to be the Medicine appointed to cure the Soul of the Plague of Sin or as Mr. Owen says for their Salvation Is not this to blind the Eyes of the poor People and make them think that an external Ordinance saves the Soul if not thus how can it be Cruelty yea Murder in Parents to deny the Application of Baptism to their Children as Mr. Burkit says The Antient Fathers from that in John 6. 53. Unless a Man eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood he hath no Life in him gave Infants the Lord's Supper thinking our Saviour like as the Papists do meant that Sacrament when indeed he meant only of seeding by Faith on Christ crucified But however their Argument for giving Infants one Sacrament was as good as yours for giving them the other But when they are as capable to repent and believe and are helped so to do as they are and do eat Bread or receive a Medicine for a Bodily Distemper let them have both Baptism and the Lord's-Supper and till then if God's Word be the Rule of our Faith and Practice and not our own Fancies they ought to have neither yet the Remedy or Medicine which is Christ's Blood we deny not but dying Infants may be capable of tho the way of its Application we know not as to them that is a Secret as to us You know the Church of England positively affirms Repentance whereby a Person for sakes Sin and Faith whereby he stedsastly believes the Promise of God made to him in that Sacrament are required of those that are to be baptized nay and of little Babes too therefore the Sureties answer for them that they do believe and repent or forsake the Devil and all his Works c. the Child answers by Proxy The Church of England baptizes no Child but as a Believer and a true Penitent Person All that are proper Subjects of Baptism are comprehended in the Commission and must be as such whether Adult or Infants who profess Faith and Repentance But you it may be foresaw the Snake in the Grass viz. That Godfathers and Godmothers is a Tradition and none of God's Appointment nor are they able to perform those things for the Child which they promise for him and in his Name And therefore make use of another Argument and would have them baptized without Faith or upon their Parents Faith of which the Church of England speaks nothing As to your Comparison it is not worth mentioning Baptism as I have told you doth not cure the Soul of Sin or save any Person but it 's the Blood of Christ applied by Faith Not that we say no Child can have the Benefit of that Soveraign Remedy because not capable to believe by reason Men and Women must receive it by Faith or perish God as Dr. Taylor observes may have many ways to magnify his Grace through Jesus Christ to them which we know not of who die in their Infancy yet have we no Authority to baptize them any more than to give them the Lord's-Supper Pedo-baptists talk at a strange rate as if they regarded not what they say or affirm while they bring Similitudes to teach People to believe Baptism is the Balm to cure the Contagion of Sin and as if the Application of it saved a little Babe from Hell and they guilty of murdering the Souls of their Children who deny to baptize them I had thought they would not have laid greater Stress upon Childrens Baptism than on Childrens Circumcision since they would fain have them run Parallel-wise Pray what became of the Jews Female Infants were they damned and what became of their Male Infants who died before eight days old for they broke God's Law if they circumcised them tho sick and like to die if they were not full eight days old Let such blush for the sake of their precious Souls and take more care for the time to come to what they write and preach I am grieved to see my blessed Master's great Commission thus inverted and abused Suppose the King should send you with a Commission into a remote Plantation and command you to act and do exactly according to the express
of be said to be holy as well as the Infidel or unbelieving Wife is said to be sanctified What is the difference between holy and sanctified Mr. Owen says If the Children of the Faithful are not Members of the Church of God then they are Members of the Kingdom of Satan who is the Prince of this World If they are without the Church what hopes of Salvation have they there is no Salvation out of the Church Rom. 9. 4. Answ 1. I hope my Antagonist is a Protestant but I must assure my Reader he here maintains a Popish Doctrine which all our worthy Protestant Divines have protested against How is there no Salvation out of the Visible Church God forbid I doubt not but there are many gracious Persons who shall be certainly saved and who do truly believe in Christ that are not Members of any true Gospel Church Will you exclude all from Salvation that are not Members of your Church I cannot think you own the Church of England to be a true Gospel-Church and will you exclude all that are of that Communion from the Kingdom of Heaven 2. But as to Infants they are born Children of Wrath and actually in Satan's Kingdom till God is pleased to sanctify them and those who die in Infancy that are saved no doubt he doth sanctify their unclean Nature but not such as live and remain in Satan's Kingdom until they are regenerated by the Word and Spirit of God after they are grown up to Understanding 3. Therefore some Infants may be Members of the Invisiole Church or Mystical Body of Christ tho not Members of the Visible Church and of this sort there may be among the Children of Unbelievers as well as among the Children of Believers for the Election of Grace runs not only to the Seed of the Faithful say what you please as I said before 4. Therefore you do not well to call Children Dogs if they are not in the Pale of the Visible Church You say the Promises are the Inheritance of the Church not to those that are without and therefore say you if the Children be without they are among Dogs and what Promise belongs to them Rev. 22. 15. and where there is no Promise there is no hope of Salvation c. Answ 1. I answer the Promise runs to Christ and all that the Father hath given him but we do not know who they are until they believe 2. The Promises are not the Inheritance of all that are Members of the Visible Church for they may not belong to some that are in it and they may belong to some others that are not in it You darken Counsel with Words without Knowledg For 1. You distinguish not between the Visible and Invisible Church 2. Also you distinguish not between who are the Lord 's decretively and who are his actually 3. Moreover you distinguish not between external Privileges and true internal spiritual Privileges No external Privileges or outward Church-Membership gives any Man a Right to Salvation nor puts him under the Promise thereof 3. There is hope and ground of hope touching the Salvation of dying Infants tho they are not in Gospel-times of the Visible Church because Christ saith of such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven But pray Sir take heed of what you say You cannot prove that our blessed Saviour spake those words only with reference to the Children of Believers I