perhaps incouraged you thus to write But to correct your Rashness and silence you and them to consider what I and the fore-mentioned Gentleman have said Is it not enough that Infant-Baptism should be built upon no better a Foundation than the Tradition of the Apostate Gentile Church and the Decrees of Popes and General Councils but that it must also be grounded on the erronious Customs of the Jewish Talmud But to proceed that Circumcision may answer or run Parallel with Baptism you bring in the Practice of some Heathen Nations who circumcised their Females we shall have it anon the truth is the Proof and Explanation of Infant-Baptism shall be sufficiently made out before you have done if fabulous and erroneous Traditions of Jews Heathens and Apostate Christians will do it but if no better Authority or Proof can be brought for it than what is contained in your Mercury 't is time for all good Christians with Shame enough to cast it off Should I tell my Reader why some Heathens circumcised their Females it might greatly expose you But to close with your first Question take what Dr. Jer. Taylor late Bishop of Down hath said upon this Conceit i.e. that Circumcision figured Baptism there are his words viz. The Argument saith he from Circumcision is invalid upon infinite Configurations Figures and Types prove nothing unless a Command go along with them or some Express to signify such to be their purpose for the Deluge of Waters and the Ark of Noah were Figures of Baptism saith Peter If therefore the Circumstances of the one should be drawn to the other we should make Baptism a Prodigy rather than a Rite The Paschal Lamb was a Figure of the Eucharist which succeds the other as Baptism doth to Circumcision but because there was in the Manducation of the Paschal Lamb no Prescription of Sacramental Drink shall we thence conclude that the Eucharist is to be administred in one kind And even in the very instance of this Argument suppose a Correspondency of the Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism yet their is no Correspondency of Identity for tho it be granted that both of them did consign the Covenant of Faith yet there is nothing in the Circumstances of Children being circumcised that so concerns that Mystery but that it might very well be given to Men of Reason because Circumcision lest a Character in the Flesh which being imprinted upon the Infant did its work to them when they came to Age and such a Character was necessary because there was no word added to the Sign but Baptism imprints nothing that remains on the Body and if it leaves a Character at all it is upon the Soul to which the word is added which is as much a part of the Sacrament as the Sign it self for both which Reasons it is requisite that the Party baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the Word and of the Sacrament and the Impress-upon the Spirit Since therefore the Reason of the Parity does wholly fail there is nothing left to infer a necessity of complying in the Circumstance of Age any more than in the other Annexes of Types Then the Infant must also precisely be baptized upon the eighth day and Females must not be baptized at all because not circumcised but it were more proper if we would understand it a right to prosecute the Analogy from the Type to the Antitype by the way for Letter and Spirit and Signification and as Circumcision figures Baptism so also the Adjuncts of the circumcised shall signify some thing spiritual in the Adherence of Baptism and therefore as Infants were circumcised so spiritual Infants-should be baptized which is spiritual Circumcision for therefore Babes had the Ministry of the Type to signify that we must when we give our Names to Christ become Children in Malice and then the Type is made compleat Thus the worthy Doctor hath answered your Question and you too If Circumcision must be a Type of Baptism he hath shewed how and how not if it be so taken but the truth is all Types cease when the Antitype is come the one must give way to the other but Circumcision did continue in full force some Years after Baptism was in full force for Circumcision ended not till Christ nailed it to his Cross therefore it could not be the Type of Baptism but how a Shadow or Sign should be the proper Antitype of a Shadow I see not But enough hath been said to this and I should not have said so much to it but because you Notion seems new to some As touching the other two Scriptures you mention viz. that in 1 Cor. 10. 