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
still proceed from the Loins of Godly Parents And how gracious do many Children of wicked Parents prove when grown up 2. You know not whether these little Children were the Children of Godly Parents or not nor who they were that brought them to Christ their Parents might be ungodly as far as we know and yet some of their Relations Kindred or Neighbours might believe that Christ would bless them and heal them therefore they might bring them to Christ 3. You say Baptism is Christ's Mark but I have shewed the foolishness of that Assertion Baptism is not distinguishing Mark that God's Children have on them but his Mark and Seal is his holy Spirit and his holy Nature or Image stampt upon the Soul 4. You say that Christ was very angry with his Disciples for forbidding little Children to come unto him Reply From hence we may gather it was not the Command of their Master that they should be baptized or come that way unto him for if it had besure the faithful Disciples of our Lord would not have once attempted to forbid them to be brought to Christ Moreover it is thought the Reason why the Disciples forbid them to bring little Children to our blessed Lord might be left by their crying they might disturb him for that we see little Children in a Croud of People are subject to do But you insist to shew what great Bowels Christ manifested to these little Children and fain would have it because he knew they were in God's Covenant c. Answ By this you seem to intimate that all Infants are in Covenant with God for I say again you cannot prove that these little Children were Children of faithful and holy Persons However I will add here what I have said in Answer to Mr. Burkitt on this Argument to which or any other of my Answers he hath not attempted to give any Reply but as I am inform'd is resolved to let it rest in silence and write no more on the Subject Take his Argument from this Text which is in substance the same that you further insist on about Christ's Bowels and Love to those little Children If Infants saith he be capable of Christ's Blessing on Earth and of his Presence in Heaven if they be Subjects of his Kingdom of Grace and Heirs of his Kingdom of Glory then they have an undoubted right to the Privilege of Subjects among which the Seal of the Covenant is not the least Answ 1. We answer and argue thus to the first part of the Proposition viz. In many of the Jews and others who were ungodly Persons were capable of Christ's Blessings i. e. of being healed of their Bodily Diseases they were Subjects of Baptism Is this sound arguing What farther Blessing Christ vouchsafed to Infants when he laid his Hands upon them we know not for that was the way Christ took oftentimes in the healing the Sick and so blessed many Persons that never were baptized as we read of 2. We as I have before told you do deny Infants are Subjects of the Visible Church therefore if by the Kingdom of Grace any intend not that they beat the Air Alas such â—o arguing beg and prove not besides it doth not follow I say again tho Infants may be Heirs of the Kingdom of Glory therefore they have an undoubted right to the Privileges of the Subjects of God's Church for then it would follow they have right to one Privilege as well as to another and are to have Fellowship with the Saints and Houshold of God as well as Baptism Mr. Burkitt argues further thus viz. Those whom Christ invites to him and are received by him his Ministers may not refuse nor put from them But Infant â—re by Christ invited to him and were received by him therefore the Ministers of Christ may not ought not durst not refuse them into Communion with them Take my Answer Answ 1. Christ invited Multitudes to come unto him and he received them so far as to feed them with Barley-Loaves and Fishes and to the Blessing of healing them of their Bodily Distempers But may his Ministers therefore receive all such into their Communion 2. In the days of Christ when he was upon Earth there were many who are said to come unto him whom he might receive into his Presence and Company yet his Ministers might not baptize them nor receive them into their spiritual Communion nor indeed you dare not so receive infants I mean into your Communion of the Lord's-Supper We read of some Pharisees and Lawyers that came to Christ and he received them into his Company who it appears came to tempt him Also the Sadduces are said to come unto him who said there was no Resurrection may Christ's Ministers baptize such and receive them into their Communion Therefore in Opposition to what Mr. Burkitt says in his Book I affirm there were then other ordinary ways of coming to Christ than by Admission into his Church Christ invited the worst of Sinners unto him who nevertheless did not receive him Therefore there are some who must be excluded whom Jesus Christ graciously inviteth Mr. Burkitt's Appeal for Proof of this Argument to St. Mark 10. 3. Suffer little Children to come unto me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven doth not his Business they do not belong to the Kingdom of Grace i. e. the Church for if they did belong to that or were of the Visible Church as such then he need not by Baptism make them belong to it If Christ owns them Subjects or Members of his Visible Church then Pedo-baptists need not add them thereto by Baptism For if as they are the Seed of Believers they are already fide foederis not only in Covenant with God but also belong unto his Kingdom or Church upon Earth all the World may see that Mr. Burkitt goes about to give them that very Right or Privilege which they had before and without Baptism Doth Christ saith he take Children into his Arms and shall his Church cast them out of her Imbraces Answ May I not argue thus i. e. Doth Christ receive all Persons into his Arms of Mercy to heal their Bodily Distempers of which perhaps some were wicked and ungodly And shall the Church refuse to receive all such into her Imbraces Besides all those pretended Consequences make no more for Infants to be baptized than for their receiving the Lord's-Supper and all other Privileges that belong as well as Baptism to Adult Persons who believe or are Disciples Does Christ says he own them for Subjects in his Kingdom and shall we allow them no better standing than in the Devil's Kingdom Answ Does Christ own Infants to be Subjects of his Kingdom and yet did not baptize them for that he did not and shall we attempt to baptize them as if we were wiser than he I must again turn the Edg of the Sword upon this Man If little Children were brought to Christ and he did not baptize them
