Word from Corruption but not the Humane History of the Fathers 2. But should this Father and St. Austine and others that followed them be for Infant Baptism what will this avail the asserters of Infant Baptism seeing the Church was before their times so greatly corrupted and many grand Errors brought in the Tradition of God Fathers and God Mothers one of the Church of England hath lately shewed to be near as early in the Church as Infant baptism which Mr. Owen will not therefore receive to be an Apostolical Tradition 3. We readily grant that Infant baptism is of great Antiquity of more then Thirteen Hundred years standing so are many other abominable Errors Practices and corrupt Ceremonies but from the beginning it was not so viz. 't is not to be found in Holy Scripture it is none of Christs Institution therefore an Human Invention nor was it practised in the Two first hundred years after Christ as I shall now prove out of as good Authors as any Mr. Owen hath or can produce 1. 'T is said Justin Martyr was Converted about 30 years after the Apostle John and by the Order then used in the Church It appears there was no Infant baptism thought of Walafrid Strabo as I find him cited by a great Historian says that there was no Children but aged and understanding Persons Baptized in this Age that is to say in the Second Century Wal. Strabo Eccl. Hist cap. 26. Vicecom l. 1. c 30. Tertullian in his Book of Baptism speaking of that Text Suffer little Children to come unto me saith he Indeed the Lord said do not hinder them to come unto me Let them come therefore while they grow to Years and while come let them be Taught let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ Why doth Innocent Age hasten to the Remission of Sins Men will deal more warily in Worldly affairs So that they who are not trusted with an Earthly Inheritance are trusted with an Heavenly one Let them ask for Salvation that thou mayest appear to have given it to them Dr. Taylor saith that the Truth of the business is as there is no Command of Scripture to oblige Children to the susception of it so the necessity of Pedo-Baptism was not determined in the Church till the Canons that was made in the Milevitan Council a provincial in Africa never till then I grant saith he it was practised in Africa before that time and they or some of them thought well of it And though that is no argument for us to think so yet none of them ever pretended it to be necessary nor to have been a precept of the Gospel St. Austin was the first that ever preached it to be necessary and it was in his Heat and Anger against Pelagius Thus Dr. Taylor Ignatius in his Discourse about Baptism asserts that it ought to be accompanyed with Faith Love and Patience after Preaching H. Montanus p. 45. and Jacob Dubois p. 16. to 22. and Dutch Martyrology where Ignatius's Letters are mentioned to Polycarp Tralensis to them of Philadelphia Dr. Taylor saith in his Disswasive against Popery p. 118. printed 1667 one of his last pieces Thus viz. That there is a Tradition to baptize Infants relies but upon two Witnesses Origen and Austin and the latter having it from the former it lies upon a single Testimony which saith he is a pittiful argument to prove a Tradition Apostolical He is the first that spoke of it but Tertullian that was before him seems to speak against it which he would not have done if it had been an Apostolical Tradition and that it was not so is but too certain if there be any Truth in the Words of Ludovicus Vives who says that anciently none were baptized but Persons of ripe Age. Great Bazil in his Book of the Holy Spirit Cap. 12. saith Faith and Baptism are the two means of Salvation inseparably cleaving together for Faith is not perfected by Baptism but Baptism is founded by Faith and by the same Name both things are fulfilled for as we believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit so also we are baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit and indeed there goeth before a Confession leading us to Salvation but Baptism followeth sealing our Confession and Covenant The same Churches Teacher saith the learned Dr. Du-Veil in his Third Book against Eunomius speaketh thus viz. Baptism is the Seal of Faith Faith is the Confession of the Godhead it is necessary we should first Believe and then be sealed in Baptism Du veilon Acts c. 8. p. 278. Zonaras saith the Babe will then need Baptism when it can chuse it Gregory Nazianzen in his Fourth Oration saith Dr. Du-Veil Of those who dye without Baptism gives us an Instance in those to whom Baptism was not administred by reason of Infancy And the same Nazianzen though he was a Bishops Son being a long time bred up under his Fathers care was not saith the said Dr baptized till he came to Man's Age. In like manner saith he Basil the Great that was born of devout Parents and instructed from his Childhood was not baptized until a Man p. 280. Also saith he John of Antioch called afterwards Chrysostom was born of Christian Parents as the truer Opinion is tutored by the famous Bishop Miletius was not yet baptized till he was One and Twenty Years of Age. Hierom also Ambrose and Austin who were born of Christian Parents and consecrated to Christian Discipline even from their Childhood were not baptized before thirty years of age as Dr. Taylor Bishop of Down asserts in his Twelfth Section of the Life of Christ Now Sir here are Examples enough that do prove in the primitive times Children of baptized Believers