Light Broke Forth in Wales Expelling Darkness, Chapter 19
CHAP. XIX.
Containing an Anſwer to Mr. James Owen's 16th Chapter, proving that our Objections againſt Infant-Baptiſm are very weighty, and his Anſwers to them very impertinent and defective.
MR. Owen begins with his Sixteenth Chapter after this manner, viz.
Thus have we proved by the Scripture (ſaith he) and by ſeveral Scriptural Arguments, that the Children of the Faithful ought to be baptized: if we look upon this Truth in the Light of the Scriptures Above, the Objections of themſelves will vaniſh away; yet for the ſake of the Weak, I ſhall lay down the ſtrongeſt of them.
1. Object. There is neither a Command nor Example in the Scripture for the baptizing of Infants.
To this Mr. Owen anſwereth, viz.
There is not one particular Command, totidem verbis, naming Infant-Baptiſm, and that is not neceſſary; but there is an Univerſal Command to baptize all Nations, of which Children are a great part.
If there is a Command for the baptizing of the Parents, then there is a Command for the baptizing of Infants; for the Children are included in the Parents, even as Parts of them, being Partakers of the Privileges of good Parents, and of the Judgments of the wicked Parents.
1. Anſw. I anſwer, Whether you have or have not proved, by the Holy Scriptures and Arguments, that Infants ought to be baptized, is now upon a fair Trial committed to the Judgment of the Impartial Reader.
2. We do not require you to bring a Command, in totidem verbis, or in ſo many Words, Let Infants be baptized: But your Inferences are not good; for, as you have no Precept, no Command, or any Precedent to baptize them, ſo you can draw no fair and good Conſequences for it from any Text of Scripture.
You bring the Words of the Great Commiſſion, Matth. 28. 19, 20. Go baptize all Nations. Sir, Why dare you leave out part of the Words? Is it not Go therefore, teach all Nations, baptizing them, &c.? We have ſhewed in our Anſwer to you already, that the Commiſſion requires none to be baptized but ſuch who are firſt taught or made Diſciples; which Diſciples St. Mark calls Believers, He that believes and is baptized, Mark 16. 16. They are, Reader, the Words of the ſame Commiſſion, tho differently expreſſed by theſe two Great Evangeliſts, and hold forth the ſame thing, viz. That the Goſpel is to be preached in all Nations, or to all the World, and that thoſe that are diſcipled by preaching, or that do believe, ought to be baptized, and none elſe.
3. Whereas you ſay that Children are a great part of the Nations, and may therefore be baptized; this is a fallacious or deceitful Conſequence: For may not I (as before) argue thus? Unbelievers, i. e. Turks, Infidels, Pagans and their Children, are a great part of all Nations, therefore may be baptized. Sir, I appeal to your Conſcience, Whether this Inference is not as good and true, from the Premiſes, as yours.
3. But you ask whether there is a command for the baptizing of Parents, no doubt of this, we and you agree, that there is a command to baptize Parents, that believe in Chriſt, and to baptize Children too that believe in Chriſt;; but ſay you then, there is a command to baptize Infants, becauſe they are included in the Parents, even as parts of them; now this is utterly falſe, and alſo very ridiculous, 'tis for any Man to aſſert it.
1. For if this was ſo, it follows, whatſoever God commands the Parent, he commands the Child, then when God commanded Abraham to offer up, or ſlay his Son, he commanded the Son to ſlay himſelf; it would alſo follow, That
2. When God commands the believing Parent to partake of the Lord's Supper, he alſo commands all his Children to partake of the Lord's Supper, becauſe they are all included in their Parents.
3. If Children are thus a part of their Parents, then certainly, if the Parents go to Heaven, all their Children muſt go to Heaven likewise; for the whole of Believers ſhall be ſaved, and not a part of them only.
4. Alſo if the Children are included in their Parents, and are a part of them; why may not the Parents Baptiſm ſerve for the Child, and then it would alſo follow, that no Man is a compleat and perfect Man without his Children; was ever ſuch Stuff by a Man of Parts and Learning, publiſhed to the World?
5. Sir, will your Feeding, or eating your Food, feed your Children; beſure, as much as your believing and being baptized will feed the Souls of your Children.
