ANIMADVERSIONS1

Upon the Responses of the

ATHENIAN MERCURY,

To the Questions about

Infant-Baptism.

Quest 1. WHether (it) is commonly taught Baptism is the proper and natural Antitype of

Circumcision?

In your Answer you beg when you should dig, and take that for our Concession, which is not,

viz. 1. That whole Families were baptized of the proselyted Gentiles in their Initiation among

the Jews. 2. You are so far from answering the Query, Whether Circumcision be a proper

Type of Baptism? tho you affirm it, you do not confirm, but rather give away your Cause, and

say that it was not properly a Type. but rather a Continuation of a Custom. And whereas you

tell the World, St. John, Christ, and his Apostles have added unto it all that was necessary to

make it a full and proper Type; you leave them as wise as you found them, for you speak not

one word what those things were that made it a proper Type which they added. And whereas

you call Pedobaptism a Consignation or Seal of the Covenant, tho you reflect upon our

Ignorance, as not understanding Customs of Nations, Linguisms2, Radixes3, you would

account him an ignorant Man that should seal a Blank. Pray what certainly is sealed to the

Infant then? is it Remission, Salvation? if this be God’s Seal, you need not question the

performance; but I hope you have stronger Expectations of your own Salvation than of every

Infant you rantize. In sealing among Men there is something antecedent to it, but I know

nothing antecedent to this for Encouragement, unless it be a good warm Benefice. This old

Custom, says Dr. Hammond, was the way of proselyting Gentiles and whole Families by

Baptism, and was, say you, the likeliest way for the Lord's Ambassadors to find least

Opposition. Sirs, was the Dispensation of the Gospel calculated to please Mens Humours? or

rather, Is not the whole Administration of it to abate the Pride of Man? Did the Lord say unto

his Apostles, when he gave them his Commission to preach and baptize, I have ordained such

Ordinances, in the which you are not like to meet with much 0pposition? But you, Gentlemen,

know they met with quite a contrary Treatment in the discharge of their Duty, both from Jews

and Greeks; unto one the Gospel-Dispensation was a Stumbling-Block, to the latter a Scoff.

You are exceedingly out about Coloss. 2. in asserting that the Anabaptists being interrogated

about the Sense, must either be silent, or give your Exposition; Sirs, we will do neither. That

we may give the true Sense of the place, this Circumcision is not the Circumcision in

Controversy, for this is said to be without hands, the Legal one was by hands: this is Spiritual,

that Corporal; the Legal one Natural, this Moral; that was a taking off the fore-Skin of the

Flesh, this is a putting off the sinful Body of Sin. The Apostle informs us how this came to

pass through the Circumcision of Christ, that is, by Christ’s shedding his Blood upon the

Cross, by which he procured the Holy Spirit for Mortification, Sanctification unto all the

1. The action or an act of turning the attention to a subject; the observation or consideration of something.. Oxford English

Dictionary, online.

2. Skill with or enjoyment of language or (foreign) languages. Oxford English Dictionary, online.

3. Source, origin; that in which anything originates. Oxford English Dictionary, online.

1

Subjects of eternal Love; and this putting off the Old Man, saith the Apostle, is figured out in

Baptism, v. 12. together with your Resurrection to a new Life; and this is done upon the Soul

by Faith, which requires the same Power to effect it as rais'd Christ from the Dead. Ingenious

Gentlemen ( I have more freedom to say so than Ingenuous) pray consider for what end the

holy Apostle doth borrow this word Circumcision, not to prove that Baptism is the Antitype of

it, but for these Reasons which he tells you, namely, to signify Christ's Bloody Sacrifice upon

the Cross for Man's Salvation, and the Believers putting off the Old Man. Pray, Sirs, how doth

this prove the Point, that Baptism is the proper and natural Antitype of Circumcision? If you

could prove your Right no better to an Estate, if in the hands of an honest Lawyer, you would

1ose it: you see there is no need to be silent, nor give your Paraphrase upon the Text. And

whereas you say St. Cyprian concludes the Red Sea to be the Sacrament of Baptism, in 1 Cor.