at all and so cast off and renounce their Infants Rautism that they hereby become guilty of Perjury and must be Damned for he speaks not of those sins forbidden in God's Word but the violation of this baptismal Covenant which he saith is Perjury and the Damning Sin and Root of all Sin O! what want of Charity is here in these Men and what New and strange Doctrine do they Teach 2. Train up your Children in the fear of God and set them a good example and pray for them and over them and give them good Instruction godly Counsel and Admonition And see that you neglect not to Catechise them daily that so they may understand early the main Grounds and Principles of Religion but dread to Baptize them in Infancy or before they believe and have the inward and Spiritual Grace signified in true Baptism You have had it proved from God's Word that there is no Ground nor Authority from thence to baptize Infants and know 't is not in the power of Man by external Rite to bring Children into the Covenant of Grace nor to make them Members of his Visible Church neither Baptism nor the Lords Supper are Bread for Infants but for Christ's New Born Babes 1 Pet. 2. 1 2 3 5. not for your Children as such but such only that are the true Children of God who are born of the Spirit 3. Do not go about directly nor indirectly to deceive your Children by making them believe they are in a good condition by reason they are the Seed of believing Parents and Baptized as these Men call Sprinkling and so that way made Christians and so from hence perhaps look for no further or other work of Grace or regeneration but think they by this pretended baptism are the Children of God Members of Christ and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven when 't is in Truth no such thing nor have you any cause to doubt but that your Infants who die tho' not baptized are happy as appears from what we have said neither be you so ignorant to believe that baptism can save your Infants or the Adult either nor let poor Children cry out against their ungodly Parents as some of these pedo-baptists intimate they may do Pray see what Mr. Burkitt saith in his Book page 62. Before your Children are born make sure as much as in you lieth that they may be born within the Covenant and under the promise by your being in Covenant with God Your selves see that the Lord be your God in Covenant with you and then you may comfortably hope he will be the God of your Seed Answ This Doctrine implys that 't is in the power of Men and Women to bring their Children into the Covenant of Grace and as also it denotes that the Children of believers are not Born Children of Wrath by Nature for are those that are born in the Covenant of Grace born Children of Wrath O ye Parents know that you may be in Covenant and your Children never in it whilst they live nay die out of Covenant as doubtless many Children of the Faithful do Nor hath God made any such Covenant with any believer and their Natural Seed as such as he made with Abraham who was the Father of all that believe but so are not you nor I tho' we are believers and in Covenant with God and walk in Abrahams Steps Those that are in the Electiof Grace of your Seed never fear but God will in due time bring into the Covenant of Grace and give all the Covenant Blessings and Priviledges but if any of them are not comprehended in the Election of Grace their being born of your Loyns will not cannot bring them into the Covenant of Grace nor give them a right to the Seal thereof viz. the holy Spirit nor can baptism bring any into it which is only an outward Sign of our being in that Covenant or of that divine and spiritual Grace we received before we were baptized as I have proved Your business and your Childrens also is to make your own Election sure by special and effectual calling 'T is not the first birth but the second that brings either you or your Children into the Covenant of Grace so that we and they may have God to be our God by way of special Interest But mark Mr. Burkitts next words page 62. O! were but Infants capable of knowledge how much would they dread being born of wicked Parents make it your endeavour before your Children are born to sanctifie your poor Children this is done by prayer c. 1. Answ This is enough to set the Children against their ungodly Parents nay to hate them in their Hearts Alas the Children of wicked Parents I see not but they may be in as good a Condition as many Children of believers tho' I doubt not but God doth let out his infinite Grace generally more to the seed of the Faithful when grown up then to others but God will not certainly destroy poor Children for the fault and unbelief of their Parents Therefore as your begetting them in the first birth tho' gracious cannot save them so your begetting them tho' wicked cannot damn or destroy them There is no reason saith Mr. Perkins that the wickedness of the Parents should prejudice the Children in things pertaining to eternal Life Perkins on Gal. 3. p. 264. 2. However if it be as Mr. Burkitt and Mr. Owen say that when believers are in Covenant their Children are in Covenant also Doubtless they are in a safe condition whether baptized or not that doth not bring them into Covenant 3. But may not this Doctrine of theirs put a just rebuke upon unbelievers or ungoly persons for once attempting to Marry and beget Childre that are in such a sad condition by reason their Parents were not in Covenant with God ought they nay may they lawfully Marry this being consider'd and such dreadful effects following upon their poor Babes besides how far doth this Covenant blessing and priviledge extend If my Grand Father was in Covenant tho' my Father and I too are wicked and ungodly Persons are not we still in Covenant with God The Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham viz. that of Circumcision extended not only to his immediate Seed or Off-Spring but to all his Natural Seed successively in their Generations untill Christ came and put an end to that external Covenant and Covenant Right CHAP. XXV Containing several Queries for Mr. Owen to answer since the Athenian Society have not done it who some time since did attempt it Sir I Having wrote a few Queries lately about Infant Baptism for the Athenian Society to answer upon their bold Challenge and since they are too hard for them to do it having said nothing at all to the purpose I shall expect to see them answered by you when you answer this reply to your Book I shall not trouble you with all but only with a few of them Query 1. Whether the
Bodies of your Vows O shew them the Mercy of God! the Church of God is willing to receive them O rent them not from the Mystical Body of which they are Members See pag. Answ You Godly Parents take heed what Doctrine you receive you cannot cast your Infants out of the Invisible and Mystical Body of Christ if they are in it nor cast them out of the Covenant of Salvation No no that 's not in the Power of Mortals We cannot receive them or bring them into the Covenant of Salvation nor make them Members of Christ's Invisible and Mystical Body None can do that but God himself Christ himself 't is preposterous Stuff strange Doctrine this poor Man troubles you with Good Men may in some things be blinded and misled Try his Doctrine search the Scriptures take nothing upon trust without trial As to your bringing of your Children into the Visible Church so as to be Members thereof and to have right to the holy Sacraments they must come in at the Door of Regeneration not by Generation even at the same Door you came in at if you are true Members thereof and O therefore pray for your Children they are dear to you bring them up in the Fear of God command them to seek after the Knowledg of their Natural State and to know and believe in Jesus Christ and set them a good Example I know not what better Counsel to give you concerning your Children Secondly To you that are Unbelievers who have Children Do not fear the State of those dear Babes of yours that die in Infancy you have no cause to doubt of their Happiness but your Children may be saved that die in their Infancy as well as the