to him and his Houshold upon the condition of his and the Housholds Faith individually If this latter be his sense we joyn with him in it but renounce the former as absurd and unsound For if it were allowed then one may be Saved by the Faith of another a Fancy exploded by all Protestants and so it were enough to Save all England if every Master of a Family had been a Believer I would ask Mr. W. if taking himself to be a Believer he would Baptize his Servant and believe him Saved though an Unbeliever upon that ground If it be his Religion his practise shall not be my example Besides if the Covenant promise they so vehemently affirm to belong to Believers Children only must be limited to them and extend no further how come Servants that are not so concerned in the Birth-priviledg nor the Seed of Believers to be pleaded for by this man to have a right to Baptism and Salvation upon the Masters Faith We grant they have as much right to it as the Children that is none at all till Converted for the Text saies Thou and thy House and I presume the Servant is one of the House So that a Believers Servant has as much right to be Baptized as the Believers Child though the Servant cannot pretend to be the Issue of Faithful Parents And if so What 's the Reason they Baptize not their Servants they having the same Title with their Children to it And indeed if they will grant that the Master or Chief Man's Faith is enough to intitle all his Family or those under his Government to Baptism and Salvation then if the King of Spaine or the Pope or Great Turk be Converted 't is enough to Warrant our Paedo-Baptists to Baptize not only all in their great Courts but all that Inhabit their Territories also their Subjects being their Servants And how pure such a Doctrine is that would force so gross an absurdity upon the Scriptures let the World judge So that I humbly conceive it is very evident that neither the one nor the other Scripture jointly or severally holds forth the promise of Salvation or a right to Baptism to any one upon any other account than the Condition of personal Faith And that Mr. Whiston's confident boast of other Revelations is an empty flourish He saies p. 35. It was very rational yea necessary the Commission should be exprest in the Order it is because those to whom the Apostles were sent were in a state of darkness and ignorance wholly estranged from God and his wayes That 's a certain truth which we oppose not but is there not the same necessity still Are not the Nations in a state of darkness ignorance and wholly estranged from God now as well as then till Converted Are not the Infants you Sprinkle Children of Wrath as well as others And therefore is it not as necessary that the preaching of the Gospel should be antecedent to Baptism now as they confess it was then For my part I know no difference between a Heathen and an Vnbeliever they are both alike distant from God and both equally capable of his converting Grace And this serves for an Answer to this as well as the two following Considerations being of the same purport He affirms page 37. That the promise of Salvation and Covenant of Grace in which the promise is contained is still extended to the Houses or Families of Believers as such To which I say as before that his sayings would be more regarded if he would condescend to prove them But however if he means it conditionally viz. if they believe they may be Baptized and Saved we grant it But if he intends it positively that the Master's Faith is enough to Intitle the whole Family to Salvation the Covenant of Grace and Baptism without their personal Faith we absolutely deny it and he has not yet proved it nor indeed is he able to do it He goes on still harping upon the same string and tells us page 38. That if Mr. Danvers could have produced any one Scripture wherein the Apostles did exclude Infants or in their practice did refuse to Baptize them he had said something to his purpose 'T is an unpleasant task to be answering to the very same thing so often that when this Protaeus varies his word but not his sense to make the Reader believe it is a new Argument shall we be obliged to be as impertinent in replying as he is in inhauncing the bulk of his Book by such trifling Repetitions Have we not over and over again told him his own party with open mouth affirming the same thing that for every positive part of Gods Worship there is need of Scripture-precept or example to warrant it And is not our practice of Baptizing Believers confirmed by both as all parties confess Whereas Mr. Baxter and others own that Infant-Baptism has no express mention in Scripture nor in the Records and Histories of the Church More proofs p. 279. c. 2. Have we not again and again affirmed and which is no other than pure Protestant Doctrine Witness Dr. Owen in his answer to Mr. Parker page 345. where he calls what Mr. W. here urges a captious and sophistical Tale by which ten thousand things may be made lawful And a little further saies that every thing esteemed as any part of Divine Worship is forbidden that is not commanded That the affirmative Command includes the Negative and so the command to Baptize Believers and the constant practice of the Apostolical primitive times to Baptize only such is enough to warrant the exclusion of Infants from that Ordinance so that the Scripture indeed excludes them in as much as it doth not include them and the command of Baptizing persons upon a profession of Faith excludes such as cannot or will not make such a profession But he would have us tell him Where or when the Apostles refused to Baptize any But it were more proper for him to give us some instance when any were brought or offered to them to be Baptized for we read of none refused because none offered and certainly had it been the practice to Baptize Infants we should have some instance of it in some part of the New-Testament We never yet found in Scripture that the Apostles refused to Baptize the Children of Unbelievers shall we therefore conclude they were Baptized But we read Mark 10.14 the Text so often produced for Infant-Baptism but a pregnant place against it that the Disciples rebuked such as brought Children to Christ which surely they would not have done had it been the practice to Baptize them Besides the Text saies they brought them only to be touched by our Saviour and he blest not Baptiz'd them and certainly if any Infants had a right to be Baptized those Infants had it for Christ says of such is the Kingdom of Heaven he knew if they were of the Elect and therefore it would be no Hazard to baptize
