Consequence for by this Rule Moses might have baptis'd Infants as well as you if a bare being in the Covenant c. were sufficient to warrant the Practice however Sirs he might have circumcis'd them the first second or third Day after they were born as well as to have staid till the eighth Day for certainly they were as holy and as much in the Covenant and as fit for the Kingdom of Heaven the first or second Day as they were the eighth and what 's the reason think you that he did not He might also have circumcis'd Females if this had been good Reasoning for there 's no doubt to be made but they were holy and in the Covenant and such as should be saved as well as the Males But if he had done so would he not think you have been a Transgressor rather than a faithful Servant Yet he might have taken up your Plea and defended himself altogether as well as you do or can in the business of infant-Infant-baptism but it 's a plain case he did not like this Argument But Sirs you ought to remember that the Will and Pleasure of God ought in a special manner to be heeded in all such Cases for it is the Command of God that gives Life and Being to all Duty without which all your Allegations are in vain with which we should gladly cease to contend and that 's the reason why Infants were circumcis'd precisely upon the eighth Day either before or after would certainly have incurr'd Displeasure And this was that which kept Females from Circumcision tho holy and in Covenant as well as Males Nay if Christ had not commanded Believers to be baptis'd their being Believers would not have justified the Practice neither will it now justify any other Practice that he never commanded or appointed to be done Besides Sirs do you not herein sin because Grace abounds for is God so good and gracious as to place our Infants in Covenant with himself must we therefore take the holy Name of God in vain and sprinkle Water upon their Faces as if we suppos'd the Covenant worth nothing unless we confirm it with our own Inventions and clap a Seal to it of our own making without any order from him so to do Sirs if Infants be in Covenant be content there to let them rest without disturbing or interrupting them in it be content with that till you are able to make them sensible of the Obligations that may lie upon them by virtue thereof to discharge Duty towards God I have only two Demands to make and then I shall leave this to Consideration First Pray Sirs tell us do you think Christ and his Apostles did not know as much of this Nature concerning Infants as you do do you think they were not as well acquainted with their being holy and in the Covenant and such as should be sav'd as you are I hope as Learned as you are you will hardly venture to say they did not yet where did Christ or any of his Apostles give either Command or Permission to any Body to baptise their Infants upon any of these accounts Where is thee the least Sign or Shadow of such a thing in all the New-Testament If you know of any pray produce it and let us see it that we may read and understand such a thing as well as your selves and in so doing the Controversy would soon be ended but if there be no such things signify if you should argue and write for three seven Years together what is it all worth unless you bring Scripture-warrant for what you affirm and practise My second Demand upon this account is as followeth Supposing all these things to be unquestionably true that you talk of that Infants are in the Covenant holy and such as shall be saved and what you please of that kind How comes this to intitle them any more to Baptism than it doth to the Lord's-Supper What 's the reason I beseech you you do not receive them to the Lord's Table upon these Accounts as well as admit them to Baptism Are you able to give us an Instance in all the New-Testament of any that were accepted as fit Subjects of Baptism and at the same time as such reckon'd and known to be unfit for and uncapable of the Communion of Saints in the Supper of the Lord I marvel Sirs what you make of Baptism that you should think Infants so fitly and fully qualify'd for that and yet dare not venture to plead either Right or Obligation to any other Gospel-duty Is not Baptism a Gospel-requirement as well as the Lord's Supper a Command of Christ an Ordinance of Heaven and part of that Service and Obedience which Christians owe to God in and under the Gospel And do you think it ought not to be done with more Knowledg Judgment and Reverence than Infants of seven Days old are capable of What Subjection or Obedience to God is there or can there be in a little Infant in the performance of that which you call its Baptism when it knows nothing at all of the thing commanded nor of the Law-giver commanding nor any reason in the World why it should or should not submit neither is it capable of thinking either well or ill concerning any thing relating thereunto How then can it be done as a Duty in Obedience to Christ as the answer of a good Conscience towards God when the Subject knows nothing of these things and is altogether uncapable of the least motive to Subjection But if you say Infants must notwithstanding all this be admitted to Baptism certainly you must needs wrong them greatly in debarring them from the Lord's Supper Gentlemen these things deserves to be well consider'd and then take Advice and speak your Minds As to what you say about universal consent of Churches and Antiquity for Infant-Baptism I shall not so much as concern my self to enquire after the Truth or Falshood of the matter because let