was no questioning of their faith no enquiry into their conversations c. But now you practically own no children to have right to Baptism but those whose immediate parents have given some visible demonstration of their conversion and manifested their faith and Repentance who are so few that were their number reckoned up it would not amount to one amongst a hundred of them that are true believers in the world But further if the children of believers only as you say have right to the Covenant and Baptism and that of such believers as you count so and so their parents only have hope of their salvation then what shall become of the children of unbelievers yea of such whom you count unbelievers may not they make this appeal to their parents and say O wretched and miserable parents that have brought forth so deplorable an off spring other children as soon as they are born are in the Covenant of grace and by vertue of their parents faith have aright to Church membership and baptism wherein they are made children of God heirs of Christ and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven But wo and alas to us that ever we were born of unbelieving parents or at least of such that were never enchurcht nor members of any Presbyterian or Independant congregation We are unholy unclean doggs that must not meddle with the childrens bread without the pale of the Church aliens from the common weal of Israel without hope and without God in the world We must not be admitted to the priviledges of the Covenant of grace though diverse of our parents are professed Christians and believe Christ crucified c. yet because they have not made a personal manifestation of their faith and repentance and so joyned to some Church diverse ministers will not admit us to Baptism But stay children there is hope for you for all this If you dye in infancy as many of you as belong to the election of grace shall be saved though ye are not baptized and if you live to years of discretion and understanding if then you believe in Christ and repent of your sins and obey the Gospel you shall be saved as soon as they yea upon those terms and none other shall those that are Baptized in their infancy be saved if they live to years of understanding Poed Well Sir I see it is a hard matter to prove that the infants of believers have a right to the Covenant more then the infants of unbelievers but yet methinks they should have right to the administration of the Covenant Bap. In no wise and that for the want of an institution as you have heard and it is answer enough to satisfy any that are willing to be satisfy'd for none ever had a right to the administrations of the Covenant any otherwise then by vertue of a law had it been otherwise of old then Enoch Lot Noah and their seed had been circumcis'd and Ishmael Esau and others had not been circumcis'd now if the natural branches the seed of Abraham had not this priviledge to be circumcis'd by vertue of a right but vertue of a law how can you expect that your infants should have a right to the administrations of the Covenant by vertue of your faith Besides you your selves deny one administration to your infants but what reason you have for so doing I know not seeing the same grace is signified in both Will you say because your children are not capable to examine themselves then let them plead their own cause and suppose they should make this Apostrophe to their parents O our tender and indulgent parents you have brought us into the visible Church as you say and admitted us to Baptism and membership but why must we not partake of the Lords supper that soul strenghtning and soul-nourishing ordinance you take care to feed our bodies dayly and that in order to our growth and have you no pitty to our souls must they starve the children of the Jews of old were admitted to the passeover all the males were to appear thrice in a year and very early partook of that Sacrament and were instructed in the use and end of it and have we lost this priviledge by this coming of Christ besides the ancient Church did use it for many years and must we be kept from it till we be come of age yea and not then neither notwithstanding our Baptism contrary to all Scripture president unless we make a personal manifestation of our faith and repentance Will you say it is because we cannot examine our selves We answer that Scripture concerns the Adult not us You might as well have kept us from Baptism because we could not believe and repent but surely the Apostle never intended that infants should examine themselves Besides you say we are clean holy with a federal holyness innocent in the Covenant of grace Church members that we have habituall faith and without any sin except original therefore there is no need of self-examination Why then are we not admitted will our parents faith serve to admit us to Baptism and not to the supper Who will unriddle this surely we want some Alexander to cut this Gordian knot for none will ever untie it But again if infants have a right to the administration of the Covenant by vertue of the parents faith then if the parents turn Atheists or Apostates the children lose their right and are cast out from the said priviledges That it must be so appears if we consider Rom. 11.20 thou standest by faith that is say you thou standest in the Gospel Covenant and hast right to ordinances by vertue of their own faith and thy children by vertue of thine Now this standing is not unalterable a state which cannot be fallen from but a changable state from which thou mayst fall for the Apostle adds be not high minded but fear Now if thou fallest by unbelief and so casts out thy self thy children must needs be cast out with thee for ablatâ causâ tollitur effectus take away the cause and the effect ceaseth thy personal and actual faith was the ground and cause of thy Childrens admittance so then thy unbelief must dispriviledge them for so it was with the Jews when they were cut off how many thousands of their infants were cut off with them from membership ordinances remain so to this day by reason of their parents unbelief And do you expect a greater priviledge then the natural branches the Apostle lays them in an equal ballance Rom. 11.20 21 22. and what ground have you to expect better the unbelief of their parents broke off their Children By unbelief they were broken off and thy standing is but conditional if thou abide in his goodness otherwise thou shalt be cut off By which you see what absurdities and contradictions to your own practise your opinion leads to if the father be cast out the children must be cast out with him Thus you see that as
