Speak Sir your Mind freely the next time for God willing I shall be ready for you O when will you cease to corrupt the Word of God by your Tradition You say Mr. Tombs saith If Children are Members of the visible Church they ought to be baptized I do not remember Mr. Tombs saith so and if they are Members of the visible Church before baptized they cannot be made Members by Baptism 'T is absurd to say to a Man Come into this House or to say Bring such a Child into the House that is in it before For Baptism say you is the Door through which we come into the Church of God Those that say they are not Members of the Church of God ought you say to shew us a plain Scripture for their casting out if they can of one Church since Adam until this latter Age of which little Children were Members c. And again you say if they were cast out how comes it to pass that there is not one word in Scripture mentioned of it call for a Scripture from those that would shake your Faith concerning this Prerogative Answ 1. I have answered this already We say and prove that Infants were never received at all into the Gospel-Church therefore cannot be said to be cast out of it 2. We deny what you affirm without any Proof viz. That Infants were always Members of the Visible Church since Adam Prove if you can they were received as Members before that Typical Church-state which was constituted in Abraham's Family 3. The First-born of Israel were holy the Priests Sons had a right to the Ministery or Priesthood shew when they were cast out and lost both those Prerogatives and that very way you must take to answer will serve to answer your self in respect of Infants Church-Membership The Answer must be this the National Church and Church-Membership and Priesthood of the Jews are dissolved and taken away and thereby all those external Rites and Prerogatives the Jewish Children had are gone 4. These were as Legacies left in the old Will in the old Testament but there is a new Will made or Christ hath made his last Will and Testament and in this his last Will and Testament none of these external Rites or Prerogatives as you call them are left to Infants Sir there is no need in a new Will in the last Will and Testament to mention Negatives that is not usual not what is not left but only in the Affirmative what is left therefore in vain is this Flourish it will do your People who are shaken in their Belief of your Tradition no good 5. You bid them call for a Scripture from those that oppose their Practice in the Negative i. e. that forbid Infants Church-Membership or speak where they were cast out O how dangerous is your Doctrine May not the Papists say to them also Where do you read holy Water and holy Garments are forbid Moses commanded the People to be sprinkled with Water and many other Rites that were among the Jews We say the Papists call for Scripture where those things are forbid which they have among them or when God cast them out of the Church What Human Tradition may not be let into the Church at this Door You say the unbelieving Jews would have stumbled if Paul had cast out their Children from the Church and put them in the same Condition as the Children of Infidels Answ 'T is your mistake he told them plainly that the Children of the Flesh were not the Children of God i. e. of the Promise or of the true Gospel-Church as such Rom. 9. 5 6 7. yet they stumbled not nay shewed them they and their Children had no external Privileges above the Gentiles and that Circumcision availed them nothing and yet the believing Jews stumbled not at his Doctrine Sir no doubt when the Jews are called they will not be of your mind to plead the old Covenant-right of their Children being Members as such You say That we judg the Adult holy because they are separated unto the Lord in a Profession of Holiness altho it be too often an Hypocritical Profession and shall we not say you judg the Children of the Faithful to be holy whom God so called c. Answ 1. God called the whole House of Israel holy because he separated them to himself both Parents and Children in a legal Church-state whether the Parents were Believers or faithful Persons or real Saints or not but God in the Gospel hath separated none to be Members of the Gospel-Church but such that are Adult Persons Believers in â—ued with real Holiness There is I tell you again no Fleshly Relative Federal Holiness under the Dispensation of the Gospel spoken of disprove it if you can 2. As to the Holiness of Infants born in lawful Wedlock they are by the Lord called holy or a Godly Seed Mal. 2. 15. And did he make one i. e. one Wife yet he had the residue of the Spirit and wherefore one that he might seek a Godly Seed that is a godly or holy Seed by Legitimation whether the Man or the Woman joined together in holy Matrimony are Believers or Unbelievers their Seed is a godly or holy Seed in this respect and not only the Seed of the Faithful as you intimate but the Seed of Unbelievers also and so not a Federal or Spiritual Holiness as you would have it The Seed born to the Faithful say you in lawful Wedlock are a godly and holy Seed God calleth such his Children that were born to them Ezek. 16. 