enquired into the Apostolical practice in this Case of Baptizing Infants and I thank God that the more I have enquir'd I have found the more and greater Satisfaction in the Case In the next place I am to enquire what Authority they had for this practice of theirs that is I am to enquire whether I can find in all the New Testament that Infant-Baptism was any where Taught or Commanded But I presume you 'll be Content to trust me for this till I may have a farther Opportunity and in the mean while I am Sir July 2. 1698. Your c. T. H. LETTER VI. Dear Sir THE Second part of your great Objection against Infant-Baptism is this You find not in Scripture that any Infants were COMMANDED to be Baptized Now to this I cou'd give you this short Answer When the Disciples of Christ made and Baptized more Disciples than John John 4.1 2. Let any Man living tell me where the Command is written in Scripture which gave these Disciples of our Lord Authority to Baptize at that time and I will undertake to shew you that the very same Command oblig'd them to Baptize Infants This I do affirm that they had then as much Command to Baptize Infants as they had to Baptize either Men or Women And do you Sir make the tryal if you please Go and learn from Scripture where these Disciples had any Command then to Baptize the Elder sort and if you do not find the same Command obliging them to Baptize Children also I do here freely tell you that I dare yield you the Cause But to give a more particular Answer to this as I have done to the former part of your Objection First I will enquire from Scripture whether Infant-Baptism was taught by our Saviour in his Life-time Secondly Whether it was Taught or Commanded by him after his Death and Resurrection before he Ascended into Heaven And Thirdly Whether it was taught by any of his Apostles after his Ascension 1. I will make it my business at this time to Enquire from Scripture whether Infant-Baptism was taught by our Saviour in his Life-time Sir The Sadducees cou'd not find in all the five Books of Moses so much as one single Text which taught the Doctrin of a Resurrection and therefore they Confidently deny'd the thing and warmly disputed it with our Blessed Lord and Saviour himself And you may be pleas'd to see how our Lord confuted and convinc'd them by a Text of Scripture which they had overlook'd Mark 12.26 Have you not read said he in the Book of Moses how God spake unto him Saying I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob to which he added But God is not the God of the Dead but of the Living And this was our Saviour's Scripture-Proof of a Resurrection and from these very words by just Reasonings and Consequences did he make the Truth of that great Doctrin appear to those very Sadducees themselves who had so long and so stiffly oppos'd it It must indeed be acknowledg'd that it requir'd a Piercing Eye to find out a Resurrection in these words I am the God of Abraham c. And yet so it was The Resurrection was a Consequence that our Lord Himself then drew from them and the Consequence was acknowledged to be good Scripture-Proof and the Sadducees were wiser than to Object against it This I have observ'd to let you see that there may be Scripture-Proof of a thing tho' every Eye cannot discern it and that tho' we cannot always produce plain and express words of Scripture in the defence of a Doctrin yet if we can prove it by right and genuine Consequence we do as much as our Saviour himself did in the Case of a Resurrection and I hope that in good Manners and Civility to our Great Lord you will allow such Proof as he made use of to be good and sufficient But further There were a sort of Hereticks of Old call'd Macedonians and a spawn of them we have still amongst us who deny'd the Divinity of the Holy Ghost and their great Cry was Where do you read in Scripture that the Holy Ghost is God And I do assure you Sir that it was truly Confess'd that there is no such Scripture-Text no such express words in the whole Bible it is not expresly asserted in terminis either in the Old or New Testament that the Holy Ghost is God But what then There are in Scripture such things said of the Holy Ghost as by undoubted Consequence prove him to be God as to give you but one Instance of an Hundred The Holy Ghost is said to be Omnipresent Psal 139.7 and from hence it necessarily follows as a very plain Consequence that he must needs be God because God only is Omnipresent And now Sir with a like manner of Proof I will fall upon the matter in hand Tho' we find not in Scripture any such express Command as this That Infants shall be Baptized yet we find such things given in Charge concerning them as necessarily Imply that they ought to be Baptized that is to say we find in Scripture that Children ought to be admitted into the Church of Christ and we there likewise find that there is no other ordinary way of admitting into that Church but by Baptism And to give you full satisfaction in this matter I will here undertake briefly to prove That our Blessed Lord and Saviour did in his Life-time teach both that Children are to be admitted into his Church and that they are to be admitted by Baptism That Children were admitted into God's Church of old is as well known as that they were then Circumcis'd And what I pray is the Christian-Church but that old Church Reform'd The Root and Stock are still the same tho' as for the Branches some viz. the Jews were lopped off and others viz. the Gentiles are graffed in as you may read