Light Broke Forth in Wales Expelling Darkness, Chapter 14
CHAP XIV.
Proving that Children have no Right to Baptiſm, from John the Baptiſt's Adminiſtration of Baptiſm; in Oppoſition to what Mr. James Owen ſaith, in his 12th Chapter: That John baptized no Infants, neither according to the Practice of the Jewiſh Church, nor by virtue of any Commiſſion he had from God that ſent him. Containing an Anſwer to Mr. Owen's 9th Argument for Pedo-Baptiſm.
MR. Owen ſaith, If John baptized Infants, Baptiſm doth always belong unto them; for the Baptiſm of John and the Baptiſm of the Apoſtles were the ſame in the Subſtance of it: He baptized in the Name of Chriſt to come, and they baptized in the Name of Chriſt that was come.
Anſw. If you can prove John baptized Infants, you do your Buſineſs indifferent well.
Now ſay you,
What we are to prove in this Chapter, is, that John baptized Infants; to manifeſt this, let it be conſidered,
1. John the Baptiſt came not to nullify the Covenant of Abraham, but rather to fulfil it; and the Covenant of Abraham was, that God would be a God to his People, and to their Seed; all the Viſible Church of the Jews were in this Covenant: John warneth them that they truſted not in the Privileges of this Covenant, by living ungodly Lives; he doth not in any Place make void this Covenant, but rather confirms it, ſaying, God will raiſe other Children to Abraham, if the Jews brought not forth Fruit meet for Repentance; he came to baptize the Seed of Abraham, which were all of them in the Covenant of God, not only the Parents but the Children alſo: Therefore their Children had the ſame right to Baptiſm as their Parents had.
Anſw. 1. I deny not but the whole Houſe of Iſrael were in Covenant with God, both Parents and Children, and ſo abode till the old Covenant and old Covenant-Seed were caſt out; but What ſaith the Scripture? Caſt out the Bond-woman and her Son, Gal. 4. 30. Now the Apoſtle tells you, by the Bond-woman is meant the Sinai Covenant, and by her Son the natural Seed of Abraham as ſuch, Gal. 4. 22, 23, 24, 25.
2. This Grant of yours proves that the Jewiſh Covenant, which took in all the People both Parents and Children, was not the Covenant of Grace; becauſe but a finall number of the Jews were in God's Election, and ſo in the Covenant of Grace.
See Dr. Owen on the Hebrews, 3d Vol. Pag. 256. The Covenant of Grace in Chriſt is made only with the Israel of God, the Church of the Elect. Pag. 291. The new Covenant is made with all, who effectively and eventually are made Partakers of it; and if they are not ſo with whom the New Covenant is made, it comes ſhort of the Old in Efficacy, who were actual Partakers of the benefit of that, that is, of thoſe external Benefits.
3. Nor doth that which you mention help you, viz. that in that Covenant made with Abraham and the whole Houſe of Iſrael, 'tis ſaid God would be their God, or a God to Abraham and to his Seed in their Generations. For,
Firſt, God may be ſaid to be the God of a People divers manner of ways, as Dr. Bates obſerves.
1. Upon the account of Creation, thus he is our God and Father; O Lord thou art our Father, we are the Clay, and thou art our Potter, and we are all the works of thy Hands, Iſa. 64. 8.
2. Saith he, By external Calling and Profeſſion, there is an intercurrent Relation of the Father and Son between God and his People: Thus the Poſterity of Seth are called the Sons of God, Gen. 6. and the entire Nation of the Jews are ſo called; When Iſrael was young, I called my Son from Egypt, Hoſ. 11.
Dr. Batesin his Sermon on Mr. Baxter's Funeral.
Secondly, God may be ſaid to be the God of a People by way of ſpecial Intereſt, by Election, Regeneration and Adoption; thus he was not a God to the whole Houſe of Iſrael, both to Parents and Children without exception: Yet we grant God was their God by entring into a viſible and external Covenant with them; and as ſo conſidered he was ſaid to be their God, and an Husband to them. Jer. 31. 32. Which Covenant they broke, altho I was an Husband to them, ſaith the Lord. But pray obſerve, the New Covenant is ſaid not to be according to that Covenant which God made with this People, when he took them by the Hand and brought them out of the Land of Egypt.
