of no Force against Catholicks who conclude the Apostolical Tradition is of no less Authority with us than the Scripture c. this of baptizing of Infants is an Apostolical Tradition Bellarm. in his Book dâ— Bapt. I. 1. c. 8. Mr. Ball saith We must for every Ordinance look to the Institution and never stretch it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it for he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own Pleasure and 't is our part to learn of him both to whom how and for what End the Sacraments are to be administred Ball in his Answer to the New-England Elders p. 38 39. And as to the Minor 't is acknowledged by our Adversaries it is not to be found in â—â—e Letter of the Scripture And as to the Consequences drawn therefrom we have proved they are not natural from the Premises and though we admit of Consequences and Inferences if genuine yet not in the case of an Institution respecting a practical Ordinance that is of meer positive Right Arg. 9. If Infant-Baptism was an Institution of Christ the Pedo-Baptists could not be at a loss about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism But the Pedo-Baptists are at a great Loss and differ exceedingly about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism Ergo 't is no Institution of Christ As touching the Major I argue thus That which is an Institution of Christ the Holy Scripture doth shew as well the End and Ground of the Ordinance as the Subject and Manner of it But the Scripture speaks nothing of the End or Ground of Pedo-Baptism or for what reason they ought to be baptized Ergo 't is no Institution of Christ The Minor is undeniable Some affirm as we have shewed p. 15. it was to take away Original Sin Some say it is their Right by the Covenant they being the Seed of Believers Others say Infants have Faith and therefore have a Right Others say They have a Right by the Faith of their Sureties Some ground their Right from an Apostolical Tradition others upon the Authority of Scripture Some say All Children of professed Christians ought to be baptized others say None but the Children of true Believers have a Right to it Sure if it was an Ordinance of Christ his Word would soon end this Controversy Arg. 10. If the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the natural nor spiritual Seed of Abraham they can have no Right to Baptism or Church-Membership by virtue of any Covenant-transaction God made with Abraham But the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the natural nor spiritual Seed of Abraham Ergo. Arg. 11. If no Man can prove from Scripture that any spiritual Benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism 't is no Ordinance of Christ But no Man can prove from Scripture that any spiritual Benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism Ergo. Arg. 12. That cannot be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither Command nor Example in all God's Word nor Promise to such who do it nor Threatnings to such who neglect it But there is no Command or Example in all the Word of God for the baptizing of little Babes nor Promise made to such who are baptized nor Threatnings to such who are not Ergo. That the Child lies under a Promise who is baptized or the Child under any Threatning or Danger that is not baptized let them prove it since it is denied Arg. 13. If no Parents at any time or times have been by God the Father Jesus Christ or his Apostles either commended for baptizing of their Children or reproved for neglecting to baptize them then Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God But no Parents at any time or times have been by God commended for baptizing of their Children c. Ergo Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God This Argument will stand unanswerable unless any can shew who they were that were ever commended for baptizing their Children or reproved for neglecting it or unless they can shew a parallel case Arg. 14. If Men were not to presume to alter any thing in the Worship of God under the Law neither to add thereto nor diminish therefrom and God is as strict and jealous of his Worship under the Gospel then nothing ought to be altered in God's Worship under the Gospel But under the Law Men were not to presume so to do and God is as strict and jealous under the Gospel Ergo. The Major cannot be denied The Minor is clear See thou make all things according to the Pattern shewed thee in the Mount Exod. 25. 40. and Levit. 10. 