20 21. As it was formerly even so it is under the New Testament those that are separated unto the Lord by Baptism are called a holy Nation Answ It follows then by your Argument that the Children of Unbelievers born in lawful Wedlock are not a holy Seed that is they are Bastards or Cast-aways but you must first prove their Marriage unlawful and the Holiness here mentioned such you speak of before you carry this Point 2. All the Children of the whole House of Israel were typically and federally holy then in that National Church you confound typical federal Holiness and Matrimonial Holiness together which are quite remote in their nature 3. We say all Believers baptized under the Gospel are spiritually holy and are called 1 Pet. 2. 7. a holy Nation a Royal Priesthood but this holy Nation consisteth of none but Adult Persons that believe who are called lively Stones building up a spiritual House 1 Pet. 2. 5 6. not a National Church consisting of Parents and their Fleshly Seed as such as under the Law But if for Argument-sake we should grant all that were in the Gospel-times received as Members in the visible Church should be called holy in Charity from that Profession they made yet this will do you no good until by God's Ordination you can prove that the Infants of Believers were received as Members into the Church in Gospel-times as they were into
the National Church of the Jews under the Law You say that Paul calleth the Christians in his Epistles to the Churches of the Gentiles Saints Rom. 1. 7. a Cor. 1. 1. because they were separated by Covenant and the Obligation of Baptism to be the Lord's and not only the believing Parents but the Children also are Saints and for this you cite this Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. But now are they holy Answ Prove that the Infants of Believers were comprehended amongst the Saints Paul wrote unto and that they were Church-Members we utterly deny it and must People believe it on your bare Testimony In whose Authority and Power then must stand their Faith in this matter Sir you bring the Text in Controversy only to prove your Assertion Is this to act like a wise and learned Man If the Holiness in the Text renders Infants to be Saints prove your Exposition from some other Scripture which if you cannot do give up the Point and confess your Mistake and Ignorance for no Scripture is of any private Interpretation i. e. but that it may be confirmed by some other place or places of sacred Scripture And now because Mr. Burkitt a learned Pedo-baptist in his late Book for Infant-Baptism argues from this Text as you do and I have fully in answering him answered you both I shall here repeat his Arguments and my Reply he says Paul in these words answers the Corinthians Scruple you say the Apostle in these words answers a Question proposed by the believing Corinthians viz. Whether such as had Heathen and Infidel Wives ought to put them away with their Children as in the days of Ezra The Apostle resolves them that they ought not For saith he the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the believing Husband How sanctified Not in her Name but in her Use says Mr. Burkitt so as that they might lawfully cohabit and converse together And for your Children they are holy not with an Inherent Internal Personal Holiness for the holiest Man-child is born in Sin and by Nature a Child of Wrath but with an External Relative Federal Holiness they are not common and unclean like the Children of Infidels but fit to be partakers of the Privileges of the Church which the Children of Infidels are not Thus Mr. Barkitt Now I answer as I have answered him you can't be ignorant but that you know well enough this Text hath been fully opened by divers learned Men as well Pedobaptists as Anti-pedobaptists who prove the Holiness here spoken of is no such External Relative Federal Holiness you dream of In the first place you speak right it was about that very matter that the Corinthians wrote to St. Paul viz. Whether the believing Husband might live or cohabit with the unbelieving Wife c. So that the Scope and Coherence of the Text opens the matter and shews what Holiness 't is the Apostle intends viz. a Matrimonial Holiness for should he make their Marriage void their Children would be unclean or illegitimate i. e. Bastards for tho 〈◊〉 true the case was not as Mr. Burkitt says concerning Men and Whores but about Husbands and Wives yet he honestly says it was about the Lawfulness of their Marriage as in Ezra's time when some were commanded to put their Wives away because their Marriage was unlawful Now such say we as is the Sanctification or Holiness of the unbelieving Wife or Husband is the Sanctification or Holiness of the 〈◊〉 and that Mr. Burkitt grants to be a Matrimonial Sanctification so as that they