the Seal of the Covenant of Grace for hath the Covenant of Grace any other Seal that Seals to us all the Blessings of that Covenant save the Holy Spirit only the Spirit of God is called a Seal Eph. 1. 13 14. Chap. 4. 30. but so is not baptism called any where 2. If all your Children have the Seal of the Covenant of Grace or all the blessings thereof sealed up to them shall they not be all saved all know a Seal confirms and gives an assurance of all the Priviledges Blessings and Profits that are contained in that Covenant to which it is prefix'd 3. You falsly also apply that Text in Ezek. 16. 5 6 7. that is not applicable to our Infants as such but to God's Israel or Believers who were once like that wretched Infant cast out in its Blood but God entered into Covenant with us and washed us c. But are all believers Children washed in the Blood of Christ no doubt they are in the Covenant of Grace that go to Heaven that die in Infancy but the rest remain polluted in their Original and actual pollution until they believe in Christ Jesus and are negenerated by Divine Grace tho' they are baptized for that washeth them not 4. Set time a part say you for earnest praying praying to the Lord for to forgive the Sins of your Child to Sanctifie his Nature and bless the Ordinance of Baptism unto him c. Answ Prayer is good and a great Duty 't is to pray for our Children but take heed how you pray their baptism may be blessed since Christ did not appoint any Baptism for them in Infancy hath he promised any blessing to that or will he bless an Invention of Men 5. When the Minister doth baptize thy Child do thou act Faith in God's Covenant for thy self and thy Child c. Ans How can you act Faith in doing that which God hath made no promise unto you or to your Children believers that are baptized may act Faith indeed 1. Because Christ commandeth them to be baptized Mat. 28. 19 20. Acts 2. 37. 2. Because he hath promised unto them great blessings in Baptism Mark 16. 16. Acts 2. 37 38. but there is neither a precept for nor promise made unto Infants Baptized 1. Speedily do it stay not as Moses did to Circumcise his Child Exod. 4. 24. the which had like to cost him his life it is true God bindeth us not at this time to the Eighth day as he did the Jews yet we ought not to delay Vid. Cypr. Fidem Ep. 59. Answ Make not more speedy hast then good speed or more hast then God directeth you why not delay since God no where saith on the Eighth Day nor at a year Old nor three years Old but when they believe then they ought to rise indeed and not tarry and be baptized but since you have no Scripture for this advise you Quote Cyprian who would not have the Adult delay if he speaks it of Infants he is no rule for us the Ordinance was corrupted in his time where is it written in Gods Word Moses had a command to Circumcise his Son on the Eighth Day therefore he ought not to delay longer but what is this to your case 2. Cheerfully as one Marrieth his Child with the Lord Jesus Christ Answ Cheerfully do it no do it not at all on your peril For 't is as Mr. Baxter saith a strange Marriage where there is nothing of consent 3. Publickly say you before the Congregation Answ And yet not ashamed shew your authority first Your other advice seems tolerable good save what you speak concerning your Infant Baptism in Teaching your Children the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and giving them good examples and in putting them into godly Families in doing thus you may expect a blessing from God but none of these things will add any vertue to their Infant Baptism to make that any ways effectual to them so much only shall suffice as toy our 18th Chapter CHAP. XXIII In answer to Mr. James Owens 19th Chapter wherein he gives advice to Children with an answer to his Queries that he would have the Antipedobaptists to reply unto CHildren bless the Lord for the priviledges of your Baptism God hath taken you into Covenant say you with your Parents he hath prevented you with the blessings of goodness and made you nigh who being by Nature a far off ye are no more Strangers and Foreigners but fellow Citizens with the Saints and the Houshold of God Eph. 2. 19. 1. Answ Must they bless God that their Parents deceived them with false hopes of priviledges which neither they nor your selves know what they are or for putting a cheat upon them to make them think their State is better thereby and yet cannot prove it from Gods Word so to be How doth God prevent them with blessings of Goodness by your Rantizing them doth your pretended baptism insuse grace or gracious habits unto them or what to 〈◊〉 or is â—t the blessings of that Vow you brought them under voluntarily without any authority from God 2. Are you not afraid to affirm that Children by their baptism are by the Lord made neer unto him and made thereby Children of God who were by Nature Children of Wrath and no more Strangers and Foreigners c. If this was so shall they not be all Saved Can any thing bring Children near to God and make them fellow-Heirs and Citizens with the Saints but a Sacred Work of God's Spirit upon their Souls and doth your Baptism do this 2. Can such that are no more Strangers to God c. ever perish Is there a possibility of Final falling from a State of true Grace and if it be thus ought not your Children to have all the priviledges of the Houshold of God the Lords Supper c. 3. Will you attribute those High and Sublime Priviledges that belong to believers who are only born of the Spirit to your poor Babes that yet remain Children of Wrath and unrenewed by the Grace of God is not this a ready way to blind the Eyes of your Children and ruine their Souls if they should believe you herein You are under that Gracious Providence say you which watcheth over the Church c. 1. Answ You must first prove them Members of the Church and not only Members but all of them elected Persons for they are such Members that the special Providence of God is over 2. You say they have a share in the daily prayers that are put up for the Church of God Psalm 72. 15. Prayers shall be made for him and daily shall he be praised Psalm 51. 13. Do good in thy good pleasure to Zion and build the Walls of Jerusalem Gal. 6. 16. As many as walk according to this rule peace on them and mercy on the Israel of God If you had been without baptism you should have been without and so without any share in these prayers Answ I
