Light Broke Forth in Wales Expelling Darkness, Chapter 25
CHAP. XXV.
Containing ſeveral Queries for Mr. Owen to anſwer, ſince the Athenian Society have not done it, who ſome time ſince did attempt it.
Sir,
I Having wrote a few Queries lately about Infant Baptiſm, for the Athenian Society, to anſwer upon their bold Challenge; and ſince they are too hard for them to do it, having ſaid nothing at all to the purpoſe; I ſhall expect to ſee them anſwered by you, when you anſwer this reply to your Book, I ſhall not trouble you with all, but only with a few of them.
Query, 1. Whether the being the Children of Abraham, as ſuch, gave them a right to Circumciſion, or rather the meer poſitive Command of God to Abraham?
To this they gave no Anſwer.
Query 2. Whether Circumcision could be ſaid to be a Seal of any Mans Faith, ſave Abraham's only, ſeeing 'tis only called the Seal of the Righteouſneſs of his Faith, and alſo of the Faith which he had, being yet uncircumciſed?
To this the Athenian Society anſwer, amongſt the Ancient Hereticks, they never met with ſuch a ſtrange poſition as this, viz. that the Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith was the priviledge of Abraham only. Is this an anſwer? Beſides they miſtake, it is not a Poſition, but a Queſtion. Furthermore 'tis ſaid that Abraham received the ſign of Circumciſion, not only as a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of that Faith he had, being yet uncircumciſed, but alſo (Mark) that he might be the Father of all that believe. Was this the priviledge of any ſave Abraham only?
Query 3. What do you conceive Circumciſion did, or Baptiſm doth ſeal, or doth make ſure to Infants, ſince a Seal uſually makes firm all the bleſſings and priviledges contained in that Covenant 'tis affixed to?
The Athenians anſwer. It Seals and did ſeal to all that did belong to Chriſt, Life and Salvation, but to ſuch as do not, it Seals nothing at all.
To which I reply. How dare any Man Seal the Covenant of Salvation to ſuch, who have not that Faith Abraham had, before he received that Seal? It was not a Seal of that Faith he might have, or might not have afterwards, but of that Faith he had before he received it. Secondly I affirm Baptiſm is no Seal at all of Salvation, for if it was, and of God's appointment, all that are Sealed would be ſaved; even Simon Magus, but many who are Baptized, may periſh eternally, and do no doubt.
Query 4. I demand to know what thoſe external priviledges are, Infants partake of in Baptiſm, ſeeing they are denyed the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and all other external Rites whatſoever? If you ſay when they believe, they ſhall partake of thoſe priviledges and bleſſings; ſo ſay I ſhall the Children of unbelievers, Turks and Pagans as well as they.
The Athenian Society anſwer. We inſiſt not upon external priviledges; 'tis forrein to the Matter.
1. Anſ. If you inſiſt not on internal priviledges nor on external priviledges, that are Sealed to Infants that are Baptized, what does their Baptiſm ſignifie? Juſt nothing; but which is worſe; 'tis a prophanation of Chriſt's Holy ſignificant Ordinance of Baptiſm, and this indeed is worſt of all.
Query 5. If the fleſhly Seed, or Children of believing Gentiles, as ſuch, are to be counted the Seed of Abraham; I Query whither they are his Spiritual Seed, or his Natural Seed? if not his Spiritual Seed, nor his Natural Seed, what right can they have to Baptiſm or Church Memberſhip, from any Covenant Tranſaction God made with Abraham?
The Athenians anſwer. They are his Spiritual Seed Viſible, for ſo far only belongs to us to Judge; and therefore they have a right to the Seal of that Covenant.
Reply, What they ſay cannot be true, becauſe the Scripture poſitively ſaith, that ſuch who are the ſpiritual Seed of Abraham, have the Faith of Abraham, and walk in the Steps of Abraham, and are Chriſt's, Gal. 3. ult. But Infants of Believers, as ſuch, cannot be ſaid to have the Faith of Abraham, nor to walk in Abrahams Steps, &c.
2. Such who are Abrahams Spiritual Seed, are in the Election of Grace, and are always his Seed, not for ſo long, but for ever, we can judge none to be Abraham's Spiritual Seed, but ſuch only in whom theſe Signs appear before mentioned; but none of thoſe Signs appear, nor can appear in Infants; therefore we cannot judge they are his Spiritual Seed, to whom the Seal of the Covenant of Grace of right does belong.
Query 6. Whither the Children of Believers are in the Covenant of Grace abſolutely, or but conditionally, if only conditionally, what further priviledge have they above the Children of unbelievers.
