<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2012-12-05</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Simon Charles</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed and reviewed.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A25573">
<STC T="W">A3386</STC>
<STC T="C">R15319</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">12255742</BIBNO>
<VID>57438</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1">
<P>AN ANSWER TO THE <HI>Athenian Mercury,</HI> VOL. 4. NUMB. 14. CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM. With an Account of divers QUERIES Sent by the Author (and &s;ome others) to the <HI>Athenian Society,</HI> Which they have not yet an&s;wered. To which are added, &s;ome REMARKS by way of Reply to their <HI>Mercury</HI> on the &s;ame Subject, <HI>Num.</HI> 18. publi&s;hed <HI>Novemb.</HI> 28.</P>
<P><HI>London,</HI> Printed for the Author, and &s;old by <HI>John Harris</HI> at the Harrow in the <HI>Poultry.</HI> MDCXCI.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB N="1" REF="2">
<HEAD>AN ANSWER TO THE <HI>ATHENIAN MERC&V;RY,</HI> VOL. 4. NUMB. 14. CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM. With an Account of divers Que&s;tions &s;ent by the Author (and &s;ome others) to the <HI>Athenian Society,</HI> which they have not yet an&s;wered.</HEAD>
<DIV2 TYPE="answer">
<OPENER><SALUTE>Gentlemen,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<DIV3 TYPE="introduction">
<P>WHO he was that &s;ent you the fir&s;t Que&s;tions about Infant-Bapti&s;m, I know not; whether he was an Antipedo-Bapti&s;t, or a Pedo-Bapti&s;t&punc; is a Que&s;tion: but your calling upon all who had any Doubts about it, to &s;end in their Objections, argues a great degree of Confidence of your Ability, of doing more than all before: For 'tis &s;trange you &s;hould attempt to call for all our Objections, when it appears you intended to write but one half Sheet of Paper in An&s;wer to them; as if you could do that in a few Lines, which others, as learned as your &s;elves, could never yet do in great Volumes; this &s;avours (as &s;ome judg) of great Pride, and ca&s;ts much Contempt upon you, and le&s;&s;ens your Reputation among wi&s;e Men who are for Pedo Bapti&s;m, as well as others. And yet after all the great and mighty noi&s;e, you have not &s;o much as in the lea&s;t touched the chief Que&s;tions, which, to my knowledg, were &s;ent you near a Fortnight before your &s;aid <HI>Mercury</HI> came forth. And therefore to &s;hew how di&s;ingenuous you have been herein, I thought it might not be ami&s;s to &s;pend two or three &s;pare hours upon your <HI>Mercury.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="question">
<P>1. The fir&s;t Que&s;tion you pretend to an|&s;wer is this, <HI>i. e. Whether Bapti&s;m (as it is
<PB N="2" REF="3"> commonly taught) is the proper and natural Anti|type of Circumci&s;ion?</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> As to what you &s;peak of the Cu|&s;toms of Nations. Langui&s;ms, and of Men being ignorant of Radixes, or Original Sig|nifications in Langages, &s;eems remote to the bu&s;ine&s;s, and &s;erves for little el&s;e than to blot Paper, or rather to darken Coun&s;el: Certainly the Ordinance of Bapti&s;m, one of the two great Sacraments of the New-Te&s;ta|ment, doth not lie &s;o ob&s;cure in God's Word, either what it is, or who are the proper Sub|jects thereof, that Men mu&s;t be at a lo&s;s about it, unle&s;s they under&s;tand the Radixes, or original Significations of Languages. But to proceed, you would, it &s;eems, have Bapti&s;m to be the proper Antitype of Circumci&s;ion in &s;ome re&s;pect and not in others.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, From the Cu&s;toms of the Jews in pro&s;elyting the Gentiles into their Religion: &s;o far you &s;ay indeed Circumci&s;ion was not a Type, but a continuance of a Cu&s;tom. Now how ab&s;urd and ridiculous that is which you affirm upon this account, may appear to all. Will you a&s;&s;ert and &s;tand by it, that Bap|ti&s;m was a Jewi&s;h Cu&s;tom, and &s;o no pure Go&s;pel-In&s;titution? Doubtle&s;s, if &s;o, the Pha|ri&s;ees might have &s;oon given our Saviour a ready An&s;wer to his great Que&s;tion, <HI>viz. The Bapti&s;m of</HI> John, <HI>whether is it from Heaven, or of Men?</HI> Mat. 21.25. Certainly there was no Bapti&s;m of this nature of Divine In|&s;titution, before <HI>John</HI> received it from Hea|ven: But, &s;ay you, <HI>If</HI> John <HI>Bapti&s;t undertook any new way of pro&s;elyting the Jews into the Go&s;pel, they had not only &s;truggled with the Oppo&s;ition of his new Doctrine, but al&s;o of his new Practice; therefore</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>it was that this Cu&s;tom was continued, and had the Super-addition of the full force of Bapti&s;m,</HI> viz. <HI>a Con&s;ignation or Seal of the Covenant.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> As you confe&s;s his Doctrine was new, &s;o was his Bapti&s;m no doubt; for, as our Annotators ob&s;erve, his Bapti&s;m was part of his Doctrine. Pray, what was the Doctrine he preach'd? was it not Bapti&s;m of Repentance for the Remi&s;&s;ion of Sins? <HI>Mark</HI> 1.4. Moreover, we do not read they were more di&s;plea&s;ed with his new Doctrine, than with his new Practice.</P>
<P>2. But what Authority have you to affirm, Go&s;pel-Bapti&s;m was but the continuance of a Jewi&s;h Cu&s;tom, or was a Legal Rite, or rather indeed a human Tradition? for 'tis evident the Jews were not required, or commanded of God to baptize their Pro&s;elytes, or others; for Circumci&s;ion was the only Rite by which Pro&s;elytes (who were Males) were added to the Jewi&s;h Church, as we find God com|manded <HI>Abraham.</HI> And if Bapti&s;m had been &s;o frequently practi&s;ed among&s;t the Jews, as you a&s;&s;ert, wherefore did the Phari&s;ees &s;ay to <HI>John, Why do&s;t thou baptize, if thou art not that Chri&s;t, nor</HI> Elias? <HI>John</HI> 1.25. More|over, Bapti&s;m is directly called a Principle of the Doctrine of Chri&s;t, <HI>Heb.</HI> 6.1,2. which Doctrine our Saviour &s;aith he received from his Father. If it be a Principle of the Do|ctrine of Chri&s;t, it follows undeniably, he in&s;tituted it, and gave it forth. Further|more, if Bapti&s;m was practi&s;ed all along a|mong the Jews, I argue, either they practi|&s;ed it as a Mo&s;aical Rite, or el&s;e as a Tradi|tion of their own; not, &s;ay I, as a Mo&s;aical Rite, becau&s;e <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> never commanded them &s;o to do; for he &s;peaks nothing of it, and yet declared all things God commanded him; and did every thing according to the Pattern &s;hewed him in the Mount. And if it was a human Jewi&s;h Tradition, what is become of one of the great Sacraments of the New Te&s;tament? Mu&s;t it be look'd upon from henceforth to be nothing el&s;e than the conti|nuance of a Jewi&s;h Tradition taken out of their fabulous and erronious <HI>Talmud?</HI> What kind of poi&s;onous Stuff is <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1+ letters">is you trouble the World with? What tho the Jews, who had made the Commandments of God void through their Traditions, did practi&s;e &s;ome &s;uch thing; Mu&s;t you affirm Go&s;pel-Bapti&s;m in its Ri&s;e and Original &s;prung from their Cu&s;tom? And becau&s;e they baptized Pro&s;e|lytes both Men, Women and Children, mu&s;t Chri&s;tians do &s;o too? Sure the Cu&s;tom of the Romi&s;h Church in baptizing of Infants, as a human Tradition, is every way of as good
<PB N="3" REF="3"> Authority to warrant us &s;o to do, as the Cu&s;tom of the unbelieving Jews. But pray take what a Learned Pedo-Bapti&s;t, and a Son of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> hath &s;aid in an|&s;wer to this vain Conceit; 'tis Sir <HI>Norton Knatchbull,</HI> in his <HI>Animadver&s;iones in lib. Novi Te&s;tamenti,</HI> pag. 313. <Q REND="inline"><HI>Ac cum videam &s;ummi ju|dicii viros in his temporibus &amp; Rabbinis funda|ment a petere veritatis,</HI> &amp;c. But when I &s;ee in the&s;e times &s;ome Men of the greate&s;t Judg|ment to &s;etch the Foundation of Truth from the Rabbins, I cannot but &s;tick at it: for whence was the <HI>Talmud</HI> &s;ent to us, (they are the words (&s;aith he) of <HI>Buxtorf</HI> in his <HI>Synagoga Judicia</HI>) that we &s;hould give &s;o much Credit thereto, that we &s;hould be|lieve that the Mo&s;aick Law either was or ought to be under&s;tood therefrom, much le&s;s the Go&s;pel, to which they are profe&s;&s;ed Enemies? The <HI>Talmud</HI> is called a Laby|rinth of Errors, and the foundation of Jewi&s;h Fables; it was perfected and acknow|ledged for Authentick five hundred Years after Chri&s;t, and out of it <HI>Maimonides</HI> drew his Doctrine, at all the re&s;t of them; there|fore we cannot acquie&s;ce in &s;uch Te&s;timo|ny</Q>&mdash;Gentlemen, either an&s;wer no more Que&s;tions about Religion, or take more heed to what you &s;ay: for your pleading for In|fant-Bapti&s;m, from &s;uch grounds, all may per|ceive tends to ca&s;t an Odium and Contempt on the Chri&s;tian Religion: Therefore I infer, your Proof for this Practice from the Cu&s;tom among&s;t the Jews about baptizing of Pro|&s;elytes 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 Popi&s;h In|novation is as good as a Jewi&s;h one.</P>
<P>But however, you do allow that our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour did add &s;omething to this pretended Jewi&s;h Cu&s;tom, and <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1+ letters">th not only put it <HI>in full force, but al&s;o made it a Con&s;ignation or Seal of the Covenant; and this, &s;ay you, is fur|ther &s;trengthened by &s;everal undeniable Texts of Scripture, which Anabapti&s;ts them&s;elves can never get clear of; and ask them, they mu&s;t either be &s;i|lent, or give &s;uch a Paraphra&s;e as we do.</HI> The Texts are the&s;e: Fir&s;t, <HI>Col.</HI> 2.11,12. <HI>In whom al&s;o ye are circumci&s;ed with the Circumci|&s;ion made without bands, in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Fle&s;h, by the Circumci&s;ion of Chri&s;t. Buried with him in Bapti&s;m,</HI> &amp;c. The &s;econd, that of baptizing the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> in the Red-Sea, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10.2. The la&s;t is the &s;aving of <HI>Noah</HI> and his Family in the Ark, 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 3.21.</P>
<P><HI>Reply</HI> 1. But is it &s;o indeed? did our Sa|viour in in&s;tituting Go&s;pel-Bapti&s;m do no more than put a Jewi&s;h Cu&s;tom to be in full force, and make it a Con&s;ignation or Seal of the Covenant? Were. you not learned and ingenious Men, I &s;hould not &s;o much admire at your Notions.</P>
<P>2. But the Truth is, in the &s;econd place, if you had not told us in your next words, to what purpo&s;e you mention tho&s;e Scrip|tures, we &s;hould have been at a great lo&s;s about it, or not well have under&s;tood your Intention; but you, like the ingenious Pain|ter, &s;oon inform us, and tell us what 'tis&mdash;<HI>i. e.</HI> you tell us, you urge not the&s;e things to prove any thing el&s;e, but the Parallel betwixt Circumci&s;ion and Bapti&s;m, or to &s;peak (&s;ay you) more properly, the nece&s;&s;ary continu|ance of the old Manner among&s;t the Jews of continuing their way of pro&s;elyting the Heathen.</P>
<P>3. Was it nece&s;&s;ary then, that a human Tradition of the Jews &s;hould be continued? I thought the Apo&s;tle tells you that Chri&s;t nailed all the Jewi&s;h Ceremonies of the Mo&s;aical Law to the Cro&s;s, and that they all cea&s;ed when the Antitype was come; and be&s;ure had the Bapti&s;m you &s;peak of been indeed a Mo&s;aical Rite, I mean appointed or commanded of God, it had vani&s;hed with its Fellows: But 'tis hard Chri&s;t &s;hould abo|li&s;h all Legal Cu&s;toms, or Ceremonial Ordi|nances, and yet confirm, with &s;ome addition, a Cu&s;tom of the Jews own inventing.</P>
<P>4. You do not &s;eem to di&s;tingui&s;h be|tween your twofold An&s;wer to the Que&s;tion; I thought you had brought tho&s;e Scriptures to prove Bapti&s;m the proper Antitype of Cir|cumci&s;ion; but you urge the former old
<PB N="4" REF="4"> Cu&s;tom again, &s;o that here's no Scripture nor Argument brought by you to prove the thing in hand. As touching what you &s;ay of the Pa|rallel betwixt Circumci&s;ion and Bapti&s;m &s;ig|nifies nothing; if in &s;ome things there &s;hould be a Parallel, it doth not follow therefore Bapti&s;m was the Antitype of Circumci&s;ion. What tho Circumci&s;ion was the initiating Ordinance of the Male Children into the Jewi&s;h Church, and Bapti&s;m is that initia|ting Ordinance into the Go&s;pel-Church; this doth not prove the one the Type of the o|ther.</P>