Thirdly, Now if that Covenant, in which God is ſaid to be their God, was the Old Covenant, or the Legal Covenant which God hath took away, to eſtabliſh the Second, What doth that ſignify which you affirm here?
Certainly, John would not go about to eſtabliſh that Covenant which he knew his Maſter was ready to take away, viz. the Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham and his Natural Seed, as ſuch.
We deny not, but the free Promiſe that God made with Abraham is the Covenant of Grace; but that belongs not to Believers Seed, as ſuch: For ſome of Unbelievers Seed may be in the Covenant of Grace, and ſome of Believers Seed may not, i. e. the Children of the Promiſe, or Covenant of Grace, or the Elect of God may lie amongſt the Unbelievers Children, as well as amongſt Believers Children: Tho I doubt not but more of Believers Seed are called than of others, and have greater Privileges, i. e. by the Inſtruction, Prayers, and good Example of their Parents, &c.
Fourthly, Tho John did not nullify the external Covenant, yet he, being to prepare Chriſt's way, gave the Jews a clear Intimation of the repealing of it, or the period thereof, and that now it would ſtand them in no ſtead; they indeed made this which you ſay an Argument to come to his Baptiſm, namely becauſe of that Covenant with Abraham, or their being his Children: But what did John ſay? Think not to ſay within your ſelves, we have …braham to … Father. As much as if he ſhould ſay, your being the Seed of believing Abraham, according to the Fleſh, will give you no Right to Goſpel-Baptiſm nor other Goſpel Ordinances and Privileges, tho it gave you right to Circumciſion and Legal Privileges.
You ſay, He doth not make void the Covenant with Abraham, but rather confirms it; ſaying, God could raiſe other Children to Abraham, if the Jews brought not forth Fruit meet for Repentance.
Anſw. Tho he did not make void that Legal Covenant, yet he explained the nature thereof to the Jews, and ſhewed them their great Error and Miſtake about it, clearly intimating that the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham and with his Spiritual Seed did differ, and was of another Nature with that Covenant which God made with him and his Natural Seed, as …u…h; (for ſaith he, God is able to raiſe up of theſe Stones C… to Abraham, meaning the Gentiles, as Expositors give it) If the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham ran only to his Fleſhly Seed, as such, Why did John ſay God could raiſe up others to be his Children? even ſuch that were not of his Natural Seed. And alſo, Why did he refuſe them, who were his Natural Seed, That did not bring forth Fruit meet for …, or did not believe, and ſo ſhewed themſelves not to be the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham?
Fifthly, From hence therefore it follows, in oppoſition to what you ſay, That Goſpel-Baptiſm is not of the ſame extent with Circumcision.
As the whole Countrey, ſay you, were under Circumcision, ſo doth John receive them to his Baptiſm, he refused none that came to his Baptiſm, but received Publicans, Sadduces, Phariſees, viz. the Generations of …ipers, Matth. 3. 7, 8. And can it be thought he refused little Children?
Anſw. I wonder you ſhould affirm that John received all the Countrey to his Baptiſm, and refuſed none, no not the Generation of Vipers: This I deny, and you have no ſhadow of Reaſon to aſſert it, ſince he rebuked them when he ſaw them coming to his Baptiſm, and bid them bring forth Fruit meet for Repentance. Prove, if you can, that he baptized one Soul but ſuch only that were penitent, and demonſtrated the truth of their Repentance by bringing forth of the Fruits thereof.
'Tis very ſtrange to me that any Man ſhould aſſert that John the Baptiſt (whoſe Doctrine and Miniſtry by all Divines is look'd upon to be very ſevere and ſharp) ſhould baptize all, even the worſt of Men, yea ſuch whom he called a Viprous Generation. But what is the purport of this Argument of yours for Infant-Baptiſm? Certainly all may eaſily ſee it: Doth it not tend to prove that all ungodly and unbelieving Men and Women are to be baptized as well as Infants?
Let me but juſtly infer upon you, and from what you ſay here, after this manner, viz.