at large Rom. 11.16 17 18. Christianity indeed as one speaks very well is Judaism explain'd into its Spiritual sense and meaning and hence it is that the Christians in the New Testament are called Jews that is Reform'd Jews Rev. 2.9 and sometimes the Israel of God Gal. 6.16 and sometimes the Children of Abraham Gal. 3.7 And hence it is that the Christian-Church is called the New-Jerusalem because it is the Old Jerusalem or Jewish Church renew'd and enlarg'd Rev. 3.12 But now Good Sir suppose that our Church should be taken down to the very Foundation and built again a great deal larger and more Glorious than now it is What think you Might we not then take our Children along with us to our Church as well as we do now Certainly the Re-building and Beautifying it wou'd take away no one's privilege of entring into it In a resembling manner there was indeed a great Reformation made by our Saviour in the Church of God a great deal taken away and a great deal added and almost the whole
is expresly said That last of all Died the Woman also Sir I should have despis'd to take notice of such Childish Reasonings as these had I not observ'd with what confidence they are written to impose upon Vulgar Understandings In the 33d verse of the same Chapter we read of the Jaylor that he was Baptized and all his The Original words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifie all that were of him or in other words his Off-spring But 't is objected that they were not Children because 't is imply'd in the next verse that they were all Believers and rejoyced The Jaylor rejoyced believing in God with all his House To which Mr. Horn has answer'd that the Original words may be interpreted as speaking of none but the Jaylor himself and may signifie Word for Word that he rejoyced House-wholly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he having believed in God He rejoyced House-wholly that is upon the Account of his whole House that all were Baptized as well as himself And certainly his thus rejoycing upon the account of his House may perswade us that there were some in it that were very near and dear to him and These undoubtedly were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Off-spring or Children Baptized with himself See Mr. Horn's Cause of Infants c. p. 58. Again Acts 18.8 We find some Corinthians Baptized and Acts 19.3 5. 'T is said of some who had been Baptized unto John's Baptisms that they were Baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus And these last indeed were about Twelve Men but that all the Corinthians were Men and no Children will not so easily be prov'd 'T is true 't is said that they heard and believed and yet there might be Children among them for all that as I have just now shewn there will be Infants in the happy number at the Right-hand of the Judge when it shall be said to them I was an hungred and ye gave me Meat Tho' Infants I say cou'd not do this yet this will be said of the whole Blessed number whereof Infants will be a part And so the Scripture very frequently ascribes such things to Companies as are not within the power of Children to do and yet those very Companies may consist of Children as well as of Elder People All Judah stood before the Lord with their little Ones their Wives and their Children when Jahaziel said to them that they shou'd do yea and 't is also said that they did much greater things than cou'd be affirm'd of Children 2 Chron. 20.13 14 15 16 c. And thus I say again that Children may be in a Company even tho' such things are said to be done by that Company as the Children in it are not capable of doing Lastly St. Paul tells his Corinthians that he Baptized none of them but Crispus and Gaius and the Houshold of Stephanas 1 Cor. 1.14 16. And here I will observe that of all the Households that we find to have been Baptiz'd there is not the least exception as to Infants or Babes nor can I believe them to have been all Barren and Childless Families because there 's not the least Syllable or Circumstance denoting any such thing I know 't is said that there were no Children in this Houshold Baptized by St. Paul because no Children are mention'd and may not I as well say that here was no Faith no Repentance nor any such thing as some contend for to qualifie for Baptism viz. Because here is no mention made of any such thing and again for the same reason that some deny there were Children another may deny that there were Servants and another that there were any Relations and all by the same Rule and for the same reason still and so at length at this rate of Denying any Children to have been in it may the Houshold of Stephanas be deny'd into an Houshold of mere No-Bodies And this Sir is all that I find in the New Testament to have been practis'd by the Apostles in this Case of Baptizing after our Lord's Ascension into Heaven and in so short an account as this is we have as clear hints of their Baptizing Children as can well be expected For You Sir may venture to assure your self that the Scripture has acquainted us but with little very little in Comparison of what was really done by the Apostles in this Case even by those very Apostles who had receiv'd the Command to Baptize all Nations Nay but as St. John tells us that over and above the Scripture-accounts there are many other things that Jesus did so I will add that there were many other things which his Apostles did which if they should be written every one I suppose that even the World it self could not