it be true or false all the while it is Scriptureless there is not the weight of a Feather in it It neither hurts us nor helps you in this Case For what does all the Consent you talk of signify unless you can clearly prove the thing consented to to be Truth without it And if you can then you have no need of its help but if you cannot it has no help for you for it is not the greatest Consent imaginable that can make a Falshood Truth It must either be Truth previous to that Consent or else it remains a Falshood notwithstanding that Consent The Consent it self can be no Argument to prove it Truth So that all that appears from this Argument if all that you say were suppos'd to be unquestionably true is only this That a great many People a great while agoe held Infant-Baptism but whether they did well or ill in so doing still remains the Question as much as ever And if it want the true Primitive Mark of Antiquity
I beseech you who told you or where did you read such a piece of Christian Divinity as you so boldly dictate to the World namely that John the Baptist Christ and his Apostles did so highly approve of this old Jewish Custom you talk of as to take it and put a Divine Sanction upon it and make that very Custom a Consignation or a Seal of the Covenant and so it became a proper Antitype of Circumcision Does the Scripture which we all pretend to be our Rule in Matters of Divine Worship tell you any such Story or teach you any such Doctrine Is there the least Whisper of any such thing in all the New-Testament if there be pray be so kind as to tell us where if not what signify your Dictates Nay Sirs I am very apt to think that your great Friend Maimonides nor yet any of the Jewish Rabbies ever told you such a linsy-woolsy Story as this yet here seems to lie the greatest shew of your Proof that Circumcision was the Type of Baptism Sirs if you did not seem to be a little proud and obstinate in this Matter I could heartily pity your Distress but why should you strive thus to impose your vain Crochets and Scriptureless Notions upon us and seem to be angry with us that we do not greedily swallow them As for the three Texts you bring further to prove Circumcision a Type of Baptism which you call undeniable Texts I confess it might be worth any ones while to take these three Texts and read them well over for they are as the Gentlemen call them undeniable Texts But withal do but remember for what purpose these Gentlemen quote them and then forbear smiling if you can The Gentlemen I confess were very much in the right when they call'd them undeniable Texts But they were extreamly in the wrong when they thought these Texts would prove Circumcision a Type of Baptism or do them any service for Infant-Sprinkling The first Text is 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 wherein also you are risen with him through the Faith of the Operation of God c. Now in the reading of this Text any one might be ready to think that certainly if any thing here spoken of may be suppos'd to be the Antitype of Circumcision with Hands it must be the Circumcision here mention'd made without Hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh and this is very soberly not only suggested but one would think also very rationally and fairly proved by the Gentleman in his Animadversions as also in his Rejoinder And also in that other Gentleman's Answer to your two Mercuries And indeed it lies so fairly in the Text so easy to be understood and so rational in it self that one may justly admire how any understanding Man could miss it But say our Gentlemen in their second Mercury The Scope of the Apostle here was to take off the Colossians from the Rudiments of the World then I hope by the way it was not to settle them in any old Custom especially Circumcision which troubled most of the Churches so far indeed I shall not dispute And therefore the Apostle very wisely and rationally gives them to understand that they had not the least occasion to dote upon these weak and beggarly Rudiments for saith he ye are compleat in Christ without them in whom also ye are circumcis'd if that be it you would have with the Circumcision made without Hands in putting off the Body of the Flesh which is far better than your old outward Circumcision and this is plainly signify'd and confirm'd to you in your being buried with Christ in Baptism So that you have no reason in the World to hanker after these unprofitable things but rather much reason to be content in your Gospel-Station and keep where you are being not only in a better Condition in being deliver'd from that Yoke of Bondage but also strongly oblig'd to persevere in the Christian Religion by being listed under the Captain of it by your being buried with him in Baptism wherein also you are risen with him through Faith c. But say you they might object We want the outward Circumcision to us and our Children No Sirs they might not now object at this rate for this was the Objection that was supposed to go before unto which the Apostle had given a very fair full and satisfactory Answer by telling them that they were Circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands as aforesaid So no room for that Objection now But this Interpretation is rejected and condemned by our Athenian Gentlemen and Circumcision must even by this Text be the Type of Baptism when all 's done But for what Reason I cannot imagine unless it be meerly because they find these two Words in the Text Circumcision and Baptism and therefore conclude one must be a Type of the other But Gentlemen if you