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
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
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
40. See thou make all things according to the Pattern shewed thee in the Mount and Lev. 10. 1 2. See how Nadab and Abihu sped for presuming to vary from the Command of God and Uzzah tho' but in small Circumstances as they may seem to us How dare Men adventure this being so to change Baptism from Dipping into Sprinkling and the Subject from an Adult Believer to an Ignorant Babe Add thou not unto his word c. Arg. 15. Whatever practice opens a Door to any Human Traditions in God's Worship is a great Evil and to be avoided But the practice of Infant Baptism opens a Door to any Human Traditions in God's Worship Ergo to Sprinkle or Baptize Infants is a great Evil and ought to be avoided The Major will not be denied The Minor is clear because there is no Scripture ground for it no Command or Example for such a Practice in God's Word and if without Scripture Authority the Church hath power to do one thing she may do another and so ad infinitum Arg. 16 Whatsoever practice reflects upon the Honour Wisdom and Care of Jesus Christ or renders him less faithful than Moses and the New Testament in one of its great Ordinances nay Sacraments to lie more obscure in God's Word than any Law or Precept under the Old Testament cannot be of God But the practice of Infant Baptism reflects on the Honour Care and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ and renders him less faithful than Moses and a great Ordinance nay Sacrament of the New Testament to lie more dark and obscure than any Precept under the Old Testament Ergo Infant Baptism cannot be of God The Major cannot be denyed The Minor is easily proved For he is bold indeed who shall affirm Infant Baptism doth not lie obscure in God's Word One great Party who assert it say it s not to be found in the Scripture at all but 't is an unwritten Apostolical Tradition Others say it lies not the Letter of the Scripture but may be proved by Consequences and yet some great asserters of it as Dr. Hammond and others say those Consequences commonly drawn from divers Texts for it are without demonstration and prove nothing I am sure a Man may Read the Scripture a Hundred times over and never be thereby convinced he ought to baptize his Children though it is powerful to convince Men of all Christian Duties Now can this be a Truth since Christ was more Faithful than Moses and delivered every thing plainly from the Father Moses left nothing dark as to matters of Duty tho' the Precept and Eternal Rites of his Law were numerous even two or three hundred Precepts yet none were at a loss or had need to say is this a Truth or an Ordinance or not for he that Runs may Read it And shall one positive precept given forth by Christ who appointed so few in the New Testament be so obscure as also the Ground and End of it that Men should be confounded about the Proofs of it together with the End and Grounds thereof See Heb. 3. 5 6. Arg. 17. That Custom or Law which Moses never delivered to the Jews nor is any where written in the Old Testament was no Truth of God or of Divine Authority But that Custom or Law to baptize Proselytes either Men Women or Children was never given to the Jews by Moses nor is it any where written in the Old Testament Ergo it was no Truth of God or of Divine Authority and evident it is according to that Forementioned and Worthy Author Sir Norton Knatchbal that the Jewish Rabbins differed among themselves about it for saith he to Cite his very words again Rabbi Eleaezer expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews for Eleazer who was contemporary with Rabbi Joshua if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte Circumcised and not Baptized was a true Proselyte Arg. 18. If Baptism is of Meer positive Right wholly depending on the Will and Sovereign Pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator and he hath not Requi red or Commanded Infants to be baptized then Infants ought not to be baptized but Baptism is of meer positive right wholly depending on the Will and Sovereign pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator and he hath not required or Commanded Infants to be baptized Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized This Argument tends to cut off all the pretended proofs of Pedo-baptism taken from the Covenant made with Abraham and because Children are said to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven it was not the Right of Abraham's Male Children to be Circumcised because they were begotten and born of the Fruit of his Loyns till he received Commandment from God to Circumcise them Had he done it before or without Command from God it would have been Will-worship in him to have done it Moreover this further appearâ— to be so because no godly Mans Children nor others in Abraham's days nor since had any Right thereto but only his Children or such who were bought with his Money or were proselyted to the Jewish Religion because they had no Command from God so to do as Abraham had This being true it follows that if we should grant Infants of believing Gentiles as such were the Seed of Abraham which we deny yet unless God had Commanded them to baptize their Children they ought not to do it and if they do it without a Command or Authority from Christ It will be found an Act of Will-worship in them Arg. 19. All that were baptized in the Apostolical Primitive times were baptized upon the profession of their Faith were baptized into Christ and thereby put on Christ and were all one in Christ Jesus and were Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the promise But Infants as such who are baptized were not baptized upon the profession of their Faith nor did they put on Christ thereby nor are they all one in Christ Jesus and also are not Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to Promise Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Mr. Baxter confirms the substance of the Major these are his words i. e. As many as have been baptized have put on Christ and are all one in Christ Jesus and are Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to the promise Gal. 3. 27 28 29. This speaks the Apostle saith he of the probability grounded on a credible profession c. Baxters Confirm Reconcil page 32. The Minor will stand firm till any can prove Infants by a visible profession have put on Christ are all one in Christ Jesus are Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to the promise Evident it is none are the spiritual Seed of Abraham but such who have the Faith of Abraham and are truly grafted into Christ by a saving Faith If any object we read of some who were baptized who had no saving Faith but were Hypocrites I answer had they appeared to be
tho we grant that many Doctrinal Truths may be drawn or inferred by Consequences from many Texts of Scripture See Reverend Mr. Greenhil on Ezek. chap. 11. Vol. 2. p. 412. VVhat is clearly held out unto us in the Gospel saith he let us consent in and walk answerably in what is dark and doubtful let us forbear each other and stay till God reveals more If we cannot unite in all let us unite in what is clear Things Fundamental are clearest laid down in the word they are expresly commanded or held forth in Scripture whether they are Matters of Faith or Practice they are not drawn out by remote Consequences and strength of Men's Parts but immediately from or in the VVord Thus Mr. Greenhill Now we all agree that Baptism tho it be not a Fundamental of Salvation yet 't is a Fundamental of Church-Constitution there can be no true right orderly gospel-Gospel-Church without Baptism Therefore it is necessary that this should be laid down plainly in the Word of God and so it is We must first be made Disciples and then be baptized Mat. 28. 19 20. John 4. 1. first believe and then be baptized Mark 16. 16. Repent and be baptized Acts 2. 37. If thou believest thou mayest Acts 8. 37. Can any Man forbid Water that these should not be baptized Acts 10. 47. When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of Grd and the Name of Jesus Christ they were baptized both Men and Women Acts 8. 12. So Acts 16. 30 31. Acts 18. 8. Rom. 6. 3 4. And as touching those Consequences that Mr. Owen and others draw from some Scriptures to prove Infants Baptism you will find in the ensuing Answer those Consequences do not arise naturally from those Texts but are only his own ungrounded Suppositions and mistaken Apprehensions Mr. Owen in his Epistle to the Courteous Welshmen saith The greatest part of the true Church judg that the Children of the Faithful have a right to Baptism because they are in the Covenant of God This Opinion is agreeable to the Scriptures as it appears saith he in this Book Reply What Covenant is it he means Our Children as such are in I know not they are not in the Covenant of Grace for if all the Children of the Faithful were in the Covenant of Grace they must be all saved This I have in this Treatise fully proved there is none can fall finally away that are in this Covenant Besides if they were in the Covenant of Grace why must they have Baptism administred to them from this foot of Account and not the Lord's Supper and all other Privileges of the Church 2. They are not in the Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham's Natural Seed as such or with the whole House of Israel for that was a Typical Covenant and is taken away Mr. Owen saith they are in the outward Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace Rep. Let him prove if he can that the Children of Believers have more Privileges by the outward Dispensation of the Gospel than the Children of Unbelievers have where the Gospel is preach'd Those who lived under the outward Dispensation of the Law who believed in Christ to come or were elected were in the Covenant of Grace and none but they only and so 't is now none but the Elect and such that believe are in the Covenant of Grace Will Mr. Owen seal all New Covenant-Blessings to all his Natural Seed whether elected or not elected since the inward and Spiritual Blessings of the said Covenant by his own words belong only to the Elect Mr. Owen bids you to seek for a meek and humble and self-denying Spirit Reply This Counsel is good therefore be not too confident you are in the Right your Teachers are but Men and God may for some Reasons best known to himself hide Believers Baptism at present from them He bids you also to beware of a distemper'd Zeal that is not after Knowledg it is saith he a Wild-Fire that wasteth Churches and Countries c. Reply Such I fear hath been that Zeal he and others have shewed for Infant-Baptism For it will appear I hope in this Treatise that his Zeal is not according to the knowledg of God's Word Despise not saith Mr. Owen thy Faithful Teachers obey them and submit to them for they watch for thy Soul Reply As you ought not to despise your Teachers but to submit to them in the Lord so you ought not to Idolize them nor follow them any farther than they follow Christ For you must know that Men tho Ministers are not your Rule of Faith and Practice but God's Word Moreover know that you must give an account of your selves to God others will not be suffered to speak for you at the Great Day He bids you look upon little Children as part of their Natural Parents and comprehended in the Promise made unto good Parents 1. Reply This he hath also asserted elsewhere in his Book which you will find answered in this 2. Strange Are Children part of their Parents so that when the Parents believe the Children believe and when the Parents obey God's Command the Children obey it also and when the Parents have a Promise of Pardon and Peace the Children have right to the same Promise What strange Doctrine in this Are not we and our Children distinct Persons Shall not a whole Believer be saved I profess I cannot well see that it can be so if any of our Children who are a part of us do perish for ever And doth it follow because in the Covenant of Peculiarity God made with the whole House of Israel the Parents and Children were comprehended therefore they must be all comprehended in the Covenant of Grace also and made Members of the Gospel-Church He cites Deut. 4. 37 40. And because be loved thy Fathers therefore he chose their Seed after them VVhat of this Mr. Owen can never prove that God hath chosen any one Nation both Parents and Children since that time to be a peculiar People in a Covenant-Relation with himself as he chose the Natural Seed of Abraham it was a Typical Church and figured forth the true Spiritual Seed or true Israel of God Therefore that Church-State ceased at the Death of Christ when the Partition-wall was broken down And the extent of the Promise now and Gospel 〈◊〉 â—…es only runs to Believers and to their Children 〈…〉 or who do believe whether Jews or Gentiles 〈…〉 and to no more Unde◠〈…〉 Mr. Owen the extent of God's Coveâ—…â—…ople his Covenant is with them and their 〈…〉 was the Covenant of Grace which God made 〈…〉 Gen. 3. 15. and 4. 25. And the Covenant 〈…〉 â—ade with Noah Gen. 9. 9. with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. 〈◊〉 Isaac Gen. 28. 4. and with Jacob Gen. 35. 12. And in the same manner was his Covenant with David and his Seed 2 Sam. 7. 12. and 22. 51. in this Eternal Covenant he rejoiced on his Death-Bed 2 Sam. 23. 5.