10. had you said St. Paul, it had gone better down. Sirs, you are to know Baptism was not in

use when those things were done the Apostle speaks of, but he borrows the word, because fit

for his purpose, to shew forth God's Care of them in the Red Sea, and his gracious Protection,

the Cloud over them, the Red Sea on each side, so encompassed about by Divine Providence,

as Persons are encompassed with Water when baptzed. And whereas you cunningly add, all

these things are our Figures, as if Baptism was Circumcision's Antitype; you have not one

word of Circumcision in the Text. What the Apostle intends is exprest, he supposeth the

Manna and the Rock were Types of Christ, and that their Punishments for Sin were to be our

Ensamples; but how foreign this is to the Point in hand, let all wise Men judg. And for that in

1 Pet. 3. 21. proves as little; for there the Apostle sheweth, as the Ark was the instrumental

way to save Noah and his Family from the Deluge; so Baptism is a Sign and Symbol unto all

that believe Christ's Death and Resurrection, they shall be delivered from the Deluge of

Eternal Wrath. But how doth this prove Circumcision a Type of Baptism? Indeed, had the

Apostle mentioned Circumcision antecedent to Baptism, as he doth the Ark, and call it the

like Figure, it had been more to the purpose. Gentlemen, ‘tis disingenuous to apply that as a

Type of a Thing, which is no Type of it, and to call that the Antitype of a Type which belongs

not to it, but hath another thing exprest as the Type of it by the Apostle. You know every

Antitype hath its proper Type; therefore to make that a Type of a thing when another is

exprest, argueth either much Inconsiderateness and want of Study upon the Text, or overmuch

Boldness to assert things so easily detected. And whatever you may conceive of, there being

no need to have it expresly set down in that Method, what Persons, whether Infants or not,

should be baptized, the Custom being so well known, our Saviour, who was wiser than we,

saw it necessary, or he would never have injoyned it as necessary, that Persons be taught,

believe, repent, before that Ordinance, be administred. Is not this a very poor Answer you

give to the Query? if Females were not circumcised, why do you baptize them, if that be the

Type of Baptism? You tell us the Impossibility of the Modus, or Manner, how makes the

Question foreign? this Answer will not satisfy a tender Conscience, nor make many

Proselytes; the thing was not impossible to be done upon Females, had it been God's

Ordinance, tho could not have been done after the same Modus, yet might have been by your

own Concession, when you say the Heathens circumcised the NUMFH Nimphæ of their

Females. Certainly had Circumcision been a Type of Baptism, the Females would have been

the Subjects of the Ordinance as well at the Males. You telling the World, Men, Women and

Children were baptized among the Heathen before admitted into the Jewish Religion, the

Divine Rule having no Tongue to speak this Language, you may as well perswade us to

believe Transubstantiation and Purgatory.

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

You answer from the Scripture, and first from the order of the words in the Commission, I am

2

astonished at this Answer; for the order of the words are against you. Do you not confess your

selves, that maqhteusate pei,nta ta. e;qnh, disciple all Nations, or teach all Nations, is before

bapti,zontej, baptizing them? Can Infants be taught and made Christ's Disciples? you know

‘tis impossible. And tho you subtilly joyn Dida,skontej next to bapti,zontej, which comes not

in till the next Verse, because teaching them is there added after Baptism; therefore you will

ungentilely conclude Persons may be baptized before they are taught, which our Lord himself

made a good guard against that, when he saith, Teach them, disciple them first, and yet have

need to be taught all their time after, for the perfecting their Graces: The parallel Text which

contains the Commission, Mark 16. 16. explains Mat. 28. this saith, let them first be taught,

Mark, saith let them first believe, and St. Peter saith, Repent, and be baptized, according to

St. John Baptist's Doctrine. Whereas you say, maqhteu,sate, disciple all Nations, contains in it

the two others that follow, viz. Baptizing and Teaching, as if they were to be made Disciples

first by Baptism, and afterward to be taught, which is quite beside the Text, which saith, make

them Disciples by teaching, believing, repenting, then baptize them: yet after this they will

have need of teaching. Mathetusate, say you, signifies to disciple all Nations personally and

subjectively; and by baptizing them you make them Disciples: This is a grand mistake, for

you are to make them Disciples by teaching, which Infants are not capable of. Go, teach all

Nations, baptizing them, &c. 'tis as if a King should command an Herald to proclaim, that

whatever Person, Male or Female, in the Nation, would learn the Greek Tongue, should have

a Wedg of Gold; doth it follow now that every Person in the Nation should have this Gold?

every body will say that is Nonsequitur, ‘tis he or she only that hath learned the Greek

Tongue. So none in the Nation are to be baptized, but what are first taught. When the Prophet

Haggai saith, The Desire of all Nations should come, meaning Christ, he doth not mean every

individual in the Nation, but only them which believe would desire his coming. When the

Prophet Malachi saith, in the Person of God, You have robbed me, even this whole Nation,

doth he intend little Infants had robbed him, or rather the Adult, who were capable so to do?

