AN ANSWER TO THE Athenian Mercury VOL. 4. NUMB. 14. CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM With an Account of divers QUERIES Sent by the Author and some others to the Athenian Society Which they have not yet answered To which are added some REMARKS by way of Reply to their Mercury on the same Subject Num. 18. published Novemb. 28. London Printed for the Author and sold by John Harris at the Harrow in the Poultry MDCXCI AN ANSWER TO THE ATHENIAN MERCVRY VOL. 4. NUMB. 14. CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM With an Account of divers Questions sent by the Author and some others to the Athenian Society which they have not yet answered Gentlemen WHO he was that sent you the first Questions about Infant-Baptism I know not whether he was an Antipedo-Baptist or a Pedo-Baptist is a Question but your calling upon all who had any Doubts about it to send in their Objections argues a great degree of Confidence of your Ability of doing more than all before For 't is strange you should attempt to call for all our Objections when it appears you intended to write but one half Sheet of Paper in Answer to them as if you could do that in a few Lines which others as learned as your selves could never yet do in great Volumes this savours as some judg of great Pride and casts much Contempt upon you and lessens your Reputation among wise Men who are for Pedo Baptism as well as others And yet after all the great and mighty noise you have not so much as in the least touched the chief Questions which to my knowledg were sent you near a Fortnight before your said Mercury came forth And therefore to shew how disingenuous you have been herein I thought it might not be amiss to spend two or three spare hours upon your Mercury 1. The first Question you pretend to answer is this i. e. Whether Baptism as it is commonly taught is the proper and natural Antitype of Circumcision Reply As to what you speak of the Customs of Nations Languisms and of Men being ignorant of Radixes or Original Significations in Langages seems remote to the business and serves for little else than to blot Paper or rather to darken Counsel Certainly the Ordinance of Baptism one of the two great Sacraments of the New-Testament doth not lie so obscure in God's Word either what it is or who are the proper Subjects thereof that Men must be at a loss about it unless they understand the Radixes or original Significations of Languages But to proceed you would it seems have Baptism to be the proper Antitype of Circumcision in some respect and not in others First From the Customs of the Jews in proselyting the Gentiles into their Religion so far you say indeed Circumcision was not a Type but a continuance of a Custom Now how absurd and ridiculous that is which you affirm upon this account may appear to all Will you assert and stand by it that Baptism was a Jewish Custom and so no pure Gospel-Institution Doubtless if so the Pharisees might have soon given our Saviour a ready Answer to his great Question viz. The Baptism of John whether is it from Heaven or of Men Mat. 21.25 Certainly there was no Baptism of this nature of Divine Institution before John received it from Heaven But say you If John Baptist undertook any new way of proselyting the Jews into the Gospel they had not only struggled with the Opposition of his new Doctrine but also of his new Practice therefore say you it was that this Custom was continued and had the Super-addition of the full force of Baptism viz. a Consignation or Seal of the Covenant Reply As you confess his Doctrine was new so was his Baptism no doubt for as our Annotators observe his Baptism was part of his Doctrine Pray what was the Doctrine he preach'd was it not Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins Mark 1.4 Moreover we do not read they were more displeased with his new Doctrine than with his new Practice 2. But what Authority have you to affirm Gospel-Baptism was but the continuance of a Jewish Custom or was a Legal Rite or rather indeed a human Tradition for 't is evident the Jews were not required or commanded of God to baptize their Proselytes or others for Circumcision was the only Rite by which Proselytes who were Males were added to the Jewish Church as we find God commanded Abraham And if Baptism had been so frequently practised amongst the Jews as you assert wherefore did the Pharisees say to John Why dost thou baptize if thou art not that Christ nor Elias John 1.25 Moreover Baptism is directly called a Principle of the Doctrine of Christ Heb. 6.1,2 which Doctrine our Saviour saith he received from his Father If it be a Principle of the Doctrine of Christ it follows undeniably he instituted it and gave it forth Furthermore if Baptism was practised all along among the Jews I argue either they practised it as a Mosaical Rite or else as a Tradition of their own not say I as a Mosaical Rite because Moses never commanded them so to do for he speaks nothing of it and yet declared all things God commanded him and did every thing according to the Pattern shewed him in the Mount And if it was a human Jewish Tradition what is become of one of the great Sacraments of the New Testament Must it be look'd upon from henceforth to be nothing else than the continuance of a Jewish Tradition taken out of their