contain the Books that should be written John 21 25. As in this particular case of Baptizing we do not in all the New Testament find the Hundredth part of what the Apostles did so that if we must believe no more in this matter than what the Scriptures tell us of the Acts of the Apostles we must believe but very little and not a word of above two thirds of these Apostles not a syllable of St. Andrew or St. Thomas or St. Simon or St. Jude or St. James or St. Bartholomew or St. Matthias or St. Matthew for of their or of any of their going out into the world to Baptize we must not speak a word if we must say nothing but what we can quote Chapter and Verse for And yet Sir Notwithstanding this profound Silence of Scripture I verily believe that no Man who has read Books can doubt but a credible account has been and may be given of the Travels of these Apostles and of the Nations Discipl'd and Baptized by them The ancient Writers have some of them been pretty punctual in these matters and in the Histories of all Countreys 't is seldom or never omitted by what Apostle or by whom the Christian Religion was first planted among them And unless all these Historians who agree in these matters can be suppos'd to have laid their Heads together tho' as far distant from one another as the East is from the West yet I say unless they can be suppos'd to have laid their Heads together to Cheat and Impose upon the World we have no reason to disbelieve their reports But then Sir I add that we have no reason to disbelieve Infant-Baptism for we have the very same Histories and the very same Authors bearing witness to this who bear witness to the other matters For Instance 't is generally agreed among Writers that Christianity was first planted in the Eastern Indies by St. Thomas and 't is very well known that the Christians there are to this day call'd St. Thomas-Christians and 't is altogether as well known that they do as they have always done practise Infant-Baptism I cou'd trace the other Apostles into the many Cities and Nations whither they severally went Discipling and Baptizing and
which all the workings of Mens humours and affections leave the most visible impression and symptoms and it 's Observable that the same word in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both the Face and the Person because the whole Person is represented by the Face and thus we Baptize the Person in Baptizing his Face which we can look on and wash Naked and not be ashamed So that worthy Author Concludes his 15 Chapter of the abovemention'd Book And now Sir I come to your Last and Grand Argument with which you make so much Noise and Cry and in which you do really Boast and Triumph with what Heat and Bravery do you repeat it to be Demonstration perfect Demonstration that John Baptiz'd by Dipping and why Sir I pray Why say you don't we read that John was Baptizing in Enon near Salem because there was much Water there Well and what then You add that the much Water there does certainly imply that all that John Baptized in that Water were certainly Dipp'd Very good and before I Answer you as to this I must here rejoyce with you a little that your Stomach still serves to swallow Consequences yea and very lusty ones too But now Good Sir This your high and mighty Argument so Confidently and Hotly propos'd is by no means to be Faintly and Coldly Answer'd but I must e'en force my self to put on a little warmth too and be bold to Challenge all our Learned Adversaries to contradict me whilst I say that the Original words in that Text Signifie That John was Baptizing in Enon near Salem because there were many Waters there So that we must understand the much Water in our English Bibles in no other Sense than as it may be understood by the Many Waters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are the Original words And now you Sir who have not always liv'd within the smell of your own Chimney you know that in some Hill-Countries there are Multitudes of Springs and we may therefore say many Waters and yet not Water enough in any one of these Springs for a Man to be Dipt in And the Truth of this business seems to be this John was The Voice of one crying in the Wilderness and he might have been in many parts of the Wilderness where had he wanted but a drop of Water he must have travelled above Ten or Twenty Miles before he cou'd have found it but he would not continue in any such place because of the Multitudes that daily throng'd to him to be Baptized of him No but He stay'd near Salem where there were wany Springs or Waters because so long as he was thereabouts he had always Water at hand to Baptize the People that flockt to him for that End For there were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Waters there And this I say may seem to be the True Account of this Passage and now if you can find any thing in it to prove that John Baptized by Dipping pray let me hear it in your next Letter and you shall then know more of my mind In the mean time having thus given you my Answers to all your Objections which I have as yet heard from you I shall here take leave to rest awhile till you may be pleas'd to shape out some more work for Sir June 19. 