the root and his posterity are the branches as well as his immediate infants and so to be baptized And if you say 't is hard to finde whether their progenitors were believers so far remote then 't is but going a step higher to Noah and his faith will serve to Baptise the whole world for Noah considered as a believer is as well a root as Abraham But that there is no kinde of holynesse in the natural seed of believers more then in the seed of unbelievers now under the Gospel appears from these Arguments 1. If there be no persons in the dayes of the Gospel to be accounted common or unclean that is unholy by nature more then others then there are no persons to be accounted clean or holy by nature more then others but the antecedent is true Act. 10.28 God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean Ergo so is the consequent But they that baptise Infants break the command of God to Peter by counting the children of unbelievers common and unclean and the children of believers clean or holy But if the children of believers be holy with any kinde of holynesse above others Then the children of unbelievers are unholy with some kinde of unholinesse more then others and so to be accounted common and unclean But this is not so for believers children are by nature children of wrath as well as others as your selves confesse Therefore call nothing no men or species of men common or unclean for in every nation he that fears God and works righteousnesse shall be accepted Observe divine acceptation comes in upon the account of actual and personal righteousnesse no persons nor their seed are now accepted for the holynesse of another rather then others 2ly If God be now no respecter of persons then there is no birth holynesse and so no peculiar priviledges belongs to believers natural seed by Gods appointment more then to the seed of unbelievers but the first is true Act. 10. I perceive saith Peter that God is no respecter of persons therefore so is the latter And that Peter meant this of birth holynesse and natural priviledges is evident because he mentions this as the result of his vision where he was forbid to count any man common or unclean that is more then others by nature for God is no respecter of persons It s true all men are by nature common and unclean in opposition to moral cleaness and Gospel-holiness but no sort of persons are by nature clean or holy with any kinde of ceremonial dedicative or Covenant holynesse above others But 3. If there be a Covenant holynesse now in the days of the Gospel flowing from the root to the branches then God would rather have continued his Church in the posterity of believers as of old but he hath not done so therefore there is no such holynesse We read in the Second of the Acts. of 3000. baptized and afterwards 5000. The greatest part of which were believers and the 7 Churches of Asia and as you say their children holy with a Covenant holynesse It is strange then the Church was not continued in their posterity but it was not for I suppose it is hard if not impossible to finde any one of their off-spring a member of any true Church in the world So the Church of Rome once a true Church But you do not count the present Church so why they had believing parents who were in Covenant and their seed holy yet God did not think fit to continue them a true Church any long time But hath rather raised his Church out of the posterity of unbelievers and longer continued them As in this nation our progenitors were all Idolaters as the Brittains Romans Saxons Danes and Normans The off-spring of some of whom we are yet God hath continued his Church amongst us a very considerable time But if we boast of our Covenant holyness and birth priviledges God may soon unchurch us and raise up Church members out of stones as John the Baptist told the Pharisees 4ly There is no such Covenant holyness under the Gospel because that holynesse was a Typical Ceremonial holynesse such as was in beasts birds Garments oyl the Altar temple yea in the whole land and therefore called Emanuels land and no other kind of holyness was in the seed let Pedo-Baptists say what they will all which holyness is now abolished and done away and that appears thus If all uncleaness and unholyness that was in some beasts birds garments oyl Altars Temples and men c. be now abolished and done away then all that cleaness and holyness that was in some beasts birds garments men c. is also abolished and done away But the Antecedent is true Act. 10. as appears by Peters vision what God hath cleansed call not thou common or unclean Ergo so is the Consequent And that there was an uncleaness commoness and unholyness in some men as well as in beasts birds c. is evident For it was not lawfull for a Jew to eat with him that was a Gentile But now it is not so If an unbeliever invite thee to a feast if thou beest disposed thou maiest go 1 Cor. 10.25 And that all this Typical dedicative denominative holyness is now abolished appears further Because that holyness that sanctifyed the Jews land City Temple c. was Ceremonial only and so abolished but that holyness which sanctifyed the seed was the same and no other that sanctifyed the land therefore that holyness which sanctifyed the seed is now abolished And if it be said that the holyness of the seed was not typical and Ceremonial I prove it thus 1. If all things under the law were but a figure and shaddow of good things to come then the holyness of the seed was but a figure and shadow of good things to come And so a type But the Antecedent is true as we find in the 9th and 10th Chapters of the Hebrews where all things under the law all the priviledges of the old Covenant all the perquisites dependances and appurtenances are called by such names as make them evidently appear to be Typical as first they are called a figure Heb. 9.9 which was a figure for the time then present So verse 24. For Christ is not entred into the holy place made with hands which are the figures of the true They are called a patern Heb. 9.23 It was necessary that the paterns of the things in the heavens c. 3. They are called a shaddow Heb. 10.1 for the law having a shaddow of good things to come and not the very Image of the things So then the holyness of the seed being a dependance an appurtenance a priviledge of the law or old Covenant was but a figure patern shadow and so Typical and abolished And if you say if the holyness of the seed was a Type what did it tipify I answer 1. First it typifyed the holyness of Christ who is called the