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
But they that despise and slight the Baptism of Infants despise neither the Baptism of John nor Christ because neither John nor our blessed Saviour commanded Infants to be baptized nor did they ever baptize one Child as we read of if you can prove they did do it we will say no more but will soon baptize our Children Thus I have done with all I thought necessary to remark or take notice of that is contained in your second Chapter CHAP. III. Shewing Baptizing is Dipping not sprinkling nor pouring a little Water SIR AS to what is contain'd in the second Chapter of your Book concerning the Continuation of Christ's Baptism of Water in the Church I shall say no more to that in that we agree and are one but we differ about what Baptism of Water is you would have it to be Sprinkling which indeed is not Baptism but Rantism for that you know is the Greek Word for Sprinkling 2. As also we differ about the true and proper Subjects of it according to our Saviour's Institution and since you begin with that you call the Manner or external Form of Administration of Baptism I shall follow you herein and shall first repeat your Words and then reply Thus you begin viz. Some judg that the whole Body ought to be dipped in Water and all other ways to be unlawful Others judg say you the sprinkling of Water on the Face of him that is baptiz'd to be sufficient especially in these cold Climates for even as in the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is one Moâ—sel of Bread and one Spoonful of Wine sufficient for to signify the Spiritual Food that is had in Christ even so in the Sacrament of Baptism the sprinkling of a little Water on him that is baptized signifies the Virtue of the Blood of Christ as effectually as Rivers of Water I answer Certainly you cannot be ignorant of what many learned Pedo-baptists have said in Opposition to what you here speak for tho both the holy Sacraments are very significant of Christ's Sufferings and of those spiritual Benefits we receive from him yet they are of different Signification First The Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper holds forth in a lively Figure the breaking of Christ's Body and the pouring forth of his precious Blood and this indeed may as well he represented by a small quantity of Bread and Wine as by much yet a little Water will not serve in Baptism 1. Because ' â—is positively said that John was baptizing in Enon near Salim John 3. 23. because there was much Water there Certainly the Holy Ghost would not have given this as the Reason why John baptized near Enon viz. because there was much Water in that place if a little Water namely a Spoonful or two would have been sufficient or two or three Quarts It seems plainly deducible from this Text it cannot be administred with a little Water but contrariwise it doth require much Water Secondly Pray consider that as the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper holds forth or represents symbolically the breaking of the Body of Christ and the shedding of his Blood and to that purpose it was in part instituted even so the Sacrament of Baptism holds forth in as lively Figure that our blessed Lord was dead buried and rose again and to this end this holy Ordinance was also instituted as also to shew forth our Death unto Sin and Vivification to Newness of Life as by and by shall be abundantly proved both from the holy Scriptures and a multitude of learned Men that hold Infant-Baptism therefore since a little Water cannot in this Ordinance represent Christ's Burial and Resurrection it follows directly that a little Water will not serve to baptize Persons in but that it must be administred in Rivers Ponds or places where there is much Water i. e. so much Water as that the Body may be buried or covered all over therein But to proceed you say Neither is dipping or sprinkling essential unto this Ordinance but washing with Water or putting Water on the Body for the word Baptism signifies in the Greek washing with Water as we cited say you from Heb. 9. 10. Answ I answer now you have given away your Cause at once or I am mistaken for if neither dipping nor sprinkling be essential unto this Ordinance but washing what is become of your Baptism Sir all dipping in Water is washing tho all washing is not dipping in that you hurt us not but your sprinkling is not washing If a Woman should sprinkle her foul Linen with a few drops of Water would that be deem'd a washing of them Again if Sprinkling be not essential to Baptism you have no Baptism at all take away the Body of a Tree and there is no Tree That thing can't be where the essential part of it is wanting And now that the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify dipping and such a washing as is by dipping we shall plainly shew evince and demonstrate and confirm it by such Arguments and Authors that no unprejudiced sober Person can any longer well remain doubtful about this matter and then we will examine your Objections I shall prove baptizing or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not sprinkling nor pouring of Water upon the Body but dipping or plunging the Body all over in Water and that 1st From the proper literal and direct Signification of the Greek Word Baptizo and the Testimonies of Learned Men. 2dly From the Practice of Primitive Times 3dly From the Consideration of what is signified and represented in Baptism 4thly From those Typical Baptisms spoken of in the Scriptures 5thly From the nature of those Metaphorical Baptisms mentioned viz. the Baptism of the Spirit and that of Afflictions To proceed to prove the first Scapula and Stephens two as great Masters of the Greek Tongue as most we have do tell you in their Lexicons that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizo from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bapto signifies mergo immergo item tingo quod fit immergendo inficere imbuere viz. to dip plunge overwhelm put under cover over to dye in Colour which is done by plunging Grotius says it signifies to dip over Head and Ears Pasor an Immersion dipping or Submersion Vossius says it implies a washing the whole Body Mincaeus in his Dictionary saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Latin Baptismus in Dutch Doopsit or Doopen Baptismus or Baptism to dive or duck in Water and the same with the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabal which the Septuagint or Seventy Interpreters render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizo to dip This Casaâ—bon saith was the right of way Baptizing that Persons were plunged into the Water which the very word Baptizo sufficiently demonstrates which as it does not extend so far as to sink down to the bottom to the hurt of the Person so it is not to swim upon the Superficies of the Water Baptism ought to be
administred by plunging the whole Body into the Water The late famous and most learned in all the Oriental Tongues Dr. Du-Veil in his literal Explanation of the Acts Chap. 1. 5. saith the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizo is to dip as if it were to dye Colours and any Dyer will tell you if there is any small bit of Cloth not dipped it is not dyed Leigh in his Critica Saâ—râ— saith the native and proper Signification of the word is to dip into the Water or plunge under Water Mat. 3. 6. Acts 8. 38. for which also he quotes Casaâ—bon Bullinger Zanchy Spanhemius he saith withaâ—… that some would have it signify washing which Sense 〈◊〉 he saith opposed affirming that it was not otherwise so than by Consequence for the proper Signification was such a dipping or plunging as Dyers use for dying of Cloth Salmasius saith That is not Baptism which they give to Children but Rantism Beza on Mat. 3. 11. saith the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizo signifies to dye by dipping or washing Selden saith that the Jews took that Baptism wherein the whole Body was not baptized to be void Ainsworth speaks to the same purpose as I shall shew you Mr. Daniel Rogers says that a Minister is to dip in Water the Party baptized as the meetest Act the word Baptizo notes it for saith he the Greeks wanted not words to express any other Act besides dipping if the Institution could bear it What Resemblance of the Burial and Resurrection of Christ is in sprinkling mark that all Antiquity and Scripture saith he confirms that it was dipping If you would saith Dr. Du-Veil attend to the proper Signification of the word in the Synod of Caelichyth Anno 816. where Wolfred Archbishop of Canterbury presided Let saith he the Presbyters beware that when they administer the Sacrament of Baptism they do not pour Water upon the Heads of the Infants but let them be always plunged in the Font according to the Example of the Son of God himself who was plunged in the Waters of Jordan Thus must the Ceremony be performed according to order See Dr. Du-Veil on the Acts Chap. 2. p. 5 6 7. The said learned Doctor saith in the same place The constant Practice of the universal Church till the time of Clement V. who was crowned Pope Anno 1305 under whom first of all the second Synod of Ravenna approved the Abuse brought into some Churches about an hundred Years before that Baptism without any necessity should be administred by Aspersion Hence it came to pass that contrary to the Analogy or intended Mystical Signification of this Sacrament all the West for the most part has in this Age the use of Rantism that is Sprinkling instead of Baptism as Zepper speaks to the great Scandal of the Greeks and Russians who to this day plunge into the Water those they baptize and deny any one to be rightly baptized who is not plunged into the Water according to the Precept of Christ as we find in Sylvester Squropulus Dr. Taylor saith The Custom of the Antient Church was not Sprinkling but Immersion in pursuance of the Sense of the word Baptizing and the Commandment and Example of our blessed Saviour Salmasius in his Notes of divers upon Sulpitius Severus saith that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Immersion not Sprinkling Nor did the Antients otherwise baptize than by single or treble Immersion as in the Greek Church to this day saith he the Person to be baptized is plunged over Head and Ears The same thing does Peter Avetabolis testify of the Asian Christians inhabiting Iberia and Colchi St. Ambrose saith Water is that wherein the Body is plunged to wash all Sin away there all Vice is buried In a Book inscribed Reformation of Ecclesiastical Laws printed at London 1641. 't is expressed in these words While we are plunged in the Water the Death and Burial of Christ is recommended to us that we openly testify that Sin lies dead and buried in us The Raman Order published by the Writers concerning Ecclesiastical â—eremoniâ—s says the Presbyters enter into the Fountain Within unto the Water and the Males are first baptized and then the Femaies Luther saith The Name of Baptism is a Greek Word it may be termed Dipping when we dip something in Water that it may be wholly covered with Water and altho saith he that Custom is now altogether abolished among the most part for neither do they dip the whole Children but only sprinkle them with a little VVater they ought nevertheless to be dipp'd and presently drawn out again The Germans also call Baptism Taâ—ff from Deepness which they call Tieff in their Tongue as if it were meet saith our Author that those be dipp'd deeply who are baptized John Bugenhagius Pomeranus both a Fellow and Successor in the Ministry of Luther at Wittenburgh whom Thuanus and Zanchias witness to have been a very moderate godly and learned Man affirms that he was desired to be a VVitness at Hamburgh in the Year 1529. that when he had seen the Minister only sprinkle the Infant wrapt in Swadling-Clothes on the top of the Head he was amazed because he neither had heard or seen or saw any such thing nor yet read in any History except in case of necessity in Bed-rid Persons Hence in a General Assembly therefore of all the Ministers that were convened he did ask of a certain Minister John Frize by Name who was sometimes Minister of Lubec how the Sacrament of Baptism was administred at Lubec who for his Piety and Candor did answer that Infants were baptized naked at Lubec after the same fashion altogether as in Germany but from whence and how that peculiar manner of baptizing had crept into Hamburgh he was ignorant At length they did agree among themselves that the Judgment of Luther and of the Divines at Wittenburg should be demanded about this Point which thing being done Luther wrote back to Hamburgh that the Sprinkling was an Abuse they ought to remove Thus plunging was restored at Hamburgh yet is that Climate cooler than onrs Mr. Jos Mede saith there was no such thing as Sprinkling or Rantism mark used in Baptism in the Apostles days nor many Ages after He had spoken more properly if he had said there was no Rantism used in the Apostles days but Baptism than to say no Rantism used in Baptism since he well knew they are two distinct and different Acts It cannot be Baptism at all if it be only Rantism or Sprinkling Immersion or Dipping being the very thing not an Accident as I hinted but an Essential so absolutly necessary that it cannot be the Act or Ordinance without it If I command my Maid to dip my Handkerchief into the Water and she only takes a little Water in her Hand and sprinkles a few drops upon it doth she do what I command her was that the thing or is it not another Act Even so 't is here you
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
