Confidence Corrected, &c.

IT is a ſad Thing, and much to be lamented, that there ſhould continue to this Day, not only ſo many Differences in point of Judgment amongſt Chriſtians, but alſo ſo much Pride, and Pre­judice of Spirit one againſt another, by Reaſon of the ſame; inſomuch, that there can hardly be the leaſt Difference imagi­nable amongſt Profeſſors of Chriſtianity in Matters of Judgment, but they are too readily turn'd into ſo many Marks of Reproach, and Cauſes of Malignity, one againſt another. This has been very ſadly experimented in this Nation, for many Years paſt; and, to this Day, finds but too much Entertainment in the Minds of many, who ſtill reckon themſelves Men in Reputation, for Wiſdom and Honour. But, though it may juſtly be expected, do what we can, that there will ſtill remain Differences in Judgment, and Controverſies among Chriſtians in ſome things; yet of all the Controverſies that ever ap­pear'd upon the Stage of Chriſtianity, I cannot but moſt of all admire at this Controverſy about Infant-Baptiſm: And that chiefly upon two Accounts.

Firſt, That ever it ſhould become ſuch a Controverſy as it has done.

Secondly, At the ſtrange Effects that it has produced.

Firſt, I cannot but admire, how this ever became ſuch a Contro­verſy amongſt Chriſtians, as it hath done; eſpecially amongſt ſuch Chriſtians, as do daily profeſs and declare, that the Scriptures are the only Rule of Faith and Worſhip, the only Guide to all Duty and Obe­dience, relating to everlaſting Happineſs; whenas there is not the leaſt Word, nor ſhadow of a Word (and that by the Confeſſion of Parties) for Infant-Baptiſm, in all the whole Book of God. I cannot imagine what the matter ſhould be, that Men ſhould make a Trade, of ſtraining their Wits, to find out ſo many Tricks and Inventions, to maintain and defend a Practice, and count it part of God's Service and Worſhip, that they know, and are convic'd in their Conſciences (as appears by their frequent Acknowledgments) is no where to be found in God's Word. There is ſcarcely any other Controverſy, that ever4 happen'd in the World among Chriſtians, but makes a greater pre­tence to Scripture than this doth, or can: It is not ſo much to be won­dred at, that there has happened ſuch a Difference among Chriſtians about the Tenets of Arminius and Calvin, about Abſolute and Reſpe­ctive Election and Reprobation, and all the Appurtenances belonging thereunto; becauſe there pretty plainly ſeems to be ſome conſidera­ble Glances in Scripture in favour of both Opinions: yea, the very Socinians themſelves, (which deny the Deity of Chriſt) challenge a far fairer Pretence to Scripture, than any Pedo-baptiſt can do; be­cauſe the Text plainly ſaith, My Father is greater than I: Which as little as it is, if the Pedo-baptiſts could but produce ſuch a Glance as that, in Scripture, for Infant-Baptiſm, it would be more than ever yet was done upon that account. Yea, the very Papiſts are leſs to be wondred at, in their Plea for Tranſubſtantiation; becauſe the Text ſaith plainly, This is my Body, &c. Which is a Plea, beyond what any Pedo-baptiſt can pretend unto, in the behalf of that which they make ſuch a ſtir about. Yet how is the Weakneſs and Folly of Socinians and Papiſts, and others, condemn'd and cenſur'd by many Pedo-baptiſts, whilſt they magnify and bleſs themſelves in that for which they cannot produce even ſo much ſeeming Authority from Scripture.