proper if that be true of the Custome â—hereof there is no cause to make question for the use at present any man I think knows how to inform himself For that of elder times I can produce two pregnant and notable testimonies one of the Jews and people of God another of the Gentiles The first you shall finde in the 16. Chapter of Ezekiel where God describes the poor and forlorn condition of Jerusalem when he first took her to himself under the parable of an exposed Infant As for thy Nativity saith he in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee thou wast not salted at all nor swadled at all no eye pitied thee none to do any of these things unto thee to have compassion on thee but thou wast cast out in open field to the loathing of thy person in the day that thou wast born Here you may learn what was wont to be done unto infants at their nativity by that which was not done to Israel till God himself toâ—k pitty on her cutting of the Navel string washing salting swadling upon this place S. Hierome takes notice but scarce any body else that I can yet finde that our Saviour where speaking of Baptism he says Except a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God alludes to the custome here mentioned of washing Infants at their Nativity The other testimony and that most pertinent to the application we make I finde in a story related by Plutarch in his Questiones Romanae not far from the beginning in this manner Among the Greeks if one that were living were reported to be dead and funeral obsequies performed for him if afterwards he returned alive he was of all men abominated as a prophane aad unlucky person No man would come into his company and which was the highest degree of calamity they excluded him from their Temples and the sacrifices of their Gods it chanced that one Aristinus being fallen into the like disaster and not knowing which way to expiate himself therefrom sent to the Oracle at Delphos to Apollo beseeching him to shew him the means whereby he might be freed and discharged thereof Pythia gave him this Answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What women do when one in childbed lyes That do again so maist thou sacrifice Aristinus rightly apprehending what the Oracle meant offered himself to women as one newly brought forth to be washed again with water from which Example it grew a custome among the Greeks when the like misfortune befell any man after this manner to expiate them they called them Hysteropotmi or Postliminio nati How well doth this befit the mystery of Baptism where those who were dead to God through sin are like Hysteropotmi regenerate and born again by water and the holy Ghost These two passages discover sufficiently the Analogy of the washing with water in Baptism to regeneration or new birth according as the text I have chosen for the Scope of my discourse exppesseth it namely that washing with water is a signe of spiritual Infancy for as much as Infants are wont to be washed when they came first into the world Hence the Jews before John the Baptist came amongst them were wont by this rite to initiate such as they made Proselytes to wit as becoming Infants again and entring into a new life and being which before they had not That which here I have affirmed will be yet more evident if we consider those other rites anciently added and used in the celebration of this mystery which had the self same end we speak of to wit to signify spiritual Infancy I will name them and so conclude as thâ—t of giving the new baptized milk and hony ad infantandum as Tertullian speaks ad infantiae significationem so S. Hierome because the like was used to Infants New born according to that in the 7th of Isay of Immanuels infancy A virgin shall conceive and bear a son butter and honey shall he eat that he may know to refuse evil and choose good Secondly that of Salt as is implyed in that of Ezekiel thou wast not washed with water nor salted with salt That of putting on the white garment to resemble swadling all these were anciently especially the first used in the Sacrament of our spiritual birth out of reference to that which was done to Infants at their natural birth who then can doubt but the principal rite of washing with water the only one ordained by our blessed Saviour was chosen for the same reason to be the element of our Initiation and that those who brought in the other did so conceive of this and from thence derived those imitations Thus for Mr Mede From whom we learn these truths 1. That it not lawful to assigne significations to sacramental Types of our own heads without warrant from the Scriptures 2. That in every Sacrament there is the signe and the thing signified res terrena res caelestis 3. That in Baptism there is an Invisible and caelestial thing signified 4. That though the blood of Christ is the fountain and cause of all that grace and good we receive in Baptism yet it is not the thing signified by the water in Baptism but the spirit cleansing the soul from sin in the work of Regeneration according to Tit. 3.5 5. That in the Baptism of Christ the mistery of all our Baptism was visibly acted 6. That God says to every one truly Baptized as he said to Christ in a proportionable sence thou art my beloved son in whom I am well pleased 7. That there is a plain Analogy between water and the spirit confirmed by divers Scriptures But not so between the water in Baptism and the blood of Christ 8. That the Fathers and primitive Church did not suppose any other correlative to the water in Baptism but the spirit though they did allude to Christs blood for illustration thereof 9. That in our Liturgy the water in Baptism is made to signifie the holy spirit in our Regeneration But not the Blood of Christ 10. That there was no such thing as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or sprinkling used in the Apostles times nor many ages after 11. That the Analogy between washing with water in Baptism and Regeneration appears from the custome of washing infants from the pollutions of the womb when first born according to the practice of Jews and Gentiles 12. That the Fathers and ancient Church did use to give the new baptized Milk and honey and put white garments on them to signify their spiritual birth out of reference to that which was done to infants at their natural birth From all which you see that baptism is not so much a sign of purging our sins by the bloud of Christ though that concurs by way of merit and efficacy but is not the thing there signifi'd or figured then to what purpose are infants baptized Thus you