1 2. See how Nadab and Abibu sped for presuming to vary from the Command of God and Uzzah tho but in small Circumstances as they may seem to us How dare Men adventure this being so to change Baptism from Dipping into Sprinkling and the Subject from an Adult Believer to an ignorant Babe Add thou not unto his Word c. Arg. 15. Whatever Practice opens a Door to any humane Traditions and Innovations in God's Worship is a great Evil and to be avoided But the Practice of Infant-Baptism opens a Door to any humane Traditions and Innovations in God's Worship Ergo to sprinkle or baptize Infants is a great Evil and to be avoided The Major will not be denied The Minor is clear because there is no Scripture-ground for it no Command nor Example for such a Practice in God's Word And if without Scripture-Authority the Church hath Power to do one thing she may do another and so ad infinitum Arg. 16. Whatsoever Practice reflects upon the Honour Wisdom and Care of Jesus Christ or renders him less faithful than Moses and the New Testament in one of its great Ordinances nay Sacraments to lie more obscure in God's Word than any Law or Precept under the Old Testament cannot be of God But the Practice of Infant-Baptism reflects on the Honour Care and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ and renders him less faithful than Moses and a great Ordinance nay Sacrament of the New Testament to lie more dark and obscure than any Precept under the Old Testament Ergo Infant-Baptism cannot be of God The Major cannot be denied The Minor is easily proved For he is bold indeed who shall affirm Infant-Baptism doth not lie obscure in God's Word One great Party who assert it say 't is not to be found â—â— the Scripture at all but 't is an unwritten Apostolical Tradition others say it lies not in the Letter of the Scripture but may be proved by Consequences and yet some great Asserters of it as Dr. Hammond and others say Those Consequences commonly drawn from divers Texts for it are without Demonstration and so prove nothing I am sure a Man may read the Scripture a hundred times over and never be thereby convinced he ought to baptize his Children tho it is powerful to convince Men of all other Duties Now can this be a Truth
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 â—ead you You may after that Notion strangely curtail Christ's Institutions in other respects Question 6. What think 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 Padg of Christ an evident Note of Diffinction 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 the 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 Prerequisites 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 Prerequisiteness 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 â—â—vert 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 â—ho not actually Reply Strange you should attempt to affirm Children have Faith potentia Who toâ—â— you so when was thiâ—â—â—aginary Faith infused into them It 〈…〉 either by Nature Art of 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 〈…〉 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 believe it was not such a little one as you would have baptized We doubt not but God doth oft-times infuse Grace very early in the Souls of some very young and calls them to believe 〈…〉 to the knowledg 〈…〉 Truth but what is this to all Infants 〈…〉 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 toâ—hat 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 〈…〉 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 〈…〉 be more confident for Christ 〈…〉 when he comes to be a Man than â—â—â—e 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 agaâ—â— 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 childish and do not look as if they came from Men of such pretended Ingenuity But to close all We have the worst of you at the last wherein you in a very scurriloâ—s manner cast Reproach upon a great Body of Godly People who differ not from other Orthodox Christians in any Essentials of Salvation no nor in Fundamentals of Church-Constitutions save in the Point of Baptism and will you by reason of the Enormities of some who formerly bore the Name of Anabaptists mentioning the old Munster Story condemn as such all that bear that Name In Answer to which I ask you whether the like Reflections might not have been cast on Christ's Apostles because they had a Juâ—â—â— among them or on the Church of the Coritthians because if the incestuous Person Besides you know not but it may be a Lie raised upon those People by the envious Papists who have rendred Calâ—â— and Luther as odious as you do these Anabaptists You would think it hard if I should ask you what sort they were that Ralph Wallis used to expose and fill his Carts with or of those Clergy-men who were Pedo-Baptists yet were for filthy Crimes executed To conclude I wish that all Bitterness of Spirit was expelled Love and Charity exercised towards all tho in some things we may differ from one another Queries for the Athenian Society to Answer some of which were formerly sent to them but were passed by in silence 1. Whether Infants are the Subjects of Baptism And 2. Whether Baptism is Dipping or Sprinkling First WHether there was not a twofold Covenant made with Abraham one with his Fleshly Seed and the other with his Spiritual Seed signified by the Bond-Woman and the Free-Woman and their Sons Ishmael and Isaac If so I query Whether Circumcision was an Ordinance that appertained to the Covenant of Grace and was the Seal of it 1. Because 't is contradistinguished from the Covenant of Grace or free Promise of God Rom. 4. 2. And 't is also called a Yoke of Bondage And 3. 