have drawn all impartial Men may see prove nothing Moreover what you speak about those great Articles of the Christian Religion as if they could not be proved without Consequences must not by any means be allowed nor can I take it to be true Cannot we find the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Scripture and that Christ is God and the second Person and that he was born of the Virgin without Consequences Is it Wisdom in you in such a corrupt Age as this is to lay down such Assertions Were those things the Matter of Controversy between you and me you should hear what positive and plain Scripture Proof might as you know hath often already be brought upon that account but to pass by this I affirm the Baptism of Believers lies plain in God's Word but Infant-Baptism is not to be found therein Quest 4. Why was not Christ baptized before he was thirty Years old You answer From the same Reason that the Jailor the Eunuch and St. Peter's Converts were not viz. there is no adhering to a Doctrine before it is instituted or preached but say you Infant-Baptism was much before our Saviour's time as amongst those of riper Years since and that you say is Proof enough Reply It can't be Proof enough to answer the Question and as to prove Infant-Baptism it utterly fails but if Infant-Baptism was much before our Saviour's time as an Institution of God there was no Want of an Institution when he was a Babe and therefore your Reason why he deferred his Baptism is gone Was it in being long before and yet not instituted or appointed by Jehovah Do you not herein implicitly confess that Custom amongst the Jews was human Nor will it serve your turn to say it was instituted a-new as a Gospel-Ordinance because you affirm Baptism under the Gospel was the Continuation of that old Custom with the Super-addition of the full Force of Baptism viz. a Consignation or Seal of the Covenant Do you not intimate it was not instituted a new but rather a Custom continued upon which you with that Addition and some others before you seem to lay the great Stress of your Infants Baptism And if some Additions were made to the old Custom why might there not be some Diminutions also and if it were a-new instituted it is all one as if it had never been in being before for the Right any have to Baptism and manner of Administration and all things appertaining to it must of necessity wholly depend upon the new Institution or Law of Christ If therefore Gospel-Baptism wholly depends on the new Institution then the old Custom is gone for ever had it been a Mosaical Rite like a Legacy bequeathed in a Will made void by the Testator's last Will and Testament though some part of the same thing may be repeated in the last Will that was in the first yet the last must decides the Controversy but in Christ's last Will and Testament Infant-Baptism is not to be found nor was it indeed an Ordinance ordained of God before Christ's time See my Answer about this in Answer to the first Question 2. Certainly had it been the Will of God Children should have been baptized as such Christ had been baptized when in his Infancy no doubt God who is a free Agent could not want an Administrator he could have sent John into the World sooner or have commissionated some other Person to have done it But since the Holy Ghost in the Gospel relates the time of his Baptism and that it was not till he was about thirty Years old it clearly shews us that adult Persons ought to be admitted to that Ordinance only and not Babes By which Example of his he hath strengthned his Commission or at least wise shewed the Congruity or sweet Agreement there is between his Precept and his own Practice Question 5. Why Sprinkling and not Dipping You answer Our Church denies not the latter that is dipping but looks upon it as a clear Representation of our Saviour's descending into the Grave abiding there and rising up again c. But say you the Church has power to dispense with Circumstantials and manner of Acting tho not with the Act it self c. Reply What your Church is I know not the Church of England doth acknowledg I must confess that Baptism is Dipping but I never heard they have of late times so practised But how dare you say the Church hath power to dispense with Dipping and change it into Sprinkling Who gave her such Power Where do you read of it You call it a Circumstantial but I am not of your Mind I must say 't is an Essential nay 't is no Baptism at all if not Dipping for Baptize is to dip which to confirm I could give you a Cloud of Witnesses learned in the Greek Tongue therefore 't is not the manner of the Act but the Act it self to baptize is one Act and to rantize or sprinkle Water is another the manner of the Act of dipping or baptizing