Circumcision signified the taking away the Sins of the Flesh or the Circumcision of the Heart but Baptism signifies the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ which Circumcision did not 13. Circumcision was to be a Partition-Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile but Baptism testifieth that Jew and Gentile Male and Female Barbarian and Seythian Bond and Free are all one in Christ Jesus Therefore there are divers Disparities and different Significations between Circumcision and Baptism 4. And what tho we should grant that Circumcision was then the initiating Ordinance and Baptism is so now in Gospel-Times i. e. an Ordinance of Initiation yet Circumcision initiated none into the Jewish Church but such who were by express and positive Command of God to be circumcised who were only Male-Infants for the Females were initiated without it even so Baptism tho it be an initiating Ordinance yet none are to be initiated thereby but only those who by the express Command are required to be baptized and they are only such who believe or make Profession of their Faith Sir Precepts that are meerly positive greatly differ you know well enough from Precepts that are purely Moral in their own nature Laws that are of meer positive Right wholly depend upon the absolute Will and Pleasure of the great Legistator and in all Cases and Circumstances we must keep to the express words of the Institution we must venture to do no more nor less nor do any thing in any other manner than God hath commanded as appears in Nadab and Abihu and Uzzah's Cases the first for offering of strange Fire which thing God commanded them not tho God in express words no where forbid them so to do were cut off Levit. 10. 1 2. When God commanded Abraham to circumcise on the eighth day did he not virtually forbid him to do it on the seventh or ninth day Therefore this sort of reasoning of yours is meerly sophistical and you do but darken Counsel with Words without Knowledg Again 't is affirmed by you and other Pedo-baptists That God hath no where declared that Infants should be excluded you mean he hath no where forbid in express words the baptizing of Infants No more say I has he forbid Honey Wine Oil Salt and Spittle to be used in Baptism the former was used by some of the Antient Fathers and the latter is still in the Romish Church Where are we forbid to baptize Bells and consecrate Water as the Papists do to make it holy Water Also where are Infants excluded from the Lord's-Table If therefore any thing may be done in God's Worship which you suppose is not forbid and bears also some proportion in Signification with Jewish Rites all Popish Rites and Ceremonies may be let in at the same Door For the Pope Miter Popish Vestures Candle and Candlesticks c. they no doubt will tell you are of like Signification with the High-Priest under the Law with the Priest's Vestures and other Ceremonies among the Jews Whither will this lead you 't is dangerous to be led by such a Guide But to proceed we will come to that grand Proof for Infant-Baptism you mention i. e. That Baptism doth come in the room of Circumcision which is in Col. 2. 11 12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands by the Circumcision of Christ buried with him in Baptism c. It is affirmed That the Design of the Apostle here is to take the Colossians off from the old Sacrament of Circumcision He informs them that there was no Reason why they should be fond of it because they were compleat without it Christ having substituted a new Circumcision in the room of it namely Baptism and accordingly Christians may now be said by Baptism to be spiritually circumcised as the Jews were said to be spiritually baptized Answ This Exposition of this Text there is no ground to admit of the Apostle speaks of the Power or Virtue of Christ's Circumcision His Design is to shew we are compleat in Christ and have him on he mentions Faith as well as Baptism or such a Faith that should always attend Baptism and therefore Infant-Baptism from hence cannot be proved or inferred nor the least ground for such a bold Conclusion from hence viz. That Baptism came in the room of Circumcision 1. For first the Apostle 't is true excludes Circumcision but 't is upon another account viz. by shewing Circumcision was a Figure of the Circumcision of the Heart as Rom. 2. 28 29. Phil. 3. 3. and since they had the same signified thereby the Rite or Sign ceased And as I have formerly replied in Answer to this Text so I must say to you all that can well be asserted from this Scriptare where the Apostle brings in Baptism is no more than this viz. That where Baptism is rightly administred upon a proper Subject it represents the Spiritual and Mystical Circumcision of the Heart i. e. That the Soul is dead to Sin or hath put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ which may refer to the Power of his Death in the blessed Effects thereof by the effectual Sin-killing Operations of the Spirit on the Heart And as being dead to Sin we are buried with Christ in Baptism both in Sign and Token of Christ's Burial i. e. covered all over in the Water which is a clear Symbol of his Burial also in Signification i. e. that we being dead and buried with Christ in Baptism so are to rise with him by the Faith of the Operation of God and both these are held forth in true Baptism The Apostle doth not mention Baptism to come in the room of Circumcision but to shew that these believing Colossians had through Christ by the Spirit obtained the Antitype thereof or thing figured out in the Circumcision of the Flesh which Baptism did clearly represent But since this is so strenuously urged afresh tho so often answered I will be at the trouble to transcribe once more what Dr. Taylor late Bishop of Down hath said to this Argument of yours and others before you about Circumcision viz. That Baptism is the Antitype of it or that it came in the room thereof The Argument saith he from Circumcision is invalid upon infinite Considerations Figures and Types prove nothing unless a Command go along with them or some thing express to signify such to be their Purpose for the Deluge of Waters and Ark of Noah were Figures of Baptism saith Peter If therefore the Circumstances of the one be drawn to the other we shall make Baptism a Prodigy rather than a Rite The Paschal Lamb was a Figure of the Eucharist which succeeds the other as Baptism doth Circumcision But because there was in the Manducation of the Paschal Lamb no Prescription of Sacramental Drink shall we conclude from hence the Eucharist is to be administred in one kind To which let me add Because Children Servants and all in the House might