If John Baptiſt baptized all that came to him, even all the ungodly Jews, as Publicans, Sadduces, Phariſees, yea thoſe Generations of Vipers; then Unbelievers, yea the worſt and vileſt of Men, are as true Subjects of Baptiſm as Believers. 'Tis no matter whether they believe or not, repent or not, or at preſent bring forth Fruit meet for Repentance or not; John took their Word, their Promiſe that they would do thoſe things afterwards.
What Notions do you impoſe upon your unwary Readers? I thought all Adult Perſons (according to the avowed Principle of the Pedo-baptiſts, as well as Anti-pedobaptiſts) muſt believe, and manifeſt true Repentance before they ought to be baptized. Reader, ſee Mr. Baxter's Book, Confirmation and Reſtoration, printed 1658. He affirms, viz. That a perſonal believing is the Condition of the Title of them at Age, is far paſt doubt. Pag. 16.
1. Saith he, The Promiſe it ſelf doth expreſly require Faith of our own, of all the Adult. He that believeth and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved, Mark 16. 16. What doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip ſaid, if thou believeſt with all thine Heart, thou mayſt. Theſe two Scriptures and many more Mr. Baxter quotes.
His 2d Argument is this, If a Profeſſion of Faith were not neceſſary, coram Eccleſia, to Mens Church-Memberſhip and Privileges, then Infidels and Heathens would have Right.
His 3d Argument runs thus, viz. It is a 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, 'tis 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 its a new and ſtrang kind of Marriage, where there is no profeſſion of Conſent. †Worthy Britains, ſee how Mr. Richard Baxter, hath out down Infant Baptiſm with his own Sword; can Infants ſhew their conſent to be married to Chriſt, or profeſs Faith in him.The baptized are in Scripture, called Men waſhed, Sanctifyed, Juſtifyed. They are all called Saints, and Churches of Saints, all Chriſtians are called ſanctifyed ones, or Saints, therefore it is certain, that they profeſſed themſelves ſuch.
Thus far Mr. Richard Baxter.
Sir, I thought fit to confute you in your bold Aſſertion, viz. that John the Baptiſt baptized all that came to him, even thoſe Phariſees, that he called a Generation of Vipers, by making uſe of the Sword of Goliah; Reader, how this Pedo-Baptiſts, Mr. Baxter, hath not only overthrown Mr. Owen's argument here for Infant Baptiſm, but utterly hath overthrown Infant Baptiſm it ſelf.
1. For (he ſaith) the Commiſſion directeth Chriſt's Apoſtles to make Diſciples, and then baptize them, p. 27.
2. (He ſaith,) the ſumm of that preaching that maketh Diſciples, is repentance towards God, and Faith towards our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, p. 30, 31.
Where then is the Commiſſion to baptize Infants, Baptiſm can't make them Diſciples, nor their Parents Faith neither; no, 'tis the preaching of the word, he that has not Faith in our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, is no Diſciple of Chriſts.
You muſt have a new Commiſſion to baptize unbelievers or Infants either, before ye ought to do it.
6. You ſay John came to prepare the way of the Lord, the end of his baptiſm was to bind all the People to believe in the Lord Jeſus, which was to come. Faith was not the condition of John's Baptiſm, but the end thereof; his Baptiſm laid a particular obligation on all the Seed of Abraham to receive Chriſt, Childred as well as others, were bound to receive him when they came to Age, becauſe Baptiſm was a ſign of that obligation, &c.
Anſwer. Could you prove what you ſay, it was ſomething to your Buſineſs, viz. that John baptized all, even ungodly Parents as well as Children, which Mr. Baxter from God's word hath fully confuted.
2. Alſo then it muſt follow, that the baptiſm of John, and that baptiſm adminiſtred by the Apoſtles, differed in an eſſential part, which you your ſelf but a little before, do utterly deny, and affirm that they were both eſſentially, one and the ſame baptiſm, only one unto him that was to come, and the other into him that was come, Dead, and Riſen again: Now, was not Faith and Repentance the condition of that Baptiſm adminiſtred by the Apoſtles; did not they require Faith, and a profeſſion of Faith of all they admitted to Baptiſm; the Scriptures, Mr. Baxter cites in the aforementioned Book of his, fully proves they did, and that thoſe things were prerequiſites of it, therefore Baptiſm as adminiſtred by John, and by the Diſciples of Chriſt, was not only to the end, they ſhould be obliged to believe and repent, but Faith and Repentance was the condition or qualification of all they baptized. For John (nor the Apoſtles neither) would take a bare verbal profeſſion of Repentance of thoſe that came to Baptiſm; John commanded them to produce the Fruits of Repentance, or to bring forth Fruit meet for Repentance, and this was his way to prepare the way of the Lord, or to prepare a People for the Lord's Spiritual Building; he preached, Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. That Vow or Promiſe in Baptiſm that you dream of, prepares no Man for Chriſt, nor fits any for his Church; no. no, it muſt be Converſion, Faith, and Regeneration it ſelf.
