Pedo-Baptism disproved BEING AN ANSWER To two printed Papers put forth by some Gentlemen CALLED THE Athenian Society Who pretend to answer all Questions sent to them of what Nature soever CALLED THE Athenian Mercury One put forth November 14. the other November 28 1691. In which Papers they pretend to answer eight Queries about the Lawfulness of INFANT-BAPTISM Likewise divers QUERIES sent to them about the true Subjects of Baptism c. The Second Edition to which is added twenty Sylogistical Arguments to disprove Infant-Baptism London Printed for the Author and sold by John Harris at the Sign of the Harrow in the Poultry MDC XCI Price four Pence AN ANSWER TO THE ATHENIAN MERCURY VOL. 4. NUMB. 14. CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM With an Account of divers Questions sent by the Author and some others to the Athenian Society which they have not yet answered Gentlemen WHO he was that sent you the first Questions about Infant-Baptism I know not whether he was an Antipedo-Baptist or a Pedo-Baptist is a Question but your calling upon all who had any Doubts about it to send in their Objections argues a great degree of Confidence of your Ability of doing more than all before For 't is strange you should attempt to call for all our Objections when it appears you intended to write but one half Sheet of Paper in Answer to them as if you could do that in a few Lines which others as learned as your selves could never yet do in great Volumes this savours as some judg of great Pride and casts much Contempt upon you and lessens your Reputation among wise Men who are for Pedo-Baptism as well as others And yet after all the great and mighty noise you have not so much as in the least touched the chief Questions which to my knowledg were sent you near a Fortnight before your said Mercury came forth And therefore to shew how disingeâ—â—ous you have been herein I thought it might not be amiss to spend a few spare hours upon your Mercury 1. The first Question you pretend to answer is this i. e. Whether Baptism as it is commonly taught is the proper and natural Antitype of Circumcision Reply As to what you speak of the Customs of Nations Linguisms and of Men being ignorant of Radixes or Original Significations in Langages seems remote to the business and serves for little else than to blot Paper or rather to darken Counsel Certainly the Ordinance of Baptism one of the two great Sacraments of the New-Testament doth not lie so obscure in God's Word either what it is or who are the proper Subjects thereof that Men must be at a loss about it unless they understand the Radixes or original Significations of Languages But to proceed you would it seems have Baptism to be the proper Antitype of Circumcision in some respect and not in others First From the Customs of the Jews in proselyting the Gentiles into their Religion so far you say indeed Circumcision was not a Type but a continuance of a Custom Now how absurd and ridiculous that is which you affirm upon this account may appear to all Will you assert and stand by it that Baptism was a Jewish Custom and so no pure Gospel-Institution Doubtless if so the Pharisees might have soon given our Saviour a ready Answer to his great Question viz. The Baptism of John whether is it from Heaven or of Men Mat. 21. 25. Certainly there was no Baptism of this nature of Divine Institution before John received it from Heaven But say you If John Baptist undertook any now way of proselyting the Jews into the Gospel they had not only struggled with the Opposition of his new Doctrine but also of his new Practice therefore say you it was that this Custom was continued and had the Super-addition of the full force of Baptism viz. a Consignation or Seal of the Covenant Reply As you confess his Doctrine was new so was his Baptism no doubt for as our Annotators observe his Baptism was part of his Doctrine Pray what was the Doctrine he preach'd was it not Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins Mâ—rk â— 4. Moreover we do not read they were more displeased with his new Doctrine than with his new Practice 2. But what Authority have you to affirm Gospel-Baptism was but the continuance of a Jewish Custom or was a Legal Rite or rather indeed a human Tradition for 't is evident the Jews were not required or commanded of God to baptize their Proselytes or others for Circumcision was the only Rite by which Proselytes who were Males were added to the Jewish Church as we find God commanded Abraham And if Baptism had been so frequently practised amongst the Jews as you assert wherefore did the Pharisees say to John Why dost thou baptize if thou art not that Christ nor Elias John 1. 25. Moreover Baptism is directly called a Principle of the Doctrine of Christ Heb. 6. 