fabulous and erronious Talmud What kind of poisonous Stuff is â—…is you trouble the World with What tho the Jews who had made the Commandments of God void through their Traditions did practise some such thing Must you affirm Gospel-Baptism in its Rise and Original sprung from their Custom And because they baptized Proselytes both Men Women and Children must Christians do so too Sure the Custom of the Romish Church in baptizing of Infants as a human Tradition is every way of as good Authority to warrant us so to do as the Custom of the unbelieving Jews But pray take what a Learned Pedo-Baptist and a Son of the Church of England hath said in answer to this vain Conceit 't is Sir Norton Knatchbull in his Animadversiones in lib. Novi Testamenti pag. 313. Ac cum videam summi judicii viros in his temporibus Rabbinis fundament a petere veritatis c. But when I see in these times some Men of the greatest Judgment to setch the Foundation of Truth from the Rabbins I cannot but stick at it for whence was the Talmud sent to us they are the words saith he of Buxtorf in his Synagoga Judicia that we should give so much Credit thereto that we should believe that the Mosaick Law either was or ought to be understood therefrom much less the Gospel to which they are professed Enemies The Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors and the foundation of Jewish Fables it
of God's Word You ask what Priviledg the Children of Believers have above Unbelievers We answer They have the advantage of their Parents Prayers Instruction godly Education and good Example But say you they are holy Answ We deny it intends federal Holiness such as qualifies Children for Baptism We read in Mal. 2.15 of Marriage and that Children begotten in lawful Wedlock are called a godly Seed in opposition to their being illegitimate Now that it was about Marriages the Corinthians wrote to S. Paul is evident they doubting of the Lawfulness of abiding with their unbelieving Husbands and Wives And to satisfy them about this Matter he tells them the unbelieving Husband was sanctified by or rather to the believing Wife c. that is set apart or consecrated to each other in lawful Marriage for 't is doubtless no other Sanctification else were your Children unclean that is Bastards but now are they holy that is lawfully begotten And we find divers Learned Men give the same Exposition on these Words See Beza That the Word saith he is not to be understood an Adverb of Time but a Conjunction that 's wont to be used in the assumption of Arguments and so the Sense is But now that is Forasmuch as the unbelieving Husband is sanctified to the Wife your Children are holy that is lawfully begotten and born We read in Zachary that the Bells and Pots of the Lord's House were holy may be the Papists from thence presume to baptize Bells and they have as much reason so to do as there is by the Authority of God's Word for any to baptize Infants As touching what you speak of little Children coming to Christ that the Original or Greek Word is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to proselyte what signifies that how often is that Word mentioned in other Places to signify any manner of coming to c. 'T is a strange way of proselyting Persons and never to teach or instruct them See these Scriptures where the same Word is used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 26.7 There came unto him Mat. 26.17 The Disciples came Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 26.49 Forthwith he came to Jesus Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 26.69 There came unto him a Girl or a Damsel Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 26.73 And after a while or a while after came unto him they that stood by Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But you proceed further to prove Infants ought to be baptized and that from the Universal Consent of the Churches in all Countries For as you say Tertul. de praescripturâ haeret ch 28. Ecquid verisimile c. Had the Churches erred they would have varied c. Reply If you cannot prove Infant-Baptism from Scripture you are gone for ever for this Argument of yours to prove it is like that of the Papists to prove their Church the true Church viz. Vniversality and Antiquity c. it was not the Practice of the Churches first planted by the Apostles that 's plain and 't is as evident other Errors were as universally received and some very early too besides you can't be ignorant how the Greek Church varies from the Latin But pray take what Dr. Barlow hath said to this a worthy Bishop of the Church of England I believe and know saith he that there is neither Precept nor Example in Scripture for Pedo-baptism nor any just Evidence for it for above 200 years after Christ that Tertullian condemns it as an unwarantable Custom and Nazianzen a good while after him dislikes it sure I am that in the primitive Times they were Catechumeni then Illuminati or Baptizati and that not only Pagans and Children of Pagans converted but Children of Christian Parents The truth is I do believe Pedo-Baptism how or by whom I know not come into the World in the second Century and in the third and forth began to be practised though not generally and defended as lawful from the Text John 3.5 grosly misunderstood upon the like