Baptism the other after Baptism unto the Adult among the unbelieving Gentiles Teaching precedes Baptism but to the Children of such Baptism preceded Teaching in the same manner as Abraham being the Father of the Gentiles was taught before circumcised but his Children were circumcised before they were taught This yousay is the Signification of the word as appeareth Answ 1. I answer you would have the form of the Commission to run according to your Scriptureless Practice of baptizing of Infants as you call Sprinkling but that the Commission is wrested and abused by you to serve your turn will appear 1. They that are the only Subjects of Baptism according to the Commission are first to be taught or as the Greek word is discipled or made Disciples and then baptized and I will appeal to your Conscience whether they are not the same Persons that were to be taught before baptized that our Lord commands to be taught afterwards all other things that he hath commanded baptized Believers to observe and keep You would have the Parents converted from Heathenism to be taught before baptized but the Teaching afterwards not to refer to them but to their Children baptized before taught or in their Infancy O what abominable Abuse is this of the great Commission of our blessed Saviour 1. The Commission runs Teach them in all Nations whether Jews or Gentiles 2. Baptizing them that are taught or made Disciples by teaching 3. Teaching them i. e. the same them that were Disciples baptized Dare you invert nay subvert the sacred Commission and so make void the Command of God to uphold your own Tradition Sir tremble at the thoughts of it Answ 2. That this which we say is the true Purport of the Commission is acknowledged by Mr. Perkins Mr. Baxter and other Pedo-baptists Take Mr. Perkins's own words First of all saith he 't is said Teach them that is make them Disciples by teaching them to believe and repent here saith he we are to consider the Order which God observes in making a Covenant with Men in Baptism First of all he calls them by his Word and Spirit to believe and repent then in the second place he makes a Promise of Mercy and Forgiveness and thereby he seals his Promise by Baptism They says he that know not nor consider this Order which God used in covenanting with them in Baptism deal preposterously overslipping the Commandment of repenting and believing which is the cause of so much Profaneness in the World Doubtless he said right for you who baptize Infants that are not capable to repent nor believe make a multitude of profane Christians in the World as they are called Who knows which of the Infants you baptize God will call and savingly work Grace in which should indeed be wrought in all before they are according to the direct Order or From of the Commission or ought to be baptized O what profane Wretches doth your Practice bring into your Church if all you baptize you make Members thereof in their Infancy Mr. Perkins doubtless did not foresee how by his honest Exposition of the Commission he overthrew his Infant-Baptism and Church-Membership Moreover take Mr. Richard Baxter's words speaking of the Commission Christ gave to his Disciples Mat. 28. 19 20 viz. Their first Task saith he is to make Disciples of them which are by Mark called Believers The second work is to baptize them whereto is annexed the Promise of Salvation The third work is to teach them that are baptized Believers all other things which are after to be learned in the School of Christ To contemn this Order saith he is to contemn the Rules of Order for where can we find it if not here See Mr. Baxter's Right of Baptism pag. 144 150. This Man tho a Pedo-baptist yet durst not be so bold as to invert the Order of the Commission nor do as you do viz. affirm the Teaching mentioned after Baptism refers not to Believers baptized after they are made Disciples but to their Infants baptized of which the Commission speaks not one word nor can it by any colour of Reason or Consequences be drawn therefrom But to prove your false Exposition of the Text you proceed to do it First from God's Promise to Abraham Isaac and Jacob that in their Seed should all the Nations of the Earth be blessed Gen. 18. 18. 22. 18. Christ came say you to confirm the Promise unto the Fathers that the Gentiles might glorify God for his Mercy Rom. 15. 8 9. If God is not a God to the Gentiles and their Seed according to the Promises made to the Fathers then say you Christ weakeneth and not confirmeth the Promises God forbid we should think so c. Answ 1. God forbid that you should rest always under such dark and cloudy Conceptions of the Covenant and Promises made to the Fathers touching the Gentiles for the Covenant and Promises made to Abraham Isaac and Jacob were that the Gentiles through Faith in Christ should be Fellow-heirs with the Jews that believed in him and with the â—…s that bâ—…ed also And thus runs the Covenant of Grace to Abraham c. and thus it runs to believing Gentiles that all of them and their Children that believe or are in the Election of Grace shall be saved And 't is thus that all the Nations of the Earth are blessed in Christ whether Jews or Gentiles i. e. all such in all Nations that believe and are called by the preaching of the Gospel 2. But because Christ's Church does not now in Gospel-days take in whole Nations and whole Families as the Jewish Church under the Law did take in the whole Nation of the Jews and all their Families doth Christ weaken the Promises Sir that external Legal Covenant erected a Typical Church which Church ceased at the Establishment of the Spiritual Church which is only Congregational under the Gospel as I fully proved before But furthermore You say the Apostles understood Christ's Command unto them in this sense and therefore they have preached Salvation to those that believed and all theirs c. Answ The Apostles understood Christ's Command and Commission no doubt but it appears you understand it not Did they preach Salvation to Believers and to all their Children as such whether elected or not called by the Word or Spirit or not For this you must prove or you say nothing and how absurd would that be should you affirm any such thing Peter speaks of no Promise made to Jews nor Gentiles and to their Children but to such of them that the Lord our God shall call And 't is directly said that the Goaler and all his believed therefore if you will still affirm that the Apostles apply'd as you intimate Abraham's Covenant among the Gentiles unto the Seed the fleshly Seed of Believers as such you do assert an Untruth and cast a Lie upon the Apostles through your Ignorance Prove if you can they were to baptize any Person Adult or
others that believed not or made not a Confession of their Faith Children you say are part of the Nations for if the Apostles were to baptize all Nations then they were to baptize Infants also for Children are a great part of the Nations near one half Answ 1. 'T is evident that our Saviour in his great Commission enjoineth no more to be baptized but such who are first taught or made Disciples and this agrees with his own Practice John 4. 1. He made and baptized more Disciples than John he first made them Disciples and then baptized them nor were there any in the New Testament baptized but such who first made a Profession of Faith in Christ Do you read that those Jews Acts 2. that believed and were baptized were commanded to baptize their Infants or that any other baptized Believers among either Jews or Gentiles were commanded so to do or have we no perfect Rule left us in the Gospel for so it will follow if the Infants of Believers ought to be baptized 2. If the Commission be so extensive as you affirm then all the Heathens and Pagans in all Nations that believe not are to be baptized and all their Children too and all Unbelievers Children in Christian Nations Sir are not these part of the Nations Noble Britains see the nature of the Pedo-baptists Consequences and Inferences for baptizing Infants This Inference proves that all People and Nations in the whole World ought to be baptized from the Commission But I will as I once did to another Minister appeal to Mr. Owen's Conscience as he will answer it at Christ's Tribunal Whether he believes the Commission authorizeth Christ's Disciples to baptize any but such who are first taught and made Disciples whom St. Mark calls Believers repeating the words of the same Commission Mark 1â— 16. 3. Sir are the Infants of Believers near one half part of the Nations I am afraid you are mistaken this is the way to make Christ's Flock a great Flock but the truth is you have as much Reason to assert all the Infants of Heathens Pagans and Unbelievers are to be baptized from the Commissions as the Infants of Believers and then it may be as you say viz. they may be near one half of all Nations But to proceed Sir you say When God threatens to cut off the Nations from before the Israelites the Children were included for the Children were not spared any more than the Fathers On the other side say you when Christ commandeth to baptize the Nations for their Salvation he meaneth the Children as well as their Parents If a Man would command a Shepherd to shear all his Sheep and to set on them an Ear-mark to know them from other Sheep altho the Shepherd had sheared the Sheep and marked them if he leaves out the Lambs without marking of them he performeth not his Duty If he says to the Master the Lambs were too young for shearing true saith the Master but they were not too young for marking you ought to mark them for they are a great part of my Flock If little Children say you cannot receive Instruction they can receive Christ's Mark even Baptism by which Christ's Sheep are divided from the Goats of the Devil The Church of Christ is his Flock is there no Lambs in this Flock Christ is the good and faithful Shepherd who giveth his Life for his Flock John 10. 