Speak Sir your Mind freely the next time for God willing I shall be ready for you O when will you cease to corrupt the Word of God by your Tradition You say Mr. Tombs saith If Children are Members of the visible Church they ought to be baptized I do not remember Mr. Tombs saith so and if they are Members of the visible Church before baptized they cannot be made Members by Baptism 'T is absurd to say to a Man Come into this House or to say Bring such a Child into the House that is in it before For Baptism say you is the Door through which we come into the Church of God Those that say they are not Members of the Church of God ought you say to shew us a plain Scripture for their casting out if they can of one Church since Adam until this latter Age of which little Children were Members c. And again you say if they were cast out how comes it to pass that there is not one word in Scripture mentioned of it call for a Scripture from those that would shake your Faith concerning this Prerogative Answ 1. I have answered this already We say and prove that Infants were never received at all into the gospel-Gospel-Church therefore cannot be said to be cast out of it 2. We deny what you affirm without any Proof viz. That Infants were always Members of the Visible Church since Adam Prove if you can they were received as Members before that Typical Church-state which was constituted in Abraham's Family 3. The First-born of Israel were holy the Priests Sons had a right to the Ministery or Priesthood shew when they were cast out and lost both those Prerogatives and that very way you must take to answer will serve to answer your self in respect of Infants Church-Membership The Answer must be this the National Church and Church-Membership and Priesthood of the Jews are dissolved and taken away and thereby all those external Rites and Prerogatives the Jewish Children had are gone 4. These were as Legacies left in the old Will in the old Testament but there is a new Will made or Christ hath made his last Will and Testament and in this his last Will and Testament none of these external Rites or Prerogatives as you call them are left to Infants Sir there is no need in a new Will in the last Will and Testament to mention Negatives that is not usual not what is not left but only in the Affirmative what is left therefore in vain is this Flourish it will do your People who are shaken in their Belief of your Tradition no good 5. You bid them call for a Scripture from those that oppose their Practice in the Negative i. e. that forbid Infants Church-Membership or speak where they were cast out O how dangerous is your Doctrine May not the Papists say to them also Where do you read holy Water and holy Garments are forbid Moses commanded the People to be sprinkled with Water and many other Rites that were among the Jews We say the Papists call for Scripture where those things are forbid which they have among them or when God cast them out of the Church What Human Tradition may not be let into the Church at this Door You say the unbelieving Jews would have stumbled if Paul had cast out their Children from the Church and put them in the same Condition as the Children of Infidels Answ 'T is your mistake he told them plainly that the Children of the Flesh were not the Children of God i. e. of the Promise or of the true Gospel-Church as such Rom. 9. 5 6 7. yet they stumbled not nay shewed them they and their Children had no external Privileges above the Gentiles and that Circumcision availed them nothing and yet the believing Jews stumbled not at his Doctrine Sir no doubt when the Jews are called they will not be of your mind to plead the old Covenant-right of their Children being Members as such You say That we judg the Adult holy because they are separated unto the Lord in a Profession of Holiness altho it be too often an Hypocritical Profession and shall we not say you judg the Children of the Faithful to be holy whom God so called c. Answ 1. God called the whole House of Israel holy because he separated them to himself both Parents and Children in a legal Church-state whether the Parents were Believers or faithful Persons or real Saints or not but God in the Gospel hath separated none to be Members of the Gospel-Church but such that are Adult Persons Believers in â—ued with real Holiness There is I tell you again no Fleshly Relative Federal Holiness under the Dispensation of the Gospel spoken of disprove it if you can 2. As to the Holiness of Infants born in lawful Wedlock they are by the Lord called holy or a Godly Seed Mal. 2. 15. And did he make one i. e. one Wife yet he had the residue of the Spirit and wherefore one that he might seek a Godly Seed that is a godly or holy Seed by Legitimation whether the Man or the Woman joined together in holy Matrimony are Believers or Unbelievers their Seed is a godly or holy Seed in this respect and not only the Seed of the Faithful as you intimate but the Seed of Unbelievers also and so not a Federal or Spiritual Holiness as you would have it The Seed born to the Faithful say you in lawful Wedlock are a godly and holy Seed God calleth such his Children that were born to them Ezek. 16. 20 21. As it was formerly even so it is under the New Testament those that are separated unto the Lord by Baptism are called a holy Nation Answ It follows then by your Argument that the Children of Unbelievers born in lawful Wedlock are not a holy Seed that is they are Bastards or Cast-aways but you must first prove their Marriage unlawful and the Holiness here mentioned such you speak of before you carry this Point 2. All the Children of the whole House of Israel were typically and federally holy then in that National Church you confound typical federal Holiness and Matrimonial Holiness together which are quite remote in their nature 3. We say all Believers baptized under the Gospel are spiritually holy and are called 1 Pet. 2. 7. a holy Nation a Royal Priesthood but this holy Nation consisteth of none but Adult Persons that believe who are called lively Stones building up a spiritual House 1 Pet. 2. 5 6. not a National Church consisting of Parents and their Fleshly Seed as such as under the Law But if for Argument-sake we should grant all that were in the Gospel-times received as Members in the visible Church should be called holy in Charity from that Profession they made yet this will do you no good until by God's Ordination you can prove that the Infants of Believers were received as Members into the Church in Gospel-times as they were into
Ordination as the Jews had Are we under the Promises of heaping up Gold and Silver and if we are obedient to live in Peace and to be saved from our external Enemies for many such like Privileges and Promises the Jews and their Children had under the Law The truth is your External Federal Holiness Root and Olive-Tree will-afford but little Fatness either to our selves or Children considered distinct and apart from Spiritual Blessings and Holiness What is a simple external Profession good for without true Grace and a saving Interest in Christ and Assurance of Eternal Life What more doth it serve to do than to blind and deceive the Souls of such external and carnal Professors What is an Ordinance without the God of the Ordinance What is the Sign without the Thing signified What is the Lamp without Oil or a Cabinet without the Jewel or a Shell without a Kernel or the Name of a Christian without the true Nature of a Christian You say The first Parents sanctified the whole Nation of the Jews not with true Holiness in the Heart for many of them were wicked but with a Federal Holiness because they and their Seed were separated to the Lord in an External Covenant I am glad to see you open the Eyes of your People now they may see what little good that federal Holiness and the Covenant with Abraham can do to their Infants 't is but only to give them a Name that they may be called Christians Is this the Promise that belongs to the Faithful and their Children Is this the Blessing of Abraham that is come upon the Gentiles Are they not Spiritual Blessings Is it not Spiritual and Heart-Holiness Is it only to be in an external manner by an external Covenant and visible Profession separated to be the Lord's and called his when indeed and in truth spiritually and savingly they are not so Is this that Covenant confirm'd by the Oath of God that gives you such strong Consolation touching your Infants as such as before you pleaded for 4. Moreover do you not own by what you here affirm that there were two Covenants made with Abraham since that Covenant which was made with the whole Lump or whole House of Israel was as you positively assert not a spiritual but an external Covenant Sure I am you do believe there was a spiritual and an eternal Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and all his true spiritual Seed and that he was a Root spiritually holy by virtue of that spiritual and true Gospel-Covenant God made with him and as the whole Lump were all federally holy in a Spiritual Sense as himself was and as he had first Fruits given to him who were spiritually and truly holy also so there are many Branches still that daily spring out of that Spiritual Root and Spiritual Covenant that are federally and spiritually holy as the Root was holy Sure there was a Covenant made with Abraham and of which he is considered as a common Root or common Head and from which Root and Olive-Tree it is impossible any one of his Spiritual Seed can be cut off for if not so How is the Promise sure to all the Seed Rom. 4. 16. and how is that Covenant a ground of strong Consolation to all the Heirs of the Promise as Heb. 6. 17 18 19. 5. But the truth is the purport of your Exposition of this dark Text all may see is to prove the Gospel-Church to be as extensive wide and large or every way of the same Nature and Latitude with the National Church of the Jews and therefore you plead for the Fleshly Seed as such to be received as Members thereof Sir I know you not but I thought you had held for the Congregational Way but the truth is Infants Church-Membership is only calculated for a National Church and therefore best sutes with Presbyterism and Episcopacy You say the Jews and their Children were broke off and the Gentiles and their Children were received into the same Privileges which the Jews had c. Answer 1. If you would prove that the gospel-Gospel-Church is National consisting of whole Parishes Families and Kingdoms you must bring Proof for this Constitution from the New Testament Show where Christ instituted or ordained such a Church-state or what whole Gentile Nations consisting of Believers and their Children and Unbelievers or ungodly Persons professing Christianity and their Children were constituted by the Apostles a Gospel-Church for evident it is all believing or godly Jews and their Children and all ungodly Jews who owned the Jewish Religion and their Children were Members of the National Church of Israel under the Law 2. Also prove that if such a Gospel-Church Constitution can be proved out of the New Testament that therefore all the external Privileges and Rites of the Jews must belong unto such a Gentile Nation and Gospel-Church that did belong to the National Church of the Jews Must they have the same Rites and Privileges and yet not the same Is Baptism Circumcision 3. If it came as you dream in the room of it then it would follow that Baptism belongs only to Male-Infants if not so 't is not the same Privilege but differs greatly you must have therefore some word of Institution or some good Authority from Christ to enlarge this Privilege so far as to allow it to Females also 4. And why this Privilege only had not the Jews and their Children many other external Privileges besides Circumcision Why must not the Gentiles and their Children that are grafted in as you suppose in their room receive all the Privileges as well as one or two You have done your Work by halves 5. Besides what you say that the first Parents sanctified the whole Nation of the Jews is false It was not they that separated or sanctified them but God himself i. e. by his absolute Command and holy Institution therefore you must prove the like Command and Institution for such a National Church under the Gospel as was under the Law Sir I desire no better Task than to prove the Gospel-Church consists of none by Christ's Appointment and Institution but only Adult Persons believing and professing Faith in Jesus Christ incorporated together in a holy Covenant And when you write again lay down your Arguments to confute what I here say and I shall God sparing my Life be ready through his Assistance to give you an Answer which will utterly throw away your Infant Church-Membership And since the old Covenant and old Covenant Church-state is taken away and dissolved by the establishing of the Gospel-Covenant and gospel-Gospel-Church you must bring your Arguments and Proof from Christ's last Will and Testament or all you do will signify nothing Now Reader having shewed thee that the Exposition Mr. Owen hath given of this Metaphorical Scripture is false and inconsistent with the Truth as it is in Jesus I shall give thee my Thoughts of the true Purport of it and in regard I have once
being the Children of Abraham as such gave them a right to Circumcision or rather the meer positive Command of God to Abraham To this they gave no Answer Query 2. Whether Circumcision could be said to be a Seal of any Mans Faith save Abraham's only seeing 't is only called the Seal of the Righteousness of his Faith and also of the Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised To this the Athenian Society answer amongst the Ancient Hereticks they never met with such a strange position as this viz. that the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith was the priviledge of Abraham only Is this an answer Besides they mistake it is not a Position but a Question Furthermore 't is said that Abraham received the sign of Circumcision not only as a Seal of the Righteousness of that Faith he had being yet uncircumcised but also Mark that he might be the Father of all that believe Was this the priviledge of any save Abraham only Query 3. What do you conceive Circumcision did or Baptism doth seal or doth make sure to Infants since a Seal usually makes firm all the blessings and priviledges contained in that Covenant 't is affixed to The Athenians answer It Seals and did seal to all that did belong to Christ Life and Salvation but to such as do not it Seals nothing at all To which I reply How dare any Man Seal the Covenant of Salvation to such who have not that Faith Abraham had before he received that Seal It was not a Seal of that Faith he might have or might not have afterwards but of that Faith he had before he received it Secondly I affirm Baptism is no Seal at all of Salvation for if it was and of God's appointment all that are Sealed would be saved even Simon Magus but many who are Baptized may perish eternally and do no doubt Query 4. I demand to know what those external priviledges are Infants partake of in Baptism seeing they are denyed the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and all other external Rites whatsoever If you say when they believe they shall partake of those priviledges and blessings so say I shall the Children of unbelievers Turks and Pagans as well as they The Athenian Society answer We insist not upon external priviledges 't is forrein to the Matter 1. Ans If you insist not on internal priviledges nor on external priviledges that are Sealed to Infants that are Baptized what does their Baptism signifie Just nothing but which is worse 't is a prophanation of Christ's Holy significant Ordinance of Baptism and this indeed is worst of all Query 5. If the fleshly Seed or Children of believing Gentiles as such are to be counted the Seed of Abraham I Query whither they are his Spiritual Seed or his Natural Seed if not his Spiritual Seed nor his Natural Seed what right can they have to Baptism or Church Membership from any Covenant Transaction God made with Abraham The Athenians answer They are his Spiritual Seed Visible for so far only belongs to us to Judge and therefore they have a right to the Seal of that Covenant Reply What they say cannot be true because the Scripture positively saith that such who are the spiritual Seed of Abraham have the Faith of Abraham and walk in the Steps of Abraham and are Christ's Gal. 3. ult But Infants of Believers as such cannot be said to have the Faith of Abraham nor to walk in Abrahams Steps c. 2. Such who are Abrahams Spiritual Seed are in the Election of Grace and are always his Seed not for so long but for ever we can judge none to be Abraham's Spiritual Seed but such only in whom these Signs appear before mentioned but none of those Signs appear nor can appear in Infants therefore we cannot judge they are his Spiritual Seed to whom the Seal of the Covenant of Grace of right does belong Query 6. Whither the Children of Believers are in the Covenant of Grace absolutely or but conditionally if only conditionally what further priviledge have they above the Children of unbelievers Query 7. Whither those different Grounds upon which the right of Infant Baptism is pretended by the Ancient Fathers of Old and the Modern Divines doth well agree with an Institution that is a meer positive right wholly depending on the Sovereign will of the Legislator and whether this doth not give just cause to all to question its authority 1. Some Pedo-baptists asserted it took away Original Sin and such who denyed it were Anathematized 2. Some affirm that Children are in Covenant and being the Seed of Believers are Faederally Holy therefore to be Baptized 3. Another sort of Pedo-baptists say they ought to be baptized by vertue of their Parents Faith 4. Another sort Baptize them upon the Faith of their Sureties 5. Others say by the Faith of the Church as Austin Bernard c. 6. Others say they have Faith themselves i. e. Habitual Faith and therefore must be baptized 7. Some say it is only an Apostolical unwritten Tradition But others deny that and say it may be proved from the Scripture 8. Others say 't is a Regenerating Ordinance and Infants are thereby put into a savable State Others say the Infants of Believers are born therefore safe before in Covenant with their Parents To this Query they say nothing pretending they had answer'd it before Query 8. Whither that can be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither precept nor example nor plain and undeniable Consequences for it in all God's Word nor promise made to such who do it nor threats pronounced on such as neglect it Their answer is there About Womens Receiving the Sacrament c. Query 9. Whether in matter of meer positive Right such as Baptism is we ought not to keep expresly and punctually to the Revelation of the Will of the Law-giver They answer yes Reply Then your Cause is lost for God's Word expresly directs us to Baptize only such who are first Taught or made Disciples by Teaching or who make a profession of their Faith and Dipping is the express Act of Baptizing as practised in the New Testament which a great Clound of Witnesses testifie Query 10. Whether the Baptism of Infants be not a dangerous Error since it tends to deceive poor Ignorant People who think they are thereby made Christians and Regenerated and so never look after any other Regeneration or Baptism that represents or or holds forth the inward work of God's Grace They answer They never tell them they are made Christians throughly c. Then I Appeal to all Men who have Read the Old Church Catechism In my Baptism wherein I was made a Child of God a Member of Christ and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of God 11. Since we read but of one Baptism in Water and that one Baptism is that of the Adult i. e. such who profess Faith c. How can Infant Baptism or rather Rantism be an Ordinance of Christ 12.