Infants of faithful and godly Parents Also the Infants of Godly People are no more holy than yours if your Marriage was good and lawful for Marriage is honourable in all it belongs to Unbelievers and is God's holy Ordinance to them as well as 't is to Believers But O let it be your Care and chief Business to get true Faith in Jesus Christ for Matrimonial Sanctification in your selves or the Holiness of Legitimation in your Children will add nothing to yours or their Salvation but till you and your Off-spring do believe and are spiritually holy and sanctified by the Blood of Christ through Faith of the Operation of God neither you nor they have any right to the Sign which is Baptism for as we deny the Infants of Believers as such have any right to Baptism so be sure your Children have no right thereto yet the Promise is to you and your Children or Off-spring whenever the Lord is pleased to call either you or your Children by the preaching of the Word c. CHAP. X. Proving in Opposition to what Mr. James Owen saith that Children have no right to be baptized altho Christ blessed them MR. Owen quotes Mark 10. 13 14 15 16. And 〈◊〉 brought little Children to him that he should touch them that he would put his Hand upon them and pray Mat. 19. 13. And his Disciples rebuked those that brought them but when Jesus saw it he was displeased and said Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven c. Saith Mr. Owen Let us consider in this remarkable Scripture who were those that were brought to the Lord Jesus the Text says they were little Children suchas were taken up in Arms as we translate the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore saith he it being evident that those Children brought as it is probable by the Godly Parents unto Christ were very little they themselves were not of Age to come unto him nor profess Faith in him 2. Why were they brought to Christ that he should put his Hands on them and pray They that brought them to Christ did believe they could receive a Blessing by laying of Hands and Prayers of Christ altho the little Children understood not at present what Christ had done to them As saith he Parents brought their Children to â—hrist to bless them so do we bring them to Christ by Baptism to receive a Blessing Why cannot they receive a Blessing from him now as in the days of his Flesh Are his Bowels straitned towards them Answ What doth this prove touching the Lawfulness of Infant-Baptism we acknowledg and readily grant that they were little Children that were brought to Christ and that he 〈◊〉 his Hands upon them and blessed them but is this a Warrant for us to Baptize our little Children You say As those Parents brought their Children to Christ to bless them so do you bring them to Christ by Baptism Answ. And with shame you may speak it unless you had Authority to Christ so to do Who hath required this thing 〈◊〉 our Hands May you not as the Ancient Fathers did by the sâ—me Argument bring little Children to the Lord Jeâ—us by bringing them to the holy Sacrament of the Lord's â—upper Also you have as much ground from God's Word to do that as to bring them to the Sacrament of Baptism No doubt they were brought to Christ to be healed of some Bodily Distemper for the Lord blessed and healed Diseases by laying his Hand on the Sick and we all know that they are capable of that Blessing 〈◊〉 not of the holy Sacraments which alâ—ne belong to Adult Persons that believe and are able to examine themselves True Christ's Bowels are not straitnâ—d now he is in Heavan to young or old but what oâ— thâ—… Wisdom did not lead him to baptize little Children and he knows how to let out his Bowels towards them without your reaching him Will you direct the Almighty or have Christ to bless an Human Invention Were iâ— his Appointment he would no doubt bless it to little Children but that you will never be able to prove and it argues you have a bad Caâ—se in hand in that you make use of such Childish Arguments to prove it and bring Texts so remote from the Business You say Christ prayed for them whom the Father had given him John 17. 9. and if the Children of the Faithful not of the World but are Christ's we should suffer them to come to him and receive his Mark which is Baptism Answ 1. Are all the Infants of Believers given unto Christ and so not of this World Do you believe it Sir all that the Father hath given to Christ shall come unto him and every Soul of them shall be saved Now do all the Children of the Faithful come to Christ and shall they all be saved or are you not to be rebuked and sharply reproved for what you write to blind the Eyes and deceive the Children of the Faithful to make them think their State is good and safe when perhaps they are in the Gall of Bitterness and Bond of Iniquity Had not Abraham an Ishmael Isaac an Esau and David an Absalom O and what ungodly Persons do daily
Ordination as the Jews had Are we under the Promises of heaping up Gold and Silver and if we are obedient to live in Peace and to be saved from our external Enemies for many such like Privileges and Promises the Jews and their Children had under the Law The truth is your External Federal Holiness Root and Olive-Tree will-afford but little Fatness either to our selves or Children considered distinct and apart from Spiritual Blessings and Holiness What is a simple external Profession good for without true Grace and a saving Interest in Christ and Assurance of Eternal Life What more doth it serve to do than to blind and deceive the Souls of such external and carnal Professors What is an Ordinance without the God of the Ordinance What is the Sign without the Thing signified What is the Lamp without Oil or a Cabinet without the Jewel or a Shell without a Kernel or the Name of a Christian without the true Nature of a Christian You say The first Parents sanctified the whole Nation of the Jews not with true Holiness in the Heart for many of them were wicked but with a Federal Holiness because they and their Seed were separated to the Lord in an External Covenant I am glad to see you open the Eyes of your People now they may see what little good that federal Holiness and the Covenant with Abraham can do to their Infants 't is but only to give them a Name that they may be called Christians Is this the Promise that belongs to the Faithful and their Children Is this the Blessing of Abraham that is come upon the Gentiles Are they not Spiritual Blessings Is it not Spiritual and Heart-Holiness Is it only to be in an external manner by an external Covenant and visible Profession separated to be the Lord's and called his when indeed and in truth spiritually and savingly they are not so Is this that Covenant confirm'd by the Oath of God that gives you such strong Consolation touching your Infants as such as before you pleaded for 4. Moreover do you not own by what you here affirm that there were two Covenants made with Abraham since that Covenant which was made with the whole Lump or whole House of Israel was as you positively assert not a spiritual but an external Covenant Sure I am you do believe there was a spiritual and an eternal Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and all his true spiritual Seed and that he was a Root spiritually holy by virtue of that spiritual and true Gospel-Covenant God made with him and as the whole Lump were all federally holy in a Spiritual Sense as himself was and as he had first Fruits given to him who were spiritually and truly holy also so there are many Branches still that daily spring out of that Spiritual Root and Spiritual Covenant that are federally and spiritually holy as the Root was holy Sure there was a Covenant made with Abraham and of which he is considered as a common Root or common Head and from which Root and Olive-Tree it is impossible any one of his Spiritual Seed can be cut off for if not so How is the Promise sure to all the Seed Rom. 4. 