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

Reply. As to what you speak of the Cu­stoms of Nations. Languisms, 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 new 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? Mark 1.4. 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 [...]is 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 [Page 3] Authority 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. ‘Ac cum videam summi ju­dicii viros in his temporibus & Rabbinis funda­ment a petere veritatis, &c. But when I see in these times some Men of the greatest Judg­ment to setch 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 Judicia) 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, at all the rest of them; there­fore we cannot acquiesce in such Testimo­ny’—Gentlemen, either answer no more Questions about Religion, or take more heed to what you say: for your pleading for In­fant-Baptism, from such grounds, all may per­ceive tends to cast an Odium and Contempt on the Christian Religion: Therefore I infer, your Proof for this Practice from the Custom amongst the Jews about baptizing of Pro­selytes both Men, Women and Children, proves nothing; you were better, for the Authority of it, to urge the Decrees of Popes and General Councils; a Popish In­novation is as good as a Jewish one.

But however, you do allow that our blessed Saviour did add something to this pretended Jewish Custom, and [...]th not only put it in full force, but also made it a Consignation or Seal of the Covenant; and this, say you, is fur­ther strengthened by several undeniable Texts of Scripture, which Anabaptists themselves can never get clear of; and ask them, they must either be si­lent, or give such a Paraphrase as we do. The Texts are these: First, Col. 2.11,12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumci­sion made without bands, in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh, by the Circumcision of Christ. Buried with him in Baptism, &c. The second, that of baptizing the Israelites in the Red-Sea, 1 Cor. 10.2. The last is the saving of Noah and his Family in the Ark, 1 Pet. 3.21.

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

2. But the Truth is, in the second place, if you had not told us in your next words, to what purpose you mention those Scrip­tures, we should have been at a great loss about it, or not well have understood your Intention; but you, like the ingenious Pain­ter, soon inform us, and tell us what '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 thought the Apostle tells you that Christ nailed all the Jewish Ceremonies of the Mosaical Law to the Cross, and that they all ceased when the Antitype was come; and besure had the Baptism you speak of been indeed a Mosaical Rite, I mean appointed or commanded of God, it had vanished with its Fellows: But '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 [Page 4] Custom again, so that here's no Scripture nor Argument brought by you to prove the thing in hand. As touching what you say of the Pa­rallel betwixt Circumcision and Baptism sig­nifies nothing; if in some things there should be a Parallel, it doth not follow therefore Baptism was the Antitype of Circumcision. What tho Circumcision was the initiating Ordinance of the Male Children into the Jewish Church, and Baptism is that initia­ting Ordinance into the Gospel-Church; this doth not prove the one the Type of the o­ther.

5. But pray, what is it that the Anabaptists can never get clear of, or being ask'd the Exposition, they must be silent, or give such a Paraphrase as you do? I must tell you, I know no Text more full for our practice of baptizing Believers, than that in Col. 2.11,12. We say from thence, that the proper Anti­type of Circumcision in the Flesh, is the Circumcision of the Heart; and therefore not Baptism; tho '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 Mystieal Circumcision of the Heart, i.e. that the Soul is dead to Sin, or that he hath put off the Body of Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ; which may refer to the Power of his Death in the Effects thereof, by the effectual Sin-killing Operations of the holy Spirit on the Heart: And as we being dead to Sin, we are also buried with Christ in Baptism, both in the Sign, i.e. covered all over in the Water, which resembles in a lively Figure his Burial, and also in Signification, i.e. the Power and blessed Effects of his Death, ha­ving been the Death of the old Man, or that Body of Sin in us; wherein also in like manner we are also risen with him through the Faith of the Operation of God; and this is likewise held forth both in Sign and Signi­fication in true Baptism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply. Because there is a Teaching fol­lows Baptism, doth it therefore follow, ac­cording to the Order of the sacred Com­mission, there is no Teaching indispensibly to go before the Person is baptized? You have cause to tremble for trifling and basely inverting the order of the Commission of our Blessed Saviour; what though the Greek word Discipliz, or make Disciples, be a word of the imperative Mode; O strange! have you found it out, will this do your business, doth it therefore contain the other two? I ask you whether a Man may not be made a Disciple, and not be Baptized, or be Baptized, and yet not be discipled? Matth. 13.52. 'tis [...], 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, tha 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 assert 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; [Page 7] intimating, unless he so believed he might not. Also why did Christ make Disciples first, and then baptize them? Joh. 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 saved; 'tis not he that is baptized and then be­lieveth; 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, thought it shakes the Foundation of their own Practice: See Reverend Mr. Perkirs 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 Baptism; first-of all he calls them by his Word 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 there is one sort of Faith saving, even 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 invalid: 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, in these Families there were some Servants or Children who were Unbelievers, as to believe there were little Babes; and because whole Housholds were said to be baptized, therefore unbe­lieving 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 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, whole or 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 without 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 your 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 pray ob­serve, [Page 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 Infants 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 be 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 ought 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 more 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 Mal. 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 doubt­less no other Sanctification) else were your Chil­dren unclean, 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. See Beza; That the Word, saith he, is not to be understood an Adverb of Time, but a Conjunction that's wont to be used in the assumption of Arguments; and so the Sense is [But now], that is, Forasmuch as the unbelieving Husband is sanctified to the Wife, your Children are holy, that is, law­fully begotten and born. 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 [...] 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: [...], Mat. 26.7. There came unto him. Mat. 26.17. The Disciples came; Gr. [...]. Mat. 26.49. Forthwith he came to Jesus; Gr. [...]. Mat. 26.69. There came unto him (a Girl or) a Damsel; Gr. [...]. Mat. 26.73. And after a while (or a while after) came unto him they that stood by; Gr. [...].