were not baptized but had their Baptism delayed till they themselves believed and gave an account of their Faith Had it been the constant custom of the Godly to baptize Infants would not these think you have been in their Infancy baptized Grotius as I find him quoted by Dr. Du-Veil saith The Primitive Churches did not baptize Infants see Grotius's Notes on the Gospel Nay saith the same great and learned Author it doth most plainly appear by the right of baptizing in the Romish Church for baptism is to be asked before the Person to be baptized do enter into the Church which the surety does in the Infants Name a clear distinct confession of Faith is required which the same surety rehearseth in the Infants Name i. e. a Renouncing of the World its Pomps the Flesh and the Devil We may by this perceive from whence the Original of our old Church Catechism came But this is a clear Argument saith the Dr. to prove of old the Persons who were to be baptized themselves asked Baptism in their own Name and of their own choice and professed their own Faith In the Neo-Cesarean Council it was framed thus As to those who are big with Child they ought to be baptized
granted Case among all Christians that a Profession is thus necessary the Apostles and Antient Church admitted none without it Pag. 17 21. Again he says Pag. 24. We find when John Baptist set up his Ministry he caused the People to confess their Sins And whereas some say that John baptized them that he calleth a Generation of Vipers I answer saith he we will believe that when they prove it It seems rather that he put them back as to those Acts 2. 37. Saith he It is plain that they made an open Profession if you consider 1. That they were openly told the Doctrine which they must be baptized into if they did consent 2. It is said they that received the Word were baptized 3. It is as certain therefore that they first testified their glad reception of the Word 4. VVe may not imagine that Peter was God or knew the Hearts of those thousands and therefore he must know it by their Profession that they gladly received the VVord 5. Their own Mouths cry out for advice in order to their Salvation 6. It had been absurd for the Apostles to attempt to baptize Men that had not first professed their Consent 7. The Scripture saith he gives us not the full Historical Narration of all that was said in such Cases but of so much as was necessary 8. The Institution and Nature of the Ordinance tells us that Baptism could not be adminisired without a Profession to the Adult for they were to be baptized into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Therefore were to profess that they believed in the Father Son and Holy Ghost c. Pag. 25. 9. The constant practice of the universal Church hath given us by infallible Tradition as full assurance of the order of Baptism and in particular of an express Profession and Covenant then made as of any Point that by the Hand of the Church can be received Pag. 26. 10. And it was in those days a more notorious Profession to be so Baptized and to joyn in the Holy Assemblies then now it is when the Profession of Christianity did hazard Mens Liberties Estates and Lives to be openly then Baptized upon covenanting with God the Father Son and Holy Ghost c. Moreover saith he it is said of all that were Baptized being then at Age that they first believed and how could the Baptizers know that they believed but by their Profession pag. 26. Yea 't is said of Simon Magus that he believed and was baptized which though he might really have some historical Faith yet implyeth that he openly professed more then he indeed had or else he had scarce been baptized which hath caused Interpreters to judge that by Faith is meant a profession of Faith And if so then sure a profession of Faith is still necessary p. 27. Yea saith he Christ in his Commission directeth his Apostles to make Disciples and then baptize them promising that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved And who can tell whether a Man be a Disciple a Believer or an Infidel but by his Profession How was it known but by their Profession that the Samaritans believed Phillip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ before they were baptized Acts 8 12. Phillip caused the Eunuch to profess before he would baptize him that he believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God c. Saul had more then a bare Profession before baptized Acts 9. 15 17. Also Cornelius and his Company had more then a Profession for they had the Holy Ghost poured on them speaking with Tongues And it was such a Gift of the Spirit that caused the Apostle to conclude that God had granted the Gentiles Repentance unto Life Acts 11. 8. The Converted Gentiles Acts 13. 48. shewed their belief and gladness p. 27. Gods Order is to the Adult saith he first to send Preachers to proclaim the Gospel and when by that Men are brought so far as to profess or manifest their Eyes are opened and that they are turned from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God then they must be baptized for the remission of Sins As their Sins are not forgiven them till they are converted Mark 4. 12. so they must not be baptized till they profess themselves converted seeing to the Church none esse and none apparere is all one Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ is the summ of that preaching that makes Disciples Acts 20. 21. and therefore both these must by profession seem to be received before any at Age are baptized p. 30. 