't is very impertinently cited for your business to prove Circumcision the Type of Gospeil-Baptism but this Text speaks nothing of that in the least nor no more doth that in Peter Suppose the Red-sea was a Figure of Baptism and so also the Water and Ark of Noah what of all this if you had urged the Fathers and Children were baptized to Moses in the Sea and in the Cloud and therefore Children may be Baptized I would have answered you that was but a figurative Baptism and proves nothing besides it would prove Unbelievers may be baptized also because there was a mixt Multitude as well so Baptized as were the Fathers and their Children besides much Cattel were with them in the Sea and under the Cloud Quest 2. What certain indubitable Grounds can we have for the Practice of infant-Infant-Baptism You answer The certain Ground is from the Scripture and first from the Words of the Commission Matth. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciple all Nations and then follows Baptizing them in the name c. From the order of which words you say Infants are not excluded from Baptism as is generally believed by Anabaptists a Person may be Baptized before he is taught for say you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mathetusate signifies to disciple all Nations personally and subjectively being a general word it contains the other two that follow viz. Baptizing and Teaching it being a word of the imperative Mode and the other two only Participles so that the Commission of it is that and the Mode of it these but in the Mode Baptizing them preceeds Teaching them to observe all things c. Reply Because there is a Teaching follows Baptism doth it therefore follow according to the Order of the sacred Commission there is no Teaching indispensibly to go before the Person is baptized You have cause to tremble for trifling and basely inverting the order of the Commission of our Blessed Saviour what though the Greek word Discipliz or make Disciples be a word of the imperative Mode O strange have you found it out will this do your business doth it therefore contain the other two I ask you whether a Man may not be made a Disciple and not be Baptized or be Baptized and yet not be discipled Matth. 13.52 't is 〈◊〉
the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees Fourthly Your citing Heb. 8. and Jer. 31. to shew what Baptism seals to Infants proves nothing We deny not but all who are actually in the New Covenant viz. by Faith ingrafted into Christ have right to Remission and Salvation and that that Covenant secures and preserves them to Eternal Life therefore the Children of Believers as such are not in it And if they are no otherwise in it than conditionally that is if they repent believe c. I ask you what Priviledg that is more than what the Children of Heathens and Infidels have for if they believe and repent shall they not have the same Blessings Priviledges of the Covenant also As to the Adult Professors we say if they fall finally away it shews they never indeed were in the Covenant of Grace As to Adult true Believers the Holy Spirit seals Remission and Salvation to them and they shall be saved a sign of what is actually in them is held forth in Baptism there being nothing signified by that Ordinance as to a Death unto Sin but what they experienced wrought on their Souls before Baptized tho 't is true they thereby for the time to come covenant to walk in newness of Life Fifthly As touching the great Commission Mat. 28. where you urge Baptizing goes before Teaching we have fully answered you in the precedent Reply we prove there is a Teaching goes before Baptism and yet also a Teaching after Why do you attempt to blind the Eyes of the unwary Reader Sixthly To what purpose do you mention Jairus's Daughter do we deny but that the Parents Faith and Prayer may procure outward Blessings nay and spiritual Ones too and as much perhaps for their poor carnal Neighbours and Friends My Servant Job shall pray for you The fervent Prayer of a Righteous Man availeth much but it doth not give Right to their Friends or Children to Baptism Seventhly As to your Syriac Translation that the Jaylor and all the Sons of his House were Baptized I argue All his Sons no doubt were grown up to Age because 't is said he believed with all his House If he had Sons grown up and yet did not believe then by your Argument Unbelievers may be Baptized but to this see our Answer Eighthly As to your proof from that Passage i. e. Suffer little Children to come unto me Take the words definitely or indefinitely it proves nothing for you for Christ Baptized no Child for with his own Hards he Baptized no Person at all Joh. 4.1,2 't was to lay his Hands upon them not to Baptize them Moreover I have before told you those little Ones Mark 9.42 were Adult Whosoever shall offend one of these little Ones that believe in me I affirm our Saviour speaks only of such little Ones as were grown up to such Age as in very deed did believe in him and not Babes of two or ten days old But you say you