gross Mistake John 6.53 They did for many Centuries both in the Greek and Latin Church communicate Infants and give them the Lord's Supper and I confess they might do both as well as either c. Thus both your Arguments from universal Consent and Antiquity the Learned Doctor hath sufficiently answered And I rather let him answer you than to answer you in my own words thinking what he says may be more regarded by some than what I say But you to prove from Antiquity that Infant-Baptism was practised int h first second and third Centuries you say you are able to demonstrate that there was never any particular Congregation of Anabaptists till about three hundred years after Christ and seem to build much upon these three last Arguments Reply If you had said there were no Baptized Congregations i. e. such who only baptized Believers you had asserted a great Untruth sith all the Primitive Apostolical Churches were such none being admitted to Baptism for the first and second Centuries but the Adult i. e. such who professed their Faith as in due time may be sufficiently proved notwithstanding all your Flourish or Pretences but suppose it be granted there were no Congregations till then called Anabaptist what doth that signify it was because there were not till about that time any as Dr. Barlow and divers others say who practised Pedo-baptism Baptists could not be called Anabaptists or Re-baptizers till there were some who held for Infant-Baptism so that this directly makes against you Moreover many Rites which you disown as human Traditions crept very early into the World and were practised generally too in the Apostacy of the Church Quest 3. Whether Infant-Baptism is to be found in the Scripture You answer not expresly in the Letter but from necessary and unavoidable Consequences as you say you have already shewn Reply 'T is a hard case that one of the great Sacraments of the New Testament should in your Thoughts lie so dark and obscure in the New Testament that it can't be proved from it but by Consequences but harder that Learned Men of your way should affirm that your Consequences for it drawn from those Texts you mention are not natural and prove nothing besides you can't be ignorant that the first Asserters of Infant-Baptism never undertook the proof of it from such Scripture-Grounds or Consequences but from the Authority and Power of the Church for as you think the Church hath power to change the Act of Baptizing unto Sprinkling so they affirmed she had like Power to change the Subject and instead of Believers to baptize Infants who have no Understanding Pray what Precept of the Mosaical Law lay so dark or obscure that it could not be proved without Consequences Did not Moses make every Law Precept or Command plain that he that run might read it and yet Christ is said to exceed Moses being faithful as a Son over his own House Heb. 3. Those Consequences you
a great Body of Godly People who differ not from other Orthodox Christians in any Essentials of Salvation no nor in Fundamentals of Church-Constitutions save in the Point of Baptism and will you by reason of the Enormities of some who formerly bore the Name of Anabaptists mentioning the old Munster Story condemned as such all that bear that Name In Answer to which I ask you whether the like Reflections might nor have been cast on Christ's Apostles because they had a Judas among them or on the Church of the Corinthians because of the incestuous Person Besides you know not but in may be a Lie raised upon those People by the envious Papists who have rendred Calvin and Luther as odious as you do these Anabaptists You would think it hard if I should ask you what sort they were that Ralph Wallis used to expose and fill his Garts with or of those Clergy-men who were Pedo-Baptists yet were for filthy Crimes executed To conclude I wish that all Bitterness of Spirit was expelled Love and Charity exercised towards one another tho in some things we may differ from one another Queries for the Athenian Society to Answer some of which were formerly sent to them but were passed by in silence 1. On Infants the Subjects of Baptism And 2. What Baptism is First WHether there was not a twofold Covenant made with Abraham one with his Fleshly Seed and the other with his Spiritual Seed signified by the Bond Woman and the Free Woman and their Sons Ishmael and Isaac If so I query Whether Circumcision was an Ordinance that appertained to the Covenant of Grace and was the Seal of it 1. Because 't is contradistinguished from the Covenant of Grace or free Promise of God Rom. 4. 2. And 't is also called a Yoke of Bondage And 3. 