is to put the Body into the Water backward or forward or side-ways or with a swift or gentle Motion Dipping is dipping and sprinkling sprinkling which Act will never be baptizing whilst the World stands You say well dipping or burying the Body in the Water is a clear and lively Representation of the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ And hence 't is said that such who are indeed baptized are buried with Christ in Baptism To which you might have added 't is also a Sign of our being dead to Sin and of our being raised up with Christ by the Faith of the Operation of God to walk in newness of Life And hence I infer Infants ought not to be baptized because there doth not cannot appear in them that glorious internal Work of the Spirit which ought to be signified thereby and as they for this reason cannot be the proper Subjects of Baptism So likewise it cannot be done by sprinkling because that Act cannot represent those Signs and Gospel-Mysteries which the Law-giver intended should be held forth in that holy Administration But why do you say this is a circumstantial Thing Was not Nadab and Abihu's Transgression and that of Vzzah's more like Circumstantials than this is and yet their Error cost them their Lives Or hath the Gospel-Church a greater dispensing Power in such Cases than the Church had under the Law Suppose the Jews should have changed Circumcision or cutting off the Foreskin of the Flesh to the paring the Nails of their Children or to cut off a little Skin off of the Fingers Ends would that have been Circumcision no doubt a better Circumcision than Sprinkling is Baptism Gentlemen will you call any Part or Branch or Thing that appertains to a positive Precept a Circumstance which the Church has power to dispense with If you should whither would this lead you You may after that Notion strangely curtail Christ's Institutions in other respects Question 6. What think you
was perfected and acknowledged for Authentick five hundred Years after Christ and out of it Maimonides drew his Doctrine at all the rest of them therefore we cannot acquiesce in such Testimony Gentlemen either answer no more Questions about Religion or take more heed to what you say for your pleading for Infant-Baptism from such grounds all may perceive tends to cast an Odium and Contempt on the Christian Religion Therefore I infer your Proof for this Practice from the Custom amongst the Jews about baptizing of Proselytes both Men Women and Children proves nothing you were better for the Authority of it to urge the Decrees of Popes and General Councils a Popish Innovation is as good as a Jewish one But however you do allow that our blessed Saviour did add something to this pretended Jewish Custom and â—…th not only put it in full force but also made it a Consignation or Seal of the Covenant and this say you is further strengthened by several undeniable Texts of Scripture which Anabaptists themselves can never get clear of and ask them they must either be silent or give such a Paraphrase as we do The Texts are these First Col. 2.11,12 In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without bands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ Buried with him in Baptism c. The second that of baptizing the Israelites in the Red-Sea 1 Cor. 10.2 The last is the saving of Noah and his Family in the Ark 1 Pet. 3.21 Reply 1. But is it so indeed did our Saviour in instituting Gospel-Baptism do no more than put a Jewish Custom to be in full force and make it a Consignation or Seal of the Covenant Were you not learned and ingenious Men I should not so much admire at your Notions 2. But the Truth is in the second place if you had not told us in your next words to what purpose you mention those Scriptures we should have been at a great loss about it or not well have understood your Intention but you like the ingenious Painter soon inform us and tell us what 't is i. e. you tell us you urge not these things to prove any thing else but the Parallel betwixt Circumcision and Baptism or to speak say you more properly the necessary continuance of the old Manner amongst the Jews of continuing their way of proselyting the Heathen 3. Was it necessary then that a human Tradition of the Jews should be continued I thought the Apostle tells you that Christ nailed all the Jewish Ceremonies of the Mosaical Law to the Cross and that they all ceased when the Antitype was come and besure had the Baptism you speak of been indeed a Mosaical Rite I mean appointed or commanded of God it had vanished with its Fellows But 't is hard Christ should abolish all Legal Customs or Ceremonial Ordinances and yet confirm with some addition a Custom of the Jews own inventing 4. You do not seem to distinguish