in unbelief that have a Zacheus to believe for them Surely this is none of Christs Gospel Rom 1.17 and 3.28 Joh. 3.5 c. 3ly Act. 2.38 39. Yields as little proof for this assertion as the other And he that can find this Consequence there deserves to be stiled Magnus Apollo The promise to the Children was not as they were the seed of Believers For their Parents were not then Believers Nor to them nor any other but as called by the Lord which calling made them Christs and capable of Baptism The whole as the context shews is an incouragement against despair by reason of their Crucifying Christ and wishing his blood upon them and their Children Mat. 27.25 For which very sin the Apostle tells them they may have Remission Christ being raised for their Salvation and their Childrens viz. their posterity and all God should call though a far off if they did Repent and were Baptised into the name of Christ Of our mind herein is Dr. Hamond a great pleader for Infant Baptism who sayes in his Resolutioâ—s concerning Infant Baptism Sect. 81. If any have made use of that unconcludent Argument viz. Act 2 39. I have nothing to say in defence of them the word children there is really the posterity of the Jews not particularly their Infant Children And Dr. Taylor lib. Proph p. 233. Sayes that by Children is meant the posterity of the Jews adding that he that when ever the word children is used in Scripture shall by Children understand Infants must needs believe that in all Israel there were no men but all Infants and if that had been true it bad been the greater wonder that they should overcome the Anakins and beat the King of Moab and March so far and discourse so well for they were all called the Children of Israel 4ly Act. 16. â—1 proves not his Conclusion for the Scripture Records that the Jaylors family had the Word of the Lord spoke to them as well as himself ver 32. Yea that they believed ver 34. 1 Cor. 7.14 Proves not the Salvation of a believers house to assert it is to run into a desperate error viz. That the unbelieving wife is saved by the husbands faith and è contrà Which I suppose no sober Protestant durst affirm And Mr. Whiston will do well to recal that expression p. 108. That the Master of the family believing his house shall be saved upon Condition of his believing it being so grossly contrary to the tenor of the Gospel let him peruse Rom. 1.17 and 3.28 Heb. 11.6 Mar. 16.16 John 3.5 c. Mr. Whiston I observe all along his Book in defence of Infants Baptism borrows his most formidable Artillery from the Old Testament Yet tells us be argues not from Analogy with Circumcision But if he can make me believe that he has a notable faculty of perswading For alas how does he invita minerva squeeze Arguments from Gen. 17.7 to prove Infant Baptism And I appeal to all Readers whether that place and Circumcision be not the Alpha and Omega of his proofs What a tedious talk does he make to prove that there is an Idendity betwixt the Old and New Covenant how learnedly does he labour to prove that the Covenant entred with Abraham respected his natural seed Whereas if He means the Covenant of Circumcision as 't is called Act. 7.8 who denys it But if he means the Covenant in the first notion laid down before we absolutely deny iâ— and he can never prove it the contrary is largely evinced This exploit fills up almost his whole Book and what a considerable range of words does he muster up to shew the agreement betwixt Circumcision and Baptism p. 226. and so to p. 148 Does he not lay p. 222 That the will of God concerning Circumcision shews us what his will is concerning Baptism and that as the one so the other should be applyed to Infants and what 's this but Analogy His talk p. 240. c That Baptism is the sign or token of the Covenant vow is vain and his Inference that as Circumcision of old so Baptism is now the token of the Covenant is groundless But suppose that were granted which yet there is no ground for his definition of a sign produced from Austiâ— p. â—16 viz. id quod se ipsum sensui preter se aliquid animo repraesentat or his later Author Signum est quod se ipsum sensibus id cujus signum est intellectai aufert or another Author I can help him to viz. Scheibler Metaphys lib. 1. cap 26. Signum est quod potentiae cognoscenti aliquid representat viz. That a sign or token is that which represents something signed to the mind or understanding will do him more hurt then good For Baptism according to these definitions cannot be a sign or token of the Covenant of Grace to any Infants for it doth not represent the Covenant either to their sense or understanding Learned men divide signs into Natural and Arbitrary Natural have a natural connexion with the thing signified as Smoke to Fire Arbitrary signs signifie only by Ordination or Institution Now Baptism is no natural sign to the Covenant of Grace nor do learned men so account it And those that affirm it to be an Instituted sign would do well to produce the Institution if they know where to find it in Scripture Further Signs are divided into Rememorative Demonstrative and Prognostick The first shews what 's past as the Lords Supper shews Christs Death The second something present The third something to come as Physitians Prognosticate the event of Diseases by the Symptoms Now Baptism is in neither of these acceptations a sign to Infants For it neither Remembers them of the Covenant nor Demonstrates it to them nor Prognostcates that they shall ever be in it Therefore it is not a sign or token to Infants to the Covenant of Grace any way that I know of Mr. Whiston comes at length to improve the Instances of Baptized Housholds for his service And insists much on Lydia's p. 273. But that this will do him no good is apparent in my answer to Mr. Baxter His Criticism upon the phrase Act. 16.34 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rending it he rejoyced with all his house he believing in God is vain For by this Interpretation his whole family was capable of rejoycing Therefore no Infants there they being uncapable of such impressions The word was spoke to them all and its evident they all believed the adverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with his whole family in the propriety of the phrase having an immediate relation and connexion to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believing And therefore I fee no reason to reced from the vulgar translation and lean upon such an extorted Criticism as contradicts the plain meaning and scope of the text He labours to fasten an absurd sense also upon that text Mat. 28.19 viz. That the persons to be baptized are the Nations in gross But