1698. Your obedient and humble Servant T. H. LETTER IV. SIR AT the very first sight of yours I presently conjectur'd what sort of Task you were setting me and I am very glad to find that you are grown a little cooler and that your heat against our Mode of Baptizing is somewhat abated for you say very well that if we can prove Infant-Baptism the very Weakness and Tenderness of the poor Babes themselves will be some Plea for Mercy rather than Sacrifice Nay and you say that Infant-Baptism once prov'd would put an end to the whole Controversie and there would be no further need of Quarelling about Dipping or Sprinkling because you are well assur'd that we will not even in the Case of Infant-Baptism refuse to Baptize by Dipping if it be required and certified that the Child may well endure it And therefore you are pleased to say that you are sorry for your beginning at the wrong end of the Controversie or rather where there is no occasion for any Controversie at all And now you ask leave which Good Sir you may freely take to call upon me for my Proofs of Infant-Baptism and for my Answers to your Objections which you have been taught to make against it Dear Sir I doubt not but you have Read at least some of the many Books which have been Written upon this Subject by the very Learned Bishop Taylor Dr. Hammond Dr. Featly Dr. Towerson The Author of the Case of Infant-Baptism Mr. Walker Mr. Baxter Mr. Horn Mr. Sydenham and others and I cannot forbear telling you that 't is an Argument of something which I will not Name that our Adversaries Objections shou'd be so often Printed and Reprinted as if there had never been one Syllable said in Answer to them whereas I will here venture to say unto you that no one can shew you any one Objection in any of our Adversaries Books against Infant-Baptism but I will undertake to shew you enough to Answer it in some One or more of the Books which I can produce in the Defence of it And you must not Sir expect any new Discoveries in this Case from me all that I can aim at is but to speak plainer than some others have done and this indeed is all that you seem to desire from me for you want a little light you say being something in the dark as to this matter because of the silence of the Scriptures in which you can no where find either that any Infants were Baptiz'd or Commanded to be Baptiz'd Sir In very few words you have open'd a wide Field of Discourse and I think that the Case of Infant-Baptism may be pretty throughly Scann'd and Canvas'd by Considering your Objection which I shall divide into these two Parts First You find not in Scripture that any Infants were Baptiz'd Secondly Neither do you there find that any Infants were Commanded to be Baptiz'd To both which Parts of your Objection I shall endeavour to return you a very plain and full Answer First You Object and say That you find not in Scripture that any Infants were Baptized And here you take occasion to tell me what a Triumphant noise the Forty Texts in your lit-lit-Book have made 'T is the Common Boast among some Folk you say that there is not One Text in Scripture to Countenance Infant-Baptism but Forty that are Point-Blank against it I suppose they mean if the Author of your little Book speaks the Truth in this Matter But whether he has done so or no I shall have occasion before I have done still farther to Consider For as fast as any of his Forty Texts come in my way I shall not be
afraid to enquire into the meaning of them Nay but the greatest Strength of that Book is spent against our Mode of Baptizing by Sprinkling Your Author has a Throw at this where-ever he meets with the Word Baptize and takes it for granted all along That to Baptize signifies always to Dip which I think has been sufficiently disprov'd and therefore if all that he has said and repeated again and again to this purpose in his little Book was taken out his Forty Texts wou'd dwindle into a far less number and there wou'd not be many of them left standing against Infant-Baptism Well but in Answer to the first part of your Objection That you no where find in Scripture that any Infants were Baptized First I 'll make an Impartial Enquiry what I can find in Scripture to have been done in this Case of Baptizing by Christ and by his Disciples in his Life-time And Secondly What I can find to have been done by his Apostles after his Ascension into Heaven I. We have no very large account in the New Testament of Christ's or of his Disciples Baptizing in his Life-time not one word more than what you may see in these few Texts John 3.22 26. John 4.1.2 The First of which Texts says that Jesus Baptized but says not whom not a Syllable to exclude Infants John 3.22 The Second Text says that Jesus Baptized and all Men came to him John 3.26 But here Sir that our English Translation may not lead you into a mistake I must inform you that there is no particular word in the Original that signifies Men only but the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jesus Baptized and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all came to him All without Exception And here I will do so much Right to the Author of your little Book as to suppose he had observ'd this to be the sense of the Original words in this Text and therefore he passes it over as rather making for than against Infant-Baptism He does not I say mention this amongst the Forty Texts in his Book because he knew the Greek Word here Translated All Men signifies as well All Children even all without Exception All of all Ages I proceâ—d therefore to the Third and Last Text which says That Jesus made and Baptized more Disciples than John tho' Jesus himself Baptized not but his Disciples John 4.1 2. And here the Author of your little Book wou'd fain gather from the word Disciples that no Children were Baptiz'd but