Author Therefore Sir that Baptism is any thing else than dipping plunging or washing which is done by dipping we do utterly deny For as the cutting off a little bit of the Foreskin of the Flesh or not the twentieth part round is not Circumcision so sprinkling a little Water on the Face is not Baptism True you call it Baptism and will do so tho 't is nothing less nor more than Rantism 't is not the Thing nor does it answer in Signification I may tell you again that the Jews instead of circumcising the Foreskin of their Childrens Flesh might have as well presumed to dispense with that and only have paired off the Nails of the Fingers of their Male Infants and have called that Circumcision as you may call sprinkling or pouring a little Water Baptism But may be you 'l say in Circumcision they weâ—â— to draw Blood so say I they might in cutting the Nails of their Childrens Fingers nay and they might better plead that the Things signified in Circumcision might be as well answered in that new Device the Nails being a sort of Excrement they might say signified the taking away the Filth of Sin or Corruption of Nature as the great Mysteries signified by Baptism or Dipping can be represented by sprinkling or pouring Furthermore they might possibly plead the same Pretences you do viz. The cutting off the Foreskin of the Flesh put the Infants to great Pain nay may be they might fancy it would cost them their Lives nay call it Murder and therefore let pairing of their Nails serve As you it seems fear dipping would endanger the Lives of Infants and therefore make sprinkling to serve instead thereof But to proceed 2. I am in amaze to see these Men speak so fully and clearly to this glorious Truth i. e. that the great thing Christ ordained Baptism to represent is his Death Burial and Resurrection together with the baptized Person 's Death to Sin and his rising again to walk in Newness of Life and yet both those shameful Abuses amongst you and other Churches are not rectified viz. 1. That Sprinkling which doth not cannot answer or represent those Gospel-Mysteries should not be rejected 2. That Infants should be once deem'd the proper Subjects of Baptism since nothing of a Death to Sin nor rising again to walk in Newness of Life can appear in them For as the Learned observe Baptism is a Symbol of present not future Regeneration 'T is an outward Sign of that inward Death unto Sin which the Party baptized passed under then or ought to have done when or before he is baptized They then professed themselves to be dead to Sin i. e. even when they were buried with Christ in their Baptism for the Argument of the Apostle lies in that respect How shall we that are dead unto Sin live any longer 〈◊〉 Knowing that so many of 〈◊〉 who have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his Death both in Sign and Signification And therefore as Dr. Sherlock says rising out of that watery Grave a new born Creature denotes not only what they should be hereafter but what they were actually at that time So that as this Text and Arguments drawn therefrom utterly condemn Sprinkling as not being Christ's Baptism so it excludes Infants from being the Subjects thereof because in them appears no such Death to Sin nor can they be said to come out of that watery Grave as new born Creatures To these Testimonies I shall only add one or two more See that most learned Anonymous French Writer in his Answer to the famous Bishop of Meaux 'T is most certain saith he that Baptism hath not hitherto been administred otherwise than by sprinkling by the most of Protestants but truly this sprinkling is an Abuse This Custom which without an accurate Examination they have retained from the Romish Church in like manner as many other things makes their Baptism very defective It corrupteth its Institution and antient Use and that Nearness of Similitude which is needful should be betwixt it and Faith Repentance and Regeneration This Reflection of Mr. Bossuet deserveth to be seriously considered to wit saith he that this use of plunging hath continued for the space of a whole thousand and three hundred Years Hence we may understand that we did not carefully as it was meet examine things which we have received from the Roman Church Calvin saith That Baptism is a form or way of Burial and none but such as are already dead to Sin or have repented from dead Works are to be buried From these words I note 1. That Sprinkling is not the form of Baptism because not the form of a Burial 2. That Infants are not the true Subjects of Baptism because not such as are already dead to Sin or have repented from dead Works and indeed as they are not able they are not required so to do by Christ The last Author I shall quote is learned Zanchy There are two Parts saith he in Regeneration Mortification and Viâ—ification that is called a Burial with Christ this is called a Resurrection with Christ The Sacrament of both these is Baptism in which we are overwhelmed or buried and after that do come forth and rise again It may not be said truly but sacramentally of all that are baptized that they are buried with Christ and raised with him but only of such as have true Faith Now we may appeal to all the World whether Zanchy and all the rest do not clearly and evidently testify the same thing that we assert viz. That Baptism is and can be no other Act than Immersion or Dipping since Sprinkling all must confess doth not represent in a lively Figure the Burial and Resurrection of Christ nor our dying or being dead to Sin and Vivification to Newness of Life saith he Sacramentally i. e. Analogically in respect of the near Resemblance between Baptism and a Death and Resurrection And this I say cannot be said of them that are sprinkled only for if in respect of Mortification and Vivification they may be denominated buried and raised with Christ which cannot be said of Infants yet that outward Rite or Sign cannot denominate them so much as Sacramentally buried and raised with Christ for there is not so much as any likeness of such things in it but in true Baptism viz. total dipping the Body in Water and raising it again there is a lively Figure held forth to our very sight And as Zanchy saith It cannot be said of all nor indeed of any that they are thus sacramentally dead buried and risen with Christ but only of such as have true Faith Therefore Infants are excluded by his own Argument What you say that none plant Bodies in Water by baptizing them seems strange and not the words of a learned Man because dipping is a Figure of planting us into Christ spiritually and of Christ's Death and Resurrection must the Body of a Man be a Tree None graft Bodies into a Vine
made with Abraham But say you they were nevertheless in the outward Dispensation of God's Covenant c. Answ 1. True the Privileges of Abraham's Natural Seed as such were great as to outward Rites and Prerogatives the Covenant did appertain to them mark it Covenants there were two Covenants 't is not said Covenant 1. They had right to all the External Privileges of the Legal Covenant and the outward Dispensation of the Gospel and Adoption by Faith was first to be offered unto them but neither they nor their Children as such had right to Justification Adoption c. or any outward Rite or Sacrament of the Gospel no not until they did believe and had the things signified in the Sacrament But 2 That Covenant that gave Abraham's Natural Seed as such a Prerogative above the Gentiles was that Partition-Wall that is now broken down 〈◊〉 antea i. e. that Covenant is abolished and Jews and Gentiles stand now upon equal ground here are not fleshly Privileges now that one hath above the other no knowing of Men nor things after the Flesh or by Birth in a fleshly way through or by reason of an Externa Covenant as under the Law You argue as many 〈◊〉 have done before you Children of Believers were once in Covenant who dares be so bold as to say they are cast out Answ. 1 〈◊〉 being once Members of the Jewish Church both not prove they were ever Members of the Gospel Church The Male Infants of God's Priests under the old â—ovâ—â—an when grown up had other Privileges if we must â—all â—…umcision 〈◊〉 Privilege which the Sons of Christs Ministers have no right to under the Gospel and yet no where in express words in the New Testament excluded from that Privilege 2. But I have proved the Covenant for Infants Incovenanting under the Law was no Gospel-Covenant and so concern not 〈◊〉 Infant 3. According to that Maxim Omnis privatio intimat habitum you know that every Dispossession implieth a Possession Infants therefore cannot 〈◊〉 cast out of the Gospel-Church 〈◊〉 one they can be proved they were admitted If you or anâ— Man living can tell us in what visible Administration hâ—… were admitted hurch Members before Abraham's days which was above 2000 Years you say somewhat you 〈◊〉 they were always in Covenant Mr. 〈◊〉 makes mention of a twoâ—… Covenant 1. In relation to Elâ—…ion 2. To 〈◊〉 in Covenant in faâ—ie visibilis Ecclesiae To this I answer The Covenant of Circumcision belonged to the Children of the Flesh to Ihmael and Esau as well as 〈◊〉 who were not in the Election of Grace therefore all those who were circumâ—ised were not so in Covenant Children of Unbelievers may be in that sense in Covenant as well as Children of Believers as many of them afterwards prove to be nay may be more of them than of the Children of Believers 2. As touching Infants being in Covenant in facie visibilis Ecclesiae in the face of a visible Church I answer Tho they were so in all the Jewish Churches under the old Covenant some with Circumcision were brought in and some without it yet that Covenant and Covenant-Seed are as I have and shall yet prove cast out which will be a final Answer Thus I argue If the Covenant for incovenanting of Infants was the old Covenant signified by Hagar and that Covenant-Seed signified by Ishmael are cast out then the Natural or Fleshly Seed of Believers are cast out or not to be admitted into the Gospel-Church But the Covenant for incovenanting of Infants was the old Covenant signified by Hagar and that Covenant-Seed signified by Ishmael are cast out Ergo The Natural or Fleshly Seed of Believers are cast out or not to be admitted into the Gospel-Church See Gal. 4. 22 23 24 25 26. For it is written that Abraham had two Sons the one by a Bond-woman the other by a Free-woman Ver. 24. Which things are an Allegory for these are the two Covenants the one from Mount Sinai which gendereth to Bondage which is Hagar c. Ver. 30. Nevertheless what saith the Scripture Cast out the Bond-woman and her Son for the Son of the Bond-woman shall not be Heir with the Son of the Free-woman 1. By Hagar is meant all agree the old Covenant and by casting her out is held forth the abolishing or taking away of the old Covenant He took away the first that he might establish the second Heb. 10. 9. 2. By Ishmael is meant the Natural Seed of Abraham and so the Natural Seed of all Godly Men of his Race that succeeded him who were Members of that Church And as the late Annotators note by this place is signified the total Destruction of the Jewish Church which consisted of Parents and their Children or the whole Nation of Israel This Church and Church-Seed and manner of Church-Membership is cast out and gone for ever We say that Children were once admitted Members of the Jewish Church but evident it is that God hath now quite pulled down and razed that House to the Foundation thereof I mean that National Church of the Jews and broke up House-keeping and turned the Bond-woman and her Son i. e. the Fleshly Seed or Natural Off-spring of Abraham out of Doors the natural Branches are broken off and God hath now built him a new and more glorious and Spiritual House under the Gospel into which he admitted none as his Houshold Servants to dwell in this his Spiritual Family or Gospel Church but Believers only or such as profess themselves so to be Ye saith St. Peter as lively Stones are built up a spiritual House c. and that the old House the Jewish Church-state with all the Appurtenances Rites and Privileges of it are abolished or pulled down and a new own built and set up into which Infants are not to be admitted is very evident Heb. 7. 12. For the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a Change also of the whole Law which must needs include Circumcision with all Appurtenances and Privileges belonging to it And therefore as Infant Church-Membership came in with the Law of Circumcision and as a direct part of the old Covenant or old Law so likewise plain it is that it went out and was disannulled with it Take again my former Simily viz. What Privileges soever are given to any Person by an Act of Parliament which said Law was to continue so long in force and no longer than when that time was expired and another Parliament makes a new Law where many things are contained that were in the last Law but those divers Privileges given to those Persons in the former Law are left out in this latter Act would it not be a piece of Folly for any of them to plead those Privileges by virtue of a Law that is gone and now not in any force But to come a little nearer the case in a more apt Simily Suppose a Man should have a Legacy bequeathed to him by the
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
