Light Broke Forth in Wales Expelling Darkness, Chapter 20
CHAP. XX.
In Anſwer to Mr. James Owen's 17 Chapter, wherein the Antipedo Baptiſts are cleared of thoſe foul Charges he hath caſt upon them; and 'tis proved, that to deny Infant Baptiſm is no Sin, nor are thoſe guilty of Murther nor Adultery that baptize or dip Men and Women in Water, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; (as Mr. Owen charges them) but contrariwiſe it is proved, that to Baptize or Rantize Infants, is an unlawful Practiſe and very Sinful.
YOU ſay, you ſhall demonſtrate in this Chapter, how great the Sin is of thoſe that are tempted to deny the Baptiſm which they receive in their Infancy, and that ſuffer themſelves to be baptized again; there are many People that know not the nature of their firſt Baptiſm, and are perverted to renounce it, thinking that they do pleaſe God in ſo doing, but they fall into Temptation and the Snares of the Devil, who is the Author of Errors and Father of falſhood.
Anſw. I hope by this time, the Reader may diſcern how great an error 'tis to call Rantiſm or Sprinkling Baptizing, and that Infant Baptiſm is alſo an error, being a meer human innovation, this I have prov'd, and thereſore 'tis ſo far from being a Sin to diſown it and caſt it away, that it is every good Chriſtians Duty ſo to do, that would in all things walk by the rule of God's Word. And for Mr. Owen to charge our People after this manner, as if we were perverted and inſnared by the Devil, in denying our Infants Baptiſm, is juſt as the Papiſts uſed to charge the Proteſtants that diſowned the human Traditions, and the vain Fopperies of their rotten Church, and thunder'd out their Bulls againſt them.
1 You ſay they are guilty of great Sin, inſomuch that they neglect to make a right uſe of their firſt Baptiſm, Infant Baptiſm putteth them under continual Vow to the Lord, and they are bound to renew their Vows, to take the Lord to be a God unto them, as ſoon as they come to age.
Anſw. 'Tis true, you brought them under an Obligation or a Vow, to take the Lord to be their God in their Infancy, but why did you do it, unleſs you had any Warrant or Authority from God; for to do ſuch a thing in his Name without his Authority, is Sinful.
2. You might better have ſtayed till they came to Age of underſtanding, and if you would bring them under a Vow, have cauſed them then to have entered into a Covenant to take the Lord to be their God, and no doubt your Children might more dread to break ſuch a Vow they conſented to and freely made, then a Covenant or Vow you cauſed them to enter into in their Infancy, to which they never conſented; but perhaps you will ſay, you have no Ground nor Authority from Gods word to do that, as much every way as you have in Infancy to baptize them, which we ſay is no Baptiſm at all, much leſs Chriſt's true Baptiſm, therefore God thereby oblieged them not to do what you ſpeak, but it is their Duty when grown up, if God gives them Faith to caſt it away as an humane Tradition, and to enter into God's Holy Baptiſmal Covenant as Believers, according to Chriſt's great Commiſſion.
3. Chriſts Baptiſm, or the Baptiſm of Believers was not ordained to oblige Perſons who are in their natural State (whether young or old) to be come the Lord, or to be regenerated, or to die to Sin, &c. but as being his, or regenerated before baptized, their baptiſmal Covenant obligeth them to walk as the Lord's People in newneſs of Life; ſo that it appears, that Infants baptiſmal Covenant, is directly repugnant in the end and deſign of Chriſt's true Baptiſmal Covenant, (as I have more fully e…ence… in the Epiſtle to this Book, Dedicated to all Godly Pedo-Baptiſts) to which I refer the Reader.
You ſay you ſee the greateſt part of Children when they come to Age, be either ignorant, or inconſiderate of their Baptiſmal Vows, &c. for which you blame Miniſters and Houſholders in not Catechiſing and Teaching them, and thus ſay you, Satan tempts them to caſt the Blame upon their Baptiſm, &c.
Anſ. You may ſee what a vain thing an human invention is, what impreſſion can that make on the Conſcience of Perſons when Grown up, that God never Commanded nor promiſed to bleſs.
2. But take heed you do not father that upon the Devil which is done by Jeſus Chriſt, 'tis not Satan that tempts us to caſt a ſlight on Infant Baptiſm, or makes us loo… upon it as an inſignificant thing, but 'tis through Chriſt's gracious influences, by opening our Eyes to ſee 'tis a meer humane rite, and invention of Man's own Brain, therefore we threw it away, and entered into a new and true Baptiſmal Covenant, and many others alſo do day by day.
You (ſay you) appeal to the Conſciences of thoſe that are rebaptized, is not the thing thus? Let their Conſciences dictate and reprove them, ſay you, of this ſinful Carelesness, that they never made a right uſe of their firſt Baptiſm, if they had received profit from the first, they would not have at all renounced it.
Anſ. 1. I will take this appeal to be made to me, though never re-baptized, even to my Conſcience; and I do ſolemnly declare, I doubt not but all my Brethren can ſpeak the ſame thing, that the reaſon why we caſt off our Infant Baptiſm or rather Rantiſm, was becauſe we were fully convinced it was no Ordinance of Chriſt, and therefore knew it could be of no … to us.
