Paedobaptism Disproved, Postscript
POSTSCRIPT. Containing ſome Remarks upon the Athenian Mercury, Vol. 4. Numb. 18. publiſhed Saturday, Novemb. 28. 1691.
Gentlemen,
JUST as my Anſwer to your firſt Mercury about Infant-Baptiſm was finiſhed, and almoſt printed off, your ſecond Paper on the ſame Subject came to my Hand: And tho I was not concerned in the Paper called, Animadverſions on your other Mercury; yet, till a further Anſwer is prepared, I ſhall make ſome Reflections upon what you have ſaid in your pretended Reply to that Gentleman, &c.
1. Sirs, You go too faſt to conclude, you by that Paper underſtand wherein our ſtrength lies, as (by this time) you may perceive, nor don't conclude you have it all yet.
2. What you ſay about your pretended Proof of Infant-Baptiſm, from that unſcriptural Tradition or Cuſtom among the Jews of proſelyting whole Families to the Jewiſh Religion by Baptiſm, you may ſee fully anſwered before I ſaw your laſt Mercury. Have you proved that Cuſtom among them was Jure Divino? or, if ſo, that it remained and was continued by Chriſt?
Secondly; What you have ſaid about Baptiſm, being the proper Antitype of Circumciſion, is alſo anſwered: Nor does what you ſpeak of Types and Antitypes, not agreeing in every thing, help you. Have not we ſhewed that the proper Antitype of Circumciſion in the Fleſh is that of the Heart?
Thirdly; As to your Logical Argument, … viz. An Ordinance once enjoined, and never repealed, is always in force; but the Ordinance of Childrens incovenanting, was once in the Old Teſtament enjoined, and was never repealed. Ergo).
We anſwer, If the Ordinance of Children incovenanting▪ under the Law, was Circumciſion, that Ordinance is repealed; Is no… Circumciſion repealed?
2. If you ſay notwithſtanding, Children of the Fleſh, or the natural Seed, being once in the Covenant, and never caſt out, (by reaſon that Law or Covenant, for their incovenanting being not repealed) is always in force.
Reply 1. That the Old or firſt Covenant, for their incovenanting is repealed is plain; he took away the firſt, that he might eſtabliſh the ſecond.
2. Alſo 'tis ſaid, that Hagar and her Son are caſt our, viz. the legal Covenant, and fleſhly Seed, and no new Law is added to bring them into the Goſpel-Church by Baptiſm, i. e. the fleſhly or natural Seed, as ſuch. Now is the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees.
Fourthly; Your citing Heb. 8. and Jer. 31. to ſhew what Baptiſm ſeals to Infants, proves nothing. We deny not, but all who are actually in the New Covenant, viz. by Faith ingra…ted into Chriſt, have right to Remiſſion and Salvation; and that that Covenant ſecures and preſerves them to Eternal Life; therefore the Children of Believers as ſuch, are not in it: And if they are no otherwiſe in it than conditionally, that is, if they repent, believe, &c. I ask you what Priviledg that is, more than what the Children of Heathens and Infidels have? … if they believe and repent, ſhall they not have the ſame Bleſſings & Priviledges of the Covenant alſo? As to the Adult Profeſſors, we ſay, if they fall finally away, it ſhews they never indeed were in the Covenant of Grace. As to Adult true Believers, the Holy Spirit ſeals Remiſſion and Salvation to them, and they ſhall be ſaved: a ſign of what is actually in them, is held forth in Baptiſm, there being nothing ſignified by that Ordinance as to a Death unto Sin, but what they experienced wrought on their Souls before Baptized; tho, 'tis true, they thereby, for the time to come, covenant to walk in newneſs of Life.
Fifthly; As touching the great Commiſſion, Mat. 28. where you urge Baptizing goes before Teaching, we have fully anſwered you in the precedent Reply; we prove, there is a Teaching goes before Baptiſm, and yet alſo a Teaching after. Why do you attempt to blind the Eyes of the unwary Reader?