late here in England were deluded to do Therefore we say as to all Precepts of the Gospel that are meer positive Laws the New Testament is our only Rule without the Old Christ alone is our Law-giver and him and not Moses we are only to hear and hearken unto tho as to matter of Faith the Old Testament may be useful to us in many respects and also all Precepts that are purely Moral in their own Nature The Old Testament is a Rule to us as well as the New which I might shew in many respects not only touching the Law of the Decalogue but also about days of Prayer singing God's Praises Fasting-days c. But for any to intimate in the Case of Baptism that the Old Testament is a Rule of Practice or in respect of Jewish Church-Membership such strangely betray their Ignorance as will further appear hereafter For that Circumcision was a meer Legal or Jewish Rite I shall evidently anon fully prove You and Mr. Burkitt with other Pedo-baptists affirm that so little is said in the New Testament about baptizing Infants because the Custom of baptizing them was common and the Practice constant in the Jewish Church at and before our Saviour's time Whilst Circumcision was the covenanting Sign Baptism was the purifying Ceremony among the Jews for when any of the Gentiles were admitted into the Jewish Church both Parents and Children were first circumcised and then washed in token of cleansing them from the Filth of their Heathenism So that Baptism among the Jews constantly went along with Circumcision till our Saviour's time Answ 'T is a sign of a bad Cause when Men are forced to try their Wits after such a ridiculous manner to make out what they have to prove Pray was that Custom among the Jews of baptizing Infants when any of the Gentiles were admitted into the Jewish Church commanded of God Had God given the Jews any such Law or Precept Or was it one of their own Traditions who in their own Wisdom without any Warrant from their great Prophet and Law-giver devised that Ceremony possibly to wash away the Filth of Heathenism as your Predecessors in like manner without any Command or Warrant of Jesus Christ devised the baptizing of Infants to wash away the Filth of Original Sin Doth not our blessed Saviour say that they had made void the Commandments of God through their Traditions I do affirm it was never given them as a Law or Precept by the great God nor do you attempt once to prove any such thing for there is not the least shadow of any such thing in all the Old Testament therefore it was a meer Human Tradition 2. Can any wise Man who would do nothing in God's Service without a sufficient Rule or Warrant from the Word of God think this a good Argument for Infant Baptism I must tell you as I have already told the Athenian Society with whom I had to do in this matter that a Popish Tradition is every way as good as a Jewish one You were better plead thus the Romish Church without any Warrant from God's Word received Infant-Baptism as an unwritten Apâ—stolical Tradition and in some Councils early Quiâ—…que parvulos reâ—ens ab uteris Matrum baptizandos esse 〈◊〉 Aâ—…ma esto Milev Can 2. and anathemized or cursed all who should deny that new-born Infants were to be baptized therefore we may baptize Infants Why do you fly to the fabulous and idle Traditions of the Jewish Rabbins for your Childish Baptism since you have the Testimony of so many Romish Doctors and General Councils who positively affirm you ought to baptize your children Sure the Authority of the latter is as good as the former 3. But is it so indeed did our Saviour say nothing of Infant Baptism or as you hint leave so little of it in the New Testament because it was the constant Custom among the Jews to baptize the Children of Heathens before they admitted them into their Church What Dr. Hammond Taylor and Lightfoot have said upon that account is to their Shame and Reproach rather than to their Honour tho I know it was their last Refuge when they saw your Scripture-Proofs would not prove it to be a Truth of Christ O how are we beholden to the Jewish Talmud and Jâ—wish Rabbins for our Infant-Baptism Nay which is worst of all how is Christ beholden to them for that rare Invention who had said so much for it and made it so common a Practice among them that it saved him the Pains to give the least Directions about it But is not this next to Blasphemy Can any Man in his right Wits think our Lord Jesus should confirm a Tradition and Innovation of the Jews Or take his great Ordinance of Baptism from the Superstitious Fabulous and Erroneous Custom of their Doctors and Rabbins Besides was Baptism to be preached or practised by none but the Jewish People Doth it not belong to the Gentiles too Did not our Saviour command his Disciples to go into all Nations and make Disciples and baptize them c. Was it in his Mind that Infants should be baptized and yet say nothing of it because it was a common Custom and Practice among the Jews But pray what must the Gentiles do to know this to be their Duty I mean those Gentiles who received the Christian Faith viz. that they ought to baptize their Children who did not know nor ever heard of that Jewish Custom Or dare you say our New Testament is not authentick or sufficient to teach us the whole of Gospel-Duties and Obedience without the Jewish Talmud You should not 't is plain only have said the New Testament is not without the Old the Rule of our practice but also that the New Testament and the Old without the Jewish Talmud is not sufficient and then you had done your Business at once VVhy are not Men ashamed thus to go about to blind and deceive the poor People Is not the whole Mind of Jesus Christ even all his Laws and Precepts or his whole Counsel plainly contained in his Blessed VVord But would you have People be wise above what is written and teach Men to reflect upon the Care and Faithfulness of the Blessed Jesus in leaving out of the Sacred Bible one great Truth of God and leave us to find it out by going to search the Jewish Tradition 4. If it was a Custom among the Jews it must be a Sacred Custom I mean a Custom that God appointed and commanded them to observe or else a Human Tradition or vain Custom And if it had been a Mosaical Rite given by God himself to the Jews Christ then be sure abolished it and nailed it to his Cross with all its Fellows and 't is gone for ever since he hath not given it out a new Take this Argument That Custom among the Jews that God never commanded nor is any where given by Moses unto them who was faithful in all his House