will but let our Interpretation pass for Orthodox till you are able to give us a better we shall in this Case desire no more Moreover Sirs If we should grant you your own Exposition here and give it you for Truth I do not yet understand what great matter you would gain by it unless we give you also what you please to beg for into the Bargain What if I should grant you for Argument-sake that Baptism supplies the place or came in the room of Circumcision and that Christians are in effect Circumcised because Baptized as you say All this might be and yet this Text signify nothing for Infant-Baptism unless it were also plain in the Text that Infants are the Subjects of it but there is not the least glimmering of such a thing in the Text but rather plainly the contrary There 's nothing in the Text but what is rationally exclusive of Infants It cannot be supposed that the Apostle is to be understood of Infants when he tells the believing Colossians that in Christ they were Circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands in putting off the Sins of the Flesh and were buried with Christ in Baptism wherein also they were risen with him through Faith c. What therefore if I should now grant you that the Apostle in this Text should intimate that in the place and room of Infant-Circumcision Christ has now appointed Believers Baptism that instead of Abraham's Fleshly Seed that were wont to be Circumcised he will now have only Abraham's Spiritual Seed baptized As in the case of the Passover and the Lord's Supper most judicious Christians do suppose and believe that the Lord's Supper came in the room of the Passover and that tho Infants did partake of the one yet they are excluded from the other Where then would your Advantage be if we should grant you that Baptism might come in the room and stead
honestly by this Custom Was it appointed and approved of by God or was it not If you say it was you cannot but reckon your selves oblig'd to prove it And if it was not of God but their own Superstitious Invention what does it signify to us Christians any otherwise than to admonish us to take heed that we do not provoke God by our foolish Inventions as they did And can it be imagin'd that God should abolish his own Appointments and ratify and consecrate one of their God-provoking Customs as a Divine Sacrament in the room and place thereof to be a binding Duty upon all Christians Sirs if you dare assert such a thing you had need to have special Evidence to bear you out in it and yet behold you have none at all notwithstanding you can venture very boldly to tell us that there was no need to have this expresly set down in what Method and what Persons whether Infants or not the Custom being so well known before-hand when it may not only be question'd whether Christ and his Apostles knew any thing of it or whether you know any thing of it your selves from good Authority But it 's evident there are many thousand in the Christian World that know nothing at all of this Custom What must all these poor Creatures do that have nothing to inform them into their Duty in this matter but the Scriptures Do not you a little too plainly give us to understand that the Scripture signifies nothing to our Instruction or Direction herein And if it be our Duty to baptize our Infants we are like to know nothing of it from thence But those that are ignorant of the Customs of Nations as you intimate many are must of necessity remain ignorant how to serve and please God in this particular unless by consulting the Jewish Talmud they can arrive at that Happiness for it seems by this Passage of yours it is in vain to consult the Scriptures about it Res stupenda horrenda c. The Second Question you undertake to answer is this What certain indubitable Grounds can we have for the practice of Infant-Baptism Your Answer is now direct and positive from the Scripture Gentlemen I do assure you I am very glad of this Answer for then I hope we shall hear no more of that old Jewish Custom which has lain so long in our way If you had thought of this sooner you might have sav'd your selves and me too a great deal of Labour for hitherto the Jewish Custom has been the only Oracle that one would have thought might have been sufficient fully to have decided the Controversy for it does not only prove Circumcision a Type of Baptism but it goes further and answers the main Objection in that case for though Women were not circumcis'd and so one would think should have been excluded from Baptism No not so this old Custom take that quite off for inasmuch as Men Women and Children among the Heathen were baptiz'd by the Jews it wholly answers that Objection and one would think should fully prove the whole Controversy that Men Women and Children are all the Subjects of Baptism Who could imagine that after all this we should need to be beholden to the Scripture for Infant-baptism But however the case it seems is alter'd the Scripture must now do the business And I freely confess that if it do but appear from Scripture that either Infants were baptiz'd by God's Appointment or ought to be Baptiz'd we ought to be silent in the Case But what Scriptures are these that thus certainly and indubitably prove Infant-baptism Why the first is Matth. 