might lawfully cohabit together a Man and Wife And indeed if the Children had from hence an External Relative Federal Holiness it would follow also that the unbelieving Husband and Wife had such an External Relative Federal Holiness likewise and that would open the same Door to baptize the unbelieving Husband or Wife For may not another Person argue thus The unbelieving Husband is holy or sanctified by the believing Wife and therefore by virtue of her Faith may and ought to be baptized Mr. Burkitt reads to the believing Husband and indeed I find the Greek word is elsewhere so rendred Let us consider how the Apostle speaks viz. with respect to a thing present or past therefore he useth the Preterperfect Tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified Yea in probability he speaks of Sanctification even when both were Unbelievers or Infidels for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thrice in the Preterperfect Tense and he mentions the Unbeliever distinctly but the Believer without the Expression of his Faith under the Title of Husband or Wife and saith your Children in Discrimination with Difference as well those they had before one was a Believer as since and if so then the Children born to them whilst both were Unbelievers were as holy as such born after one became a Believer and what Holiness was in the Children then think you even no other than what is in all Children born in lawful Wedlock whether their Parents are Believers or Unbelievers And this sense is the more confirmed in that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sanctification is the same with Chastity 1 Thess 4. 7. so that the sense is the unbelieving Husband is sanctified to his Wife that is lawfully or chastly used as a Husband without Fornication in respect of his own Wife whether Believer or Unbeliever and therefore not to be refused And this sense only serves for the Apostle's purpose The Words are a Reason why they might lawfully live together the Reason must be taken from that which was not contingent but certain Therefore let them live together for tho one be an Unbeliever yet Marriage continues still they are Husband and Wife and sanctified to each other in respect of their chast Enjoyment of each other and it is no Sin in them to company together notwithstanding the Unbelief of one Party for Marriage is honourable among all even Unbelievers and the Bed undefiled Heb. 13. 4. and Holiness and Honour are Terms as one observes of like sense in this matter 1 Thess 4 7. Now this being granted which indeed must of necessity then the Uncleanness must be understood of Bastardy and the Holiness of Legitimation as Mat. 2. 15. for no other Holiness necessarily follows to their Children in that their Parents Marriage is lawful See the Apostle's Conclusion Else were your Children unclean you leave out Else for you mention Children as another Doubt which was in the Corinthians about them which cannot be gathered from the Text nor Scope of it but else were your Children unclean is brought in a an Argument to prove that which he saith last as the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews for the terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elsewhere are Argumentative as much as Quoniam because thâ—n used So 1 Cor. 15. 14. 29. Rom. 11. 16. to prove that which went before and here the Argument is ab absurdo from an Absurdity which would follow if the thing to be proved
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
such they had not been baptized nor had they a true Right thereto Arg. 20. Baptism is the Solemnizing of the Souls Marriage Union with Christ which Marriage-contract absolutely requires an actual profession of consent but Infants are not capable to enter into Marriage Union with Christ nor to make a profession of an actual consent Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Major our opposites generally grant particularly see what Mr. Baxter saith Our Baptism is our solemnizing of our Marriage with Christ These are his very words page 32. The Minor none can deny no Man sure in his right mind will assert that little Babes are capable to enter into a Marriage Relation with Christ and to make profession of a consent and the truth is he in the next words gives away his Cause viz. and 't is saith he A a new and strange kind of Marriage where there is no profession of consent page 32. How unhappy was this Man to plead for such a New and strange kind of Marriage did he find any little Babe he ever Baptized or rather Rantized to make a profession of consent to be Married to Jesus Christ If any should object he speaks of the Baptism of the Adult I answer his words are these Our Baptism is c. Besides will any Pedo-baptist say That the Baptism of the Adult is the solemnizing of the Souls Marriage with Christ and not the Baptism of Infants Reader observe how our opposites are forced sometimes to speak the Truth tho' it overthrows their own practice of Pedo-baptism Arg. 21. If the Sins of no persons are forgiven them till they are Converted then they must not be baptized for the forgiveness of them till they profess themselves to be Converted but the Sins of no Persons till they are Converted are forgiven Ergo no Person ought to be Baptized for the forgiveness of them till they profess they are Converted Mr. Baxter in the said Treatise lays down the substance of this Argument also take his own words i. e. As their sins are not forgiven them till they are Converted Mark 4. 