Baptism the other after Baptism unto the Adult among the unbelieving Gentiles Teaching precedes Baptism but to the Children of such Baptism preceded Teaching in the same manner as Abraham being the Father of the Gentiles was taught before circumcised but his Children were circumcised before they were taught This yousay is the Signification of the word as appeareth Answ 1. I answer you would have the form of the Commission to run according to your Scriptureless Practice of baptizing of Infants as you call Sprinkling but that the Commission is wrested and abused by you to serve your turn will appear 1. They that are the only Subjects of Baptism according to the Commission are first to be taught or as the Greek word is discipled or made Disciples and then baptized and I will appeal to your Conscience whether they are not the same Persons that were to be taught before baptized that our Lord commands to be taught afterwards all other things that he hath commanded baptized Believers to observe and keep You would have the Parents converted from Heathenism to be taught before baptized but the Teaching afterwards not to refer to them but to their Children baptized before taught or in their Infancy O what abominable Abuse is this of the great Commission of our blessed Saviour 1. The Commission runs Teach them in all Nations whether Jews or Gentiles 2. Baptizing them that are taught or made Disciples by teaching 3. Teaching them i. e. the same them that were Disciples baptized Dare you invert nay subvert the sacred Commission and so make void the Command of God to uphold your own Tradition Sir tremble at the thoughts of it Answ 2. That this which we say is the true Purport of the Commission is acknowledged by Mr. Perkins Mr. Baxter and other Pedo-baptists Take Mr. Perkins's own words First of all saith he 't is said Teach them that is make them Disciples by teaching them to believe and repent here saith he we are to consider the Order which God observes in making a Covenant with Men in Baptism First of all he calls them by his Word and Spirit to believe and repent then in the second place he makes a Promise of Mercy and Forgiveness and thereby he seals his Promise by Baptism They says he that know not nor consider this Order which God used in covenanting with them in Baptism deal preposterously overslipping the Commandment of repenting and believing which is the cause of so much Profaneness in the World Doubtless he said right for you who baptize Infants that are not capable to repent nor believe make a multitude of profane Christians in the World as they are called Who knows which of the Infants you baptize God will call and savingly work Grace in which should indeed be wrought in all before they are according to the direct Order or From of the Commission or ought to be baptized O what profane Wretches doth your Practice bring into your Church if all you baptize you make Members thereof in their Infancy Mr. Perkins doubtless did not foresee how by his honest Exposition of the Commission he overthrew his Infant-Baptism and Church-Membership Moreover take Mr. Richard Baxter's words speaking of the Commission Christ gave to his Disciples Mat. 28. 19 20 viz. Their first Task saith he is to make Disciples of them which are by Mark called Believers The second work is to baptize them whereto is annexed the Promise of Salvation The third work is to teach them that are baptized Believers all other things which are after to be learned in the School of Christ To contemn this Order saith he is to contemn the Rules of Order for where can we find it if not here See Mr. Baxter's Right of Baptism pag. 144 150. This Man tho a Pedo-baptist yet durst not be so bold as to invert the Order of the Commission nor do as you do viz. affirm the Teaching mentioned after Baptism refers not to Believers baptized after they are made Disciples but to their Infants baptized of which the Commission speaks not one word nor can it by any colour of Reason or Consequences be drawn therefrom But to prove your false Exposition of the Text you proceed to do it First from God's Promise to Abraham Isaac and Jacob that in their Seed should all the Nations of the Earth be blessed Gen. 18. 18. 22. 18. Christ came say you to confirm the Promise unto the Fathers that the Gentiles might glorify God for his Mercy Rom. 15. 8 9. If God is not a God to the Gentiles and their Seed according to the Promises made to the Fathers then say you Christ weakeneth and not confirmeth the Promises God forbid we should think so c. Answ 1. God forbid that you should rest always under such dark and cloudy Conceptions of the Covenant and Promises made to the Fathers touching the Gentiles for the Covenant and Promises made to Abraham Isaac and Jacob were that the Gentiles through Faith in Christ should be Fellow-heirs with the Jews that believed in him and with the â—…s that bâ—…ed also And thus runs the Covenant of Grace to Abraham c. and thus it runs to believing Gentiles that all of them and their Children that believe or are in the Election of Grace shall be saved And 't is thus that all the Nations of the Earth are blessed in Christ whether Jews or Gentiles i. e. all such in all Nations that believe and are called by the preaching of the Gospel 2. But because Christ's Church does not now in Gospel-days take in whole Nations and whole Families as the Jewish Church under the Law did take in the whole Nation of the Jews and all their Families doth Christ weaken the Promises Sir that external Legal Covenant erected a Typical Church which Church ceased at the Establishment of the Spiritual Church which is only Congregational under the Gospel as I fully proved before But furthermore You say the Apostles understood Christ's Command unto them in this sense and therefore they have preached Salvation to those that believed and all theirs c. Answ The Apostles understood Christ's Command and Commission no doubt but it appears you understand it not Did they preach Salvation to Believers and to all their Children as such whether elected or not called by the Word or Spirit or not For this you must prove or you say nothing and how absurd would that be should you affirm any such thing Peter speaks of no Promise made to Jews nor Gentiles and to their Children but to such of them that the Lord our God shall call And 't is directly said that the Goaler and all his believed therefore if you will still affirm that the Apostles apply'd as you intimate Abraham's Covenant among the Gentiles unto the Seed the fleshly Seed of Believers as such you do assert an Untruth and cast a Lie upon the Apostles through your Ignorance Prove if you can they were to baptize any Person Adult or
words of the Commission not to add to it nor diminish from it on paâ— of being cast out of his Favour and incuring his Wrath and Curse durst you do otherwise in any thing under pretence it was his meaning whereas he plainly and fully in his Commission expressed in the Affirmative how and what you should do in all Matters and Things and forbad you to add thereto Read Rev. 22. 18. For I testify unto every Man that heareth the words of the Prophecy of this Book If any Man shall add unto these things God shall add unto him all the Plagues that are written in this Book Who told you what you say is the sense of our Saviour Can any Man once think since the Commission of Christ is a pure Gospel-Commission and contains meer positive Laws and Rules no ways referring to nor depending on the Law or Command God gave to Abraham that what you say can be true and the Conclusion safe certain and warrantable May not another say with as good Authority that our Saviour commands his Disciples to baptize all Nations both Parents and Children too whether they will or not whether they believe or not whether Jews or Gentiles Turks or Pagans I wonder you are not afraid who take liberty after this sort to sport as it were and play with invert alter and add unto the sacred Commission of the jealous God and great King of Heaven and Earth 1. You confess Christ's Sheep came up from the washing whereof every one bear Twins and there is none barren among them Cant. 6. 6. Let therefore the Lambs say you be washed as they are a great part of the Flock I answer Infants as such by your own words cannot be Christ's Sheep nor Lambs for all his Sheep and Lambs that are washed are fruitful and none are barren among them Are Infants fruitful to Christ Can they bring forth Twins Sir Metaphors go not on all four as we used to say the Lambs of Christ viz. weak and young Christians may be as fruitful in Holiness as Sheep viz. old experienced Christians But how can you prove Baptism washes your Infants from Sin actual Sin they have none Doth it wash away Original Sin dare you say that The antient erring Fathers that brought it in affirmed that Baptism did wash away Original Sin in Infants but do you believe that they spoke Truth in so saying Christ's Lambs you say are capable to be fed by the Word and Sacrament Are Infants capable to hear the Word and partake of the Sacraments If of one of both Sir Christ's Lambs are new born Babes not new born by Natural Generation but by Regeneration as I have shewed You say that the Gentile Church should not come short of the Privileges of the old Jerusalem or Jewish Church and that the desolate hath more Children than she that hath an Husband Gal. 4. 27. and hence affirm if Children of the Christian Church enjoy not the Privilege of their Fathers she hath many less Children than the old Jerusalem-Church had Answ I answer the Gentile Church according to God's gracious Promise may be more than the Jewish was when the Fulness of the Gentiles are come in and yet no Infants Members of it Nay there is ground to believe in the Primitive Times there were more converted among the Gentiles than were amongst the Jews but still I find you harp on the old String i. e. that if the Gospel-Church be not National and enjoy as many outward and external Privileges as the Jewish did her Privileges are less but you consider not the Nature Quality and Glory of the Gospel-Church and wherein her Privileges excel the Legal Church of old Jerusalem You say when Christ commandeth to teach all Nations before baptized and after that their baptizing his meaning is teach and baptize to plant the Church and baptize and teach to continue the Church planted among the Gentiles Answ 1. I am grieved to think how bold you are in asserting that to be Christ's meaning which you affirm which can no ways be gathered from his Commission but 't is directly contrary to the express words thereof and also to the Nature of the gospel-Gospel-Church's Constitution But you affirm what you please and prove nothing 2. It appears by your words the Gospel-Church in its first Constitution or first planting was by Regeneration consisting only of believing Men and Women baptized on the Profession of their Faith or after they were made Disciples but after its first Constitution or first Plantation it was to consist of the Fleshly or Carnal Seed and so made National yea and to be made up of whole Nations Pray Sir since the great Commission Mat. 28. 19 20. proves nothing of this nor hath the Lord Jesus given out another Commission to nullify his first What ground have you to affirm so presumptuously any such thing Dare you add and diminish to God's Word nay alter Christ's last Will and Testament in his grand Commission Tremble at the thoughts of what you endeavour to do Sir the New Testament about Church-Constitution c. is a perfect Rule to the End of the World and as the first Gospel-Church after Christ's Ascension at Jerusalem was constituted so ought all Churches to be constituted and so to continue unto the second coming of Christ The Ordinances are to be kept as to the Subject and Mode of Administration as they were first delivered to the Saints See 1 Cor. 11. 2. Now I praise you Brethren that you remember me in all things and keep the Ordinances as I delivered them to you Therefore in direct Opposition to what you say in the close of your sixth Chapter I affirm from the Authority of Christ's Commission and from the nature of the Constitution of the gospel-Gospel-Church that as Teaching went before Baptizing for the planting of the Church in the Primitive Time so Teaching is to go before Baptizing in planting and continuing of the Church unto the End of the World and that the Teaching that is mentioned in order of Words in the Commission after Baptizing doth not refer to Infants of Believers or any other Infants but as Mr Baxter observes to such baptized Believers who after they were baptized ought to be taught all other things in the School of Christ which he commanded his Disciples to observe and to which if they thus act he subjoined his gracious Promise Lo I am with you always to the End of the World Mat. 28. 20. CHAP. IX In Answer to Mr. James Owen's seventh Chapter proving that the Children of the Faithful ought not to be baptized because they are said to be holy wherein 1 Cor. 7. 14. is examined and clearly explained with the sense of many learned Men both Pedo-baptists and others on the said Text. MR. James Owen thus begins in his seventh Chapter viz. If the Children of the Faithful are holy then Baptism appertaineth unto them for all confess that Holiness gives Right to Baptism if they allow
