doth this and then 2. what external priviledges of the Church do your Infants as such receive that are as you say baptized you will not own them for Brethren and Sisters until they are Converted you will not give them the Lords Supper until they are converted they are not by the Lord's appointment brought under any Obligation by being baptized and then as few of your Children 't is plain become godly as of ours pray shew us when you write again what blessings or priviledges your Infants do receive by their Rantism or Baptism as you call it What uncharitableness is it then in us to deny our Infants that thing which you cannot prove if they had it would do them any manner of good Nay Sir I shall prove before I have done with you that it may do them much hurt 5. Those that are against Infant Baptism and for renewing of it you say are guilty of a great ingratitude towards God we know that ingratitude is a great Sin against the Lord Unthankfulness for Temporal blessings provokes him to Anger Rom. 1. 21. Luke 17. 17 18. how much more for Spiritual blessings and priviledges Is it not great ingratitude in us to despise our birth-right The Scripture puts a reproachful Character upon Esau c. Answ All this is to no purpose 't is but begging the Question viz. That Infant Baptism is God's Ordinance and a birthright priviledge which we utterly deny for tho' Baptism be a priviledge by Christs positive Command it only belonging to the Second Birth not to the First Thou art guilty of a great Sin say you by making a division in the Body of Jesus Christ there is one Body and one Baptism Eph. 4. 4 〈◊〉 And they cannot be divided whereas by denying of the first Baptism thou breakest the Unity of that Body to the which Christ is Head thou breakest thy self off from the Vine and witherest as an unfruitful Branch which will not be better although it be Watered again thou breakest thy self off not from this Congregation or another only but from the Universal Catholick Church in every Age and Countrey upon the Face of the Earth which is cleansed with the washing of Water through the Word Eph. 5. 26. and continuing in the Union of Baptism Canst thou think this to be a small sin for thee to rent thy self from the Body of Christ though stolen Water be sweet at this time and Bread eaten in secret be pleasant Know and see that it will be evil and bitter in the end for thee to cast thy self out of the Church of the Living God the Pillar and ground of Truth 1. Answ I answer untill I came hither in your Book I did not fully perceive your bitter Spirit O that God would appear and give you a better temper of Heart Who is uncharitable now if Charity be the Bond of perfectness How imperfect is my Brother Owen Must we all who deny Infant Baptism be Condemned as utter cast aways and not be lookt upon so much as Members of the Universal Church 'T is well it is not in your power to reprobate us and our Children 2. But stay a little are all that own Infant Baptism or have been baptized in every Age and Nation of the Earth the Body of Christ and Church of the living God Do you indeed own the Popish Church or is not the Church of Rome in your Judgment however part of the Body of Christ And are not you in Union with that Church and all Churches that own Infant Baptism in the World it followeth it must be so I think 't is time for you most Worthy Britains to have a Jealous Eye towards this Man for if he be not in actual Communion with the Church of Rome yet his principles lead him out so to be for he seems to own all the Churches to be the Body of Christ who were and are baptized in Infancy nay and that those Churches and none but them to make up the whole Mystical Universal Church of God He seems to reprobate all those Christians that deny Infant Baptism or are disjoyned from his Universal Catholick Church of baptized Infants I know his Reverend Brethren in London are Men of more Charity and abhor such positions as he now lays down I cannot think that his principles allow Salvation to any that are not in Union with the visible Universal Church that own Infant baptism 't is time to thrâ—w this Idol away 3. Is it a sin to divide from the Church of Rome or from the Church of England or not to continue of their Communion Are not you one that have separated your self from both and more immediately from the last But I suppose you own them both to be true Churches tho you have separated your self but if so how can you clear your self of abominable Schism for you have made a division in that Body which you declare is the Body of Christ and Church of the living God Can those things for which you have made this division justifie your Selâ—â—m Sir tho we believe there are many Holy and Gracious Christians of the Communion of the Church of England and that they are Members of the Invisible Universal Church yet we do not believe the Church of England nor any National Church is an orderly true Constituted Visible Church of Jesus Christ and therefore we separated from them but this it appears is not your belief 4. Your Judgment is it appears that no Person can be a Member of the Universal Catholick Church that was not baptized and so United to her in Infancy or Sprinkled when an Adult Person i. e. he must own Infant Baptism Sir I never met with a Man like your self as I can remember of less Charity and yet you cry our against us for want of Charity 5. I do affirm that that one Baptism that Unites to the Visible Church not to the Universal Church is the Baptism of Believers and not that of Infants And to prove it take this argument If that Baptism the Apostles administred and on which they received all Persons into the Visible Church was the Baptism of the Adult or that of Believers only then the baptism of the Adult or that of Believers only is that one and first Baptism but the baptism which the Apostles administred and on which they received all Persons into the Visible Church was the baptism of the Adult or that of Believers only Ergo The Baptism of the Adult or that of Believers is that one or only Baptism of Christs Visible Church for those Members of the visible Church in the Primitive times that were washed in Baptismal Water professed themselves washed also in Christs Blood and they that were sincere had the thing signified as well as the Sign when they were baptized but Infants never made any such profession therefore Infant Baptism was not the first and one Baptism that Christ left in his Church 6. It is true that those that deny