31. If as many as are baptized are baptized into his death and are buried with him by baptism into his Death that like as Christ was raised from the Dead then we should walk in newness of Life Then no doubt but such as were baptized did first profess this Mortification and consent to be buried and revived with Christ and to live to him in newness of Life Rom. 6. 3 4 5 6. For Paul was never so much for Opus Operatum above the Papists as to think that the baptizing of an Infidel might effect these high and excellent things and he that professeth not Faith nor never did is to the Church an Infidel In our baptism we put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ being buried with him and rising with him through Faith quickned with him and having all our Trespasses forgiven Col. 3. 11 12 13. And will any Man saith he yea will Paul ascribe all this to those that did not profess the things signified or the necessary Condition Will baptism in the Judgment of a wise Man do all this for an Infidel let me add or to an Infant or one saith he that professeth not to be a Christian Baptism is said to save us 1 Pet. 3 21. and therefore they that will be baptized must profess the qualifications necessary to the saved p. 32. The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are put into the Churches Hands and they that are loosed on Earth are loosed in Heaven if the Keys do not err and therefore pastors of the Church must absolve none by Baptism that do not by profession seem absolvable in Heaven they must profess to have the old Man Crucified with Christ that the Bodie of Sin be destroyed that henceforth they might not serve Sin Rom. 6. 5 6 7 8. As many as have been baptized into Christ saith he have put on Christ Jesus and are Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to the Promise Gal. 3. 27 28. This speaks the Apostle of the probability grounded on a credible Profession and therefore it is clear that the profession was presupposed that might support this charitable Judgment Our baptism is the solemnizing of our Marriage with Christ And it s a new and strang kind of Marriage where there is no profession of Consent The baptized are in Scripture
Speak Sir your Mind freely the next time for God willing I shall be ready for you O when will you cease to corrupt the Word of God by your Tradition You say Mr. Tombs saith If Children are Members of the visible Church they ought to be baptized I do not remember Mr. Tombs saith so and if they are Members of the visible Church before baptized they cannot be made Members by Baptism 'T is absurd to say to a Man Come into this House or to say Bring such a Child into the House that is in it before For Baptism say you is the Door through which we come into the Church of God Those that say they are not Members of the Church of God ought you say to shew us a plain Scripture for their casting out if they can of one Church since Adam until this latter Age of which little Children were Members c. And again you say if they were cast out how comes it to pass that there is not one word in Scripture mentioned of it call for a Scripture from those that would shake your Faith concerning this Prerogative Answ 1. I have answered this already We say and prove that Infants were never received at all into the Gospel-Church therefore cannot be said to be cast out of it 2. We deny what you affirm without any Proof viz. That Infants were always Members of the Visible Church since Adam Prove if you can they were received as Members before that Typical Church-state which was constituted in Abraham's Family 3. The First-born of Israel were holy the Priests Sons had a right to the Ministery or Priesthood shew when they were cast out and lost both those Prerogatives and that very way you must take to answer will serve to answer your self in respect of Infants Church-Membership The Answer must be this the National Church and Church-Membership and Priesthood of the Jews are dissolved and taken away and thereby all those external Rites and Prerogatives the Jewish Children had are gone 4. These were as Legacies left in the old Will in the old Testament but there is a new Will made or Christ hath made his last Will and Testament and in this his last Will and Testament none of these external Rites or Prerogatives as you call them are left to Infants Sir there is no need in a new Will in the last Will and Testament to mention Negatives that is not usual not what is not left but only in the Affirmative what is left therefore in vain is this Flourish it will do your People who are shaken in their Belief of your Tradition no good 5. You bid them call for a Scripture from those that oppose their Practice in the Negative i. e. that forbid Infants Church-Membership or speak where they were cast out O how dangerous is your Doctrine May not the Papists say to them also Where do you read holy Water and holy Garments are forbid Moses commanded the People to be sprinkled with Water and many other Rites that were among the Jews We say the Papists call for Scripture where those things are forbid which they have among them or when God cast them out of the Church What Human Tradition may not be let into the Church at this Door You say the unbelieving Jews would have stumbled if Paul had cast out their Children from the Church and put them in the same Condition as the Children of Infidels Answ 'T is your mistake he told them plainly that the Children of the Flesh were not the Children of God i. e. of the Promise or of the true Gospel-Church as such Rom. 9. 