6. Moreover, why do you ſay the Judgments of wicked Parents fall on their Children, did not God ſay that Proverb ſhould be uſed no more in Iſrael, but the Soul that Sins ſhall die: If Children partake of the puniſhment of their Parents, 'tis when they are alike wicked, and walk in the ſame ſteps their ungodly Parents walked in. But you proceed and ſay, that there is no particular command for the baptizing of Women.
Anſw. Male and Female are all one in Chriſt Jeſus, and Women are called Diſciples, and ſo are not Infants.
2. We have plain preſidents, that Women were baptized, which is all one with a Command, Acts 8. 12. When they believed Philip Preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and Name of Jeſus Chriſt, they were baptized both Men and Women; And alſo that Lyd a was baptized, Acts 16. Do but ſhew us one like preſident where any Infant was baptized, and we will ſay no more.
You ſay we have not a particular Command for keeping the firſt day of the Week as an Holy Sabbath to the Lord.
Anſw. We have a command to keep the Seventh part of time, as a Sabbath to the Lord, Exod. 20. and plain preſidents in the New Teſtament, That on the firſt day the Saints did meet to Worſhip God, Acts 20. 7. 1 Cor. 16. 1. The firſt day of the Week, as the Chriſtian Sabbath was alſo confirmed by the firſt miraculous appearance of Chriſt after his Aſcenſion into Heaven, which was the day of Pentecoſt, Acts 2. 1, 2. give like proofs for your Infant Baptiſm.
You would have us to ſhew what Scripture we have for re-baptizing.
Anſw. I ſhall anſwer, that by and by, when I come to your next Chapter, where we have it again, we do not own it Lawful to baptize them Again, who have been once rightly baptized, but Rantiſm is not Baptiſm, nor are Infants the true Subjects of it.
You ſay you have ſhewed already, That there are many examples in the Scripture for Infant Baptiſm, which are plain unto them that underſtand the agreement, and the conſequences of Scripture.
Anſw. I anſwer, let the Reader judge in this caſe, now we have examined all thoſe Texts you draw your examples from, whether your conſequences are clear and plain, or not.
Obj. The Scripture calleth upon ſome to believe before they are baptized, He that believeth and is Baptized, ſhall be ſaved, Mark 16. 16. and according to that Rule the Apoſtles did not baptize any untill they believed, Acts 2. 38. This is the Second Objection Mr. Owen brings, againſt what he hath wrote, take his Anſwer, viz.
(Saith he) when the Scriptures ſaith that he that believeth and is baptized.
1. It mentioneth Adult Perſons, viz. the unbelieving, Gentiles unto whom Chriſt ſent his Diſciples, Mark 16.
15. Mat. 28. 19. and not the Children of the Faithful; Chriſt ſending them into all the World to preach the Goſpel into Pagan Nations, and ſaying, He that believeth and is Baptized, ſhall be ſaved, Mark 16. 15, 16. ſhews that neither Baptiſm nor Salvation belongeth unto them, until they believe in the Lord Jeſus, if we were to preach unto ſuch, we ſhould baptize none until they would believe. But what is this to the Seed of the Faithful, of whom Chriſt mentioneth not.
1. Anſw. I anſwer, Reader obſerve, that here Mr. Omen hath given away his cauſe for ever, for he ſaith Chriſt ſpeaks not of the Children of the Faithful, but of the Adult: Now conſider, that theſe two Texts which he here Quotes, viz. Mat. 28. 19, 20. Mark 16. 15, 16. does contain the great and only Commiſſion and Warranty given by the Lord Jeſus, the only Law-giver about Baptizing; and if Infants are not mentioned nor intended here, there is no Warrant at all to Baptize them; for if by virtue of the great Commiſſion, all perſons muſt firſt believe before they are baptized, farewell for ever to Infant Baptiſm.
2. The Objection well ſaith, That according to this Rule or Commiſſion, the Apoſtles did not baptize any until they believed which is true and he cannot refute it.