<P>5. But pray, what is it that the Anabapti&s;ts can never get clear of, or being ask'd the Expo&s;ition, they mu&s;t be &s;ilent, or give &s;uch a Paraphra&s;e as you do? I mu&s;t tell you, I know no Text more full for our practice of baptizing Believers, than that in <HI>Col.</HI> 2.11,12. We &s;ay from thence, that the proper Anti|type of Circumci&s;ion in the Fle&s;h, is the Circumci&s;ion of the Heart; and therefore not Bapti&s;m; tho 'tis granted by us, that in Bapti&s;m there is a Repre&s;entation of the new Birth, and Mortification of Sin, which Cir|cumci&s;ion was the expre&s;s Type of: And this cannot weaken nor &s;ilence us, but rather &s;trengthen our hands. All that can well be inferred from this Text, <HI>Col.</HI> 2.11,12. where the Apo&s;tle mentions Circumci&s;ion and Bap|ti&s;m, is no more than this, <HI>viz.</HI> where Bapti&s;m is admini&s;tred upon a proper Sub|ject, it repre&s;ents the Spiritual and My&s;tieal Circumci&s;ion of the Heart, <HI>i.e.</HI> that the Soul is dead to Sin, or that he hath <HI>put off the Body of Sins of the Fle&s;h by the Circumci&s;ion of Chri&s;t;</HI> 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 al&s;o buried with Chri&s;t in Bapti&s;m, both in the Sign, <HI>i.e.</HI> covered all over in the Water, which re&s;embles in a lively Figure his Burial, and al&s;o in Signification, <HI>i.e.</HI> the Power and ble&s;&s;ed Effects of his Death, ha|ving been the Death of the old Man, or that Body of Sin in us; wherein al&s;o in like manner we are al&s;o ri&s;en with him through the Faith of the Operation of God; and this is likewi&s;e held forth both in Sign and Signi|fication in true Bapti&s;m.</P>
<P>Now if this be not your Paraphra&s;e on this Text, we cannot help it. I know many Learned Man who own Pedo-Bapti&s;m &s;peak to the &s;ame purpo&s;e, nor is there any rea&s;on for you to &s;ay we mu&s;t be &s;ilent, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> as if we knew not what to &s;ay to this Text: But what is this for Infant-Bapti&s;m, or to prove Bapti&s;m the Antitype of Circumci&s;ion? Doth Sprinkling repre&s;ent a Burial? doth the Sign or Figure of Chri&s;t's Burial appear in &s;prink|ling a little Water on the Face, and as it is done to an Infant, in whom Faith and Regene|ration is not wrought? what doth there appear in Signification? Doth not the Church of <HI>England</HI> &s;ay, that <HI>Bapti&s;m is the outward Sign of an inward &s;piritual Grace;</HI> &s;ure that is but a mock-Bapti&s;m, where there is neither the Sign or Figure of Chri&s;t's Death and Burial, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> nor tht inward Work wrought upon the Per&s;on baptized, which is &s;ignified or ought to be &s;ignified thereby, <HI>viz.</HI> That the &s;aid Per&s;on is dead to Sin, and rai&s;ed up by the Faith of the Operation of God to walk in newne&s;s of Life.</P>
<P>But alas, this it &s;eems is not the thing; 'tis not &s;o much to prove Bapti&s;m to be the Antitype of Circumci&s;ion, as 'tis to prove Bapti&s;m to be the continuation of a Jewi&s;h Cu&s;tom: <HI>for to &s;peak more properly,</HI> you intimate, that to this purpo&s;e, you mention the&s;e things. Sure all under&s;tanding Men, as well Pedo-Bapti&s;ts as others, mu&s;t needs loath your Notion; but I know you are not alone here|in there are &s;ome others who have a&s;&s;erted the &s;ame thing; which perhaps incouraged you thus to write: But to correct your Ra&s;h|ne&s;s, and &s;ilence you and them to, con&s;ider what I and the fore-mentioned Gentleman have &s;aid. Is it not enough that Infant-Bapti&s;m &s;hould be built upon no better a Foundation than the Tradition of the Apo|&s;tate Gentile Church, and the Decrees of Popes and General Councils, but that it mu&s;t al&s;o be grounded on the erronious Cu&s;toms of the Jewi&s;h <HI>Talmud?</HI> But to proceed, that
<PB N="5" REF="4"> Circumci&s;ion may an&s;wer, or run Parallel with Bapti&s;m, you bring in the Practice of &s;ome Heathen Nations who circumci&s;ed their Females; we &s;hall have it anon; the truth is, the Proof and Explanation of In|fant-Bapti&s;m &s;hall be &s;ufficiently made out before you have done; if fabulous and er|roneous Traditions of Jews, Heathens, and Apo&s;tate Chri&s;tians will do it; but if no bet|ter Authority or Proof can be brought for it than what is contained in your <HI>Mercury,</HI> 'tis time for all good Chri&s;tians with Shame e|nough to ca&s;t it off. Should I tell my. Rea|der why &s;ome Heathens circumci&s;ed their Females, it might greatly expo&s;e you. But to clo&s;e with your fir&s;t Que&s;tion, take what Dr. <HI>Jer. Taylor,</HI> late Bi&s;hop of <HI>Down,</HI> hath &s;aid upon this Conceit, <HI>i.e.</HI> that Circumci|&s;ion figured Bapti&s;m; there are his words, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q REND="inline">The Argument, &s;aith he, from Circumci&s;ion is invalid upon infinite Configurations: Fi|gures and Types prove nothing unle&s;s a Command go along with them, or &s;ome Expre&s;s to &s;ignify &s;uch to be their purpo&s;e: for the Deluge of Waters and the Ark of <HI>Noah</HI> were Figures of Bapti&s;m, &s;aith <HI>Peter.</HI> If therefore the Circum&s;tances of the one &s;hould be drawn to the other, we &s;hould make Bapti&s;m a Prodigy rather than a Rite. The Pa&s;chal Lamb was a Figure of the Euchari&s;t, which &s;ucceds the other, as Bapti&s;m doth to Circumci&s;ion: but becau&s;e there was in the Manducation of the Pa&s;|chal Lamb no Pre&s;cription of Sacramental Drink, &s;hall we thence conclude that the Euchari&s;t is to be admini&s;tred in one kind? And even in the very in&s;tance of this Ar|gument, &s;uppo&s;e a Corre&s;pondency of the Analogy between Circumci&s;ion and Bap|ti&s;m, yet their is no Corre&s;pondency of Iden|tity; for tho it be granted, that both of them did con&s;ign the Covenant of Faith, yet there is nothing in the Circum&s;tances of Children being circumci&s;ed that &s;o concerns that My&s;tery; but that it might very well be given to Men of Rea&s;on, be|cau&s;e Circumci&s;ion le&s;t a Character in the Fle&s;h, which being imprinted upon the In|fant, did its work to them when they came to Age; and &s;uch a Character was nece&s;&s;ary, becau&s;e there was no word added to the Sign; but Bapti&s;m 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 &s;elf; for both which Rea&s;ons it is requi|&s;ite that the Party baptized &s;hould be ca|pable of Rea&s;on, that they may be capa|ble both of the Word and of the Sacra|ment, and the Impre&s;s-upon the Spirit: Since therefore the Rea&s;on of the Parity does wholly fail, there is nothing left to in|fer a nece&s;&s;ity of complying in the Circum|&s;tance of Age, any more than in the o|ther Annexes of Types: Then the Infant mu&s;t al&s;o preci&s;ely be baptized upon the eighth day, and Females mu&s;t not be bap|tized at all, becau&s;e not circumci&s;ed; but it were more proper, if we would under|&s;tand it a right, to pro&s;ecute the Analogy from the Type to the Antitype, by the way for Letter and Spirit, and Signification; and as Circumci&s;ion figures Bapti&s;m, &s;o al&s;o the Adjuncts of the circumci&s;ed &s;hall &s;ignify &s;ome thing &s;piritual in the Adherence of Bapti&s;m; and therefore as Infants were circumci&s;ed, &s;o &s;piritual Infants-&s;hould be baptized, which is &s;piritual Circumci&s;ion; for therefore Babes had the Mini&s;try of the Type to &s;ignify that we mu&s;t, when we give our Names to Chri&s;t, become Children in Malice, and then the Type is made com|pleat.</Q> Thus the worthy Doctor hath an&s;wered your Que&s;tion, and you too. If Circumci&s;ion mu&s;t be a Type of Bapti&s;m, he hath &s;hewed how, and how not, if it be &s;o taken; but the truth is, all Types cea&s;e when the Antitype is come, the one mu&s;t give way to the other; but Circumci&s;ion did continue in full force &s;ome Years after Bapti&s;m was in full force; for Circumci&s;ion ended not till Chri&s;t nailed it to his Cro&s;s; therefore it could not be the Type of Bap|ti&s;m: but how a Shadow or Sign &s;hould be the proper Antitype of a Shadow I &s;ee not.
<PB N="6" REF="5"> But enough hath been &s;aid to this, and I &s;hould not have &s;aid &s;o much to it, but becau&s;e you Notion &s;eems new to &s;ome.</P>
<P>As touching the other two Scriptures you mention, <HI>viz.</HI> that in 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. 'tis very impertinently cited for your bu&s;ine&s;s, to prove Circumci&s;ion the Type of Go|&s;peil-Bapti&s;m; but this Text &s;peaks no|thing of that in the lea&s;t, nor no more doth that in <HI>Peter.</HI> Suppo&s;e the Red-&s;ea was a Figure of Bapti&s;m, and &s;o al&s;o the Water and Ark of <HI>Noah;</HI> what of all this, if you had urged the Fathers and Children were baptized to <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> in the Sea and in the Cloud, and therefore Children may be Baptized? I would have an&s;wered you that was but a figurative Bapti&s;m, and proves nothing; be&s;ides, it would prove Unbe|lievers may be baptized al&s;o, becau&s;e there was a mixt Multitude as well &s;o Baptized, as were the Fathers and their Children; be&s;ides, much Cattel were with them in the Sea, and under the Cloud.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="question">
<HEAD>Que&s;t. 2. <HI>What certain indubitable Grounds can we have for the Practice of Infant-Bapti&s;m.</HI></HEAD>
<P>You an&s;wer, The certain Ground is from the Scripture, and fir&s;t from the Words of the Commi&s;&s;ion, <HI>Matth.</HI> 28. <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">, <HI>di&s;ciple all Nations;</HI> and then follows, <HI>Baptizing them in the name,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>From the order of which words (you &s;ay) Infants are not excluded from Bapti&s;m, as is generally believed by Anabapti&s;ts; a Per&s;on may be Baptized before he is taught; for &s;ay you <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">, <HI>Mathetu&s;ate,</HI> &s;igni|fies, to di&s;ciple all Nations per&s;onally and &s;ubjectively; being a general word, it con|tains the other two that follow, <HI>viz.</HI> Bap|tizing and Teaching, it being a word of the imperative Mode, and the other two only Participles; &s;o that the Commi&s;&s;ion of it is <HI>that,</HI> and the Mode of it <HI>the&s;e:</HI> but in the Mode, Baptizing them preceeds Teaching them to ob&s;erve all things, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> Becau&s;e there is a Teaching fol|lows Bapti&s;m, doth it therefore follow, ac|cording to the Order of the &s;acred Com|mi&s;&s;ion, there is no Teaching indi&s;pen&s;ibly to go before the Per&s;on is baptized? You have cau&s;e to tremble for trifling and ba&s;ely inverting the order of the Commi&s;&s;ion of our Ble&s;&s;ed Saviour; what though the Greek word <HI>Di&s;cipliz,</HI> or make Di&s;ciples, be a word of the imperative Mode; O &s;trange! have you found it out, will this do your bu&s;ine&s;s, doth it therefore contain the other two? I ask you whether a Man may not be made a Di&s;ciple, and not be Baptized, or be Baptized, and yet not be di&s;cipled? <HI>Matth.</HI> 13.52. 'tis <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">, in <HI>Matth.</HI> 28. 'tis <HI>di&s;ciple ye;</HI> here 'tis di&s;cipled, in&s;tructed, or that is taught, and 'tis from the &s;ame Verb with the other: 'Tis evident notwith&s;tanding all your Flouri&s;h, tha Tea|ching, according to the Order of the Com|mi&s;&s;ion, goes, and mu&s;t go before Bapti|zing, though the Per&s;on baptized is to be taught afterwards; al&s;o, all things that Chri&s;t commanded his Di&s;ciples, both as to Doctrine and Practice, that &s;o they may be faithful Followers of Chri&s;t unto the end. This Teaching after Bapti&s;m indeed the Bapti&s;ts cannot deny, unle&s;s they &s;hould be &s;o fooli&s;h as to &s;ay, a Baptized Believer needs no further teaching, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> but you know in your Con&s;ciences, we deny, and that too by the Authority of the Commi&s;|&s;ion, that any ought to be Baptized, but &s;uch who are made Di&s;ciples by their fir&s;t being taught. Doth Bapti&s;m, Sirs, make either Children or others Di&s;ciples? if you do not a&s;&s;ert that, what do you &s;ay: and if all Nations, or any in the Nations, are to be Baptized before they are taught or made Di&s;ciples, why may not a Mini&s;ter, by the Authority of the Commi&s;&s;ion, baptize Turks, Pagans and Infidels, with their Chil|dren, as well as the Infants of Chri&s;tian People?</P>
<P>Moreover, if &s;o be Baptizing may go before Teaching, or Per&s;ons being made Di&s;ciples, why did <HI>Philip</HI> an&s;wer the <HI>Eunuch</HI> after that manner, when he asked him why he might not be Baptized? the An&s;wer is, <HI>If thou believe&s;t with all thy Heart, thou maye&s;t;</HI>
<PB N="7" REF="5"> intimating, unle&s;s he &s;o believed he might not. Al&s;o why did Chri&s;t make Di&s;ciples fir&s;t, and then baptize them? <HI>Joh.</HI> 4.1. I mu&s;t al&s;o tell you, that your Expo&s;ition of the Commi&s;&s;ion in <HI>Matthew,</HI> doth tend to in|vert the Order of the &s;ame Commi&s;&s;ion in <HI>Mark</HI> 16.15,16. where our Saviour com|mands his Di&s;ciples to go and preach the Go&s;pel to every Creature, and then &s;aith, <HI>He that believeth and is Baptized, &s;hall be &s;aved;</HI> 'tis not he that is baptized and then be|lieveth; but to give divers godly and learn|ed <HI>Pedo-Bapti&s;ts</HI> their due, they I find dare not attempt to invert the Order of the Holy Commi&s;&s;ion, as you &s;eem to do, thought it &s;hakes the Foundation of their own Practice: See Reverend Mr. <HI>Perkirs</HI> on the&s;e Words, <HI>Teach all Nations, baptizing them;</HI> &s;aith he, I explain the former thus; <Q REND="inline">Fir&s;t of all, it is &s;aid, Teach them, that is, make them my Di&s;ciples by teaching them to believe and repent: Here we are to con&s;ider the Order which God ob&s;erves in making with Men a Covenant in Bapti&s;m; fir&s;t-of all he calls them by his Word and Spirit to believe and repent. Then in the &s;econd Place, he makes a Promi&s;e of Mercy and Forgivene&s;s. And then thirdly, he &s;eals his Promi&s;e by Bap|ti&s;m: They, &s;ays he, that know not nor con&s;ider this Order which God u&s;ed in co|venanting with them in Bapti&s;m, deal pre|po&s;terou&s;ly, over-&s;lipping the Command|ment of repenting and believing, and is the cau&s;e of &s;o much Prophanene&s;s in the World.</Q> Much to the &s;ame Purpo&s;e &s;aith Mr. <HI>Baxter, Right to Bapti&s;m,</HI> p. 149, 150. &s;peaking of the Order of this Commi&s;&s;ion; <Q REND="inline">Chri&s;t gave to his Di&s;ciples, their fir&s;t Task (&s;ays he) is to make Di&s;ciples, which are by <HI>Mark</HI> called Believers.</Q></P>
