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
the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees Fourthly Your citing Heb. 8. and Jer. 31. to shew what Baptism seals to Infants proves nothing We deny not but all who are actually in the New Covenant viz. by Faith ingrafted into Christ have right to Remission and Salvation and that that Covenant secures and preserves them to Eternal Life therefore the Children of Believers as such are not in it And if they are no otherwise in it than conditionally that is if they repent believe c. I ask you what Priviledg that is more than what the Children of Heathens and Infidels have for if they believe and repent shall they not have the same Blessings Priviledges of the Covenant also As to the Adult Professors we say if they fall finally away it shews they never indeed were in the Covenant of Grace As to Adult true Believers the Holy Spirit seals Remission and Salvation to them and they shall be saved a sign of what is actually in them is held forth in Baptism there being nothing signified by that Ordinance as to a Death unto Sin but what they experienced wrought on their Souls before Baptized tho 't is true they thereby for the time to come covenant to walk in newness of Life Fifthly As touching the great Commission Mat. 28. where you urge Baptizing goes before Teaching we have fully answered you in the precedent Reply we prove there is a Teaching goes before Baptism and yet also a Teaching after Why do you attempt to blind the Eyes of the unwary Reader Sixthly To what purpose do you mention Jairus's Daughter do we deny but that the Parents Faith and Prayer may procure outward Blessings nay and spiritual Ones too and as much perhaps for their poor carnal Neighbours and Friends My Servant Job shall pray for you The fervent Prayer of a Righteous Man availeth much but it doth not give Right to their Friends or Children to Baptism Seventhly As to your Syriac Translation that the Jaylor and all the Sons of his House were Baptized I argue All his Sons no doubt were grown up to Age because 't is said he believed with all his House If he had Sons grown up and yet did not believe then by your Argument Unbelievers may be Baptized but to this see our Answer Eighthly As to your proof from that Passage i. e. Suffer little Children to come unto me Take the words definitely or indefinitely it proves nothing for you for Christ Baptized no Child for with his own Hards he Baptized no Person at all Joh. 4.1,2 't was to lay his Hands upon them not to Baptize them Moreover I have before told you those little Ones Mark 9.42 were Adult Whosoever shall offend one of these little Ones that believe in me I affirm our Saviour speaks only of such little Ones as were grown up to such Age as in very deed did believe in him and not Babes of two or ten days old But you say you would have no Children proselyted but such as Timothy c. To which you answer That according to the Original those Children that did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word we have shewed signifies any common coming and may be such who come in their Parents Arms Let Babes come to Christ this way or that he baptized none of them I may infer as well because little Children come or were brought to Christ and of such are the Kingdom of Heaven therefore they may partake of the Lord's Supper as you infer they may be Baptized Ninthly Tho the Gospel did not spread into all Nations c. yet sure you conclude all were to be baptized in all Nations wheresoever the Gospel did come or was preached or else as we say none in those Nations but such who were made Disciples i. e. did believe and repent for if but some in those Nations where the Gospel comes were to be Baptized and not all and yet more ought so to be then such who are discipled first Pray who are they or how shall we know them to be included in the Commission For as Mr. Baxter saith If we have it not here where have we it this being the great Rule or Charter of the Church for this Rite unto which we ought to adhere in this Matter Tenthly What signifies what some of the Ancient Fathers believed i. e. That Federal Holiness of Parents made Children Candidates for Baptism They said other things too that you decry as well as we many Errors being early let into the Church Besides we have Tertullian against Tertullian or one Father against another which is ground enough to believe you abuse Tertullian or to doubt of the truth of your History Eleventhly You ask whether Children have not as much right to their Baptism as that of Adult Females for 't is no where said she that believeth and is baptized where have we one Instance of Female-Baptism Reply We ak you whether Male and Female is not intended in Mark 16.16 he or she and so John 3.3 Vnless a Man be born again the Woman is included or have Women no Souls Did you never read of the Figure Sylepfis or Conceptio that comprehends the less worthy under the more worthy indignioris sub-digniore as for Example Quid tu soror sacitis ego mater miseri perimus tu uxor qui adsuistis testes estote and it 's no less true in Divinity see that full and never to be baffled place 1 Cor. 6.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Gen. 5.2 And he called their Name Adam they two shall be one Flesh Moreover do we not read Women were made Disciples as well as Men and so had the same right to Baptism from the Commission But to detect your Ignorance of the Scripture pray see Acts 8.12 When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ they were baptized both Men and Women Also Acts 16.15 't is said Lydia was baptized I thought she had been a Woman Gentlemen you shew you are but younger Brethren and will do the Pedo-baptists no Service shew such a Proof for the Baptism of Infants and your work is done But tho Children lose no spiritual Right by Christ's coming yet they may lose some Legal Rites As Ministers Sons now are not born to the Ministry as they were under the Law as well as their Fleshly Seed had right as such to their Jewish Church-Membership Furthermore because Believers are made holy by the Operations of the Spirit are all their Children made holy in like manner also Blush for Christ's sake The Blessing of Abraham Sirs only comes upon the Gentiles through Faith not by natural Generation as you imagine As the Blessing runs to the Parents viz. through Faith so to their Children they must believe also if they would be the Children of the Promise or Spiritual Seed of Abraham Gal. 3. ult Twelfthly As touching what you say further as to universal Consent of