would have no Children proselyted but such as Timothy c. To which you answer That according to the Original those Children that did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word we have shewed signifies any common coming and may be such who come in their Parents Arms Let Babes come to Christ this way or that he baptized none of them I may infer as well because little Children come or were brought to Christ and of such are the Kingdom of Heaven therefore they may partake of the Lord's Supper as you infer they may be Baptized Ninthly Tho the Gospel did not spread into all Nations c. yet sure you conclude all were to be baptized in all Nations wheresoever the Gospel did come or was preached or else as we say none in those Nations but such who were made Disciples i. e. did believe and repent for if but some in those Nations where the Gospel comes were to be Baptized and not all and yet more ought so to be then such who are discipled first Pray who are they or how shall we know them to be included in the Commission For as Mr. Baxter saith If we have it not here where have we it this being the great Rule or Charter of the Church for this Rite unto which we ought to adhere in this Matter Tenthly What signifies what some of the Ancient Fathers believed i. e. That Federal Holiness of Parents made Children Candidates for Baptism They said other things too that you decry as well as we many Errors being early let into the Church Besides we have Tertullian against Tertullian or one Father against another which is ground enough to believe you abuse Tertullian or to doubt of the truth of your History Eleventhly You ask whether Children have not as much right to their Baptism as that of Adult Females for 't is no where said she that believeth and is baptized where have we one Instance of Female-Baptism Reply We ak you whether Male and Female is not intended in Mark 16.16 he or she and so John 3.3 Vnless a Man be born again the Woman is included or have Women no Souls Did you never read of the Figure Sylepfis or Conceptio that comprehends the less worthy under the more worthy indignioris sub-digniore as for Example Quid tu soror sacitis ego mater miseri perimus tu uxor qui adsuistis testes estote and it 's no less true in Divinity see that full and never to be baffled place 1 Cor. 6.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Gen. 5.2 And he called their Name Adam they two shall be one Flesh Moreover do we not read Women were made Disciples as well as Men and so had the same right to Baptism from the Commission But to detect your Ignorance of the Scripture pray see Acts 8.12 When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ they were baptized both Men and Women Also Acts 16.15 't is said Lydia was baptized I thought she had been a Woman Gentlemen you shew you are but younger Brethren and will do the Pedo-baptists no Service shew such a Proof for the Baptism of Infants and your work is done But tho Children lose no spiritual Right by Christ's coming yet they may lose some Legal Rites As Ministers Sons now are not born to the Ministry as they were under the Law as well as their Fleshly Seed had right as such to their Jewish Church-Membership Furthermore because Believers are made holy by the Operations of the Spirit are all their Children made holy in like manner also Blush for Christ's sake The Blessing of Abraham Sirs only comes upon the Gentiles through Faith not by natural Generation as you imagine As the Blessing runs to the Parents viz. through Faith so to their Children they must believe also if they would be the Children of the Promise or Spiritual Seed of Abraham Gal. 3. ult Twelfthly As touching what you say further as to universal Consent of
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-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-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
the truth of the Business is saith he as there was no Command of Scripture to oblige Children to the susception of it So the necessity of Pedo-Baptism was not determined in the Church till the Canon that was made in the Milevetan Council a Provincial in Africa never till then I grant saith he it was practised in Africa before that time and they or some of them thought well of it and though that is no Argument for us to think so yet none of them did ever pretend it to be necessary nor to have been a Precept of the Gospel St. Anstin was the first that ever preached it to be necessary and it was in his Heat and Anger against Pelagius who had so warm'd and chafed him that made him innovate herein Thus far the Doctor As to Clemens Ireneus c. you make such a stir about is contradicted by History Clemens asserts who are the right Subjects and in what order they ought after due