2. Whereas the Mercury saith, Children are capable of Proselytism, because Christ said,

Suffer little children to come unto me, because, say they, the original word is the same with

proselqei/n, to proselyte: We answer, if the Greek word for Children signifieth, as Piscator

maintains, one capable of teaching, being observed to be the same word where St. Paul saith

to Timothy, From a Child thou hast know the Scriptures; that is, since a Boy, capable to learn;

if it be such a Child, we grant he is capable of Proselytism: but if Children here be meant little

Infants, as most understand it, then, tho we grant, of such are the Kingdom of Heaven, and

may be fit Subjects, by Grace, of the Church Triumphant, yet we deny such to be capable of

being made Proselytes in the common acceptation of the word, and so Members of the

Church Militant, because they want those Qualifications pre-requisite to such a State, which

you grant by not admitting them to the Lord’s-Supper. But, say you, whole Families were

baptized: We say, well they might, seeing they believed, as is asserted of the Jaylor, and his

House. Acts 16. 33, 34. So Crispus the chief Ruler believed in God, with all his House, Acts

18. 8. and were baptized; for Lydia and her House, those they baptized, those they comforted,

Acts 16. 40. and called Brethren, which cannot be applied unto Infants. The word All in a Text

doth not always signify every individual in a Family: ‘Tis said that Elkanah and all his House

went up to the yearly Sacrifice at Jerusalem, 1 Sam 1. 21. yet v. 22 it is said Hannah and the

Child staid at home. So August Cæsar is said to tax all the World, which was no more than

that little part where the Roman Empire stretched, Luke 2. As to your Argument of Children

being in the Covenant with their Parents, it’s well if one in a thousand know what you mean

by it. I know but two ways of being in Covenant, that is, absolutely, or conditionally upon

Repentance and Faith: you dare not say all the Infant-Seed are in the Covenant in the former

sense, for then all shall be saved, and if in Covenant in the latter, so are the Children of

Unbelievers the same, and so have the same right to the Seals of the Covenant. This may

3

seem an Answer to that Query, What Priviledg the Children of Believers have more than those

of Unbelievers, besides Prayer, good Examples, with good Education, they cannot have much

more by your own Consent: for if every one personally in the Nations ought to be baptized

from the Commission, then the Children of Unbelievers have the same Priviledg with that of

Believers, the Promise of Remission, and Gift of the Holy Ghost, is the same to the poor

Gentiles a far off upon believing, as to the natural Seed of Abraham; and those, tho the Seed

of Abraham, enjoy it upon no other account; if we are Christ’s, we are Abraham’s Seed; we

must now reckon from Christ to Abraham, not from Abraham to Christ. The Apostle's Logick

is, If ye are Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s, this Logick is jure divino; but to reckon from

Abraham to Christ is jure humano; if you are Abraham’s, a Child of a Believer, therefore

Christ's, is such Logick the holy Apostle condemns, therefore let not Man justify it.

The Holiness mentioned, 1 Cor. 7. is neither inherent nor federal; the Question to the Apostle

was, Whether it might be lawful for the believing Husband to put away the unbelieving Wife?

so the contrary; the Apostle answers in the Negative, By no means; what is his Reason? why

then your Children would be accounted unclean, in plain, Bastards; but in living together they

will be accounted holy, that is, legitimate, lawfully begotten in Wedlock: for the Husband is

sanctified to the Wife, and the Wife to the Husband in a matrimonial way. The Greek

preposition evn is well translated to by the Geneva: but what is this to the baptizing Infants?