himself in its spoil But to the matter 1st Mr. Danvers having quoted a passage from Bellarmine to shew that Apostolical tradition was esteem'd the principal ground of Infant Baptism it seems omitted that saying deducitur evidenter ex Scripturis And Dr. Fields saying after such another expression that the Scriptures deliver us the ground of it Mr. Will 's though he pleads for himself in the like case Vind. p. 7. accuses him for it App. p. 162. To which 't is said that in all such cases to prevent Cavil and offence it were better if the intire sentence were alwayes exprest But the Circumstances that made this appear to us to have no great weight in it were these 1st Mr. Danvers sets down Rep. p. 74. these words of Bellarmine omitted before of which we were bound to take notice being a Book precedent to Mr. Will 's his appeal and before any reproof for the omission as we can find 2ly It is evident the Jesuite urged Tradition for their practice of Paedobaptism And that phrase was but a faint Insinuation that it may be gathered from Scripture viz. Joh. 3.5 and such mistaken places And the quotation was pertinently enough applyed if Mr. Will 's his example were a sufficient excuse for those that imitate him in giving only what Authors say to the matter in hand But in Mr. Danvers his Answer in his Rejoynder p 25. here are two new errors charged 1. That he sayes he quoted Bellarmine under the head of Tradition 2. That he quotes the passages before omitted under the head of Consequences p. 74. Reply 1st 'T is true the term Tradition is not mentioned in the Contents of that Chapter but there is that that 's equivalent viz. The Scriptures total silence about Infant Baptism with the necessity of Scripture warrant to Authorize every Ordinance For both which branches several Authors are produced And Bellarmine for the first which he expresly owns viz. That there is no express Scripture for it though he pretends it may be deduced from thence That Mr. Danvers quotes that passage Rep. p. 74. as before Mr. Will 's owns being not able to contradict it And though the Chapter or Section has not the term consequence mentioned no more then the other Tradition Yet the Marginal note expresses it to be a Tradition as they word it gathered from the Scriptures which is the same with them as Consequence So that upon the whole matter it doth nor appear how this charge can be advanced to any other title then trivial and insignificant nor can we expect that labour can turn to any great account that 's spent in consulting such a meer Catching at words 2ly 'T is true we find not Dr. Field expresly quoted in that 74th page Yet it is to be considered that it is plainly referr'd to For Mr. Danvers drawing a Parallel between the Popish and Protestant Paedobaptists sayes thus p. 74. Do the Papists affirm that notwithstanding it is a Tradition or custome of the Church yet that it is plainly enough gathered out of the Scriptures viz. from Circumcision for which he quotes Bellarmine And then adds so doth Mr. Will 's for the Protestants say who in p. 105 106 107 108. Infant Baptism gives their sentiments from Rivet Calvin Dr. Field the later in this very quotation word for word all which Mr. Danvers sums up that notwithstanding there is neither precept nor practice expresly written in the Scripture yet it is gathered thence by consequence as coming in the room of Circumcision and therefore that Infants have a right to Baptism from the right that Infants had to Circumcision Mr. Will 's p. 105. Now Mr. Danvers referring to the place where Mr. Will 's quotes the Protestants one of which was Dr. Field referred necessarily also to Dr. Field there which the matter disputed must needs lead the enquiring Reader to And though it were better in order to prevent the Cavils of such as lye at Catch to be more express in references yet we conceive a Candid and Judicious Reader will have better thoughts of Mr. Danvers in this particular then what are suggested by an Antagonist that so ground lesly perserveres in his severe and unjust inculcations of unfaithfulness in Mr. Danvers and partiality in us and that without stronger demonstration then such frivolous Instances as this and what are ejusdem farinae 2ly As to the passage of Dr. Owen Mr. Danvers his answer is full and proper and satisfactory doubtless to any ingenious Reader as appears in his Reyonder p. 25 26. It being indeed needless to add any more thereto 3ly Mr. Will 's Appeals to the Reader p. 22 23 Whether the passages about Lydia Beza and Ames App. p. 167. be so trivial and insignificant as we make them And which is also left to be determined at that Tribunal whether they be not indeed so Or have evidenced enough in them to prove Mr. Danvers a forger Next he Renews his Charge of Self-contradiction against Mr. Danvers viz. That if he made the ground of the Corinthians scruple 1 Cor. 7.4 To arise from the instance of putting away strange Wives in Ezra and Nehemiah's time it was a plain contradiction to make the words else were c an Argument ab