but as to the baptizing of Infants they can meet with no example in Scripture Magdeb. Cant. l. 2. page 469. Dr. Taylor saith It is against the perpetual Analogie of Christs Doctrine to baptize Infants For besides that Christ never gave any precept to baptize them nor ever himself nor his Apostles that appears did baptize any of them so all that either he or his Apostles said concerning it requires such previous dispositions of baptism of which Infants are not capable viz. Faith and Repentance Lib. proph page 239. Arg. 8. If whatsoever is necessary to Faith and practice is left in the Holy Scripture that being a compleat and perfect Rule and yet Infant Baptism is not contained or to be found therein then Infant Baptism is not of God but whatever is necessary to Faith and Practice is contained in the Holy Scriptures c. but Infant baptism is not to be found therein Ergo. That the Scripture is a perfect Rule c. we have the consent of all the Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines Athanasins saith The Holy Scriptures being Inspirations of God are sufficient to all Instructions of Truth Athan. against the Gentiles Crysostom saith All things be plain and clear in the Scripture and whatsoever are needful are manifest there Chrysost on 2 Thess and 2 Tim. 2. Basil saith That it would be an Argument of Infidelity and a most certain Sign of Pride if any Man should reject any thing written and should Introduce things not written Basil in his Sermon de fide Augustin saith In the Scriptures are found all things which contain Faith manner of Living Hope Love c. Let us saith he seek no farther then what is written of God our Saviour lâ—st a Man would know more that the Scriptures witness Augustin in his 198 Epistles to Fortunatus Theophilact saith It is part of a Diabolical Spirit to think any thing Divine without the Authority of the Holy Scripture Lib. 2. pasch Isychius saith Let us who will have any thing observed of God search no more but that which the Gospel doth give unto us Lib. 5. cap. 16. on Levit. Bellarmin saith That though the Arguments of the Anabaptists from the defect of Command or Example have a great use against the Lutherans for as much as they use that Rite every where and having no Command or Example theirs is to be rejected yet is it of no force against Catholicks who conclude that an Apostolical Tradition is of no less authority with us than the Scripture c. This of baptizing of Infants is an Apostolical Tradition Bell. Lib. de Bapt. 1. cap. 8. Mr. Ball saith We must for every Ordinance look for the Institution and never stretch it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it for he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own pleasure and 't is our part to Learn of him both to whom how and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred Ball in his answer of the New-England Elders page 38 39. And as to the Minor 't is acknowledged by our Adversaries it is not to be found in the Letter of the Scripture And as to the Consequences drawn therefrom we have proved they are not Natural from the premises and tho' we will admit of Consequences and Inferences if Genuine yet not in the case of an Institution respecting a practical Ordinance that is of meer positive Right Arg. 9. If Infant Baptism was an Institution of Christ the Pedo-baptists could not be at a loss about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism but the Pedo-baptists are at a great loss and differ exceedingly about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism Ergo 'tis no Institution of Christ As touching the Major I argue thus that which is an Institution of Christ the Holy Scripture doth shew as well the end and ground of the Ordinance as the subject and manner of it but the Scripture speaks nothing of the end and ground of Pedo-baptism or for what reason they ought to be baptized Ergo It is no Institution of Christ The Minor is undeniable some affirm as we have already shew'd that it was to take away Original Sin others say it is theirs right by the Covenant they being the Seed of Believers others say Infants have Faith and therefore have a Right others say they have a Right by the Faith of their Surety Some ground their Right from Apostolical Tradition others upon the authority of Scripture Some say all Children of professed Christians ought to be baptized others say none but the Children of true believers have a Right to it sure if it was an Ordinance of Christ his word would soon end this Controversie Arg. 10. If the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the Natural nor Spiritual Seed of Abraham they can have no Right to Baptism or Church Membership by virtue of any Covenant Transaction God made with Abraham but the Children of Believing Parents as such are not the Natural nor Spiritual Seed of Abraham Ergo. Arg. 11. If no Man can prove from Scripture that any Spiritual benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism 't is no Ordinance of Christ But no Man can prove from Scripture that any spiritual benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism Ergo. Arg. 12. That cannot be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither Command nor Example in all God's Word nor promise to such who do it nor threatning to such who neglect it But there is no Command or Example in all the Word of God for the Baptizing of little Babes nor promise made to such who are Baptized nor threatnings to such who are not Ergo. That the Child lies under a Promise who is Baptized or the Child under any Threatning or Danger who is not Baptized let them prove it since it is denyed Arg. 13. If no Parents at any time or times have been by God the Father Jesus Christ or his Apostles either Commended for Baptizing their Children or Reproved for neglecting to Baptize them then Infant Baptism is no Ordinance of God But no Parents at any time or times have been by God Commended for baptizing of their Children nor reprov'd for neglecting to baptize them c. Ergo Infant Baptism is no Ordinance of God This Argument will stand unanswerable unless any can shew who they were that were ever Commended for Baptizing their Children or Reproved for neglecting it or unless they can shew a Parallel case Arg. 14. If Men were not to presume to alter any thing in the Worship of God under the Law neither to add thereto nor diminish therefrom and God is as strict and jealous of his Worship under the Gospel then nothing ought to be altered in God's Worship under the Gospel but under the Law Men were not to presume so to do and God is as strict and jealous under the Gospel Ergo. The Major cannot be denyed The Minor is clear from Exod. 25.
