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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Matth. 28. 't is disciple ye here 't is discipled instructed or that is taught and 't is from the same Verb with the other 'T is evident notwithstanding all your Flourish tha Teaching according to the Order of the Commission goes and must go before Baptizing though the Person baptized is to be taught afterwards also all things that Christ commanded his Disciples both as to Doctrine and Practice that so they may be faithful Followers of Christ unto the end This Teaching after Baptism indeed the Baptists cannot deny unless they should be so foolish as to say a Baptized Believer needs no further teaching c. but you know in your Consciences we deny and that too by the Authority of the Commission that any ought to be Baptized but such who are made Disciples by their first being taught Doth Baptism Sirs make either Children or others Disciples if you do not assert that what do you say and if all Nations or any in the Nations are to be Baptized before they are taught or made Disciples why may not a Minister by the Authority of the Commission baptize Turks Pagans and Infidels with their Children as well as the Infants of Christian People Moreover if so be Baptizing may go before Teaching or Persons being made Disciples why did Philip answer the Eunuch after that manner when he asked him why he might not be Baptized the Answer is If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayest intimating unless he so believed he might not Also why did Christ make Disciples first and then baptize them Joh. 4.1 I must also tell you that your Exposition of the Commission in Matthew doth tend to invert the Order of the same Commission in Mark 16.15,16 where our Saviour commands his Disciples to go and preach the Gospel to every Creature and then saith He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved 't is not he that is baptized and then believeth but to give divers godly and learned Pedo-Baptists their due they I find dare not attempt to invert the Order of the Holy Commission as you seem to do thought it shakes the Foundation of their own Practice See Reverend Mr. Perkirs on these Words Teach all Nations baptizing them saith he I explain the former thus First of all it is said Teach them that is make them my Disciples by teaching them to believe and repent Here we are to consider the Order which God observes in making with Men a Covenant in Baptism first-of all he calls them by his Word and Spirit to believe and repent Then in the second Place he makes a Promise of Mercy and Forgiveness And then thirdly he seals his Promise by Baptism They says he that know not nor consider this Order which God used in covenanting with them in Baptism deal preposterously over-slipping the Commandment of repenting and believing and is the cause of so much Prophaneness in the World Much to the same Purpose saith Mr. Baxter Right to Baptism p. 149 150. speaking of the Order of this Commission Christ gave to his Disciples their first Task says he is to make Disciples which are by Mark called Believers The second Work is to baptize them whereto is annexed the Promise of Salvation The third Work is to teach them all other things which are after to be learned in the School of Christ To contemn this Order saith he is to contemn the Rules of Order for where can we find it if not here I profess my Conscience is fully satisfied from this Text that there is one sort of Faith saving even Saving that must go before Baptism the Profession whereof the Minister must expect Your second Scipture-Ground is that of whole Families being baptized Reply You cannot be ignorant that this Proof hath been often invalid How many Families are there in this City in which there is not one Infant Besides 't is said Paul preached the Word to the Jailor and to all in his House also 't is expresly said He believed in God with all his House We have as much Ground to believe in these Families there were some Servants or Children who were Unbelievers as to believe there were little Babes and because whole Housholds were said to be baptized therefore unbelieving Servants Sons and Daughters as well as little Children Others may infer ungodly Servants and unbelieving Children that were grown up to be Men and Women were baptized also in those Families In Jailors Families now a-days 't is evident there are too many wicked and ungodly ones and this Jailor was none of the best before converted 't is plain Besides whole or all doth not comprehend always every individual Person as 1 Sam. 21.28 Moreover Dr. Hammond saith That to conclude Infants were baptized because Housholds are mentioned so to be is saith he unconvincing and without Demonstration it being so uncertain whether there were any Children in those Families His Letter p. 471. Sect. 21. Your third Scripture-Ground is that of the Promise you say Covenant made to you and your Children Reply How often have we shewed that this Text proves not that any Children quatenus as such should be baptized nor as such that they are in the Covenant of Grace or have the Promise made to them the Promise runs to the Jews and to their Offspring and not to them only but to Gentiles also who were said to be afar off But pray observe 't is to no more of the Jews and their Children or Offspring and such who were afar off than the Lord shall call or make Disciples by the Word and effectual Operations of the Holy Spirit My Sons and Daughters are as much my Children when they are twenty or thirty Years old as well as when Babes Dr. Hammond also grants Children in this Text doth not refer to Infants as such but to the Posterity of the Jews p. 490. Sect. 81. If ye be Christ's then you are Abraham 's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise The Children of the Flesh saith Paul these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are accounted for the Seed Rom. 9.8 Not if you be the Offspring of Abraham according to the Flesh or Seed of Believers Your fourth Scripture-Proof is that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Reply This proves no more Children ought to be baptized than they ought to receive the Lord's Supper Baptism being a mere positive Precept and only depends upon the Will and sovereign Pleasure of the great Law-giver Jesus Christ A thousand such Instances prove not they ought to be baptized except there was a Precept annexed or Precedent for it in God's Word Besides of such c. as one well observes may intend such and such that have like Qualities viz. harmless meek c. as Children Therefore the Anabaptists as you call them are not uncharitable who say Infants have no more Right to Baptism than unreasonable Creatures for what can give them Right thereto but the Authority
