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
Text John 6. 53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you and from thence they gave Infants the Lord's Supper also But suppose that Baptism doth signify or is a figure of the washing of Regeneration yet sprinkling is no form of washing but all know dipping is and the safest way of washing 2dly You mention Fierâ— Baptism or the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Fire Mat. 3. 11. This Scripture you say was fulfilled when the Holy Ghost came upon the Disciples in the appearance of Fiery Tongues Acts 2. 3. This Baptism was not say you by plunging in Fire but by sprinkling or pouring of Fire you mean the Holy Spirit upon them which sate upon each of them which is a Fiery washing which purifieth the Soul c. I answer Tho the Baptism of the Spirit was by pouring forth of the Spirit yet they were overwhelmed or immersed with it like as Dust may be poured upon a dead Corps until it is covered all over or quite buried therein So the Baptism of the Holy Ghost at the Day of Pentecost signifies the miraculous Effusion of the Holy Ghost The Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Learned Casaubon is to dip plâ—â—ge c. in which sense saith he the Apostles might be truly said to have been baptized for the House in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost so that the Apostles might seem to have been plunged into it as in a large Fish-Pond Sir 't is not the sprink ing of the Spirit that is the Baptism of the Spirit for they had doubtless some sprinklings of the Spirit before they were baptized with it Moreover Oecumenius on Acts 2. saith A Wind filled the whole House that it seemed like a Fish-pond because 't was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Spirit Thus you may see that this no ways helps you to make Sprinkling or Rantizing Baptism 3dly You mention the Baptism of Blood or Sufferings I will repeat your Words Baptism of Blood of this Baptism doth Christ ask the Children of Zebedee Are you able to drink of the Cup that I drink of and to be baptized with the Baptism that I am baptized with Mat. 20. 22. This Cup and this Baptism are the same viz. the Sufferings of Christ of which his Disciples were to be Partakers You intimate that Baptism is a Witness of our Spiritual Resurrection and of our Resurrection at the last Day you mention 1 Cor. 15. 29 c. Answ Therefore say I it must be so administred as it may represent our Rising again First from a Death in Sin to a Life in Grace And Secondly from the Dead or out of our Graves in the Earth at the last Day But Sprinkling doâ—h not this cannot do this In sprinkling a little Water on the Face there is no resemblance or representation of rising up out of the Grave of Sin or from the Dead nor out of the Grave aâ— the last Day the Baptism of Sufferings signifies great Afflictions and from the Literal Signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 great Afflictions or Troubles are taken for and figurately called Baptism as Vossius shews Not every light Affliction is the Baptism of Afflictions but like that of David Psal 32. 6. He drew me out of deep Waters Hence great Afflictions are called Waves Thy Waves and thy Billows are gone over me Psal 42. 7. See Pool's Annotations on Mat. 20. 22. To be baptized is saith he to be dipped in water Metaphorically to be plunged in Afflictions So that neither of these Metaphorical Baptisms will do you any Service to justify your Tradition of sprinkling or pouring a little Water but contrariwise quite overthrows your pretended Baptism As to what you say in the next place of your three manner of ways of the Administration of Baptism in your first Chapter it doth not concern our present Purpose 't is true John the Baptist baptized into him that was to come so in that respect it differ'd from the Administration of it after the Death and Resurrection of our blessed Lord and no doubt from the Commission it appears Baptism was to be administred to the end of the World into the Name of the Father Son and holy Spirit and no other ways CHAP II. Containing some Remarks upon Mr. Owen's second Chapter AS to what you have wrote in your second Chapter about the Continuation of Water-Baptism in the Church until Christ's coming the second time or to the end of the World I approve generally of your Arguments and in that matter we are of your mind tho much more might be added to confirm that great Truth but pray Sir remember 't is Christ's Baptism of Believers which he only instituted that doth remain not Infants Baptism much less Infants Rantism which was neither instituted nor allowed by our blessed Lord. And because some of your Arguments for the Continuation of Baptism mentioned in your second Chapter tend to overthrow your Infant Baptism I shall make some Remarks upon them They are taken from your 4 th Proof you argue thus viz. Water Baptism is to continue in the Church if we consider the Ends of it 1. You say Christ hath ordained Baptism to be a Sign of our Repentance and therefore 't is called the Baptism of our Repentance Mark 1. 4. Repentance is a remaining Duty therefore the Baptism of Repentance is to remain Remark If Baptism be a siâ—n of Repentance to the Person baptized then the Person baptized ought to be a Person capable to repent and when baptized to have what is signified therein but Infants as such have not the Grace of Repentance when baptized so they are not capable to repent 2dly You say It is an Evidence of our Faith in Christ Mark 16. 16. Acts 8. 37 38. and therefore it is to remain as long as Faith is to remain on the Earth Remark If Baptism is an Evidence of our Faith in Christ then it must only belong to Believers How can it be an Evidence of Faith in Infants who are not capable to believe they know not the Object of Faith nor can they exert any Act of Faith It must be an Evidence to the Subject when baptized and so the Scriptures you cite hold forth He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. it doth not say he that is baptized and believeth If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayst Not if thou shalt believe hereafter but if thou dost believe now It appertains to such who have Faith when baptized and it evidences such a Faith to the Person nay Faith is required of them before they are to be baptized And so saith the Church of England 3dly You say It is the Bond of Holiness 1 Pet. 3. 21. the Apostle exhorts the Christians to be dead unto Sin and alive unto Righteousness There is a Virtue in the Ordinances of God answerable to
yet the grafting of a Person into Christ is represented by that Allusion or Metaphorical Expression Must the Sign and the Thing signified be all one and the same thing Thus we see in opposition to what you say in the close of your third Chapter that it is very plain and manifest that dipping is absolutely necessary and of the Essence of Baptism it 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alas Sir in all the New Testament where we read of sprinkling the Greek as I said before renders it rantizing not baptizing 〈◊〉 Christ has ordained Rantism to represent the sprinkling of his Blood or the sprinkling of his Spirit prove it we deny it and have sufficiently proved he has appointed Baptism to represent his Death Burial and Resurrection and that sprinkling is not baptizing But for a farther Satisfaction of the impartial Reader take a few Syllogistical Arguments Arg. 1. If Baptism was ordained to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ in a lively Figure then Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism But Baptism was ordained to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ in a lively Figure therefore Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism This Argument we have proved to be true in every part of it Arg. 2. If Baptism was appointed to hold forth or represent in a lively Figure the Person 's Death to Sin who is baptized or his present Regeneration not future and his rising again to walk in Newness of Life then Infants cannot be the Subjects thereof But Baptism was appointed to hold forth or represent in a lively Figure the Person 's Death to Sin who is baptized or his present Regeneration not future and his rising again to walk in Newness of Life Therefore Infants are not the Subjects thereof 4. There is yet one Proof further to make it yet clearer that Baptism is dipping or plunging and nothing else and that is taken from those Typical Baptisms spoken of in the holy Scripture 1. That of the Red Sea wherein the Fathers were buried as it were unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud See Pool's Annotations on the Place Others says he more properly think the Apostle uses this Term in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptism as it was used the Person going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea the great Receptable of Water tho the Water at that time was gathered on heaps on the other side of them yet they seemed buried in the Water as Persons seem'd buried in the Water were in that Age when they were baptized 2. The second Typical Baptism was that of Noah's Ark See Sir Norton Knatchbull whom I quoted before saith he Noah's Ark and Baptism were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection not a Sign of the washing away of Sin tho so taken metonymically but a particular Signal of the Resurrection of Christ Of this again saith he is Baptism a lively and emphatical Figure as also was the Ark of Noah out of which he returned as from a Sepulchre From hence I infer this Argument following Arg. 3. If those Typical Baptisms spoken of in the Scriptures signified Immersion or an Overwhelming or a Burial then is Sprinkling no true Baptism But those Typical Baptisms c. did signify Immersion or an Overwhelming or a Burial Therefore Sprinkling is no true Baptism Again that Baptism is dipping or plunging or a being buried in the Water appears by those Metaphorical Baptisms we read of which are twofold 1st The Baptism of the Holy Spirit 2dly The Baptism of Afflictions 1st Saith John the Baptist I indeed baptize you with Water but he shall baptize you with the holy Spirit and Fire Now 't is not the sanctifying Gifts of the Spirit which every Godly Person receives that is the Baptism of the Spirit but as the Learned observe the miraculous Effusions of the holy Spirit like that at Pentecost Acts 1. 4 5. shall be baptized The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Casaubon is to dip or plunge c. in which Sense saith he the Apostles might be truly said to have been baptized for the House in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost So that the Apostles might seem to have been plunged into it as in a large Fish-pond 'T is not a sprinkling of the Spirit that is the Baptism of the Spirit for so doubtless the Apostles had the Spirit before they were said to be baptized with it Oecumenius on Acts 2. saith A Wind filled the whole House that it seem'd like a Fish-pond because it was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost 2dly We read of the Baptism of Afflictions I have a Baptism to be baptized with and how am I straiâ—ned till it be accomplished From the literal Signification of the word baptizâ— immergo as I shewed before to plunge under overwhelm great Afflictions come to be called Baptism and signifies as Vossius shews not every light Affliction but like that of David Psal 32. 6. he drew me out of the deep Waters Hence great Afflictions are called Waves Thy Wazes and thy Billows are gone over me Psal 42. 7. 'T is spoken of Christ's Sufferings who was as it were drowned drenched or overwhelmed in Afflictions and Sufferings Every small Affliction is not the Baptism of Afflictions but great and deep Afflictions suffering even unto Blood and Death Pool's Annotations say to be baptized is to be dipped in Water metaphorically to be plunged in Afflictions I shall close this also with another Argument Arg. 4. If those Metaphorical Baptisms which we read of in God's Word as the Baptism of the Spirit and of Afflictions and Sufferings are taken from the literal and genuine Signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immergo which signifies to dip then sprinkling is not baptizing but the former is true Ergo sprinkling is not baptizing CHAP. V. Wherein Mr. Owen's Argument for Infant-Baptism taken from the Covenant God made with Abraham is examined and totally confuted SIR YOu in your fourth Chapter come to consider and enquire who are the proper Subjects of Baptism or who they are that ought to be baptiz'd And first you say that Baptism doth not belong to all Men but to the Faithful and their Seed He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. When the Eunuch ask'd Philip See here is Water what doth hinder me to be baptized He answered If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayst Acts 8. It is plain say you that Baptism belongeth to them that believe but say you how doth it appear that Baptism doth belong to the Seed of such that will appear you say 1. From God's Covenant 2. From Circumcision under the Law 3. From Christ's Command to baptize all Nations 4. Because they are holy 5. Because Christ blessed them 6. Because the Gentiles were ingrafted into the Privileges of the Jews 7.
external Privileges of the Covenant of Grace who only partake of Baptism and not of the Lord's-Supper Is not Faith required of all such that ought to be baptized as well as it iâ— required in all that partake of the Lord's Supper to examine themselves neither of which Infants are capable to do It iâ— manifest that the Children of the Faithful as such are not in the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham but that there was a twofold Covenant made with him and that the Covenant of Grace only appertains to the Elect of God whether they be Children of Believers or Children of Unbelieverâ— which is not known to us until they are grown up and are brought by the Spirit of God under special Vocation and Regeneration and that they are the Adult only viz. such as believe that have right to Baptism but that not by virtue of the Covenant of Grace but by virtue of the positive Command of Christ in the New Testament Sir you mistake again it was not by virtue of the Covenant of Grace that Persons had right to Circumcision for if so then Lot and Melchisedec and Abraham's Males as soon as they were born had a right to it as also his Females nothing gave right to Abraham's Male-Infanâ—s to Circumcision but the meer positive Command of God to him which extended only to those Males in his own House or bought with his Money and not till the eighth day for such that died before the eighth day tho Males had no right to be circumcised nor had his Females any right thereto so none but Believers when they can give an account of their Faith by virtue of Christ's express and positive Command ought to be baptized Pray remember the Covenant of Grace as such gives no right to Baptism for if it did all Believers or Elect Persons had right to it from the first Introduction or Declaration of it to Adam upon the Fall No no it is a pure Gospel-Ordinance and meerly positive and only depends upon the Will and Pleasure of the Law-giver Jesus Christ Honoured Britains who inhabit North and South Wales let me intreat you to consider how false the Conclusion is that Mr. Owen draws concerning the Right the Infants of the Faithful have to Baptism namely that if they are in the Covenant of Grace then they ought to be baptized For as he nor no Man else can prove the Infants of Believers as such are in the Covenant of Grace so it would not follow were that granted that they ought to be baptized it being not the Covenant of Grace but the express and positive Command of Christ that gives Persons just Right thereunto Suppose Christ had not commanded Believers to be baptized would any Man have adventured to baptize them or conclude it was their Duty because they were in Covenant with God Or would Abraham have been circumcised himself because in the Covenant of Grace had he not received a positive Command so to be Certainly he was long in the Covenant of Grace before he was circumcised and did not sin thereby because God had not given that Precept to him until he was old Moreover it was the express Command of God that gave right to his Male-Infants to be circumcised and not only those of his Seed that were in the Covenant of Grace but Ishmael and others who were not Children of the Promise or in the Covenant of Grace were circumcised and also it was not Lot's Duty tho in the Covenant of Grace to be circumcised because not one that dwelt in Abraham's Family or his Natural Seed nor commanded by the Lord to be circumcised or to circumcise his Infants CHAP. VII Proving Infant-Baptism is not lawful because Circumcision under the Law belonged unto the Male-Infants of the Jews containing an Answer to Mr. James Owen's first Chapter IF say you Circumcision under the Law belonged unto Infants then Baptism under the Gospel belongeth unto them for even as Circumcision was so Baptism is the Seal of the same Covenant of Grace and signifieth the same things Answ 1. I answer If Circumcision did not belong to Infants under the Law any otherwise than by express and positive Command of God which gave them right thereto then if God hath not commanded Believers to baptize their Infants it is not their Duty to baptize them but their Sin if they do it But I have proved it was the express Command of God only that gave Male-Infants proceeding from Abraham's Loâ—â—s Authority to be circumcised and God hath given no such Command to Believers to baptize their Infants therefore Baptism doth not belong to the Infants of Believers as such under the Gospel as Circumcision did belong to Male-Infants under the Law 2. I have proved Circumcision was not the Seal of the Covenant of Grace tho it was a Seal to Abraham of the Righteousness of his own Faith yea of that Faith he had being not circumcised A Seal I have shewed gives an undoubted Right of all those Blessings and Privileges to those Persons to whom the said Covenant is sealed and so it did to Abraham but it was no Seal of the Blessings of the Covenant of Grace to Ishmael Esau and many thousands more who were commanded to be circumcised Were this therefore true that Mr. Owen asserts That Circumcision was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace to all that were circumcised in Infancy then they were all saved even all the Males that proceeded from Abraham's Loins many of which proved as vile and wicked Men as most that ever lived in the World Nor Reader is Baptism a Seal of the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel for if so it would seal all Gospel-Blessings to all Persons that are baptized who then were it so but would be baptized and baptize his Children Brethren the holy Spirit only is the Seal of the Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant vid. Ephes 1 13 14. cap. 4. 10. You proceed to shew in several respects that Circumcision and Baptism signify the same things 1. You say because Original Corruption cometh by Natural Generation 2. Because we are born in Uncleanness we must be washed in our Infancy Answ 1. Supposing that Circumcision did and Baptism doth signify the Corruption or Filthiness of Original Sin or Uncleanness must we therefore baptize our Infants without any Authority Command or Example in God's Word 2. Doth Baptism wash away Original Corruption I know the Papists assert it doth do this but how do they or you prove it Baptism St. Peter saith doth not wash away the Filthiness of the Flesh or Corruption of Natural Pollution 1 Pet. 3. 21. 3. Your Reverend Brother Mr. Stephen Charnock fully proves that Baptism is not Regeneration that can't cleanse from Sin Answer his Arguments in his Book of Regeneration What tho those Baptists in Germany you speak of understood that the antient erring Fathers that introduced Infant-Baptism did bring it in to wash away Original Sin Cannot Christ cleanse Elect