World are in the Covenant of Grace and not Mankind only but the Fowls of the Air and Beasts of the Field and it had a Sign or Seal also to confirm it to all viz. the Rainbow now your argument from hence must be this because the Sign or Seal of the Rainbow belonged to Noah and his Sons to confirm the Covenant Blessings therefore Baptism belongs to all Gods Noahs and their Sons and Daughters and you may extend the inference further if you please but perhaps 't is rather the command of God to Noah you cite Gen. the ninth Chapter and first Verse and that was given to Noah and his three Sons Shem Ham and Japheth and in them to all the World well but what is this Command take the words and God blessed Noah and his Sons and said unto them be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth I know not what this is brought for nor what Cornelius could draw from thence unless it was to stir up his Sons and Daughters to marry and beget Children which certainly is one thing if not all that God commands Gen. 9. 1. to Noah and his Sons that so the World might be a fresh increased and multiplyed with People after the Flood 2. You say he could no less then know the rest of the Proselytes who received Circumcision that they and their Children were in Abraham's Covenant and also he at this time by his receiving the Gospel should come into the same Covenant so that he and his whole House should be the first Fruits of the Gentiles Thus Peter founded the Christian Church of the Jews and Gentiles in Housholds according to the ancient practice from the beginning of the World Ans I answer 't is a great abuse of the sacred History to say Peter founded the Christian Churches in particular Housholds for the first Church consisted of Three Thousand and there is no mention made of any particular Houshold but perhaps two of a City and one of a Family as God promised were at that time brought into God's Gospel Sion also here were many gathered together at Cornelius's House as appears Verse 33. 2. Why do you not distinguish between the Covenant made with Abraham's natural Seed as such and the Covenant of Grace God made with him c. you think that those blind and unbelieving circumcised Proselytes were as truly in the covenant of Grace even in the same covenant God made with Abraham's spiritual Seed as Cornelius was after he believed in God and Jesus Christ why then doth Paul say and if you be Christs then are you Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to the promise Gal. 3. 29. besides the Covenant of peculiarality made with Abraham's natural Seed as such did not intitle the Proselyte stranger to the inheritance of the Land of Canaar Oh! that the Lord would take this Vail from off your Eyes every Soul must reckon from Christ not from being Abraham's natural Seed that would be one of Abraham's spiritual Seed and an Heir according to the Promise Paul you say planted or founded Churches among the Gentiles even in the same manner as Peter did when the head of the Families believed he did baptize the whole Family 1. You say he planted the Church of the Philippians in Housholds Acts 16. 14 15. a certain Woman named Lydia which worshipped God heard us whose Heart the Lord opened that she attended unto the things that were spoken off by Paul and when she believed she was baptized and all her Houshold You note on this Text three things first that Lydia was a Proselyte before to the Jewish Religion and the Proselytes of the Gentiles and their Children were in God's Covenant through Baptism and Circumcision and here you tell us the story over again of Moses the Son of Maimon about baptizing Proselytes that they baptized Proselytes among the Jews by command of the Council c. Ans I answer you will have I see all these to be re-baptized also I cannot see but you are truly a grand Anabaptists in your Judgment and such an one that I never met with before first you intimate they were baptized by a Jewish humane Invention and the second time baptized by virtue of Christ's command let who will be your Proselyte I will not who thus contend for and mix the Traditions of Men with Christ sacred Institutions 2. Had Lydia and her Family a right to Baptism because a Proselyte I thought your Brethren always asserted her Childrens right thereunto by virtue of her Faith Secondly you note as soon as she believed she and her Houshold were baptized according to the order of Gods covenant to receive the faithful and their Seed c. 1. Ans I answer then Baptism it appears is no mear positive command of Christ but wholly depends upon Gods Covenant with Noah or else his Covenant with Abraham 2. You ought first to prove she had any Seed either Sons or Daughters and if she had whether any of them were Infants 3. Prove that because her Houshold is said to be baptized every individual person in her House was baptized seeing we read of a whole House went up to offer unto the Lord but not all two of the House went not up 1 Sam. 1. 21. 22. 4. Prove that Paul planted a Church in her House if he did I shall make it appear that they were all adult Persons and such that did believe in Christ and as to your argument that in the New Testament whole Families received the Gospel 't is not denyed but some whole Housholds then did believe or the major part of them and so now adays but not many such but would you therefore have Churches to consist only of private Families This a is new way to prove national Churches You say after the same manner the Apostle offered Salvation to the keeper of the Prison and his Household if he only believed Acts 16. 30 31. and he said believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy House Paul explaineth unto him the Covenant of God to the Faithful and their Seed saying unto him believe and thou shalt be saved and thy House he doth not say thou shalt be saved and thy House if ye believe but believe thou and thy House shall be saved with thee the promise of Salvation belongeth to the Houshold if he believed who was the head of the Family c. Ans Sir I positively charge you for writing and publishing false Doctrine and acquit your self of it as well as you can I appeale to the Consciences of your Brethren and to all understanding Men whether this be a truth or not viz. that when the head of a Family doth believe in Christ that all the whole Family shall be saved I must confess that this is a new and easie way for all in such Families to be saved but doth not Christ say he that believes shall not be damn'd Mark 16. 16. let them dwell in what Family