16. and how is that Covenant a ground of strong Consolation to all the Heirs of the Promise as Heb. 6. 17 18 19. 5. But the truth is the purport of your Exposition of this dark Text all may see is to prove the Gospel-Church to be as extensive wide and large or every way of the same Nature and Latitude with the National Church of the Jews and therefore you plead for the Fleshly Seed as such to be received as Members thereof Sir I know you not but I thought you had held for the Congregational Way but the truth is Infants Church-Membership is only calculated for a National Church and therefore best sutes with Presbyterism and Episcopacy You say the Jews and their Children were broke off and the Gentiles and their Children were received into the same Privileges which the Jews had c. Answer 1. If you would prove that the Gospel-Church is National consisting of whole Parishes Families and Kingdoms you must bring Proof for this Constitution from the New Testament Show where Christ instituted or ordained such a Church-state or what whole Gentile Nations consisting of Believers and their Children and Unbelievers or ungodly Persons professing Christianity and their Children were constituted by the Apostles a Gospel-Church for evident it is all believing or godly Jews and their Children and all ungodly Jews who owned the Jewish Religion and their Children were Members of the National Church of Israel under the Law 2. Also prove that if such a Gospel-Church Constitution can be proved out of the New Testament that therefore all the external Privileges and Rites of the Jews must belong unto such a Gentile Nation and Gospel-Church that did belong to the National Church of the Jews Must they have the same Rites and Privileges and yet not the same Is Baptism Circumcision 3. If it came as you dream in the room of it then it would follow that Baptism belongs only to Male-Infants if not so 't is not the same Privilege but differs greatly you must have therefore some word of Institution or some good Authority from Christ to enlarge this Privilege so far as to allow it to Females also 4. And why this Privilege only had not the Jews and their Children many other external Privileges besides Circumcision Why must not the Gentiles and their Children that are grafted in as you suppose in their room receive all the Privileges as well as one or two You have done your Work by halves 5. Besides what you say that the first Parents sanctified the whole Nation of the Jews is false It was not they that separated or sanctified them but God himself i. e. by his absolute Command and holy Institution therefore you must prove the like Command and Institution for such a National Church under the Gospel as was under the Law Sir I desire no better Task than to prove the Gospel-Church consists of none by Christ's Appointment and Institution but only Adult Persons believing and professing Faith in Jesus Christ incorporated together in a holy Covenant And when you write again lay down your Arguments to confute what I here say and I shall God sparing my Life be ready through his Assistance to give you an Answer which will utterly throw away your Infant Church-Membership And since the old Covenant and old Covenant Church-state is taken away and dissolved by the establishing of the Gospel-Covenant and Gospel-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
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
directly lie under his Promise and believing things which are matter of Practice which depends wholly upon Christ's mere positive Command we must have some Ground or Foundation from God's Word to believe 't is a Truth which you blame us for not believing and we declare that we see we have no Ground no Foundation to build our Faith nor Practice upon in the case of Infant Baptism and are we guilty of unbelief from hence what Divinity is this you preach and publish to the World you would have us act upon an implicite Faith or believe as the Church believes do you not talk like a Son of the Church of Rome 2. Find the Woman that had the Issue of Blood no Command no Example nor no Promise to believe Christ would â—…er Do you believe what you seem to affirm did the never see nor hear of any Person that Christ had cured sure you cannot imagine any such thing the could not have believed unless she had some good Ground did she not know the power of Christ was great if we had but heard of one Infant baptized by Christ or his Apostles upon the Faith of their Parents as we find some Children were healed by the Faith of their Parents we should not be such unbelievers as we now are about Infant Baptism You say the Woman of Canaan comes boldly with her Child unto Christ for to receive benefit though she was not invisible Covenant with God and Christ commended her Faith and received her Daughter her Faith breaks through all impediments Mar. 15. 22. 28. Her Faith was great who against Hope believed in Hope is not thy unbelief great who destroyest the foundation of Hope touching thy Children O question not the promise of God through unbelief but be strong in Faith giving Glory to God 1. Answ Must we boldly bring our Children to Baptism without any authority from Christ because the Woman of Canaan come bodily to him to have her Daughter healed of her Boldly Disease she had ground for her Faith but we have none for such a Practice 2. Do we destroy the foundation of our Hope about the State of our Infants because we dare not baptize them without a word from Christ or without Authority from him No Sir we have ground to hope our Children that Die are as happy as yours tho' never Baptised and that from Gods word Hath not Christ said Of such are the Kingdom of Heaven no doubt God hath comprehended Infants in his eternal electing Love that Die for whom he also gave his Son and in some secret way doth Sanctifie them or makes them meet for glory above and we have as much ground to hope that God will give Grace to those Children of ours that live as you have to hope he will give Grace to yours Doth your Baptism save your Infants Will you say with the Old Erroneous Fathers and Blind Papists that Baptism washes away Original Sin Your expressions look that way I am afraid of you Ought we not to believe say you for our Children that Christ will receive them Is he more unready to administer Spiritual Blessings than he was in administring Temporal Blessings to the Children of the Faithful Answ Let Christ receive whom he pleases He will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy And receive and Bless whom he will receive and Bless no doubt his Sovereign Grace is extended to many of the Children of the Faithful now as formerly but what of this because he healed some little Children in the days of his Flesh of their Bodily Distempers Will you therefore baptize them without any Authority received from him you may if you