imagine yet the necessity of this Sacament is very great and the profit and advantage very considerable See Dr. du Veil Act. 2. page 87. Tertullian saith Whatsoever savours contrary to Truth is heresy though it be an Ancient Custom Thus you see the Learned though they own not rebaptization where baptism at first was duly administred yet such who at first received only a pretended baptism ought to be truly baptized to baptize a Believer again is sinful and very unlawful thing but since yours is no Baptism but only Rhantism our practice is no rebaptization for as you do not the Act so 't is not done on the proper subject 7. They are guilty say you that is such as deny Infant Baptism of a great sin by giving offence to many that were baptized in their Infancy tempting them to think that they are not under any vows unto God and that their baptism bindeth them not to a new course of Life if People judge themselves free from their baptismal Obligation O! How naked come they to Satans Temptations c. Answ I answer if you take an offence at us because we cast away an humane Tradition we cannot help that ought we to obey Man rather then God Judge ye 2. 'T is the force of Scripture arguments or the power of Gods Word that provoked us and many Thousands more to throw off the Innovation and sinful practice of Infant Baptism and dare you say it was Satan that tempted us no I fear 't is Satan or worldly profit or to free themselves from reproach that tempts some of the pedobaptists to continue the practice of that devised Custom 'T is not Satans use nor interest to tempt Men to own Christs blessed Institutions and cast off Mens Inventions but endeavour to keep them Ignorant of the first and to hold up the second which was let in us in the time of the Apostacy of the Church which 't is evident is a Pillar to uphold National Churches and not only Popish but some Protestant Constitutions also 3. We are not tempted by Satan but perswaded by the Lord and through the Power and Authority of his Word to believe that God brought us not under that Vow or Obligation in Infancy tho' you 't is true do it and so do the Papists bring People under Vows and Obligations to live a single Life and do other things all tending to Piety and Holyness as they tell you but God never brought them under any such Vows or Obligations And tho' an human Obligation may have some force on the Conscience especially when People think 't is Gods Covenant yet ought not the blind People among the Papists to be told that those Covenants are Human and not Covenants God brought them under Hath not God ways enough and such that are sufficient to Oblidge our Children to die to Sin and live a new Life but doth he need Man's Supplements shall man teach God and will you Father your Baptismal Obligation on God as that which he requires Infants to come under without the least Shaddow of proof from his blessed Word I must tell you all voluntary Vows are by Christ in the times of the Gospel forbid Mat. 5. 33 34. You ought not to bring your selves nor Children under any such voluntary and promisory Oaths Vows or Obligations you must see you are Commanded to do it or have clear Authority from the Lord to do this thing before you do it God doth require Believers and their Children when they believe to come under a baptismal Vow or Obligation but not till then But do not think the purport of our Doctrine herein is to open a Door for young People to Sin God forbid the Obligations which God in his Word and godly Parents and Ministers by the authority of God's Word lay upon them are sufficient when the Lord works with them to oblige them to repent believe and lead a new Life without your volunrary and unwarrantable Obligation laid upon them in Infancy that you have no ground to believe God will ever bless to the end you design it unless he had commanded it will you do Evil that Good may come on it 8. Baptizing by dipping the whole Body into cold Water as you say in these cold Climates is a breach of the sixth Commandment Thou shalt not kill for it is certain that many tender and sickly Bodies cannot suffer to be dipped in cold Water in the time of Winter without being pernicious to their Lives especially when it is Snow and Frost we are not to tempt the Lord thinking that God will do Miracles for the saving of our Lives he worketh ordinarily through appointed means in such an occasion as this Mr. Cradock judged that the chief Magistrate should hinder People to be dipped least it should be pernicious to the Subjects Lib. page 108. Ans. I answer this is a high charge you accuse us of Murther directly in breaking the Sixth Commandment but you forget how hereby you positively break the Ninth Commandment Thou shalt not bear fase witness against thy Neighbour Exod. 20. 16. prove what you say or else with deep sorrow confess your abominable and false accusation Do you know for certain that any one Person either Man or Woman was ever killed or came to any hurt that was baptized that is dipped in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit in cold winterly weather you must produce your witnesses or you are horribly guilty in the sight of God and Man you say 'T is certain that many tender and sickly Bodies cannot suffer to be Dipped in cold Water without being pernicious to their Lives c. Sir I have my self baptized many hundreds of Men and Women and some at all times of the year yea in times of bitter Frost and Snow when the Ice was first broken and Persons that were of a weak sickly Constitution and Women big with Child and others near Seventy years Old yea some near Eighty years Old and I never knew any to suffer the least harm thereby but many have found their Health better afterward Yea I heard a Reverend Minister very lately say that he knew an Ancient Woman in Kent that was Bed-ridden for some time who could not be satisfied until she was baptized and baptized she was and upon it grew strong and went about and lived some years after in Health and Strength according to her age also for the space of forty years I have heard of or known some Thousands baptized at all Seasons of the year of both Sex and never heard of any that received the least prejudice to their Health thereby much less that it cost them their Lives Therefore palpable it is you are guilty of slander back-biting and abominable calumny bearing false Witness against your Innocent Neighbours and 't is well if it be not out of malice and that not only to us but also to Christ's Holy Ordinance of Dipping Believers in his Name 2. But the worst is
nor in Baptism but by Faith only Therefore when our Children are called of God or do believe in Christ they have right to the Inheritance which Baptism is a sign of and what signifies the sign without the thing signified You our Brethren the Pedo-baptists give your Children the Name but not the Nature of Christ what is the lofty Title of Earl or Duke and no Estate suteable to that fancy'd Honour Mr. Owen saith We are Stewards over the House of God and we ought to protect the Feeble and Afflicted we are Shepherds and our duty is to provide for the Lambs of the Flock lest any cast them out of the Fold Reply It is required in Stewards that they be Faithful and to see that they give no portion of their Masters Goods to any but to such he hath directed and commanded them so to do Now Christ hath commanded his Stewards or Ministers no more to give Infants the Holy Ordinance of Baptism than the Lord's Supper He therefore that doth it let him answer it when our Lord comes 2. Are our Infants Lambs in Christ's Fold or feeble and afflicted Christians in Christ's Spiritual Family Infants are committed to Ministers care who are Natural Fathers but not as Ministers God never made his Ministers Stewards to take care of and to be Nurses of little Infants True â—ew born Babes in Christ or Babes in Grace they are to provide for and take the care of those Lambs they must see not cast out of Christ's Fold when they are received in by Baptism c. VVe are Builders saith he and we ought to build the VValls of Jerusalem working with one Hand in the VVork and with the other holding a VVeapon Neh. 4. 17. And we must not reject those small or little Stones which the Father received into the old Building whom the Son received into the new Building and will be received by the Holy Ghost Mat. 19. Luke 1. 44. who maketh them lively Stones of Jerusalem that is Above and these Stones by some are cast into an unclean place without the City Levit. 14. 40. God doth raise up Children unto Abraham See Mat. 3. 9. Reply Because the old Jerusalem by God's appointment was built with dead Stones which was a Type of the New will he without Christ's Authority build his New and Spiritual Jerusalem with such Materials We deny not but that God did receive Infants as such into his old Building But doth not St. Peter tell us the Gospel-Temple is built up with Spiritual Stones lively or living Stones i. e. Men and VVomen spiritually quickned by Divine Grace or renewed by the Holy Spirit Let him prove if he can that Christ received into the Gospel-Church any one Infant and tho we deny not but elect Infants that die may be lively Stones in Jerusalem Above I mean Heaven yet it follows no more from thence that Infants ought to be baptized than that they ought to partake of the Lord's Supper Moreover evident it is that John in Mat. 3. 9. the Text Mr. Owen quotes doth deny such to have a right to Baptism that were the Seed or Children of Abraham according to the Flesh Think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father The Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham tho it gave right to his Male-Infants to Circumcision yet it gives no right to Gospel-Baptism to any either Young or Old Male nor Female God can raise up of Stones Children to Abraham i. e. such that have no Descent from Abraham So that it appears Fleshly Descent in Gospel Times signifies not any thing as to Gospel-Church-Membership Worthy Britains Search the Scriptures and be not mistaken about the Covenant God made with Abraham you will find the Covenant of Grace was one and the same from the beginning and it was always held forth by way of a Free Promise first to Adam and so to Abraham c. but there was a Covenant made with Noah and tho it was full of Mercy to him and all Mankind yet that was not simply in it self the Covenant of Grace So also there was a Covenant made with Abraham and his Natural Seed as such which we call a Covenant of Peculiarity or which peculiarly did appertain to his Natural Seed or Off-spring to which Covenant Circumcision did belong which was distinct to the Free Promise or Covenant of Grace which God made with him and with all the Elect in him You may assure your selves that that Covenant in which there was mutual Restipulation between God and Abraham and his Carnal Seed or between God and the whole House of Israel and upon the Condition of Obedience thereunto Life length of Days and the Earthly Canaan was promised and upon their Disobedience Temporal Death was threatned was not the Covenant of Grace tho it might be given in subserviency to the Gospel-Covenant or the Covenant of Faith And so it was as a School-master to bring them to Christ 'T is only the Holy Spirit thro Faith that actually intiles us or our Children to the Covenant of Grace We must believe and our Children must believe before either we or they can be actually in this Blessed Covenant so as to have right to Baptism I mean such of them that live c. Also know as I said before that it is not the Covenant of Grace simply considered in it self that gives any Person a right to Gospel-Baptism but the meer positive and express Command Will and Pleasure of Christ the only Lawgiver For the Covenant of Grace gave no Godly Man or his Male-Children in Abraham's Time or before or after any right to Circumcision but only God's Command to Abraham which ran to those that proceeded from Abraham's Loins or were bought with his Money Brethren Can any think that Abraham could purchase Men with Money and that way bring them into the Covenant of Grace No 't is nothing but the Purchase of Christ's Blood can do that In a word it is evident that should we grant all that Mr. Owen and other Pedo-Baptists say That all the Children of Believers were in very deed in the Covenant of Grace yet it would not follow from thence that our Infants should be baptized any more than that they ought to have the Lord's Supper given to them as I said before because both those Ordinances as Circumcision was are absolutely of meer positive Right Therefore we must know that 't is the Will and Command of Christ in the New Testament that Infants ought to be baptized if they have right thereunto but since there is not the least Intimation given in all God's Word that 't is his Pleasure they should be baptized it must be a piece of Will-worship to do it Object But whereas 't is objected it may be gathered from Consequences that 't is our Duty to baptize them I answer In point of instituted Worship or for any meer positive Legal or Gospel Ordinance there ought to be an express Precept
Rep. Here are a heap of words in a confused manner wrap'd up together without distinguishing one Covenant from another and without distinguishing between Seed and Seed 2. If the Covenant of Grace God made with Adam was also to all his Seed How happy is the whole VVorld All are Adam's Natural Seed Be sure that was the Covenant of Grace and the first discovery of it and this runs only to Christ the Seed of the VVoman and to all the Elect in him not to the Seed of the Serpent who were nevertheless Adam's Natural Seed as I shewed you before 3. God's Covenant with Noah had Grace in it and he was in the Covenant of Grace himself but that Covenant Gen. 9. 9. was also made with all the VVorld and with the Beasts of the Field and Fowls of Heaven even with every Living Creature Yet we will acknowledg thus much i. e. that all Covenants God made with Man since the Fall originally did spring from his special Love to his Elect and New Covenant-Grace designed for them and so they were chiefly for their Sakes But every distinct Covenant we read of was not material and formally the Covenant of Grace 4. The Covenants with Abraham and his Seed I have proved in this Answer to Mr. Owen was Twofold as he was a twofold Father Head and Representative and had a twofold Seed 1. The Covenant or Free-Promise of Grace God made with him the Apostle proves was not made to Seeds as of many but to thy Seed that is Christ Gal. 3. 16. If any Man be in Christ he is one of Abraham ' s Seed and an Heir according to the Promise ver 29. 2. The Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham and his Seed we deny not refers to all his Natur. I Seed or Fleshly Seed as such to which Circumcision did appertain But this will do the Pedo-Baptists no service The Covenant God made with David runs primarily to Christ and in him to all the Elect this is the Eternal Covenant indeed Mr. Owen saith The Evangelical Prophet foretelleth that the Covenant of Grace should be of the same extent under the Gospel even as it was from the Beginning Isa 66. 22. For as the new Heavens shall remain before me so shall your Seed remain God's Covenant with the Seed of the Faithful is so stedfast as the new Heavens and the new Earth 1. Reply This all Men know only refers to the Elect Seed and not to the Seed of the Faithful as such 2. We deny not but the Covenant of Grace is of the same extent in the Gospel-Days as it was from the Beginning But from the Beginning none were truly and really in the Covenant of Grace but the Elect of God only But what Mr. Owen in the close of his second Epistle hath said may open the Eyes of his Reader tho his own be shut Take his words Distinguish between the outward Dispensation of the Covenant and the inward Dispensation thereof Rom. 9. 4 8. All the Seed of Abraham was in the outward Dispensation and the Seal of the Covenant belonged unto them but none were in the inward Dispensation save the Elect only Reply Are not all Men in the VVorld especially where the Gospel is preached in or under the outward Dispensation of the Gospel or Covenant of Grace Sure none can deny this But doth Baptism therefore belong to them all All the Natural Seed of Abraham we acknowledg were in the outward Dispensation of the Law or Covenant of Peculiarity God made with him and had great external Privileges thereby which in some things much differed from the Privileges of such who are under the Dispensation of the Gospel But let them be what they will the outward Dispensation of the Gospel of Grace doth belong as far forth to Unbelievers and their Children as to the Children of Believers For what is that more than the Privilege of reading and hearing the Gospel preached or attending on the Word in Christian Assemblies 2. I ask Mr. Owen how he can prove that the Seal of the Covenant of Grace doth belong to them who are only in the outward Dispensation of the Gospel This may seem strange to all thinking Men. They whom the Seal of the Covenant of Grace belongeth unto are assured of all of the peculiar Immunities Blessings and Privileges thereof as pardon of Sin Justification Adoption and Eternal Life 3. Tho I own no Seal or nothing to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace save the Holy Spirit Yet was Baptism the Seal of it as Mr. Owen supposeth certainly it must if it were so seal to the Person baptized all those Spiritual Blessings or inward Graces signified thereby or otherwise the Seal would be an insignificant thing and the Party sealed would but be cheated or deceived He may think he hath some great Matter sealed to him when in truth he hath nothing sealed thereby Pray ask this Man what it is that Baptism seals to Infants 4. But is it so indeed Are none in the inward part of the Covenant of Grace or in the inward Dispensation of the the Gospel but the Elect then I infer that the Children of the Faithful as such are not in the Covenant of Grace i. e. the Spiritual Blessings or Fatness of that Covenant doth not belong to them as such but only to such of them as are elected or who do believe or are brought under special Vocation by the Holy Spirit And these things being so to what purpose is it for this Man and other Pedo-Baptists to make such a Noise about the Children of Believers as such being in the Covenant of Grace whereas he confesseth none are indeed in it but the Elect. I cannot see it is any thing he and others contend for in pleading for Infant-Baptism but only a Christian-Name or some outward thing the inward Grace not belonging to any but to the Elect only and who they are cannot be known till each Person comes to Age and is called by the Lord For it is only by effectual Calling that the Election of Persons is known to themselves or others But to conclude Let me add a word or two to you Pedo-Baptists that are sound in the Doctrine of Free Grace and Free Justification by Christ's Righteousness alone First May it not be worth your most serious Thoughts to consider how the Doctrine of Pedo-Baptism is a direct Violation of that Holy Precept of our Blessed Saviour Mar. 5. 33 34. It hath been said of them of old Time Thou shalt not forswear thy self but shall perform to the Lord thine Oaths But I say unto you swear not at all c. All voluntary and promisary Oaths and Vows and Religious Covenants as well as vain Swearing is directly thereby forbid and therefore sinful Now tho we grant that the true Baptismal Covenant is of Divine Institution yet since that only obligeth those that are the true Subjects thereof viz. Believers It followeth that that Vow or