external Privileges of the Covenant of Grace who only partake of Baptism and not of the Lord's-Supper Is not Faith required of all such that ought to be baptized as well as it iâ— required in all that partake of the Lord's Supper to examine themselves neither of which Infants are capable to do It iâ— manifest that the Children of the Faithful as such are not in the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham but that there was a twofold Covenant made with him and that the Covenant of Grace only appertains to the Elect of God whether they be Children of Believers or Children of Unbelieverâ— which is not known to us until they are grown up and are brought by the Spirit of God under special Vocation and Regeneration and that they are the Adult only viz. such as believe that have right to Baptism but that not by virtue of the Covenant of Grace but by virtue of the positive Command of Christ in the New Testament Sir you mistake again it was not by virtue of the Covenant of Grace that Persons had right to Circumcision for if so then Lot and Melchisedec and Abraham's Males as soon as they were born had a right to it as also his Females nothing gave right to Abraham's Male-Infanâ—s to Circumcision but the meer positive Command of God to him which extended only to those Males in his own House or bought with his Money and not till the eighth day for such that died before the eighth day tho Males had no right to be circumcised nor had his Females any right thereto so none but Believers when they can give an account of their Faith by virtue of Christ's express and positive Command ought to be baptized Pray remember the Covenant of Grace as such gives no right to Baptism for if it did all Believers or Elect Persons had right to it from the first Introduction or Declaration of it to Adam upon the Fall No no it is a pure Gospel-Ordinance and meerly positive and only depends upon the Will and Pleasure of the Law-giver Jesus Christ Honoured Britains who inhabit North and South Wales let me intreat you to consider how false the Conclusion is that Mr. Owen draws concerning the Right the Infants of the Faithful have to Baptism namely that if they are in the Covenant of Grace then they ought to be baptized For as he nor no Man else can prove the Infants of Believers as such are in the Covenant of Grace so it would not follow were that granted that they ought to be baptized it being not the Covenant of Grace but the express and positive Command of Christ that gives Persons just Right thereunto Suppose Christ had not commanded Believers to be baptized would any Man have adventured to baptize them or conclude it was their Duty because they were in Covenant with God Or would Abraham have been circumcised himself because in the Covenant of Grace had he not received a positive Command so to be Certainly he was long in the Covenant of Grace before he was circumcised and did not sin thereby because God had not given that Precept to him until he was old Moreover it was the express Command of God that gave right to his Male-Infants to be circumcised and not only those of his Seed that were in the Covenant of Grace but Ishmael and others who were not Children of the Promise or in the Covenant of Grace were circumcised and also it was not Lot's Duty tho in the Covenant of Grace to be circumcised because not one that dwelt in Abraham's Family or his Natural Seed nor commanded by the Lord to be circumcised or to circumcise his Infants CHAP. VII Proving Infant-Baptism is not lawful because Circumcision under the Law belonged unto the Male-Infants of the Jews containing an Answer to Mr. James Owen's first Chapter IF say you Circumcision under the Law belonged unto Infants then Baptism under the Gospel belongeth unto them for even as Circumcision was so Baptism is the Seal of the same Covenant of Grace and signifieth the same things Answ 1. I answer If Circumcision did not belong to Infants under the Law any otherwise than by express and positive Command of God which gave them right thereto then if God hath not commanded Believers to baptize their Infants it is not their Duty to baptize them but their Sin if they do it But I have proved it was the express Command of God only that gave Male-Infants proceeding from Abraham's Loâ—â—s Authority to be circumcised and God hath given no such Command to Believers to baptize their Infants therefore Baptism doth not belong to the Infants of Believers as such under the Gospel as Circumcision did belong to Male-Infants under the Law 2. I have proved Circumcision was not the Seal of the Covenant of Grace tho it was a Seal to Abraham of the Righteousness of his own Faith yea of that Faith he had being not circumcised A Seal I have shewed gives an undoubted Right of all those Blessings and Privileges to those Persons to whom the said Covenant is sealed and so it did to Abraham but it was no Seal of the Blessings of the Covenant of Grace to Ishmael Esau and many thousands more who were commanded to be circumcised Were this therefore true that Mr. Owen asserts That Circumcision was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace to all that were circumcised in Infancy then they were all saved even all the Males that proceeded from Abraham's Loins many of which proved as vile and wicked Men as most that ever lived in the World Nor Reader is Baptism a Seal of the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel for if so it would seal all Gospel-Blessings to all Persons that are baptized who then were it so but would be baptized and baptize his Children Brethren the holy Spirit only is the Seal of the Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant vid. Ephes 1 13 14. cap. 4. 10. You proceed to shew in several respects that Circumcision and Baptism signify the same things 1. You say because Original Corruption cometh by Natural Generation 2. Because we are born in Uncleanness we must be washed in our Infancy Answ 1. Supposing that Circumcision did and Baptism doth signify the Corruption or Filthiness of Original Sin or Uncleanness must we therefore baptize our Infants without any Authority Command or Example in God's Word 2. Doth Baptism wash away Original Corruption I know the Papists assert it doth do this but how do they or you prove it Baptism St. Peter saith doth not wash away the Filthiness of the Flesh or Corruption of Natural Pollution 1 Pet. 3. 21. 3. Your Reverend Brother Mr. Stephen Charnock fully proves that Baptism is not Regeneration that can't cleanse from Sin Answer his Arguments in his Book of Regeneration What tho those Baptists in Germany you speak of understood that the antient erring Fathers that introduced Infant-Baptism did bring it in to wash away Original Sin Cannot Christ cleanse Elect
