some of your Stories seem childish and do not look as if they came from Men of such pretended Ingenuity But to close all We have the worst of you at the last wherein you in a very scurriloâ—s manner cast Reproach upon a great Body of Godly People who differ not from other Orthodox Christians in any Essentials of Salvation no nor in Fundamentals of Church-Constitutions save in the Point of Baptism and will you by reason of the Enormities of some who formerly bore the Name of Anabaptists mentioning the old Munster Story condemn as such all that bear that Name In Answer to which I ask you whether the like Reflections might not have been cast on Christ's Apostles because they had a Juâ—â—â— among them or on the Church of the Coritthians because if the incestuous Person Besides you know not but it may be a Lie raised upon those People by the envious Papists who have rendred Calâ—â— and Luther as odious as you do these Anabaptists You would think it hard if I should ask you what sort they were that Ralph Wallis used to expose and fill his Carts with or of those Clergy-men who were Pedo-Baptists yet were for filthy Crimes executed To conclude I wish that all Bitterness of Spirit was expelled Love and Charity exercised towards all tho in some things we may differ from one another Queries for the Athenian Society to Answer some of which were formerly sent to them but were passed by in silence 1. Whether Infants are the Subjects of Baptism And 2. Whether Baptism is Dipping or Sprinkling First WHether there was not a twofold Covenant made with Abraham one with his Fleshly Seed and the other with his Spiritual Seed signified by the Bond-Woman and the Free-Woman and their Sons Ishmael and Isaac If so I query Whether Circumcision was an Ordinance that appertained to the Covenant of Grace and was the Seal of it 1. Because 't is contradistinguished from the Covenant of Grace or free Promise of God Rom. 4. 2. And 't is also called a Yoke of Bondage And 3. 'T is said also that he that was circumcised was a Debter to keep the whole Law And 4. Because Ishmael who was not a Child of the Covenant of Grace with Esau and many others yet were required to be circumcised as well as Isaac And 5. Since 't is positively said Faith was imputed to Abraham for Righteousness not in Circumcision How was it imputed then when he was circumcised or uncircumciseâ—â— not when he was circumcised but when he was uncircumcised Rom. 4. 10. Secondly Whether the being the Male-Children of Believers as such gave them right to Circumcision or not rather the nicer positive Command of God to Abraham since we do not read of any other Godly Man's Seed in Abraham's days or since had any right thereto but only such who were born in his House or bought with his Mony Thirdly Whether Circumcision could be said to be the Seal of any Man's Faith save Abraham's only seeing 't is said he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith he had mark yet being uncircumcisied that he might be the Father of all that believe which was the Priviledg of Abraham â—â—ly for how could Circumcision be a Seal to Children of that Faith they had before circumcised seeing they had no Faith at all as had Abraham their Father they being obliged by the Law of God to be circumcised at eight days old â— Fourthly What is it which you conceive Circumcision did or Baptism doth seal to Children or make sure since a Seal usually makes firm all the Blessings or Priviledges contained in that Covenant 't is prefix'd to Doubtless if the Fleshly Seed of Believers as such are in the Covenant of Grace and have the Seal of it they shall be saved because we are agreed that the Covenant of Grace is well ordered in all things and sure there is no final falling therefore how should any of them miss of eternal Life and yet we see many of them prove wicked and ungodly and so live and die If you say it seals only the external Part and Priviledges of the Covenant of Grace Fifthly I demand to know what those External Priviledges are seeing they are denied the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper and all other External Rites whatsoever if you say when they believe that shall partake of 〈…〉 Blessings so say I shall the 〈…〉 believers as well as they Sixthly If the Fleshly Seed or Children of believing Gentiles as such are to be accounted the Seed of Abraham I query Whether they are his Natural Seed or his Spiritual Seed if not his Natural Seed nor his Spiritual Seed what right can they have to Baptism or Church-Membership from any Covenant-Transactions God made with Abraham Seventhly Whether those different grounds upon which the Right of Infant-Baptism is pretended by the Fathers of old and the Modern Divines