also saith Baptism is a sign of present Regeneration not future Now how inconsistent is this Infant Baptismal-Covenant to the Covenant of Grace and also to the nature of that Baptismal-Covenant Believers or true justified Persons enter into when baptized according to Christ's Institution Nothing can be more clear than this viz. that Infant 's Baptismal-Covenant is of the same nature with the Covenant of Circumcision viz. a conditional legal Covenant Do this and thou shalt live perform the Obligation and thou shalt be justified but do it not and you shall be damned or be cut off So that Infant-Baptism established the old legal conditional Covenant Let such who hold the Doctrine of Free-Grace consider it and also see whether it doth not render the Covenant of Grace different in its nature in respect had to Believers themselves and to their Children For Believers themselves receive Christ as Sinners by Faith only without any previous Qualification or promissory Covenant that Christ hath obliged them to enter into But their Infants are put upon previous conditional Qualifications which must be performed by them before justified Indeed had Christ ordained Baptism to oblige us to believe to repent to die to Sin to be regenerate as the Pedo-Baptist speak of their Baptism doth do it was something to their purpose but the contrary plainly appears Were these things carefully considered I am sure Infant-Baptism would fall to the ground for the nature of their pretended Baptismal Covenant is quite repugnant to the true Baptismal Covenant Christ instituted therefore pernicious Besides how are those baptized Infants in the Covenant of Grace as Mr. Owen and others say and yet Baptism as to the main Desâ—â—n and End of it in their cloudy Conceits and Apprehensions is to oblige them to believe c. that they may actually be in the Covenant of Grace The good Lord give you Understanding in all things and bless to your Profit what I have wrote and praise God for that Readiness that was in your Brethren and Countrymen to be at the great Charge of the Publication of this Answer to Mr. Owen He saith in the Title of his Book Childrens Baptism is from Heaven Strange yet no where instituted nor any Authority for it or ever owned from Heaven certainly you will find it is of Men and sprang out of the Antichristian Apostacy Search the Scripture be like the Noble Bereans Acts 16. 11. Who with all Readiness of Mind received the Truth and searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so Brethren I shall add no more but commit you to God and intreat you to read this Book over and over without Prejudice and if you receive any Light by it give God the Glory for I desire to be nothing yet am willing still to serve you and the Interest of Christ who shall subscribe my self your Servant for Jesus Sake Soâ—thwark London this 11th of the 11th Month 1606 Benj. Keach To all Godly Anti-pedo-baptists especially to them in South and North-Wales the Author of this Treatise wishes Grace Mercy and Peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ Beloved in our dear Redeemer AT your desire I have as the Lord hath helped me answered Mr. James Owen ' s Book in which he hath cast many false and slanderous Reflections on you and all other Anti-Pedo-Baptists but I have forborn returning Railing for Railing tho perhaps some of my Words may seem a little too sharp but his way of Writing called for it I hope the Translators of his Book first out of Welch into Engiish and again the Translation of my Answer out of English into Welch is done faithfully if it be according to the true Sense and Purport of his Words and Meaning the different placing of Words he can have no ground to cavil at but of that I am not capable to judge because I understand not the Welch Tongue He seems to reflect very severely upon some of your Conversations as if you wanted that true Piety that becomes your Holy Profession and also as if you wanted Charity but I hope it is his own uncharitable Spirit that led him out thus to write and that you are People who rest not on the Form of Godliness without the Power and that you also love all in whom you see the Image of Christ The Truth is he of all Men might have forborn such a Charge considering how short himself appears in that respect having laboured to cast you and all Anti-Pedo-Baptists out of the Universal Church and chargeth us who dipp believing Men and Women in the Name c. with Adultery and Murder O that the Lord would open his Eyes and give him true Repentance Brethren this Answer hath swelled much bigger than you expected which I am my self troubled at But pray pardon me in this case Because this Controversy was never before printed in the Welch Tongue as I am informed as it is here I was therefore willing the Godly in Wales or any of the Antient Britains that desired Information herein might see the main Arguments that other Pedo-Baptists have brought for Infant-Baptism fully answered The Substance therefore of Mr. Burkitt ' s late Book is in this also answered and divers others nay there is scarcely an Argument that hath been brought for Infant-Baptism formerly or of late but 't is here answered Also I have in following Mr. Owen in his Repetitions been forced to repeat some things often which may add to the Bulk but they being chiefly some of the main Points I did it on purpose to the end they might have the greater Influence upon the Reader Moreover I have shewed that most of Mr. Owen ' s Arguments for the baptizing of Children tend every way as forcibly to prove they ought to partake of the Lord's Supper also which I desire may be carefully weighed and considered I have often repeated that on purpose And now to conclude Let me desire you to labour to adorn the Holy Gospel you profess with a sutable and becoming Conversation 't is not an External Ordinance that signifies any thing without true Faith and a Godly Life You have Lamps but O see you have Oyl in your Vessels not that I blame you for your great Zeal for this precious tho despised Truth of Christ considering what a Glorious and Illustrious Institution or Blessed Ordinance it is as appears 1. By the Obedience of our Blessed Saviour himself unto it which puts a great Lustre and Glory upon it 2. In that it is called a fulfilling of that Righteousness which the Holy Gospel calls for and such who fail herein are imperfect touching their doing the whole Will of God 3. In that it was so gloriously owned at the Baptism of our Saviour by the Father nay by the whole Trinity By the Father by a Voice from Heaven The Son by his actual Obedience to it as our Example when we believe The Holy Ghost by descending like a Dove in a visible manner and
resting upon our Blessed Lord this was the time when he was gloriously sealed Mat. 3. 16 17. 4. In that hereby all baptized Believers do signify their stedfast Faith in the Blessed Trinity and do devote themselves to serve and worship the Three Persons in the Godhead Mat. 28. 19 20. 5. Because it doth so clearly bold forth and confirm us in the stedfast Belief of the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and of our Resurrection at the last Day Rom. 6. 3 4. 6. Also considering the many great and gracious Promises made to such Believers who are baptized as Mark 16. 16. Acts 2. 37 38. 7. Considering what a significant Ordinance it is in respect had to that Death to Sin and Vivification to a new Life in all its true and proper Subjects together with that Obligation it lays them under Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12 13. 8. That it is particularly called the Counsel of God and such who refused to be baptized are left on Sacred Record under that black Odium of rejecting the Counsel of God Luke 7. 30. 9. 'T is a great Ordinance appears in that it is an Initiatory Ordinance into the Visible Church Acts 2. 41 42. 10. In that those who were baptized with the Holy Spirit were nevertheless commanded to be baptized with Water Acts 10. 48. The highest Gifts of the Spirit cannot exempt Persons from their Obedience hereunto Moreover we have herein also Fellowship with Christ in his Death and Resurrection Therefore let none rob you of Christ's own Baptism be not cheated with a listle filthy Dross of Christ's pure Gold nor endure to see your Lord's Wine mixt with filthy Puddle-Water Yet carry it with all Christian Charity Love and Humility towards all Godly Christians that differ in this Matter from you and strive to walk as you are obliged by your Holy Baptism to do then will God have Glory and you have Peace to whose Holy Care Blessing and Protection I shall commit you and remain your unworthy Brother in the Sacred Bonds of the Gospel Benj. Keach A TABLE of divers Authors cited in this Treatise in each Chapter and under many particular Heads First THAT Baptizing is to dip as to the literal proper and genuine Signification of the Greek Word and asserted so to be by these Authors following as cited in this Treatise Chap. 1. chap. 2. chap. 3. chap. 4. Casaubon quoted by Dr. Du Veil on Acts Chap. 1. ver 5. pag. 10 11. cited in this Treatise Chap. 1. p. 4. O'ecumenius on Acts 2. ver 2. quoted also by Dr. Du Veil on Acts p. 11. cited in this Book Chap. 1. p. 4. Scapula and Stephens see their Lexicons cited in this Treatise Chap. 3. p. 12. Grotius Pasor Vossius quoted by Mr. H. D. his second Edition of his Treatise p. 182. Mincaeus in his Dictionary Dr. Du Veil in his literal Exposition of the Acts Chap. 1. 5. and his Exposit on Mat. 3. 5. Leigh in his Critica Sacra all cited in this Book Chap. 3. pag. 12. Bullinger Zanchy Spanhemius Erasmus See Mr. Leigh Critica sacra and Dr. Du Veil on Acts. cited in this Book p. 12. Cajetan upon Mat. 3. 5. cited in this Book Chap. 4. p. 20. Salmasius in his Book Deprim p. 193. see his Notes upon Sulpitius Severus cited in this Treatise Chap. 3. p. 13. lin 1. Beza on Matth. 3. 11. cited in this Book p. 13. Selden De Jure Nat. c. L. 2. c. 2. cited in this Treatise p. 13. Ainsworth upon Levit. Chap. 11. 32. cited in this Treatise p. 13. What is cited p. 13 14. of Luther the German and John Bugenhagius is taken out of Dr. Du Veil p 76. Dan. Rogers in his Treatise of Sacraments Part 1. Chap. 8. p. 177. cited in this Treatise p. 13. Synod of Celichyth Anno 816. as quoted by Dr. Du Veil on the Acts Chap. 2. p. 75 76 77. cited in this Book Chap. 3. p. 13. Dan. Rogers Treatise of the Sacraments P. 1. Chap. 5. cited here p. 19. Dr. Jer. Taylor Ductor Dubit l. 3. c. 4. Numb 9. Rule of Conscience l. 3. c. 4. cited in this Book p. 13 14. Zepper quoted by the same Doctor Sylvester Squropulus also quoted by Dr. Du Veil on Act. 2. cited in this Treatise p. 13. St. Ambrose Lib. de Initiandis and as quoted by Sir Norton Knatchbul in his Notes Printed at Oxon 1677. also quoted by Dr. Du Veil on Act. 2. p. 78. Musculus on Matth. 3. 5. cited here p. 20. Luther Latin Tom. 1. Fol. 71. cited in this Book Chap. 3. p. 14. John Bugenhagius Pomeranus as quoted by Dr. Du Veil out of a Book Printed in the German Tongue Printed 1542. cited in this Treatise p. 14. Mr. Joseph Mede Diatrib on Titus 3. 2. cited here Chap. 3. p. 15. Casaubon on Matth. 3. 11. cited here in p. 19. Chamier Pan. Cathol Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 2. Ser. 6. cited in this Book p. 15. Diodate on Matth. 3. Dr. Hammond in his Annot. on Matth. 3. 10. cited here p. 15. Mr. Pool's Annot. on Mat. 3. 6. Mat. 28. 2. John 3. 23. cited in this Book p. 16. Mr. Ball in his Catechism cited here p. 16. Dutch Testament on Mat. 3. 16. cited here p. 16. Secondly That Baptism is dipping or burying of the whole Body in Water to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ and our Death to Sin and Vivification to a new Life Authors that assert this follow Assembly in their Annotations on Rom. 6. 3 4. Pool's Annotations on Rom. 6. 3 4. here cited Chap. 5. p. 29 30. Tilenus in his Disputation p. 886 889 890. all cited in this Book Chap. 4 5. p. 30 31. Piscator cited in this Treatise p. 17. Cajetan upon Rom. 6. 3 4. cited in this Treatise Chap. 5. p. 29 30. Keckerman Syst Theol. l. 3. c. 8. cited in this Book p. 31. St. Ambrose Basil the Great Basil Seleucia Chrysostom Lactant. Bernard Justin Martyn All quoted by Sir Norton Knatchbull see his Book cited in this Treatise p. 35 36 37. Ignatius Epist ad Tral id Epist ad Philadelph Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity p. 320. cited in this Treatise p. 22. Dallie on the Fathers L. 2. p. 148. cited in this Book p. 32. Paraeus upon Ursin p. 375. cited in this Treatise p. 33. Mr. Perkins on Galat. Vol. 2. chap. 3. p. 257. Vol. 1. chap. 33. p. 74. Dr. Sharp present Archbishop of York see his Sermon on Phil. 3. 10. p. 9. Dr. Fowler present Lord Bishop of Gloucester in his Book Design of Christianity p. 90. Dr. Sherlock Dean of Paul's Charity without Usury p. 1. cited here p. 38 39. Dr. Tillotson Late Archbishop of Canterbury in his Book Sermons on several Occasions the fifth Edition p. 188 189. cited here p. 39. Anonymous French Author cited by Dr. Du Veil on Acts p. 292 293. Calvin L. 4. c. 16. cited in this Book Chap. 5. p. 41. Zanchy on Col. 2. 12. cited in
are not straiter P. 73. l. 33. for has read hath P. 75. l. 28. for theirs read the. P. 75. l. 29. for their read the. P. 77. l. 17. i. e. as such should be in a Parenthesis P. 84. l. 3. blot out any P. 86. in the Contents of Chap. vii for first read fifth P. 88. l. 3. blot out from P. 99. for with the Gentiles read and their Children P. 89. l. 31. for same read thing P. 105. l. 37. for pai read pain P. 112. l. 28. for and read but. P. 117. l. 19. for with read without P. 118. l. 3. for Mat. read Mal. P. 120. l. 20. blot out so read and since c. P. 201. l. 40. for he that believes shall not be damned read he that believeth not shall be damned P. 250. l. 15. for vers 34. read 3 4. P. 264. l. 2. for born in Sin read born again P. 264. l. 4. blot out do P. 266. l. 40. for Christian read Children P. 239. l. 33. for Lord read Lords P. 293. l. 21. read an external Rite CHAP. I. In answer to what Mr. Owen hath said in his first Chapter SIR AS to what you say about the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledg that they were Seals of the two Covenants viz. of the Covenant of Works and of the Covenant of Grace or free Promise of God it is far fetch'd and very doubtful and as little to the Purpose for which you mention them therefore I shall pass that by 2dly As touching Circumcision being a dark Shadow of the Old Covenant under the Old Dispensation it may be granted but that it was the Seal of the Covenant of Grace which you affirm elsewhere in your Book I do deny it being only a Seal of Abraham's Faith even of that Faith he had being yet Uncircumcised and also that he should be the Father of all that should believe 3dly You say well that those dark Shadows viz. Circumcision c. are abolished the Substance being come that Yoke of Bondage is taken away which proves Circumcision did not appertain to the Covenant of Grace as the Seal of it in common to all Believers for the breaking off of a Seal cancels the Covenant to which it was prefixed as all Men know So that nothing can be more clear than this that Circumcision if it was a Seal of any Covenant as you conceive it was it was a Seal of the Covenant of Works which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear in regard it obliged all that were circumcised to keep perfectly the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. 4thly You say Christ hath ordained in the Gospel a light and easy Burden viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper These two are the only Sacraments you say of the Gospel This is granted and owned herein we do not differ 5thly You say Baptism signifieth our Spiritual Birth the Lord's Supper our Spiritual Growth and Nourishment This we grant also and therefore we say Baptism cannot belong to Infants because they are not in an ordinary way capable of Regeneration tho we deny not that those elect Infants that die are renewed quoad illorum naturas but we know not which they are if we did yet we ought not to baptize them because we have no Precept or Precedent so to do we might therefore as well and by as good Authority give them the Lord's Supper as Bâ—ptism which the antient Fathers when first Pedo-baptism was by Human Authority introduced into the Church you know did for near four hundred Years till the latter end of the Sixth Century 6thly You say Baptism according to the Signification of the Word is Washing and therefore the Apostle saith saved us by the washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered in Heb. 9. 10. in divers Baptisms those were not only by dipping under Water but by sprinkling Water on those baptized as the Apostle teacheth Heb. 9. 19. he took the Blood of the Calves and of Goats with Water and sprinkled the Book and all the People That which the Apostle you say called Baptism in Ver. 10. is in this Verse called the Sprinkling of Water c. Answ 1. I answer tho the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a remote Sense doth take in Washingâ— yet I challenge you and all that know or pretend to know the Greek Tongue whether in every place in the New Testament where the Word is mentioned or any Derivative from it as it refers to Christ's Ordinance of Baptism it doth not directly and properly signify Immersion and accordingly rendred by Beza in his Translation 2dly You greatly wrong that Text Heb. 9. 19. where the Apostle speaks of sprinkling the Blood of Calves and of Goats with Water c. by saying he refers to Ver. 10. where the Apostle speaks of Divers Washings and in thus doing you do not only abuse the Sacred Text but you wrong your own Soul and Conscience and the People also Sir do you find the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in ver 10. in ver 19. where sprinkling is mentioned or is it not in ver 13 19. as also 1 Pet. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We may modestly affirm that no Greek Author whether Heathenish or Christian has ever put Baptizing for Sprinkling or used those Words promiscuously for as in these Scriptures you have cited Heb. 9. 13 19 21. 't is always translated Sprinkling so there is not one place in Scripture wherein the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Baptism nor is there one Scripture where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Sprinkling And therefore tho sometimes the Greek Word doth signify in a remote Sense Washing yet 't is primarily such a washing as is by dipping or plunging as I said before And thus Mr. Wilson in his Dictionary renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tingo c. to dip or plunge into the Water and signifies saith he primarily such a washing as is used in Bucks where Linen is plunged or dipped tho in a remote Sense he hints it signifies other kind of washing but it does not so in the Holy Scripture where the Word is used as referring to Christ's Ordinance of Baptizing 3dly You say Water-Baptism i. e. the Washing of the Flesh signifies the Washing of the Spirit and therefore the Apostle Peter saith Even Baptism doth now save us not the putting away the Filth of the Flesh but the answer of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Christ Answ I answer you confound Regeneration with Baptism the washing of Regeneration is not the washing of Baptism Baptism regenerates no Person But you seem to follow the antient erroneous Fathers who concluded no Person could be saved unless baptized abusing that Text Joh. 3. 5. Unless a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven taking Water there for Baptism In like sort they abused that
do not the thing you rantise and baptize none unless you dip them into the Water Chamier also faith the antient use of Baptism was to dip the whole Body into the Element therefore did John baptize in a River Dr. Hammond in his Annotations upon John 13. 10. saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an Immersion or washing the whole Body and which answereth to the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for dipping in the Old Testament and therefore tells us upon Mat. 3. that John baptized in a River viz. in Jordan Mark 1. 5. in a Confluence of Water John 3. 23. because 't is said there was much Water which the Greeks called the Lakes where they used to wash Also saith he the Antients called their Baptisterions or the Vessels containing their Baptismal Water Columbethras viz. swimming or diving places being very large with Partitions for Men and Women The Learned Mr. Pool or those Learned and Reverend Divines concerned in perfecting his most excellent Annotations on the holy Bible says a great part of those who went out to hear John were baptized that is dipped in Jordan on John 3. 6. and on Mat. 28. 20. say they the first Baptism of which we read in Holy Writ was dipping the Person baptized The Dutch Translation according to their Language reads it dipping Mat. 3. 16. Ende Jesus Gedoopt zijn de is terstont Opgeklomen vit hit wâ—er And when Jesus was dipp'd he came out of the Water And Ver. 6. Ende wierden van hemge doopt in de Jordan And were dipped of him in Jordan Hence they called John the Baptist John the Dipper In Verse 1. Ende in die dayen quam Jonnes de dooper predikenn in de woeffijue van Judea In English thus In those days came John the Dipper preaching in the Wilderness of Judea Had our Translators translated the Greek word into our English Tongue as the Dutch have done it into theirs it would have been read in our Bible John the Dipper and for baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. it would have been read dipping them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and then the People would not have been deceived but they have not translated the Greek word at all but left it in its Original Language What difference is there between Baptism and the Greek word Baptisma Mr. Ball in his Catechism doth not only say Faith was required of such who did desire Baptism but also that the Party baptized was washed by dipping c. But to close with this I argue thus viz. Since our Saviour sent his Disciples to teach and baptize or dip in the Name c. into all Nations viz. into cold Countries as well as hot and seeing Infants tender Bodies cannot bear dipping without palpable danger of their Lives it follows clearly that they are none of the Subjects Christ commanded to be dipp'd in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost To conclude with this take one Argument viz. If the proper literal and genuine Signification of the Greek word baptizo is dipping or to dip then sprinkling is not baptizing But the proper literal and genuine Signification of the Greek word baptizo is dipping or to dip Ergo Sprinkling is not Baptizing CHAP. IV. Proving Baptism is Dipping by the Practice of John Baptist Christ and his Apostles 2dly FRom the Practice of the Primitive Times I have already shewed that John Baptist baptized in the River Jordan who was the first that received Commission to baptize And Diodate on Mat. 3. says he plunged them in Water Piscator also saith the antient manner of baptizing was that the whole Body was dipp'd into the Water So saith the Assembly in their Annotations Nav say I it had been a vain and needless thing for them to go to Rivers to baptize if it had been only to sprinkle a little Water on the Face for a Quart of Water might have served to have rantized a great number And had Sprinkling or Rantizing been the Ordinance there is no Reason left to conceive why they should go to Rivers nor would the Spirit of God have given that as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water John 3. 