2 You miſtake it ſeems, as if you dreamed, that the most of thoſe that caſt off Infant Baptiſm were People of …, and alſo ſeem to intimate, as if ſuch of your People when grown up that are pious, who do choose the Lord to be their God, do it by virtue of their Baptiſmal Vow; no no, that had no ſuch effect upon them, 'tis only the Grace of God in them, 'tis by vertue of his Spirit, and evident 'tis, that the perſons generally that firſt doubt about the truth of Infant Baptiſm, are perſons of Religion and Piety therefore 'tis not for want of Religion or Zeal for God, they throw away Infant Baptiſm, but it is from their Religion and Love to God, and Zeal to his Name, that ſo they may not be guilty of adding to his Word, or taking that for Chriſt's true Baptiſm, which is none of it. Is it a Sin to caſt off Mens inventions?
2. They are guilty; you ſay, of great Sin, by prophaning the Ordinance of Chriſt; is it a ſmall thing to prophane Sacred Things, although ſome do ſo through ignorance, Baptiſm is a ſacred thing which ought to be received but once, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptiſm; Eph. 4. 4. therefore thoſe that renew their Baptiſm, take, the name of God in Vain, &c.
Anſw. I anſwer, is it not a great Sin to change the Holy Ordinance of Chriſt from Baptiſm to Rantiſm; or in Engliſh, from dipping the whole Body in Water, to the ſprinkling a little Water on the Face, and to change the true Subject from a Believer to an Infant; is not this to prophane a moſt holy Ordinance and a ſacred Thing? and 'tis no doubt a great Evil, though done ignorantly, becauſe you ſprinkle them into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy-Ghoſt, without his Authority, God never commanded it at your Hands; is not this to prophane his moſt Holy and Sacred Name, and ſince it appears there is but one Baptiſm in Water; and you cannot deny, but do own Believers Baptiſm was at firſt inſtituted and appointed of Chriſt; it plainly then follows, that Infant Baptiſm is none of Chriſts Inſtitution, 'tis no Baptiſm of Chriſt, 'tis not that one Baptiſm he appointed and ordained, we own but one Baptiſm, and that is the Baptiſm of Believers; if you have got another, look you to that, for there is but one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptiſm, Eph. 4. 4.
3. They are (you ſay) guilty of unbelief, unleſs God telleth them in totidem verbis, baptize your Children, they will believe not, Faith looketh upon every beck of the Lord, the leaſt appearance of his Will, the Woman which had the bloody Iſſue believed, if ſhe could but touch the Garment of the Lord Jeſus, ſhe ſhould be whole, though ſhe had neither a Promiſe, nor Command, nor a particular Example provoking her in ſo doing, &c.
Anſ. I anſwer, will you charge us with unbelief, becauſe we cannot believe that to be a Truth, for which we have neither Command nor Example, nor for which there can be no good Conſequence nor Inference drawn from any Text of Scripture, nor in doing of which we have no promiſe, nor are they which do it under any threatning in all the book of God? this ſeems very ſtrange, muſt we believe Infant Baptiſm, becauſe you and others ſay it is a Truth, by the ſame argument we muſt or may believe all Popiſh Rites, diviſed Fables and Ceremonies, what innovations may not your Faith take hold of according to what you ſpeak here, is there no difference in believing in Chriſt in things reſpecting matters of Faith, which directly lie under his Promiſe, and believing things which are matter of Practice, which depends wholly upon Chriſt's mere poſitive Command? we muſt have ſome Ground or Foundation from God's Word to believe 'tis a Truth, which you blame us for not believing; and we declare that we ſee we have no Ground, no Foundation to build our Faith nor Practice upon, in the caſe of Infant Baptiſm, and are we guilty of unbelief from hence, what Divinity is this you preach and publiſh to the World, you would have us act upon an implicite Faith, or believe as the Church believes, do you not talk like a Son of the Church of Rome?
2. Find the Woman that had the Iſſue of Blood no Command no Example, nor no Promiſe to believe Chriſt would …er? Do you believe what you ſeem to affirm did the never ſee nor hear of any Perſon that Chriſt had cured, ſure you cannot imagine any ſuch thing; the could not have believed unleſs ſhe had ſome good Ground, did ſhe not know the power of Chriſt was great, if we had but heard of one Infant baptized by Chriſt or his Apoſtles upon the Faith of their Parents, as we find ſome Children were healed by the Faith of their Parents, we ſhould not be ſuch unbelievers as we now are about Infant Baptiſm.
You ſay the Woman of Canaan comes boldly with her Child unto Chriſt for to receive benefit, though ſhe was not inviſible Covenant with God, and Chriſt commended her Faith, and received her Daughter, her Faith breaks through all impediments, Mar. 15. 22. 28. Her Faith was great, who againſt Hope believed in Hope; is not thy unbelief great, who deſtroyeſt the foundation of Hope touching thy Children. O queſtion not the promiſe of God through unbelief, but be ſtrong in Faith giving Glory to God.
1. Anſw. Muſt we boldly bring our Children to Baptiſm without any authority from Chriſt, becauſe the Woman of Canaan come bodily to him, to have her Daughter healed of her Boldly Diſeaſe, ſhe had ground for her Faith, but we have none for ſuch a Practice.
2. Do we deſtroy the foundation of our Hope, about the State of our Infants, becauſe we dare not baptize them without a word from Chriſt, or without Authority from him? No Sir, we have ground to hope our Children that Die are as happy as yours, tho' never Baptiſed; and that from Gods word. Hath not Chriſt ſaid, Of ſuch are the Kingdom of Heaven, no doubt God hath comprehended Infants in his eternal electing Love that Die, for whom he alſo gave his Son, and in ſome ſecret way doth Sanctifie them, or makes them meet for glory above; and we have as much ground to hope, that God will give Grace to thoſe Children of ours that live, as you have to hope he will give Grace to yours. Doth your Baptiſm ſave your Infants? Will you ſay with the Old Erroneous Fathers, and Blind Papiſts, that Baptiſm waſhes away Original Sin? Your expreſſions look that way, I am afraid of you.