between your twofold Answer to the Question I thought you had brought those Scriptures to prove Baptism the proper Antitype of Circumcision but you urge the former old Custom again so that here 's no Scripture nor Argument brought by you to prove the thing in hand As touching what you say of the Parallel betwixt Circumcision and Baptism signifies nothing if in some things there should be a Parallel it doth not follow therefore Baptism was the Antitype of Circumcision What tho Circumcision was the initiating Ordinance of the Male Children into the Jewish Church and Baptism is that initiating Ordinance into the Gospel-Church this doth not prove the one the Type of the other 5. But pray what is it that the Anabaptists can never get clear of or being ask'd the Exposition they must be silent or give such a Paraphrase as you do I must tell you I know no Text more full for our practice of baptizing Believers than that in Col. 2.11,12 We say from thence that the proper Antitype of Circumcision in the Flesh is the Circumcision of the Heart and therefore not Baptism tho 't is granted by us that in Baptism there is a Representation of the new Birth and Mortification of Sin which Circumcision was the express Type of And this cannot weaken nor silence us but rather strengthen our hands All that can well be inferred from this Text Col. 2.11,12 where the Apostle mentions Circumcision and Baptism is no more than this viz. where Baptism is administred upon a proper Subject it represents the Spiritual and Mystieal Circumcision of the Heart i.e. that the Soul is dead to Sin or that he hath put off the Body of Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ which may refer to the Power of his Death in the Effects thereof by the effectual Sin-killing Operations of the holy Spirit on the Heart And as we being dead to Sin we are also buried with Christ in Baptism both in the Sign i.e. covered all over in the Water which resembles in a lively Figure his Burial and also in Signification i.e. the Power and blessed Effects of his Death having been the Death of the old Man or that Body of Sin in us wherein also in like manner we are also risen with him through the Faith of the Operation of God and this is likewise held forth both in Sign and Signification in true Baptism Now if this be not your Paraphrase on this Text we cannot help it I know many Learned Man who own Pedo-Baptism speak to the same purpose nor is there any reason for you to say we must be silent c. as if we knew not what to say to this Text But what is this for Infant-Baptism or to prove Baptism the Antitype of Circumcision Doth Sprinkling represent a Burial doth the Sign or Figure of Christ's Burial appear in sprinkling a little Water on the Face and as it is done to an Infant in whom Faith and Regeneration is not wrought what doth there appear in Signification Doth not the Church of England say that Baptism is the outward Sign of an inward spiritual Grace sure that is but a mock-mock-Baptism where there is neither the Sign or Figure of Christ's Death and Burial c. nor tht inward Work wrought upon the Person baptized which is signified or ought to be signified thereby viz. That the said Person is dead to Sin and raised up by the Faith of the Operation of God to walk in newness of Life But alas this it seems is not the thing 't is not so much to prove Baptism to be the Antitype of Circumcision as 't is to prove Baptism to be the continuation of a Jewish Custom for to speak more properly you intimate that to this purpose you mention these things Sure all understanding Men as well Pedo-Baptists as others must needs loath your Notion but I know you are not alone herein there are some others who have asserted the same thing which
a great Body of Godly People who differ not from other Orthodox Christians in any Essentials of Salvation no nor in Fundamentals of Church-Constitutions save in the Point of Baptism and will you by reason of the Enormities of some who formerly bore the Name of Anabaptists mentioning the old Munster Story condemned as such all that bear that Name In Answer to which I ask you whether the like Reflections might nor have been cast on Christ's Apostles because they had a Judas among them or on the Church of the Corinthians because of the incestuous Person Besides you know not but in may be a Lie raised upon those People by the envious Papists who have rendred Calvin and Luther as odious as you do these Anabaptists You would think it hard if I should ask you what sort they were that Ralph Wallis used to expose and fill his Garts with or of those Clergy-men who were Pedo-Baptists yet were for filthy Crimes executed To conclude I wish that all Bitterness of Spirit was expelled Love and Charity exercised towards one another tho in some things we may differ from one another Queries for the Athenian Society to Answer some of which were formerly sent to them but were passed by in silence 1. On Infants the Subjects of Baptism And 2. What Baptism is First WHether there was not a twofold Covenant made with Abraham one with his Fleshly Seed and the other with his Spiritual Seed signified by the Bond Woman and the Free Woman and their Sons Ishmael and Isaac If so I query Whether Circumcision was an Ordinance that appertained to the Covenant of Grace and was the Seal of it 1. Because 't is contradistinguished from the Covenant of Grace or free Promise of God Rom. 4. 