have drawn all impartial Men may see prove nothing Moreover what you speak about those great Articles of the Christian Religion as if they could not be proved without Consequences must not by any means be allowed nor can I take it to be true Cannot we find the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Scripture and that Christ is God and the second Person and that he was born of the Virgin without Consequences Is it Wisdom in you in such a corrupt Age as this is to lay down such Assertions Were those things the Matter of Controversy between you and me you should hear what positive and plain Scripture Proof might as you know hath often already be brought upon that account but to pass by this I affirm the Baptism of Believers lies plain in God's Word but Infant-Baptism is not to be found therein Quest 4. Why was not Christ baptized before he was thirty Years old You answer From the same Reason that the Jailor the Eunuch and St. Peter's Converts were not viz. there is no adhering to a Doctrine before it is instituted or preached but say you Infant-Baptism was much before our Saviour's time as amongst those of riper Years since and that you say is Proof enough Reply It can't be Proof enough to answer the Question and as to prove Infant-Baptism it utterly fails but if Infant-Baptism was much before our Saviour's time as an Institution of God there was no Want of an Institution when he was a Babe and therefore your Reason why he deferred his Baptism is gone Was it in being long before and yet not instituted or appointed by Jehovah Do you not herein implicitly confess that Custom amongst the Jews was human Nor will it serve your turn to say it was instituted a-new as a Gospel-Ordinance because you affirm Baptism under the Gospel was the Continuation of that old Custom with the Super-addition of the full Force of Baptism viz. a Consignation or Seal of the Covenant Do you not intimate it was not instituted a new but rather a Custom continued upon which you with that Addition and some others before you seem to lay the great Stress of your Infants Baptism And if some Additions were made to the old Custom why might there not be some Diminutions also and if it were a-new instituted it is all one as if it had never been in being before for the Right any have to Baptism and manner of Administration and all things appertaining to it must of necessity wholly depend upon the new Institution or Law of Christ If therefore Gospel-Baptism wholly depends on the new Institution then the old Custom is gone for ever had it been a Mosaical Rite like a Legacy bequeathed in a Will made void by the Testator's last Will and Testament though some part of the same thing may be repeated in the last Will that was in the first yet the last must decides the Controversy but in Christ's last Will and Testament Infant-Baptism is not to be found nor was it indeed an Ordinance ordained of God before Christ's time See my Answer about this in Answer to the first Question 2. Certainly had it been the Will of God Children should have been baptized as such Christ had been baptized when in his Infancy no doubt God who is a free Agent could not want an Administrator he could have sent John into the World sooner or have commissionated some other Person to have done it But since the Holy Ghost in the Gospel relates the time of his Baptism and that it was not till he was about thirty Years old it clearly shews us that adult Persons ought to be admitted to that Ordinance only and not Babes By which Example of his he hath strengthned his Commission or at least wise shewed the Congruity or sweet Agreement there is between his Precept and his own Practice Question 5. Why Sprinkling and not Dipping You answer Our Church denies not the latter that is dipping but looks upon it as a clear Representation of our Saviour's descending into the Grave abiding there and rising up again c. But say you the Church has power to dispense with Circumstantials and manner of Acting tho not with the Act it self c. Reply What your Church is I know not the Church of England doth acknowledg I must confess that Baptism is Dipping but I never heard they have of late times so practised But how dare you say the Church hath power to dispense with Dipping and change it into Sprinkling Who gave her such Power Where do you read of it You call it a Circumstantial but I am not of your Mind I must say 't is an Essential nay 't is no Baptism at all if not Dipping for Baptize is to dip which to confirm I could give you a Cloud of Witnesses learned in the Greek Tongue therefore 't is not the manner of the Act but the Act it self to baptize is one Act and to rantize or sprinkle Water is another the manner of the Act of dipping or baptizing is to put the Body into the Water backward or forward or side-ways or with a swift or gentle Motion Dipping is dipping and sprinkling sprinkling which Act will never be baptizing whilst the World stands You say well dipping or burying the Body in the Water is a clear and lively Representation of the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ And hence 't is said that such who are indeed baptized are buried with Christ in Baptism To which you might have added 't is also a Sign of our being dead to Sin and of our being raised up with Christ by the Faith of the Operation of God to walk in newness of Life And hence I infer Infants ought not to be baptized because there doth not cannot appear in them that glorious internal Work of the Spirit which ought to be signified thereby and as they for this reason cannot be the proper Subjects of Baptism So likewise it cannot be done by sprinkling because that Act cannot represent those Signs and Gospel-Mysteries which the Law-giver intended should be held forth in that holy Administration But why do you say this is a circumstantial Thing Was not Nadab and Abihu's Transgression and that of Vzzah's more like Circumstantials than this is and yet their Error cost them their Lives Or hath the Gospel-Church a greater dispensing Power in such Cases than the Church had under the Law Suppose the Jews should have changed Circumcision or cutting off the Foreskin of the Flesh to the paring the Nails of their Children or to cut off a little Skin off of the Fingers Ends would that have been Circumcision no doubt a better Circumcision than Sprinkling is Baptism Gentlemen will you call any Part or Branch or Thing that appertains to a positive Precept a Circumstance which the Church has power to dispense with If you should whither would this lead you You may after that Notion strangely curtail Christ's Institutions in other respects Question 6. What think you
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-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