to question that either he thinks they want Relief being very near a Defeat or have not so singular a Talent as himself to set off a bad Cause For my part I cannot conjecture what his design is unless by making up a Triumvirate of Champions he thinks to carry the Cause by Clamour and so share of the Applause their admiring Votaries are liberal enough of But as his Book needs little more Confutation than to be perused so the infirmity of his Reasoning serves to illustrate not foil the Truth he invades Our Adversaries themselves are forced to confess that most of those great Fathers the generality of Christians are so fond of have been of Corrupt Principles and tainted with Superstitious conceits and unsound Notions and that there are but very few of them to be found throughly Orthodox though of great Learning Zeal and Industry which is an Item to us not to lean upon the Authority of man though never so Celebrated by Ages and Nations but to have recourse to the Word of truth left for our Instruction and to seek our Warrant for Religious Duties there This consideration satisfies me That this Triumviri however acted by confidence or self-conceit may be out of the way and that their Dictates are no farther to be received than they agree with the Word of God The perplexing Systems spun out of mans own brain nice subtil Distinctions and long-winded periods may be taking with such as are firmly Espoused to a Party right or wrong or such as think him Conqueror that has most words but the sober enquiring Soul that seeks Truth not Victory will easily perceive the Vanity and Error of such a procedure Error cannot be disputed against without giving it its name and its Abettors cannot be reproved nor admonished but in words accomodated to their mistakes which indeed is not Railing but plain-dealing and which I hope is Apology enough for me if any Expressions should seem to be of too acute an Edge The Scripture commands us to reprove Errors sharply or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cuttingly Tit. 1.13 I love the Godly Paedo-Baptist as one that I know my Master Christ loveth but having such a Call to Witness to and Contend for his Truth I will as he shall enable me do it without daubing on the one and unnecessary sharpness on the other hand I know how to distinguish between such as by a mistaken Zeal utter provoking rash words and such as in pursuance to their Duty contend earnestly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints And that Believers Baptism is such an Ordinance as Christ delivered to his Saints I never heard doubted And that Infant pretended Baptism is not such is our work to manifest After all the Clutter our Antagonists kept to find some Evidence for the practice of Paedo-Baptism in Fathers Councils c. the Scripture as they fully own being silent about it they are glad to run for refuge at last to their new Invention of a Covenant they imagine to be made with the Carnal Seed of Believers Gen. 17.7 which they say Intitles them to be Baptized but to no other Ordinance under the New Testament a most pittiful Paradox and being ashamed to own the mistaken absurd Mediums its old and most celebrated Patrons have Insisted upon for its Support in Old Times they have Center'd in a more plausible pretence for it viz. the aforesaid Covenant which is their only Reserve at present And I cannot but admire that Men of any Reason should cry up Antiquity Antiquity at the Rate they do when at the same Instant they reject the Grounds and Reasons the Ancients used for the same And is it fair to derive the practice from Antiquity and add Reasons of their Own when the Old Reasons are found to be indeed Irrational We know Infant-Baptism has been of an Early Birth viz. in the Third or Fourth Century to save the Child's Soul and upon a mistake that it might be Damned without it But Infant-Baptism upon the modern ground of a Hereditary Covenant is new and altogether unknown to the Ancient Paedo-Baptists as by other hands is clearly made good And how plausible this New Argument is in the following Pages is examined And before I come to a particular Survey of this present Vndertakers Book I would tender to his Christian consideration hoping him to be a man that Fears God Whether it be so consistent with his Profession in so Taunting and proud a manner to scorn and reproach his Opponent whereas a meeker way would be not only his Duty but more graceful 2. Whether it be consistent with the Word of Truth to go about to impose his bare Ipse dixit's upon the World without any material proof from the Scripture 3. Whether it be consonant to the plainness of the Gospel to confound rather than Instruct the ordinary plain Reader with such a variety of needless impertinent Distinctions Hypotheticals Tedious and rambling Circumlocutions Preambles and dark miserable shiftings to find a Covert for his I adorantism in the Word of God 4. Whether it be Ingenuous or Honest to supply the want of Argument with such phrases as these proceeding from Immodesty to Impudence Warning his Reader to be wary of crediting any of his viz. Mr. Danver's perswasion can any man think he had any true actual Fear of God before his Eyes Down-right Falsities Forgeries meer Cheats c. though not the least Tittle of them proved to be justly chargeable upon Mr. Danvers And