all that he say's is grounded upon a Gross Mistake which supposes them to have been Disciples before Baptism whereas the Text says plainly That they were made and Baptized Disciples That is they were by Baptism made Disciples and accordingly that Baptism is the only ordinary way of making Disciples I shall take occasion hereafter very largely to prove to you And thus I have particularly and Impartially Consider'd those few Texts which yet are all we find in Scripture which speak of Christ's or of his Disciples Baptizing during his Life-time and the Sum of them is this That Jesus's Disciples Baptized and made by Baptizing them more Disciples than John The Words are not They were Baptized all that Believed or all that Repented Nay nor all Men only but all in general not a Child of Man excepted And now Sir whether the Scripture be thus far against or for Infant-Baptism judge you And here I will add one thing more which wou'd be a great Satisfaction to my own mind in this Case of Baptizing Infants tho' there was nothing more to be said for it Know then Sir and I tell it you from undoubted Authority that Children were Baptized as well as Circumcised in the Jewish Church long before our Saviour's Coming in the Flesh The Jews report says Dr. Taylor That the World took up the Doctrine of Baptisms in Remembrance that the Iniquity of the Old World was purged by Water Great Exemp P. 175. And indeed Noah and his Families being saved by passing through the Waters of the Flood in the Ark did Typifie and Pre-figure our being saved by passing thro' the Waters of Baptism in the Ark of the Church for so St. Peter In the Ark says he were Eight Souls saved by Water The like Figure whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us 1 Pet. 3.20 21. And as for that Infant-Baptism which was practised of Old in the Jewish Church 't is by their own best Writers made as Ancient as Moses and deduc'd by them says Dr. Towerson from that Command of God whereby Moses was Enjoyned to Sanctifie the Israelites and cause them to wash their Cloaths against that time that God declared from Mount Sinai That Legal Covenant which they were then to enter into Dr. Towerson of the Sacrament of Bapt. Pag. 13. And the Apostle himself tells us of these Israelites That they were all Baptized into Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea 1 Cor. 10.2 They were all Men Women and Children so Baptized And you know Good Sir that when God did safely lead these Children of Israel thro' the Red-Sea he thereby figured his Holy Baptism And therefore as they Men Women and Children were Baptized into Moses by the Cloud above and the Sea beneath so says Dr. Taylor are all Persons now Men Women and Children to be Baptized into Christ by the Spirit from above and the Water below and the same Excellent Author most truly adds That it was the design of the Apostle in that Discourse 1 Cor. 10. To represent that the Fathers and We were equal as to the Privileges of the Covenant and that as we do not exceed them so neither do they exceed us nor their Children ours Great Exemp Pag. 176. And in short When our Saviour first Instituted his Baptism amongst that very People who had then such an Ancient Custom to Baptize Infants had he made any Exception against that their Custom had he excluded such Babes from his Baptism as they admitted to theirs we should certainly have heard something of it I am sure that their Infant-Circumcision was not laid aside without great Noise and Struggle and therefore that their Infant-Baptism should be so easily quitted without so much as one word said either for or against it is what I profess to you I cannot easily believe Nay but I am hereby very much confirm'd in my Belief that Infants were as well admitted to our Lord's Baptism when he Baptized in Judea as they then were and for a long time before had been Baptized in the Jewish-Church And thus Sir I have Briefly shewn you what was done by our Lord and by his Disciples in his Life-time in this Case of Baptizing And II. I will God willing enquire again what we find in Scripture to have been done in this Case by the Apostles after our Lord's Ascension But of this in my next which shall be hastened from Sir June 26. 1698. Your c. T. H. LETTER V. SIR I Proceed to enquire
every-where find Infant-Baptism receiv'd and continu'd as an Apostolical practice But I 'll not lead you too far into these Historical accounts which yet we must be oblig'd to or else we shall know but very little of the Acts of the greatest part of the Apostles for what they did into what Cities and Nations they Travel'd what Disciples they made whom they Baptiz'd is not written in Scripture But now Sir suppose some wild Theist or Atheist in pursuance of their Mischievous design to discredit the Apostles should come and tell you that the greatest part of them were a pack of Lazy Drones who though they were under the obligation of a Command to Disciple and Baptize all Nations yet never mov'd a Foot upon that great Errand did not the least Hand's-turn in all that weighty Business pray Good Sir what Answer would you make How would you vindicate the Apostles from so black a charge I am sure that all Scripture-Evidence would here fail you you could not quote Scripture in the defence of one half of them but how then would you stop the Mouths of their Accusers Why Sir You must be beholden to just the evidence we have for Infant-Baptism's being practis'd by the Apostles for by all the Authority whereby you could silence