12. So they must not be baptized for the forgiveness of them till they profess themselves Converted seeing to the Church non esse and non apparere is all one Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus is the Sum of that Preaching that makes Disciples Acts 20. 21. Therefore saith he both those must by a Profession seem to be received before any at Age are baptized page 30 31. and evident it is say I from hence that none but such at Age ought to be baptized Philip caused the Eunuch to profess before he would Baptize him That he believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God Saul had also saith he more than a bare profession before Baptism Acts 9. 5 15 17. page 28. The Promise it self saith he doth expresly require a Faith of our own of all the Adult that will have part in the Priviledges therefore there is a Faith of our own that is the Condition of our Title Mark 16. 16. page 16. He might have added by the force of his Argument therefore Infants should not have the priviledges For I argue thus viz. Arg. 22. If there is but one Baptism of Water left by Jesus Christ in the New Jerusalem or but one condition or manner of Right thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult then Infant Baptism is no Baptism of Christ but there is but one Baptism in Water left by Christ in the New Testament and but one Condition and manner of Right thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult Ergo Infant Baptism is no Baptism of Christ Mr. Baxter saith Faith and Repentance is the condition of the Adult and as to any other condition I am sure the Scripture is silent The way of the Lord is one one Lord one Faith one Baptism Eph. 4. 4. If profession of Faith were not necessary saith Mr. Baxter Coram Ecclesia to Church Membership and Priviledges then Infidels and Heathens would have Right also saith he the Church and the World would be confounded He might have added but Infidels and Heathens have no Right to Church Membership c. Ergo. 'T is a granted case among all Christians saith he that profession is thus necessary the Apostles and Antient Church admitted none without it page 21. And if so why dare any now a days admit of Infants who are uncapable to make profession He adds Yea Christ in his Commission directeth his Apostles to make Disciples and then Baptize them promising He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. page 27. Furthermore he saith If as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his Death and are Buried with him by baptism into Death that like as Christ was raised from the Dead so we also should walk in newness of Life c. Then no doubt saith he but such as were to be baptized did first profess this mortification and a consent to be buried c. In our Baptism we put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ being buried with him and raised with him through Faith quickened with him and haveing all our Trespasses forgiven Coll. 2. 11 12 13. and will any Man says he yea will Paul ascribe all this to those that did not so much as profess the things signified Will Baptism in the Judgment of a wise Man do all this for an Infidel or say I for an Infant that cannot make a profession that he is a Christian page 31 32. he proceeds Arg. 23. The baptized are in Scripture called Men Washed Sanctified Justified they are called Saints and Churches of Saints 1 Cor. 1. 2. all Christians are Sanctified ones page 33. now let me add the Minor But Infants are not in Scripture called Men Washed Sanctified Justified they are not called Saints Churches of Saints Christians nor Sanctified ones Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized If any should say why did you not cite these assertions of Mr. Baxters whilst he was living I answer more then Eighteen years ago I did recite and Print these assertions and many other Arguments of his to the same purpose to which he gave no answer Arg. 24. If there is but one way for all both Parents and Children to be admitted in the Gospel Church to the end of the World and that it is upon profession of Faith to be baptized then both Parents and Children must upon the profession of their Faith be baptized and so admitted c. But there is but one way for all both Parents and Children to be admitted into the Gospel-Church to the end of the World and that is upon the profession of their Faith to be Baptized Ergo. Arg. 25. That cannot be Christ's true baptism wherein there is not cannot be a lively Representation of the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ together with our Death unto Sin