made with Abraham But say you they were nevertheless in the outward Dispensation of God's Covenant c. Answ 1. True the Privileges of Abraham's Natural Seed as such were great as to outward Rites and Prerogatives the Covenant did appertain to them mark it Covenants there were two Covenants 't is not said Covenant 1. They had right to all the External Privileges of the Legal Covenant and the outward Dispensation of the Gospel and Adoption by Faith was first to be offered unto them but neither they nor their Children as such had right to Justification Adoption c. or any outward Rite or Sacrament of the Gospel no not until they did believe and had the things signified in the Sacrament But 2 That Covenant that gave Abraham's Natural Seed as such a Prerogative above the Gentiles was that Partition-Wall that is now broken down 〈◊〉 antea i. e. that Covenant is abolished and Jews and Gentiles stand now upon equal ground here are not fleshly Privileges now that one hath above the other no knowing of Men nor things after the Flesh or by Birth in a fleshly way through or by reason of an Externa Covenant as under the Law You argue as many 〈◊〉 have done before you Children of Believers were once in Covenant who dares be so bold as to say they are cast out Answ. 1 〈◊〉 being once Members of the Jewish Church both not prove they were ever Members of the Gospel Church The Male Infants of God's Priests under the old â—ovâ—â—an when grown up had other Privileges if we must â—all â—…umcision 〈◊〉 Privilege which the Sons of Christs Ministers have no right to under the Gospel and yet no where in express words in the New Testament excluded from that Privilege 2. But I have proved the Covenant for Infants Incovenanting under the Law was no Gospel-Covenant and so concern not 〈◊〉 Infant 3. According to that Maxim Omnis privatio intimat habitum you know that every Dispossession implieth a Possession Infants therefore cannot 〈◊〉 cast out of the Gospel-Church 〈◊〉 one they can be proved they were admitted If you or anâ— Man living can tell us in what visible Administration hâ—… were admitted hurch Members before Abraham's days which was above 2000 Years you say somewhat you 〈◊〉 they were always in Covenant Mr. 〈◊〉 makes mention of a twoâ—… Covenant 1. In relation to Elâ—…ion 2. To 〈◊〉 in Covenant in faâ—ie visibilis Ecclesiae To this I answer The Covenant of Circumcision belonged to the Children of the Flesh to Ihmael and Esau as well as 〈◊〉 who were not in the Election of Grace therefore all those who were circumâ—ised were not so in Covenant Children of Unbelievers may be in that sense in Covenant as well as Children of Believers as many of them afterwards prove to be nay may be more of them than of the Children of Believers 2. As touching Infants being in Covenant in facie visibilis Ecclesiae in the face of a visible Church I answer Tho they were so in all the Jewish Churches under the old Covenant some with Circumcision were brought in and some without it yet that Covenant and Covenant-Seed are as I have and shall yet prove cast out which will be a final Answer Thus I argue If the Covenant for incovenanting of Infants was the old Covenant signified by Hagar and that Covenant-Seed signified by Ishmael are cast out then the Natural or Fleshly Seed of Believers are cast out or not to be admitted into the Gospel-Church But the Covenant for incovenanting of Infants was the old Covenant signified by Hagar and that Covenant-Seed signified by Ishmael are cast out Ergo The Natural or Fleshly Seed of Believers are cast out or not to be admitted into the Gospel-Church See Gal. 4. 22 23 24 25 26. For it is written that Abraham had two Sons the one by a Bond-woman the other by a Free-woman Ver. 24. Which things are an Allegory for these are the two Covenants the one from Mount Sinai which gendereth to Bondage which is Hagar c. Ver. 30. Nevertheless what saith the Scripture Cast out the Bond-woman and her Son for the Son of the Bond-woman shall not be Heir with the Son of the Free-woman 1. By Hagar is meant all agree the old Covenant and by casting her out is held forth the abolishing or taking away of the old Covenant He took away the first that he might establish the second Heb. 10. 9. 2. By Ishmael is meant the Natural Seed of Abraham and so the Natural Seed of all Godly Men of his Race that succeeded him who were Members of that Church And as the late Annotators note by this place is signified the total Destruction of the Jewish Church which consisted of Parents and their Children or the whole Nation of Israel This Church and Church-Seed and manner of Church-Membership is cast out and gone for ever We say that Children were once admitted Members of the Jewish Church but evident it is that God hath now quite pulled down and razed that House to the Foundation thereof I mean that National Church of the Jews and broke up House-keeping and turned the Bond-woman and her Son i. e. the Fleshly Seed or Natural Off-spring of Abraham out of Doors the natural Branches are broken off and God hath now built him a new and more glorious and Spiritual House under the Gospel into which he admitted none as his Houshold Servants to dwell in this his Spiritual Family or Gospel Church but Believers only or such as profess themselves so to be Ye saith St. Peter as lively Stones are built up a spiritual House c. and that the old House the Jewish Church-state with all the Appurtenances Rites and Privileges of it are abolished or pulled down and a new own built and set up into which Infants are not to be admitted is very evident Heb. 7. 12. For the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a Change also of the whole Law which must needs include Circumcision with all Appurtenances and Privileges belonging to it And therefore as Infant Church-Membership came in with the Law of Circumcision and as a direct part of the old Covenant or old Law so likewise plain it is that it went out and was disannulled with it Take again my former Simily viz. What Privileges soever are given to any Person by an Act of Parliament which said Law was to continue so long in force and no longer than when that time was expired and another Parliament makes a new Law where many things are contained that were in the last Law but those divers Privileges given to those Persons in the former Law are left out in this latter Act would it not be a piece of Folly for any of them to plead those Privileges by virtue of a Law that is gone and now not in any force But to come a little nearer the case in a more apt Simily Suppose a Man should have a Legacy bequeathed to him by the
fathering that on Christ which he never said nor intended When a King say you by his Charter or publick Writing sets at liberty the Inhabitants of some Town are not the Children Partakers of the Charter altho their Names be not particularly in it So it is here the King of Heaven is through the Charter of the Gospel making of us that were Strangers and Foreigners to become Fellow-Citizens with the Saints Eph. 2. 19. and to that end commanding to receive all Nations through Baptism into the Liberty and Privileges of the City of God and will he not receive the Children into the Privileges of their Parents Answ I answer if it be so as you say in all National States Governments and Constitutions and Civil Societies what doth this prove touching the case in hand unless you dare undertake to affirm the gospel-Gospel-Church is National and not Congregational Doth the Constitution of the Spiritual gospel-Gospel-Church run as in Human and National Constitutions Prove it for I utterly deny it Besides if your Infants as such are Fellow-Citizens with the Saints and are to partake of all the Privileges of the City of God why do you deny them the Lord's-Supper your Similitude proves no more their right to Baptism to one Privilege than another I never yet could understand what Spiritual or Temporal Privileges any Infant receives in Baptism What good doth that do them that have not the Things signified in Baptism There are great Benefits received in such a Grant you speak of in an external Charter but as God hath not commanded Infants to be baptized so not any Benefits can be proved they receive thereby In this you argue as Mr. Burkit hath done before you Reader take his Similitude viz. I demand saith he whether according to the Mind of God gathered from the words of the Commission the Remedy prescribed should be administred only to grown Persons because they only are capable of understanding and believing the Virtue and Efficacy of it Sure every Rational Man among you would conclude his Child capable of the Remedy as well as himself altho ignorant of the Virtue that is in it and only passive in the Administration of it and that it would be Cruelty yea Murder in the Parent to deny the Application of it to all his Children Reply I stand amazed at such Ignorance and Folly Does it follow because Children are capable to receive a Medicine against the Plague or Bodily Distemper are they therefore capable of Baptism and the Lord's Supper If capable of one say I of the other also For as a Man is required to examine himself and to discern the Lord's Body in the Lord's Supper so he is required to repent and to believe in Christ that comes to Baptism I would know how they prove Baptism to be the Medicine appointed to cure the Soul of the Plague of Sin or as Mr. Owen says for their Salvation Is not this to blind the Eyes of the poor People and make them think that an external Ordinance saves the Soul if not thus how can it be Cruelty yea Murder in Parents to deny the Application of Baptism to their Children as Mr. Burkit says The Antient Fathers from that in John 6. 53. Unless a Man eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood he hath no Life in him gave Infants the Lord's Supper thinking our Saviour like as the Papists do meant that Sacrament when indeed he meant only of seeding by Faith on Christ crucified But however their Argument for giving Infants one Sacrament was as good as yours for giving them the other But when they are as capable to repent and believe and are helped so to do as they are and do eat Bread or receive a Medicine for a Bodily Distemper let them have both Baptism and the Lord's-Supper and till then if God's Word be the Rule of our Faith and Practice and not our own Fancies they ought to have neither yet the Remedy or Medicine which is Christ's Blood we deny not but dying Infants may be capable of tho the way of its Application we know not as to them that is a Secret as to us You know the Church of England positively affirms Repentance whereby a Person for sakes Sin and Faith whereby he stedsastly believes the Promise of God made to him in that Sacrament are required of those that are to be baptized nay and of little Babes too therefore the Sureties answer for them that they do believe and repent or forsake the Devil and all his Works c. the Child answers by Proxy The Church of England baptizes no Child but as a Believer and a true Penitent Person All that are proper Subjects of Baptism are comprehended in the Commission and must be as such whether Adult or Infants who profess Faith and Repentance But you it may be foresaw the Snake in the Grass viz. That Godfathers and Godmothers is a Tradition and none of God's Appointment nor are they able to perform those things for the Child which they promise for him and in his Name And therefore make use of another Argument and would have them baptized without Faith or upon their Parents Faith of which the Church of England speaks nothing As to your Comparison it is not worth mentioning Baptism as I have told you doth not cure the Soul of Sin or save any Person but it 's the Blood of Christ applied by Faith Not that we say no Child can have the Benefit of that Soveraign Remedy because not capable to believe by reason Men and Women must receive it by Faith or perish God as Dr. Taylor observes may have many ways to magnify his Grace through Jesus Christ to them which we know not of who die in their Infancy yet have we no Authority to baptize them any more than to give them the Lord's-Supper Pedo-baptists talk at a strange rate as if they regarded not what they say or affirm while they bring Similitudes to teach People to believe Baptism is the Balm to cure the Contagion of Sin and as if the Application of it saved a little Babe from Hell and they guilty of murdering the Souls of their Children who deny to baptize them I had thought they would not have laid greater Stress upon Childrens Baptism than on Childrens Circumcision since they would fain have them run Parallel-wise Pray what became of the Jews Female Infants were they damned and what became of their Male Infants who died before eight days old for they broke God's Law if they circumcised them tho sick and like to die if they were not full eight days old Let such blush for the sake of their precious Souls and take more care for the time to come to what they write and preach I am grieved to see my blessed Master's great Commission thus inverted and abused Suppose the King should send you with a Commission into a remote Plantation and command you to act and do exactly according to the express
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
untill we become Adult Persons and do believe in him he hath left us an Example how we should follow his steps Mr. Owen brings in his Fifth Objection against his Doctrine and practice of Infant Baptism viz. If Infant Baptism belongs to Infants why do not you give them the Lords Supper Take his answer Because saith he the Apostle Commands those that receive the Lords Supper to examine themselves and to discern the Body of the Lord which little Children cannot do Answ I answer And as the Apostle Commands all that receive the Lords Supper to examine themselves and to discern the Lords Body so likewise John Baptist the Lord Jesus and his Apostles too Commanded all that received baptism to believe and repent and to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance which little Babes cannot do Repent and be Baptized every one of you Acts 2. 37. If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayest Acts 8. 37. that is be baptized 2. You say Baptism is the Sacrament of our Regeneration and of our Admission into the Church of God the Lord's Supper is a Sacrament of our Growth and Spiritual Food 1. I answer this quite overthrows your Infant Baptism unless you Presbyterians do believe as the Church of England doth or at leastwise what they affirm viz. that Baptism doth regenerate the Child is Baptism an Ordinance or Sacrament of Regeneration i. e. to regenerate Persons or to hold forth that regeneration or the New Birth is wrought in such that are baptized why then do you baptize Infants who are not the Subjects of Regeneration Can they die to Sin and are they raised up out of the Water new Born Creatures to walk in newness of Life 2. If your Infants are new born or born again by Baptism no doubt the Food of the new Creature viz. the Lord's Supper ought to be given to them The first Sacrament holds forth 't is clear a Person born again or a Babe of Grace the other is Food fit and proper for that New born or Regenerated Person that he may grow thereby therefore they belong both to one and the same Subjects and neither of them it appears from hence do belong to Infants but 3. Are all the Infants that you baptize let in as Members of your Church are they absolutely Members of your Congregations as having the Ordinance of Admission is the Door of God's House opened to them How can you then say I deny them the priviledge of true and lawful Members shall your little Members your Lambs in Christ's Fold being New Born be starved what shall the regenerated Babe not be fed with the Food of their Fathers House 4. But if thus what number of Members have you in your Churches that have not their Names in your Church-book nor perhaps never looked after when grown up nor cast out though prophane and Wicked for do you cast out or exclude all such Children you baptized when grown up if not what polluted Churches are yours Infant Baptism was doubtless contrived to encrease National Churches or to make national Churches and it doth tend indeed to increase and continue that Christian Religion that is in Name only and not in Power you have its true in England by meer necessity lost your National Constitution and are become Congregational whether you will or no but Infant Baptism will not accord with a congregation Constitution nor do such Churches so constituted that are for Infant Baptism own their Babes to be proper and true Members of their Churches so far as I can learn what then signifies your Sacrament of Admission if they are not in truth admitted and owned as Members and allowed the Food and Priviledges of such 3. You say it was formerly though Circumcision belonged to Infants yet the Paschal Lamb belonged not but to the Adult Answ I answer this is denyed prove if you can that the little Children in the Jewish Church were not admitted to eat of the Passover it is positively said Exod. 12. 