only is the publick Head of his Seed a Believer's Faith objectively justifies and saves himself only not his Children Could Reverend Mr. Jones find no better a Pen to defend his Cause of Pedo-Baptism My Faith may be said to unite me to Christ but doth it also unite my Child to Christ Whatsoever good Children do receive from their believing Parents besure the Parent 's Faith doth not render his Child a Believer but however my Faith doth not make the Condition of my Child worser than it was and it may not make the Condition of my Child better for all the good Counsel Education good Example and Prayers some Children have from their Godly Parents they make them not the better 'T is not in him that willeth nor in him that runneth but in God that sheweth Mercy You intimate what Cause there is of bitter Sorrow in the Churches of God that the Major part of their Children are out off from the Covenant of Salvation Answ Our Doctrine cuts off not one Child of any Believer that is in the Covenant of Salvation if God hath elected the major part of the Children of the Faithfull we say they shall be saved 'T is impossible for any to cut off one of God's Elect. But what is this to their Children as such or to the positive Right any of our Infants have to Baptism Do you cut off your Infants from the Covenant of Salvation because you will not give them the Blood of the Covenant I mean the Lord's Supper Brethren Both the Sacraments are Ordinances that are of meer positive Right viz. depending as to the Subjects and all Matters thereunto belonging upon the Sovereign Will and Pleasure of the Lord Jesus the great Law-giver and as they that come to one Ordinance are to examine themselves and to discern the Lord's Body So all they that come to the other are to believe in Christ and to repent from dead Works You mistake 't is not the Eternal Covenant of Grace that you say you stand up in the Gap to maintain but you strive to introduce in Gospel-Times an external relative Covenant according to the Flesh like that Covenant of Peculiarity which God made with Abraham and his Natural Seed as he was a publick Head and Father of the whole House of Israel or of the National Political and Typical Church of the Jews Nay you would fain have all the Seed of Believers to be in that Covenant that peculiarly and absolutely did belong to the Natural Seed of Abraham as such and none else Now 't is this thing which we deny we say that there was a twofold Covenant made with Abraham signified by Sarah and Agar And tho there was Grace and Mercy in both yet the Covenant of Grace or Free Promise was not made to Seeds as of many i. e. not to all the natural Seed of Abraham or Seed of Believers as such but primarily it was made to Christ and in him to all the Elect who alone are in the Eternal Covenant of Grace That the Election takes hold both of some of Believers Seed and some of the Seed of Unbelievers is evident and tho God may comprehend in his Eternal Love more of our Seed than of the Seed of Unbelievers yet I have proved in this Treatise and Reply to Mr. Owen that the Covenant of Grace and the Election of God runs nor to the Seed of the Faithful as such and also that Believers Seed nor Unbelievers Seed until they believe in Christ ought to be baptized nor taken into the Visible Church because 't is not the Covenant of Grace considered as such that gives any Person a Right to Baptism but the meer positive Command of our Lord Jesus Christ whose express Command and Commission injoins none to be baptized but such who are Believers or such who are discipled by preaching the Word Mat. 28. 19 20. Mark 16. 16. John 4. 1. Acts 2. 37. Acts 8. 12 14. Acts 8. 37. Acts 10. 47. Acts 16. 30 31. Acts 18. 8. Rom. 6. 3 4. Mr. Owen tells Mr. Jones who he says hath the Tongue of the Learned that his desire was that he would be a Disputant for those Weaklings who are not able to dispute for themselves Reply He tells us one while that Mr. Jones desired and importuned him to write his Treatise and at another time he says his Will and Desire was that Mr. Jones should do it As touching the Reverend Mr. Samuel Jones I have had such an account of him by a Worthy Minister that I am fully satisfied that had he wrote on this Subject we should have had no such bitter Reflections or ill Treatment as we meet withal from this Man He hath dipped his Pen into Gall and Wormwood and hath made work for Repentance besides I am informed that Mr. Jones neither put him upon this Work nor approves of it tho perhaps when he saw his Forwardness he might say Go on and do it Sirs those Weaklings he means need no such a Disputant he hath done them no service nor the Church of God either we throw none of them out of that Eternal Covenant of which he speaks nor can Men nor Angels do it such of our Infants that are in the Eternal Covenant are safe enough But we deny that our Infants are in that Covenant of Peculiarity which God made with Abraham and his natural Seed as such And this I doubt not but you will find in the insuing Answer sufficiently proved Moreover He says He stands up in the gap to maintain the Eternal Covenant which God made with the Faithful and their Seed Great is the Truth and it will overcome Reply He should not boast before he puts off his Armour that may be a Truth in a Man's Opinion which is a gross Error in it self You will when you have read our Answer the better judg whether he hath prov'd the Baptism of Infants to be from Heaven as in the Title of his Book he asserts it is He farther says We are Fathers and the Law of Nature teacheth us to preserve the Inheritance of our Children Reply Our Affections are not less to our Children than his we are Fathers also but are not willing to give an Inheritance to our Children which of right belongs not unto them Grace nor gracious Privileges in the New Covenant come to be the Inheritance of our Children in a Natural way as they are our Off-spring tho evident it is in the Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham the Jews and their Seed as such had an Inheritance given them by the Lord i. e. many Legal and External Privileges besides the Land of Canaan which Circumcision was a Token or Sign of but we and our Children have no right to that Inheritance They had the Shadow we and our Children that believe have the Substance they had the Shell we the Kernel The true Inheritance is by Faith that it might appear to be of Grace and not in Circumcision
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
