AN 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.
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 [Page 2] commonly 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 [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. ‘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 [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 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 [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 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. [Page 6] But 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. [...] 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 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 [...] 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; [Page 7] intimating, 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, [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 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 [...] 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 Coment of the Churches in all Countries: For (as you say) Tortul. de praescripturâ haeret. ch. 28. Etquid 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. 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 [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 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 [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 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 [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 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?
[Page 13]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 [...]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.
Queries for the Athenian Society to Answer, some of which were formerly sent to them, but were passed by in silence. 1. Whether Infants are the Subjects of Baptism. And, 2. Whether Baptism is Dipping or Sprinkling.
First; WHether there was not a twofold Covenant made with Abraham, one with his Fleshly Seed, and the other with his Spiritual Seed, signified by the Bond-Woman and the Free-Woman, and their Sons Ishmael and Isaac?
If so, I query, Whether Circumcision was an Ordinance that appertained to the Covenant of Grace, and was the Seal of it? 1. Because 'tis contradistinguished from the Covenant of Grace, or free Promise of God, Rom. 4. 2. And 'tis also called a Yoke of Bondage. And, 3. 'Tis said also, that he that was circumcised, was a Debter to keep the whole Law. And, 4. Because Ishmael, who was not a Child of the Covenant of Grace with Esau, and many others, yet were required to be circumcised as well as Isaac. And, 5. Since 'tis positively said Faith was imputed to Abraham for Righteousness not in Circumcision, How was it imputed then, when he was circumcised, or uncircumcise [...] not when he was circumcised, but when he was uncircumcised. Rom. 4. 10.
Secondly; Whether the being the Male-Children of Believers, as such, gave them right to Circumcision, or not rather the nicer positive Command of God to Abraham; since we do not read of any other Godly Man's Seed in Abraham's days, or since, had any right thereto, but only such who were born in his House, or bought with his Mony?
Thirdly; Whether Circumcision could be said to be the Seal of any Man's Faith save Abraham's only, seeing 'tis said, he received the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith he had [mark] yet being uncircumcisied, that he might be the Father of all that believe; which was the Priviledg of Abraham [...]ly: for how could Circumcision be a Seal to Children of that Faith they had before circumcised, seeing they had no Faith at all, as had Abraham their Father, they being obliged by the Law of God to be circumcised at eight days old [...]
Fourthly; What is it which you conceive Circumcision did, or Baptism doth seal to Children, or make sure; since a Seal usually makes firm all the Blessings or Priviledges contained in that Covenant 'tis prefix'd to? Doubtless if the Fleshly Seed of Believers, as such, are in the Covenant of Grace, and have the Seal of it, they shall be saved; because we are agreed, that the Covenant of Grace is well ordered in all things, and sure, there is no final falling, therefore how should any of them miss of eternal Life? and yet we see many of them prove wicked and ungodly, and so live and die. If you say it seals only the external Part and Priviledges of the Covenant of Grace:
Fifthly; I demand to know what those External Priviledges are, seeing they are denied the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper, and all other External Rites whatsoever? if you say when they believe that shall partake of [...] Blessings; so, say I, shall the [...] believers as well as they.
Sixthly; If the Fleshly Seed, or Children of believing Gentiles, as such, are to be accounted the Seed of Abraham; I query, Whether they are his Natural Seed, or his Spiritual Seed? if not his Natural Seed, nor his Spiritual Seed, what right can they have to Baptism, or Church-Membership, from any Covenant-Transactions God made with Abraham?—
Seventhly; Whether those different grounds upon which the Right of Infant-Baptism is pretended by the Fathers of old, and the Modern Divines, doth well agree with an Institution that is a meer positive Rite, depending wholly on the Will of the Legislator, [Page 15] doth not give just cause to all to question its Authority?
- 1. Some Pedo-Baptists asserted, It took away Original Sin, and such who denied it were anathematized.
- 2. Some affirm, That Children are in the Covenent; and being the Seed of Believers, are federally Holy, therefore ought to be Baptized.