Ought we not to believe (ſay you) for our Children, that Chriſt will receive them? Is he more unready to adminiſter Spiritual Bleſſings, than he was in adminiſtring Temporal Bleſſings to the Children of the Faithful?
Answ; Let Chriſt receive whom he pleaſes, He will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy, And receive and Bleſs, whom he will receive and Bleſs; no doubt his Sovereign Grace is extended to many of the Children of the Faithful now as formerly, but what of this, becauſe he healed ſome little Children in the days of his Fleſh, of their Bodily Diſtempers, Will you therefore baptize them without any Authority received from him, you may if you pleaſe as well argue thus, viz. Jeſus Chriſt Fed many little Children with Temporal Food, when he Fed the multitude, therefore they muſt come to the Lords Table, and be fed with Spiritual Food: Is this to argue like a Man of Wiſdom and Learning.
3. They are guilty (you ſay) of Pride, thus you charge thoſe that deny Infant Baptiſm. The humble ſubmitteth to every Revelation of the Will of God; (ſay you) God hath left divers things obſcure in the Scripture, that we might ſearch them, and judge humbly of our Selves, who know things only in part, ſeeing through a Glaſs, in a parable; Is it not great pride, that a ſimple Man ſhould take upon him to teach God, how to ſpeak in his Word, let the Lord ſpeak his Mind clearer about Childrens Baptiſm, or elſe we will note believe him, ſay ſome, is not this a proud reaſoning of the Heart of Man? The humble Heart ſearcheth the Scriptures, and conſidereth the agreement of one Scripture with another, believing the conſiſtency of the Old Teſtament with the new, and fearing every untrodden Path, there be great Truths as ſecret Treaſure in the field of the Scripture, which the Humble ſearcheth and findeth, but the Proud deſpiſeth and comes ſhort thereof.
Anſw. I anſwer, Is it Pride in us not to believe that to be a truth, that is no where revealed in Scripture, or is it not folly in you to believe ſuch a thing to be of God's appointment; and yet upon the moſt diligent Search that can be made into God's Word, nothing can be found therein to prove it ſo to be.
2. Becauſe ſome things that are matter of Faith (I ſay again) or ſome Truths of the Goſpel do lie obſcure, and in dark parables in the ſacred Scripture, doth it follow that one of Chriſts great Goſpel Inſtitutions, nay one of the great Sacraments (as they are called) doth lie ſo dark and obſcure therein alſo? this is ſtrange, Moſes who gave out the Laws of the Old Teſtament from God as a Servant, made every thing plain, that is, he ſhewed them plainly what the command and precept was, ſo that he that run might read it, and will any Man think that our Lord Jeſus who was as faithful as a Son over his whole Houſe, would be leſs faithful, and leave an Ordinance ſo dark and obſcure, that there is not any Precept nor Example in all the New Teſtament for any ſuch thing, did Chriſt ever give forth Goſpel Precepts in dark Parables, Wonder O Heavens.
8. We ſay Infant Baptiſm is not layd down in the Scripture obſcurely or darkly, but do affirm in the holy fear of God, that it is not at all to be found therein; and it may appear to all that you cannot prove that it is, if God never ſo darkly had declared it, we would receive it, but becauſe he hath neither plainly nor obſcurely revealed, That 'tis his Inſtitution, we do reject it, and we ſhall not be charged with Pride in ſo doing; 'tis I fear too evident that you are left in this Caſe by the Lord to believe a lie, and may be becauſe you will not believe nor receive the plain Revelation of the baptiſm of Believers, tho' no one Truth lies more clear and plain in God's Sacred Word.
4. Is it pride in you, becauſe you will not own the Common-Prayer, and the Rite of croſſing in Baptiſm, and God-fathers and God-mothers, theſe things (you may be) believe not, but not becauſe they are left darkly in the Scripture, but becauſe they are merely human inventions, or not at all to be found in the Scripture.
You ſay we will not believe, unleſs you ſhew us ſome Command or ſome clear example for Infant Baptiſm, that it is of God, but if there had not been any Command or Example (although both be for Infant Baptiſm) if there be Scripture Conſequences, ſhewing they ought to be baptized, That is ſufficient to ſatisfie the humble ſearcher, did not Chriſt ſhut the Mouths of the Sadducees about the Reſurrection by Scriptural Conſequence? Mat, 22. 32.
1. Anſw. I anſwer, are we not to be commended for not believing that to be a Truth, for which there is neither Command nor example? Why do you not uſe Croſſing in Baptiſm, nor Oyl nor Honey as the Papiſts do? Is … not becauſe you find no Command nor Example for any ſuch things.
2. It ſeems ſtrange you have both Command and example for Infant Baptiſm in the Holy Scripture; and you cannot find either, or elſe none can find them, but your ſelves.
3. But could you produce as fair Conſequences from any Text for it, as our Saviour did to prove the Reſurrection we would receive it readily: But I have ſhewed all your Conſequences are nothing to the purpoſe, but if you … Truth, you need not fly to far-…etch'd Conſequenced
4. Theſe Antipedo baptiſts, ſay you, which receive rebaptization, are guilty of great uncharity: Charity is the fulfulfilling of the …, 1 Tim. 1. 5. and love alſo is the fulfilling of the Goſpel; and therefore we ought to be jealous of every Opinion that deſtroys Charity; God is Love, and thoſe Truths that are of God, are agreeable to Charity, but this Opinion which denyeth Infant Baptism, is a very uncharitable Opinion which caſteth our Children from the Houſhold of God, of which they were Members for ſome Thouſand of Years, is it not an uncharitable opinion which excommunicates them out of the Church of God.
