Light broke forth in Wales, expelling darkness, or, The Englishman's love to the antient Britains [sic] being an answer to a book, iutituled [sic] Children's baptism from Heaven, published in the Welsh tongue by Mr. James Owen / by Benjamin Keach.

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 Wa∣ter, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Ho∣ly Spirit; (as Mr. Owen charges them) but con∣trariwise it is proved, that to Baptize or Rantize Infants, is an unlawful Practise and very Sin∣ful.

YOU say, you shall demonstrate in this Chap∣ter, how great the Sin is of those that are tempted to deny the Baptism which they receive in their Infancy, and that suffer them∣selves 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 Temptati∣on 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 Peo∣ple after this manner, as if we were perverted and in∣snared 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 continu∣al 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 Obli∣gation 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 eve∣ry 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 hu∣mane Tradition, and to enter into God's Holy Baptis∣mal 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 inconside∣rate 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 in∣vention is, what impression can that make on the Con∣science 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 o∣thers 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 Ordi∣nance 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 per∣sons

generally that first doubt about the truth of In∣fant 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 re∣new 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 Ran∣tism; 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 Ordi∣nance 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 ap∣pointed of Christ; it plainly then follows, that In∣fant Baptism is none of Christs Institution, 'tis no Baptism of Christ, 'tis not that one Baptism he ap∣pointed and ordained, we own but one Baptism, and that is the Baptism of Believers; if you have got a∣nother, 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 Chil∣dren, 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 Pro∣mise, nor Command, nor a particular Example pro∣voking her in so doing, &c.

Ans. I answer, will you charge us with unbelief, be∣cause 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, di∣vised 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 Foun∣dation 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 impli∣cite 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 Autho∣rity 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 Pa∣pists, 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 Chil∣dren, that Christ will receive them? Is he more un∣ready 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 Chil∣dren

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 Bap∣tism, 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 a∣nother, believing the consistency of the Old Testa∣ment with the new, and fearing every untrodden Path, there be great Truths as secret Treasure in the field of the Scripture, which the Humble search∣eth 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 ob∣scure, and in dark parables in the sacred Scripture, doth it follow that one of Christs great Gospel Insti∣tutions, 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 com∣mand 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 ob∣scure, 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, Won∣der 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 ob∣scurely 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 bap∣tism 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 inventi∣ons, 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 In∣fant Baptism) if there be Scripture Consequences, shew∣ing they ought to be baptized, That is sufficient to sa∣tisfie 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 nei∣ther 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 Resur∣rection 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 Conse∣quenced

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 de∣nyeth 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 excom∣municates 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 Excom∣municates 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 uncharita∣ble

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 Mini∣stry, 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. A∣nother 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 Chil∣dren 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 Co∣venant of peculiarity God made with Abrahams Natu∣ral 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, here∣by, 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 Faith∣ful; 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 Salva∣tion 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 Chil∣dren 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 honou∣rable 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 In∣fants 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 in∣gratitude towards God, we know that ingratitude is a great Sin against the Lord: Unthankfulness for Tem∣poral 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 re∣proachful Character upon Esau, &c.

Answ. All this is to no purpose, 'tis but begging the Question, viz. That Infant Baptism is God's Ordinan∣ce, 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 can∣not be divided, whereas by denying of the first Bap∣tism 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 Wa∣ter 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 ut∣ter

cast aways, and not be lookt upon so much as Mem∣bers 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 Salva∣tion to any that are not in Union with the visible Uni∣versal 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 Chur∣ches, 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 be∣lieve 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 In∣fant 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 Apo∣stles administred, and on which they received all Persons in∣to 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 bap∣tism 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 wa∣shed 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, de∣ny 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 obstru∣cting 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 be∣cause they accounted them sinners that first baptized them, &c.

A••sw. We are, I tell you again, as much against rebap∣tizing 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 rebaptiza∣ri, &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 Gar∣ment.

Austin saith, Revera enim fieri potest ut sceleratior sit Rebaptizator totius hominis quam solius corporis interem∣ptor 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 re∣baptized 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 plain∣ly 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 reitera∣ted, 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 Eze∣chiel.

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 pertinaci∣ously 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 Learn∣ed 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 Rhan∣tism 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 Sacra∣ment of Baptism: And though it be not so great as the Pa∣pists 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 re∣baptization, where baptism at first was duly admini∣stred, yet such who at first received only a pretended baptism, ought to be truly baptized; to baptize a Belie∣ver 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 Sa∣tan 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 Igno∣rant 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 Obli∣gations 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 Obli∣gations.

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 Pa∣pists 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 O∣blidge 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 un∣der 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 Obligati∣ons; 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 Chil∣dren 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 Pa∣rents, 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 unwarranta∣ble 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 can∣not suffer to be dipped in cold Water in the time of Winter, without being pernicious to their Lives, es∣pecially when it is Snow and Frost; we are not to tempt the Lord, thinking that God will do Mira∣cles 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 perni∣cious to the Subjects. Lib. page 108.

Ans. I answer, this is a high charge, you accuse us of Murther directly, in breaking the Sixth Command∣ment, but you forget how hereby you positively break

the Ninth Commandment, Thou shalt not bear fase wit∣ness against thy Neighbour, Exod. 20. 16. prove what you say, or else with deep sorrow confess your abomi∣nable 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 witnes∣ses, 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 be∣ing 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 Consti∣tution, 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 pre∣judice 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 Neigh∣bours, 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 Anci∣ent manner of Baptizing was, to Dip the Party bapti∣zed, 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. 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 Wa∣ter 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 in∣to 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 Coun∣treys, 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 a∣nother 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 dimi∣nish 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 to∣gether, 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 ab∣solutely 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 Peo∣ple naked, or near naked, you say, is a breach of the Seventh. Commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Mat. 5. 28. This Commandment prohibi∣teth not only the Act of Adultery, but every occasion

and provocation thereto; every immodest and unre∣verend 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 re∣baptize 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 ge∣nerally as one Man, nay the whole assembly of Divines affirm that in the Primitive times the manner of bap∣tizing, 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 Ordai∣ned 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 na∣ked? Is their a necessity for it? Are there no Cloaths to be had, or no modest Garments for Men and Wo∣men 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 un∣worthy 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 gene∣rally known: And these things being so, how can we in Dipping or Baptizing of Women be guilty of Adulte∣ry or any of the Spectators?

Can't you take a Woman dressed in modest and de∣cent 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 Adul∣tery; indeed did we as Mr. B.—once falsly said, baptize Women naked, or as you say,

near or half na∣ked (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 bap∣tize 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 conten∣tious, 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 Wa∣ter '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 ap∣pear 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.

Notes

• Read the Table of the Authors at the be∣ginning of this Book.