Query 7. Whither thoſe different Grounds upon which the right of Infant Baptiſm, is pretended by the Ancient Fathers of Old, and the Modern Divines, doth well agree, with an Inſtitution, that is a meer poſitive right, wholly depending on the Sovereign will of the Legiſlator, and whether this doth not give juſt cauſe to all to queſtion its authority?
1. Some Pedo-baptiſts aſſerted, it took away Original Sin; and ſuch who denyed it were Anathematized.
2. Some affirm that Children are in Covenant, and being the Seed of Believers are Faederally Holy, therefore to be Baptized.
3. Another ſort of Pedo-baptiſts, ſay they ought to be baptized by vertue of their Parents Faith.
4. Another ſort Baptize them upon the Faith of their Sureties.
5. Others ſay by the Faith of the Church, as Auſtin, Bernard, &c.
6. Others ſay they have Faith themſelves, i. e. Habitual Faith; and therefore muſt be baptized.
7. Some ſay it is only an Apoſtolical unwritten Tradition, But others deny that, and ſay it may be proved from the Scripture.
8. Others ſay 'tis a Regenerating Ordinance, and Infants are thereby put into a ſavable State: Others ſay, the Infants of Believers are born therefore ſafe before in Covenant with their Parents.
To this Query they ſay nothing, pretending they had anſwer'd it before.
Query 8. Whither that can be an Ordinance of Chriſt, for which there is neither precept nor example, nor plain and undeniable Conſequences for it in all God's Word, nor promiſe made to ſuch who do it, nor threats pronounced on ſuch as neglect it?
Their anſwer is there, About Womens Receiving the Sacrament, &c.
Query 9. Whether in matter of meer poſitive Right, ſuch as Baptiſm is, we ought not to keep expreſly and punctually to the Revelation of the Will of the Lawgiver?
They anſwer, yes.
Reply. Then your Cauſe is loſt, for God's Word expreſly directs us to Baptize only ſuch who are firſt Taught, or made Diſciples by Teaching, or who make a profeſſion of their Faith; and Dipping is the expreſs Act of Baptizing, as practiſed in the New Teſtament, which a great Clound of Witneſſes teſtifie.
Query 10. Whether the Baptiſm of Infants be not a dangerous Error, ſince it tends to deceive poor Ignorant People, who think they are thereby made Chriſtians and Regenerated, and ſo never look after any other Regeneration or Baptiſm, that repreſents or or holds forth the inward work of God's Grace?
They anſwer, They never tell them they are made Chriſtians throughly, &c.
Then I Appeal to all Men, who have Read the Old Church Catechiſm.—In my Baptiſm, wherein I was made a Child of God, a Member of Chriſt and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of God.
11. Since we read but of one Baptiſm in Water, and that one Baptiſm is that of the Adult, i. e. ſuch who profeſs Faith, &c. How can Infant Baptiſm or rather Rantiſm be an Ordinance of Chriſt.
12. Whether there is any Covenant appointed by Chriſt for Infants to enter into, unto which no promiſe is made of aſſiſtance to perform it, nor Bleſſing promiſed if it be kept, nor one threatning if caſt off and diſowned?
13. What ſhould be the reaſon that our Tranſlators of the Holy Bible ſhould leave the Greek word Baptiſm, or Baptiſma, untranſlated: ſeeing the Dutch have not done ſo; but contrarywiſe Tranſlate for John Baptiſt John the Dipper, and for he Baptized them, he Dipped them.
The Athenian Society anſwer, They are the beſt Judges themſelves, and if we can underſtand them 'tis enough.
Reply. No, tho' the Learned in the Greek do know what the word Baptizo and Baptiſma is, yet the unlearned in that Tongue do not know that it is to Dip or Immerſion, …refore 'tis not enough.
14. Whither ſuch who have been Sprinkled, ought not to be deemed unbaptized Perſons, ſince aſperſon is not Immerſion, or Rantizing not Baptizing, ſeeing the Greek word ſignifies to Dip; and tho' ſometimes to Waſh; yet ſuch a Waſhing as is by Dipping, as the Learned confeſs.
To this they ſay, Thoſe that doubt may be of the ſurer ſide.
15. Whither the Ancient Church, who gave the Lords Supper to Infants as well as baptiſm might not be allowed to do the one as the other; ſince Faith and Holy Habits, yea to believe with all the Heart, is required of them that are to be Baptized, as Faith, Examination, and to diſcern the Lord's Body, is required of them that partake of the Lord's Supper, and ſince alſo all that were baptized into the Apoſtolick Church, were immeditely admitted to the Lord's Supper; and alſo ſeeing the arguments taken from the Covenant, and becauſe Children are ſaid to be Holy, and belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, are as ſtrong for their being admitted to both the Sacraments as one, and there being no Command nor example for either, and Human Tradition carrying it equally for both for ſeveral Centuries.