know no cause why unbelieving Parents should doubt of the Salvation of their dying Infants They may so far as I see have as much ground to hope God's Election may reach their dying Infants as any Believer can have it may reach to theirs What if I should exercise so much Charity as to hope that God hath comprehended in his electing Love all the dying Infants both of Believers and Unbelievers and that through the Blood and Merits of Christ they are sanctified and shall be all saved My Opinion were it so could not justly be condemned by any but I say secret things belong to God and I shall forbear to pass any Judgment in the case but leave it to God but I am sure no Child shall be damned for the Parent 's Fault Can Parents by baptizing their Infants save them Or are they Dogs and must be damned if their Parents baptize them not and dare not do it because Christ hath not commanded them to baptize them 4. Sir what if a Man and his Wife when they were both vile and ungodly People as bad as any that live on Earth should beget many Children and afterwards they both believe and become good Christians is the State of those Children begotten when they believed good and they holy and are the Children they had when they were vile and wicked Persons bad nay so bad as they are to be counted Dogs O that God would open your Eves Nay if it were as you intimate it may be queried Whether it be not a sinful a wicked and an unlawful thing for two ungodly unbelieving unfaithful Persons to marry since they can beget no Children but such as you call Dogs for you will not say their Children are holy or ought to be baptized nor are in the Pale of the Church But to conclude with this Chapter let me speak a word to you that are Believers and also a word to you that are Unbelievers and I shall pass to the next Argument 1. To you that are Believers and have Children if they are holy and Heirs of Heaven as they are begotten and born of your Bodies as Mr. Owen and other Pedobaptists assert then you need not trouble your Thoughts about your dying Infants tho they are not baptized for 't is not Baptism makes them holy by Mr. Owen's Concession but because they are your Children 't is by your Faith they are holy as he blindly supposes 2. And since Baptism doth not belong to them Christ no where having commanded you to baptize them nor can it add any thing to their Salvation I charge you in the Fear of God baptize them not 3. But do not believe Mr. Owen nor any other Man in what he says unless he can prove it from God's Word I tell you from Christ's own Words you have ground of hope touching the State of your dying Infants but not because they are your Children but because of such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven and they may be in God's eternal Election of Grace For as Dr. Taylor saith and I mentioned before God may have many ways to apply the Blood of Christ to save and sanctify dying Infants which we know not of but we are not any more required to haptize them or to give them one Sacrament than we are required to give them the other viz. the Lord's-Supper and this he will one day know to be a Truth tho now he sees it not O! saith Mr. Owen cast them not out from the Church of God out of the Covenant of Salvation they are your dear Children Children of your
was no Ordinance of God but a meer Human Tradition But the Custom â—…ng the Jews of baptizing the Heathen and their Children 〈◊〉 were admitted into their Church was never Commâ—… of God nor any where given unto them by Moses who was faithful in all his House Ergo That Custom was no Ordinance of God but a meer Human Tradition Lastly Take what a VVorthy and Learned Author hath said in Confutation of this foolish and absurd Argument for Pedo bâ—ptism 't is Sir Norton Knatchbul Kt. and Baronet The Thing saith he is uncertain that it cannot be said of the Râ—bbins that there were not several among them who differed very much about this matter for Rabbi Eliâ—zar expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first that I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews for Rabbi Eliezar who was Contemporary with Raâ—bi Joshua if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte Circumcised and not Baptized was a true Proselyte for so we read of the Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Jacob that they were Circumcised but not Baptized But Rabbi Joshua affirms that he who was Baptized not he that was Circumcised was a true Proselyte To whom shall I give Credit to Eliezar who asserts what the Scripture confirms or to Joshua who aâ—…ms what is no where to be found in Scripture But the Rabbins upheld Joshua's Side and what Wonder was it For it made for their Business that is for the Honour of the Jewish Religion that the Christians should borrow their Ceremonies from them But when I see Men of great Learning in these Times fetching the Foundations of Truth from the Rabbins I cannot but heâ—…ate a little For whence was the Talmud sent as they are the Words of Buxtors in his Synagoga Judaica that we should give Credit thereto that from thence we should believe that the Law of Moses either can or ought to be understood Much less the Gospel to which they were profess'd Enemies For the Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors and the Foundation of Jewish Fables it was brought to Perfection and held for authentick five hundred Years after Christ Therefore it is unreasonable to rest upon the Testimony of it And that which moves me most Josephus to omit all the Fathers that lived before the Talmud was finished who was a Jew and a Contemporary with Rabbi Eliezar who also wrote in particular of the Rites Customs and Acts of the Jews is altogether silent in this Matter So that it is an Argument to me next to a Demonstration that two such Eminent Persons both Jews and living at the same Time the one should positively deny and the other make no mention of Baptism among the Jews Besides if Baptism in the Modern Sense were in use among the Jews in Antient Times why did the Pharisees ask John Baptist Why dost thou baptize if thou art not Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet Do they not plainly intimate that Baptism was not in use before and that it was a received Opinion among them that there should be no Baptism till either Christ or Elias or that Prophet came So far Sir Norton Knatchbull in his Notes printed at Oxford Anno Dom. 1677. with the Licence of the Vice-Chancellor a very Learned Man and a Son of the Church of England Sir What think you now of your Jewish Custom of baptizing the Heathens and their Children who were admitted to their Church Do you think there was not need that Infant-Baptism should be mentioned in the Holy Scripture had it been a Truth Is this uncertain Story of the Jewish Custom sufficient for you to build your Faith and Practice upon when the Truth of the Story as to Matter of Fact may justly be doubted But if it was true it is but a rotten Foundation to build one of the great Sacraments of Christ upon viz. a vile profane and Human Tradition of the Jewish Rabbins You say The Israelites and their Children were baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea 1 Cor. 10. 