34. That the whole House were to eat thereof even a Lamb for an House and I find a great Writer asserting the same thing that little Children did eat thereof they were to bring their Children once or twice a Year before the Lord and I see no ground you have to say that none but Adult Persons did eat thereof 2. But let that be as it will that which was or might be the right of Jewish Church-Members or not their right is no rule for us in the Gospel Church as I have sufficiently prov'd and besure all baptized Persons who are regular Members of a Gospel Church cannot be denyed the Lord's Supper without Sin So much to your Answers to our Objections you might might have brought twice as many more CHAP. XX. In Answer to Mr. James Owen's 17 Chapter wherein the Antipedo Baptists are cleared of those foul Charges he hath cast upon them and 't is proved that to deny Infant Baptism is no Sin nor are those guilty of Murther nor Adultery that baptize or dip Men and Women in Water in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit as Mr. Owen charges them but contrariwise it is proved that to Baptize or Rantize Infants is an unlawful Practise and very Sinful YOU say you shall demonstrate in this Chapter how great the Sin is of those that are tempted to deny the Baptism which they receive in their Infancy and that suffer themselves to be baptized again there are many People that know not the nature of their first Baptism and are perverted to renounce it thinking that they do please God in so doing but they fall into Temptation and the Snares of the Devil who is the Author of Errors and Father of falshood Answ I hope by this time the Reader may discern how great an error 't is to call Rantism or Sprinkling Baptizing and that Infant Baptism is also an error being a meer human innovation this I have prov'd and theresore 't is so far from being a Sin to disown it and cast it away that it is every good Christians Duty so to do that would in all things walk by the rule of God's Word And for Mr. Owen to charge our People after this manner as if we were perverted and insnared by the Devil in denying our Infants Baptism is just as the Papists used to charge the Protestants that disowned the human Traditions and the vain Fopperies of their rotten Church and thunder'd out their Bulls against them 1 You say they are guilty of great Sin insomuch that they neglect to make a right use of their first Baptism Infant Baptism putteth them under continual Vow to the Lord and they are bound to renew their Vows to take the Lord to be a God unto them as soon as they come to age Answ 'T is true you brought them under an Obligation or a Vow to take the Lord to be their God in their Infancy but why did you do it unless you had any Warrant or
the Rite of crossing in Baptism and God-fathers and God-mothers these things you may be believe not but not because they are left darkly in the Scripture but because they are merely human inventions or not at all to be found in the Scripture You say we will not believe unless you shew us some Command or some clear example for Infant Baptism that it is of God but if there had not been any Command or Example although both be for Infant Baptism if there be Scripture Consequences shewing they ought to be baptized That is sufficient to satisfie the humble searcher did not Christ shut the Mouths of the Sadducees about the Resurrection by Scriptural Consequence Mat 22. 32. 1. Answ I answer are we not to be commended for not believing that to be a Truth for which there is neither Command nor example Why do you not use Crossing in Baptism nor Oyl nor Honey as the Papists do Is 〈◊〉 not because you find no Command nor Example for any such things 2. It seems strange you have both Command and example for Infant Baptism in the Holy Scripture and you cannot find either or else none can find them but your selves 3. But could you produce as fair Consequences from any Text for it as our Saviour did to prove the Resurrection we would receive it readily But I have shewed all your Consequences are nothing to the purpose but if you 〈◊〉 Truth you need not fly to far-â—etch'd Consequenced 4. These Antipedo baptists say you which receive rebaptization are guilty of great uncharity Charity is the fulfulfilling of the 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 1. 5. and love also is the fulfilling of the Gospel and therefore we ought to be jealous of every Opinion that destroys Charity God is Love and those Truths that are of God are agreeable to Charity but this Opinion which denyeth Infant Baptism is a very uncharitable Opinion which casteth our Children from the Houshold of God of which they were Members for some Thousand of Years is it not an uncharitable opinion which excommunicates them out of the Church of God 1. Answ I answer could you prove Infant Baptism to be a Truth of God you had cause to charge us but that the Reader may see you cannot do 2. Nor can you prove Infants were ever received as Members of the Gospel Church therefore it is a false Charge to say our Opinion casteth them out or Excommunicates them out of that 3. Take heed least it be found one day that you are a Man that wants Charity towards Christ himself who is the only builder of his Gospel Temple and who did not in his Wisdom think good to take in the fleshly Seed into the Gospel Church as they were received into the Typical and legal Church of the Jews You intimate that we have Excommunicated them and that without a Cause before they had done any thing for to merit this hard Judgment is not this say you an uncharitable Opinion which denyeth them the same place in the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel as they had under the Law is not that an uncharitable Opinion which maketh their condition worser since the coming of Christ then it was before in short is it not say you an uncharitable Judgment which denie s them a share in the promise Acts 2. 39. is not God a God unto the Seed of the Faithful what hope then can we have of their Salvation 1. Answ It was not for the sin or demerits of Infants that God hath not received them as Members of the Gospel Church only it was his own Sovereign Will and Pleasure not so to do nor can you prove that this is any spiritual loss unto our Infants 2. God hath as much cast out the Sons of his Gospel Ministers as such from having any part in the Ministry which you know they had under the Law For every Son of a Priest when grown up was of the Priesthood and this is denyed to our Sons as such Another may say what Sin have our Sons committed that this great priviledge is denyed them since Christ came Also why should not our Children have the promise of an External Canaan as the Jewish Children had under the Law what have they done to procure this loss 3. We do not deny Infants the same priviledges and place in the Covenant of Grace which they ever had no God forbid our Children have every way no doubt like place in that Covenant which the Children of the faithful had under the Law even them and all them of our Children that have the saving blessings of Christ Merits and of the said unchangeable and eternal Covenant but we say they are not in the Covenant of peculiarity God made with Abrahams Natural Seed as such and so partake not of the external Rites and Priviledges of the Gospel Church or New Creation until they do believe or are called by the Lord according to that promise you cite Acts 2. 39. 4. What a noise do you make about your Infants great loss by our Opinion alas you cannot prove or make it appear they have any real Spiritual loss hereby our Children have the same spiritual blessings now as ever and God is as much the God of our Seed in a spiritual sense as ever he was to the Seed of the Faithful all that we say is this that our Infants have no right to the external Ordinance of Baptism nor any but believers only and pray what wrong is this to them Is there no hope therefore left us of the Salvation of our dying Infants what is it to give our Infants as such the sign who have not the thing signified thereby you would have them have the Shell that have not the Kernel and because we will not give them the one till God gives them the other we are censured as uncharitable What good did Simon magus his Baptism do him Will Baptism save your Infants and if all the Seed of the Faithful are as you say in the Covenant of Grace they are safe enough whether they are baptized or not we cannot bring them into that Covenant nor cast them out of it 5. And now Sir pray do you attempt for once to do more then all your brethren have done before you viz. prove what Spiritual or Temporal benefits your Children do receive by their pretended Baptism Mr. Burkitt made assay to do this but he is answered and says no more and I purpose for the sake of the Ancient Britains for whom I have always had great love and an honourable esteem of to take a little pains to transcribe Mr. Burkitts arguments in this respect and my answers by and by 6. 'T is evident that baptism doth not infuse Grace into them nor the habits thereof it does not change their Hearts it doth not take away Original Sin God can do it 't is true nay and God doth no doubt change the Hearts of such dying Infants that are saved but prove if you can their baptism
but as to the baptizing of Infants they can meet with no example in Scripture Magdeb. Cant. l. 2. page 469. Dr. Taylor saith It is against the perpetual Analogie of Christs Doctrine to baptize Infants For besides that Christ never gave any precept to baptize them nor ever himself nor his Apostles that appears did baptize any of them so all that either he or his Apostles said concerning it requires such previous dispositions of baptism of which Infants are not capable viz. Faith and Repentance Lib. proph page 239. Arg. 8. If whatsoever is necessary to Faith and practice is left in the Holy Scripture that being a compleat and perfect Rule and yet Infant Baptism is not contained or to be found therein then Infant Baptism is not of God but whatever is necessary to Faith and Practice is contained in the Holy Scriptures c. but Infant baptism is not to be found therein Ergo. That the Scripture is a perfect Rule c. we have the consent of all the Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines Athanasins saith The Holy Scriptures being Inspirations of God are sufficient to all Instructions of Truth Athan. against the Gentiles Crysostom saith All things be plain and clear in the Scripture and whatsoever are needful are manifest there Chrysost on 2 Thess and 2 Tim. 2. Basil saith That it would be an Argument of Infidelity and a most certain Sign of Pride if any Man should reject any thing written and should Introduce things not written Basil in his Sermon de fide Augustin saith In the Scriptures are found all things which contain Faith manner of Living Hope Love c. Let us saith he seek no farther then what is written of God our Saviour lâ—st a Man would know more that the Scriptures witness Augustin in his 198 Epistles to Fortunatus Theophilact saith It is part of a Diabolical Spirit to think any thing Divine without the Authority of the Holy Scripture Lib. 2. pasch Isychius saith Let us who will have any thing observed of God search no more but that which the Gospel doth give unto us Lib. 5. cap. 16. on Levit. Bellarmin saith That though the Arguments of the Anabaptists from the defect of Command or Example have a great use against the Lutherans for as much as they use that Rite every where and having no Command or Example theirs is to be rejected yet is it of no force against Catholicks who conclude that an Apostolical Tradition is of no less authority with us than the Scripture c. This of baptizing of Infants is an Apostolical Tradition Bell. Lib. de Bapt. 1. cap. 8. Mr. Ball saith We must for every Ordinance look for the Institution and never stretch it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it for he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own pleasure and 't is our part to Learn of him both to whom how and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred Ball in his answer of the New-England Elders page 38 39. And as to the Minor 't is acknowledged by our Adversaries it is not to be found in the Letter of the Scripture And as to the Consequences drawn therefrom we have proved they are not Natural from the premises and tho' we will admit of Consequences and Inferences if Genuine yet not in the case of an Institution respecting a practical Ordinance that is of meer positive Right Arg. 9. If Infant Baptism was an Institution of Christ the Pedo-baptists could not be at a loss about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism but the Pedo-baptists are at a great loss and differ exceedingly about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism Ergo 'tis no Institution of Christ As touching the Major I argue thus that which is an Institution of Christ the Holy Scripture doth shew as well the end and ground of the Ordinance as the subject and manner of it but the Scripture speaks nothing of the end and ground of Pedo-baptism or for what reason they ought to be baptized Ergo It is no Institution of Christ The Minor is undeniable some affirm as we have already shew'd that it was to take away Original Sin others say it is theirs right by the Covenant they being the Seed of Believers others say Infants have Faith and therefore have a Right others say they have a Right by the Faith of their Surety Some ground their Right from Apostolical Tradition others upon the authority of Scripture Some say all Children of professed Christians ought to be baptized others say none but the Children of true believers have a Right to it sure if it was an Ordinance of Christ his word would soon end this Controversie Arg. 10. If the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the Natural nor Spiritual Seed of Abraham they can have no Right to Baptism or Church Membership by virtue of any Covenant Transaction God made with Abraham but the Children of Believing Parents as such are not the Natural nor Spiritual Seed of Abraham Ergo. Arg. 11. If no Man can prove from Scripture that any Spiritual benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism 't is no Ordinance of Christ But no Man can prove from Scripture that any spiritual benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism Ergo. Arg. 12. That cannot be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither Command nor Example in all God's Word nor promise to such who do it nor threatning to such who neglect it But there is no Command or Example in all the Word of God for the Baptizing of little Babes nor promise made to such who are Baptized nor threatnings to such who are not Ergo. That the Child lies under a Promise who is Baptized or the Child under any Threatning or Danger who is not Baptized let them prove it since it is denyed Arg. 13. If no Parents at any time or times have been by God the Father Jesus Christ or his Apostles either Commended for Baptizing their Children or Reproved for neglecting to Baptize them then Infant Baptism is no Ordinance of God But no Parents at any time or times have been by God Commended for baptizing of their Children nor reprov'd for neglecting to baptize them c. Ergo Infant Baptism is no Ordinance of God This Argument will stand unanswerable unless any can shew who they were that were ever Commended for Baptizing their Children or Reproved for neglecting it or unless they can shew a Parallel case Arg. 14. If Men were not to presume to alter any thing in the Worship of God under the Law neither to add thereto nor diminish therefrom and God is as strict and jealous of his Worship under the Gospel then nothing ought to be altered in God's Worship under the Gospel but under the Law Men were not to presume so to do and God is as strict and jealous under the Gospel Ergo. The Major cannot be denyed The Minor is clear from Exod. 25.