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
for them so to have done had Baptism been sprinkling Sure Philip would not have put that Noble Person who was a Man of great Authority under Caâ—dace Queen of the Ethiopians to that great trouble to come out of his Chariot if to sprinkle a little Water on his Face might have done and to go down into the Water and dip him Sure Philip would on this occasion have dispensed with Immersion and let Aspersion or Rantism have served considering he was a great Person and on a journey he might have fetch'd a little Water in his Hand or otherwise and have sprinkled him in his Chariot as some Ministers do now in their publick Places of Worship and thus Men make void the Command of Christ by their Traditions to the abuse of Christian Baptism and Reproach of us that keep to his sacred Institution Mr. Daniel Rogers a most worthy Writer says in a Treatise of his It ought to be the Church's part to cleave to the Institution which is dipping especially it being not lest Arbitrary by our Church to the Discretion of the Minister but required to dip or dive And further saith That he betrays the Church whose Minister he is to a disordered Error if he cleave not to the Institution O what abundance of Betrayers of the Truth and of Churches too have we in these as well as in former days How little is the Institution of Christ or Practice of the Primitive Churches minded by many good Men Where is the Spirit of Reformation And doubtless that famous Author and Learned Critick in the Greek Tongue Casanbon was in the right Take his words I doubt not saith he but contrary to our Church's Intention this Error having once crept in is maintain'd still by the carnal Ease of such as looking more at themselves than at God stretch the Liberty of the Church in this case deeper and further than either the Church her self would or the Solemness of this Sacrament may well and safely admit Afterwards he saith I consess my self unconvinced by Demonstrations of Scripture for Infants sprinkling The truth is the Church gave too great Liberty she had no Power to alter in the least matter but to have kept exactly to the Institution She says dipping or sprinkling that spoils all that Addition gives Encouragement VVho will dip the Person that can believe the Church that sprinkling may serve And O! how hard is it to retract an Error which hath been so long and so generally received especially when Carnal Ease and Profit attends the keeping of it up and also when the true way of baptizing is reproached and look'd upon to be so contemptible a Practice and those who own it and dare not act otherwise vilified and reproached by many with the scurrilous Name of Anabaptists c. altho we are as much against rebaptizing as any People in the VVorld can be The Learned Cajetan upon Mat. 3. 5. saith Christ ascended out of the Water therefore Christ was baptized by John not by sprinkling or pouring Water upon him but by Immersion that is by dipping or Plunging into the Water Moreover Musculus on Mat. 3. calls Baptism dipping and says the Parties baptized were dipped not sprinkled To close with this take one Argument If the Baptizer and the Baptized in the days of Christ and his Apostles went both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipped then is Baptism not Sprinkling but Dipping But the Baptizer and the Baptized in the days of Christ and his Apostles went both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipped Ergo Baptism is not Sprinkling but Dipping CHAP. V. Proving that Baptism is plunging or burying in Water the whole Body in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Wherein Mr. Owen's Arguments for sprinkling and his Objections against Immersion or Dipping are fully answered REader thou mayst see that tho the remote Sense of the common word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may refer to pouring of Water yet the proper and genuine Sense of that word is dipping or such a washing as is by dipping which is abundantly proved as you have heard both by the Scriptures and Consent of a great Cloud of Witnesses amongst the Learned both Anâ—…nt and Modern Therefore what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith in the beginning of his third Chapter viz. That it is uncertain whether in the New Testament the Apostles baptized by dipping or sprinkling is not true it being evident it was by dipping and no other way For where-ever the word Baptism is used I say again in the New Testament as it refers to Christ's Ordinance of Baptism it signifies dipping or plunging into the Water nor can he prove the Jews washed their Hands and Cups only by pouring Water on them tho Elijah might have Water poured on his Hand we commonly wash our Hands and Cups by dipping them into the Water And so did the Jews as Mr. Ainsworth affirms 2dly Sir what you say concerning that Typical Baptism in the Cloud and Sea you have heard also fully answered and that makes not for sprinkling nor pouring But more to that hereafter 3dly What you say concerning the Signification of Baptism that it holds forth two things 1. The Blood of Christ 