5 6 7. yet they stumbled not nay shewed them they and their Children had no external Privileges above the Gentiles and that Circumcision availed them nothing and yet the believing Jews stumbled not at his Doctrine Sir no doubt when the Jews are called they will not be of your mind to plead the old Covenant-right of their Children being Members as such You say That we judg the Adult holy because they are separated unto the Lord in a Profession of Holiness altho it be too often an Hypocritical Profession and shall we not say you judg the Children of the Faithful to be holy whom God so called c. Answ 1. God called the whole House of Israel holy because he separated them to himself both Parents and Children in a legal Church-state whether the Parents were Believers or faithful Persons or real Saints or not but God in the Gospel hath separated none to be Members of the Gospel-Church but such that are Adult Persons Believers in â—ued with real Holiness There is I tell you again no Fleshly Relative Federal Holiness under the Dispensation of the Gospel spoken of disprove it if you can 2. As to the Holiness of Infants born in lawful Wedlock they are by the Lord called holy or a Godly Seed Mal. 2. 15. And did he make one i. e. one Wife yet he had the residue of the Spirit and wherefore one that he might seek a Godly Seed that is a godly or holy Seed by Legitimation whether the Man or the Woman joined together in holy Matrimony are Believers or Unbelievers their Seed is a godly or holy Seed in this respect and not only the Seed of the Faithful as you intimate but the Seed of Unbelievers also and so not a Federal or Spiritual Holiness as you would have it The Seed born to the Faithful say you in lawful Wedlock are a godly and holy Seed God calleth such his Children that were born to them Ezek. 16. 20 21. As it was formerly even so it is under the New Testament those that are separated unto the Lord by Baptism are called a holy Nation Answ It follows then by your Argument that the Children of Unbelievers born in lawful Wedlock are not a holy Seed that is they are Bastards or Cast-aways but you must first prove their Marriage unlawful and the Holiness here mentioned such you speak of before you carry this Point 2. All the Children of the whole House of Israel were typically and federally holy then in that National Church you confound typical federal Holiness and Matrimonial Holiness together which are quite remote in their nature 3. We say all Believers baptized under the Gospel are spiritually holy and are called 1 Pet. 2. 7. a holy Nation a Royal Priesthood but this holy Nation consisteth of none but Adult Persons that believe who are called lively Stones building up a spiritual House 1 Pet. 2. 5 6. not a National Church consisting of Parents and their Fleshly Seed as such as under the Law But if for Argument-sake we should grant all that were in the Gospel-times received as Members in the visible Church should be called holy in Charity from that Profession they made yet this will do you no good until by God's Ordination you can prove that the Infants of Believers were received as Members into the Church in Gospel-times as they were into
cause against you here too i. e. for the first Centuries we will examine your Authors and humane Testimonies The first is Calvin a latter Writer I know not but Ireneus and Cyprian might be both had out of him I do confess Ireneus lived not above Two Hundred Years after Christ or in the second Century thus he and many others cite him viz. Omnes venit Christus per semet ipsum salvare omnes qui per eum renascuntur ad Deum Infantes parvulos Juniores Seniores In English thus Christ Jesus came to save all by himself all who by him are born again unto God Infants and little ones Young and Old Ans Reader pray observe here is not a word of one Infant baptized but this Man infers it from his Words so that we have nothing but Consequences neither from God's Word nor the words of Man Christ no doubt came to save some of all sorts of Men and who doubts but he came to save Infants and little ones Young and Old But why must these Words who are born again be applyed to Infant Baptism The scope of Ireneas in that Chapter is to refute the Gnosticks who said that Christ did not exceed One and Thirty Years of age against whom Ireneus alledged that Christ lived in every age i. e. of Infancy Youth and old Age that by his Age and Example he might sanctifie every age So that here Ireneus speaks not of being born again in Baptism for he saith Omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum i. e. I say all which are born again by him to God i. e. by Christ not as if he had baptized Infants but because he i. e. Christ was an Infant that by the example or virtue of his Age he might sanctifie Infants as the whole Discourse in Latin plainly shews viz. Magister ergo existens Magistri quoque habebat atatem non reprobans nec super grediens hominem neque solvens suam legem in se humani generis sed omnem etatem sanctificans per illam c. 2. As to Cyprian he lived as I find it in History about 248 or 300 Years after Christ and should I tell the Reader what Corruptions and Errors were let in about that time he would not wonder to hear Infants were allowed Baptism Yet we have Cyprian against Cyprian It is true as far as I can gather in his time Infant Baptism was first introduced without any Ground or Warrant from Christ and it was as strongly opposed which appears by the Debates and Doubts about it 3. The third humane Authority that is brought by Mr. Burkit is that cursed decree of the Milevetan Council that all who denyed Infant Baptism should be Anathema accursed If he comes but a little lower he hath proof enough in the Popish Councils Decrees and Canors But 't is to be observed that those Fathers pleaded for Infant Baptism as that which took away Original Sin and gave Children the Eucharist too in the first Sacrament abusing that Text John 3. 