no real but Typical Baptism 2. This Place proves not that Infants are the Subjects of Gospel Baptism 1. 'T is said all our Fathers were baptized but 't is nor said their Children were baptized unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud 2. But you intimate there were many Children with them as they passed through the Sea To which I answer so there were many wicked Men also all the Israelites were not godly Persons but many among them were prophane and ungodly People Besides there was a mixt People passed through the Sea with the Fathers also may be some of the Egyptians and others of other Nations and much Cattle also and these were all baptized as truly as were the little Children May we baptize such therefore we have as much ground from hence to baptize such as you have to baptize your Babes nay more ground if the Rain falling upon the Israelites was that which baptized them 't is a Question whether any Rain might fall on little Babes if it fell on their Parents for the Parents might cover them by holding some thing over their Heads and Bodies c. 3. The same Persons which the Apostle saith were baptized in the Sea and under the Cloud are also said to eat the same Spiritual Meat and to drink the same Spiritual Drink Now did not the Children partake of the Lord's Supper I mean that Typical Lord's Supper This Text therefore proves as strongly that you may give them the Lord's Supper as Baptism because they ate of the Manna that fell from Heaven and drank of the Water that came from the Rock 4. The design of the Apostle here is to forewarn the Saints at Corinth to take heed lest they fell as the Fathers fell in the Wilderness and to caution them the more effectually he shews them that the Fathers who fell not the Children in the Wilderness had like great Privileges with them viz. a Typical Baptism and also a Typical Lord's Supper Therefore nothing of this matter concerned their little Babes nor ours neither As to what you say of whole Housholds being baptized in the New Testament in this Chapter I shall refer my Answer to that Chapter of yours where you particularly insist upon that weak Argument You say the Parents and their Children were baptized by giving of the Law upon Mount Sinai Exod. 19. 10. Go to the People and sanctify them and let them wash their Clothes Now the washing of their Clothes and the washing of the Flesh went together Lev. 15. 5 6. wash his Clothes and wash himself in Water Being thus washed the Apostle saith that all the People entred into God's Covenant by Baptism Heb. 9. 19. For when Moses had spoken every Precept to the People according to the Law he took the Blood of Calves and of Goats with Water and sprinkled both the Book and the People The Apostle calls this Sprinkling Baptism Heb. 9. 10. divers Baptisms c. Answ I answer you have once already to your great Reproach and I fear contrary to the Light of your own Conscience asserted that which is false I appeal to you and all that can read the Greek whether that word in Heb. 9. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divers washings which I deny not may be read divers baptisms is the same word in Heb. 9. 19. viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sprinkling the Book and all the People is it there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Speak and confess your Ignorance or else acknowledg your Sin in going about to deceive the People by making them believe that sprinkling is in Greek Baptism or baptizing For tho washing in Heb. 9. 10. is Baptism or baptizing yet in Heb. 9. 19. sprinkling both the Book and People you must needs know is in the Greek rantizing 2. And what tho these divers washings are called Baptisms I have shew'd once already from a Faithful and Learned Author namely Mr. Henry Ainsworth that all those Legal Washings were by total dipping of the whole Body Take his Words again on Levit. 11. 32. All that are unclean whether Men or Vessels are not cleansed but by dipping or baptizing in Water and wheresoever the Law speaketh of washing a Man's Flesh or washing of Clothes for Uncleanness it is by dipping the whole Body therein and whether they be Men or Vessels there may not be any thing between them and the Water to keep them asunder as Clay Pitch or the like that cleaveth to the Body or Vessel if there be then they are saith he unclean and their washing profiteth them not Maim Mikvaoth chap. 1. § 12 21. Take heed what you affirm for the future This Man you and all know was well acquainted with Jewish Rites and Ceremonies and what can be a more full Confutation of what you affirm of Jewish Washings or Baptisms But where we read of sprinkling of Blood and Water 't is not baptizing unless baptizing and rantizing be both one and the same Word and Thing which we utterly deny 3. What tho the People were washed even all the whole Congregation Was not that a Typical Church and did it not