Paedobaptism Disproved, Title page

Paedobaptism Disproved · Title page

Pedo-Baptiſm diſproved; BEING AN ANSWER To two printed Papers (put forth by ſome Gentlemen CALLED THE Athenian Society, Who pretend to anſwer all Queſtions ſent to them of what Nature ſoever) CALLED THE Athenian Mercury, One put forth November 14. the other November, 28, 1691. In which Papers they pretend to anſwer eight Queries about the Lawfulneſs of INFANT-BAPTISM. Likewiſe divers QUERIES ſent to them about the true Subjects of Baptiſm, &c.

The Second Edition, to which is added twenty Sylogiſtical Arguments to diſprove Infant-Baptiſm.

London, Printed for the Author, and ſold by John Harris at the Sign of the Harrow in the Poultry. MDC XCI.

Price four Pence.

p. 1AN ANSWER TO THE ATHENIAN MERCURY, VOL. 4. NUMB. 14. CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM.

With an Account of divers Queſtions ſent by the Author (and ſome others) to the Athenian Society, which they have not yet anſwered.

Gentlemen,

WHO he was that ſent you the firſt Queſtions about Infant-Baptiſm, I know not; whether he was an Antipedo-Baptiſt, or a Pedo-Baptiſt, is a Queſtion: but your calling upon all who had any Doubts about it, to ſend in their Objections, argues a great degree of Confidence of your Ability, of doing more than all before: For 'tis ſtrange you ſhould attempt to call for all our Objections, when it appears you intended to write but one half Sheet of Paper in Anſwer to them; as if you could do that in a few Lines, which others, as learned as your ſelves, could never yet do in great Volumes; this ſavours (as ſome judg) of great Pride, and caſts much Contempt upon you, and leſſens your Reputation among wiſe Men who are for Pedo-Baptiſm, as well as others. And yet after all the great and mighty noiſe, you have not ſo much as in the leaſt touched the chief Queſtions, which, to my knowledg, were ſent you near a Fortnight before your ſaid Mercury came forth. And therefore to ſhew how diſinge…ous you have been herein, I thought it might not be amiſs to ſpend a few ſpare hours upon your Mercury.

1. The firſt Queſtion you pretend to anſwer is this, i. e. Whether Baptiſm (as it is p. 2commonly taught) is the proper and natural Antitype of Circumciſion?

Reply. As to what you ſpeak of the Cuſtoms of Nations, Linguiſms, and of Men being ignorant of Radixes, or Original Significations in Langages, ſeems remote to the buſineſs, and ſerves for little elſe than to blot Paper, or rather to darken Counſel: Certainly the Ordinance of Baptiſm, one of the two great Sacraments of the New-Teſtament, doth not lie ſo obſcure in God's Word, either what it is, or who are the proper Subjects thereof, that Men muſt be at a loſs about it, unleſs they underſtand the Radixes, or original Significations of Languages. But to proceed, you would, it ſeems, have Baptiſm to be the proper Antitype of Circumciſion in ſome reſpect, and not in others.

Firſt, From the Cuſtoms of the Jews in proſelyting the Gentiles into their Religion: ſo far you ſay indeed Circumciſion was not a Type, but a continuance of a Cuſtom. Now how abſurd and ridiculous that is which you affirm upon this account, may appear to all. Will you aſſert and ſtand by it, that Baptiſm was a Jewiſh Cuſtom, and ſo no pure Goſpel-Inſtitution? Doubtleſs, if ſo, the Phariſees might have ſoon given our Saviour a ready Anſwer to his great Queſtion, viz. The Baptiſm of John, whether is it from Heaven, or of Men? Mat. 21. 25. Certainly there was no Baptiſm of this nature of Divine Inſtitution, before John received it from Heaven. But, ſay you, If John Baptiſt undertook any now way of proſelyting the Jews into the Goſpel, they had not only ſtruggled with the Oppoſition of his new Doctrine, but alſo of his new Practice; therefore (ſay you) it was that this Cuſtom was continued, and had the Super-addition of the full force of Baptiſm, viz. a Conſignation or Seal of the Covenant.

Reply. As you confeſs his Doctrine was new, ſo was his Baptiſm no doubt; for, as our Annotators obſerve, his Baptiſm was part of his Doctrine. Pray, what was the Doctrine he preach'd? was it not Baptiſm of Repentance for the Remiſſion of Sins? M…rk …. 4. Moreover, we do not read they were more diſpleaſed with his new Doctrine, than with his new Practice.