23. But some strive to contradict the Holy Ghost by making People believe there was not much Water in that place Because the Original reads not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much Water but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Waters that is say they many Sâ—…ms or Rivolets Answer What difference is there between much VVater and many Waters If they were Streams and Rivolets tho not deep yet if they were but a little while stopped with a Dam they would soon rise to be deep enough to swim in as Experience shews But 't is enough there he baptized saith the Holy Spirit for there was much Water or many Waters there for or because intimating plainly that the Ordinance could not be administred with a little Water but that it required many Waters or much Water a great deal more than a Bason could hold or you hold in your Hand 2. But 't is objected Sandy's Travels tell us that they were so shallow as not to reach above the Ankles Answ 1. Must we believe God's Word or a lying Traveller the Scripture saith there was much Water or many Waters and he says there was but a little 2. In some shallow Rivolets we daily see that in some places the Water is deep and might it not be so in that and this Traveller might not so curiously search or examine the matter 3. Or might there not be a great Confluence of Water then as Dr. Hammond words it and yet but little or shallow Water now or when Sandys was there Time alters Rivers as well as other things But if any seek after this manner to contradict the sacred Text to defend their Childish Practice of Rantism they deserve greatly to be blamed Take this Argument If the Holy Ghost gives it as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water then a little Water will not serve to baptize in But the Holy Ghost gives this as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water Ergo a little Water will not serve to baptize in 2dly But to proceed Mark 1. 9. 't is said Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan Now saith a Learned Man on the place It had been Nonsense for St. Mark to say that Jesus was baptized in Jordan if he had been sprinkled because the Greek reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Jordan Could Jesus be said to be sprinkled into the River Jordan 't is proper to say he was dipped into Jordan and that is and was the Act and nothing else besure 3dly They went down both into the Water both Philip and the Eunuch Acts 8. What need had there been
away the Filth of it Now says he and you to the same purpose the sprinkling of the Blood of Christ and the pouring forth of the holy Spirit upon the Infant are more fully and plainly represented by Baptism as administred by sprinkling than by dipping He says further That if the inward and spiritual Grace signified by Baptism be more lively represented by sprinkling than by dipping then surely sprinkling is not only lawful but more expedient than dipping but the inward and spiritual Grace signified by Baptism to wit the cleansing the Soul by the Grace and Spirit of Christ is more lively represented by sprinkling than by dipping therefore more expedient and accordingly we find Almighty God himself often expressing the Mercy of Sanctification by this Action Ezek. 36 25 Theu will I sprinkle clean Water upon you and ye shall be clean c. Ansew 1. To this I answer where the Thing signified is not the Sign is a nullity but your Thing signified in sprinkling VVater on the Face of an Infant viz. the holy Spirit and Graces of it does not appear in those Infants you so sprinkle Ergo Your Sign is a nullity If Grace was in them so much as in the Habit of it when they are grown up the Act and Fruits of the Spirit and Faith would shew themselves for Grace is an active and lively Principle where-ever it is infused 2. And I positively deny that the End and Use of Baptism is or can be represented by sprinkling or pouring of VVater but by what I have said and produced by the Testimony of the Scripture and almost all Learned Men both Antient Fathers and Modern Divines I have fully shewed the contrary 3. I thought the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper had been instituted by Christ to signify the Effusion or pouring forth his precious Blood and not Baptism VVill you confound the Use and End of one Sacrament with the other to maintain your own Innovation and Abuse of Christ's holy Baptism 4. Might not the Jews who instead of making Altars of Gold or Stone made them Altars of Brick say that Altars of Brick might serve as well to answer the Use and End of burning Incense Nay may be they might say they had not the other to do it and therefore built their Altars of Brick But would this Pretence do No no what saith the Almighty God They provoke me continually to my Face Also might not others argue thus about the Sacrament of the Supper viz. VVhat need we have VVine If we use Mum or some other Red Liquor instead of the Fruit of the Grape it will answer the Use and End of that Sacrament as well as VVine O whither would this lead us 5. VVe utterly deny that Baptism was ordain'd or instituted by Christ to signify either the pouring forth of his Blood or the pouring forth of the holy Spirit and must tell you that you affirm what you please without any Proof from God's VVord But by the way let the Reader observe how you go from sprinkling to pouring VVater on the Face of Infants I question whether you ever do so or not but if you should that would be no more Christ's Baptism than sprinkling You are not to devise new Signs or Symbols of Spiritual Mysteries of which God speaks nothing in his VVord nor ever instituted to such Ends. I affirm he has appointed no Rite or Ordinance in the Gospel to represent the sprinkling or pouring forth of the holy Spirit The Papists have you know seven Sacraments and they tell us of the Use and End of them and how wonderfully significant they are and yet all the Use and Signification of them were the Contrivances of their own wicked Hearts And I must tell you that they prove what they do and say for their Sacraments as well as you do As to what you speak of pouring or sprinkling take what Tho. Aquinas most excellently hath said on this account It belongs to the Signifier says he to determine what Sign is to be used for the Signification But God it is who by things sensible signifies spiritual things in the Sacrament Christ hath ordained Baptism to be a Sign Symbol or lively Representation of his own Death Burial and Resurrection as I have proved and confirmed by a Cloud of Witnesses Will God endure or suffer Men think you to invent out of their own Brains new Signs and Symbols of Divine Gospel-Mysteries and then father them upon him and call them his Ordinances Nay more be so bold as to say these are more useful and answer better the End of God than those which he himself instituted For thus you and other Pedo-baptists speak of Sprinkling viz. 't is not only lawful but more expedient than Dipping And hereby you seem to teach God Wisdom or to magnify yours above his Be astonished O Heavens Be thou horribly amazed O Earth Were ever any Men thus bold before First You contrive a new Rite and new Significations of it which God never appointed to represent such things and then say 't is more expedient than Christ's Ordinance of dipping which was instituted by him for other Ends and Significations whereas the whole Body of all learned Men and Christians witness to and testify the contrary Pray take what Sir Norton Kâ—atchbul hath wrote in direct opposition to what you affirm Saith he Baptism which now saves us by Water speaking of the Text in 1 Pet. 3. 21. that is by the assistance of Water and is antitypical of the Ark of Noah does not signify the laying down the Filth of the Flesh but the Covenant of a good Conscience towards God while we are plunged in the Water which is to testify our Belief of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ so that there is a manifest Antithesis between these words by Water and by the Resurrection Nor is saith he the Elegancy of it displeasing As if he should say the Ark of Noah not the Flood was a Type of Baptism and Baptism was an Antitype of the Ark Not as if Baptism is a washing away of the Filth of the Flesh by Water wherein it answers not at all to the Ark but as it is the Covenant of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Christ in the belief of which Resurrection we are saved as they were saved by the Ark of Noah for the Ark and Baptism were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection so that the proper End mark of Baptism ought not to be understood as if it were a Sign of the wishing away of Sin although it be thus oftentimes taken Metonymially in the New Testament and by the Fathers but a particular Signal of the Resurrection by Faith in the Resurrection of Christ of which Baptism is a lively and emphatical Figure as also was the Ark out of which Noâ—h returned as from a Sepulchre to a new Life and therefore not unaptly called by Philo the Captain of the new Creation and the Whale's Belly out
of which Jonas after a Burial of three days was set at liberty and the Cloud and the Red Sea in which the People of Israel are said to have been baptized i. e. not washed mark but buried for they were all Types of the same thing as Baptism viz. not the washing away of Sin but of the Death and Resurrection of Christ and our own to which the Apostles the Fathers the Scholasticks mark and all Interpreters agree The thing saith he is so apparent as not to need any Testimonies but because there are not a few who do not vulgarly teach this Doctrine it will not be superfluous to produce some of those innumerable Testimonies that I may saith he not seem to speak without Book And First Let us begin with St. Paul Rom. 6. 3. Know ye not that so many of you that have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his Death Therefore we are buried with him in Baptism into his Death c. Else what shall they do that are baptized for the Dead if the Dead rise not As if he had said If there be no Resurrection why are we baptized In vain does the Church use the Symbol of Baptism if there be no Resurrection The like Testimonies frequently occur among the Fathers saith he Ignatius saith That believing in his Death we may be made Partakers of his Resurrection by Baptism Baptism was given in Memory of the Death of our Lord we perform the Symbols of his Death mark not of pouring forth his Blood or holy Spirit or sprinkling the Spirit on us or the Blood of Christ No no this that Author says is not signified in Baptism but the Burial and Resurrection of Christ which sprinkling no manner of ways can represent Justin Martyr saith We know but one saving Baptism in regard there is but one Resurrection from the dead of which Baptism is an Image And from hence say I we know not Infants Rantism or Sprinkling for this is none of Christ's true Baptism Christ's Baptism is but one and 't is that of Believers and 't is not sprinkling but dipping to signify Christ's Burial and Resurrection He goes on and cites other Authors Hear Paul exclaiming They past through the Sea and were all baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea He calls Baptism the Passage of the Sea for it was a flight of Death caused by Water To be baptized and so plunged and to return up and rise out of the Water is a Symbol of the Descent into the Grave and returning from thence Baptism is a Pledg and Representation of the Resurrection Baptism is an Earnest of the Resurrection Immersion is a Representation of Death and Burial Innumerable are the Testimonies saith Sir Norton which might be added but these I think sufficient to prove that Baptism is an Image of the Death and Resurrection of Christ from whence we acknowledg the Mystery of our Religion saith he Christ's Deity and Humanity and of the Faithful who are baptized in his Faith from Death in Sin to Newness of Life which if they lead in this World they have a most assured Hope that being dead they shall hereafter rise to Glory with Christ Thus Sir Norton Knatchbul a worthy Knight Mr. Perkins saith The dipping of the Body signifies Mortification or Fellowship with Christ in his Death the staying under the Water signifies the Burial of Sin and coming out of the Water the Resurrection from Sin to Newness of Life In another Treatise of his he saith the antient Custom of baptizing was to dip as it were to dive all the Body of the baptized in Water Rom. 6. Council of Laodicea and Neocesarea And here let me add what Reverend Dr. Sharp the present Archbishop of York hath lately delivered in a Sermon preached before the Queen's Majesty on Easter-day March the 27th 1692. And this in antient Times was taught every Christian saith he in and by his Baptism Whenever a Person was baptized he was not only to profess his Faith in Christ's Death and Resurrection but he was also to look upon himself as obliged in Correspondence therewith to mortify his former carnal Affections and to enter upon a new State of Life And the very form of Baptism saith he did lively represent this Obligation to them For what did their being plung'd under Water signify but their undertaking in Imitation of Christ's Death and Burial to forsake all their former evil Courses as their ascending out of the Water did their Engagement to lead a holy spiritual Life This our Apostle doth more than once declare to us thus Rom. 6. 3 4. We are buried saith he with Christ by Baptism unto Death that like as Christ was raised up by the Glory of the Father so we should walk in Newness of Life Thus far Dr. Sharp his Sermon on Phil. 3. 10. pag. 9. Dr. Fowler now Lord Bishop of Glocester on Rom. 6. 3 4. saith Christians being plunged into the Water signifies their undertaking and obliging themselves in a spiritual Sense to be buried with Jesus Christ in an utter renouncing and forsaking all their Sins that so answering to his Resurrection they may live a holy and a godly Life Design of Christianity p. 90. Also Dr. Sherlock Dean of St. Paul's on Rom. 6. 3 4. saith Our Conformity to the Death and Resurrection of our Saviour consists in dying to Sin and walking in Newness of Life Which saith he St. Paul tells us is represented by the external Ceremony of Baptism and rising out of his watery Grave a new born Creature Charity without Usury p. 1. And unto these let me add what the Pious and Reverend Dr. Tillotson late Archbishop of Canterbury hath wrote speaking of the same Text Rom. 6. 3 4. Antiently saith he those who were baptized put off their Garments which signified their putting off the Body of Sin and were immersed and buried in the Water to represent the Death of Sin and then did rise up again out of the Water to signify their Entrance upon a new Life And to these Customs the Apostle alludes when he says How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his Death c. 1. 'T is a hard case you neither will believe the holy Scripture the Antient Fathers and Modern Divines nor other learned Prelates of the Church of England who are yet living but contrary to the nature and tendency of holy Baptism plead for Sprinkling and condemn Dipping and cast Reproach upon it and say also that the Thing signified thereby is the pouring forth of Christ's Blood or the sprinkling and pouring out of the holy Spirit notwithstanding we prove from the Scripture and with the Testimony of all these great Men that Baptism signifies the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and not any of those things you affirm as your own Conceit without the Testimony of any learned or approved
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
as the Doctor mentioned before 2. If the Supposition were true the Proposition built upon it is false for saith he they that were capable of the same Grace are not always capable of the same Sign for Women under the Law of Moses altho they were capable of the Righteousness of Faith yet they were not capable of the Sign of Circumcision for God doth not always convey his Grace in the same manner Thus far Reverend Dr. Jer. Taylor Lib. of Proph. p. 234 235. For what the Bishop hath said answers all you affirm on this Text for Infants Baptism The Promise of the Spirit we grant runs to Believers and to all their believing Seed and Off-spring be they Jews or Gentiles and this Text proves nothing more It did not belong to the Jews Seed as such but only to their Children that did believe and so it doth to the Gentiles that were sometimes afar off that believe and to their Children that God shall also call as he doth call their Parents That which you seem to affirm from this Text is this viz. that there is such a Covenant made with Gentile Believers and with every particular Believer and his Carnal Seed as God made with Abraham which is strange Divinity We have proved that there was a Covenant of Peculiarity made with Abraham and his Natural Seed to which Circumcision did belong and by virtue of that Covenant as appertaining to the Flesh There was under the Law a knowing of Men the Jews in that Legal and External Covenant had the Preference above the Gentiles but that Covenant is taken away and that Partition Wall is pulled doâ—n and now the Jews have no Advantage upon that account above the Gentiles or the Gentiles above the Jews old things being passed away and old Church State and Church-Membership gone so that all you say upon this Scripture and Argument signifies nothing And remarkable 't is that Peter spake these words to the Jews The Promise is to you and your Children c. But to say the Promise runs to them and to their Infants as to Baptism and Church-Membership under the Gospel as Circumcision and Legal Church-Membership did under the Law is notoriously faise none of the Jews Children were allowed Baptism or received into the Gospel-Church but only such that did believe nor of the Gentiles neither when their Children believe or are called then they may be baptized and they have right to the Promise of the holy Spirit The Promise and Blessing of Abraham you say comes on the Gentiles through Christ and by Faith therefore say I not in a fleshly Line and by Birth-Privilege You say Abraham's Blessing was not Personal unto him and unto his Seed this Blessing came upon the believing Gentiles therefore say you it must come on the Faithful and on their Seed for it cannot be termed Abraham's Blessing if it come not upon the Gentiles in an essential form to Abraham's Covenant that is I will be a God unto thee and to thy Seed unless this Blessing come upon the Gentiles in the same manner and in the same Enlargement it being not Abraham's Blessing but a part of it being cut in the middle I will be a God to you Gentiles but not to your Seed is this Abraham's Blessing how unlike to it there is a great difference between an Estate settled on a real Man and that being also settled on his Children Answ 1. You talk â—s if you were ignorant what Abraham's Blessing wâ—s the Blessing of Abraham was not the External Privileges of the Covenant of Grace which it seems is all you plead fâ—r about your Infant Seed but the spirituâ—l Part anâ— Blessing of the Covenant namely Justification Pardon of Sin Adoption and Eternal Life 2 As to Abraham's Seed doth not the Apostle tell you that To Abâ—aham and to his Seed the Promise was made He saith not to Seeds as of many but to thy Seed which is Christ Gal 3 16 Now you contend for Seeds as of many even to all the fleshly Seed of Abraham and fleshly Seed of all Believers Sir no Gentiles but such as are Christ's 〈◊〉 â—braham's Seed none but such that believe and hâ—ve Abraham's Faith The â—nheriâ—ance which is God to be our God by way of special Interest 〈◊〉 settled upon all Believers and their Children that have the same Faith not their Carnal Seed as such but only God's Elect Ones 3. I have proved it is true that there was a Legal and External Covenant made with Abraham and his Fleshly Seed in which Covenant God was said to be the God of the whole House of Israel and was bound to them but that Covenant is abolished and the new Covenant is not according to that but quite different the Fleshly Seed are not in a Relative External Covenant 〈◊〉 Christ's Gospel-Church is not National This being considered it appears that whâ—t you say concerning Abraham being the Father of the Gentiles signifies nothing for your purpose for he was not the Father of any Gentiles but of such that believe in Christ or Elect Ones and this you seem to acknowledg in these words viz. the believing Gentiles are a Seed to Abraham Gal. 3. 29. But Sir what 's this to the Business prove if you can that the fleshly Seed of Gentile Believers as such are a Seed to Abraham for 't is that which we utterly deny and on that foot of account the whole Controversy depends You say the Children of the Flesh are not accounted to be the Children of God when they break their Covenant with God and John Baptist calleth such a Generation of Vipers Answ 1. This is the sense of the Apostle strange Can those that are the Children of the Covenant of Grace cease to be such May the Children of God degenerate into Dogs Wolves and Vipers I thought that such as are God's Children or Heirs according to the promised Covenant of Grace made with Abraham can never cease being the Children of God how else is the Promise sure to all Abraham's Spiritual Seed Do not all the Children of God partake of God's Divine Nature and are not they all Heirs of God Are you an Arminian Do you plead for final falling out of God's Covenant or from a State of tâ—ue Grace that must follow what you say here or your Argument is gone and lost for ever 2. Reader 't is plain that Ishmael Esau c. and many more of Abraham's Natural Seed nay all as such or â—s so simply considered were not accounted for his Spiritual Seed or the Children of God but only such that are God's Elect Ones or such as believe in Christ and 't is plain that none of the true Children of God can degenerate so as to cease being his Children I mean they cannot fall totally and finally from a State of Grace and become Vipers c. as Mr. Owen acknowledges some of Abraham's Seed did which clearly shews that those Jews never were in the Covenant of Grace God