please as well argue thus viz. Jesus Christ Fed many little Children with Temporal Food when he Fed the multitude therefore they must come to the Lords Table and be fed with Spiritual Food Is this to argue like a Man of Wisdom and Learning 3. They are guilty you say of Pride thus you charge those that deny Infant Baptism The humble submitteth to every Revelation of the Will of God say you God hath left divers things obscure in the Scripture that we might search them and judge humbly of our Selves who know things only in part seeing through a Glass in a parable Is it not great pride that a simple Man should take upon him to teach God how to speak in his Word let the Lord speak his Mind clearer about Childrens Baptism or else we will note believe him say some is not this a proud reasoning of the Heart of Man The humble Heart searcheth the Scriptures and considereth the agreement of one Scripture with another believing the consistency of the Old Testament with the new and fearing every untrodden Path there be great Truths as secret Treasure in the field of the Scripture which the Humble searcheth and findeth but the Proud despiseth and comes short thereof Answ I answer Is it Pride in us not to believe that to be a truth that is no where revealed in Scripture or is it not folly in you to believe such a thing to be of God's appointment and yet upon the most diligent Search that can be made into God's Word nothing can be found therein to prove it so to be 2. Because some things that are matter of Faith I say again or some Truths of the Gospel do lie obscure and in dark parables in the sacred Scripture doth it follow that one of Christs great Gospel Institutions nay one of the great Sacraments as they are called doth lie so dark and obscure therein also this is strange Moses who gave out the Laws of the Old Testament from God as a Servant made every thing plain that is he shewed them plainly what the command and precept was so that he that run might read it and will any Man think that our Lord Jesus who was as faithful as a Son over his whole House would be less faithful and leave an Ordinance so dark and obscure that there is not any Precept nor Example in all the New Testament for any such thing did Christ ever give forth Gospel Precepts in dark Parables Wonder O Heavens 8. We say Infant Baptism is not layd down in the Scripture obscurely or darkly but do affirm in the holy fear of God that it is not at all to be found therein and it may appear to all that you cannot prove that it is if God never so darkly had declared it we would receive it but because he hath neither plainly nor obscurely revealed That 't is his Institution we do reject it and we shall not be charged with Pride in so doing 't is I fear too evident that you are left in this Case by the Lord to believe a lie and may be because you will not believe nor receive the plain Revelation of the baptism of Believers tho' no one Truth lies more clear and plain in God's Sacred Word 4. Is it pride in you because you will not own the Common-Prayer and
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
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.
Whether there is any Covenant appointed by Christ for Infants to enter into unto which no promise is made of assistance to perform it nor Blessing promised if it be kept nor one threatning if cast off and disowned 13. What should be the reason that our Translators of the Holy Bible should leave the Greek word Baptism or Baptisma untranslated seeing the Dutch have not done so but contrarywise Translate for John Baptist John the Dipper and for he Baptized them he Dipped them The Athenian Society answer They are the best Judges themselves and if we can understand them 't is enough Reply No tho' the Learned in the Greek do know what the word Baptizo and Baptisma is yet the unlearned in that Tongue do not know that it is to Dip or Immersion â—…refore 't is not enough 14. Whither such who have been Sprinkled ought not to be deemed unbaptized Persons since asperson is not Immersion or Rantizing not Baptizing seeing the Greek word signifies to Dip and tho' sometimes to Wash yet such a Washing as is by Dipping as the Learned confess To this they say Those that doubt may be of the surer side 15. Whither the Ancient Church who gave the Lords Supper to Infants as well as baptism might not be allowed to do the one as the other since Faith and Holy Habits yea to believe with all the Heart is required of them that are to be Baptized as Faith Examination and to discern the Lord's Body is required of them that partake of the Lord's Supper and since also all that were baptized into the Apostolick Church were immeditely admitted to the Lord's Supper and also seeing the arguments taken from the Covenant and because Children are said to be Holy and belong to the Kingdom of Heaven are as strong for their being admitted to both the Sacraments as one and there being no Command nor example for either and Human Tradition carrying it equally for both for several Centuries 16. Whither Nadab Abihu and Uzzah's Transgressions were not as much Circumstantials and so as small Errors as it is to alter Dipping into Sprinkling and from an understanding believer to an Infant that understands not its Right Hand from its Left and whether to allow the Church a power to make such alterations be not dangerous it being an adding and diminishing from God's Word see Rev. 22. 18. and doth not this open likewise a Door to any other like innovation 17. Whither there is any just cause for Men to vilifie and reproach the Baptists with the Name of Anabaptists for their Baptizing Believers seeing aspersion is not baptizing and in regard also that they have the direct and positive Word and Command of Christ so to do and not only the Commission Mat. 28. Mark 16. but also the constant use of the Apostles and Ministers of the Gospel all along in the New Testament who baptized none but such who made a profession of their Faith in the Gospel time observable 't is also that the Church of England also saith that Faith and Repentance are required of such who are to be baptized 18. Whither if our Translators had Translated the Greek Word Baptizo from â—â—pto they must not have Translated it Dipping or to Dip from the Native and Genuine signification of the word and whether they have done well to leave those words in the Original Tongue without giving the plain meaning in the English 19. Seeing the Greek Church uses Immersion to this Day and not aspersion or Sprinkling may not it be a great argument against Sprinkling seeing also that they disown the Baptism of the Latin Church because they do not Dip For doubtless the Greeks best know the genuine literal and proper signification of that Word that Tongue being their own Natural Language in which the New Testament was Originally written 20. What reason can be given why Nazianzen an Eminent Greek Father should Counsel the deferring the Baptism of Infants untill the third or fourth year of their Age except in danger of Death if it were in Nazianzen's time as some suppose it was the Opinion of the whole Church as also his own that Infants by an Apostolical Tradition were to be baptized as such that is as soon as born 21. Whither all the Fathers of the Third and Fourth Century both of the Greek and Latin Church who have wrote any thing about Infant Baptism do not unanimously give this