11. and will he not care for his Lambs and Weaklings of his Flock yea certainly he shall gather the Lambs with his Arms and carry them in his Bosom c. Answ 1. I answer 't is a bold Assertion from your Inference and absurd Consequence drawn from the Commission as I have shewed to affirm when Christ commandeth to baptize the Nations that he meaneth Children viz. because they are part of the Nations but I have answered that already when Children do believe they ought from the Commission to be baptized but not till then 2. As to your Similitude 't is much the same with that Mr. Burkit a Pedo-baptist hath in his Book which I lately answered I will recite my Answer to him which fully answers you both and all others who talk after this raâ—e he argues from the Commission as you do Take his Words and my Answer in order viz. The true Reason saith he why Christ bid his Disciples first teach and then baptize was because he was sending his Apostles forth among the Heathens to convert them to Christianity in which work we all know that preaching of the Word must go before the Administration of the Sacraments Should saith he the King of England send his Ministers into Foreign Plantations to convert the Indians to Christianity they ought not to be baptized before they are taught and instructed but when the Parents are proselyted and make a visible Profession of their Faith their Children may be baptized and afterwards instructed as the Children of the Jewish Proselytes were first circumcised and then taught For tho Abraham was first taught and then circumcised yet Isaac was first circumcised and then taught so that the sense of our Saviour is this Teach such as are capable of teaching and baptize such as are capable of Baptism Answ 1. I answer first how inconsistent is this with the words of the Commission By virtue of the Commission none ought to be baptized but such that are first taught or do believe and therefore some Pedo-baptists pretend that Infants have Habitual Faith Faith in semine c. but you plead they may be capable of Baptism without Faith and also contradict the Order of Words in the Commission Do you not confess by the Order of the Words in the Commission Teaching ought to go before Baptizing Sirs 't is a sign of a very bad Cause that puts you thus to try your Wits and after all confound your selves 2. I ask you how Abraham whom God commanded to be circumcised as a Seal of the Righteousness of that Faith HE had before circumcised could know he ought to circumcise his Son Isaac c. who had no such Faith had not God given him an express Command to do it Besure if he had he had sinned in doing that which God commanded him not So and in like manner since our Lord Jesus expresly in his Commission commanded none to be baptized but such who are first taught unless he had added as in Abraham's case viz. when an Heathen is converted to the Christian Faith and baptized you may baptize his Infants also How dare you make such Additions to Christ's Commission without his Authority and so make the World believe if you could our blessed Saviour gave forth an imperfect Commission to his Disciples which all Men must confess is the only Warrant and Rule of all Ministers to act by in the case of baptizing to the End of the World And doth he not say Add thou not to his Word lest he reprove thee and thou art sound to be a Liar by
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.
Rom. 3. 1. but Baptism signifies that all that believe whether Jews or Gentiles are one in Christ Gal. 3. 28. 3. Circumcision signified that Moses his Law was to be observed Gal. 5. 3. but Baptism doth signify that Moses his Law is abolished and the Doctrine of Christ established 4. Circumcision signified the Promise of the Land of Canaan but Baptism Eternal Life by Christ And indeed saith he if this Argument be not warily and restrainedly understood an Egg is laid out of which manifest Judaism may be hatched but if it be taken restrainedly it no more follows thence but that Baptism and Circumcision in some things hold forth the same which is more plainly said of Noah's Ark 1 Pet. 3. 21. and of the Red Sea and Cloud 1 Cor. 10. 2. and yet we say not that Baptism succeeded in their place much less do we infer any Rite to be instituted in their stead respecting the same Persons yea verily it is to be seriously thought on 1. That by such Arguments drawn from Analogies not conceived by the Holy Ghost but drawn out of our Wit a new kind of instituting Right viz. from Analogies is brought in besides our Lord's Precepts and the Apostles Examples 2. This being once said by a like Parity of Reason and arguing it will be lawful to bring into the Christian Church under other Names and Forms the whole Burden of Jewish Rites yea almost out of what you will to conclude what you will for who shall put a Bound to Mens seigning Analogies when they go beyond the Lord's Precepts and the Apostles Examples It is well known that the Divine Appointment of Tithes to be paid and many other things in the Writings of Divines are asserted by this kind of Argument beside the Rule of the Lord's Precepts and the Apostles Examples 3. Thereby will the Opinion of the Papists be confirmed who affirm the Sacraments of the Jews to be Types of the Sacraments of Christians which is rejected by those Divines that dispute against Bellarmine 4. This manner of arguing will countenance the Arguments of the Papists for an universal Bishop because the Jews had such and justify a Linen Garment at Mass because there was such among the Jews and for holy Water Purification of Women Easter Pentecost c. for which the Papists do in like manner argue as appears out of Durandus's Rationals and other Interpreters of Rituals among the Papists Yea what hinders but we may give Children the Lord's-Supper if we argue this way since Samuel Jesus Christ c. under Age were Partakers of the Passover and of right all the Males were thrice in the Year to appear before the Lord and therefore it is certain they did eat the Passover and it shall be afterwards shewed 1 Cor. 11. 28. the place will not avoid this Inconvenience if the Text Mat. 28. 29. may be shifted off as Pedo-baptists use to do Lest any Mâ—n take this for a light Suggestion I will add that Grave Godly and Learned Men have often warned that we are to take heed that we do not rashly frame Arguments from Analogy Among others in their late Writings in the English Tongue John Paget in his Defence of Church-Government Part 1. cap. 3. p. 8. and elsewhere John Ball in his Reply to the Answer of the New-England Elders unto the nine Positions Posit 2. p. 14. Lastly It is to be considered again and again how by these Argumentations the Consciences of Men may be freed from the danger of Will-worship and polluting so remarkable an Ordinance of Christ as Baptism is Especially the Care lies on them who by Prayer Sermons Writings Covenants and Oaths do deter Christians from Human Inventions in God's Worship diligently and it is to be hoped sincerely We further object That there was a Command for Circumcision of Infants but there is no Command for the baptizing of them You answer The New Testament mentions but little of Infants because so much mention is made of them in the Old Testament which saith plainly that the Children of the Faithful are in God's Covenant and that the Seal of the Covenant belongeth unto them Neither the Old Testament only nor the New Testament only say you but both together comprehend the Rule of Faith and Obedience The Jews deny the New Testament and some Christians among us say you deny the Old Testament in respect of Infant-Privileges Answ 1. You seem here to deny Infant-Baptism to be found in the New Testament therefore would have us go to Gen. 17. for it Strange case that a pure Gospel-Ordinance that is of meer positive Right can be found in the Old Testament 2. Sir tho the Old Testament and New together is a Rule of Faith and Obedience in many things especially in pure Moral Precepts yet Sir in Precepts meerly positive I deny the Old Testament is any Rule to us we are not obliged to Circumcision the Passover and Sacrifices c. by virtue of the Old Testament because they only belong to the Old Covenant-Time and as to Baptism and the Lord's-Supper they that lived under the Old Testament were not oblig'd to them because these are pure Gospel-Precepts and the New Testament only is our Rule and a perfect Rule too upon this account If therefore you cannot find Infants Baptism in the New Testament you and your Childish Baptism is gone for ever 3. The Old Testament doth not say the Children of the Faithful as such were in the Covenant of Grace tho they were in the Legal Covenant but we have proved if they were yet that doth not prove they ought to be baptized because the Covenant of Grace as such gives no right to Baptism but Christ's positive Command Now these things being considered what signifies all Mr. Owen hath said concerning Circumcision tho it signified some things that Baptism also doth signify if they differ in so many respects and there is no Institution of Christ for Infant-Baptism as there was for the Male Children of the Jews to be circucmised Circumcision or Baptism being neither of them moral but meer positive Precepts But since Mr. Owen saith in his next Chapter he shall shew that there is a Command for baptizing Infants we will see how he proves that CHAP. VIII Proving that Jesus Christ hath not commanded Infants to be baptized in Answer to what Mr. Owen affirms in the sixth Chapter of his Book concerning Christ's Commission Mat. 28. 19 20. YOU begin with the words of Christ's Commission Mat. 28. 19 20. thinking that he hath there commanded Infants to be baptized We will read the words of the Commission viz. Go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you c. In these words you say Christ commandeth 1. To teach the Nations 2. To baptize them 3. To teach them Here is say you a twofold Teaching one before