such they had not been baptized nor had they a true Right thereto Arg. 20. Baptism is the Solemnizing of the Souls Marriage Union with Christ which Marriage-contract absolutely requires an actual profession of consent but Infants are not capable to enter into Marriage Union with Christ nor to make a profession of an actual consent Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Major our opposites generally grant particularly see what Mr. Baxter saith Our Baptism is our solemnizing of our Marriage with Christ These are his very words page 32. The Minor none can deny no Man sure in his right mind will assert that little Babes are capable to enter into a Marriage Relation with Christ and to make profession of a consent and the truth is he in the next words gives away his Cause viz. and 't is saith he A a new and strange kind of Marriage where there is no profession of consent page 32. How unhappy was this Man to plead for such a New and strange kind of Marriage did he find any little Babe he ever Baptized or rather Rantized to make a profession of consent to be Married to Jesus Christ If any should object he speaks of the Baptism of the Adult I answer his words are these Our Baptism is c. Besides will any Pedo-baptist say That the Baptism of the Adult is the solemnizing of the Souls Marriage with Christ and not the Baptism of Infants Reader observe how our opposites are forced sometimes to speak the Truth tho' it overthrows their own practice of Pedo-baptism Arg. 21. If the Sins of no persons are forgiven them till they are Converted then they must not be baptized for the forgiveness of them till they profess themselves to be Converted but the Sins of no Persons till they are Converted are forgiven Ergo no Person ought to be Baptized for the forgiveness of them till they profess they are Converted Mr. Baxter in the said Treatise lays down the substance of this Argument also take his own words i. e. As their sins are not forgiven them till they are Converted Mark 4. 12. So they must not be baptized for the forgiveness of them till they profess themselves Converted seeing to the Church non esse and non apparere is all one Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus is the Sum of that Preaching that makes Disciples Acts 20. 21. Therefore saith he both those must by a Profession seem to be received before any at Age are baptized page 30 31. and evident it is say I from hence that none but such at Age ought to be baptized Philip caused the Eunuch to profess before he would Baptize him That he believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God Saul had also saith he more than a bare profession before Baptism Acts 9. 5 15 17. page 28. The Promise it self saith he doth expresly require a Faith of our own of all the Adult that will have part in the Priviledges therefore there is a Faith of our own that is the Condition of our Title Mark 16. 16. page 16. He might have added by the force of his Argument therefore Infants should not have the priviledges For I argue thus viz. Arg. 22. If there is but one Baptism of Water left by Jesus Christ in the New Jerusalem or but one condition or manner of Right thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult then Infant Baptism is no Baptism of Christ but there is but one Baptism in Water left by Christ in the New Testament and but one Condition and manner of Right thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult Ergo Infant Baptism is no Baptism of Christ Mr. Baxter saith Faith and Repentance is the condition of the Adult and as to any other condition I am sure the Scripture is silent The way of the Lord is one one Lord one Faith one Baptism Eph. 4. 4. If profession of Faith were not necessary saith Mr. Baxter Coram Ecclesia to Church Membership and Priviledges then Infidels and Heathens would have Right also saith he the Church and the World would be confounded He might have added but Infidels and Heathens have no Right to Church Membership c. Ergo. 'T is a granted case among all Christians saith he that profession is thus necessary the Apostles and Antient Church admitted none without it page 21. And if so why dare any now a days admit of Infants who are uncapable to make profession He adds Yea Christ in his Commission directeth his Apostles to make Disciples and then Baptize them promising He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. page 27. Furthermore he saith If as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his Death and are Buried with him by baptism into Death that like as Christ was raised from the Dead so we also should walk in newness of Life c. Then no doubt saith he but such as were to be baptized did first profess this mortification and a consent to be buried c. In our Baptism we put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ being buried with him and raised with him through Faith quickened with him and haveing all our Trespasses forgiven Coll. 2. 11 12 13. and will any Man says he yea will Paul ascribe all this to those that did not so much as profess the things signified Will Baptism in the Judgment of a wise Man do all this for an Infidel or say I for an Infant that cannot make a profession that he is a Christian page 31 32. he proceeds Arg. 23. The baptized are in Scripture called Men Washed Sanctified Justified they are called Saints and Churches of Saints 1 Cor. 1. 2. all Christians are Sanctified ones page 33. now let me add the Minor But Infants are not in Scripture called Men Washed Sanctified Justified they are not called Saints Churches of Saints Christians nor Sanctified ones Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized If any should say why did you not cite these assertions of Mr. Baxters whilst he was living I answer more then Eighteen years ago I did recite and Print these assertions and many other Arguments of his to the same purpose to which he gave no answer Arg. 24. If there is but one way for all both Parents and Children to be admitted in the Gospel Church to the end of the World and that it is upon profession of Faith to be baptized then both Parents and Children must upon the profession of their Faith be baptized and so admitted c. But there is but one way for all both Parents and Children to be admitted into the Gospel-Church to the end of the World and that is upon the profession of their Faith to be Baptized Ergo. Arg. 25. That cannot be Christ's true baptism wherein there is not cannot be a lively Representation of the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ together with our Death unto Sin
tho we grant that many Doctrinal Truths may be drawn or inferred by Consequences from many Texts of Scripture See Reverend Mr. Greenhil on Ezek. chap. 11. Vol. 2. p. 412. VVhat is clearly held out unto us in the Gospel saith he let us consent in and walk answerably in what is dark and doubtful let us forbear each other and stay till God reveals more If we cannot unite in all let us unite in what is clear Things Fundamental are clearest laid down in the word they are expresly commanded or held forth in Scripture whether they are Matters of Faith or Practice they are not drawn out by remote Consequences and strength of Men's Parts but immediately from or in the VVord Thus Mr. Greenhill Now we all agree that Baptism tho it be not a Fundamental of Salvation yet 't is a Fundamental of Church-Constitution there can be no true right orderly Gospel-Church without Baptism Therefore it is necessary that this should be laid down plainly in the Word of God and so it is We must first be made Disciples and then be baptized Mat. 28. 19 20. John 4. 1. first believe and then be baptized Mark 16. 16. Repent and be baptized Acts 2. 37. If thou believest thou mayest Acts 8. 37. Can any Man forbid Water that these should not be baptized Acts 10. 47. When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of Grd and the Name of Jesus Christ they were baptized both Men and Women Acts 8. 12. So Acts 16. 30 31. Acts 18. 8. Rom. 6. 3 4. And as touching those Consequences that Mr. Owen and others draw from some Scriptures to prove Infants Baptism you will find in the ensuing Answer those Consequences do not arise naturally from those Texts but are only his own ungrounded Suppositions and mistaken Apprehensions Mr. Owen in his Epistle to the Courteous Welshmen saith The greatest part of the true Church judg that the Children of the Faithful have a right to Baptism because they are in the Covenant of God This Opinion is agreeable to the Scriptures as it appears saith he in this Book Reply What Covenant is it he means Our Children as such are in I know not they are not in the Covenant of Grace for if all the Children of the Faithful were in the Covenant of Grace they must be all saved This I have in this Treatise fully proved there is none can fall finally away that are in this Covenant Besides if they were in the Covenant of Grace why must they have Baptism administred to them from this foot of Account and not the Lord's Supper and all other Privileges of the Church 2. They are not in the Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham's Natural Seed as such or with the whole House of Israel for that was a Typical Covenant and is taken away Mr. Owen saith they are in the outward Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace Rep. Let him prove if he can that the Children of Believers have more Privileges by the outward Dispensation of the Gospel than the Children of Unbelievers have where the Gospel is preach'd Those who lived under the outward Dispensation of the Law who believed in Christ to come or were elected were in the Covenant of Grace and none but they only and so 't is now none but the Elect and such that believe are in the Covenant of Grace Will Mr. Owen seal all New Covenant-Blessings to all his Natural Seed whether elected or not elected since the inward and Spiritual Blessings of the said Covenant by his own words belong only to the Elect Mr. Owen bids you to seek for a meek and humble and self-denying Spirit Reply This Counsel is good therefore be not too confident you are in the Right your Teachers are but Men and God may for some Reasons best known to himself hide Believers Baptism at present from them He bids you also to beware of a distemper'd Zeal that is not after Knowledg it is saith he a Wild-Fire that wasteth Churches and Countries c. Reply Such I fear hath been that Zeal he and others have shewed for Infant-Baptism For it will appear I hope in this Treatise that his Zeal is not according to the knowledg of God's Word Despise not saith Mr. Owen thy Faithful Teachers obey them and submit to them for they watch for thy Soul Reply As you ought not to despise your Teachers but to submit to them in the Lord so you ought not to Idolize them nor follow them any farther than they follow Christ For you must know that Men tho Ministers are not your Rule of Faith and Practice but God's Word Moreover know that you must give an account of your selves to God others will not be suffered to speak for you at the Great Day He bids you look upon little Children as part of their Natural Parents and comprehended in the Promise made unto good Parents 1. Reply This he hath also asserted elsewhere in his Book which you will find answered in this 2. Strange Are Children part of their Parents so that when the Parents believe the Children believe and when the Parents obey God's Command the Children obey it also and when the Parents have a Promise of Pardon and Peace the Children have right to the same Promise What strange Doctrine in this Are not we and our Children distinct Persons Shall not a whole Believer be saved I profess I cannot well see that it can be so if any of our Children who are a part of us do perish for ever And doth it follow because in the Covenant of Peculiarity God made with the whole House of Israel the Parents and Children were comprehended therefore they must be all comprehended in the Covenant of Grace also and made Members of the Gospel-Church He cites Deut. 4. 37 40. And because be loved thy Fathers therefore he chose their Seed after them VVhat of this Mr. Owen can never prove that God hath chosen any one Nation both Parents and Children since that time to be a peculiar People in a Covenant-Relation with himself as he chose the Natural Seed of Abraham it was a Typical Church and figured forth the true Spiritual Seed or true Israel of God Therefore that Church-State ceased at the Death of Christ when the Partition-wall was broken down And the extent of the Promise now and Gospel 〈◊〉 â—…es only runs to Believers and to their Children 〈…〉 or who do believe whether Jews or Gentiles 〈…〉 and to no more Unde◠〈…〉 Mr. Owen the extent of God's Coveâ—…â—…ople his Covenant is with them and their 〈…〉 was the Covenant of Grace which God made 〈…〉 Gen. 3. 15. and 4. 25. And the Covenant 〈…〉 â—ade with Noah Gen. 9. 9. with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. 〈◊〉 Isaac Gen. 28. 4. and with Jacob Gen. 35. 12. And in the same manner was his Covenant with David and his Seed 2 Sam. 7. 12. and 22. 51. in this Eternal Covenant he rejoiced on his Death-Bed 2 Sam. 23. 5.
