some of your Stories seem childish and do not look as if they came from Men of such pretended Ingenuity But to close all We have the worst of you at the last wherein you in a very scurriloâ—s manner cast Reproach upon 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 condemn as such all that bear that Name In Answer to which I ask you whether the like Reflections might not have been cast on Christ's Apostles because they had a Juâ—â—â— among them or on the Church of the Coritthians because if the incestuous Person Besides you know not but it may be a Lie raised upon those People by the envious Papists who have rendred Calâ—â— 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 Carts 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 all 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. Whether Infants are the Subjects of Baptism And 2. Whether Baptism is Dipping or Sprinkling 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 uncircumciseâ—â— 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 nicer 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 â—â—ly 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 â— 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 that shall partake of 〈…〉 Blessings so say I shall the 〈…〉 believers 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 Covenent and being the Seed of Believers are federally Holy therefore ought to be Baptized 3. Another soâ—â— of Pedo Baptists say They ought to be Baptâ—â—â— 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 theâ—â— Suretiâ— 6. And 〈…〉 of Pedo Baptists say It 〈…〉 Power and Authoriâ—â— 7. 〈…〉 that 〈…〉 affirm 〈…〉 the Word 〈…〉 God 〈…〉 Institution the 〈…〉 divided and 〈…〉 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 noâ—â—â— Promise â—â—de to such who do it nor Thâ—â—â—s denounced on such who neglect it or do it 〈◊〉 For though there are both Promises made to Believers Baptized and Threaâ—â— 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
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 ingraâ—ted 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 〈◊〉 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 Hands 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 dayâ— old But you say we 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 â—here 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. Unless a Man be borâ— again the Woman is included or have Women no Souls Did you never read of the Figure Sylepsis or Conceptio that comprehends the less worthy under the more worthy indignioris sub dignâ—ore as for Example â—uid tu soror facitis 〈…〉 mater miseri perimusâ—â—â— uxor qui adâ—â—stis testes estote and it 's no less true in Divinity see that full and never to be baffled place 1 Cor. 6. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They two shall be one Flesh See Gen. 5. 2. And he called their Name Adam 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 â—â—n 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 tâ—â—â— edobaptists 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 Ministryâ—â—s 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
Faith Hope c. cease then 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 that 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 tâ—â—â—e Controversy about Infâ—â—-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 abouâ—â—â—nfant-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 pâ—â—ticularly St. Austin sentencing Infants to â—â—ernal Damnation if not Baptized Thirdly If so Whether the Fathers might not be mistaken in the Right of Infants to Baptism as well as 〈…〉 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 â—â—ttle â—â—bes of two or ten days old into a Covenant with him by Baptism since 't is nor to be found in the Scâ—â—â—â—ure 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 bâ—nd their Consciences when they come to â—ge especially since they gave no Consent to it noâ— 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 â—â—jury 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 feriously query I. WHethâ—â—â—radition Jewish Talmuds the Opinion of private Doctors Schoolmen c. be a sufficient Warrant for the Churches to establish 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 â—o 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 Eucharist 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 Cateâ—â—â—sm IV. Whether the Church hath a good Warrant that will justify her before God in changing the Mode from Dipping to Sprinkling and whether that Alteration doth so well answer the Design of the Holy God as that Ceremony which himself appointed Gentlemen I knew nothing of that Gentleman's Animadversions or that he or any Body elâ—â— 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 further 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 that the proper Antitype of Circumcision in the Flesh is that of the Heart Thirdly As to your Logical Argument â—â— viz. An Ordinance once enjoined and never repealed is always in force but the Ordinance of Childrens incovenanting was once in the Old Testament enjoined and was never repealed Ergo We answer If the Ordinance of Children incovenanting under the Law was Circumcision that Ordinance is repealed Is noâ— 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 our 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