you know nor whether ever God will give them his Spirit or Grace to enable them so to do And as one Pedo-baptist lately saith If they do not discharge this Obligation viz. their Baptismal Covenant they are guilty of Perjury and 't is the damning Sin O cruel Parents you list your Infants into the Spiritual War by your pretended Baptism and arm them not The Graces of the Spirit are the Believers Spiritual Armour and Weapons these they have when listed I mean baptized but Infants as such have not this Armour on when baptized Alas poor Babes they have too much Guilt upon them naturally O the Weight that lies upon them but you Pedo-baptists add to it by your Tradition of a Baptismal Covenant that God never appointed them to come under Therefore you object How can Children be bound to that which they are ignorant of You answer They were ignorant of the Bond of Circumcision and yet were bound over to the Law to take him to be their God and to depart from the ways of Sin c. Answ Because God obliged and bound over the Jews by Circumcision in their Infancy in that Legal Covenant to love the Lord their God with all their Hearts to take him to be their God and to depart from all the ways of Sin nay to keep the Law perfectly which shewed the necessity of Christ's Righteousness and Merits which was nevertheless upon this respect a Yoke of Bondage which Yoke by Christ we and our Children are delivered from Will you adventure to bring your poor Children under another like Yoke of Bondage Christ's Yoke is easy and his Burden is light because he gives all that are to be baptized his Spirit and a changed Heart to love God and cleave to him and serve him but you make his Yoke as hard as the Yoke of Circumcision by putting Baptism on your poor Infants to oblige them thereby to be regenerated and love God with all their Hearts before Grace in the Habit of it is infused into them and all this without the least Authority from Christ or the Gospel O cruel Parents Sirs who hath required this at your Hands You shall hear more of this hereafter You do intimate that 't is true Circumcision did oblige to keep the Law perfectly since the Law but from the beginning it was not so for say you Circumcision was not of Moses but of the Fathers Joh. 7. 22. Answ Was not the Moral Law from the beginning and were not those that were circumcised bound to keep the Moral as well as the Ceremonial Law How then dare you say and prove it not that from the beginning it was not so i. e. It did not bind Abraham's Natural Seed exactly to keep the Moral Law that is to love God with all their Hearts and their Neighbours as themselves yea to leave and loath all Sin Circumcision I have proved was no Seal nor part of the Covenant of Grace but of and part of the Covenant of Works so that you run into a dangerous Sâ—are and deceive the People unwarily by your Ignorance of the two Covenants made with Abraham and not distinguishing Circumcision from being a Seal to Abraham's Faith and not a Seal in common to all his Children It was a Sign to them in their Flesh but no Seal of the Covenant of Grace You further run a Parallel between Circumcision and Baptism as some others before you have done Pray take my former Answers to all you say here which I have given to other Pedo-baptists upon this foot of account 1. Others formerly have as well as you do now affirmed That Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision 2. They run a Parallel between Circumcision and Baptism and would have them both signify the same thing in an exact Analogy 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Say they which you seem to affirm also If Baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision then as the Jewish Infants were circumcised so the Infants of Christians may and ought to be baptized But Baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision Therefore as their Children were circumcised then so may ours be baptized now Answ 1. There is no necessity that a Gospel-Ordinance must succeed in the room of a Legal or Jewish Ordinance What if I affirm that no Ordinance succeeds in the room of Circumcision Were there not many other Rites and Ordinances under the Law or Old Testament besides Circumcision and yet you cannot find or once imagine any Gospel-Rite or Ordinance to come in the room of them respectively for that then it would follow there would be as many Christian Rites Precepts and Ordinances as there were Jewish Rites Precepts and Ordinances which as one observes were more than three hundred 2. Besides as Dr. Taylor observes If Baptism came in the room of Circumcision you must baptize your Children always on the eighth day and you must not baptize your Females at all because none but Male Infants were then circumcised 3 And whereas you say that Baptism signifies the same things that Circumcision did it is not true as will appear to all understanding Men if they consider these Particulars following which are so many Disparities viz. 1. Circumcision was a Shadow of Christ to come Baptism is a Sign he is already come was dead and buried 2. Circumcision was a Sign of the Covenant made with Abraham and his Natural Seed Baptism is a Sign of the peculiar spiritual Privileges made to Saints as such and no others 3. Circumcision was a Domestick Action i. e. to be done in the House Baptism an Ecclesiastick belonging to the Gospel-Church 4. Circumcision was to be done by the Parents in that respect Baptism is to be done only by Gospel-Ministers 5. Circumcision was the cutting off the Foreskin of the Flesh which drew Blood Baptism is to be done by dipping the whole Body into the Water without drawing of any Blood 6. Circumcision belonged to Male-Children only Baptism belongs to Males and Females also 7. Circumcision was to be done precisely on the eighth Day Baptism is not limited to any precise Day 8. Circumcision made a visible Impression on the Body which the Party might perceive when he came to Age of Understanding Baptism leaves no Impression on the Body 9. Circumcision belonged to Abraham's House to his Male-Infants only or such who were bought with his Money and not the Male-Infants of any other Godly Men in his days unless they join themselves to his Family Baptism belongs to Believers in all Nations 10. Circumcision bound those who came under that Rite to keep the whole Law of Moses Baptism signifies we are delivered from that Yoke of Bondage 11. If Circumcision signified the same things and consequently particularly the sealing the Covenant of Grace then those that were circumcised needed not to be baptized because sealed before with the same Seal or that which signified the same thing but Christ and all his Apostles and many others who were circumcised were nevertheless baptized 12.