absurdo because from those Instances they could conclude no otherwise but that their children were Bastards and to be put away And then desires such of us as know what an Argument abassurdo is to exercise our reason about this matter and again affirm it no contradiction if we can and the Instance trivial and insignificant Reply What Mr. Will 's calls a contradiction here appears not so to be but the contrary For the Jews being under a strict inhibition to marry with strange wives or mix with the Gentiles as appears Ezra 10.2 c. and Neh. 13.27 c. Yet transgressed against the Lord in that particular and began a Reformation in Ezra's time Which practice of old questionless gave ground to the Corinthians scruple whether the believing husband or wife may cohabit with the unbelieving Yokefellow Which doubt the Apostle Resolves in the affirmative as if he had told them 't is true you were strictly prohibited under the law to cohabit with strange wives but that was under a Dispensation which is now relaxt And the end of such a prohibition viz. to keep the people of whom according to the flesh the Messiah was to come unmixt with the Idolatrous Nations is now come to pass as so the cohabiting with a strange or unbelieving Yokefellow which was then a sin is not so now and the issue of such a marriage is not illigitimate now as it was then Therefore the relation is mutually sanctified else that is had not the Gospel dispensation taken off the legal inhibition aforesaid and the Relation were not so sanctified your children were unclean that is the issue of an unlawful bed but now the Gospel dispensation allowing this Cohabitation are they holy that is
not the product of an unlawful marriage as in Ezra and Nehemians time but legitimate And therefore the Apostle uses an Argument ab absurdo which is drawn from the absurdity following the contrary practice to perswade them to dwell together that so they might not fall into the absurdity they were by their separation thinking to avoid the way to have an unhallowed issue being now contrary to what it was in Ezra's time viz. theirs was so by cohabiting but ours by separation Therefore where to find any other contradiction here then what is between the two dispensations of Law and Gospel vve cannot yet discover VVas it Contradiction in the Apostle to satisfie the seruple of his doubting Gorinthians and to shevv them that the vvay they vvould take to escape an absurdity vvas to fall into it Certainly this charge is easily avoided and the Contradiction found there if any degenerates from its definition given by Aristotle l. 1. poster c. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that I conclude there is no inconvenience in affirming this instance to be still trivial and insignificant Mr. Will 's his next instance of self contradiction is as p. 24. That Mr. Danvers tells us from Sabastin Franck 2 Ed. p. 231. That about the year 610. Childrens Baptism was held in many places of little esteem by the learned endeavours of Adrianus and others And yet in his Reply p. 140. He tells us viz. from Austin That Infants Baptism was universally received in the 7 Age in other parts of the VVorld to beget them to regeneration as imposed by the Church of Rome But as to this Mr Will 's vvould do vvell to consider that the contradiction if any lyes betvvixt his tvvo Authors Austin and Franck. And vvhich kind of scruings may be very unsafe least absurdety be reflected upon the Scriptures themselves vvho tell us in one place that the Disciples went out preaching the word in every place Mar. 16.20 Act. 8.4 And yet again that the Ap. Paul aftervvards preached in many places vvhere the vvord had not been preached Rom. 15.14.20 And that Infants Baptism it self as Mr. Danvers observes may be of little esteem in many places in England vvhere so universally imposed and received in every Parish A sign hovv hard Mr. Will 's vvas put to it vvhen he vvent so far and yet could find no greater contradiction then this 5ly As for Innocents giving Divine honour to the Popedome 't is true vve find not the Original vvords litterally bear any such thing though he joyned Peter vvith God himself in his invocation And the veneration Papists give Peter as they fancy him to be their Proto-Pope induced Mr. Danvers to think Innocent addrest his adoration to him as such he not mentioning any other Saint 6ly In the Quotation from Vossius App. p. 108. Mr. Will 's is grosly out Mr. Danvers said 2 Ed. p 118 119. That Vossius informeth us from good authority that from Austin to Bernards time seven or eight hundred years the Custome was to Baptize naked both men women and children with the reasons usually given by the Ancients for the same viz. That they might therein be as in the state of Innocency and as naked in their second as at their first Birth and as they expected to be in heaven and therein no otherwise then Christ was upon the Cross which you may read at large in p. 31 32 33 34 35 36. quoting these several authorities to justifie it Cyril c. Mr. Danvers mentions all p. 119. In our former examination of this Charge finding Mr. Wills under a mistake vve let it pass under that remark of trivial and insignificant but since he is not contented therewith it shall novv be demonstrated that Mr. Will 's his accusation vvas not only trivil but a gross falshood and therefore he had better have been satisfied vvith our first Ansvver For 1st In Mr. Will 's his quotation of Mr. Danvers he disingenuously conceals the later part vvhich plainly evidences that Mr. Danvers gave only the sum of vvhat 's largely insisted upon by Vossius in the said pages and should necessarily be inserted But Mr. Will 's savv that that vvould spoil his charge And let any man of common reason judge vvhether it be not an unrighteous and unhandsome procedure in Mr. Wills thus to frame a charge