words of the Commission not to add to it nor diminish from it on paâ— of being cast out of his Favour and incuring his Wrath and Curse durst you do otherwise in any thing under pretence it was his meaning whereas he plainly and fully in his Commission expressed in the Affirmative how and what you should do in all Matters and Things and forbad you to add thereto Read Rev. 22. 18. For I testify unto every Man that heareth the words of the Prophecy of this Book If any Man shall add unto these things God shall add unto him all the Plagues that are written in this Book Who told you what you say is the sense of our Saviour Can any Man once think since the Commission of Christ is a pure Gospel-Commission and contains meer positive Laws and Rules no ways referring to nor depending on the Law or Command God gave to Abraham that what you say can be true and the Conclusion safe certain and warrantable May not another say with as good Authority that our Saviour commands his Disciples to baptize all Nations both Parents and Children too whether they will or not whether they believe or not whether Jews or Gentiles Turks or Pagans I wonder you are not afraid who take liberty after this sort to sport as it were and play with invert alter and add unto the sacred Commission of the jealous God and great King of Heaven and Earth 1. You confess Christ's Sheep came up from the washing whereof every one bear Twins and there is none barren among them Cant. 6. 6. Let therefore the Lambs say you be washed as they are a great part of the Flock I answer Infants as such by your own words cannot be Christ's Sheep nor Lambs for all his Sheep and Lambs that are washed are fruitful and none are barren among them Are Infants fruitful to Christ Can they bring forth Twins Sir Metaphors go not on all four as we used to say the Lambs of Christ viz. weak and young Christians may be as fruitful in Holiness as Sheep viz. old experienced Christians But how can you prove Baptism washes your Infants from Sin actual Sin they have none Doth it wash away Original Sin dare you say that The antient erring Fathers that brought it in affirmed that Baptism did wash away Original Sin in Infants but do you believe that they spoke Truth in so saying Christ's Lambs you say are capable to be fed by the Word and Sacrament Are Infants capable to hear the Word and partake of the Sacraments If of one of both Sir Christ's Lambs are new born Babes not new born by Natural Generation but by Regeneration as I have shewed You say that the Gentile Church should not come short of the Privileges of the old Jerusalem or Jewish Church and that the desolate hath more Children than she that hath an Husband Gal. 4. 27. and hence affirm if Children of the Christian Church enjoy not the Privilege of their Fathers she hath many less Children than the old Jerusalem-Church had Answ I answer the Gentile Church according to God's gracious Promise may be more than the Jewish was when the Fulness of the Gentiles are come in and yet no Infants Members of it Nay there is ground to believe in the Primitive Times there were more converted among the Gentiles than were amongst the Jews but still I find you harp on the old String i. e. that if the Gospel-Church be not National and enjoy as many outward and external Privileges as the Jewish did her Privileges are less but you consider not the Nature Quality and Glory of the Gospel-Church and wherein her Privileges excel the Legal Church of old Jerusalem You say when Christ commandeth to teach all Nations before baptized and after that their baptizing his meaning is teach and baptize to plant the Church and baptize and teach to continue the Church planted among the Gentiles Answ 1. I am grieved to think how bold you are in asserting that to be Christ's meaning which you affirm which can no ways be gathered from his Commission but 't is directly contrary to the express words thereof and also to the Nature of the Gospel-Church's Constitution But you affirm what you please and prove nothing 2. It appears by your words the Gospel-Church in its first Constitution or first planting was by Regeneration consisting only of believing Men and Women baptized on the Profession of their Faith or after they were made Disciples but after its first Constitution or first Plantation it was to consist of the Fleshly or Carnal Seed and so made National yea and to be made up of whole Nations Pray Sir since the great Commission Mat. 28. 19 20. proves nothing of this nor hath the Lord Jesus given out another Commission to nullify his first What ground have you to affirm so presumptuously any such thing Dare you add and diminish to God's Word nay alter Christ's last Will and Testament in his grand Commission Tremble at the thoughts of what you endeavour to do Sir the New Testament about Church-Constitution c. is a perfect Rule to the End of the World and as the first Gospel-Church after Christ's Ascension at Jerusalem was constituted so ought all Churches to be constituted and so to continue unto the second coming of Christ The Ordinances are to be kept as to the Subject and Mode of Administration as they were first delivered to the Saints See 1 Cor. 11. 2. Now I praise you Brethren that you remember me in all things and keep the Ordinances as I delivered them to you Therefore in direct Opposition to what you say in the close of your sixth Chapter I affirm from the Authority of Christ's Commission and from the nature of the Constitution of the Gospel-Church that as Teaching went before Baptizing for the planting of the Church in the Primitive Time so Teaching is to go before Baptizing in planting and continuing of the Church unto the End of the World and that the Teaching that is mentioned in order of Words in the Commission after Baptizing doth not refer to Infants of Believers or any other Infants but as Mr Baxter observes to such baptized Believers who after they were baptized ought to be taught all other things in the School of Christ which he commanded his Disciples to observe and to which if they thus act he subjoined his gracious Promise Lo I am with you always to the End of the World Mat. 28. 20. CHAP. IX In Answer to Mr. James Owen's seventh Chapter proving that the Children of the Faithful ought not to be baptized because they are said to be holy wherein 1 Cor. 7. 14. is examined and clearly explained with the sense of many learned Men both Pedo-baptists and others on the said Text. MR. James Owen thus begins in his seventh Chapter viz. If the Children of the Faithful are holy then Baptism appertaineth unto them for all confess that Holiness gives Right to Baptism if they allow
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
have done your Business but Sir doth not this Argument of yours as strongly prove that all wicked and ungodly people may be baptized also ye Swearers Whoremongers Murderers yea the worst of Men for can we think there were none such in Jerusalem Iudah nor in all the Regions round about yea that we may baptize Pagans and Infidels for no doubt but there were some of all Nations at Jerusalem 2. You affirm that John baptized the whole Nation of the Jews even every Man Woman and Child or else I mistake you now if this were so how it is said that Christ made and baptized more Disciples then John John 4. 1. John 3. 26. 't is said that Jesus baptized and all Men came to him How did John baptize all and Christ baptize more of the People then John what think you were they rebaptized certainly you will make them all proper Anabaptists besides if John baptized all the Jews where were those three thousand that St. Peter and the other Disciples baptized Acts 2. 40 41 42. were they not dwellers at Jerusalem and notwithstanding Christ baptized more Disciples then John yet 't is said Acts 1. 13. that the number of the Disciples that were at Jerusalem were but about one Hundred and Twenty 3. I have shewed that according to Scripture Rhetorick frequently by a Synecdoche a part is put for the whole and sometimes the far lesser part also 'T is said All the Cattel in Egypt died Exod. 9. 6. that is all that were in the Field Also Christ saith When he was lifted up he would draw all men unto him Joh. 12. 32. Doth that intend all universally So Paul saith All seek their own And Christ saith Ye shall be hated of all men for my name sake See these Scriptures Exod. 32. 3 26. Jer. 6. 3. 1 Cor. 10. 7. Isa 2. 2 3. Acts 2. 5. See Glassius Illiricus and other Tropical Writers Also read Philologiae Sacra and our last Annotators on the Holy Bible called Pool's Annotations on this Text. The Term All say they here twice repeated is enough to let us know that 't is often in Scripture significative no farther than Many For it cannot be imagined that every individual Person in Jerusalem and the Regions round about Jordan went to hear John the Baptist but a great many From hence it appears That it is no ground for Mr. Owen to affirm that by all Jerusalem and all Judea c. must be intended every individual Person both Men Women and Children but rather some of all Sorts Degrees Sexes c. It shews that Multitudes went to hear him and many were baptized by him in Jordan confessing their Sins with unfeigned Repentance But you say the Text doth not tell us what manner of Confession this was whether in Words or Works Their submission to Baptism was an actual Confession of their Uncleanness and that they stood in need of Washing it cannot be thought that it was a Confession in Words because one Man could not receive a particular Confession from the whole Country if they made a Confession in Words It is like one made it in the Names of others even as the Priests did in the Names of all the People Levit. 16. 21. Thus the Parents might confess their Sins for themselves and their Children c. 1. Ans. Let Mr. Baxter's Arguments serve to confute you here he tells you That from Scripture and the universal Practice of the ancient Church That Faith and a Confession of Faith yea a verbal Confession was requirad oi all that were baptized With the heart man believeth and with the mouth confession is made to salvation Rom. 10. 