were now altered and the Church it self removed For before the Gospel came they stood members of the old Church though as much unbelievers for many generations as they were when they were broken off and why did not their unbelief break them off before But now Abrahams Church state is at an end and all the priviledges and immunities cease the Jewish Church must give way to the Gospel Church the Messiah being come and about to build him a new house into which none are of right to enter but profest believers and the Jews not believing now in that saviour who has the substance of the shadows and which all their types pointed out and whom all those ordinances signified yea for whose sake they did enjoy their ordinances and to which end were committed unto them the oracles of God the giving of the law and the promises yea therefore was their seed counted holy to point out and keep them in memory of that holy child Jesus that was to come as the Anti-type of all these things For the old house or Jewish Church was not intended to abide for ever but to the time of reformation then the law must be changed the priesthood chang'd the priviledges and ordinances chang'd the seed chang'd yea the Covenant chang'd which they not believing being willing to abide in the old house still and to remain Churchmembers upon a meer fleshly and natural birth still crying out Abraham is our father and we are his seed and are free and were never in bondage and here it seems they are resolved to stand wherefore they were broken off and that whether they would or not by reason of their unbelief that is because they would not believe that the old Covenant and all the priviledges thereof were ended and the substance come the Lord Jesus the Antitype of their types The second thing is from what they were broken off I answer From all the glory they boasted so much of as the Apostle sayes thou art called a Jew and makest thy boast of God and trustest in the law but all these things are now gone yea the Typical Adoption the glory and the Covenants the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises all their birth-priviledges Church membership and ordinances which continued but till the time of reformation yea from that Covenant which had also ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary which is now all abolished as you see Heb. 9.1.2.3.4 c. And all because they did not believe in him who was the Antitype and substance of all their shadows but were willing to abide in the old house still and loath to lose their outward priviledges their worldly sanctuary their ordinances and Church membership upon the account of Abrahams faith for it was indeed an easy service a flesh pleasing religion if salvation could have been obtained by it notwithstanding the bondage and laboriousness of some services yet how willing would the carnal Jew have born all if he might have been saved by the faith of another rather then to lose all the righteousness of the law and to count his circumcision and Church membership as dung to winn Christ as Paul did when converted and be found in him only not having his own righteousnesse which is of the law but that which is by faith in Jesus Christ Thus you see why the Jews ars broken off and from what But they are not all broken off from the Gospel Covenant for there is yet a remnant according to the election of grace and as many of them as believe and repent of their sins shall be admitted to the more easy and more excellent priviledges of the Gospel Church membership and ordinances and shall be a pillar in the Temple of God and shall go no more out Besides we see many of the Jews have been converted and shall be more generally in the later days And if you say May not the children of the Jews be broken off from the Gospel Covenant I answer They are no more broken off then the children of the Gentiles for those that dye in infancy as many as belong to the election of grace shall be saved if they live to years of discretion and then believe they shall be saved as soon as any children of believing gentiles But if the children of the Jews be broken off from the Gospel Covenant it is either because of their parents unbelief or their own personal unbelief If it be meerly their parents unbelief then if any do believe in their own persons they cannot be admitted because of their parents unbelief for that which cuts them off will keep them off and so the parents unbelief keeps the children from the Gospel Covenant and so is the cause of their damnation for causa causae est causa causati But where do we finde that children shall be damn'd for the sins of their parents the Scripture saith the soul that sins shall dye And if you say the Jews unbelief doth not keep their children from the Covenant of grace but only from the administrations of it as Baptism c. I answer that according to your principles it amounts to the same thing for you say out of the Church no salvation But if you say their parents unbelief keeps them out of the Church only during their infancy when they come to years if they believe they may be admitted Then it will follow that such children of the Jews yea of all unbelievers that dye in infancy are in a miserable condition their case is deplorable for their parents secundum te can have no hopes of their salvation Poor souls had you lived a while longer you had been in the Covenant of grace and enjoy'd the priviledges thereof but meerly because of your parents unbelief you are cut off while you are infants But if this be true parents have cause to mourn to the breaking of their loynes when their children dye But David was of another mind who when his child dyed rejoyced though it dyed on the seventh day the day before circumsion and that not without hopes of its good estate as learned men conceive for he said I shall go to that but that shall not return to me which is not meant only of going to the grave but to a state of happynesse for our going barely to the grave is no cause of comfort Poed But we are told that Circumcision was a great priviledge as the Apostle saith Rom. 3.1 What advantage is there of Circumcision much every way and therefore to be broken off was their misery Bap. It s true the Apostle propounds that question what profit is there of Circumcision his meaning is that there was a time when they had advantage by circumcision and the main was that Christ should come of their flesh of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came But this and all other advantages are ceased and now it is a mercy rather then a misery though they thought otherwise to