2. The Spirit of Christ is far fetch'd for the Lord's Supper holds forth the Blood of Christ and we have no Ordinance ordain'd by Christ to hold forth in a Figure the sprinkling or pouring forth of the Spirit if Man has invented such a thing so be it The Papists found out seven Sacraments with their significant Signs as they tell you and they have the same Parity of Reason to maintain their Sacraments without any Warrant from God's Word as our Pedobaptists have for their baptizing or rather rantizing or sprinkling of Babes True the Apostle speaks of sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus but Baptism is no Figure of that as you have heard but primarily of the Death â—urial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ Sir you say Sprinkling is lawful because it is very probable that the Apostles themselves did baptize by pouring or sprinkling Water Acts 2. 41. Then they that gladly received the word were baptized and the same day there were added unto them three thousand Souls It is not you say very probable that these three thousand were plunged over Head and Ears in VVater How could Peter and the rest of the Apostles even twelve Men baptize three thousand in one day yea in one half day how could they change their Apparel c. Answ 1. I answer wonder no more how three thousand Persons shou'd be baptized i. e. dipped in that short time 't is sufficient for any Christian to believe it because the Holy Ghost hast said it 2. But whereas you say there were but twelve Men to administer it that is not true there were the seventy Disciples no doubt with them who were Ministers and there might very probably be many more 3. However since Baptism is Immersion
that Faith gives Right which is the Root of Holiness in the Adult Answ We do deny that Holiness I mean true Gospel-Holiness simply in it self without Christ's Command gives right to Baptism No Sir you go too fast Holiness did not give right to Circumcision but the meer positive Command of God to Abraham for if it did Lot Job c. had as much right to Circumcision and their Male Infants as Abraham and his Male Infants but that Holiness gave no right to Circumcision simply considered in it self appears because as I have before shewed all the Male Infants of those wicked Persons that sprang from Abraham's Loins by Natural Generation had as undoubted right to Circumcision by virtue of God's Command to Abraham as had those holy Mens Male Children that were of his Natural Seed Moreover 't is neither Faith the Seed nor Holiness the Fruit that gives right to Baptism simply considered but the positive Command of Jesus Christ which I affirm indeed runs to such who have Faith Repentance and true actual Holiness but not a Civil or Matrimonial Holiness as this is of which the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 7. 14. as will appear by and by Else were your Children unclean but now are they holy But how will it appear that they i. e. that Children are holy say you the Holy Ghost saith so in 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unclean but now are they holy The Apostle in these words say you answereth a Question proposed by the believing Corinthians Whether it was lawful for them to live in the State of Matrimony with those that were Infidels they questioned this not without Cause because Ezra commanded both the Idolatrous Wives and Children to be cast off Ezra 9. 1 2 3 4. Paul say you answereth that they ought not to do the like because the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the believing Wife and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the believing Husband 2. You say that Children born in such a State are holy as if both were believing and this you deny to be Legitimation or not being Bastards but that it is a Federal or Covenant-Holiness Such that were not in God's Covenant you intimate were unclean Isa 52. 1. Answ 1. Prove your Infants as such are in the Covenant of Grace We deny not but all Elect Infants are decretively in that Covenant but are your Infants or Infants of the Faithful as such in the Covenant of Grace If not they are not in this sense holy 2. Are there not many Children of Unbelievers elected If so are they not holy also and if so why not baptized as well as your Infants by your Argument from hence 3. Prove when you write again if you can that there is any External Relative Federal Holiness of Persons or of Things in the times of the Gospel as there was under the Law we deny it I affirm all External Relative and Federal Holiness was but a Ceremonial Typical Holiness and will you bring in Ceremonial Relative Holiness into the Gospel Church The Gentiles and their Children being not circumcised under the Law we grant were in that sense unclean But will you call all Unbelievers Children unclean now for the Unbelievers Children you deny to be Subjects of Baptism You say they are unclean that are excluded from the Privileges of the Church of God it was not for any unclean Person to come into the Congregation altho say you their Uncleanness was but Ceremonial Answ Sir God shewed Peter that Jews and Gentiles are now all one in Gospel-times Circumcision nor Uncircumcision renders Persons clean or unclean None now are cleansed or accounted clean but such who believe or have Faith in Christ All that you say about unclean Persons and things under the Law signifies nothing to the purpose in hand because the Holiness under the Law was either Ceremonial or Typical which none can or dare plead for under the Gospel-Dispensation seeing the Substance and Antitype is now come 1. Now in Gospel-times there is no Ceremonial Uncleanness of Persons and therefore in that respect no Holiness of Persons The Leper was unclean and he that touch'd a dead Corps was unclean c. Swines Flesh was unclean and many other