3. Conſider that the Commiſſion, Mat. 28. 19, 20. Mark 16. 15, 16. did not only authorize the Apoſtles to go and make Diſciples among the Gentile or Pagan World, but alſo among the Jews, that were the Seed of Abraham, nay they were commanded firſt to begin (or open their Commiſſion) to preach to them at Jeruſalem, moreover the words of this Commiſſion is all the Commiſſion and Warrant, the Diſciples and Miniſters of the Goſpel have to adminiſter Baptiſm to all the Chriſtian Nations to the end of the World. There are not two Commiſſions given by Chriſt about baptizing, one to go to the Pagan or Gentile World, and another to be believing Chriſtian World, or to believers and their Seed. Now there is but one Commiſſion, and only Rule we have to baptize, therefore Mr. Baxter ſaith well, i. e. 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, Baxt. Confirm. p. 27. And in another place, he ſaith, ſpeaking of this only Warrant or Commiſſion of Baptizing, if we have it not here, where have we it. Shall any one think Chriſt's Commiſſion ſhort and defective.
4. Mr. Owen ſaith, if we were to preach unto ſuch that is to unbelievers or Heathens, we ſhould baptize none until they believed. Now pray conſider that this is his Commiſſion to baptize, if he be a true Miniſter of Chriſt, let him preach to whom he will, or come where he will, he muſt do all things according to this Commiſſion, as 'tis here given, neither baptize Young nor Old, neither Jew nor Gentile, Parent nor Child, until they believe, or profeſs their Faith in Jeſus Chriſt; if he doth, he Violates and acts directly contrary to his only Commiſſion, and therefore if he doth, he ſins, Should any Commiſſioner of an Earthly King, act contrary to the very expreſs words, and purport of his Commiſſion, he certainly would be condemned, as a falſe and unfaithful Servant, and be turned out of his Maſters Service. Mr. Owen ſaith, That the Seed of the faithful, Chriſt mentioneth not, that is in his great Commiſſion, Mat. 28. 19, 20. Mark 16. 15, 16. therefore ſuch he muſt not Baptize, unleſs he hath from Chriſt received a new, or any other Commiſſion that doth authorize him ſo to do.
5. And obſervable it is to ſee how Mr. Owen contradicts himſelf here, in reſpect of what he ſaid before, when he mention'd the ſame Texts and Commiſſion of Chriſt, he told us that Children are part of the Nations that Chriſt commanded to be Baptized, but now he ſaith, The Seed of the Faithful, Chriſt mentioneth not, and beſure now, at this turn he ſpeaks the Truth: and if none of the Seed of the Faithful ought to be Baptized by vertue of Chriſts Commiſſion, but ſuch only of them that do believe, then no Infant; for Teaching is making of Diſciples, ſo that they are to be taught ſo as to believe before they are to be Baptized, and that in all Nations, whether Heathens or Chriſtians, and that alſo to the end of the World, teaching them to obſerve all things whatſoever I have commanded you, and lo I am with you all ways to the end of the Word. Mat. 28. 20.
It is certain, ſaith Mr. Owen, that this Scripture mentioneth not of Children, if it doth they muſt needs be damned, for want of Faith which cannot be actually in them.
Anſ. I anſwer, 'tis very true, that Chriſt in his Commiſſion neither meaneth nor mentioneth Infants; he hath given no Commiſſion to baptize Infants, becauſe the words of the Commiſſion runneth to ſuch who are capable to be taught, to be made Diſciples by Teaching and ſo to Believe, which Infants Mr. Owen ſaith, cannot actually do.
But he adds, the Apoſtle ſaith in 2 Theſ. 3. 10. ſaith he, if any would not work, neither ſhould he eat would not that Father be unnatural, who would take an occaſion from this Scripture to ſtarve his little Children, becauſe they cannot work; ſo when Chriſt ſaith, he that believeth and is baptized; it doth not follow, that none ought to be baptized untill they believe.