Will and Testament of his Friend and yet afterwards his Friend sees good to make another Will which is his last Will and Testament and in this last Will and Testament he leaves him quite out not mentioning his Name bequeathing no such Legacy to him would it not be Folly in him to sue for that Legacy left him in the first Will and Testament Sir the Case is thus in hand we read of two Covenants or Testaments an old and a new a first and a second Now in the old Will or old Testament Infants were admitted to this Privilege of Church-Membership in that Legal or National Church of the Jews and National Church-Privileges are now made null and void by the Gospel-Covenant which is Christ's last Will and Testament in which Infant Church-Membership is quite left out their Names not being mentioned as having right to any Gospel-Ordinance as Baptism the Lord's-Supper c. If we would know the Mind of God herein we must of necessity have recourse to Christ's last Will and Testament Since the Gospel is so called and that the first or old one is taken away and there is no Man can prove any one old Rite that did appertain to the Natural Off-spring of Abraham or Believers remains to them which is not mentioned in the new of last Will or Testament of Jesus Christ 't is plain they had or leastwise some of them other external Privileges besides that of Circumcision and yet I see no Man contend for any one Rite but only this they call the Seal of the Covenant Why might not Ministers plead for all their Sons to have right to the Ministry since that Privilege was given them in the Old Testament and that all Male-Children that open the Womb to be holy to the Lord which Blessings belonged to them under the Law and also plead for the Tenths and First-fruits c. I desire you and all Pedo-baptists carefully to consider and weigh what I have said I have shew'd you and them how Infants who were once in Covenant i. e. in the Jewish or old Covenant are cast out or left out for indeed they were never admitted into the New Testament-Church but since they are not put in and the old Covenant and old Church-Membership are cast out and gone in vain it is for any to plead their Right by an abrogated Law Besides You say Circumcision was the Seal of that Covenant by virtue of which Infants had Right to Church Membership if so 't is evident that Covenant is gone because 't is cancelled for the tearing off or breaking off the Seal we all look upon as cancelling a Covenant That Circumcision the Seal as you call it is broken off I am sure you cannot deny Sir what is then become of your Covenant for incovenanting Children Object But may be you will object and say that you do not contend for that particular Rite or Institution of a visible Church-Membership of Infants perpetual in all Ages and an indefinite Seal Reply 1. How doth it appear the Infants of the Godly before Abraham's time had any Right to visible Church-Membership or what Seal had they 2. Such a Right is a meer Figment-like Idea Platonica All Institutions meerly positive are of such Rite in particular and an initial Seal is meerly positive as Signs that are not natural but by the Will of the Appointer and therefore there is no initial Seal indefinite Sir now you have no way left but to see since the old Covenant is cancelled whether you can find the Baptism of Infants in the New Testament and there taught laid down and prefix'd to it as Circumcision was to the Old Do that and you do all do not that and all you do is just nothing You with others seem to say that the Privileges of the Gospel are straiter and narrower than those of the Law Answ. If you once imagine that the outward or external Privileges of the Gospel are larger or so large as those were under the Law you are greatly mistaken The Jews and Jewish Teachers or Priests had many external Privileges which Christians and Ministers under the Gospel have not they had a lovely Country promised to them a Land that flowed with Milk and Honey outward Peace Riches and gathering of Wealth where Privileges belonged to them but we under the Gospel have no such Privileges but are to expect Persecution and what not Yet our Privileges are better and greater tho more spiritual 't is a Covenant established upon better Promises Our Children when grown up sit under the clear and glorious Light of the Gospel which they and theirs then held forth but in dark Shadows Moreover then the Church-state was confined to the Natural Seed of Abraham c. but now all in all Nations who repent and believe the Gospel the poor Gentiles are now become fellow-Heirs indeed Our spiritual Privileges do infinitely excel theirs but not in Externals now are greater Infusions of the Holy Spirit O Sir what Privileges had the Gentiles or their Children then is not the case mended with us Again 't is objected by some Pedo-baptists If it were the Will of God Infants under the Gospel should be reckoned as out of his Covenant who were in Covenant then it follows say they that our Saviour was unfaithful or forgetful to his Church in that he never acquainted her with this Alteration but not one word by way of Prohibition do we find in all the New Testament from whence we may conclude that Christ's not repealing the Practice of initiating Infants nor forbidding their Admission into the Church by Baptism c. Answ 1. I answer Had it been the Will of God that Infants should under the Gospel be admitted into the Church by Baptism Christ you might rather say had been forgetful or unfaithful in not giving the least Intimation of his Mind and Pleasure therein who declared all things plainly from the Father and was faithful as a Son over his own House 2. That which is not contained in his last Will and Testament in this and other matters is sufficient to declare his Mind and Will in the Negative And so you know 't is in all last Wills and Testaments among Men if it be not expressed in the Affirmative it needs not be expressed in the Negative and if not because 't is not forbidden it may be done so may an hundred things more nay many Jewish Rites and Popish Innovations too for where are they forbid The Sum therefore of my Answer is this The Privileges which are â—ites Ordinances or Sacraments are not so many as you would have or so many as the Jews of old had nor are they to be administred according as they fancy or approve of or according to their Reasonings but according to God's express Appointment Rightly doth Mr. Ball in his Book speak Posit 3 4. pag. 38. But in whatsoever Circumcision and Baptism do agree or differ we must look to the Institution and neither stretch
it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord had made it for he is the Instituter of the Sacraments according to his good Pleasure and it is our part to learn of him both to whom how and to what end the Sacraments are to be administred how they agree and wherein they differ In all which we must affirm nothing but what God hath taught us and as he hath taught us Were it not thus how could we deny or oppose the Papists seven Sacraments or condemn Salt Oil Spittle to be used in Baptism which they use in it seeing these are not forbid But well saith Tertullian Is it lawful because 't is not forbidden 't is therefore unlawful because 't is not commanded 'T is further suggested by the Pedo-baptists by way of Objection viz. That it lays a mighty Stumbling-block I mean the Baptist Principle in the way of the Jews Conversion to Christianity Will this say they encourage a Jew's Conversion to embrace the Religion of Jesus to tell him of the high and glorious Privileges that he shall be interested in himself upon his believing on him but for his Children they are câ—st out Answ Did this stumble them in the Apostolical Days who were told that Circumcision availed nothing nor Uncircumcision The truth is if Circumcision availed nothing but was a Yoke of Bondage then why should that stumble them It might be a greater Stumbling-block in their way to tell them their Church-state and all their Privileges are now gone and now they must not look upon themselves better than the Gentiles no more Scepter in Judah no Land of Canaan no Temple no High-Priest the Levites Sons as such now no more Ministers no Succession of Priesthood What of all this when they hear of better Privileges for them and that their Infants who die may go to Heaven tho not circumcised nor baptized And if they live to be Men and Women and do believe or God please to call them the Promise of Pardon of Sin and of the Holy Spirit is to them and that they shall be saved Act. 2. 39. Are not they and all others told that old things are passed away and all things are become new c. 2 Cor. 5. 16. Wherefore henceforth we know no Man after the Flesh It seems then that heretofore there had been a knowledg of Persons after the Flesh and 't is plain there was because the Jews were of the Natural or Fleshly Seed of Abraham and were therefore all of them admitted to the Privilege of external Church-Membership while others were exempted But we see the Apostle resolves henceforth to disclaim any such Value Esteem Preference or Knowledg of them or any others upon the account of meer fleshly Descent And to this very purpose immediately subjoins in the following Verse Therefore if any Man bâ— in Christ he is a new Creature old things now are past away and all things are become new the old Church and old Church-Membership Privileges Rites and Ordinances and a new Church-state new Ordinances new Rites a new Seed and a new way of Introduction unto the Participation of Gospel-Privileges and Church-Membership and if this should stumble them who can help it we know they have stumbled upon as bad a Rock as this Moreover denying Infants any Right to Gospel-Ordinances cannot fill the Mouths of Jewish Children with clamorous and passionate Complaints against Christianity because they could not see Jewish Children had such benefit by Circumcision as you intimate No no they must yield to the Sovereign Will of the great Lord and plead for no more Privileges nor any otherwise than he seems good to ordain and appoint I am sure if what you and other Pedo-baptists say was true it is enough to fill the Mouths of poor Unbelievers Children among us who are Gentiles with clamorous Complaints against their Parents if they did regard what you say and doubtless there are more of them I mean more Children born of Ungodly Parents than such born of Godly Parents And what may they say and how may they expostulate their own Condition Alas alas sad is our State our Parents were wicked and ungodly People and we are by that means left of God to us belongs no Covenant no Sacraments nor hopes of Mercy God hath taken none but the Children of godly Persons into Covenant We are baptized alas but had no right to it our Condition is as bad as the State of the Children of Pagans and Turks Sir if People did consider well the Purport of this Doctrine they must needs have their Hearts rise against all the Broachers of it Nay all or most Children may be in doubt whether their Parents were truly Godly and so in Covenant or not for if not you must fly to some other Argument to prove their Baptism and Church-Privileges than that of their Parents being in Covenant True the case under the Law was another thing for if their Parents were Jews or the Natural Seed of Abraham whether Godly or not yet they knew they had right to those external Privileges I have seen some Arguments fram'd by a Pedo-baptist in order to the proving that the Covenant made with Abraham was a Covenant of Grace and he endeavours to prove the same 1. From the Language and Expression of it 2. From the Duration of it 3. From the Blessings by it 1. The Language and Expression of it Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God unto thee and to thy Seed after thee Now say they is not this a pure Gospel-Phrase and shews it to be a Covenant with Abraham in Christ I pray how comes the Almighty God who upon the breach of the Covenant of Works made with us in Adam became our enraged Enemy to be a God unto fallen Man any other ways than by a Mediator c. Answ 1. I have proved that there was a twofold Covenant made with Abraham and I deny not but the Covenant of Grace made in Christ was promised to Abraham which takes in only the true Spiritual Seed and to all those God is in a special manner become a God unto 2. Evident it is all manner of God's covenanting Transactions since the Fall of what nature soever have been no other ways than through the Interposition of a Mediator as that with Noah about the Flood c. Gen. 9. 8 9. in that God shewed himself to be the God of the whole World and so he is by Creation and Providence yet it doth not follow that Covenant was the Covenant of Grace or that God hath received them into special Favour with himself So when God gave out that fiery Law on Mount Sinai he told them Exod. 20. 2. I am the Lord your God c. this was the very Introduction to that part of the Law which was written in Stone but nevertheless the Apostle expresly calls it a Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3. 7 8. and that it killed and could not give Life Now must this be a
Testament or old Covenant But the Promises and that Covenant then ran not to the Seed of believing Jews only but if they were Abraham's Seed I mean his Natural Seed whether Believers or Unbelievers Circumcision belonged to the Male-Infants as such and all other external Privileges but the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham ran only then as it runs now viz. to all the Elect only not to their Carnal Seed as such but to their Spiritual Seed If you are a Believer you are in the Covenant of Grace and if your Child in Infancy be one of God's Elect that decretively is in the same Covenant of Grace but not actually until it doth believe and has actual Union with Christ by Faith and partakes of the holy Spirit which is the Bond of that Union and Seal of the Covenant of Grace No external Rite can be the Seal of the Spiritual Covenant If therefore Circumcision was a Seal of any Covenant it was the External and Legal Covenant tho Abraham 't is true received it as the Seal of the Righteousness of his Faith even of that Faith he had being uncircumcised and in that sense it could be a Seal to no other Person but to Abraham only for who besides him had the Righteousness of Faith before they were circumcised and that they should be Fathers to all that believed not only of believing Jews but believing Gentiles also for so ran the Covenant of the Righteousness of Faith God made with Abraham And has God made such a Covenant with you or with any Believer now Or is there any such Covenant-Head under the Gospel save Jesus Christ alone Abraham was but a Typical Father the Covenant made with him and his Natural Seed as such typified Christ and all his Spiritual Seed 2. We have proved in the Legal or Old Covenant there were many other external Privileges besides Circumcision and external visible Church-Membership several of which we have mentioned to which we may add they had a right to the Land of Canaan and to a Civil Government and Governours among themselves or a Political Common-wealth as also a right to a glorious external Temple But Sir is the Gospel Covenant worse than that Legal Covenant because we and our Children have not such Promises and external Privileges Certainly if God pleases to open your Eyes you will soon see and confess your Mistake Besides the Apostle calling it a better Covenant and better Promises clearly shews they are not external Privileges but spiritual and so in that sense I have proved the Privileges and Promises of the Covenant of Grace do far exceed the Privileges the Jews had then and our Childrens Privileges are greater also tho not to be received as Members into the Gospel-Church till they do believe You say the Covenant of Grace that God made with Abraham was an immutable Covenant it was confirmed by an Oath Heb. 6. 13 17 c. therefore if the Children are excluded the Covenant you say it is mutable and if so what is become of the Oath and the Promises of God Where is the strong Consolation Where is the Immutability of God's Counsel Therefore say you those that do cast out the Children of the Faithful â—rom the Covenant of Grace c. weaken their Consolation and nullify the eternal Covenant and make God a Liar 1 John 5. 10. Answ 1. I answer Here you charge us home and lay horrid Evil at our Doors that do deny the Children of Believers as such to be in the Covenant of Grace but how unjustly and unrighteously we are charged by you I shall God assisting make appear 2. Sir Are all Believers Children in the Covenant of Grace I affirm and will stand by it if so they shall all be saved because all and every Soul that was or is in the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham shall be saved because it is an immutable Covenant and God's Promise and Oath are passed to secure them of Eternal Life Sir the Natural Seed of Abraham as such never had any ground of strong Consolation God never made a Promise and bound it with an Oath that they should all be saved I speak of Abraham's Fleshly Seed as so considered or as such for if he had made such an immutable Covenant with them and confirm'd it by his Oath What is become of his Promises and Oath since he hath cast off Abraham's Natural Seed O how preposterously you argue See Rom. 9. 6. Not as tho the Word of God hath taken none Effect For they are not all Israel which are of Israel Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called i. e. They that are the Children of the Flesh i. e. as such these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed Sir this Text says as much as we do affirm The Spiritual Seed of Abraham viz. all the Elect of God or Believers only are in the immutable Covenant and have strong Consolation but who can tell or know who they are that are God's Elect Ones until they believe or are under effectual Vocation and that Election runs only to Believers Seed as such you will not say For many Children of Unbelievers we seâ— daily are in God's eternal Election by their special Vocation and many Children of Believers are not elected because never called 2. Were it the immutable Counsel of God that all Believers Children should be called adopted justified and eternally saved you had said something and then all their Natural Seed might have strong Consolation indeed But alas alas how many Godly Mens Children prove wicked and ungodly and so live and die Were these such think you that ever were in the Covenant of Grace God maâ—e with Abraham Had they ever any ground of strong Consolation 3. Come Sir the Odium falls on your self I argue thus If all the Children of Believers are in the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham and yet many of them eternally perish what then is become of the immutable and everlasting Covenant of Grace nay of the Promises and Oath of God and also of the Doctrine of final Perseverance O what Shame do you Pedo-baptists bring upon your selves by arguing after this blind manner for your Babes Baptism 4. But perhaps you will say you argue for the external Privileges of the Covenant of Grace to belong to your Children as such and not the spiritual and special Blessings of it Answ If so the case is still worse for then it will follow that God in the Covenant of Grace hath by his Promise and Oath and Immutability of his Counsel given to all Persons ground of strong Consolation that only have a share in the outward Rites and external Parts of the Covenant of Grace Sir deliver your self as well as you can from being ground to pieces between these two Mill-stones But why must your Children only have but part of the