Because they can partake of that which is signified by Baptism 8. From the form of Baptism under the Law 9. Because John baptized Infants according to the Practice of the Jewish Church 10. Because the Apostles baptized whole Houses 11. Because the Christian Church baptized Infants in every Age. 12. Because 't is a vertuous means to plant the Christian Religion Sir I shall examine all your Grounds and answer each of your Argumenrs in order And first of all that of the Covenant with Abraham You argue thus viz. Abraham and his Seed were under the Covenant of Grace we the Gentiles are a Seed to Abraham and the Covenant of Grace belongeth as extensively unto us as it did to Abraham even to us and to our Children and if the Children of the Faithful are in the Covenant of Grace can any Man forbid them the Seal of the Covenant viz. Baptism Answ 1. I answer 't is well you cannot deny that Baptism belongs to the Faithful viz. to Believers we then are right who baptize such and if Faith both in order of Words and in order of Practice in the Apostolical Days preceded Baptism then none but Believers ought to be baptized but by your own Confession Faith both in order of Words and Practice in the Apostolical Days did precede Baptism 't is not he that is baptized and afterwards believes but contrary ways he that believeth and is baptized Faith is required as prerequisite to Baptism in all that Christ enjoins Baptism upon which Infants are not capable of 2. As to your first Argument for Believers Seed to be baptized from the Covenant made with Abraham I shall shew it is invalid and will do you no Service First Because there was a twofold Covenant made with Abraham one with his Natural Seed as such the other with his true Spiritual as such So that what you say that Abraham and his Seed were in the Covenant of Grace viz. his Spiritual Seed is not denied by us but that all his Natural were in the Covenant of Grace the Apostle denies and shews the contrary Rom. 9. 6 7 8. Now if I prove there were two Covenants made with Abraham what is become of all you have said in respect of this matter And that it is so let what followeth be considered 1. We affirm that the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham is not the same or one intire Covenant 2. We shall consider whether there be the same reason of Circumcision and of Baptism 1st We say there was a Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant made with Abraham and all Believers in him or all his true Spiritual Seed 2dly But the Covenant of Circumcision or that Covenant God made with his Natural Seed as such was a distinct Covenant from the Covenant of Grace these two Covenants were signified to Abraham by Sarah and Hagar as the Apostle shews in plain words Gal. 4. 24. Which things are an Allegory for these are the two Covenants c. And now fully and plainly to prove this great Truth viz. that there were two Covenants made with Abraham take this Argument Arg. If the Covenants take their Denomination from the Promises and the Promises are distinct viz. some Evangelical belonging to those that the Gospel belongs unto and others Domestick or Civil Promises especially and absolutely respecting the House and Natural Seed of Abraham and Policy of Israel then there were two Covenants made with Abraham but this is so Ergo c. To make it clear and prove it it is evident that that Promise was Evangelical belonging to the Gospel-Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. 5. I have made thee a Father of many Nations And so is that Promise Gen. 15. 5. So shall thy Seed be in which it is promised that there shall be of the Nations many or a great number that shall be Abraham's Spiritual Children by believing Rom. 4. 17 18. Also it was Evangelical which we find in Gen. 12. 3. And in thy Seed shall all the Kindreds of the Earth be blessed These 't is evident respect all Gospel-Believers who are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham See Gal. 3. 8. And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Heathen through Faith preached the Gospel to Abraham saying In thee shall All the Nations of the Earth be blessed And more directly to Christ who is the Seed of Abraham as Gal. 3. 16. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made He saith not And to Seeds as of many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ that is to Christ as the Head and Surety of the Covenant of Grace and so primarily and directly to him and then in him to all who are his according to that Gal. 3. 29. And if you be Christ's then are ye Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise See also Acts 2. 25. 2. Moreover that the Domestick and Civil Promises were many is plain As 1. Of multiplying the Seed of Abraham 2. The Birth of Isaac 3. Of the Continuation of the Covenant with Isaac 4. Of the coming of Christ out of Isaac 5. The Bondage of the Israelites in Egypt and their Deliverance out from thence and of their possessing the Land of Canaan Gen 15. 18. Gen. 17. 8. And I will give unto thee and to â—â—y Seed after thee the Land wherein thou art a Stranger 〈◊〉 the Land of Canaan for an everlasting Possession and I will be their God So Gen. 15. 18. In that same day God made a Covenant with Abraham saying Unto thy Seed have I given this Land from the River of Egypt unto the great River Eupâ—rates Can you be so ignorant as to affirm this Covenant-Contract made with Abraham was made with the Natural Seed of believing Gentiles Nay or that it was made to Abraham's Spiritual Seed Compare these Scriptures with Acts 7. 4 5 6 7 8. and thus it appears the Covenant made with Abraham is a mixt Covenant or a twofold Covenant one made with his Natural Seed the other with his Spiritual â—eed and this is fully signified by Sarah and Hagar the Free Woman and Bond Woman and their Sâ—ns Isaac and Ishmael Gal 4. 22. Secondly The Seed of Abraham is many ways so called 1. Christ is called the Seed of Abraham as I said before Gal. 3. 16. by way of Emmency as he is the Head and Surety of the Gospel-Covenant 2. All the Elect Rom. 9. 7. all Believers Rom. 4. 11 12 16 17 18. Gal 3. 29. If ye be in Christ then are ye Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise 3. There was a Natura Seed of Abraham to whom the Inheritance did accure this was Isaac Gen. 21. 22. 4. We read or another Natural Seed of Abraham to whom the Inheritance it is positively said did not belong as Ishmael and the Sons of Keturah Gen. 15. 5. But now can the Infant-Seed of Believers as such be said to be the Seed of Abraham in any of
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-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
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-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
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