7. You ſay little Children were Members of the Church of God in the time of John, none can deny that, becauſe Circumſion, the Seal of the Covenant, was upon them, all the Seed of Abraham were at that time God's viſible Church, and they were his only Church upon Earth; they were not out of the Church before they were baptized, neither were they received into the Church of God through Baptiſm, as thoſe that were out of it before, but the whole Nation were baptized, becauſe they were Members of God's viſible Church; and becauſe little Children were Members of the viſible Church, the Baptiſm of John appertained unto them.
1. Anſwer, I anſwer, we deny not but the Jewiſh Infants were Members of God's legal Church; but I ask you whether John's Baptiſm was a legal Ordinance, or a pure Goſpel Ordinance, as Circumciſion was, prove it; we deny it, and ſay it was Evangelical, and did not appertain to the Jews, or the Seed of Abraham, according to the Fleſh as ſuch.
2. If you ſhould prove it was a legal Ordinance, yet it doth not follow, Infants of the Jews ought to be baptized as their Males were to be Circumciſed, becauſe there was a clear politive command to circumciſe them, but none to baptize them.
3. If you argue from the right of Circumciſion, then it follows, that none but their male Infants ought to be baptized. What authority had John to baptize females, whether the adult or Infants, as I ſaid refore.
4. I am troubled to ſee how you confound your Peoples underſtanding, was the Jewiſh Church or the Viſible Church of God under the Law, and the viſible Goſpel Church, formally and materially one and the ſame.
Had the Jews a right to all Goſpel Ordinances and Privileges, becauſe they abode his legal viſible Church till the Death of Chriſt; we grant the inviſible Church of God under Law and Goſpel, is but one and the ſame; but doth not the Goſpel Church in its Ordinances, Adminiſtrations, Rights and Piviledges, vaſtly differ from the legal, was not the viſible Church of God under the Law, a National Church made up of the Jewiſh People only, and is the Goſpel Church not congregational, conſiſting of both Jews and Gentiles that believe, or are born of the Spirit.
5. What, though John did not make void the Covenant of peculiarity God made with Abraham, yet he laid the Ax at the Root; and being to prepare matter for a new Church State, and his Miniſtry being Goſpel, and the Ordinance he adminiſtred a Goſpel Inſtitution, he told the Jews and Phariſees, that their being Abraham's Seed, or having Abraham to their Father now, was no good Plea or Argument for them to plead, as a right to this new Adminiſtration. John's Doctrine did in part, finiſh the Law and the Prophets, or old covenant Diſpenſation, though the full period of it was not come till the death of Chriſt.
Hence our Saviour ſaith, the Law and the Prophets were untill John, and from that time, the Kingdom of Heaven began to ſuffer Violence, and Men ſtrove to preſs into it, though its full and perfect beginning was not till our Lord had broken down the middle wall of Partition, and nail'd the legal Rites and carnal Ordinances to his Croſs, and removed that enmity between Jews and Gentiles, making both one new Man, and ſo a new Goſpel Church; pray take what one of your own Brethren, a Pedo-Baptiſt ſaith, of John's Miniſtration, it is Reverend Cotton of New-England.