2. But what Authority have you to affirm, Goſpel-Baptiſm was but the continuance of a Jewiſh Cuſtom, 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 Proſelytes, or others; for Circumciſion was the only Rite by which Proſelytes (who were Males) were added to the Jewiſh Church, as we find God commanded Abraham. And if Baptiſm had been ſo frequently practiſed amongſt the Jews, as you aſſert, wherefore did the Phariſees ſay to John, Why doſt thou baptize, if thou art not that Chriſt, nor Elias? John 1. 25. Moreover, Baptiſm is directly called a Principle of the Doctrine of Chriſt, Heb. 6. 1, 2. which Doctrine our Saviour ſaith he received from his Father. If it be a Principle of the Doctrine of Chriſt, it follows undeniably, he inſtituted it, and gave it forth. Furthermore, if Baptiſm was practiſed all along among the Jews, I argue, Either they practiſed it as a Moſaical Rite, or elſe as a Tradition of their own: not, ſay I, as a Moſaical Rite, becauſe Moſes never commanded them ſo to do; for he ſpeaks nothing of it, and yet declared all things God commanded him; and did every thing according to the Pattern ſhewed him in the Mount. And if it was a human Jewiſh Tradition, what is become of one of the great Sacraments of the New Teſtament? Muſt it be look'd upon from henceforth to be nothing elſe than the continuance of a Jewiſh Tradition taken out of their fabulous and erronious Talmud? What kind of poiſonous Stuff is this you trouble the World with? What tho the Jews, who had made the Commandments of God void through their Traditions, did practiſe ſome ſuch thing; Muſt you affirm Goſpel-Baptiſm in its Riſe and Original ſprung from their Cuſtom? And becauſe they baptized Proſelytes both Men, Women and Children, muſt Chriſtians do ſo too? Sure the Cuſtom of the Romiſh Church in baptizing of Infants, as a human Tradition, is every way of as good p. 3Authority to warrant us ſo to do, as the Cuſtom of the unbelieving Jews. But pray take what a Learned Pedo-Baptiſt, and a Son of the Church of England, hath ſaid in anſwer to this vain Conceit; 'tis Sir Norton Knatchbull, in his Animadverſiones in lib. Novi Teſtamenti, pag. 313. A… cum videam ſummi judicii viros in his temporibus ex Rabbinis fundamenta petere veritatis, &c. But when I ſee in theſe times ſome Men of the greateſt Judgment to fetch the Foundation of Truth from the Rabbins, I cannot but ſtick at it: for whence was the Talmud ſent to us, (they are the words (ſaith he) of Buxtorf in his Synagoga Judaica) that we ſhould give ſo, much Credit thereto, that we ſhould believe that the Moſaick Law either was or ought to be underſtood therefrom, much leſs the Goſpel, to which they are profeſſed Enemies? The Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors, and the foundation of Jewiſh Fables; it was perfected and acknowledged for Authentick five hundred Years after Chriſt, and out of it Maimonides drew his Doctrine, as all the reſt of them; therefore we cannot acquieſce in ſuch Teſtimony—Gentlemen, either anſwer no more Queſtions about Religion, or take more heed to what you ſay: for your pleading for Infant-Baptiſm, from ſuch grounds, all may perceive tends to caſt an Odium and Contempt on the Chriſtian Religion. Therefore I infer, your Proof for this Practice from the Cuſtom amongſt the Jews about baptizing of Proſelytes both Men, Women and Children, proves nothing; you were better, for the Authority of it, to urge the Decrees of Popes and General Councils; a Popiſh Innovation is as good as a Jewiſh one.

But however, you do allow that our bleſſed Saviour did add ſomething to this pretended Jewiſh Cuſtom, and hath not only put it in full force, but alſo made it a Conſignation or Seal of the Covenant; and this, ſay you, is further ſtrengthened by ſeveral undeniable Texts of Scripture, which Anabaptiſts themſelves can never get clear of; and ask them, they muſt either be ſilent, or give ſuch a Paraphraſe as we do. The Texts are theſe: Firſt, Col. 2. 11, 12. In whom alſo ye are circumciſed with the Circumciſion made without hands, in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Fleſh, by the Circumciſion of Chriſt. Buried with him in Baptiſm, &c. The ſecond, that of baptizing the Iſraelites in the Red-Sea, 1 Cor. 10. 2. The laſt is the ſaving of Noah and his Family in the Ark, 1 Pet. 3. 21.

Reply 1. But is it ſo indeed? did our Saviour in inſtituting Goſpel-Baptiſm do no more than put a Jewiſh Cuſtom to be in full force, and make it a Conſignation or Seal of the Covenant? Were you not learned and ingenious Men, I ſhould not ſo much admire at your Notions.

2. But the Truth is, in the ſecond place, if you had not told us in your next words, to what purpoſe you mention thoſe Scriptures, we ſhould have been at a great loſs about it, or not well have underſtood your Intention; but you, like the ingenious Painter, ſoon inform us, and tell us what 'tis—i. e. you tell us, you urge not theſe things to prove any thing elſe, but the Parallel betwixt Circumciſion and Baptiſm, or to ſpeak (ſay you) more properly, the neceſſary continuance of the old Manner amongſt the Jews of continuing their way of proſelyting the Heathen.

3. Was it neceſſary then, that a human Tradition of the Jews ſhould be continued? I am ſure the Apoſtle tells you that Chriſt nailed all the Jewiſh Ceremonies of the Moſaical Law to the Croſs, and that they all ceaſed when the Antitype was come; and beſure had the Baptiſm you ſpeak of been indeed a Moſaical Rite, I mean appointed or commanded of God, it had vaniſhed with its Fellows: But 'tis hard Chriſt ſhould aboliſh all Legal Cuſtoms, or Ceremonial Ordinances, and yet confirm, with ſome addition, a Cuſtom of the Jews own inventing.

4. You do not ſeem to diſtinguiſh between your twofold Anſwer to the Queſtion; I thought you had brought thoſe Scriptures to prove Baptiſm the proper Antitype of Circumciſion; but you urge the former old p. 4Cuſtom again, ſo that here's no Scripture nor Argument brought by you to prove the thing in hand. As touching what you ſay of the Parallel betwixt Circumciſion and Baptiſm ſignifies nothing; if in ſome things there ſhould be a Parallel, it doth not follow therefore Baptiſm was the Antitype of Circumciſion. What tho Circumciſion was the initiating Ordinance of the Male Children into the Jewiſh Church, and Baptiſm is that initiating Ordinance into the Goſpel-Church; this doth not prove the one the Type of the other.

5. But pray, what is it that the Anabaptiſts can never get clear of, or being ask'd the Expoſition, they muſt be ſilent, or give ſuch a Paraphraſe as you do? I muſt tell you, I know no Text more full for our practice of baptizing Believers, than that in Col. 2. 11, 12. We ſay from thence, that the proper Antitype of Circumciſion in the Fleſh, is the Circumciſion of the Heart, and therefore not Baptiſm; tho 'tis granted by us, that in Baptiſm there is a Repreſentation of the new Birth, and Mortification of Sin, which Circumciſion was the expreſs Type of: And this cannot weaken nor ſilence us, but rather ſtrengthen our hands. All that can well be inferred from this Text, Col. 2. 11, 12. where the Apoſtle mentions Circumciſion and Baptiſm, is no more than this, viz. Where Baptiſm is adminiſtred upon a proper Subject, it repreſents the Spiritual and Myſtical Circumciſion of the Heart, i. e. that the Soul is dead to Sin, or that he hath put off the Body of Sins of the Fleſh by the Circumciſion of Chriſt; which may refer to the Power of his Death in the Effects thereof, by the effectual Sin-killing Operations of the holy Spirit on the Heart. And as we being dead to Sin, we are alſo buried with Chriſt in Baptiſm, both in the Sign, i. e. covered all over in the Water, which reſembles in a lively Figure his Burial, and alſo in Signification, i. e. the Power and bleſſed Effects of his Death, having been the Death of the old Man, or that Body of Sin in us… wherein alſo in like manner we are alſo riſen with him through the Faith of the Operation of God; and this is likewiſe held forth both in Sign and Signification in true Baptiſm.