of his ovvn and produce a large quotation from Vossins insinuating that Mr. Danvers had mistranslated it vvhereas Mr. Danvers only takes a fevv vvords out of that quotation and the follovving pages comprehending the substanâ—e thereof vvhich he faithfully gives 2ly As to the matter of fact in Controversy viz. Whether the Ancients gave those as the reasons for Baptizing naked vvhichr M. Danvers asserts and Mr. Wills denyes charging Mr. Danvers with ignorance and gross perversion of that quotation is certainly Mr. Wills's gross perversion if not ignorance as these instances clearly prove and as clearly Justifie Mr. Danvers Vossius in his â—hes Theol. Edit Bellositi Dobunorum 1628. p. 350. c. and in the Ed. quoted by Mr. Danvers p. 32 33. c. Cites Cyril Hierosol Catech ystag 11. Statim igitur ut ingressi estis vestem exvistis quod quidem exuti hominis antiqui cum operibus suis imago fuit Atque ita exuti eratis nudi imitantes in hac eum qui in cruce nudatis fuerat Christum that is Therefore as soon as you were entred you put off your Cloathes which was indeed the signification of your putting off the Old man with his works which being so put off ye were naked so imitating Christ who was naked upon the Cross And a little further nudi fuistis in conspectu omnium non vos pudebat Revera in hoc enim protoplasti Adam ferebatis exemplum quia nudus in paradiso fuit tamen nullo afficiebatur pudore that is ye were naked in the sight of all men and were not ashamed in which you did truly hold forth the example of your first parent or first formed Adam who was naked in Paradise and was not ashamed So Amphilochius in the life of Bazil vvriting thus of him Petebat adeo aliquod suae fidei signum ostendi surgensque cum tremore suis se vestibus spoliat unáque cum vestibus veterem exuit hominem that is he besought of God that some sign of his faith may be shewn and arising with fear disrobes himself of his apparel and with his Cloathes put off the old man Ergo sayes Vossius eo quod vestimenta exuebant mysticè significabatur veterem exui hominem that is therefore in as much as they put off their Cleathes the putting off the old man was mystically signified And to this purpose several other Fathers are Cited concluding vvith a passage from Bernards 46 Sermon de paupertate Ideo nudi nascimur in hoc saeculo nudi etiam accedimus ad Baptismum ut nudi sine impedimento perveniamus ad Caelum that is Therefore we
come naked into this world and naked do we approach Baptism that naked and without any impediment we may come to heaven Novv is it not evident that the Ancients baptized naked as Mr. Danvers sayes to signifie the state of innocency and that they may be as naked in their second as at their first birth c. And if so is not Mr. Wills his charge false and injurious and his Reflection upon us of partial and inconsiderate rash and unrighteous And if he has read Vossius hovv can he clear himself from ignorance or dishonesty so to misrepresent him or if he has not read those pages hovv unfit is he to controul or correct those that have 7ly As to the Quotation about Arnobius I cannot Judge Mr. Wills his quarrell about it to be any other then an instance of his unrighteous vociferation for Mr. Danvers rold him he mentioned that some only of those that follovved where taken from the Magdeburgs and if Arnobuâ— be not there how could he take him thence But under this head it may be necessary to prevent further Cavils of this nature to acquaint the Reader that Mr. Danvers sometimes when he takes some quotations from the Magdeburgs adds also as in this particular and that from Jerom. 2 Ed. p. 56. and that of Bazil p. 55. and some few others some quotations from the original Authors themseives not taken from the Magdeburgs and sometimes takes part of a quotation from the Magdeburghs and adds to it out of the Original which indeed should be so mentioned in distinction from what he borrows from the Magdeburghs though Ingenuous and Candid Readers would have recourse to the Authors themselves whom he mentions in their examinations before the publication of their Censures yet it were better to prevent those that are not Ingenuous from this ground of Cavil by mentioning particularly what he took from the Magdeburgs and what from the Originals 8ly As to what Mr. Wills complains about himself p. 27. of his Censure that Mr. Danvers patcht up words at a 100 pages distant to make him say that Infant Baptism may be lawful because not forbidden in Scriptures I say that I find what Mr. Danvers quoted as Mr. Will 's Speech is truely recited and Mr. Danvers only gathers from Mr. Wills that he insinnates such a thing and Mr. Wills his words seem to lookas if he would have such an inference take place though in direct terms not so worded as Rep. p. 93. to which I refer and to Rejoynd p. 43. 9ly As to the phrase is puerum sine baptismo mortuum resusitârit ex mortuis tandem baptizarit It is granted the most genuine Interpretation is that he raised a child that dyed unbaptized from the dead and Baptized him And Mr. Danvers denys it not only pleads for an equal liberty of offering the Reasons that induced him to that translation and remark which is but fair to allow him 10ly As to the Synod of Illerdon in Spain we found by the restimony of two able persons in the Dutch Tongue that Mr. Danvers had it from that Dutch Martyrology cited a sew lines below it p. 114. And Mr. Danvers citing it from thence acquits him from the Charge of forging or perverting it And if they that inserted it there misapply it they ought to bear the blame 11ly Next Mr. Wills p. 30. repeats his charge of strdnge Doctrines and conceals Mr. Danvers his answers to them which is scarce honest dealing But the Reader is referred to Mr. Danvers his Rejoynder p. 49 50 51. For an Answer to this Charge At length Mr. Wills p. 31. comes to vind