Mr. Owen saith it plainly appears that the sprinkling of VVater is not Baptism 2. That God receives all into the Covenant of Grace and Gospel Church through the Spiritual washing of Regeneration and Sanctification of the Spirit and that such only by Christ's positive Command ought to be baptized 3. That there was no Gospel-Baptism no Baptism of Christ under the Law but that 't is a pure positive Command and Institution of our Lord Jesus in the Gospel 4. That God received none of his People under the Law into Covenant through Baptism or through sprinkling of Water and Blood And that the sprinkling of Blood was a Figure of the Atonement of Christ's bloody Sacrifice and the sprinkling of Water of the sanctifying Virtue of the Spirit in Sanctification and not that Gospel-Baptism was signified thereby 5. That 't is only the meer positive Command of Christ in the New Testament that gives being and a just Right to Gospel-Baptism 6. That tho the Children with their Parents were taken into the Legal or Typical Jewish Church by God's positive Command that being a National and Typical Church yet no Children or Parents are by the positive Command of Christ in the New Testament to be received into the Gospel-Church but only those of them that believe and are washed in the Blood of Christ and sanctified by the Sacred Water of the Holy Ghost sith the Church of God now is not National but Congregational not consisting of the Fleshly as such but the Spiritual Seed of Abraham And since there being no Precept nor Precedent in all the New Testament that any one Infant was baptized or taken into the Gospel-Church it follows 't is an Human Tradition 7. That the Covenant on Sinai and the Ceremonial Law was not the Covenant of Grace tho given in subserviency thereunto and the latter a clear Figure of the Covenant of Grace and held it forth to all such who by Faith could see beyond those Sacrifices to the Anti-type of them Lastly Mr. Owen saith If Children were baptized formerly into Covenant ought they not to be baptized into his Covenant now especially because the Grace of the Covenant being enlarged under the Dispensation of the Gospel and the Privileges being more extensive I answer He doth but beg the Question asserting that which he proves not nor is ever able to prove viz. 1. That Children were baptized into the Covenant under the Law What Pedo-baptist ever asserted this before And in vain doth he affirm it now especially since he cannot prove sprinkling is Baptism 2. That all Infants were received into Covenant with God by Legal sprinkling and not till then but certainly all the Infants of the Jews were born Members of that National Church therefore not received into that Church and Covenant by Circumcision which most of the Assertors of Childrens Baptism do affirm much less not by sprinkling Blood and Water upon them Yet that sprinkling of Blood and Water might I deny not be a Sign that they and the whole House of Israel were God's Legal Covenant People and so the Type of the whole Spiritual Israel who should be washed in the Blood of Christ or Blood of the New Covenant and sanctified by his Spirit as is said before 2. Moreover evident it is that tho the Covenant of Grace in the Dispensation of it under the Gospel is enlarged and the Spiritual Privileges more extensive than were the Privileges of the Legal Covenant and Legal Church yet the external Privileges are less and not so extensive now as was theirs How many outward and earthly Privileges had the Jews and Ministers of God under the Law more than the Saints and Ministers of Christ have now Many of which I have reckoned up in the beginning of this Treatise Thus I close with your Eighth Argument CHAP XIV Proving that Children have no Right to Baptism from John the Baptist's Administration of Baptism in Opposition to what Mr. James Owen saith in his 12th Chapter That John baptized no Infants neither according to the Practice of the Jewish Church nor by virtue of any Commission he had from God that sent him Containing an Answer to Mr. Owen's 9th Argument for Pedo-Baptism MR. Owen saith If John baptized Infants Baptism doth always belong unto them for the Baptism of John and the Baptism of the Apostles were the same in the Substance of it He baptized in the Name of Christ to come and they baptized in the Name of Christ that was come Answ If you can prove John baptized Infants you do your Business indifferent well Now say you What we are to prove in this Chapter is that John baptized Infants to manifest this let it be considered 1. John the Baptist came not to nullify the Covenant of Abraham but rather to fulfil it and the Covenant of Abraham was that God would be a God to his People and to their Seed all the Visible Church of the Jews were in this Covenant John warneth them that they trusted not in the Privileges of this Covenant by living ungodly Lives he doth not in any Place make void this Covenant but rather confirms it saying God will raise other Children to Abraham if the Jews brought not forth Fruit meet for Repentance he came to baptize the Seed of Abraham which were all of them in the Covenant of God not only the Parents but the Children also Therefore their Children had the same right to Baptism as their Parents had Answ 1. I deny not but the whole House of Israel were in Covenant with God both Parents and Children and so abode till the old Covenant and old Covenant-Seed were cast out but What saith the Scripture Cast out the Bond-woman and her Son Gal. 4. 30. Now the Apostle tells you by the Bond-woman is meant the Sinai Covenant and by her Son the natural Seed of Abraham as such Gal. 4. 22 23 24 25. 2. This Grant of yours proves that the Jewish Covenant which took in all the People both Parents and Children was not the Covenant of Grace because but a finall number of the Jews were in God's Election and so in the Covenant of Grace See Dr. Owen on the Hebrews 3d Vol. Pag. 256. The Covenant of Grace in Christ is made only with the Israel of God the Church of the Elect. Pag. 291. The new Covenant is made with all who effectively and eventually are made Partakers of it and if they are not so with whom the New Covenant is made it comes short of the Old in Efficacy who were actual Partakers of the benefit of that that is of those external Benefits 3. Nor doth that which you mention help you viz. that in that Covenant made with Abraham and the whole House of Israel 't is said God would be their God or a God to Abraham and to his Seed in their Generations For First God may be said to be the God of a People divers manner of ways as Dr. Bates observes 1. Upon the account of