5. and in the other that in John 6. 53. These are all the humane Proofs from the Churches after the primitive Apostolical days which Mr. Burkit brought and I doubt not but to give better and more Authentick Authors of the ancient Fathers against Infant Baptism than hath been brought for it and some of them nearer the Apostles days too The first is Justin Martyr though I have him not yet take his Words as they are cited by Mr. Richard Baxters Saints Rest Chap. 8. Sect. 5. I will declare unto you how we offer up our selves unto God after that we are renewed through Christ those amongst us that are instructed in the Faith and believe that which we teach them is true being willing to live according to the same We do admonish them to fast and pray for forgiveness of Sinns and we also pray with them and when they are brought by us into the Water and there as we were new born are they also by the new Birth received and then in calling upon God the Father the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost they are washed in Water c. the Food we call the Euchrist to which no Man is admitted but only he that believeth the Truth of the Doctrine being washed in the laver of Regeneration for Remission of Sinns and so liveth as Christ hath taught this you see saith Mr. Baxter is no new way 4. You cite Origen who was you say famous in the year 230 who saith in Hom. 8 in Levit. de Infantibus baptizandis Ecclesia traditionem accepit ab Apostolis theChurch received infant Baptism by Tradition from the Apostles we have proved you say before this was a Scripture Tradition for the Apostles baptized little Children Ans We may cite Origen against Origen so little credit is to be given to History in this case about him and some other of the Fathers for I find Origen saith viz. they that are rightly baptized are washed unto Salvation but so was not Simon Magus he that is baptized unto Salvation receives the Water and the Holy Ghost which Simon did not but Water only Hom. 6. upon Ezek. â—…1 6. v. 4. Mountanus p. 36. 37. and in his Commentary upon Rom. 6. saith the same Origen such Baptism that was accompanied with crucifying the Flesh and rising again to newness of Life was the approved Baptism I must confess that Dr. Taylor saith that Origen and Austin are the only Witnesses that asserted Infant Baptism to be an Apostolical Tradition but it appears by Erasmus that Origen's writings were greatly corrupted by Russinus and made to speak sometimes for Infant Baptism See Jacob Merciâ—gus p. 283. 291. and Montanus p. 29. to 35 42 43. Sir had you proved Infant Baptism from the Scripture and that the Apostles baptized Infants you need not go to Humane History that is so uncertain and no Rule for us 5. Gregory of Nazianzum who you say was famous about the year 370 beareth witness for Infant Baptism saith he omni aetati Baptisma convenit Baptism is answerable unto every Age. And again da infantis custodiam give Infants the Baptism of the Trinity and that will be a great and excellent Guard unto them Ans I find a worthy Author that quotes this Gregory speaking quite the contrary thing in his third Oration saith he the baptized used in the first place to confess their Sins and to renounce the Devil and all his Works before many Witnesses and that none were baptized of old but they that did confess their Sins and how dangerous it was headlong and without due Preparation to partake thereof He therefore adviseth that the Baptism of Infants be deferred till they did not only make Confession of their Faith but were to desire the same see Dr. Taylor p. 239. Now worthy Britains what signifyeth the citing of such Fathers when we cannot be certain that we have their true writings God hath preserved his sacred
imagine yet the necessity of this Sacament is very great and the profit and advantage very considerable See Dr. du Veil Act. 2. page 87. Tertullian saith Whatsoever savours contrary to Truth is heresy though it be an Ancient Custom Thus you see the Learned though they own not rebaptization where baptism at first was duly administred yet such who at first received only a pretended baptism ought to be truly baptized to baptize a Believer again is sinful and very unlawful thing but since yours is no Baptism but only Rhantism our practice is no rebaptization for as you do not the Act so 't is not done on the proper subject 7. They are guilty say you that is such as deny Infant Baptism of a great sin by giving offence to many that were baptized in their Infancy tempting them to think that they are not under any vows unto God and that their baptism bindeth them not to a new course of Life if People judge themselves free from their baptismal Obligation O! How naked come they to Satans Temptations c. Answ I answer if you take an offence at us because we cast away an humane Tradition we cannot help that ought we to obey Man rather then God Judge ye 2. 