'T is said also that he that was circumcised was a Debter to keep the whole Law And 4. Because Ishmael who was not a Child of the Covenant of Grace with Esau and many others yet were required to be circumcised as well as Isaac And 5. Since 't is positively said Faith was imputed to Abraham for Righteousness not in Circumcision How was it imputed then when he was circumcised or uncircumciseâ—â— not when he was circumcised but when he was uncircumcised Rom. 4. 10. Secondly Whether the being the Male-Children of Believers as such gave them right to Circumcision or not rather the nicer positive Command of God to Abraham since we do not read of any other Godly Man's Seed in Abraham's days or since had any right thereto but only such who were born in his House or bought with his Mony Thirdly Whether Circumcision could be said to be the Seal of any Man's Faith save Abraham's only seeing 't is said he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith he had mark yet being uncircumcisied that he might be the Father of all that believe which was the Priviledg of Abraham â—â—ly for how could Circumcision be a Seal to Children of that Faith they had before circumcised seeing they had no Faith at all as had Abraham their Father they being obliged by the Law of God to be circumcised at eight days old â— Fourthly What is it which you conceive Circumcision did or Baptism doth seal to Children or make sure since a Seal usually makes firm all the Blessings or Priviledges contained in that Covenant 't is prefix'd to Doubtless if the Fleshly Seed of Believers as such are in the Covenant of Grace and have the Seal of it they shall be saved because we are agreed that the Covenant of Grace is well ordered in all things and sure there is no final falling therefore how should any of them miss of eternal Life and yet we see many of them prove wicked and ungodly and so live and die If you say it seals only the external Part and Priviledges of the Covenant of Grace Fifthly I demand to know what those External Priviledges are seeing they are denied the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper and all other External Rites whatsoever if you say when they believe that shall partake of 〈…〉 Blessings so say I shall the 〈…〉 believers as well as they Sixthly If the Fleshly Seed or Children of believing Gentiles as such are to be accounted the Seed of Abraham I query Whether they are his Natural Seed or his Spiritual Seed if not his Natural Seed nor his Spiritual Seed what right can they have to Baptism or Church-Membership from any Covenant-Transactions God made with Abraham Seventhly Whether those different grounds upon which the Right of Infant-Baptism is pretended by the Fathers of old and the Modern Divines doth well agree with an Institution that is a meer positive Rite depending wholly on the Will of the Legislator doth not give just cause to all to question its Authority 1. Some Pedo-Baptists asserted It took away Original Sin and such who denied it were anathematized 2. Some affirm That Children are in the Covenent and being the Seed of Believers are federally Holy therefore ought to be Baptized 3. Another soâ—â— of Pedo Baptists say They ought to be Baptâ—â—â— by virtue of their Parents Faith 4. Others affirm They have Faith themselves and are Disciples and therefore must be baptized 5. Another sort Baptize them upon the Faith of theâ—â— Suretiâ— 6. And 〈…〉 of Pedo Baptists say It 〈…〉 Power and Authoriâ—â— 7. 〈…〉 that 〈…〉 affirm 〈…〉 the Word 〈…〉 God 〈…〉 Institution the 〈…〉 divided and 〈…〉 themselves Eighthly Is it not an evil thing and very absurd for any to say Baptism is a Symbol of present Regeneration and yet apply it to Babes in whom nothing of the things signified thereby doth or can appear And also to say I Baptize thee in the Name c. when indeed he doth not Baptize but only Rantize the Child and to say Baptism is a lively Figure of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection and yet only sprinkle or pour a little Water upon the Face of the Child Ninthly Whether that can be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither Command nor Example in all the Word of God noâ—â—â— Promise â—â—de to such who do it nor Thâ—â—â—s denounced on such who neglect it or do it 〈◊〉 For though there are both Promises made to Believers Baptized and Threaâ—â— denounced on such who neglect it yet where are there any such in respect of Infant-Baptism Tenthly Whether a Pagan or Indian who should attain to the knowledg of the Greek Tongue or of the English or any other Tongue into which the Original should be translated by reading over the New Testament a thousand times he could ever find Infants ought to be Baptized if not how doth it appear the