- 3. Another so [...] of Pedo Baptists say, They ought to be Bapt [...], by virtue of their Parents Faith.
- 4. Others affirm, They have Faith themselves, and are Disciples, and therefore must be baptized.
- 5. Another sort Baptize them upon the Faith of the [...] Sureti [...]
- 6. And [...] of Pedo Baptists say, It [...] Power and Authori [...]
- 7. [...] that, [...] affirm▪ [...] the Word [...] God
- [...] Institution, the [...] divided and [...] themselves.
Eighthly; Is it not an evil thing, and very absurd for any to say▪ Baptism is a Symbol of present Regeneration, and yet apply it to Babes, in whom nothing of the things signified thereby doth or can appear? And also to say, I Baptize thee in the Name, &c. when indeed he doth not Baptize, but only Rantize the Child? and to say Baptism is a lively Figure of Christ's Death, Burial, and Resurrection, and yet only sprinkle or pour a little Water upon the Face of the Child?
Ninthly; Whether that can be an Ordinance of Christ, for which there is neither Command nor Example in all the Word of God, no [...] Promise [...]de to such who do it, nor Th [...]s denounced on such who neglect it or do it [...]? For though there are both Promises made to Believers Baptized, and Threa [...] denounced on such who neglect it, yet where are there any such in respect of Infant-Baptism?
Tenthly; Whether a Pagan, or Indian, who should attain to the knowledg of the Greek Tongue, or of the English, or any other Tongue into which the Original should be translated, by reading over the New Testament a thousand times he could ever find Infants ought to be Baptized; if not, how doth it appear the Faith of People about Pedo-Baptism stands in the Power of God, and knowledg of his Word, and not rather in the Wisdom of Men, who having endeavoured, with all the Art and Cunning they can, to draw pretended Consequences for it, tho after all they do not naturally and genuinely follow [...] the Premises to which they refer?
[...]; Whether Christ having [...] the Qualifications [...] such as [...] Baptized, viz. actual Repentance, [...] and the Answer of a good Consci [...] ▪ doth not thereby exclude all those [...] not capable of those Qualifications?
[...]; Whether it doth not reflect up [...] the Care, Wisdom, and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ, who as a Son over his own House, exceeded the Care and Faithfulness of Moses, to affirm, Infants ought to be Baptized, and yet it cannot be found in all the Ne [...] [...] an it be [...] should be a Gospe [...] recept, nay, a [...], and yet Christ speak nothing of it? or could it be in the Commission, and yet the Apostlet never to mention it, but contrariwise, require Faith [...] all they admitted to Baptism? Paul says, He declared the whole Counsel of God, and said nothing of it in any of his Epistles, nor any where else. How many thousands of Children were born to baptized [...]ievers, from the time of Christ's Ascension, to the time John [...]e the Revelations, but not one word of [...] one Child Baptized?
Thirteen; Whether in matter of positive Right, such as Baptism is, we ought not [...] keep expresly and punctually to the Revelation of the Will of the Law-giver?
Fourteen; Whether the Baptism of Infants be not a dangerous [...] since it tends to deceive and blind the Ey [...] of poor ignorant People, who think they are thereby made [Page 16] Christians, and so never look after Regeneration, nor true Baptism, which represents or signifies that inward Work of Grace upon the Heart?
Fifteen; Whether the Ancient Church, who gave the Lord's Supper to Infants, as well as Baptism, might n [...] [...]e allowed as well to do the one as the other, since Faith and Holy Habits are as much required in those who are to be Baptized, as in such who come to the Lord's Table? And all such in the Apostolick Church, who were Baptized, were immediately admitted to break Bread, &c. And also the Arguments taken from the Covenant, and because said to be Holy, and to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, are as strong for them to receive the Lord's Supper, there being no Command nor Example for either, and human Tradition carrying it equally for both for several Centuries.
Sixteen; Whether Nadab, Abih [...], and [...] Transgressions were not as much Circumstantials, and so as small Errors, as to alter Dipping in [...]o Sprinkling; and from an understanding Believer, to a poor ignorant Babe? And whether to allow the Church a Power to make such Alterations, be not dangerous? see R [...], 22. And doth [...] open a Door to other innovations?