as the reason why Infants should be baptized viz. for to wash away Original Sin or the putting them into a capacity of Salvation and some of them particularly St. Austin sentencing Infants to Damnation if not Baptized 22. If so whether the Fathers might not be mistaken in the Right of Infant Baptifm as well as in the Judgment of most Protestants they were touching the reason why they should be baptized 23. Whither God hath allowed or enjoyned Parents to bring their little Babes of Two or Ten days Old into a Covenant with him by Baptism since 't is not to be found in the Holy Scripture that he either hath allowed or injoyned them so to do there being neither Command nor Example nor the least intimation given for them to do it 24. If it cannot be proved he hath required any such thing at theit Hands whether that Covenant can be said to bind their Conscience when they come to Age especially since they gave no consent to do it nor were capable so to do 25. And if this pretended Covenant was not of God's appointment I Query how those Children who refuse to agree to the said Covenant when they come to Age can be guilty as Mr. Daniel Williams says 1. of rejecting Christ 2. Of renouncing the blessings of the Gospel 3. And that 't is Rebellion continued against their Parents 4. That it is Ingratitude and Perjury to their Redeemer 5. Gross injustice to their Parents 6. That it is self-killing Cruelty to their own Souls 7. The damning Sin I Query whether this is good Divinity or not or rather is it not a strange Doctrin and whether those unwarrantable Articles of Faith taken out of the Jewish Talmud or Turkish Alcoran may not be of as good Authority or whether it be fit to put such positions into a Christian Catechism as these are Pray be pleased to Answer these plain Queries when you write again or Reply to this answer of your Book CHAP. XXVI Containing Divers Arguments to disprove Pedo-Baptism and to prove the Baptism of Believers which Mr. Owen is desir'd to Answer when he writes again Arg. 1. IF none are to be Baptized by the Authority of the Great Commission of our blessed Saviour Mat. 28. but such who are first Taught or made Disciples by Teaching then Infants who are not capable to be taught ought not to be baptized But none are to be baptized by the Authority of the great Commission of our Blessed Saviour but such who are first Taught or made Disciples by Teaching Ergo Infants ought not to
40. See thou make all things according to the Pattern shewed thee in the Mount and Lev. 10. 1 2. See how Nadab and Abihu sped for presuming to vary from the Command of God and Uzzah tho' but in small Circumstances as they may seem to us How dare Men adventure this being so to change Baptism from Dipping into Sprinkling and the Subject from an Adult Believer to an Ignorant Babe Add thou not unto his word c. Arg. 15. Whatever practice opens a Door to any Human Traditions in God's Worship is a great Evil and to be avoided But the practice of Infant Baptism opens a Door to any Human Traditions in God's Worship Ergo to Sprinkle or Baptize Infants is a great Evil and ought to be avoided The Major will not be denied The Minor is clear because there is no Scripture ground for it no Command or Example for such a Practice in God's Word and if without Scripture Authority the Church hath power to do one thing she may do another and so ad infinitum Arg. 16 Whatsoever practice reflects upon the Honour Wisdom and Care of Jesus Christ or renders him less faithful than Moses and the New Testament in one of its great Ordinances nay Sacraments to lie more obscure in God's Word than any Law or Precept under the Old Testament cannot be of God But the practice of Infant Baptism reflects on the Honour Care and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ and renders him less faithful than Moses and a great Ordinance nay Sacrament of the New Testament to lie more dark and obscure than any Precept under the Old Testament Ergo Infant Baptism cannot be of God The Major cannot be denyed The Minor is easily proved For he is bold indeed who shall affirm Infant Baptism doth not lie obscure in God's Word One great Party who assert it say it s not to be found in the Scripture at all but 't is an unwritten Apostolical Tradition Others say it lies not the Letter of the Scripture but may be proved by Consequences and yet some great asserters of it as Dr. Hammond and others say those Consequences commonly drawn from divers Texts for it are without demonstration and prove nothing I am sure a Man may Read the Scripture a Hundred times over and never be thereby convinced he ought to baptize his Children though it is powerful to convince Men of all Christian Duties Now can this be a Truth since Christ was more Faithful than Moses and delivered every thing plainly from the Father Moses left nothing dark as to matters of Duty tho' the Precept and Eternal Rites of his Law were numerous even two or three hundred Precepts yet none were at a loss or had need to say is this a Truth or an Ordinance or not for he that Runs may Read it And shall one positive precept given forth by Christ who appointed so few in the New Testament be so obscure as also the Ground and End of it that Men should be confounded about the Proofs of it together with the End and Grounds thereof See Heb. 3. 5 6. Arg. 17. That Custom or Law which Moses never delivered to the Jews nor is any where written in the Old Testament was no Truth of God or of Divine Authority But that Custom or Law to baptize Proselytes either Men Women or Children was never given to the Jews by Moses nor is it any where written in the Old Testament Ergo it was no Truth of God or of Divine Authority and evident it is according to that Forementioned and Worthy Author Sir Norton Knatchbal that the Jewish Rabbins differed among themselves about it for saith he to Cite his very words again Rabbi Eleaezer expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews for Eleazer who was contemporary with Rabbi Joshua if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte Circumcised and not Baptized was a true Proselyte Arg. 18. If Baptism is of Meer positive Right wholly depending on the Will and Sovereign Pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator and he hath not Requi red or Commanded Infants to be baptized then Infants ought not to be baptized but Baptism is of meer positive right wholly depending on the Will and Sovereign pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator and he hath not required or Commanded Infants to be baptized Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized This Argument tends to cut off all the pretended proofs of Pedo-baptism taken from the Covenant made with Abraham and because Children are said to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven it was not the Right of Abraham's Male Children to be Circumcised because they were begotten and born of the Fruit of his Loyns till he received Commandment from God to Circumcise them Had he done it before or without Command from God it would have been Will-worship in him to have done it Moreover this further appearâ— to be so because no godly Mans Children nor others in Abraham's days nor since had any Right thereto but only his Children or such who were bought with his Money or were proselyted to the Jewish Religion because they had no Command from God so to do as Abraham had