holy child Jesus 2. It was a type of the holyness of all Abrahams spiritual seed under the Gospel true believers who are made holy by believing in Christ Poed But we have heard that when the Jews were broken off their natural Children were broken off with them so when the Gentiles are grafted in their Children are grafted in with them Bap. You have heard that the children of the unbelieving Jews was not so broken off from the Gospel Church and covenant and excluded with their parents unbelief for if any of the children of the unbelieving Jews when they come to years and children when at years are the seed of their parents I hope if I say those unbelieving Jews children do believe the promise is so made to them that their parents unbelief cannot exclude them but if when at years they do not believe the promise is so made to believers and their seed as that the parents faith avails no further then to the ingrafting of himself but he cannot at all entitle his natural seed by his single faith to the Gospel Covenant or ordinances For if it be otherwise then the natural seed of those thousands of Jews that were converted in the primitive times have a birth priviledge and are holy to this day upon which they may claim admittance unto baptism as well as any for they may plead as you do and say Baptism is our right we are the posterity of those believing Jews mentioned Act. 2. And if the first fruits be holy so â—s the lump if the root be holy so are the branches Now we are the lump of these holy first fruits and the branches of the holy root yet for all this I believe you would not Baptize them unlesse they did believe in their own persons By which you do no lesse then grant what we contend for that the faith of Ancestors gives no right to their posterity to stand at all in the Gospel Church and Covenant but faith in the particular persons So that the Jews were broken off by unbelief and thou and thine O believing Gentile must stand by faith Yet not thy seed by thy faith but thou thy self by thine and they by their own faith Faith is that by which thou standing and not thy seed hast right to stand in the Church and not they But if thy seed have faith and thou hast none they have right to stand in the Church and thou shalt be kept out By which it appears that the root may be holy in a Gospel sence and not the branches and the branches may be holy and not the root so that your consequence from Rom. 11.16 if the root be holy so are the branches is false and the whole Argument vain and empty And if you still say for nothing will satisfy some persons that the natural seed may be counted holy with a denominative and dedicative holynesse I answer 1. That then the first born of every creature both of man beast is still to be called and counted holy for these were sanctifyed and holy by dedication as well as the seed Sanctify unto me all the first born of every creature both of man and beast they are still to be called and counted holy for these were sanctifyed and holy by dedication as well as the seed See Exod. 13.2 Sanctify unto me all the first born whatsoever openeth the womb amongst the children of Israel both of man and beast it is mine So that you may as well dedicate the first born still and count them holyer then the rest yea and that with better warrant then you can count the seed of believers only holy because as you say you dedicate them to God there being an inâ—titution for the first but none for the last For God no where saith that believers shall sanctify all their natural seed whatsoever openeth the womb for it is mine 2ly If the seed be to be accounted holy with a dedicative holynesse then you may as well count all things holy which were dedicated of old as Temples Altars Tables Garments Tapers Candlesticks yea the very windows Fonts Rails Copes Surplices c. But this you deny and have laboured hard both by pen and pulpit to make these holy things unholy Though those that own this dedicative holynesse still have more to say for Infant-Baptism then you who disown it in all things else but in the natural seed But pray Sirs let me ask you a few questions 1. Si aliquando quare non nunc If so once why not now If under the law why not under the Gospel The same question you put to us when we deny any birth holynesse in your fleshly seed So we say concerning Temples Altars Garments c. Si aliquando quare non nunc If so of old why not now 2ly Si aliquid quare non quicquid If any thing holy with a dedicative ceremonial holynesse why not every thing yea quare non aequaliter if you will Judaize why not in every thing alike as it was of old but I may expect an answer ad Gracas Calendas Poed But Sir may not Infants be capable of the main and principal end of Baptism which our Ministers tells us is the washing away our sins by the blood of Christ If so why may they not then be baptized Bap. There are not wanting learned men that are of another opinion and say that the blood of Christ is not the main thing signified in Baptism but that Baptism is a signe of our Regeneration and that is the principal end of Baptism And herein I will give you the opinion of Judicious and learned Mr. Mede upon that text Tit. 3.5 By the washing of Water and renewing of the holy Ghost and shall beg the Readers patience to read his entire sence upon that text He saith thus The words as it is easy to conceive upon the first hearing are spoken of Baptism of which I intend not by this choice to make any full or accurate â—ractation but only to acquaint you with my thoughts concerning two particulars therein one from what propriety analogy or use of water the washing therewith was instituted for a signe of new birth according as it is here called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washing of Regeneration The other what is the Countertype or thing which the water figureth in this Sacrament I will begin with the last first because the knowledge thereof must be supposed for the explication and more distinct understanding of the other In every Sacrament as ye well know there is the outward Symbol or signe res terrena and the signatum figured and represented thereby res Caelestis In this of Baptism the signe or res terrena is washing with water the question is what is the signatum the iâ—visible and celestial thing which answers thereunto In our Catechetical explications of this mystery it is wont to be affirmed to be the blood of Christ that as water wâ—sheth away the filth of the body