Anſwer. 1. I anſwer, this ſeems ſtrange, when Chriſt in the Affirmative declares, who he would have baptized; doth it not follow that in the Negative, none elſe ought to be baptized. In other caſes you would not argue thus, as for Example, when God commanded Abraham to Circumciſe his Male Infants, doth he not implicitly forbid the Circumciſing of his Female Children, and when he commanded him to Circumciſe his Male Infants on the eighth day, doth he not implictly forbid him to circumciſe them on the ſeventh or ninth day, and when Paul ſaith, let a Man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat, doth he not forbid Infants to partake thereof, and all to come to the Lord's Supper, that do not ſo examine themſelves, or who do not diſcern the Lord's Body. Moreover,
2. Are not all thoſe Perſons that a teſtator in his laſt Will and Teſtament leaveth out, or expreſſeth not, excluded from having any Legacy in the ſaid Will; now the great Commiſſion, Mat. 28. Mark 16. is alſo Chriſts laſt Will and Teſtament, about the right of Baptiſm, viz. who are right ſubjects, and they are expreſſed by their qualifications, viz. Diſciples, or Perſons Taught, or ſuch that believe, are not therefore all unbelievers, all Pagans, and ungodly perſons, and ignorant Babes, that are not capable to believe, excluded from Baptiſm, according to Chriſt laſt Will and Teſtament; it ſignifies nothing to find Infants right to Circumciſion under the Law, nor other the external priviledges of the Seed of the Faithful then, for that was a Legacy given in the Old Will and Teſtament, which is aboliſhed by Chriſt, making his New and laſt Will and Teſtament; in which the Infant Seed of Believers, are left out as touching any right they have now in Goſpel times to be Members of the Goſpel Church or to Bapt…ſm, &c.
3. As to that Text you mention, 2 Theſſ. 3. 10. If … will no… work, neither let him eat. I anſwer, Mr. Bur… in that Treatiſe of his for Infant Baptiſm, which I anſwered, and he hath made no reply ſince, brings in the very ſame Text upon the like account; take his words, and my anſwer. Muſt Children be ſtarved becauſe they cannot work, thus (ſays he) Children lie under a Natural inc…pacity of profeſſing actual Faith, therefore the firſt Text (that is Mark 16. 16.) doth not concern them any more then the latter, 2 Theſſ. 3. 10. now take our anſwer, viz.
You have given away, ſay we, your Cauſe for ever, for if this Text, Mark 16. 16. does no more concern Infants then that in 2 Theſſ. 3. 10. then be ſure they have nothing to do with Baptiſm.
You and Mr. Burkitt ſay, that in Mark 16. 16. the Adult only, are intended, we ſay ſo too, whether then ſhall we go for your Infant Baptiſm, we can prove from many Texts, that Infants ought to Eat though they cannot Work; but how will you prove that Infants ought to be Baptized by any other Scripture, if it be not in the Commiſſion, tho' they do not believe, or have actual Faith. Mr. Burki… ſaith, Children have Mortal Bodies, therefore they muſt be Fed at their Parents Table, and they have Immortal Souls, and from …hence he argues they ought to be Baptized, to which I anſwered: As Infants have mortal Bodies, and muſt therefore be Fed at their Parents Table, tho' they can't Work, ſo becauſe they have Immortal Souls (he might as well have ſaid) they ought to be Fed at the Lord's Table tho' they cannot believe, nor diſcern the Lord's Body. The Apoſtle ſaith, Let a Man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat, &c. but this ſay I, is ſpoken of the Adult; but Infants, who are capable to receive Spiritual Benefits by Chriſt's Death, muſt have the Ordinance that figureth it out, namely the Lords Supper. There is the ſame ground and reaſon therefore to conclude Infants are included, in 1 Cor. 11. 22, 23. about receiving the Lord's Supper, as there is to conclude, that they are included, in Matth. 21. 19. Mark 16. 15, 16. In the Commiſſion to Baptize, the one ſaith, Let a Man examine himſelf, the other ſaith, He that Believeth, &c.
You ſay you have proved, That the Apoſtles Baptized not only the Adult, when they believed, but the Children of ſuch alſo.
Anſw. I have I hope to the ſatisfaction of all that are willing to be informed diſproved what you ſay, and proved that the Apoſtles Baptized no one Infant by far better Arguments than you have brought to prove they did.
Obj. Infants do not underſtand what is done, and therefore what profiteth Baptiſm unto them; this Objection; Mr. Owen anſwereth as followeth.