of be said to be holy as well as the Infidel or unbelieving Wife is said to be sanctified What is the difference between holy and sanctified Mr. Owen says If the Children of the Faithful are not Members of the Church of God then they are Members of the Kingdom of Satan who is the Prince of this World If they are without the Church what hopes of Salvation have they there is no Salvation out of the Church Rom. 9. 4. Answ 1. I hope my Antagonist is a Protestant but I must assure my Reader he here maintains a Popish Doctrine which all our worthy Protestant Divines have protested against How is there no Salvation out of the Visible Church God forbid I doubt not but there are many gracious Persons who shall be certainly saved and who do truly believe in Christ that are not Members of any true Gospel Church Will you exclude all from Salvation that are not Members of your Church I cannot think you own the Church of England to be a true Gospel-Church and will you exclude all that are of that Communion from the Kingdom of Heaven 2. But as to Infants they are born Children of Wrath and actually in Satan's Kingdom till God is pleased to sanctify them and those who die in Infancy that are saved no doubt he doth sanctify their unclean Nature but not such as live and remain in Satan's Kingdom until they are regenerated by the Word and Spirit of God after they are grown up to Understanding 3. Therefore some Infants may be Members of the Invisiole Church or Mystical Body of Christ tho not Members of the Visible Church and of this sort there may be among the Children of Unbelievers as well as among the Children of Believers for the Election of Grace runs not only to the Seed of the Faithful say what you please as I said before 4. Therefore you do not well to call Children Dogs if they are not in the Pale of the Visible Church You say the Promises are the Inheritance of the Church not to those that are without and therefore say you if the Children be without they are among Dogs and what Promise belongs to them Rev. 22. 15. and where there is no Promise there is no hope of Salvation c. Answ 1. I answer the Promise runs to Christ and all that the Father hath given him but we do not know who they are until they believe 2. The Promises are not the Inheritance of all that are Members of the Visible Church for they may not belong to some that are in it and they may belong to some others that are not in it You darken Counsel with Words without Knowledg For 1. You distinguish not between the Visible and Invisible Church 2. Also you distinguish not between who are the Lord 's decretively and who are his actually 3. Moreover you distinguish not between external Privileges and true internal spiritual Privileges No external Privileges or outward Church-Membership gives any Man a Right to Salvation nor puts him under the Promise thereof 3. There is hope and ground of hope touching the Salvation of dying Infants tho they are not in Gospel-times of the Visible Church because Christ saith of such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven But pray Sir take heed of what you say You cannot prove that our blessed Saviour spake those words only with reference to the Children of Believers I know no cause why unbelieving Parents should doubt of the Salvation of their dying Infants They may so far as I see have as much ground to hope God's Election may reach their dying Infants as any Believer can have it may reach to theirs What if I should exercise so much Charity as to hope that God hath comprehended in his electing Love all the dying Infants both of Believers and Unbelievers and that through the Blood and Merits of Christ they are sanctified and shall be all saved My Opinion were it so could not justly be condemned by any but I say secret things belong to God and I shall forbear to pass any Judgment in the case but leave it to God but I am sure no Child shall be damned for the Parent 's Fault Can Parents by baptizing their Infants save them Or are they Dogs and must be damned if their Parents baptize them not and dare not do it because Christ hath not commanded them to baptize them 4. Sir what if a Man and his Wife when they were both vile and ungodly People as bad as any that live on Earth should beget many Children and afterwards they both believe and become good Christians is the State of those Children begotten when they believed good and they holy and are the Children they had when they were vile and wicked Persons bad nay so bad as they are to be counted Dogs O that God would open your Eves Nay if it were as you intimate it may be queried Whether it be not a sinful a wicked and an unlawful thing for two ungodly unbelieving unfaithful Persons to marry since they can beget no Children but such as you call Dogs for you will not say their Children are holy or ought to be baptized nor are in the Pale of the Church But to conclude with this Chapter let me speak a word to you that are Believers and also a word to you that are Unbelievers and I shall pass to the next Argument 1. To you that are Believers and have Children if they are holy and Heirs of Heaven as they are begotten and born of your Bodies as Mr. Owen and other Pedobaptists assert then you need not trouble your Thoughts about your dying Infants tho they are not baptized for 't is not Baptism makes them holy by Mr. Owen's Concession but because they are your Children 't is by your Faith they are holy as he blindly supposes 2. And since Baptism doth not belong to them Christ no where having commanded you to baptize them nor can it add any thing to their Salvation I charge you in the Fear of God baptize them not 3. But do not believe Mr. Owen nor any other Man in what he says unless he can prove it from God's Word I tell you from Christ's own Words you have ground of hope touching the State of your dying Infants but not because they are your Children but because of such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven and they may be in God's eternal Election of Grace For as Dr. Taylor saith and I mentioned before God may have many ways to apply the Blood of Christ to save and sanctify dying Infants which we know not of but we are not any more required to haptize them or to give them one Sacrament than we are required to give them the other viz. the Lord's-Supper and this he will one day know to be a Truth tho now he sees it not O! saith Mr. Owen cast them not out from the Church of God out of the Covenant of Salvation they are your dear Children Children of your
the beginning of the World to receive whole Housholds into Covenant the Children were received in with their Parents even so Noah and his Family were in the same Covenant for his sake his Family was received with him into the Ark and were baptized with him in the Waters of the Flood Abraham believed and his whole Family was received into God's Covenant with him Gen. 17. Heb. 11. 7. 1 Pet. 3. 20 21. Not himself and his Seed but his Men-Servants and Maid-Servants and of the Gentiles that were willing to receive the true Religion and their Seed Gen. 17. 23. Exod. 12. 40. And so God's Covenant continued in the Families of the Faithful until the coming of Christ for near four thousand Years If any say that the Dispensation is altered and the Members rent from the Head of Families let them shew a plain Scripture for it 1. Ans I answer As touching that Covenant God made with Noah and his Family it was not only made with him and his Family but with all the World for they were the Representatives of all that should live on the Earth nay and not only Mankind but with Fowls of the Air and Beasts of the Field See Gen. 9. 8 9 10 11 12. And God spake unto Noah and to his sons Verse 8. And I behold I will establish my covenant with you and your Seed after you Verse 9. And with every living creature that is with you of the fowl of the cattel and of every beast of the earth with you from all that go out of the ark to every beast of the earth Ver. 10. And I will establish my covenant with you neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth Verse 11. Now to what purpose do you mention this Covenant or the temporal Salvation of Noah's Family in the Ark May be Noah's Family or some of them were saved with that external Salvation for his sake yet this proves not that his Faith extended to the Spiritual Salvation of the Souls of his Children for he had a cursed Cham to one of his Sons his Faith could not save him 2. As to the Ark being a Type of Baptism or that his Family were baptized in the Ark this as I have once before told you doth as much tend to prove that all the World may be baptized even the good and bad and Cattle also as any in particular for all in the Ark were as truly baptized as any that were in it 3. Had you said Noah's Family was a Type of the Gospel-Church you had spoken something to the purpose for so Expositors intimate and not without good Reason And 1. As all his Familily were received into the Ark so all the Members of the Gospel-Church were by Faith to be received into Christ the Anti-Type of the Ark. 2. As Noah built the Ark according to the Commandment of God so Christ built his Church and did every thing according to the Commandment of his Father 3. Noah took many Trees well hewen and fitted to build the Ark so Christ takes many Believers who are Spiritually well hewed and fitted by the Word and Spirit to build his Church who are called trees of righteousness chosen People as Noah built the Ark of such Trees or Wood God himself chose 4. As some clean and unclean Beasts were received into the Ark yea and a Cham who was an ungodly Person so this might figure forth that some unsanctified Persons tho' not by God's appointment would get into or be received into the Gospel-Church And 5. As all that were not received into the Ark perished so all who get not Spiritually into Christ by Faith or are not Members of the visible or invisible Church shall be damned and perish eternally 6. As Noah's Ark was sometimes no doubt overwhelmed or covered with Waves and those that were in it so all true Believers that are Members of the true Gospel-Church ought to be dipped baptized or overwhelmed in Water And as Sir Norton Knatchbal observes The Ark was a Figure of the Resurrection Speaking of that Text Mr. Owen cites 1 Pet. 3. 20. saith he Baptism which now saves us by Water that is by the assistance of Water is Antipical of the Ark of Noah and it doth not signifie the laying down of the filth of the Flesh but the Covenant of a good Conscience towards God while we are plunged in the Water which is to testifie 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 the Elegancy of it displeasing The Ark of Noah not the Flood was a Type of Baptism and Baptism was the Anti-type of the Ark not as if Baptism is a washing away of the Filth of the Flesh by Water wherein it answers not 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 of Baptism ought not to be understood as if it were a Sign of the washing away of Sin altho' it be thus oftentimes taken Metonymically 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 Noah returned as from the Sepulchre to a new Life Thus far Sir Norton Knatchbal in his Notes printed at Oxford 1677 who though a great Pedo-Baptists yet denyed sprinkling or pouring to be Baptism Now this hath teaching in it and shews the Sente of the Apostle Peter's Words very fully no doubt ut to tell the World because God saved and covenanted with Noah's Family therefore God takes whole Families in Gospel times into Covenant argues great darkness 2. As to Abraham's Family we deny not but his Family was taken into Covenant with God even his natural Seed as such but it was a covenant of peculiarity for simply considered as a Family they were not taken into the Covenant of Grace because there where some godly Families that had no lot or part in that Covenant but we having fully opened the twofold Covenant God made with Abraham at the beginning I shall not renew the Argument again But worthy Brittains let this be well considered by you that as Noah's Family and Abraham's Family were taken into Covenant with God and other whole Housholds under the Law and the whole House and Nation of Israel so they were Types of the Gospel Church even as the whole House or Family of Abraham or whole House and Family of Israel were typically relatively and federally holy it did prefigure that true spiritual Holiness that in Gospel times
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
from Abraham in a lineal way by Generation or in respect had to any Covenant God made with him or his fleshly Seed as such that Covenant and Covenant right being taken away he took away the first that he might establish the second Heb. 10. 9. for the Priest-hood being charged there is made of necessity a change also of the Law Heb. 7. 12. there is therefore now no knowing or esteeming of Persons after that old Covenant manner the new Covenant being quite different or not according to the old which run to Abraham's Fleshly Seed as such they must now believe and their Children must believe before admitted as Members into the Gospel Church therefore if any Man be in Christ he is a new Creature old things are passed away and all things are become new 2 Cor. 5. 17. if any Person be grafted into Christ or into the Gospel Church he must have Faith and be a new Creature or be of the New Creation as the Greek word holds forth â—ay saith he though we have known Christ after the Flesh that is a Son of the Jewish Church or esteemed him upon that account Yet henceforth we know him or prefer him in that respect no more this was that Doctrine 〈◊〉 preached and 't is very probable it was as much from hence that they charged him for perswading Men contrary to the Law as upon any other Consideration whatsoever therefore all your flourish on this respect is vain but since you make so great a stir about the baptizing of whole Housholds I shall add something farther to clear up this Matter and I argue thus viz. 1. If there were no Families or Housholds but in which there are some Infants you might have some pretence for what you infer from hence but how palpable is it that there are every where many whole Families in which there is no Infant or Child in nonage and this being so what certain Conclusion or Consequence can he drawn from hence 2. Besides you know by a Synecdecha a part is put for the whole as Isa. 7. 2 5 8 9. the Tribe of Ephraim is put for all Israel 't is said all Jerusalem and Judah went out to be baptized by John in Jordan In 1 Sam. 1 21. 