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
cause against you here too i. e. for the first Centuries we will examine your Authors and humane Testimonies The first is Calvin a latter Writer I know not but Ireneus and Cyprian might be both had out of him I do confess Ireneus lived not above Two Hundred Years after Christ or in the second Century thus he and many others cite him viz. Omnes venit Christus per semet ipsum salvare omnes qui per eum renascuntur ad Deum Infantes parvulos Juniores Seniores In English thus Christ Jesus came to save all by himself all who by him are born again unto God Infants and little ones Young and Old Ans Reader pray observe here is not a word of one Infant baptized but this Man infers it from his Words so that we have nothing but Consequences neither from God's Word nor the words of Man Christ no doubt came to save some of all sorts of Men and who doubts but he came to save Infants and little ones Young and Old But why must these Words who are born again be applyed to Infant Baptism The scope of Ireneas in that Chapter is to refute the Gnosticks who said that Christ did not exceed One and Thirty Years of age against whom Ireneus alledged that Christ lived in every age i. e. of Infancy Youth and old Age that by his Age and Example he might sanctifie every age So that here Ireneus speaks not of being born again in Baptism for he saith Omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum i. e. I say all which are born again by him to God i. e. by Christ not as if he had baptized Infants but because he i. e. Christ was an Infant that by the example or virtue of his Age he might sanctifie Infants as the whole Discourse in Latin plainly shews viz. Magister ergo existens Magistri quoque habebat atatem non reprobans nec super grediens hominem neque solvens suam legem in se humani generis sed omnem etatem sanctificans per illam c. 2. As to Cyprian he lived as I find it in History about 248 or 300 Years after Christ and should I tell the Reader what Corruptions and Errors were let in about that time he would not wonder to hear Infants were allowed Baptism Yet we have Cyprian against Cyprian It is true as far as I can gather in his time Infant Baptism was first introduced without any Ground or Warrant from Christ and it was as strongly opposed which appears by the Debates and Doubts about it 3. The third humane Authority that is brought by Mr. Burkit is that cursed decree of the Milevetan Council that all who denyed Infant Baptism should be Anathema accursed If he comes but a little lower he hath proof enough in the Popish Councils Decrees and Canors But 't is to be observed that those Fathers pleaded for Infant Baptism as that which took away Original Sin and gave Children the Eucharist too in the first Sacrament abusing that Text John 3. 5. and in the other that in John 6. 53. These are all the humane Proofs from the Churches after the primitive Apostolical days which Mr. Burkit brought and I doubt not but to give better and more Authentick Authors of the ancient Fathers against Infant Baptism than hath been brought for it and some of them nearer the Apostles days too The first is Justin Martyr though I have him not yet take his Words as they are cited by Mr. Richard Baxters Saints Rest Chap. 8. Sect. 5. I will declare unto you how we offer up our selves unto God after that we are renewed through Christ those amongst us that are instructed in the Faith and believe that which we teach them is true being willing to live according to the same We do admonish them to fast and pray for forgiveness of Sinns and we also pray with them and when they are brought by us into the Water and there as we were new born are they also by the new Birth received and then in calling upon God the Father the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost they are washed in Water c. the Food we call the Euchrist to which no Man is admitted but only he that believeth the Truth of the Doctrine being washed in the laver of Regeneration for Remission of Sinns and so liveth as Christ hath taught this you see saith Mr. Baxter is no new way 4. You cite Origen who was you say famous in the year 230 who saith in Hom. 8 in Levit. de Infantibus baptizandis Ecclesia traditionem accepit ab Apostolis theChurch received infant Baptism by Tradition from the Apostles we have proved you say before this was a Scripture Tradition for the Apostles baptized little Children Ans We may cite Origen against Origen so little credit is to be given to History in this case about him and some other of the Fathers for I find Origen saith viz. they that are rightly baptized are washed unto Salvation but so was not Simon Magus he that is baptized unto Salvation receives the Water and the Holy Ghost which Simon did not but Water only Hom. 6. upon Ezek. â—…1 6. v. 4. Mountanus p. 36. 37. and in his Commentary upon Rom. 6. saith the same Origen such Baptism that was accompanied with crucifying the Flesh and rising again to newness of Life was the approved Baptism I must confess that Dr. Taylor saith that Origen and Austin are the only Witnesses that asserted Infant Baptism to be an Apostolical Tradition but it appears by Erasmus that Origen's writings were greatly corrupted by Russinus and made to speak sometimes for Infant Baptism See Jacob Merciâ—gus p. 283. 291. and Montanus p. 29. to 35 42 43. Sir had you proved Infant Baptism from the Scripture and that the Apostles baptized Infants you need not go to Humane History that is so uncertain and no Rule for us 5. Gregory of Nazianzum who you say was famous about the year 370 beareth witness for Infant Baptism saith he omni aetati Baptisma convenit Baptism is answerable unto every Age. And again da infantis custodiam give Infants the Baptism of the Trinity and that will be a great and excellent Guard unto them Ans I find a worthy Author that quotes this Gregory speaking quite the contrary thing in his third Oration saith he the baptized used in the first place to confess their Sins and to renounce the Devil and all his Works before many Witnesses and that none were baptized of old but they that did confess their Sins and how dangerous it was headlong and without due Preparation to partake thereof He therefore adviseth that the Baptism of Infants be deferred till they did not only make Confession of their Faith but were to desire the same see Dr. Taylor p. 239. Now worthy Britains what signifyeth the citing of such Fathers when we cannot be certain that we have their true writings God hath preserved his sacred