2 3. That Israel going under the Cloud and through the Sea that was say you a Baptism unto them The Cloud rained upon them and the Sea dropped upon them which was as a High Wall round about them 2. This Baptism under the Cloud and in the Sea signifyeth in its Essence the same thing with the Baptism of the Gospel viz. the Lord Jesus Christ and his Blessings The Spiritual Washings in the Sea and the Spiritual Drink from the Rock signified the same thing even Christ he was the Substance of all the Types under the Law The Pillar of Cloud and the Pillar of Fire did foreshew the Baptism of Water and the Baptism of Fire or of the Holy Spirit the falling of the Water from the Cloud signified the pouring of the Holy Ghost c. 3. The Children were baptized with their Parents with the Baptism of Moses they were all baptized unto Moses c. Answer Two Things are to be done to disprove what you say here 1. That the Rain falling from the Cloud was not that which was the Figure of Baptism 2. That this Text doth not prove Infants to be the Subject of Baptism First If Persons may be said to be baptized when it rains upon them How many times have you and I been so baptized Besides Do you think it never rained upon the â—…ites before they passed through the Sea And Secondly Prove if you can it did then either rain upon them from the Cloud or that the Sea dropped upon them 't is but your own ungrounded Supposition Thirdly Prove that Rain falling upon them can in any Sense be called a Washing or Baptism Therefore let the Reader consider well what our Annotators speak on this Place see Mr. Pool's Annotations on 〈◊〉 Cor. 10. 2 3. Others saith he more probably think that the Apostle useth this Term in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptism as it was then used the Persons baptized going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea that great Receptacle of Water though the Water at that time was gathered on Heaps on either side of them yet they seemed buried in the Water as Persons in that Age were when baptized Thus spake your Brethren who compleated Mr. Pool's Annotations They tell you in what Sense the Fathers were said to be baptized unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud Here is nothing of sprinkling pouring or raining on them but they were as it were buried in the Sea and under the Cloud and so it represents Immersion or Dipping which is Christ's true Baptism We are buried not sprinkled with Christ in Baptism both in the Sign and also in Signification to shew he was dead buried and rose again for us and that we are dead to Sin and ought to walk in Newness of Life But do not mistake the Fathers being said to be baptized to Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud was
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-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
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
it is not denyed but that Infant Baptism was received in the Church in the third and fourth Century with many other Fopperies but that doth him no kindness the Church was adulterated from the true Apostolical Faith and Practice in many Respects in those and after times downwards His fourth Demonstration is this viz. If it was a gross Error in the Primitive Fathers to admit Infants to Baptism then they in suffering such an Error to pass uncensured and uncondemned were guilty of the greatest Impiety c. Answ What then I ask him and you or any other of our Opposers whether ye do not believe for several Centuries those Fathers who admitted Infants to the Lord's Supper without censuring or condemning it were not guilty also of as great Impurity Besides did not the same Fathers hold other Errors See Mr. Perkins Demonst of the Problem pag. 488. These are his Words viz. And whereas some Fathers viz. Ireneus Justin Clement Tertullian held that the Law of Nature had power to save the Gentiles without Christ And again he saith The Fathers have Errors yea and sometimes gross ones Doth not History tell us the Fathers used other Rites also and that in Baptism See Perkins p. 549. The Fathers saith he used some other Rites and Ceremonies which are now omitted as Kissing of the Child which was baptized in Cyprian l. 3. ep 8. use of Milk and Honey use of Milk and Wine Hierom in Is c. 55. It was an use for the Baptizer to blow in the Face of the Baptized and the Party baptized used to Exuffiate the Devil whom he renounced What Credit is to be given to such Fathers Mr. Owen saith That Infant-Baptism was so generally in the Church of God that the Pelagians could not deny it tho they denied Original Sin against the which it was a Medicine And that Bernard who lived between the Year 1091 and the Year 1153 declareth it was the Practice of the Church in those Ages Answ We deny not but readily grant that the Baptism of Infants was in the Church long before that time And remarkable 't is that about 1091 or 1100 Popish Darkness was at its greatest height And was it any wonder those Fathers gave Baptism to Infants when it was the Practice of those times before Bernard to give Infants the Lord's Supper also as well as Baptism Which Mr. Owen knows well enough if he hath read any thing of History 2. Bernard Mr. Owen saith Censur'd those who opposed Infant-Baptism c. 1. From whence it appears there were some Christians who opposed Infant-Baptism even in the darkest time of Popery 2. What Wonder is it to hear that such in those corrupt times who deny'd Infant-Baptism were censured when we who do deny it now are so unrighteously censured by you and your Brethren notwithstanding such clear Light in these days is broken forth Mr. Owen also endeavoureth to prove that the Waldenses were for Infant-Baptism And he seems to charge Mr. Tombs and Mr. Danvers for asserting the contrary Answ To which I answer I see no reason why he should condemn Mr. Tombs or Mr. Danvers in this matter for according to some Histories it appears that the Antient Waldenses and Albigenses as also the Antient Britains were for the Baptizing of Believers see D. Balthazar Lidius in his History of the Church p. 2. col 2. out of Renarius and G. Bildas in his Book called De Historia Aurelii Ambrosii And the Learned Usher in his Book of the State of the Christian Church as Mr. Danvers observes p. 237. shews that they desended Believers-Baptism in opposition to that of Infants see Moreland Book 1. c. 4. p. 67. yet no doubt but some of the Waldenses might be for Infant-Baptism Yet Mr. Owen confesseth that Bernard acknowledgeth that History doth speak of the Waldenses denying Infant-Baptism tho he would fain have it from what the said Bernard saith to be a Slander cast upon them by their Enemies the Papists Let it be how it will concerning them know Noble Britains that we build not our Faith about Baptism upon the Practice and Custom of Men Fathers General Councils Protestant Reformers or Churches but upon the Word of God To conclude with this Argument From hence we infer that the practice of the Church under the Romish Apostacy of Infant-Baptism in every Age since the first Centuries unto these Times is no good Proof for it What tho Calvis and Luther two famous Protestant Reformers and many other Modern Divines were and many Godly and Learned Men are now for this Tradition Must it be therefore a Truth Must our Faith stand in the Wisdom of Men in this matter or in the Power of God and in the Authority of his Sacred Word Our first Protestant Reformers were raised up to restore those Grand Fundamentals of Faith more than to reform Matters of Discipline and about this Rite of Infant-Baptism and some other Ceremonies The Path of the Just is as a shining Light that shines more and more to the perfect Day Prov. 4. 