22. the Text saith The Man Elkanah and all his House went up to offer unto the Lord yet in the next Verse 't is said expresly That Hannah and her Child Samuel went not up nay you have shewed us a Family or whole House that were said to bury the Body of Sampson and yet you tell us the little Children were not included in that Expression all his House 3. As touching the Goalers House 't is positively said Paul preached to him and to all that were in his House do you think he preached to his Infants if he had any but to put the matter out of doubt 't is said he rejoyced believing in God with all his House as well as 't is said he was baptized and all his 4. Touching Lydia we say 't is uncertain whether she was a Maid Widow or Wife but if she was Married and had Children 't is very unlikely if Babes that they were at that time with her because she was far from her proper dwelling nay many Miles from it for she was of the City of Thiatira verse 14. but when Paul preached to her she was at Philippi where she was Merchandizing being a seller of Purple Can we suppose she carried her little Babes so far to Market Besides those of her House were called Brethren who were baptized with her therefore sure Children cannot be here meant will you build your Practice of baptizing little Babes from such uncertain Conclusions when 't is doubtful whether she had any Children or no Or if she had whether they were with her at that time or not our denying of it is as good as your affirming of it yet 't is plain she had Servants or some who are called her Houshold therefore what you say is impertinent upon this account And thus it appears to all impartial Persons that there is nothing in this argument touching the practice of the Gospel Church hear 's no mention made in baptizing whole Housholds of one Infant baptized nor the least color of reason to conclude there were Mr. Burkit is so unreasonable as to put us upon searching the Scripture to prove a Negative i. e. that there were none baptized in Infancy we might as well have desired him to give proof that there never was any Infant ordained an Elder or Pastor of a Church or how can we prove they did not make use of Honey or Oil in Baptism which some of the ancient Fathers used as Mr. Perkins Notes or Salt or Spittle which practice is still in the Romish Church Where is the extream â—unction forbid or auricular Confession or the use of Beads in Prayer and a hundred more such Romish Fopperies May these things be therefore done because we read not that they are forbid I thought adding to God's Word was forbidden Rev. 22. But says Mr. Burkit search the Scripture and produce me any one instance if you can from the time of St. John the Baptist to the time of St. John the Evangelist which was more than threescore Years during which time many Thousands of Infants were grown up to maturity and make it appear there were not any baptized in their Infancy or that their Baptism was deferred till riper years or that there is any divine Command for the delaying the baptism of Children of Christian Parents until they are grown up and I will frankly yield the Cause Bravely spoken Ans I must retort this argument back again on him and must say it is a great argument against Infant Baptism and not for it for say I let it be considered that since there was such a long space of time as 60 Years and more between John Baptist and the Death of John the beloved Disciple or John the Evangelist during which time many Thousand of Infants were born of baptized Believers both of Jews and Gentiles yet we read not of one Infant of them that was baptized Reader observe Mr. Burkit says in the Gospel day and when our Saviour sent his Disciples first to preach they were to teach or make Disciples of those they baptized but upon the Parents believing and being baptized he says their Children were admitted to Baptism also Now say I since many Parents thus taught and baptized had multitudes of Infants born to them how comes it about that we read not of one of their Infants that were baptized no not from the time of John Baptist to the Death of John the Evangelist Can any Man think had any Infants been baptized that God would not have left some account of it to put the matter out of doubt especially since it was never taught Doctrinally nor Commanded Certainly it could not stand consistent with the Care Wisdom and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ to have
it is not denyed but that Infant Baptism was received in the Church in the third and fourth Century with many other Fopperies but that doth him no kindness the Church was adulterated from the true Apostolical Faith and Practice in many Respects in those and after times downwards His fourth Demonstration is this viz. If it was a gross Error in the Primitive Fathers to admit Infants to Baptism then they in suffering such an Error to pass uncensured and uncondemned were guilty of the greatest Impiety c. Answ What then I ask him and you or any other of our Opposers whether ye do not believe for several Centuries those Fathers who admitted Infants to the Lord's Supper without censuring or condemning it were not guilty also of as great Impurity Besides did not the same Fathers hold other Errors See Mr. Perkins Demonst of the Problem pag. 488. These are his Words viz. And whereas some Fathers viz. Ireneus Justin Clement Tertullian held that the Law of Nature had power to save the Gentiles without Christ And again he saith The Fathers have Errors yea and sometimes gross ones Doth not History tell us the Fathers used other Rites also and that in Baptism See Perkins p. 549. The Fathers saith he used some other Rites and Ceremonies which are now omitted as Kissing of the Child which was baptized in Cyprian l. 3. ep 8. use of Milk and Honey use of Milk and Wine Hierom in Is c. 55. It was an use for the Baptizer to blow in the Face of the Baptized and the Party baptized used to Exuffiate the Devil whom he renounced What Credit is to be given to such Fathers Mr. Owen saith That Infant-Baptism was so generally in the Church of God that the Pelagians could not deny it tho they denied Original Sin against the which it was a Medicine And that Bernard who lived between the Year 1091 and the Year 1153 declareth it was the Practice of the Church in those Ages Answ We deny not but readily grant that the Baptism of Infants was in the Church long before that time And remarkable 't is that about 1091 or 1100 Popish Darkness was at its greatest height And was it any wonder those Fathers gave Baptism to Infants when it was the Practice of those times before Bernard to give Infants the Lord's Supper also as well as Baptism Which Mr. Owen knows well enough if he hath read any thing of History 2. Bernard Mr. Owen saith Censur'd those who opposed Infant-Baptism c. 1. From whence it appears there were some Christians who opposed Infant-Baptism even in the darkest time of Popery 2. What Wonder is it to hear that such in those corrupt times who deny'd Infant-Baptism were censured when we who do deny it now are so unrighteously censured by you and your Brethren notwithstanding such clear Light in these days is broken forth Mr. Owen also endeavoureth to prove that the Waldenses were for Infant-Baptism And he seems to charge Mr. Tombs and Mr. Danvers for asserting the contrary Answ To which I answer I see no reason why he should condemn Mr. Tombs or Mr. Danvers in this matter for according to some Histories it appears that the Antient Waldenses and Albigenses as also the Antient Britains were for the Baptizing of Believers see D. Balthazar Lidius in his History of the Church p. 2. col 2. out of Renarius and G. Bildas in his Book called De Historia Aurelii Ambrosii And the Learned Usher in his Book of the State of the Christian Church as Mr. Danvers observes p. 237. shews that they desended Believers-Baptism in opposition to that of Infants see Moreland Book 1. c. 4. p. 67. yet no doubt but some of the Waldenses might be for Infant-Baptism Yet Mr. Owen confesseth that Bernard acknowledgeth that History doth speak of the Waldenses denying Infant-Baptism tho he would fain have it from what the said Bernard saith to be a Slander cast upon them by their Enemies the Papists Let it be how it will concerning them know Noble Britains that we build not our Faith about Baptism upon the Practice and Custom of Men Fathers General Councils Protestant Reformers or Churches but upon the Word of God To conclude with this Argument From hence we infer that the practice of the Church under the Romish Apostacy of Infant-Baptism in every Age since the first Centuries unto these Times is no good Proof for it What tho Calvis and Luther two famous Protestant Reformers and many other Modern Divines were and many Godly and Learned Men are now for this Tradition Must it be therefore a Truth Must our Faith stand in the Wisdom of Men in this matter or in the Power of God and in the Authority of his Sacred Word Our first Protestant Reformers were raised up to restore those Grand Fundamentals of Faith more than to reform Matters of Discipline and about this Rite of Infant-Baptism and some other Ceremonies The Path of the Just is as a shining Light that shines more and more to the perfect Day Prov. 4. 18. You Hint that not one questioned the Privilege of Children to Baptism until the Adversary came while Men slept and sowed Tares among the Wheat Answ Sir you mistake it was while Men slept that the Enemy first sowed the evil Seed of Babes-Baptism in the Church Moreover the Baptism of Believers in opposition to Infant-Baptism I have proved is no part of those Tares the Adversary hath sowed but it is Seed which Jesus Christ himself sowed or 't is I mean his own holy Institution You tell us a Story of one John Smith a Minister of the Church of England who went into Holland and united with the Church of one Mr. Ainsworth and in the end being cast out of the Church he baptized himself and theâ— rebaptized others Answ I could tell you of many evil and foul things and practices done by some Presbyterians but should I brand the whole Brotherhood from thence Do you not shew an evil and detracting Tongue by casting such Odiums upon the whole Body of gracious Christians falsly called Anabaptists For we are not for Rebaptizing or Baptizing again such who have been truly and rightly Baptized that were the proper Subjects of that holy Ordinance 2. But may be this may be a false Story too and wrote in prejudice by such who loved not the practice of baptizing of Believers nor the People who so practise For what need had he to baptize himself were there none called Anabaptists in Holland nor Germany before that time 't is much we have not the Munster Story of John of Leydon I perceive you have malice enough against us the Lord give you Repentance if it be his Will CHAP. XVIII Shewing that Infant Baptism is no excellent way or means to plant the Christian Religion but a sinful thing and therefore in opposition to what Mr. James Owen saith They ought not to be baptized being an Answer to what he hath wrote in his 15th Chapter
of this Because some have erred in staying too long before they were baptized Will you make too great haste and bring in little Babes to be baptized without any Ground or Authority from the Word of God So much shall suffice to your Twelfth and Last Argument Now Sir we have heard all your Proofs for the baptizing of Infants you have it seems impannell'd for your Jury to Sit Hear and Determine this Grand Cause Just Twelve and if they could speak they would being all agreed the Cause being also fully opened give their Verdict on our Side and against your Infant-Baptism but let them rather be so many Witnesses of your summoning the Statute Book and great Charter of the Church viz. God's Word having been opened and the Matter cleared We will appeal now to our worthy Reader particularly to the Antient and Noble Britains to make Judgment for themselves For in matters of Faith and Things that concern our Souls every Christian is to judg for himself Impartial Reader weigh well the matter Consider this we must all be judged by the VVord of God If you can find you are commanded to baptize your Children by Jesus Christ in the New Testament or can find any Precept or Precedent for it you may do it Or if what Mr. Owen hath said hath convinced you that Baptism doth not belong to Believers by good Authority he hath shewed from the Holy Scriptures but that Infants are the only Subjects thereof and that Baptism is nor dipping or burying the Body in VVater but only sprinkling or pouring a few Drops of VVater on the Person 's Face then continue in your former Practice till God shall open your Eyes But if you are otherwise perswaded that Mr. Owen is in an Error then I exhort you that believe in Christ to arise and be baptized But lest Mr. Owen should say 't is too soon for you to make Judgment yet pray stay till we have heard his Answers to our Objections and also all what he hath further to say CHAP. XIX Containing an Answer to Mr. James Owen's 16th Chapter proving that our Objections against Infant-Baptism are very weighty and his Answers to them very impertinent and defective MR. Owen begins with his Sixteenth Chapter after this manner viz. Thus have we proved by the Scripture saith he and by several Scriptural Arguments that the Children of the Faithful ought to be baptized if we look upon this Truth in the Light of the Scriptures Above the Objections of themselves will vanish away yet for the sake of the Weak I shall lay down the strongest of them 1. Object There is neither a Command nor Example in the Scripture for the baptizing of Infants To this Mr. Owen answereth viz. There is not one particular Command totidem verbis naming Infant-Baptism and that is not necessary but there is an Universal Command to baptize all Nations of which Children are a great part If there is a Command for the baptizing of the Parents then there is a Command for the baptizing of Infants for the Children are included in the Parents even as Parts of them being Partakers of the Privileges of good Parents and of the Judgments of the wicked Parents 1. Answ I answer Whether you have or have not proved by the Holy Scriptures and Arguments that Infants ought to be baptized is now upon a fair Trial committed to the Judgment of the Impartial Reader 2. We do not require you to bring a Command in totidem verbis or in so many Words Let Infants be baptized But your Inferences are not good for as you have no Precept no Command or any Precedent to baptize them so you can draw no fair and good Consequences for it from any Text of Scripture You bring the Words of the Great Commission Matth. 28. 19 20. Go baptize all Nations Sir Why dare you leave out part of the Words Is it not Go therefore teach all Nations baptizing them c. We have shewed in our Answer to you already that the Commission requires none to be baptized but such who are first taught or made Disciples which Disciples St. Mark calls Believers He that believes and is baptized Mark 16. 16. They are Reader the Words of the same Commission tho differently expressed by these two Great Evangelists and hold forth the same thing viz. That the Gospel is to be preached in all Nations or to all the World and that those that are discipled by preaching or that do believe ought to be baptized and none else 3. Whereas you say that Children are a great part of the Nations and may therefore be baptized this is a fallacious or deceitful Consequence For may not I as before argue thus Unbelievers i. e. Turks Infidels Pagans and their Children are a great part of all Nations therefore may be baptized Sir I appeal to your Conscience Whether this Inference is not as good and true from the Premises as yours 3. But you ask whether there is a command for the baptizing of Parents no doubt of this we and you agree that there is a command to baptize Parents that believe in Christ and to baptize Children too that believe in Christ but say you then there is a command to baptize Infants because they are included in the Parents even as parts of them now this is utterly false and also very ridiculous 't is for any Man to assert it 1. For if this was so it follows whatsoever God commands the Parent he commands the Child then when God commanded Abraham to offer up or slay his Son he commanded the Son to slay himself it would also follow That 2. When God commands the believing Parent to partake of the Lord's Supper he also commands all his Children to partake of the Lord's Supper because they are all included in their Parents 3. If Children are thus a part of their Parents then certainly if the Parents go to Heaven all their Children must go to Heaven likewise for the whole of Believers shall be saved and not a part of them only 4. Also if the Children are included in their Parents and are a part of them why may not the Parents Baptism serve for the Child and then it would also follow that no Man is a compleat and perfect Man without his Children was ever such Stuff by a Man of Parts and Learning published to the World 5. Sir will your Feeding or eating your Food feed your Children besure as much as your believing and being baptized will feed the Souls of your Children 6. Moreover why do you say the Judgments of wicked Parents fall on their Children did not God say that Proverb should be used no more in Israel but the Soul that Sins shall die If Children partake of the punishment of their Parents 't is when they are alike wicked and walk in the same steps their ungodly Parents walked in But you proceed and say that there is no particular command for the baptizing of Women Answ Male and