1. Anſw. I anſwer could you prove Infant Baptiſm to be a Truth of God, you had cauſe to charge us, but that the Reader may ſee, you cannot do.
2. Nor can you prove Infants were ever received as Members of the Goſpel Church, therefore it is a falſe Charge to ſay our Opinion caſteth them out or Excommunicates them out of that.
3. Take heed leaſt it be found one day that you are a Man that wants Charity towards Chriſt himſelf, who is the only builder of his Goſpel Temple, and who did not in his Wiſdom think good to take in the fleſhly Seed into the Goſpel Church as they were received into the Typical and legal Church of the Jews.
You intimate that we have Excommunicated them, and that without a Cauſe, before they had done any thing for to merit this hard Judgment, is not this (ſay you) an uncharitable Opinion which denyeth them the ſame place in the Covenant of Grace under the Goſpel, as they had under the Law, is not that an uncharitable Opinion which maketh their condition worſer, ſince the coming of Chriſt then it was before? in ſhort, is it not (ſay you) an uncharitable Judgment, which denie s them a ſhare in the promiſe, Acts 2. 39. is not God a God unto the Seed of the Faithful, what, hope then can we have of their Salvation.
1. Anſw. It was not for the ſin or demerits of Infants that God hath not received them as Members of the Goſpel Church, only it was his own Sovereign Will and Pleaſure not ſo to do, nor can you prove that this is any ſpiritual loſs unto our Infants.
2. God hath as much caſt out the Sons of his Goſpel Miniſters (as ſuch) from having any part in the Miniſtry, which you know they had under the Law: For every Son of a Prieſt, when grown up, was of the Prieſthood, and this is denyed to our Sons as ſuch. Another may ſay, what Sin have our Sons committed, that this great priviledge is denyed them, ſince Chriſt came? Alſo, why ſhould not our Children have the promiſe of an External Canaan, as the Jewiſh Children had under the Law, what have they done to procure this loſs.
3. We do not deny Infants the ſame priviledges and place in the Covenant of Grace, which they ever had, no God forbid; our Children have every way (no doubt) like place in that Covenant which the Children of the faithful had under the Law, even them and all them of our Children, that have the ſaving bleſſings of Chriſt Merits, and of the ſaid unchangeable and eternal Covenant, but we ſay they are not in the Covenant of peculiarity God made with Abrahams Natural Seed as ſuch; and ſo partake not of the external Rites and Priviledges of the Goſpel Church, or New Creation, until they do believe or are called by the Lord according to that promiſe you cite, Acts 2. 39.
4. What a noiſe do you make about your Infants great loſs by our Opinion; alas you cannot prove or make it appear they have any real Spiritual loſs, hereby, our Children have the ſame ſpiritual bleſſings now as ever, and God is as much the God of our Seed in a ſpiritual ſenſe, as ever he was to the Seed of the Faithful; all that we ſay is this, that our Infants have no right to the external Ordinance of Baptiſm nor any but believers only; and pray what wrong is this to them? Is there no hope therefore left us of the Salvation of our dying Infants? what is it to give our Infants as ſuch, the ſign, who have not the thing ſignified thereby, you would have them have the Shell that have not the Kernel, and becauſe we will not give them the one, till God gives them the other, we are cenſured as uncharitable, What good did Simon magus his Baptiſm do him? Will Baptiſm ſave your Infants? and if all the Seed of the Faithful are (as you ſay) in the Covenant of Grace, they are ſafe enough whether they are baptized or not, we cannot bring them into that Covenant, nor caſt them out of it.
5. And now Sir, pray do you attempt for once to do more then all your brethren have done before you, viz. prove what Spiritual or Temporal benefits your Children do receive by their pretended Baptiſm, Mr. Burkitt made aſſay to do this, but he is anſwered, and ſays no more, and I purpoſe for the ſake of the Ancient Britains, for whom I have always had great love, and an honourable eſteem of, to take a little pains to tranſcribe Mr. Burkitts arguments in this reſpect, and my anſwers by and by.
6. 'Tis evident that baptiſm doth not infuſe Grace into them, nor the habits thereof, it does not change their Hearts; it doth not take away Original Sin. God can do it, 'tis true, nay, and God doth no doubt, change the Hearts of ſuch dying Infants that are ſaved; but prove if you can, their baptiſm doth this, and then. 2. what external priviledges of the Church do your Infants (as ſuch) receive, that are as, you ſay, baptized, you will not own them for Brethren and Siſters, until they are Converted, you will not give them the Lords Supper until they are converted, they are not by the Lord's appointment brought under any Obligation by being baptized; and then as few of your Children, 'tis plain, become godly as of ours, pray ſhew us when you write again, what bleſſings or priviledges your Infants do receive by their Rantiſm, or Baptiſm as you call it? What uncharitableneſs is it then in us to deny our Infants that thing, which you cannot prove if they had it, would do them any manner of good.
Nay Sir, I ſhall prove before I have done with you that it may do them much hurt.
5. Thoſe that are againſt Infant Baptiſm; and for renewing of it (you ſay) are guilty of a great ingratitude towards God, we know that ingratitude is a great Sin againſt the Lord: Unthankfulneſs for Temporal bleſſings provokes him to Anger, Rom. 1. 21. Luke 17. 17, 18. how much more for Spiritual bleſſings and priviledges.—Is it not great ingratitude in us to deſpiſe our birth-right? The Scripture puts a reproachful Character upon Eſau, &c.