Now if this be not your Paraphraſe on this Text, we cannot help it. I know many Learned Men who own Pedo-Baptiſm, ſpeak to the ſame purpoſe; nor is there any reaſon for you to ſay we muſt be ſilent, &c. as if we knew not what to ſay to this Text: But what is this for Infant-Baptiſm, or to prove Baptiſm the Antitype of Circumciſion? Doth Sprinkling repreſent a Burial? doth the Sign or Figure of Chriſt's Burial appear in ſprinkling a little Water on the Face, and as it is done to Infant, in whom Faith and Regeneration is not wrought? what doth there appear in Signification? Doth not the Church of England ſay, that Baptiſm is the outward Sign of an inward ſpiritual Grace? ſure that is but a mock-Baptiſm, where there is neither the Sign or Figure of Chriſt's Death and Burial, &c. nor that inward Work wrought upon the Perſon baptized, which is ſignified, or ought to be ſignified thereby, viz. That the ſaid Perſon is dead to Sin, and raiſed up by the Faith of the Operation of God to walk in newneſs of Life.

But alas, this it ſeems is not the thing; 'tis not ſo much to prove Baptiſm to be the Antitype of Circumciſion, as 'tis to prove Baptiſm to be the continuation of a Jewiſh Cuſtom: for to ſpeak more properly, you intimate, that to this purpoſe, you mention theſe things. Sure all underſtanding Men, as well Pedo-Baptiſts as others, muſt needs loath your Notion; but I know you are not alone herein, there are ſome others who have aſſerted the ſame thing; which perhaps incouraged you thus to write: But to correct your Raſhneſs, and ſilence you and them too, conſider what I and the fore-mentioned Gentleman have ſaid. Is it not enough that Infant-Baptiſm ſhould be built upon no better a Foundation than the Tradition of the Apoſtate Gentile Church, and the Decrees of Popes and General Councils, but that it muſt alſo be grounded on the erronious Cuſtoms of the Jewiſh Talmud? But to proceed, that p. 5Circumciſion may anſwer, or run Parallel with Baptiſm, you bring in the Practice of ſome Heathen Nations who circumciſed their Females. We ſhall have it anon; The truth is, the Proof and Explanation of Infant-Baptiſm ſhall be ſuffciently made out before you have done; if fabulous and erroneous Traditions of Jews, Heathens, and Apoſtate Chriſtians will do it: but if no better Authority or Proof can be brought for it than what is contained in your Mercury, 'tis time for all good Chriſtians with Shame enough to caſt it off. Should I tell my Reader why ſome Heathens circumciſed their Females, it might greatly expoſe you. But to cloſe with your firſt Queſtion, take what Dr. Jer. Taylor, la…e Biſhop of Down, hath ſaid upon this Conceit, i. e. that Circumciſion figured Baptiſm; theſe are his words, viz. The Argument, ſaith he, from Circumciſion is invalid upon infinite Conſiderations: Figures and Types prove nothing, unleſs a Command go along with them, or ſome Expreſs to ſignify ſuch to be their purpoſe: for the Deluge of Waters, and the Ark of Noah, were Figures of Baptiſm, ſaith Peter. If therefore the Circumſtances of the one ſhould be drawn to the other, we ſhould make Baptiſm a Prodigy rather than a Rite. The Paſchal Lamb was a Figure of the Euchariſt, which ſucceds the other, as Baptiſm doth to Circumciſion: out becauſe there was in the Manducation of the Paſchal Lamb no Preſcription of Sacramental Drink, ſhall we thence conclude that the Euchariſt is to be adminiſtred in one kind? And even in the very inſtance of this Argument, ſuppoſe a Correſpondency of the Analogy between Circumciſion and Baptiſm, yet there is no Correſpondency of Identity; for tho it be granted, that both of them did conſign the Covenant of Faith, yet there is nothing in the Circumſtances of Children being circumciſed that ſo concerns that Myſtery, but that it might very well be given to Men of Reaſon; becauſe Circumciſion left a Character in the Fleſh, which being imprinted upon the In…nt, did in work to them when they came to Age; and ſuch a Character was neceſſary, becauſe there was no word added to the Sign; but Baptiſm imprints nothing that remains on the Body; and if it leaves a Character at all, it is upon the Soul to which the Word is added, which is as much a part of the Sacrament as the Sign it ſelf: for both which Reaſons it is requiſite that the Party baptized ſhould be capable of Reaſon, that they may be capable both of the Word and of the Sacrament, and the Impreſs upon the Spirit: Since therefore the Reaſon of the Parity does wholly fail, there is nothing left to infer a neceſſity of complying in the Circumſtance of Age, any more than in the other Annexes of Types: Then the Infant muſt alſo preciſely be baptized upon the eighth day, and Females muſt not be baptized at all, becauſe not circumciſed▪ but it were more proper, if we would underſtand it aright, to proſecute the Analogy from the Type to the Antitype, by the way for Letter and Spirit, and Signification; and as Circumciſion figures Baptiſm, ſo alſo the Adjuncts of the Circumciſed ſhall ſignify ſome thing ſpiritual in the Adherence of Baptiſm; and therefore as Infants were circumciſed, ſo ſpiritual Infants ſhould be baptized, which is ſpiritual Circumciſion; for therefore Babes had the Miniſtry of the Type, to ſignify that we muſt, when we give our Names to Chriſt, become Children in Malice, and then the Type is made compleat. Thus the worthy Doctor hath anſwered your Queſtion, and you too. If Circumciſion muſt be a Type of Baptiſm, he hath ſhewed how, and how not, if it be ſo taken; but the truth is, all Types ceaſe when the Antitype is come, the one muſt give way to the other; but Circumciſion did continue in full force ſome Years after Baptiſm was in full force; for Circumciſion ended not till Chriſt nailed it to his Croſs; therefore it could not be the Type of Baptiſm: and how a Shadow or Sign ſhould be the proper Antitype of a Shadow I ſee not. p. 6But enough hath been ſaid to this, and I ſhould not have ſaid ſo much to it, but becauſe your Notion ſeems new to ſome.