cate the particular instances we remark to him And 1st makes an Apology for leaving out part of Nazianzens sentence to which it was said that the reason of that remark was to make him sensible that he should not bear so severely upon Mr. Danvers for such matters as he himself was guilty of as that particular was a proper instance of and that it is but equity in him to take the same plea he himself makes use of As for his calling Mr. Danvers his address to him about the passage in Bazil trepanning is doubtless an expression that argues Cholar and passion which commonly overmaster judgement and charity too But how candid Mr. Danvers was therein let p. 74. of Rejoynder be considered 2dly Next he endeavours to excuse his stopping his translation out of Calvin which we mention to him p. 4. And sayes He translated so much of it as might satisfie any that bad the use of their reason that Calvin owned it was no where expresly mentioned viz. Insant Baptism therefore although c. Clearly imply'd it Reply â—st If Calvin owned as Mr. Wills is forced to confess that there was no express Scripture for the practice what ground had he to accuse Mr. Danvers for so representing hith 2dly An English Reader might be imposed upon though having the use of his reason notwithstanding Mr. Wills his For although c. His talk that our affection to our Champion would not suffer us to be so just aâ— to blame Mr. Danvors is a sarcastick and groundless surmise Mr. Danvers sayes that Calviz confesses no Infants were by the Apostles bands baptized which is true and appears from the very Latine Quotation cited by Mr. Wills p. 161 162. Appeal Therefore how could we blame Mr. Danvers for speaking truth 3dly As to his excuse about charging Mr. Danvers for adding to Jerome whereas the words as we found were Verbatim his cannot be esteemed so plausible as to acquit Mr. Wills who should before so rash an assertion that the words were not Jeromes examine Jerome himself Mr. Danvers sayes some not all that follows are given by the Magdebargs Though 't is confest it were better as said before if what he took from them and what from the Originals they refer to were so specified 4ly Whether Mr. Wills his palliation of leaving out Estins Ann. Gen. 17.7 at the end of the Quotation fathered upon Calvin be sufficient to cover so wilfull an abuse we leave the Judicious Reader to determine And judge Mr. Wills his senseless shifting it over not worth while to detect 5ly As to the Quotation from Dr. Hammond Mr. Wills was mistaken in affirming so confidently that Mr. Danvers misquoted it whereas he did not as was demonstrated Rejoynd p. 31. with some concurrent passages that evidenced Dr. Hammond was of that mind sully as of truth he ought And if Mr. Wills esteems that first a worse edition we are not of his mind in that particular For we judge that passage as it is altered to contain an untruth as may be easily demonstrated and the Drs. first to be sound and consonant to the most Orthodox Writers and to himself also in the same thing 'T is true some of us saw a late Edition of the Drs. Annotations wherein that passage was as Mr. Wills quoted but being Printed since the Drs. death we knew not
Doctrine are not of Christs Church or body and therefore he is not their Saviour Let him tremble at this dreadful conceit Hhis talk that they may visibly belong to the Kingdom of God or satan is a meer fancy For Infants are neither in Gods nor the Devils visible Kingdom till they declare by their professions to whom they belong visibly Every Infant is in the invisible Kingdom of God or Satan that is elect or reprobate yet no child till he make profession doth visibly belong to the one or to the other We have no Warrant to take cognizance of them as in the one or the other visibly but as at years they visibly appear to cleave to either None are visibly Satans subjects but the Children of disobedience in whom he works Eph. 2.2 Such are not Infants visibly And none are Christs Diciples Subjects or Servants but such as obey him Rom. 6.16 His Servants are ye to whom ye obey c. 1 John 3.10 In this the Children of God are manifest and the Children of the Devil whosoever doth not Righteousness is not of God neither he that loveth not his Brother But I ask Mr. Baxter in whose visible Kingdom are Believers Infants before Baptism If he say in the Devils then he is guilty of the same execrable Doctrine he charges upon us If he say they are in Christs visible Kingdom before Baptism viz. his visible Church as Mr. Baxter himself calls it Review p. 12. Then how can they be said to be admitted by Baptism Is it not non-sense to say it enters them into a state they were in before To let one into a Room when he is already there is impossble Nor will the distinction of compleat and incompleat member serve Mr. Baxters men or members in fâ—eri and imperfectly as he stiles unbaptized Infants Christian Directory p. 806. since according to his own maximes an incompleat member has only jus adrem non in re ad Ecclesiam non in Ecclesia A title to not a standing in the Church But if they be compleat or perfect members after Baptism why have they not the supper and other Ordinances of the Church administred to them If they be still incompleat as before Baptism What benefit have they by Baptism being as lame Members after as before it Now as Mr. B. was told he must hold two first entrances into the visible Church viz. Natural-birth and Baptism of else he must hold that Baptism is not the first entrance Or else that Believers Infants are not entred and if not so not in the visible Church before Baptism If he says the first he contradicts all he says of entring the visible Church in his Plea against the seekers p. 343. If the second He contradicts all he says of Baptism's being the only entrance If the third then of these two things he must necessarily