of no Force against Catholicks who conclude the Apostolical Tradition is of no less Authority with us than the Scripture c. this of baptizing of Infants is an Apostolical Tradition Bellarm. in his Book dâ— Bapt. I. 1. c. 8. Mr. Ball saith We must for every Ordinance look to the Institution and never stretch it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it for he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own Pleasure and 't is our part to learn of him both to whom how and for what End the Sacraments are to be administred Ball in his Answer to the New-England Elders p. 38 39. And as to the Minor 't is acknowledged by our Adversaries it is not to be found in â—â—e Letter of the Scripture And as to the Consequences drawn therefrom we have proved they are not natural from the Premises and though we admit of Consequences and Inferences if genuine yet not in the case of an Institution respecting a practical Ordinance that is of meer positive Right Arg. 9. If Infant-Baptism was an Institution of Christ the Pedo-Baptists could not be at a loss about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism But the Pedo-Baptists are at a great Loss and differ exceedingly about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism Ergo 't is no Institution of Christ As touching the Major I argue thus That which is an Institution of Christ the Holy Scripture doth shew as well the End and Ground of the Ordinance as the Subject and Manner of it But the Scripture speaks nothing of the End or Ground of Pedo-Baptism or for what reason they ought to be baptized Ergo 't is no Institution of Christ The Minor is undeniable Some affirm as we have shewed p. 15. it was to take away Original Sin Some say it is their Right by the Covenant they being the Seed of Believers Others say Infants have Faith and therefore have a Right Others say They have a Right by the Faith of their Sureties Some ground their Right from an Apostolical Tradition others upon the Authority of Scripture Some say All Children of professed Christians ought to be baptized others say None but the Children of true Believers have a Right to it Sure if it was an Ordinance of Christ his Word would soon end this Controversy Arg. 10. If the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the natural nor spiritual Seed of Abraham they can have no Right to Baptism or Church-Membership by virtue of any Covenant-transaction God made with Abraham But the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the natural nor spiritual Seed of Abraham Ergo. Arg. 11. If no Man can prove from Scripture that any spiritual Benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism 't is no Ordinance of Christ But no Man can prove from Scripture that any spiritual Benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism Ergo. Arg. 12. That cannot be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither Command nor Example in all God's Word nor Promise to such who do it nor Threatnings to such who neglect it But there is no Command or Example in all the Word of God for the baptizing of little Babes nor Promise made to such who are baptized nor Threatnings to such who are not Ergo. That the Child lies under a Promise who is baptized or the Child under any Threatning or Danger that is not baptized let them prove it since it is denied Arg. 13. If no Parents at any time or times have been by God the Father Jesus Christ or his Apostles either commended for baptizing of their Children or reproved for neglecting to baptize them then Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God But no Parents at any time or times have been by God commended for baptizing of their Children c. Ergo Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God This Argument will stand unanswerable unless any can shew who they were that were ever commended for baptizing their Children or reproved for neglecting it or unless they can shew a parallel case Arg. 14. If Men were not to presume to alter any thing in the Worship of God under the Law neither to add thereto nor diminish therefrom and God is as strict and jealous of his Worship under the Gospel then nothing ought to be altered in God's Worship under the Gospel But under the Law Men were not to presume so to do and God is as strict and jealous under the Gospel Ergo. The Major cannot be denied The Minor is clear See thou make all things according to the Pattern shewed thee in the Mount Exod. 25. 40. and Levit. 10. 1 2. See how Nadab and Abibu sped for presuming to vary from the Command of God and Uzzah tho but in small Circumstances as they may seem to us How dare Men adventure this being so to change Baptism from Dipping into Sprinkling and the Subject from an Adult Believer to an ignorant Babe Add thou not unto his Word c. Arg. 15. Whatever Practice opens a Door to any humane Traditions and Innovations in God's Worship is a great Evil and to be avoided But the Practice of Infant-Baptism opens a Door to any humane Traditions and Innovations in God's Worship Ergo to sprinkle or baptize Infants is a great Evil and to be avoided The Major will not be denied The Minor is clear because there is no Scripture-ground for it no Command nor Example for such a Practice in God's Word And if without Scripture-Authority the