for them so to have done had Baptism been sprinkling Sure Philip would not have put that Noble Person who was a Man of great Authority under Caâ—dace Queen of the Ethiopians to that great trouble to come out of his Chariot if to sprinkle a little Water on his Face might have done and to go down into the Water and dip him Sure Philip would on this occasion have dispensed with Immersion and let Aspersion or Rantism have served considering he was a great Person and on a journey he might have fetch'd a little Water in his Hand or otherwise and have sprinkled him in his Chariot as some Ministers do now in their publick Places of Worship and thus Men make void the Command of Christ by their Traditions to the abuse of Christian Baptism and Reproach of us that keep to his sacred Institution Mr. Daniel Rogers a most worthy Writer says in a Treatise of his It ought to be the Church's part to cleave to the Institution which is dipping especially it being not lest Arbitrary by our Church to the Discretion of the Minister but required to dip or dive And further saith That he betrays the Church whose Minister he is to a disordered Error if he cleave not to the Institution O what abundance of Betrayers of the Truth and of Churches too have we in these as well as in former days How little is the Institution of Christ or Practice of the Primitive Churches minded by many good Men Where is the Spirit of Reformation And doubtless that famous Author and Learned Critick in the Greek Tongue Casanbon was in the right Take his words I doubt not saith he but contrary to our Church's Intention this Error having once crept in is maintain'd still by the carnal Ease of such as looking more at themselves than at God stretch the Liberty of the Church in this case deeper and further than either the Church her self would or the Solemness of this Sacrament may well and safely admit Afterwards he saith I consess my self unconvinced by Demonstrations of Scripture for Infants sprinkling The truth is the Church gave too great Liberty she had no Power to alter in the least matter but to have kept exactly to the Institution She says dipping or sprinkling that spoils all that Addition gives Encouragement VVho will dip the Person that can believe the Church that sprinkling may serve And O! how hard is it to retract an Error which hath been so long and so generally received especially when Carnal Ease and Profit attends the keeping of it up and also when the true way of baptizing is reproached and look'd upon to be so contemptible a Practice and those who own it and dare not act otherwise vilified and reproached by many with the scurrilous Name of Anabaptists c. altho we are as much against rebaptizing as any People in the VVorld can be The Learned Cajetan upon Mat. 3. 5. saith Christ ascended out of the Water therefore Christ was baptized by John not by sprinkling or pouring Water upon him but by Immersion that is by dipping or Plunging into the Water Moreover Musculus on Mat. 3. calls Baptism dipping and says the Parties baptized were dipped not sprinkled To close with this take one Argument If the Baptizer and the Baptized in the days of Christ and his Apostles went both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipped then is Baptism not Sprinkling but Dipping But the Baptizer and the Baptized in the days of Christ and his Apostles went both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipped Ergo Baptism is not Sprinkling but Dipping CHAP. V. Proving that Baptism is plunging or burying in Water the whole Body in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Wherein Mr. Owen's Arguments for sprinkling and his Objections against Immersion or Dipping are fully answered REader thou mayst see that tho the remote Sense of the common word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may refer to pouring of Water yet the proper and genuine Sense of that word is dipping or such a washing as is by dipping which is abundantly proved as you have heard both by the Scriptures and Consent of a great Cloud of Witnesses amongst the Learned both Anâ—…nt and Modern Therefore what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith in the beginning of his third Chapter viz. That it is uncertain whether in the New Testament the Apostles baptized by dipping or sprinkling is not true it being evident it was by dipping and no other way For where-ever the word Baptism is used I say again in the New Testament as it refers to Christ's Ordinance of Baptism it signifies dipping or plunging into the Water nor can he prove the Jews washed their Hands and Cups only by pouring Water on them tho Elijah might have Water poured on his Hand we commonly wash our Hands and Cups by dipping them into the Water And so did the Jews as Mr. Ainsworth affirms 2dly Sir what you say concerning that Typical Baptism in the Cloud and Sea you have heard also fully answered and that makes not for sprinkling nor pouring But more to that hereafter 3dly What you say concerning the Signification of Baptism that it holds forth two things 1. The Blood of Christ 2. The Spirit of Christ is far fetch'd for the Lord's Supper holds forth the Blood of Christ and we have no Ordinance ordain'd by Christ to hold forth in a Figure the sprinkling or pouring forth of the Spirit if Man has invented such a thing so be it The Papists found out seven Sacraments with their significant Signs as they tell you and they have the same Parity of Reason to maintain their Sacraments without any Warrant from God's Word as our Pedobaptists have for their baptizing or rather rantizing or sprinkling of Babes True the Apostle speaks of sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus but Baptism is no Figure of that as you have heard but primarily of the Death â—urial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ Sir you say Sprinkling is lawful because it is very probable that the Apostles themselves did baptize by pouring or sprinkling Water Acts 2. 41. Then they that gladly received the word were baptized and the same day there were added unto them three thousand Souls It is not you say very probable that these three thousand were plunged over Head and Ears in VVater How could Peter and the rest of the Apostles even twelve Men baptize three thousand in one day yea in one half day how could they change their Apparel c. Answ 1. I answer wonder no more how three thousand Persons shou'd be baptized i. e. dipped in that short time 't is sufficient for any Christian to believe it because the Holy Ghost hast said it 2. But whereas you say there were but twelve Men to administer it that is not true there were the seventy Disciples no doubt with them who were Ministers and there might very probably be many more 3. However since Baptism is Immersion
as the Doctor mentioned before 2. If the Supposition were true the Proposition built upon it is false for saith he they that were capable of the same Grace are not always capable of the same Sign for Women under the Law of Moses altho they were capable of the Righteousness of Faith yet they were not capable of the Sign of Circumcision for God doth not always convey his Grace in the same manner Thus far Reverend Dr. Jer. Taylor Lib. of Proph. p. 234 235. For what the Bishop hath said answers all you affirm on this Text for Infants Baptism The Promise of the Spirit we grant runs to Believers and to all their believing Seed and Off-spring be they Jews or Gentiles and this Text proves nothing more It did not belong to the Jews Seed as such but only to their Children that did believe and so it doth to the Gentiles that were sometimes afar off that believe and to their Children that God shall also call as he doth call their Parents That which you seem to affirm from this Text is this viz. that there is such a Covenant made with Gentile Believers and with every particular Believer and his Carnal Seed as God made with Abraham which is strange Divinity We have proved that there was a Covenant of Peculiarity made with Abraham and his Natural Seed to which Circumcision did belong and by virtue of that Covenant as appertaining to the Flesh There was under the Law a knowing of Men the Jews in that Legal and External Covenant had the Preference above the Gentiles but that Covenant is taken away and that Partition Wall is pulled doâ—n and now the Jews have no Advantage upon that account above the Gentiles or the Gentiles above the Jews old things being passed away and old Church State and Church-Membership gone so that all you say upon this Scripture and Argument signifies nothing And remarkable 't is that Peter spake these words to the Jews The Promise is to you and your Children c. But to say the Promise runs to them and to their Infants as to Baptism and Church-Membership under the Gospel as Circumcision and Legal Church-Membership did under the Law is notoriously faise none of the Jews Children were allowed Baptism or received into the Gospel-Church but only such that did believe nor of the Gentiles neither when their Children believe or are called then they may be baptized and they have right to the Promise of the holy Spirit The Promise and Blessing of Abraham you say comes on the Gentiles through Christ and by Faith therefore say I not in a fleshly Line and by Birth-Privilege You say Abraham's Blessing was not Personal unto him and unto his Seed this Blessing came upon the believing Gentiles therefore say you it must come on the Faithful and on their Seed for it cannot be termed Abraham's Blessing if it come not upon the Gentiles in an essential form to Abraham's Covenant that is I will be a God unto thee and to thy Seed unless this Blessing come upon the Gentiles in the same manner and in the same Enlargement it being not Abraham's Blessing but a part of it being cut in the middle I will be a God to you Gentiles but not to your Seed is this Abraham's Blessing how unlike to it there is a great difference between an Estate settled on a real Man and that being also settled on his Children Answ 1. You talk â—s if you were ignorant what Abraham's Blessing wâ—s the Blessing of Abraham was not the External Privileges of the Covenant of Grace which it seems is all you plead fâ—r about your Infant Seed but the spirituâ—l Part anâ— Blessing of the Covenant namely Justification Pardon of Sin Adoption and Eternal Life 2 As to Abraham's Seed doth not the Apostle tell you that To Abâ—aham and to his Seed the Promise was made He saith not to Seeds as of many but to thy Seed which is Christ Gal 3 16 Now you contend for Seeds as of many even to all the fleshly Seed of Abraham and fleshly Seed of all Believers Sir no Gentiles but such as are Christ's 〈◊〉 â—braham's Seed none but such that believe and hâ—ve Abraham's Faith The â—nheriâ—ance which is God to be our God by way of special Interest 〈◊〉 settled upon all Believers and their Children that have the same Faith not their Carnal Seed as such but only God's Elect Ones 3. I have proved it is true that there was a Legal and External Covenant made with Abraham and his Fleshly Seed in which Covenant God was said to be the God of the whole House of Israel and was bound to them but that Covenant is abolished and the new Covenant is not according to that but quite different the Fleshly Seed are not in a Relative External Covenant 〈◊〉 Christ's Gospel-Church is not National This being considered it appears that whâ—t you say concerning Abraham being the Father of the Gentiles signifies nothing for your purpose for he was not the Father of any Gentiles but of such that believe in Christ or Elect Ones and this you seem to acknowledg in these words viz. the believing Gentiles are a Seed to Abraham Gal. 3. 29. But Sir what 's this to the Business prove if you can that the fleshly Seed of Gentile Believers as such are a Seed to Abraham for 't is that which we utterly deny and on that foot of account the whole Controversy depends You say the Children of the Flesh are not accounted to be the Children of God when they break their Covenant with God and John Baptist calleth such a Generation of Vipers Answ 1. This is the sense of the Apostle strange Can those that are the Children of the Covenant of Grace cease to be such May the Children of God degenerate into Dogs Wolves and Vipers I thought that such as are God's Children or Heirs according to the promised Covenant of Grace made with Abraham can never cease being the Children of God how else is the Promise sure to all Abraham's Spiritual Seed Do not all the Children of God partake of God's Divine Nature and are not they all Heirs of God Are you an Arminian Do you plead for final falling out of God's Covenant or from a State of tâ—ue Grace that must follow what you say here or your Argument is gone and lost for ever 2. Reader 't is plain that Ishmael Esau c. and many more of Abraham's Natural Seed nay all as such or â—s so simply considered were not accounted for his Spiritual Seed or the Children of God but only such that are God's Elect Ones or such as believe in Christ and 't is plain that none of the true Children of God can degenerate so as to cease being his Children I mean they cannot fall totally and finally from a State of Grace and become Vipers c. as Mr. Owen acknowledges some of Abraham's Seed did which clearly shews that those Jews never were in the Covenant of Grace God
Will and Testament of his Friend and yet afterwards his Friend sees good to make another Will which is his last Will and Testament and in this last Will and Testament he leaves him quite out not mentioning his Name bequeathing no such Legacy to him would it not be Folly in him to sue for that Legacy left him in the first Will and Testament Sir the Case is thus in hand we read of two Covenants or Testaments an old and a new a first and a second Now in the old Will or old Testament Infants were admitted to this Privilege of Church-Membership in that Legal or National Church of the Jews and National Church-Privileges are now made null and void by the Gospel-Covenant which is Christ's last Will and Testament in which Infant Church-Membership is quite left out their Names not being mentioned as having right to any Gospel-Ordinance as Baptism the Lord's-Supper c. If we would know the Mind of God herein we must of necessity have recourse to Christ's last Will and Testament Since the Gospel is so called and that the first or old one is taken away and there is no Man can prove any one old Rite that did appertain to the Natural Off-spring of Abraham or Believers remains to them which is not mentioned in the new of last Will or Testament of Jesus Christ 't is plain they had or leastwise some of them other external Privileges besides that of Circumcision and yet I see no Man contend for any one Rite but only this they call the Seal of the Covenant Why might not Ministers plead for all their Sons to have right to the Ministry since that Privilege was given them in the Old Testament and that all Male-Children that open the Womb to be holy to the Lord which Blessings belonged to them under the Law and also plead for the Tenths and First-fruits c. I desire you and all Pedo-baptists carefully to consider and weigh what I have said I have shew'd you and them how Infants who were once in Covenant i. e. in the Jewish or old Covenant are cast out or left out for indeed they were never admitted into the New Testament-Church but since they are not put in and the old Covenant and old Church-Membership are cast out and gone in vain it is for any to plead their Right by an abrogated Law Besides You say Circumcision was the Seal of that Covenant by virtue of which Infants had Right to Church Membership if so 't is evident that Covenant is gone because 't is cancelled for the tearing off or breaking off the Seal we all look upon as cancelling a Covenant That Circumcision the Seal as you call it is broken off I am sure you cannot deny Sir what is then become of your Covenant for incovenanting Children Object But may be you will object and say that you do not contend for that particular Rite or Institution of a visible Church-Membership of Infants perpetual in all Ages and an indefinite Seal Reply 1. How doth it appear the Infants of the Godly before Abraham's time had any Right to visible Church-Membership or what Seal had they 2. Such a Right is a meer Figment-like Idea Platonica All Institutions meerly positive are of such Rite in particular and an initial Seal is meerly positive as Signs that are not natural but by the Will of the Appointer and therefore there is no initial Seal indefinite Sir now you have no way left but to see since the old Covenant is cancelled whether you can find the Baptism of Infants in the New Testament and there taught laid down and prefix'd to it as Circumcision was to the Old Do that and you do all do not that and all you do is just nothing You with others seem to say that the Privileges of the Gospel are straiter and narrower than those of the Law Answ. If you once imagine that the outward or external Privileges of the Gospel are larger or so large as those were under the Law you are greatly mistaken The Jews and Jewish Teachers or Priests had many external Privileges which Christians and Ministers under the Gospel have not they had a lovely Country promised to them a Land that flowed with Milk and Honey outward Peace Riches and gathering of Wealth where Privileges belonged to them but we under the Gospel have no such Privileges but are to expect Persecution and what not Yet our Privileges are better and greater tho more spiritual 't is a Covenant established upon better Promises Our Children when grown up sit under the clear and glorious Light of the Gospel which they and theirs then held forth but in dark Shadows Moreover then the Church-state was confined to the Natural Seed of Abraham c. but now all in all Nations who repent and believe the Gospel the poor Gentiles are now become fellow-Heirs indeed Our spiritual Privileges do infinitely excel theirs but not in Externals now are greater Infusions of the Holy Spirit O Sir what Privileges had the Gentiles or their Children then is not the case mended with us Again 't is objected by some Pedo-baptists If it were the Will of God Infants under the Gospel should be reckoned as out of his Covenant who were in Covenant then it follows say they that our Saviour was unfaithful or forgetful to his Church in that he never acquainted her with this Alteration but not one word by way of Prohibition do we find in all the New Testament from whence we may conclude that Christ's not repealing the Practice of initiating Infants nor forbidding their Admission into the Church by Baptism c. Answ 1. I answer Had it been the Will of God that Infants should under the Gospel be admitted into the Church by Baptism Christ you might rather say had been forgetful or unfaithful in not giving the least Intimation of his Mind and Pleasure therein who declared all things plainly from the Father and was faithful as a Son over his own House 2. That which is not contained in his last Will and Testament in this and other matters is sufficient to declare his Mind and Will in the Negative And so you know 't is in all last Wills and Testaments among Men if it be not expressed in the Affirmative it needs not be expressed in the Negative and if not because 't is not forbidden it may be done so may an hundred things more nay many Jewish Rites and Popish Innovations too for where are they forbid The Sum therefore of my Answer is this The Privileges which are â—ites Ordinances or Sacraments are not so many as you would have or so many as the Jews of old had nor are they to be administred according as they fancy or approve of or according to their Reasonings but according to God's express Appointment Rightly doth Mr. Ball in his Book speak Posit 3 4. pag. 38. But in whatsoever Circumcision and Baptism do agree or differ we must look to the Institution and neither stretch