which I have already proved that that Covenant that is not of Faith must be a Covenant of Works there being no Medium betwixt them and consequently must be the same for Substance with that made with Adam and that on Mount Sinai with the Children of Israel Arg. 9. That Covenant that is plainly represented to us in Scripture as a Bondage-Covenant in and by which there was imposed such a Yoke upon the Necks of the Jews which neither those in the Apostles time nor their Fathers were able to bear could be no other than a Covenant of Works and not of Grace But the Scriptures do plainly represent such was the nature of the Covenant of Circumcision Acts 15. 10. Gal. 5. 1 2 3. Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant but a Covenant of Works Thus Mr. Cary argues also And thus we have proved from God's Word and sound Arguments that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant Object But lest any should think that we shut out all dying Infants from having any Benefit by Christ Answ I answer I doubt not but God might comprehend them in-that glorious Covenant or Compact made between him and our Surety in the Covenant of Redemption But as I said before secret things belong to God But let me here add one word or two further i. e. Circumcision you say was a Privilege so we say too but not such a Privilege as you do imagine 1. It doth profit as a Privilege because it was given as a Token or a Sign to Abraham's Natural Seed that they should have the Land of Canaan for an everlasting Possession 2. As a Token or Sign to them of the giving forth of the Law on Mount Sinai He dealt his Laws and Statutes to Israel he did not so to any other Nation this Rite could not therefore be a Gospel-Rite nor the Covenant it was a Sign of a Gospel-Covenant in which the Gentile Christians are concern'd And thus Paul argues Rom. 31. What Advantage then hath the Jew or what Profit is there in Circumcision Ver. 2. Much every way chiefly because unto them were committed the Oracles of God You may soon know the nature of that Covenant made with Abraham's Natural Seed and of Circumcision which was a Sign of it the chiefest Privilege which attended it was the giving to them i. e. the People of Israel the Law of the Ten Commandments 3. Circumcision by the Doctrine of St. Paul was a Privilege if they kep the Law For Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keepest the Law but if thou be a Breaker of the Law thy Circumcision is made Uncircumcision or a Nullity and profiteth thee nothing that is if thou keep not the Law perfectly And thus speak our late Annotators on the place If thou Jew keep the Law perfectly to which Circumcision obligeth Gal. 5. 3. If otherwise thou transgressest the Law thy Circumcision availeth thee nothing it gives thee no Privilege above the uncircumcised What is now become this being so of that mighty Privilege Abraham's Seed as such had by Circumcision if the chief Profit or Privilege was because unto them the Land should be given which could not give Life but was a Covenant of Works then the chiefest Profit lay not in it as it was an Ordinance of Initiation into the Church sure had Paul been of the Judgment of Pedo-baptists he would have rather past by that Privilege when he spoke of Circumcision which he calls the chief and have said chiefly in that it was a Seal of Church-Membership But since he speaks the quite contrary who shall we believe you or the great Apostle of the Gentiles And evident it is he confirms the same Doctrine Gal. 5. 3. For I testify to every Man that is circumcised that he is a Debtor to keep the whole Law And hence 't is said to be a Yoke of Bondage which neither they nor their Fathers could bear Acts 15. because it obliged them to universal Oâ—edience or to keep the Law perfectly and brought them under a Curse if they did not Gal. 3. 10. These things considered fully shew of what stamp and nature Circumcition was together with that Covenant to which it did appertain You sav the Covenant made with Abraham did include Spiritual Blessings And I grant the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham principally included Spiritual Blessings but the Covenant with his Natural Seed as such did not include Spiritual Blessings All Spiritual Blessings are made in Christ and to none but to the Elect in him Moreover we deny not but the Covenant of Circumcision was made as well with Abraham's Spiritual Seed that sprang from his Loins as unto his Carnal Seed and so Circumcision and the Land of Canaan were of use to his Spiritual Seed as the one typified the Circumcision of the Heart and the other the Celestial Rest You say that Infants were always in the Covenant of Grace and to proveit you mention Act. 2 38 39. Repent and be baptized every one os you c. For the Promise is to you and to your Children c. Answ Do we deny that the Promise of Pardon and of the holy Spirit doth belong to our Children or Off-spring that â—o believe or are called by the Lord We grant it readily but we do deny that this Promise here refers to our Seed as such Dr. Taylor late Bishop of Down on this Text says And to your Children that is to you and to your Posterity to you and to your Children when they are of the same Capacity in which you are effectually receptive of the Promise but saith he if whenever the word Children is used in Scripture we should by Children understand Infants we must believe that in all Israel there were no Men but all â—ere Infants and if that had been true it had been the greater Wonder they should overcome the Anakims and beat the King of Moab and march so far and discourse so well for they were all called the Children of Israel The Promise appertains not to Infants in that Capacity and Consistence but only by the Title of their being Reasonable Creatures and when they come to act Faith of which by Nature they have the Faculty If it did yet Baptism saith he is not the Means of conveying the Holy Ghost for when Peter says Repent and be baptized and ye shall receive the holy Spirit it signifies no more than this First Be baptized and then by Imposition of Hands c. which was another Mystery and Rite ye shall receive the Promise of the Father c. But then saith he from hence to argue that where-ever there is a Capacity of receiving the same Grace there also the same Sign is to be administred and from hence to inser Pedo-baptism is an argument very fallâ—cious upon several Grounds 1. Because Baptism is not the Sign of the Holy Ghost but by another Mystery it was conveyed ordinarily and extraordinarily that is by laying on of Hands
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