Church hath Power to do one thing she may do another and so ad infinitum Arg. 16. Whatsoever Practice reflects upon the Honour Wisdom and Care of Jesus Christ or renders him less faithful than Moses and the New Testament in one of its great Ordinances nay Sacraments to lie more obscure in God's Word than any Law or Precept under the Old Testament cannot be of God But the Practice of Infant-Baptism reflects on the Honour Care and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ and renders him less faithful than Moses and a great Ordinance nay Sacrament of the New Testament to lie more dark and obscure than any Precept under the Old Testament Ergo Infant-Baptism cannot be of God The Major cannot be denied The Minor is easily proved For he is bold indeed who shall affirm Infant-Baptism doth not lie obscure in God's Word One great Party who assert it say 't is not to be found â—â— the Scripture at all but 't is an unwritten Apostolical Tradition others say it lies not in the Letter of the Scripture but may be proved by Consequences and yet some great Asserters of it as Dr. Hammond and others say Those Consequences commonly drawn from divers Texts for it are without Demonstration and so prove nothing I am sure a Man may read the Scripture a hundred times over and never be thereby convinced he ought to baptize his Children tho it is powerful to convince Men of all other Duties Now can this be a Truth
it is say I from hence none but such at Age ought to be baptized Philip caused the Eunuch to profess before he would baptize him that he believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God Saul had also saith he more than a bare Profession before Baptism Acts 9. 5 15 17. p. 28. The Promise it self saith he doth expresly require a Faith of our own of all the Adult that will have part in the Priviledges therefore there is a Faith of our own that is the Condition of our Title Mark 16. 16. p. 16. He might have added by the Force of his Argument therefore Infants should not have the Priviledges for I argue thus viz. Arg. 22. If there is but one Baptism of Water left by Jesus Christ in the New Testament and but one Condition or Manner of Right thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult then Infant-Baptism is no Baptism of Christ But there is but one Baptism in Water left by Christ in the New Testament and but one Condition and Manner of â—â—ght thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult Ergo Infant-Baptism is no Baptism of Christ Mr. Baxter saith Faith and Repentance is the Condition of the Adult and as to any other Condition I am sure the Scripture is silent the Way of the Lord is one one Lord one Faith one Baptism Ephes 4. 4. If Profession of Faith were not necessary saith Mr. Baxter coram Ecclesiâ to Church-Membership and Priviledges then Infidels and Heathens would have Right also saith he the Church and the World would be confounded He might have added but Infidels and Heathens have no Right to Church-Membership c. Ergo T is a granted Case among all Christians saith he that Profession is thus necessary the Apostles and Ancient Church admitted none without it pag. 21. And if so why dare any now adays admit of Infants who are capable to make no Professior He adds Yea Christ in his Commission directeth his Apostles to make Disciples and the â—â—baptize them promising He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. pag. 27. Furthermore he â—aith If as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his Death and are buried with him by Baptism into Death that like as Christ was raised from the Dead so we also should walk in Newness of Life c. Then no doubt saith he but such as were to be baptized did fâ—â—t profess this Mortification and a Consent to be buried c. In our Baptism we put off the Body of the the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ bring buried with him and raised with him through Faith quickned with him and having all our Trespasses forgiveâ— Col. 2. 〈◊〉 12 â—3 And will any Man says he yea will Paul ascribe all this to 〈◊〉 that did noâ— so much as profess the thing◠〈◊〉 Will Baptism in the Judgment of a wise Man do all this for an Infidel or say I for an Infant that cannot make a Profession that he is a Christian pag. 31 32. He proceeds Arg. 23. The Baptized are in Scripture called Men washed sanctified justified â—â—â—y are called Saints and Churches of Saints 1 Cor. 1. 2. all Christians are sanctified ones pag. 33. Now let me add the Minor But Infants baptized are not in Scripture called Men washed sanctified justified they are not called Saints Churches of Saints Christians nor sanctified ones Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized If any should say Why did you not cite these Assertions of Mr. Baâ—ter's whilst he was living I answer More then twelve Years ago I did recite and print these Assertions and many other Arguments of his to the same Purpose to which he gave no Answer Arg. 24. If there is but one way for all both Parents and Children to be admitted into the Gospel-Church to the End of the World and that it is upon the Profession of Faith to be baptized then both Parents and Children must upon the Profession of their Faith be baptized and so admitted c. But there is but one way for all both Parents and Children to be admitted into the Gospel-Church