28.19 28. Good Reader do so much as read the Text and see else if it do not Thus it reads Go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you Certainly Sirs you must be Gentlemen by your Boldness else you durst not have ventur'd upon such a Text as this to have prov'd infant-Infant-baptism Sure you cannot but think that any Text in the Bible will prove it as much as this and there are abundance of Texts that have less in them against it I wonder why you did not urge them by Dozens But Sirs what reason had you to bring this Text for Infant-baptism Does not the Text rather plainly exclude them when it saith Go teach all Nations and then baptize them Pray Sirs consider and answer plainly if you dare venture to be ingenuous Is any more or any other here commanded to be baptiz'd than what are first commanded to be taught and that too by the Apostles preaching of the Gospel to them as it is express'd in Mark 16.15 16. a parallel Place where this same Commiâ—â—ion is repeated If this be not exclusive of Infants I wish you would let us know what is But say you the Order of Words in the Commission does your business Well Sirs if it do we are well contented for we are very well pleas'd with that Order that our Saviour has here laid down And I plainly perceive that with all your Art and Learning though you seem to have a great mind to it you are not able to disorder them to serve your purpose The words in the Commission you say is Mathetéusate pánta ta ethne disciple all Nations and then follows Baptizontes kai didáscontes and this you say in your second Paper you shall ever stand by as the Sense and Scope of this Commission to wit disciple all Nations Baptizing and Teaching them Good now Sirs stand your ground mean but honestly and there 's no danger of Discord from any that I know of What do we say or plead for more or less than you have thus far plainly given us We freely grant that the Word Mathetéusate signifies to discipulize disciple or make Disciples and this must be done by this Commission before Persons are to be baptiz'd and when that 's done they are to be baptiz'd and after that still to be taught to grow in Grace and Knowledg that they may go on to Perfection Now Sirs if this be the thing you resolve to stand by we bid you God speed you will hardly meet with any Dissenters among the Baptists Yet though you not only grant but plead to this purpose in your first Paper and tell us you are resolv'd to stand by it in your second You have no mind we should take this Sense into our hands though you know not well how to keep it in your own neither have you any mind to keep to it your selves when all 's done for you strangely strive to shrink away from it as soon as ever you have laid it down and very odly make these two incongruous Observations from the Text so read First Infants are not excluded from Baptism as is generally believ'd by Anabaptists Secondly A Person may be baptiz'd before he be taught
Certainly Sirs you can never think that these two Propositions receive Countenance and Confirmation from this Text For first If Infants are not excluded from Baptism by this Text good now do so much as tell us who are Secondly If Persons may be baptized by this Text without being first taught pray be so kind as to tell us who by this Text are not to be baptiz'd If you think none are excluded or if there can be none in the World that are not to be baptiz'd I wish you would tell us so in words at length that we might readily give you the Reputation of extraordinary Doctors of Divinity Pray Gentlemen tell us also plainly how you think the Apostles by virtue of this Commission were to make Disciples of Christ in order to their being baptiz'd Were they to make People Disciples of Christ meerly by looking upon them without speaking a word to them This indeed seems to be the Design of your struggle in your two Papers namely that the Apostles were to disciple People to Christ where-ever they came without teaching them any thing in order thereunto Which he that can believe certainly need stick at nothing for if People may be Disciples of Christ without being taught then they may be Disciples of Christ without learning any thing at all and if so then sure one would think that all the World should in every or any Capacity ipso facto be Disciples of Christ And yet again they were to be made Disciples before they could be so and the Apostles were to do something in order to the making them so but what that was who can imagine for they were not to speak a word to them to teach them any thing about it Sirs why do you strive thus by your confused Confidence to deceive People and bring them into a miserable Maze Besides if this were the Design of the Commission that the Apostles were to make Disciples without Teaching then these two things will follow First That our Translators of the Text were either very Ignorant and knew not how to translate the Words as they should have done or else very unfaithful that they did not For they have by their Translation of the Text given us occasion to believe almost whether we will or no that Teaching must precede Baptism and really it seems to agree so mightily not only with Reason it self but also with other Scriptures that we can do no less than think it true 2dly If this were the Sense and Design of the Place then if the Apostles had ever presum'd to preach the Gospel to any Body before they had baptiz'd them they had gone quite besides their Commission and broke the Command of their Master for either they were to teach People by this Commission before they baptiz'd them or they were not if they were then all your strange Prattle to the contrary is gone if they were not then that which I have said must follow Or else there must be two Commissions in this one contra-distinct to each other given out in the self-same Words which can be but of one Signification and yet must