then we must not But little Children were brought to Christ and he did not baptize them therefore we must not Here is both Truth and Reason in this Argument as Dr. Taylor confesseth but none of either in his It is confessed by Mr. Burkitt himself That Christ did not baptize those Infants that came to him and whom he took in his Arms and blessed because with his own Hands he baptized none at all John 4. 1 2. Therefore since Christ who was God foresaw what Contention would arise about the baptizing of Infants had it been his Will they should be baptized would he not at this time put the Matter out of doubt and have baptized them or have given Command to his Disciples so to have done If therefore Infants be in so good a Condition as he says i. e. Subjects of Christ's Kingdom of Grace let us let them alone for we cannot by baptizing them put them into a better State than they are without any Warrant from Christ and by baptizing them not we cannot put them into any worser State or Standing than they are in without it Many Pedo-baptists are angry with us because we say we know not but that the Children of Unbelievers and Infidels may be in a good Condition as well as Children of Believers tho we deny not but that the Children of Believers have a greater Advantage than the Children of Unbelievers namely by the Prayers good Education and the good Example of their Parents c. But saith Mr. Burkitt Can any wise or good Man believe that our Saviour would speak such favourable words of Infants and his outward Gesture manifest so much good Will towards them only with an Intent to ensnare and deceive us doubtless it was to encourage his Ministers to perform all charitable Offices towards them Answ 1. He mistakes our Saviour speaks very little concerning Infants and that which is said of them was accidentally spoken being occasioned by those who brought little Children to him which the Disciples forbad and from hence he spoke what he did Moreover the cause why our Saviour spoke those words might be more for the sake of Parents that they might not be afraid touching the Condition of their dying Babes than to shew any Ordinance belonged to them for had it been so doubtless the Disciples would not have for bad those People to bring little Children to Christ 'T is therefore an Argument against Infant-Baptism and not for it because the Disciples were appointed by their Master to be the Administrators of that Ordinance on such to whom it did of right belong and had Infants been the Subjects would they have forbid People to bring Infants to him 2. We therefore may rather conclude had they been the Subjects of Baptism Christ by not hinting any such thing in the least on this occasion might rather have left us in a Snare in speaking nothing of it neither here nor at any other time 3. Therefore Christ speaking so favourably of Infants and yet baptizing them not may teach us to judg favourably of them and do any charitable Office towards them but not to presume to give them holy Baptism without Christ's Warrant no more than any other Gospel-Ordinance 'T is no matter what Calvin spoke 't is no Sin to keep such out of Christ's visible Fold whom he has given no Authority to take in Nor have any People a more charitable Opinion of the State of dying Infants than those stil'd Anabaptists 4. Those who are capable of some kind of Blessings of Christ we have shewed are notwithstanding not capable of Baptism We read not the Disciples baptized these little Children nor any else Object To this he as you do answer Perhaps they were baptized before But says Mr. Burkitt it doth not follow that the Apostles did not baptize those Children because no mention of it The Scripture no where tells us that the Apostles themselves were baptized shall we conclude therefore they were never baptized Answ 'T is no matter whether we read or read not that the Apostles were baptized since we find it was Christ's Precept and Practice to baptize Disciples or such who did believe in him We read of multitudes of Disciples that were baptized and we know the way of Christ was one and the same that which was the Duty of one Disciple as a Disciple was the Duty of every Disciple We read but of two or three Churches who broke Bread or celebrated the Lord's-Supper Could any Pedo-baptist but shew us a Precept for Infant-Baptism or but one Example or Precedent where one Infant was baptized we would not doubt but those little Children might be also but this they cannot do And whereas Mr. Barkitt and you say That there is not the same Reason why Infants should be admitted to eat the Lord's-Supper as there is for them to be admitted to Baptism I answer We deny it utterly What tho the one be a Sacrament of Initiation and the other of Confirmation Yet pray observe that Repentance and Faith is required of them that are to be baptized even actual Faith and Repentance as well as actual Grace and Examination c. to discern the Lord's-Body in those who are to receive the Lord's-Supper If all that were to be circumcised had been required to repent and believe as in the case of Admission to Baptism something had been said but the contrary appears Male-Infants as such had a right to that but have no such right to this You say Christ did not lay his Hands upon little Children to heal them of Sickness because the Apostles would not have been so cruel as to hinder them to come to Christ to heal their Distempers c. Answ Is it then greater Cruelty to hinder little Children of the Blessing of being healed of Bodily Diseases than to hinder them of Convenant-Blessings Spiritual Blessings How absurdly do you argue You add also Christ baptized them not at that time for say you they were baptized before by John the Baptist and Christ laid his Hands upon them to bless them say you laying on of Hands followed Baptism Acts 8. 17. Heb. 6. 2. many of the Anti-pedo baptists own it for they lay their Hands on those they baptize you say rebaptize Answ We rebaptize none Rantism is not Baptism c. but you should first prove John the Baptist did baptize any Infants for that you have not done nor ever can do We shall see what Proof you have for what you say by and by As to laying Hands on baptized Believers the Scriptures you mention prove that an Ordinance of Christ but not upon Infants the Apostles never taught or practised any such thing tho 't is true 't is a Popish Rite for as the Baptism of Believers is corrupted and changed to Infants so laying on of Hands on baptized Believers is corrupted and changed by the false Church to Infants also You say The Kingdom of God under the Gospel is made up of Children and