10. 2. Certainly you are strangely left to blindness of Mind about this Matter Did ever any Man except your self and one Mr. Excel whom I answered lately affirm That all ungodly and unbelieving Men and Women that were willing to be baptized were proper and fit Subjects of Sacred Baptism For all Men may see that this Argument of yours is for their Baptism and as forcible to prove they ought to be baptized as 't is to prove the Baptism of Infants For if John baptized all the whole Country even every individual Person then Ministers now may baptise all in all Nations even all the World let them be what they will Turks Pagans Infidels Swearers Drunkards and Idolaters Thieves Murtherers if they will but promise to turn from their Sins and repent whether they do it or no yet if your Argument be good they ought to be baptized But how contrary to this is that which all your Brethren generally assert viz. That in the Primitive Times when the Gospel was first preached and Churches planted all that were first baptized were Believers Saints and godly Persons and upon their Faith their Children were as they say baptitized also which is that we deny tho' they are right as to what theyspeak in respect of Believers themselves but siuce we have so fully refuted what you say of Baptizing adult Persons that are Unbelievers I will say no more of that in this place 3. 'T is evident what you affirm is false viz. That John baptized the whole Country even every individual Person and that by a plain Instance Is it not said That the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves being not baptized of him Luke 7. 30. That is faith our Annotators not receiving John's Doctrine of Repentance for the remission of Sins and bringing forth Fruits worthy of amendment of Life not submitting to Baptism as a Testimony of such a Repentance For John's Baptism signifieth his whole Administration See Pool's Annotations on that Place All may see what a kind of Confession it was John's Baptism required it was more than a verbal Confession of Sin even the Fruits of a changed Heart and a new Life And where this Doctrine of his was not received and these Fruits appeared not John would not baptize them And now to conclude with this Chapter in opposition to what Mr. Owen saith from the whole it clearly doth follow That John Baptist did not baptize the whole Country nor any one Infant no not any one Person but such who believed and seemed at the least to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance And as he says John's Baptism was the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ it followeth that no Infant ought to be baptized and that the external Privileges of the Gospel are restrained and not so large as were the outward Rites and Privileges of the Jewish Church tho' the Spiritual Privileges of the Gospel are larger and more extensive than those of the Law were CHAP. XVI In which it is proved That the Children of the Faithful as such ought not to be baptized because 't is said whole Housholds were baptized Being an Answer to what Mr. James Owen hath said in his 13th Chapter and so a Confutation of his Tenth Argument for Infant Baptism MR. Owen saith it was God's way from
when they will for in this Secrament there is nothing common to her that brings forth and that which shall be brought forth from her Womb because in that Confession the Liberty of every ones Choice is declared Whence we may infer 1. That in that age there seemed to be that aversness from baptizing Children that they were not willing to admit Women great with Child to Baptism lest it should be thought that the Child was baptized with them 2. That in those times in the Confession of Faith in the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ which was done in a Publick and Solemn manner in their Baptism a liberty of Choice and Consent was required as preparatory to it for the incapacity of the Infant in the Womb to declare this Choice and Consent is the reason why they conclude that the Infant was not baptized with the Mother 3. That it was then judg'd necessary to have the Consent and Choice of those who were to be baptized Dr. Du-Veil citing the same Synod on this passage viz. that concerning the Baptism of a Woman with Child that her Baptism concerns not her Child for every one is to give a demonstration of his own Faith and Confession saith however the interpreters draw it to another purpose it does appear that the Question was made of a Woman big with Child because it did seem that the Child was baptized together with the Mother which notwitstanding ought not to be used nor to be baptized except of its own proper Election and Profession Dr. Barlow Late Bishop of Lincoln in his Letter to Mr. T. saith I believe there is neither Precept nor Example in the Scripture for Pedo-Baptism nor any just Evidence for it for above 200 Years after Christ Tertullian condemns it as an unwarrantable Custom and Naziarzen a good while after dislikes it Sure I am saith he that in the primitive times they were Catâ—cumâ—ni then Illuminati or Baptizati and that not only Pagans and Children of Pagans Converted but Children of Christian Parents The Truth is I do believe Pedo-Baptism how or by whom I know not came into the World in the second Century and in the third and fourth began to be practised though not generally and was defended as lawful from the Text John 3. 〈◊〉 grosly misunderstanding it upon the like 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6. 53 they did for many Centuries both in the Greek and Latin Church Communicate Infants and gave them the Lord's Supper and I confess they might do both as well as either c. Thus Bishop Barlow 〈◊〉 saith Pedo-Baptismus duobus primis a Christo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fuit incognitus c. Pedo Baptism was unknown in the two first Ages after Christ but in the third and fourth it was approved of by a few in the fifth and following Ages it began to be generally received And therefore as afterwards he saith the right in indeed observed by us as an ancient Custom but 〈◊〉 an Apostolical Tradition The same learned Author saith De peccato Orig. Numb 〈◊〉 saith Morem Infantes Baptizandi non capisse 〈…〉 Seculum c. That the custom of 〈◊〉 infants did not begin till the Third Age 〈◊〉 Christ but in the two former no footsteps of it appear And afterwards saith Sine ipsius Christi 〈…〉 it was introduced without the command of Christ Athanasius in sermone 3 contra Arianos saith our Saviour did not slightly command to baptize but first of all said Teach and then Baptize that true Faith might come by teaching and Baptism be perfected by Faith Haimo in Postilla upon the Text Go teach all Nations Fol. 278. In this place saith he is set down a Rule rightly how to baptize that is that Teaching should go before Baptism for he saith teach all Nations and then he saith and baptize them for he that is to be baptized must be before instructed that he first learn to believe that which in Baptism he shall receive for as Faith without works is Dead so Works when they are not of Faith are nothing worth Idem in Annatationibus in mar The Apostles were commanded first to Teach and then to baptize The Jews were brought by Ceremonies to the Knowledge of the Truth but Christians must learn to know them first Beda saith all those that came to the Apostles to be baptized were instructed and taught concerning the Sacrament of Baptism then they received the Holy Administration thereof Rabanus the Catechi which is the Doctrine of Faith must go before Baptism to the intent that he that is to be baptized i. e. Catechamenus may first learn the Mysteries of Faith Arnobius Thou art not first saith he baptized and then beginnest to effect and embrace the Faith but when thou art to be baptized thou signifie unto the Priest what thy desire is and makest thy Confession with thy Mouth Jerom upon Matt. saith The Lord commandeth his Apostles that they should first instruct and teach all Nations and afterwards should baptize those that were instructed into the Mysteries of the Faith for it cannot be saith he that the Body should receive the Sacrament of Baptism till the Soul have received the true Faith Sir What think you now of the Testimony of the ancient Fathers and of the practice of the Churches after the Apostles days Sure the Reader must needs conclude we have the advantage here too and you must yield whether you will or no and give up the Controversie But to proceed Your first Demonstration to prove Infant Baptism in the days after the Apostles is this viz. because that Children had Hands laid upon them in their Minority Ans This signifies nothing for as the Fathers changed the Ordinance of Baptism from believing Men and Women to ignorant Babes so they changed imposition of Hands which I own to be a principle of Christ's Doctrine Heb. 6. 12 to such young People who in their Minority had learned the Articles of the Christian Faith But clear it is in the primitive Apostolical times none but baptized Believers were admitted to that Ordinance of laying on of Hands as Acts 8. 14. and 19. 6. But your Brother Mr. Burkit acknowledgeth that formerly there were such called Catechumeni Persons taught or instructed and afterwards baptized He saith further that there were two sorts the last he brings for his purpose but I know not where he hath his Testimony and therefore pass it by So much to your first Demonstration from the Fathers Your second Demonstration to prove Infant Baptism is this viz. because in the primitive times Infants were admitted to the Lord's Supper therefore you conclude they were admitted to Baptism Ans And they had say I as much Ground for the one as for the other and there is the same parity of reason to conclude as they erred in one so they did in the other Why doth you not from hence give Infants also the Lord's Supper The Reason you give I have before proved insignificant As to his third Demonstration