Examinations and Instructions to be baptized See Jacob Merningus in his History of Baptism p. 2. upon Cent. 2. p. 209. out of Clem. Epist 3. also Dutch Martyrology Ignatius in his Discourse about Baptism asserts That it ought to be accompanied with Faith Love and Patience after preaching see H. Montanus p. 45. and Jacob Dubois p. 16 to 22. and Dutch Martyrology where Ignatius's Letters are mentioned to Polycarp Traliensis and to them of Philadelphia All that we can find of Ireneus is Lib. 2. cap. 39. adv Haeres That Christ did sanctify every Age by his own susception of it and similitude to it all I say who by him are born again to God In all which is no word of infant-Infant-Baptism Unless you wiredraw Consequences from his words as you do from the Scripture to support a tottering Structure built on a false Foundation That Ireneus or any other but Origen's Testimony was in the case You have Dr. Taylor in his Dissuasive against Popery p. 118. printed 1667 one of his last Pieces saying thus viz. That there is a Tradition to baptize Infants relies but upon two Witnesses Origen and Austin and the latter having received it from the former it relies upon a single Testimony which is but a pitiful Argument to prove a Tradition Apostolical He is the first that spoke it but Tertullian that was before him seems to speak against it which he would not have done if it had been a Tradition Apostolical And that it was not so is but too certain if there be any Truth in the words of Ludov. Vives saying That anciently none were Baptized but Persons of riper Age. And as to Origen's Works there is cause to question whether they are to be regarded for Mr. Perkins and others doubt about them because no Greek Copies thereof are extant And Dr. Taylor saith that many of his Works are Corrupt and Erroneous particularly in the Point of Baptism and fell into ill Hands c. To conclude the Learned Curcelaeus Instit lib. 1. cap. 12. thus saith Poedobaptismus duobus primis à Christo nato seculis fuit incognitus c. Pedo-Baptism was unknown in the two first Ages after the Birth of Christ but in the 3 d and 4 th it was approved of by a few in the 5 th and the following Ages it began to be generally received And therefore as afterward he saith this Rite is indeed observed by us as an ancient Custom but not as an Apostolical Tradition The same Author De peccato Originis Numb 56. saith Morem Infantes baptizandi non coepisse ante tertium à Christo nato saeculum c. That the Custom of Baptizing Infants did not begin till the 3 d Age after Christ but in the two former no footstep of it doth appear And afterward saith he Sine ipsius Christi mandato introducta est It was introduced without the Command of Christ Now let the Reader confider if our Authority is not greater than the bare Testimony of Zuinglius a late prejudiced Writer Gentlemen Many Eyes are upon you and divers discreet Men think you have not done well to reflect upon so great a Party of pious Christian-People nor do they look on you as fit Persons to meddle with Sacred Things after this manner They judg you are better skill'd to answer Love-stories c. than Points of Divinity Certainly no wise Man can justify your Essay to answer such Questions as concern this Controversy c. which tend to stir up Strife and Contention among us nor blame us to vindicate our Selves and Principle when reproached and challenged after such a sort But take your course 't is better to provoke to Love Peace and Unity amongst one another FINIS ERRATA PAge 3. line 8. for et read ex P. 3. l. 15. f. Judicia r. Judaica P. 5. l. 21. f. Configurations r. Considerations P. 6. l. 40. f. Mode r. Mood and l. 42. f. Mode r. Mood and col 1. l. 8. f. but r. for P. 7. l. 9. col 2. f. invalid r. invalidated P. 10. col 1. l. 8. f. run r. runs and col 2. l. 31. f. decides r. decide P. 13. col 2. l. 9. f. childless r. childish and l. 22. f. condemned r. condemn P. 15. col 2. l. 36. f. no where else r. any where else
was perfected and acknowledged for Authentick five hundred Years after Christ and out of it Maimonides drew his Doctrine at all the rest of them therefore we cannot acquiesce in such Testimony Gentlemen either answer no more Questions about Religion or take more heed to what you say for your pleading for Infant-Baptism from such grounds all may perceive tends to cast an Odium and Contempt on the Christian Religion Therefore I infer your Proof for this Practice from the Custom amongst the Jews about baptizing of Proselytes both Men Women and Children proves nothing you were better for the Authority of it to urge the Decrees of Popes and General Councils a Popish Innovation is as good as a Jewish one But however you do allow that our blessed Saviour did add something to this pretended Jewish Custom