2. And 't is also called a Yoke of Bondage And 3. 'T is said also that he that was circumcised was a Debter to keep the whole Law And 4. Because Ishmael who was not a Child of the Covenant of Grace with Esau and many others yet were required to be circumcised as well as Isaac And 5. Since 't is positively said Faith was imputed to Abraham for Righteousness not in Circumcision How was it imputed then when he was circumcised or uncircumcised not when he was circumcised but when he was uncircumcised Rom. 4.10 Secondly Whether the being the Male-Children of Believers as such gave them right to Circumcision or not rather the meer positive Command of God to Abraham since we do not read of any other Godly Man's Seed in Abraham's days or since had any right thereto but only such who were born in his House or bought with his Mony Thirdly Whether Circumcision could be said to be the Seal of any Man's Faith save Abraham's only seeing 't is said he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith he had mark yet being uncircumcisied that he might be the Father of all that believe which was the Priviledg of Abraham only for how could Circumcision be a Seal to Children of that Faith they had before circumcised seeing they had no Faith at all as had Abraham their Father they being obliged by the Law of God to be circumcised at eight days old Fourthly What is it which you conceive Circumcision did or Baptism doth seal to Children or make sure since a Seal usually makes firm all the Blessings or Priviledges contained in that Covenant 't is prefix'd to Doubtless if the Fleshly Seed of Believers as such are in the Covenant of Grace and have the Seal of it they shall be saved because we are agreed that the Covenant of Grace is well ordered in all things and sure there is no final falling therefore how should any of them miss of eternal Life and yet we see many of them prove wicked and ungodly and so live and die if you say it seals only the external Part and Priviledges of the Covenant of Grace Fifthly I demand to know what those External Priviledges are seeing they are denied the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper and all other External Rites whatsoever if you say when they believe they shall partake of those Blessings so say I shall the Children of Unbelievers as well as they Sixthly If the Fleshly Seed or Children of believing Gentiles as such are to be accounted the Seed of Abraham I query Whether they are his Natural Seed or his Spiritual Seed if not his Natural Seed nor his Spiritual Seed what right can they have to Baptism or Church-Membership from any Covenant-Transactions God made with Abraham Seventhly Whether those different grounds upon which the Right of Infant-Baptism is pretended by the Fathers of old and the Modern Divines doth well agree with an Institution that is a meer positive Rite depending wholly on the Will of the Legislator doth not give just cause to all to question its Authority 1. Some Pedo-Baptists asserted It took away Original Sin and such who denied it were anathematized 2. Some affirm That Children are in the Covenant and being the Seed of Believers are fedorally Holy therefore ought to be Baptized 3. Another sort of Pedo-Baptists say They ought to be Baptized by virtue of their Parents Faith 4. Others affirm They have Faith themselves and are Disciples and therefore must be baptized 5. Another sort Baptize them upon the Faith of their Sureties 6. And another sort of Pedo-Baptists say It wholly depends upon the Power and Authority of the Church 7. Some say It was an Apostolical unwritten Tradition but others deny that and affirm It may be proved from the Word of God Sure if it was of God or his Institution the Pedo-Baptists would not be thus divided and confounded among themselves Eighthly Is it not an evil thing and very absurd for any to say Baptism is a Symbol of present Regeneration and yet apply it to Babes in whom nothing of the things signified thereby doth or can appear And also to say I Baptize thee in the Name c. when indeed he doth not Baptize but only