I queſtion not, but I may preſume, that if a hundred of the moſt Learned and Judicious Men in the World, ſhould read the Bible o­ver forty times from one end to the other, they would never ſo much as think of Infant-baptiſm, by virtue of that Reading, and their beſt Conſideration into the Bargain, if the Voice of Tradition and Cuſtom had not poſſeſt them with it beforehand: and if ſo, how juſtly may it be wonder'd at, that ſuch a thing ſhould ever become a Con­troverſy amongſt Pretenders to Scripture? — The Baptiſts ſay, In­fant-baptiſm is no where to be found in Scripture: The Pedo-baptiſts frequently confeſs the ſame thing. — The Baptiſts ſay, that whatſo­ever is not to be found in Scripture, is no Part of Divine Worſhip: — All Proteſtant Pedo-baptiſts, do freely acknowledg this alſo. Now who can tell where the Controverſy lies? Is it not ſtrange that Men ſhould pretend to differ, yea, and to differ greatly too, in that very thing wherein they ſeem to be ſo plainly and fully agreed? Who can give any good Reaſon now, why this Concluſion ſhould not neceſſarily be agreed to by mutual Conſent, namely, that Infant-baptiſm is no part of Divine Worſhip? Which if it were, the whole Controverſy would be gone at once. — The Baptiſts do from time to time aſſert,5 that there is neither Precept for, nor Precedent of, nor Promiſe unto, Infant-baptiſm, in all the Word of God: And their moſt Learned and Judicious Adverſaries, do frequently grant and confeſs the ſame thing; and yet ſtrive to maintain and uphold the Controverſy in the World. This is one Part of my Wonder, with reſpect to this Matter.

Secondly, I cannot but wonder at the ſtrange Effects it has produ­ced, and they are many; but I ſhall only touch upon one, namely, That though the Principle and Practice of the Baptiſts (ſo called) is in the point of Baptiſm, ſo plainly and plentifully laid down in Scrip­ture, and holds ſuch an undeniable Correſpondency and Agreement with Primitive Purity, yet that they ſhould be loaded with ſo much Contempt and Reproach, as they have been, and yet are, by many in this Nation, for no other thing than this honeſt and harmleſs, yea, Honourable and Heaven-born Practice. Who is it that is any whit wiſe and judicious, that knows not that Chriſt and the Primitive Chriſtians were baptiz'd, as they now plead and practiſe? Yet how have they for many years, in this Chriſtian Kingdom, been not only ſlighted, but rendred odious, and counted as the very Dreggs and Off-ſcouring of the World, even for this very thing? Yea, the worſt and vileſt of Men, have been counted worthy of more Honour and Re­ſpect amongſt People than they; inſomuch, that Highway-men and Anabaptiſts, have been almoſt Titles of equal Dignity. Is it not ſtrange that any that pretend to be the Diſciples of Chriſt, and the Followers of Jeſus, ſhould dare ſo boldly to throw downright and naked Reproach upon the Practice of their Saviour; and caſt all man­ner of Dirt and Scorn in the Faces of any, meerly for endeavouring to follow him in that which he has not only commanded, but ſet them an Example in his own Perſon? — Though bleſſed be God, through the gracious Influence, and benign Aſpects of our Chief Rulers, this Spirit at this day is ſomewhat corrected and abated; yet to this moment, there are but too many that ſtill ſtrive to foment and cheriſh it. This is the ſecond Part of my Wonder, with reſpect to this Controverſy, above any other, that ever happen'd among ſober Chriſtians. — Now how far our Athenian Gentlemen have contributed towards the Removal of this Wonder, I ſhall take upon me the Bold­neſs a little to remark: — Wherefore now I ſhall direct my Diſcourſe to them.

Gentlemen, I will not ſay, that you have ſo much beſpatter'd us with Dirt and Reproach, as ſome others have done before you; yet6 I cannot but obſerve that you, at leaſt, ſeem to have a good mind, (if I may uſe ſuch a Soloeciſm) to be nibbling at it; and that appears chiefly, if we conſider theſe three things.

1ſt, How liberally and tartly you beſtow that ſilly and idle Nick­name of Reproach [Anabaptiſt] upon us, ſo often repeated in your Papers? Though you know 'tis a Name we diſown and deny, eſpe­cially too to do it at the ſame time that the Queſtion is militating betwixt us: Which indeed, beſides the Malignity that ſeems to be in it, is an implicite begging of the whole Queſtion. For what do you elſe, when you aforehand briskly take it for granted, that we are a Parcel of Anabaptiſts, making no Queſtion of that, when you know you are a diſputing that very Queſtion, which ought to determine whether we are ſo or no? Pray, Sirs, why may not we as juſtly make a trade of calling you, and all of your Party or Perſwaſion, An­ti-baptiſts or Cata-baptiſts? for you cannot but know, that according to our Principles, you do as much deny Baptiſm, and abuſe it too, as we can poſſibly, according to your Principles, be twice Baptiz'd; but we reckon it below any that pretend to Wiſdom and Ingenuity, to make ſuch beggarly things any part of their Refuge: Wherefore, Sirs, I think I may ſafely conclude, you have not dealt ſo candidly with us in this Particular, as you ought to have done.