to all which I think as it is the product of an Vnruly provoking Spirit actuated by prejudice and its ireful concomitants the best return will be silence Let him consider Gal. 6.1 Mat. 5.5 We shall not Insist upon his uncomely carriage throughout the whole Book we leave it to his cooler consideration and the Reader 's Observation and shall present you with a brief account of his Book and then Select what wants our Reply and leave all to the judgment of the Reader The Book consists of Two parts 1. An attempt to weaken the Humane Authority urged by Mr. Danvers for Illustration of Believers Baptism in opposition to Infants Baptism 2. To Confute him in the Doctrinal part About the first he spends 24 pages his Objections are some scraps of what Mr. B. and Mr. W. have more at large urged and already Answered by Mr. D. of which nevertheless I shall anon take a brief View From p. 25. to 71. he goes about to disprove that Believers Baptism is only Christ's Baptism 2. To prove that the silence of the Scripture about Infant-Baptism tends more to its establishment than overthrow 3. To vindicate Tradition as he defines it viz. the Discoveries made by the Church Doctrinally and Practically from the Apostles time to us as a subordinate means whereby we come to know and are more fully confirmed what 's contained in the Doctrine of the Apostles 4. From page 71. to 129. he considers the Arguments from the Covenant and Faederal
should direct us to and so end the Controversie We have read the Bible over and over and an find no such thing we guess what he drives at and believe hee 'll settle at last in the Old shift of Gen. 17.7 But when he comes there we are prepared to encounter him He saies page 28. 'T is not necessary that oâ—r Lord Christ should expresly declare his whole mind in any part of his Word no not in the Commission it self for the administration of them He would do well to forbear charging Christ with Mental Reservations in his Directions and Commissions to his APOSTLES We think our selves concerned to obey that part of his will he is pleased to reveal to us and that he exacts our Obedience no futher And if Mr. Whiston durst do things in presumption that they are that paâ—t of his Will he reveals not so taking upon him to pry into the Arcana of God we will not be of his Confederacy nor Abettors to so desperate a piece of Arrogance Hee 'll find himself puzled to answer that Question Who hath required these things at your hands He proceeds and would make us believe that the Commission Mat. 28.19 is so intricate and insufficient that nothing of the principal things therein included can be made out by it and the better to make the Reader out of conceit with it propounds five or six Questions whether to puzzle or give us work or shew his dexâ—erity in quiâ—bling is not much to the matter It is 〈◊〉 discretion of Foxes to raise a dust that in the Obâ—curityâ—â— makes they may make an unobserved retreat â—o their Hole from the Hortsman's pursuit Our Author has learnt that policy his meaning is involved in a Labyrinth of Obâ—curities and inextricable Meanders 1. He tells us if we will believe him That it is not determinable by the Commission Whether the Nations were to be Discipled by Teaching or Baptizing That this is an idle Criticism will appear to any Body that understands the meaning of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to make Disciples by Teaching for Baptism cannot make one a Scholar and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the participle of the present-tense â—olds forth that immediatly upon their being made Disciples by the Word they are to be added to the Church by Baptism which is the interpretation that 's exemplified by the Apostles Acts 2.41 2. Who among the Nations to whom the Gospel is preached ought to be accounted Disciples and as such the proper subjects of Baptism This he proposes as a knotty point but as Aenigmatical as he would make it we evidence the Justice of our practice by this Dilemma Either Christ sent them to Baptize all the World whether they will be Baptized or not or such only as receive their Doctrine The former Mr. Whiston will not nor dares not avouch therefore the latter answers his Question Besides the Scripture plainly Resolves it and that he cannot say of his Infant Baptism for the dear sake of which he makes this clutter when it tells us That they were such as gladly received the Word Act. 2.41 and such as professed they believed with all their hearts Act 8 37. c. 3. Whether the Nations were to be Baptized as Discipled or as men the Resolution of the former may be enough for this also the Text saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizing but who why certainly it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples understood in the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which exactly agrees with the Apostles practice the best Comment upon the Text And if you refer the Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is false Syntax too unless you run for refuge to the figure Synthesis which is Oratio congrua sensu non voce and so conclude that all the Nation whether Discipled or not are baptizable 't is evident you pervert the meaning of Christ and would make up a Synagogue of Heathens instead of a Christian Church 4. What the manner of Baptism is whether to be administred by Dipping or Sprinkling this he saies is not determinable by the Commission But we affirm and he cannot deny that the Word properly and natively signifies to dip or plunge under water never to sprinkle and therefore conclude it the safest way to keep to the proper meaning of the VVord If Sprinkling had been Christs way he wanted not a fit expression for it And if he and his party durst play the Critticks upon his words and commit a Rape upon his very expressions we durst not joyn with them in it 5. Whether only Males or both Males and Females ought to be Baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the