Faith of People about Pedo-Baptism stands in the Power of God and knowledg of his Word and not rather in the Wisdom of Men who having endeavoured with all the Art and Cunning they can to draw pretended Consequences for it tho after all they do not naturally and genuinely follow 〈…〉 the Premises to which they refer 〈◊〉 Whether Christ having 〈◊〉 the Qualifications â—â— such as 〈◊〉 Baptized viz. actual Repentance 〈…〉 and the Answer of a good Consci 〈…〉 doth not thereby exclude all those 〈…〉 not capable of those Qualifications 〈◊〉 Whether it doth not reflect upâ—â— the Care Wisdom and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ who as a Son over his own House exceeded the Care and Faithfulness of Moses to affirm Infants ought to be Baptized and yet it cannot be found in all the Ne◠〈◊〉 an it be 〈…〉 should be a Gospeâ—â— recept nay a 〈◊〉 and yet Christ speak nothing of it or could it be in the Commission and yet the Apostlet never to mention it but contrariwise require Faithâ—â—â— all they admitted to Baptism Paul says He declared the whole Counsel of God and said nothing of it in any of his Epistles nor any where else How many thousands of Children were born to baptized â—â—â—ievers from the time of Christ's Ascension to the time John â—â—â—â—e the Revelations but not one word of 〈…〉 one Child Baptized Thirteen Whether in matter of positive Right such as Baptism is we ought not â—â— keep expresly and punctually to the Revelation of the Will of the Law-giver Fourteen Whether the Baptism of Infants be not a dangerous 〈◊〉 since it tends to deceive and blind the Eyâ—â— of poor ignorant People who think they are thereby made Christians and so never look after Regeneration nor true Baptism which represents or signifies that inward Work of Grace upon the Heart Fifteen Whether the Ancient Church who gave the Lord's Supper to Infants as well as Baptism might nâ—â—â—e allowed as well to do the one as the other since Faith and Holy Habits are as much required in those who are to be Baptized as in such who come to the Lord's Table And all such in the Apostolick Church who were Baptized were immediately admitted to break Bread c. And also the Arguments taken from the Covenant and because said to be Holy and to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven are as strong for them to receive the Lord's Supper there being no Command nor Example for either and human Tradition carrying it equally for both for several Centuries Sixteen Whether Nadab Abihâ— and 〈◊〉 Transgressions were not as much Circumstantials and so as small Errors as to alter Dipping in â—o Sprinkling and from an understanding Believer to a poor ignorant Babe And whether to allow the Church a Power to make such Alterations be not dangerous see Râ—â— 22. And doth 〈…〉 open a Door to other innovations Seventeen Whether there is any just Cause for Men to vilify and reproach the People called Anabaptists for their baprizing Believers and denying infants to be Subjects thereof seeing they have the plain and direct Word of God to warrant their practice i. e. not only the Commission but also the continual usage of the Apostles and Ministers of the Gospel all along in the New Testament who Baptized none but such who made profession of their Faith And the Châ—â—â—â— of England also saith Faith and Repentance are required of such who are to be Baptized We â—â—â—e not Baptize our Children because we cannot find it written 't is from the holy Fear of God lest we should offend and sin against him by adding 〈◊〉 his Word Eighteen What should be the reason that our faithful Translators of the Bible should leave the Greek word Baptism or Baptisma and not turn it into English seeing the Dutch have not done so but contrariwise translate for John the Baptist John the Dooper and for he Baptized he dooped or dipped them Nineteen Whether those who translate out of one Language into another ought not to translate every word into the same Language into which they turn it and not leave any word in the same Original Tongue which the People understand not and for whose sakes they undertook that Work and not to translate every word but also to give the right literal genuine and proper signification of each word and not the remote improper or collateral signification of it Which if our Translators of the Bible had so done I query whether the Doubt among the Unlearned concerning what the word Baptisma signifies 〈…〉 Twenty Seeing the Greek Church uses Immersion not Aspersion may it not be look'd upon as a great Argument against Sprinkling especially seeing they disown the Baptism of the Latin Church becaâ—â—â— they use Sprinkling for doubtless the Greeks best knew the genuine and proper signification of that word that Tongue being their own natural Language in which the New Testament was wrote 21. Whether if a Minister should administer the Lord's Supper in one kind only and so doing it cannot answer the great Design of Christ the Law-giver i. e. the breaking of his Body and shedding of his Blood would not prophane that Holy Institution If so whether such who instead of dipping the whole Body do but sprinkle or pour a little Water on the Face do not also prophane the holy Sacrament of Baptism since it is not so done to represent in a lively Figure the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ with our Death unto Sin and vivification unto newness of Life Rom. â— Col. 2. 11 12. 