doth well agree with an Institution that is a meer positive Rite depending wholly on the Will of the Legislator doth not give just cause to all to question its Authority 1. Some Pedo-Baptists asserted It took away Original Sin and such who denied it were anathematized 2. Some affirm That Children are in the Covenent and being the Seed of Believers are federally Holy therefore ought to be Baptized 3. Another soâ—â— of Pedo Baptists say They ought to be Baptâ—â—â— by virtue of their Parents Faith 4. Others affirm They have Faith themselves and are Disciples and therefore must be baptized 5. Another sort Baptize them upon the Faith of theâ—â— Suretiâ— 6. And 〈…〉 of Pedo Baptists say It 〈…〉 Power and Authoriâ—â— 7. 〈…〉 that 〈…〉 affirm 〈…〉 the Word 〈…〉 God 〈…〉 Institution the 〈…〉 divided and 〈…〉 themselves Eighthly Is it not an evil thing and very absurd for any to say Baptism is a Symbol of present Regeneration and yet apply it to Babes in whom nothing of the things signified thereby doth or can appear And also to say I Baptize thee in the Name c. when indeed he doth not Baptize but only Rantize the Child and to say Baptism is a lively Figure of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection and yet only sprinkle or pour a little Water upon the Face of the Child Ninthly Whether that can be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither Command nor Example in all the Word of God noâ—â—â— Promise â—â—de to such who do it nor Thâ—â—â—s denounced on such who neglect it or do it 〈◊〉 For though there are both Promises made to Believers Baptized and Threaâ—â— denounced on such who neglect it yet where are there any such in respect of Infant-Baptism Tenthly Whether a Pagan or Indian who should attain to the knowledg of the Greek Tongue or of the English or any other Tongue into which the Original should be translated by reading over the New Testament a thousand times he could ever find Infants ought to be Baptized if not how doth it appear the
of God But the Practice of Infant-Baptism tends not to the Glory of God nor to the Profit of the Child when baptized nor in after-times when grown up but may prove hurtful and of a dangerous Nature to him Ergo. See Levit. 10. 1 2. where Moses told Aaron because his Sons had done that which God commanded them not that God would be sanctified by all that drew near unto him intimating that such who did that which God commanded not did not sanctify or glorify God therein Can God be glorified by Man's Disobedience or by adding to his Word by doing that which God hath not required Matth. 16. 9. In vain do you worship me teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men and that that Practice doth profit the Child none can prove from God's Word And in after-times when grown up it may cause the Person to think he was thereby made a Christian c. and brought into the Covenant of Grace and had it sealed to him nay thereby regenerated for so these Gentlemen in their Mercury Decemb. 26. plainly intimate and that Infants are thereby ingrafted also into Christ's Church Sure all understanding Men know Baptism of Believers is not called Regeneration but only metonymically it being a Figure of Regeneration But they ignorantly affirm also that Infants then have a federal Holiness as if this imagined Holiness comes in by the Child's Covenant in Baptism which may prove hurtful and dangerous to them and cause them to think Baptism confers Grace which is a great Error How can Water saith Mr. Charnock an external thing work upon the Soul physically Nor can it saith he be proved that ever the Spirit of God is tied by any Promise to apply himself to the Soul in a gracious Operation when Water is applied to the Body If it were so then all that were baptized were regenerated then all that were baptized should be saved or else the Doctrine of Perseverance falls to the Ground Some indeed says he say that Regeration is conferred in Baptism upon the Elect and exerts it self afterwards in Conversion But how so active a Principle as a spiritual Life should lie dead and asleep so many Years c. is not easily conceived On Regen p. 75. Arg. 6. If the Church of England says that Faith and Repentance are required of all that ought to be baptized and in so saying speak truly and yet Infants can't perform those things then Infants ought not to be baptized But the Church of England says that Faith and Repentance are required of all such c. and speak truly and yet Infants cannot perform these things Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Object If it be objected That they affirm they do perform it by their Sureties Answ. If Suretiship for Children in Baptism is not required of God and the Sureties