'T is the force of Scripture arguments or the power of Gods Word that provoked us and many Thousands more to throw off the Innovation and sinful practice of Infant Baptism and dare you say it was Satan that tempted us no I fear 't is Satan or worldly profit or to free themselves from reproach that tempts some of the pedobaptists to continue the practice of that devised Custom 'T is not Satans use nor interest to tempt Men to own Christs blessed Institutions and cast off Mens Inventions but endeavour to keep them Ignorant of the first and to hold up the second which was let in us in the time of the Apostacy of the Church which 't is evident is a Pillar to uphold National Churches and not only Popish but some Protestant Constitutions also 3. We are not tempted by Satan but perswaded by the Lord and through the Power and Authority of his Word to believe that God brought us not under that Vow or Obligation in Infancy tho' you 't is true do it and so do the Papists bring People under Vows and Obligations to live a single Life and do other things all tending to Piety and Holyness as they tell you but God never brought them under any such Vows or Obligations And tho' an human Obligation may have some force on the Conscience especially when People think 't is Gods Covenant yet ought not the blind People among the Papists to be told that those Covenants are Human and not Covenants God brought them under Hath not God ways enough and such that are sufficient to Oblidge our Children to die to Sin and live a new Life but doth he need Man's Supplements shall man teach God and will you Father your Baptismal Obligation on God as that which he requires Infants to come under without the least Shaddow of proof from his blessed Word I must tell you all voluntary Vows are by Christ in the times of the Gospel forbid Mat. 5. 33 34. You ought not to bring your selves nor Children under any such voluntary and promisory Oaths Vows or Obligations you must see you are Commanded to do it or have clear Authority from the Lord to do this thing before you do it God doth require Believers and their Children when they believe to come under a baptismal Vow or Obligation but not till then But do not think the purport of our Doctrine herein is to open a Door for young People to Sin God forbid the Obligations which God in his Word and godly Parents and Ministers by the authority of God's Word lay upon them are sufficient when the Lord works with them to oblige them to repent believe and lead a new Life without your volunrary and unwarrantable Obligation laid upon them in Infancy that you have no ground to believe God will ever bless to the end you design it unless he had commanded it will you do Evil that Good may come on it 8. Baptizing by dipping the whole Body into cold Water as you say in these cold Climates is a breach of the sixth Commandment Thou shalt not kill for it is certain that many tender and sickly Bodies cannot suffer to be dipped in cold Water in the time of Winter without being pernicious to their Lives especially when it is Snow and Frost we are not to tempt the Lord thinking that God will do Miracles for the saving of our Lives he worketh ordinarily through appointed means in such an occasion as this Mr. Cradock judged that the chief Magistrate should hinder People to be dipped least it should be pernicious to the Subjects Lib. page 108. Ans. I answer this is a high charge you accuse us of Murther directly in breaking the Sixth Commandment but you forget how hereby you positively break the Ninth Commandment Thou shalt not bear fase witness against thy Neighbour Exod. 20. 16. prove what you say or else with deep sorrow confess your abominable and false accusation Do you know for certain that any one Person either Man or Woman was ever killed or came to any hurt that was baptized that is dipped in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit in cold winterly weather you must produce your witnesses or you are horribly guilty in the sight of God and Man you say 'T is certain that many tender and sickly Bodies cannot suffer to be Dipped in cold Water without being pernicious to their Lives c. Sir I have my self baptized many hundreds of Men and Women and some at all times of the year yea in times of bitter Frost and Snow when the Ice was first broken and Persons that were of a weak sickly Constitution and Women big with Child and others near Seventy years Old yea some near Eighty years Old and I never knew any to suffer the least harm thereby but many have found their Health better afterward Yea I heard a Reverend Minister very lately say that he knew an Ancient Woman in Kent that was Bed-ridden for some time who could not be satisfied until she was baptized and baptized she was and upon it grew strong and went about and lived some years after in Health and Strength according to her age also for the space of forty years I have heard of or known some Thousands baptized at all Seasons of the year of both Sex and never heard of any that received the least prejudice to their Health thereby much less that it cost them their Lives Therefore palpable it is you are guilty of slander back-biting and abominable calumny bearing false Witness against your Innocent Neighbours and 't is well if it be not out of malice and that not only to us but also to Christ's Holy Ordinance of Dipping Believers in his Name 2. But the worst is
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
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.
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