typify that all true Believers must be washed in the Blood of Christ in Justification and also washed by the Holy Spirit in Sanctification These Things were held forth thereby and not Baptism You would make one thing that is a Figure or Shadow a Type of another thing that is also it self but a Shadow or Figure for Baptism signifies Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection and our Death unto Sin and Viâ—ification to a new Life But those Types were Shadows of good things to come even of Christ he was the Substance of them all they must I say prefigure a Substance not a Shadow 4. In a word all your labour is here lost about those divers Legal Baptisms and Rites under the Old Testament and of Children being in that Covenant because they were all Types even that all the Elect or all that believe in Christ should be washed in Christ's Blood or have his Blood sprinkled upon them and be sanctified by his Spirit Also it was a legal external and Typical Covenant and an external Typical Church holding forth the true Spiritual Gospel-Church and that like as Circumcision and those divers washings did belong to the whole House of Israel whether Godly or not So all the true Israel under the Gospel Dispensation should have the Substance and Anti-type of them and when any have attained to Faith in Christ and have what is signified in Baptism then and not till then they ought to be baptized but this not simply because they are in Covenant or have the thing signified in Baptism but because of the express and positive Command of Christ I say again nothing can give being to an Ordinance that wholly depends on a meer positive Rite but the express Will and Command of the Law-giver To conclude with this I infer 1. From the whole in Opposition to what
hid and concealed such a Practice had there been one Infant by his Authority or Allowance baptized But since the Scripture is silent in it we may assure our Selves 't is not the will of God Infants should be be baptized Also if those who were to be baptized were first to be taught were first to repent and believe Then it follows clearly that Baptism must be deferred till Children were ofripe Years and able so to do and did not Mary delay the baptizing of the Holy Child Jesus As to the House of Crispus you your self acknowledge they all believed these are your words viz. it is true all the House of Crispus were Believers viz. Adult Persons but say you were all the Housholds of the Faithful Barren c. Ans No doubt but in some of those Housholds were Children they might not be all Barren without Children yet their Children might be grown up to maturity but you your self have proved that whole Houses may be said to be baptized and yet none but the Adult in those Housholds might be baptized seeing the Scripture you quoted saith that Sampson was buried by all his Fathers House yet none of the little Children in that House could be concerned in that matter As to the House of Stephanas you say well they are called the first Fruits of Achaia I beseech you Brethren ye know the Houshold of Stephanas that is the first Fruits of Achaia and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the Saints 1 Cor. 16. 15. that you submit your selves to such vers 16. Ans They that is the whole Houshold gave themselves up to administer to the Saints but besure little Babes could not do that nor ought the Adult to submit themselves to little Children or esteem and reverence them for acts of Charity You bring in this Objection viz. we do not read of any Infant that were in those Housholds to which you answer if the Housholds of the Corinthians when the Apostle baptized them were so barren what need had the Apostle to write unto them that their Children were holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. it is more than probable that Children were in every Houshold that was baptized Ans Now you go over again with your former argument and repeat the same things which I have again and again answer'd about the Childs being in Covenant after the Head of the Family or the Parents do believe 2. I say 't is very probable there might be no Children in non-age in those Housholds because 't is said the whole House had believed 3. If there were yet by your own grant all the House might be said to be baptized and yet no little Children baptized that might be in those Housholds because all is often taken but for a part 4. But will you said I build an Ordinance upon a probability and on uncertain Consequences nay one of the sacred Institutions of the Gospel called one of the two great Sacraments thereof that Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. we have already answered Now from the whole we shall draw Conclusions in opposition to yours 1. That the Covenant that God made with Noah and his Family was a Covenant made with all the World and so not the Covenant of Grace though there was Mercy and Grace contained in it to all Mankind and to the Fowls of the Air and Beasts of the Field