do not cannot perform those things for the Child then Suretiship is not of God and so signifies nothing but is an unlawful and sinful Undertaking But Suretiship in Childrens Baptism is not required of God and they do not cannot perform what they promise Ergo. Do they or can they cause the Child to forsake the Devil and all his Works the Pomps and Vanities of this wicked World and all the sinful Lusts of the Flesh In a Word Can they make the Child or Children to repent and truly believe in Jesus Christ for these are the things they promise for them and in their Name Alas they want Power to do it for themselves and how then should they do it for others Besides we see they never mind nor regard their Covenant in the Case and will not God one Day say Who has required these things at your Hands Arg. 7. If there be no Precedent in the Scripture as there is no Precept that any Infant was baptized then Infants ought not to be baptized But there is no Precedent that any Infant was baptized in the Scripture Ergo. If there is any Precedent or Example in Scripture that any Infant was baptized let them shew us where we may find it Erasmus saith 'T is no where expressed in the Apostolical Writings that they baptized Children Union of the Church and on Rom. 6. Calvin saith It is no where expressed by the Evangelists that any one Infant was baptized by the Apostles Instit c. 16. Book 4. Ludovicus Vives saith None of old were wont to be baptized but in grown Age and who desired and understood what it was Vide Ludov. The Magdâ—burgenses say That concerning the baptizing the Adult both Jews and Gentiles we have sufficient Proof from Acts 2 8 10 16 Chapters but as to the baptizing of Infants they can meet with no Example in Scripture Magdeb. Cent. l. 2. p. 469. Dr. Taylor saith It is against the perpetual Analogy of Christ's Doctrine to baptize Infants For besides that Christ never gave any Precept to baptize them nor eyer himself nor his Apostles that appears did baptize any of them All that either he or his Apostles said concerning it requires such previous Dispositions of Baptism of which Infants are not capable viz. Faith and Repentance Lib. Proph. p. 239. Arg. 8. If whatsoever which is necessary to Faith and Practice is left in the Holy Scripture that being a compleat and perfect Rule and yet Infant-Baptism is not contained or to be found therein then Infant-Baptism is not of God But whatever is necessary to Faith and Practice is contained in the Holy Scriptures c. but Infant-Baptism is not to be found therein Ergo. That the Scripture is a perfect Rule c. we have the Consent of all the Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines Athanasius saith The Holy Scriptures being Inspirations of God are sufficient to all Instructions of Truth Athan. against the Gentiles Chrysostom saith All things be plain and clear in the Scripture and whatsoever are needful are manifest there Chrysost on 2 Thess and 2 Tim. 2. Basil saith That it would be an Argument of Infidelity and a most certain Sign of Pride if any Man should reject any thing written and should introduce things not written Basil in his Sermon de Fide Augustine saith In the Scriptures are found all things which contain Faith manner of Living Hope Love c. Let us saith he seek no farther than what is written of God our Saviour left a Man would know more than the Scriptures witness Aug. in his 198 Epistles to Fortunat. Theophilact saith It is part of a Diabolical Spirit to think any thing Divine without the Authority of the Holy Scripture Lib. 2. Paschal Isychiâ—â—s saith Let us who will have any thing observed of God search no more but that which the Gospel doth give unto us Lib. 5. c. 16. on Leviâ— Bellarmin saith That though the Arguments of the Anabaptists from the defect of Command or Example have a great Use against the Lutherans forasmuch as they use that â—iâ—â— every where having no Command or Example theirs is to be rejected yet is it
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 was perfected and acknowledged for Authentick five hundred Years after Christ and out of it Maimonides drew his Doctrine as 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 hath 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 hands 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 am sure 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 Mystical 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 usâ— 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 Men 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 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 that 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
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