to the End of the World and that is upon the Profession of their Faith to be baptized Ergo. Arg. 25. That cannot be Christ's true Baptism wherein there is not cannot be a lively Representation of the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ together with our Death unâ—o Sin and Viâ—ification to a new Life But in the Râ—â—â—â—ing or Sprinkling of an Infant there is not cannot be a lively Representation of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection c. Ergo. Arg. 26. That pretended Baptism that tends to â—ruâ—trate the glorious â—â—d and Design of Christ in his instituting of Gospel-Baptism or cannot answer it iâ— none of Clâ—â—st's Baptism But the pretended Baptism of Infants tends to frustrate the glorious end and design of Christ in instituting of Gospel-Baptism Ergo. The Major will not be denied As to the Minor all generally conâ—â—â—â— the End or Design of Christ in instituting the Ordinance of Baptism was in a lively Figure to represent his Death Burial and Resurrection with the Person 's Death unto Sin and his rising again to walk in newness of â—ife that is baptized as the Sacrament of the Supper was ordained to represent his Body was broke and his Blood was shed But that a lively Figure of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection appears in sprinkling a little Water on the Face I see not and as done to an Infant there can no Death to Sin and rising again to walk in newness of Life be signified And therefore Christ's Design and End therein is frustrated Arg. 27. If Baptism be Immersion as to the proper and genuine signification of the word Baptizo as also of those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms and the spiritual Signification thereof then Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism But Immersion is the proper and genuine signification of the word Baptizo and also of those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms spoken of and the spiritual Signification thereof Ergo Sprinkling is not Christ's true Baptism 1. That the proper and genuine Signification of the word Baptizo is Immersion or to dip c. we have proved which is also confessed by the Learned in that Language 2. The Figurative Baptism was 1sâ— That of the Red Sea wherein the Fathers were buried as it were unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud Fools Annotations on 1 Cor. 1â— 2. Others saith â—e more probably think that the Apostle useth this term in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptism as it was then used the Persons going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea the great Recâ—pâ—acle of Water though 〈◊〉 Water at that time was gathered on â—â—aps on either side of them yet they seeâ—â—ed buried in the Water as Persons in that Age were when they were baptized 〈◊〉 The â—d was that of Noah's Ark. Sâ—e 〈…〉 Kâ—aâ—eâ—bull The Ark of Noah and Baptism saith he were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection noâ— the Sign of the washing away of Sin though so taken metonymically but a particular â—â—gnal of the Resurrection of Christ of this Baptism is a lively and emphatical Figure as also was the Ark of Noah out of which he returned as from a Sepulchre to a new 〈◊〉 3. Metaphorical Baptism is that of the Spirit and of Affliction the first signifies not a sprinkling of the Spirit but the great Effusion of the Spirit like that at Pentecost Acts 1. 4 5. Shall be baptized c. on which Words Casaubon speaks thus See Dr. Dâ—Vâ—il on Acts. 2. The Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to dip or plunge as it were to die Colours in which Sense saith he the Apostles might be truly said to have been baptized for the House in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost so that the Apostles might seem to have been plunged into it as in a large Fish-Pond Also Oecumenius on Acts 2. saith A Wind filled the whole House that it seemed like a Fish-Pond because it was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost And the Baptism of Affliction are those great depths or overwhelmings of Afflictions like that of our Saviour's suffering i. e. no part free Matth. 20. 22. where you have the same Greed Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and like that of David who saith God drew him out of great Waters 4. The spiritual Signification thereof is the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ and of our Death to Sin and Vivification to a new â—ife This being so it follows undeniably Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism it must be Immersion and nothing else And in the last Place Finally To confirm that Baptizo is to dip both from the literal and spiritual Signification thereof as also from those typical and metaphorical Baptisms mentioned in the Scripture I might add further that this evidentlâ— appears from the Practice of John Baptist and the Apostles of Christ who baptized in Rivers and where there was much Water and also because the Baptizer and Baptized are said to go down into the Water not down to the Water and came up out of the Water John Baptist is said to baptize them into Jordan as the Greek Word renders it which shews it dipping and not sprinkling Would it be proper to say He sprinkled them into Jordan The Lord open the Eyes of those who see not to consider these things FINIS