dying Infants from Original Sin by virtue of his Blood in a way unknown unto us Must we deny Original Sin or own Infant-Baptism does cleanse from it Strange Divinity you prove nothing 4. You say all were not regenerated in Circumcision but God blessed his own Ordinance in his own time for the Regeneration of his Elect c. So say you not that all are regenerated in Baptism but because Baptism sheweth the necessity of Regeneration and being effectual in time unto all those that are elected for working Regeneration in them Answ 1. You say all were not regenerated in Circumcision and so not that all are say you regenerated in Baptism c. Sir take heed you do not deceive the Souls of People I deny that ever any one Soul was regenerated in Infancy either in Circumcision or Baptism nor did God ever ordain either of those external Ordinances to regenerate young or old 2. I know the Scripture and worthy Divines hold forth that Baptism is a Sign of present Regeneration they that ought to be baptized i. e. Believers do rise out of the watery Grave as Dr. Sherlock asserts new born Creatures but thus do not Infants whom you baptize or rather rantize 3. Prove if you can that God ever blessed Circumcision or Baptism to the Regeneration of any Elect Infants when grown up But if none but Elect Infants are the Subjects of Baptism why do you baptize as you call it all the Infants of Believers Are all their Children elected and none but theirs Are not many Children of Unbelievers elected Why then are such not to be baptized as well as the Children of the Faithful Sir we know not who are elected till called and Baptism belongs to none but such who can make a Profession of their Faith and give Evidence of effectual Calling and present Regeneration You write but your own Phantasie not God's unerring and certain Truth 4. You say Abraham's Heart was circumcised before the Flesh of his Fore-skin but you intimate his Childrens Flesh was circumcised before their Hearts were circumcised In the same manner you say our Ancestors the Gentiles were first Fruits unto Christ and were regenerated before baptized but their Seed are baptized before they are regenerated To Abraham you say it was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace he had and of the Righteousness of his Faith before circumcised but to his Seed it was a Sign of the Righteousness of Faith they were bound to receive for Justification after they were circumcised and so you speak of Believers Seed in respect of Baptism Answ 1. I answer Abraham only received Circumcision as a Seal of the Righteousness of his Faith c. But prove that Circumcision did bind all his Children to receive by Faith Justification 't is a bold Assertion I have proved that Circumcision did not appertain to the Covenant of Grace but to the external or fleshly Covenant God made with Abraham and in him with the whole Nation of the Jews and therefore 't is positively affirmed by the Apostle That such that were circumcised were bound to keep the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. not to receive by Faith Justification Your Parallel between Circumcision and Baptism 't is true well futes with the Human Contrivance of those that first invented Infant-Baptism who would thereby fain make the Gospel-Church National as the Jewish Church was and confirm the old Church-Right and Church-Membership which is taken away and a new Church-state erected which doth not consist of Believers and their Carnal Seed as such but only of the Spiritual Seed of Abraham who are Believers or living Stones who are built up a Spiritual House 1 Pet. 2. 5 6. The Gospel-Church is not National but Congregational say what you please to the contrary 2. Therefore as the Faithful at first among the Gentiles and Jews too received Baptism as Believers being regenerated before baptized so must we unless you have a new Gospel or fresh Authority to change the Administration of Gospel-Ordinances and the Gospel-Church I thought the Water as it just came forth of the Fountain was most pure you do but plead for the muddy Water that has run through the Popish Stream You say Circumcision was a Sign of Admission into the Church of God every Male did come in through that Door the uncircumcised had no right to the Privileges of the visible Church So you would have Baptism to run Answ 1. 'T is not true what you say Circumcision was not the Door into the Jewish Church they were all born Members of that National Church and therefore their Females were as truly Members that were not required to be circumcised as their Males 2. Tho we grant Baptism is the initiating Ordinance into the Gospel-Church yet it admits of no Members but Believers only if any others upon a false Faith get into it they have no just Right thereto and when discovered are to be put out 3. Sir tremble at the Thoughts of what you say It is not we but Christ in his Blessed Gospel that excludes Infants or the Natural Seed of Believers as such from being Members of the Gospel-Church he hath shut up that Door viz. by Generation i. e. being the Seed of Abraham or Seed of Believers as such and hath opened the Door of Regeneration 'T is we that believe and our Children that the Lord our God shall call and none else 4. Sir Circumcision was so far from being any such a Privilege as you intimate that the Apostle calls it such a Yoke of Bondage that neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear Act. 15. And in Answer to what you say p. It was not for their Sin nor the Sin of their Parents that Infants are excluded or not received into the Gospel-Church but because it was the good Pleasure of God to erect another and more spiritual Church-state and to remove the old Way and Typical Church-state of Israel 5. Therefore for you to intimate as if we were so unnatural as to cast our Children out of God's House is not to be indured it doth but reflect on the Wisdom of God we are more faithful to our Children and not like the Ostritch than you for we would not allow them that Right which God hath not nor make them think in Baptism they were regenerated and made Members of God's Church and so deceive and put them upon a Temptation not to seek out for any other Regeneration and Gospel-Right to Church-Membership You say Circumcision was an Obligation to put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh and say you Baptism putteth us under the same Obligation c. Answ Baptism can oblige none to put off the Body of Sin but such that are the true Subjects of it by virtue of Christ's holy Institution which are only Believers such who before baptized have received the Spirit of God so to do But you without any Warrant from Christ would put this hard Obligation on your poor Infants whereas
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
still proceed from the Loins of Godly Parents And how gracious do many Children of wicked Parents prove when grown up 2. You know not whether these little Children were the Children of Godly Parents or not nor who they were that brought them to Christ their Parents might be ungodly as far as we know and yet some of their Relations Kindred or Neighbours might believe that Christ would bless them and heal them therefore they might bring them to Christ 3. You say Baptism is Christ's Mark but I have shewed the foolishness of that Assertion Baptism is not distinguishing Mark that God's Children have on them but his Mark and Seal is his holy Spirit and his holy Nature or Image stampt upon the Soul 4. You say that Christ was very angry with his Disciples for forbidding little Children to come unto him Reply From hence we may gather it was not the Command of their Master that they should be baptized or come that way unto him for if it had besure the faithful Disciples of our Lord would not have once attempted to forbid them to be brought to Christ Moreover it is thought the Reason why the Disciples forbid them to bring little Children to our blessed Lord might be left by their crying they might disturb him for that we see little Children in a Croud of People are subject to do But you insist to shew what great Bowels Christ manifested to these little Children and fain would have it because he knew they were in God's Covenant c. Answ By this you seem to intimate that all Infants are in Covenant with God for I say again you cannot prove that these little Children were Children of faithful and holy Persons However I will add here what I have said in Answer to Mr. Burkitt on this Argument to which or any other of my Answers he hath not attempted to give any Reply but as I am inform'd is resolved to let it rest in silence and write no more on the Subject Take his Argument from this Text which is in substance the same that you further insist on about Christ's Bowels and Love to those little Children If Infants saith he be capable of Christ's Blessing on Earth and of his Presence in Heaven if they be Subjects of his Kingdom of Grace and Heirs of his Kingdom of Glory then they have an undoubted right to the Privilege of Subjects among which the Seal of the Covenant is not the least Answ 1. We answer and argue thus to the first part of the Proposition viz. In many of the Jews and others who were ungodly Persons were capable of Christ's Blessings i. e. of being healed of their Bodily Diseases they were Subjects of Baptism Is this sound arguing What farther Blessing Christ vouchsafed to Infants when he laid his Hands upon them we know not for that was the way Christ took oftentimes in the healing the Sick and so blessed many Persons that never were baptized as we read of 2. We as I have before told you do deny Infants are Subjects of the Visible Church therefore if by the Kingdom of Grace any intend not that they beat the Air Alas such â—o arguing beg and prove not besides it doth not follow I say again tho Infants may be Heirs of the Kingdom of Glory therefore they have an undoubted right to the Privileges of the Subjects of God's Church for then it would follow they have right to one Privilege as well as to another and are to have Fellowship with the Saints and Houshold of God as well as Baptism Mr. Burkitt argues further thus viz. Those whom Christ invites to him and are received by him his Ministers may not refuse nor put from them But Infant â—re by Christ invited to him and were received by him therefore the Ministers of Christ may not ought not durst not refuse them into Communion with them Take my Answer Answ 1. Christ invited Multitudes to come unto him and he received them so far as to feed them with Barley-Loaves and Fishes and to the Blessing of healing them of their Bodily Distempers But may his Ministers therefore receive all such into their Communion 2. In the days of Christ when he was upon Earth there were many who are said to come unto him whom he might receive into his Presence and Company yet his Ministers might not baptize them nor receive them into their spiritual Communion nor indeed you dare not so receive infants I mean into your Communion of the Lord's-Supper We read of some Pharisees and Lawyers that came to Christ and he received them into his Company who it appears came to tempt him Also the Sadduces are said to come unto him who said there was no Resurrection may Christ's Ministers baptize such and receive them into their Communion Therefore in Opposition to what Mr. Burkitt says in his Book I affirm there were then other ordinary ways of coming to Christ than by Admission into his Church Christ invited the worst of Sinners unto him who nevertheless did not receive him Therefore there are some who must be excluded whom Jesus Christ graciously inviteth Mr. Burkitt's Appeal for Proof of this Argument to St. Mark 10. 3. Suffer little Children to come unto me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven doth not his Business they do not belong to the Kingdom of Grace i. e. the Church for if they did belong to that or were of the Visible Church as such then he need not by Baptism make them belong to it If Christ owns them Subjects or Members of his Visible Church then Pedo-baptists need not add them thereto by Baptism For if as they are the Seed of Believers they are already fide foederis not only in Covenant with God but also belong unto his Kingdom or Church upon Earth all the World may see that Mr. Burkitt goes about to give them that very Right or Privilege which they had before and without Baptism Doth Christ saith he take Children into his Arms and shall his Church cast them out of her Imbraces Answ May I not argue thus i. e. Doth Christ receive all Persons into his Arms of Mercy to heal their Bodily Distempers of which perhaps some were wicked and ungodly And shall the Church refuse to receive all such into her Imbraces Besides all those pretended Consequences make no more for Infants to be baptized than for their receiving the Lord's-Supper and all other Privileges that belong as well as Baptism to Adult Persons who believe or are Disciples Does Christ says he own them for Subjects in his Kingdom and shall we allow them no better standing than in the Devil's Kingdom Answ Does Christ own Infants to be Subjects of his Kingdom and yet did not baptize them for that he did not and shall we attempt to baptize them as if we were wiser than he I must again turn the Edg of the Sword upon this Man If little Children were brought to Christ and he did not baptize them
that were in his House or Family or bought with his Money Therefore all this arguing of yours is weak and groundless In vain therefore is that which you say to sinful Parents that delivered Corruption to their Children that they should administer Medicines unto them and so give them the Ordinance of Baptism which Christ hath appointed for that end that they might not fall into the bottomless Piâ— Answ 1. You must prove Christ hath appointed Baptism for Children do that and your Work is done 2. Prove that Baptism is the Medicine to cure the Disease of Original Sin and to save Children or Adult Persons either from falling into the bottomless Piâ— You seem to frighten Parents into the Belief of your Tradition Can any thing save either young or old from Hell but the Blood and Merits of Christ through the Sanctification of the Spirit which Baptism can be but a Figure of 't is not the Medicine nor is it appointed to any to be a Figure of that c. but to Believers only who certainly have the things signified 2dly Baptism you say signifies the pouring forth of the Holy Ghost Acts 2. 38. Tit. 3. 5. and 't is certain that little Children can receive the Holy Ghost from their Mothers Womb Luke 1. 15. Answ We deny that Baptism signifies the pouring of the Holy Spirit the Scriptures you cite prove no such thing It signifies as I have shewed the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ with our Death unto Sin or Mortification of Sin and rising again to a new Life What tho the Promise is made to Christ and his Seed in Isa 44. 3. 59. 11. Are Infants of Believers as such the Seed of Christ and in the Covenant of Grace The Promise of pouring forth of the Spirit is only made to Believers and to such of their Seed that believe or to all the Elect of God Prove that Infants of Believers as such in the Gospel-days received the Holy Spirit God can 't is true give his Spirit to a Babe in the Womb and may be to one or two Babes he might do it so he once also opened the Mouth of an Ass must all Asses therefore speak with Man's Voice You say 3dly Baptism signifies Regeneration and 't is possible say you that Children may be regenerated What can hinder the unspeakable Grace of God's working upon their Hearts Jeremiah was sanctified in his Mother 's Womb. Answ I answer Pagans and Infidels may be regenerated 't is possible what can hinder God's working upon their Hearts Nay and 't is probable too God will do it when he affords the Gospel to them and when they are regenerated let them be baptized when they have the thing signified let them have the Sign also Mr. Baxter saith Baptism is a 〈◊〉 of present not future Regeneration Baptism was not appointed of Christ to be a Sign of that which might or might not be in the true Subject of it hereafter but of that Regeneration that was certainly wrought in the Person before baptized If thou believest if thou hast true Faith or art a converted Man thou â—…st Acts 8. not if that hereafter thou mayst be a Believer â—ut if thou art now one that dost believe You say God can easily give holy Qualities to the Souls of Children Cannot God restore his own Image to little Children I do not say all the Children of the Faithful receive the Grace of Regeneration in their Infancy it is evident to the contrary many of them being wicked but on the other hand the Work of Grace appeareth very early day by day in others of them Answ If this he so your Cause is gone How Are not all the infants of Believers regenerated and in Covenant with God Why then do you baptize all even such that have not the thing signified when baptized nor ever after till they die Worthy Britains see here Mr. Owen does acknowledg that the Infants of Believers as such are not in Covenant for all that are in the Covenant of Grace and have a right to the Seal of it are regenerated alas what is the Seal but a Seal of Regeneration and so of eternal Salvation Ephes 1. 13 14. Chap. 4. 30. But you say In others Regeneration appears very early day by day that is in some little Children Answ 2. But are not some Children of ungodly Parents as early wrought upon and born again as the Children of the godly why then may not their Children also be baptized You say Mr. Eliot in his Book called Tears of Repentance speaks of two Indian Children who were converted before three Years old Sir these were not the Children of Godly Parents 3. Admit that to be true and that God sometimes doth regenerate Children at three or four Years of Age. Such Children I can baptize by the Authority of Christ's Commission or by Virtue of his holy Precept and none but such Children that do believe have any right thereunto You say Solomon was very young when the Lord loved him Answ No doubt but the Lord loved his Elect before they were born even from Everlasting but what of this yet when they are called and regenerated and not till then they ought to be baptized In a word that which renders Persons capable of Baptism are the Prerequisites of Baptism or those things that are required by Christ to be in the true Subjects thereof which are Faith and the Profession of it or Faith and Repentance You may be capable of being made a Justice of Peace but you must not exercise that Office without a lawful Commission So let our Children be capable of what they will or may yet without a Warrant from God's Word they ought not to be admitted to Baptism the Lord's Supper nor to any other Gospel-Ordinance God can give sacred Habits and Qualities to a Child we deny not but till he doth it you are not to give them the Signs of those gracious Qualities and if there be no visible Signs or Demonstrations of those sacred Qualities in such Infants you baptize that render them Believers 't is at best but a mock Baptism Object If we knew that little children are regenerated we would baptize them This is your Objection against your self as if we argued thus Answ No Sir you mistake us if we did know little Infants were regenerate which is impossible for us to know 〈◊〉 I doubt not but that those Infants that go to Heaven are made holy in some secret way unknown to us because no unclean â—…ng can enter into Heaven yet we durst not baptize them because we want Authority to do it Put to come to your Answer That say you cannot be certainly known of the Adult therefore by this Objection none can be baptized 'T is sufficient in this case that the Promise of God belongs to the Infantâ—… of the Faithful They are Members of the visible Church through which the Line of Gâ—… Election runneth Rom. 9. 4 5. Chap. 11. 7. Answ.