granted Case among all Christians that a Profession is thus necessary the Apostles and Antient Church admitted none without it Pag. 17 21. Again he says Pag. 24. We find when John Baptist set up his Ministry he caused the People to confess their Sins And whereas some say that John baptized them that he calleth a Generation of Vipers I answer saith he we will believe that when they prove it It seems rather that he put them back as to those Acts 2. 37. Saith he It is plain that they made an open Profession if you consider 1. That they were openly told the Doctrine which they must be baptized into if they did consent 2. It is said they that received the Word were baptized 3. It is as certain therefore that they first testified their glad reception of the Word 4. VVe may not imagine that Peter was God or knew the Hearts of those thousands and therefore he must know it by their Profession that they gladly received the VVord 5. Their own Mouths cry out for advice in order to their Salvation 6. It had been absurd for the Apostles to attempt to baptize Men that had not first professed their Consent 7. The Scripture saith he gives us not the full Historical Narration of all that was said in such Cases but of so much as was necessary 8. The Institution and Nature of the Ordinance tells us that Baptism could not be adminisired without a Profession to the Adult for they were to be baptized into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Therefore were to profess that they believed in the Father Son and Holy Ghost c. Pag. 25. 9. The constant practice of the universal Church hath given us by infallible Tradition as full assurance of the order of Baptism and in particular of an express Profession and Covenant then made as of any Point that by the Hand of the Church can be received Pag. 26. 10. And it was in those days a more notorious Profession to be so Baptized and to joyn in the Holy Assemblies then now it is when the Profession of Christianity did hazard Mens Liberties Estates and Lives to be openly then Baptized upon covenanting with God the Father Son and Holy Ghost c. Moreover saith he it is said of all that were Baptized being then at Age that they first believed and how could the Baptizers know that they believed but by their Profession pag. 26. Yea 't is said of Simon Magus that he believed and was baptized which though he might really have some historical Faith yet implyeth that he openly professed more then he indeed had or else he had scarce been baptized which hath caused Interpreters to judge that by Faith is meant a profession of Faith And if so then sure a profession of Faith is still necessary p. 27. Yea saith he Christ in his Commission directeth his Apostles to make Disciples and then baptize them promising that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved And who can tell whether a Man be a Disciple a Believer or an Infidel but by his Profession How was it known but by their Profession that the Samaritans believed Phillip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ before they were baptized Acts 8 12. Phillip caused the Eunuch to profess before he would baptize him that he believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God c. Saul had more then a bare Profession before baptized Acts 9. 15 17. Also Cornelius and his Company had more then a Profession for they had the Holy Ghost poured on them speaking with Tongues And it was such a Gift of the Spirit that caused the Apostle to conclude that God had granted the Gentiles Repentance unto Life Acts 11. 8. The Converted Gentiles Acts 13. 48. shewed their belief and gladness p. 27. Gods Order is to the Adult saith he first to send Preachers to proclaim the Gospel and when by that Men are brought so far as to profess or manifest their Eyes are opened and that they are turned from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God then they must be baptized for the remission of Sins As their Sins are not forgiven them till they are converted Mark 4. 12. so they must not be baptized till they profess themselves converted seeing to the Church none esse and none apparere is all one Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ is the summ of that preaching that makes Disciples Acts 20. 21. and therefore both these must by profession seem to be received before any at Age are baptized p. 30. 31. If as many as are baptized are baptized into his death and are buried with him by baptism into his Death that like as Christ was raised from the Dead then we should walk in newness of Life Then no doubt but such as were baptized did first profess this Mortification and consent to be buried and revived with Christ and to live to him in newness of Life Rom. 6. 3 4 5 6. For Paul was never so much for Opus Operatum above the Papists as to think that the baptizing of an Infidel might effect these high and excellent things and he that professeth not Faith nor never did is to the Church an Infidel In our baptism we put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ being buried with him and rising with him through Faith quickned with him and having all our Trespasses forgiven Col. 3. 11 12 13. And will any Man saith he yea will Paul ascribe all this to those that did not profess the things signified or the necessary Condition Will baptism in the Judgment of a wise Man do all this for an Infidel let me add or to an Infant or one saith he that professeth not to be a Christian Baptism is said to save us 1 Pet. 3 21. and therefore they that will be baptized must profess the qualifications necessary to the saved p. 32. The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are put into the Churches Hands and they that are loosed on Earth are loosed in Heaven if the Keys do not err and therefore pastors of the Church must absolve none by Baptism that do not by profession seem absolvable in Heaven they must profess to have the old Man Crucified with Christ that the Bodie of Sin be destroyed that henceforth they might not serve Sin Rom. 6. 5 6 7 8. As many as have been baptized into Christ saith he have put on Christ Jesus and are Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to the Promise Gal. 3. 27 28. This speaks the Apostle of the probability grounded on a credible Profession and therefore it is clear that the profession was presupposed that might support this charitable Judgment Our baptism is the solemnizing of our Marriage with Christ And it s a new and strang kind of Marriage where there is no profession of Consent The baptized are in Scripture