18. You Hint that not one questioned the Privilege of Children to Baptism until the Adversary came while Men slept and sowed Tares among the Wheat Answ Sir you mistake it was while Men slept that the Enemy first sowed the evil Seed of Babes-Baptism in the Church Moreover the Baptism of Believers in opposition to Infant-Baptism I have proved is no part of those Tares the Adversary hath sowed but it is Seed which Jesus Christ himself sowed or 't is I mean his own holy Institution You tell us a Story of one John Smith a Minister of the Church of England who went into Holland and united with the Church of one Mr. Ainsworth and in the end being cast out of the Church he baptized himself and theâ— rebaptized others Answ I could tell you of many evil and foul things and practices done by some Presbyterians but should I brand the whole Brotherhood from thence Do you not shew an evil and detracting Tongue by casting such Odiums upon the whole Body of gracious Christians falsly called Anabaptists For we are not for Rebaptizing or Baptizing again such who have been truly and rightly Baptized that were the proper Subjects of that holy Ordinance 2. But may be this may be a false Story too and wrote in prejudice by such who loved not the practice of baptizing of Believers nor the People who so practise For what need had he to baptize himself were there none called Anabaptists in Holland nor Germany before that time 't is much we have not the Munster Story of John of Leydon I perceive you have malice enough against us the Lord give you Repentance if it be his Will CHAP. XVIII Shewing that Infant Baptism is no excellent way or means to plant the Christian Religion but a sinful thing and therefore in opposition to what Mr. James Owen saith They ought not to be baptized being an Answer to what he hath wrote in his 15th Chapter
and twelfth and last Argument YOU say Infant Baptism is an excellent means which God hath ordained for to plant and continue the Church of God Christ thus commanded his Apostles to gather Churches among the Gentiles by teaching and baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. Mat. 28. 29. Answ I answer The way it appears that Christ commanded his Apostles to gather Churches among the Gentiles is first to teach them and then baptize them you say right whilst you repeat the Text but God hath not commanded to baptize Infants and that way to plant his Church You add It is an excellent means for this end making Children to be Disciples of Christ let none marvel at this because Infants are of the number of Disciples Acts 15. 11. Why tempt ye God to put a yoke on the necks of the Disciples Those Disciples were say you the Faithful and their Seed Answ This is not true The Disciples in the Text you cite refer only to Believers among the Gentiles those false Teachers would have the Brethren be circumcised and they were they only that are called Disciples These Brethren being Gentiles were never circumcised and therefore these false Teachers taught them so to be see Acts 15. 1. 2. Sir I will appeal to your Conscience in this matter Is not a Disciple one that is taught or instructed and can Infants be called Disciples who are not capable of being taught Mr. Baxter saith Such that are made Disciples by teaching are the Subjects of Baptism according to the Commission and he is in the right 3. Doth the baptizing of Infants make them Disciples Doth Christ say baptize and so make them Disciples Or is it not make Disciples and baptize them Mathetusate disciplize and then it follows baptize them You say Christ knoweth how to administer a secret Doctrine to Infants according to his promise Thy Children shall be all taught of the Lord. Answ 1. No doubt but Christ is able to do it But doth he in a secret way administer Instruction to Infants prove it and also how you come to know it for they must be known Disciples visible Disciples that are to be baptized 2. Are they little Infants that Promise refers to i. e. Thy Children shall be all taught of God They are Sion's Children or such that are born of God that are under that Promise not Infants or our Children as such for are all Believers natural Offspring taught of God when Babes or adult either O abominable abuse of the holy Text Baptism say you setteth little Children under a particular obligation to be the Lord's doubtless they can receive such an obligation now as formerly they did Deut. 29. 11 12. And it is as certain that this Bond is a great advantage to make them willing when they come to age God hath presented them by the Grace of his Covenant c. Answ 1. 'T is you pretend to lay them under an obligation but not by Christ's authority prove he hath commanded you so to do 2. Doth Baptism confer Grace you seem to assert this for else how hath God by Baptism prevented them Your sprinkling them with water doth not cannot prevent them I affirm therefore 't is an obligation of man's devising for you cannot prove it is of God's appointment therefore to refuse to bring them under such an obligation is no fantastick thing as you intimate it is You say the mark of the Spirit is upon them Answ Baptism is no mark of the Spirit to any but to such who have the Spirit and what a Mock-Baptism is it to give the Sign where appears no demonstration of the thing thereby signified You say on the other side Satan hath not such an advantage against those that are baptized in their Infancy Answ How doth it appear that Satan hath not such an advantage against your Children as he hath against ours that were never baptized as you call Rantism I am sure our Children generally are as sober and helped to escape Satan's snares as far forth as yours generally are VVill God own or bless an humane Tradition The Woman that Luther mentioned no doubt might think she was obliged to fear God by that sort of Baptism she had when she was an Infant yet God never obliged her to come under that obligation but may be she was baptized when a Believer However the Papists may argue for their voluntary Vows after the same manner viz. it is a great help and an advantage to them to preserve them from sin and temptations of the Devil Infant-Baptism is an excellent means you say to plant the true Religion and to continue the Church by giving an advantage for the Ministers of the Gospel to reason with such when they come to age far better than they can with those that are not baptized that they might call them to