be understood in two quite contrary to each other that is you shall and you shall not teach People before you baptize them And how consonant these things are to Scripture and Reason let all the World judg But alas were it not for the sake of the poor Ignorant World that are apt to be taken with any thing you say we need not take any pains to confute you for after you had been pedling a while to make Folks believe that the Apostles were to make Disciples without Teaching you presently even in the Prosecution of your Proof contradict and confute your selves for you say Mathetéusate which signifies to disciple all Nations is a general Word and contains in it the other two that follow viz. Baptizontes kai didáscontes Baptizing and Teaching the Commission is to disciple and the Manner how is Baptizing and Teaching both it seems as well as one without which a Disciple cannot be made Is not this a clear Confession that Teaching is as necessary and essential to the making of Disciples as Baptizing And if so what will you do for Infant-Disciples Are you not as far to seek now as ever your were What are you the nearer if this be true to baptize your Infants unless you teach them too you even leave them as you found them no more Disciples of Christ than they were before and if so had not you better still let the Needle go before the Thrid or Teaching before Baptizing than thus to strive to teach the World a ridiculous Trade and take a deal of Pains to no purpose Though when all 's done it 's very plain from Scripture that Persons may be made Disciples of Christ before Baptism as indeed they ought even by this Commission of our Saviour and that by Teaching too and then to be baptiz'd and this is not only agreeable to the Current of Scripture in many other places but particularly most exactly to Joh. 4.1 Jesus made and baptiz'd more Disciples than John first made them Disciples then they were baptiz'd Secondly You say Children are capable of Proselytism as may be observ'd from our Saviour's Words Suffer little Children to come unto me which your great Skill in the Greek tells us is the same with to proselyte Now how you would be understood here I know not whether you reckon that their bare coming to Christ were their Proselytism or whether they come to Christ with a design and purpose to be proselyted to him some other way If the former then all that came to Christ when he was upon Earth upon any account whatsoever tho it was to betray him were immediately by that very Act proselyted to him the Act it self was their Proselytism but if they came with a design and purpose to be proselyted to Christ by any other way as he pleased to direct and instruct them then certainly they could not be such eight-days-old Proselytes as you frequently baptize Now Sirs we deny not but when Christ was personally upon Earth little Children might either come to him or be brought to him upon divers occasions as well as others and so far as that very thing made Proselytes of them such Proselytes let them be who shall hinder it But then that Act must be perform'd or else that Proselytism has no being But now Christ is not upon Earth Ergo there 's no insisting upon this now And whoever is capable of coming to Christ now with a Design and Purpose to be proselyted to him by Faith Repentance Love c. let them be young or old we are so far from hindring them that we had rather do all we can to help them forward But if this don't please you good now do so much as tell us plainly what you mean by Proselytism when you say Children are capable of Proselytism wherein lies their Capacity or what is it
when you say Infants have faith potentia And yet if they have Power and Ability to do it it must needs be their Sin if they do it not So that our Gentlemen's great Plea for Infants seems to prove a very Fatal Charge against them for the damning Sin of willful Unbelief must needs lye upon them if they have Strength Might and Ability to believe and make no use of it to act accordingly Moreover What reason have you to conclude any Man to be an Artist tho but potentially so when you see him asleep if you never saw nor knew any thing at all of his being an Artist before if he had been asleep all the Days of his Life you would have had small cause to have counted him an Artist tho you had put the word potentia to it But now Infants have to follow your Simile been asleep all their Life-time in this case You never so much as saw or knew of a time when they were so far awake as to shew themselves Believers as the Artist was to shew himself and Artist So that as you have no reason to conclude any Man to be an Artist potentially when asleep that you never knew to be any thing of an Artist actually at one time or another before so you have no reason to conclude Infants Believers potentially unless you had seen or known them at one time or another to have been actually such So that I think you had as good blot out potentia unless you will put it to their Baptism too and let your Children rest without Actual Baptism till you can write upon their Faith Actu visibili But you say our Saviour is full to the purpose who assures us as you tell us in your Second that Children have Faith when he saith Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me c. Sirs I do plainly confess that our Saviour is full to the purpose but not to your purpose for he does assure us that the Persons here spoken of were such as did really properly and actually believe in him he does not so much as intimate any thing of their having Faith potentia but not in actu