As touching the other two Scriptures you mention, viz. that in 1 Cor. 10. 'tis very impertinently cited for your buſineſs, to prove Circumciſion the Type of Goſpel-Baptiſm; for this Text ſpeaks nothing of that in the leaſt, nor no more doth that in Peter. Suppoſe the Red-ſea was a Figure of Baptiſm, and ſo alſo the Water and Ark of Noah; what of all this, if you had urged the Fathers and Children were baptized to Moſes in the Sea and in the Cloud, and therefore Children may be Baptized? I would have anſwered you that was but a figurative Baptiſm, and proves nothing; beſides, it would prove Unbelievers may be baptized alſo, becauſe there was a mixt▪ Multitude as well ſo baptized, as were the Fathers and their Children; beſides, much Cattel were with them in the Sea, and under the Cloud.

Queſt. 2. What certain indubitable Grounds can we have for the Practice of Infant-Baptiſm.

You anſwer, The certain Ground is from the Scripture, and firſt from the Words of the Commiſſion, Matth. 28. foreign diſciple all Nations; and then follows, Baptizing them in the name, &c.

From the order of which words (you ſay) Infants are not excluded from Baptiſm, as is generally believed by Anabaptiſts; a Perſon may be Baptized before he is taught; for ſay you foreign Mathetuſate, ſignifies, to diſciple all Nations perſonally and ſubjectively; being a general word, it contains the other two that follow, viz. Baptizing and Teaching, it being a word of the Imperative Mood, and the other two only Participles; ſo that the Commiſſion of it is that, and the Mood of it theſe: but in the Mood, Baptizing them precedes Teaching them to obſerve all things, &c.

Reply. Becauſe there is a Teaching follows Baptiſm, doth it therefore follow, according to the Order of the ſacred Commiſſion, there is no Teaching indiſpenſibly to go before the Perſon is baptized? You have cauſe to tremble for trifling and baſely inverting the order of the Commiſſion of our. Bleſſed Saviour; what though the Greek word Diſcipliz, or make Diſciples, be a word of the Imperative Mood; O ſtrange! have you found it out? will this do your buſineſs? doth it therefore contain the other two? I ask you, whether a Man may not be made a Diſciple, and not be Baptized, or, be Baptized, and yet not be diſcipled? Matth. 13. 52. 'tis foreign in Matth. 28. 'tis diſciple ye; here 'tis diſcipled, inſtructed, or that is taught, and 'tis from the ſame Verb with the other: 'Tis evident notwithſtanding all your Flouriſh, that Teaching, according to the Order of the Commiſſion, goes, and muſt go before Baptizing, though the Perſon baptized is to be taught afterwards; alſo, all things that Chriſt commanded his Diſciples, both as to Doctrine and Practice, that ſo they may be faithful Followers of Chriſt unto the end. This Teaching after Baptiſm indeed the Baptiſts cannot deny, unleſs they ſhould be ſo fooliſh as to ſay, a Baptized Believer needs no further teaching, &c. but you know in your Conſciences, we deny, and that too by the Authority of the Commiſſion, that any ought to be Baptized but ſuch who are made Diſciples by their firſt being taught. Doth Baptiſm, Sirs, make either Children or others Diſciples? if you do not aſfert that, what do you ſay: and if all Nations, or any in the Nations, are to be Baptized before they are taught or made Diſciples, why may not a Miniſter, by the Authority of the Commiſſion, baptize Turks, Pagans and Infidels, with their Children, as well as the Infants of Chriſtian People?

Moreover; if ſo be Baptizing may go before Teaching, or Perſons being made Diſciples, why did Philip anſwer the Eunuch after that manner, when he asked him why he might not be Baptized? the Anſwer is, If thou believeſt with all thy Heart, thou mayeſt; p. 7intimating, unleſs he ſo believed, he might not. Alſo why did Chriſt make Diſciples firſt, and then baptize them? Ioh. 4. 1. I muſt alſo tell you, that your Expoſition of the Commiſſion in Matthew, doth tend to invert the Order of the ſame Commiſſion in Mark 16. 15, 16. where our Saviour commands his Diſciples to go and preach the Goſpel to every Creature, and then ſaith▪ He that believeth and is Baptized, ſhall be … 'tis not he that is baptized and the… … lieveth. But to give divers godly and learned Pedo-Baptiſts their due, they I find dare not attempt to invert the Order of the Holy Commiſſion, as you ſeem to do, though it ſhakes the Foundation of their own Practice: See Reverend Mr. Perkins on theſe Words, Teach all Nations, baptizing them; ſaith he, I explain the former thus; Firſt of all, it is ſaid, Teach them, that is, make them my Diſciples, by teaching them to believe and repent. Here we are to conſider the Order which God obſerves in making with Men a Covenant in …; firſt of all he calls them by his W…d and Spirit to believe and repent. Then in the ſecond Place, he makes a Promiſe of Mercy and Forgiveneſs. And then thirdly, he ſeals his Promiſe by Baptiſm. They, ſays he, that know not, nor conſider this Order which God uſed in covenanting with them in Baptiſm, deal prepoſterouſly, over-ſlipping the Commandment of repenting and believing, and is the cauſe of ſo much Prophaneneſs in the World. Much to the ſame Purpoſe ſaith Mr. Baxter, Right to Baptiſm, p. 149, 150. ſpeaking of the Order of this Commiſſion Chriſt gave to his Diſciples;

Their firſt Task (ſays he) is to make Diſciples, which are by Mark called Believers.

The ſecond Work is to baptize them, whereto is annexed the Promiſe of Salvation.

The third Work is to teach them all other things which are after to be learned in the School of Chriſt. To contemn this Order, ſaith he, is to contemn the Rules of Order, for where can we find it if not here? I profeſs my Conſcience is fully▪ ſatisfied from this Text, that …ere is one ſort of Faith ſaving—that muſt go before Baptiſm, the Profeſſion whereof the Miniſter muſt expect.