'T is said also that he that was circumcised was a Debter to keep the whole Law And 4. Because Ishmael who was not a Child of the Covenant of Grace with Esau and many others yet were required to be circumcised as well as Isaac And 5. Since 't is positively said Faith was imputed to Abraham for Righteousness not in Circumcision How was it imputed then when he was circumcised or uncircumcised not when he was circumcised but when he was uncircumcised Rom. 4.10 Secondly Whether the being the Male-Children of Believers as such gave them right to Circumcision or not rather the meer positive Command of God to Abraham since we do not read of any other Godly Man's Seed in Abraham's days or since had any right thereto but only such who were born in his House or bought with his Mony Thirdly Whether Circumcision could be said to be the Seal of any Man's Faith save Abraham's only seeing 't is said he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith he had mark yet being uncircumcisied that he might be the Father of all that believe which was the Priviledg of Abraham only for how could Circumcision be a Seal to Children of that Faith they had before circumcised seeing they had no Faith at all as had Abraham their Father they being obliged by the Law of God to be circumcised at eight days old Fourthly What is it which you conceive Circumcision did or Baptism doth seal to Children or make sure since a Seal usually makes firm all the Blessings or Priviledges contained in that Covenant 't is prefix'd to Doubtless if the Fleshly Seed of Believers as such are in the Covenant of Grace and have the Seal of it they shall be saved because we are agreed that the Covenant of Grace is well ordered in all things and sure there is no final falling therefore how should any of them miss of eternal Life and yet we see many of them prove wicked and ungodly and so live and die if you say it seals only the external Part and Priviledges of the Covenant of Grace Fifthly I demand to know what those External Priviledges are seeing they are denied the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper and all other External Rites whatsoever if you say when they believe they shall partake of those Blessings so say I shall the Children of Unbelievers as well as they Sixthly If the Fleshly Seed or Children of believing Gentiles as such are to be accounted the Seed of Abraham I query Whether they are his Natural Seed or his Spiritual Seed if not his Natural Seed nor his Spiritual Seed what right can they have to Baptism or Church-Membership from any Covenant-Transactions God made with Abraham Seventhly Whether those different grounds upon which the Right of Infant-Baptism is pretended by the Fathers of old and the Modern Divines doth well agree with an Institution that is a meer positive Rite depending wholly on the Will of the Legislator doth not give just cause to all to question its Authority 1. Some Pedo-Baptists asserted It took away Original Sin and such who denied it were anathematized 2. Some affirm That Children are in the Covenant and being the Seed of Believers are fedorally Holy therefore ought to be Baptized 3. Another sort of Pedo-Baptists say They ought to be Baptized by virtue of their Parents Faith 4. Others affirm They have Faith themselves and are Disciples and therefore must be baptized 5. Another sort Baptize them upon the Faith of their Sureties 6. And another sort of Pedo-Baptists say It wholly depends upon the Power and Authority of the Church 7. Some say It was an Apostolical unwritten Tradition but others deny that and affirm It may be proved from the Word of God Sure if it was of God or his Institution the Pedo-Baptists would not be thus divided and confounded among themselves Eighthly Is it not an evil thing and very absurd for any to say Baptism is a Symbol of present Regeneration and yet apply it to Babes in whom nothing of the things signified thereby doth or can appear And also to say I Baptize thee in the Name c. when indeed he doth not Baptize but only Rantize the Child and to say Baptism is a lively Figure of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection and yet only sprinkle or pour a little Water upon the Face of the Child Ninthly Whether that can be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither Command nor Example in all the Word of God nor 〈◊〉 Promise made to such who do it nor Threats denounced on such who neglect it or do it not For though there are both Promises made to Believers Baptized and Threats denounced on such who neglect it yet where are there any such in respect of Infant-Baptism Tenthly Whether a Pagan or Indian who should attain to the knowledg of the Greek Tongue or of the English or any other Tongue into which the Original should be translated by reading over the New Testament a thousand times he could ever find Infants ought to be Baptized if not how doth it appear the Faith of People about Pedo-Baptism stands in the Power of God
and that 't is only Love that continues What is it they have not received in Heaven which they trust in God for Nor is your Conclusion good Had they Faith there they may have it here The Text you cite Heb. 11.27 refers to that Faith Moses had on Earth who saw him who was Invisible God seems so to us here but what a sight we shall have of him in Heaven we know not Doth not the Apostle say we shall behold Face to Face and the pure in Heart shall see God Shall that be such a sight that Moses had whilst on Earth Questions relating to the Fathers with respect to the Controversy about Infant-Baptism First WHat reason can be given why Nazianzen an eminent Greek Father should counsel the deferring the Baptism of Infants until 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 Secondly Whether 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. the washing away Original Sin or the putting them into a Capacity of Salvation and some of them particularly St. Austin sentencing Infants to Eternal Damnation if not Baptized