There can be no more concluded, because these Children are said to be holy, therefore to be

baptized, than the baptizing Zacharias’s Bells and Pots, because said to be holy, which the

Papists have made holy by Baptism, as some Histories tell us.

Universal Consent of the Churches in all Countries is brought as another Argument for

Pedobaptism: I do not remember that ever I read in Holy Writ, that any of the Churches in the

Countries of Asia, or any other consented to this, but the contrary; the Churches in Rome,

Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, Philippi, Coloss, Samaria, Cesarea, were all for baptizing the

Adult; and for any Consent, tho never so general and universal, that agrees not with the Rule

of Faith, we have little regard unto it; we have no need of human Authority to confirm Divine

Truths.

Tradition, and the uniform Practice of Christian Churches from the first Plantation, is another

of your Arguments. We answer with Dr. Taylor, Tradition Apostolical is pretended, that

Infants were baptized; but at this, saith he, we are not much moved, for we rely upon the

written Word of God as sufficient to establish all true Religion. The pretended Proof for

Infant-Baptism being an Apostolical Tradition, is taken from Dionysius the Areopagite, Justin

Martyr's Responses, Origin's Homilies, Cyprian in an Epistle to one Fidus; these have all

been examined, refuted, found fabulous, and forged. See Danvers on Baptism, p. 133, to 150.

The Council of Carthage, of Neocesarea, Laodicea, in the 4 th Century decreed the necessity

of Confession of Sins, and Profession before Baptism; this takes off both universal Consent

and uniform Practice of the Churches, as you asserted. Dr. Taylor saith further, Tradition

ought to be proved by more than one Evidence, viz. Origen, whom all Ages have condemned

of Error, and whose Works are so spurious, that one knows not whether he reads Origen or

Ruffinus. The pretended Proof brought from Antiquity, is as lame and halting as the rest; our

Baptism alone can plead Antiquity, being only found in the Scriptures of Truth; and your

selves have fairly confest, that there is nothing to be found in the Letter of the Word for

Pedobaptism. You tell us there were no Congregations of Anabaptists until about three

hundred Years after Christ: We answer, we know not how there should be any Anabaptists,

that is, Re-baptizers (as you have confest we are unjustly called) forasmuch as there were no

Infants baptized, or rather sprinkled, until about that time. For your Candor here we do thank

4

you, in confessing implicitly and unavoidably, that Infant Baptism was not practised until

about 300 Years after Christ, and that is the very reason there could be no Anabaptists, ( viz.

Re-baptizers) till then; but there were Baptized churches many in a few Years after Christ, as

that at Jerusalem, Ephesus, Galatia, Corinth, Philippi, &c. But one thing we must blame you

for, that you left a Blank, and gave us no account of the Reason, nor your intent to put in an

Errata about it in the next; and had I not by meer Providence read the next Mercury to that of

Baptism, where you supply the Blank, by telling us that it was about 300 Years after Christ,

before any Churches of Anabaptists were, we could not have given you so full an Answer. 'Tis

well known Augustin was the first that preached Infant-Baptism necessary, in his heat against

Pelagius, who denied Original Sin, which Austin supposed to be taken away in Baptism,

which agreed with the Decree of the Council of Carthage; That whosoever did affirm

Baptism took not away Original Sin, should be anathematized; had they said the Blood of

Christ, it had been more Orthodox. You are not ignorant, I suppose, that about the 5 th Century

Infant-Baptism was confirmed by the Pope, and his Council at Milivetan, a Province in

Africa. Magdeburg Hist. Cent. 5. p. 835.

Quest. 3. The Answer to that is honest, as above-said; there is no express word in the

Scripture for Infant-Baptism, but appears from necessary Consequences4. Sirs, what need we

seek to prove our Right to a good Estate by a dark far-fetched Consequence, which may fail

when we have a positive Witness at hand? And were it our business to treat of the Creation of

the World, whether made of pre-existent Matter; or Christ being the second Person in the

Trinity, born of the Virgin, the Godhead of Christ, we could prove some, if not all, from better

Arguments than Consequences; but we have no need to go for Consequences to prove a

Gospel-Baptism, because we have a positive Command for it; it is great Folly for Men to feed

upon Husks, when they may eat the Fat of the Kidnies of Wheat.