that it is which John the Baptist speaketh now is the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees think not to say within your Selves we have Abraham to our Father so that all their Confidence that they had in Abraham's Covenant Temple and Tabernacle and such things are burnt up and so they have no Root left them to stand upon and this is one thing intended by the Root Again he saith the Lord hath cut us off from hope in the righteousness of our Parents and from boasting of Ordinances again saith he this we read of Mal. 4. 1. it is spoken of the ministry of John the Baptist which did burn as an Oven against all the Scribes and Pharisees and left them neither the Root of Abraham's Covenant nor the branch of their own good Works he cutteth them off from Abraham's Covenant c. and by cutting them off from the Root he leaveth them no Ground to trust on Cotton on the Covenant pag. 177 and p. 21 22. How direct is this to the purpose and it as fully othroweth all that you speak in this Argument this Reverend Author Concludes that Abraham's Covenant made with his natural Seed as such was cut down by John though the Tree was not yet removed nor the Chaff blown or fanned away but you would make the People believe John confirmed that old Covenant right and baptized all the Jews upon the Authority of Abraham's Covenant as if instead of cutting the Tree down at the Root he was about to plant it afresh or uphold its standing which had it been so he would have rather said think to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father for upon that foot of Account I am to baptize you all you being all in God's Covenant though you be a Generation of Vipers But how directly contrary to this Doctrine of yours did John preach to them ' and clearly took them off of any such a pretended right to Baptism viz. because they were in Covenant with Abraham You say John did not cut down one Branch of that Covenant Mr. Cotton says he cut down the Tree at the Root you say he baptized Infants upon that foot of account but since God's Word speaks not one word of any such thing 'T is plain you assert your own Fancies or groundless suppositions There is no doubt say you but that Parents brought their Children with them to the Baptism of John for God commanded them to bring their Children with them into the Congregation Deut. 29. 10 11 12 c. their Zeal was great for their Children Acts 15. 12. and 21. 20. therefore say you if John refused their Children they would not so willingly have come to his Baptism They brought their Children to Christ therefore they brought their Children to the Baptism of John Ans I answer you say no doubt but they brought their Chldren to John's Baptism but without doubt they did not say I because if they had it would without doubt have been written but since it is no where written that they did do it nor of John's baptizing one Infant there is no doubt but we are in the right viz. John baptized no Infants nor any but penitent Persons because he required Repentance and the Fruits of it in all that came to his Baptism Moreover 2. Because all Israel their little ones their Wives and Strangers the hewer of Wood and drawer of Water entered into that legal Covenant with God Deut. 29. 10. 11. 12. doth it follow that we in the Gospel times must bring all our Children and Servants to Baptism and the Lord's Supper they had a command from God to do what they did and that old Covenant Church state required them so to do but God hath no more required us to bring our Infants to Baptism then he hath required us to Circumcise them or give our first born to the Lord which was God's command to them under the Law Baptism I tell you again being of meer positive Right you can draw no such Conclusions for what you plead for 't is only their Duty to be baptized that Christ commanded to be baptized and that is those that are made Disciples by the word preached or those that believe in Christ or that profess Faith in him and 't is the New Testament only must inform us who are the subjects of Gospel Ordinances that depend only upon Laws meerly positive according to the Sovereign Pleasure of the institutor of them or holy Law-giver Jesus Christ You say they brought their Children to Christ therefore they brought them to John's Baptism Answer If John had wrought Miracles and healed the Sick I doubt not but they would have brought their Children to him to have them healed as well as they brought them to Christ but John wrought no Miracles also our Saviour was a healing the Sick when they brought Children to him and it may fairly be inferred they brought little Children that were distemper'd to him to have him lay his Hands upon them which was his way in healing the Sick as I have said before You say Infant Baptism was an usual thing in the Jewish Church several hundred years before the time of John and tell us a story of Moses Ben Maimon who colected the Rites of the ancient Jewish Church Answer I have answered that already you having urged that argument before 'T is evident it was no other but a Jewish hamane Tradition if it be as you say for God never commanded the Jews to baptize Infants though you before would make your unwary Reader think that Jacob invented it I am sorry to see such stuff from a Man of Learning What credit is to be given to the Jewish Talmud what one Jewish Rabbi affirms concerning this matter I have shewed another seems to deny Rabbi Joshua confesseth that the Jews baptized Infants after the order of the Counsel not by any Authority from God by Moses or any of his Holy Prophets but shall we think John Baptized Infants by vertue of any human Tradition that was among the Jews Sir a popish Tradition is of as good authority as a Jewish one you may affirm the Papists for many hundred years baptized Infants but where is it written in God's Word that God commanded the Jews to baptize their Proselites or that Christians ought to baptize their Infants to the Law and Testament the sacred Scripture is a perfect Rule You say John baptized little Children for he baptized the whole Nation in general whereof Children were a great part he refused none that came or were brought to him Mat. 3. 5 6. then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the Regions round about Jordan and were baptized of him in Jordan Now say you if John baptized all Jerusalem and all Judea and all the Regions round about Jordan and all the People it is certain he baptized Infants unless we think there were no Children in Jerusalem c. Answer I answer now you think you