<P><Q REND="inline">The &s;econd Work is to baptize them, whereto is annexed the Promi&s;e of Salva|tion.</Q></P>
<P><Q REND="inline">The third Work is to teach them all o|ther things which are after to be learned in the School of Chri&s;t. To contemn this Order, &s;aith he, is to contemn the Rules of Order, for where can we find it if not here? I pro|fe&s;s my Con&s;cience is fully &s;atisfied from this Text, that there is one &s;ort of Faith &s;aving, even Saving that mu&s;t go before Bap|ti&s;m, the Profe&s;&s;ion whereof the Mini&s;ter mu&s;t expect.</Q></P>
<P>Your &s;econd Scipture-Ground is that of <HI>whole Families being baptized.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply;</HI> You cannot be ignorant that this Proof hath been often invalid: How many Families are there in this City, in which there is not one Infant. Be&s;ides, 'tis &s;aid, <HI>Paul</HI> preached the Word to the Jailor and to all in his Hou&s;e: al&s;o 'tis expre&s;ly &s;aid, <HI>He believed in God with all his Hou&s;e.</HI> We have as much Ground to believe, in the&s;e Families there were &s;ome Servants or Children who were Unbelievers, as to believe there were little Babes; and becau&s;e whole Hou&s;holds were &s;aid to be baptized, therefore unbe|lieving Servants, Sons and Daughters, as well as little Children: Others may infer ungodly Servants and unbelieving Children that were grown up to be Men and Women, were bap|tized al&s;o in tho&s;e Families. In Jailors Fa|milies now a-days 'tis evident there are too many wicked and ungodly ones; and this Jailor was none of the be&s;t before converted, 'tis plain. Be&s;ides, <HI>whole</HI> or <HI>all,</HI> doth not comprehend always every individual Per|&s;on, as 1 <HI>Sam.</HI> 21.28. Moreover, Dr. <HI>Ham|mond</HI> &s;aith, <Q REND="inline">That to conclude, Infants were baptized, becau&s;e Hou&s;holds are mentioned &s;o to be, is, &s;aith he, unconvincing, and without Demon&s;tration, it being &s;o uncer|tain whether there were any Children in tho&s;e Families:</Q> His Letter <HI>p.</HI> 471. <HI>Sect.</HI> 21.</P>
<P><HI>Your third Scripture-Ground is that of the Pro|mi&s;e (you &s;ay Covenant) made to you and your Children.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply;</HI> How often have we &s;hewed that this Text proves not that any Children <HI>qua|tenus,</HI> as &s;uch, &s;hould be baptized, nor, as &s;uch, that they are in the Covenant of Grace, or have the Promi&s;e made to them; the Pro|mi&s;e runs to the Jews and to their Offspring, and not to them only, but to Gentiles al&s;o, who were &s;aid <HI>to be afar off:</HI> But pray ob|&s;erve,
<PB N="8" REF="6">
'tis to no more of the Jews and their Children or Offspring, and &s;uch who were afar off, than the Lord &s;hall call or make Di&s;ciples by the Word and effectual Operati|ons of the Holy Spirit. My Sons and Daugh|ters are as much my Children when they are twenty or thirty Years old, as well as when Babes. Dr. <HI>Hammond</HI> al&s;o grants, Children in this Text doth not refer to Infants as &s;uch, but to the Po&s;terity of the Jews, <HI>p.</HI> 490. <HI>Sect.</HI> 81. <HI>If ye be Chri&s;t's, then you are</HI> Abraham<HI>'s Seed, and Heirs according to the Promi&s;e. The Children of the Fle&s;h,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Paul, the&s;e are not the Children of God; but the Children of the Pro|mi&s;e are accounted for the Seed,</HI> Rom. 9.8. Not if you be the Offspring of <HI>Abraham</HI> according to the Fle&s;h, or Seed of Believers.</P>
<P>Your fourth Scripture-Proof is, <HI>that of &s;uch is the Kingdom of Heaven.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> This proves no more Children ought to be baptized, than they ought to receive the Lord's Supper, Bapti&s;m being a mere po|&s;itive Precept, and only depends upon the Will and &s;overeign Plea&s;ure of the great Law|giver Je&s;us Chri&s;t. A thou&s;and &s;uch In&s;tan|ces prove not they ought to be baptized, ex|cept there was a Precept annexed, or Prece|dent for it in God's Word. Be&s;ides, <HI>of &s;uch,</HI> &amp;c. (as one well ob&s;erves) may intend &s;uch and &s;uch that have like Qualities, <HI>viz.</HI> harmle&s;s, meek, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> as Children: Therefore the Ana|bapti&s;ts (as you call them) are not unchari|table, who &s;ay, Infants have no more Right to Bapti&s;m than unrea&s;onable Creatures; for what can give them Right thereto, but the Authority of God's Word?</P>
<P>You ask what Priviledg the Children of Believers have above Unbelievers? We an|&s;wer, They have the advantage of their Pa|rents Prayers, In&s;truction, godly Education, and good Example.</P>
<P>But, &s;ay you, <HI>they are holy.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> We deny it intends federal Holine&s;s, &s;uch as qualifies Children for Bapti&s;m. We read in <HI>Mal.</HI> 2.15. of Marriage, and that Children begotten in lawful Wedlock are cal|led a <HI>godly Seed,</HI> in oppo&s;ition to their being illegitimate. Now that it was about Mar|riages the Corinthians wrote to S. <HI>Paul,</HI> is evi|dent, they doubting of the Lawfulne&s;s of abi|ding with their unbelieving Husbands and Wives: And to &s;atisfy them about this Mat|ter, he tells them, the unbelieving Husband was &s;anctified by (or rather <HI>to</HI>) the believing Wife, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> that is &s;et apart or con&s;ecrated to each other in lawful Marriage, (for 'tis doubt|le&s;s no other Sanctification) <HI>el&s;e were your Chil|dren unclean,</HI> that is, Ba&s;tards; <HI>but now are they holy,</HI> that is, lawfully begotten. And we find divers Learned Men give the &s;ame Expo&s;ition on the&s;e Words. See <HI>Beza;</HI> That the Word, &s;aith he, is not to be under&s;tood an Adverb of Time, but a Conjunction that's wont to be u&s;ed in the a&s;&s;umption of Arguments; and &s;o the Sen&s;e is <HI>[But now],</HI> that is, Fora&s;much as the unbelieving Husband is &s;anctified to the Wife, your Children are holy, that is, law|fully begotten and born. We read in <HI>Zachary,</HI> that the Bells and <HI>Pots of the Lord's Hou&s;e were holy;</HI> may be the Papi&s;ts from thence pre&s;ume to baptize Bells, and they have as much rea|&s;on &s;o to do, as there is by the Authority of God's Word for any to baptize Infants. As touching what you &s;peak of little Children coming to Chri&s;t, that the Original or Greek Word is the &s;ame with <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> to pro&s;e|lyte, what &s;ignifies that? how often is that Word mentioned in other Places, to &s;ignify any manner of coming to? <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 'Tis a &s;trange way of pro&s;elyting Per&s;ons, and never to teach or in&s;truct them. See the&s;e Scriptures where the &s;ame Word is u&s;ed: <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">, Mat. 26.7. <HI>There came unto him.</HI> Mat. 26.17. <HI>The Di&s;ciples came;</HI> Gr. <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">. Mat. 26.49. <HI>Forthwith he came to Je&s;us;</HI> Gr. <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">. Mat. 26.69. <HI>There came unto him (a Girl or) a Dam&s;el;</HI> Gr. <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">. Mat. 26.73. <HI>And after a while</HI> (or a while after) <HI>came unto him they that &s;tood by;</HI> Gr. <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">.</P>
<P>But you proceed further to prove Infants ought to be baptized, and that from the Uni|ver&s;al Con&s;ent of the Churches in all Coun|tries: For (as you &s;ay) <HI>Tertul. de prae&s;criptur&acirc; haeret.</HI> ch. 28. <HI>Ecquid veri&s;imile,</HI> &amp;c. Had the
<PB N="9" REF="6"> Churches erred, they would have va|ried, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> If you cannot prove Infant-Bapti&s;m from Scripture, you are gone for ever; for this Argument of yours to prove it is like that of the Papi&s;ts, to prove their Church the true Church, <HI>viz. &V;niver&s;ality</HI> and <HI>Antiquity,</HI> &amp;c. it was not the Practice of the Churches fir&s;t planted by the Apo&s;tles, that's plain; and 'tis as evident other Errors were as uni|ver&s;ally received, and &s;ome very early too; be&s;ides, you can't be ignorant how the Greek Church varies from the Latin.</P>
<P>But pray take what Dr. <HI>Barlow</HI> hath &s;aid to this, a worthy Bi&s;hop of the Church of <HI>England.</HI> <Q REND="inline">I believe, and know, &s;aith he, that there is neither Precept nor Exam|ple in Scripture for Pedo-bapti&s;m, nor a|ny ju&s;t Evidence for it for above 200 years after Chri&s;t; that <HI>Tertullian</HI> condemns it as an unwarantable Cu&s;tom, and <HI>Nazianzen</HI> a good while after him di&s;likes it: &s;ure I am, that in the primitive Times, they were <HI>Catechumeni,</HI> then <HI>Illuminati</HI> or <HI>Baptizati,</HI> and that not only Pagans and Children of Pa|gans converted, but Children of Chri&s;tian Parents: The truth is, I do believe Pedo-Bapti&s;m, how or by whom I know not, come into the World in the &s;econd Cen|tury, and in the third and forth began to be practi&s;ed, though not generally, and defended as lawful from the Text, <HI>John</HI> 3.5. gro&s;ly mi&s;under&s;tood upon the like gro&s;s Mi&s;take, <HI>John</HI> 6.53. They did for many Centuries, both in the <HI>Greek</HI> and <HI>Latin</HI> Church communicate Infants, and give them the Lord's Supper; and I confe&s;s they might do both as well as either, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P>Thus both your Arguments from univer|&s;al Con&s;ent and Antiquity, the Learned Doctor hath &s;ufficiently an&s;wered. And I rather let him an&s;wer you than to an&s;wer you in my own words, thinking what he &s;ays, may be more regarded by &s;ome than what I &s;ay. But you to prove from Anti|quity, that Infant-Bapti&s;m was practi&s;ed inth fir&s;t, &s;econd and third Centuries, you &s;ay you are able to demon&s;trate, that there was ne|ver any particular Congregation of Ana|bapti&s;ts till about three hundred years af|ter Chri&s;t; and &s;eem to build much upon the&s;e three la&s;t Arguments.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> If you had &s;aid there were no Baptized Congregations, <HI>i. e.</HI> &s;uch who only baptized Believers, you had a&s;&s;erted a great Untruth, &s;ith all the Primitive Apo|&s;tolical Churches were &s;uch, none being ad|mitted to Bapti&s;m for the fir&s;t and &s;econd Centuries, but the Adult, <HI>i. e.</HI> &s;uch who profe&s;&s;ed their Faith, (as in due time may be &s;ufficiently proved) notwith&s;tanding all your Flouri&s;h or Pretences; but &s;uppo&s;e it be granted there were no Congregations till then called Anabapti&s;t, what doth that &s;ignify? it was becau&s;e there were not till about that time any (as Dr. <HI>Barlow</HI> and divers others &s;ay) who practi&s;ed Pedo-bap|ti&s;m: Bapti&s;ts could not be called Anabap|ti&s;ts or Re-baptizers till there were &s;ome who held for Infant-Bapti&s;m; &s;o that this directly makes again&s;t you. Moreover, ma|ny Rites which you di&s;own as human Tradi|tions, crept very early into the World, and were practi&s;ed generally too in the Apo&s;tacy of the Church.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="question">
<HEAD>Que&s;t. 3. <HI>Whether Infant-Bapti&s;m is to be found in the Scripture?</HI></HEAD>
<P>You an&s;wer, not expre&s;ly in the Letter, but from nece&s;&s;ary and unavoidable Con&s;equen|ces, as you &s;ay you have already &s;hewn.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 'Tis a hard ca&s;e that one of the great Sacraments of the New Te&s;tament &s;hould in your Thoughts, lie &s;o dark and ob&s;cure in the New Te&s;tament, that it can't be proved from it but by Con&s;equences; but harder that Learned Men of your way, &s;hould affirm that your Con&s;equences for it, drawn from tho&s;e Texts you mention, are not natural, and prove nothing; be&s;ides, you can't be ignorant that the fir&s;t A&s;&s;erters of Infant-Bapti&s;m never undertook the proof of it from &s;uch Scrip|ture-Grounds or Con&s;equences, 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, &s;o