Sixthly; To what purpoſe do you mention Jairus's Daughter? do we deny but that the Parents Faith and Prayer, may procure outward Bleſſings, nay, and ſpiritual Ones too; and as much perhaps for their poor carnal Neighbours and Friends? My Servant Job ſhall pray for you. The fervent Prayer of a Righteous Man availeth much, but it doth not give Right to their Friends or Children to Baptiſm.
Seventhly; As to your Syriac Tranſlation, that the Jaylor and all the Sons of his Houſe were Baptized: I argue, All his Sons, no doubt, were grown up to Age, becauſe 'tis ſaid, he believed, with all his Houſe. If he had Sons grown up, and yet did not believe, then, by your Argument, Unbelievers may be Baptized; but to this ſee our Anſwer.
Eighthly; As to your proof from that Paſſage, i. e. Suffer little Children to come unto me. Take the words definitely or indefinitely, it proves nothing for you; for Chriſt Baptized no Child, for with his own Hands he Baptized no Perſon at all; Joh. 4. 1, 2. 'twas to lay his Hands upon them, not to Baptize them. Moreover, I have before told you, thoſe little Ones Mark 9. 42. were Adult, Whoſoever ſhall offend one of theſe little Ones that believe in me: I affirm, our Saviour ſpeaks only of ſuch little Ones as were grown up to ſuch Age, as in very deed did believe in him, and not Babes of two or ten day… old. But, you ſay, we would have no Children proſelyted, but ſuch as Timothy, &c. To which you anſwer, That according to the Original, thoſe Children that did foreign which word we have ſhewed ſignifies any common coming, (and may be ſuch who come in their Parents Arms). Let Babes come to Chriſt this way or that, he baptized none of them: I may infer as well, becauſe little Children come or were brought to Chriſt, and of ſuch are the Kingdom of Heaven; therefore they may partake of the Lord's Supper, as you infer they may be Baptized.
Ninthly; Tho the Goſpel did not ſpread into all Nations, &c. yet ſure you conclude all were to be baptized in all Nations whereſoever the Goſpel did come, or was preached; or elſe, as we ſay, none in thoſe Nations, but ſuch who were made Diſciples, i. e. did believe and repent: for if but ſome in thoſe Nations …here the Goſpel comes, were to be Baptized, and not all, and yet more ought ſo to be; then ſuch who are diſcipled firſt: Pray▪ who are they, or how ſhall we know them to be included in the Commiſſion? For, as Mr. Baxter ſaith, If we have it not here, where have we it? this being the great Rule or Charter of the Church for this Rite, unto which we ought to adhere in this Matter.
Tenthly; What ſignifies what ſome of the Ancient Fathers believed, i. e. That Federal Holineſs of Parents made Children Candidates for Baptiſm? They ſaid, other things too that you decry as well as we, many Errors being early let into the Church: Beſides, we have Tertullian againſt Tertullian, or one Father againſt another, which is ground enough to believe you abuſe Tertullian, or to doubt of the truth of your Hiſtory.
Eleventhly; You ask whether Children have not as much right to their Baptiſm as that of Adult Females? for 'tis no where ſaid, ſhe that believeth, and is baptized; where have we one Inſtance of Female-Baptiſm?
Reply. We ak you whether Male and Female is not intended in Mark 16. 16. he or ſhe? and ſo John 3. 3. Unleſs a Man be bor… again; the Woman is included; or, have Women no Souls? Did you never read of the Figure Sylepſis, or Conceptio, that comprehends the leſs worthy under the more worthy, indignioris ſub dign…ore? as for Example, …uid tu & ſoror facitis, … & mater miſeri; perimus… & uxor qui ad…ſtis teſtes eſtote? and it's no leſs true in Divinity; ſee that full and never to be baffled place, 1 Cor. 6. 16. foreign They two ſhall be one Fleſh. See Gen. 5. 2. And he called their Name Adam. Moreover, do we not read Women were made Diſciples as well as Men, and ſo had the ſame right to Baptiſm from the Commiſſion.