Anſw. All this is to no purpoſe, 'tis but begging the Queſtion, viz. That Infant Baptiſm is God's Ordinance, and a birthright priviledge which we utterly deny, for tho' Baptiſm be a priviledge by Chriſts poſitive Command, it only belonging to the Second Birth, not to the Firſt.
Thou art guilty of a great Sin (ſay you) by making a diviſion in the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, there is one Body and one Baptiſm, Eph. 4. 4, … And they cannot be divided, whereas by denying of the firſt Baptiſm thou breakeſt the Unity of that Body, to the which Chriſt is Head, thou breakeſt thy ſelf off from the Vine, and withereſt as an unfruitful Branch, which will not be better although it be Watered again; thou breakeſt thy ſelf off not from this Congregation or another only; but from the Univerſal Catholick Church in every Age and Countrey upon the Face of the Earth, which is cleanſed with the waſhing of Water through the Word, Eph. 5. 26. and continuing in the Union of Baptiſm. Canſt thou think this to be a ſmall ſin for thee to rent thy ſelf from the Body of Chriſt, though ſtolen Water be ſweet at this time, and Bread eaten in ſecret be pleaſant. Know and ſee that it will be evil and bitter in the end, for thee to caſt thy ſelf out of the Church of the Living God, the Pillar and ground of Truth.
1. Anſw. I anſwer untill I came hither in your Book, I did not fully perceive your bitter Spirit. O that God would appear and give you a better temper of Heart: Who is uncharitable now, if Charity be the Bond of perfectneſs? How imperfect is my Brother Owen? Muſt we all who deny Infant Baptiſm, be Condemned as utter caſt aways, and not be lookt upon ſo much as Members of the Univerſal Church? 'Tis well, it is not in your power to reprobate us and our Children.
2. But ſtay a little, are all that own Infant Baptiſm, or have been baptized in every Age and Nation of the Earth, the Body of Chriſt, and Church of the living God? Do you indeed own the Popiſh Church, or is not the Church of Rome in your Judgment, however part of the Body of Chriſt? And are not you in Union with that Church, and all Churches that own Infant Baptiſm in the World? it followeth it muſt be ſo. I think 'tis time for you, moſt Worthy Britains, to have a Jealous Eye towards this Man, for if he be not in actual Communion with the Church of Rome, yet his principles lead him out ſo to be; for he ſeems to own all the Churches to be the Body of Chriſt, who were and are baptized in Infancy, nay, and that thoſe Churches, and none but them to make up the whole Myſtical Univerſal Church of God. He ſeems to reprobate all thoſe Chriſtians that deny Infant Baptiſm, or are disjoyned from his Univerſal Catholick Church of baptized Infants. I know his Reverend Brethren in London, are Men of more Charity, and abhor ſuch poſitions as he now lays down. I cannot think that his principles allow Salvation to any that are not in Union with the viſible Univerſal Church that own Infant baptiſm, 'tis time to thr…w this Idol away.
3. Is it a ſin to divide from the Church of Rome, or from the Church of England, or not to continue of their Communion? Are not you one that have ſeparated your ſelf from both, and more immediately from the laſt: But I ſuppoſe you own them both to be true Churches, tho you have ſeparated your ſelf, but if ſo, how can you clear your ſelf of abominable Schiſm, for you have made a diviſion in that Body, which you declare is the Body of Chriſt, and Church of the living God? Can thoſe things for which you have made this diviſion, juſtifie your Sel…m? Sir, tho we believe there are many Holy and Gracious Chriſtians of the Communion of the Church of England, and that they are Members of the Invisible Univerſal Church, yet we do not believe the Church of England, nor any National Church, is an orderly true Conſtituted Viſible Church of Jeſus Chriſt and therefore we ſeparated from them, but this it appears is not your belief.
4. Your Judgment is, it appears, that no Perſon can be a Member of the Univerſal Catholick Church, that was not baptized, and ſo United to her in Infancy, or Sprinkled when an Adult Perſon, i. e. he muſt own Infant Baptiſm. Sir I never met with a Man like your ſelf, as I can remember of leſs Charity; and yet you cry our againſt us for want of Charity.
5. I do affirm that, that one Baptiſm that Unites to the Viſible Church (not to the Univerſal Church) is the Baptiſm of Believers, and not that of Infants; And to prove it, take this argument. If that Baptiſm the Apoſtles adminiſtred, and on which they received all Perſons into the Viſible Church, was the Baptiſm of the Adult, or that of Believers only; then the baptiſm of the Adult, or that of Believers only, is that one and firſt Baptiſm; but the baptiſm which the Apoſtles adminiſtred, and on which they received all Perſons into the Viſible Church, was the baptiſm of the Adult, or that of Believers only. Ergo, The Baptiſm of the Adult, or that of Believers, is that one or only Baptiſm of Chriſts Visible Church; for thoſe Members of the viſible Church in the Primitive times, that were waſhed in Baptiſmal Water, profeſſed themſelves waſhed alſo in Chriſts Blood, and they that were ſincere had the thing ſignified, as well as the Sign when they were baptized, but Infants never made any ſuch profeſſion, therefore Infant Baptiſm was not the firſt and one Baptiſm that Chriſt left in his Church.
6. It is true that thoſe that deny Infant baptiſm, deny the Communion of the National Church, of which perhaps they were once Members, but this is not to make a diviſion in the Miſtical Body of Chriſt; nor in a true Conſtituted Goſpel Church. 'Tis a duty to come out from every falſe Church, Come out of her… my People, Rev. 18. 4.