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-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-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 〈◊〉
a great Body of Godly People who differ not from other Orthodox Christians in any Essentials of Salvation no nor in Fundamentals of Church-Constitutions save in the Point of Baptism and will you by reason of the Enormities of some who formerly bore the Name of Anabaptists mentioning the old Munster Story condemned as such all that bear that Name In Answer to which I ask you whether the like Reflections might nor have been cast on Christ's Apostles because they had a Judas among them or on the Church of the Corinthians because of the incestuous Person Besides you know not but in may be a Lie raised upon those People by the envious Papists who have rendred Calvin and Luther as odious as you do these Anabaptists You would think it hard if I should ask you what sort they were that Ralph Wallis used to expose and fill his Garts with or of those Clergy-men who were Pedo-Baptists yet were for filthy Crimes executed To conclude I wish that all Bitterness of Spirit was expelled Love and Charity exercised towards one another tho in some things we may differ from one another Queries for the Athenian Society to Answer some of which were formerly sent to them but were passed by in silence 1. On Infants the Subjects of Baptism And 2. What Baptism is First WHether there was not a twofold Covenant made with Abraham one with his Fleshly Seed and the other with his Spiritual Seed signified by the Bond Woman and the Free Woman and their Sons Ishmael and Isaac If so I query Whether Circumcision was an Ordinance that appertained to the Covenant of Grace and was the Seal of it 1. Because 't is contradistinguished from the Covenant of Grace or free Promise of God Rom. 4. 2. And 't is also called a Yoke of Bondage And 3. 'T is said also that he that was circumcised was a Debter to keep the whole Law And 4. Because Ishmael who was not a Child of the Covenant of Grace with Esau and many others yet were required to be circumcised as well as Isaac And 5. Since 't is positively said Faith was imputed to Abraham for Righteousness not in Circumcision How was it imputed then when he was circumcised or uncircumcised not when he was circumcised but when he was uncircumcised Rom. 4.10 Secondly Whether the being the Male-Children of Believers as such gave them right to Circumcision or not rather the meer positive Command of God to Abraham since we do not read of any other Godly Man's Seed in Abraham's days or since had any right thereto but only such who were born in his House or bought with his Mony Thirdly Whether Circumcision could be said to be the Seal of any Man's Faith save Abraham's only seeing 't is said he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith he had mark yet being uncircumcisied that he might be the Father of all that believe which was the Priviledg of Abraham only for how could Circumcision be a Seal to Children of that Faith they had before circumcised seeing they had no Faith at all as had Abraham their Father they being obliged by the Law of God to be circumcised at eight days old Fourthly What is it which you conceive Circumcision did or Baptism doth seal to Children or make sure since a Seal usually makes firm all the Blessings or Priviledges contained in that Covenant 't is prefix'd to Doubtless if the Fleshly Seed of Believers as such are in the Covenant of Grace and have the Seal of it they shall be saved because we are agreed that the Covenant of Grace is well ordered in all things and sure there is no final falling therefore how should any of them miss of eternal Life and yet we see many of them prove wicked and ungodly and so live and die if you say it seals only the external Part and Priviledges of the Covenant of Grace Fifthly I demand to know what those External Priviledges are seeing they are denied the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper and all other External Rites whatsoever if you say when they believe they shall partake of those Blessings so say I shall the Children of Unbelievers as well as they Sixthly If the Fleshly Seed or Children of believing Gentiles as such are to be accounted the Seed of Abraham I query Whether they are his Natural Seed or his Spiritual Seed if not his Natural Seed nor his Spiritual Seed what right can they have to Baptism or Church-Membership from any Covenant-Transactions God made with Abraham Seventhly Whether those different grounds upon which the Right of Infant-Baptism is pretended by the Fathers of old and the Modern Divines doth well agree with an Institution that is a meer positive Rite depending wholly on the Will of the Legislator doth not give just cause to all to question its Authority 1. Some Pedo-Baptists asserted It took away Original Sin and such who denied it were anathematized 2. Some affirm That Children are in the Covenant and being the Seed of Believers are fedorally Holy therefore ought to be Baptized 3. Another sort of Pedo-Baptists say They ought to be Baptized by virtue of their Parents Faith 4. Others affirm They have Faith themselves and are Disciples and therefore must be baptized 5. Another sort Baptize them upon the Faith of their Sureties 6. And another sort of Pedo-Baptists say It wholly depends upon the Power and Authority of the Church 7. Some say It was an Apostolical unwritten Tradition but others deny that and affirm It may be proved from the Word of God Sure if it was of God or his Institution the Pedo-Baptists would not be thus divided and confounded among themselves Eighthly Is it not an evil thing and very absurd for any to say Baptism is a Symbol of present Regeneration and yet apply it to Babes in whom nothing of the things signified thereby doth or can appear And also to say I Baptize thee in the Name c. when indeed he doth not Baptize but only Rantize the Child and to say Baptism is a lively Figure of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection and yet only sprinkle or pour a little Water upon the Face of the Child Ninthly Whether that can be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither Command nor Example in all the Word of God nor 〈◊〉 Promise made to such who do it nor Threats denounced on such who neglect it or do it not For though there are both Promises made to Believers Baptized and Threats denounced on such who neglect it yet where are there any such in respect of Infant-Baptism Tenthly Whether a Pagan or Indian who should attain to the knowledg of the Greek Tongue or of the English or any other Tongue into which the Original should be translated by reading over the New Testament a thousand times he could ever find Infants ought to be Baptized if not how doth it appear the Faith of People about Pedo-Baptism stands in the Power of God