than because Abraham. and Millions more were circumcis'd when old, that Infants ought not to be circumcis'd. If you fay, you want not a Command for your Practice, we say, we must see the first Command repeal'd till we give over ours: Sacramenta funt mu tata, non Fides. Auguft.

alfo the continual Ufage of the Apoftles and Minifters of the Gospel all along in the New Teftament, who baptiz'd none but fuch who made Profeffion of their Faith? And the Church of England also faith, Faith and Repentance are requir'd of fuch who are to be baptiz'd. We dare not baptize our Children, because we cannot find it written; 'tis from the holy Fear of God, left we should offend and fin against him, by adding to

his Word.

Anfw. 18. They are best fudges themselves; if we can but underftand them, 'tis enough.

Quest. 18. What should be the reason that our faithful Tranflators of the Bible fhould leave the Greek word Baptifm, or Baptifma, and not turn it into English, seeing the Dutch have not done fo, but contrariwife tranflate, for John the Baptist, John the Dooper; and for he baptiz'd, he doop'd, or dipp'd them? Queft. 19. Whether thofe who tranflate out of one Language into another, ought not to tranflate every word into the fame Language into which they turn it, and not leave any word in the fame Original Tongue, which the People understand not, and for whofe fakes they undertook that Work; and not only to tranflate every word, but alfo to give the right, literal, genuine and proper fignification of each word, and not the remote, improper, or collateral fignification of it? Which if our Tranflators of the Bible had fo done, I query, whether the Doubt among the Unlearned, concerning what the word Baptifma fignifies, had not ceas'd'?

Anfw. 19. They are the best Judges, as we faid before. Your Defign about the Modus is not material; we have comply'd with the Emphasis, and told you our Church denies Dipping to none, but rather enjoins it. See her words in the Rubrick- Then the Priest fhall take the Child into his Hands, that Hands, and shall say to the Godfathers and GodmothersName this Child--- and then naming it after them (if they fhall certify him that the Child may well endure) he fhall dip it in the Water difcreetly and warily, faying, . But if they certify that the Child is weak, it shall fuffice to pour Water upon it, &c.

Anfw. 20. See our laft Answer.

Queft. 20. Seeing the Greek Church uses Immerfion, and not Afperfion, may it not be look'd upon as a great Argument against Sprinkling, efpecially feeing they difown the Baptifm of the Latin Church, becaufe they ufe Sprinkling? for doubtlefs the Greeks best knew the gunuine and proper fignification

of the Word, that Tongue being their own natural Language, in which the New Teftament was wrore.

Quest. 21. Whether if a Mi- Anfw. 21. Our Answer is as anifter fhould adminifter the bove.

Lord's Supper in one kind on

ly, and fo doing, it cannot answer the great Defign of Chrift the Law giver, i. e. the breaking of his Body, and hedding of his Blood; would not profane that holy Inftitution? If so, whether fuch who, inftead of dipping the whole Body, do but fprinkle or pour a little Water on the Face, do not also profane the Holy Sacrament of Baptifm, fince it is not fo done to reprefent in a lively Figure the Death, Burial, and Refurrection of Chrift, with our Death unto Sin, and Vivification unto Newness of Life? Rom. 6. Col. 2. 11, 12.

Queft. 22. Whether all fuch Anfw.22. Those that doubt may who have only been sprinkled, be of the fure fide. ought not to be deem'd unbap

tiz'd Perfons, fince Afperfion is not Immerfion, or Rantizing not Baptizing? For tho' the Greek word Baptizo, in a remote and improper fenfe, may fignify to wash; yet, as the Learned. confefs, it is fuch a wafhing as is done by dipping, fwilling, or plunging the Perfon or Thing all over in the Water. Queft. 23. Since you fay Children have Faith potentia; I query, Whether Unbelievers, and all ungodly Perfons, have not alfo the like Faith potentia as well as Children, and fo the fame Right to Baptifin? We grant they may have Faith hereafter; what then?

tween fuch of whom we have great we have great defpair.

Anfw. 23. No, the Cafe is very different. Take a Parallel: Thofe Heathens that refus'd profelyting into the Jewish Religion, could not expect the Privileges of any one Infant of the Ifraelites, of which there yet appear'd no despair but that it might be a true Son of Abraham; or in short thus, that judging vifibly, or like Men, bebope, and of such concerning whom

As to your additional Cenfure about Children's having Faith in Heaven, we mean no more than this, The Object of their Faith is there as well as ours; we are not to answer for the Printer's faults. See whether the place we quoted agrees not with it, Heb. 11. I, 2. Your carching at diftant Circumflances and Words fhews your Cause weak.

Now to your Questions about the Fathers.