Who ſpeaking of this Text, Mat. 3. 10. Now alſo the Ax is laid to the Root of the Trees. The firſt (ſaith he) is the Root of Abraham's Covenant, which theſe People truſted upon, and of that it is which John the Baptiſt ſpeaketh, now is the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees; think not to ſay within your Selves, we have Abraham to our Father, ſo that all their Confidence that they had in Abraham's Covenant, Temple and Tabernacle and ſuch things, are burnt up, and ſo they have no Root left them to ſtand upon, and this is one thing intended by the Root. Again he ſaith, the Lord hath cut us off from hope, in the righteouſneſs of our Parents, and from boaſting of Ordinances; again ſaith he, this we read of, Mal. 4. 1. it is ſpoken of the miniſtry of John the Baptiſt, which did burn as an Oven againſt all the Scribes and Phariſees, and left them neither the Root of Abraham's Covenant, nor the branch of their own good Works, he cutteth them off from Abraham's Covenant, &c. and by cutting them off from the Root, he leaveth them no Ground to truſt on, Cotton on the Covenant, pag. 177, and p. 21, 22.
How direct is this to the purpoſe, and it as fully othroweth all that you ſpeak in this Argument; this Reverend Author Concludes, that Abraham's Covenant made with his natural Seed as ſuch, was cut down by John, though the Tree was not yet removed, nor the Chaff blown or fanned away; but you would make the People believe, John confirmed that old Covenant right, and baptized all the Jews upon the Authority of Abraham's Covenant; as if inſtead of cutting the Tree down at the Root, he was about to plant it afreſh, or uphold its ſtanding, which had it been ſo, he would have rather ſaid, think to ſay within your ſelves, we have Abraham to our Father, for upon that foot of Account, I am to baptize you all, you being all in God's Covenant, though you be a Generation of Vipers.
But how directly contrary to this Doctrine of yours did John preach to them', and clearly took them off of any ſuch a pretended right to Baptiſm, viz. becauſe they were in Covenant with Abraham.
You ſay John did not cut down one Branch of that Covenant. Mr. Cotton ſays, he cut down the Tree at the Root; you ſay, he baptized Infants upon that foot of account, but ſince, God's Word ſpeaks not one word of any ſuch thing, 'Tis plain, you aſſert your own Fancies, or groundleſs ſuppoſitions.
There is no doubt, ſay you, but that Parents brought their Children with them to the Baptiſm of John, for God commanded them to bring their Children with them into the Congregation, Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12, &c. their Zeal was great for their Children, Acts 15. 12. and 21. 20. therefore ſay you, if John refuſed their Children, they would not ſo willingly have come to his Baptiſm.
They brought their Children to Chriſt; therefore they brought their Children to the Baptiſm of
John.
Anſ. I anſwer, you ſay no doubt but they brought their Chldren to John's Baptiſm, but without doubt they did not, ſay I; becauſe if they had, it would without doubt have been written, but ſince it is no where written that they did do it; nor of John's baptizing one Infant, there is no doubt but we are in the right, viz. John baptized no Infants, nor any but penitent Perſons, becauſe he required Repentance, and the Fruits of it in all that came to his Baptiſm. Moreover,
2. Becauſe all Iſrael, their little ones, their Wives and Strangers, the hewer of Wood, and drawer of Water, entered into that legal Covenant with God, Deut. 29. 10. 11. 12. doth it follow; that we in the Goſpel times muſt bring all our Children and Servants to Baptiſm and the Lord's Supper; they had a command from God to do what they did, and that old Covenant Church ſtate required them ſo to do; but God hath no more required us to bring our Infants to Baptiſm, then he hath required us to Circumciſe them, or give our firſt born to the Lord, which was God's command to them under the Law.
Baptiſm, I tell you again, being of meer poſitive Right, you can draw no ſuch Concluſions for what you plead for, 'tis only their Duty to be baptized, that Chriſt commanded to be baptized, and that is thoſe that are made Diſciples by the word preached, or thoſe that believe in Chriſt, or that profeſs Faith in him; and 'tis the New Teſtament only, muſt inform us who are the ſubjects of Goſpel Ordinances that depend only upon Laws meerly poſitive, according to the Sovereign Pleaſure of the inſtitutor of them, or holy Lawgiver Jeſus Chriſt.
You ſay they brought their Children to Chriſt, therefore they brought them to John's Baptiſm.
Anſwer, If John had wrought Miracles and healed the Sick, I doubt not, but they would have brought their Children to him to have them healed, as well as they brought them to Chriſt, but John wrought no Miracles; alſo our Saviour was a healing the Sick when they brought Children to him; and it may fairly be inferred, they brought little Children that were diſtemper'd to him, to have him lay his Hands upon them, which was his way in healing the Sick, as I have ſaid before.