of this Because some have erred in staying too long before they were baptized Will you make too great haste and bring in little Babes to be baptized without any Ground or Authority from the Word of God So much shall suffice to your Twelfth and Last Argument Now Sir we have heard all your Proofs for the baptizing of Infants you have it seems impannell'd for your Jury to Sit Hear and Determine this Grand Cause Just Twelve and if they could speak they would being all agreed the Cause being also fully opened give their Verdict on our Side and against your Infant-Baptism but let them rather be so many Witnesses of your summoning the Statute Book and great Charter of the Church viz. God's Word having been opened and the Matter cleared We will appeal now to our worthy Reader particularly to the Antient and Noble Britains to make Judgment for themselves For in matters of Faith and Things that concern our Souls every Christian is to judg for himself Impartial Reader weigh well the matter Consider this we must all be judged by the VVord of God If you can find you are commanded to baptize your Children by Jesus Christ in the New Testament or can find any Precept or Precedent for it you may do it Or if what Mr. Owen hath said hath convinced you that Baptism doth not belong to Believers by good Authority he hath shewed from the Holy Scriptures but that Infants are the only Subjects thereof and that Baptism is nor dipping or burying the Body in VVater but only sprinkling or pouring a few Drops of VVater on the Person 's Face then continue in your former Practice till God shall open your Eyes But if you are otherwise perswaded that Mr. Owen is in an Error then I exhort you that believe in Christ to arise and be baptized But lest Mr. Owen should say 't is too soon for you to make Judgment yet pray stay till we have heard his Answers to our Objections and also all what he hath further to say CHAP. XIX Containing an Answer to Mr. James Owen's 16th Chapter proving that our Objections against Infant-Baptism are very weighty and his Answers to them very impertinent and defective MR. Owen begins with his Sixteenth Chapter after this manner viz. Thus have we proved by the Scripture saith he and by several Scriptural Arguments that the Children of the Faithful ought to be baptized if we look upon this Truth in the Light of the Scriptures Above the Objections of themselves will vanish away yet for the sake of the Weak I shall lay down the strongest of them 1. Object There is neither a Command nor Example in the Scripture for the baptizing of Infants To this Mr. Owen answereth viz. There is not one particular Command totidem verbis naming Infant-Baptism and that is not necessary but there is an Universal Command to baptize all Nations of which Children are a great part If there is a Command for the baptizing of the Parents then there is a Command for the baptizing of Infants for the Children are included in the Parents even as Parts of them being Partakers of the Privileges of good Parents and of the Judgments of the wicked Parents 1. Answ I answer Whether you have or have not proved by the Holy Scriptures and Arguments that Infants ought to be baptized is now upon a fair Trial committed to the Judgment of the Impartial Reader 2. We do not require you to bring a Command in totidem verbis or in so many Words Let Infants be baptized But your Inferences are not good for as you have no Precept no Command or any Precedent to baptize them so you can draw no fair and good Consequences for it from any Text of Scripture You bring the Words of the Great Commission Matth. 28. 19 20. Go baptize all Nations Sir Why dare you leave out part of the Words Is it not Go therefore teach all Nations baptizing them c. We have shewed in our Answer to you already that the Commission requires none to be baptized but such who are first taught or made Disciples which Disciples St. Mark calls Believers He that believes and is baptized Mark 16. 16. They are Reader the Words of the same Commission tho differently expressed by these two Great Evangelists and hold forth the same thing viz. That the Gospel is to be preached in all Nations or to all the World and that those that are discipled by preaching or that do believe ought to be baptized and none else 3. Whereas you say that Children are a great part of the Nations and may therefore be baptized this is a fallacious or deceitful Consequence For may not I as before argue thus Unbelievers i. e. Turks Infidels Pagans and their Children are a great part of all Nations therefore may be baptized Sir I appeal to your Conscience Whether this Inference is not as good and true from the Premises as yours 3. But you ask whether there is a command for the baptizing of Parents no doubt of this we and you agree that there is a command to baptize Parents that believe in Christ and to baptize Children too that believe in Christ but say you then there is a command to baptize Infants because they are included in the Parents even as parts of them now this is utterly false and also very ridiculous 't is for any Man to assert it 1. For if this was so it follows whatsoever God commands the Parent he commands the Child then when God commanded Abraham to offer up or slay his Son he commanded the Son to slay himself it would also follow That 2. When God commands the believing Parent to partake of the Lord's Supper he also commands all his Children to partake of the Lord's Supper because they are all included in their Parents 3. If Children are thus a part of their Parents then certainly if the Parents go to Heaven all their Children must go to Heaven likewise for the whole of Believers shall be saved and not a part of them only 4. Also if the Children are included in their Parents and are a part of them why may not the Parents Baptism serve for the Child and then it would also follow that no Man is a compleat and perfect Man without his Children was ever such Stuff by a Man of Parts and Learning published to the World 5. Sir will your Feeding or eating your Food feed your Children besure as much as your believing and being baptized will feed the Souls of your Children 6. Moreover why do you say the Judgments of wicked Parents fall on their Children did not God say that Proverb should be used no more in Israel but the Soul that Sins shall die If Children partake of the punishment of their Parents 't is when they are alike wicked and walk in the same steps their ungodly Parents walked in But you proceed and say that there is no particular command for the baptizing of Women Answ Male and
do not the thing you rantise and baptize none unless you dip them into the Water Chamier also faith the antient use of Baptism was to dip the whole Body into the Element therefore did John baptize in a River Dr. Hammond in his Annotations upon John 13. 10. saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an Immersion or washing the whole Body and which answereth to the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for dipping in the Old Testament and therefore tells us upon Mat. 3. that John baptized in a River viz. in Jordan Mark 1. 5. in a Confluence of Water John 3. 23. because 't is said there was much Water which the Greeks called the Lakes where they used to wash Also saith he the Antients called their Baptisterions or the Vessels containing their Baptismal Water Columbethras viz. swimming or diving places being very large with Partitions for Men and Women The Learned Mr. Pool or those Learned and Reverend Divines concerned in perfecting his most excellent Annotations on the holy Bible says a great part of those who went out to hear John were baptized that is dipped in Jordan on John 3. 6. and on Mat. 28. 20. say they the first Baptism of which we read in Holy Writ was dipping the Person baptized The Dutch Translation according to their Language reads it dipping Mat. 3. 16. Ende Jesus Gedoopt zijn de is terstont Opgeklomen vit hit wâ—er And when Jesus was dipp'd he came out of the Water And Ver. 6. Ende wierden van hemge doopt in de Jordan And were dipped of him in Jordan Hence they called John the Baptist John the Dipper In Verse 1. Ende in die dayen quam Jonnes de dooper predikenn in de woeffijue van Judea In English thus In those days came John the Dipper preaching in the Wilderness of Judea Had our Translators translated the Greek word into our English Tongue as the Dutch have done it into theirs it would have been read in our Bible John the Dipper and for baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. it would have been read dipping them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and then the People would not have been deceived but they have not translated the Greek word at all but left it in its Original Language What difference is there between Baptism and the Greek word Baptisma Mr. Ball in his Catechism doth not only say Faith was required of such who did desire Baptism but also that the Party baptized was washed by dipping c. But to close with this I argue thus viz. Since our Saviour sent his Disciples to teach and baptize or dip in the Name c. into all Nations viz. into cold Countries as well as hot and seeing Infants tender Bodies cannot bear dipping without palpable danger of their Lives it follows clearly that they are none of the Subjects Christ commanded to be dipp'd in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost To conclude with this take one Argument viz. If the proper literal and genuine Signification of the Greek word baptizo is dipping or to dip then sprinkling is not baptizing But the proper literal and genuine Signification of the Greek word baptizo is dipping or to dip Ergo Sprinkling is not Baptizing CHAP. IV. Proving Baptism is Dipping by the Practice of John Baptist Christ and his Apostles 2dly FRom the Practice of the Primitive Times I have already shewed that John Baptist baptized in the River Jordan who was the first that received Commission to baptize And Diodate on Mat. 3. says he plunged them in Water Piscator also saith the antient manner of baptizing was that the whole Body was dipp'd into the Water So saith the Assembly in their Annotations Nav say I it had been a vain and needless thing for them to go to Rivers to baptize if it had been only to sprinkle a little Water on the Face for a Quart of Water might have served to have rantized a great number And had Sprinkling or Rantizing been the Ordinance there is no Reason left to conceive why they should go to Rivers nor would the Spirit of God have given that as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water John 3. 