Your ſecond Scipture-Ground is that of whole Families being baptized.

Reply; You cannot be ignorant that this Proof hath been often invalidated: How many Families are there in this City, in which there is not one Infant? Beſides, 'tis ſaid, Paul preached the Word to the Jailor, and to all in his Houſe: alſo 'tis expreſly ſaid, He believed in God with all his Houſe. We have as much Ground to believe that in theſe Families there were ſome Servants or Children who were Unbelievers, as to belie… there were little Babes; and becauſe whole Houſholds are ſaid to be baptized, therefore unbelieving Servants, Sons and Daughters, as well as lit… Children. Others may infer ungodly Servants and unbelieving Children, that were grown up to be Men and Women, w… baptized alſo in thoſe Families. In Jailors Families now a-days 'tis evident there are too many wicked and ungodly ones; and this Jailor was none of the beſt before converted, 'tis plain. Beſides, whol…r all, doth not comprehend always every individual Perſon, as 1 Sam. 21. 28. Moreover, Dr. Hammond ſaith, That to conclude, Infants were baptized, becauſe Houſholds are mentioned ſo to be, is, ſaith he, unconvincing, and … Demonſtration, it being ſo uncertain whether there were any Children in thoſe Families: His Letter p. 471. Sect. 21.

Your third Scripture-Ground is that of the Promiſe (you ſay Covenant) made to you and … Children.

Reply; How often have we ſhewed that this Text proves not that any Children, quatenus as ſuch, ſhould be baptized, nor, as ſuch, that they are in the Covenant of Grace, or have the Promiſe made to them; the Promiſe runs to the Jews and to their Offspring, and not to them only, but to Gentiles alſo, who were ſaid to be afar off: But prav…obſerve, p. 8'tis to no more of the Jews and their Children or Offspring, and ſuch who were afar off, than the Lord ſhall call or make Diſciples by the Word and effectual Operations of the Holy Spirit. My Sons and Daughters are as much my Children when they are twenty or thirty Years old, as well as when Babes. Dr. Hammond alſo grants, Children in this Text doth not refer to Inſants as ſuch, but to the Poſterity of the Jews, p. 490. Sect. 81. If ye be Chriſt's, then you are Abraham's Seed, and Heirs according to the Promiſe. The Children of the Fleſh, ſaith Paul, theſe are not the Children of God; but the Children of the Promiſe are accounted for the Seed, Rom. 9. 8. Not if you he the Offspring of Abraham according to the Fleſh, or Seed of Believers.

Your fourth Scripture-Proof is, that of ſuch is the Kingdom of Heaven.

Reply. This proves no more Children …ght to be baptized, than they ought to receive the Lord's Supper, Baptiſm being a mere poſitive Precept, and only depends upon the Will and ſovereign Pleaſure of the great Lawgiver Jeſus Chriſt. A thouſand ſuch Inſtances prove not they ought to be baptized, except there was a Precept annexed, or Precedent for it in God's Word. Beſides, of ſuch, &c. (as one well obſerves) may intend ſuch and ſuch that have like Qualities, viz. harmleſs, meek, &c. as Children: Therefore the Anabaptiſts (as you call them) are not uncharitable, who ſay, Infants have no m…re Right to Baptiſm than unreaſonable Creatures; for what can give them Right thereto, but the Authority of God's Word?

You ask what Priviledg the Children of Believers have above Unbelievers? We anſwer, They have the advantage of their Parents Prayers. Inſtruction, godly Education, and good Example.

But, ſay you, they are holy.

Anſw. We deny it intends federal Holineſs, ſuch as qualifies Children for Baptiſm. We read in Mat. 2. 15. of Marriage, and that Children begotten in lawful Wedlock are called a godly Seed, in oppoſition to their being illegitimate. Now that it was about Marriages the Corinthians wrote to S. Paul, is evident, they doubting of the Lawfulneſs of abiding with their unbelieving Husbands and Wives: And to ſatisfy them about this Matter, he tells them, the unbelieving Husband was ſanctified by (or rather to) the believing Wife, &c. that is ſet apart or conſecrated to each other in lawful Marriage, (for 'tis doubtle… no other Sanctification) elſe were your Child …, that is, Baſtards; but now are they holy, that is, lawfully begotten. And we find divers Learned Men give the ſame Expoſition on theſe Words. Ambroſe on the Place ſaith, The Children are Holy, becauſe born of lawful Marriage. See Melancthon on this Text, who aſſerts the ſame. Eraſmus ſaith, Children are legitimately Holy, the Converſion of Husband or Wife did not diſſolve the Marriage. To which I might add Camerarius, and divers others. We We read in Zachary, that the Bells and Pots of the Lord's Houſe were holy; may be the Papiſts from thence preſume to baptize Bells, and they have as much reaſon ſo to do, as there is by the Authority of God's Word for any to baptize Infants. As touching what you ſpeak of little Children coming to Chriſt, that the Original or Greek Word is the ſame with foreign to proſelyte, what ſignifies that? how often is that Word mentioned in other Places, to ſignify any manner of coming to? &c. 'Tis a ſtrange way of proſelyting Perſons, and never to teach or inſtruct them. See theſe Scriptures where the ſame Word is uſed: foreign Mat. 26. 7. There came unto him. Mat. 26. 17. The Diſciples came; Gr▪ foreign Mat. 26. 49. Forthwith he came to Jeſus; Gr. foreign Mat. 26. 69. There came unto him (a Girl or) a Damſel; Gr. foreign Mat. 26. 73. And after a while (or a while after) came unto him they that ſtood by; Gr. foreign

But you proceed further to prove Infants ought to be baptized, and that from the Univerſal Coment of the Churches in all Countries: For (as you ſay) Tortul. de praeſcripturâ haeret. ch. 28. Etquid veriſimile, &c. Had the p. 9Churches erred, they would have varied, &c.