2dly. In that you very unworthily, if not proudly, inſinuate, that there are none, nor ever were any among the Baptiſts, that are ſo knowing in the Cuſtoms of Nations, Linguiſms, Radixes, or Original Significations in Languages, as you are; and that may perhaps be the great Cauſe of Diſputes upon this Subject: When, Sirs, it is very well known, that there have been, and are to this Day, many amongſt them, of very great Parts and Learning, and excellently well skill'd in all thoſe Matters you talk of. Wherefore, Gentlemen, if you are Ignorant herein, you might have done better to have kept your Igno­rance to your ſelves: But if you are not Ignorant hereof, there's no­thing can excuſe you from an invidious and ſpiteful Inſinuation. And you farther politickly expoſe them to popular Prejudice, by giving them a Paraliptical Bite, and by an Apophaſis cunningly charge them with a Spirit of Contention; which may alſo be a great cauſe of Diſ­putes upon this Subject: As if your Opinion and Practice about Infant-Baptiſm, was ſo manifeſtly clear and evident, that it's ſcarce poſſible for any Body to make the leaſt Doubt or Scruple about it, if they be not afore-hand troubled with a Spirit of Contention; or elſe ignorant of the Cuſtoms of Nations, &c. But pray, Sirs, Why a7 Spirit of Contention in the Baptiſts, any more than in your ſelves? What's the Matter, Gentlemen, that they muſt needs preſently be ſup­poſed to be Criminals in this Caſe for diſputing, any more than their Antagoniſts that diſpute againſt them? Really, Sirs, if there muſt needs be a Spirit of Contention on one ſide, it may with a little Conſidera­tion eaſily be perceived, that it lies rather at your Door than at theirs; if you do but ſeriouſly reflect upon the Darkneſs of your own Practice, and the Clearneſs of theirs with whom you contend, Adverſaries themſelves being Judges.

3dly. In that you ſo impertinently and boldly mention ſeveral Perſons, whom you call Ring-leaders amongſt Anabaptiſts, who are ſuppoſed to be guilty of ſeveral Crimes, and remarkable Enormities; for no other end that can rationally be thought of, but to expoſe your Antagoniſts to farther Contempt and Prejudice. Here, Gentlemen, I cannot but admire at your Wiſdom, (if I had ſaid Folly, I think it had been no great matter) that you ſhould be ſo inconſiderately hardy, to venture upon ſuch an Argument as this.

When, in the Firſt Place, we have juſt cauſe to queſtion the Truth of thoſe Things, as to Matter of Fact, being, as may rationally be ſuppos'd, firſt promoted by Lying and Malicious Papiſts, who ſpeak as bad things of Calvin and Luther, and the Waldenſes before them: And may juſtly be thought, to be taken from them, by ſome inveterate Proteſtants, which bore them as little good Will as the Papiſts did, or Mr. Roſs himſelf. Alas! What ſtrange Work have we ſeen, even in our own Nation, upon this account? How many good Men have been miſerably miſrepreſented before our Faces, when there have been Thouſands alive, at the ſame time, that were able to have detected the Scandal, but durſt not attempt it? How many Men in England, have even been Diaboliz'd in the Face of the Sun, that in ſome time af­ter have been little leſs than Canoniz'd for Saints? and had it not been for remarkable Revolutions, had never recovered out of the ſhape of Devils. And amongſt many other Things, Mr. Roſs's Brother Edwards his Gangrena, is too freſh in Memory to be forgotten.

Secondly; If all were unqueſtionably true, you cannot chuſe but know there is no Argument in it, it is not only the weakeſt, but the worſt of Arguments; it greatly reflects upon the Wiſdom of any that ſhall venture to uſe it. For tho Hind, Hannam, Cutting Dick, and the Golden Farmer were all Villains; yet who doubts but there are many Pedo-Baptiſts in England, and other Countries too, that are honeſt Men? and not only ſo, but their Principles too may be good, notwithſtand­ing any thing in this Argument againſt them.

