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 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 't is an Essential nay 't is 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 't is 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 't is said that such who are indeed baptized are buried with Christ in Baptism To which you might have added 't is 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 Vzzah'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
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 â—…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 't is 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 't is 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 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 't is 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 't is not so much to prove Baptism to be the Antitype of Circumcision as 't is 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
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 't is 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. 'T is 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 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. Vniversality and Antiquity c. it was not the Practice of the Churches first planted by the Apostles that 's plain and 't is 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 int h 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 'T is 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 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