Rantize the Child and to say Baptism is a lively Figure of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection and yet only sprinkle or pour a little Water upon the Face of the Child Ninthly Whether that can be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither Command nor Example in all the Word of God nor 〈◊〉 Promise made to such who do it nor Threats denounced on such who neglect it or do it not For though there are both Promises made to Believers Baptized and Threats denounced on such who neglect it yet where are there any such in respect of Infant-Baptism Tenthly Whether a Pagan or Indian who should attain to the knowledg of the Greek Tongue or of the English or any other Tongue into which the Original should be translated by reading over the New Testament a thousand times he could ever find Infants ought to be Baptized if not how doth it appear the Faith of People about Pedo-Baptism stands in the Power of God
and 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
and that 't is only Love that continues What is it they have not received in Heaven which they trust in God for Nor is your Conclusion good Had they Faith there they may have it here The Text you cite Heb. 11.27 refers to that Faith Moses had on Earth who saw him who was Invisible God seems so to us here but what a sight we shall have of him in Heaven we know not Doth not the Apostle say we shall behold Face to Face and the pure in Heart shall see God Shall that be such a sight that Moses had whilst on Earth Questions relating to the Fathers with respect to the Controversy about infant-Infant-Baptism First WHat reason can be given why Nazianzen an eminent Greek Father should counsel the deferring the Baptism of Infants until the third or fourth Year of their Age except in danger of Death if it were in Nazianzen's Time as some suppose it was the Opinion of the whole Church as also his own that Infants by an Apostolical Tradition were to be baptized as such that is as soon as born Secondly Whether all the Fathers of the third and fourth Century both of the Greek and Latin Church who have wrote any thing about Infant-Baptism do not unanimously give this as the Reason why Infants should be Baptized viz. the washing away Original Sin or the putting them into a Capacity of Salvation and some of them particularly St. Austin sentencing Infants to Eternal Damnation if not Baptized Thirdly If so Whether the Fathers might not be mistaken in the Right of Infants to Baptism as well as in the Judgment of most Protestants they are in the Reason why they should be Baptized Four other Queries 1. WHether God hath allowed or enjoined Parents to bring their little Bzbes of two or ten days old into a Covenant with him by Baptism since 't is not to be found in the Scripture he either hath allowed or enjoined them so to do 2. If it cannot be proved he hath required any such thing at their Hands Whether that Covenant can be said to bind their Consciences when they come to Age especially since they gave no Consent to it nor were capable so to do 3. If this pretended Covenant was not of God's Appointment I query how these Children who refuse to agree to the-said Covenant when at Age can thereby be guilty 1. Of rejecting Christ 2. Of renouncing the Blessings of the Gospel 3. And that 't is Rebellion continued against their Maker 4. That 't is Ingratitude and Perjury to their Redeemer 5. Gross Injustice to their Parents 6 That 't is self killing Crueltie to their own Souls 7. And a damning Sin 4. I query whether this be good Divinity not rather a strange Doctrine And whether unwarrantable Articles of Faith taken out of the Jewish Talmud or Turkish Alcoran may not by as good Authority be put into a Christian Catechism as such Assertions as these Four Queries sent by another Hand to the Athenian Society Gentlemen I Humbly conceive that no Man knoweth what is a Duty but by the Scriptures And since Pedo-Baptism cannot be proved by the Word of God as every Man may know and is generally acknowledged by the most Learned Assertors of that Practice it therefore plainly followeth in my Judgment that Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God's Appointment but an Innovation I therefore seriously query I. WHether Tradition Jewish Talmuds the Opinion of private Doctors Schoolmen c. be a sufficient Warrant for the Churches to est ablish such a Practice that hath neither Precept nor Example in the Holy Scriptures II. Since the pretended Foundation of Infant-Baptism viz. its absolute necessity to Salvation proving to be a Mistake of the Text John 3.5 as is generally acknowledged by Protestants Whether the Structure ought not to fall with it as it did in the Case of giving the Child the Eacharist III. Whether