their Accusers and prove to 'em the Apostles Travels and the Conversions that they every where made all the wide World over even by all that Authority I say do we prove Infants to have been Baptized by them And further suppose an Atheist should fly in the face of our Blessed Saviour himself and Blasphemously tell you that he was a false Prophet who pretended to foretell such things concerning the Destruction of the Jewish Church and State as never came to pass though he positively prophesy'd that That very Generation should not pass away till all these should be fulfill'd Suppose I say an Atheist should say thus Good Sir I must beseech you to tell me what you would answer or how you would clear our blessed Lord and Saviour from the foul Aspersion you could not in this case have any help from Scripture No but you would be forc'd to appeal to the Historians of that and of the following Ages and particularly to that most admirable Historian Josephus to shew how these Predictions and Prophecies of our Saviour were accomplish'd and most wonderfully and punctually fulfill'd about forty Years after our Saviour's Crucifixion Well Sir and we have altogether as good evidence in the first Writers of the Christian Church for Infant-Baptism as we have for the Accomplishment of our Saviour's Prophecies and as you must prove our Saviour to have been a true Prophet in that Case even so do we prove Infants to have been Baptized in the Apostolical Ages Once more some deny that the Apostles Baptiz'd any Infants and suppose a Quaker who is against all Water-Baptism should deny that they Baptiz'd either Men or Women I know you would say that we have sufficient Proof of this in the Acts of the Apostles Oh but Sir You need not be told that these Quakers many of them are a sort of unmannerly fellows that disrespect and disparage the very Scriptures themselves and perhaps they 'll ask you Who writ that Book in the New Testament call'd The Acts of the Apostles Of what Authority is it Was the Author of it an Inspir'd Writer and what can you say why we are bound to believe what we find Written therein more than in any other Old Book And now pray Sir should a morose Quaker thus put you to 't to prove the Authority of the Acts of the Apostles how wou'd you do it Truly you must answer that we have the whole Primitive Church bearing witness to it that it was written by an Inspired Author viz. by St. Luke and that it has ever been receiv'd as Canonical Scripture throughout the Universal Church of Christ dispersed over the face of the whole Earth And this indeed is sufficient evidence to a Wise-Man But then we have the very same evidence for Infant-Baptism's being an Apostolical practice we have the Universal Church of Christ bearing witness thereto in all places yea and at all times for the first fifteen Hundred Years after Christ without exception Sir That Infant-Baptism was the Universal Practice of the Holy Catholick Church and that no time can be shewed on this side the Apostles when it began is so manifestly and clearly prov'd from the best and most Authentick Writers of all Ages that some of our learned'st Adversaries have had more Conscience than to deny it Menno One of the most Learned of the Anabaptists as the Author of the Case of Infant-Baptism tells us from Cassander acknowledg'd Infant-Baptism to be as Old as the Times of the Apostles and therefore he was forc'd in the defence of his cause to invent the Story That though Infant-Baptism was first taught in the Apostles Times yet that it was then taught by false Apostles and false Teachers which proof-less Story is Learnedly and largely answer'd by the said Author of the Case of Infant-Baptism pag. 47 48 49 50. And our excellent Dr. Falkner has these Words The Christian Church in the first Ages thereof and in a Continued Succession from thence to this time hath admitted Infants to be Baptized and thought it self bound so to do And this he proves by several plain Testimonies out of St. Austin St. Cyprian Origen and from the famous African Council and concludes that divers other Fathers and Councils might be added to manifest the Universal Reception of Infant-Baptism in the Catholick Church But this saith he having been clearly and sufficiently evidenc'd by the Historical Theses of Vossius upon this Subject of Paedobaptism I shall refer him thither who wou'd have more large and ample Proof hereof Treatise concerning Reproaching c. pages 285.286 And now Good Sir have patience with me till I shall briefly summ up what I have said in this long Letter and I will conclude I have shewn you how little we read in Scripture of what The Apostles did in this Case of Baptizing after they had receiv'd the Command to Baptize all Nations and likewise what clear hints we have even in that little of their Baptizing Infants but then I have added that as we find larger accounts of the Apostles Travels and of the Nations Converted by them in the primimitive Writers so that from the same Writers we are more fully assur'd that Infant-Baptism was an Apostolical Practice And you Sir I hope will not be so vain as to despise this Evidence without which you can never prove that the greatest part of the Apostles Baptiz'd either Man Woman or Child Without which you cannot prove to an Atheist that our Saviour was a True Prophet Without which you cannot prove to a Sullen Quaker the Authority of that very Book in which we have so may Proofs against them of Baptism in general viz. The Acts of the Apostles And thus I have