the Imperative Mood O strange have you found it out will this do your business doth it therefore contain the other two I ask you whether a Man may not be made a Disciple and not be Baptized or be Baptized and yet not be discipled Matth. 13. 52. 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 that 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 asfert 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 Ioh. 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 〈…〉 't is not he that is baptized and theâ—â—â—lieveth 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 though it shakes the Foundation of their own Practice See Reverend Mr. Perkins 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 〈…〉 first of all he calls them by his Wâ—â—d 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 â—â—ere is one sort of Faith 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 invalidated 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 that in these Families there were some Servants or Children who were Unbelievers as to belieâ—â— there were little Babes and because whole Housholds are said to be baptized therefore unbelieving Servants Sons and Daughters as well as litâ—â—â— Children Others may infer ungodly Servants and unbelieving Children that were grown up to be Men and Women wâ—â—â— 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 wholâ—â—â—r 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 〈…〉 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 〈…〉 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 pravâ—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 Insants 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 he 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 â—â—â—ght 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 mâ—re Right to Baptism than unreasonable Creatures for what can give them Right thereto but the Authority 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 Mat. 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 doubtleâ—â— no other Sanctification else were your Child 〈…〉 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 Ambrose on the Place saith The Children are Holy because born of lawful Marriage See Melancthon on this Text who asserts the same Erasmus saith Children are legitimately Holy the Conversion of Husband or Wife did not dissolve the Marriage To which I might add Camerarius and divers others We 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 Coment of the Churches in all Countries For as you say Tortul de praescripturâ haeret ch 28. Etquid 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. Universality 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 vaâ—ies from the Latin But pray take what Dr. Barlow hath said to this a worthy Bâ—shop 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 â—â—â—tullian condemns it as an â—â—wâ—rantable Custom and Nazâ—anzen 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 〈…〉 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 fourth 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 to prove from Antiquity that Infant-Baptism was practised in the first second and third Centuries you say you are able to demonstrate and 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 and Pretences but suppose it be granted there were no Congregations till then called Anabaptists what doth that signify it was because there were not till about that time any as 〈…〉 〈…〉 and divers others say who practised Pedo-baptism Baptists could not be called Anabaptists or Re-baptizers till there were some who 〈…〉 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 1. 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 Lord Jesus 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 â—â—t from the Authority and Power of the Church for as you think the Church â—â—th 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
since Christ who was more faithful than Moses and delivered every thing plainly from the Father Moses left nothing dark as to matter of Duty tho the Precepts and external Rites of his Law were numerous two or three hundred Precepts yet none were at a loss or had need to say Is this a Truth or an Ordinance or not for he that runs may read it And shall one positive Precept given forth by Christ who appointed so few in the New Testament be so obscure as also the ground and end of it that Men should be confounded about the Proofs of it together with the end and ground thereof See Heb. 3. 5 6. Arg. 17. That Custom or Law which Moses never delivered to the Jews nor is any where written in the Old Testament was no Truth of God nor of Divine Authority But that Custom or Law to baptize Proselytes either Men Women or Children was never given to the Jews by Moses nor is it any where written in the Old Testament Ergo It was no Truth of God nor of Divine Authority And evident it is as Sir Norton Knatchbul shews That the Jewish Rabbins differed among themselves also about it for saith he Rabbi Eliâ—zer expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshâ—a who was the first I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews For Eliâ—zer who was contemporary with Rabbi Joshâ—a if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte circumcised and not baptized was a true Proselyte Arg. 18. If