a right to baptism since 't is a meer positive Command of Christ 10. Ask him whether ungodly Parents that spring from Abraham's Loyns by Isaac-in their Generations were not as much obliged by God's positive Command to Abraham to Circumcise their Male Children as the Faithful and Godly Parents were obliged to Circumcise theirs this being so 11. Ask him why all ungodly persons and unbelievers ought not now to Baptize their Children as well as believers should baptize theirs 2. You bid your Children ask such that deny Infant Baptism can they prove from Scripture that Christ came in to the World to make the condition of Children worser then it was before Ans Tell Mr. Owen he hath had this Question answered in this Treatise over and over viz. Tell him the Spiritual Priviledges of Children now are more then theirs were under the Law So that our Children lose no Divine and Spiritual blessings or priviledges which the Children of the Faithful once had God hath the same love to and care of our Children under the Gospel as he had to theirs under the Law but the Temporal blessings of the Jewish Children and their External or Earthly priviledges then were more then our Children have in Gospel times the Gospel Church being established upon better promises theirs were under the promise of heaping up Gold and Silver and possessing outward peace and to enjoy a Land that flowed with Milk and Honey True the external or outward dispensation of the Gospel Covenant which our Children are under far exceeds theirs for the clearness of Light and Revelation of Christ and for other Spiritual priviledges ours excells Besides no doubt but the Children of believers under the Gospel far exceed the priviledges of unbelievers by the blessings of a Godly Education and the like But we say it was not the Covenant of Grace that gave right to Circumcision under the Law but the positive Law and Command of God so 't is not the Covenant of Grace that gives right to baptism but Christs positive Command which runs not unto our Children untill they do believe and bid Mr. Owen prove that Infant baptism doth make the condition of Children any ways better then the condition of our Children who never were baptized 3. Were not little Children say you the first Martyrs that lost their Lives for the sake of Christ Mat. 2. 16. If God Honoured them to be the first Witnesses for Christ being baptized in Blood will he deny them water Baptism 1. Answ Were they only the Children of Believers that Herod Murthered how will you prove that but suppose it was so doth it follow from thence that we ought to baptize them without a Command why do you not say and will not Christ allow our Children the Ordinance that holds forth the Shedding of his Blood as well as Baptism that holds forth he was Buried c. 4. If the Baptism of Infants be evil why doth the Devil say you Tempt Witches or Sorcerers to deny that Baptism And what is the reason that Satan cannot have any power over them until they renounce their Baptism and after that they have not any strength to resist him any longer as several of them confessed Park of Witches Vol. 3. page 640. 1. Answ Ask Mr. Owen why the Devil doth not love nor can't endure Popish Holy-water or is such a fearful enemy to that as the Papists say it hath often been manifest is the Consecration of Water therefore of God's appointment Why may we not give credit to the Papists as well as unto Witches and Sorcerers 2. Because he cannot prove Infant Baptism from Arguments from Heaven will he go for Arguments to prove it to be Christs Ordinance taken from Hell 3. The Devil is a crafty and subtle Adversary doth not he do this to make People love and approve of their Infant Baptism which no doubt Christ never appointed 4. However this Testimony is given only by Witches and Sorcerers and what ground have we to believe them 5. Ask them will they give you assurance that you will be better Christians by receiving of their baptism if they say you will be the better answer them that you see several of them growing worse after their re-baptization 1. Answ Ask Mr. Owen whether there are not more People that were Baptized or rather Rantized in Infancy that prove vile and ungodly then among them that were baptized upon the profession of their Faith 2. What assurance can he give to Infants or to their Parents that the Children they baptize shall be better Christians thereby Also how will he prove that the Children of believers who were baptized in Infancy prove generally better Christians then the Children of those Believers that did not baptise them in their Infancy 3. Ask him if the baptism of believers upon the profession of their Faith as Christ commanded be the worse because some like Simon Magus take it up and prove ill Members and scandalous in their Lives 1. Say you tho' they are Members of a Congregation walking by the Rule of the Gospel before they had their re-baptization they after break the Unity of the Body they were Members of by separating themselves Baptism is an Ordinance of Unity but re-baptization is the breaking off the Unity of Churches 1. Answ Why do you use such Tautologies and needless repetitions you had this before and I have answered it we deny our baptism to be re-baptization and have proyed your Rantism is no Baptism at all 2. Infant Rantism 't is true Unites National Churches and Churches Built upon that or the like Constitution and so it Unites many false and Anti-christian Churches I must confess as the Church of Rome and some others in the World much of the same nature but 't is the baptism of Christ viz. that of believers that Unites together according to the order of the Gospel all the Members of a true Gospel Church and the denying of Infant baptism and being baptized upon a profession of Faith does but break the Union of Churches of the Saints that are formarly true and orderly gathered according to the Institution of Christ and the rule of the Gospel For was not the first Gospel Church at Jerusalem gathered out of the National Church of the Jews of Persons that repented believed and upon the profession of that Faith Baptized that is Dipped in Water in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost also the Church in Samaria Acts 8. and that in Acts 10. and that at Corinth Acts 16. and that at Ephesus Acts 19. and ought not all Churches so to be gathered to the end of the World ought we not to separate from such Churches that do not hold the Ordinances that appertain to Church Constitution as they were first delivered to the Saints and from such who are guilty also of an Human Innovation ought we to partake of other Mens Sins or ought we not to keep our selves pure Touch not Tast not Handle not which