visibili but in down-right terms tells us they are such as do believe in him which little Infants I think by your own Confession cannot do therefore little Infants not here intended by our Saviour in this Passage but only such as were converted and become as little Children in Plainness of Spirit Humbleness Innocency and freedom from Malice Our Saviour does not only assure us that such shall be greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven but also plainly tell us that whosoever shall offend or scandalize one of these thus converted little ones which believe in him shall certainly incur great Displeasure from God And this is easily discern'd with a little Consideration in reading the Text and Coherence of the same That after our Saviour had call'd a little Child and taught his Disciples how they should be converted and become as little Children and humble themselves as that little Child he under that Consideration gives the Denomination of little ones even to such as should so learn and so do which did truly believe in him from that Analogy that was and ought to be between little Children and them therefore whereas you argue thus or to this purpose These little ones which believe in me therefore Infants do believe I argue the direct contrary from the same Text thus Those of whom Christ here speak did really believe in him but little Infants neither do nor can believe in christ Ergo Christ speaks not here of little Infants To prove the Minor here I thus reason Faith in Christ comes by hearing the Word of God understandingly but little Infants cannot hear the Word of God understandingly Ergo Little Infants cannot be Believers in Christ Again if little Infants neither do good or evil nor so much a know good or evil then they can neither hear the Word of God understandingly for if they can they must of necessity be capable of knowing good nor be Believers in Christ for if they be they must of necessity do good for believing in Christ is one of the best things that can be done in the world But the Scripture it self besides Experience plainly tells us concerning Infants that they neither do good or evil nor know good or evil Ergo Rom. 9.11 Deut. 1.39 Isa 7.14 15 16. See the Assembly Annotations on this Passage of our Saviour and Reverend Diodate on the same See also these Scriptures where this Phrase little ones or little Children is us'd to grown Believers and Disciples of Christ Mat. 10.41 42. Joh. 21.5 Gal. 4.19 1 Joh. 2.1 12 13 18 28. 3.7 18. 4.4 5.21 Besides Gentlemen if you must and will have little Infants here intended then it must and will of necessity be but a Prosopopoeia however and so do you no Service at all tho we should out of Charity give you what you so earnestly beg for A few words to your Answer to the fifth Question and so I draw to a Conclusion The Question is only thus Why Sprinkling and not Dipping To which you answer and say Our Church denies not the latter to any one that desires it but looks upon it as a clear Representation of our Saviour's descending into the Grave abiding there and rising up again according as the Apostle makes use of it when he says we are buried with him in Baptism Sirs it 's a clear case that Dipping or Covering the Body under Water was the true Primitive Apostolical and Scriptural way of Baptizing and you and your Church both seems plainly to be convinc'd of the Truth hereof by this free and full Confession and Acknowledgment which here you make that it is a clear Representation of our Saviour's descending into the Grave abiding there and rising up again and this you deliver not as a Conceit that may come into a Man's Brains by chance no but 't is very seriously given us as a thing by your own Acknowledgment which is according to Scripture as the Apostle himself makes use of it when he tells us we are buried with him in Baptism Now Sirs stand by this and all 's well but if you will be so unfaithful as to dissert these true primitive Colours you certainly run away from Truth and Substance to close with Falshood and Vanity for either this is the mind of God which you have here ventur'd to give us or it is not If it be not wherefore did you urge it as a thing not only acceptable to you and your Church but even acceptable to God himself as being according to Scripture If it is the mind of God what 's the reason that you tattle of a dispensing Power in your Church with respect to this matter As if the Mind of God were altogether insignificant with you that let God command what he please you will be so stately
such assistance for the answering of them or made such a stir about them Really Sirs I plainly perceive that you are fully resolv'd that every thing shall make for your Credit let it be what it will For here because some few of them consented and thought good your two Mercuries should be answer'd and accordingly were so you meerly make that an Argument of the Strength and Moment of your Matter contain'd therein And yet because the Gentleman in his Animadversions did but omit that impertinent Passage of the Ruler's Daughter tho we may reasonably suppose it was because he almost thought it below a Man to take notice of it how bravely could you improve that poor Omission against him and make that too an Argument of the great Strength and Moment of that Passage So that you are the most fortunate Men alive Your being answer'd signifies Greatness in you not answering you signifies the same Every thing it seems works for the Reputation of the Athenian Society What is it that Men so priviledg'd may not venture upon You say likewise