in as much as he that hath builded the house hath more honour then the house Moses was faithful as a servant but Christ as a son over his own house whose house are we if we hold fast the confidence c. where the servants are also described they are belivers not infants hence they are also called living stones and a spiritual house 1 Pet. 2.3 And that none but such are of this houshold appears in that Christ the great Master of this house is compared to a king travelling into a far Country who called his servants all his servants and delivered unto them his goods that is Certain Talents to improve Math. 25.14 15. which cannot be supposed to be delivered to infants while they want the use of reason for these â—alents are presently to be improv'd and laid out not laid up So again Christ is compared to a house-keeper who made a great supper and invited his guests but they were not infants because the first that were invited made excuses The next are compeld to come in which supposes an unwillingness in the parties and that they were persons capable to consent or deny The summe of all is that the old house the Jewish Church with all the appurtenances and priviledges of it is pulled down and a new one built into which infants are not admitted because not invited nor appointed by any law They were of the houshold of old but it was by a positive law shew us the like now or you say nothing Sure I am there is no institution that makes infants now fellow Citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God Neither are they so to be accounted till they believe and are able to do service in the house And if you say that amongst men infants are counted of the houshold though they can do no service I answer that comparison does not run upon four feet it doth not follow that because we count our infants of our family therefore they are to be accounted members of Gods family the Gospel Church unless God by any institution had made them so The houshold of God is called the houshold of faith do good unto all especially the houshold of faith or a house consisting of believers now unless you prove your infants to be believers they are not of this house For all the servants here must be believers either really or Historically and professedly which infants cannot be And it will not help you to say the Church was or may be called the houshould of faith synecdochically from the greatest part for it is evident all the materialls of the first Churches were adult persons and professed believers as appears by the narrative we have in the Acts of the Apostles the direction of all the Epistles and divers Scriptures Besides it may so happen that the infants may be the greatest part of a Congregation and then where is your houshold of faith Poed But Mr. Wills tells us that Mr. Baxter saith That Infant Church membership did take place as an ordinance of God before Circumcision was enjoyned or the Ceremonial law instituted and why then should it cease with it It was no part of the typical administration but a moral institution of God even from the beginning of the world God ever made a distinction between the seed of the faithful and the seed of the wicked as visibly belonging to several kingdomes of God and of Satan Mal. 2.15 Therefore they are called a holy seed Wills pag. 54. Bap. Here is vox praeterea nihil 'T is true Mr. Baxter saith so but if it be warrant enough for Mr. Wills to believe it it is not for me It is strange of what authority some mens words are when they have got the estimation of Orthodox and pious and we have no great cause to wonder at the implicite faith of the Church of Rome when an ipse dixit from an English oracle commands such credit and vassals us to their raw and undigested dictates But let us examine this assertion He saith that Infant Church-membership did take place as an ordinance of God before Circumcision c. But where is that ordinance why are we not directed to some place of Scripture where we may find it Did God make Mr. Baxter of his Cabinet Councel and reveal it to him and no body else Or in what Ancient father did he find it Did any one ever say so before him 2. He saith that it was no part of the typical Administration but a moral institution of God c. I answer there hath been enough said to prove the fallacy and novelty of this position Therefore I referr you to what hath been written But he saith it is a moral institution We still demand where we shall find that institution or else wee 'l say Mr. Baxter is wise above what is written 3. He saith God ever made a distinction between the seed of the faithful and the seed of the wicked But what distinction Did God single them out and separate them by any visible sign or character before the law of Circumcision It is evidently known he did not Or did God distinguish them by his providential care of them or provision for them more then others The Scripture is silent as to this also Or did God love them with a saving love more then the children of unbelievers This seems to be his meaning because of his next words as visibly belonging to several kingdoms of God and Satan But is it so Did all the children of believers from Adam to Abraham belong to the kingdom of God and all the children of unbelievers belong to the kingdom of the Devil If it be Mr. Baxters Divinity or M. Wills charity it shall be none of mine But he thinks to salve all with the word visibly But pray when the sons of God took the Daughters of men and all flesh had corcupted its ways to what kingdom did they belong Did not the seed of believers grow prophane and wicked and the seed of unbelievers pious and Godly as appears in divers even Abraham himself whose father was an Idolater as is probably supposed he himself being bred up in Idolatry But Mr. Baxter hath some Scripture for his warrant and it is Mal. 2.15 that he might seek a godly seed But he that can find infants Church-membership in this text and that the seed of believers did always belong visibly to the kingdom of God and all others to the kingdom of the Devil erit mihi magnus Apollo What though God says he that sâ—ught a godly feed therefore let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth implying that children born in lawful wedlock are this Godly seed Let none whether believer or unbeliever unless you hold that children of unbelivers may not be a godly seed But these are such Non sequiturs that it is in vain to spend further time about them So that the Morality of Infants Church-membership is a very fancy And that