23. But some strive to contradict the Holy Ghost by making People believe there was not much Water in that place Because the Original reads not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much Water but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Waters that is say they many Sâ—…ms or Rivolets Answer What difference is there between much VVater and many Waters If they were Streams and Rivolets tho not deep yet if they were but a little while stopped with a Dam they would soon rise to be deep enough to swim in as Experience shews But 't is enough there he baptized saith the Holy Spirit for there was much Water or many Waters there for or because intimating plainly that the Ordinance could not be administred with a little Water but that it required many Waters or much Water a great deal more than a Bason could hold or you hold in your Hand 2. But 't is objected Sandy's Travels tell us that they were so shallow as not to reach above the Ankles Answ 1. Must we believe God's Word or a lying Traveller the Scripture saith there was much Water or many Waters and he says there was but a little 2. In some shallow Rivolets we daily see that in some places the Water is deep and might it not be so in that and this Traveller might not so curiously search or examine the matter 3. Or might there not be a great Confluence of Water then as Dr. Hammond words it and yet but little or shallow Water now or when Sandys was there Time alters Rivers as well as other things But if any seek after this manner to contradict the sacred Text to defend their Childish Practice of Rantism they deserve greatly to be blamed Take this Argument If the Holy Ghost gives it as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water then a little Water will not serve to baptize in But the Holy Ghost gives this as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water Ergo a little Water will not serve to baptize in 2dly But to proceed Mark 1. 9. 't is said Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan Now saith a Learned Man on the place It had been Nonsense for St. Mark to say that Jesus was baptized in Jordan if he had been sprinkled because the Greek reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Jordan Could Jesus be said to be sprinkled into the River Jordan 't is proper to say he was dipped into Jordan and that is and was the Act and nothing else besure 3dly They went down both into the Water both Philip and the Eunuch Acts 8. What need had there been
yet the grafting of a Person into Christ is represented by that Allusion or Metaphorical Expression Must the Sign and the Thing signified be all one and the same thing Thus we see in opposition to what you say in the close of your third Chapter that it is very plain and manifest that dipping is absolutely necessary and of the Essence of Baptism it 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alas Sir in all the New Testament where we read of sprinkling the Greek as I said before renders it rantizing not baptizing 〈◊〉 Christ has ordained Rantism to represent the sprinkling of his Blood or the sprinkling of his Spirit prove it we deny it and have sufficiently proved he has appointed Baptism to represent his Death Burial and Resurrection and that sprinkling is not baptizing But for a farther Satisfaction of the impartial Reader take a few Syllogistical Arguments Arg. 1. If Baptism was ordained to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ in a lively Figure then Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism But Baptism was ordained to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ in a lively Figure therefore Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism This Argument we have proved to be true in every part of it Arg. 2. If Baptism was appointed to hold forth or represent in a lively Figure the Person 's Death to Sin who is baptized or his present Regeneration not future and his rising again to walk in Newness of Life then Infants cannot be the Subjects thereof But Baptism was appointed to hold forth or represent in a lively Figure the Person 's Death to Sin who is baptized or his present Regeneration not future and his rising again to walk in Newness of Life Therefore Infants are not the Subjects thereof 4. There is yet one Proof further to make it yet clearer that Baptism is dipping or plunging and nothing else and that is taken from those Typical Baptisms spoken of in the holy Scripture 1. That of the Red Sea wherein the Fathers were buried as it were unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud See Pool's Annotations on the Place Others says he more properly think the Apostle uses this Term in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptism as it was used the Person going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea the great Receptable of Water tho the Water at that time was gathered on heaps on the other side of them yet they seemed buried in the Water as Persons seem'd buried in the Water were in that Age when they were baptized 2. The second Typical Baptism was that of Noah's Ark See Sir Norton Knatchbull whom I quoted before saith he Noah's Ark and Baptism were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection not a Sign of the washing away of Sin tho so taken metonymically but a particular Signal of the Resurrection of Christ Of this again saith he is Baptism a lively and emphatical Figure as also was the Ark of Noah out of which he returned as from a Sepulchre From hence I infer this Argument following Arg. 3. If those Typical Baptisms spoken of in the Scriptures signified Immersion or an Overwhelming or a Burial then is Sprinkling no true Baptism But those Typical Baptisms c. did signify Immersion or an Overwhelming or a Burial Therefore Sprinkling is no true Baptism Again that Baptism is dipping or plunging or a being buried in the Water appears by those Metaphorical Baptisms we read of which are twofold 1st The Baptism of the Holy Spirit 2dly The Baptism of Afflictions 1st Saith John the Baptist I indeed baptize you with Water but he shall baptize you with the holy Spirit and Fire Now 't is not the sanctifying Gifts of the Spirit which every Godly Person receives that is the Baptism of the Spirit but as the Learned observe the miraculous Effusions of the holy Spirit like that at Pentecost Acts 1. 4 5. shall be baptized The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Casaubon is to dip or plunge 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 'T is not a sprinkling of the Spirit that is the Baptism of the Spirit for so doubtless the Apostles had the Spirit before they were said to be baptized with it Oecumenius on Acts 2. saith A Wind filled the whole House that it seem'd like a Fish-pond because it was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost 2dly We read of the Baptism of Afflictions I have a Baptism to be baptized with and how am I straiâ—ned till it be accomplished From the literal Signification of the word baptizâ— immergo as I shewed before to plunge under overwhelm great Afflictions come to be called Baptism and signifies as Vossius shews not every light Affliction but like that of David Psal 32. 6. he drew me out of the deep Waters Hence great Afflictions are called Waves Thy Wazes and thy Billows are gone over me Psal 42. 7. 'T is spoken of Christ's Sufferings who was as it were drowned drenched or overwhelmed in Afflictions and Sufferings Every small Affliction is not the Baptism of Afflictions but great and deep Afflictions suffering even unto Blood and Death Pool's Annotations say to be baptized is to be dipped in Water metaphorically to be plunged in Afflictions I shall close this also with another Argument Arg. 4. If those Metaphorical Baptisms which we read of in God's Word as the Baptism of the Spirit and of Afflictions and Sufferings are taken from the literal and genuine Signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immergo which signifies to dip then sprinkling is not baptizing but the former is true Ergo sprinkling is not baptizing CHAP. V. Wherein Mr. Owen's Argument for Infant-Baptism taken from the Covenant God made with Abraham is examined and totally confuted SIR YOu in your fourth Chapter come to consider and enquire who are the proper Subjects of Baptism or who they are that ought to be baptiz'd And first you say that Baptism doth not belong to all Men but to the Faithful and their Seed He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. When the Eunuch ask'd Philip See here is Water what doth hinder me to be baptized He answered If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayst Acts 8. It is plain say you that Baptism belongeth to them that believe but say you how doth it appear that Baptism doth belong to the Seed of such that will appear you say 1. From God's Covenant 2. From Circumcision under the Law 3. From Christ's Command to baptize all Nations 4. Because they are holy 5. Because Christ blessed them 6. Because the Gentiles were ingrafted into the Privileges of the Jews 7.