before the Law or under the Law thus baptized You say that Jacob received little Children into God's Covenant by Baptism because he said unto his Houshold Put away the strange Gods that are among you and be ye clean and change your Garments Gen. 35. 2. Answ 1. Was this Command given to his little Children or had they corrupted themselves with Idolatry or by worshipping strange Gods or who did he appoint to baptize his Babes 2. What tho the Hebrew word signifies cleansing or washing with Water was it therefore formally the Ordinance of Baptism Did ever any Man argue after this manner before 't is a sign you want Proofs for your Childish Baptism in the New Testament that you go to Genesis for it and to such a remote Text that includes nothing of the Controversy But you say Circumcision was abominable in the sight of the Gentiles because the Children of Jacob made it to be an Ordinance of Mortality unto the Sichemites Gen. 34. and the greatest part of Jacob's Houshold were Gentiles therefore Jacob received their Wives and Children into God's Covenant through washing of Water or Baptism and according to the Example of Jacob they used to baptize all the Gentiles that received Circumcision for their wise Men spâ—… thus None are Proselytes until circumcised and baptized Lightâ— vol 1. p. 210. And they baptized the Children with the Parents little ones are to be baptized according to the Ordinance of the Counsel Mâ—â—n in Light Answ 1. If this be so that the Baptism of Children was among the Jews or in the Jewish Church from the beginning why do you plead for Baptism to come in the room of Circumcision it appears your Infant-Baptism is near or altogether as old as Circumcision it self therefore it could not come in the room of that 2. I have read I must confess in some Authors that the Jews did receive their Proselytes both by Circumcision and Baptism but you seem to intimate that old Jacob was so wise to dismiss Circumcision to his Gentile Proselvtes because Simâ—on and Levi made it so odious and did contrive or institute Baptism in its room as the only Rite to receive them into God's Covenant I must confess Jacob had many Failings but I never heard him thus charged and rendered guilty of such an Abomination before How Sir could he lay aside God's holy Ordinance of Circumcision at his Will and Pleasure and that too because his Sons had brought a Reproach upon it and did he devise a new Ordinance namely Baptism in its room What an abominable Innovation had he been guilty of should he have done this thing which you seem posicively to affirm 3. Nay and this is not the worst of Jacob's Sins neither for it appears by your plain words that you suppose that the Jews from this Example of Jacob used to baptize all the Gentiles that received Circumcision tho it appears the Jews did not follow the Example of Jacob in throwing Circumcision away and exchange it for Baptism yet by Jacob's Example did baptize all their Gentile Proselytes whether Men Women and children so that he caused them to set up or add a Tradition of his own devising to God's Institution For I challenge you or any Man under Heaven to prove that God commanded Jacob or any Patriarch or Jewish Rabbies to baptize any Proselyte either young or old when received into their Church 4. Behold you Pedo-baptists the Rise and Foundation of your Infant-Baptism according to Mr. Owen's Conceit Why where have we it even in Noah's Ark wherein the whole World were baptized For let me thus argue If all the World in Noah's Ark both rational and irrational Creatures were baptized then Infants may be baptized nay and all Unbelievers and Cattel also but the former is true Ergo. But if we have not the Rise of it here we have in Gen. 35. 2. Then said Jacob unto his Houshold and unto all that were with him Put away the strange Gods that are among you and be you clean and change your Garments 5. Now from Jacob's bidding them to be clean Mr. Câ—… infers he commands them all to be baptized but without any Authority or Command of God even all his Houshold Jews and Gentiles Men Women and Children Believers and Unbelievers Pray take the Consequence or Inference from hence 't is better perhaps to prove Infant-Baptism than from those whole â—ousholds said to be baptized in the New Testament Jacob commanded all his Houshold and all that were with him to be baptized among which were Gentiles and their Children therefore we Gentiles and our Children may be baptized Yea and our Men-Servants and Maid Servants tho they be Negro's whether they believe or not for Jacob perhaps had some gross Idolaters in his Houshold therefore the worst of Men as well as little Children may be baptized Honoured Britains you have seen but little of this Controversy in your Language But Mr. Owen seeing the old Argument which the Asserters of Infant-Baptism have brought to be too weak to establish it to be of God and from Heaven out of the New Testament he hath found out new ones never heard of by me before I mean this of Jacob's commanding his whole Houshold and all that were with him to be clean that is saith he to be baptized all of them So that Infant-Baptism hath its Rise not from the Command of Christ but from the Command of Jacob and that not from Circumcision for Jacob laid that aside because his two Sons had caused Circumcision to be odious and hateful to the Gentiles he therefore contrived Baptism in its stead O when will this Man cease to pervert the holy and righteous way of God in his Institution of Believers Baptism 6. I find also that Mr. James Owen hath found out the first Rise or Original of that human Tradition of the Jews in baptizing their Gentile Proselytes both Men Women and Children But I am very sorry it is fathered upon holy Jacob Mr. Burkitt I must confess makes that Custom that was among the Jews a grand Argument for Infant-Baptism and as if the New Testament without the Old was not a sufficient Rule for the Practice of Gospel-Baptism but that we must have recourse to the Old Testament as well as the New To which I answer That tho in some Points of Faith and Practice the Old Testament and the New together is the Rule by which we ought to walk yet his Trumpet and yours in this case gives an uncertain Sound For in respect of Practice were there not many Laws and Precepts given to the People of the Jews which no ways in the least concerns us or God's Spiritual Israel under the Gospel If you explain your self no better you may soon subvert the People and carry them away to Judaism with a witness â—…y and instead of baptizing Children upon such a Childish and Erroneous foot of Account make them think they ought to circumcise them as some of
