being the Children of Abraham as such gave them a right to Circumcision or rather the meer positive Command of God to Abraham To this they gave no Answer Query 2. Whether Circumcision could be said to be a Seal of any Mans Faith save Abraham's only seeing 't is only called the Seal of the Righteousness of his Faith and also of the Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised To this the Athenian Society answer amongst the Ancient Hereticks they never met with such a strange position as this viz. that the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith was the priviledge of Abraham only Is this an answer Besides they mistake it is not a Position but a Question Furthermore 't is said that Abraham received the sign of Circumcision not only as a Seal of the Righteousness of that Faith he had being yet uncircumcised but also Mark that he might be the Father of all that believe Was this the priviledge of any save Abraham only Query 3. What do you conceive Circumcision did or Baptism doth seal or doth make sure to Infants since a Seal usually makes firm all the blessings and priviledges contained in that Covenant 't is affixed to The Athenians answer It Seals and did seal to all that did belong to Christ Life and Salvation but to such as do not it Seals nothing at all To which I reply How dare any Man Seal the Covenant of Salvation to such who have not that Faith Abraham had before he received that Seal It was not a Seal of that Faith he might have or might not have afterwards but of that Faith he had before he received it Secondly I affirm Baptism is no Seal at all of Salvation for if it was and of God's appointment all that are Sealed would be saved even Simon Magus but many who are Baptized may perish eternally and do no doubt Query 4. I demand to know what those external priviledges are Infants partake of in Baptism seeing they are denyed the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and all other external Rites whatsoever If you say when they believe they shall partake of those priviledges and blessings so say I shall the Children of unbelievers Turks and Pagans as well as they The Athenian Society answer We insist not upon external priviledges 't is forrein to the Matter 1. Ans If you insist not on internal priviledges nor on external priviledges that are Sealed to Infants that are Baptized what does their Baptism signifie Just nothing but which is worse 't is a prophanation of Christ's Holy significant Ordinance of Baptism and this indeed is worst of all Query 5. If the fleshly Seed or Children of believing Gentiles as such are to be counted the Seed of Abraham I Query whither they are his Spiritual Seed or his Natural Seed if not his Spiritual Seed nor his Natural Seed what right can they have to Baptism or Church Membership from any Covenant Transaction God made with Abraham The Athenians answer They are his Spiritual Seed Visible for so far only belongs to us to Judge and therefore they have a right to the Seal of that Covenant Reply What they say cannot be true because the Scripture positively saith that such who are the spiritual Seed of Abraham have the Faith of Abraham and walk in the Steps of Abraham and are Christ's Gal. 3. ult But Infants of Believers as such cannot be said to have the Faith of Abraham nor to walk in Abrahams Steps c. 2. Such who are Abrahams Spiritual Seed are in the Election of Grace and are always his Seed not for so long but for ever we can judge none to be Abraham's Spiritual Seed but such only in whom these Signs appear before mentioned but none of those Signs appear nor can appear in Infants therefore we cannot judge they are his Spiritual Seed to whom the Seal of the Covenant of Grace of right does belong Query 6. Whither the Children of Believers are in the Covenant of Grace absolutely or but conditionally if only conditionally what further priviledge have they above the Children of unbelievers Query 7. Whither those different Grounds upon which the right of Infant Baptism is pretended by the Ancient Fathers of Old and the Modern Divines doth well agree with an Institution that is a meer positive right wholly depending on the Sovereign will of the Legislator and whether this doth not give just cause to all to question its authority 1. Some Pedo-baptists asserted it took away Original Sin and such who denyed it were Anathematized 2. Some affirm that Children are in Covenant and being the Seed of Believers are Faederally Holy therefore to be Baptized 3. Another sort of Pedo-baptists say they ought to be baptized by vertue of their Parents Faith 4. Another sort Baptize them upon the Faith of their Sureties 5. Others say by the Faith of the Church as Austin Bernard c. 6. Others say they have Faith themselves i. e. Habitual Faith and therefore must be baptized 7. Some say it is only an Apostolical unwritten Tradition But others deny that and say it may be proved from the Scripture 8. Others say 't is a Regenerating Ordinance and Infants are thereby put into a savable State Others say the Infants of Believers are born therefore safe before in Covenant with their Parents To this Query they say nothing pretending they had answer'd it before Query 8. Whither that can be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither precept nor example nor plain and undeniable Consequences for it in all God's Word nor promise made to such who do it nor threats pronounced on such as neglect it Their answer is there About Womens Receiving the Sacrament c. Query 9. Whether in matter of meer positive Right such as Baptism is we ought not to keep expresly and punctually to the Revelation of the Will of the Law-giver They answer yes Reply Then your Cause is lost for God's Word expresly directs us to Baptize only such who are first Taught or made Disciples by Teaching or who make a profession of their Faith and Dipping is the express Act of Baptizing as practised in the New Testament which a great Clound of Witnesses testifie Query 10. Whether the Baptism of Infants be not a dangerous Error since it tends to deceive poor Ignorant People who think they are thereby made Christians and Regenerated and so never look after any other Regeneration or Baptism that represents or or holds forth the inward work of God's Grace They answer They never tell them they are made Christians throughly c. Then I Appeal to all Men who have Read the Old Church Catechism In my Baptism wherein I was made a Child of God a Member of Christ and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of God 11. Since we read but of one Baptism in Water and that one Baptism is that of the Adult i. e. such who profess Faith c. How can Infant Baptism or rather Rantism be an Ordinance of Christ 12.
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
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
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.