also 2. That God's taking all Abraham's Family or Household into Covenant as such it was only a Covenant that peculiarly appertained to his natural Seed and it had many Temporal Blessings and Priviledges attending it which no Houshold under the Gospel can pretend unto and of this Covenant Circumcision was a sign and that Circumsion was only given to be a Seal of the righteousness of Faith to Abraham only and not to little Children 3. That the whole House of Israel as such or the whole Nation of the Jews under the Law were all as so considered then the Church of God and that the Gospel Church consisteth not of whole Housholds or any one whole Nation it being not of an National Constitution but Congregational only consisting of none but of believers baptized upon the profession of their Faith who are called the Houshold of Faith 4. That the whole House of Israel was a typical Church who were holy with a Ceremonial and Typical Holiness signifiing that all the Members of the Gospel Church should be spiritually and savingly Holy 5. That God in the Gospel times though now and then he is pleased to call by his Grace all or the greatest part of whole Families yet contrary to the old Covenant he usually now takes but two of a City and one of a Family and brings them into his true Gospel Sion 6. That the first Churches were only planted of such that believed some out of one Family and some out of other Families and that out of the Jewish Church and such that were called of the Gentile Nations 7. That the Parents Faith saves none of his Household either Children or Servants nor gives them any right to Gospel Baptism 8. Lastly one would think these things to be clear enough to give Satisfaction to all that desire Satisfaction about Infant Baptism and that there is not the least shadow of proof for it from what our Brethren argue from whole Families who were said to be baptized if we compare Scripture with Scripture for as we find no Precept nor Example for Infant Baptism so not any Consequence for it that is naturally drawn from any Text of Holy Scripture to which the Pedo-Baptists do refer CHAP. XVII Proving that Children ought not to be Baptized because they were baptized in divers Centuries or Ages under the Apostacy of the Church when most of Christs Institutions were corrupted wherein it is also proved that for the two first Hundred Years after Christ no Infants were baptized containing an Answer to Mr. James Owen's 14 Chapter and 11 Argument to prove Infant Baptism THus Mr. Owen begins in his 14th Chapter of his Book viz. the Children of the Faithful were baptized in every Age of the Church of God since the Apostles time until this latter Age as I can prove at large if it were profitable for the unlearned Reader I shall set down some Examples Ans 8. Your argument is that Children ought to be baptized because they were baptized in every age of the Church since the Apostles time Ans 1. Give one Instance if you can out of approved History of one Infant baptized in the first or second Century but pass by Two or Three Hundred Years after Christ and many errors besides this of Infant Baptism crept amain into the Churches But pray remember now you are without Book you are forced to quit the Holy Bible the Sacred History and great Charter of the Church and therefore all your proof out of Humane History which may be true or may not be true signifies nothing But you had best take heed lest we carry the
but it appears now this only served for their Infant State they may fall out of the Covenant of Grace and be damned notwithstanding their being once in the covenant of Grace and saved with their Parents unless they do actually believe c. 2. But if they had dyed in their Infancy perhaps they would have perished had not their Parents believed is this your meaning certainly if they are such that are Elected they shall be Saved tho' they had dyed in Infancy tho' their Parents believed or not believed doth the Parents believing procure their Salvation and the Parents not believing obstruct their Childrens Salvation and so bring on them Damnation if so the Salvation and Damnation of their Children in Infancy is put into the hands or Faith of their Parents 3. And if this be so wo to the poor Babes of unbelievers must they be all Damned Can 't Christ save such Children by his Merits and Righteousness nor Sanctifie them that die in their Infancy unless their Parents do believe and baptize them and dare you say he will not what strange Doctrine is this and by what authority do you assert those things which your Doctrine leads you out to do 4. True all our Children are Obliged by the Lord when they come to Years of understanding to remember their Creator and to Fear Love Believe and Serve him by the Authority and Command of his Blessed Word but not by virtue of any Baptismal Vow he hath appointed for them in Infancy to come under or enter into the State of Children in Infancy may through Christs Merits be fast enough if they Die then