Speak Sir your Mind freely the next time for God willing I shall be ready for you O when will you cease to corrupt the Word of God by your Tradition You say Mr. Tombs saith If Children are Members of the visible Church they ought to be baptized I do not remember Mr. Tombs saith so and if they are Members of the visible Church before baptized they cannot be made Members by Baptism 'T is absurd to say to a Man Come into this House or to say Bring such a Child into the House that is in it before For Baptism say you is the Door through which we come into the Church of God Those that say they are not Members of the Church of God ought you say to shew us a plain Scripture for their casting out if they can of one Church since Adam until this latter Age of which little Children were Members c. And again you say if they were cast out how comes it to pass that there is not one word in Scripture mentioned of it call for a Scripture from those that would shake your Faith concerning this Prerogative Answ 1. I have answered this already We say and prove that Infants were never received at all into the Gospel-Church therefore cannot be said to be cast out of it 2. We deny what you affirm without any Proof viz. That Infants were always Members of the Visible Church since Adam Prove if you can they were received as Members before that Typical Church-state which was constituted in Abraham's Family 3. The First-born of Israel were holy the Priests Sons had a right to the Ministery or Priesthood shew when they were cast out and lost both those Prerogatives and that very way you must take to answer will serve to answer your self in respect of Infants Church-Membership The Answer must be this the National Church and Church-Membership and Priesthood of the Jews are dissolved and taken away and thereby all those external Rites and Prerogatives the Jewish Children had are gone 4. These were as Legacies left in the old Will in the old Testament but there is a new Will made or Christ hath made his last Will and Testament and in this his last Will and Testament none of these external Rites or Prerogatives as you call them are left to Infants Sir there is no need in a new Will in the last Will and Testament to mention Negatives that is not usual not what is not left but only in the Affirmative what is left therefore in vain is this Flourish it will do your People who are shaken in their Belief of your Tradition no good 5. You bid them call for a Scripture from those that oppose their Practice in the Negative i. e. that forbid Infants Church-Membership or speak where they were cast out O how dangerous is your Doctrine May not the Papists say to them also Where do you read holy Water and holy Garments are forbid Moses commanded the People to be sprinkled with Water and many other Rites that were among the Jews We say the Papists call for Scripture where those things are forbid which they have among them or when God cast them out of the Church What Human Tradition may not be let into the Church at this Door You say the unbelieving Jews would have stumbled if Paul had cast out their Children from the Church and put them in the same Condition as the Children of Infidels Answ 'T is your mistake he told them plainly that the Children of the Flesh were not the Children of God i. e. of the Promise or of the true Gospel-Church as such Rom. 9. 5 6 7. yet they stumbled not nay shewed them they and their Children had no external Privileges above the Gentiles and that Circumcision availed them nothing and yet the believing Jews stumbled not at his Doctrine Sir no doubt when the Jews are called they will not be of your mind to plead the old Covenant-right of their Children being Members as such You say That we judg the Adult holy because they are separated unto the Lord in a Profession of Holiness altho it be too often an Hypocritical Profession and shall we not say you judg the Children of the Faithful to be holy whom God so called c. Answ 1. God called the whole House of Israel holy because he separated them to himself both Parents and Children in a legal Church-state whether the Parents were Believers or faithful Persons or real Saints or not but God in the Gospel hath separated none to be Members of the Gospel-Church but such that are Adult Persons Believers in â—ued with real Holiness There is I tell you again no Fleshly Relative Federal Holiness under the Dispensation of the Gospel spoken of disprove it if you can 2. As to the Holiness of Infants born in lawful Wedlock they are by the Lord called holy or a Godly Seed Mal. 2. 15. And did he make one i. e. one Wife yet he had the residue of the Spirit and wherefore one that he might seek a Godly Seed that is a godly or holy Seed by Legitimation whether the Man or the Woman joined together in holy Matrimony are Believers or Unbelievers their Seed is a godly or holy Seed in this respect and not only the Seed of the Faithful as you intimate but the Seed of Unbelievers also and so not a Federal or Spiritual Holiness as you would have it The Seed born to the Faithful say you in lawful Wedlock are a godly and holy Seed God calleth such his Children that were born to them Ezek. 16. 20 21. As it was formerly even so it is under the New Testament those that are separated unto the Lord by Baptism are called a holy Nation Answ It follows then by your Argument that the Children of Unbelievers born in lawful Wedlock are not a holy Seed that is they are Bastards or Cast-aways but you must first prove their Marriage unlawful and the Holiness here mentioned such you speak of before you carry this Point 2. All the Children of the whole House of Israel were typically and federally holy then in that National Church you confound typical federal Holiness and Matrimonial Holiness together which are quite remote in their nature 3. We say all Believers baptized under the Gospel are spiritually holy and are called 1 Pet. 2. 7. a holy Nation a Royal Priesthood but this holy Nation consisteth of none but Adult Persons that believe who are called lively Stones building up a spiritual House 1 Pet. 2. 5 6. not a National Church consisting of Parents and their Fleshly Seed as such as under the Law But if for Argument-sake we should grant all that were in the Gospel-times received as Members in the visible Church should be called holy in Charity from that Profession they made yet this will do you no good until by God's Ordination you can prove that the Infants of Believers were received as Members into the Church in Gospel-times as they were into
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
called Men washed Sanctifyed Justifyed They are all called Saints and Churches of Saints all Christians are called sanctifyed ones or Saints therefore it is certain that they professed themselves such Thus far Mr. Richard Baxter Sir I thought fit to confute you in your bold Assertion viz. that John the Baptist baptized all that came to him even those Pharisees that he called a Generation of Vipers by making use of the Sword of Goliah Reader how this Pedo-Baptists Mr. Baxter hath not only overthrown Mr. Owen's argument here for Infant Baptism but utterly hath overthrown Infant Baptism it self 1. For he saith the Commission directeth Christ's Apostles to make Disciples and then baptize them p. 27. 2. He saith the summ of that preaching that maketh Disciples is repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ p. 30 31. Where then is the Commission to baptize Infants Baptism can't make them Disciples nor their Parents Faith neither no 't is the preaching of the word he that has not Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is no Disciple of Christs You must have a new Commission to baptize unbelievers or Infants either before ye ought to do it 6. You say John came to prepare the way of the Lord the end of his baptism was to bind all the People to believe in the Lord Jesus which was to come Faith was not the condition of John's Baptism but the end thereof his Baptism laid a particular obligation on all the Seed of Abraham to receive Christ Childred as well as others were bound to receive him when they came to Age because Baptism was a sign of that obligation c. Answer Could you prove what you say it was something to your Business viz. that John baptized all even ungodly Parents as well as Children which Mr. Baxter from God's word hath fully confuted 2. Also then it must follow that the baptism of John and that baptism administred by the Apostles differed in an essential part which you your self but a little before do utterly deny and affirm that they were both essentially one and the same baptism only one unto him that was to come and the other into him that was come Dead and Risen again Now was not Faith and Repentance the condition of that Baptism administred by the Apostles did not they require Faith and a profession of Faith of all they admitted to Baptism the Scriptures Mr. Baxter cites in the aforementioned Book of his fully proves they did and that those things were prerequisites of it therefore Baptism as administred by John and by the Disciples of Christ was not only to the end they should be obliged to believe and repent but Faith and Repentance was the condition or qualification of all they baptized For John nor the Apostles neither would take a bare verbal profession of Repentance of those that came to Baptism John commanded them to produce the Fruits of Repentance or to bring forth Fruit meet for Repentance and this was his way to prepare the way of the Lord or to prepare a People for the Lord 's Spiritual Building he preached Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand That Vow or Promise in Baptism that you dream of prepares no Man for Christ nor fits any for his Church no. no it must be Conversion Faith and Regeneration it self 7. You say little Children were Members of the Church of God in the time of John none can deny that because Circumsion the Seal of the