Quest. 4. Why Christ was not baptized before he was thirty Years old? You answer, there is no

adhering to a Doctrine before it is instituted, or preached. Gentlemen, you know, or may

know, that John had his Commission to teach and baptize some time before Christ came to

him to subject to that Ordinance, And if Infant-Baptism were much before our Saviour's time,

which you beg, 'tis much he was not baptized in his Infancy. You will say to that, it was not

then instituted as a Gospel-Ordinance; but this we say, had Infant-Baptism been of God, there

is all the reason in the World to believe there would not only have been a Commission for it,

but the Matter should have been so ordered, as Christ should have been baptized in his

Infancy as our Pattern: but behold 'tis other-wise; therefore the reason why Christ was

baptized about thirty Years old, was, that his Commission and Example might correspond,

that as he commanded the Adult believing penitent Soul to be baptized, he strengthens his

Commission by his Practice, to teach us that Infants of no understanding were not the

Subjects of this Ordinance, but the Adult, and those who could give a reason of their Hope

with Meekness and Wisdom, and who should desire it with Judgment, Love, and Affection, as

the Eunuch, See, here is Water, what doth hinder? If thou believest, thou mayst, saith Philip,

not else, for I dare not go beyond my Lord's Commission.

Quest. 5. In the fifth Question you have been partly fair, and partly foul: fair, in granting the

right manner of Administration to be by Dipping, looking upon that way to be a clear

Representation of our Saviour's descending into the Grave, abiding there, and rising up again,

according as the Apostle makes use of it, when he says, We are buried with him in Baptism,

these are your own Words. But you have been unfair, yea foul, in a confident asserting that the

4That which follows logically, or can be deduced or inferred; a logical result or inference. †Formerly, the conclusion of a

syllogism as opposed to the premisses (obs.). Oxford English Dictionary, online.

5

Church hath Power to dispense with Circumstantials5, and the manner of Actions, tho not the

Act. But, Sirs, Do not Men dispense with the very Act when they Rantize instead of Baptize?

is it not another thing, another Act? Suppose I should bid my Servant to dip any thing all over

in the Water, and instead of that he puts his Hand in Bason and sprinkles some drops of Water

upon it, I rebuke him because it answers not my end, being another Act: When the very

Essence of a thing is wanting which makes good its Institution, it's then another thing. In

Pedobaptism the right Subject and right Form of Administration is wanting, therefore it is

another thing. Indeed you do assign a Reason why you sprinkle instead of dip, because our

Climate is cold; I am not afraid to say Unbelief, if not Pride, is the Mother of this Argument.

Did our Lord except this in the Commission, Go into all the World, teach and baptize, only in

cold Countries sprinkle, I remember no such Exception, but 'tis Unbelief's Addition. Did the

Martyrs trust God with their Bodies in the Fire, and shall not we trust him in the Water? Pray,

Gentlemen, tell us where God hath empowered the Church to dispense with Circumstantials

which are included, yea exprest in a positive Command? I know not but you might have been

very proper for Medicant Friars, and better skill’d in begging than digging. You assert God

hath given the Church such Power, but prove nothing. Hath God less regard to his Worship

under the Gospel, than under the Law? Must not a Tool be lifted up to the Altar of rough

Stone to beautify it, lest it be defiled with Man's Addition? Is Uzzah struck dead for touching

the Ark, because not according to the due order, tho done with a well meaning Zeal? Shall the

Men of Bethshemeth lose Life (abundance of them) for peeping into the Ark? Must Moses

make the Tabernacle exactly according to the Pattern shewed him in the Mount? Must

Naaman be confined to wash seven times in Jordan, and no other place? and shall any dare to

Rantize when God commands them to Baptize? We do not deny but some Circumstantials

may be left to the Wisdom of the Church, as to Time, Place, &c. But where God hath plainly

and positively exprest his Mind, there must be no alteration, as in the case in hand. To the

seventh Response of the seventh Question we have spoken before, concerning Children being

in the Covenant. As to your eighth Response to the last Question, Whether Children have

Faith or no? you assert they have Faith potentia, tho not in actu visibili; as an Artist when he

is indisposed or asleep is potentially an Artist, tho not actually. Sirs, suppose all you have said

should be granted, that Children may have Faith potentia, and that of such is the Kingdom of

Glory; that God radiates and shines upon the Souls of Children in Heaven. And grant all that

to be true you speak about those Children dying in New England, all will give no Relief in the

Case; for whatever Faith there may be potentia, if God requires by an express Law, it must

also be in actu visibili, actual and visible; nothing can give us a Dispensation to baptize

without it, the Commission is plain, He that believeth, and is baptized, &c, Dr. Taylor's words

will not be impertinently brought in here; for any to assert Infants have Faith, or any other

inspired Habit, such are constrained to answer this without Revelation against Reason,

common Sense, and all the Experience in the World, no greater advantage, can be desired

against any Position.