any Man but if a personal Obedience to the Law could not save the Parent besure the Faith and Obedience of the Parent cannot save the Child But observe vers 16. therefore it is of Faith that it might be by Grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the Seed Now consider well the promise is eternal Life this all understand here and this saith Paul is sure to all the Seed 't is confirmed not only by the word of God but by the Oath of God also Heb. 6. 13 for when God made promise to Abraham because he could swear by no greater he swore by himself to shew the Heirs of the Promise the immutability of his Counsel he confirmed it by an Oath that so the Heirs of the promise might have strong Consolation vers 17. 18. all that are the true Heirs or spiritual Seed of Abraham must be saved for 't is impossible for God to lye or fail in his Promise to any one of rhe true Seed of Abraham therefore if all the natural Seed of Abraham were in this Covenant and all the natural Seed of Believers 't is impossible that any one of them should perish eternally or miss of eternal Life They are all born of God and Heirs as Isaac was they are all chosen from Everlasting to Salvation they are all given to Christ and all Members of his mystical Body or are but one mystical Christ and are even Flesh of his Flesh and Bone of his Bone and therefore this Covenant and free promise of God cannot appertain to Abraham's natural Seed as such nor to the natural Seed of Believers as such for alass how many of them do perish eternally For though the number of the Children of Israel be as the Sands of the Sea yet but a remnant of them shall be saved as was hinted before But say you if the keeper of the Prison had no Children or if they were the adult it is the same thing the Apostle offereth Salvation to him and to his Houshold even to little Children if there were such with him and that is sufficient to confirm the present matter i. e. that by this Houshold we are to understand principally his Children as the word frequently is taken in Scripture Gen. 30. 30. and 45. 19. Num. 3. 15. 1 Tim. 5. 8. Ans It appears you question whether the Goaler had any Children or not beside you tell us that whole Housholds comprehend the Adult only some times from whence I infer according to the Scripture whole Housholds may be said to be baptized when none but the Adult in those Housholds are baptized 2. If the Apostles offering Salvation to People gives them a right to Baptism then all the World may be baptized because all the World ought to have Salvation offered to them go into all the World and preach the Gospel to every Creature Mark 16. 15. but this offer gives none a right to Baptism simply in it self no none but such that believe as the next Words prove he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved verse 16. they must first believe or be made Disciples and then be baptized the Parents must believe and the Children must first believe not the Parents for the Children but the Children must believe for themselves before they ought to be baptized according to the Commission and the nature of the Administration of Gospel Baptism 3. 'T is strange the Apostles should preach to little Children oâ—…er Christ to them what preach Christ to the Infant in the Cradle that knows not its right Hand from it â—…t But say you the Children are the chief part of every Houshold therefore when Paul saith to the Keeper of the Prison believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt 〈◊〉 saved and thy House it is as much as if he should say if thou wilt believe in Christ the Covenant oâ— Spanâ—d and the Seal of Baptism appertaineth to thee aâ—… Children c. Ans 〈◊〉 Children I grant are part of those 〈◊〉 there are Children but not of every 〈◊〉 because there are many Housholds wherein 〈◊〉 no Children in non-age and they cannot be part of those Housholds in which there is no Infant 2. Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved that is do thou believe and thy whole House that are capable to believe let them believe also and you shall all be saved no more is intended for according to your own argument the Servants and Adult Children were under the same promise with his Infants if he had any now will you say that his Servants and Adult Children could be saved by his Faith I tell you again the Covenant of peculiarality God made with Abraham's natural Seed as such was gone and abolished when Paul preached to the Goaler and the Covenant of Grace or Covenant of Salvation God made with Abraham I have proved appertained to none but the elect only or his true Spiritual Seed 3. Besides if the Parents believing brings the Children into the Covenant of Salvation then it will follow that the Parents non-believing keeps the Children out of the Covenant and so hinders them of Salvation and if so the Children may be damn'd for their Parents Sin in not believing You proceed and say the Apostle planted the Church of the Corinthians by baptizing whole Housholds 1 Cor. 1. 16 17. as the House of Stephanas and Crispus and the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul at Corinth and accused him that he perswaded Men to worship God contrary to the Law verse 13. by how much the more would they have accused him then say you for casting out their Children from the Covenant of Abraham if he had so done c. Ans I answer how do you know but that might be one thing which they charged upon him no doubt Paul according as John Baptist did did declare that their being the Children of Abraham according to the Flesh as such now availed them nothing he 'tis plain denyed their Childrens right to Circumcision to give them a right to Baptism he received none of them to Baptism who professed not their Faith in Christ the Covenant of peculiarality with Abraham's natural Seed as such being abolished Moreover Paul told these Corinthians all things were now become anew a new Church and a new Church Membership and a new right to that Church Membership and now there is no knowing of Men after the Flesh this Doctrine he preached to these Corinthians 2 Cor. 5. 16. 17. and you force me to urge this matter often wherefore henceforth know we no Man after the Flesh yea though we have known Christ after the Flesh yet now henceforth know him no more what doth the Apostle intend here by these words but this viz. now henceforth or from the establishment of the dispensation of the Gospel we know no Man after the Flesh know to know here is to prefer or to esteem no Man above others upon the account of their fleshly descent
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