This Objection, ſaith he, is not only againſt Baptiſm, but againſt Circumciſion alſo; yet the Ordinance was profitable unto them. A little Child may receive a great gift, &c.
1. Anſw. I anſwer Circumciſion was God's Command, Infants had aright to it, but God has not Commanded Infants to be Baptized, God's Ordinance ſhall have that effect on its proper ſubject, which he deſigned by it, no doubt had it been the Will of Chriſt to have given Command to Baptize Infants, but it ſhould ſome ways or another been profitable to them; but ſince he hath not Commanded it, it can no way profit them.
2. A little Child may receive a great Gift no doubt, but they muſt not have that given to them, that God never appointed for them. When God gave out the Commiſſion of Circumciſion, he Commanded Abraham as an Adult Perſon to be Circumciſed; and alſo at the ſame time Commanded him to Circumciſe his Male Children; that was by a poſitive Law, a gift given to all the Male Children of Abraham, and to all the Male Children by Iſaac in their Generation, whether their Parents were godly or wicked; but Baptiſm in Chriſts Commiſſion, is only given to Believers and to all that Believe, and therefore no Gift given to Infants, we muſt not be Wiſer then God, nor add to his word.
4. Obj. Mr. Owen adds another Objection againſt his Doctrine, viz. Chriſt was about Thirty years of Age when he was Baptized, Luke 3. 23.
1. His anſwer is, though he was not Baptized until he was Thirty years of Age, yet he was Circumciſed when he was eight days Old, Luke 2. 21.
2. He delayed not his Baptiſm, becauſe not fit to receive it, for he was perfectly Holy from the Womb, and therefore if we are bound to imitate his example in this thing, none of thoſe that do believe ought to be Baptized, until they be Thirty years of Age, but the Antipedobaptiſts walk not according to this Rule, and therefore they do think this example bindeth them not.
Anſw. I anſwer, no doubt, if any Babe was a fit Subject of Baptiſm, it was the Holy Child Jeſus, if purity and inherent Holineſs, gave to the Subjects thereof the proper right, but 'tis not Holineſs primarily and ſimply conſider'd in it ſelf, that gives any perſon a right to Baptiſm, but the meer poſitive Command of God, and the poſitive Command of God, only runs to ſuch Perſons that believe, and therefore not to Infants, tho' we grant the poſitive Command of Circumciſion, required Male Infants to be Circumciſed under the Law, which Law Chriſt came to fulfil, and obey in every thing, therefore Chriſt when an Infant was Circumciſed according to the Tenor of the Law, and Order thereof; and he was Baptized also when an Adult Perſon, according to the Tenor and Rule of the Goſpel: No doubt had it been the mind and will of God, That Infants ſhould have been Baptized, Jeſus Chriſt as an example to others would have been Baptized in his Infancy.
2. But ſay you, if we are to imitate our Saviour in his Baptiſm, we muſt not be baptized until we are Thirty years of age.
Anſwer, This is an abſur'd and an idle Dream, becauſe the Holy Ghoſt by mentioning the time of Chriſts Age when he was Baptized, and that he was about Thirty years Old, holds forth no doubt not leſs then this, That all perſons ought to come to a mature age, or to ripeneſs of underſtanding, before, they be Baptized, for the Jews looked upon that Age to be a perfect and mature age. The Prieſts did not till about that Age enter into the exerciſe of their Office; and therefore in oppoſition to what you ſay the Antipaedobaptiſts do walk according to Chriſts Rule, i.e. the example of Chriſt in the point and time of Baptiſm, viz. That all perſons muſt delay their Baptiſm, untill they come to ſuch ripeneſs of Age, as to be grown up to maturity ſo as to underſtand what baptiſm signifies, and to be capable to believe in Jeſus Chriſt, which ſome arrive unto ſooner then others; for ſome have the underſtanding of Men when very Young, may be, have more wiſdom at Twelve years of Age, then ſome others have at Thirty, but they that arrive not to underſtanding by the Thirtieth year of their Age certainly never will attain to the wiſdom and knowledge of Men of underſtanding.