But to detect your Ignorance of the Scripture, pray ſee Acts 8. 12. When they believed Philip, preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the Name of Jeſus Chriſt, they were baptized both …n and Women. Alſo Acts 16. 15. 'tis ſaid Lydia was baptized; I thought ſhe had been a Woman. Gentlemen, you ſhew you are but younger Brethren, and will do t… edobaptiſts no Service; ſhew ſuch a Proof for the Baptiſm of Infants, and your work is done.
But tho Children loſe no ſpiritual Right by Chriſt's coming, yet they may loſe ſome Legal Rites. As Miniſters Sons now are not born to the Miniſtry…s they were under the Law as well as their Fleſhly Seed had right, as ſuch, to their Jewiſh Church Memberſhip.
Furthermore; becauſe Believers are made holy by the Operations of the Spirit, are all their Children made holy in like manner alſo? Bluſh for Chriſt's ſake! The Bleſſing of Abraham Sirs, only comes upon the Gentiles through Faith, not by natural Generation, as you imagine: As the Bleſſing runs to the Parents, viz. through Faith, ſo to their Children; they muſt believe alſo if they would be the Children of the Promiſe, or Spiritual Seed of Abraham, Gal. 3. ult.
Twelfthly; As touching what you ſay further, as to univerſal Conſent of the Antient Churches, it proves nothing. Should we believe your Hiſtories, as firmly as we do believe there was an Alexander the Great, or a Cato, &c. if there is no Infant-Baptiſm in the Scripture, 'tis utterly gone: …t we challenge you to ſhew from Authentick Hiſtory, that one Infant was baptized in the firſt or ſecond Centuries, which we are not able to diſprove by as good Authority.
Thirteen; If …here was not a Congregation called Anabapti… …ill 300 Years a… Chriſt, it ſignifies nothing, as we have ſhewed. Moreover, we affirm, that all the Apoſtolical Primitive Churches were Baptiſts, i. e. ſuch who only baptized Believers, and ſo continued till the Apoſtacy. See our further Anſwer of this to your firſt Mercury. We can prove there was a Teſtimony born againſt Infant-Baptiſm before 380 Years after Chriſt; nay, before the end of the third Century. See Tertul. in his Book de Baptiſmo▪ c. 18. who oppoſed Infant-Baptiſm, 1. From the miſtake of that Text, Mat. 19. 14. Suffer little Children to come unto me; the Lord ſaith, ſays he, do not forbid them to come unto me; let them come therefore when they grow elder, when they learn, when they are taught why they come; let them be made Chriſtians when they can know Chriſt.
He adds ſix Arguments more; and to confirm this Teſtimony of Tertullian, ſee Dr. Barlow; ſaith he, Tertullian diſlikes and condemns Infant-Baptiſm as unwarrantable and irrational.
Daillé alſo ſaith, that Tertullian was of an Opinion, that Infants were not to be baptized; the like ſay divers others, as Mr. Danvers ſhews, which his Oppoſers could not refute.
So that it appears you are ignorant both of Scripture and Hiſtory too, and do but abuſe your ſelves and the World alſo in this matter. Gentlemen, you were better give over, than a-freſh to blow up … Fire and Coal of Contention. You miſtake in your third Column, we are not to prove a Negative, i. e. That no Infant was baptized in thoſe Churche… you muſt prove they were.
Fourteen; Your Reply about our Saviour's not being baptized till thirty Years old, it was becauſe he was a Jew, and proſelyted Heathens were only baptized when young, is a Fig▪ leaf, ſtill inſiſting upon the old Jewiſh Cuſtom; to which we have given you a full Anſwer.
Fifteen; What you ſay about dipping, and mention foreign and that Authors ſhew that it ſignifies only a bare and ſlight waſhing, and that plunging and waſhing are very diſtinct: This word comes from the ſame Verb you ſay ſignifies to dip or plunge. And whereas you hint, that Beza would have us baptize them, but not drown them; you are reſolved to prevent that danger, who only ſprinkle or rantize them.