Masculine gender He might as well raise this scruple whether Females are concerned in most Christian Duties because the words of the Text are addrest to the Male kind the Masculine as the most worthy comprehending the other Gender Is a Woman excluded from the duty of Self-examination because the Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Masculine Gender 1 Cor. 11.28 or from the duty to abide in the Calling whereunto she is called because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 7.20 is so Doth not the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 respect both Man and Woman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they two shall be made one flesh And why we cannot be allowed the same liberty here I know not Having raised this mist he thinks in the Obscurity he has made about the Commission he might bring in Infant Sprinkling that it may lurk there too telling us that since these Particulars are as difficultly to be made out by the Commission as Infant-Baptism he may have recourse to other Revelations to evidence it Answ He might have had that liberty without making so Critical an Invasion upon this grand Commission 2. We tâ—ke it as an instance of the unlikelihood of his producing any other Revelation because he tampers with the Commission at that rate and spins out time never coming to any such Revelation wearying the Reader with such a Circuit and Maze of words that he forgets the beginning before he comes to the end But 3ly Let him from other Scriptures or Revelations make out That Infant-Baptism is warranted in this Commission as clearly and undeniably as we can Evidence that those only ought to be Baptized in pursuance of it as gladly receive the word Females as well as Males being the thing he would make us believe are so indemonstrable by it and we shall submit unto it In the mean time let him not take it ill if we take no more notice of him then of a man under a great and radical mistake though he may perhaps expect as much Reverence as Delphos He saies p. 32. The very not mentioning Infants does strongly imply his will they should be Baptized That 's a Consequence I never heard before and proves the Baptism of a Turks Child or of Bellâ— as well as the
might craftily insinuate him no fit person to inform the world of that abuse in Religion He thinks that worthy Gentleman encroaches upon the prerogative he himself made bold to seize upon viZ. handling cases of Controversy But he will not part so peaceably with the least aliquantulum of it A Souldier so he calls him must not enter the lists with this spiritual Warriour if he does he 'l fling Ink enough in 's face I have heard some say that his Soldiership and Mr. B's Chaplainship were contemporaries in the same service and that the later was far more active Therefore may not that Elogy bestow'd by Warlike Ajax upon his opponent be applicable to our Vlysses Quantumque ego Marte feroci Inque acie valeo tantum vaiet iste loquendo But let me tell him in his ear that if he re-engage any deeper in this quarrel and persist in his impenitent obstinacy he 'l receive as shamful a foyl as Mr. Tombes gave him For our Souldier ha's truth of his side and ability to manage it nor does he want an acute and elegant pen perhaps not inferior to the chaplain for all his triumphs and loud applauses of himself and his attempts to engrosse as vast an opinion of his accomplishments as the greatest University graduates though he never as they that know him say was a student at any 'T is no miracle to find him a match able to encounter him at Quill-skirmishes in this age But as to our querulous master of Arts Mr. Baxter dealt like a man of warr to set him in the Forlorn hope thinking belike that his confident noise would affright us or his scoffs jeer us or his reverence an epithete he forces upon his modesty would cog us over to him as his dexterous epistler inveigled Mr. Lamb and Mr. Allen. In pursuance to which stratagem the man talks big brags loudly and like an Olympick gamester so he calls himself and very fitly for whoever loses he gets by his divinity games and may in time learn the Ecclesiastical politicians push-pin Divinity flings on all sides traverses every ground to get us at advantage that so he may Comically insult and flout us for his language savours more of frothy scoffs and Romantick drollery then of sober serious or Christian But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He thinks he can scarce get over any Anti-Poedobaptist to his party that indeed is the luckiest conjecture I met with in him and I am of that opinion too for I hope they are a people of more reason and stedfastness in the truths they have learnt then to be shaken by so mimick and ayry a companion that by the pedantry of his scoptick style seems fitter for stage-pageantry then serious contests of this kinde Besides the irreligious artifice and I may say malicious insinuations we meet with every where in his pamphlet to render the person parts and principles not only of his sober Antagonist but of all that own his way ridiculous and hated so to preingage his Reader to partiality and anticipate his judgment is so notoriously disingenuous and dishonest that I question not but the Intelligent Reader will easily perceive that the want of a good cause puts him upon those shifts to fill up a Book with such Sarcasm's instead of truth as if he had been of the old Womans minde when she took that impious resolution Flectere si nequio superos Acheronta movebo But is this indeed the man of so clarify'd intellectualls that puts a Remora in the progresse of truth to obstruct such as would come over to its Communion that brags of ransacking the publick library that has his album calculum c. others say that Argenteis hastis pugnat that has the forehead to charge Mr Danvers with plagiarism when he himself has not a single Argument new but a surtive collection mostly for 't is but now and then he