1 2. which Doctrine our Saviour saith he received from his Father If it be a Principle of the Doctrine of Christ it follows undeniably he instituted it and gave it forth Furthermore if Baptism was practised all along among the Jews I argue Either they practised it as a Mosaical Rite or else as a Tradition of their own not say I as a Mosaical Rite because Moses never commanded them so to do for he speaks nothing of it and yet declared all things God commanded him and did every thing according to the Pattern shewed him in the Mount And if it was a human Jewish Tradition what is become of one of the great Sacraments of the New Testament Must it be look'd upon from henceforth to be nothing else than the continuance of a Jewish Tradition taken out of their fabulous and erronious Talmud What kind of poisonous Stuff is this you trouble the World with What tho the Jews who had made the Commandments of God void through their Traditions did practise some such thing Must you affirm Gospel-Baptism in its Rise and Original sprung from their Custom And because they baptized Proselytes both Men Women and Children must Christians do so too Sure the Custom of the Romish Church in baptizing of Infants as a human Tradition is every way of as good Authority to warrant us so to do as the Custom of the unbelieving Jews But pray take what a Learned Pedo-Baptist and a Son of the Church of England hath said in answer to this vain Conceit 't is Sir Norton Knatchbull in his Animadversiones in lib. Novi Testamenti pag. 313. Aâ— cum videam summi judicii viros in his temporibus ex Rabbinis fundamenta petere veritatis c. But when I see in these times some Men of the greatest Judgment to fetch the Foundation of Truth from the Rabbins I cannot but stick at it for whence was the Talmud sent to us they are the words saith he of Buxtorf in his Synagoga Judaica that we should give so much Credit thereto
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
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
Faith of People about Pedo-Baptism stands in the Power of God and knowledg of his Word and not rather in the Wisdom of Men who having endeavoured with all the Art and Cunning they can to draw pretended Consequences for it tho after all they do not naturally and genuinely follow 〈…〉 the Premises to which they refer 〈◊〉 Whether Christ having 〈◊〉 the Qualifications â—â— such as 〈◊〉 Baptized viz. actual Repentance 〈…〉 and the Answer of a good Consci 〈…〉 doth not thereby exclude all those 〈…〉 not capable of those Qualifications 〈◊〉 Whether it doth not reflect upâ—â— the Care Wisdom and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ who as a Son over his own House exceeded the Care and Faithfulness of Moses to affirm Infants ought to be Baptized and yet it cannot be found in all the Ne◠〈◊〉 an it be 〈…〉 should be a Gospeâ—â— recept nay a 〈◊〉 and yet Christ speak nothing of it or could it be in the Commission and yet the Apostlet never to mention it but contrariwise require Faithâ—â—â— all they admitted to Baptism Paul says He declared the whole Counsel of God and said nothing of it in any of his Epistles nor any where else How many thousands of Children were born to baptized â—â—â—ievers from the time of Christ's Ascension to the time John â—â—â—â—e the Revelations but not one word of 〈…〉 one Child Baptized Thirteen Whether in matter of positive Right such as Baptism is we ought not â—â— keep expresly and punctually to the Revelation of the Will of the Law-giver Fourteen Whether the Baptism of Infants be not a dangerous 〈◊〉 since it tends to deceive and blind the Eyâ—â— of poor ignorant People who think they are thereby made Christians and so never look after Regeneration nor true Baptism which represents or signifies that inward Work of Grace upon the Heart Fifteen Whether the Ancient Church who gave the Lord's Supper to Infants as well as Baptism might nâ—â—â—e allowed as well to do the one as the other since Faith and Holy Habits are as much required in those who are to be Baptized as in such who come to the Lord's Table And all such in the Apostolick Church who were Baptized were immediately admitted to break Bread c. And also the Arguments taken from the Covenant and because said to be Holy and to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven are as strong for them to receive the Lord's Supper there being no Command nor Example for either and human Tradition carrying it equally for both for several Centuries Sixteen Whether Nadab Abihâ— and 〈◊〉 Transgressions were not as much Circumstantials and so as small Errors as to alter Dipping in â—o Sprinkling and from an understanding Believer to a poor ignorant Babe And whether to allow the Church a Power to make such Alterations be not dangerous see Râ—â— 22. And doth 〈…〉 open a Door to other innovations Seventeen Whether there is any just Cause for Men to vilify and reproach the People called Anabaptists for their baprizing Believers and denying infants to be Subjects thereof seeing they have the plain and direct Word of God to warrant their practice i. e. not only the Commission but also the continual usage of the Apostles and Ministers of the Gospel all along in the New Testament who Baptized none but such who made profession of their Faith And the Châ—â—â—â— of England also saith Faith and Repentance are required of such who