2. Beſides 'tis evident, that our Saviour did not enter upon his Miniſtry until he was baptized, to ſhew that no Goſpel Miniſter ſhould undertake to preach the Goſpel, or become a paſtor of a Church, that is, an unbaptized Perſon; and the Holy Ghoſt mentioning the Age of our Saviour when he was baptized, doth no doubt ſhew us, that the proper Subjects of Baptiſm, are only adult Perſons, ſo far 'tis our rule as an Example.
But ſay you, many Actions of Chriſt are for our inſtruction, which are not to be imitated, and ſuch was his Baptiſm, when he was thirty Years of Age, he being willing to bear Witneſs to the Miniſtry of John, who began to baptize a little before, as his Example of taking the Miniſtry upon him, when he was thirty years of Age, and not before, bindeth not all others to follow him, ſo is his Example of being baptized in the ſame Year, no rule to all others.
Anſ. I anſwer, though we grant that many Actions of Chriſt are for our inſtruction, which are not to be imitated by us, yet we ſay in contradiction to you, in this we are ſo far to imitate him, as not to admit any to Baptiſm, until they come to a competent degree of underſtanding; for had not Chriſt deſigned ſo far as to leave us an Example in this matter, no doubt, his Age when baptized, had not been left upon Record; nay, and had Infants been the proper ſubjects of Goſpel Baptiſm, we may be ſure Chriſt (as I ſaid before) had been Baptized as well as he was Circumciſed, when an Infant; but he being God as well as Man, foreſeeing how this Ordinance in after times would be corrupted, and the proper ſubjects thereof changed, even from Believers, or adult Perſons to Infants, thought it neceſſary no doubt to leave upon record the very time of his Age, when baptized, to all Generations, to put an end to this Controverſie.
For this is ſaid, by the pedobaptiſts, viz. in the firſt age of the Church, or when baptiſm was firſt given forth Believers were Baptized, but where do you find, ſay they, that any Believer in all the New Teſtament that was baptized, did delay to Baptize his or her Child, untill they come to a ripe Age.
We anſwer, That we do find ſuch an Inſtance in reſpect of our Saviours Baptiſm, for all muſt confeſs, that the Bleſſed Virgin, or Mother of Jeſus, and Joſeph his ſuppoſed Father, were both eminent Believers, and Baptized too, (none doubt of that) and yet they delayed or referred the Baptizing of the Holy Jeſus until he became an Adult Perſon.
Obj. But if any ſhould Object that John, who was the firſh that received a Commiſſion to Baptize, was but a little Older then our Saviour; and therefore was not capable to Baptize Jeſus Chriſt when he was a Babe.
I anſwer, tho' this be true, yet God being a free Agent, and not tyed to one Man more than to another, could not he have given Commiſſion to any other perſon to have Baptized the Bleſſed Child Jeſus, or have ſent John ſooner into the World; what is his pleaſure to have done, he wanted not Inſtruments or Miniſters to do; therefore it follows plainly it was not his Pleaſure or Will, that Chriſt ſhould be Baptized, when an Infant; to convince us that Infants are not the proper Subjects of Goſpel Baptiſm.
4. This ſhews alſo in oppoſition to what Mr. Owen ſaid before that Baptiſm by Gods Command, was not in the Jewiſh Church before John received Commiſſion from Heaven to Baptize.
5. As to that you ſpeak, of Chriſts not entring uppon his Miniſtry till Thirty years of Age, that that is no example for others. I anſwer that he was oblidged to fulfill both the Precepts of the Law and the Goſpel; and therefore in compliance to the Law, (that the Jews might not Quarrel with him) he entred not on his Miniſtry untill that time of his Age, which the Prieſts and Miniſters under the Law did, for he was made under the Law, and was to be ſubject to all the Laws and precepts thereof; and in that he is, 'tis true, no example to Goſpel Miniſters, but Baptiſm being a pure Goſpel precept, in that he was by us to be Imitated ſo far, as we ought not to be Baptized, untill we become Adult Perſons, and do believe in him, he hath left us an Example how we ſhould follow his ſteps.
Mr. Owen brings in his Fifth Objection againſt his Doctrine and practice of Infant Baptiſm, viz. If Infant Baptiſm belongs to Infants, why do not you give them the Lords Supper.