subject and so soon lose the grounds So that I must give this short but true Character of Mr. Baxter and his late Book that he hath written neither with that gravity that became his Age with that Sobriety that became his profession nor with that modesty that became any tolerable Education And since he so much forgets himself I must tell him that that Gentleman Mr. Danvers whom he so insolently despises is to say no more his Superior a person of known worth piety and integrity and one whom God hath chosen to bear witness to his truth at that very time when he a Learned Scribe is shaken with every wind and scruples not to change his Judgement for and against things as the stream of outward success doth guide and influence them I shall now conclude with Mr. Baxter's Opinion of the Anabaptists when his heat is over he saith thus in his last Book There two sorts of Anabaptists amongst us the one are sober Godly Christians who when they are Re-baptized to satisfie their Consciences live amongst us in Christian love and peace And I shall be ashamed if I love not them as heartily and own them not as peacably as any of them shall do either me or better men than I that differ from them The other sort hold it unlawful to hold Communion with such as are not of their mind and way and are Schismatically Troublesome and Vnquiet in labouring to encrease their party I hope all the pious Anabaptists do virtually though not actually devote their Children to God and Consent to their Covenant-relation while they vehemently plead against it for surely they have so much natural Affection that if they did think that God would be a God in a special Covenant with their Children and pardon their Original Sin and give them right to future Life upon the Parents dedication and consent they would undoubtedly accept the gift and be thankful And I believe most of them would say I would do all that God entrusteth me to do that my Child may be a Child of God and accept any Mercy from him as far as God doth authorize me so to do page 188 199. Indeed my Judgement was and is that the point of Infant-Baptism hath its considerable difficulties which may occasion Wise and Good men to doubt or to be mistaken in it page 219. Therefore I never took the point of it to have such weight as that all that differed from me in it must be denyed either love liberty or communion If I know my own heart I do as heartily love a sober Godly man that is against Infant-Baptism as I do such men that differ from me in other Controversies and much better than one of my own Judgement who hath less Piety and Sobriety Nor do I think there is so much Malignity in the bare Opinion which denyeth Infant Baptism as that all the Anabaptists miscarriages should arise from the nature of that Opinion Ibid. I know that in the Ancient Churches men were left at Liberty both when tâ—â— would be Baptized themselves and when their Children should be Baptized and though Infant-baptism was without any Original since the Apostles yet it was not a forced thing And were it in my power it should be so still I would not deny Christian-love nor Church communion nor publique Encouragements to any pious peaceable man for being an Anabaptist I am not therefore half so Zealous to turn men from Anabaptistry as I am to perswade both them and others to live together with mutual forbearance in Love and Church-communion notwithstanding such differences page 221. I make no question but many of them are far better men than I and knowing my self lyable to Error c. I am far more offended at their Separation than their Opinion page 228. I know not by any Scripture or Reason that Re-baptizing is so hainous a sin as should warrant us to contemn at our Brethren page 233. By which you see Mr. Baxter is not so much offended with the Anabaptists as their Separation To which we say Let Mr. Baxter by his Elaborate Systems and subtil Distinctions first convince the Pâ—edo-Baptists of their error herein as the Independants and others and especially his Friend Mr. Wills who though he hath Written so much for Infant-Baptism yet 't is well known he is a wide Separatist May not the Church of Rome cry out against Mr. Baxter for his Separation Might not the Church of England do so formerly And may they not still yea Mr. Baxter also cry out against Mr. Wills and his party and say they are Rigid Independents and Separatists What means then all this Out-cry against the Antipaedo Baptists unless they would have us believe that they are such Universal Dictators as have Authority over Faith and are Infallibly inspired to propound Rules for all others that when they Separate we must and where they have Communion so must we Now if Mr. Baxter will vouchsafe to do Two Things 1. Tell us of what Church he is of 2. Prove that Church to be rightly Constituted according to the Primitive Pattern We will not then Separate from him In the mean time we judge it our duty whereunto we have already attained to Walk by the same Rule And if any be otherwise-minded we hope the Lord will in time reveal it unto them Amen FINIS ANIMADVERSIONS Upon a Late Book Intituled INFANT-BAPTISM From HEAVEN and not of MEN In Answer to Mr. Henry Danvers his Treatise of BAPTISM WHEREIN Believers Baptism in Opposition to Infants pretended Baptism is further Vindicated and Confirmed And that Believers only are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham is also further Evidenced against the Exceptions of Mr. Joseph Whâ—ston By E. H. Non adeo perdite confidens sum ut ausim aliquâ—d affirmare quod Sacra Scriptura silentio praeterit Theodoret. i. e. I am not so desperately confident that I dare affirm any thing which the Holy Scripture doth pass by in silence Grace doth not run in a Blood neither is the love of God Tyed or Entailed upon any Linage of Men Caryl on Job cap. 5. The Preface to the READER Courteous Reader THe Delay of the Fore-going Treatise in the Printer's hands gave me Opportunity to peruse and briefly to Animadvert upon Mr. Whiston's Book wherein I find a promising Title and very little more To Trace him in all his Meandrous Digressions would be an Argument I want other Business The main strength of his Objections is in the said Treatise fully Enervated and I do not think my self concerned to pursue him when he insists upon matters besides the Question in Debate His Exceptions touching the matter of Antiquity are substantially answered by Mr. Danvers yet shall be briefly glanced upon here I shall not now Dispute whether it be Generously done by Mr. Whiston to assail with so much Violence one that 's already beset with such clamarous Adversaries as Mr. Baxter and Mr. Wills But he gives the Curious some occasion