Beasts that are not so now The First-born was holy then but not so now 2. There was Pollution or Uncleanness of Places the House of a Leper was unclean and his Garments unclean So there was Holiness of Places the Sanctuary was holy the Temple was holy which were either by external Consecration or typically so But now there is no Place so unclean nor holy In Gospel-times there 's no such Consecration of Places Persons or Things 3. Vessels were unclean and Vessels were holy but not so under this Dispensation 4. All the whole House of Israel was holy by way of Legal Separation or Consecration to the Lord tho they were wicked Persons in respect of Spiritual Sanctification but no Member of the Gospel-Church that is a false Professor is accounted holy or called holy by the Lord holy now because not allowed by the Gospel to be a Member They are not consecrated to the Lord or set apart as Members of a Congregational Church under the Gospel tho such were if Israelites and of the Jewish Church called holy by the Lord. Then these things being so as indeed and in truth it is acknowledged to be and that by our Godly Brethren whether Presbyterians or Independants what is become of your Exposition of this Text You say little Children are unclean by reason of natural Corruption but by God's Covenant and washing with Water c. they shall be clean Answ 1. True all that are born of Women are spiritually polluted and no doubt but such Infants that die who are saved God doth through the Blood of Christ sanctify them in some mysterious way not known to us but not by Baptism Prove that Baptism washes away Sin either in old or young if you can Who dares to affirm that when Peter saith Baptism washeth not away Sin or the spiritual Filthiness of the Flesh 1 Pet. 3. 21. 2. If God in a Covenant-way by Baptism washeth away the Uncleanness of your Infants then they were not holy or clean by being born of believing Parents and if holy because they are their Seed then no need of Baptism to wash them 3. And how come they to lose that Holiness afterwards or is it only the Defilement or Uncleanness of Actual Sin that lies upon your Children who are polluted when grown up for if Baptism washes away any Corruption of Sin in your Infants 't is Original Corruption and doth that return again to them afterwards so as to be charged upon them All Sin in true sanctified Persons by Faith in Christ's Blood is washed away and pardoned as touching the Guilt and Filth thereof and shall never so return as to be charged upon them to their Condemnation Is it thus with your baptized Infants in respect of Original Sin
Ordination as the Jews had Are we under the Promises of heaping up Gold and Silver and if we are obedient to live in Peace and to be saved from our external Enemies for many such like Privileges and Promises the Jews and their Children had under the Law The truth is your External Federal Holiness Root and Olive-Tree will-afford but little Fatness either to our selves or Children considered distinct and apart from Spiritual Blessings and Holiness What is a simple external Profession good for without true Grace and a saving Interest in Christ and Assurance of Eternal Life What more doth it serve to do than to blind and deceive the Souls of such external and carnal Professors What is an Ordinance without the God of the Ordinance What is the Sign without the Thing signified What is the Lamp without Oil or a Cabinet without the Jewel or a Shell without a Kernel or the Name of a Christian without the true Nature of a Christian You say The first Parents sanctified the whole Nation of the Jews not with true Holiness in the Heart for many of them were wicked but with a Federal Holiness because they and their Seed were separated to the Lord in an External Covenant I am glad to see you open the Eyes of your People now they may see what little good that federal Holiness and the Covenant with Abraham can do to their Infants 't is but only to give them a Name that they may be called Christians Is this the Promise that belongs to the Faithful and their Children Is this the Blessing of Abraham that is come upon the Gentiles Are they not Spiritual Blessings Is it not Spiritual and Heart-Holiness Is it only to be in an external manner by an external Covenant and visible Profession separated to be the Lord's and called his when indeed and in truth spiritually and savingly they are not so Is this that Covenant confirm'd by the Oath of God that gives you such strong Consolation touching your Infants as such as before you pleaded for 4. Moreover do you not own by what you here affirm that there were two Covenants made with Abraham since that Covenant which was made with the whole Lump or whole House of Israel was as you positively assert not a spiritual but an external Covenant Sure I am you do believe there was a spiritual and an eternal Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and all his true spiritual Seed and that he was a Root spiritually holy by virtue of that spiritual and true Gospel-Covenant God made with him and as the whole Lump were all federally holy in a Spiritual Sense as himself was and as he had first Fruits given to him who were spiritually and truly holy also so there are many Branches still that daily spring out of that Spiritual Root and Spiritual Covenant that are federally and spiritually holy as the Root was holy Sure there was a Covenant made with Abraham and of which he is considered as a common Root or common Head and from which Root and Olive-Tree it is impossible any one of his Spiritual Seed can be cut off for if not so How is the Promise sure to all the Seed Rom. 4. 16. and how is that Covenant a ground of strong Consolation to all the Heirs of the Promise as Heb. 6. 17 18 19. 