Take his anſwer, Becauſe, ſaith he, the Apoſtle Commands thoſe that receive the Lords Supper to examine themſelves, and to diſcern the Body of the Lord, which little Children cannot do.
Anſw. I anſwer: And as the Apoſtle Commands all that receive the Lords Supper to examine themſelves, and to diſcern the Lords Body, ſo likewiſe John Baptiſt, the Lord Jeſus and his Apoſtles too, Commanded all that received baptiſm to believe and repent, and to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance, which little Babes cannot do. Repent and be Baptized every one of you, Acts 2. 37. If thou believeſt with all thy Heart thou mayeſt, Acts 8. 37. that is, be baptized.
2. You ſay, Baptiſm is the Sacrament of our Regeneration, and of our Admiſſion into the Church of God; the Lord's Supper is a Sacrament of our Growth and Spiritual Food.
1. I anſwer, this quite overthrows your Infant Baptiſm, unleſs you Preſbyterians do believe as the Church of England doth, or at leaſtwiſe, what they affirm, viz. that Baptiſm doth regenerate the Child, is Baptiſm an Ordinance or Sacrament of Regeneration, i. e. to regenerate Perſons, or to hold forth that regeneration, or the New Birth is wrought in ſuch that are baptized, why then do you baptize Infants, who are not the Subjects of Regeneration? Can they die to Sin, and are they raiſed up out of the Water new Born Creatures, to walk in newneſs of Life.
2. If your Infants are new born, or born again by Baptiſm, no doubt the Food of the new Creature, viz. the Lord's Supper ought to be given to them. The firſt Sacrament holds forth, 'tis clear, a Perſon born again, or a Babe of Grace; the other is Food, fit and proper for that New born or Regenerated Perſon, that he may grow thereby, therefore they belong both to one and the ſame Subjects, and neither of them it appears from hence do belong to Infants, but
3. Are all the Infants that you baptize, let in as Members of your Church, are they abſolutely Members of your Congregations, as having the Ordinance of Admiſſion, is the Door of God's Houſe opened to them? How can you then (ſay I) deny them the priviledge of true and lawful Members, ſhall your little Members, your Lambs in Chriſt's Fold being New Born be ſtarved, what ſhall the regenerated Babe not be fed with the Food of their Fathers Houſe?
4. But if thus, what number of Members have you in your Churches, that have not their Names in your Church-book, nor perhaps, never looked after when grown up, nor caſt out, though prophane and Wicked? for do you caſt out or exclude all ſuch Children you baptized, when grown up, if not, what polluted Churches are yours. Infant Baptiſm was doubtleſs contrived to encreaſe National Churches, or to make national Churches, and it doth tend indeed, to increaſe and continue that Chriſtian Religion that is in Name only, and not in Power; you have, its true in England, by meer neceſſity loſt your National Conſtitution, and are become Congregational, whether you will or no, but Infant Baptiſm will not accord with a congregation Conſtitution, nor do ſuch Churches ſo conſtituted that are for Infant Baptiſm, own their Babes to be proper and true Members of their Churches ſo far as I can learn, what then ſignifies your Sacrament of Admiſſion, if they are not in truth admitted and owned as Members, and allowed the Food and Priviledges of ſuch.
3. You ſay it was formerly, though Circumciſion belonged to Infants, yet the Paſchal Lamb belonged not but to the Adult.
Anſw. I anſwer, this is denyed, prove if you can, that the little Children in the Jewiſh Church were not admitted to eat of the Paſſover, it is poſitively ſaid, Exod. 12. 34. That the whole Houſe were to eat thereof, even a Lamb for an Houſe, and I find a great Writer aſſerting the ſame thing, that little Children did eat thereof, they were to bring their Children once or twice a Year before the Lord; and I ſee no ground you have to ſay that none but Adult Perſons did eat thereof.
2. But let that be as it will, that which was or might be the right of Jewiſh Church-Members or not their right, is no rule for us in the Goſpel Church, as I have ſufficiently prov'd; and beſure all baptized Perſons who are regular Members of a Goſpel Church, cannot be denyed the Lord's Supper without Sin. So much to your Anſwers to our Objections, you might might have brought twice as many more.