words of the Commission not to add to it nor diminish from it on paâ— of being cast out of his Favour and incuring his Wrath and Curse durst you do otherwise in any thing under pretence it was his meaning whereas he plainly and fully in his Commission expressed in the Affirmative how and what you should do in all Matters and Things and forbad you to add thereto Read Rev. 22. 18. For I testify unto every Man that heareth the words of the Prophecy of this Book If any Man shall add unto these things God shall add unto him all the Plagues that are written in this Book Who told you what you say is the sense of our Saviour Can any Man once think since the Commission of Christ is a pure Gospel-Commission and contains meer positive Laws and Rules no ways referring to nor depending on the Law or Command God gave to Abraham that what you say can be true and the Conclusion safe certain and warrantable May not another say with as good Authority that our Saviour commands his Disciples to baptize all Nations both Parents and Children too whether they will or not whether they believe or not whether Jews or Gentiles Turks or Pagans I wonder you are not afraid who take liberty after this sort to sport as it were and play with invert alter and add unto the sacred Commission of the jealous God and great King of Heaven and Earth 1. You confess Christ's Sheep came up from the washing whereof every one bear Twins and there is none barren among them Cant. 6. 6. Let therefore the Lambs say you be washed as they are a great part of the Flock I answer Infants as such by your own words cannot be Christ's Sheep nor Lambs for all his Sheep and Lambs that are washed are fruitful and none are barren among them Are Infants fruitful to Christ Can they bring forth Twins Sir Metaphors go not on all four as we used to say the Lambs of Christ viz. weak and young Christians may be as fruitful in Holiness as Sheep viz. old experienced Christians But how can you prove Baptism washes your Infants from Sin actual Sin they have none Doth it wash away Original Sin dare you say that The antient erring Fathers that brought it in affirmed that Baptism did wash away Original Sin in Infants but do you believe that they spoke Truth in so saying Christ's Lambs you say are capable to be fed by the Word and Sacrament Are Infants capable to hear the Word and partake of the Sacraments If of one of both Sir Christ's Lambs are new born Babes not new born by Natural Generation but by Regeneration as I have shewed You say that the Gentile Church should not come short of the Privileges of the old Jerusalem or Jewish Church and that the desolate hath more Children than she that hath an Husband Gal. 4. 27. and hence affirm if Children of the Christian Church enjoy not the Privilege of their Fathers she hath many less Children than the old Jerusalem-Church had Answ I answer the Gentile Church according to God's gracious Promise may be more than the Jewish was when the Fulness of the Gentiles are come in and yet no Infants Members of it Nay there is ground to believe in the Primitive Times there were more converted among the Gentiles than were amongst the Jews but still I find you harp on the old String i. e. that if the Gospel-Church be not National and enjoy as many outward and external Privileges as the Jewish did her Privileges are less but you consider not the Nature Quality and Glory of the Gospel-Church and wherein her Privileges excel the Legal Church of old Jerusalem You say when Christ commandeth to teach all Nations before baptized and after that their baptizing his meaning is teach and baptize to plant the Church and baptize and teach to continue the Church planted among the Gentiles Answ 1. I am grieved to think how bold you are in asserting that to be Christ's meaning which you affirm which can no ways be gathered from his Commission but 't is directly contrary to the express words thereof and also to the Nature of the Gospel-Church's Constitution But you affirm what you please and prove nothing 2. It appears by your words the Gospel-Church in its first Constitution or first planting was by Regeneration consisting only of believing Men and Women baptized on the Profession of their Faith or after they were made Disciples but after its first Constitution or first Plantation it was to consist of the Fleshly or Carnal Seed and so made National yea and to be made up of whole Nations Pray Sir since the great Commission Mat. 28. 19 20. proves nothing of this nor hath the Lord Jesus given out another Commission to nullify his first What ground have you to affirm so presumptuously any such thing Dare you add and diminish to God's Word nay alter Christ's last Will and Testament in his grand Commission Tremble at the thoughts of what you endeavour to do Sir the New Testament about Church-Constitution c. is a perfect Rule to the End of the World and as the first Gospel-Church after Christ's Ascension at Jerusalem was constituted so ought all Churches to be constituted and so to continue unto the second coming of Christ The Ordinances are to be kept as to the Subject and Mode of Administration as they were first delivered to the Saints See 1 Cor. 11. 2. Now I praise you Brethren that you remember me in all things and keep the Ordinances as I delivered them to you Therefore in direct Opposition to what you say in the close of your sixth Chapter I affirm from the Authority of Christ's Commission and from the nature of the Constitution of the Gospel-Church that as Teaching went before Baptizing for the planting of the Church in the Primitive Time so Teaching is to go before Baptizing in planting and continuing of the Church unto the End of the World and that the Teaching that is mentioned in order of Words in the Commission after Baptizing doth not refer to Infants of Believers or any other Infants but as Mr Baxter observes to such baptized Believers who after they were baptized ought to be taught all other things in the School of Christ which he commanded his Disciples to observe and to which if they thus act he subjoined his gracious Promise Lo I am with you always to the End of the World Mat. 28. 20. CHAP. IX In Answer to Mr. James Owen's seventh Chapter proving that the Children of the Faithful ought not to be baptized because they are said to be holy wherein 1 Cor. 7. 14. is examined and clearly explained with the sense of many learned Men both Pedo-baptists and others on the said Text. MR. James Owen thus begins in his seventh Chapter viz. If the Children of the Faithful are holy then Baptism appertaineth unto them for all confess that Holiness gives Right to Baptism if they allow
of be said to be holy as well as the Infidel or unbelieving Wife is said to be sanctified What is the difference between holy and sanctified Mr. Owen says If the Children of the Faithful are not Members of the Church of God then they are Members of the Kingdom of Satan who is the Prince of this World If they are without the Church what hopes of Salvation have they there is no Salvation out of the Church Rom. 9. 4. Answ 1. I hope my Antagonist is a Protestant but I must assure my Reader he here maintains a Popish Doctrine which all our worthy Protestant Divines have protested against How is there no Salvation out of the Visible Church God forbid I doubt not but there are many gracious Persons who shall be certainly saved and who do truly believe in Christ that are not Members of any true Gospel Church Will you exclude all from Salvation that are not Members of your Church I cannot think you own the Church of England to be a true Gospel-Church and will you exclude all that are of that Communion from the Kingdom of Heaven 2. But as to Infants they are born Children of Wrath and actually in Satan's Kingdom till God is pleased to sanctify them and those who die in Infancy that are saved no doubt he doth sanctify their unclean Nature but not such as live and remain in Satan's Kingdom until they are regenerated by the Word and Spirit of God after they are grown up to Understanding 3. Therefore some Infants may be Members of the Invisiole Church or Mystical Body of Christ tho not Members of the Visible Church and of this sort there may be among the Children of Unbelievers as well as among the Children of Believers for the Election of Grace runs not only to the Seed of the Faithful say what you please as I said before 4. Therefore you do not well to call Children Dogs if they are not in the Pale of the Visible Church You say the Promises are the Inheritance of the Church not to those that are without and therefore say you if the Children be without they are among Dogs and what Promise belongs to them Rev. 22. 15. and where there is no Promise there is no hope of Salvation c. Answ 1. I answer the Promise runs to Christ and all that the Father hath given him but we do not know who they are until they believe 2. The Promises are not the Inheritance of all that are Members of the Visible Church for they may not belong to some that are in it and they may belong to some others that are not in it You darken Counsel with Words without Knowledg For 1. You distinguish not between the Visible and Invisible Church 2. Also you distinguish not between who are the Lord 's decretively and who are his actually 3. Moreover you distinguish not between external Privileges and true internal spiritual Privileges No external Privileges or outward Church-Membership gives any Man a Right to Salvation nor puts him under the Promise thereof 3. There is hope and ground of hope touching the Salvation of dying Infants tho they are not in Gospel-times of the Visible Church because Christ saith of such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven But pray Sir take heed of what you say You cannot prove that our blessed Saviour spake those words only with reference to the Children of Believers I know no cause why unbelieving Parents should doubt of the Salvation of their dying Infants They may so far as I see have as much ground to hope God's Election may reach their dying Infants as any Believer can have it may reach to theirs What if I should exercise so much Charity as to hope that God hath comprehended in his electing Love all the dying Infants both of Believers and Unbelievers and that through the Blood and Merits of Christ they are sanctified and shall be all saved My Opinion were it so could not justly be condemned by any but I say secret things belong to God and I shall forbear to pass any Judgment in the case but leave it to God but I am sure no Child shall be damned for the Parent 's Fault Can Parents by baptizing their Infants save them Or are they Dogs and must be damned if their Parents baptize them not and dare not do it because Christ hath not commanded them to baptize them 4. Sir what if a Man and his Wife when they were both vile and ungodly People as bad as any that live on Earth should beget many Children and afterwards they both believe and become good Christians is the State of those Children begotten when they believed good and they holy and are the Children they had when they were vile and wicked Persons bad nay so bad as they are to be counted Dogs O that God would open your Eves Nay if it were as you intimate it may be queried Whether it be not a sinful a wicked and an unlawful thing for two ungodly unbelieving unfaithful Persons to marry since they can beget no Children but such as you call Dogs for you will not say their Children are holy or ought to be baptized nor are in the Pale of the Church But to conclude with this Chapter let me speak a word to you that are Believers and also a word to you that are Unbelievers and I shall pass to the next Argument 1. To you that are Believers and have Children if they are holy and Heirs of Heaven as they are begotten and born of your Bodies as Mr. Owen and other Pedobaptists assert then you need not trouble your Thoughts about your dying Infants tho they are not baptized for 't is not Baptism makes them holy by Mr. Owen's Concession but because they are your Children 't is by your Faith they are holy as he blindly supposes 2. And since Baptism doth not belong to them Christ no where having commanded you to baptize them nor can it add any thing to their Salvation I charge you in the Fear of God baptize them not 3. But do not believe Mr. Owen nor any other Man in what he says unless he can prove it from God's Word I tell you from Christ's own Words you have ground of hope touching the State of your dying Infants but not because they are your Children but because of such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven and they may be in God's eternal Election of Grace For as Dr. Taylor saith and I mentioned before God may have many ways to apply the Blood of Christ to save and sanctify dying Infants which we know not of but we are not any more required to haptize them or to give them one Sacrament than we are required to give them the other viz. the Lord's-Supper and this he will one day know to be a Truth tho now he sees it not O! saith Mr. Owen cast them not out from the Church of God out of the Covenant of Salvation they are your dear Children Children of your
was no Ordinance of God but a meer Human Tradition But the Custom â—…ng the Jews of baptizing the Heathen and their Children 〈◊〉 were admitted into their Church was never Commâ—… of God nor any where given unto them by Moses who was faithful in all his House Ergo That Custom was no Ordinance of God but a meer Human Tradition Lastly Take what a VVorthy and Learned Author hath said in Confutation of this foolish and absurd Argument for Pedo bâ—ptism 't is Sir Norton Knatchbul Kt. and Baronet The Thing saith he is uncertain that it cannot be said of the Râ—bbins that there were not several among them who differed very much about this matter for Rabbi Eliâ—zar expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first that I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews for Rabbi Eliezar who was Contemporary with Raâ—bi Joshua if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte Circumcised and not Baptized was a true Proselyte for so we read of the Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Jacob that they were Circumcised but not Baptized But Rabbi Joshua affirms that he who was Baptized not he that was Circumcised was a true Proselyte To whom shall I give Credit to Eliezar who asserts what the Scripture confirms or to Joshua who aâ—…ms what is no where to be found in Scripture But the Rabbins upheld Joshua's Side and what Wonder was it For it made for their Business that is for the Honour of the Jewish Religion that the Christians should borrow their Ceremonies from them But when I see Men of great Learning in these Times fetching the Foundations of Truth from the Rabbins I cannot but heâ—…ate a little For whence was the Talmud sent as they are the Words of Buxtors in his Synagoga Judaica that we should give Credit thereto that from thence we should believe that the Law of Moses either can or ought to be understood Much less the Gospel to which they were profess'd Enemies For the Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors and the Foundation of Jewish Fables it was brought to Perfection and held for authentick five hundred Years after Christ Therefore it is unreasonable to rest upon the Testimony of it And that which moves me most Josephus to omit all the Fathers that lived before the Talmud was finished who was a Jew and a Contemporary with Rabbi Eliezar who also wrote in particular of the Rites Customs and Acts of the Jews is altogether silent in this Matter So that it is an Argument to me next to a Demonstration that two such Eminent Persons both Jews and living at the same Time the one should positively deny and the other make no mention of Baptism among the Jews Besides if Baptism in the Modern Sense were in use among the Jews in Antient Times why did the Pharisees ask John Baptist Why dost thou baptize if thou art not Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet Do they not plainly intimate that Baptism was not in use before and that it was a received Opinion among them that there should be no Baptism till either Christ or Elias or that Prophet came So far Sir Norton Knatchbull in his Notes printed at Oxford Anno Dom. 1677. with the Licence of the Vice-Chancellor a very Learned Man and a Son of the Church of England Sir What think you now of your Jewish Custom of baptizing the Heathens and their Children who were admitted to their Church Do you think there was not need that Infant-Baptism should be mentioned in the Holy Scripture had it been a Truth Is this uncertain Story of the Jewish Custom sufficient for you to build your Faith and Practice upon when the Truth of the Story as to Matter of Fact may justly be doubted But if it was true it is but a rotten Foundation to build one of the great Sacraments of Christ upon viz. a vile profane and Human Tradition of the Jewish Rabbins You say The Israelites and their Children were baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea 1 Cor. 10. 