This being true it follows that if we should grant Infants of believing Gentiles as such were the Seed of Abraham which we deny yet unless God had Commanded them to baptize their Children they ought not to do it and if they do it without a Command or Authority from Christ It will be found an Act of Will-worship in them Arg. 19. All that were baptized in the Apostolical Primitive times were baptized upon the profession of their Faith were baptized into Christ and thereby put on Christ and were all one in Christ Jesus and were Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the promise But Infants as such who are baptized were not baptized upon the profession of their Faith nor did they put on Christ thereby nor are they all one in Christ Jesus and also are not Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to Promise Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Mr. Baxter confirms the substance of the Major these are his words i. e. As many as have been baptized have put on Christ and are all one in Christ Jesus and are Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to the promise Gal. 3. 27 28 29. This speaks the Apostle saith he of the probability grounded on a credible profession c. Baxters Confirm Reconcil page 32. The Minor will stand firm till any can prove Infants by a visible profession have put on Christ are all one in Christ Jesus are Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to the promise Evident it is none are the spiritual Seed of Abraham but such who have the Faith of Abraham and are truly grafted into Christ by a saving Faith If any object we read of some who were baptized who had no saving Faith but were Hypocrites I answer had they appeared to be
then we must not But little Children were brought to Christ and he did not baptize them therefore we must not Here is both Truth and Reason in this Argument as Dr. Taylor confesseth but none of either in his It is confessed by Mr. Burkitt himself That Christ did not baptize those Infants that came to him and whom he took in his Arms and blessed because with his own Hands he baptized none at all John 4. 1 2. Therefore since Christ who was God foresaw what Contention would arise about the baptizing of Infants had it been his Will they should be baptized would he not at this time put the Matter out of doubt and have baptized them or have given Command to his Disciples so to have done If therefore Infants be in so good a Condition as he says i. e. Subjects of Christ's Kingdom of Grace let us let them alone for we cannot by baptizing them put them into a better State than they are without any Warrant from Christ and by baptizing them not we cannot put them into any worser State or Standing than they are in without it Many Pedo-baptists are angry with us because we say we know not but that the Children of Unbelievers and Infidels may be in a good Condition as well as Children of Believers tho we deny not but that the Children of Believers have a greater Advantage than the Children of Unbelievers namely by the Prayers good Education and the good Example of their Parents c. But saith Mr. Burkitt Can any wise or good Man believe that our Saviour would speak such favourable words of Infants and his outward Gesture manifest so much good Will towards them only with an Intent to ensnare and deceive us doubtless it was to encourage his Ministers to perform all charitable Offices towards them Answ 1. He mistakes our Saviour speaks very little concerning Infants and that which is said of them was accidentally spoken being occasioned by those who brought little Children to him which the Disciples forbad and from hence he spoke what he did Moreover the cause why our Saviour spoke those words might be more for the sake of Parents that they might not be afraid touching the Condition of their dying Babes than to shew any Ordinance belonged to them for had it been so doubtless the Disciples would not have for bad those People to bring little Children to Christ 'T is therefore an Argument against Infant-Baptism and not for it because the Disciples were appointed by their Master to be the Administrators of that Ordinance on such to whom it did of right belong and had Infants been the Subjects would they have forbid People to bring Infants to him 2. We therefore may rather conclude had they been the Subjects of Baptism Christ by not hinting any such thing in the least on this occasion might rather have left us in a Snare in speaking nothing of it neither here nor at any other time 3. Therefore Christ speaking so favourably of Infants and yet baptizing them not may teach us to judg favourably of them and do any charitable Office towards them but not to presume to give them holy Baptism without Christ's Warrant no more than any other Gospel-Ordinance 'T is no matter what Calvin spoke 't is no Sin to keep such out of Christ's visible Fold whom he has given no Authority to take in Nor have any People a more charitable Opinion of the State of dying Infants than those stil'd Anabaptists 4. Those who are capable of some kind of Blessings of Christ we have shewed are notwithstanding not capable of Baptism We read not the Disciples baptized these little Children nor any else Object To this he as you do answer Perhaps they were baptized before But says Mr. Burkitt it doth not follow that the Apostles did not baptize those Children because no mention of it The Scripture no where tells us that the Apostles themselves were baptized shall we conclude therefore they were never baptized Answ 'T is no matter whether we read or read not that the Apostles were baptized since we find it was Christ's Precept and Practice to baptize Disciples or such who did believe in him We read of multitudes of Disciples that were baptized and we know the way of Christ was one and the same that which was the Duty of one Disciple as a Disciple was the Duty of every Disciple We read but of two or three Churches who broke Bread or celebrated the Lord's-Supper Could any Pedo-baptist but shew us a Precept for Infant-Baptism or but one Example or Precedent where one Infant was baptized we would not doubt but those little Children might be also but this they cannot do And whereas Mr. Barkitt and you say That there is not the same Reason why Infants should be admitted to eat the Lord's-Supper as there is for them to be admitted to Baptism I answer We deny it utterly What tho the one be a Sacrament of Initiation and the other of Confirmation Yet pray observe that Repentance and Faith is required of them that are to be baptized even actual Faith and Repentance as well as actual Grace and Examination c. to discern the Lord's-Body in those who are to receive the Lord's-Supper If all that were to be circumcised had been required to repent and believe as in the case of Admission to Baptism something had been said but the contrary appears Male-Infants as such had a right to that but have no such right to this You say Christ did not lay his Hands upon little Children to heal them of Sickness because the Apostles would not have been so cruel as to hinder them to come to Christ to heal their Distempers c. Answ Is it then greater Cruelty to hinder little Children of the Blessing of being healed of Bodily Diseases than to hinder them of Convenant-Blessings Spiritual Blessings How absurdly do you argue You add also Christ baptized them not at that time for say you they were baptized before by John the Baptist and Christ laid his Hands upon them to bless them say you laying on of Hands followed Baptism Acts 8. 17. Heb. 6. 2. many of the Anti-pedo baptists own it for they lay their Hands on those they baptize you say rebaptize Answ We rebaptize none Rantism is not Baptism c. but you should first prove John the Baptist did baptize any Infants for that you have not done nor ever can do We shall see what Proof you have for what you say by and by As to laying Hands on baptized Believers the Scriptures you mention prove that an Ordinance of Christ but not upon Infants the Apostles never taught or practised any such thing tho 't is true 't is a Popish Rite for as the Baptism of Believers is corrupted and changed to Infants so laying on of Hands on baptized Believers is corrupted and changed by the false Church to Infants also You say The Kingdom of God under the Gospel is made up of Children and