7. If baptiſm be that Ordinance that Unites us into the true Viſible Church, and Chriſts baptiſm be that of Believers, then Mr. Owen in denying of believers baptiſm, (which I have proved is that one baptiſm) is as much guilty of Sin in hindring that Union (by obſtructing as much as in him lieth, Believers to be baptized, and ſo Unite them to the ſaid true Viſible Church of Chriſt) as thoſe that divide from it; and is this a ſmall ſin, but Believers baptiſm is that Uniting Ordinance, without baptiſm upon profeſſion of Faith, no Perſon according to the rule of the Goſpel can be United to a true Viſible Church of Chriſt, It is a dangerous thing to hinder perſons from Joyning with a true Church, as renting from it, but ſo it is not for leaving of a falſe Church.
8. From hence alſo it appears that our ſeparation from thoſe Churches that are Conſtituted upon Infant Baptiſm, do but divide from ſuch Churches that are not orderly gathered or Conſtituted according to the rule of the Goſpel and Inſtitution of Jeſus Chriſt, and therefore no ſin ſo to do.
9. Nay, and evident it is that the greateſt Body of Mr. Owens Univerſal Catholick Church, is Antichriſtian: For I think none queſtion but the Popiſh Church, which is founded on Infant baptiſm, is for Number more then the Proteſtant Churches; however the Roman Church muſt be by what he intimates one great part of the Catholick Church, or Church of the living God.
10. And laſtly, Mr. Owen miſtakes, the Waters we drink of, who maintain Believers Baptiſm, are not Stolen Waters, but Waters lawfully come at, being taken out of the Fountain of Gods Word, and are part of the Waters of God's Sanctuary; and therefore they are ſweet to our Souls, and our Bread is from our Fathers Table, being no other than what all the Children of God did feed upon in the Apoſtolical Primitive times: and his Stolen Water of Infant Baptiſm may prove bitter at the end, notwithſtanding his vain boaſts, but let him ſee to that, may be God may open his Eyes, and cauſe him to Vomit it up by Repentance, which I ſhall rejoyce to hear.
you ſay, this diviſion is very much alike unto that of the Antient Donatiſts, who were for rebaptizing becauſe they accounted them ſinners that firſt baptized them, &c.
A…ſw. We are, I tell you again, as much againſt rebaptizing as you can be, but you want the eſſentials of Baptiſm, both in reſpect to the form of baptiſm, and the ſubjects thereof. Sprinkling is not baptizing, and Infants are not the true Subjects of Chriſt's baptiſm, but Believers only.
You proceed to give out of Hiſtory the opinion of the Ancient Fathers about rebaptizing.
Thus ſaith (ſay you). Optatus. Et quid vobis viſum eſt non poſt nos ſed poſt trinitatem baptiſma geminare? Why do you rebaptize not only after us, but after the Trinity. Opt. Lib. 5. p. 51. Opt. Lib. 5. page 61. Quicunque a vobis ſe rebaptizari, &c. Whoever conſenteth to be rebaptized by you, he ariſeth up certainly but naked, becauſe he hath permitted you to deprive him of his Wedding Garment.
Auſtin ſaith, Revera enim fieri poteſt ut ſceleratior ſit Rebaptizator totius hominis quam ſolius corporis interemptor Aug. ad Eleuſium Ep. 163. It being poſſible for him who baptizeth the whole Man to be worſer then him, who killeth the Body only. Again, Rebaptizare haereticum hominem omnino peccatum eſt immaniſſimum. It is a ſin to rebaptize an Heretick, but to rebaptize a Catholick, or one in Unity with the Univerſal Church, is a dreadful Sin. Aug. de unico Bapt. cap. 13. If any (ſay you) judge theſe are words too harſh, let them conſider that they are Auſtin's words and not mine, I ſet them down for to ſhew the Judgment of the Old Primitive Church about rebaptization.
Anſw. I anſwer, theſe Inſtances hurt not us, for it appears in both theſe Quotations, that the Perſons rebaptized were Dipped firſt when baptized, and might be Believers alſo, for in the firſt, that word implyeth no leſs, viz. riſeth up, denoting he was buried in the Water. Your Infants when baptized (as you call it) cannot be ſaid to riſe up; and Auſtins words imply plainly the baptizing the whole Body, who baptizeth, ſaith he, the whole Man, but you only Sprinkle, and not the whole Body, but the Face only. Theſe Inſtances make againſt your Rantiſm or Sprinkling, but ſince you make ſuch a ſtir in charging us with rebaptization, and fain would have us be what we are branded with, viz. Anabaptiſts. I shall now ſhew you the opinion alſo of ſome of the Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines, about reiterating of baptiſm.
Gregory ſaith l. 1. Ep. 7. That that is not ſaid to be reiterated, which is not certainly demonſtrated to have been rightly and duely done, and in another place ſaith, if there be an offence taken at the Truth, it is much better that offence be taken than that the Truth ſhould be deſerted, the Cuſtom of the Churches ought to ſubmit to the words of Chriſt, not the words of Chriſt to be wreſted to the Cuſtom of the Church, in regard the words of Chriſt, are the foundation upon which all Cuſtoms are to be build. hom. 7. in Ezechiel.
Cyprian ſaith, It being more proper for the wiſe, and and thoſe that fear God to obey the manifeſt and open Truth, freely, and without delay, then obſtinately, and pertinaciouſly to reſiſt it. Cyprian Epiſt ad Jubian. See Dr. du Veil on Act. cap. 2.
Scotus ſaith, (Dr. du Veil) having alledg'd the Judgment of Alexander the Third, touching the baptizing of thoſe of whom it was doubted whether they were baptized or no, takes an occaſion to recommend three Maxims, the
First, is where there is a poſſibility, the ſafeſt way is to be choſen,
Secondly, Where there is no poſſibility, the next, to the ſafeſt way is to be made uſe of.