If any Anabaptists are disoblig'd by your Reflections upon those call'd Anabaptists in Germany you promise or threaten for my part I know not which to put the Matter in its true Light which has never been done yet Sirs the main thing I think that they commonly mind in that case is to observe the very great Folly and Weakness of you Pedo-baptists who generally are mighty apt and forward to make a clutter about the Anabaptists in Germany when you ought instead thereof to give us a good sound Argument for infant-Infant-Baptism We cannot imagine what you mean in so doing or what should make you so silly from time to time without the least Occasion Provocation or Reason to be so miserably impertinent Good now Sirs do so much as tell us seriously what it is you propound to your selves in your so doing Do you give it us as an Argument for Infant-Baptism or do you not if not then you your selves don 't look upon it as any thing to your purpose with respect to that Controversy if you do you are as much out in your Methods as the Man was in his Tools that bought a Hammer and a Chizzel to make his Neighbour a Dubblet But I 'm afraid there is something worse in it yet than all this and that is you urge these things commonly for no other reason than thereby to expose the Baptists to the Contempt and Hatred of ignorant and undiscerning People whom you are willing to hope will believe you in all you say without examining any thing And from their great skill in Logick will conclude that all Anabaptists must be such or one way or another as bad If this be your design Sirs 't is very bad and 't is no marvel if those you call Anabaptists should be disoblig'd at it but if you can clear your selves pray do for my part I should be very glad herein to be mistaken And that which aggravates your Folly herein to say no worse is that you cannot but know that if your Antagonists were in the humour to recriminate what an Augean Stable might soon be made of your unclean Oxen such a one as all the River Alphaeus would never be able to cleanse Moreover if this true Light you talk of be a new Light as your words seem to imply it may then justly be suspected to be your own Invention and so nothing but meer Darkness but if it be an old Light then it will be the same as it was before and I 'm afraid too near a kin to Guy Faux's Dark-Lanthorn to be good for any thing However Gentlemen use your Pleasure do what seemeth good in your own Eyes only remember that for all these things God will bring you to Judgment Postscript HAving a little Paper-room left which I was not aware of till the Press convinc'd me of it I shall a little reflect upon two or three things which hitherto I have wholly omitted The First is that strange and prodigious Ignorance you seem to be guilty of when you insinuate to the World that there is not one Instance of Female-Baptism in all the Scripture Sirs Is it likely that you should be fit Persons to manage such a Controversy satisfactorily and convincingly wherein and concerning which you appear to be so astonishingly ignorant yet this strange Ignorance of yours is attended with as strange a Confidence with which you boldly and in the face of the Sun challenge your Antagonists to shew where they have one Instance of Female-Baptism Really Sirs in my opinion it is at least a very great shame for any Man or Woman either pretending to Christianity of the meanest parts imaginable to be so horridly ignorant as here you appear to be How much more then is your Shame and Blame increas'd and aggravated when we consider with what Magnifying Glasses you look upon your selves and what publick Pretences you make to Parts Learning Wit and almost if not altogether universal Understanding You confidently insinuate that Infant-Baptism is as plainly to be found in Scripture as that of Adult Females Now Sirs if this did but appear to be truth we should then immediately have done disputing but it is so far from appearing to be truth that the contrary is not only easily demonstrated but you your selves shall be my Witness that it is directly false for you plainly confess in words at length that Infant-Baptism is not expresly to be found in Scripture Now then if Womens being baptiz'd is expresly to be found in Scripture then you are Witnesses against your selves of the Falseness of that Suggestion But the Baptism of Women is expresly to be found in Scripture Ergo. See Act. 8.12 16.14 15. All that I shall say more to this particular is only this that as you have publickly abus'd and endeavour'd to deceive the World by your ignorant rash and false Insinuations especially in this matter wherein you are so easily detected and convicted so you ought at least to make as publick an Acknowledgment and Recantation of this Injury done to the World by this blind yet bold Attempt of yours for it 's no small matter thus to abuse the World and make no conscience of making Compensation The second thing I would a little note is a piece of Divinity and Logick somewhat agreeble to the Ignorance just now complain'd of When you tell us that if Children do behold the Face of God in Heaven as say you our Saviour says then it follows that they have Faith in Heaven and consequently why not on Earth To which I answer That Children do or may behold the Face of God in Heaven I will not deny yet I profess I do not remember where our Saviour tells us so however it does not in the least follow that therefore they have Faith in Heaven but it rather strongly implies the contrary because Faith and Sight are plainly oppos'd to each other 2 Cor. 5.7