<PB N="10" REF="7"> they affirmed &s;he had like Power to change the Subject, and in&s;tead of Believers to bap|tize Infants who have no Under&s;tanding. Pray what Precept of the Mo&s;aical Law lay &s;o dark or ob&s;cure, that it could not be proved without Con&s;equences? Did not <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> make every Law, Precept or Command plain, that he that run might read it? and yet Chri&s;t is &s;aid to exceed <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> being faithful as a Son over his own Hou&s;e, <HI>Heb.</HI> 3. Tho&s;e Con|&s;equences you have drawn, all impartial Men may &s;ee prove nothing.</P>
<P>Moreover, what you &s;peak about tho&s;e great Articles of the Chri&s;tian Religion, as if they could not be proved without Con&s;e|quences, mu&s;t 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 Chri&s;t is God and the &s;econd Per&s;on, and that he was born of the Virgin, without Con&s;equences? Is it Wi&s;dom in you in &s;uch a corrupt Age as this is, to lay down &s;uch A&s;&s;er|tions? Were tho&s;e things the Matter of Con|trover&s;y between you and me, you &s;hould hear what po&s;itive and plain Scripture Proof might (as you know hath often already) be brought upon that account; but to pa&s;s by this, I affirm the Bapti&s;m of Believers lies plain in God's Word, but Infant-Bapti&s;m is not to be found therein.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="question">
<HEAD>Que&s;t. 4. <HI>Why was not Chri&s;t baptized before he was thirty Years old?</HI></HEAD>
<P>You an&s;wer, From the &s;ame Rea&s;on that the Jailor, the Eunuch and St. <HI>Peter</HI>'s Con|verts were not, <HI>viz.</HI> there is no adhering to a Doctrine before it is in&s;tituted or preached; but &s;ay you Infant-Bapti&s;m was much before our Saviour's time, as among&s;t tho&s;e of riper Years &s;ince, and that you &s;ay is Proof e|nough.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> It can't be Proof enough to an&s;wer the Que&s;tion, and as to prove Infant-Bapti&s;m it utterly fails; but if Infant-Bapti&s;m was much before our Saviour's time as an In&s;titu|tion of God, there was no Want of an In&s;ti|tution when he was a Babe; and therefore your Rea&s;on why he deferred his Bapti&s;m is gone. Was it in being long before, and yet not in&s;tituted or appointed by <HI>Jehovah?</HI> Do you not herein implicitly confe&s;s that Cu&s;tom among&s;t the Jews was human? Nor will it &s;erve your turn to &s;ay, it was in&s;tituted a-new as a Go&s;pel-Ordinance, becau&s;e you affirm Bap|ti&s;m under the Go&s;pel was the Continuation of that old Cu&s;tom, with the <HI>Super-addition of the full Force of Bapti&s;m,</HI> viz. <HI>a Con&s;ignation or Seal of the Covenant.</HI> Do you not intimate it was not in&s;tituted a new, but rather a Cu&s;tom continued? upon which you (with that Addi|tion and &s;ome others before you) &s;eem to lay the great Stre&s;s of your Infants Bapti&s;m. And if &s;ome Additions were made to the old Cu&s;tom, why might there not be &s;ome Dimi|nutions al&s;o? and if it were a-new in&s;tituted, it is all one as if it had never been in being be|fore; for the Right any have to Bapti&s;m and manner of Admini&s;tration, and all things ap|pertaining to it, mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity wholly de|pend upon the new In&s;titution or Law of Chri&s;t: If therefore Go&s;pel-Bapti&s;m wholly depends on the new In&s;titution, then the old Cu&s;tom is gone for ever (had it been a Mo|&s;aical Rite) like a Legacy bequeathed in a Will, made void by the Te&s;tator's la&s;t Will and Te&s;tament; though &s;ome part of the &s;ame thing may be repeated in the la&s;t Will, that was in the fir&s;t, yet the la&s;t mu&s;t decides the Controver&s;y: but in Chri&s;t's la&s;t Will and Te&s;tament, Infant-Bapti&s;m is not to be found, nor was it indeed an Ordinance or|dained of God before Chri&s;t's time. See my An&s;wer about this in An&s;wer to the fir&s;t Que|&s;tion.</P>
<P>2. Certainly had it been the Will of God, Children &s;hould have been baptized as &s;uch, Chri&s;t had been baptized when in his Infan|cy; no doubt God who is a free Agent could not want an Admini&s;trator; he could have &s;ent <HI>John</HI> into the World &s;ooner, or have commi&s;&s;ionated &s;ome other Per&s;on to have done it. But &s;ince the Holy Gho&s;t in the Go|&s;pel relates the time of his Bapti&s;m, and that it was not till he was about thirty Years old, it clearly &s;hews us that adult Per&s;ons ought to be admitted to that Ordinance only, and not
<PB N="11" REF="7"> Babes: By which Example of his he hath &s;trengthned his Commi&s;&s;ion, or at lea&s;t wi&s;e &s;hewed the Congruity or &s;weet Agreement there is between his Precept and his own Practice.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="question">
<HEAD>Que&s;tion 5. <HI>Why Sprinkling, and not Dip|ping?</HI> You an&s;wer, Our Church denies not the latter, (that is, dipping) but looks upon it as a clear Repre&s;entation of our Saviour's de&s;cending into the Grave, abiding there, and ri&s;ing up again, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></HEAD>
<P>But &s;ay you, the Church has power to di&s;|pen&s;e with Circum&s;tantials and manner of A|cting, tho not with the Act it &s;elf, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> What your Church is I know not; the Church of <HI>England</HI> doth acknowledg, I mu&s;t confe&s;s, that Bapti&s;m is Dipping, but I never heard they have of late times &s;o practi&s;ed. But how dare you &s;ay, the Church hath pow|er to di&s;pen&s;e with Dipping, and change it into Sprinkling? Who gave her &s;uch Power? Where do you read of it? You call it a Cir|cum&s;tantial, but I am not of your Mind; I mu&s;t &s;ay 'tis an E&s;&s;ential; nay, 'tis no Bap|ti&s;m at all, if not Dipping, for <HI>Baptize</HI> is to dip, which to confirm I could give you a Cloud of Witne&s;&s;es learned in the Greek Tongue; therefore 'tis not the manner of the Act, but the Act it &s;elf; to baptize is one Act, and to rantize or &s;prinkle Water is ano|ther; the manner of the Act of dipping, or baptizing, is to put the Body into the Water backward, or forward, or &s;ide-ways, or with a &s;wift or gentle Motion. Dipping is dipping, and &s;prinkling &s;prinkling, which Act will ne|ver be baptizing whil&s;t the World &s;tands. You &s;ay well, dipping or burying the Body in the Water, is a clear and lively Repre&s;en|tation of the Death, Burial and Re&s;urrection of Chri&s;t. And hence 'tis &s;aid, that &s;uch who are indeed baptized, <HI>are buried with Chri&s;t in Bapti&s;m.</HI> To which you might have added, 'tis al&s;o a Sign of our being dead to Sin, and of our <HI>being rai&s;ed up with Chri&s;t by the Faith of the Operation of God, to walk in newne&s;s of Life.</HI></P>
<P>And hence I infer, Infants ought not to be baptized, becau&s;e there doth not, cannot ap|pear in them that glorious internal Work of the Spirit which ought to be &s;ignified thereby; and as they for this rea&s;on cannot be the pro|per Subjects of Bapti&s;m: So likewi&s;e it cannot be done by &s;prinkling, becau&s;e that Act cannot repre&s;ent tho&s;e Signs and Go&s;pel-My&s;teries, which the Law-giver intended &s;hould be held forth in that holy Admini&s;tration.</P>
<P>But why do you &s;ay this is a circum&s;tantial Thing? Was not <HI>Nadab</HI> and <HI>Abihu</HI>'s Tran&s;|gre&s;&s;ion, and that of <HI>&V;zzah</HI>'s more like Cir|cum&s;tantials than this is? and yet their Error co&s;t them their Lives. Or, hath the Go&s;pel-Church a greater di&s;pen&s;ing Power in &s;uch Ca&s;es, than the Church had under the Law?&mdash;Suppo&s;e the Jews &s;hould have changed Circumci&s;ion, or cutting off the Foreskin of the Fle&s;h, to the paring the Nails of their Children, or to cut off a little Skin off of the Fingers Ends; would that have been Cir|cumci&s;ion? no doubt a better Circumci&s;ion than Sprinkling is Bapti&s;m. Gentlemen, will you call any Part, or Branch, or Thing that appertains to a po&s;itive Precept, a Circum|&s;tance which the Church has power to di&s;|pen&s;e with? If you &s;hould, whither would this lead you? You may after that Notion &s;trangely curtail Chri&s;t's In&s;titutions in other re&s;pects.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="question">
<HEAD>Que&s;tion 6. <HI>What think you of tho&s;e that die in Infancy unbaptized?</HI></HEAD>
<P>You an&s;wer, Of &s;uch <HI>are the Kingdom of Heaven.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> So &s;aith our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, but they have, &s;ay I, no Right thereto, or belong unto the Kingdom of Heaven, becau&s;e &s;prin|kled with a little Water; nor would they have any further Right, &s;hould they be in|deed baptized, &s;ince there is no Command of God for it.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="7" TYPE="question">
<HEAD>Que&s;t. 7. <HI>If Children be &s;aved whether bap|tized or not, what &s;ignifies Bapti&s;m?</HI></HEAD>
<P>You an&s;wer, 'tis a Badg of Chri&s;t, an evi|dent Note of Di&s;tinction from the Children of Infidels: and as we come to the Know|ledg
<PB N="12" REF="8"> of &s;piritual Things by Sen&s;e, &s;o 'tis an Evidence of a greater a&s;&s;urance of the Fa|vour of God to them, being invi&s;ibly intro|duced into the Covenant of Grace.</P>
<P><HI>Reply</HI> 'Tis no Badg of Chri&s;t be&s;ure, be|cau&s;e he never gave it to them; and if it be an evident Note of Di&s;tinction from the Children of Infidels, 'tis wholly of Man's making. You know what wonderful things are a&s;cribed to Chri&s;m by the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> who u&s;e Salt, Oil and Spittle, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> in Bapti&s;m, and to other devi&s;ed Rites and Ceremonies u&s;ed by them; and I have as much ground from God's Word to believe what they &s;ay, as what you &s;ay, who affirm and prove not; why, do you not &s;ay they are thereby made <HI>Members of Chri&s;t, Children of God, and Inhe|ritors of the Kingdom of Heaven?</HI> Pray, what an a&s;&s;urance can that give them of the Fa|vour of God, unle&s;s he had appointed it, and imparted &s;ome &s;piritual Grace thereby to them? Nay, and what Arguments do you bring to prove they thereby are introduced into the Covenant of Grace? Can any out|ward Act bring or introduce People either young or old into the Covenant of Grace, if they are brought thereby into the Cove|nant of Grace? I hope they &s;hall all be &s;a|ved 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 &s;hall peri&s;h eternally. Moreover, how can they come to the knowledg of &s;piritual Things by Sen&s;e? indeed in the ca&s;e of Cir|cumci&s;ion, which left a Mark in the Fle&s;h, they might more probably under&s;tand by the &s;ight of the Eye, tho&s;e &s;piritual Things &s;ignified by it; but Bapti&s;m leaves no &s;uch Mark: Nothing appears to their Sen&s;es when they come to knowledg that can have any &s;uch Tendency; I fear rather it is a great means when they are grown up, to blind their Eyes, and cau&s;e them to think (as many ignorant People do) that they are made thereby Chri&s;tians, and &s;o in a &s;aved State, and never look after the Work of Regene|ration.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="8" TYPE="question">
<HEAD>Que&s;t. 8. <HI>Whether have Children Faith or no; &s;ince Faith and Repentance are Pre-requi&s;ites to Bapti&s;m?</HI></HEAD>
<P>Your An&s;wer is. That you have &s;hewed, that according to the words of the Com|mi&s;&s;ion, Baptizing goes before Teaching; therefore there is not &s;uch a Pre-requi&s;ite|ne&s;s as &s;ome dream of; you have &s;aid &s;o I mu&s;t confe&s;s from the Commi&s;&s;ion, but have not proved it, but rather made work for Repentance, by &s;triving to invert the Order of the &s;acred Commi&s;&s;ion of our Saviour, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> But &s;ay you admit Faith as pre-requi&s;ite to Bapti&s;m; we could an&s;wer, that Children have Faith <HI>potentia,</HI> tho not in <HI>actu vi&s;ibili:</HI> As an Arti&s;t when he is indi&s;po&s;ed or a&s;leep, is <HI>potentially</HI> an Arti&s;t, tho not actually.&mdash;</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> Strange you &s;hould attempt to af|firm Children have Faith <HI>potentia;</HI> who told you &s;o? when was this imaginary Faith in|fu&s;ed into them? it mu&s;t be either by Na|ture Art, or Grace or el&s;e your Simily is lo&s;t. You are look'd upon indeed to be Philo&s;ophers, but this is above my Under|&s;tanding, or your own Demon&s;tration; but you &s;uppo&s;e that Pa&s;&s;age in <HI>Matth.</HI> 18. doth your bu&s;ine&s;s: whereas 'tis evident that our Saviour &s;peaks there of &s;uch little ones who were indeed capable to believer; it was not &s;uch a little one as you would have baptized. We doubt not but God doth oftimes in&s;u&s;e Grace very early in the Souls of &s;ome 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 an&s;wer what you &s;ay about Children having Faith, take what Dr. <HI>Taylor</HI> hath wrote up|on this Conceit. <Q REND="inline">Whether Infants have Faith or no, is a Que&s;tion (&s;aith he) to be di&s;puted by Per&s;ons that care not how much they &s;ay, and how little they prove.</Q></P>
<P>1. <Q REND="inline">Per&s;onal and actual Faith they have none, for they have no Acts of Under|&s;tanding: and be&s;ides, how can any Man know that they have, &s;ince he never &s;aw any Sign of it, neither was he told &s;o by any that could tell?</Q></P>
<PB N="13" REF="8">