mentions an Authors name from those that were formerly engaged in that controversy So that his whole book had it been worth the while may be confronted with continued parallels being only in his own phrase such trite and outworn things that they have been in effect trampled upon and confuted again and again Is he not therefore himself that Aesops Crow that struts so gaudily in other birds feathers I cannot but remark how he treads in his Epistlers steps I mean Mr B's idle pamphlet mis-call'd Plain Scripture proofs for Infant-Baptism c. who in plain English amongst his other envious calumnies represents the Anabaptists as guilty of Murther and Adultery for an Imaginary practice he fathers upon them of dipping naked or in transparent garments c. So this Answerer pag. 258 c. But methinks if ingenuous candor and modesty altogether unpractic'd by him though so gracefull in all their possessors cannot perswade him to treat us civilly the awful reverence of an All-wise God might keep him from such daring criticisms upon the plain expressions of Scripture and drawing so impious a consequence from premisses pronounced by the unerring creator For instance it is said Act. 2.41 42. They that gladly received the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were dipt so the word is English Luke 16.24 John 13.26 Rev. 19.13 c. what then why then they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine c. But Mr Wills says they that are so dipt are Murtherers and Adulterers a more favourable sence his invective won't bear 'T is pitty this wise demurrer had not lived in the Apostles days that he may propose a more taking model for Christian Ordinances then the holy Ghost could inspire them with I doubt his carnal and injurious canting would be answered as Symon Magus in another case thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter Certainly if sprinkling the face were the Lords choice he could expresse himself by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the proper term for sprinkling as 1. Pet. 1.2 Heb. 9.13.19.21 and 10.22 and many places of the O. T. and so put the matter for ever out of doubt Was not Christ himself so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in English dipt in Water were not the converted Thousands we read of so dipt And durst this audacious man fix such ignominies upon a practice that has so sacred a patern the Lord rebuke him But candid Reader here thou hast them counted out of that fort Royal they fancy so secure viZ their modern pretences to a Covenant hereditary title to Baptism The substance of what they can say in their own defence is examined and soberly refuted The vanity of their silly distinctions detected and the Doctrine of the Covenant cleared and made familiar to the conscientious peruser And so the Lord who will infallibly reckon with Mr B. and his confederate unlesse they repent for putting such blocks and remora's in the way to his truth set it home upon thy heart and give thee a discerning spirit to own him according to his directions in his word
the consequent I say the children of the flesh may be the children of God by Election but they are not so by calling and so not counted for the seed and if you still urge as I know you will that all these places are meant of the Adult only then let us read the words as you would have us and see what absurdity you will father upon the holy spirit First from Gal. 3.9 They that are of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham and they also that are not of faith Secondly from Gal. 3.19 They that are Christs viz. visibly are Abrahams seed and they that are not Christs are Abrahams seed Thirdly from Rom. 9.8 They which are the children of the flesh are not the children of God visibly and they that are the children of flesh are the children of God visibly So from John 8.39 They that do the works of Abraham are the children of God and they that do not the works of Abraham are the children of God so we must read the words if these texts of Scripture be not exclusive Poed It is very true if those texts be not exclusive we must read the words or at least understand them as you have said but then we should make the Scripture guilty of great absurdity and contradiction Poed But out ministers tells us the promise is to you and your children and them that are afar off by which they understand believing Gentiles and their seed Bap But what do you mean by promise is it the promise and covenant of eternal life and salvation or the promise of outward ordinances If you say the first then we ask you whether that promise be absolute or conditional If absolute then all the children of believers must needs be saved If you say conditional and faith and repentance be the condition then we are agreed and the controversy is ended Poed No we do not say that by promise in the 2d of the Acts is meant the promise of eternal life and salvation for that is not made much less made good to any upon the tearms of their parents faith but upon their own personal belief and obedience but we mean the promise of outward ordinances as to be baptized c. Bap. Very well if that be Peters meaning that believers infants shall be admitted to outward ordinances when others shall not Then consider what a poor promise this is and what a miserable comforter he is made by you in making as if this were all his meaning and all that he intends by this pretious word of promise But you must know Peters business was to support the Jewes smitten down under a sence of sin and the guilt of Christs blood which lay heavy upon them but if this be all he intended you and your children shall be baptized c. then the plaister is not broad enough for the soar for pray consider and we will suppose Peter speaking thus to them you have by wicked hands crucified the Lord of life and wished his blood to be upon you and your children but be of good comfort believe and be baptized and then you and your children shall