of such that are like to them Answ If by the Kingdom of God you mean the visible Church 't is utterly denied when you write again prove it that the visible Church under the Gospel is made up of Infants tho we deny not that the Gospel Church is made up of such who like little Infants are meek humble and harmless Persons in Malice all Believers should be as little Children CHAP. XI In Answer to Mr. James Owen's 9th Chapter and sixth Argument proving that Infants ought not to be baptized although the Gentiles were grafted into the true Olive when the Jews were broken off containing a true Exposition of Rom. 11. 15 16 c. ROM 11. 15 16 17. For if the first Fruit be holy the Lump is also holy and if the Root be holy so are the Branches And if some of the Branches be broken off and thou being a wild Olive Tree wert graffed in amongst them and with them partakest of the Root and Fatness of the Olive-Tree c. In this remarkable Scripture the Apostle you say sheweth 1. That the Jews while they were God's visible Church were a holy Nation not only the Parents but the Children also all the Branches were holy because the Root was holy the Root was Abraham and others of the Fathers Rom. 11. 28. Isa 51. 1 2. because they were in Abraham's Covenant the Parents and the Children were holy being separated a peculiar People unto God In this sense they were holy because the first Fruit even Abraham was holy the whole Lump also was holy Abraham believed and received God's Covenant to him and his Seed being the first Fruit of the Jews even as the first Fruits offered to the Lord Levit. 2. 3 9 10 17. so did the Faith of the first Parents sanctify 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 2. You say They that received the Gospel continued to be holy Branches upon the same holy Root they and their Seed were in Abraham's Covenant even as before nor one Branch was cut off neither small or great until they refused the Lord Jesus they that were broken off were cut off by reason of Unbelief Rom. 11. 20. Because of their Unbelief they were broken off therefore they that believed in Christ were not cut off and if they were not cut off then they were in Union with the Root as being Partakers of the Fatness of the Root as before they and their Children were Partakers of their old Privileges being holy Branches not broken off The Anti-pedo-baptists do cut off the Branches whom God never cut off viz. the Seed of the Faithful they lop off the fruitful Tree in the Vineyard and lay the Ax upon the Root and upon the Branches thereof in a presumptuous manner 3. You say the Jews refused the Grace of God in the Gospel God refused that Nation not only the Parents but the Children also God spared not the Natural Branches but hath broken them off Rom. 11. 17. not from the invisible Church of which the unbelieving were not Members None are Members of the invisible Church saving the Elect. God refused none of the Parents Rom. 11. 2. 2 Tim. 2. 9. God hath not cast away his People which he foreknew the Foundation of God standeth sure therefore they were cut off through Unbelief from being the visible Church of the which they and their Children were Members The Gentiles were graffed in their room Rom. 11. 17. they and their Children were broken off and the Gentiles and their Children shall be graffed in for they were received into the same Privileges which the Jews had the same Privileges belong unto them in the same Latitude for they were graffed into that Root from which the Jews were cut off c. Answ 1. I answer you had need be a good Expositor of a Metaphorical Place of Scripture that ground so great an Argument upon it we used to say Metaphors serve for Illustration but are not Argumentative they do not prove a Truth tho they may illustrate it therefore 't is strange you build an Institution an Ordinance nay a Sacrament as it is called upon a Metaphorical place of Scripture 2. Many things in Metaphorical and Parabolical Scripture run not parallel with that they are brought to illustrate therefore run not on all four as Divines observe 3. We will however examine your pretended Argument from this mysterious place of Scripture It was well if you had minded what St. Paul speaks in the 25th Verse For I would not Brethren that you should be ignorant of this great Mystery lest ye should be wise in your own Conceits c. But that you are ignorant of this mysterious Text and Matter contained in it I doubt not but to make appear and it is to be feared from thence you are wise in your own Apprehension But to proceed if all the Branches viz. the Children of the whole House of Israel were holy then the Children of the unbelieving Jews were holy also who were of that Lump you speak of and if so why do you argue from hence for the federal Holiness of the Children of Believers Sir under the Law there was a Federal and Typical Holiness but the Children of Godly Parents now or the whole Lump you say is holy by reason of the Covenant made with Abraham tho not spiritually holy yet federally holy because all that were in that external Covenant and Church-state of the Jews were holy If by Federal Holiness which was in the Jewish Church you mean no more than external Church-Membership not spiritual Holiness and spiritual Privileges then their Loss by being cut off is not so great as the Apostle intimates nor is the Fatness of Abraham's Covenant and true Olive so sweet as you elsewhere affirm nor is it so great a Blessing for the Gentiles to be graffed into such a Root or Olive-Tree that affords no better Oil. What signifies Federal External Holiness without true Spiritual Holiness it will do us nor our Children no more good than the same External Federal or Covenant Holiness did do to the wicked Jews and their Children under the Law no nor so much neither for they had by that external Covenant many Earthly or External Blessings as they were possessed by that Covenant of the Land of Canaan and Common-wealth of the Jews as a National Church which external Privileges believing nor unbelieving Gentiles and their Seed have not under the Gospel therefore that is not true which you affirm viz. The same Privileges belonging to the Gentiles and their Children in the same Latitude for they were graffed into the same Root Sir have we Gentiles a Worldly Sanctuary a holy external Temple a Land flowing with Milk and Honey a Political Government and Governours from among our selves as we are a Gospel-Church by God's