Thirdly, When Impoſſibility ceaſes, every thing is to be ſupplied, which Impoſſibility would not admit.
Theſe Maxims are ſo agreeable to reaſon, (ſaith the Learned Dr. Du Veil) whoever intends to follow, will never queſtion, but that they ought to be baptized, if they have not received that baptiſm Ordained by Chriſt, but only Rhantiſm that is, the Sprinkling ſubſtitued (ſaith he) in its room by a vulgar uſe, or rather abuſe, as Luther calls it. thus Dr. Duveil in Hiſtorical expoſt, of Acts. cap. 2. page 86.
That famous Divine John Forbes ſaith, Nor is it to be doubted but that they again ought to be baptized, who before have only received a Vain Waſhing, and not the true Sacrament of Baptiſm: And though it be not ſo great as the Papiſts 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 'tis 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. 'Tis 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 'tis Satan or worldly profit, or to free themſelves from reproach, that tempts ſome of the pedobaptiſts to continue the practice of that deviſed Cuſtom. 'Tis 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 'tis 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 'tis 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 'tis 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, 'Tis 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 'tis 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 behind, who is it you caſt this reproach upon? Is it upon us? Or is it not upon Chriſt himſelf? Did not our Lord Jeſus Inſtitute this Ordinance of Baptizing, i. e. of dipping the Bodies of Men and Women in water? Sir were not thoſe Men and Women that were Baptized in the Apoſtolical times Dipped? Do you deſcent from all the Ancient and Modern Divines; I have Quoted a multitude of them in this Treatiſe, who poſitively aſſert this matter, to which Chapter I refer my Reader.
Ambroſe ſaith, water is that wherein the Body is plunged.
Chryſoſtom ſaith, That the Body baptized is burried in the Water. Baſil the Great, and Dr. du Veil ſaythe ſame.
Bernard ſaith, Immerſion is a repreſentation of Death and Burial.
The Aſſembly in their Annotations ſay, That the Ancient manner of Baptizing was, to Dip the Party baptized, and as it were, bury them under the Water.
See Pools Annotat. On Mat. 3. 6. and were baptized of him in Jordan, that is (ſaith he) Dipped in Jordan, and on Rom. 6. 34. he ſays, The Ancient manner of baptizing in thoſe warm Countreys was to Dip or plunge the party baptized.
Cajetan, Daille On the Fathers, Tilenus, Luther, Calvin, Perkins, Zanchy, Paraeus, Dr. Cave, Dr. Sharp. Dr. Fowler, Dr. Sherlock, the Three laſt are yet living, and many more I have Quoted, do all ſay Baptizing is Dipping.
Dr. Tillotſon late Biſhop of Canterbury ſaith, That anciently thoſe who were baptized put off their Cloaths, and were immerſed and buryed in the Water. *Read the Table of the Authors at the beginning of this Book.Now Sir, if to baptize by Dipping be Murther, do not you charge the occaſion of this Murther upon Chriſt, who Ordained baptiſm or dipping Men and Women in Water what work have you made for Repentance?
Obj. May be you will object, and ſ…y that you own that baptiſm was dipping in thoſe warm Climates.
1. Anſw. Did not our Saviour ſend his Diſciples into all the World, or to Teach all Nations, baptizing them, that is Dipping them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghoſt.
2. Did he ſend them with this Commiſſion only into warm Climates or Countreys, and not into cold Countreys, God forbid, for there is no other Commiſſion given by Chriſt to make Diſciples by Teaching them, and then to baptize them, but this only, doth not this Commiſſion reach England, were all cold Countreys excluded?
3. Did Chriſt give out two Commiſſions, one for warm Climates, and to Dip them, &c. and another for cold Countreys to Teach and Sprinkle them, or rather Sprinkle them, and then Teach them; for ſo your practice inverts the Order of Chriſt's great Commiſſion; did Chriſt ſay go into Hot Countreys, and Teach and Baptize Diſciples, and go into Cold Countreys and Teach and Rantize them? What an imperfect Commiſſion doth your practice render the Commiſſion of Chriſt to be.
4. Who gave Men power to change his Commiſſion, Baptizing into Rantizing or Sprinkling? What an account can you give to him of this at the great Day? Or hath the Church or Miniſters, power to alter Chriſt's great Commiſſion? and ſo alter, or add too, and diminiſh from the words of his Book; Sir, tremble at the thoughts of theſe things, See Rev. 22. 18.
As to Mr. Cradock it ſeems, if he hath wrote as you intimate, that he was under great temptation; but 'tis no marvel, we can tell you of ſome Men; and of as great a Name as he that would have the Anabaptiſts; and Independants too, to have no liberty to meet together, to Preach nor write Books, and would have the chief Magiſtrate to Impriſon and Baniſh them, &c.
Obj. Where as you bring in this as your Objection, they may tarry until Summer.
1. We anſwer, there is no need of that, becauſe what you ſpeak of the danger of baptizing in Winter is abſolutely falſe.
2. I know not, but there may be as many or more baptized in the Winter than in the Summer.
You ſay, as ſoon as they are made Diſciples, they are commanded to be baptized, Acts 24. 41. and ch. 8. 38.
Anſw. This is our practice, but why do not you ſtay till then, i. e. untill your Children are Diſciples, it is evil to ſtay longer then the time, and no evil to do it ſooner then the time Chriſt▪ hath appointed.