Mr. Owen saith it plainly appears that the sprinkling of VVater is not Baptism 2. That God receives all into the Covenant of Grace and Gospel Church through the Spiritual washing of Regeneration and Sanctification of the Spirit and that such only by Christ's positive Command ought to be baptized 3. That there was no Gospel-Baptism no Baptism of Christ under the Law but that 't is a pure positive Command and Institution of our Lord Jesus in the Gospel 4. That God received none of his People under the Law into Covenant through Baptism or through sprinkling of Water and Blood And that the sprinkling of Blood was a Figure of the Atonement of Christ's bloody Sacrifice and the sprinkling of Water of the sanctifying Virtue of the Spirit in Sanctification and not that Gospel-Baptism was signified thereby 5. That 't is only the meer positive Command of Christ in the New Testament that gives being and a just Right to Gospel-Baptism 6. That tho the Children with their Parents were taken into the Legal or Typical Jewish Church by God's positive Command that being a National and Typical Church yet no Children or Parents are by the positive Command of Christ in the New Testament to be received into the Gospel-Church but only those of them that believe and are washed in the Blood of Christ and sanctified by the Sacred Water of the Holy Ghost sith the Church of God now is not National but Congregational not consisting of the Fleshly as such but the Spiritual Seed of Abraham And since there being no Precept nor Precedent in all the New Testament that any one Infant was baptized or taken into the Gospel-Church it follows 't is an Human Tradition 7. That the Covenant on Sinai and the Ceremonial Law was not the Covenant of Grace tho given in subserviency thereunto and the latter a clear Figure of the Covenant of Grace and held it forth to all such who by Faith could see beyond those Sacrifices to the Anti-type of them Lastly Mr. Owen saith If Children were baptized formerly into Covenant ought they not to be baptized into his Covenant now especially because the Grace of the Covenant being enlarged under the Dispensation of the Gospel and the Privileges being more extensive I answer He doth but beg the Question asserting that which he proves not nor is ever able to prove viz. 1. That Children were baptized into the Covenant under the Law What Pedo-baptist ever asserted this before And in vain doth he affirm it now especially since he cannot prove sprinkling is Baptism 2. That all Infants were received into Covenant with God by Legal sprinkling and not till then but certainly all the Infants of the Jews were born Members of that National Church therefore not received into that Church and Covenant by Circumcision which most of the Assertors of Childrens Baptism do affirm much less not by sprinkling Blood and Water upon them Yet that sprinkling of Blood and Water might I deny not be a Sign that they and the whole House of Israel were God's Legal Covenant People and so the Type of the whole Spiritual Israel who should be washed in the Blood of Christ or Blood of the New Covenant and sanctified by his Spirit as is said before 2. Moreover evident it is that tho the Covenant of Grace in the Dispensation of it under the Gospel is enlarged and the Spiritual Privileges more extensive than were the Privileges of the Legal Covenant and Legal Church yet the external Privileges are less and not so extensive now as was theirs How many outward and earthly Privileges had the Jews and Ministers of God under the Law more than the Saints and Ministers of Christ have now Many of which I have reckoned up in the beginning of this Treatise Thus I close with your Eighth Argument CHAP XIV Proving that Children have no Right to Baptism from John the Baptist's Administration of Baptism in Opposition to what Mr. James Owen saith in his 12th Chapter That John baptized no Infants neither according to the Practice of the Jewish Church nor by virtue of any Commission he had from God that sent him Containing an Answer to Mr. Owen's 9th Argument for Pedo-Baptism MR. Owen saith If John baptized Infants Baptism doth always belong unto them for the Baptism of John and the Baptism of the Apostles were the same in the Substance of it He baptized in the Name of Christ to come and they baptized in the Name of Christ that was come Answ If you can prove John baptized Infants you do your Business indifferent well Now say you What we are to prove in this Chapter is that John baptized Infants to manifest this let it be considered 1. John the Baptist came not to nullify the Covenant of Abraham but rather to fulfil it and the Covenant of Abraham was that God would be a God to his People and to their Seed all the Visible Church of the Jews were in this Covenant John warneth them that they trusted not in the Privileges of this Covenant by living ungodly Lives he doth not in any Place make void this Covenant but rather confirms it saying God will raise other Children to Abraham if the Jews brought not forth Fruit meet for Repentance he came to baptize the Seed of Abraham which were all of them in the Covenant of God not only the Parents but the Children also Therefore their Children had the same right to Baptism as their Parents had Answ 1. I deny not but the whole House of Israel were in Covenant with God both Parents and Children and so abode till the old Covenant and old Covenant-Seed were cast out but What saith the Scripture Cast out the Bond-woman and her Son Gal. 4. 30. Now the Apostle tells you by the Bond-woman is meant the Sinai Covenant and by her Son the natural Seed of Abraham as such Gal. 4. 22 23 24 25. 2. This Grant of yours proves that the Jewish Covenant which took in all the People both Parents and Children was not the Covenant of Grace because but a finall number of the Jews were in God's Election and so in the Covenant of Grace See Dr. Owen on the Hebrews 3d Vol. Pag. 256. The Covenant of Grace in Christ is made only with the Israel of God the Church of the Elect. Pag. 291. The new Covenant is made with all who effectively and eventually are made Partakers of it and if they are not so with whom the New Covenant is made it comes short of the Old in Efficacy who were actual Partakers of the benefit of that that is of those external Benefits 3. Nor doth that which you mention help you viz. that in that Covenant made with Abraham and the whole House of Israel 't is said God would be their God or a God to Abraham and to his Seed in their Generations For First God may be said to be the God of a People divers manner of ways as Dr. Bates observes 1. Upon the account of
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
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