22. Whether all such who have only been sprinkled ought not to be deemed Unbaptized Persons since Aspersion is not Immersion or Rantizing not Baptizing for though the Greek word Baptizo in a remote and improper sense may signify to wash yet as the Learned confess it is such a washing as is done by dipping swilling or plunging the Person or Thing all over in the Water 23. Since you say Children have Faith potentia I query Whether Unbelievers and all ungodly Persons have not also the like Faith potentia as well as Children and so the same Right to Baptism We grant they may have Faith hereafter what tho There is one Assertion and Argument laid down by you that I omitted in my Answer which as it is New so it must needs expose you viz. If God be pleased to radiate or shine upon the Souls of Children in Heaven and they do behold the Face of God as our Saviour says then it follows that they have Faith in Heaven and why not on Earth see Heb. 11. 27. These are your very words 〈…〉 Reply I had thought that in Heaven the Faith of the Adult ceases i. e. the strong and saving Faith of Believers Doth not the Apostle say Then we come to receive the End of our Faith And is not Faith turned there into Vision Is not Faith the Evidence of Things not seen and the Substance of Things hoped for Heb. 11. 〈…〉 Divines say
Twelfthly As touching what you say further as to universal Consent of the Antient Churches it proves nothing Should we believe your Histories as firmly as we do believe there was an Alexander the Great or a Cato c. if there is no Infant-Baptism in the Scripture 't is utterly gone â—â—t 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 â—here was not a Congregation called Anabaptiâ—â—â— â—ill 300 Years aâ—â—â— 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 of this to your first Mercury We can prove there was a Testimony born against Infant-Baptism before 380 Years after Christ nay before the end of the third Century See Tertul. in his Book de Baptismo c. 18. who opposed Infant-Baptism 1. From the mistake of that Text Mat. 19. 14. Suffer little Children to come unto me the Lord saith says he do not forbid them to come unto me let them come therefore when they grow elder when they learn when they are taught why they come let them be made Christians when they can know Christ He adds six Arguments more and to confirm this Testimony of Tertullian see Dr. Barlow saith he Tertullian dislikes and condemns Infant-Baptism as unwarrantable and irrational Daillé also saith that Tertullian was of an Opinion that Infants were not to be baptized the like say divers others as Mr. Danvers shews which his Opposers could not refute So that it appears you are ignorant 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 â—â—â— 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 Churcheâ— 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 plunging 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 drown 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 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 Latin Dutch Italian French and English do translate to dip and always signifies to dip as 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 the 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 Erasmus 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 unknown 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 parallel 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 Tribunal And for all your great Confidence your Practice we doâ—â—t not in the least will be founâ— 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 â—â—ve 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 â—eny not but 't was practised before Austin's Days See
since Christ who was more faithful than Moses and delivered every thing plainly from the Father Moses left nothing dark as to matter of Duty tho the Precepts and external Rites of his Law were numerous two or three hundred Precepts yet none were at a loss or had need to say Is this a Truth or an Ordinance or not for he that runs may read it And shall one positive Precept given forth by Christ who appointed so few in the New Testament be so obscure as also the ground and end of it that Men should be confounded about the Proofs of it together with the end and ground thereof See Heb. 3. 5 6. Arg. 17. That Custom or Law which Moses never delivered to the Jews nor is any where written in the Old Testament was no Truth of God nor of Divine Authority But that Custom or Law to baptize Proselytes either Men Women or Children was never given to the Jews by Moses nor is it any where written in the Old Testament Ergo It was no Truth of God nor of Divine Authority And evident it is as Sir Norton Knatchbul shews That the Jewish Rabbins differed among themselves also about it for saith he Rabbi Eliâ—zer expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshâ—a who was the first I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews For Eliâ—zer who was contemporary with Rabbi Joshâ—a if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte circumcised and not baptized was a true Proselyte Arg. 18. If Baptism â—â— of mere positive Right wholly depending on the Will and Sovereign Pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator And he hath not required or commanded Infants to be baptized