and â—…th not only put it in full force but also made it a Consignation or Seal of the Covenant and this say you is further strengthened by several undeniable Texts of Scripture which Anabaptists themselves can never get clear of and ask them they must either be silent or give such a Paraphrase as we do The Texts are these First Col. 2.11,12 In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without bands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ Buried with him in Baptism c. The second that of baptizing the Israelites in the Red-Sea 1 Cor. 10.2 The last is the saving of Noah and his Family in the Ark 1 Pet. 3.21 Reply 1. But is it so indeed did our Saviour in instituting Gospel-Baptism do no more than put a Jewish Custom to be in full force and make it a Consignation or Seal of the Covenant Were you not learned and ingenious Men I should not so much admire at your Notions 2. But the Truth is in the second place if you had not told us in your next words to what purpose you mention those Scriptures we should have been at a great loss about it or not well have understood your Intention but you like the ingenious Painter soon inform us and tell us what 't is i. e. you tell us you urge not these things to prove any thing else but the Parallel betwixt Circumcision and Baptism or to speak say you more properly the necessary continuance of the old Manner amongst the Jews of continuing their way of proselyting the Heathen 3. Was it necessary then that a human Tradition of the Jews should be continued I thought the Apostle tells you that Christ nailed all the Jewish Ceremonies of the Mosaical Law to the Cross and that they all ceased when the Antitype was come and besure had the Baptism you speak of been indeed a Mosaical Rite I mean appointed or commanded of God it had vanished with its Fellows But 't is hard Christ should abolish all Legal Customs or Ceremonial Ordinances and yet confirm with some addition a Custom of the Jews own inventing 4. You do not seem to distinguish between your twofold Answer to the Question I thought you had brought those Scriptures to prove Baptism the proper Antitype of Circumcision but you urge the former old Custom again so that here 's no Scripture nor Argument brought by you to prove the thing in hand As touching what you say of the Parallel betwixt Circumcision and Baptism signifies nothing if in some things there should be a Parallel it doth not follow therefore Baptism was the Antitype of Circumcision What tho Circumcision was the initiating Ordinance of the Male Children into the Jewish Church and Baptism is that initiating Ordinance into the Gospel-Church this doth not prove the one the Type of the other 5. But pray what is it that the Anabaptists can never get clear of or being ask'd the Exposition they must be silent or give such a Paraphrase as you do I must tell you I know no Text more full for our practice of baptizing Believers than that in Col. 2.11,12 We say from thence that the proper Antitype of Circumcision in the Flesh is the Circumcision of the Heart and therefore not Baptism tho 't is granted by us that in Baptism there is a Representation of the new Birth and Mortification of Sin which Circumcision was the express Type of And this cannot weaken nor silence us but rather strengthen our hands All that can well be inferred from this Text Col. 2.11,12 where the Apostle mentions Circumcision and Baptism is no more than this viz. where Baptism is administred upon a proper Subject it represents the Spiritual and Mystieal Circumcision of the Heart i.e. that the Soul is dead to Sin or that he hath put off the Body of Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ which may refer to the Power of his Death in the Effects thereof by the effectual Sin-killing Operations of the holy Spirit on the Heart And as we being dead to Sin we are also buried with Christ in Baptism both in the Sign i.e. covered all over in the Water which resembles in a lively Figure his Burial and also in Signification i.e. the Power and blessed Effects of his Death having been the Death of the old Man or that Body of Sin in us wherein also in like manner we are also risen with him through the Faith of the Operation of God and this is likewise held forth both in Sign and Signification in true Baptism Now if this be not your Paraphrase on this Text we cannot help it I know many Learned Man who own Pedo-Baptism speak to the same purpose nor is there any reason for you to say we must be silent c. as if we knew not what to say to this Text But what is this for Infant-Baptism or to prove Baptism the Antitype of Circumcision Doth Sprinkling represent a Burial doth the Sign or Figure of Christ's Burial appear in sprinkling a little Water on the Face and as it is done