You ſay Infant Baptiſm was an uſual thing in the Jewiſh Church, ſeveral hundred years before the time of John, and tell us a ſtory of Moſes Ben Maimon, who colected the Rites of the ancient Jewiſh Church.
Anſwer, I have anſwered that already, you having urged that argument before.
'Tis evident it was no other but a Jewiſh hamane Tradition, if it be as you ſay; for God never commanded the Jews to baptize Infants, though you before would make your unwary Reader think that Jacob invented it. I am ſorry to ſee ſuch ſtuff from a Man of Learning.
What credit is to be given to the Jewiſh Talmud, what one Jewiſh Rabbi affirms, concerning this matter, I have ſhewed, another ſeems to deny, Rabbi Joſhua confeſſeth that the Jews baptized Infants, after the order of the Counſel, not by any Authority from God by Moſes, or any of his Holy Prophets, but ſhall we think John Baptized Infants by vertue of any human Tradition that was among the Jews.
Sir, a popiſh Tradition is of as good authority, as a Jewiſh one; you may affirm, the Papiſts for many hundred years baptized Infants, but where is it written in God's Word, that God commanded the Jews to baptize their Proſelites, or that Chriſtians ought to baptize their Infants: to the Law and Teſtament, the ſacred Scripture is a perfect Rule.
You ſay John baptized little Children, for he baptized the whole Nation in general, whereof Children were a great part; he refuſed none that came, or were brought to him, Mat. 3. 5, 6. then went out to him Jeruſalem and all Judea, and all the Regions round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan. Now ſay you, if John baptized all Jeruſalem and all Judea, and all the Regions round about Jordan, and all the People; it is certain he baptized Infants, unleſs we think there were no Children in Jeruſalem, &c.
Anſwer, I anſwer, now you think you have done your Buſineſs; but Sir, doth not this Argument of yours as ſtrongly prove, that all wicked and ungodly people may be baptized alſo, ye Swearers, Whoremongers, Murderers, yea the worſt of Men, for can we think there were none ſuch in Jeruſalem, Iudah, nor in all the Regions round about, yea that we may baptize Pagans and Infidels, for no doubt, but there were ſome of all Nations at Jeruſalem.
2. You affirm that John baptized the whole Nation of the Jews, even every Man, Woman and Child, or elſe I miſtake you; now if this were ſo, how it is ſaid, that Chriſt made and baptized more Diſciples then John, John 4. 1. John 3. 26. 'tis ſaid that Jeſus baptized, and all Men came to him. How did John baptize all, and Chriſt baptize more of the People then John; what think you, were they rebaptized; certainly, you will make them all proper Anabaptiſts; beſides, if John baptized all the Jews, where were thoſe three thouſand that St. Peter and the other Diſciples baptized, Acts 2. 40, 41, 42. were they not dwellers at Jeruſalem, and notwithſtanding Chriſt baptized more Diſciples then John; yet 'tis ſaid, Acts 1. 13. that the number of the Diſciples that were at Jeruſalem were but about one Hundred and Twenty.
3. I have ſhewed, that according to Scripture Rhetorick frequently by a Synecdoche a part is put for the whole, and ſometimes the far leſſer part alſo. 'Tis ſaid, All the Cattel in Egypt died, Exod. 9. 6. that is, all that were in the Field: Alſo Chriſt ſaith, When he was lifted up he would draw all men unto him, Joh. 12. 32. Doth that intend all univerſally? So Paul ſaith, All ſeek their own: And Chriſt ſaith, Ye ſhall be hated of all men for my name ſake. See theſe Scriptures, Exod. 32. 3, 26. Jer. 6. 3. 1 Cor. 10. 7. Iſa. 2. 2, 3. Acts 2. 5. See Glaſſius Illiricus, and other Tropical Writers: Alſo read Philologiae Sacra, and our laſt Annotators on the Holy Bible, called Pool's Annotations, on this Text. The Term All, ſay they, here twice repeated, is enough to let us know, that 'tis often in Scripture ſignificative no farther than Many—For it cannot be imagined, that every individual Perſon in Jeruſalem, and the Regions round about Jordan, went to hear John the Baptiſt, but a great many.