9. This form of Baptizing by Dipping of the People naked, or near naked, you ſay, is a breach of the Seventh. Commandment, Thou ſhalt not commit adultery, Mat. 5. 28. This Commandment prohibiteth not only the Act of Adultery, but every occaſion and provocation thereto; every immodeſt and unreverend Action, is a degree of Adultery, the Heart of Man is deceitful and deſperately wicked, Jer. 17. 9. therefore we ought to take heed of every occaſion of Sin. David fell into Adultery by beholding Bathſheba waſhing, &c. 2 Sam. 11. 2. Thus we ſee that God would not have his People be naked in the Congregation, or half naked, for there is but little difference between both, Exod, 20. 26. and ch. 28. 42. but they that rebaptize by Dipping the People in publick, put off the greateſt part of their Cloaths; the re-baptizer, and He or She that is baptized is near naked, which might be a temptation to him that is the Baptizer, and to the Spectators, if the temptation will not take hold on the Miniſter, who is but Fleſh and Blood as others are, ſuch a behaviour before a mixt Congregation, brings him under a reproach, and maketh the worſhip of God contemptible.
1. Anſw. I anſwer, I am grieved that a Miniſter, and I hope a godly Man, ſhould be thus left to himſelf, or be under no better conduct about this matter, but thus to add ſin to ſin, whilſt he writes about divine things.
2. Pray Mr. Owen, what is the purport of your Charge now in recriminating and vilifying the Sacred Ordinance of Dipping or Baptizing of Believers, this Odium muſt fall as well on the Primitive Churches and Holy Apoſtles as upon us, you ſee all your Brethren generally as one Man, nay the whole aſſembly of Divines affirm that in the Primitive times the manner of baptizing, was by dipping of the Body all over in Water, tho' they would reſtrain it to thoſe Hot Countreys. Will you charge the Holy Apoſtles, and all the Miniſters of the Primitive Churches with Adultery? Or do you think we in theſe Cold Climates have not convenient Cloaths to put on People that are to be baptized, as they had in thoſe Warm Countreys.
3. But if this was all, it were not ſo ſad altogether; for it was our Lord Jeſus, worthy Britains, who Ordained and appointed Men and Women, who are Believers to be Dipped in the Water in his Name; and 'tis a hard caſe there is no way to anſwer this holy Command and Ordinance, but the People that do it muſt be guilty of Adultery; muſt we go into the water naked or half naked? Is their a neceſſity for it? Are there no Cloaths to be had, or no modeſt Garments for Men and Women to be provided to cover all their nakedneſs, even Hands and Feet alſo if it be needful? ſure Sir, you muſt ſuppoſe ſomewhat of this kind, or there is no room left for you to caſt contempt and reproach upon the Ordinance it ſelf, but to blame the people they do not provide convenient Garments on purpoſe, that ſo they may not commit Adultery when they come to be Baptized.
4. Sir had you ſeen our People baptized you, had not been guilty of bearing falſe witneſs the Second time. Reader pray take notice that we provide comely Cloaths for the Adminiſter, both from Head to Foot; and our Men alſo that are baptized have Cloaths provided for them; and for the Women, Gowns and Petty-coats are made on purpoſe, and they go into the water dreſt more decently perhaps, then many Women come into Chriſtian aſſemblies; therefore this is a moſt unworthy Charge Mr. Owen caſts upon us, tho' he doth but follow the ſteps of Dr. Featly and Mr. B. but 'tis worſe in him at this time of the Day, then in them then, becauſe our uſe and practice here, is now more generally known: And theſe things being ſo, how can we in Dipping or Baptizing of Women be guilty of Adultery or any of the Spectators?
Can't you take a Woman dreſſed in modeſt and decent Cloaths by the Hand, without having an unclean thought in your Heart? you may as well charge ſome Tradeſmen in the Exerciſe of their Trades with Adultery; indeed did we as Mr. B.—once falſly ſaid, baptize Women naked, or as you ſay, near or half naked (which are both notorious untruths) there might have been ſome colour for what you ſay; but if there be need to Dip the whole Body (ſay you) as they ſay there is, what rule have they in the Scripture to baptize the Cloaths with the Body, the few Cloaths they have about them are dipped before the Body is dipped.
1. Anſw. All Men may perceive of what a contentious, contradicting quarelſome Spirit you are of, one while you ſtrive to expoſe Chriſt's Sacred Ordinance to reproach, and us with it, as if we baptized Perſons naked, and then preſently ſeem to allow that we do not ſo, but that they whom we baptize have Cloaths on, but now the Cloaths are baptized, and then ask what Scripture we have for this.
2. 'Tis enough Chriſt Commanded Dipping in his Name, and we are required to do all things decently. 'Tis no matter, ſo that the Body is buried in the Water 'tis not the Cloaths that we ſay we baptize, but the Perſon. Chriſts Ordinance of Baptiſm in one eſſential part lies in the words of Adminiſtration, Do you never Sprinkle ſome drops of Water on the Childs Fine dreſſes, if you ſhould, what doth that ſignifie? you have wrote hard words, and Chriſt is coming to convince all of their ungodly deeds, and of all their hard Speeches ſpoken againſt him, Jude 15. I pray God this Sin be not laid to your Charge. Thus I have been helped to take off that reproach and vile ſlanders caſt upon the baptizing Believers, and have proved it is not re-baptization; therefore let Mr. Owen caſt of his ſlanderous clamarous Pen, and Infants Rhantiſm, and repent and return to the Baptiſm, which Chriſt Inſtituted, and left in his Church to the end of the World; and now to make appear the evil and ſinfulneſs of Infant Baptiſm, take what follows, which I have tranſcribed out of my anſwer to Mr. Burkitt's Book that he wrote for the Baptizing of Children two or three years ſince.