I affirm, Dipping or plunging all learned in the Greek Tongue, and Criticks, do generally aſſert, is the literal, proper and genuine Signification of the word foreign; and if it any where refers to waſhing, 'tis to ſuch a waſhing as is done by dipping or ſwilling in the Water: all ſorts of waſhing are not diſtinct from dipping; and that foreign to baptize, is to waſh, unleſs it be ſuch a waſhing as is by dipping, we deny: is it not the ſame with foreign? alſo the Septuagint do render the word Tabal by foreign, and which all Tranſlators, ſaith a good Author, both Latin, Dutch, Italian, French and Engliſh, do tranſlate to dip, and always ſignifies to dip, as 2 Kings 5. 14, &c.
Grotius ſaith it ſignifies to dip over Head and Ears.
Paſor, an Immerſion, Dipping, or Submerſion.
Leigh in his Critica Sacra ſaith, its native and proper Signification is to dip into the Water, or to plunge under the Water; and that it is taken from a Diers Fat, and not a bare Waſhing only: See Caſaubon, Bucan, Bullinger, Zanchy, Beza, &c.
To cloſe; have we not cauſe to affirm you reproach us, to ſay our Ring-Leaders come to ill Deaths? What ſignifies your Story of John Bocold of Leyden, and as if Eraſmus, &c. had an ill Opinion of the Anabaptiſts of his time, does it follow you may vilify the Baptiſts of theſe times from thence? they might hold ſome Errors, and ſo may ſome ſo called now adays, as well as ſome Pedo-Baptiſts, who are Papiſts, Arians, Antitrinitarians, Socinians, and what not; and ſome of them debauched Livers, and made as ſhameful Ends; theſe things cannot be unknown to you, but how baſe it is in you thus to write, let all ſober Men judg. Your pretended Zeal will not acquit you from a ſlanderous Tongue, and ſpeaking Evil of them you know not. Are not the Papiſts Pedobaptiſts, and ſome of the firſt and chief Aſſertors of it, and what an erronious Crew are they? do you think we cannot parallel John of Leyden amongſt ſome of the Pedobaptiſts. Were thoſe Stories true of him and others?—are there not ſome bad Men of every Perſwaſion as well as good?
I exhort you to conſider what account you will be able to give, for aſſerting Babies Rantiſm, or Infants Sprinkling, ſince 'tis not commanded of God, &c. in the dreadful Day of Judgment: or how dare you affirm we diſturb the Church of Chriſt with falſe Doctrine, who aſſert, Believers only are the Subjects of Chriſt's true Baptiſm, and that Baptiſm is Immerſion, i. e. Dipping, ſince both lies ſo plain in the Word of God? We fear not our appearing upon this account at Chriſt's Tribunal: And for all your great Confidence, your Practice we do…t not in the leaſt will be foun… to be no Truth of the Goſpel, but an unwarrantable Tradition. What tho Sir Tho. More, a Papiſt, was glad he had not proſelyted Perſons to his youthful Errors; muſt we therefore be afraid to promulgate a poſitive Truth of Chriſt?
Is it not ſaid, This Sect is every-where ſpoken againſt?
If you had called for Syllogiſtical Arguments, you might have had them, but you ask for Queries; you may have Logical Arguments enow if you pleaſe, but you had better deſiſt.
To conclude with your Poſtſcript.
I Can't ſee Mr. Eliot has done the Pedo-Baptiſts any Service, or that any Honour redounds to him for that Work of his.
How in the Goſpel-Church-State, the Promiſe runs to Believers and their Children or Off-ſpring, we …ve ſhewed; And that Babes of two or ten Days old, are or can be ſaid to be Diſciples, is without proof, and irrational. What though they may belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, or be ſaved, Baptiſm is of a meer poſitive Right; that Argument, I tell you again, will admit them to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, as well as to Baptiſm. And as for Antiquity, we deny not but that it was received by divers as an Apoſtolical Tradition, a little time before Nazianzen or Auſtin; yet that it was preached as neceſſary to Salvation, before Auſtin did it, you can't prove, though we …eny not but 'twas practiſed before Auſtin's Days. See Dr. Taylor, Lib. Proph. p. 237. And the truth of the Buſineſs is, (ſaith he) as there was no Command of Scripture to oblige Children to the ſuſception of it; So the neceſſity of Pedo-Baptiſm was not determined in the Church till the Canon that was made in the Milevetan Council, a Provincial in Africa, never till then. I g…nt, (ſaith he) it was practiſed in Africa before that time, and they, or ſome of them, thought well of it; and though that is no Argument for us to think▪ ſo, yet none of them did ever pretend it to be neceſſary, nor to have been a Precept of the Goſpel. St. Auſtin was the firſt that ever preached it to be neceſſary; and it was in his Heat and Anger againſt Pelagius, who had ſo warm'd and chased him, that made him innovate herein. Thus far the Doctor.