which cannot be actually in them Ans I answer 't is very true that Christ in his Commission neither meaneth nor mentioneth Infants he hath given no Commission to baptize Infants because the words of the Commission runneth to such who are capable to be taught to be made Disciples by Teaching and so to Believe which Infants Mr. Owen saith cannot actually do But he adds the Apostle saith in 2 Thes 3. 10. saith he if any would not work neither should he eat would not that Father be unnatural who would take an occasion from this Scripture to starve his little Children because they cannot work so when Christ saith he that believeth and is baptized it doth not follow that none ought to be baptized untill they believe Answer 1. I answer this seems strange when Christ in the Affirmative declares who he would have baptized doth it not follow that in the Negative none else ought to be baptized In other cases you would not argue thus as for Example when God commanded Abraham to Circumcise his Male Infants doth he not implicitly forbid the Circumcising of his Female Children and when he commanded him to Circumcise his Male Infants on the eighth day doth he not implictly forbid him to circumcise them on the seventh or ninth day and when Paul saith let a Man examine himself and so let him eat doth he not forbid Infants to partake thereof and all to come to the Lord's Supper that do not so examine themselves or who do not discern the Lord's Body Moreover 2. Are not all those Persons that a testator in his last Will and Testament leaveth out or expresseth not excluded from having any Legacy in the said Will now the great Commission Mat. 28. Mark 16. is also Christs last Will and Testament about the right of Baptism viz. who are right subjects and they are expressed by their qualifications viz. Disciples or Persons Taught or such that believe are not therefore all unbelievers all Pagans and ungodly persons and ignorant Babes that are not capable to believe excluded from Baptism according to Christ last Will and Testament it signifies nothing to find Infants right to Circumcision under the Law nor other the external priviledges of the Seed of the Faithful then for that was a Legacy given in the Old Will and Testament which is abolished by Christ making his New and last Will and Testament in which the Infant Seed of Believers are left out as touching any right they have now in Gospel times to be Members of the Gospel Church or to Baptâ—sm c. 3. As to that Text you mention 2 Thess 3. 10. If 〈◊〉 will noâ— work neither let him eat I answer Mr. Burâ—… in that Treatise of his for Infant Baptism which I answered and he hath made no reply since brings in the very same Text upon the like account take his words and my answer Must Children be starved because they cannot work thus says he Children lie under a Natural incâ—pacity of professing actual Faith therefore the first Text that is Mark 16. 16. doth not concern them any more then the latter 2 Thess 3. 10. now take our answer viz. You have given away say we your Cause for ever for if this Text Mark 16. 16. does no more concern Infants then that in 2 Thess 3. 10. then be sure they have nothing to do with Baptism You and Mr. Burkitt say that in Mark 16. 16. the Adult only are intended we say so too whether then shall we go for your Infant Baptism we can prove from many Texts that Infants ought to Eat though they cannot Work but how will you prove that Infants ought to be Baptized by any other Scripture if it be not in the Commission tho' they do not believe or have actual Faith Mr. Burkiâ— saith Children have Mortal Bodies therefore they must be Fed at their Parents Table and they have Immortal Souls and from â—hence he argues they ought to be Baptized to which I answered As Infants have mortal Bodies and must therefore be Fed at their Parents Table tho' they can't Work so because they have Immortal Souls he might as well have said they ought to be Fed at the Lord's Table tho' they cannot believe nor discern the Lord's Body The Apostle saith Let a Man examine himself and so let him eat c. but this say I is spoken of the Adult but Infants who are capable to receive Spiritual Benefits by Christ's Death must have the Ordinance that figureth it out namely the Lords Supper There is the same ground and reason therefore to conclude Infants are included in 1 Cor. 11. 22 23. about receiving the Lord's Supper as there is to conclude that they are included in Matth. 21. 19. Mark 16. 15 16. In the Commission to Baptize the one saith Let a Man examine himself the other saith He that Believeth c. You say you have proved That the Apostles Baptized not only the Adult when they believed but the Children of such also Answ I have I hope to the satisfaction of all that are willing to be informed disproved what you say and proved that the Apostles Baptized no one Infant by far better Arguments than you have brought to prove they did Obj. Infants do not understand what is done and therefore what profiteth Baptism unto them this Objection Mr. Owen answereth as followeth This Objection saith he is not only against Baptism but against Circumcision also yet the Ordinance was profitable unto them A little Child may receive a great gift c. 1. Answ I answer Circumcision was God's Command Infants had aright to it but God has not Commanded Infants to be Baptized God's Ordinance shall have that effect on its proper subject which he designed by it no doubt had it been the Will of Christ to have given Command to Baptize Infants but it should some ways or another been profitable to them but since he hath not Commanded it it can no way profit them 2. A little Child may receive a great Gift no doubt but they must not have that given to them that God never appointed for them When God gave out the Commission of Circumcision he Commanded Abraham as an Adult Person to be Circumcised and also at the same time Commanded him to Circumcise his Male Children that was by a positive Law a gift given to all the Male Children of Abraham and to all the Male Children by Isaac in their Generation whether their Parents were godly or wicked but Baptism in Christs Commission is only given to Believers and to all that Believe and therefore no Gift given to Infants we must not be Wiser then God nor add to his word 4. Obj. Mr. Owen adds another Objection against his Doctrine viz. Christ was about Thirty years of Age when he was Baptized Luke 3. 23. 1. His answer is though he was not Baptized until he was Thirty years of Age yet he was Circumcised when he was eight days Old Luke 2. 21. 2. He delayed