But you proceed further to prove Infants ought to be baptized, and that from the Uni­versal Consent of the Churches in all Coun­tries: For (as you say) Tertul. de praescripturâ haeret. ch. 28. Ecquid verisimile, &c. Had the [Page 9] Churches 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. Ʋniversality 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 varies from the Latin.

But pray take what Dr. Barlow hath said to this, a worthy Bishop 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 Tertullian condemns it as an unwarantable Custom, and Nazianzen 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 Pagans 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 forth 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 you to prove from Anti­quity, that Infant-Baptism was practised inth first, second and third Centuries, you say you are able to demonstrate, 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 or Pretences; but suppose it be granted there were no Congregations till then called Anabaptist, what doth that signify? it was because there were not till about that time any (as Dr. Barlow and divers others say) who practised Pedo-bap­tism: Baptists could not be called Anabap­tists or Re-baptizers till there were some who held 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?

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 New Testament 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, 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, so [Page 10] they 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 run 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 human? Nor will it serve your turn to say, it was instituted a-new as a Gospel-Ordinance, because you affirm Bap­tism under the Gospel was the Continuation of that old Custom, with the Super-addition of the full Force of Baptism, viz. a Consignation or Seal of the Covenant. Do you not intimate it was not instituted a new, but rather a Custom continued? upon which you (with that Addi­tion and some others before you) seem to lay the great Stress of your Infants Baptism. And if some Additions were made to the old Custom, why might there not be some Dimi­nutions also? and if it were a-new instituted, it is all one as if it had never been in being be­fore; for the Right any have to Baptism and manner of Administration, and all things ap­pertaining to it, must of necessity wholly de­pend upon the new Institution or Law of Christ: If therefore Gospel-Baptism wholly depends on the new Institution, then the old Custom is gone for ever (had it been a Mo­saical Rite) like a Legacy bequeathed in a Will, made void by the Testator's last Will and Testament; though some part of the same thing may be repeated in the last Will, that was in the first, yet the last must decides the Controversy: but in Christ's last Will and Testament, Infant-Baptism is not to be found, nor was it indeed an Ordinance or­dained of God before Christ's time. See my Answer about this in Answer to the first Que­stion.

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

Question 5. Why Sprinkling, and not Dip­ping? You answer, Our Church denies not the latter, (that is, dipping) but looks upon it as a clear Representation of our Saviour's descending into the Grave, abiding there, and rising up again, &c.

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

Reply. What your Church is I know not; the Church of England doth acknowledg, I must confess, that Baptism is Dipping, but I never heard they have of late times so practised. But how dare you say, the Church hath pow­er to dispense with Dipping, and change it into Sprinkling? Who gave her such Power? Where do you read of it? You call it a Cir­cumstantial, but I am not of your Mind; I must say 'tis an Essential; 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, is to put the Body into the Water backward, or forward, or side-ways, or with a swift or gentle Motion. Dipping is dipping, and sprinkling sprinkling, which Act will ne­ver be baptizing whilst the World stands. You say well, dipping or burying the Body in the Water, is a clear and lively Represen­tation of the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Christ. And hence '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 Ʋzzah's more like Cir­cumstantials than this is? and yet their Error cost them their Lives. Or, hath the Gospel-Church a greater dispensing Power in such Cases, than the Church had under the Law?—Suppose the Jews should have changed Circumcision, or cutting off the Foreskin of the Flesh, to the paring the Nails of their Children, or to cut off a little Skin off of the Fingers Ends; would that have been Cir­cumcision? no doubt a better Circumcision than Sprinkling is Baptism. Gentlemen, will you call any Part, or Branch, or Thing that appertains to a positive Precept, a Circum­stance which the Church has power to dis­pense with? If you should, whither would this lead you? You may after that Notion strangely curtail Christ's Institutions in other respects.

Question 6. What think you 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 Badg of Christ, an evi­dent Note of Distinction from the Children of Infidels: and as we come to the Know­ledg [Page 12] of 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 be 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 Pre-requisites 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 Pre-requisite­ness 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 invert 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, tho not actually.—

Reply. Strange you should attempt to af­firm Children have Faith potentia; who told you so? when was this imaginary Faith in­fused into them? it must be either by Na­ture Art, or 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 Demonstration; 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 believer; it was not such a little one as you would have baptized. We doubt not but God doth oftimes insuse Grace very early in the Souls of some 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 answer what you say about Children having Faith, take what Dr. Taylor hath wrote up­on this Conceit. ‘Whether Infants have Faith or no, is a Question (saith he) to be disputed by Persons that care not how much they say, and how little they prove.’

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

2. ‘Some say they have imputative Faith, but then so let the Sacrament be too; that is, if they have the Parents Faith, or the Churches, then so let Baptism be imputed also by derivation from them, and as in their Mothers Womb; and while they hung on their Mothers Breasts, they live upon their Mothers Nourishment; so they may upon the Baptism of their Parents, or their Mother the Church: for since Faith is ne­cessary to the susception of Baptism, and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the matter up; such as the Faith, such must be the Sacrament; for there is no Proportion be­tween an actual Sacrament and an impu­tative Faith, this being in immediate and necessary order to that. 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 Calvin 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 Mahometan Province, be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a Man, than if he 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 again 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 childless, and do not look as if they came from Men of such pretended Ingenuity.