AN ANSWER TO THE Athenian Mercury VOL. 4. NUMB. 14. CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM With an Account of divers QUERIES Sent by the Author and some others to the Athenian Society Which they have not yet answered To which are added some REMARKS by way of Reply to their Mercury on the same Subject Num. 18. published Novemb. 28. London Printed for the Author and sold by John Harris at the Harrow in the Poultry MDCXCI AN ANSWER TO THE ATHENIAN MERCVRY VOL. 4. NUMB. 14. CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM With an Account of divers Questions sent by the Author and some others to the Athenian Society which they have not yet answered Gentlemen WHO he was that sent you the first Questions about Infant-Baptism I know not whether he was an Antipedo-Baptist or a Pedo-Baptist is a Question but your calling upon all who had any Doubts about it to send in their Objections argues a great degree of Confidence of your Ability of doing more than all before For 't is strange you should attempt to call for all our Objections when it appears you intended to write but one half Sheet of Paper in Answer to them as if you could do that in a few Lines which others as learned as your selves could never yet do in great Volumes this savours as some judg of great Pride and casts much Contempt upon you and lessens your Reputation among wise Men who are for Pedo Baptism as well as others And yet after all the great and mighty noise you have not so much as in the least touched the chief Questions which to my knowledg were sent you near a Fortnight before your said Mercury came forth And therefore to shew how disingenuous you have been herein I thought it might not be amiss to spend two or three spare hours upon your Mercury 1. The first Question you pretend to answer is this i. e. Whether Baptism as it is commonly taught is the proper and natural Antitype of Circumcision Reply As to what you speak of the Customs of Nations Languisms and of Men being ignorant of Radixes or Original Significations in Langages seems remote to the business and serves for little else than to blot Paper or rather to darken Counsel Certainly the Ordinance of Baptism one of the two great Sacraments of the New-Testament doth not lie so obscure in God's Word either what it is or who are the proper Subjects thereof that Men must be at a loss about it unless they understand the Radixes or original Significations of Languages But to proceed you would it seems have Baptism to be the proper Antitype of Circumcision in some respect and not in others First From the Customs of the Jews in proselyting the Gentiles into their Religion so far you say indeed Circumcision was not a Type but a continuance of a Custom Now how absurd and ridiculous that is which you affirm upon this account may appear to all Will you assert and stand by it that Baptism was a Jewish Custom and so no pure Gospel-Institution Doubtless if so the Pharisees might have soon given our Saviour a ready Answer to his great Question viz. The Baptism of John whether is it from Heaven or of Men Mat. 21.25 Certainly there was no Baptism of this nature of Divine Institution before John received it from Heaven But say you If John Baptist undertook any new way of proselyting the Jews into the Gospel they had not only struggled with the Opposition of his new Doctrine but also of his new Practice therefore say you it was that this Custom was continued and had the Super-addition of the full force of Baptism viz. a Consignation or Seal of the Covenant Reply As you confess his Doctrine was new so was his Baptism no doubt for as our Annotators observe his Baptism was part of his Doctrine Pray what was the Doctrine he preach'd was it not Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins Mark 1.4 Moreover we do not read they were more displeased with his new Doctrine than with his new Practice 2. But what Authority have you to affirm Gospel-Baptism was but the continuance of a Jewish Custom or was a Legal Rite or rather indeed a human Tradition for 't is evident the Jews were not required or commanded of God to baptize their Proselytes or others for Circumcision was the only Rite by which Proselytes who were Males were added to the Jewish Church as we find God commanded Abraham And if Baptism had been so frequently practised amongst the Jews as you assert wherefore did the Pharisees say to John Why dost thou baptize if thou art not that Christ nor Elias John 1.25 Moreover Baptism is directly called a Principle of the Doctrine of Christ Heb. 6.1,2 which Doctrine our Saviour saith he received from his Father If it be a Principle of the Doctrine of Christ it follows undeniably he instituted it and gave it forth Furthermore if Baptism was practised all along among the Jews I argue either they practised it as a Mosaical Rite or else as a Tradition of their own not say I as a Mosaical Rite because Moses never commanded them so to do for he speaks nothing of it and yet declared all things God commanded him and did every thing according to the Pattern shewed him in the Mount And if it was a human Jewish Tradition what is become of one of the great Sacraments of the New Testament Must it be look'd upon from henceforth to be nothing else than the continuance of a Jewish Tradition taken out of their fabulous and erronious Talmud What kind of poisonous Stuff is â—…is you trouble the World with What tho the Jews who had made the Commandments of God void through their Traditions did practise some such thing Must you affirm Gospel-Baptism in its Rise and Original sprung from their Custom And because they baptized Proselytes both Men Women and Children must Christians do so too Sure the Custom of the Romish Church in baptizing of Infants as a human Tradition is every way of as good Authority to warrant us so to do as the Custom of the unbelieving Jews But pray take what a Learned Pedo-Baptist and a Son of the Church of England hath said in answer to this vain Conceit 't is Sir Norton Knatchbull in his Animadversiones in lib. Novi Testamenti pag. 313. Ac cum videam summi judicii viros in his temporibus Rabbinis fundament a petere veritatis c. But when I see in these times some Men of the greatest Judgment to setch the Foundation of Truth from the Rabbins I cannot but stick at it for whence was the Talmud sent to us they are the words saith he of Buxtorf in his Synagoga Judicia that we should give so much Credit thereto that we should believe that the Mosaick Law either was or ought to be understood therefrom much less the Gospel to which they are professed Enemies The Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors and the foundation of Jewish Fables it
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 from the Premises to which they reser Eleventhly Whether Christ having expresly mentioned the Qualifications of such as are to be Baptized viz. actual Repentance Faith and the Answer of a good Conscience c. doth not thereby exclude all those who are not capable of those Qualifications Twelfthly Whether it doth not reflect upon 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 New Testament Can it be thought it should be a Gospel-Precept nay a Sacrament and yet Christ speak nothing of it or could it be in the Commission and yet the Apostles never to mention it but contrariwise require Faith of 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 no where else How many thousands of Children were born to baptized Believers from the time of Christ's Ascension to the time John wrote the Revelations but not one word of any one Child Baptized Thirteen Whether in matter of positive Right such as Baptism is we ought not to keep expresly and punctually to the Revelation of the Will of the Law-giver Fourteen Whether the Baptism of Infants be not a dangerous Error since it tends to deceive and blind the Eyes 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 not be 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 Abihu and Vzzah's Transgressions were not as much Circumstantials and so as small Errors as to alter Dipping into 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 Rev. 22. And doth not this 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 baptizing 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 Church of England also saith Faith and Repentance are required of such who are to be Baptized We dare 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 to 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 had not ceased 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 because 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. 6. 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 which 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 saying 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. 11.1,2 Divines say Faith Hope c. cease then
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 yet 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 there was not a Congregation called Anabaptists till 300 Years after 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 to 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 ignrant 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 the 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 Churches 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 paunging 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 〈◊〉 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 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 I atin Dutch Italian French and English do translate to dip and always signifies to dip as Gen. 37.31 Lev. 4.6 Numb 16.18 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 th e 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 Erasmas 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 undknown 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 paralled 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 Triounal And for all your great Confidence your Practice we doubt not in the least will be found 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 have 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 deny not but 't was practised before Austin's Days See Dr. Taylor Lib. Proph. p. 237. And