Thirdly If so Whether the Fathers might not be mistaken in the Right of Infants to Baptism as well as in the Judgment of most Protestants they are in the Reason why they should be Baptized Four other Queries 1. WHether God hath allowed or enjoined Parents to bring their little Bzbes of two or ten days old into a Covenant with him by Baptism since 't is not to be found in the Scripture he either hath allowed or enjoined them so to do 2. If it cannot be proved he hath required any such thing at their Hands Whether that Covenant can be said to bind their Consciences when they come to Age especially since they gave no Consent to it nor were capable so to do 3. If this pretended Covenant was not of God's Appointment I query how these Children who refuse to agree to the-said Covenant when at Age can thereby be guilty 1. Of rejecting Christ 2. Of renouncing the Blessings of the Gospel 3. And that 't is Rebellion continued against their Maker 4. That 't is Ingratitude and Perjury to their Redeemer 5. Gross Injustice to their Parents 6 That 't is self killing Crueltie to their own Souls 7. And a damning Sin 4. I query whether this be good Divinity not rather a strange Doctrine And whether unwarrantable Articles of Faith taken out of the Jewish Talmud or Turkish Alcoran may not by as good Authority be put into a Christian Catechism as such Assertions as these Four Queries sent by another Hand to the Athenian Society Gentlemen I Humbly conceive that no Man knoweth what is a Duty but by the Scriptures And since Pedo-Baptism cannot be proved by the Word of God as every Man may know and is generally acknowledged by the most Learned Assertors of that Practice it therefore plainly followeth in my Judgment that Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God's Appointment but an Innovation I therefore seriously query I. WHether Tradition Jewish Talmuds the Opinion of private Doctors Schoolmen c. be a sufficient Warrant for the Churches to est ablish such a Practice that hath neither Precept nor Example in the Holy Scriptures II. Since the pretended Foundation of Infant-Baptism viz. its absolute necessity to Salvation proving to be a Mistake of the Text John 3.5 as is generally acknowledged by Protestants Whether the Structure ought not to fall with it as it did in the Case of giving the Child the Eacharist III. Whether the Faith of the Parent or Gossip on the Child's behalf be required of God or will be imputed to the Child by God If not why ventured on and not rather a waiting for Faith in the Subject as required in Holy Writ by the Apostles and Primitive Churches and seemingly by the Church of England in her Catechism IV. Whether the Church hath a good Warrant that will justify her before God in changing the Mode from Dipping to Sprinking and whether that Alteration doth so well answer the Design of the Holy God as that Ceremony which himself appointed Gentleman I knew nothing of that Gentleman's Animadversions or that he or any Body else intended to take notice of your Mercury till I had wrote what I intended to say tho when it was too late I saw it POSTSCRIPT Containing some Remarks upon the Athenian Mercury Vol. 4. Numb 18. published Saturday Novemb. 28. 1691. Gentlemen JUST as my Answer to your first Mercury about Infant-Baptism was finished and almost printed off your second Paper on the same Subject came to my Hand And tho I was not concerned in the Paper called Animadversions on your other Mercury yet till a furthet Answer is prepared I shall make some Reflections upon what you have said in your pretended Reply to that Gentleman c. 1. Sirs You go too fast to conclude you by that Paper understand wherein our strength lies as by this time you may perceive nor don 't conclude you have it all yet 2. What you say about your pretended Proof of Infant-Baptism from that unscriptural Tradition or Custom among the Jews of proselyting whole Families to the Jewish Religion by Baptism you may see fully answered before I saw your last Mercury Have you proved that Custom among them was Jure Divino or if so that it remained and was continued by Christ Secondly What you have said about Baptism being the proper Antitype of Circumcision is also answered Nor does what you speak of Types and Antitypes not agreeing in every thing help you Have not we shewed the proper Antitype of Circumcision in the Flesh is that of the Heart Thirdly As to you Logical Argument viz. An Ordinance once enjoined and never repealed is always in force but the Ordinance of Childrens in covenanting was once in the Old Testament enjoined and was never repealed Ergo We answer If the Ordinance of Children in Covenanting under the Law was Circumcision that Ordinance is repealed Is not Circumcision repealed 2. If you say notwithstanding Children of the Flesh or the natural Seed being once in the Covenant and never cast out by reason that Law or Covenant for their incovenanting being not repealed is always in force Reply 1. That the Old or first Covenant for their Incovenanting is repealed is plain he took away the first that he might establish the second 2. Also 't is said that Hagar and her Son are cast out viz. the legal Covenant and fleshly Seed and no new Law is added to bring them into the Gospel-Church by Baptism i.e. the fleshly or natural Seed as such Now is