5. But the truth is the purport of your Exposition of this dark Text all may see is to prove the Gospel-Church to be as extensive wide and large or every way of the same Nature and Latitude with the National Church of the Jews and therefore you plead for the Fleshly Seed as such to be received as Members thereof Sir I know you not but I thought you had held for the Congregational Way but the truth is Infants Church-Membership is only calculated for a National Church and therefore best sutes with Presbyterism and Episcopacy You say the Jews and their Children were broke off and the Gentiles and their Children were received into the same Privileges which the Jews had c. Answer 1. If you would prove that the Gospel-Church is National consisting of whole Parishes Families and Kingdoms you must bring Proof for this Constitution from the New Testament Show where Christ instituted or ordained such a Church-state or what whole Gentile Nations consisting of Believers and their Children and Unbelievers or ungodly Persons professing Christianity and their Children were constituted by the Apostles a Gospel-Church for evident it is all believing or godly Jews and their Children and all ungodly Jews who owned the Jewish Religion and their Children were Members of the National Church of Israel under the Law 2. Also prove that if such a Gospel-Church Constitution can be proved out of the New Testament that therefore all the external Privileges and Rites of the Jews must belong unto such a Gentile Nation and Gospel-Church that did belong to the National Church of the Jews Must they have the same Rites and Privileges and yet not the same Is Baptism Circumcision 3. If it came as you dream in the room of it then it would follow that Baptism belongs only to Male-Infants if not so 't is not the same Privilege but differs greatly you must have therefore some word of Institution or some good Authority from Christ to enlarge this Privilege so far as to allow it to Females also 4. And why this Privilege only had not the Jews and their Children many other external Privileges besides Circumcision Why must not the Gentiles and their Children that are grafted in as you suppose in their room receive all the Privileges as well as one or two You have done your Work by halves 5. Besides what you say that the first Parents sanctified the whole Nation of the Jews is false It was not they that separated or sanctified them but God himself i. e. by his absolute Command and holy Institution therefore you must prove the like Command and Institution for such a National Church under the Gospel as was under the Law Sir I desire no better Task than to prove the Gospel-Church consists of none by Christ's Appointment and Institution but only Adult Persons believing and professing Faith in Jesus Christ incorporated together in a holy Covenant And when you write again lay down your Arguments to confute what I here say and I shall God sparing my Life be ready through his Assistance to give you an Answer which will utterly throw away your Infant Church-Membership And since the old Covenant and old Covenant Church-state is taken away and dissolved by the establishing of the Gospel-Covenant and gospel-Gospel-Church you must bring your Arguments and Proof from Christ's last Will and Testament or all you do will signify nothing Now Reader having shewed thee that the Exposition Mr. Owen hath given of this Metaphorical Scripture is false and inconsistent with the Truth as it is in Jesus I shall give thee my Thoughts of the true Purport of it and in regard I have once
late here in England were deluded to do Therefore we say as to all Precepts of the Gospel that are meer positive Laws the New Testament is our only Rule without the Old Christ alone is our Law-giver and him and not Moses we are only to hear and hearken unto tho as to matter of Faith the Old Testament may be useful to us in many respects and also all Precepts that are purely Moral in their own Nature The Old Testament is a Rule to us as well as the New which I might shew in many respects not only touching the Law of the Decalogue but also about days of Prayer singing God's Praises Fasting-days c. But for any to intimate in the Case of Baptism that the Old Testament is a Rule of Practice or in respect of Jewish Church-Membership such strangely betray their Ignorance as will further appear hereafter For that Circumcision was a meer Legal or Jewish Rite I shall evidently anon fully prove You and Mr. Burkitt with other Pedo-baptists affirm that so little is said in the New Testament about baptizing Infants because the Custom of baptizing them was common and the Practice constant in the Jewish Church at and before our Saviour's time Whilst Circumcision was the covenanting Sign Baptism was the purifying Ceremony among the Jews for when any of the Gentiles were admitted into the Jewish Church both Parents and Children were first circumcised and then washed in token of cleansing them from the Filth of their Heathenism So that Baptism among the Jews constantly went along with Circumcision till our Saviour's time Answ 'T is a sign of a bad Cause when Men are forced to try their Wits after such a ridiculous manner to make out what they have to prove Pray was that Custom among the Jews of baptizing Infants when any of the Gentiles were admitted into the Jewish Church commanded of God Had God given the Jews any such Law or Precept Or was it one of their own Traditions who in their own Wisdom without any Warrant from their great Prophet and Law-giver devised that Ceremony possibly to wash away the Filth of Heathenism as your Predecessors in like manner without any Command or Warrant of Jesus Christ devised the baptizing of Infants to wash away the Filth of Original Sin Doth not our blessed Saviour say that they had made void the Commandments of God through their Traditions I do