Seventeen; Whether there is any just Cause for Men to vilify and reproach the People called Anabaptists, for their baprizing Believers, and denying infants to be Subjects thereof, seeing they have the plain and direct Word of God to warrant their practice, i. e. not only the Commission, but also the continual usage of the Apostles and Ministers of the Gospel all along in the New Testament, who Baptized none but such who made profession of their Faith? And the Ch [...] of England also saith, Faith and Repentance. are required of such who are to be Baptized. We [...]e not Baptize our Children, because we cannot find it written; 'tis from the holy Fear of God, lest we should offend and sin against him, by adding [...] his Word.
Eighteen; What should be the reason that our faithful Translators of the Bible should leave the Greek word Baptism, or Baptisma, and not turn it into English, seeing the Dutch have not done so, but contrariwise translate, for John the Baptist, John the Dooper; and for he Baptized, he dooped, or dipped them?
Nineteen; Whether those who translate out of one Language into another, ought not to translate every word into the same Language into which they turn it, and not leave any word in the same Original Tongue, which the People understand not, and for whose sakes they undertook that Work; and not to translate every word, but also to give the right, literal, genuine and proper signification of each word, and not the remote, improper, or collateral signification of it? Which if our Translators of the Bible had so done, I query whether the Doubt among the Unlearned, concerning what the word Baptisma signifies, [...]?
Twenty; Seeing the Greek Church uses Immersion & not Aspersion▪ may it not be look'd upon as a great Argument against Sprinkling, especially seeing they disown the Baptism of the Latin Church, beca [...] they use Sprinkling; for doubtless the Greeks best knew the genuine and proper signification of that word, that Tongue being their own natural Language in which the New Testament was wrote?
21. Whether if a Minister should administer the Lord's Supper in one kind only and so doing, it cannot answer the great Design of Christ the Law-giver, i. e. the breaking of his Body, and shedding of his Blood, would not prophane that Holy Institution? If so, whether such, who instead of dipping the whole Body, do but sprinkle or pour a little Water on the Face, do not also prophane the holy Sacrament of Baptism, since it is not so done to represent in a lively Figure the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Christ, with our Death unto Sin, and vivification unto newness of Life? Rom. [...]. Col. 2. 11, 12.
22. Whether all such who have only been sprinkled, ought not to be deemed Unbaptized Persons, since Aspersion is not Immersion, [Page 17] or Rantizing not Baptizing? for though the Greek word Baptizo, in a remote and improper sense may signify to wash, yet, as the Learned confess, it is such a washing as is done by dipping, swilling, or plunging the Person or Thing all over in the Water.
23. Since you say Children have Faith potentia: I query, Whether Unbelievers, and all ungodly Persons, have▪ not also the like Faith potentia as well as Children, and so the same Right to Baptism? We grant they may have Faith hereafter; what tho?
There is one Assertion and Argument laid down by you, that I omitted in my Answer; which as it is New, so it must needs expose you, viz. If God be pleased to radiate or shine upon the Souls of Children in Heaven, and they do behold the Face of God, as our Saviour says; then it follows that they have Faith in Heaven, and why not on Earth? see Heb. 11. 27. These are your very words▪ [...]
Reply; I had thought that in Heaven the Faith of the Adult ceases, i. e. the strong and saving Faith of Believers: Doth not the Apostle say, Then we come to receive the End of our Faith? And is not Faith turned there into Vision? Is not Faith the Evidence of Things not seen, and the Substance of Things hoped for? Heb. 11. [...]. Divines say, Faith, Hope, &c. cease then, and that 'tis only Love that continues. What is it they have not received in Heaven, which they trust in God for? Nor is your Conclusion good, Had they Faith there, they may have it here. The Text you cite, Heb. 11. 27. refers to that Faith Moses had on Earth, who saw him that was Invisible. God seems so to us here; but what a sight we shall have of him in Heaven, we know not. Doth not the Apostle say, we shall behold Face to Face; and the pure in Heart shall see God? Shall that be such a sight that Moses had whilst on Earth?