to an Infant in whom Faith and Regeneration is not wrought what doth there appear in Signification Doth not the Church of England say that Baptism is the outward Sign of an inward spiritual Grace sure that is but a mock-Baptism where there is neither the Sign or Figure of Christ's Death and Burial c. nor tht inward Work wrought upon the Person baptized which is signified or ought to be signified thereby viz. That the said Person is dead to Sin and raised up by the Faith of the Operation of God to walk in newness of Life But alas this it seems is not the thing 't is not so much to prove Baptism to be the Antitype of Circumcision as 't is to prove Baptism to be the continuation of a Jewish Custom for to speak more properly you intimate that to this purpose you mention these things Sure all understanding Men as well Pedo-Baptists as others must needs loath your Notion but I know you are not alone herein there are some others who have asserted the same thing which
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-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-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-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
of those that die in Infancy unbaptized You answer Of such are the Kingdom of Heaven Reply So saith our blessed Saviour but they have say I no Right thereto or belong unto the Kingdom of Heaven because sprinkled with a little Water nor would they have any further Right should they be indeed baptized since there is no Command of God for it Quest 7. If Children be saved whether baptized or not what signifies Baptism You answer 't is a Badg of Christ an evident Note of Distinction from the Children of Infidels and as we come to the Knowledg of spiritual Things by Sense so 't is an Evidence of a greater assurance of the Favour of God to them being invisibly introduced into the Covenant of Grace Reply 'T is no Badg of Christ besure because he never gave it to them and if it be an evident Note of Distinction from the Children of Infidels 't is wholly of Man's making You know what wonderful things are ascribed to Chrism by the Papists who use Salt Oil and Spittle c. in Baptism and to other devised Rites and Ceremonies used by them and I have as much ground from God's Word to believe what they say as what you say who affirm and prove not why do you not say they are thereby made Members of Christ Children of God and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven Pray what an assurance can that give them of the Favour of God unless he had appointed it and imparted some spiritual Grace thereby to them Nay and what Arguments do you bring to prove they thereby are introduced into the Covenant of Grace Can any outward Act bring or introduce People either young or old into the Covenant of Grace if they are brought thereby into the Covenant of Grace I hope they shall all be saved that are baptized as you call it I hope you are not for falling away or that any Soul who is in the Covenant of Grace shall perish eternally Moreover how can they come to the knowledg of spiritual Things by Sense indeed in the case of Circumcision which left a Mark in the Flesh they might more probably understand by the sight of the Eye those spiritual Things signified by it but Baptism leaves no such Mark Nothing appears to their Senses when they come to knowledg that can have any such Tendency I fear rather it is a great means when they are grown up to blind their Eyes and cause them to think as many ignorant People do that they are made thereby Christians and so in a saved State and never look after the Work of Regeneration Quest 8. Whether have Children Faith or no since Faith and Repentance are Pre-requisites to Baptism Your Answer is That you have shewed that according to the words of the Commission Baptizing goes before Teaching therefore there is not such a Pre-requisiteness as some dream of you have said so I must confess from the Commission but have not proved it but rather made work for Repentance by striving to invert the Order of the sacred Commission of our Saviour c. But say you admit Faith as pre-requisite to Baptism we could answer that Children have Faith potentia tho not in actu visibili As an Artist when he is indisposed or asleep is potentially an Artist tho not actually Reply Strange you should attempt to affirm Children have Faith potentia who told you so when was this imaginary Faith infused into them it must be either by Nature Art or Grace or else your Simily is lost You are look'd upon indeed to be Philosophers but this is above my Understanding or your own Demonstration but you suppose that Passage in Matth. 