stand under the title of the people of God under right to outward ordinances when others shall not and not only you but your children shall be baptised But neither you nor they ever the sooner saved as born of you further then together with you they shall believe and obey the Gospel in which case of faith and obedience all unbelievers in the world and their children shall be saved as soon as either you or they It is as much as to say the promise of freedome to partake of the ordinances is to you and your seed above other but the promise of the inheritance is as much to all others and their children as to you and yours What most comfortless comfort is this to men cast down under a sence of sin and guilt what a pittiful plaister is here applied to men prick'd at the heart and smarting under the direful apprehension of Gods wrath besides what exquisite nonsence do you make the Apostle speak if his words be taken in your sence for they must run thus viz. first by way of precept repent and be baptized you and your children 2ly by way of encouragement so the priviledge of being baptized shall belong to you and your children which unbelievers and their seed shall not enjoy But the promise of remission of sins and salvation is made no more to you then to them But without doubt it must be otherwise the promise take it which way you will either for the proffer of the promise or the thing promised It must needs be of some more excellent matter than outward membership ordinances abstract from remission of sins and salvation yea 't is most evident that the thing here promised is no less then remission of sins and salvation it self for as no less is expressed in the very text remission of sins and the holy spirit which elsewhere is called the earnest of inheritance So unless you will divide the children from having a share alike with their parents in that promise which in the self same sentence term and sence is promised alike to them both so as to say the word promise is to be understood of remission of sins and salvation as in relation to the parents but of an inferiour thing viZ. a right to ordinances only as in relation to the Infants only which were great absurdity to utter it must necessarily be meant of one kinde of mercy to both parents and children yea and upon the same termes too and no other then those upon which its tendred to the parents viz. personal repentance and obedience and so consequently of remission and salvation and not of such a trivial title to external participation only as you talk of which if it be then unless you assert that God hath promised salvation absolutly to all the natural seed of believers upon those terms only as they are their seed which you dare not stand too the promise mean which you will the bare proposal or the salvation propounded or both upon those terms belongs of right not only to believers and their posterity but also to all men and their posterity without difference when at years of capacity to neglect or perform them for the glad tidings of salvation are commanded to be preached to all and proffered to every creature at years to hear and understand though not to infants on terms of their parents faith so assuredly the terms being performed the salvation so promised shall be enjoyed there is no right by birth to salvation or the promise of it in believers seed more then in unbelievers nor no priviledge to them more then to others save the meer hopefulness of education and advantage of instruction in the way and means of salvation which may possibly befall believers children more then others though in case it happen as sometime it doth that the children of
believers have their breeding amongst unbelievers and the children of unbelievers amongst believers in that case these laâ—t have not only no less priviledge as to the promise of salvation by bare birth but a priviledge also by that breeding above the other That therefore that the promise of the Gospel covenant in any sence in the world is made to believers seed as barely such more then to the natural seed of unbelievers can never be proved by the word yea the contrary is evident from this place Acts. 2.38.39 For first neither were these parents believers as yet when Peter said the promise is to you and your children but only were pricked at the heart upon some measure of conviction that the person whom they had crucified was the Lord of life which the devils believe tremble at in order to begetting that saving faith which yet they had not he spake these words of encouragement Secondly doth Peter make the promise any otherwise to them and their children then he doth to all others in the world viz. on condition of their coming in at Gods call 't is sayd to you and your children and them that are afar off all manner of persons in all nations and generations as the Lord our God shall call viz. as are prevailed with to come when God calls them which to be the sence of this place is further illustrated by that parallel place Heb. 9.15 they that are called receive the promise of eternal inheritance Thirdly when the parents did believe were baptized were any of their children baptized with them which they must have been had that promise been to the Infants as well as to the parents on that single account of being their seed but that no Infants were then baptized appears because the Scripture recording how many were baptized at that time it concludes them under such a term as excludes the Infant from that days work while it says as many meaning no more or else we are deceived in the relation as gladly received the word this Infants could not do were then baptiZed which number as they are recorded to be about 3000 might in all likelyhood have amounted to three times 3000. if all the Infants of those had been baptized also so that I conclude if they had Infants why did they not bring them or at least send for them here being so fit an opportunity to baptize them and so for ever to