say one viz Either all the Infants of believers that die before their visible entrance into the visible Church by Baptism are damned without hope which he dares not aver if he be a Protestant or else that they may be in a state of Salvation and yet not be visible Members of the Church let him avoid this if he can And doth not this same Mr. Baxter tell us in his first Book of Baptism p 72. That it is not the denyal of Baptism directly that leaveth Infants in the visible Kingdom of the Devil And if he still holds this for a truth how can he honestly exclaim against us at this rate as if our denyal of Baptism to them had damned them all The text Act. 2.47 That God added to the Church such as should be saved is not as he falsly imagines to be understood of all or only such but only such men and women not such Infants as should be saved The impartial consideration of this makes his loud talk about our placing all Infants Unbaptized in the Kingdom of the Devil an empty jangle And if Mr Baxter thinks indeed that all unbaptized Infants are under that unmercyful and too cruel Character and that the meer act of external Baptism translates them to the Kingdom of Christ in holding the first he dreadfully preaches Millions of poor harmless souls to Hell And in holding the second he ascribes more to Baptism then ever God did viz. that it procures salvation and differs in nothing from the blasphemous feats ascribed by the Pope to his opus oparatum Mr. Baxter gives another argument why upon his Review he sees cause to plead a fresh for his Infant Baptism and that is the Baptizing of housholds Answ This argument is over and over answered And is it not strange that the word houshold in those few places mentioned must include Infants when Baptism is spoken of but when the passover is spoken of then Infants are excluded because else we shall argue from thence to their eating the Supper as they from Circumcision to their Baptism Do not these men force that signification upon words that best serve their turn 2ly There is no probability that Lydia had a husband or Children or she may be an ancient widdow and her children if she had any grown up In Act. 16.40 we read that those in her house were capable of consolation 2. The Jaylors family believed Act. 16.34 3. The houshold of Stephanus addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints 1 Cor. 16.15 4. Crispus believed in God with all his house Therefore there were no Infants Act. 18.8 We read of no more Baptized housholds in Scripture Narcissus and Aristobulus housholds are urged by some but there is no mention of houshold in the Greek but it may be Friends or Kindred Rom. 16.10 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reader I should weary thee and my self if I should run over the long-winded Repetitions of Mr. Baxter in this Review What I said already if well weighed Answers his tedious talk in the succeeding pages And I think my time more worth then to wast it in disproving naked dictates What becomes of Heathens dying Infants is known only to God and it is no better then sinful curiosity to be wrangling and too confidently obtruding our conceptions about such unrevealed matters 'T is certainly the safest way to be sober and advance no further in such quests then the Scripture guides We have enough revealed to employ our studies upon and make us wise to salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 To enervate our Plea for non-Baptising Infants viz. the want of Scripture president or grecept he propound a question to us thus There is no Scripture-president for Baptizing Kings he might add Coblers too must none therefore be Baptized Answ This is a gravelling quere he thinks But we find Scripture president for Baptizing men and women And in my Judgement Kings and Queens and Coblers also are men and women He says p. 17. The Scripture tells us not all that was done but all that must be done VVe grant it And if the Scripture tells us all that must be
as are acknowledg'd and allow'd making good that which is doubtfull by that which is certain and clearing that which is obâ—â—ure by that which is evident The Word of God is our Common Book let us search into it for that upon which we may ground our own belief and by which we may overthrow error Regula est mensura sui obliqui The Scripture sufficiently delivers us the positive truth which is enough for as whatsoever rightly followeth thereupon is true so whatsoever clasheth with or contradicteth the same is false No Science gives us any certain account of Negative Propositions for as much as to go about to number them all would be both an infinite and also an unprofitable useless piece of work Therefore such as go about to establish an opinion because not expresly forbidden in Scripture as Mr Walker seems to do p. 218. whose words are Never stand hunting for a Scripture for it so long as there is no Scripture against it do not consider that they undermine the securest ground we stand upon against the invaders of Religion For by that argument as Dr Owen well says ten thousand things may it made lawfull there being no express Scripture sorbidding the upstart inventions and impostures of Seducers by name and circumstance And what a croud of such corruptions have crept into the worship of God under this pretext in times of Superstition under the Antichristian servitude All the use we can make of Antiquity is either in matter of fact viz. whether such an opinion was in being in their time or matter of right viz. whether it ought to be so For this later no sober person will take any of the Antients to be competent Judges for that were to slight the Word of God and bestow the prerogative that belongs to it upon frail man which the Fathers themselves durst not usurp Therefore it rests that we can make no further use of them then to witness