affirm it was never given them as a Law or Precept by the great God nor do you attempt once to prove any such thing for there is not the least shadow of any such thing in all the Old Testament therefore it was a meer Human Tradition 2. Can any wise Man who would do nothing in God's Service without a sufficient Rule or Warrant from the Word of God think this a good Argument for Infant Baptism I must tell you as I have already told the Athenian Society with whom I had to do in this matter that a Popish Tradition is every way as good as a Jewish one You were better plead thus the Romish Church without any Warrant from God's Word received Infant-Baptism as an unwritten Apâ—stolical Tradition and in some Councils early Quiâ—…que parvulos reâ—ens ab uteris Matrum baptizandos esse 〈◊〉 Aâ—…ma esto Milev Can 2. and anathemized or cursed all who should deny that new-born Infants were to be baptized therefore we may baptize Infants Why do you fly to the fabulous and idle Traditions of the Jewish Rabbins for your Childish Baptism since you have the Testimony of so many Romish Doctors and General Councils who positively affirm you ought to baptize your children Sure the Authority of the latter is as good as the former 3. But is it so indeed did our Saviour say nothing of Infant Baptism or as you hint leave so little of it in the New Testament because it was the constant Custom among the Jews to baptize the Children of Heathens before they admitted them into their Church What Dr. Hammond Taylor and Lightfoot have said upon that account is to their Shame and Reproach rather than to their Honour tho I know it was their last Refuge when they saw your Scripture-Proofs would not prove it to be a Truth of Christ O how are we beholden to the Jewish Talmud and Jâ—wish Rabbins for our Infant-Baptism Nay which is worst of all how is Christ beholden to them for that rare Invention who had said so much for it and made it so common a Practice among them that it saved him the Pains to give the least Directions about it But is not this next to Blasphemy Can any Man in his right Wits think our Lord Jesus should confirm a Tradition and Innovation of the Jews Or take his great Ordinance of Baptism from the Superstitious Fabulous and Erroneous Custom of their Doctors and Rabbins Besides was Baptism to be preached or practised by none but the Jewish People Doth it not belong to the Gentiles too Did not our Saviour command his Disciples to go into all Nations and make Disciples and baptize them c. Was it in his Mind that Infants should be baptized and yet say nothing of it because it was a common Custom and Practice among the Jews But pray what must the Gentiles do to know this to be their Duty I mean those Gentiles who received the Christian Faith viz. that they ought to baptize their Children who did not know nor ever heard of that Jewish Custom Or dare you say our New Testament is not authentick or sufficient to teach us the whole of Gospel-Duties and Obedience without the Jewish Talmud You should not 't is plain only have said the New Testament is not without the Old the Rule of our practice but also that the New Testament and the Old without the Jewish Talmud is not sufficient and then you had done your Business at once VVhy are not Men ashamed thus to go about to blind and deceive the poor People Is not the whole Mind of Jesus Christ even all his Laws and Precepts or his whole Counsel plainly contained in his Blessed VVord But would you have People be wise above what is written and teach Men to reflect upon the Care and Faithfulness of the Blessed Jesus in leaving out of the Sacred Bible one great Truth of God and leave us to find it out by going to search the Jewish Tradition 4. If it was a Custom among the Jews it must be a Sacred Custom I mean a Custom that God appointed and commanded them to observe or else a Human Tradition or vain Custom And if it had been a Mosaical Rite given by God himself to the Jews Christ then be sure abolished it and nailed it to his Cross with all its Fellows and 't is gone for ever since he hath not given it out a new Take this Argument That Custom among the Jews that God never commanded nor is any where given by Moses unto them who was faithful in all his House
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
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 Rite of crossing in Baptism and God-fathers and God-mothers these things you may be believe not but not because they are left darkly in the Scripture but because they are merely human inventions or not at all to be found in the Scripture You say we will not believe unless you shew us some Command or some clear example for Infant Baptism that it is of God but if there had not been any Command or Example although both be for Infant Baptism if there be Scripture Consequences shewing they ought to be baptized That is sufficient to satisfie the humble searcher did not Christ shut the Mouths of the Sadducees about the Resurrection by Scriptural Consequence Mat 22. 32. 1. Answ I answer are we not to be commended for not believing that to be a Truth for which there is neither Command nor example Why do you not use Crossing in Baptism nor Oyl nor Honey as the Papists do Is 〈◊〉 not because you find no Command nor Example for any such things 2. It seems strange you have both Command and example for Infant Baptism in the Holy Scripture and you cannot find either or else none can find them but your selves 3. But could you produce as fair Consequences from any Text for it as our Saviour did to prove the Resurrection we would receive it readily But I have shewed all your Consequences are nothing to the purpose but if you 〈◊〉 Truth you need not fly to far-â—etch'd Consequenced 4. These Antipedo baptists say you which receive rebaptization are guilty of great uncharity Charity is the fulfulfilling of the 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 1. 