put the controversy out of doubt But fourthly neither were there any more enchurched that day but such as gladly received the word and were thereupon baptized For of these only and not infants its said they continued together in the Apostles doctrine in Fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayers But all their Infants must have been Enchurch'd also if they had been baptized Fifthly it crosseth the current of all other Scripture to put such a construction upon this for that the promise of old I mean the old promise of the law which was of the Earthly Canaan and but a Type of this did pertain unto a fleshly holy seed I grant But that the new Covenant or Gospel promise is made to any mans fleshly seed that thereupon we may baptize them in token of it I deny For sure I am the Scripture holds out no other seed of Abraham to be heirs with him of the heavenly Canaan but his spiritual seed i. e. Believers that do his works Nor doth it own any but these to have the right of membership and Fellowship in his family i. e. the visible Church For if it should be granted that the visible Church is Abrahams family under the Gospel as well as under the law yet it is so altered from what it was so different in its constitution that it is even turned upside down and in a manner nothing remains as then it was For as the covenant is not the same with that of the law so neither is there the same Mediator nor the same Priesthood nor the same Law nor the same Law-giver nor the same promises That being of an Earthly this of an heavenly inheritance nor the same holy seed to which the promises are made that being to the Typical seed Isaac and his posterity this to the true seed Christ and believers Nor the same ordinances theirs being Circumcision and the Passe-over ours Baptism and the supper Nor the same subjects for those ordinances those being by nature Jews or at least by profession and their Male seed only ours Male and female theirs whether believing or not ours only as believing So that whatever can be said of the Covenant the promise the holy seed is only this they were Typical ceremonial abiding only to the time of Reformation Heb. 9.9 and are now all abrogated and out of date so that we may say as he fuit Ilium so fuit Canaan fuit lex fuit Templum fuit sacerdotium fuit sacrosanctum semen There was indeed a holy land a holy law a holy Priesthood a holy seed But all these belonging to a first Covenant which was faulty are now long since vanished before a better and whatever was glorious hath now no glory by reason of a glory that excelleth 2 Cor. 3.9 10 12 13. Poed Sir I thank you for your opinion of this text Act. 2.39 But though the children of believing Gentiles have no right to the Covenant by vertue of their Parents faith yet may they not have a right by vertue of Abrahams faith Bap. In no wise for the natural posterity of believing Gentiles are so far from being heires apparent with Abraham of Gospel promises and priviledges that even Abrahams own natural seed as such only are not at all his seed at this day nor at all holy with the birth-holynesse they once had nor entail'd as heirs of that heavenly Canaan without faith and Repentance in their own persons and because this is the very root and knot in the state of this controversy the unfolding of which will discover the whole mystery of your mistakes all which arise originally from your erring in it for error minimus in principio fit major in medio maximus in fine Give me leave therefore to enlarge a little upon this point First then let it be considered that Abrahams own seed even those that were heirs with him of the earthly Canaan though born of his body now as truly though more remotely of his body who was the greatest believer in the world Christ excepted even these are not his seed in the Gospel account nor heirs of the Gospel promise nor as born of his body to be admitted to Baptism and Church priviledges which I make appear from Rom. 9.6.7.8 in which pray observe how the Apostle denies Abrahams own Natural Children the name of Abrahams seed in the sense of the Gospel First he magnifies them exceedingly in the 4th verse and sets out their dignity and preheminence above all people under the name of Israelites to whom pertained the
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
or similitude it is requisite to consider in what sence or respect Images or similitudes are forbidden Images or similitudes then are forbidden not as Objects of worship for all false objects of worship are the false Gods forbidden in the first Commandement but Images and similitudes are forbidden in the 2d Commandement not as false objects or worship wherein the worship of God is terminated but as false means of worshiping the true God The Golden Calf was not considered as the God of Israel but as an Image of that Jehovah which brought them out of Egipt whence it is said that Aaron proclaimed a feast not to the Calfe but to Jehovah whereof the Calfe was an Image the Calfe then was not the God but an Image of that God they worshipped as that which resembled him and put them in minde of him And then further the Image forbidden in the 2d Commandement is not only a false means of worship devised by man but a false manner also and therefore when the Samaritan-strangers knew not the manner of worshiping God in the Calves of Jeroboam it is said they knew not the manner of the God of the Country 2 King 17.26 and one of the Priests was sent to teach them the manner of fear or worship of Jehovah and so they feared Jehovah after the same manner that was in serving him after their own devising So that under this one kinde of false worship is forbidden by a Synechdoche not only all worship of God in carved moulten or painted Images all bodily representations of God but all spiritual Images too which are the Imaginations and inventions of man whether they be ordained for worship as the high places and the devised feast of the eighth