Baptism â—â— of mere positive Right wholly depending on the Will and Sovereign Pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator And he hath not required or commanded Infants to be baptized then Infants ought not to be baptized But Baptism is of mere positive Right wholly depending on the Will and sovereign Pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator and he hath not required or commanded Infants to be baptized Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized This Argument tends to cut off all the pretended Proofs of Pedo-Baptism taken from the Covenant made with Abraham and because Children are said to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven it was not the Right of Abraham's Male Children to be circumcised because they were begotten and born of the Fruit of his Loins till he received Commandment from God to circumcise them Had he done it before or without a Command from God it would have been Will-Worship in him so to have done Moreover this further appears to be so Because no godly Man's Children noâ— others in Abraham's Days nor since had any Right thereto but only his Children or such who were bought with his Money or were proselyted to the Jewish Religion because they had no Command from God so to do as Abraham had This being true it follows that if we should grant Infants of believing Gentiles as such were the Seed of Abraham which we deny yet unless God had commanded them to baptize their Children they ought not to do it and if they do it without a Command oâ— Authority from Christ it will be found an Act of Will-Worship in them Arg. 19. All that were baptized in the Apostolical Primitive Times were baptized upon the Profession of Faith were baptized into Christ and thereby put on Christ and were all one in Christ Jesus and were Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise But Infants as such who are baptized were not baptized upon the Profession of their Faith nor did they out on Christ thereby nor are they all one in Christ Jesus also are not Abraham's Seed and Hoirs according to Promise Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Mr. Baxter confirms the Substance of the Major These are his very Words i. â— As many as have been baptized have put on Christ and are all one in Christ Jesus and are Abraham ' s Seed and Heirs according to the Promise Gal. 3. 27 28 29. This speaks the Apostle saith he of the Probability grounded on a credible Profession c. Baxter's Confirm Reconcil pag. 32. The Minor will stand firm till any can prove Infants by a visible Profession have put on Christ are all one in Christ Jesus are Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise Evident it is none are the spiritual Seed of Abraham but such who have the Faith of Abraham and are truly grafted into Christ by a Saving-Faith If any object we read of some who were baptized who had no Saving-Faith but were Hypocrites I answer Had they appeared to be such they had not been baptized not had they a true Right thereto Arg. 20. Baptism is the solemnizing of the Souls Marriage-Union with Christ which Marriage-Contract absolutely requires an actual Profession of consent Infants are not capable to enter into a Marriage-Union with Christ nor to make a Profession of Consent Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Major our Opposits generally grant particularly see what Mr. Baxter â—aith Our Baptism is the solemnizing of our Marriage with Christ These are his Words p. 32. The Minor none can deny No Man sure in his right Mind will assert that little Babes are capable to enter into a Marriage-Relation with Christ and to make a Profession of a Consent And the Truth is he in the next Words gives away his Cause viz. And 't is saith he a new and strange kind of Marriage where there is no Profession of Consent p. 32. How unhappy was this Man to plead for such a new and strange kind of Marriage Did he find any little Babe he ever baptized or rather rantized to make a Professioo of Consent to be married to Jesus Christ If any should object he speaks of the Baptism of the Adult I answer his Words are these Our Baptism is c. Besides will any Pedo-Baptist say that the Baptism of the Adult is the solemnizing of the Souls Marriage with Christ and not the Baptism of Infants Reader observe how our Opposits are forced sometimes to speak the Truth though it overthrows their own Practice of Pedo-Baptism Arg. 21. If the Sins of no Persons are forgiven them till they are converted then they must noâ— be baptized for the Forgiveness of them till they profess themselves to be converted but the Sins of no Persons are forgiven them till they are converted Ergo No Person ought to be baptized for the Forgiveness of them till they profess they are converted Mr. Baxter in the said Treatise lays down the Substance of this Argument also take his own Words i. e. As their Sins are not forgiven them till they are converted Mark 4. 12. so they must not be baptized for the Forgiveness of them till they profess themselves converted seeing to the Church non esse and non apparere is all one Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus is the Sum of that Preaching that makes Disciples Acts 20. 21. Therefore saith he both these must by a Profession seem to be received before any at Age are baptized p. 30. 31. And evident