matter of fact And though we find them avouch a matter of fact yet that proves not that the thing is lawfull As for instance we find Cyprian the earliest pretended Patron of Paedobaptism in the 3d. Century if that Epistle to Fidus be a legitimate piece of his make mention of Infant Baptism and if that proves the lawfulness of that practice it will also prove the lawfulness of Infants receiving the Lords Supper because the same Cyprian asserts it to be necessary for them in order to their Salvation lib. 3. test ad Qui. c. 25. And Maldonate affirms in Joan. 6. num 116. that this opinion of Augustine's and Innocent the first 's prevail'd in the Church about 6â—0 years que scil sententia Augustini Innocentii primi sexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesia Eucharistiam etiam Infantibus fuisse necessariam Therefore that practice of Infant Commanion being as gray-headed as their Baptism deserves equal veneration with it It appears by this that it is worth enquiry upon what grounds those alledged Patrons of Paedobaptism went for if they have erred in the Reason of the foundation it will be easily believed they did also in the building Cyprian held Baptism simply necessary to salvation lib. 3. Ep. 8. ad Fidum So Jerom contra Pelag. and Austin l. 1. de peccat mor. remiss Si ergo ait ut tot tanta divina testimonia concinunt nec salus nec vita aeterna sine baptismo corpore sanguine Domini cuiquam spectanda frustra sine his promittitur parvulis That is Therefore if so many and so considerable divine testimonies agree that none must expect salvation nor life everlasting without Baptism and the body and bloud of the Lord without these it salvation is vainly promised to little ones This was the Universal ground and motive of the Fathers that assert Infant Baptism for many hundred years And as for their warrant 't is certain they built their practice upon Tradition not written being no more able then other men to find a word of Instituio for it in Scripture where it is not 'T is true that word Tradition is general signifying all Doctrines written or unwritten 2 Thess 2.15 But 't was by the Fathers as 't is now accommodated to signifie a Doctrine not written yet supposed to be Apostolical which if allowed to every pretender would bring miserable confusion into Religion and soon metamorphose it into an adulterated Form of humane Invention Mat. 15.9 10.16 Act. 5.19 Gal. 1.9 Now all those Fathers that practised Paedobaptism as an Apostolical practice not written as most have indeed done that being their best plea are justly to be reputed ours and of our side for they judge it not from Scripture therefore fetch its rise from Tradition which because it cannot bear the weight of an Institution the whole building is to fall for by flying for refuge to Tradition they do with us affirm that there is no better ground for Infant Baptism then humane Tradition which is indeed none at all And thus all the Testimony and Authority of these Fathers becomes ours There hath been we own such a thing as the Traditions of Christ and the Apostles which are of the highest and greatest authority but they were such things as afterwards were committed to writing by the Evangelists and Apostles other Traditions we avow none but esteem them Apocryphal So that it follows as I said that such as avouch Infant Baptism from Tradition acknowledge in so doing that there is no better authority for it and so conclude with us that it hath not the Scripture for its foundation And so those that give it to Infants as simply necessary to Salvation will be of no authority against us nor of any credit to their cause because the building must be levell'd according to the foundation and that being false they are necessitated to the mistake of their building And if there were any force in these authorities for Infant Baptism why should it not regulate our practice in the other Sacrament which was as anciently given to Infants as the other and says Dr. Taylor p 231. they were honest that understood the obligation to be parallel and in some places to this day as Brerewood in his learned Enquiries affirms viz. by the Jacobites Christians so called in great numbers in Syria Cyprus Mesopotamia Babylon Palestine so by the Habassines inhabiting Ethiopia and the Armenians c. so that if Antiquity be our guide it will lead us to administer the Supper as well as Baptism to Infants and if it fail in the one 't is to be suspected in the other I see not why the Supper should be a greater mystery then the other or the ceremony more significant or that the Duty of examining should need more of the use of Reason then believing repenting and confessing our sins 't is as natural and proper to Infancy to be nourish'd as to be born therefore as capable of the ceremony of their nourishment as of their birth
ornaments accommodated whatsoever is to be believed or practiced to the understanding and capacities of men and that in express and intelligible terms which is indeed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or meet accommodation of words into things Non movent non persuadent sacrâ—e literae says Picus Mirandula ad Hermol Barbar sed cogunt agitant vim inferunt legis rudia verba agrestia sed viva sed animata flammea aculeata ad imum spiritum penetrantia He that with a discursive understanding considers that the Scriptures in setting forth spiritual things aboundeth with Metaphors Parables and Similitudes borrowed from Earthly things and often calling them by the very names that material or earthly things are called cannot but arrive at this conclusion that it is rather to accommodate those spiritual matters to our capacities and understandings then to hide and obscure them from us God conveying the knowledge of heavenly things to us by preaching them by their respective parallels of earthly things for as