Reply. If you cannot prove Infant-Baptiſm from Scripture, you are gone for ever; for this Argument of yours to prove it is like that of the Papiſts, to prove their Church the true Church, viz. Univerſality and Antiquity, &c. It was not the Practice of the Churches firſt planted by the Apoſtles, that's plain; and 'tis as evident other Errors were as univerſally received, and ſome very early too; beſides, you can't be ignorant how the Greek Church va…ies from the Latin.

But pray take what Dr. Barlow hath ſaid to this, a worthy B…ſhop of the Church of England. I believe, and know, ſaith he, that there is neither Precept nor Example in Scripture for Pedo-baptiſm, nor any juſt Evidence for it for above 200 years after Chriſt; that …tullian condemns it as an …w…rantable Cuſtom, and Naz…anzen a good while after him diſlikes it▪ ſure I am, that in the primitive Times, they were Catechumeni, then Illuminati or Baptizati, and that not only … and Children of Pagans converted, but Children of Chriſtian Parents: The truth is, I do believe Pedo-Baptiſm, how or by whom I know not, come into the World in the ſecond Century, and in the third and fourth began to be practiſed, though not generally, and defended as lawful from the Text, John 3. 5. groſly miſunderſtood: upon the like groſs Miſtake, John 6. 53. they did for many Centuries, both in the Greek and Latin Church, communicate Infants, and give them the Lord's Supper; and I confeſs they might do both as well as either, &c.

Thus both your Arguments from univerſal Conſent and Antiquity, the Learned Doctor hath ſufficiently anſwered. And I rather let him anſwer you, than to anſwer you in my own words, thinking what he ſays, may be more regarded by ſome than what I ſay▪ But to prove from Antiquity, that Infant-Baptiſm was practiſed in the firſt, ſecond and third Centuries, you ſay you are able to demonſtrate, and that there was never any particular Congregation of Anabaptiſts till about three hundred years after Chriſt; and ſeem to build much upon theſe three laſt Arguments.

Reply. If you had ſaid there were no Baptized Congregations, i. e. ſuch who only baptized Believers, you had aſſerted a great Untruth, ſith all the Primitive Apoſtolical Churches were ſuch, none being admitted to Baptiſm for the firſt and ſecond Centuries, but the Adult, i. e. ſuch who profeſſed their Faith, as in due time may be ſufficiently proved, notwithſtanding all your Flouriſh and Pretences; but ſuppoſe it be granted there were no Congregations till then called Anabaptiſts, what doth that ſignify? it was becauſe there were not till about that time any (as … … and divers others ſay) who practiſed Pedo-baptiſm. Baptiſts could not be called Anabaptiſts, or Re-baptizers, till there were ſome who … for Infant-Baptiſm; ſo that this directly makes againſt you. Moreover, many Rites which you diſown as human Traditions, crept very early into the World, and were practiſed generally too in the Apoſtacy of the Church.

Queſt. 3. Whether Infant-Baptiſm is to be found in the Scripture?

1. You anſwer; not expreſly in the Letter, but from neceſſary and unavoidable Conſequences, as you ſay you have already ſhewn.

Reply. 'Tis a hard caſe that one of the great Sacraments of the Lord Jeſus ſhould in your Thoughts, lie ſo dark and obſcure in the New Teſtament, that it can't be proved from it but by Conſequences; but harder that Learned Men of your way, ſhould affirm that your Conſequences for it, drawn from thoſe Texts you mention, are not natural, and prove nothing; beſides, you can't be ignorant that the firſt Aſſerters of Infant-Baptiſm never undertook the proof of it from ſuch Scripture-Grounds or Conſequences, …t from the Authority and Power of the Church: for, as you think the Church …th power to change the Act of Baptizing unto Sprinkling, ſo p. 10they affirmed ſhe had like Power to change the Subject, and inſtead of Believers, to baptize Infants who have no Underſtanding. Pray what Precept of the Moſaical Law lay ſo dark or obſcure, that it could not be proved without Conſequences? Did not Moſes make every Law, Precept or Command plain, that he that runs might read it? and yet Chriſt is ſaid to exceed Moſes, being faithful as a Son over his own Houſe, Heb. 3. Thoſe Conſequences you have drawn, all impartial Men may ſee prove nothing.

Moreover, what you ſpeak about thoſe great Articles of the Chriſtian Religion, as if they could not be proved without Conſequences, muſt not by any means be allowed; nor can I take it to be true. Cannot we find the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Scripture, and that Chriſt is God and the ſecond Perſon, and that he was born of the Virgin, without Conſequences? Is it Wiſdom in you in ſuch a corrupt Age as this is, to lay down ſuch Aſſertions? Were thoſe things the Matter of Controverſy between you and me, you ſhould hear what poſitive and plain Scripture. Proof might (as you know hath often already) be brought upon that account. But to paſs by this, I affirm the Baptiſm of Believers lies plain in God's Word, but Infant-Baptiſm is not to be found therein.

Queſt. 4. Why was not Chriſt baptized before he was thirty Years old?

You anſwer, From the ſame Reaſon that the Jailor, the Eunuch, and St. Peter's Converts were not, viz. there is no adhering to a Doctrine before it is inſtituted or preached; but, ſay you, Infant Baptiſm was much before our Saviour's time, as amongſt thoſe of riper Years ſince, and that, you ſay, is Proof enough.

Reply. It can't be Proof enough to anſwer the Queſtion, and as to prove Infant-Baptiſm it utterly fails; but if Infant-Baptiſm was much before our Saviour's time as an Inſtitution of God, there was no Want of an Inſtitution when he was a Babe; and therefore your Reaſon why he deferred his Baptiſm is gone. Was it in being long before, and yet not inſtituted or appointed by Jehovah? Do you not herein implicitly confeſs that Cuſtom amongſt the Jews was humane? Nor will it ſerve your turn to ſay, it was inſtituted a-new as a Goſpel-Ordinance, becauſe you affirm Baptiſm under the Goſpel was the Continuation of that old Cuſtom, with the Super-addition of the full Force of Baptiſm, viz. a Conſignation or Seal of the Covenant. Do you not intimate it was not inſtituted anew, but rather a Cuſtom continued? upon which you (with that Addition, and ſome others before you) ſeem to lay the great Streſs of your Infants Baptiſm. And if ſome Additions were made to the old Cuſtom, why might there not be ſome Diminutions alſo? and if it were a-new inſtituted, it is all one as if it had never been in being before; for the Right any have to Baptiſm and manner of Adminiſtration, and all things appertaining to it, muſt of neceſſity wholly depend upon the new Inſtitution or Law of Chriſt: If therefore Goſpel-Baptiſm wholly depends on the new Inſtitution, then the old Cuſtom is gone for ever (had it been a Moſaical Rite) like a Legacy bequeathed in a Will, made void by the Teſtator's laſt Will and Teſtament; though ſome part of the ſame thing may be repeated in the laſt Will, that was in the firſt, yet the laſt muſt decide the Controverſy: but in Chriſt's laſt Will and Teſtament, Infant-Baptiſm is not to be found, nor was it indeed an Ordinance ordained of God before Chriſt's time. See my Anſwer about this in Anſwer to the firſt Queſtion.