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
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
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
behind who is it you cast this reproach upon Is it upon us Or is it not upon Christ himself Did not our Lord Jesus Institute this Ordinance of Baptizing i. e. of dipping the Bodies of Men and Women in water Sir were not those Men and Women that were Baptized in the Apostolical times Dipped Do you descent from all the Ancient and Modern Divines I have Quoted a multitude of them in this Treatise who positively assert this matter to which Chapter I refer my Reader Ambrose saith water is that wherein the Body is plunged Chrysostom saith That the Body baptized is burried in the Water Basil the Great and Dr. du Veil saythe same Bernard saith Immersion is a representation of Death and Burial The Assembly in their Annotations say That the Ancient manner of Baptizing was to Dip the Party baptized and as it were bury them under the Water See Pools Annotat. On Mat. 3. 6. and were baptized of him in Jordan that is saith he Dipped in Jordan and on Rom. 6. 34. he says The Ancient manner of baptizing in those warm Countreys was to Dip or plunge the party baptized Cajetan Daille On the Fathers Tilenus Luther Calvin Perkins Zanchy Paraeus Dr. Cave Dr. Sharp Dr. Fowler Dr. Sherlock the Three last are yet living and many more I have Quoted do all say Baptizing is Dipping Dr. Tillotson late Bishop of Canterbury saith That anciently those who were baptized put off their Cloaths and were immersed and buryed in the Water Now Sir if to baptize by Dipping be Murther do not you charge the occasion of this Murther upon Christ who Ordained baptism or dipping Men and Women in Water what work have you made for Repentance Obj. May be you will object and sâ—y that you own that baptism was dipping in those warm Climates 1. Answ Did not our Saviour send his Disciples into all the World or to Teach all Nations baptizing them that is Dipping them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost 2. Did he send them with this Commission only into warm Climates or Countreys and not into cold Countreys God forbid for there is no other Commission given by Christ to make Disciples by Teaching them and then to baptize them but this only doth not this Commission reach England were all cold Countreys excluded 3. Did Christ give out two Commissions one for warm Climates and to Dip them c. and another for cold Countreys to Teach and Sprinkle them or rather Sprinkle them and then Teach them for so your practice inverts the Order of Christ's great Commission did Christ say go into Hot Countreys and Teach and Baptize Disciples and go into Cold Countreys and Teach and Rantize them What an imperfect Commission doth your practice render the Commission of Christ to be 4. Who gave Men power to change his Commission Baptizing into Rantizing or Sprinkling What an account can you give to him of this at the great Day Or hath the Church or Ministers power to alter Christ's great Commission and so alter or add too and diminish from the words of his Book Sir tremble at the thoughts of these things See Rev. 22. 18. As to Mr. Cradock it seems if he hath wrote as you intimate that he was under great temptation but 't is no marvel we can tell you of some Men and of as great a Name as he that would have the Anabaptists and Independants too to have no liberty to meet together to Preach nor write Books and would have the chief Magistrate to Imprison and Banish them c. Obj. Where as you bring in this as your Objection they may tarry until Summer 1. We answer there is no need of that because what you speak of the danger of baptizing in Winter is absolutely false 2. I know not but there may be as many or more baptized in the Winter than in the Summer You say as soon as they are made Disciples they are commanded to be baptized Acts 24. 41. and ch 8. 38. Answ This is our practice but why do not you stay till then i. e. untill your Children are Disciples it is evil to stay longer then the time and no evil to do it sooner then the time Christ hath appointed 9. This form of Baptizing by Dipping of the People naked or near naked you say is a breach of the Seventh Commandment Thou shalt not commit adultery Mat. 5. 28. This Commandment prohibiteth not only the Act of Adultery but every occasion and provocation thereto every immodest and unreverend Action is a degree of Adultery the Heart of Man is deceitful and desperately wicked Jer. 17. 9. therefore we ought to take heed of every occasion of Sin David fell into Adultery by beholding Bathsheba washing c. 2 Sam. 11. 2. Thus we see that God would not have his People be naked in the Congregation or half naked for there is but little difference between both Exod 20. 26. and ch 28. 42. but they that rebaptize by Dipping the People in publick put off the greatest part of their Cloaths the re-baptizer and He or She that is baptized is near naked which might be a temptation to him that is the Baptizer and to the Spectators if the temptation will not take hold on the Minister who is but Flesh and Blood as others are such a behaviour before a mixt Congregation brings him under a reproach and maketh the worship of God contemptible 1. Answ I answer I am grieved that a Minister and I hope a godly Man should be thus left to himself or be under no better conduct about this matter but thus to add sin to sin whilst he writes about divine things 2. Pray Mr. Owen what is the purport of your Charge now in recriminating and vilifying the Sacred Ordinance of Dipping or Baptizing of Believers this Odium must fall as well on the Primitive Churches and Holy Apostles as upon us you see all your Brethren generally as one Man nay the whole assembly of Divines affirm that in the Primitive times the manner of baptizing was by dipping of the Body all over in Water tho' they would restrain it to those Hot Countreys Will you charge the Holy Apostles and all the Ministers of the Primitive Churches with Adultery Or do you think we in these Cold Climates have not convenient Cloaths to put on People that are to be baptized as they had in those Warm Countreys 3. But if this was all it were not so sad altogether for it was our Lord Jesus worthy Britains who Ordained and appointed Men and Women who are Believers to be Dipped in the Water in his Name and 't is a hard case there is no way to answer this holy Command and Ordinance but the People that do it must be guilty of Adultery must we go into the water naked or half naked Is their a necessity for it Are there no Cloaths to be had or no modest Garments for Men and Women to be provided
to cover all their nakedness even Hands and Feet also if it be needful sure Sir you must suppose somewhat of this kind or there is no room left for you to cast contempt and reproach upon the Ordinance it self but to blame the people they do not provide convenient Garments on purpose that so they may not commit Adultery when they come to be Baptized 4. Sir had you seen our People baptized you had not been guilty of bearing false witness the Second time Reader pray take notice that we provide comely Cloaths for the Administer both from Head to Foot and our Men also that are baptized have Cloaths provided for them and for the Women Gowns and Petty-coats are made on purpose and they go into the water drest more decently perhaps then many Women come into Christian assemblies therefore this is a most unworthy Charge Mr. Owen casts upon us tho' he doth but follow the steps of Dr. Featly and Mr. B. but 't is worse in him at this time of the Day then in them then because our use and practice here is now more generally known And these things being so how can we in Dipping or Baptizing of Women be guilty of Adultery or any of the Spectators Can't you take a Woman dressed in modest and decent Cloaths by the Hand without having an unclean thought in your Heart you may as well charge some Tradesmen in the Exercise of their Trades with Adultery indeed did we as Mr. B. once falsly said baptize Women naked or as you say near or half naked which are both notorious untruths there might have been some colour for what you say but if there be need to Dip the whole Body say you as they say there is what rule have they in the Scripture to baptize the Cloaths with the Body the few Cloaths they have about them are dipped before the Body is dipped 1. Answ All Men may perceive of what a contentious contradicting quarelsome Spirit you are of one while you strive to expose Christ's Sacred Ordinance to reproach and us with it as if we baptized Persons naked and then presently seem to allow that we do not so but that they whom we baptize have Cloaths on but now the Cloaths are baptized and then ask what Scripture we have for this 2. 'T is enough Christ Commanded Dipping in his Name and we are required to do all things decently 'T is no matter so that the Body is buried in the Water 't is not the Cloaths that we say we baptize but the Person Christs Ordinance of Baptism in one essential part lies in the words of Administration Do you never Sprinkle some drops of Water on the Child 's Fine dresses if you should what doth that signifie you have wrote hard words and Christ is coming to convince all of their ungodly deeds and of all their hard Speeches spoken against him Jude 15. I pray God this Sin be not laid to your Charge Thus I have been helped to take off that reproach and vile slanders cast upon the baptizing Believers and have proved it is not re-baptization therefore let Mr. Owen cast of his slanderous clamarous Pen and Infants Rhantism and repent and return to the Baptism which Christ Instituted and left in his Church to the end of the World and now to make appear the evil and sinfulness of Infant Baptism take what follows which I have transcribed out of my answer to Mr. Burkitt's Book that he wrote for the Baptizing of Children two or three years since CHAP. XXI Shewing that there is no Blessing to be expected in Baptizing Infants but rather the displeasure of the Jealous God demonstrating contrarywise to what Mr. James Owen hath said also Mr. Burkit and Mr. Daniel Williams and all other pedobaptists that it is avery sinful and an unlawful practice AS Mr. Owen hath laboured in vain to shew the usefulness of Infant Baptism so Mr. Burkit a Learned Minister of the Church of England who in his late Treatise for Infant Baptism also did see page 35 36 37 38. of his Book 1. Mr. Burkitt saith Children are hereby Interested in all the prayers of the Church 1. Answ If you pray for them as Members of the visible Church what ground have you so to do from Gods word since God in the Gospel times had not made them Members thereof 2. Can't we pray for our Children tho' as yet they are not Members that they may become Members thereof 2. He saith by vertue of this admission they have interest in the special providence of God Answ No doubt but God doth exercise his special Care and Providence over all Elect Infants but not the more for your baptizing them without his authority or Command much less Infants of Believers as such 3. He says Hereby the Church stands nearer to them then to the rest of mankind c. mentioning that Text Ifa 54. 13. Thy Children shall be all taught of God 1. Answ Neither you nor Mr. Burkitt nor any pedobaptists in the World can bring Infants nearer to God nor his Church by any act done by you without any rule left by Christ 2. Does that Text Isa 54. 13. refer to Infants of Believers as such or to those godly and new re-born Children who being born in sin are indeed her Spiritual Children 4. He saith Irfant Baptism is an act of Dedication c. Answ Who commanded you this way to Dedicate your Children to the Lord Will you Teach the Almighty or are you wiser than he Doth he in his word require you so to do 2. May not the Papists say as well that those Persons they bring under their voluntary Vows are thereby Dedicated unto God 5. Mr. Burkitt saith 'T is great advantage to Infants as 't is an Act of restipulation that is saith he a Child at baptism enters into Covenant with God Answ I answer Poor Babes 't is without their knowledge and consent or God's appointment which is worst of all or they being able to perform it then nor many of them ever after God never giving them his Grace so to do But wo to them if they do not perform this Covenant if Mr. Burkitt and Mr. Daniel Williams say true he says in his Catechism as followeth That those Children who perform not their Baptismal Covenant do 1. They reject Christ 2d They renounce the Blessings of the Gospel 3dly that 't is Rebellion against their Maker 4thly That 't is ingratitude and perjury against their Redeemer 5thly Gross injustice to their Parents 6thly That 't is self-killing Cruelty to their own Souls 7thly 'T is he saith a damning Sin nay it s the heart of all Sin Is this indeed the love you Pedo-baptists have to your poor Infants What bring them into such a Covenant without their knowledge and consent or God's appointment and then threaten them if they break it with Hell and Damnation and what not Do you know they are all Elect Persons and so such that God will