18. doth your business whereas 't is evident that our Saviour speaks there of such little ones who were indeed capable to believer it was not such a little one as you would have baptized We doubt not but God doth oftimes insuse Grace very early in the Souls of some very young and calls them to believe and to the knowledg of the Truth but what is this to all Infants in general But more fully to answer what you say about Children having Faith take what Dr. Taylor hath wrote upon this Conceit Whether Infants have Faith or no is a Question saith he to be disputed by Persons that care not how much they say and how little they prove 1. Personal and actual Faith they have none for they have no Acts of Understanding and besides how can any Man know that they have since he never saw any Sign of it neither was he told so by any that could tell 2. Some say they have imputative Faith but then so let the Sacrament be too that is if they have the Parents Faith or the Churches then so let Baptism be imputed also by derivation from them and as in their Mothers Womb and while they hung on their Mothers Breasts they live upon their Mothers Nourishment so they may upon the Baptism of their Parents or their Mother the Church for since Faith is necessary to the susception of Baptism and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the matter up such as the Faith such must be the Sacrament for there is no Proportion between an actual Sacrament and an imputative Faith this being in immediate and necessary order to that And whatsoever can be said to take from the Necessity of actual Faith all that and much more may be said to excuse from the actual susception of Baptism The first of these Devices was that of Luther and his Scholars the second of Calvin and his and yet there is a third Device which the Church of Rome teaches and that is that Infants have habitual Faith but who told them so how can they prove it what Revelation or Reason teaches any such thing are they by this Habit so much as disposed to an actual Belief without a new Master Can an Infant sent into a Mahometan Province be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a Man than if he had not been baptized are there any Acts precedent concomitant or consequent to this pretended Habit This strange Invention is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority but the Men are to be excused unless there were a better And again to this purpose pag. 242. And if any Man runs for Succour to that exploded Cresphugeton that Infants have Faith or any other inspired Habit of I know not what or how we desire no more advantage in the World than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason common Sense and all the Experience in the World As to what you speak as to those young Children you mention it proves nothing and some of your Stories seem childless 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 scurrilous manner cast Reproach upon
and that 't is only Love that continues What is it they have not received in Heaven which they trust in God for Nor is your Conclusion good Had they Faith there they may have it here The Text you cite Heb. 11.27 refers to that Faith Moses had on Earth who saw him who was Invisible God seems so to us here but what a sight we shall have of him in Heaven we know not Doth not the Apostle say we shall behold Face to Face and the pure in Heart shall see God Shall that be such a sight that Moses had whilst on Earth Questions relating to the Fathers with respect to the Controversy about Infant-Baptism First WHat reason can be given why Nazianzen an eminent Greek Father should counsel the deferring the Baptism of Infants until the third or fourth Year of their Age except in danger of Death if it were in Nazianzen's Time as some suppose it was the Opinion of the whole Church as also his own that Infants by an Apostolical Tradition were to be baptized as such that is as soon as born Secondly Whether all the Fathers of the third and fourth Century both of the Greek and Latin Church who have wrote any thing about Infant-Baptism do not unanimously give this as the Reason why Infants should be Baptized viz. the washing away Original Sin or the putting them into a Capacity of Salvation and some of them particularly St. Austin sentencing Infants to Eternal Damnation if not Baptized Thirdly If so Whether the Fathers might not be mistaken in the Right of Infants to Baptism as well as in the Judgment of most Protestants they are in the Reason why they should be Baptized Four other Queries 1. WHether God hath allowed or enjoined Parents to bring their little Bzbes of two or ten days old into a Covenant with him by Baptism since 't is not to be found in the Scripture he either hath allowed or enjoined them so to do 2. If it cannot be proved he hath required any such thing at their Hands Whether that Covenant can be