was no Ordinance of God but a meer Human Tradition But the Custom â—…ng the Jews of baptizing the Heathen and their Children 〈◊〉 were admitted into their Church was never Commâ—… of God nor any where given unto them by Moses who was faithful in all his House Ergo That Custom was no Ordinance of God but a meer Human Tradition Lastly Take what a VVorthy and Learned Author hath said in Confutation of this foolish and absurd Argument for Pedo bâ—ptism 't is Sir Norton Knatchbul Kt. and Baronet The Thing saith he is uncertain that it cannot be said of the Râ—bbins that there were not several among them who differed very much about this matter for Rabbi Eliâ—zar expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first that I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews for Rabbi Eliezar who was Contemporary with Raâ—bi Joshua if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte Circumcised and not Baptized was a true Proselyte for so we read of the Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Jacob that they were Circumcised but not Baptized But Rabbi Joshua affirms that he who was Baptized not he that was Circumcised was a true Proselyte To whom shall I give Credit to Eliezar who asserts what the Scripture confirms or to Joshua who aâ—…ms what is no where to be found in Scripture But the Rabbins upheld Joshua's Side and what Wonder was it For it made for their Business that is for the Honour of the Jewish Religion that the Christians should borrow their Ceremonies from them But when I see Men of great Learning in these Times fetching the Foundations of Truth from the Rabbins I cannot but heâ—…ate a little For whence was the Talmud sent as they are the Words of Buxtors in his Synagoga Judaica that we should give Credit thereto that from thence we should believe that the Law of Moses either can or ought to be understood Much less the Gospel to which they were profess'd Enemies For the Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors and the Foundation of Jewish Fables it was brought to Perfection and held for authentick five hundred Years after Christ Therefore it is unreasonable to rest upon the Testimony of it And that which moves me most Josephus to omit all the Fathers that lived before the Talmud was finished who was a Jew and a Contemporary with Rabbi Eliezar who also wrote in particular of the Rites Customs and Acts of the Jews is altogether silent in this Matter So that it is an Argument to me next to a Demonstration that two such Eminent Persons both Jews and living at the same Time the one should positively deny and the other make no mention of Baptism among the Jews Besides if Baptism in the Modern Sense were in use among the Jews in Antient Times why did the Pharisees ask John Baptist Why dost thou baptize if thou art not Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet Do they not plainly intimate that Baptism was not in use before and that it was a received Opinion among them that there should be no Baptism till either Christ or Elias or that Prophet came So far Sir Norton Knatchbull in his Notes printed at Oxford Anno Dom. 1677. with the Licence of the Vice-Chancellor a very Learned Man and a Son of the Church of England Sir What think you now of your Jewish Custom of baptizing the Heathens and their Children who were admitted to their Church Do you think there was not need that Infant-Baptism should be mentioned in the Holy Scripture had it been a Truth Is this uncertain Story of the Jewish Custom sufficient for you to build your Faith and Practice upon when the Truth of the Story as to Matter of Fact may justly be doubted But if it was true it is but a rotten Foundation to build one of the great Sacraments of Christ upon viz. a vile profane and Human Tradition of the Jewish Rabbins You say The Israelites and their Children were baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea 1 Cor. 10. 2 3. That Israel going under the Cloud and through the Sea that was say you a Baptism unto them The Cloud rained upon them and the Sea dropped upon them which was as a High Wall round about them 2. This Baptism under the Cloud and in the Sea signifyeth in its Essence the same thing with the Baptism of the Gospel viz. the Lord Jesus Christ and his Blessings The Spiritual Washings in the Sea and the Spiritual Drink from the Rock signified the same thing even Christ he was the Substance of all the Types under the Law The Pillar of Cloud and the Pillar of Fire did foreshew the Baptism of Water and the Baptism of Fire or of the Holy Spirit the falling of the Water from the Cloud signified the pouring of the Holy Ghost c. 3. The Children were baptized with their Parents with the Baptism of Moses they were all baptized unto Moses c. Answer Two Things are to be done to disprove what you say here 1. That the Rain falling from the Cloud was not that which was the Figure of Baptism 2. That this Text doth not prove Infants to be the Subject of Baptism First If Persons may be said to be baptized when it rains upon them How many times have you and I been so baptized Besides Do you think it never rained upon the â—…ites before they passed through the Sea And Secondly Prove if you can it did then either rain upon them from the Cloud or that the Sea dropped upon them 't is but your own ungrounded Supposition Thirdly Prove that Rain falling upon them can in any Sense be called a Washing or Baptism Therefore let the Reader consider well what our Annotators speak on this Place see Mr. Pool's Annotations on 〈◊〉 Cor. 10. 2 3. Others saith he more probably think that the Apostle useth this Term in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptism as it was then used the Persons baptized going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea that great Receptacle of Water though the Water at that time was gathered on Heaps on either side of them yet they seemed buried in the Water as Persons in that Age were when baptized Thus spake your Brethren who compleated Mr. Pool's Annotations They tell you in what Sense the Fathers were said to be baptized unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud Here is nothing of sprinkling pouring or raining on them but they were as it were buried in the Sea and under the Cloud and so it represents Immersion or Dipping which is Christ's true Baptism We are buried not sprinkled with Christ in Baptism both in the Sign and also in Signification to shew he was dead buried and rose again for us and that we are dead to Sin and ought to walk in Newness of Life But do not mistake the Fathers being said to be baptized to Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud was
no real but Typical Baptism 2. This Place proves not that Infants are the Subjects of Gospel Baptism 1. 'T is said all our Fathers were baptized but 't is nor said their Children were baptized unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud 2. But you intimate there were many Children with them as they passed through the Sea To which I answer so there were many wicked Men also all the Israelites were not godly Persons but many among them were prophane and ungodly People Besides there was a mixt People passed through the Sea with the Fathers also may be some of the Egyptians and others of other Nations and much Cattle also and these were all baptized as truly as were the little Children May we baptize such therefore we have as much ground from hence to baptize such as you have to baptize your Babes nay more ground if the Rain falling upon the Israelites was that which baptized them 't is a Question whether any Rain might fall on little Babes if it fell on their Parents for the Parents might cover them by holding some thing over their Heads and Bodies c. 3. The same Persons which the Apostle saith were baptized in the Sea and under the Cloud are also said to eat the same Spiritual Meat and to drink the same Spiritual Drink Now did not the Children partake of the Lord's Supper I mean that Typical Lord's Supper This Text therefore proves as strongly that you may give them the Lord's Supper as Baptism because they ate of the Manna that fell from Heaven and drank of the Water that came from the Rock 4. The design of the Apostle here is to forewarn the Saints at Corinth to take heed lest they fell as the Fathers fell in the Wilderness and to caution them the more effectually he shews them that the Fathers who fell not the Children in the Wilderness had like great Privileges with them viz. a Typical Baptism and also a Typical Lord's Supper Therefore nothing of this matter concerned their little Babes nor ours neither As to what you say of whole Housholds being baptized in the New Testament in this Chapter I shall refer my Answer to that Chapter of yours where you particularly insist upon that weak Argument You say the Parents and their Children were baptized by giving of the Law upon Mount Sinai Exod. 19. 10. Go to the People and sanctify them and let them wash their Clothes Now the washing of their Clothes and the washing of the Flesh went together Lev. 15. 5 6. wash his Clothes and wash himself in Water Being thus washed the Apostle saith that all the People entred into God's Covenant by Baptism Heb. 9. 19. For when Moses had spoken every Precept to the People according to the Law he took the Blood of Calves and of Goats with Water and sprinkled both the Book and the People The Apostle calls this Sprinkling Baptism Heb. 9. 10. divers Baptisms c. Answ I answer you have once already to your great Reproach and I fear contrary to the Light of your own Conscience asserted that which is false I appeal to you and all that can read the Greek whether that word in Heb. 9. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divers washings which I deny not may be read divers baptisms is the same word in Heb. 9. 19. viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sprinkling the Book and all the People is it there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Speak and confess your Ignorance or else acknowledg your Sin in going about to deceive the People by making them believe that sprinkling is in Greek Baptism or baptizing For tho washing in Heb. 9. 10. is Baptism or baptizing yet in Heb. 9. 19. sprinkling both the Book and People you must needs know is in the Greek rantizing 2. And what tho these divers washings are called Baptisms I have shew'd once already from a Faithful and Learned Author namely Mr. Henry Ainsworth that all those Legal Washings were by total dipping of the whole Body Take his Words again on Levit. 11. 32. All that are unclean whether Men or Vessels are not cleansed but by dipping or baptizing in Water and wheresoever the Law speaketh of washing a Man's Flesh or washing of Clothes for Uncleanness it is by dipping the whole Body therein and whether they be Men or Vessels there may not be any thing between them and the Water to keep them asunder as Clay Pitch or the like that cleaveth to the Body or Vessel if there be then they are saith he unclean and their washing profiteth them not Maim Mikvaoth chap. 1. § 12 21. Take heed what you affirm for the future This Man you and all know was well acquainted with Jewish Rites and Ceremonies and what can be a more full Confutation of what you affirm of Jewish Washings or Baptisms But where we read of sprinkling of Blood and Water 't is not baptizing unless baptizing and rantizing be both one and the same Word and Thing which we utterly deny 3. What tho the People were washed even all the whole Congregation Was not that a Typical Church and did it not typify that all true Believers must be washed in the Blood of Christ in Justification and also washed by the Holy Spirit in Sanctification These Things were held forth thereby and not Baptism You would make one thing that is a Figure or Shadow a Type of another thing that is also it self but a Shadow or Figure for Baptism signifies Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection and our Death unto Sin and Viâ—ification to a new Life But those Types were Shadows of good things to come even of Christ he was the Substance of them all they must I say prefigure a Substance not a Shadow 4. In a word all your labour is here lost about those divers Legal Baptisms and Rites under the Old Testament and of Children being in that Covenant because they were all Types even that all the Elect or all that believe in Christ should be washed in Christ's Blood or have his Blood sprinkled upon them and be sanctified by his Spirit Also it was a legal external and Typical Covenant and an external Typical Church holding forth the true Spiritual Gospel-Church and that like as Circumcision and those divers washings did belong to the whole House of Israel whether Godly or not So all the true Israel under the Gospel Dispensation should have the Substance and Anti-type of them and when any have attained to Faith in Christ and have what is signified in Baptism then and not till then they ought to be baptized but this not simply because they are in Covenant or have the thing signified in Baptism but because of the express and positive Command of Christ I say again nothing can give being to an Ordinance that wholly depends on a meer positive Rite but the express Will and Command of the Law-giver To conclude with this I infer 1. From the whole in Opposition to what
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
sure when Zacheus believed in Christ he was a proper Subject of Gospel Baptism so were all that believed who were in his House but the Text doth not say that every particular Person that were in his House believed or that Salvation came so to his House but if it did no doubt they were all upon their believing baptized 2. But you may well say what is this to Baptism since he and all his House were baptized before even when he was in his Sins and a notorious Sinner the chief of the Publicans it is probable say you sure Sir 't is more then probable it was impossible that Zacheus and his Family should escape Baptism when John had baptized all the whole Country before all yea every individual Person that dwelt in Jerusalem Judea and all the Regions round about The truth is this is very impertinently brought in to prove Infant Baptism what doth it signifie that Salvation was come to Zacheus that day and not until then seeing John's Commission was to baptize all whether Godly or Ungodly Believers or Unbelievers whether Salvation was come to them or not let the Reader observe what darkness and ignorance this Man shews Peter say you when he first planted the Christian Religion among the Jews exhorted them saying be baptized every one of you for the promise is to you and to your Children Ans This of the promise being unto them and to their Children we have fully already answered but why doth Peter command these Jews who doubtless dwelt at Jerusalem to be baptized seeing John Baptist had baptized them and their Children before as you have positively asserted what must they be all rebaptized what inconsistency is there in your arguing 2. The latitude of this Command be baptized every one of you is no further then to all them that he commands to repent nor is the promise to any of their Children but such that the Lord our God shall all the Parents right and interest to the promise of the Holy Spirit Remission of Sins and eternal Life spring from their Interest in Christ by Faith and at that Door comes in the right and interest of all their Children or Off-spring that are called by the effectual operations of the word and spirit of God 't is the promise made to all the true spiritual Seed of Abraham but are the natural Seed of Abraham and the natural Seed of Believers as such or as so considered the spiritual Seed of Abraham 3. the promise here meant and the duty of being baptized are as you say of the same Latitude thus you argue viz. be baptized you and your Children for the promise is unto you and to your Children we so are to understand the Words the Promise and the Duty being of the same Latitude if the Promise belongeth unto them and their Children then bapâ—â—â—â—â— Ans I answer what is the promise but the Holy-Ghost and eternal Life and such that receive this Promise viz. the holy Spirit as an earnest of eternal Life we deny not are to be baptized and if no Child hath any other right to the Duty but such who have received the same Promise through Faith ziz remission of Sin and of the Holy Spirit then no Children but such that repent and believe ought to be baptized seeing the Promise and Duty runs to the Children or Off-spring as it runs to the Parents In the same manner you say when Peter planted the first Church among the Gentiles as might be gathered from the words of the Angel to Cornelius being the first Fruits of the Church of the Gentiles Acts 11. 13. send Men to Joppa and call for Simon whose Sir-name is Peter who shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy House shall be saved the Gospel bringeth Salvation to him and to all his House Cornelius well knew the meaning of the Words for he being a proselite to the true Religion before that time though uncircumcised yet received the severe Commandment of Noah the substance of which might be seen Gen. 9. 1. God's Covenant was with Noah and his Seed c. 1. Ans I answer 't is said Peter should tell Cornelius words whereby he and all his House shall be saved but it must be such of his House that could hear and understand those Words Peter should tell them he shall tell thee and tell all thy House Words whereby you shall be saved but not unless he and they of his House believed and pray observe is it not said he was a devout Man and one that feared God with all his House Acts 10. 2. all his House the Holy-Ghost here intends were such who were of understanding and did fear God as well as himself also Cornelius said to Peter now we are all here to hear what things are commanded thee of God all his House were capable to hear c. Moreover is it not said while Peter yet spake these words the Holy Ghost fell on them which heard the word Verse 44. and all these were commanded to be baptized viz. that had received the Holy-Ghost for their reception of the Holy-Ghost is that argument the Apostle uses to command them to be baptized Verse 47 can any Man forbid water that those should not be baptized which have received the Holy-Ghost as well as we and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Verse 48 them that did believe them that had received the Holy-Ghost them that spake with Tongues and magnified God and if it was every individual Person in his House let it be so the greater Grace of God was manifested but here are no Children mentioned in Infancy that were baptized 2. Besides I wonder at you 't is said Peter should tell Cornelius words whereby he and all his House should be 〈◊〉 sure you do not believe what you seem to plead for pray answer when the Parent believes and is saved or assured of Salvation are all his Children and whole Family by his Faith brought into the like stars of Salvation shall they all be saved also Through his Faith the external Priviledges of the Covenant that your Brethren talk of that is something but I know not what by virtue of their Parents Faith it is not however that which you plead for you tell us when Cornelius heard words whereby he came to be saved all his Family through his Faith were saved also if you do not this I profess I know not what you mean by what you have written but if this be your meaning I hope no Body will believe you because all know it is utterly false 3. But the greater wonder comes at last viz. it appears Cornelius and his Houshold because a Gentile had right to Baptism by the Covenant and Commandment of God to Noah not by virtue of Abraham's Covenant the Truth is one is as good an Argument for Baptism as the other but was the Covenant God made with Noah the Covenant of Grace if it was all the