are to be Baptized We â—â—â—e not Baptize our Children because we cannot find it written 't is from the holy Fear of God lest we should offend and sin against him by adding 〈◊〉 his Word Eighteen What should be the reason that our faithful Translators of the Bible should leave the Greek word Baptism or Baptisma and not turn it into English seeing the Dutch have not done so but contrariwise translate for John the Baptist John the Dooper and for he Baptized he dooped or dipped them Nineteen Whether those who translate out of one Language into another ought not to translate every word into the same Language into which they turn it and not leave any word in the same Original Tongue which the People understand not and for whose sakes they undertook that Work and not to translate every word but also to give the right literal genuine and proper signification of each word and not the remote improper or collateral signification of it Which if our Translators of the Bible had so done I query whether the Doubt among the Unlearned concerning what the word Baptisma signifies 〈…〉 Twenty Seeing the Greek Church uses Immersion not Aspersion may it not be look'd upon as a great Argument against Sprinkling especially seeing they disown the Baptism of the Latin Church becaâ—â—â— they use Sprinkling for doubtless the Greeks best knew the genuine and proper signification of that word that Tongue being their own natural Language in which the New Testament was wrote 21. Whether if a Minister should administer the Lord's Supper in one kind only and so doing it cannot answer the great Design of Christ the Law-giver i. e. the breaking of his Body and shedding of his Blood would not prophane that Holy Institution If so whether such who instead of dipping the whole Body do but sprinkle or pour a little Water on the Face do not also prophane the holy Sacrament of Baptism since it is not so done to represent in a lively Figure the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ with our Death unto Sin and vivification unto newness of Life Rom. â— Col. 2. 11 12. 22. Whether all such who have only been sprinkled ought not to be deemed Unbaptized Persons since Aspersion is not Immersion or Rantizing not Baptizing for though the Greek word Baptizo in a remote and improper sense may signify to wash yet as the Learned confess it is such a washing as is done by dipping swilling or plunging the Person or Thing all over in the Water 23. Since you say Children have Faith potentia I query Whether Unbelievers and all ungodly Persons have not also the like Faith potentia as well as Children and so the same Right to Baptism We grant they may have Faith hereafter what tho There is one Assertion and Argument laid down by you that I omitted in my Answer which as it is New so it must needs expose you viz. If God be pleased to radiate or shine upon the Souls of Children in Heaven and they do behold the Face of God as our Saviour says then it follows that they have Faith in Heaven and why not on Earth see Heb. 11. 27. These are your very words 〈…〉 Reply I had thought that in Heaven the Faith of the Adult ceases i. e. the strong and saving Faith of Believers Doth not the Apostle say Then we come to receive the End of our Faith And is not Faith turned there into Vision Is not Faith the Evidence of Things not seen and the Substance of Things hoped for Heb. 11. 〈…〉 Divines say
Twelfthly As touching what you say further as to universal Consent of the Antient Churches it proves nothing Should we believe your Histories as firmly as we do believe there was an Alexander the Great or a Cato c. if there is no Infant-Baptism in the Scripture 't is utterly gone â—â—t we challenge you to shew from Authentick History that one Infant was baptized in the first or second Centuries which we are not able to disprove by as good Authority Thirteen If â—here was not a Congregation called Anabaptiâ—â—â— â—ill 300 Years aâ—â—â— Christ it signifies nothing as we have shewed Moreover we affirm that all the Apostolical Primitive Churches were Baptists i. e. such who only baptized Believers and so continued till the Apostacy See our further Answer of this to your first Mercury We can prove there was a Testimony born against Infant-Baptism before 380 Years after Christ nay before the end of the third Century See Tertul. in his Book de Baptismo c. 18. who opposed Infant-Baptism 1. From the mistake of that Text Mat. 19. 