From hence it appears, That it is no ground for Mr. Owen to affirm, that by all Jeruſalem, and all Judea, &c. muſt be intended every individual Perſon, both Men, Women, and Children; but rather, ſome of all Sorts, Degrees, Sexes, &c. It ſhews, that Multitudes went to hear him, and many were baptized by him in Jordan, confeſſing their Sins with unfeigned Repentance.
But (you ſay) the Text doth not tell us what manner of Confeſſion this was, whether in Words or Works: Their submiſſion to Baptiſm, was an actual Confeſſion of their Uncleanneſs, and that they ſtood in need of Waſhing, it cannot be thought that it was a Confeſſion in Words; becauſe one Man could not receive a particular Confeſſion from the whole Country if they made a Confeſſion in Words: It is like one made it in the Names of others, even as the Prieſts did in the Names of all the People, Levit. 16. 21. Thus the Parents might confeſs their Sins for themſelves and their Children, &c.
1. Ans. Let Mr. Baxter's Arguments ſerve to confute you here; he tells you, That from Scripture and the univerſal Practice of the ancient Church, That Faith, and a Confeſſion of Faith, yea a verbal Confeſſion, was requirad oi all that were baptized; With the heart man believeth, and with the mouth confeſſion is made to ſalvation, Rom. 10. 10.
2. Certainly you are ſtrangely left to blindneſs of Mind about this Matter: Did ever any Man, except your ſelf, and one Mr. Excel, whom I anſwered lately, affirm, That all ungodly and unbelieving Men and Women, that were willing to be baptized, were proper and fit Subjects of Sacred Baptiſm? For all Men may ſee, that this Argument of yours is for their Baptiſm, and as forcible to prove they ought to be baptized, as 'tis to prove the Baptiſm of Infants: For, if John baptized all the whole Country, even every individual Perſon, then Miniſters now may baptiſe all in all Nations, even all the World, let them be what they will, Turks, Pagans, Infidels, Swearers, Drunkards, and Idolaters, Thieves, Murtherers, if they will but promiſe to turn from their Sins and repent, whether they do it or no, yet, if your Argument be good, they ought to be baptized: But how contrary to this is that which all your Brethren generally aſſert? viz. That in the Primitive Times, when the Goſpel was firſt preached and? Churches planted, all that were firſt baptized were Believers, Saints, and godly Perſons, and upon their Faith their Children were (as they ſay) baptitized alſo, which is that we deny; tho' they are right as to what theyſpeak in reſpect of Believers themſelves; but, ſiuce we have ſo fully refuted what you ſay of Baptizing adult Perſons that are Unbelievers, I will ſay no more of that in this place.
3. 'Tis evident what you affirm is falſe, viz. That John baptized the whole Country, even every individual Person, and that by a plain Inſtance: Is it not ſaid, That the Phariſees and Lawyers rejected the counſel of God againſt themſelves, being not baptized of him, Luke 7. 30. That is, faith our Annotators, not receiving John's Doctrine of Repentance, for the remiſſion of Sins and bringing forth Fruits worthy of amendment of Life, not ſubmitting to Baptiſm, as a Teſtimony of ſuch a Repentance. For John's Baptiſm ſignifieth his whole Adminiſtration. See Pool's Annotations on that Place. All may ſee what a kind of Confeſſion it was, John's Baptiſm required; it was more than a verbal Confeſſion of Sin, even the Fruits of a changed Heart, and a new Life: And where this Doctrine of his was not received, and theſe Fruits appeared not, John would not baptize them.
And now to conclude with this Chapter, in oppoſition to what Mr. Owen ſaith, from the whole it clearly doth follow, That John Baptiſt did not baptize the whole Country, nor any one Infant, no not any one Perſon, but ſuch who believed and ſeemed at the leaſt to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance: And, as he ſays, John's Baptiſm was the beginning of the Goſpel of Jeſus Chriſt, it followeth, that no Infant ought to be baptized, and that the external Privileges of the Goſpel are reſtrained and not ſo large as were the outward Rites and Privileges of the Jewiſh Church, tho' the Spiritual Privileges of the Goſpel are larger and more extenſive than thoſe of the Law were.