of God's Word You ask what Priviledg the Children of Believers have above Unbelievers We answer They have the advantage of their Parents Prayers Instruction godly Education and good Example But say you they are holy Answ We deny it intends federal Holiness such as qualifies Children for Baptism We read in Mal. 2.15 of Marriage and that Children begotten in lawful Wedlock are called a godly Seed in opposition to their being illegitimate Now that it was about Marriages the Corinthians wrote to S. Paul is evident they doubting of the Lawfulness of abiding with their unbelieving Husbands and Wives And to satisfy them about this Matter he tells them the unbelieving Husband was sanctified by or rather to the believing Wife c. that is set apart or consecrated to each other in lawful Marriage for 't is doubtless no other Sanctification else were your Children unclean that is Bastards but now are they holy that is lawfully begotten And we find divers Learned Men give the same Exposition on these Words See Beza That the Word saith he is not to be understood an Adverb of Time but a Conjunction that 's wont to be used in the assumption of Arguments and so the Sense is But now that is Forasmuch as the unbelieving Husband is sanctified to the Wife your Children are holy that is lawfully begotten and born We read in Zachary that the Bells and Pots of the Lord's House were holy may be the Papists from thence presume to baptize Bells and they have as much reason so to do as there is by the Authority of God's Word for any to baptize Infants As touching what you speak of little Children coming to Christ that the Original or Greek Word is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to proselyte what signifies that how often is that Word mentioned in other Places to signify any manner of coming to c. 'T is a strange way of proselyting Persons and never to teach or instruct them See these Scriptures where the same Word is used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 26.7 There came unto him Mat. 26.17 The Disciples came Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 26.49 Forthwith he came to Jesus Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 26.69 There came unto him a Girl or a Damsel Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 26.73 And after a while or a while after came unto him they that stood by Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But you proceed further to prove Infants ought to be baptized and that from the Universal Consent of the Churches in all Countries For as you say Tertul. de praescripturâ haeret ch 28. Ecquid verisimile c. Had the Churches erred they would have varied c. Reply If you cannot prove Infant-Baptism from Scripture you are gone for ever for this Argument of yours to prove it is like that of the Papists to prove their Church the true Church viz. Vniversality and Antiquity c. it was not the Practice of the Churches first planted by the Apostles that 's plain and 't is as evident other Errors were as universally received and some very early too besides you can't be ignorant how the Greek Church varies from the Latin But pray take what Dr. Barlow hath said to this a worthy Bishop of the Church of England I believe and know saith he that there is neither Precept nor Example in Scripture for Pedo-baptism nor any just Evidence for it for above 200 years after Christ that Tertullian condemns it as an unwarantable Custom and Nazianzen a good while after him dislikes it sure I am that in the primitive Times they were Catechumeni then Illuminati or Baptizati and that not only Pagans and Children of Pagans converted but Children of Christian Parents The truth is I do believe Pedo-Baptism how or by whom I know not come into the World in the second Century and in the third and forth began to be practised though not generally and defended as lawful from the Text John 3.5 grosly misunderstood upon the like gross Mistake John 6.53 They did for many Centuries both in the Greek and Latin Church communicate Infants and give them the Lord's Supper and I confess they might do both as well as either c. Thus both your Arguments from universal Consent and Antiquity the Learned Doctor hath sufficiently answered And I rather let him answer you than to answer you in my own words thinking what he says may be more regarded by some than what I say But you to prove from Antiquity that Infant-Baptism was practised int h first second and third Centuries you say you are able to demonstrate that there was never any particular Congregation of Anabaptists till about three hundred years after Christ and seem to build much upon these three last Arguments Reply If you had said there were no Baptized Congregations i. e. such who only baptized Believers you had asserted a great Untruth sith all the Primitive Apostolical Churches were such none being admitted to Baptism for the first and second Centuries but the Adult i. e. such who professed their Faith as in due time may be sufficiently proved notwithstanding all your Flourish or Pretences but suppose it be granted there were no Congregations till then called Anabaptist what doth that signify it was because there were not till about that time any as Dr. Barlow and divers others say who practised Pedo-baptism Baptists could not be called Anabaptists or Re-baptizers till there were some who held for Infant-Baptism so that this directly makes against you Moreover many Rites which you disown as human Traditions crept very early into the World and were practised generally too in the Apostacy of the Church Quest 3. Whether Infant-Baptism is to be found in the Scripture You answer not expresly in the Letter but from necessary and unavoidable Consequences as you say you have already shewn Reply 'T is a hard case that one of the great Sacraments of the New Testament should in your Thoughts lie so dark and obscure in the New Testament that it can't be proved from it but by Consequences but harder that Learned Men of your way should affirm that your Consequences for it drawn from those Texts you mention are not natural and prove nothing besides you can't be ignorant that the first Asserters of Infant-Baptism never undertook the proof of it from such Scripture-Grounds or Consequences but from the Authority and Power of the Church for as you think the Church hath power to change the Act of Baptizing unto Sprinkling so they affirmed she had like Power to change the Subject and instead of Believers to baptize Infants who have no Understanding Pray what Precept of the Mosaical Law lay so dark or obscure that it could not be proved without Consequences Did not Moses make every Law Precept or Command plain that he that run might read it and yet Christ is said to exceed Moses being faithful as a Son over his own House Heb. 3. Those Consequences you
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
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