2 3. That Israel going under the Cloud and through the Sea that was say you a Baptism unto them The Cloud rained upon them and the Sea dropped upon them which was as a High Wall round about them 2. This Baptism under the Cloud and in the Sea signifyeth in its Essence the same thing with the Baptism of the Gospel viz. the Lord Jesus Christ and his Blessings The Spiritual Washings in the Sea and the Spiritual Drink from the Rock signified the same thing even Christ he was the Substance of all the Types under the Law The Pillar of Cloud and the Pillar of Fire did foreshew the Baptism of Water and the Baptism of Fire or of the Holy Spirit the falling of the Water from the Cloud signified the pouring of the Holy Ghost c. 3. The Children were baptized with their Parents with the Baptism of Moses they were all baptized unto Moses c. Answer Two Things are to be done to disprove what you say here 1. That the Rain falling from the Cloud was not that which was the Figure of Baptism 2. That this Text doth not prove Infants to be the Subject of Baptism First If Persons may be said to be baptized when it rains upon them How many times have you and I been so baptized Besides Do you think it never rained upon the â—…ites before they passed through the Sea And Secondly Prove if you can it did then either rain upon them from the Cloud or that the Sea dropped upon them 't is but your own ungrounded Supposition Thirdly Prove that Rain falling upon them can in any Sense be called a Washing or Baptism Therefore let the Reader consider well what our Annotators speak on this Place see Mr. Pool's Annotations on 〈◊〉 Cor. 10. 2 3. Others saith he more probably think that the Apostle useth this Term in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptism as it was then used the Persons baptized going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea that great Receptacle of Water though the Water at that time was gathered on Heaps on either side of them yet they seemed buried in the Water as Persons in that Age were when baptized Thus spake your Brethren who compleated Mr. Pool's Annotations They tell you in what Sense the Fathers were said to be baptized unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud Here is nothing of sprinkling pouring or raining on them but they were as it were buried in the Sea and under the Cloud and so it represents Immersion or Dipping which is Christ's true Baptism We are buried not sprinkled with Christ in Baptism both in the Sign and also in Signification to shew he was dead buried and rose again for us and that we are dead to Sin and ought to walk in Newness of Life But do not mistake the Fathers being said to be baptized to Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud was
called Men washed Sanctifyed Justifyed They are all called Saints and Churches of Saints all Christians are called sanctifyed ones or Saints therefore it is certain that they professed themselves such Thus far Mr. Richard Baxter Sir I thought fit to confute you in your bold Assertion viz. that John the Baptist baptized all that came to him even those Pharisees that he called a Generation of Vipers by making use of the Sword of Goliah Reader how this Pedo-Baptists Mr. Baxter hath not only overthrown Mr. Owen's argument here for Infant Baptism but utterly hath overthrown Infant Baptism it self 1. For he saith the Commission directeth Christ's Apostles to make Disciples and then baptize them p. 27. 2. He saith the summ of that preaching that maketh Disciples is repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ p. 30 31. Where then is the Commission to baptize Infants Baptism can't make them Disciples nor their Parents Faith neither no 't is the preaching of the word he that has not Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is no Disciple of Christs You must have a new Commission to baptize unbelievers or Infants either before ye ought to do it 6. You say John came to prepare the way of the Lord the end of his baptism was to bind all the People to believe in the Lord Jesus which was to come Faith was not the condition of John's Baptism but the end thereof his Baptism laid a particular obligation on all the Seed of Abraham to receive Christ Childred as well as others were bound to receive him when they came to Age because Baptism was a sign of that obligation c. Answer Could you prove what you say it was something to your Business viz. that John baptized all even ungodly Parents as well as Children which Mr. Baxter from God's word hath fully confuted 2. Also then it must follow that the baptism of John and that baptism administred by the Apostles differed in an essential part which you your self but a little before do utterly deny and affirm that they were both essentially one and the same baptism only one unto him that was to come and the other into him that was come Dead and Risen again Now was not Faith and Repentance the condition of that Baptism administred by the Apostles did not they require Faith and a profession of Faith of all they admitted to Baptism the Scriptures Mr. Baxter cites in the aforementioned Book of his fully proves they did and that those things were prerequisites of it therefore Baptism as administred by John and by the Disciples of Christ was not only to the end they should be obliged to believe and repent but Faith and Repentance was the condition or qualification of all they baptized For John nor the Apostles neither would take a bare verbal profession of Repentance of those that came to Baptism John commanded them to produce the Fruits of Repentance or to bring forth Fruit meet for Repentance and this was his way to prepare the way of the Lord or to prepare a People for the Lord 's Spiritual Building he preached Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand That Vow or Promise in Baptism that you dream of prepares no Man for Christ nor fits any for his Church no. no it must be Conversion Faith and Regeneration it self 7. You say little Children were Members of the Church of God in the time of John none can deny that because Circumsion the Seal of the Covenant was upon them all the Seed of Abraham were at that time God's visible Church and they were his only Church upon Earth they were not out of the Church before they were baptized neither were they received into the Church of God through Baptism as those that were out of it before but the whole Nation were baptized because they were Members of God's visible Church and because little Children were Members of the visible Church the Baptism of John appertained unto them 1. Answer I answer we deny not but the Jewish Infants were Members of God's legal Church but I ask you whether John's Baptism was a legal Ordinance or a pure Gospel Ordinance as Circumcision was prove it we deny it and say it was Evangelical and did not appertain to the Jews or the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh as such 2. If you should prove it was a legal Ordinance yet it doth not follow Infants of the Jews ought to be baptized as their Males were to be Circumcised because there was a clear politive command to circumcise them but none to baptize them 3. If you argue from the right of Circumcision then it follows that none but their male Infants ought to be baptized What authority had John to baptize females whether the adult or Infants as I said refore 4. I am troubled to see how you confound your Peoples understanding was the Jewish Church or the Visible Church of God under the Law and the visible Gospel Church formally and materially one and the same Had the Jews a right to all Gospel Ordinances and Privileges because they abode his legal visible Church till the Death of Christ we grant the invisible Church of God under Law and Gospel is but one and the same but doth not the Gospel Church in its Ordinances Administrations Rights and Piviledges vastly differ from the legal was not the visible Church of God under the Law a National Church made up of the Jewish People only and is the Gospel Church not congregational consisting of both Jews and Gentiles that believe or are born of the Spirit 5. What though John did not make void the Covenant of peculiarity God made with Abraham yet he laid the Ax at the Root and being to prepare matter for a new Church State and his Ministry being Gospel and the Ordinance he administred a Gospel Institution he told the Jews and Pharisees that their being Abraham's Seed or having Abraham to their Father now was no good Plea or Argument for them to plead as a right to this new Administration John's Doctrine did in part finish the Law and the Prophets or old covenant Dispensation though the full period of it was not come till the death of Christ Hence our Saviour saith the Law and the Prophets were untill John and from that time the Kingdom of Heaven began to suffer Violence and Men strove to press into it though its full and perfect beginning was not till our Lord had broken down the middle wall of Partition and nail'd the legal Rites and carnal Ordinances to his Cross and removed that enmity between Jews and Gentiles making both one new Man and so a new Gospel Church pray take what one of your own Brethren a Pedo-Baptist saith of John's Ministration it is Reverend Cotton of New-England Who speaking of this Text Mat. 3. 10. Now also the Ax is laid to the Root of the Trees The first saith he is the Root of Abraham's Covenant which these People trusted upon and of
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
and twelfth and last Argument YOU say Infant Baptism is an excellent means which God hath ordained for to plant and continue the Church of God Christ thus commanded his Apostles to gather Churches among the Gentiles by teaching and baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. Mat. 28. 29. Answ I answer The way it appears that Christ commanded his Apostles to gather Churches among the Gentiles is first to teach them and then baptize them you say right whilst you repeat the Text but God hath not commanded to baptize Infants and that way to plant his Church You add It is an excellent means for this end making Children to be Disciples of Christ let none marvel at this because Infants are of the number of Disciples Acts 15. 11. Why tempt ye God to put a yoke on the necks of the Disciples Those Disciples were say you the Faithful and their Seed Answ This is not true The Disciples in the Text you cite refer only to Believers among the Gentiles those false Teachers would have the Brethren be circumcised and they were they only that are called Disciples These Brethren being Gentiles were never circumcised and therefore these false Teachers taught them so to be see Acts 15. 1. 2. Sir I will appeal to your Conscience in this matter Is not a Disciple one that is taught or instructed and can Infants be called Disciples who are not capable of being taught Mr. Baxter saith Such that are made Disciples by teaching are the Subjects of Baptism according to the Commission and he is in the right 3. Doth the baptizing of Infants make them Disciples Doth Christ say baptize and so make them Disciples Or is it not make Disciples and baptize them Mathetusate disciplize and then it follows baptize them You say Christ knoweth how to administer a secret Doctrine to Infants according to his promise Thy Children shall be all taught of the Lord. Answ 1. No doubt but Christ is able to do it But doth he in a secret way administer Instruction to Infants prove it and also how you come to know it for they must be known Disciples visible Disciples that are to be baptized 2. Are they little Infants that Promise refers to i. e. Thy Children shall be all taught of God They are Sion's Children or such that are born of God that are under that Promise not Infants or our Children as such for are all Believers natural Offspring taught of God when Babes or adult either O abominable abuse of the holy Text Baptism say you setteth little Children under a particular obligation to be the Lord's doubtless they can receive such an obligation now as formerly they did Deut. 29. 11 12. And it is as certain that this Bond is a great advantage to make them willing when they come to age God hath presented them by the Grace of his Covenant c. Answ 1. 'T is you pretend to lay them under an obligation but not by Christ's authority prove he hath commanded you so to do 2. Doth Baptism confer Grace you seem to assert this for else how hath God by Baptism prevented them Your sprinkling them with water doth not cannot prevent them I affirm therefore 't is an obligation of man's devising for you cannot prove it is of God's appointment therefore to refuse to bring them under such an obligation is no fantastick thing as you intimate it is You say the mark of the Spirit is upon them Answ Baptism is no mark of the Spirit to any but to such who have the Spirit and what a Mock-Baptism is it to give the Sign where appears no demonstration of the thing thereby signified You say on the other side Satan hath not such an advantage against those that are baptized in their Infancy Answ How doth it appear that Satan hath not such an advantage against your Children as he hath against ours that were never baptized as you call Rantism I am sure our Children generally are as sober and helped to escape Satan's snares as far forth as yours generally are VVill God own or bless an humane Tradition The Woman that Luther mentioned no doubt might think she was obliged to fear God by that sort of Baptism she had when she was an Infant yet God never obliged her to come under that obligation but may be she was baptized when a Believer However the Papists may argue for their voluntary Vows after the same manner viz. it is a great help and an advantage to them to preserve them from sin and temptations of the Devil Infant-Baptism is an excellent means you say to plant the true Religion and to continue the Church by giving an advantage for the Ministers of the Gospel to reason with such when they come to age far better than they can with those that are not baptized that they might call them to remembrance of their baptismal Vow c. Answ This is certainly a grand mistake for instead of its being an advantage to Ministers to reason with such that were baptized in their Infancy to remember their baptismal Vow and so to believe and turn to God 't is apparent it may â—inder them for if those persons when grown up do call to remembrance what you Pedobaptists have taught and told them touching those Blessings and Privileges they then received it may rather take them off from seeking after either Faith or Repentance 1. For you tell them when their Parents believed and were saved they were made partakers of the same Privilege and Blessing also if so what need they concern themselves about getting personal Faith you believe and teach them the Doctrine of final Perseverance no doubt such who are in a state of Grace can never finally fall out of it 2. The Obligation and Vow that lies upon baptized persons according to the Scripture is not that they seek after Regeneration no for it necessarily supposeth that they had that before baptized but it doth bind or oblige them to persevere in Holiness that as they have been buried in Baptism as persons dead to sin so they should walk in newness of life Rom. 6. 3 4. Now you would have your Baptism to oblige your baptized Children to become dead to sin they were not it appears dead when buried with Christ in Baptism but you bury them alive if you baptized them To shew them they must die Sir God never ordained Baptism to such an end or to oblige persons thus to do see Rom. 6. 3. 4 5 6 7 8. Col. 1. 12 13. 3. The Church of England saith That the Child which they baptize is thereby that is in Baptism regenerated and made a Child of God a Member of Christ and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven And what you say implies as much for it must needs be thus if when the Parents believe and are regenerated and saved the Child partakes of the same privilege then the Child believed and was regenerated and saved also Now if this be so what