whether their Parents believe or not and it apppears the Priviledges and Blessings of their Parents Faith doth them no good any longer but only whilst they continue in Infancy 4. You bid your Children that are grown up to live answerable to their Covenant 5. Say you give not place to Temptation in denying your First Baptism Answ Let your Children take heed that they are not blinded by your pretended baptismal priviledge so as to think they are any ways the better for that Young Men and Women 't is not your Patents Faith will interest you in the Covenant of Grace there is a twofold being in that Covenant 1. Decretively 2. Actualy all Gods Elect ones are Decretively in the Covenant of Grace but no one Soul either Man or Woman is actually in it untill they have by Faith Union with Christ O! labour after this Union you are all the Children of Wrath by Nature and your Infant Baptism alters not your State nor had you any right to baptism when you were Infants but if you do believe you may and ought to be Baptized by vertue of Christ's Commission or Authority of God's Word Let not your Faith stand in this matter in the Wisdom of Men but in the Power and Authority of the Word of God to walk according to the Rule of the Holy Scripture herein is not to give way to Temptation but to the dictates of God's Spirit let Mr. Owen say what he will You bid your Children to ask such who deny Infant baptism these following questions 1. Say you ask them Can they prove from the Scripture that the Children of the Faithful were cast out from the Covenant of Grace Let them shew us a plain Scripture for that for if they are not cast out of the Covenant of Grace then baptism the Seal of the Covenant belongeth unto them 1. Answ Young Men and Women pray ask Mr. Owen whether all the Children of the Faithful or their Children as such were and are in the Covenant of Grace 2. If he says they all were and still are in that Couenant ask him whether then it doth not follow that they shall all be saved because the Everlasting Covenant of Grace is well ordered in all things and sure 2. Sam. 23. 5. and the promise of the eternal Life sure to all the true Seed of Abraham Rom. 4. 16. confirmed by the Promise and Oath of God Heb. 6. 13. to the 19th verse 3. Ask him whether the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham are not all Elected to Salvation or the Elect of God 4. Ask him whether there is any final falling away out of the Covenant of Grace or possibility for one of God's Elect eternally to perish 5. Ask him if God did not make a Covenant with Abraham's fleshly Seed as such that peculiarly appertained to them in which the whole House of Israel were taken into an External Legal and Typical Church State and so was a National Church and had many External Priviledges which our Children have not 6. Ask him whether the whole House of Israel both Parents and Children were all in the Covenant of Grace and so God's People by way of Special Love and Eternal Election 7. Ask him whether the Carnal Seed of believers as such are to be taken into the Visible Church in the times of the Gospel as they were under the Law If so ask him why John the Baptist did refuse them 8. Ask him how he can prove that the fleshly Seed of believers as such are the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham Tell him that Mr. Airsworth a Man that he Quotes and a Man of great Learning and tho' a a peao-baptist saith on Gen. 12. 7. thy Seed That is all the Children of the promise the Elect who only are accounted Abraham's Seed Rom 9. 7 8. And in Christ and Heirs according to the promise Gal. 3. 29. And tell him that Dr. Owen in his Book called The Doctrin of the Saints perseverance cap. 4. saith that the effectual Dispensation of the grace of the Covenant is peculiar to them only who are the Children of promise the Remnant of Abraham according to Election with all that in all Nations were to be blessed with him and in his Seed i. e. Jesus Christ Ishmael tho Circumcised was cast out Thus Dr. Owen and say I as Ishmael was cast out tho' Circumcised so Paul saith the bond-woman and her Son is now cast out that is the Old Covenant and Carnal Seed of Abraham as such See Gal. 4. 30. Tell him that Amelius de spraedest chap. 8. Serm 6. A Learned Man saith There are many of the Seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise did not belong then the rejection of many Jews who are of the Seed of Abraham doth not make void the word of promise from whence may we not safely conclude That if the Natural posterity of Abraham were not within the Covenant of Grace by Vertue of the promise Gen. 17. 2. then much less are our Natural Posterity but the former is true therefore the latter 9. Ask him whether the Covenant of Grace simply in its self gave right to Circumcision if so why was not Lot and Melchisedec Circumcised were they not in the Covenant of Grace This being so ask him if he can prove that the Covenant of Grace simply considered in its self gives any