5. and love also is the fulfilling of the Gospel and therefore we ought to be jealous of every Opinion that destroys Charity God is Love and those Truths that are of God are agreeable to Charity but this Opinion which denyeth Infant Baptism is a very uncharitable Opinion which casteth our Children from the Houshold of God of which they were Members for some Thousand of Years is it not an uncharitable opinion which excommunicates them out of the Church of God 1. Answ I answer could you prove Infant Baptism to be a Truth of God you had cause to charge us but that the Reader may see you cannot do 2. Nor can you prove Infants were ever received as Members of the Gospel Church therefore it is a false Charge to say our Opinion casteth them out or Excommunicates them out of that 3. Take heed least it be found one day that you are a Man that wants Charity towards Christ himself who is the only builder of his Gospel Temple and who did not in his Wisdom think good to take in the fleshly Seed into the Gospel Church as they were received into the Typical and legal Church of the Jews You intimate that we have Excommunicated them and that without a Cause before they had done any thing for to merit this hard Judgment is not this say you an uncharitable Opinion which denyeth them the same place in the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel as they had under the Law is not that an uncharitable Opinion which maketh their condition worser since the coming of Christ then it was before in short is it not say you an uncharitable Judgment which denie s them a share in the promise Acts 2. 39. is not God a God unto the Seed of the Faithful what hope then can we have of their Salvation 1. Answ It was not for the sin or demerits of Infants that God hath not received them as Members of the Gospel Church only it was his own Sovereign Will and Pleasure not so to do nor can you prove that this is any spiritual loss unto our Infants 2. God hath as much cast out the Sons of his Gospel Ministers as such from having any part in the Ministry which you know they had under the Law For every Son of a Priest when grown up was of the Priesthood and this is denyed to our Sons as such Another may say what Sin have our Sons committed that this great priviledge is denyed them since Christ came Also why should not our Children have the promise of an External Canaan as the Jewish Children had under the Law what have they done to procure this loss 3. We do not deny Infants the same priviledges and place in the Covenant of Grace which they ever had no God forbid our Children have every way no doubt like place in that Covenant which the Children of the faithful had under the Law even them and all them of our Children that have the saving blessings of Christ Merits and of the said unchangeable and eternal Covenant but we say they are not in the Covenant of peculiarity God made with Abrahams Natural Seed as such and so partake not of the external Rites and Priviledges of the Gospel Church or New Creation until they do believe or are called by the Lord according to that promise you cite Acts 2. 39. 4. What a noise do you make about your Infants great loss by our Opinion alas you cannot prove or make it appear they have any real Spiritual loss hereby our Children have the same spiritual blessings now as ever and God is as much the God of our Seed in a spiritual sense as ever he was to the Seed of the Faithful all that we say is this that our Infants have no right to the external Ordinance of Baptism nor any but believers only and pray what wrong is this to them Is there no hope therefore left us of the Salvation of our dying Infants what is it to give our Infants as such the sign who have not the thing signified thereby you would have them have the Shell that have not the Kernel and because we will not give them the one till God gives them the other we are censured as uncharitable What good did Simon magus his Baptism do him Will Baptism save your Infants and if all the Seed of the Faithful are as you say in the Covenant of Grace they are safe enough whether they are baptized or not we cannot bring them into that Covenant nor cast them out of it 5. And now Sir pray do you attempt for once to do more then all your brethren have done before you viz. prove what Spiritual or Temporal benefits your Children do receive by their pretended Baptism Mr. Burkitt made assay to do this but he is answered and says no more and I purpose for the sake of the Ancient Britains for whom I have always had great love and an honourable esteem of to take a little pains to transcribe Mr. Burkitts arguments in this respect and my answers by and by 6. 'T is evident that baptism doth not infuse Grace into them nor the habits thereof it does not change their Hearts it doth not take away Original Sin God can do it 't is true nay and God doth no doubt change the Hearts of such dying Infants that are saved but prove if you can their baptism