40. See thou make all things according to the Pattern shewed thee in the Mount and Lev. 10. 1 2. See how Nadab and Abihu sped for presuming to vary from the Command of God and Uzzah tho' but in small Circumstances as they may seem to us How dare Men adventure this being so to change Baptism from Dipping into Sprinkling and the Subject from an Adult Believer to an Ignorant Babe Add thou not unto his word c. Arg. 15. Whatever practice opens a Door to any Human Traditions in God's Worship is a great Evil and to be avoided But the practice of Infant Baptism opens a Door to any Human Traditions in God's Worship Ergo to Sprinkle or Baptize Infants is a great Evil and ought to be avoided The Major will not be denied The Minor is clear because there is no Scripture ground for it no Command or Example for such a Practice in God's Word and if without Scripture Authority the Church hath power to do one thing she may do another and so ad infinitum Arg. 16 Whatsoever practice reflects upon the Honour Wisdom and Care of Jesus Christ or renders him less faithful than Moses and the New Testament in one of its great Ordinances nay Sacraments to lie more obscure in God's Word than any Law or Precept under the Old Testament cannot be of God But the practice of Infant Baptism reflects on the Honour Care and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ and renders him less faithful than Moses and a great Ordinance nay Sacrament of the New Testament to lie more dark and obscure than any Precept under the Old Testament Ergo Infant Baptism cannot be of God The Major cannot be denyed The Minor is easily proved For he is bold indeed who shall affirm Infant Baptism doth not lie obscure in God's Word One great Party who assert it say it s not to be found in the Scripture at all but 't is an unwritten Apostolical Tradition Others say it lies not the Letter of the Scripture but may be proved by Consequences and yet some great asserters of it as Dr. Hammond and others say those Consequences commonly drawn from divers Texts for it are without demonstration and prove nothing I am sure a Man may Read the Scripture a Hundred times over and never be thereby convinced he ought to baptize his Children though it is powerful to convince Men of all Christian Duties Now can this be a Truth since Christ was more Faithful than Moses and delivered every thing plainly from the Father Moses left nothing dark as to matters of Duty tho' the Precept and Eternal Rites of his Law were numerous even two or three hundred Precepts yet none were at a loss or had need to say is this a Truth or an Ordinance or not for he that Runs may Read it And shall one positive precept given forth by Christ who appointed so few in the New Testament be so obscure as also the Ground and End of it that Men should be confounded about the Proofs of it together with the End and Grounds thereof See Heb. 3. 5 6. Arg. 17. That Custom or Law which Moses never delivered to the Jews nor is any where written in the Old Testament was no Truth of God or of Divine Authority But that Custom or Law to baptize Proselytes either Men Women or Children was never given to the Jews by Moses nor is it any where written in the Old Testament Ergo it was no Truth of God or of Divine Authority and evident it is according to that Forementioned and Worthy Author Sir Norton Knatchbal that the Jewish Rabbins differed among themselves about it for saith he to Cite his very words again Rabbi Eleaezer expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews for Eleazer who was contemporary with Rabbi Joshua if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte Circumcised and not Baptized was a true Proselyte Arg. 18. If Baptism is of Meer positive Right wholly depending on the Will and Sovereign Pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator and he hath not Requi red or Commanded Infants to be baptized then Infants ought not to be baptized but Baptism is of meer positive right wholly depending on the Will and Sovereign pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator and he hath not required or Commanded Infants to be baptized Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized This Argument tends to cut off all the pretended proofs of Pedo-baptism taken from the Covenant made with Abraham and because Children are said to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven it was not the Right of Abraham's Male Children to be Circumcised because they were begotten and born of the Fruit of his Loyns till he received Commandment from God to Circumcise them Had he done it before or without Command from God it would have been Will-worship in him to have done it Moreover this further appearâ— to be so because no godly Mans Children nor others in Abraham's days nor since had any Right thereto but only his Children or such who were bought with his Money or were proselyted to the Jewish Religion because they had no Command from God so to do as Abraham had This being true it follows that if we should grant Infants of believing Gentiles as such were the Seed of Abraham which we deny yet unless God had Commanded them to baptize their Children they ought not to do it and if they do it without a Command or Authority from Christ It will be found an Act of Will-worship in them Arg. 19. All that were baptized in the Apostolical Primitive times were baptized upon the profession of their Faith were baptized into Christ and thereby put on Christ and were all one in Christ Jesus and were Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the promise But Infants as such who are baptized were not baptized upon the profession of their Faith nor did they put on Christ thereby nor are they all one in Christ Jesus and also are not Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to Promise Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Mr. Baxter confirms the substance of the Major these are his words i. e. As many as have been baptized have put on Christ and are all one in Christ Jesus and are Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to the promise Gal. 3. 27 28 29. This speaks the Apostle saith he of the probability grounded on a credible profession c. Baxters Confirm Reconcil page 32. The Minor will stand firm till any can prove Infants by a visible profession have put on Christ are all one in Christ Jesus are Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to the promise Evident it is none are the spiritual Seed of Abraham but such who have the Faith of Abraham and are truly grafted into Christ by a saving Faith If any object we read of some who were baptized who had no saving Faith but were Hypocrites I answer had they appeared to be