Thirdly; If there were any thing of Argument in it, who need matter it? Pray, Gentlemen, conſider, who do you think has moſt cauſe to fear it, if there were any thing in it, they, or your ſelves? If they were diſpos'd to draw the Saw againſt you here, you may eaſily foreſee what dreadful and bitter work might be made with you, by virtue of this Argument. Really, Sirs, it argues you are heavily put to••, and in a deſperate Caſe, that you dare venture up­on ſuch dangerous and ſelf-killing Methods: But you had better ſuffer a Famine of Arguments for ſeven Years together, than to meddle with ſuch Noli me Tangere's as theſe; for you cannot but know, that we might in this Caſe, give you Argumentum ad Hominem, at leaſt forty for one: And if ſo, then how wiſely you have done in this Matter, you may upon farther Thoughts become your own Judges. But I care not to inſiſt any farther upon this, unleſs we be farther fool­iſhly provok'd.

I now come to conſider how you anſwer the Queſtions about Infant-Baptiſm, chiefly in your Firſt Mercury, and the Second occaſionally, as there may be any freſh matter worth regarding.

The firſt Queſtion you undertake to anſwer, is, Whether (as is commonly taught) Baptiſm is the proper and natural Antitype of Circumciſion? &c. Your poſitive Anſwer is, that in many Caſes it will bear the Affirmative; which you endeavour to prove, from ſome fol­lowing Conſiderations.

And your firſt is, from the Cuſtom amongſt the Jews, in proſely­ting the Gentiles into their Religion: So far indeed (ſay you) Cir­cumciſion was not properly a Type, but rather the Continuance of a Cuſtom, that by St. John, our Saviour and his Apoſtles, had added unto it, all that was neceſſary to make it a full, proper, and pertinent Type of Baptiſm. Now, Sirs, what a ſtrange, looſe, unintelligible and un­ſatisfactory Anſwer is this?

For firſt; Your poſitive Anſwer is not ſo poſitive as it ought to have been; for you do not poſitively anſwer the Queſtion at all, ei­ther that Circumciſion was, or it was not a Tyye of Baptiſm: Now this I humbly conceive you ought to have done, namely, poſitively to have aſſerted, that Circumciſion was a Type of Baptiſm, if you had look'd upon it ſo to have been, notwithſtanding they might have differ'd in ſome Circumſtances, as indeed all Types and Anti­types do in ſomething or other, otherwiſe they could not have been two, but one and the ſame thing: for things that differ not at all, cannot be different things. And divers things may agree with other9 things, under ſome general Conſiderations, of which they never were Types, as well as thoſe that were: Iſaac and Iſhmael, were both Sons of Abraham; therein there was an Agreement. 2dly, They were both Subjects of Circumciſion, there they agreed again, &c. yet Iſhmael was no Type of Iſaac. A Horſe is a Subſtance, ſo is a Man, there's an Agreement; a Horſe is a Living Creature, ſo is a Man, there's an Agreement again; a Horſe eats and drinks, ſo does a Man, there's another Agreement; yet neither of them was ever a Type of the other: So that your poſitive Anſwer, does as ſtrong­ly imply that Circumciſion was not a Type of Baptiſm, as it does that it was.

But ſecondly, Is it not ſtrange that ſuch Pretenders to Ingenui­ty as you are, ſhould bring a Conſideration to prove Circumciſi­on a Type of Baptiſm, which as ſoon as ever you have laid down, you plainly confeſs and acknowledg it proves no ſuch thing, but rather the contrary? For do not you plainly tell us, that you ſhall endeavour to prove the Affirmative, by theſe following Conſiderati­ons?