Covenant was upon them all the Seed of Abraham were at that time God's visible Church and they were his only Church upon Earth they were not out of the Church before they were baptized neither were they received into the Church of God through Baptism as those that were out of it before but the whole Nation were baptized because they were Members of God's visible Church and because little Children were Members of the visible Church the Baptism of John appertained unto them 1. Answer I answer we deny not but the Jewish Infants were Members of God's legal Church but I ask you whether John's Baptism was a legal Ordinance or a pure Gospel Ordinance as Circumcision was prove it we deny it and say it was Evangelical and did not appertain to the Jews or the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh as such 2. If you should prove it was a legal Ordinance yet it doth not follow Infants of the Jews ought to be baptized as their Males were to be Circumcised because there was a clear politive command to circumcise them but none to baptize them 3. If you argue from the right of Circumcision then it follows that none but their male Infants ought to be baptized What authority had John to baptize females whether the adult or Infants as I said refore 4. I am troubled to see how you confound your Peoples understanding was the Jewish Church or the Visible Church of God under the Law and the visible Gospel Church formally and materially one and the same Had the Jews a right to all Gospel Ordinances and Privileges because they abode his legal visible Church till the Death of Christ we grant the invisible Church of God under Law and Gospel is but one and the same but doth not the Gospel Church in its Ordinances Administrations Rights and Piviledges vastly differ from the legal was not the visible Church of God under the Law a National Church made up of the Jewish People only and is the Gospel Church not congregational consisting of both Jews and Gentiles that believe or are born of the Spirit 5. What though John did not make void the Covenant of peculiarity God made with Abraham yet he laid the Ax at the Root and being to prepare matter for a new Church State and his Ministry being Gospel and the Ordinance he administred a Gospel Institution he told the Jews and Pharisees that their being Abraham's Seed or having Abraham to their Father now was no good Plea or Argument for them to plead as a right to this new Administration John's Doctrine did in part finish the Law and the Prophets or old covenant Dispensation though the full period of it was not come till the death of Christ Hence our Saviour saith the Law and the Prophets were untill John and from that time the Kingdom of Heaven began to suffer Violence and Men strove to press into it though its full and perfect beginning was not till our Lord had broken down the middle wall of Partition and nail'd the legal Rites and carnal Ordinances to his Cross and removed that enmity between Jews and Gentiles making both one new Man and so a new Gospel Church pray take what one of your own Brethren a Pedo-Baptist saith of John's Ministration it is Reverend Cotton of New-England Who speaking of this Text Mat. 3. 10. Now also the Ax is laid to the Root of the Trees The first saith he is the Root of Abraham's Covenant which these People trusted upon and of
Female are all one in Christ Jesus and Women are called Disciples and so are not Infants 2. We have plain presidents that Women were baptized which is all one with a Command Acts 8. 12. When they believed Philip Preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and Name of Jesus Christ they were baptized both Men and Women And also that Lyd a was baptized Acts 16. Do but shew us one like president where any Infant was baptized and we will say no more You say we have not a particular Command for keeping the first day of the Week as an Holy Sabbath to the Lord. Answ We have a command to keep the Seventh part of time as a Sabbath to the Lord Exod. 20. and plain presidents in the New Testament That on the first day the Saints did meet to Worship God Acts 20. 7. 1 Cor. 16. 1. The first day of the Week as the Christian Sabbath was also confirmed by the first miraculous appearance of Christ after his Ascension into Heaven which was the day of Pentecost Acts 2. 1 2. give like proofs for your Infant Baptism You would have us to shew what Scripture we have for re-baptizing Answ I shall answer that by and by when I come to your next Chapter where we have it again we do not own it Lawful to baptize them Again who have been once rightly baptized but Rantism is not Baptism nor are Infants the true Subjects of it You say you have shewed already That there are many examples in the Scripture for Infant Baptism which are plain unto them that understand the agreement and the consequences of Scripture Answ I answer let the Reader judge in this case now we have examined all those Texts you draw your examples from whether your consequences are clear and plain or not Obj. The Scripture calleth upon some to believe before they are baptized He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. and according to that Rule the Apostles did not baptize any untill they believed Acts 2. 38. This is the Second Objection Mr. Owen brings against what he hath wrote take his Answer viz. Saith he when the Scriptures saith that he that believeth and is baptized 1. It mentioneth Adult Persons viz. the unbelieving Gentiles unto whom Christ sent his Disciples Mark 16. 15. Mat. 28. 19. and not the Children of the Faithful Christ sending them into all the World to preach the Gospel into Pagan Nations and saying He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 15 16. shews that neither Baptism nor Salvation belongeth unto them until they believe in the Lord Jesus if we were to preach unto such we should baptize none until they would believe But what is this to the Seed of the Faithful of whom Christ mentioneth not 1. Answ I answer Reader observe that here Mr. Omen hath given away his cause for ever for he saith Christ speaks not of the Children of the Faithful but of the Adult Now consider that these two Texts which he here Quotes viz. Mat. 28. 19 20. Mark 16. 15 16. does contain the great and only Commission and Warranty given by the Lord Jesus the only Law-giver about Baptizing and if Infants are not mentioned nor intended here there is no Warrant at all to Baptize them for if by virtue of the great Commission all persons must first believe before they are baptized farewell for ever to Infant Baptism 2. The Objection well saith That according to this Rule or Commission the Apostles did not baptize any until they believed which is true and he cannot refute it 3. Consider that the Commission Mat. 28. 19 20. Mark 16. 15 16. did not only authorize the Apostles to go and make Disciples among the Gentile or Pagan World but also among the Jews that were the Seed of Abraham nay they were commanded first to begin or open their Commission to preach to them at Jerusalem moreover the words of this Commission is all the Commission and Warrant the Disciples and Ministers of the Gospel have to administer Baptism to all the Christian Nations to the end of the World There are not two Commissions given by Christ about baptizing one to go to the Pagan or Gentile World and another to be believing Christian World or to believers and their Seed Now there is but one Commission and only Rule we have to baptize therefore Mr. Baxter saith well i. e. Christ in his Commission directeth his Apostles to make Disciples and then baptize them promising that he that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved Baxt. Confirm p. 27. And in another place he saith speaking of this only Warrant or Commission of Baptizing if we have it not here where have we it Shall any one think Christ's Commission short and defective 4. Mr. Owen saith if we were to preach unto such that is to unbelievers or Heathens we should baptize none until they believed Now pray consider that this is his Commission to baptize if he be a true Minister of Christ let him preach to whom he will or come where he will he must do all things according to this Commission as 't is here given neither baptize Young nor Old neither Jew nor Gentile Parent nor Child until they believe or profess their Faith in Jesus Christ if he doth he Violates and acts directly contrary to his only Commission and therefore if he doth he sins Should any Commissioner of an Earthly King act contrary to the very express words and purport of his Commission he certainly would be condemned as a false and unfaithful Servant and be turned out of his Masters Service Mr. Owen saith That the Seed of the faithful Christ mentioneth not that is in his great Commission Mat. 28. 19 20. Mark 16. 15 16. therefore such he must not Baptize unless he hath from Christ received a new or any other Commission that doth authorize him so to do 5. And observable it is to see how Mr. Owen contradicts himself here in respect of what he said before when he mention'd the same Texts and Commission of Christ he told us that Children are part of the Nations that Christ commanded to be Baptized but now he saith The Seed of the Faithful Christ mentioneth not and besure now at this turn he speaks the Truth and if none of the Seed of the Faithful ought to be Baptized by vertue of Christs Commission but such only of them that do believe then no Infant for Teaching is making of Disciples so that they are to be taught so as to believe before they are to be Baptized and that in all Nations whether Heathens or Christians and that also to the end of the World teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and lo I am with you all ways to the end of the Word Mat. 28. 20. It is certain saith Mr. Owen that this Scripture mentioneth not of Children if it doth they must needs be damned for want of Faith
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