have put some of the Texts of Scripture down at large that you cite and doth that Text in Psalm 72. 13. not relate to Jesus Christ personally considered if not only so yet Christ mistical viz. the elect Seed and not to all the Members of the visible Church as such and so also in the other Scriptures and dare you thus abuse the Sacred Scriptures applying these prayers and promises to all your Infants 2. Do your Children as such walk according to that Rule Gal. 6. 16. are they all new Creatures read the Context or do you not falsly apply and interpret these Scriptures 3. And if all unbaptized Persons be without any share in those prayers you your self are without them for you was only Rantized But what stress do you lay upon Baptism Are none Membes of Gods Mystical and Spiritual Sion but such who are baptized 4. Also how do you go about to blind and deceive the Souls of your Children in causing them to believe they are Members of Gods Sion and have part in those prayers when it may be 't is false or no such thing they being some of them when grown up wicked or ungodly 3. Say you as you are Members of the Church of God you have a particular right unto the promises the inheritance of the Church are the promises they belong unto her and not to others as formerly the promises belonged to the Visible Church of the Jews so now to the Visible Church of the Gentiles Rom. 9. 4. Gal. 4. 23. 1. Answ I have proved that our Children as such are not Members of the visible Church no nor ought any of the Children of Believers to be taken into it but such that believe that repent or that are born again 2. If any others viz. such that are not regenerated are taken into the visible Church whether Infants or Adult Persons 't is not by God's appointment and therefore such have no right to the Special and Spiritual promises of God which are the peculiar inheritance of the elect of God 3. The visible Church of the Jews as so considered had many external promises belonging to them that is not deny'd which the Gentile Church hath no right unto but the whole Jewish Church or all her visible Members had not a right to the Spiritual Promises of God They are not all Israel that are of Israel Rom. 9. 6. neither because they are Seed of Abraham are they all Children vers 7. that is they are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed vers 8. You mention the 4 Verse but mention not the Verses I have cited which open the 4th verse and thus you go about to give a false Exposition of the Scripture and deceive the understanding of your poor Children and others also But say you though the whole Members of the visible Church be not partakers of the Grace of the Promises Heb. 4. 1. which are given to the elect only yet all the Members of the visible Church have more right to this Grace then others that are without it being their own Fault if they refuse it Answ You in the first place speak right here but what you speak in your next Words are utterly false 1. You say the whole Members or all the Members of the Visible Church be not partakers of the grace of the promises this is right but why do you say that all the Members of the Visible Church have more right to the promises then those poor Souls who are enquiring the way into the Visible Church in all sincerity of Heart 'T is I fear dangerous for people to set under such a Teacher I affirm that the State of such that are let into the Visible Church who are unsound or carnal Persons is worse then the State of others neither are they under the promises of grace above others for 1. First they conclude perhaps all is well with them and that they are converted because the pastor of the Church nay and the Church her self so judgeth of them and from hence they look not after regeneration or true Convertion but look upon themselves to be Holy or Saints of God now the promises of Grace do not run to these as they do to those that see themselves lost and undone Sinners being far from God and out of the pail of the visible Church therefore you do your Children great Mischief and hurt in taking them into your Churches unless they are Converted and truly gracious 't is no blessing nor benefit to be false Members of the visible Church but what do you mean by the last Clause is it the Sinners sault if he is not elected or can Men obtain Grace if they will True they ought not to refuse God's Call Say you your baptized Children seek a clear understanding of that Obligation and the Vow of your baptism Learn of your Parents and Ministers to know the signification and need of your Baptism ye are given unto Christ and are not your own ye are bound to renounce the Devil and all his Works to renounce the pomps and vanity of this wicked World to renounce the pleasure and lusts of the Flesh you are bound to take God the Father to be your God and chief end taking the Son to be your Lord and Saviour unto you and God the Holy Ghost to be your Sanctifier c. 1. Answ Those that are baptized should understand the Nature of that Obligation before they enter into that Covenant 2. The end of Baptism was Ordained by Christ to shew that the Person baptized is born again is dead to sin not that he ought or is bound afterwards to be Born again no no but after he is baptized he is obliged thereby to walk in newness of life You by baptizing Infants invert the design and end of Baptism how should your Children understand this Obligation when their Parents and Ministers are so ignorant about the nature of that Obligation themselves 3. Believers do thus take God the Father Son and Holy Ghost in baptism to be their God but so do not Infants by any appointment of God 4. It appears that you approve of the Church of Englands Catechism if so all your Baptized Infants are according to your Doctrin in Baptism regenerated and have thereby renounced the Devil and all his Works c. 3. As soon as ye come to Age and Understanding renew your Covenant with God the Lord hath received in his Covenant the Faith of your Parents for you in your Infancy but now ye are of Years if ye your selves will not believe and repent and take God to be a God unto you your baptism will not longer benefit you c. Answ I answer if it be thus your Children are not much beholding to their Parents Faith nor to Covenant Grace you tell them when their Parents believed and were saved all their Children were saved and in covenant with them
Whether there is any Covenant appointed by Christ for Infants to enter into unto which no promise is made of assistance to perform it nor Blessing promised if it be kept nor one threatning if cast off and disowned 13. What should be the reason that our Translators of the Holy Bible should leave the Greek word Baptism or Baptisma untranslated seeing the Dutch have not done so but contrarywise Translate for John Baptist John the Dipper and for he Baptized them he Dipped them The Athenian Society answer They are the best Judges themselves and if we can understand them 't is enough Reply No tho' the Learned in the Greek do know what the word Baptizo and Baptisma is yet the unlearned in that Tongue do not know that it is to Dip or Immersion â—…refore 't is not enough 14. Whither such who have been Sprinkled ought not to be deemed unbaptized Persons since asperson is not Immersion or Rantizing not Baptizing seeing the Greek word signifies to Dip and tho' sometimes to Wash yet such a Washing as is by Dipping as the Learned confess To this they say Those that doubt may be of the surer side 15. Whither the Ancient Church who gave the Lords Supper to Infants as well as baptism might not be allowed to do the one as the other since Faith and Holy Habits yea to believe with all the Heart is required of them that are to be Baptized as Faith Examination and to discern the Lord's Body is required of them that partake of the Lord's Supper and since also all that were baptized into the Apostolick Church were immeditely admitted to the Lord's Supper and also seeing the arguments taken from the Covenant and because Children are said to be Holy and belong to the Kingdom of Heaven are as strong for their being admitted to both the Sacraments as one and there being no Command nor example for either and Human Tradition carrying it equally for both for several Centuries 16. Whither Nadab Abihu and Uzzah's Transgressions were not as much Circumstantials and so as small Errors as it is to alter Dipping into Sprinkling and from an understanding believer to an Infant that understands not its Right Hand from its Left and whether to allow the Church a power to make such alterations be not dangerous it being an adding and diminishing from God's Word see Rev. 22. 18. and doth not this open likewise a Door to any other like innovation 17. Whither there is any just cause for Men to vilifie and reproach the Baptists with the Name of Anabaptists for their Baptizing Believers seeing aspersion is not baptizing and in regard also that they have the direct and positive Word and Command of Christ so to do and not only the Commission Mat. 28. Mark 16. but also the constant use of the Apostles and Ministers of the Gospel all along in the New Testament who baptized none but such who made a profession of their Faith in the Gospel time observable 't is also that the Church of England also saith that Faith and Repentance are required of such who are to be baptized 18. Whither if our Translators had Translated the Greek Word Baptizo from â—â—pto they must not have Translated it Dipping or to Dip from the Native and Genuine signification of the word and whether they have done well to leave those words in the Original Tongue without giving the plain meaning in the English 19. Seeing the Greek Church uses Immersion to this Day and not aspersion or Sprinkling may not it be a great argument against Sprinkling seeing also that they disown the Baptism of the Latin Church because they do not Dip For doubtless the Greeks best know the genuine literal and proper signification of that Word that Tongue being their own Natural Language in which the New Testament was Originally written 20. What reason can be given why Nazianzen an Eminent Greek Father should Counsel the deferring the Baptism of Infants untill the third or fourth year of their Age except in danger of Death if it were in Nazianzen's time as some suppose it was the Opinion of the whole Church as also his own that Infants by an Apostolical Tradition were to be baptized as such that is as soon as born 21. Whither all the Fathers of the Third and Fourth Century both of the Greek and Latin Church who have wrote any thing about Infant Baptism do not unanimously give this as the reason why Infants should be baptized viz. for to wash away Original Sin or the putting them into a capacity of Salvation and some of them particularly St. Austin sentencing Infants to Damnation if not Baptized 22. If so whether the Fathers might not be mistaken in the Right of Infant Baptifm as well as in the Judgment of most Protestants they were touching the reason why they should be baptized 23. Whither God hath allowed or enjoyned Parents to bring their little Babes of Two or Ten days Old into a Covenant with him by Baptism since 't is not to be found in the Holy Scripture that he either hath allowed or injoyned them so to do there being neither Command nor Example nor the least intimation given for them to do it 24. If it cannot be proved he hath required any such thing at theit Hands whether that Covenant can be said to bind their Conscience when they come to Age especially since they gave no consent to do it nor were capable so to do 25. And if this pretended Covenant was not of God's appointment I Query how those Children who refuse to agree to the said Covenant when they come to Age can be guilty as Mr. Daniel Williams says 1. of rejecting Christ 2. Of renouncing the blessings of the Gospel 3. And that 't is Rebellion continued against their Parents 4. That it is Ingratitude and Perjury to their Redeemer 5. Gross injustice to their Parents 6. That it is self-killing Cruelty to their own Souls 7. The damning Sin I Query whether this is good Divinity or not or rather is it not a strange Doctrin and whether those unwarrantable Articles of Faith taken out of the Jewish Talmud or Turkish Alcoran may not be of as good Authority or whether it be fit to put such positions into a Christian Catechism as these are Pray be pleased to Answer these plain Queries when you write again or Reply to this answer of your Book CHAP. XXVI Containing Divers Arguments to disprove Pedo-Baptism and to prove the Baptism of Believers which Mr. Owen is desir'd to Answer when he writes again Arg. 1. IF none are to be Baptized by the Authority of the Great Commission of our blessed Saviour Mat. 28. but such who are first Taught or made Disciples by Teaching then Infants who are not capable to be taught ought not to be baptized But none are to be baptized by the Authority of the great Commission of our Blessed Saviour but such who are first Taught or made Disciples by Teaching Ergo Infants ought not to