Burgersdicius well notes in his Logick l. 1. c. 24. Oratio Metaphorica est perspicua sensibus ad animum assectusque movendos aptissima A Metaphorical speech is perspicuous to sense and to work upon the mind and affections most proper I shall readily own that the Lord having endued us with Reason that being a discursive faculty which from apt and proper premisses infers their natural Consequences we are not to flight that blessing but to make use of it in its proper place viz. in Resolving principles by fit Mediums into their Conclusions But to be too busie in matters of Gods positive worship which is as much out of the reach of our Reason to define as it is beyond the power of a blind man to judge of colours that depending meerly upon Gods Institution and for which we have his plain prescriptiors before us and boldly obtruding such Consequences in reference thereto as our dim faculty of ratiocination shall suggest is to offer strange fire at his Altar and shew our selves rather bold Interpreters then obeyers of his Law Ratio est potentia Discursiva à principiis ad Conclusiones sed non habet in se principia iliarum rerum quae side apprehenduntur impudenter itaque Conclusiones aedificat super arenam opinionum suarum cum sua principia quae sunt vera in ordint Naturae opponit principtis Theologicis quae sunt longe supra Naturam God has layn down the Rules of worship plainly and operly And as Wollebius says p. 7. Comp. Theol. Eâ—â—i quibusdam locis obscurior sit aliis tamen se explicat primarios Religianis articulos perspicuè tradit Though in some places it may be seemingly obscure yet in other places it expounds it self delivering the prime Articles of Faith very evidently and clearly 2 Pet. 1.19 20 21. 2 Tim. 3.15 16. And August de doctr Christ l. 3. c. 26. tells us that one place of Scripture must be expounded by another locum unum sacrae Scripturae per alium ejusdem Scripturae clariorem facere est optima interpretatio So that if the prime Articles of Faith and practical Duties be evidently and perspicuously laid down and delivered in the Scriptures as indeed they are what necessity is there to have recourse to such far fetch'd and extorted consequences as are usually calculated to countenance some beloved error for the sake of which the Text is so tormented and rackt by the Critical Wits of our age that there is scarce any Sect but pretend patronage from it though the Conclusions they squeeze are no more to be found in the premisses unless by that wretched art of Sophistry then a Dolphin in the Woods It is to be bewail'd what conviction proof men are even in so plain a case has not common and wofull experience taught us that when such a liberty of allowing Articles of Faith and Opinions from pretended Consequences was most encouraged that Religion was then most incumbred yea stifled with the products of such wanton wits as play'd the Sophisters with Scripture and obtruded such Brats of their own begetting as legitimate off-springs of the Word upon the too much abused and credulous Vulgar to the misleading of their Souls and fostering as well as propagating Division and Confusion in the Church whereas of right no products of an humane spirit should be receivable in Evangelical Religion Therefore in my opinion 't is the safest way to be sober in a matter of such high concernment and admit of no consequence in point of faith or practice that are obscure doubtfull or uncertain but only such as are plain and to be easily seen by any eye to be the natural and undoubted result of the premisses and consonant to the general nature and tenour of the Gospel And Mr. Wills his demand who shall be Judge to determine which consequences are plain and which not is a captious question propounded only to make a noise for the same interrogation lies against all consequences viz. who shall Judge what consequences are rightly deduced and what not which when he resolves it for himself resolves the other also for us 'T is certain that every mans Reason and discretive Judgment must in that case be his Judge no other being invested into that Supremacy 'T is true that appears plain to one which appears not so to another therefore we are to pray for a discerning and clear understanding Jam. 1.17 that we might be establish'd in Evangelical Truths without being beholden to the niceties of the Schoolmen and their idle speculations I have insisted the longer upon this point because we are generally charged to deny all Consequences from Scripture which is false for we grant that after the example of our Lord Jesus and his Apostle Mat. 22.31 32 Act. 13.33 34. we may from plain and lawfull premisses infer their necessary Conclusion The thing we deny is that such Sophistical pretended Consequences not at all countenanced in Scripture Text as our adversaries use in the management of this Controversie of Infant Baptism against us are of any validity or credit and should not therefore be used It may be well called the Naked Truth that a late excellent Pen hath so feelingly exprest There is nothing has prov'd a greater plague to Christianity then School-Divinity where new questions nice distinctions and rash conclusions are toss'd up and down like Tennis-balls whence proceed cruel bickerings and dangerous Heresies The first Divinity School we read of was set up at Alexandria by Pantenus whence sprung the Arrian Heresie which soon overran all Christendom In the subtilty of those Schools Heresie grew refined and with their distinctions and evasions quite baffled the plain and simple professors of the Gospel There is no giving way to rational Deductions and humane Argumentations against Faith and Scripture The Primitive Doctors converted from Heathenism and well skill'd in Philosophy Antiquity History and Logick or Sophistry translated those Sciences falsly so called into Christianity to