<P>2. <Q REND="inline">Some &s;ay they have imputative Faith, but then &s;o let the Sacrament be too; that is, if they have the Parents Faith, or the Churches, then &s;o let Bapti&s;m be imputed al&s;o by derivation from them, and as in their Mothers Womb; and while they hung on their Mothers Brea&s;ts, they live upon their Mothers Nouri&s;hment; &s;o they may upon the Bapti&s;m of their Parents, or their Mother the Church: for &s;ince Faith is ne|ce&s;&s;ary to the &s;u&s;ception of Bapti&s;m, and they them&s;elves confe&s;s it by &s;triving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the matter up; &s;uch as the Faith, &s;uch mu&s;t be the Sacrament; for there is no Proportion be|tween an actual Sacrament and an impu|tative Faith, this being in immediate and nece&s;&s;ary order to that. And what&s;oever can be &s;aid to take from the Nece&s;&s;ity of actual Faith, all that and much more may be &s;aid to excu&s;e from the actual &s;u&s;cepti|on of Bapti&s;m. The fir&s;t of the&s;e De|vices was that of <HI>Luther</HI> and his Scholars; the &s;econd of <HI>Calvin</HI> and his; and yet there is a third Device which the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> teaches, and that is, that Infants have habitual Faith, but who told them &s;o? how can they prove it? what Revelation or Rea&s;on teaches any &s;uch thing? are they by this Habit &s;o much as di&s;po&s;ed to an actual Belief without a new Ma&s;ter? Can an Infant &s;ent into a Mahometan Province, be more confident for Chri&s;tianity when he comes to be a Man, than if he had not been baptized? are there any Acts prece|dent, concomitant or con&s;equent to this pretended Habit? This &s;trange Invention is ab&s;olutely without Art, without Scripture, Rea&s;on or Authority, but the Men are to be excu&s;ed unle&s;s there were a better.</Q></P>
<P>And again to this purpo&s;e, <HI>pag.</HI> 242. <Q REND="inline">And if any Man runs for Succour to that exploded <HI>Cre&s;phugeton,</HI> that Infants have Faith, or any other in&s;pired Habit of I know not what or how, we de&s;ire no more advantage in the World than that they are con&s;trained to an&s;wer without Revelation, again&s;t Rea&s;on, common Sen&s;e, and all the Experience in the World.</Q> As to what you &s;peak as to tho&s;e young Children you mention, it proves nothing; and &s;ome of your Stories &s;eem childle&s;s, and do not look as if they came from Men of &s;uch pretended Ingenuity.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 TYPE="conclusion">
<P>But to clo&s;e all; We have the wor&s;t of you at the la&s;t, wherein you in a very &s;cur|rilous manner ca&s;t Reproach upon a great Body of Godly People (who differ not from other Orthodox Chri&s;tians in any E&s;&s;entials of Salvation, no nor in Fundamentals of Church-Con&s;titutions, &s;ave in the Point of Bapti&s;m) and will you by rea&s;on of the Enormities of &s;ome who formerly bore the Name of Anabapti&s;ts, mentioning the old <HI>Mun&s;ter</HI> Story, condemned as &s;uch, all that bear that Name?</P>
<P>In An&s;wer to which I ask you, whether the like Reflections might nor have been ca&s;t on Chri&s;t's Apo&s;tles, becau&s;e they had a <HI>Judas</HI> among them? or on the Church of the <HI>Corinthians,</HI> becau&s;e of the ince&s;tuous Per&s;on? Be&s;ides, you know not but in may be a Lie rai&s;ed upon tho&s;e People by the envious Papi&s;ts, who have rendred <HI>Calvin.</HI> and <HI>Luther</HI> as odious as you do the&s;e Ana|bapti&s;ts. You would think it hard, if I &s;hould ask you what &s;ort they were that <HI>Ralph Wallis</HI> u&s;ed to expo&s;e, and fill his Garts with? or of tho&s;e Clergy-men who were Pedo-Bapti&s;ts, yet were for filthy Crimes executed.</P>
<P>To conclude, I wi&s;h that all Bitterne&s;s of Spirit was expelled, Love and Charity exer|ci&s;ed towards one another, tho in &s;ome things we may differ from one another.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="questions">
<PB N="14" REF="9">
<HEAD>Queries for the Athenian Society to An&s;wer, &s;ome of which were formerly &s;ent to them, but were pa&s;&s;ed by in &s;ilence, 1. <HI>On Infants the Subjects of Bapti&s;m.</HI> And, 2. <HI>What Bapti&s;m is.</HI></HEAD>
<DIV3 TYPE="part">
<DIV4 N="1" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Fir&s;t;</HI> WHether there was not a twofold Covenant made with <HI>Abra|ham,</HI> one with his Fle&s;hly Seed, and the o|ther with his Spiritual Seed, &s;ignified by the Bond Woman and the Free Woman, and their Sons <HI>I&s;hmael</HI> and <HI>I&s;aac?</HI></P>
<P>If &s;o, I query, Whether Circumci&s;ion was an Ordinance that appertained to the Covenant of Grace, and was the Seal of it? 1. Becau&s;e 'tis contradi&s;tingui&s;hed from the Covenant of Grace, or free Promi&s;e of God, <HI>Rom.</HI> 4. 2. And 'tis al&s;o called a Yoke of Bondage. And, 3. 'Tis &s;aid al&s;o, that he <HI>that was circumci&s;ed, was a Debter to keep the whole Law.</HI> And, 4. Becau&s;e <HI>I&s;hmael,</HI> who was not a Child of the Covenant of Grace with <HI>E&s;au,</HI> and many others, yet were re|quired to be circumci&s;ed as well as <HI>I&s;aac.</HI> And, 5. Since 'tis po&s;itively &s;aid Faith was imputed to <HI>Abraham</HI> for Righteou&s;ne&s;s not in Circumci&s;ion, <HI>How was it imputed then? when he was circumci&s;ed, or uncircumci&s;ed? not when he was circumci&s;ed, but when he was un|circumci&s;ed,</HI> Rom. 4.10.</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="2" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Secondly;</HI> Whether the being the Male-Children of Believers, as &s;uch, gave them right to Circumci&s;ion, or not rather the meer po&s;itive Command of God to <HI>Abraham;</HI> &s;ince we do not read of any other Godly Man's Seed in <HI>Abraham</HI>'s days, or &s;ince, had any right thereto, but only &s;uch who were born in his Hou&s;e, or bought with his Mony?</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="3" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Thirdly;</HI> Whether Circumci&s;ion could be &s;aid to be the Seal of any Man's Faith &s;ave <HI>Abraham</HI>'s only, &s;eeing 'tis &s;aid, <HI>he received the Sign of Circumci&s;ion, a Seal of the Righteou&s;|ne&s;s of the Faith he had</HI> [mark] <HI>yet being uncircumci&s;ied, that he might be the Father of all that believe;</HI> which was the Priviledg of <HI>Abra|ham</HI> only: for how could Circumci&s;ion be a Seal to Children of that Faith they had before circumci&s;ed, &s;eeing they had no Faith at all, as had <HI>Abraham</HI> their Father, they be|ing obliged by the Law of God to be cir|cumci&s;ed at eight days old?</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="4" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Fourthly;</HI> What is it which you conceive Circumci&s;ion did, or Bapti&s;m doth &s;eal to Children, or make &s;ure; &s;ince a Seal u&s;ually makes firm all the Ble&s;&s;ings or Priviledges contained in that Covenant 'tis prefix'd to? Doubtle&s;s if the Fle&s;hly Seed of Believers, as &s;uch, are in the Covenant of Grace, and have the Seal of it, they &s;hall be &s;aved; becau&s;e we are agreed, that the Covenant of Grace is well ordered in all things; and &s;ure there is no final falling, therefore how &s;hould any of them mi&s;s of eternal Life? and yet we &s;ee many of them prove wicked and ungodly, and &s;o live and die; if you &s;ay it &s;eals only the external Part and Priviledges of the Co|venant of Grace?</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="5" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Fifthly;</HI> I demand to know what tho&s;e External Priviledges are, &s;eeing they are denied the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper, and all other External Rites what&s;oever? if you &s;ay when they believe they &s;hall par|take of tho&s;e Ble&s;&s;ings, &s;o, &s;ay I, &s;hall the Children of Unbelievers as well as they.</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="6" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Sixthly;</HI> If the Fle&s;hly Seed, or Children of believing Gentiles, as &s;uch, are to be ac|counted the Seed of <HI>Abraham;</HI> 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 Bapti&s;m, or Church-Member&s;hip, from any Covenant-Tran&s;actions God made with <HI>Abraham?</HI>&mdash;</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="7" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Seventhly;</HI> Whether tho&s;e different grounds upon which the Right of Infant-Bapti&s;m is pretended by the Fathers of old and the Modern Divines, doth well agree with an In&s;titution that is a meer po&s;itive Rite, de|pending wholly on the Will of the Legi&s;lator,
<PB N="15" REF="9"> doth not give ju&s;t cau&s;e to all to que&s;tion its Authority?</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. Some Pedo-Bapti&s;ts a&s;&s;erted, It took a|way Original Sin, and &s;uch who denied it were anathematized.</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. Some affirm, That Children are in the Covenant; and being the Seed of Believers, are fedorally Holy, therefore ought to be Baptized.</ITEM>
<ITEM>3. Another &s;ort of Pedo-Bapti&s;ts &s;ay, They ought to be Baptized, by virtue of their Pa|rents Faith.</ITEM>
<ITEM>4. Others affirm, They have Faith them|&s;elves, and are Di&s;ciples, and therefore mu&s;t be baptized.</ITEM>
<ITEM>5. Another &s;ort Baptize them upon the Faith of their Sureties.</ITEM>
<ITEM>6. And another &s;ort of Pedo-Bapti&s;ts &s;ay, It wholly depends upon the Power and Au|thority of the Church.</ITEM>
<ITEM>7. Some &s;ay, It was an Apo&s;tolical un|written Tradition; but others deny that, and affirm, It may be proved from the Word of God.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>Sure, if it was of God, or his In&s;titution, the Pedo-Bapti&s;ts would not be thus divided and confounded among them&s;elves.</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="8" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Eighthly;</HI> Is it not an evil thing, and very ab&s;urd for any to &s;ay, Bapti&s;m is a Symbol of pre&s;ent Regeneration, and yet apply it to Babes, in whom nothing of the things &s;ignified thereby doth or can appear? And al&s;o to &s;ay, <HI>I Baptize thee in the Name,</HI> &amp;c. when indeed he doth not Baptize, but only Rantize the Child? and to &s;ay Bapti&s;m is a lively Figure of Chri&s;t's Death, Burial, and Re&s;urrection, and yet only &s;prinkle or pour a little Water upon the Face of the Child?</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="9" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Ninthly;</HI> Whether that can be an Ordinance of Chri&s;t, for which there is neither Com|mand nor Example in all the Word of God, nor <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> Promi&s;e made to &s;uch who do it, nor Threats denounced on &s;uch who neglect it or do it not? For though there are both Promi&s;es made to Believers Baptized, and Threats denounced on &s;uch who neglect it, yet where are there any &s;uch in re&s;pect of Infant-Bapti&s;m?</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="10" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Tenthly;</HI> Whether a Pagan, or Indian, who &s;hould attain to the knowledg of the Greek Tongue, or of the Engli&s;h, or any other Tongue into which the Original &s;hould be tran&s;lated, by reading over the New Te&s;ta|ment a thou&s;and times he could ever find Infants ought to be Baptized; if not, how doth it appear the Faith of People about Pedo-Bapti&s;m &s;tands in the Power of God, and knowledg of his Word, and not rather in the Wi&s;dom of Men, who having endeavoured, with all the Art and Cunning they can, to draw pretended Con&s;equences for it, tho af|ter all they do not naturally and genuinely fol|low from the Premi&s;es to which they re&s;er?</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="11" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Eleventhly;</HI> Whether Chri&s;t having ex|pre&s;ly mentioned the Qualifications of &s;uch as are to be Baptized, <HI>viz.</HI> actual Repentance, Faith, and the An&s;wer of a good Con&s;ci|ence, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> doth not thereby exclude all tho&s;e who are not capable of tho&s;e Qualifications?</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="12" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Twelfthly;</HI> Whether it doth not reflect up|on the Care, Wi&s;dom, and Faithfulne&s;s of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, who as a Son over his own Hou&s;e, exceeded the Care and Faithfulne&s;s of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> to affirm, Infants ought to be Bapti|zed, and yet it cannot be found in all the New Te&s;tament? Can it be thought it &s;hould be a Go&s;pel-Precept, nay, a Sacrament, and yet Chri&s;t &s;peak nothing of it? or could it be in the Commi&s;&s;ion, and yet the Apo&s;tles never to men|tion it, but contrariwi&s;e, require Faith of all they admitted to Bapti&s;m? <HI>Paul</HI> &s;ays, He de|clared the whole Coun&s;el of God, and &s;aid nothing of it in any of his Epi&s;tles, nor no where el&s;e. How many thou&s;ands of Chil|dren were born to baptized Believers, from the time of Chri&s;t's A&s;cen&s;ion, to the time <HI>John</HI> wrote the <HI>Revelations,</HI> but not one word of any one Child Baptized?</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="13" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Thirteen;</HI> Whether in matter of po&s;itive Right, &s;uch as Bapti&s;m is, we ought not to keep expre&s;ly and punctually to the Revela|tion of the Will of the Law-giver?</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="14" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Fourteen;</HI> Whether the Bapti&s;m of Infants be not a dangerous Error, &s;ince it tends to deceive and blind the Eyes of poor ignorant People, who think they are thereby made