advantage can Ministers have from the Consideration of Infants Baptism to press Regeneration or the Performance of Repentance upon them when they come to age above what we have to press these great Duties upon our Children when grown up that never were baptized What need is there to press that on the Consciences of your Children when they come to age which they had wrought in them when they were in their Infancy No your Work is rather to press them as Saints and renewed Persons to live holy Lives and improve those Divine Habits which they received when their Parents believed or those inspired Habits that were plauted in their Souls when in Infancy they were baptized and regenerated 4. Certainly your Children when they come to age may think that they received some mighty Privilege in their Infancy by being in the Covenant of Grace with their Parents and so in a State safe enough for you tell them there is no final Falling from a State of true Grace We and you too know that and declare that the Covenant of Grace is sure to all the true Seed or Spiritual Seed of Abraham of which Seed you declare all your natural Off-spring as such are a part This being so it is evident that Ministers have no Advantages but the contrary in pressing the necessity of Repentance and Conversion on your Children when at age we have the greater advantage far in preaching to our Sons and Daughters who tell them that our Faith did not cannot profit them or save them no but that they were born in sin and were Children of Wrath by Nature and so remain till true actual Faith and Regeneration do pass upon them or they do believe in Christ 5. Besides the Baptismal Vow you brought them under being not by God's Appointment what Blessing can you expect from thence Will God own and bless a voluntary Vow or approve of an Humane Tradition 6. The Papists as I hinted before may expect as well and from as good Ground and Authority as great advantage to press Holiness and Chastity upon those that they bring under their voluntary Vows and Covenants in their Nunneries and Fryaries 7. Besides your Children entred not into that Baptismal-Covenant you talk of by their own consent they knew nothing of it and can find no Authority from God's Word you had to bring them under it and therefore what power is that like to have upon their Consciences Had you not better bring them under a solemn Vow to become good and to repent as soon as they come to age nay bring them under an Oath or cause them to enter into a solemn Covenant so to do and set their Hands unto it But you will say you have no Command nor Warrant from God's Word to do that no more say we have you any Command or Warrant from the Word of God to bring them under any such Baptismal Vow â—o forsake Sin the Devil and all his Works c. in their Infancy Infant-Baptism is so effectual to continue the true Religion and the Encrease of the Church of God at this time as Circumcision formerly had been It pleased God to continue true Religion among the Jews by bringing their Children under the Bond of the Covenant He left them not to their own liberty c. and let none take upon them to be wiser than God by leaving Children at this time to follow their own Fancies to choose their own Religion without having God's Covenant upon them for Humane Nature is as corruptible at this time as formercy c. Answ 1. I answer Circumcision was God's absolute and positive Command in the Jewish Church which was national but God hath not commanded Infants to be baptized into the Gospel-Church which is not National but Congregational if therefore there was the like Authority from God for the one as there was for the other we would contend with you no longer 2. 'T is you that would seem wiser than God whose Wisdom hath not led him to erect his Gospel Church of such Materials or of such Matter and in such Form now as it was his Wisdom to build the Jewish or Legal Church Must the fleshly Seed as such be taken into the Gospel-Church by Baptism because the Male-Infants were circumcised under the Law Who tells you so where is it written Will you be wiser than God Did not John Baptist say Think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father Now the Ax is laid to the Root of the Tree Now the case is altered as if he should say Now we know no Man after the Flesh 2 Cor. 5. 17 18. 3. Hath not God freely left us and our Children to choose to be his Servants or to choose our Religion Are not the Saints to be all Volunteers Will Christ accept of Prest-Souldiers into his Service Or have you any power to force or compel your Children to be of what Perswasion in Religion you please God it is true hath no more left Children now than formerly to follow their own Fancies no God forbid But he hath commanded them to believe and be baptized and not to follow the Fancies of their Parents any more than to follow their own Fancies nor Ministers who teach them contrary Doctrine to that which the Word of God doth 4. As to the Corruption of our Nature 't is true that is as bad as ever but your Sprinkling your Children in Infancy hath no Virtue or Power in it to change or purge out that Corruption your Children receive no benefit by that you call Baptism Say what you will I am sure you cannot prove they receive any profit thereby 5. I affirm God hath not commanded us to bring our Children into the Bond of the Covenant by Baptism until they believe and you can never disprove us while you live from God's Word You say the Lord hath blessed the Baptism of Infants to be a Means for the continuing of the true Religion and of the Christian Church From the days of the Apostles even to this very day the Lord bestoweth his particular Blessings but upon his own Ordinance he imprinteth not the Seal of Heaven upon earthly Inventions none can deny but that there are thousands baptized in their Infancy that feel in themselves the Virtue of their Baptism Answ 1. I answer You cannot prove that God hath any manner of ways owned or blessed Infant-Baptism for because God hath continued a Seed to serve him in every Age since the Apostles time will you attribute that to Infant-Baptism which is only to be ascribed to the rich and soveraign Grace of God and Power of his Spirit 2. As to the true Church for many years she was hid and in the Wilderness she fled from the face of the Romish Beast and cruel Dragon Rev. 12. I must confess Infant-Baptism hath in part been a means to keep up the name of the Christian Religion in the Church ever since the Apostacy and it was
dying in Infancy are certainly saved it makes say you that Ordinance a Channel of Grace c. 1. Answ This is like to the rest But Sir by what Authority do you assert all these things You know what wonderful Vertue the Papists say is in many of their Popish Rites Ceremonies and Reliques i. e. in their crossing of themselves and in their Holy-water especially in their Agnns Dei But how do they prove it Even as well as you do what you speak here upon this account and we have the same reason to believe them as to believe you in what you speak without Proof or Authority from God's word 2. Pious Parents But alas how few are there of that sort but what hope have the Impious Prophane and ungodly Parent of the Salvation of his dying Children But Sir I thought all the Pious and Believing or Godly Parents Children were born in Covenant with God that their Parents Faith would have secured them whether Baptized or not were not the Jews Female Children saved they were not Circumcised And were not their Male Infants saved who dyed before the Eighth Day 3. From what Scripture is it these Pious though Ignorant and deceiv'd Parents may have hope that their Children that dye in their Infancy shall be saved and none but theirs that are Baptized or rather Rantised 4. Will Pedo-Baptists make Baptism their Saviour Can Baptism save them And is it so indeed Is it in the power of Parents to save or damn their Children And how came Baptism to have such power in it or who made that a Channel of Grace to dying Infants Do you not place that Virtue in an external Rite that only belongs to the Blood of Christ and sanctifying Grace of God's Spirit Mr. Perkins saith That Baptism indeed saveth but saith he that is not the Baptism of Water but the stipulation of a good Conscience by the Resurrection Again he saith the outward Baptism without the inward is no mark of God's Child but the mark of a Fool that makes a Vow and afterwards breaks it 5. May not this Doctrine of theirs clearly tend to scare and affright poor Parents with fear that all their Babes that dye in their Mothers Womb or before baptized are damned And Oh in what a sad Condition are all the Children of the ungodly and impious Persons whose little Babes you dare not cannot Baptise if you are true to your own Principles But that Text may give us better ground of Hopes a Thousand times concerning the well being of our dying Infants where our Saviour saith for of such are the Kingdom of Heaven and that also which you mention I shall go to him he shall not return to me together with the infinite Mercy of God through the virtue of Christ's Blood who can convey help and healing to dying Infants and Ideots in ways we know not of nor are we to trouble our Selves about such secret things that are not revealed 6. Mr. Burkitt saith the practice of Infant Baptism appears most beneficial because it prevents such shameful and scandalous neglects of Baptism to the blemish of Christianity Ans Is it then a shameful scandal to neglect a Tradition of Man For so I have proved Infant Baptism to be Where is the shame that ought to be in Christians that Christs Laws and Precepts are neglected and his precious Ordinance of Baptism exposed to Contempt and Shame as it is by you and Thousands more whilst the Statutes of Omri are zealously kept and observed as the Prophet of old complained I mean humane Rites and Traditions or Statutes like those of Omri instituted by him and Jeroboam which the Wisdom of your Church and many corrupt Churches have been zealous for to this day and thus I have run through and examined Mr. Burkitts Six particulars which he brought to prove the usefulness of Infant Baptism above the baptism of Believers which our Blessed Saviour Instituted and now shall shew you further that Infant Baptism is so far from being more useful then that of the Adult that it is a palpable error and therefore of no use at all but the contrary viz. a very sinful thing Reader can that be useful or any ways beneficial which Christ never Commanded or required to be done in his Name but is unrighteously Fathered upon him to the utter making void his own Ordinance of baptizing Believers 2. Can that have any usefulness in it that brings guilt upon the Parents in doing it making them guilty of Will Worship or of a humane Tradition 3. Can that be useful that brings Babes into such a Covenant which Christ never Ordained them to enter into and to which they directly nor indirectly consented nor approved of and which they are utterly unable to keep and which giveth them no strength to perform nor is there one promise of God made to assist or help them to do it and yet for not keeping of it they are charged with Perjury with self Murder nay with Hell and Damnation 4. Can that be of use to Infants that may basely beguile and deceive them causing them when grown up to think they were thereby made Christians and become the Children of God Members of Christ and Inhabitants of the Kingdom of Heaven nay Regenerated and from hence never look after any other work of Grace nor Regeneration but conclude all is well with them 5. Can that be an usual thing which the doing of it is a palpable alteration of the words of Christ's Commission and so inverts that Holy Order left by him for baptizing who requires none to be baptized before they be first Taught and made Disciples 6. Can that be of any use to an Infant which you nor no Man else can prove from Gods Word to have any use and Blessing in it to them 7. Can an humane Rite or Tradition think you save poor Children or a little Water sprinkled on the Face wash away Original Sin Or will God bless a Tradition of Man 8. Can Water beget Children to Christ or can that be useful to them which they have only the bare sign of and not the thing signified viz. the Sign of Regeneration but not Regeneration it self a sign of Grace but not Grace it self you give them the Shell but no Kernel the name of a Christian but no nature of a Christian making that you call Christ's Baptism as Dr. Taylorsaith a sign without effect and like the Fig-tree in the Gospel full of Leaves but no Fruit. 9. Can that be useful that tends to make the Gospel Church National and confounds the Church and the World together which ought to be Congregational a holy and separate People like a Garden enclosed 10. Can Baptism be more useful to Infants then adult Believers notwithstanding the Scripture saith that the Person baptized doth not only believe but call upon the name of the Lord Acts 22. 16. Can Infants do that 11. Can Infant Baptism be more useful then that of Believers and
have put some of the Texts of Scripture down at large that you cite and doth that Text in Psalm 72. 13. not relate to Jesus Christ personally considered if not only so yet Christ mistical viz. the elect Seed and not to all the Members of the visible Church as such and so also in the other Scriptures and dare you thus abuse the Sacred Scriptures applying these prayers and promises to all your Infants 2. Do your Children as such walk according to that Rule Gal. 6. 16. are they all new Creatures read the Context or do you not falsly apply and interpret these Scriptures 3. And if all unbaptized Persons be without any share in those prayers you your self are without them for you was only Rantized But what stress do you lay upon Baptism Are none Membes of Gods Mystical and Spiritual Sion but such who are baptized 4. Also how do you go about to blind and deceive the Souls of your Children in causing them to believe they are Members of Gods Sion and have part in those prayers when it may be 't is false or no such thing they being some of them when grown up wicked or ungodly 3. Say you as you are Members of the Church of God you have a particular right unto the promises the inheritance of the Church are the promises they belong unto her and not to others as formerly the promises belonged to the Visible Church of the Jews so now to the Visible Church of the Gentiles Rom. 9. 4. Gal. 4. 23. 1. Answ I have proved that our Children as such are not Members of the visible Church no nor ought any of the Children of Believers to be taken into it but such that believe that repent or that are born again 2. If any others viz. such that are not regenerated are taken into the visible Church whether Infants or Adult Persons 't is not by God's appointment and therefore such have no right to the Special and Spiritual promises of God which are the peculiar inheritance of the elect of God 3. The visible Church of the Jews as so considered had many external promises belonging to them that is not deny'd which the Gentile Church hath no right unto but the whole Jewish Church or all her visible Members had not a right to the Spiritual Promises of God They are not all Israel that are of Israel Rom. 9. 6. neither because they are Seed of Abraham are they all Children vers 7. that is they are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed vers 8. You mention the 4 Verse but mention not the Verses I have cited which open the 4th verse and thus you go about to give a false Exposition of the Scripture and deceive the understanding of your poor Children and others also But say you though the whole Members of the visible Church be not partakers of the Grace of the Promises Heb. 4. 1. which are given to the elect only yet all the Members of the visible Church have more right to this Grace then others that are without it being their own Fault if they refuse it Answ You in the first place speak right here but what you speak in your next Words are utterly false 1. You say the whole Members or all the Members of the Visible Church be not partakers of the grace of the promises this is right but why do you say that all the Members of the Visible Church have more right to the promises then those poor Souls who are enquiring the way into the Visible Church in all sincerity of Heart 'T is I fear dangerous for people to set under such a Teacher I affirm that the State of such that are let into the Visible Church who are unsound or carnal Persons is worse then the State of others neither are they under the promises of grace above others for 1. First they conclude perhaps all is well with them and that they are converted because the pastor of the Church nay and the Church her self so judgeth of them and from hence they look not after regeneration or true Convertion but look upon themselves to be Holy or Saints of God now the promises of Grace do not run to these as they do to those that see themselves lost and undone Sinners being far from God and out of the pail of the visible Church therefore you do your Children great Mischief and hurt in taking them into your Churches unless they are Converted and truly gracious 't is no blessing nor benefit to be false Members of the visible Church but what do you mean by the last Clause is it the Sinners sault if he is not elected or can Men obtain Grace if they will True they ought not to refuse God's Call Say you your baptized Children seek a clear understanding of that Obligation and the Vow of your baptism Learn of your Parents and Ministers to know the signification and need of your Baptism ye are given unto Christ and are not your own ye are bound to renounce the Devil and all his Works to renounce the pomps and vanity of this wicked World to renounce the pleasure and lusts of the Flesh you are bound to take God the Father to be your God and chief end taking the Son to be your Lord and Saviour unto you and God the Holy Ghost to be your Sanctifier c. 1. Answ Those that are baptized should understand the Nature of that Obligation before they enter into that Covenant 2. The end of Baptism was Ordained by Christ to shew that the Person baptized is born again is dead to sin not that he ought or is bound afterwards to be Born again no no but after he is baptized he is obliged thereby to walk in newness of life You by baptizing Infants invert the design and end of Baptism how should your Children understand this Obligation when their Parents and Ministers are so ignorant about the nature of that Obligation themselves 3. Believers do thus take God the Father Son and Holy Ghost in baptism to be their God but so do not Infants by any appointment of God 4. It appears that you approve of the Church of Englands Catechism if so all your Baptized Infants are according to your Doctrin in Baptism regenerated and have thereby renounced the Devil and all his Works c. 3. As soon as ye come to Age and Understanding renew your Covenant with God the Lord hath received in his Covenant the Faith of your Parents for you in your Infancy but now ye are of Years if ye your selves will not believe and repent and take God to be a God unto you your baptism will not longer benefit you c. Answ I answer if it be thus your Children are not much beholding to their Parents Faith nor to Covenant Grace you tell them when their Parents believed and were saved all their Children were saved and in covenant with them
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