remembrance of their baptismal Vow c. Answ This is certainly a grand mistake for instead of its being an advantage to Ministers to reason with such that were baptized in their Infancy to remember their baptismal Vow and so to believe and turn to God 't is apparent it may â—inder them for if those persons when grown up do call to remembrance what you Pedobaptists have taught and told them touching those Blessings and Privileges they then received it may rather take them off from seeking after either Faith or Repentance 1. For you tell them when their Parents believed and were saved they were made partakers of the same Privilege and Blessing also if so what need they concern themselves about getting personal Faith you believe and teach them the Doctrine of final Perseverance no doubt such who are in a state of Grace can never finally fall out of it 2. The Obligation and Vow that lies upon baptized persons according to the Scripture is not that they seek after Regeneration no for it necessarily supposeth that they had that before baptized but it doth bind or oblige them to persevere in Holiness that as they have been buried in Baptism as persons dead to sin so they should walk in newness of life Rom. 6. 3 4. Now you would have your Baptism to oblige your baptized Children to become dead to sin they were not it appears dead when buried with Christ in Baptism but you bury them alive if you baptized them To shew them they must die Sir God never ordained Baptism to such an end or to oblige persons thus to do see Rom. 6. 3. 4 5 6 7 8. Col. 1. 12 13. 3. The Church of England saith That the Child which they baptize is thereby that is in Baptism regenerated and made a Child of God a Member of Christ and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven And what you say implies as much for it must needs be thus if when the Parents believe and are regenerated and saved the Child partakes of the same privilege then the Child believed and was regenerated and saved also Now if this be so what
untill we become Adult Persons and do believe in him he hath left us an Example how we should follow his steps Mr. Owen brings in his Fifth Objection against his Doctrine and practice of Infant Baptism viz. If Infant Baptism belongs to Infants why do not you give them the Lords Supper Take his answer Because saith he the Apostle Commands those that receive the Lords Supper to examine themselves and to discern the Body of the Lord which little Children cannot do Answ I answer And as the Apostle Commands all that receive the Lords Supper to examine themselves and to discern the Lords Body so likewise John Baptist the Lord Jesus and his Apostles too Commanded all that received baptism to believe and repent and to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance which little Babes cannot do Repent and be Baptized every one of you Acts 2. 37. If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayest Acts 8. 37. that is be baptized 2. You say Baptism is the Sacrament of our Regeneration and of our Admission into the Church of God the Lord's Supper is a Sacrament of our Growth and Spiritual Food 1. I answer this quite overthrows your Infant Baptism unless you Presbyterians do believe as the Church of England doth or at leastwise what they affirm viz. that Baptism doth regenerate the Child is Baptism an Ordinance or Sacrament of Regeneration i. e. to regenerate Persons or to hold forth that regeneration or the New Birth is wrought in such that are baptized why then do you baptize Infants who are not the Subjects of Regeneration Can they die to Sin and are they raised up out of the Water new Born Creatures to walk in newness of Life 2. If your Infants are new born or born again by Baptism no doubt the Food of the new Creature viz. the Lord's Supper ought to be given to them The first Sacrament holds forth 't is clear a Person born again or a Babe of Grace the other is Food fit and proper for that New born or Regenerated Person that he may grow thereby therefore they belong both to one and the same Subjects and neither of them it appears from hence do belong to Infants but 3. Are all the Infants that you baptize let in as Members of your Church are they absolutely Members of your Congregations as having the Ordinance of Admission is the Door of God's House opened to them How can you then say I deny them the priviledge of true and lawful Members shall your little Members your Lambs in Christ's Fold being New Born be starved what shall the regenerated Babe not be fed with the Food of their Fathers House 4. But if thus what number of Members have you in your Churches that have not their Names in your Church-book nor perhaps never looked after when grown up nor cast out though prophane and Wicked for do you cast out or exclude all such Children you baptized when grown up if not what polluted Churches are yours Infant Baptism was doubtless contrived to encrease National Churches or to make national Churches and it doth tend indeed to increase and continue that Christian Religion that is in Name only and not in Power you have its true in England by meer necessity lost your National Constitution and are become Congregational whether you will or no but Infant Baptism will not accord with a congregation Constitution nor do such Churches so constituted that are for Infant Baptism own their Babes to be proper and true Members of their Churches so far as I can learn what then signifies your Sacrament of Admission if they are not in truth admitted and owned as Members and allowed the Food and Priviledges of such 3. You say it was formerly though Circumcision belonged to Infants yet the Paschal Lamb belonged not but to the Adult Answ I answer this is denyed prove if you can that the little Children in the Jewish Church were not admitted to eat of the Passover it is positively said Exod. 12. 34. That the whole House were to eat thereof even a Lamb for an House and I find a great Writer asserting the same thing that little Children did eat thereof they were to bring their Children once or twice a Year before the Lord and I see no ground you have to say that none but Adult Persons did eat thereof 2. But let that be as it will that which was or might be the right of Jewish Church-Members or not their right is no rule for us in the Gospel Church as I have sufficiently prov'd and besure all baptized Persons who are regular Members of a Gospel Church cannot be denyed the Lord's Supper without Sin So much to your Answers to our Objections you might might have brought twice as many more CHAP. XX. In Answer to Mr. James Owen's 17 Chapter wherein the Antipedo Baptists are cleared of those foul Charges he hath cast upon them and 't is proved that to deny Infant Baptism is no Sin nor are those guilty of Murther nor Adultery that baptize or dip Men and Women in Water in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit as Mr. Owen charges them but contrariwise it is proved that to Baptize or Rantize Infants is an unlawful Practise and very Sinful YOU say you shall demonstrate in this Chapter how great the Sin is of those that are tempted to deny