<PB N="16" REF="10"> Chri&s;tians, and &s;o never look after Regene|ration, nor true Bapti&s;m, which repre&s;ents or &s;ignifies that inward Work of Grace upon the Heart?</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="15" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Fifteen;</HI> Whether the Ancient Church, who gave the Lord's Supper to Infants, as well as Bapti&s;m, might not be allowed as well to do the one as the other, &s;ince Faith and Holy Habits are as much required in tho&s;e who are to be Baptized, as in &s;uch who come to the Lord's Table? And all &s;uch in the Apo&s;tolick Church, who were Baptized, were imme|diately admitted to break Bread, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> And al&s;o the Arguments taken from the Cove|nant, and becau&s;e &s;aid to be Holy, and to <HI>belong to the Kingdom of Heaven,</HI> are as &s;trong 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 &s;everal Centuries.</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="16" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Sixteen;</HI> Whether <HI>Nadab, Abihu,</HI> and <HI>&V;z|zah</HI>'s Tran&s;gre&s;&s;ions were not as much Cir|cum&s;tantials, and &s;o as &s;mall Errors, as to al|ter Dipping into Sprinkling; and from an under&s;tanding Believer, to a poor ignorant Babe? And whether to allow the Church a Power to make &s;uch Alterations, be not dan|gerous? &s;ee <HI>Rev.</HI> 22. And doth not this open a Door to other Innovations?</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="17" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Seventeen;</HI> Whether there is any ju&s;t Cau&s;e for Men to vilify and reproach the People called <HI>Anabapti&s;ts,</HI> for their baptizing Belie|vers, and denying Infants to be Subjects thereof, &s;eeing they have the plain and direct Word of God to warrant their practice, <HI>i.e.</HI> not only the Commi&s;&s;ion, but al&s;o the conti|nual u&s;age of the Apo&s;tles and Mini&s;ters of the Go&s;pel all along in the New Te&s;tament, who Baptized none but &s;uch who made pro|fe&s;&s;ion of their Faith? And the Church of <HI>England</HI> al&s;o &s;aith, <HI>Faith and Repentance are required of &s;uch who are to be Baptized.</HI> We dare not Baptize our Children, becau&s;e we cannot find it written, 'tis from the holy Fear of God, le&s;t we &s;hould offend and &s;in again&s;t him, by adding to his Word.</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="18" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Eighteen;</HI> What &s;hould be the rea&s;on that our faithful Tran&s;lators of the Bible &s;hould leave the Greek word <HI>Bapti&s;m,</HI> or <HI>Bapti&s;ma,</HI> and not turn it into Engli&s;h, &s;eeing the Dutch have not done &s;o, but contrariwi&s;e tran&s;late, for <HI>John the Bapti&s;t, John the Dooper;</HI> and for <HI>he Baptized, he dooped,</HI> or <HI>dipped them?</HI></P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="19" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Nineteen;</HI> Whether tho&s;e who tran&s;late out of one Language into another, ought not to tran&s;late every word into the &s;ame Language into which they turn it, and not leave any word in the &s;ame Original Tongue, which the People under&s;tand not, and for who&s;e &s;akes they undertook that Work; and not to tran&s;late every word, but al&s;o to give the right, literal, genuine and proper &s;ignificati|on of each word, and not the remote, im|proper, or collateral &s;ignification of it? Which if our Tran&s;lators of the Bible had &s;o done, I query whether the Doubt among the Unlearned, concerning what the word <HI>Bapti&s;ma</HI> &s;ignifies, had not cea&s;ed?</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="20" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Twenty;</HI> Seeing the Greek Church u&s;es Im|mer&s;ion &amp; not A&s;per&s;ion, may it not be look'd upon as a great Argument again&s;t Sprinkling, e&s;pecially &s;eeing they di&s;own the Bapti&s;m of the Latin Church, becau&s;e they u&s;e Sprink|ling; for doubtle&s;s the Greeks be&s;t knew the genuine and proper &s;ignification of that word, that Tongue being their own natural Language in which the New Te&s;tament was wrote?</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="21" TYPE="question">
<P>21. Whether if a Mini&s;ter &s;hould admi|ni&s;ter the Lord's Supper in one kind only, and &s;o doing, it cannot an&s;wer the great De|&s;ign of Chri&s;t the Law-giver, <HI>i.e.</HI> the break|ing of his Body, and &s;hedding of his Blood, would not prophane that Holy In&s;titution? If &s;o, whether &s;uch, who in&s;tead of Dipping the whole Body, do but &s;prinkle or pour a little Water on the Face, do not al&s;o pro|phane the holy Sacrament of Bapti&s;m, &s;ince it is not &s;o done to repre&s;ent in a lively Figure the Death, Burial and Re&s;urrection of Chri&s;t, with our Death unto Sin, and vivification un|to newne&s;s of Life? <HI>Rom.</HI> 6. <HI>Col.</HI> 2.11,12.</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="22" TYPE="question">
<P>22. Whether all &s;uch who have only been &s;prinkled, ought not to be deemed Unbap|tized Per&s;ons, &s;ince A&s;per&s;ion is not Immer|&s;ion,
<PB N="17" REF="10"> or Rantizing not Baptizing; for though the Greek word <HI>Baptizo,</HI> in a remote and improper &s;en&s;e may &s;ignify <HI>to wa&s;h,</HI> yet, as the Learned confe&s;s, it is &s;uch a wa&s;hing as is done by dipping, &s;willing, or plunging the Per&s;on or Thing all over in the Water?</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="23" TYPE="question">
<P>23. Since you &s;ay Children have Faith <HI>po|tentia:</HI> I query, Whether Unbelievers, and all ungodly Per&s;ons, have not al&s;o the like Faith <HI>potentia</HI> as well as Children, and &s;o the &s;ame Right to Bapti&s;m? We grant they may have Faith hereafter; What tho?</P>
<P>There is one A&s;&s;ertion and Argument laid down by you, which I omitted in my An&s;wer; which as it is New, &s;o it mu&s;t needs expo&s;e you, <HI>viz. If God be plea&s;ed to radiate or &s;hine upon the Souls of Children in Heaven, and they do behold the Face of God, as our Saviour &s;ays; then it follows that they have Faith in Heaven, and why not on Earth? &s;ee</HI> Heb. 11.27. The&s;e are your very words.</P>
<P><HI>Reply;</HI> I had thought that in Heaven the Faith of the Adult cea&s;es, <HI>i.e.</HI> the &s;trong and &s;aying Faith of Believers: Doth not the Apo&s;tle &s;ay, Then we come to receive the End of our Faith? And is not Faith turned there into Vi&s;ion? Is not Faith <HI>the Evidence of Things not &s;een, and the Sub&s;tance of Things hoped for?</HI> Heb. 11.1,2. Divines &s;ay, Faith, Hope, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> cea&s;e then, and that 'tis only Love that continues. What is it they have not received in Heaven, which they tru&s;t in God for? Nor is your Conclu&s;ion good, Had they Faith there, they may have it here. The Text you cite, <HI>Heb.</HI> 11.27. refers to that Faith <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> had on Earth, who &s;aw him who was Invi&s;ible: God &s;eems &s;o to us here; but what a &s;ight we &s;hall have of him in Hea|ven, we know not. Doth not the Apo&s;tle &s;ay, we <HI>&s;hall behold Face to Face; and the pure in Heart &s;hall &s;ee God?</HI> Shall that be &s;uch a &s;ight that <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> had whil&s;t on Earth?</P>
</DIV4>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>Que&s;tions relating to the Fathers, with re&s;pect to the Controver&s;y about Infant-Bapti&s;m.</HEAD>
<DIV4 TYPE="section">
<DIV5 N="1" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Fir&s;t;</HI> WHat rea&s;on can be given why <HI>Nazian|zen,</HI> an eminent Greek Father, &s;hould coun&s;el the deferring the Bapti&s;m of Infants, until the third or fourth Year of their Age, (except in danger of Death), if it were in <HI>Nazianzen</HI>'s Time, as &s;ome &s;uppo&s;e it was, the Opinion of the whole Church, as al&s;o his own, that Infants, by an Apo&s;tolical Tradi|tion, were to be baptized as &s;uch, that is, as &s;oon as born?</P>
</DIV5>
<DIV5 N="2" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Secondly;</HI> Whether all the Fathers of the third and fourth Century, both of the Greek and Latin Church, who have wrote any thing about Infant-Bapti&s;m, do not unanimou&s;ly give this as the Rea&s;on why Infants &s;hould be Baptized, <HI>viz.</HI> the wa&s;hing away Origi|nal Sin, or the putting them into a Capacity of Salvation; and &s;ome of them, particu|larly St. <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> &s;entencing Infants to Eternal Damnation if not Baptized?</P>
</DIV5>
<DIV5 N="3" TYPE="question">
<P><HI>Thirdly;</HI> If &s;o, Whether the Fathers might not be mi&s;taken in the Right of In|fants to Bapti&s;m, as well as in the Judgment of mo&s;t Prote&s;tants they are, in the Rea&s;on why they &s;hould be Baptized?</P>
</DIV5>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 TYPE="section">
<HEAD>Four other Queries.</HEAD>
<DIV5 N="1" TYPE="question">
<P>1. WHether God hath allowed or en|joined Parents to bring their lit|tle Bzbes, of two or ten days old, into a Co|venant with him by Bapti&s;m, &s;ince 'tis not to be found in the Scripture he either hath al|lowed or enjoined them &s;o to do?</P>
</DIV5>
<DIV5 N="2" TYPE="question">
<P>2. If it cannot be proved he hath required any &s;uch thing at their Hands, Whether that Covenant can be &s;aid to bind their Con&s;cien|ces when they come to Age, e&s;pecially &s;ince they gave no Con&s;ent to it, nor were capa|ble &s;o to do?</P>
</DIV5>
<DIV5 N="3" TYPE="question">
<PB N="18" REF="11">
<P>3. If this pretended Covenant was not of God's Appointment, I query, how the&s;e Chil|dren who refu&s;e to agree to the-&s;aid Cove|nant when at Age, can thereby be guilty, 1. Of rejecting Chri&s;t, 2. Of renouncing the Ble&s;&s;ings of the Go&s;pel, 3. And that 'tis Re|bellion continued again&s;t their Maker, 4. That 'tis Ingratitude and Perjury to their Redeem|er, 5. Gro&s;s Inju&s;tice to their Parents. 6, That 'tis &s;elf killing Crueltie to their own Souls, 7. And a damning Sin?</P>
</DIV5>
<DIV5 N="4" TYPE="question">
<P>4. I query, whether this be good Divini|ty, not rather a &s;trange Doctrine? And whe|ther unwarrantable Articles of Faith, taken out of the Jewi&s;h <HI>Talmud,</HI> or Turki&s;h <HI>Alcoran,</HI> may not by as good Authority be put into a <HI>Chri&s;tian Catechi&s;m,</HI> as &s;uch A&s;&s;ertions as the&s;e?</P>
</DIV5>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 TYPE="section">
<HEAD>Four Queries &s;ent by another Hand to the <HI>Athenian Society.</HI></HEAD>
<DIV5 TYPE="subsection">
<OPENER><SALUTE>Gentlemen,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>I Humbly conceive, that no Man knoweth what is a Duty but by the Scriptures: And &s;ince Pedo-Bapti&s;m cannot be proved by the Word of God, as every Man may know, and is generally acknowledged by the mo&s;t Learned A&s;&s;ertors of that Practice; it therefore plainly followeth, in my Judgment, that Infant-Bapti&s;m is no Ordinance of God's Appoint|ment, but an Innovation.</P>
<P>I therefore &s;eriou&s;ly query;
<LIST>
<ITEM>I. WHether Tradition; Jewi&s;h Talmuds, the Opinion of private Doctors, Schoolmen, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> be a &s;ufficient Warrant for the Churches to e&s;t abli&s;h &s;uch a Practice, that hath neither Precept nor Example in the Holy Scriptures?</ITEM>
<ITEM>II. Since the pretended Foundation of Infant-Bapti&s;m, (<HI>viz.</HI> its ab&s;olute ne|ce&s;&s;ity to Salvation) proving to be a Mi&s;take of the Text, <HI>John</HI> 3.5. as is ge|nerally acknowledged by Prote&s;tants, Whether the Structure ought not to fall with it, as it did in the Ca&s;e of giving the Child the Eachari&s;t?</ITEM>
<ITEM>III. Whether the Faith of the Parent, or Go&s;&s;ip, on the Child's behalf, be re|quired 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 Apo&s;tles and Primitive Churches, and &s;eemingly by the Church of <HI>England</HI> in her Catechi&s;m?</ITEM>
<ITEM>IV. Whether the Church hath a good Warrant that will ju&s;tify her before God, in changing the Mode from Dipping to Sprinking? and whether that Alteration doth &s;o well an&s;wer the De&s;ign of the Holy God, as that Ceremony which him&s;elf appointed?</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
</DIV5>
<DIV5 TYPE="subsection">
<OPENER><SALUTE>Gentleman,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>I knew nothing of that Gentleman's Animadver&s;ions, or that he, or any Body el&s;e, in|tended to take notice of your <HI>Mercury,</HI> till I had wrote what I intended to &s;ay, tho when it was too late I &s;aw it.</P>
</DIV5>
</DIV4>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="postscript">