said to bind their Consciences when they come to Age especially since they gave no Consent to it nor were capable so to do 3. If this pretended Covenant was not of God's Appointment I query how these Children who refuse to agree to the-said Covenant when at Age can thereby be guilty 1. Of rejecting Christ 2. Of renouncing the Blessings of the Gospel 3. And that 't is Rebellion continued against their Maker 4. That 't is Ingratitude and Perjury to their Redeemer 5. Gross Injustice to their Parents 6 That 't is self killing Crueltie to their own Souls 7. And a damning Sin 4. I query whether this be good Divinity not rather a strange Doctrine And whether unwarrantable Articles of Faith taken out of the Jewish Talmud or Turkish Alcoran may not by as good Authority be put into a Christian Catechism as such Assertions as these Four Queries sent by another Hand to the Athenian Society Gentlemen I Humbly conceive that no Man knoweth what is a Duty but by the Scriptures And since Pedo-Baptism cannot be proved by the Word of God as every Man may know and is generally acknowledged by the most Learned Assertors of that Practice it therefore plainly followeth in my Judgment that Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God's Appointment but an Innovation I therefore seriously query I. WHether Tradition Jewish Talmuds the Opinion of private Doctors Schoolmen c. be a sufficient Warrant for the Churches to est ablish such a Practice that hath neither Precept nor Example in the Holy Scriptures II. Since the pretended Foundation of Infant-Baptism viz. its absolute necessity to Salvation proving to be a Mistake of the Text John 3.5 as is generally acknowledged by Protestants Whether the Structure ought not to fall with it as it did in the Case of giving the Child the Eacharist III. Whether the Faith of the Parent or Gossip on the Child's behalf be required of God or will be imputed to the Child by God If not why ventured on and not rather a waiting for Faith in the Subject as required in Holy Writ by the Apostles and Primitive Churches and seemingly by the Church of England in her Catechism IV. Whether the Church hath a good Warrant that will justify her before God in changing the Mode from Dipping to Sprinking and whether that Alteration doth so well answer the Design of the Holy God as that Ceremony which himself appointed Gentleman I knew nothing of that Gentleman's Animadversions or that he or any Body else intended to take notice of your Mercury till I had wrote what I intended to say tho when it was too late I saw it POSTSCRIPT Containing some Remarks upon the Athenian Mercury Vol. 4. Numb 18. published Saturday Novemb. 28. 1691. Gentlemen JUST as my Answer to your first Mercury about Infant-Baptism was finished and almost printed off your second Paper on the same Subject came to my Hand And tho I was not concerned in the Paper called Animadversions on your other Mercury yet till a furthet Answer is prepared I shall make some Reflections upon what you have said in your pretended Reply to that Gentleman c. 1. Sirs You go too fast to conclude you by that Paper understand wherein our strength lies as by this time you may perceive nor don 't conclude you have it all yet 2. What you say about your pretended Proof of Infant-Baptism from that unscriptural Tradition or Custom among the Jews of proselyting whole Families to the Jewish Religion by Baptism you may see fully answered before I saw your last Mercury Have you proved that Custom among them was Jure Divino or if so that it remained and was continued by Christ Secondly What you have said about Baptism being the proper Antitype of Circumcision is also answered Nor does what you speak of Types and Antitypes not agreeing in every thing help you Have not we shewed the proper Antitype of Circumcision in the Flesh is that of the Heart Thirdly As to you Logical Argument viz. An Ordinance once enjoined and never repealed is always in force but the Ordinance of Childrens in covenanting was once in the Old Testament enjoined and was never repealed Ergo We answer If the Ordinance of Children in Covenanting under the Law was Circumcision that Ordinance is repealed Is not Circumcision repealed 2. If you say notwithstanding Children of the Flesh or the natural Seed being once in the Covenant and never cast out by reason that Law or Covenant for their incovenanting being not repealed is always in force Reply 1. That the Old or first Covenant for their Incovenanting is repealed is plain he took away the first that he might establish the second 2. Also 't is said that Hagar and her Son are cast out viz. the legal Covenant and fleshly Seed and no new Law is added to bring them into the Gospel-Church by Baptism i.e. the fleshly or natural Seed as such Now is