14. Suffer little Children to come unto me the Lord saith says he do not forbid them to come unto me let them come therefore when they grow elder when they learn when they are taught why they come let them be made Christians when they can know Christ He adds six Arguments more and to confirm this Testimony of Tertullian see Dr. Barlow saith he Tertullian dislikes and condemns Infant-Baptism as unwarrantable and irrational Daillé also saith that Tertullian was of an Opinion that Infants were not to be baptized the like say divers others as Mr. Danvers shews which his Opposers could not refute So that it appears you are ignorant both of Scripture and History too and do but abuse your selves and the World also in this matter Gentlemen you were better give over than a-fresh to blow up â—â—â— Fire and Coal of Contention You mistake in your third Column we are not to prove a Negative i. e. That no Infant was baptized in those Churcheâ— you must prove they were Fourteen Your Reply about our Saviour's not being baptized till thirty Years old it was because he was a Jew and proselyted Heathens were only baptized when young is a Fig leaf still insisting upon the old Jewish Custom to which we have given you a full Answer Fifteen What you say about dipping and mention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that Authors shew that it signifies only a bare and slight washing and that plunging and washing are very distinct This word comes from the same Verb you say signifies to dip or plunge And whereas you hint that Beza would have us baptize them but not drown them you are resolved to prevent that danger who only sprinkle or rantize them I affirm Dipping or plunging all learned in the Greek Tongue and Criticks do generally assert is the literal proper and genuine Signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if it any where refers to washing 't is to such a washing as is done by dipping or swilling in the Water all sorts of washing are not distinct from dipping and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to baptize is to wash unless it be such a washing as is by dipping we deny is it not the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also the Septuagint do render the word Tabal by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and which all Translators saith a good Author both Latin Dutch Italian French and English do translate to dip and always signifies to dip as 2 Kings 5. 14 c. Grotius saith it signifies to dip over Head and Ears Pasor an Immersion Dipping or Submersion Leigh in his Critica Sacra saith its native and proper Signification is to dip into the Water or to plunge under the Water and that it is taken from a Diers Fat and not a bare Washing only See Casaubon Bucan Bullinger Zanchy Beza c. To close have we not cause to affirm you reproach us to say our Ring-Leaders come to ill Deaths What signifies your Story of John Bocold of Leyden and as if Erasmus c. had an ill Opinion of the Anabaptists of his time does it follow you may vilify the Baptists of these times from thence they might hold some Errors and so may some so called now adays as well as some Pedo-Baptists who are Papists Arians Antitrinitarians Socinians and what not and some of them debauched Livers and made as shameful Ends these things cannot be unknown to you but how base it is in you thus to write let all sober Men judg Your pretended Zeal will not acquit you from a slanderous Tongue and speaking Evil of them you know not Are not the Papists Pedobaptists and some of the first and chief Assertors of it and what an erronious Crew are they do you think we cannot parallel John of Leyden amongst some of the Pedobaptists Were those Stories true of him and others are there not some bad Men of every Perswasion as well as good I exhort you to consider what account you will be able to give for asserting Babies Rantism or Infants Sprinkling since 't is not commanded of God c. in the dreadful Day of Judgment or how dare you affirm we disturb the Church of Christ with false Doctrine who assert Believers only are the Subjects of Christ's true Baptism and that Baptism is Immersion i. e. Dipping since both lies so plain in the Word of God We fear not our appearing upon this account at Christ's Tribunal And for all your great Confidence your Practice we doâ—â—t not in the least will be founâ— to be no Truth of the Gospel but an unwarrantable Tradition What tho Sir Tho. More a Papist was glad he had not proselyted Persons to his youthful Errors must we therefore be afraid to promulgate a positive Truth of Christ Is it not said This Sect is every-where spoken against If you had called for Syllogistical Arguments you might have had them but you ask for Queries you may have Logical Arguments enow if you please but you had better desist To conclude with your Postscript I Can't see Mr. Eliot has done the Pedo-Baptists any Service or that any Honour redounds to him for that Work of his How in the Gospel-Church-State the Promise runs to Believers and their Children or Off-spring we â—â—ve shewed And that Babes of two or ten Days old are or can be said to be Disciples is without proof and irrational What though they may belong to the Kingdom of Heaven or be saved Baptism is of a meer positive Right that Argument I tell you again will admit them to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper as well as to Baptism And as for Antiquity we deny not but that it was received by divers as an Apostolical Tradition a little time before Nazianzen or Austin yet that it was preached as necessary to Salvation before Austin did it you can't prove though we â—eny not but 't was practised before Austin's Days See