40. See thou make all things according to the Pattern shewed thee in the Mount and Lev. 10. 1 2. See how Nadab and Abihu sped for presuming to vary from the Command of God and Uzzah tho' but in small Circumstances as they may seem to us How dare Men adventure this being so to change Baptism from Dipping into Sprinkling and the Subject from an Adult Believer to an Ignorant Babe Add thou not unto his word c. Arg. 15. Whatever practice opens a Door to any Human Traditions in God's Worship is a great Evil and to be avoided But the practice of Infant Baptism opens a Door to any Human Traditions in God's Worship Ergo to Sprinkle or Baptize Infants is a great Evil and ought to be avoided The Major will not be denied The Minor is clear because there is no Scripture ground for it no Command or Example for such a Practice in God's Word and if without Scripture Authority the Church hath power to do one thing she may do another and so ad infinitum Arg. 16 Whatsoever practice reflects upon the Honour Wisdom and Care of Jesus Christ or renders him less faithful than Moses and the New Testament in one of its great Ordinances nay Sacraments to lie more obscure in God's Word than any Law or Precept under the Old Testament cannot be of God But the practice of Infant Baptism reflects on the Honour Care and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ and renders him less faithful than Moses and a great Ordinance nay Sacrament of the New Testament to lie more dark and obscure than any Precept under the Old Testament Ergo Infant Baptism cannot be of God The Major cannot be denyed The Minor is easily proved For he is bold indeed who shall affirm Infant Baptism doth not lie obscure in God's Word One great Party who assert it say it s not to be found in the Scripture at all but 't is an unwritten Apostolical Tradition Others say it lies not the Letter of the Scripture but may be proved by Consequences and yet some great asserters of it as Dr. Hammond and others say those Consequences commonly drawn from divers Texts for it are without demonstration and prove nothing I am sure a Man may Read the Scripture a Hundred times over and never be thereby convinced he ought to baptize his Children though it is powerful to convince Men of all Christian Duties Now can this be a Truth since Christ was more Faithful than Moses and delivered every thing plainly from the Father Moses left nothing dark as to matters of Duty tho' the Precept and Eternal Rites of his Law were numerous even two or three hundred Precepts yet none were at a loss or had need to say is this a Truth or an Ordinance or not for he that Runs may Read it And shall one positive precept given forth by Christ who appointed so few in the New Testament be so obscure as also the Ground and End of it that Men should be confounded about the Proofs of it together with the End and Grounds thereof See Heb. 3. 5 6. Arg. 17. That Custom or Law which Moses never delivered to the Jews nor is any where written in the Old Testament was no Truth of God or of Divine Authority But that Custom or Law to baptize Proselytes either Men Women or Children was never given to the Jews by Moses nor is it any where written in the Old Testament Ergo it was no Truth of God or of Divine Authority and evident it is according to that Forementioned and Worthy Author Sir Norton Knatchbal that the Jewish Rabbins differed among themselves about it for saith he to Cite his very words again Rabbi Eleaezer expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews for Eleazer who was contemporary with Rabbi Joshua if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte Circumcised and not Baptized was a true Proselyte Arg. 18. If Baptism is of Meer positive Right wholly depending on the Will and Sovereign Pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator and he hath not Requi red or Commanded Infants to be baptized then Infants ought not to be baptized but Baptism is of meer positive right wholly depending on the Will and Sovereign pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator and he hath not required or Commanded Infants to be baptized Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized This Argument tends to cut off all the pretended proofs of Pedo-baptism taken from the Covenant made with Abraham and because Children are said to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven it was not the Right of Abraham's Male Children to be Circumcised because they were begotten and born of the Fruit of his Loyns till he received Commandment from God to Circumcise them Had he done it before or without Command from God it would have been Will-worship in him to have done it Moreover this further appearâ— to be so because no godly Mans Children nor others in Abraham's days nor since had any Right thereto but only his Children or such who were bought with his Money or were proselyted to the Jewish Religion because they had no Command from God so to do as Abraham had This being true it follows that if we should grant Infants of believing Gentiles as such were the Seed of Abraham which we deny yet unless God had Commanded them to baptize their Children they ought not to do it and if they do it without a Command or Authority from Christ It will be found an Act of Will-worship in them Arg. 19. All that were baptized in the Apostolical Primitive times were baptized upon the profession of their Faith were baptized into Christ and thereby put on Christ and were all one in Christ Jesus and were Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the promise But Infants as such who are baptized were not baptized upon the profession of their Faith nor did they put on Christ thereby nor are they all one in Christ Jesus and also are not Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to Promise Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Mr. Baxter confirms the substance of the Major these are his words i. e. As many as have been baptized have put on Christ and are all one in Christ Jesus and are Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to the promise Gal. 3. 27 28 29. This speaks the Apostle saith he of the probability grounded on a credible profession c. Baxters Confirm Reconcil page 32. The Minor will stand firm till any can prove Infants by a visible profession have put on Christ are all one in Christ Jesus are Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to the promise Evident it is none are the spiritual Seed of Abraham but such who have the Faith of Abraham and are truly grafted into Christ by a saving Faith If any object we read of some who were baptized who had no saving Faith but were Hypocrites I answer had they appeared to be