And the firſt is, From the Cuſtom amongſt the Jews; and yet in the very next Words, you tell us as plainly, it proves no ſuch Mat­ter: for ſo far it was no Type, but the Continuance of a Cuſtom. Pray, Gentlemen, why then did you urge this Conſideration for ſuch a Purpoſe, when you knew beforehand, it was not capable of per­forming that Service? Methinks, you ſhould never be in love with ſuch a Cauſe, as doth ſo ſtrangly captivate your Intellects; as not only appears in this, but in other things that follow: Circumciſion (ſay you) was rather the Continuance of a Cuſtom, &c. Now, Sirs, here I muſt of neceſſity be puzzled to find out your Meaning? Your Words are ſo unintelligibly laid down, that it will be hard for me to know what you intend by them; and if I ſhould, without any more ado, take that to be your Meaning, that the Order and Grammar of your Words here do imply, I know not but I might wrong you in your Meaning, which I would not willingly do if I could help it: I muſt be forc'd therefore, to gueſs at 2 or 3 things, and hit upon it if I can: Some one or other of which, I think muſt be your Meaning, or elſe I am like to continue ignorant of it till fur­ther Revelation. Certainly theſe words Continuance of a Cuſtom here, muſt refer either to Circumciſion it ſelf, or elſe to that other Cuſtom a­mong the Jews you ſpeak of; if to Circumciſion, as one might juſtly be under a Temptation to think it may, when you ſo plainly tell10 us both Negatively and Poſitively, what it was not, and what it was; not a Type, but a Continuance of a Cuſtom; who can think but you muſt mean Circumciſion all this while? For how Circumciſion could be the Continuance of another thing, I do not well underſtand: if you had ſaid a Cauſe or Occaſion of Continuance, there might have been ſome ſmall matter in it, though not very much; but to be the Conti­nuance it ſelf of another thing, is not eaſy to be perceiv'd. Now then, if this Paſſage of yours be referr'd to Circumciſion, then you on­ly tell us, that Circumciſion was a Continuance of Circumciſion: Which is ſuch a groſs Identity, as is not much incident to ingenious Men: But if we refer it to the Cuſtom among the Jews, then in the firſt place I ask, how could Circumciſion, which was a Precept of God, be the Continuance of another thing, that was only a Cuſtom among Men? Was the Practice and Continuance of the one, the Practice and Continuance of the other? or how would you be underſtood?

Secondly; If your word Cuſtom here, relates to the Cuſtom of the Jews aforeſaid, then you ſeem to ſay, it was that Cuſtom that St. John, our Saviour and his Apoſtles, made a full, proper, and pertinent Type of Baptiſm; and then it's ſo far from appearing that Cir­cumciſion was a Type of Baptiſm, which was the thing to be proved, that after all, it falls to the lot of this Jewiſh Cuſtom, to be this Type: Which our Saviour it ſeems, was ſo much in love with, that he and his Apoſtles, make it a Type of their own Baptiſm: Which is not only a very ſtrange thing, but wonderfully remote from your Purpoſe.

But becauſe I would do you all the Juſtice I can, there is another thing which I have thought on, which may be your Meaning, for ought I know, but whether it is or no, that I cannot determine; but if it be, it is very far fetch'd, and muſt needs have a very uncouth Reference. However, the Suppoſition is this, namely, that St. John, our Saviour and his Apoſtles, added to the old Cuſtom of the Jews, all that was neceſſary to make Circumciſion a Type of Baptiſm: And if ſo, then it's a plain Caſe, that Circumciſion was never ordain'd or intended by God, neither in its Original nor Progreſs, to be a Type of Baptiſm, till Baptiſm was made a Goſpel-Ordinance by Chriſt and his Apoſtles; which is a very ſtrange and Self-contra­dicting Notion. For if Circumciſion was ever a Type a Baptiſm, it muſt be ſo before ever Baptiſm, as a Antitype, could have a Being; for upon the Coming of the Antitype, the Type ceaſes: As ſoon as ever the Antitype lives and is in force, the Type dies11 and is out of date: how then could Circumciſion be made a Type of Baptiſm, by Baptiſm it ſelf? when according to this Suppoſi­tion, it muſt continue all its Life-long without ſuch a Title, and when it was dead, it could never come at it. If Circumciſion were not the Type of Baptiſm before Baptiſm came, how then could Baptiſm be the Antitype thereof? It could not come as an Anti­type, becauſe it ſeems there was no Type before it came. — If you had told us, that a Man cannot properly be ſaid to be born, till he is properly ſaid to be dead; or that the Father cannot properly Be, till the Son lives and begets him, it had been juſt ſuch a piece of Philoſophy, as this is of Divinity. — But if it be ſaid, that Circumciſion did not expire upon the coming in of Baptiſm, for they were both in force for ſome Years together: I anſwer, it's very true, but then it's a good Argument to prove, that Circumciſion and Baptiſm were never Type and Antitype. And this Suppoſition our Gentlemen do as good as grant, for they tacitly tell us, it was no Type before Baptiſm came, and how it ſhould be a Type afterwards, I know not.