the Faith of the Parent or Gossip on the Child's behalf be required of God or will be imputed to the Child by God If not why ventured on and not rather a waiting for Faith in the Subject as required in Holy Writ by the Apostles and Primitive Churches and seemingly by the Church of England in her Catechism IV. Whether the Church hath a good Warrant that will justify her before God in changing the Mode from Dipping to Sprinking and whether that Alteration doth so well answer the Design of the Holy God as that Ceremony which himself appointed Gentleman I knew nothing of that Gentleman's Animadversions or that he or any Body else intended to take notice of your Mercury till I had wrote what I intended to say tho when it was too late I saw it POSTSCRIPT Containing some Remarks upon the Athenian Mercury Vol. 4. Numb 18. published Saturday Novemb. 28. 1691. Gentlemen JUST as my Answer to your first Mercury about Infant-Baptism was finished and almost printed off your second Paper on the same Subject came to my Hand And tho I was not concerned in the Paper called Animadversions on your other Mercury yet till a furthet Answer is prepared I shall make some Reflections upon what you have said in your pretended Reply to that Gentleman c. 1. Sirs You go too fast to conclude you by that Paper understand wherein our strength lies as by this time you may perceive nor don 't conclude you have it all yet 2. What you say about your pretended Proof of Infant-Baptism from that unscriptural Tradition or Custom among the Jews of proselyting whole Families to the Jewish Religion by Baptism you may see fully answered before I saw your last Mercury Have you proved that Custom among them was Jure Divino or if so that it remained and was continued by Christ Secondly What you have said about Baptism being the proper Antitype of Circumcision is also answered Nor does what you speak of Types and Antitypes not agreeing in every thing help you Have not we shewed the proper Antitype of Circumcision in the Flesh is that of the Heart Thirdly As to you Logical Argument viz. An Ordinance once enjoined and never repealed is always in force but the Ordinance of Childrens in covenanting was once in the Old Testament enjoined and was never repealed Ergo We answer If the Ordinance of Children in Covenanting under the Law was Circumcision that Ordinance is repealed Is not Circumcision repealed 2. If you say notwithstanding Children of the Flesh or the natural Seed being once in the Covenant and never cast out by reason that Law or Covenant for their incovenanting being not repealed is always in force Reply 1. That the Old or first Covenant for their Incovenanting is repealed is plain he took away the first that he might establish the second 2. Also 't is said that Hagar and her Son are cast out viz. the legal Covenant and fleshly Seed and no new Law is added to bring them into the Gospel-Church by Baptism i.e. the fleshly or natural Seed as such Now is
the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees Fourthly Your citing Heb. 8. and Jer. 31. to shew what Baptism seals to Infants proves nothing We deny not but all who are actually in the New Covenant viz. by Faith ingrafted into Christ have right to Remission and Salvation and that that Covenant secures and preserves them to Eternal Life therefore the Children of Believers as such are not in it And if they are no otherwise in it than conditionally that is if they repent believe c. I ask you what Priviledg that is more than what the Children of Heathens and Infidels have for if they believe and repent shall they not have the same Blessings Priviledges of the Covenant also As to the Adult Professors we say if they fall finally away it shews they never indeed were in the Covenant of Grace As to Adult true Believers the Holy Spirit seals Remission and Salvation to them and they shall be saved a sign of what is actually in them is held forth in Baptism there being nothing signified by that Ordinance as to a Death unto Sin but what they experienced wrought on their Souls before Baptized tho 't is true they thereby for the time to come covenant to walk in newness of Life Fifthly As touching the great Commission Mat. 28. where you urge Baptizing goes before Teaching we have fully answered you in the precedent Reply we prove there is a Teaching goes before Baptism and yet also a Teaching after Why do you attempt to blind the Eyes of the unwary Reader Sixthly To what purpose do you mention Jairus's Daughter do we deny but that the Parents Faith and Prayer may procure outward Blessings nay and spiritual Ones too and as much perhaps for their poor carnal Neighbours and Friends My Servant Job shall pray for you The fervent Prayer of a Righteous Man