<PB N="19" REF="11">
<HEAD>POSTSCRIPT. Containing &s;ome Remarks upon the <HI>Athenian Mercury,</HI> Vol. 4. Numb. 18. publi&s;hed <HI>Saturday,</HI> Novemb. 28. 1691.</HEAD>
<DIV3 TYPE="part">
<OPENER><SALUTE>Gentlemen,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<DIV4 TYPE="introduction">
<P>JUST as my An&s;wer to your fir&s;t <HI>Mercury</HI> about Infant-Bapti&s;m was fini&s;hed, and almo&s;t printed off, your &s;econd Paper on the &s;ame Subject came to my Hand: And tho I was not concerned in the Paper cal|led, <HI>Animadver&s;ions on your other Mercury;</HI> yet, till a furthet An&s;wer is prepared, I &s;hall make &s;ome Reflections upon what you have &s;aid in your pretended <HI>Reply</HI> to that Gentleman, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>1. <HI>Sirs,</HI> You go too fa&s;t to conclude, you by that Paper under&s;tand wherein our &s;trength lies, as (by this time) you may perceive, nor don't conclude you have it all yet.</P>
<P>2. What you &s;ay about your pretended Proof of Infant-Bapti&s;m, from that un&s;crip|tural Tradition or Cu&s;tom among the Jews of pro&s;elyting whole Families to the Jewi&s;h Religion by Bapti&s;m, you may &s;ee fully an|&s;wered before I &s;aw your la&s;t <HI>Mercury.</HI> Have you proved that Cu&s;tom among them was <HI>Jure Divino?</HI> or, if &s;o, that it remained and was continued by Chri&s;t?</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="2" TYPE="remark">
<P><HI>Secondly;</HI> What you have &s;aid about Bap|ti&s;m, being the proper Antitype of Circum|ci&s;ion, is al&s;o an&s;wered: Nor does what you &s;peak of, Types and Antitypes, not agree|ing in every thing, help you. Have not we &s;hewed the proper Antitype of Circumci&s;ion in the Fle&s;h, is that of the Heart?</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="3" TYPE="remark">
<P><HI>Thirdly;</HI> As to you Logical Argument, (<HI>viz. An Ordinance once enjoined, and never re|pealed, is always in force; but the Ordinance of Childrens in covenanting, was once in the Old Te|&s;tament enjoined, and was never repealed.</HI> Ergo).</P>
<P>We an&s;wer, If the Ordinance of Children in Covenanting under the Law, was Circum|ci&s;ion, that Ordinance is repealed; Is not Circumci&s;ion repealed?</P>
<P>2. If you &s;ay notwith&s;tanding, Children of the Fle&s;h, or the natural Seed, being once in the Covenant, and never ca&s;t out, (by rea&s;on that Law or Covenant, for their in|covenanting being not repealed) is always in force.</P>
<P><HI>Reply</HI> 1. That the Old or fir&s;t Covenant, for their Incovenanting is repealed is plain; he <HI>took away the fir&s;t, that he might e&s;tabli&s;h the &s;econd.</HI></P>
<P>2. Al&s;o 'tis &s;aid, that <HI>Hagar</HI> and her Son are ca&s;t out, <HI>viz.</HI> the legal Covenant, and fle&s;hly Seed, and no new Law is added to bring them into the Go&s;pel-Church by Bap|ti&s;m, <HI>i.e.</HI> the fle&s;hly or natural Seed, as &s;uch. <HI>Now is the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees.</HI></P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="4" TYPE="remark">
<P><HI>Fourthly;</HI> Your citing <HI>Heb.</HI> 8. and <HI>Jer.</HI> 31. to &s;hew what Bapti&s;m &s;eals to Infants, proves nothing. We deny not, but all who are actually in the New Covenant, <HI>viz.</HI> by Faith ingrafted into Chri&s;t, have right to Remi&s;|&s;ion and Salvation; and that that Covenant &s;ecures and pre&s;erves them to Eternal Life; therefore the Children of Believers, as &s;uch, are not in it: And if they are no otherwi&s;e in it than conditionally, that is, if they re|pent, believe, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> I ask you what Priviledg that is, more than what the Children of Hea|thens and Infidels have? for if they believe and repent, &s;hall they not have the &s;ame Ble&s;&s;ings &amp; Priviledges of the Covenant al&s;o? As to the Adult Profe&s;&s;ors, we &s;ay, if they fall finally away, it &s;hews they never indeed were in the Covenant of Grace. As to A|dult true Believers, the Holy Spirit &s;eals Re|mi&s;&s;ion and Salvation to them, and they &s;hall be &s;aved: a &s;ign of what is actually in them, is held forth in Bapti&s;m, there being nothing &s;ignified by that Ordinance as to a Death unto Sin, but what they experienced wrought on
<PB N="20" REF="12"> their Souls before Baptized; tho, 'tis true, they thereby, for the time to come, covenant to walk in newne&s;s of Life.</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="5" TYPE="remark">
<P><HI>Fifthly;</HI> As touching the great Commi&s;&s;i|on, <HI>Mat.</HI> 28. where you urge Baptizing goes before Teaching, we have fully an&s;wered you in the precedent <HI>Reply;</HI> we prove, there is a Teaching goes before Bapti&s;m, and yet al&s;o a Teaching after. Why do you attempt to blind the Eyes of the unwary Reader?</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="6" TYPE="remark">
<P><HI>Sixthly;</HI> To what purpo&s;e do you mention <HI>Jairus</HI>'s Daughter? do we deny but that the Parents Faith and Prayer, may procure out|ward Ble&s;&s;ings, nay, and &s;piritual Ones too; and as much perhaps for their poor carnal Neighbours and Friends? <HI>My Servant</HI> Job <HI>&s;hall pray for you.</HI> The fervent Prayer of a Righ|teous Man availeth much, but it doth not give Right to their Friends or Children to Bap|ti&s;m.</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="7" TYPE="remark">
<P><HI>Seventhly;</HI> As to your Syriac Tran&s;lation, that the Jaylor and all the Sons of his Hou&s;e were Baptized: I argue, All his Sons, no doubt, were grown up to Age, becau&s;e 'tis &s;aid, <HI>he believed, with all his Hou&s;e.</HI> If he had Sons grown up, and yet did not believe, then, by your Argument, Unbelievers may be Bap|tized; but to this &s;ee our An&s;wer.</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="8" TYPE="remark">
<P><HI>Eighthly;</HI> As to your proof from that Pa&s;&s;age, <HI>i. e. Suffer little Children to come unto me.</HI> Take the words definitely or indefinite|ly, it proves nothing for you; for Chri&s;t Baptized no Child, for with his own Hards he Baptized no Per&s;on at all; <HI>Joh.</HI> 4.1,2. 'twas to lay his Hands upon them, not to Bap|tize them. Moreover, I have before told you, tho&s;e little Ones, <HI>Mark</HI> 9.42. were Adult, <HI>Who&s;oever &s;hall offend one of the&s;e little Ones that be|lieve in me:</HI> I affirm, our Saviour &s;peaks only of &s;uch little Ones as were grown up to &s;uch Age, as in very deed did believe in him, and not Babes of two or ten days old. But, you &s;ay, you would have no Children pro&s;elyted, but &s;uch as <HI>Timothy,</HI> &amp;c. To which you an|&s;wer, That according to the Original, tho&s;e Children that did <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">, which word we have &s;hewed &s;ignifies any common coming, (and may be &s;uch who come in their Parents Arms). Let Babes come to Chri&s;t, this way or that, he baptized none of them: I may in|fer as well, becau&s;e little Children come or were brought to Chri&s;t, and of &s;uch are the Kingdom of Heaven; therefore they may partake of the Lord's Supper, as you infer they may be Baptized.</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="9" TYPE="remark">
<P><HI>Ninthly;</HI> Tho the Go&s;pel did not &s;pread in|to all Nations, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> yet &s;ure you conclude all were to be baptized in all Nations where&s;o|ever the Go&s;pel did come, or was preached; or el&s;e, as we &s;ay, none in tho&s;e Nations, but &s;uch who were made Di&s;ciples, <HI>i. e.</HI> did be|lieve and repent: for if but &s;ome in tho&s;e Na|tions where the Go&s;pel comes, were to be Baptized, and not all, and yet more ought &s;o to be; then &s;uch who are di&s;cipled fir&s;t: Pray who are they, or how &s;hall we know them to be included in the Commi&s;&s;ion? For, as Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> &s;aith, If we have it not here, where have we it? this being the great Rule or Char|ter of the Church for this Rite, unto which we ought to adhere in this Matter.</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="10" TYPE="remark">
<P><HI>Tenthly;</HI> What &s;ignifies what &s;ome of the Ancient Fathers believed, <HI>i. e. That Federal Holine&s;s of Parents made Children Candidates for Bapti&s;m?</HI> They &s;aid, other things too that you decry as well as we, many Errors being early let into the Church: Be&s;ides, we have <HI>Tertullian</HI> again&s;t <HI>Tertullian,</HI> or one Father again&s;t another, which is ground enough to believe you abu&s;e <HI>Tertullian,</HI> or to doubt of the truth of your Hi&s;tory.</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="11" TYPE="remark">
<P><HI>Eleventhly;</HI> You <HI>ask whether Children have not as much right to their Bapti&s;m as that of Adult Females? for 'tis no where &s;aid, &s;he that believeth, and is baptized; where have we one In&s;tance of Female-Bapti&s;m?</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> We ak you whether Male and Fe|male is not intended in <HI>Mark</HI> 16.16. he or &s;he? and &s;o <HI>John</HI> 3.3. <HI>&V;nle&s;s a Man be born again;</HI> the Woman is included; or, have Wo|men no Souls? Did you never read of the Figure <HI>Sylepfis,</HI> or <HI>Conceptio,</HI> that compre|hends the le&s;s worthy under the more wor|thy, <HI>indignioris &s;ub-digniore?</HI> as for Example, <HI>Quid tu &amp; &s;oror &s;acitis, ego &amp; mater mi&s;eri; perimus tu &amp; uxor qui ad&s;ui&s;tis te&s;tes e&s;tote?</HI>
<PB N="21" REF="12"> and it's no le&s;s true in Divinity; &s;ee that full and never to be baffled place, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 6.16. <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">. See <HI>Gen.</HI> 5.2. <HI>And he called their Name</HI> Adam, <HI>they two &s;hall be one Fle&s;h.</HI> Moreover, do we not read <HI>Women</HI> were made Di&s;ciples as well as Men, and &s;o had the &s;ame right to Bapti&s;m from the Commi&s;&s;ion?</P>
<P>But to detect your Ignorance of the Scrip|ture, pray &s;ee <HI>Acts</HI> 8.12. <HI>When they believed</HI> Philip, <HI>preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the Name of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, they were baptized both Men and Women.</HI> Al&s;o <HI>Acts</HI> 16.15. 'tis &s;aid <HI>Lydia</HI> was baptized; I thought &s;he had been a Woman. Gentlemen, you &s;hew you are but younger Brethren, and will do the Pedo-bapti&s;ts no Service; &s;hew &s;uch a Proof for the Bapti&s;m of Infants, and your work is done.</P>
<P>But tho Children lo&s;e no &s;piritual Right by Chri&s;t's coming, yet they may lo&s;e &s;ome Le|gal Rites. As Mini&s;ters Sons now are not born to the Mini&s;try, as they were under the Law, as well as their Fle&s;hly Seed had right, as &s;uch, to their Jewi&s;h Church-Member&s;hip.</P>
<P>Furthermore; becau&s;e Believers are made holy by the Operations of the Spirit, are all their Children made holy in like manner al&s;o? Blu&s;h for Chri&s;t's &s;ake! The Ble&s;&s;ing of <HI>Abraham,</HI> Sirs, only <HI>comes upon the Gentiles through Faith,</HI> not by natural Generation, as you imagine: As the Ble&s;&s;ing runs to the Parents, <HI>viz.</HI> through Faith, &s;o to their Children; they mu&s;t believe al&s;o if they would be the Children of the Promi&s;e, or Spiritual Seed of <HI>Abraham,</HI> Gal. 3. <HI>ult.</HI></P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="12" TYPE="remark">
<P><HI>Twelfthly;</HI> As touching what you &s;ay fur|ther, as <HI>to univer&s;al Con&s;ent of the Antient Churches,</HI> it proves nothing. Should we believe your Hi&s;tories, as firmly as we do believe there was an <HI>Alexander</HI> the Great, or a <HI>Cato,</HI> &amp;c. if there is no Infant-Bapti&s;m in the Scripture, 'tis utterly gone: yet we challenge you to &s;hew from Authentick Hi&s;tory, that one Infant was baptized in the fir&s;t or &s;econd Centuries, which we are not able to di&s;prove by as good Authority.</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="13" TYPE="remark">
<P><HI>Thirteen;</HI> If there was not a Congregation called <HI>Anabapti&s;ts</HI> till 300 Years after Chri&s;t, it &s;ignifies nothing, as we have &s;hewed. Moreover, we affirm, that all the Apo&s;toli|cal Primitive Churches were Bapti&s;ts, <HI>i. e.</HI> &s;uch who only baptized Believers, and &s;o continued till the Apo&s;tacy. See our further An&s;wer to this to your fir&s;t <HI>Mercury.</HI> We can prove there was a Te&s;timony born again&s;t Infant-Bapti&s;m before 380 Years after Chri&s;t; nay, before the end of the third Century. See <HI>Tertul.</HI> in his Book <HI>de Bapti&s;mo, c.</HI> 18. who oppo&s;ed Infant-Bapti&s;m, 1. From the mi|&s;take of that Text, <HI>Mat.</HI> 19.14. <HI>Suffer little Children to come unto me;</HI> the Lord &s;aith, &s;ays he, <HI>do not forbid them to come unto me;</HI> let them come, therefore when they grow elder, when they learn, when they are taught why they come, let them be made Chri&s;tians when they can know Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>He adds &s;ix Arguments more; and to confirm this Te&s;timony of <HI>Tertullian,</HI> &s;ee Dr. <HI>Barlow;</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>Tertullian di&s;likes and condemns Infant-Bapti&s;m as unwarrantable and irrational.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Daill&eacute;</HI> al&s;o &s;aith, that <HI>Tertullian</HI> was of an Opinion, that Infants were not to be bap|tized; the like &s;ay divers others, as Mr. <HI>Danvers</HI> &s;hews, which his Oppo&s;ers could not refute.</P>