Questions relating to the Fathers, with respect t [...]e Controversy about Inf [...]-Baptism.
First; WHat reason can be given why Nazianzen, an eminent Greek Father, should counsel the deferring the Baptism of Infants, until the third or fourth Year of their Age, (except in danger of Death), if it were in Nazianzen's Time, as some suppose it-was, the Opinion of the whole Church, as also his own, that Infants, by an Apostolical Tradition, were to be baptized as such, that is, as soon as born?
Secondly; Whether all the Fathers of the third and fourth Century, both of the Greek and Latin Church, who have wrote any thing abou [...] [...]nfant-Baptism, do not unanimously give this as the Reason why Infants should be Baptized, viz. the washing away Original Sin, or the putting them into a Capacity of Salvation; and some of them, p [...]ticularly St. Austin, sentencing Infants to [...]ernal Damnation if not Baptized?
Thirdly; If so, Whether the Fathers might not be mistaken in the Right of Infants to Baptism, as well as [...] the Judgment of most Protestants they are, in the Reason why they should be Baptized?
Four other Queries.
1. WHether God hath allowed or enjoined Parents to bring their [...]ttle [...]bes, of two or ten days old, into a Covenant with him by Baptism, since 'tis nor to be found in the Sc [...]ure he either hath allowed or enjoined them so to do?
2. If it cannot be proved he hath required any such thing at their Hands, Whether that Covenant can be said to b [...]nd their Consciences when they come to [...]ge, especially since they gave no Consent to it, no [...] were capable so to do?
[Page 18]3. If this pretended Covenant was not of God's Appointment, I query, how these Children who refuse to agree to the said Covenant when at Age, can thereby be guilty, 1. Of rejecting Christ, 2. Of renouncing the Blessings of the Gospel, 3. And that 'tis Rebellion continued against their Maker, 4. That 'tis Ingratitude and [...]jury to their Redeemer, 5. Gross Injustice to their Parents, 6, That 'tis self-killing Crueltie to their own Souls, 7. And a damning Sin?
4. I query, whether this be good Divinity, not rather a strange Doctrine? And whether unwarrantable Articles of Faith, taken out of the Jewish Talmud, or. Turkish Alcoran, may not by as good Authority be put into a Christian Catechism, as such Assertions as these▪
Four Queries sent by another Hand to the Athenian Society.
I Humbly conceive, that no Man knoweth what is a Duty but by the Scriptures: And since Pedo-Baptism cannot be proved by the Word of God, as every Man may know, and is generally acknowledged by the most Learned Assertors of that Practice; it therefore plainly followeth, in my Judgment, that Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God's Appointment, but an Innovation.
I therefore feriously query;
I. WHeth [...] [...]radition; Jewish Talmuds, the Opinion of private Doctors▪ Schoolmen, &c. be a sufficient Warrant for the Churches to establish such a Practice, that hath neither Precept nor Example in the Holy Scriptures?
II. Since the pretended Foundation of Infant-Baptism, (viz. its absolute necessity to Salvation) proving [...]o be a Mistake of the Text, John 3. 5. as is generally acknowledged by Protestants, Whether the Structure ought not to fall with it, as it did in the Case of giving the Child the Eucharist?
III. Whether the Faith of the Parent, or Gossip on the Child's behalf, be required of God, or will be imputed to the Child by God? If not, why ventured on, and not rather a waiting for Faith in the Subject, as required in Holy Writ, by the Apostles and Primitive Churches, and seemingly by the Church of England in her Cate [...]sm?
IV. Whether the Church hath a good Warrant that will justify her before God, in changing the Mode from Dipping to Sprinkling? and whether that Alteration doth so well answer the Design of the Holy God, as that Ceremony which himself appointed?
Gentlemen,
I knew nothing of that Gentleman's Animadversions, or that he, or any Body el [...] intended to take notice of your Mercury, till I had wrote what I intended to say, tho when it was too late I saw it.