contrived no doubt to make the Church great and large i. e. to make whole Families Parishes and Nations the Church this is evident and if this be the way to continue and enlarge the Church the Lord deliver the true Church from such a Practice and Invention of Men. I look upon Infant-Baptism to be one of the chief Pillars of the Romish Church and of all National Churches and Constitutions in the European World this is that Christendom that is so cried up and the way of making and continuing the pretended Christian-Name in the Anti-christian Church and World all are made Christians in their Infant-Baptism And thus the Inhabitants of the Earth are cheated and deluded with a Shadow and empty Name that signifies nothing and certain I am until Christendom as it is called is Unchristianed of this pretended Rite or Christendom and the Inhabitants of the Earth become new Christianed there will never be a thorough Reformation I mean until they see that Christianity or Christian-Name which they received by their Infant-Baptism signifies nothing but throw it away as an Human Innovation and labour after true Regeneration or a likeness to Christ and so believe and are baptized upon the profession of their Faith according as in the Apostolical Primitive Church 'T is Infant-Baptism that tends to uphold all National Churches and deceives poor People who think they were thereby made Christians 3. Doth it follow because many Thousands that were baptized as you call it when Infants were after they come to Age truly converted That that blessed work of Grace upon their Hearts was by virtue of their Infant-Baptism or from any Motive that arose from thence Or was it not wholly done by the Power of God's Word preached to them through the mighty Power and Operations of the Holy Ghost upon their Souls God hath shewed his Mercy I grant to such Christians who were Rantized or Sprinkled in Infancy in a gracious manner But this is not to be ascribed to his owning and blessing that Invention of Pedo-Baptism be sure God will never own as you well say an Earthly Invention and I have clearly proved that Infant-Baptism is nothing less or more than an Earthly or Human Invention therefore God never blessed that O how few are converted or truly regenerated that have in their Infancy been as you say baptized nay of the Seed of the Faithful What a Multitude remain ungodly and so live and die notwithstanding their Parents Faith and their Reception of their Infant-Baptism The Lord open the Eyes of you Worthy and Noble Britains and send true Light among you as to this matter Infant-Baptism prevents Mr. Owea saith the shameful Neglect of Baptism if Children had been left unbaptized it would be so difficult to persuade many good People to receive Baptism as at this Time 't is to persuade them to receive the Lord's Supper The Nature of Man is very unwilling to undergo narrow and spiritual Obligation We read in the History of the Primitive Church that several good Men that turned from Paganism delayed their Baptism until their Latter Days Constantine being very Aged before he was Baptised and fallen into a Disease of which he died Theodosius was not baptized until he was fallen sick as Socrates p. 5. 6. And we are not to think say you that People would be more ready to receive Baptism in these Days than they had been in those that are past 1 Answ I Answer it is a shameful thing indeed to see how many good People do neglect Christ's Holy Ordinance of Baptism and to see how difficult 't is to persuade them tho' they do truly believe to be baptised and so orderly come to the Lord's Table But what is the reason of it is it not because you and such as you have strove to deceive them and blind their Eyes by telling them that Sprinkling or Rantism is Baptism or Baptizing and that they were baptized in their Infancy they are alas too ready to build their Faith herein upon their Teachers The Teachers of my People saith the Lord cause them to err And say they such a learned Man such a worthy Doctor and Minister is for Infant-Baptism Can they be mistaken Sure if it were an Error they must needs know it 2. 'T is not very hard to persuade our Children when God converts them to be baptized they readily submit to it and until then they have no more right to Baptism than they have to the Lord's Supper 3. Will you to anticipate your Children in fear they will not be baptized when they come to Age contrary to the Word of God baptize them when in their Infancy I must tell you by the same parity of Reason since some of them you find are so hard to be persuaded to receive the Lord's Supper you may as the Antient Fathers did give them the Lord's Supper in their Infancy also you have as much Authority for to do the one as the other 4. Do you not implicitly on this Occasion grant and confess that Baptism of Right belongs to the Adult but that politically it hath been contrived to baptize Infants for fear they should not be persuaded to be baptized when they come to Age And you are willing to continue the Practice because it is in these Days by you and your Brethren rendered to be a very odious thing to be dipped or baptized when they come to Age and do believe The Truth is this Ordinance calls for great Abasement and much Self-denial 't is a hard thing to come under the Baptismal Covenant and Obligation in Adult Persons when we are rendered as bad as Adulterers and Murderers who baptize Men and VVomen according to Christ's Commission that are Disciples And 't is hard also when the baptized Person knows he being come to Understanding what he is bound and obliged to do by his Baptismal Covenant viz. to mortify the Remainders of Sin and to walk in Newness of Life Rom 6. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. Therefore since you fear they will not freely and voluntarily list themselves under Christ's Banner or become his Spiritual Souldiers when they come to Age you will and that unknown to them force them into these VVars in their Infancy without Christ's Authority or their Consent under this specious Pretence viz. you fear they will not do it when they are grown up 5. What you speak concerning those Christians who in the Primitive Times delayed their Baptism until the latter part of their Lives makes directly against you for those Christians who were converted from Paganism to Christianity did not only delay their Baptism but many Godly Christian Parents I have shewed in the last Chapter did delay the baptizing of their Children until they came to Age and did believe And the Error of that long Delay arose from that great Mistake that Baptism washed away Sin therefore some delayed Baptism until such time they thought they were ready to go out of the World 6. But what
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