untill we become Adult Persons and do believe in him he hath left us an Example how we should follow his steps Mr. Owen brings in his Fifth Objection against his Doctrine and practice of Infant Baptism viz. If Infant Baptism belongs to Infants why do not you give them the Lords Supper Take his answer Because saith he the Apostle Commands those that receive the Lords Supper to examine themselves and to discern the Body of the Lord which little Children cannot do Answ I answer And as the Apostle Commands all that receive the Lords Supper to examine themselves and to discern the Lords Body so likewise John Baptist the Lord Jesus and his Apostles too Commanded all that received baptism to believe and repent and to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance which little Babes cannot do Repent and be Baptized every one of you Acts 2. 37. If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayest Acts 8. 37. that is be baptized 2. You say Baptism is the Sacrament of our Regeneration and of our Admission into the Church of God the Lord's Supper is a Sacrament of our Growth and Spiritual Food 1. I answer this quite overthrows your Infant Baptism unless you Presbyterians do believe as the Church of England doth or at leastwise what they affirm viz. that Baptism doth regenerate the Child is Baptism an Ordinance or Sacrament of Regeneration i. e. to regenerate Persons or to hold forth that regeneration or the New Birth is wrought in such that are baptized why then do you baptize Infants who are not the Subjects of Regeneration Can they die to Sin and are they raised up out of the Water new Born Creatures to walk in newness of Life 2. If your Infants are new born or born again by Baptism no doubt the Food of the new Creature viz. the Lord's Supper ought to be given to them The first Sacrament holds forth 't is clear a Person born again or a Babe of Grace the other is Food fit and proper for that New born or Regenerated Person that he may grow thereby therefore they belong both to one and the same Subjects and neither of them it appears from hence do belong to Infants but 3. Are all the Infants that you baptize let in as Members of your Church are they absolutely Members of your Congregations as having the Ordinance of Admission is the Door of God's House opened to them How can you then say I deny them the priviledge of true and lawful Members shall your little Members your Lambs in Christ's Fold being New Born be starved what shall the regenerated Babe not be fed with the Food of their Fathers House 4. But if thus what number of Members have you in your Churches that have not their Names in your Church-book nor perhaps never looked after when grown up nor cast out though prophane and Wicked for do you cast out or exclude all such Children you baptized when grown up if not what polluted Churches are yours Infant Baptism was doubtless contrived to encrease National Churches or to make national Churches and it doth tend indeed to increase and continue that Christian Religion that is in Name only and not in Power you have its true in England by meer necessity lost your National Constitution and are become Congregational whether you will or no but Infant Baptism will not accord with a congregation Constitution nor do such Churches so constituted that are for Infant Baptism own their Babes to be proper and true Members of their Churches so far as I can learn what then signifies your Sacrament of Admission if they are not in truth admitted and owned as Members and allowed the Food and Priviledges of such 3. You say it was formerly though Circumcision belonged to Infants yet the Paschal Lamb belonged not but to the Adult Answ I answer this is denyed prove if you can that the little Children in the Jewish Church were not admitted to eat of the Passover it is positively said Exod. 12. 34. That the whole House were to eat thereof even a Lamb for an House and I find a great Writer asserting the same thing that little Children did eat thereof they were to bring their Children once or twice a Year before the Lord and I see no ground you have to say that none but Adult Persons did eat thereof 2. But let that be as it will that which was or might be the right of Jewish Church-Members or not their right is no rule for us in the Gospel Church as I have sufficiently prov'd and besure all baptized Persons who are regular Members of a Gospel Church cannot be denyed the Lord's Supper without Sin So much to your Answers to our Objections you might might have brought twice as many more CHAP. XX. In Answer to Mr. James Owen's 17 Chapter wherein the Antipedo Baptists are cleared of those foul Charges he hath cast upon them and 't is proved that to deny Infant Baptism is no Sin nor are those guilty of Murther nor Adultery that baptize or dip Men and Women in Water in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit as Mr. Owen charges them but contrariwise it is proved that to Baptize or Rantize Infants is an unlawful Practise and very Sinful YOU say you shall demonstrate in this Chapter how great the Sin is of those that are tempted to deny the Baptism which they receive in their Infancy and that suffer themselves to be baptized again there are many People that know not the nature of their first Baptism and are perverted to renounce it thinking that they do please God in so doing but they fall into Temptation and the Snares of the Devil who is the Author of Errors and Father of falshood Answ I hope by this time the Reader may discern how great an error 't is to call Rantism or Sprinkling Baptizing and that Infant Baptism is also an error being a meer human innovation this I have prov'd and theresore 't is so far from being a Sin to disown it and cast it away that it is every good Christians Duty so to do that would in all things walk by the rule of God's Word And for Mr. Owen to charge our People after this manner as if we were perverted and insnared by the Devil in denying our Infants Baptism is just as the Papists used to charge the Protestants that disowned the human Traditions and the vain Fopperies of their rotten Church and thunder'd out their Bulls against them 1 You say they are guilty of great Sin insomuch that they neglect to make a right use of their first Baptism Infant Baptism putteth them under continual Vow to the Lord and they are bound to renew their Vows to take the Lord to be a God unto them as soon as they come to age Answ 'T is true you brought them under an Obligation or a Vow to take the Lord to be their God in their Infancy but why did you do it unless you had any Warrant or
the Seal of the Covenant of Grace for hath the Covenant of Grace any other Seal that Seals to us all the Blessings of that Covenant save the Holy Spirit only the Spirit of God is called a Seal Eph. 1. 13 14. Chap. 4. 30. but so is not baptism called any where 2. If all your Children have the Seal of the Covenant of Grace or all the blessings thereof sealed up to them shall they not be all saved all know a Seal confirms and gives an assurance of all the Priviledges Blessings and Profits that are contained in that Covenant to which it is prefix'd 3. You falsly also apply that Text in Ezek. 16. 5 6 7. that is not applicable to our Infants as such but to God's Israel or Believers who were once like that wretched Infant cast out in its Blood but God entered into Covenant with us and washed us c. But are all believers Children washed in the Blood of Christ no doubt they are in the Covenant of Grace that go to Heaven that die in Infancy but the rest remain polluted in their Original and actual pollution until they believe in Christ Jesus and are negenerated by Divine Grace tho' they are baptized for that washeth them not 4. Set time a part say you for earnest praying praying to the Lord for to forgive the Sins of your Child to Sanctifie his Nature and bless the Ordinance of Baptism unto him c. Answ Prayer is good and a great Duty 't is to pray for our Children but take heed how you pray their baptism may be blessed since Christ did not appoint any Baptism for them in Infancy hath he promised any blessing to that or will he bless an Invention of Men 5. When the Minister doth baptize thy Child do thou act Faith in God's Covenant for thy self and thy Child c. Ans How can you act Faith in doing that which God hath made no promise unto you or to your Children believers that are baptized may act Faith indeed 1. Because Christ commandeth them to be baptized Mat. 28. 19 20. Acts 2. 37. 2. Because he hath promised unto them great blessings in Baptism Mark 16. 16. Acts 2. 37 38. but there is neither a precept for nor promise made unto Infants Baptized 1. Speedily do it stay not as Moses did to Circumcise his Child Exod. 4. 24. the which had like to cost him his life it is true God bindeth us not at this time to the Eighth day as he did the Jews yet we ought not to delay Vid. Cypr. Fidem Ep. 59. Answ Make not more speedy hast then good speed or more hast then God directeth you why not delay since God no where saith on the Eighth Day nor at a year Old nor three years Old but when they believe then they ought to rise indeed and not tarry and be baptized but since you have no Scripture for this advise you Quote Cyprian who would not have the Adult delay if he speaks it of Infants he is no rule for us the Ordinance was corrupted in his time where is it written in Gods Word Moses had a command to Circumcise his Son on the Eighth Day therefore he ought not to delay longer but what is this to your case 2. Cheerfully as one Marrieth his Child with the Lord Jesus Christ Answ Cheerfully do it no do it not at all on your peril For 't is as Mr. Baxter saith a strange Marriage where there is nothing of consent 3. Publickly say you before the Congregation Answ And yet not ashamed shew your authority first Your other advice seems tolerable good save what you speak concerning your Infant Baptism in Teaching your Children the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and giving them good examples and in putting them into godly Families in doing thus you may expect a blessing from God but none of these things will add any vertue to their Infant Baptism to make that any ways effectual to them so much only shall suffice as toy our 18th Chapter CHAP. XXIII In answer to Mr. James Owens 19th Chapter wherein he gives advice to Children with an answer to his Queries that he would have the Antipedobaptists to reply unto CHildren bless the Lord for the priviledges of your Baptism God hath taken you into Covenant say you with your Parents he hath prevented you with the blessings of goodness and made you nigh who being by Nature a far off ye are no more Strangers and Foreigners but fellow Citizens with the Saints and the Houshold of God Eph. 2. 19. 1. Answ Must they bless God that their Parents deceived them with false hopes of priviledges which neither they nor your selves know what they are or for putting a cheat upon them to make them think their State is better thereby and yet cannot prove it from Gods Word so to be How doth God prevent them with blessings of Goodness by your Rantizing them doth your pretended baptism insuse grace or gracious habits unto them or what to 〈◊〉 or is â—t the blessings of that Vow you brought them under voluntarily without any authority from God 2. Are you not afraid to affirm that Children by their baptism are by the Lord made neer unto him and made thereby Children of God who were by Nature Children of Wrath and no more Strangers and Foreigners c. If this was so shall they not be all Saved Can any thing bring Children near to God and make them fellow-Heirs and Citizens with the Saints but a Sacred Work of God's Spirit upon their Souls and doth your Baptism do this 2. Can such that are no more Strangers to God c. ever perish Is there a possibility of Final falling from a State of true Grace and if it be thus ought not your Children to have all the priviledges of the Houshold of God the Lords Supper c. 3. Will you attribute those High and Sublime Priviledges that belong to believers who are only born of the Spirit to your poor Babes that yet remain Children of Wrath and unrenewed by the Grace of God is not this a ready way to blind the Eyes of your Children and ruine their Souls if they should believe you herein You are under that Gracious Providence say you which watcheth over the Church c. 1. Answ You must first prove them Members of the Church and not only Members but all of them elected Persons for they are such Members that the special Providence of God is over 2. You say they have a share in the daily prayers that are put up for the Church of God Psalm 72. 15. Prayers shall be made for him and daily shall he be praised Psalm 51. 13. Do good in thy good pleasure to Zion and build the Walls of Jerusalem Gal. 6. 16. As many as walk according to this rule peace on them and mercy on the Israel of God If you had been without baptism you should have been without and so without any share in these prayers Answ I
but it appears now this only served for their Infant State they may fall out of the Covenant of Grace and be damned notwithstanding their being once in the covenant of Grace and saved with their Parents unless they do actually believe c. 2. But if they had dyed in their Infancy perhaps they would have perished had not their Parents believed is this your meaning certainly if they are such that are Elected they shall be Saved tho' they had dyed in Infancy tho' their Parents believed or not believed doth the Parents believing procure their Salvation and the Parents not believing obstruct their Childrens Salvation and so bring on them Damnation if so the Salvation and Damnation of their Children in Infancy is put into the hands or Faith of their Parents 3. And if this be so wo to the poor Babes of unbelievers must they be all Damned Can 't Christ save such Children by his Merits and Righteousness nor Sanctifie them that die in their Infancy unless their Parents do believe and baptize them and dare you say he will not what strange Doctrine is this and by what authority do you assert those things which your Doctrine leads you out to do 4. True all our Children are Obliged by the Lord when they come to Years of understanding to remember their Creator and to Fear Love Believe and Serve him by the Authority and Command of his Blessed Word but not by virtue of any Baptismal Vow he hath appointed for them in Infancy to come under or enter into the State of Children in Infancy may through Christs Merits be fast enough if they Die then whether their Parents believe or not and it apppears the Priviledges and Blessings of their Parents Faith doth them no good any longer but only whilst they continue in Infancy 4. You bid your Children that are grown up to live answerable to their Covenant 5. Say you give not place to Temptation in denying your First Baptism Answ Let your Children take heed that they are not blinded by your pretended baptismal priviledge so as to think they are any ways the better for that Young Men and Women 't is not your Patents Faith will interest you in the Covenant of Grace there is a twofold being in that Covenant 1. Decretively 2. Actualy all Gods Elect ones are Decretively in the Covenant of Grace but no one Soul either Man or Woman is actually in it untill they have by Faith Union with Christ O! labour after this Union you are all the Children of Wrath by Nature and your Infant Baptism alters not your State nor had you any right to baptism when you were Infants but if you do believe you may and ought to be Baptized by vertue of Christ's Commission or Authority of God's Word Let not your Faith stand in this matter in the Wisdom of Men but in the Power and Authority of the Word of God to walk according to the Rule of the Holy Scripture herein is not to give way to Temptation but to the dictates of God's Spirit let Mr. Owen say what he will You bid your Children to ask such who deny Infant baptism these following questions 1. Say you ask them Can they prove from the Scripture that the Children of the Faithful were cast out from the Covenant of Grace Let them shew us a plain Scripture for that for if they are not cast out of the Covenant of Grace then baptism the Seal of the Covenant belongeth unto them 1. Answ Young Men and Women pray ask Mr. Owen whether all the Children of the Faithful or their Children as such were and are in the Covenant of Grace 2. If he says they all were and still are in that Couenant ask him whether then it doth not follow that they shall all be saved because the Everlasting Covenant of Grace is well ordered in all things and sure 2. Sam. 23. 5. and the promise of the eternal Life sure to all the true Seed of Abraham Rom. 4. 16. confirmed by the Promise and Oath of God Heb. 6. 13. to the 19th verse 3. Ask him whether the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham are not all Elected to Salvation or the Elect of God 4. Ask him whether there is any final falling away out of the Covenant of Grace or possibility for one of God's Elect eternally to perish 5. Ask him if God did not make a Covenant with Abraham's fleshly Seed as such that peculiarly appertained to them in which the whole House of Israel were taken into an External Legal and Typical Church State and so was a National Church and had many External Priviledges which our Children have not 6. Ask him whether the whole House of Israel both Parents and Children were all in the Covenant of Grace and so God's People by way of Special Love and Eternal Election 7. Ask him whether the Carnal Seed of believers as such are to be taken into the Visible Church in the times of the Gospel as they were under the Law If so ask him why John the Baptist did refuse them 8. Ask him how he can prove that the fleshly Seed of believers as such are the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham Tell him that Mr. Airsworth a Man that he Quotes and a Man of great Learning and tho' a a peao-baptist saith on Gen. 12. 7. thy Seed That is all the Children of the promise the Elect who only are accounted Abraham's Seed Rom 9. 7 8. And in Christ and Heirs according to the promise Gal. 3. 29. And tell him that Dr. Owen in his Book called The Doctrin of the Saints perseverance cap. 4. saith that the effectual Dispensation of the grace of the Covenant is peculiar to them only who are the Children of promise the Remnant of Abraham according to Election with all that in all Nations were to be blessed with him and in his Seed i. e. Jesus Christ Ishmael tho Circumcised was cast out Thus Dr. Owen and say I as Ishmael was cast out tho' Circumcised so Paul saith the bond-woman and her Son is now cast out that is the Old Covenant and Carnal Seed of Abraham as such See Gal. 4. 30. Tell him that Amelius de spraedest chap. 8. Serm 6. A Learned Man saith There are many of the Seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise did not belong then the rejection of many Jews who are of the Seed of Abraham doth not make void the word of promise from whence may we not safely conclude That if the Natural posterity of Abraham were not within the Covenant of Grace by Vertue of the promise Gen. 17. 2. then much less are our Natural Posterity but the former is true therefore the latter 9. Ask him whether the Covenant of Grace simply in its self gave right to Circumcision if so why was not Lot and Melchisedec Circumcised were they not in the Covenant of Grace This being so ask him if he can prove that the Covenant of Grace simply considered in its self gives any
at all and so cast off and renounce their Infants Rautism that they hereby become guilty of Perjury and must be Damned for he speaks not of those sins forbidden in God's Word but the violation of this baptismal Covenant which he saith is Perjury and the Damning Sin and Root of all Sin O! what want of Charity is here in these Men and what New and strange Doctrine do they Teach 2. Train up your Children in the fear of God and set them a good example and pray for them and over them and give them good Instruction godly Counsel and Admonition And see that you neglect not to Catechise them daily that so they may understand early the main Grounds and Principles of Religion but dread to Baptize them in Infancy or before they believe and have the inward and Spiritual Grace signified in true Baptism You have had it proved from God's Word that there is no Ground nor Authority from thence to baptize Infants and know 't is not in the power of Man by external Rite to bring Children into the Covenant of Grace nor to make them Members of his Visible Church neither Baptism nor the Lords Supper are Bread for Infants but for Christ's New Born Babes 1 Pet. 2. 1 2 3 5. not for your Children as such but such only that are the true Children of God who are born of the Spirit 3. Do not go about directly nor indirectly to deceive your Children by making them believe they are in a good condition by reason they are the Seed of believing Parents and Baptized as these Men call Sprinkling and so that way made Christians and so from hence perhaps look for no further or other work of Grace or regeneration but think they by this pretended baptism are the Children of God Members of Christ and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven when 't is in Truth no such thing nor have you any cause to doubt but that your Infants who die tho' not baptized are happy as appears from what we have said neither be you so ignorant to believe that baptism can save your Infants or the Adult either nor let poor Children cry out against their ungodly Parents as some of these pedo-baptists intimate they may do Pray see what Mr. Burkitt saith in his Book page 62. Before your Children are born make sure as much as in you lieth that they may be born within the Covenant and under the promise by your being in Covenant with God Your selves see that the Lord be your God in Covenant with you and then you may comfortably hope he will be the God of your Seed Answ This Doctrine implys that 't is in the power of Men and Women to bring their Children into the Covenant of Grace and as also it denotes that the Children of believers are not Born Children of Wrath by Nature for are those that are born in the Covenant of Grace born Children of Wrath O ye Parents know that you may be in Covenant and your Children never in it whilst they live nay die out of Covenant as doubtless many Children of the Faithful do Nor hath God made any such Covenant with any believer and their Natural Seed as such as he made with Abraham who was the Father of all that believe but so are not you nor I tho' we are believers and in Covenant with God and walk in Abrahams Steps Those that are in the Electiof Grace of your Seed never fear but God will in due time bring into the Covenant of Grace and give all the Covenant Blessings and Priviledges but if any of them are not comprehended in the Election of Grace their being born of your Loyns will not cannot bring them into the Covenant of Grace nor give them a right to the Seal thereof viz. the holy Spirit nor can baptism bring any into it which is only an outward Sign of our being in that Covenant or of that divine and spiritual Grace we received before we were baptized as I have proved Your business and your Childrens also is to make your own Election sure by special and effectual calling 'T is not the first birth but the second that brings either you or your Children into the Covenant of Grace so that we and they may have God to be our God by way of special Interest But mark Mr. Burkitts next words page 62. O! were but Infants capable of knowledge how much would they dread being born of wicked Parents make it your endeavour before your Children are born to sanctifie your poor Children this is done by prayer c. 1. Answ This is enough to set the Children against their ungodly Parents nay to hate them in their Hearts Alas the Children of wicked Parents I see not but they may be in as good a Condition as many Children of believers tho' I doubt not but God doth let out his infinite Grace generally more to the seed of the Faithful when grown up then to others but God will not certainly destroy poor Children for the fault and unbelief of their Parents Therefore as your begetting them in the first birth tho' gracious cannot save them so your begetting them tho' wicked cannot damn or destroy them There is no reason saith Mr. Perkins that the wickedness of the Parents should prejudice the Children in things pertaining to eternal Life Perkins on Gal. 3. p. 264. 2. However if it be as Mr. Burkitt and Mr. Owen say that when believers are in Covenant their Children are in Covenant also Doubtless they are in a safe condition whether baptized or not that doth not bring them into Covenant 3. But may not this Doctrine of theirs put a just rebuke upon unbelievers or ungoly persons for once attempting to Marry and beget Childre that are in such a sad condition by reason their Parents were not in Covenant with God ought they nay may they lawfully Marry this being consider'd and such dreadful effects following upon their poor Babes besides how far doth this Covenant blessing and priviledge extend If my Grand Father was in Covenant tho' my Father and I too are wicked and ungodly Persons are not we still in Covenant with God The Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham viz. that of Circumcision extended not only to his immediate Seed or Off-Spring but to all his Natural Seed successively in their Generations untill Christ came and put an end to that external Covenant and Covenant Right CHAP. XXV Containing several Queries for Mr. Owen to answer since the Athenian Society have not done it who some time since did attempt it Sir I Having wrote a few Queries lately about Infant Baptism for the Athenian Society to answer upon their bold Challenge and since they are too hard for them to do it having said nothing at all to the purpose I shall expect to see them answered by you when you answer this reply to your Book I shall not trouble you with all but only with a few of them Query 1. Whether the