You ſay further, Had John the Baptiſt, Chriſt, &c. undertook any new Way of proſelyting the Jews to the Goſpel, they had not only ſtruggled with the Oppoſitions of a new Doctrine, but alſo of a new Practice, &c. Really, Sirs, your Words here ſeem to imply, that it was ſome old Trade to proſelyte Men to the Goſpel long before it began; for if it was not ſome old Practice before, then it muſt be a new Practice, when St. John and our Saviour began it. And if the very proſelyting of Men to the Goſpel, were a new Practice, and the Doctrine leading there­unto, a new Doctrine, what force can there be in this Objection of yours? However, Gentlemen, this Suggeſtion of yours, ſeems to be very raw and inconſiderate; for the great and principal Struggle of the Jews with our Saviour, was about his Divinity and Authority; his being the Son of God, and ſent by his Fa­ther, to teach and inſtruct the World, by virtue of that Autho­rity which none ever before him had: And accordingly, when­ever our Saviour taught amongſt the Jews, he very frequently, not only reprov'd their vicious and enormous Lives, but corrected and condemn'd their falſe and erronious Doctrines, their idle and vain Traditions, and fooliſh Superſtitions, wherein they taught for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. And herein lay the chief Quarrel of the Jews againſt our Saviour, who inſtead of own­ing12 of him in that Divine Capacity he juſtly challeng'd, they counted him a Samaritan, a Devil, and a Mad-man, contradicting, oppoſing, and charging of him with Blaſphemy, for making himſelf equal with God, and condemning them in their Ways, as one that had Authority from Heaven ſo to do. — It was no part of our Saviour's Buſineſs, to countenance or encourage any in their vain Inventions and ſuperſtitious Fooleries, which were never ap­pointed nor approved by God; but to enlighten their Minds, and take them off from all ſuch Dotages, and ſettle them upon ſuch things as were purely of God, and ſuch things as he had in Com­miſſion from his Father to teach them. — And give me leave to tell you, that if your Notion in this caſe, were ſuppos'd to be true, it cannot rationally be thought, that our Saviour could have made any great Earnings upon the ſtubborn Jews, by virtue of that; for if he had only taken their old Cuſtom, and alter'd it, or added any thing to it of his own Pleaſure, and made it what it was not before, (as you ſay) and given it out in his own Name, re­quiring Obedience to it by his own Authority, even of the Jews themſelves, which never ſubmitted to it before, and that too in order to their being proſelyted or initiated into a new, or ano­ther Religion; he would in ſo doing, have declar'd and aſſerted his Authority to them and over them, altogether as much as if he had requir'd a down-right new Practice of them; and have croſs'd their Humours and Inclinations as much in the one as in the other. And as for thoſe that were inclinable to fall in with his Authority, and to own his Divinity, as he himſelf aſſerted it, it may readily be taken for granted, that they would give him leave to give out what precepts he pleas'd, without ſtruggling with him about it: Thoſe that receiv'd his new Doctrine, would never contend with him about new Practice; for indeed, all Practice is comprehended in Doctrine: ſo that the ground of your Notion is altogether groundleſs.