availeth much but it doth not give Right to their Friends or Children to Baptism Seventhly As to your Syriac Translation that the Jaylor and all the Sons of his House were Baptized I argue All his Sons no doubt were grown up to Age because 't is said he believed with all his House If he had Sons grown up and yet did not believe then by your Argument Unbelievers may be Baptized but to this see our Answer Eighthly As to your proof from that Passage i. e. Suffer little Children to come unto me Take the words definitely or indefinitely it proves nothing for you for Christ Baptized no Child for with his own Hards he Baptized no Person at all Joh. 4.1,2 't was to lay his Hands upon them not to Baptize them Moreover I have before told you those little Ones Mark 9.42 were Adult Whosoever shall offend one of these little Ones that believe in me I affirm our Saviour speaks only of such little Ones as were grown up to such Age as in very deed did believe in him and not Babes of two or ten days old But you say you would have no Children proselyted but such as Timothy c. To which you answer That according to the Original those Children that did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word we have shewed signifies any common coming and may be such who come in their Parents Arms Let Babes come to Christ this way or that he baptized none of them I may infer as well because little Children come or were brought to Christ and of such are the Kingdom of Heaven therefore they may partake of the Lord's Supper as you infer they may be Baptized Ninthly Tho the Gospel did not spread into all Nations c. yet sure you conclude all were to be baptized in all Nations wheresoever the Gospel did come or was preached or else as we say none in those Nations but such who were made Disciples i. e. did believe and repent for if but some in those Nations where the Gospel comes were to be Baptized and not all and yet more ought so to be then such who are discipled first Pray who are they or how shall we know them to be included in the Commission For as Mr. Baxter saith If we have it not here where have we it this being the great Rule or Charter of the Church for this Rite unto which we ought to adhere in this Matter Tenthly What signifies what some of the Ancient Fathers believed i. e. That Federal Holiness of Parents made Children Candidates for Baptism They said other things too that you decry as well as we many Errors being early let into the Church Besides we have Tertullian against Tertullian or one Father against another which is ground enough to believe you abuse Tertullian or to doubt of the truth of your History Eleventhly You ask whether Children have not as much right to their Baptism as that of Adult Females for 't is no where said she that believeth and is baptized where have we one Instance of Female-Baptism Reply We ak you whether Male and Female is not intended in Mark 16.16 he or she and so John 3.3 Vnless a Man be born again the Woman is included or have Women no Souls Did you never read of the Figure Sylepfis or Conceptio that comprehends the less worthy under the more worthy indignioris sub-digniore as for Example Quid tu soror sacitis ego mater miseri perimus tu uxor qui adsuistis testes estote and it 's no less true in Divinity see that full and never to be baffled place 1 Cor. 6.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Gen. 5.2 And he called their Name Adam they two shall be one Flesh Moreover do we not read Women were made Disciples as well as Men and so had the same right to Baptism from the Commission But to detect your Ignorance of the Scripture pray see Acts 8.12 When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ they were baptized both Men and Women Also Acts 16.15 't is said Lydia was baptized I thought she had been a Woman Gentlemen you shew you are but younger Brethren and will do the Pedo-baptists no Service shew such a Proof for the Baptism of Infants and your work is done But tho Children lose no spiritual Right by Christ's coming yet they may lose some Legal Rites As Ministers Sons now are not born to the Ministry as they were under the Law as well as their Fleshly Seed had right as such to their Jewish Church-Membership Furthermore because Believers are made holy by the Operations of the Spirit are all their Children made holy in like manner also Blush for Christ's sake The Blessing of Abraham Sirs only comes upon the Gentiles through Faith not by natural Generation as you imagine As the Blessing runs to the Parents viz. through Faith so to their Children they must believe also if they would be the Children of the Promise or Spiritual Seed of Abraham Gal. 3. ult Twelfthly As touching what you say further as to universal Consent of