2. Certainly had it been the Will of God, Children ſhould have been baptized as ſuch, Chriſt had been baptized when in his Infancy; no doubt God who is a free Agent could not want an Adminiſtrator; he could have ſent John into the World ſooner, or have commiſſionated ſome other Perſon to have done it. But ſince the Holy Ghoſt in the Goſpel relates the time of his Baptiſm, and that it was not till he was about thirty Years old, it clearly ſhews us that adult Perſons ought to be admitted to that Ordinance only, and not p. 11Babes: By which Example of his he hath ſtrengthned his Commiſſion, or at leaſt wiſe ſhewed the Congruity or ſweet Agreement there is between this Precept and his own Practice.

Queſtion 5. Why Sprinkling, and not Dipping?

You anſwer, Our Church denies not the latter, (that is, Dipping) but looks upon it as a clear Repreſentation of our Saviour's deſcending into the Grave, abiding there, and riſing up again, &c.

But ſay you, the Church has power to diſpenſe with Circumſtantials and manner of Acting, tho not with the Act it ſelf, &c.

Reply. What your Church is I know not; the Church of England doth acknowledg, I muſt confeſs, that Baptiſm is Dipping, but I never heard they have of late times ſo practiſed. But how dare you …, the Church hath power to diſpenſe … Dipping▪ and change it into Sprinkling? Who gave her ſuch Power? Where do you read of it? You call it a Circumſtantial, but I am not of your Mind; I muſt ſay 'tis …ſential; nay, 'tis no Baptiſm at all, if not Dipping; for Baptize is to dip, which to confirm I could give you a Cloud of Witneſſes learned in the Greek Tongue; therefore 'tis not the manner of the Act, but the Act it ſelf; to baptize is one Act, and to rantize or ſprinkle Water is another; the manner of the Act of dipping, or baptizing▪ … to put the whole Body into the Water backward, or forward, …, of with a ſwift or gentle Motion. … is dipping, and ſprinkling ſprinkling, which Act will never be baptizing whilſt the World ſtands. You ſay well, dipping or burying the Body in the Water, is a clear and lively Repreſentation of the Death, Burial and Reſurrection of Chriſt. And hence 'tis ſaid, that ſuch who are indeed baptized, are buried with Chriſt in Baptiſm. To which you might have added, 'tis alſo a Sign of our being dead to Sin, and of our being raiſed up with Chriſt by the Faith of the Operation of God, to walk in newneſs of Life.

And hence I infer, Infants ought not to be baptized, becauſe there doth not, cannot appear in them that glorious internal Work of the Spirit which ought to be ſignified thereby; and as they for this reaſon cannot be the proper Subjects of Baptiſm: So likewiſe it cannot be done by Sprinkling, becauſe that Act cannot repreſent thoſe Signs and Goſpel-Myſteries, which the Law-giver intended ſhould be held forth in that holy Adminiſtration.

But why do you ſay this is a circumſtantial Thing? Was not Nadab and Abihu's Tranſgreſſion, and that of Uzzah's, more like Circumſtantials than this is? and yet their Error coſt them their Lives. Or, hath the Goſpel-Church a greater diſpenſing Power in ſuch Caſes, than the Church had under the Law?—Suppoſe the Jews ſhould have changed Circumciſion, or cutting off the Foreskin of th… Fleſh, to the paring the Nails of their Children, or to cut off a little Skin off of the Fingers Ends; would that have been Circumciſion? no doubt a better Circumciſion than Sprinkling is Baptiſm. Gentlemen, will you call any Part, or Branch, or Thing that appertains to a poſitive Precept, a Circumſtance which the Church has power to diſpenſe with? If you ſhould, whither would this …ead you? You may after that Notion ſtrangely curtail Chriſt's Inſtitutions in other reſpects.

Queſtion 6. What think you of thoſe that die in Infancy unbaptized?

You anſwer, Of ſuch are the Kingdom of Heaven.

Reply. So ſaith our bleſſed Saviour, but they have, ſay I, no Right thereto, or belong unto the Kingdom of Heaven, becauſe ſprinkled with a little Water; nor would they have any further Right, ſhould they be indeed baptized, ſince there is no Command of God for it.

Queſt. 7. If Children be ſaved whether baptized or not, what ſignifies Baptiſm?

You anſwer, 'tis a Padg of Chriſt, an evident Note of Diffinction from the Children of Infidels: and as we come to the Knowledg p. 12of ſpiritual Things by Senſe, ſo 'tis an Evidence of a greater aſſurance of the Favour of God to them, being inviſibly introduced into the Covenant of Grace.