That Expreſſion of yours alſo, I muſt a little remark, as ano­ther piece of crabbed Intricacy, which I cannot make very plea­ſant Senſe of. When you tell as, that therefore this Cuſtom was continued, (namely, to pleaſe the Jews) and had the Superaddition of the full force of Baptiſm, viz. a Conſignation, or a Seal of the Co­venant: — Do not theſe Words now ſeem ſtrongly to imply, that there was ſome other Baptiſm in force as a Seal of the Covenant, which the Jewiſh Baptiſm had not the force of, till our Saviour13 takes it, and gives it now the full force of Baptiſm, viz. makes that Cuſtom a Seal of the Covenant as well as Baptiſm, Baptiſm being the very Rule and Standard, unto which that Jewiſh Cuſtom was brought? for how could that Cuſtom have the full force of Baptiſm added, or given to it, if there had been no Baptiſm then in force, unto which this Jewiſh Cuſtom is now ſaid to be advanced? — And if ſo, then People may take their choice, whether they will have this laſt made Jewiſh Baptiſm, or the firſt made Chriſtian Baptiſm; for it ſeems, though they are two diſtinct Baptiſms, yet they are both Seals of the Covenant. Really, Sirs, it is not uſual for Men, in the face of the Sun, to ſpeak Daggers at this rate; No more would you, I conceive, if your undeſerving Cauſe did not force you to it. — I ſee it is not for nothing that you ſo freely acknow­ledg, in your ſecond Mercury upon this Subject, that you deliver'd your Aſſertions a little darkly. Indeed, Gentlemen, I think you were greatly in the dark when you wrote them, and therefore no wonder you were deliver'd of ſuch a dark Iſſue: Which though you ſeem to be ſenſible of, yet you ſeem to have no Inclination to come into the Light, that you may ſee to make better work. But, Sirs, after all this, I might juſtly enquire, how you came by all this Confidence? Gentlemen, I beſeech you, who told you, or where did you read ſuch a piece of Chriſtian Divinity, as you ſo boldly dictate to the World; namely, that John the Baptiſt, Chriſt and his Apoſtles, did ſo highly approve of this old Jewiſh Cuſtom you talk of, as to take it, and put a Divine Sanction upon it, and make that very Cuſtom a Con­ſignation, or a Seal of the Covenant, and ſo it became a proper Anti­type of Circumciſion? Does the Scripture, which we all pretend to be our Rule in Matters of Divine Worſhip, tell you any ſuch Story, or teach you any ſuch Doctrine? Is there the leaſt Whiſper of any ſuch thing in all the New-Teſtament? if there be, pray be ſo kind as to tell us where; if not, what ſignify your Dictates? Nay, Sirs, I am very apt to think, that your great Friend Maimonides, nor yet any of the Jewiſh Rabbies, ever told you ſuch a linſy-woolſy Story as this; yet here ſeems to lie the greateſt ſhew of your Proof that Circumciſion was the Type of Baptiſm. Sirs, if you did not ſeem to be a little proud and obſtinate in this Matter, I could hear­tily pity your Diſtreſs: but why ſhould you ſtrive, thus to impoſe your vain Crochets, and Scriptureleſs Notions upon us; and ſeem to be angry with us, that we do not greedily ſwallow them?

As for the three Texts you bring, further to prove Circumci­ſion a Type of Baptiſm, which you call undeniable Texts; I confeſs, it might be worth any ones while, to take theſe three Texts, and read them well over; for they are, as the Gentlemen call them, undeniable Texts: But withal, do but remember for what purpoſe theſe Gentlemen quote them, and then forbear ſmiling if you can. The Gentlemen, I confeſs, were very much in the right, when they call'd them undeniable Texts: But they were extreamly in the wrong, when they thought theſe Texts would prove Circum­ciſion a Type of Baptiſm, or do them any ſervice for Infant-Sprinkling. The firſt Text is, 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, wherein alſo you are riſen with him, through the Faith of the O­peration of God, &c. Now in the reading of this Text, any one might be ready to think, that certainly, if any thing here ſpoken of, may be ſuppos'd to be the Antitype of Circumciſion with Hands, it muſt be the Circumciſion here mention'd, made without Hands, in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Fleſh; and this is very ſo­berly, not only ſuggeſted, but (one would think) alſo very ratio­nally and fairly proved, by the Gentleman in his Animadverſions, as alſo in his Rejoinder: And alſo in that other Gentleman's Anſwer to your two Mercuries. And indeed it lies ſo fairly in the Text, ſo eaſy to be underſtood, and ſo rational in it ſelf, that one may juſtly admire how any underſtanding Man could miſs it. But, ſay our Gentlemen, in their ſecond Mercury, The Scope of the Apoſtle here was to take off the Coloſſians from the Rudiments of the World, (then I hope, by the way, it was not to ſettle them in any old Cuſtom) eſpecially Circumciſion, which troubled moſt of the Churches; ſo far indeed, I ſhall not diſpute: And therefore, the Apoſtle very wiſely and rationally gives them to underſtand, that they had not the leaſt occaſion to dote upon theſe weak and beggarly Rudi­ments; for, ſaith he, ye are compleat in Chriſt; (without them) in whom alſo ye are circumcis'd (if that be it you would have) with the Circumciſion made without Hands, in putting off the Body of the Fleſh, which is far better than your old outward Circumciſion; and this is plainly ſignify'd and confirm'd to you, in your being buried with Chriſt in Baptiſm: So that you have no reaſon in the World, to hanker after theſe unprofitable things, but rather much reaſon to be content in your Goſpel-Station, and keep where you are: being not15 only in a better Condition, in being deliver'd from that Yoke of Bondage, but alſo ſtrongly oblig'd to perſevere in the Chriſtian Re­ligion, by being liſted under the Captain of it, by your being buried with him in Baptiſm, wherein alſo you are riſen with him, through Faith, &c.