<P>So that it appears you are ignrant both of Scripture and Hi&s;tory too, and do but abu&s;e your &s;elves and the World al&s;o in this matter. Gentlemen, you were better give over, than a-fre&s;h to blow up the Fire and Coal of Contention. You mi&s;take in your third Column, we are not to prove a Negative, <HI>i. e.</HI> That no Infant was bap|tized in tho&s;e Churches, you mu&s;t prove they were.</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="14" TYPE="remark">
<P><HI>Fourteen;</HI> Your Reply about our Saviour's not being baptized till thirty Years old, it was becau&s;e he was a Jew, and pro&s;elyted Heathens were only baptized when young, is a Fig-leaf, &s;till in&s;i&s;ting upon the old Jewi&s;h Cu&s;tom; to which we have given you a full An&s;wer.</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 N="15" TYPE="remark">
<P><HI>Fifteen;</HI> What you &s;ay about dipping, and mention <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">, <HI>and that Au|thors &s;hew that it &s;ignifies only a bare and &s;light
<PB N="22" REF="13" MS="y"> wa&s;hing, and that paunging and wa&s;hing are very di&s;tinct:</HI> This word comes from the &s;ame Verb you &s;ay &s;ignifies to dip or plunge. And whereas you hint, that <HI>Beza</HI> would have us baptize them, but not <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> them; you are re&s;olved to prevent that danger, who only Sprinkle or Rantize them.</P>
<P>I affirm, Dipping or plunging, all learned in the Greek Tongue, and Criticks, do ge|nerally a&s;&s;ert, is the literal, proper and ge|nuine Signification of the word <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">; and if it any where refers to wa&s;hing, 'tis to &s;uch a wa&s;hing as is done by dipping or &s;willing in the Water: all &s;orts of wa&s;hing are not di&s;tinct from dipping; and that <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> to baptize, is to wa&s;h, unle&s;s it it be &s;uch a wa&s;hing as is by dipping, we deny: is it not the &s;ame with <GAP LANG="heb" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">? al&s;o the Septua|gint do render the word <HI>Tabal</HI> by <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">, and which all Tran&s;lators, &s;aith a good Au|thor, both I atin, Dutch, Italian, French and Engli&s;h, do tran&s;late to dip, and always &s;ignifies to dip, as <HI>Gen.</HI> 37.31. <HI>Lev.</HI> 4.6. <HI>Numb.</HI> 16.18. 2 <HI>Kings</HI> 5.14, &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>Grotius</HI> &s;aith it &s;ignifies to dip over Head and Ears.</P>
<P><HI>Pa&s;or,</HI> an Immer&s;ion, Dipping, or Submer|&s;ion.</P>
<P><HI>Leigh</HI> in his <HI>Critica Sacra</HI> &s;aith, 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 Wa&s;hing only: See <HI>Ca&s;aubon, Bucan, Bullinger, Zanchy, Beza,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
</DIV4>
<DIV4 TYPE="conclusion">
<P>To clo&s;e; have we not cau&s;e to affirm you reproach us, to &s;ay our <HI>Ring Leaders</HI> come to ill Deaths. What &s;ignifies your Story of <HI>John Bocold</HI> of <HI>Leyden,</HI> and as if <HI>Era&s;|mas,</HI> &amp;c. had an ill Opinion of the <HI>Anabapti&s;ts</HI> of his time, does it follow you may vilify the Bapti&s;ts of the&s;e times from thence? they might hold &s;ome Errors, and &s;o may &s;ome &s;o called now adays, as well as &s;ome Pedo-Bapti&s;ts, who are <HI>Papi&s;ts, Arians, Antitrinita|rians, Socinians,</HI> and what not; and &s;ome of them debauched Livers, and made as &s;hame|ful Ends; the&s;e things cannot be undknown to you, but how ba&s;e it is in you thus to write, let all &s;ober Men judg. Your pre|tended Zeal will not acquit you from a &s;lan|derous Tongue, and &s;peaking Evil of them you know not. Are not the Papi&s;ts <HI>Pedobapti&s;ts,</HI> and &s;ome of the fir&s;t and chief A&s;&s;ertors of it, and what an erronious Crew are they? do you think we cannot paralled <HI>John</HI> of <HI>Leyden</HI> among&s;t &s;ome of the <HI>Pedo|bapti&s;ts.</HI> Were tho&s;e Stories true of him and others?&mdash;are there not &s;ome bad Men of every Per&s;wa&s;ion as well as good?</P>
<P>I exhort you to con&s;ider what account you will be able to give, for a&s;&s;erting Babies Ranti&s;m, or Infants Sprinkling, &s;ince 'tis not commanded of God, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> in the dreadful Day of Judgment: or how dare you affirm we di&s;turb the Church of Chri&s;t with fal&s;e Doctrine, who a&s;&s;ert, Believers only are the Subjects of Chri&s;t's true Bapti&s;m, and that Bapti&s;m is Immer&s;ion, <HI>i.e.</HI> Dipping, &s;ince both lies &s;o plain in the Word of God? We fear not our appearing upon this ac|count at Chri&s;t's Triounal: And for all your great Confidence, your Practice we doubt not in the lea&s;t will be found to be no Truth of the Go&s;pel, but an unwarranta|ble Tradition. What tho Sir <HI>Tho. More,</HI> a Papi&s;t, was glad he had not pro&s;elyted Per&s;ons to his youthful Errors; mu&s;t we therefore be afraid to promulgate a po|&s;itive Truth of Chri&s;t?</P>
<P>Is it not &s;aid, This Sect is every-where &s;poken again&s;t?</P>
<P>If you had called for Syllogi&s;tical Argu|ments, you might have had them, but you ask for Queries; you may have Logical Argu|ments enow if you plea&s;e, but you had better de&s;i&s;t.</P>
</DIV4>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 TYPE="part">
<PB N="23" REF="13">
<HEAD>To conclude with your Po&s;t&s;cript.</HEAD>
<P>I Can't &s;ee Mr. <HI>Eliot</HI> has done the Pedo-Bapti&s;ts any Service, or that any Honour redounds to him for that Work of his.</P>
<P>How in the Go&s;pel-Church-State, the Promi&s;e runs to Believers and their Children, or Off-&s;pring, we have &s;hewed; And that Babes of two or ten Days old, are or can be &s;aid to be Di&s;ciples, is without proof and irra|tional: What though they may be|long to the Kingdom of Heaven, or be &s;aved, Bapti&s;m is of a meer po&s;i|tive Right; that Argument, I tell you again, will admit them to the Sacra|ment of the Lord's Supper, as well as to Bapti&s;m. And as for Antiquity, we deny not but that it was received by divers as an Apo&s;tolical Tradition, a little time before <HI>Nazianzen</HI> or <HI>Au|&s;tin;</HI> yet that it was preached as ne|ce&s;&s;ary to Salvation, before <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> did it, you can't prove, though we deny not but 'twas practi&s;ed before <HI>Au&s;tin</HI>'s Days. See Dr. <HI>Taylor, Lib. Proph. p.</HI> 237. <Q REND="inline">And the truth of the Bu&s;i|ne&s;s is, <HI>(&s;aith he)</HI> as there was no Command of Scripture to oblige Children to the &s;u&s;ception of it; So the nece&s;&s;ity of Pedo-Bapti&s;m was not determined in the Church till the Canon that was made in the <HI>Milevetan</HI> Council, a Provincial in <HI>Africa,</HI> never till then. I grant, <HI>(&s;aith he)</HI> it was practi&s;ed in <HI>A|frica</HI> before that time, and they, or &s;ome of them, thought well of it; and though that is no Argu|ment for us to think &s;o, yet none of them did ever pretend it to be nece&s;&s;ary, nor to have been a Pre|cept of the Go&s;pel. St. <HI>An&s;tin</HI> was the fir&s;t that ever preached it to be nece&s;&s;ary; and it was in his Heat and Anger again&s;t <HI>Pelagius,</HI> who had &s;o warm'd and chafed him, that made him innovate herein.</Q> Thus far the Doctor.</P>
<P>As to <HI>Clemens, Ireneus,</HI> &amp;c. you make &s;uch a &s;tir about, is contradicted by Hi&s;tory. <HI>Clemens</HI> a&s;&s;erts who are the right Subjects; and in what or|der they ought, after due Examina|tions and In&s;tructions, to be baptized. See <HI>Jacob Merningus,</HI> in his Hi&s;tory of Bapti&s;m, <HI>p.</HI> 2. upon <HI>Cent.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 209. out of <HI>Clem. Epi&s;t.</HI> 3. al&s;o Dutch <HI>Martyrology.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Ignatius,</HI> in his Di&s;cour&s;e about Bapti&s;m, a&s;&s;erts, <Q REND="inline">That it ought to be accompanied with Faith, Love and Patience, after preaching;</Q> &s;ee <HI>H. Montanus,</HI> p. 45. and <HI>Jacob Du|bois,</HI> p. 16, to 22. and Dutch <HI>Mar|tyrology,</HI> where <HI>Ignatius</HI>'s Letters are mentioned to <HI>Polycarp Tralien&s;is,</HI> and to them of <HI>Philadelphia.</HI></P>
<PB N="24" REF="14">
<P>All that we can find of <HI>Ireneus,</HI> is, <HI>Lib.</HI> 2. <HI>cap.</HI> 39. <HI>adv. Haere&s;.</HI> <Q REND="inline">That Chri&s;t did &s;anctify every Age by his own &s;u&s;ception of it, and &s;imi|litude to it, all, I &s;ay, who by him are born again to God.</Q> In all which is no word of Infant-Bapti&s;m: Unle&s;s you wiredraw Con&s;equences from his words, as you do from the Scripture, to &s;upport a tottering Structure, built on a fal&s;e Foundation. That <HI>Ireneus,</HI> or any other but <HI>Origen</HI>'s Te&s;timony was in the ca&s;e; You have Dr. <HI>Taylor,</HI> in his <HI>Di&s;&s;ua&s;ive again&s;t Popery,</HI> p. 118. printed 1667, one of his la&s;t Pieces, &s;aying thus, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q REND="inline">That there is a Tradition to baptize Infants, relies but upon two Witne&s;&s;es, <HI>Origen</HI> and <HI>Au&s;tin;</HI> and the latter having received it from the former, it relies upon a &s;ingle Te&s;timony, which is but a pitiful Argument to prove a Tradition Apo&s;tolical: He is the fir&s;t that &s;poke it, but <HI>Tertullian,</HI> that was before him, &s;eems to &s;peak again&s;t it, which he would not have done, if it had been a Tradition Apo&s;tolical; And that it was not &s;o, is but too certain, if there be any Truth in the words of <HI>Ludov. Vives,</HI> &s;aying, That anciently none were Baptized, but Per&s;ons of ri|per Age.</Q></P>
<P>And as to <HI>Origen</HI>'s Works, there is cau&s;e to que&s;tion, whether they are to be regarded? for Mr. <HI>Perkins</HI> and o|thers doubt about them, becau&s;e no Greek Copies thereof are extant. And Dr. <HI>Taylor</HI> &s;aith, that many of his Works are Corrupt and Erroneous, particularly in the Point of Bapti&s;m, and fell into ill Hands, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>To conclude, the Learned <HI>Curce|laeus, In&s;tit. lib.</HI> 1. <HI>cap.</HI> 12. thus &s;aith, <HI>Poedobapti&s;mus duobus primis &agrave; Chri|&s;to nato &s;eculis fuit incognitus,</HI> &amp;c. Pedo-Bapti&s;m was unknown in the two fir&s;t Ages after the Birth of Chri&s;t, but in the 3<HI>d</HI> and 4<HI>th</HI> it was approved of by a few; in the 5<HI>th</HI> and the following Ages, it began to be gene|rally received. And therefore (as afterward he &s;aith) this Rite is in|deed ob&s;erved by us as an ancient Cu|&s;tom, but not as an Apo&s;tolical Tra|dition.</P>
<P>The &s;ame Author, <HI>De peccato Ori|ginis, Numb.</HI> 56. &s;aith, <HI>Morem In|fantes baptizandi non coepi&s;&s;e ante ter|tium &agrave; Chri&s;to nato &s;aeculum,</HI> &amp;c. That the Cu&s;tom of Baptizing In|fants, did not begin till the 3<HI>d</HI> Age after Chri&s;t; but in the two former, no foot&s;tep of it doth appear.</P>
<P>And afterward, (&s;aith he) <HI>Sine ip|&s;ius [Chri&s;ti] mandato introducta e&s;t.</HI> It was introduced without the Com|mand of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>Now let the Reader confider, if our Authority is not greater than the bare Te&s;timony of <HI>Zuinglius,</HI> a late prejudiced Writer.</P>
<P><HI>Gentlemen,</HI></P>
<P>Many Eyes are upon you, and di|vers di&s;creet Men think you have not done well, to reflect upon &s;o great a Party of pious Chri&s;tian-People; nor
<PB N="25" REF="14"> do they look on you as fit Per&s;ons to meddle with Sacred Things after this manner: They judg you are better skill'd to an&s;wer Love-&s;tories, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> than Points of Divinity. Certainly no wi&s;e Man can ju&s;tify your E&s;&s;ay, to an&s;wer &s;uch Que&s;tions as concern this Controver&s;y, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> which tend to &s;tir up Strife and Contention among us; nor blame us to vindicate our Selves and Principle, when reproached and challenged after &s;uch a &s;ort. But take your cour&s;e, 'tis better to provoke to Love, Peace and Unity among&s;t one another.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<HEAD>ERRATA.</HEAD>
<P>PAge 3. line 8. for <HI>et,</HI> read <HI>ex.</HI> P. 3. l. 15. f. <HI>Judicia,</HI> r. <HI>Judaica.</HI> P. 5. l. 21. f. <HI>Configura|tions,</HI> r. <HI>Con&s;iderations.</HI> P. 6. l. 40. f. <HI>Mode,</HI> r. <HI>Mood,</HI> and l. 42. f. <HI>Mode,</HI> r. <HI>Mood;</HI> and col. 1. l. 8. f. <HI>but,</HI> r. <HI>for.</HI> P. 7. l. 9. col. 2. f. <HI>invalid,</HI> r. <HI>invalidated.</HI> P. 10. col. 1. l. 8. f. <HI>run,</HI> r. <HI>runs,</HI> and col. 2. l. 31. f. <HI>decides,</HI> r. <HI>decide.</HI> P. 13. col. 2. l. 9. f. <HI>childle&s;s,</HI> r. <HI>childi&s;h;</HI> and l. 22. f. <HI>condemned,</HI> r. <HI>condemn.</HI> P. 15. col. 2. l. 36. f. <HI>no where el&s;e,</HI> r. <HI>any where el&s;e.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