As to Clemens, Ireneus, &c. you make ſuch a ſtir about, is contradicted by Hiſtory. Clemens aſſerts who are the right Subjects; and in what order they ought, after due Examinations and Inſtructions, to be baptized. See Jacob Merningus, in his Hiſtory of Baptiſm, p. 2. upon Cent. 2. p. 209. out of Clem. Epiſt. 3. alſo Dutch Martyrology.
Ignatius, in his Diſcourſe about Baptiſm, aſſerts, That it ought to be accompanied with Faith, Love and Patience, after preaching; ſee H. Montanus, p. 45. and Jacob Dubois, p. 16, to 22. and Dutch Martyrology, where Ign…ius's Letters are mentioned to Polycarp Tralienſis, and to them of Philadelphia.
All that we can find of Ireneus, is, Lib. 2. cap. 39. adv. Haereſ. That Chriſt did fanctify every Age by his own ſuſception of it, and ſimilitude to it, all, I ſay, who by him are born again to God. In all which is no word of Infant-Baptiſm: Unleſs you wiredraw Conſequences from his words, as you do from the Scripture, to ſupport a tottering Structure, built on a falſe Foundation. That Ireneus, or any other but Origen's Teſtimony was in the caſe, You have Dr. Taylor, in his Diſſuaſive againſt Popery, p. 1. 18. printed 1667, one of his laſt Pieces, ſaying thus, viz. That there is a Tradition to baptize Infants, relies but upon two Witneſſes, Origen and Auſtin; and the latter having received it from the former, it relies upon a ſingle Teſtimony, which is but a pitiful Argument to prove a Tradition Apoſtolical: He is the firſt that ſpoke it, but Tertullian, that was before him, ſeems to ſpeak againſt it, which he would not have done, if it had been a Tradition Apoſtolical; And that it was not ſo, is but too certain, if there be any Truth in the words of Ludov. Vives, ſaying, That anciently none were Baptized, but Perſons of riper Age.
And as to Origen's Works, there is cauſe to queſtion, whether they are to be regarded: for Mr. Perkins and others doubt about them, becauſe no Greek Copies thereof are extant. And Dr. Taylor ſaith, that many of his Works are Corrupt a… Erroneous, particularly in the Point of Baptiſm, and fell into ill Hands, &c.
To conclude, the Learned Curcelaeus, Inſtit. lib. 1. cap. 12. thus ſaith, Poedobaptiſmus duobus primis à Chriſta nato ſaeculis fuit incognitus, &c. Pedo-Baptiſm was unknown in the two firſt Ages after the Birth of Chriſt, but in the 3d and 4th it was approved of by a few; in the 5th and the following Ages, it began to be generally received. And therefore (as afterward he ſaith) this Rite is indeed obſerved by us as an ancient Cuſtom, but not as an Apoſtolical Tradition.
The ſame Author, De peccato Originis, Numb. 56. ſaith, Morem Infantes baptizandi non coepiſſe ante tertium à Chriſta nato ſaeculum, &c. That the Cuſtom of Baptizing Infants, did not begin till the 3d Age after Chriſt; but in the two former, no footſtep of it doth appear.
And afterward, (ſaith he) Sine ipſius [Chriſti] mandato introducta eſt. It was introduced without the Command of Chriſt.
Now let the Reader conſider, if our Authority is not greater than the bare Teſtimony of Zuinglius, a… late prejudiced Writer.