a right to baptism since 't is a meer positive Command of Christ 10. Ask him whether ungodly Parents that spring from Abraham's Loyns by Isaac-in their Generations were not as much obliged by God's positive Command to Abraham to Circumcise their Male Children as the Faithful and Godly Parents were obliged to Circumcise theirs this being so 11. Ask him why all ungodly persons and unbelievers ought not now to Baptize their Children as well as believers should baptize theirs 2. You bid your Children ask such that deny Infant Baptism can they prove from Scripture that Christ came in to the World to make the condition of Children worser then it was before Ans Tell Mr. Owen he hath had this Question answered in this Treatise over and over viz. Tell him the Spiritual Priviledges of Children now are more then theirs were under the Law So that our Children lose no Divine and Spiritual blessings or priviledges which the Children of the Faithful once had God hath the same love to and care of our Children under the Gospel as he had to theirs under the Law but the Temporal blessings of the Jewish Children and their External or Earthly priviledges then were more then our Children have in Gospel times the Gospel Church being established upon better promises theirs were under the promise of heaping up Gold and Silver and possessing outward peace and to enjoy a Land that flowed with Milk and Honey True the external or outward dispensation of the Gospel Covenant which our Children are under far exceeds theirs for the clearness of Light and Revelation of Christ and for other Spiritual priviledges ours excells Besides no doubt but the Children of believers under the Gospel far exceed the priviledges of unbelievers by the blessings of a Godly Education and the like But we say it was not the Covenant of Grace that gave right to Circumcision under the Law but the positive Law and Command of God so 't is not the Covenant of Grace that gives right to baptism but Christs positive Command which runs not unto our Children untill they do believe and bid Mr. Owen prove that Infant baptism doth make the condition of Children any ways better then the condition of our Children who never were baptized 3. Were not little Children say you the first Martyrs that lost their Lives for the sake of Christ Mat. 2. 16. If God Honoured them to be the first Witnesses for Christ being baptized in Blood will he deny them water Baptism 1. Answ Were they only the Children of Believers that Herod Murthered how will you prove that but suppose it was so doth it follow from thence that we ought to baptize them without a Command why do you not say and will not Christ allow our Children the Ordinance that holds forth the Shedding of his Blood as well as Baptism that holds forth he was Buried c. 4. If the Baptism of Infants be evil why doth the Devil say you Tempt Witches or Sorcerers to deny that Baptism And what is the reason that Satan cannot have any power over them until they renounce their Baptism and after that they have not any strength to resist him any longer as several of them confessed Park of Witches Vol. 3. page 640. 1. Answ Ask Mr. Owen why the Devil doth not love nor can't endure Popish Holy-water or is such a fearful enemy to that as the Papists say it hath often been manifest is the Consecration of Water therefore of God's appointment Why may we not give credit to the Papists as well as unto Witches and Sorcerers 2. Because he cannot prove Infant Baptism from Arguments from Heaven will he go for Arguments to prove it to be Christs Ordinance taken from Hell 3. The Devil is a crafty and subtle Adversary doth not he do this to make People love and approve of their Infant Baptism which no doubt Christ never appointed 4. However this Testimony is given only by Witches and Sorcerers and what ground have we to believe them 5. Ask them will they give you assurance that you will be better Christians by receiving of their baptism if they say you will be the better answer them that you see several of them growing worse after their re-baptization 1. Answ Ask Mr. Owen whether there are not more People that were Baptized or rather Rantized in Infancy that prove vile and ungodly then among them that were baptized upon the profession of their Faith 2. What assurance can he give to Infants or to their Parents that the Children they baptize shall be better Christians thereby Also how will he prove that the Children of believers who were baptized in Infancy prove generally better Christians then the Children of those Believers that did not baptise them in their Infancy 3. Ask him if the baptism of believers upon the profession of their Faith as Christ commanded be the worse because some like Simon Magus take it up and prove ill Members and scandalous in their Lives 1. Say you tho' they are Members of a Congregation walking by the Rule of the Gospel before they had their re-baptization they after break the Unity of the Body they were Members of by separating themselves Baptism is an Ordinance of Unity but re-baptization is the breaking off the Unity of Churches 1. Answ Why do you use such Tautologies and needless repetitions you had this before and I have answered it we deny our baptism to be re-baptization and have proyed your Rantism is no Baptism at all 2. Infant Rantism 't is true Unites National Churches and Churches Built upon that or the like Constitution and so it Unites many false and Anti-christian Churches I must confess as the Church of Rome and some others in the World much of the same nature but 't is the baptism of Christ viz. that of believers that Unites together according to the order of the Gospel all the Members of a true Gospel Church and the denying of Infant baptism and being baptized upon a profession of Faith does but break the Union of Churches of the Saints that are formarly true and orderly gathered according to the Institution of Christ and the rule of the Gospel For was not the first Gospel Church at Jerusalem gathered out of the National Church of the Jews of Persons that repented believed and upon the profession of that Faith Baptized that is Dipped in Water in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost also the Church in Samaria Acts 8. and that in Acts 10. and that at Corinth Acts 16. and that at Ephesus Acts 19. and ought not all Churches so to be gathered to the end of the World ought we not to separate from such Churches that do not hold the Ordinances that appertain to Church Constitution as they were first delivered to the Saints and from such who are guilty also of an Human Innovation ought we to partake of other Mens Sins or ought we not to keep our selves pure Touch not Tast not Handle not which