Queft. 1. What reafon can be given why Nazianzen, an eminent Greek Father, fhould counfel the deferring of the Baptifm of Infants until the third or fourth Year of their Age (except

Anfw. 1. If Nazianzen counfell'd to delay it till the third or fourth Year, but not if in danger of Death, it plainly hews the Practice of Infant-Baptifm then; and the utmost was at a time when

they

(except in danger of Death) if it were in Nazianzen's time, as fome fuppofe it was, the O pinion of the whole Church, as also his own, That Infants, by Apoftolical Tradition, were to be baptiz'd as fuch, that is, as foon as born?

they were too young to make a Profeffion of their Faith: So that this Query is for, not against us. But cite this Father's Works; we cannot believe that he would contradict himself, having said the contrary elsewhere.

Queft. 2. Whether all the Fa- Anfw. 2. That was not the only thers of the third and fourth reafon affign'd, tho' 'tis as old as Century, both of the Greek and Irenæus; but neither does this deLatin Church, who have wrote ftroy the Authority of Infant-Bapany thing about Infant-Baptifm. St. Auftin's particular Otifm, do not unanimously give pinion makes no general Rule. this as the reason why Infants

fhould be baptiz'd, viz. The washing away Original Sin, or the putting them into a Capacity of Salvation and fome of them, particularly St. Auftin, fentencing Infants to eternal Damnation, if not baptiz'd?

Queft. 3. If fo, whether the Fathers might not be mistaken in the Right of Infants to Baptifm, as well as in the Judgment of moft Proteftants, they are in the reason why they fhould be baptiz'd?

Anfw. 3. The Answer of this Query (if given as you would have it) deftroys the few Authorities you can bring against Infant-Baptifm in the fourth and following Centuries; but it concerns not an univerfal and perpetual Practice, as we have prov'd.

Anfwers to your four other Queries.

Queft. I. Whether God hath allow'd or enjoin'd Parents to bring their little Babes, of two or ten days old, into a Covenant with him by Baptifm; fince 'tis not to be found in the Scripture he either has allow'd or enjoin'd them fo to do?

Anfw. I. We have already told where he allow'd and enjoin'd Infants incovenanting, and we expect of you to shew us where it was repeal'd, if you will justify your Neglect of it, or condemn ours.

Anfw. 2. This falls with the first, being built upon the fame foundation.

Queft. 2. If it cannot be prov'd he hath requir'd any fuch thing at their hands, whether that Covenant can be faid to bind their Confciences when they come to age; efpecially fince they gave no confent to it, nor were capable fo to do? Queft. 3. If this pretended Covenant was not of God's Appointment, I query, how those Children, who refufe to

agree

Anfw. 3. and 4. We have nothing to do with this Charge; these feven Affertions are none of ours, nor any where to be found amongst

what

what we ever said or wrote: To that 'tis impertinent to bring 'em here, and rail at 'em as Jewish, Turkish, &c.

agree to the faid Covenant when at age, can thereby be guilty, 1. Of rejecting Chrift. z. Of renouncing the Bleffings of the Gospel. 3. And that 'tis Rebellion continu'd againft their Maker. 4. That 'tis Ingratitude and Perjury to their Redeemer. 5. Grofs Injuftice to their Parents. 6. That 'tis felf-killing Cruelty to their own Souls: 7. And a damning Sin?

Queft. 4. I query whether this be good Divinity, not rather a ftrange 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 Chriftian Catechism, as fuch Affertions as these?

Anfwers to four Queries fent by another Hand.

Queft. 1. Whether Traditions, Anfw. 1. See what is before faid Jewish Talmuds, the Opinion for an Answer to this. of private Doctors, Schoolmen,

o be a fufficient Warrant for the Churches to eft ablish fuch a Practice, that hath neither Precept nor Example in the Holy Scriptures?

a

Queft. z. Since the pretended Foundation of Infant-Baptifm (viz. its abfolute Neceffity to Salvation) proves to be Miflake of the Text, John 3. 5. as is generally acknowledg'd by Protestants : whether the Structure ought not to fall with it, as it did in the cafe of giving the Child the Eucharift?

Anfw. 2. Prove your first Auther that expounded this Text, and we'll prove Infant Baptifm feveral hundred years in the Primitive Church before fuch Expofition was ever made; which will evince that Infant-Baptifm depended not upon that Expofition, and therefore ought not to fall with it.

Anfw. 3. Such Practice was in the Jewish Church, and never contradicted by Chrift or his Apofiles, nor but by one Father (as we read of) in the Primitive Church,whom we have before cited; therefore we think it very reasonable to continue it.

Queft. 3. Whether the Faith of the Parent, or Goffip, on the Child's behalf, be requir'd of God, or will be imputed to the Child by God? If not, why ventur'd on, and not rather a waiting for Faith in the Subject; as requir'd in Holy Writ, by the Apoftles and Primitive Churches, and feemingly by the Church of England in her Catechifm?

Queft. 4. Whether the Church hath a good Warrant that will juftify her before God, in chan

Anfw. 4. This we have fully answer'd before.

ging the Mode from Dipping to Sprinkling? And whether that Alteration doth fo well anfwer the Defign of God, as that Ceremony which himself appointed?