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
Word from Corruption but not the Humane History of the Fathers 2. But should this Father and St. Austine and others that followed them be for Infant Baptism what will this avail the asserters of Infant Baptism seeing the Church was before their times so greatly corrupted and many grand Errors brought in the Tradition of God Fathers and God Mothers one of the Church of England hath lately shewed to be near as early in the Church as Infant baptism which Mr. Owen will not therefore receive to be an Apostolical Tradition 3. We readily grant that Infant baptism is of great Antiquity of more then Thirteen Hundred years standing so are many other abominable Errors Practices and corrupt Ceremonies but from the beginning it was not so viz. 't is not to be found in Holy Scripture it is none of Christs Institution therefore an Human Invention nor was it practised in the Two first hundred years after Christ as I shall now prove out of as good Authors as any Mr. Owen hath or can produce 1. 'T is said Justin Martyr was Converted about 30 years after the Apostle John and by the Order then used in the Church It appears there was no Infant baptism thought of Walafrid Strabo as I find him cited by a great Historian says that there was no Children but aged and understanding Persons Baptized in this Age that is to say in the Second Century Wal. Strabo Eccl. Hist cap. 26. Vicecom l. 1. c 30. Tertullian in his Book of Baptism speaking of that Text Suffer little Children to come unto me saith he Indeed the Lord said do not hinder them to come unto me Let them come therefore while they grow to Years and while come let them be Taught let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ Why doth Innocent Age hasten to the Remission of Sins Men will deal more warily in Worldly affairs So that they who are not trusted with an Earthly Inheritance are trusted with an Heavenly one Let them ask for Salvation that thou mayest appear to have given it to them Dr. Taylor saith that the Truth of the business is as there is no Command of Scripture to oblige Children to the susception of it so the necessity of Pedo-Baptism was not determined in the Church till the Canons that was made in the Milevitan Council a provincial in Africa never till then I grant saith he it was practised in Africa before that time and they or some of them thought well of it And though that is no argument for us to think so yet none of them ever pretended it to be necessary nor to have been a precept of the Gospel St. Austin was the first that ever preached it to be necessary and it was in his Heat and Anger against Pelagius Thus Dr. Taylor Ignatius in his Discourse about Baptism asserts that it ought to be accompanyed with Faith Love and Patience after Preaching H. Montanus p. 45. and Jacob Dubois p. 16. to 22. and Dutch Martyrology where Ignatius's Letters are mentioned to Polycarp Tralensis to them of Philadelphia Dr. Taylor saith in his Disswasive against Popery p. 118. printed 1667 one of his last pieces Thus viz. That there is a Tradition to baptize Infants relies but upon two Witnesses Origen and Austin and the latter having it from the former it lies upon a single Testimony which saith he is a pittiful argument to prove a Tradition Apostolical He is the first that spoke of it but Tertullian that was before him seems to speak against it which he would not have done if it had been an Apostolical Tradition and that it was not so is but too certain if there be any Truth in the Words of Ludovicus Vives who says that anciently none were baptized but Persons of ripe Age. Great Bazil in his Book of the Holy Spirit Cap. 12. saith Faith and Baptism are the two means of Salvation inseparably cleaving together for Faith is not perfected by Baptism but Baptism is founded by Faith and by the same Name both things are fulfilled for as we believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit so also we are baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit and indeed there goeth before a Confession leading us to Salvation but Baptism followeth sealing our Confession and Covenant The same Churches Teacher saith the learned Dr. Du-Veil in his Third Book against Eunomius speaketh thus viz. Baptism is the Seal of Faith Faith is the Confession of the Godhead it is necessary we should first Believe and then be sealed in Baptism Du veilon Acts c. 8. p. 278. Zonaras saith the Babe will then need Baptism when it can chuse it Gregory Nazianzen in his Fourth Oration saith Dr. Du-Veil Of those who dye without Baptism gives us an Instance in those to whom Baptism was not administred by reason of Infancy And the same Nazianzen though he was a Bishops Son being a long time bred up under his Fathers care was not saith the said Dr baptized till he came to Man's Age. In like manner saith he Basil the Great that was born of devout Parents and instructed from his Childhood was not baptized until a Man p. 280. Also saith he John of Antioch called afterwards Chrysostom was born of Christian Parents as the truer Opinion is tutored by the famous Bishop Miletius was not yet baptized till he was One and Twenty Years of Age. Hierom also Ambrose and Austin who were born of Christian Parents and consecrated to Christian Discipline even from their Childhood were not baptized before thirty years of age as Dr. Taylor Bishop of Down asserts in his Twelfth Section of the Life of Christ Now Sir here are Examples enough that do prove in the primitive times Children of baptized Believers were not baptized but had their Baptism delayed till they themselves believed and gave an account of their Faith Had it been the constant custom of the Godly to baptize Infants would not these think you have been in their Infancy baptized Grotius as I find him quoted by Dr. Du-Veil saith The Primitive Churches did not baptize Infants see Grotius's Notes on the Gospel Nay saith the same great and learned Author it doth most plainly appear by the right of baptizing in the Romish Church for baptism is to be asked before the Person to be baptized do enter into the Church which the surety does in the Infants Name a clear distinct confession of Faith is required which the same surety rehearseth in the Infants Name i. e. a Renouncing of the World its Pomps the Flesh and the Devil We may by this perceive from whence the Original of our old Church Catechism came But this is a clear Argument saith the Dr. to prove of old the Persons who were to be baptized themselves asked Baptism in their own Name and of their own choice and professed their own Faith In the Neo-Cesarean Council it was framed thus As to those who are big with Child they ought to be baptized