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-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
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
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