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Matth. 28. 't is disciple ye here 't is discipled instructed or that is taught and 't is from the same Verb with the other 'T is evident notwithstanding all your Flourish tha Teaching according to the Order of the Commission goes and must go before Baptizing though the Person baptized is to be taught afterwards also all things that Christ commanded his Disciples both as to Doctrine and Practice that so they may be faithful Followers of Christ unto the end This Teaching after Baptism indeed the Baptists cannot deny unless they should be so foolish as to say a Baptized Believer needs no further teaching c. but you know in your Consciences we deny and that too by the Authority of the Commission that any ought to be Baptized but such who are made Disciples by their first being taught Doth Baptism Sirs make either Children or others Disciples if you do not assert that what do you say and if all Nations or any in the Nations are to be Baptized before they are taught or made Disciples why may not a Minister by the Authority of the Commission baptize Turks Pagans and Infidels with their Children as well as the Infants of Christian People Moreover if so be Baptizing may go before Teaching or Persons being made Disciples why did Philip answer the Eunuch after that manner when he asked him why he might not be Baptized the Answer is If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayest intimating unless he so believed he might not Also why did Christ make Disciples first and then baptize them Joh. 4.1 I must also tell you that your Exposition of the Commission in Matthew doth tend to invert the Order of the same Commission in Mark 16.15,16 where our Saviour commands his Disciples to go and preach the Gospel to every Creature and then saith He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved 't is not he that is baptized and then believeth but to give divers godly and learned Pedo-Baptists their due they I find dare not attempt to invert the Order of the Holy Commission as you seem to do thought it shakes the Foundation of their own Practice See Reverend Mr. Perkirs on these Words Teach all Nations baptizing them saith he I explain the former thus First of all it is said Teach them that is make them my Disciples by teaching them to believe and repent Here we are to consider the Order which God observes in making with Men a Covenant in Baptism first-of all he calls them by his Word and Spirit to believe and repent Then in the second Place he makes a Promise of Mercy and Forgiveness And then thirdly he seals his Promise by Baptism They says he that know not nor consider this Order which God used in covenanting with them in Baptism deal preposterously over-slipping the Commandment of repenting and believing and is the cause of so much Prophaneness in the World Much to the same Purpose saith Mr. Baxter Right to Baptism p. 149 150. speaking of the Order of this Commission Christ gave to his Disciples their first Task says he is to make Disciples which are by Mark called Believers The second Work is to baptize them whereto is annexed the Promise of Salvation The third Work is to teach them all other things which are after to be learned in the School of Christ To contemn this Order saith he is to contemn the Rules of Order for where can we find it if not here I profess my Conscience is fully satisfied from this Text that there is one sort of Faith saving even Saving that must go before Baptism the Profession whereof the Minister must expect Your second Scipture-Ground is that of whole Families being baptized Reply You cannot be ignorant that this Proof hath been often invalid How many Families are there in this City in which there is not one Infant Besides 't is said Paul preached the Word to the Jailor and to all in his House also 't is expresly said He believed in God with all his House We have as much Ground to believe in these Families there were some Servants or Children who were Unbelievers as to believe there were little Babes and because whole Housholds were said to be baptized therefore unbelieving Servants Sons and Daughters as well as little Children Others may infer ungodly Servants and unbelieving Children that were grown up to be Men and Women were baptized also in those Families In Jailors Families now a-days 't is evident there are too many wicked and ungodly ones and this Jailor was none of the best before converted 't is plain Besides whole or all doth not comprehend always every individual Person as 1 Sam. 21.28 Moreover Dr. Hammond saith That to conclude Infants were baptized because Housholds are mentioned so to be is saith he unconvincing and without Demonstration it being so uncertain whether there were any Children in those Families His Letter p. 471. Sect. 21. Your third Scripture-Ground is that of the Promise you say Covenant made to you and your Children Reply How often have we shewed that this Text proves not that any Children quatenus as such should be baptized nor as such that they are in the Covenant of Grace or have the Promise made to them the Promise runs to the Jews and to their Offspring and not to them only but to Gentiles also who were said to be afar off But pray observe 't is to no more of the Jews and their Children or Offspring and such who were afar off than the Lord shall call or make Disciples by the Word and effectual Operations of the Holy Spirit My Sons and Daughters are as much my Children when they are twenty or thirty Years old as well as when Babes Dr. Hammond also grants Children in this Text doth not refer to Infants as such but to the Posterity of the Jews p. 490. Sect. 81. If ye be Christ's then you are Abraham 's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise The Children of the Flesh saith Paul these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are accounted for the Seed Rom. 9.8 Not if you be the Offspring of Abraham according to the Flesh or Seed of Believers Your fourth Scripture-Proof is that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Reply This proves no more Children ought to be baptized than they ought to receive the Lord's Supper Baptism being a mere positive Precept and only depends upon the Will and sovereign Pleasure of the great Law-giver Jesus Christ A thousand such Instances prove not they ought to be baptized except there was a Precept annexed or Precedent for it in God's Word Besides of such c. as one well observes may intend such and such that have like Qualities viz. harmless meek c. as Children Therefore the Anabaptists as you call them are not uncharitable who say Infants have no more Right to Baptism than unreasonable Creatures for what can give them Right thereto but the Authority