the Baptism which they receive in their Infancy and that suffer themselves to be baptized again there are many People that know not the nature of their first Baptism and are perverted to renounce it thinking that they do please God in so doing but they fall into Temptation and the Snares of the Devil who is the Author of Errors and Father of falshood Answ I hope by this time the Reader may discern how great an error 't is to call Rantism or Sprinkling Baptizing and that Infant Baptism is also an error being a meer human innovation this I have prov'd and theresore 't is so far from being a Sin to disown it and cast it away that it is every good Christians Duty so to do that would in all things walk by the rule of God's Word And for Mr. Owen to charge our People after this manner as if we were perverted and insnared by the Devil in denying our Infants Baptism is just as the Papists used to charge the Protestants that disowned the human Traditions and the vain Fopperies of their rotten Church and thunder'd out their Bulls against them 1 You say they are guilty of great Sin insomuch that they neglect to make a right use of their first Baptism Infant Baptism putteth them under continual Vow to the Lord and they are bound to renew their Vows to take the Lord to be a God unto them as soon as they come to age Answ 'T is true you brought them under an Obligation or a Vow to take the Lord to be their God in their Infancy but why did you do it unless you had any Warrant or
to cover all their nakedness even Hands and Feet also if it be needful sure Sir you must suppose somewhat of this kind or there is no room left for you to cast contempt and reproach upon the Ordinance it self but to blame the people they do not provide convenient Garments on purpose that so they may not commit Adultery when they come to be Baptized 4. Sir had you seen our People baptized you had not been guilty of bearing false witness the Second time Reader pray take notice that we provide comely Cloaths for the Administer both from Head to Foot and our Men also that are baptized have Cloaths provided for them and for the Women Gowns and Petty-coats are made on purpose and they go into the water drest more decently perhaps then many Women come into Christian assemblies therefore this is a most unworthy Charge Mr. Owen casts upon us tho' he doth but follow the steps of Dr. Featly and Mr. B. but 't is worse in him at this time of the Day then in them then because our use and practice here is now more generally known And these things being so how can we in Dipping or Baptizing of Women be guilty of Adultery or any of the Spectators Can't you take a Woman dressed in modest and decent Cloaths by the Hand without having an unclean thought in your Heart you may as well charge some Tradesmen in the Exercise of their Trades with Adultery indeed did we as Mr. B. once falsly said baptize Women naked or as you say near or half naked which are both notorious untruths there might have been some colour for what you say but if there be need to Dip the whole Body say you as they say there is what rule have they in the Scripture to baptize the Cloaths with the Body the few Cloaths they have about them are dipped before the Body is dipped 1. Answ All Men may perceive of what a contentious contradicting quarelsome Spirit you are of one while you strive to expose Christ's Sacred Ordinance to reproach and us with it as if we baptized Persons naked and then presently seem to allow that we do not so but that they whom we baptize have Cloaths on but now the Cloaths are baptized and then ask what Scripture we have for this 2. 'T is enough Christ Commanded Dipping in his Name and we are required to do all things decently 'T is no matter so that the Body is buried in the Water 't is not the Cloaths that we say we baptize but the Person Christs Ordinance of Baptism in one essential part lies in the words of Administration Do you never Sprinkle some drops of Water on the Child 's Fine dresses if you should what doth that signifie you have wrote hard words and Christ is coming to convince all of their ungodly deeds and of all their hard Speeches spoken against him Jude 15. I pray God this Sin be not laid to your Charge Thus I have been helped to take off that reproach and vile slanders cast upon the baptizing Believers and have proved it is not re-baptization therefore let Mr. Owen cast of his slanderous clamarous Pen and Infants Rhantism and repent and return to the Baptism which Christ Instituted and left in his Church to the end of the World and now to make appear the evil and sinfulness of Infant Baptism take what follows which I have transcribed out of my answer to Mr. Burkitt's Book that he wrote for the Baptizing of Children two or three years since CHAP. XXI Shewing that there is no Blessing to be expected in Baptizing Infants but rather the displeasure of the Jealous God demonstrating contrarywise to what Mr. James Owen hath said also Mr. Burkit and Mr. Daniel Williams and all other pedobaptists that it is avery sinful and an unlawful practice AS Mr. Owen hath laboured in vain to shew the usefulness of Infant Baptism so Mr. Burkit a Learned Minister of the Church of England who in his late Treatise for Infant Baptism also did see page 35 36 37 38. of his Book 1. Mr. Burkitt saith Children are hereby Interested in all the prayers of the Church 1. Answ If you pray for them as Members of the visible Church what ground have you so to do from Gods word since God in the Gospel times had not made them Members thereof 2. Can't we pray for our Children tho' as yet they are not Members that they may become Members thereof 2. He saith by vertue of this admission they have interest in the special providence of God Answ No doubt but God doth exercise his special Care and Providence over all Elect Infants but not the more for your baptizing them without his authority or Command much less Infants of Believers as such 3. He says Hereby the Church stands nearer to them then to the rest of mankind c. mentioning that Text Ifa 54. 13. Thy Children shall be all taught of God 1. Answ Neither you nor Mr. Burkitt nor any pedobaptists in the World can bring Infants nearer to God nor his Church by any act done by you without any rule left by Christ 2. Does that Text Isa 54. 13. refer to Infants of Believers as such or to those godly and new re-born Children who being born in sin are indeed her Spiritual Children 4. He saith Irfant Baptism is an act of Dedication c. Answ Who commanded you this way to Dedicate your Children to the Lord Will you Teach the Almighty or are you wiser than he Doth he in his word require you so to do 2. May not the Papists say as well that those Persons they bring under their voluntary Vows are thereby Dedicated unto God 5. Mr. Burkitt saith 'T is great advantage to Infants as 't is an Act of restipulation that is saith he a Child at baptism enters into Covenant with God Answ I answer Poor Babes 't is without their knowledge and consent or God's appointment which is worst of all or they being able to perform it then nor many of them ever after God never giving them his Grace so to do But wo to them if they do not perform this Covenant if Mr. Burkitt and Mr. Daniel Williams say true he says in his Catechism as followeth That those Children who perform not their Baptismal Covenant do 1. They reject Christ 2d They renounce the Blessings of the Gospel 3dly that 't is Rebellion against their Maker 4thly That 't is ingratitude and perjury against their Redeemer 5thly Gross injustice to their Parents 6thly That 't is self-killing Cruelty to their own Souls 7thly 'T is he saith a damning Sin nay it s the heart of all Sin Is this indeed the love you Pedo-baptists have to your poor Infants What bring them into such a Covenant without their knowledge and consent or God's appointment and then threaten them if they break it with Hell and Damnation and what not Do you know they are all Elect Persons and so such that God will