Baptism he pleads for But why so because Mr. Whiston takes it for granted that Infants were Church-members under the Law and this Commission nor no other Text in Scripture doth not repeal those priviledges Is that it why then let us examine whether this be sound Doctrine And that it is not so will â—ppear from Acts 21.21 where you have plain Scripture-proof that Infant-Church membership is repealed The words are And they are informed of thee that thoâ— teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses saying that they oâ—ght not to Circumcise their Children neither to walk after the Customes These words were spoken by the Elders of the Church at Jerusalem to Paul in which are these things to be considered 1. A Report of a certain new Doctrine that Paul had Preached among the Jews 2. The Doctrine it self that they ought to forsake Moses c. Concerning the first we are to examine Whether Paul did Preach such a Doctrine or no 2. Whether the Doctrine he Preachâ—d were true For the first it is evident that Paul did preach so that they must forsake Moses and not Circumcise their Children c. otherwise he need not have consented to purifie himself and so far to Judaize contrary to the Gospel and his own light his denial only of the matter of Fact would have been a sufficient Confutation of such a Rumor But he denies it not that would be to forsake his Gospel-Ministry but in a peaceable condescension complies to purifie himself that he may appear to be no Contemner of the Law that removing their prejudice he may have opportunity to preach Christ the Anti-type of all their Typical Administrations 2. That also is undoubted that the Gospel-Doctrine he preached viz. that the Jews and all others ought to forsake Mâ—ses c. is true and suitable to the Gospel dispensation It Mr. Whiston denies it he is more Jew than Christian The next doubt is What is meant by forsaking of Moses To which I Answer 1. To forsake him as a Prophet or Minister of the Gospel Church God having now raised up another Prophet whom we must Hear in all things relating to the matter and manner of Worship in the House of God For though Moses was faithful in his House as a Servant yet he must give way to Christ the Great Prophet Heb 3. and no longer give Laws or prescribe Rules about the matter or manner of Worship yea nothing as to the Subject Time or Place is to be received from him but in all things we must be instructed by that Prophet that God hath raised up from amongst our Brethren this is the substance of Paul's Doctrine 2. Not to Circumcise their Children is to forsake Moses as the Text particularly makes out because Circumcision was a Law or Doctrine they had learn't from Moses for though Circumcision was first given to Abraham yet it is called Moses Law John 7.22 Moses therefore gave unto you Circumcision c. But you must forsake this Law or Doctrine of Moses and not Circumcise your Children any more This sounds very Harsh and was very grievous and offensive to them that it caused such Fear in the Elders that some Trouble and Hazard to his Person would follow which was the ground of that Compliance in purifying themselves to pacifie the Jews for the present they being so exceeding zealous for the Law and especially for Circumcising their Children that Opposition was Death or severe Punishment Now had Paul told them their Children should be Baptized and that Baptism was come into the room of Circumcision c. in all likelihood it would have quieted them But seeing there is no mention of any such thing that He preached such Doctrine amongst them which without Controversie would have been mentioned had he done so it plainly appears that Paul knew no such thing neither had he any Commission to preach such Doctrine as the Baptizing of Infants amongst them And this further is confirmed if we consider the determination of the First Council who were met about this very Doctrine of Circumcising Children c. that the Jews were still so zealous for and knew not how to bear the Abrogation of it though they did believe in Christ and they would have enjoyn'd it upon the Gentiles as necessary to Salvation Acts 15. Now if it were a duty to Baptize Children instead of Circumcising of them then the Apostles were unfaithful in not telling them of it especially at this time when there was so fair an opportunity to quiet their Consciences and to put the matter out of doubt and for ever to cashier the Doctrine of Circumcision which we see the Jewish Teachers were afterwards endeavouring to promote But in regard the Apostles mention no such thing as Baptizing of Infants in their debates in this Council nor in their Letters they sent to the Churches it is evident they received no such Commission from Christ And how any man can Believe otherwise and not reflect imprudence yea horrible unfaithfulness upon the Apostles I cannot imagine The next to be considered in this Text is that the Jews are also forbidden to walk after the custom that is after the manner for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Acts 15.1 unless ye be Circumcised after the manner of Moses c. So that this word Custom or Manner of Moses prohibits not only all Observation of the Law of Moses bvt also all walking after the same way and manner as the Ordinances of the Law were administred in Here is not only an Injunction of non-conformity to the Law but to the manner of it also They are not only forbidden to Circumcise their Children but also to walk after the Custom or Manner of Circumcision and therefore not to Baptize their Children Paul might have said indeed to Circumcise your Children was the Custom and Manner of Old but as for the Baptizing them we have no such custom nor the Churches of God And hence it is clear that Infants Church-membership is repealed and consequently have no right to Baptism For If Infants as our Modern Paedo-Baptists alledge were virtually Commanded to be Baptized in the Command for Circumcision and that Infant-Circumcision and Infant-Baptism were both Instituted together as they that bring the later from Gen. 17.7 must needs hold then they are both uncommanded again in these very words Acts 21.21 where God by the mouth of Paul forbad them to Circumcise their Children any longer and to walk after the Old Customs I say again if Infant-Baptism was commanded in the Command for Circumcision of Infants then by Analogie for Contrariorum contraria est ratio Infant-Baptism must needs be abrogated and remanded in the abrogation and remanding of Circumcision And though I do not believe that the precept to Circumcise Infants was so much as a Virtual or Consequential Command to Baptize them yet it is an Argument ad hominem at least and I hope the Paedo-baptists