16. Whither Nadab, Abihu and Uzzah's Tranſgreſſions were not as much Circumſtantials; and ſo as ſmall Errors, as it is to alter Dipping into Sprinkling, and from an underſtanding believer, to an Infant that underſtands not its Right Hand from its Left; and whether to allow the Church a power to make ſuch alterations be not dangerous, it being an adding and diminiſhing from God's Word, ſee Rev. 22. 18. and doth not this open likewiſe a Door to any other like innovation?
17. Whither there is any juſt cauſe for Men to vilifie and reproach the Baptiſts with the Name of Anabaptiſts, for their Baptizing Believers, ſeeing aſperſion is not baptizing, and in regard alſo, that they have the direct and poſitive Word and Command of Chriſt ſo to do, and not only the Commiſſion, Mat. 28. Mark 16. but alſo the conſtant uſe of the Apoſtles, and Miniſters of the Goſpel, all along in the New Teſtament, who baptized none but ſuch who made a profeſſion of their Faith in the Goſpel time; obſervable 'tis alſo, that the Church of England alſo ſaith, that Faith and Repentance are required of ſuch who are to be baptized.
18. Whither if our Tranſlators had Tranſlated the Greek Word Baptizo, from …pto, they muſt not have Tranſlated it, Dipping or to Dip from the Native and Genuine ſignification of the word, and whether they have done well to leave thoſe words in the Original Tongue, without giving the plain meaning in the Engliſh?
19. Seeing the Greek Church uſes Immerſion to this Day, and not aſperſion or Sprinkling, may not it be a great argument againſt Sprinkling, ſeeing alſo that they diſown the Baptiſm of the Latin Church, becauſe they do not Dip: For doubtleſs the Greeks beſt know the genuine, literal and proper ſignification of that Word, that Tongue being their own Natural Language, in which the New Teſtament was Originally written.
20. What reaſon can be given why Nazianzen an Eminent Greek Father ſhould Counſel the deferring the Baptiſm of Infants untill the third or fourth year of their Age (except in danger of Death) if it were in Nazianzen's time, as ſome ſuppoſe it was, the Opinion of the whole Church, as alſo his own, that Infants by an Apoſtolical Tradition, were to be baptized as ſuch, that is as ſoon as born.
21. Whither all the Fathers of the Third and Fourth Century, both of the Greek and Latin Church, who have wrote any thing about Infant Baptiſm, do not unanimouſly give this as the reaſon why Infants ſhould be baptized, viz. for to waſh away Original Sin, or the putting them into a capacity of Salvation; and ſome of them, particularly St. Auſtin ſentencing Infants to Damnation if not Baptized.
22. If ſo, whether the Fathers might not be miſtaken in the Right of Infant Baptifm, as well as in the Judgment of moſt Proteſtants they, were touching the reaſon why they ſhould be baptized.
23. Whither God hath allowed or enjoyned Parents to bring their little Babes of Two or Ten days Old into a Covenant with him by Baptiſm, ſince 'tis not to be found in the Holy Scripture, that he either hath allowed or injoyned them ſo to do, there being neither Command nor Example nor the leaſt intimation given for them to do it?
24. If it cannot be proved he hath required any ſuch thing at theit Hands, whether that Covenant can be ſaid to bind their Conſcience when they come to Age, eſpecially ſince they gave no conſent to do it, nor were capable ſo to do?
25. And if this pretended Covenant was not of God's appointment, I Query how thoſe Children who refuſe to agree to the ſaid Covenant, when they come to Age, can be guilty (as Mr. Daniel Williams ſays) 1. of rejecting Chriſt. 2. Of renouncing the bleſſings of the Goſpel. 3. And that 'tis Rebellion continued againſt their Parents. 4. That it is Ingratitude and Perjury to their Redeemer. 5. Groſs injuſtice to their Parents. 6. That it is ſelf-killing Cruelty to their own Souls. 7. The damning Sin. I Query whether this is good Divinity or not, or rather is it not a ſtrange Doctrin, and whether thoſe unwarrantable Articles of Faith taken out of the Jewiſh Talmud or Turkish Alcoran, may not be of as good Authority or whether it be fit to put ſuch poſitions into a Chriſtian Catechiſm, as theſe are.
Pray be pleaſed to Anſwer theſe plain Queries when you write again, or Reply to this anſwer of your Book.