for I challenge you and all pedobaptists in the World to prove God hath any where directly or indirectly required any such thing at your Hands 2. Consider that 't is not only a reformation of Life or a bare refraining from the gross acts of sin that you assert is comprehended in this Baptismal Covenant you cause Infants to enter into but it is Regeneration it self i. e. a change of Heart and savingly to believe in Christ this you oblige your poor Babes to perform Now what Arminianism is here fomented if once you say or think they are capable to perform this Obligation but if they do not do it wo be to them Moreover what guilt do those of the Church of England bring their poor Sureties under unless they stand obliged no longer then the Child abides in Infancy and if so what need of their Obligation at all if they intend no more 3. Consider you brought them into this Covenant without their knowledge and conseâ—t they never subscribed to it nor knew any thing of it nor were they capable so to do 4. Consider that whatsoever you think that such is the pravity of their natures by means of our first Apostacy from God or Original 〈◊〉 that they do and must of necessity break it as I 〈◊〉 before unless God should by supernatural Grace change their Hearts and Nature and remove the vicious habits thereof which you had not the least ground to believe he would do or leastwise to all or the greatest part of them God having made no such promise and by woful experience we daily see many or most of those Children are never converted but from the Womb go astray and are guilty of almost all manner of abominable sins and so live and dye As to the Adult 1. Consider as I said before 1. That all Believers God himself doth require or Command in his Word to enter into this Baptismal Covenant 2. And they before they enter into it have a principle of divine life infused into their Soul or Grace implanted in their Hearts having passed under the work of Regeneration being dead to Siâ— of which Baptism is a lively Symboll or is as your Church says an outward sign of an inward spiritual Grace Not as Mr. Baxter observes a Sign or Simbol of future but of present Regeneration which is confirmed by what St. Paul Teaches Rom. 6. 3 4. 2. How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein not may be dead but are dead and so Buried with Christ in Baptism verse 3. 4. If you say all Adult Persons Baptized are not Converted I answer they appear so to be and as such voluntarily enter into this Covenant Besides God does not require them without Faith to do it Baptism doth not only represent the Death and Burial of Christ but also signifies our Death to Sin or that Blessed work of Mortification or the remainder of the Body of Sin and Death by which means Believers who enter into this Baptismal Covenant are putinto a Gracious and Meet Capacity to perform that Sacred Obligation but so are not Infants 3. That every true believer baptized considers ponders upon and weighs with all seriousness and deliberation Imaginable the nature of this Covenant before he Signs it And 4. That he doth it freely and voluntarily and with his full liking approbation and Consent neither of which do nor can do those poor Infants you force to enter into this Covenant These things consider'd it appears as it is a sinful Act in you to bring them into this Covenant since 't is done without Command or Authority from God so 't is cruelty also towards your own Babes by making them to become guilty of Perjury and thereby damning as Mr. Williams says their own Souls 5. Consider every true Believer that is listed under Christ's Banner by entring into this Baptismal Covenant is by Christ compleatly armed i. e. he hath the Christian Armour put upon him Ephes. 6. He hath the Brest-plate of Righteousness the Shield of Faith and for a Helmet the hope of Salvation and the Word of God like a Sword in his Hand to cut down all his Enemies Thus by the help of these Sacred Graces of the Spirit he is enabled to fight against Sin the World the Flesh and the Devil But alas you list your poor Babes into this War and make them Covenant and Vow to forsake the Devil and all his Works the Pomps and Vanities of this wicked World and all the sinful lusts of the Flesh but Arm them not Did Baptism confer Grace and Arm their Souls it was something but who dares assert that Or if he does who will or can believe him 6. God hath also promised to assist stand by help and enable all Believers Baptized with farther supplies of Grace nay they being actually United to Christ have his blessed influencies flowing to them besides the promises of God the Death Resurrection and Intercession of Christ and the everlasting Covenant of Grace which is ordered in all things and sure firmly secures all their Souls But thus it is not with those poor Babes you bring into this Covenant You are like Pharoabs Task-masters Command the making Bricks but allow them no Straw 4. Again consider how hereby great part of the Nations are perjur'd I will appeal to the Consciences of all thinking and understanding People whether according to your principle and practice it is not so Mourn O England and lament sad is thy Case If these Men speak right or truly what a multitude in thee have been made to enter into this Covenant who never performed it O Perjur'd Nation Perjur'd People and Perjur'd Pastors for so are all thy Debauched Drunken Swearing and unclean Teachers are not these Perjur'd also Have they kept their Vow and Covenant Alas instead of Mourning for this Sin we may conclude they never thought of it But let them break off their sins by Righteousness I mean repent and leave those gross acts of Wickedness of which many both Priests and People are guilty and get renewing Grace and never let them fear this new devised sin of Perjury For if God's Word convinces of all Sins and doth not convince of this sort of Perjury this is no Perjury I mean the simple breaking of that Covenant tho' those sins by which they are said to break it are horrid Treason and Rebellion against the God of Heaven and provoke him to wrath every day But God's word doth convince of all Sin but doth not convince of this sort of Perjury as is affirmed 'T is not this which is the Self killing Murther the damnable Sin No no but 't is their unbelief and contempt of God's Grace or neglecting the great Salvation offer'd unto us by Christ in the Gospel 5. Baptism administred in Infancy hath saith Mr. Burkitt this singular advantage above that which is administred at riper Age in that it gives the pious Parent a good Ground and Hope that his Children