For a close. Whereas, in a way of Reproach, you call some Ring-leaders: we know who it was

that called the greatest Apostle a Ring-leader of the Sect of the Nazarens: and to assert so

positively that those were cast down when they came to die for their patronizing this

Doctrine; and that in those Ages wherein Infant-Baptism was opposed, you say it was by such

who were grossly erronious in other things: All this I suppose is as true, as when the Jews said

Christ cast out Devils by the Prince of Devils Beelzebub. But suppose this should be all true,

is this good Logick? Judas, was a Traitor, Ergo, all the Apostles were Traitors. Because some

of the Communion of the National Church of England die at Tyburn almost every Sessions as

5. Of, relating to, or dependent on circumstances. circumstantial evidence: indirect evidence inferred from circumstances which

afford a certain presumption, or appear explainable only on one hypothesis; so the lie circumstantial (Shakespeare): a

contradiction given indirectly by circumstances or details. Oxford English Dictionary, online.

6

Criminals; it would be neither good Logick, nor according to the Golden Rule, to say all of

that Communion are such.

To conclude; some keep the best Wine till last, but yours seems to be the weakest, to say some

Persons do what in them lies to keep their own Children out of the Covenant, and that it is an

uncomely Cruelty: Indeed were it true, so it was; but what honest Man, think you, would keep

his Children out of the Covenant, if it lay in his Power to bring them there? This we know,

God's Covenant is an everlasting Covenant, and it is not in Man to frustrate the absolute

Purpose of God: And nothing can be more vain, than to think the doing of a thing never

commanded of God, should affect the Souls of our Children. Signs and Seals of the Covenant

are to be applied to the proper Subjects. Tho Lot was a holy Man, yet he had no such

Priviledg as to circumcise his Infant-Seed, because it was limited to Abraham and his Seed,

the Male-sex, and the eighth day appointed by a special Command; even so Baptism is

limited by a positive Command of God to actual Believers.

This is all from him who wisheth you the same Happiness with himself.

H. C.

FINIS

ADVERTISEMENT.

THere is a Book lately printed, entituled, Believers Baptism from Heaven , &c. with an

Answer to Thomas Wall's Book, Baptism Anatomiz'd: Together with an Answer to a part of

Mr. Daniel William's Catechism in his Book to Youth. In Pag. 131 . he propounds these

Questions, What if a child will not agree, but refuse to agree to the Covenant to which his

Infant-Baptism engaged him? Himself makes this astonishing Answer. 1. It's a rejecting

Christ our Saviour, and a renouncing the Blessings of the Gospel. 2. It's the damning Sin. 3.

It's the Heart of all Sin. 4. It's Rebellion continued against my Maker. 5. It's Ingratitude and

Perjury to my Redeemer. 6. It's gross Injustice to my Parents. 7. It's an Affront to all the

godly. 8. It's self-killing Cruelty to my own Soul. In the fore-mentioned Book you have a

particular Answer to all these. It is to be had at Mr. Hancock's in Castle-Alley ; and at Mr.

Dewin's in Popes-head-Alley a Coffee-house.

This text was transcribed from scanned TIF files downloaded from Early English Books

Online (EEBO - eebo.chadwyck.com) and accessed through the University of Sydney

Library. The original book is from the British Library. Reel position: Wing / 2865:03. Date:

1692.

Acknowledgement: I would like to thank Dr James M. Renihan of The Institute for

Reformed Baptist Studies (www.reformedbaptistinstitute.org) for his assistance in rendering

the Greek present in the original text.

Transcription by Mr Mark Smith, A Reformed Baptist's Disk (www.rbdisk.vor.org), © 2017.

7