Reply 'Tis no Badg of Chriſt beſure, becauſe he never gave it to them; and if it be an evident Note of Diſtinction from the Children of Infidels, 'tis wholly of Man's making. You know what wonderful things are aſcribed to Chriſm by the Papiſts, who uſe Salt, Oil and Spittle, &c. in Baptiſm, and to other deviſed Rites and Ceremonies uſed by them; and I have as much ground from God's Word to believe what they ſay, as what you ſay, who affirm and prove not; why, do you not ſay they are thereby made Members of Chriſt, Children of God, and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven? Pray, what an aſſurance can that give them of the Favour of God, unleſs he had appointed it, and imparted ſome ſpiritual Grace thereby to them? Nay, and what Arguments do you bring to prove they thereby are introduced into the Covenant of Grace? Can any outward Act bring or introduce People either young or old into the Covenant of Grace, if they are brought thereby into the Covenant of Grace? I hope they ſhall all the ſaved that are baptized (as you call it.) I hope you are not for falling away, or that any Soul who is in the Covenant of Grace ſhall periſh eternally. Moreover, how can they come to the knowledg of ſpiritual Things by Senſe? indeed in the caſe of Circumciſion, which left a Mark in the Fleſh, they might more probably underſtand by the ſight of the Eye, thoſe ſpiritual Things ſignified by it; but Baptiſm leaves no ſuch Mark: Nothing appears to their Senſes when they come to knowledg that can have any ſuch Tendency; I fear rather it is a great means when they are grown up, to blind their Eyes, and cauſe them to think (as many ignorant People do) that they are made thereby Chriſtians, and ſo in a ſaved State, and never look after the Work of Regeneration.

Queſt. 8. Whether have Children Faith or no, ſince Faith and Repentance are Prerequiſites to Baptiſm?

Your Anſwer is, That you have ſhewed, that according to the words of the Commiſſion, Baptizing goes before Teaching; therefore there is not ſuch a Prerequiſiteneſs as ſome dream of. You have ſaid ſo I muſt confeſs from the Commiſſion, but have not proved it, but rather made work for Repentance, by ſtriving to …vert the Order of the ſacred Commiſſion of our Saviour, &c. But ſay you admit Faith as pre-requiſite to Baptiſm; we could anſwer, that Children have Faith potentia, tho not in actu viſibili: As an Artiſt when he is indiſpoſed or aſleep, is potentially an Artiſt, …ho not actually.—

Reply. Strange you ſhould attempt to affirm Children have Faith potentia! Who to… you ſo? when was thi… …aginary Faith infuſed into them? It … either by Nature, Art, of Grace, or elſe your Simily is loſt. You are look'd upon indeed to be Philoſophers, but this is above my Underſtanding, or your own …. But you ſuppoſe that Paſſage in Matth. 18. doth your buſineſs: whereas 'tis evident that our Saviour ſpeaks there of ſuch little ones who were indeed capable to believe; it was not ſuch a little one as you would have baptized. We doubt not but God doth oft-times infuſe Grace very early in the Souls of ſome very young, and calls them to believe, … to the knowledg … Truth; but what is this to all Infants …? But more fully to anſwer what you ſay about Children having Faith, take what Dr. Taylor hath wrote upon this Conceit.

Whether Infants have Faith or no, is a Queſtion (ſaith he) to be diſputed by Perſons that care not how much they ſay, and how little they prove.

1. Perſonal and actual Faith they have none, for they have no Acts of Underſtanding: and beſides, how can any Man know that they have, ſince he never ſaw any Sign of it, neither was he told ſo by any that could tell?

p. 132. Some ſay they have imputative Faith, but then ſo let the Sacrament be too; that is, if they have the Parents Faith, or the Churches, then ſo let Baptiſm be imputed alſo by derivation from them: and as in their Mothers Womb, and while they hung on their Mothers-Breaſts, they live upon their Mothers Nouriſhment; ſo they may upon the Baptiſm of their Parents, or their Mother the Church: for since Faith is neceſſary to the ſuſception of Baptiſm, and they themſelves confeſs it, by ſtriving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the matter up; ſuch as the Faith, ſuch muſt be the Sacrament: for there is no Proportion between an actual Sacrament and an imputative Faith, this being in immediate and neceſſary order to…hat. And whatſoever can be ſaid to take from the Neceſſity of actual Faith, all that and much more may be ſaid to excuſe from the actual ſuſception of Baptiſm. The firſt of theſe Devices was that of Luther and his Scholars; the ſecond of … and his; and yet there is a third Device which the Church of Rome teaches, and that is, that Infants have habitual Faith, but who told them ſo? how can they prove it? what Revelation or Reaſon teaches any ſuch thing? are they by this Habit ſo much as diſpoſed to an actual Belief without a new Maſter? Can an Infant ſent into a … be more confident for Chriſt … when he comes to be a Man, than … …e had not been baptized? are there any Acts precedent, concomitant or conſequent to this pretended Habit? This ſtrange Invention is abſolutely without Art, without Scripture, Reaſon or Authority, but the Men are to be excuſed unleſs there were a better.

And aga… to this purpoſe, pag. 242. And if any Man runs for Succour to that exploded Creſphugeton, that Infants have Faith, or any other inſpired Habit of I know not what or how, we deſire no more advantage in the World than that they are conſtrained to anſwer without Revelation, againſt Reaſon, common Senſe, and all the Experience in the World.

As to what you ſpeak as to thoſe young Children you mention, it proves nothing; and ſome of your Stories ſeem childiſh, and do not look as if they came from Men of ſuch pretended Ingenuity.

But to cloſe all; We have the worſt of you at the laſt, wherein you in a very ſcurrilo…s manner caſt Reproach upon a great Body of Godly People (who differ not from other Orthodox Chriſtians in any Eſſentials of Salvation, no nor in Fundamentals of Church-Conſtitutions, ſave in the Point of Baptiſm) and will you by reaſon of the Enormities of ſome who formerly bore the Name of Anabaptiſts, mentioning the old Munſter Story, condemn as ſuch all that bear that Name?

In Anſwer to which I ask you, whether the like Reflections might not have been caſt on Chriſt's Apoſtles, becauſe they had a Ju… among them? or on the Church of the Coritthians, becauſe if the inceſtuous Perſon? Beſides, you know not but it may be a Lie raiſed upon thoſe People by the envious Papiſts, who have rendred Cal… and Luther as odious as you do theſe Anabaptiſts. You would think it hard, if I ſhould ask you what ſort they were that Ralph Wallis uſed to expoſe, and fill his Carts with? or of thoſe Clergy-men who were Pedo-Baptiſts, yet were for filthy Crimes executed.

To conclude, I wiſh that all Bitterneſs of Spirit was expelled, Love and Charity exerciſed towards all, tho in ſome things we may differ from one another.