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
Whether there is any Covenant appointed by Christ for Infants to enter into unto which no promise is made of assistance to perform it nor Blessing promised if it be kept nor one threatning if cast off and disowned 13. What should be the reason that our Translators of the Holy Bible should leave the Greek word Baptism or Baptisma untranslated seeing the Dutch have not done so but contrarywise Translate for John Baptist John the Dipper and for he Baptized them he Dipped them The Athenian Society answer They are the best Judges themselves and if we can understand them 't is enough Reply No tho' the Learned in the Greek do know what the word Baptizo and Baptisma is yet the unlearned in that Tongue do not know that it is to Dip or Immersion â—…refore 't is not enough 14. Whither such who have been Sprinkled ought not to be deemed unbaptized Persons since asperson is not Immersion or Rantizing not Baptizing seeing the Greek word signifies to Dip and tho' sometimes to Wash yet such a Washing as is by Dipping as the Learned confess To this they say Those that doubt may be of the surer side 15. Whither the Ancient Church who gave the Lords Supper to Infants as well as baptism might not be allowed to do the one as the other since Faith and Holy Habits yea to believe with all the Heart is required of them that are to be Baptized as Faith Examination and to discern the Lord's Body is required of them that partake of the Lord's Supper and since also all that were baptized into the Apostolick Church were immeditely admitted to the Lord's Supper and also seeing the arguments taken from the Covenant and because Children are said to be Holy and belong to the Kingdom of Heaven are as strong for their being admitted to both the Sacraments as one and there being no Command nor example for either and Human Tradition carrying it equally for both for several Centuries 16. Whither Nadab Abihu and Uzzah's Transgressions were not as much Circumstantials and so as small Errors as it is to alter Dipping into Sprinkling and from an understanding believer to an Infant that understands not its Right Hand from its Left and whether to allow the Church a power to make such alterations be not dangerous it being an adding and diminishing from God's Word see Rev. 22. 18. and doth not this open likewise a Door to any other like innovation 17. Whither there is any just cause for Men to vilifie and reproach the Baptists with the Name of Anabaptists for their Baptizing Believers seeing aspersion is not baptizing and in regard also that they have the direct and positive Word and Command of Christ so to do and not only the Commission Mat. 28. Mark 16. but also the constant use of the Apostles and Ministers of the Gospel all along in the New Testament who baptized none but such who made a profession of their Faith in the Gospel time observable 't is also that the Church of England also saith that Faith and Repentance are required of such who are to be baptized 18. Whither if our Translators had Translated the Greek Word Baptizo from â—â—pto they must not have Translated it Dipping or to Dip from the Native and Genuine signification of the word and whether they have done well to leave those words in the Original Tongue without giving the plain meaning in the English 19. Seeing the Greek Church uses Immersion to this Day and not aspersion or Sprinkling may not it be a great argument against Sprinkling seeing also that they disown the Baptism of the Latin Church because they do not Dip For doubtless the Greeks best know the genuine literal and proper signification of that Word that Tongue being their own Natural Language in which the New Testament was Originally written 20. What reason can be given why Nazianzen an Eminent Greek Father should Counsel the deferring the Baptism of Infants untill the third or fourth year of their Age except in danger of Death if it were in Nazianzen's time as some suppose it was the Opinion of the whole Church as also his own that Infants by an Apostolical Tradition were to be baptized as such that is as soon as born 21. Whither all the Fathers of the Third and Fourth Century both of the Greek and Latin Church who have wrote any thing about Infant Baptism do not unanimously give this as the reason why Infants should be baptized viz. for to wash away Original Sin or the putting them into a capacity of Salvation and some of them particularly St. Austin sentencing Infants to Damnation if not Baptized 22. If so whether the Fathers might not be mistaken in the Right of Infant Baptifm as well as in the Judgment of most Protestants they were touching the reason why they should be baptized 23. Whither God hath allowed or enjoyned Parents to bring their little Babes of Two or Ten days Old into a Covenant with him by Baptism since 't is not to be found in the Holy Scripture that he either hath allowed or injoyned them so to do there being neither Command nor Example nor the least intimation given for them to do it 24. If it cannot be proved he hath required any such thing at theit Hands whether that Covenant can be said to bind their Conscience when they come to Age especially since they gave no consent to do it nor were capable so to do 25. And if this pretended Covenant was not of God's appointment I Query how those Children who refuse to agree to the said Covenant when they come to Age can be guilty as Mr. Daniel Williams says 1. of rejecting Christ 2. Of renouncing the blessings of the Gospel 3. And that 't is Rebellion continued against their Parents 4. That it is Ingratitude and Perjury to their Redeemer 5. Gross injustice to their Parents 6. That it is self-killing Cruelty to their own Souls 7. The damning Sin I Query whether this is good Divinity or not or rather is it not a strange Doctrin and whether those unwarrantable Articles of Faith taken out of the Jewish Talmud or Turkish Alcoran may not be of as good Authority or whether it be fit to put such positions into a Christian Catechism as these are Pray be pleased to Answer these plain Queries when you write again or Reply to this answer of your Book CHAP. XXVI Containing Divers Arguments to disprove Pedo-Baptism and to prove the Baptism of Believers which Mr. Owen is desir'd to Answer when he writes again Arg. 1. IF none are to be Baptized by the Authority of the Great Commission of our blessed Saviour Mat. 28. but such who are first Taught or made Disciples by Teaching then Infants who are not capable to be taught ought not to be baptized But none are to be baptized by the Authority of the great Commission of our Blessed Saviour but such who are first Taught or made Disciples by Teaching Ergo Infants ought not to
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.