But ſay you, they might object, We want the outward Circumci­ſion to us and our Children. No Sirs, they might not now object at this rate, for this was the Objection that was ſuppoſed to go before, unto which the Apoſtle had given a very fair, full and ſatisfactory An­ſwer, by telling them that they were Circumciſed with the Circumci­ſion made without Hands, as aforeſaid: So no room for that Objection now. But this Interpretation is rejected, and condemned, by our Athenian Gentlemen; and Circumciſion muſt, even by this Text, be the Type of Baptiſm when all's done: But for what Reaſon I cannot imagine, unleſs it be meerly becauſe they find theſe two Words in the Text, Circumciſion and Baptiſm; and therefore conclude one muſt be a Type of the other. But, Gentlemen, if you will but let our Interpre­tation paſs for Orthodox till you are able to give us a better, we ſhall in this Caſe deſire no more. Moreover, Sirs, If we ſhould grant you your own Expoſition here, and give it you for Truth, I do not yet un­derſtand what great matter you would gain by it; unleſs we give you alſo what you pleaſe to beg for into the Bargain: What if I ſhould grant you, for Argument-ſake, that Baptiſm ſupplies the place, or came in the room of Circumciſion, and that Chriſtians are in effect Circumciſed becauſe Baptized (as you ſay:) All this might be, and yet this Text ſignify nothing for Infant-Baptiſm, unleſs it were alſo plain in the Text that Infants are the Subjects of it; but there is not the leaſt glimmering of ſuch a thing in the Text, but rather plainly the con­trary: There's nothing in the Text but what is rationally excluſive of Infants. It cannot be ſuppoſed that the Apoſtle is to be underſtood of Infants, when he tells the believing Coloſſians, that in Chriſt they were Circumciſed with the Circumciſion made without Hands, in putting off the Sins of the Fleſh, and were buried with Chriſt in Baptiſm, wherein alſo they were riſen with him through Faith, &c. What therefore, if I ſhould now grant you that the Apoſtle in this Text ſhould intimate, that in the place and room of Infant-Circumciſion, Chriſt has now appointed Be­lievers Baptiſm; that inſtead of Abraham's Fleſhly Seed that were wont to be Circumciſed, he will now have only Abraham's Spiritual Seed bap­tized? As in the caſe of the Paſſover and the Lord's Supper, moſt judi­cious Chriſtians do ſuppoſe and believe that the Lord's Supper came in the room of the Paſſover, and that tho Infants did partake of the one,16 yet they are excluded from the other. Where then would your Ad­vantage be, if we ſhould grant you that Baptiſm might come in the room and ſtead of Circumciſion? you would ſtill be as far to ſeek for Infant-Baptiſm as ever you were. For you know, it is not Cir­cumciſion and Baptiſm, running parallel in ſome things, that will make them parallel in every thing; and by the ſame Rule you grant them to differ in the caſe of Women, why may they not alſo differ in the caſe of Infants?

Your other two Texts, is 1 Cor. 10.2. and 1 Pet. 3.21. the one ſpeaks of the Iſraelites being baptized unto Moſes, in the Cloud, and in the Sea; and the other of Noah and his Family being ſaved in the Ark, &c. Now let all the World judge how theſe Texts prove Circumciſion to be a Type of Baptiſm. What courſe ſhall we take to frame an Argument from theſe Texts for ſuch a purpoſe? Gentlemen, becauſe I perceive you are ſuch Friends to a Syllogiſtical way of argu­ing, I'le try how well I can do your work for you, which you ſeem to have no Stomach to do for your ſelves.