then Infants ought not to be baptized But Baptism is of mere positive Right wholly depending on the Will and sovereign Pleasure of Jesus Christ the great Legislator and he hath not required or commanded Infants to be baptized Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized This Argument tends to cut off all the pretended Proofs of Pedo-Baptism taken from the Covenant made with Abraham and because Children are said to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven it was not the Right of Abraham's Male Children to be circumcised because they were begotten and born of the Fruit of his Loins till he received Commandment from God to circumcise them Had he done it before or without a Command from God it would have been Will-Worship in him so to have done Moreover this further appears to be so Because no godly Man's Children noâ— others in Abraham's Days nor since had any Right thereto but only his Children or such who were bought with his Money or were proselyted to the Jewish Religion because they had no Command from God so to do as Abraham had This being true it follows that if we should grant Infants of believing Gentiles as such were the Seed of Abraham which we deny yet unless God had commanded them to baptize their Children they ought not to do it and if they do it without a Command oâ— Authority from Christ it will be found an Act of Will-Worship in them Arg. 19. All that were baptized in the Apostolical Primitive Times were baptized upon the Profession of Faith were baptized into Christ and thereby put on Christ and were all one in Christ Jesus and were Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise But Infants as such who are baptized were not baptized upon the Profession of their Faith nor did they out on Christ thereby nor are they all one in Christ Jesus also are not Abraham's Seed and Hoirs according to Promise Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Mr. Baxter confirms the Substance of the Major These are his very Words i. â— As many as have been baptized have put on Christ and are all one in Christ Jesus and are Abraham ' s Seed and Heirs according to the Promise Gal. 3. 27 28 29. This speaks the Apostle saith he of the Probability grounded on a credible Profession c. Baxter's Confirm Reconcil pag. 32. The Minor will stand firm till any can prove Infants by a visible Profession have put on Christ are all one in Christ Jesus are Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise Evident it is none are the spiritual Seed of Abraham but such who have the Faith of Abraham and are truly grafted into Christ by a Saving-Faith If any object we read of some who were baptized who had no Saving-Faith but were Hypocrites I answer Had they appeared to be such they had not been baptized not had they a true Right thereto Arg. 20. Baptism is the solemnizing of the Souls Marriage-Union with Christ which Marriage-Contract absolutely requires an actual Profession of consent Infants are not capable to enter into a Marriage-Union with Christ nor to make a Profession of Consent Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Major our Opposits generally grant particularly see what Mr. Baxter â—aith Our Baptism is the solemnizing of our Marriage with Christ These are his Words p. 32. The Minor none can deny No Man sure in his right Mind will assert that little Babes are capable to enter into a Marriage-Relation with Christ and to make a Profession of a Consent And the Truth is he in the next Words gives away his Cause viz. And 't is saith he a new and strange kind of Marriage where there is no Profession of Consent p. 32. How unhappy was this Man to plead for such a new and strange kind of Marriage Did he find any little Babe he ever baptized or rather rantized to make a Professioo of Consent to be married to Jesus Christ If any should object he speaks of the Baptism of the Adult I answer his Words are these Our Baptism is c. Besides will any Pedo-Baptist say that the Baptism of the Adult is the solemnizing of the Souls Marriage with Christ and not the Baptism of Infants Reader observe how our Opposits are forced sometimes to speak the Truth though it overthrows their own Practice of Pedo-Baptism Arg. 21. If the Sins of no Persons are forgiven them till they are converted then they must noâ— be baptized for the Forgiveness of them till they profess themselves to be converted but the Sins of no Persons are forgiven them till they are converted Ergo No Person ought to be baptized for the Forgiveness of them till they profess they are converted Mr. Baxter in the said Treatise lays down the Substance of this Argument also take his own Words i. e. As their Sins are not forgiven them till they are converted Mark 4. 12. so they must not be baptized for the Forgiveness of them till they profess themselves converted seeing to the Church non esse and non apparere is all one Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus is the Sum of that Preaching that makes Disciples Acts 20. 21. Therefore saith he both these must by a Profession seem to be received before any at Age are baptized p. 30. 31. And evident