Infant baptism deny the Communion of the National Church of which perhaps they were once Members but this is not to make a division in the Mistical Body of Christ nor in a true Constituted Gospel Church 'T is a duty to come out from every false Church Come out of herâ— my People Rev. 18. 4. 7. If baptism be that Ordinance that Unites us into the true Visible Church and Christs baptism be that of Believers then Mr. Owen in denying of believers baptism which I have proved is that one baptism is as much guilty of Sin in hindring that Union by obstructing as much as in him lieth Believers to be baptized and so Unite them to the said true Visible Church of Christ as those that divide from it and is this a small sin but Believers baptism is that Uniting Ordinance without baptism upon profession of Faith no Person according to the rule of the Gospel can be United to a true Visible Church of Christ It is a dangerous thing to hinder persons from Joyning with a true Church as renting from it but so it is not for leaving of a false Church 8. From hence also it appears that our separation from those Churches that are Constituted upon Infant Baptism do but divide from such Churches that are not orderly gathered or Constituted according to the rule of the Gospel and Institution of Jesus Christ and therefore no sin so to do 9. Nay and evident it is that the greatest Body of Mr. Owens Universal Catholick Church is Antichristian For I think none question but the Popish Church which is founded on Infant baptism is for Number more then the Protestant Churches however the Roman Church must be by what he intimates one great part of the Catholick Church or Church of the living God 10. And lastly Mr. Owen mistakes the Waters we drink of who maintain Believers Baptism are not Stolen Waters but Waters lawfully come at being taken out of the Fountain of Gods Word and are part of the Waters of God's Sanctuary and therefore they are sweet to our Souls and our Bread is from our Fathers Table being no other than what all the Children of God did feed upon in the Apostolical Primitive times and his Stolen Water of Infant Baptism may prove bitter at the end notwithstanding his vain boasts but let him see to that may be God may open his Eyes and cause him to Vomit it up by Repentance which I shall rejoyce to hear you say this division is very much alike unto that of the Antient Donatists who were for rebaptizing because they accounted them sinners that first baptized them c. Aâ—sw We are I tell you again as much against rebaptizing as you can be but you want the essentials of Baptism both in respect to the form of baptism and the subjects thereof Sprinkling is not baptizing and Infants are not the true Subjects of Christ's baptism but Believers only You proceed to give out of History the opinion of the Ancient Fathers about rebaptizing Thus saith say you Optatus Et quid vobis visum est non post nos sed post trinitatem baptisma geminare Why do you rebaptize not only after us but after the Trinity Opt. Lib. 5. p. 51. Opt. Lib. 5. page 61. Quicunque a vobis se rebaptizari c. Whoever consenteth to be rebaptized by you he ariseth up certainly but naked because he hath permitted you to deprive him of his Wedding Garment Austin saith Revera enim fieri potest ut sceleratior sit Rebaptizator totius hominis quam solius corporis interemptor Aug. ad Eleusium Ep. 163. It being possible for him who baptizeth the whole Man to be worser then him who killeth the Body only Again Rebaptizare haereticum hominem omnino peccatum est immanissimum It is a sin to rebaptize an Heretick but to rebaptize a Catholick or one in Unity with the Universal Church is a dreadful Sin Aug. de unico Bapt. cap. 13. If any say you judge these are words too harsh let them consider that they are Austin's words and not mine I set them down for to shew the Judgment of the Old Primitive Church about rebaptization Answ I answer these Instances hurt not us for it appears in both these Quotations that the Persons rebaptized were Dipped first when baptized and might be Believers also for in the first that word implyeth no less viz. riseth up denoting he was buried in the Water Your Infants when baptized as you call it cannot be said to rise up and Austins words imply plainly the baptizing the whole Body who baptizeth saith he the whole Man but you only Sprinkle and not the whole Body but the Face only These Instances make against your Rantism or Sprinkling but since you make such a stir in charging us with rebaptization and fain would have us be what we are branded with viz. Anabaptists I shall now shew you the opinion also of some of the Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines about reiterating of baptism Gregory saith l. 1. Ep. 7. That that is not said to be reiterated which is not certainly demonstrated to have been rightly and duely done and in another place saith if there be an offence taken at the Truth it is much better that offence be taken than that the Truth should be deserted the Custom of the Churches ought to submit to the words of Christ not the words of Christ to be wrested to the Custom of the Church in regard the words of Christ are the foundation upon which all Customs are to be build hom 7. in Ezechiel Cyprian saith It being more proper for the wise and and those that fear God to obey the manifest and open Truth freely and without delay then obstinately and pertinaciously to resist it Cyprian Epist ad Jubian See Dr. du Veil on Act. cap. 2. Scotus saith Dr. du Veil having alledg'd the Judgment of Alexander the Third touching the baptizing of those of whom it was doubted whether they were baptized or no takes an occasion to recommend three Maxims the First is where there is a possibility the safest way is to be chosen Secondly Where there is no possibility the next to the safest way is to be made use of Thirdly When Impossibility ceases every thing is to be supplied which Impossibility would not admit These Maxims are so agreeable to reason saith the Learned Dr. Du Veil whoever intends to follow will never question but that they ought to be baptized if they have not received that baptism Ordained by Christ but only Rhantism that is the Sprinkling substitued saith he in its room by a vulgar use or rather abuse as Luther calls it thus Dr. Duveil in Historical expost of Acts. cap. 2. page 86. That famous Divine John Forbes saith Nor is it to be doubted but that they again ought to be baptized who before have only received a Vain Washing and not the true Sacrament of Baptism And though it be not so great as the Papists