Month 2. Kin. 12.33 or whether they be brought in and used as helps and means of worship as the strange fire of Nadab Lev. 10 and Davids new Cart to carry the Ark he did not make a new Ark but a new cart which devise of his there being no command for it fell under the condemnation of the second Commandement And so all Images and Imaginations of men all forms and manner of worship devised by man and not ordained by God are forbidden as Idolatrous Poed But Sir if your way be true is it not strange that so many learned men should be of a contrary opinion Bap. No it is not more strange then that there are so many learned men against the Protestant Religion and especially against your practise of baptizing the children of believers only and upon those grounds you do it for the whole Christian world as it s called of learned men are against your grounds of baptizing Infants for they administer Baptism for the taking away of Original sin and to confer grace and that not restrained to such believers Infants as you do it but to the Infants of all persons in the nations where they live so that your opinion is a very novelty 2. But Secondly it is not strange if you consider what Christ saith Math. 11.25 I thank thee O father that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent c. Even so because it seemed good in thy sight There is the reason given it is beneplacitum his good pleasure 3. And Thirdly I answer we have not been without the testimony of learned men not only in this but in former ages for it is well known that Infant-Baptism was very early opposed and for any thing I know as soon as it was born for no Antiquity mentions Infant-Baptism to have any peaceable being in the world any long time before it was opposed and if it be said it was not opposed at the beginning as soon as we heard of it in the world It may be so for Christ saith while the servants slept the evil ones sow'd tares and surely it was a sleepy time amongst Christians when it came in but when they begun to awake they opposed it Besides all this we have the testimony of some of your own party whose tongues and pens God hath at least so over-ruled that they have born a famous testimony for our practise First Doctor Taylor saith This indeed is true Baptism when it is both in the Symbol and in the mistery whatsoever is lesse then this is but the Symbâ—l only and a meer ceremony an opus operatum a dead letter an empty shadow an instrument without an agent to manage it 2ly Baptism is never propounded mentioned or enjoyn'd as a means of remission of sins or of eternal life but something of duty choice and sanctity is joyn'd with it in order to the production of the end so mentioned 3ly They that baptize children make Baptism to be wholy an outward duty a work of the law a carnal ordinance it makes us adhere to the letter without regard of the spirit and to relinquish the mysteriousnesse the substance the spirituality of the Gospel which Argument is of so much the more consideration because under the spiritual Covenant or the Gospel of grace If the mystery goes not before the Symbol which it doth when the Symboles are consignations of grace as the Sacraments are yet it always accompanies it but never follows in order of time and is cleare in the perpetual Analogy of holy Scripture 4. That the words mentioned in St. Peters sermon Acts. 2. which are the only Records of the promises are interpreted upon a weak mistake the promise belongs to you and your children therefore Infants are actually receptive of it in that capacity That is the Argument but the reason of it is not yet discovered nor ever will for to you and your children is to you and your posterity to you and your children when they are of the same capacity in which you are receptive of the promise but he that whenever the word children is exprest understands Infants must needs believe that in all Israel there were no men but all were Infants c. 5. From the action of Christ blessing infants to infer that they were Baptized proves nothing so much as that there is want of better Arguments for the conclusion would with more probability be derived thus Christ blessed Children and so dismissed them but baptized them not Therefore Infants are not to be baptized But let this be as weake as its enemy yet that Christ did not Baptize them is an Argument sufficient that he hath other ways of bringing them to heaven then by Baptism And we are sure God hath not commanded infants to be baptized so we are sure God will do them no injustice nor damn them for what they cannot help viz. if the parents baptize them not Many theusand ways there are by which God can bring any reasonable soul to himself but nothing is so unreasonable because he hath tyed all men of years of discretion to this way therefore we of our own heads shall carry Infants to him that way withâ—ut his direction The conceit is poâ—r and low and the action
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
is safest in controverted matters to adhere to that side that is most certain Besides there are two things that I am much stumbled at The First is the great ignorance of the members of the Paedo-baptist congregations in this matter Not one amongst many is able to prove Infant-Baptism or to answer your Arguments but are forced to referr the matter to their ministers whereas hardly any amongst you but are able to give a satisfactory reason of their hope in this thing and can presently prove believers Baptism from Scripture precept and example As of old if a heathen had demanded of any Jew the reason and Ground of his circumcision he could presently turn to the 17th of Genesis and there prove it from a positive command of God But if a heathen should ask us why we baptize our Infants we that are but ordinary persons know not how to satisfy him we cannot direct him to any Scripture where it is written Which is strange that a Gospel ordinance should be left so dark and intricate and the ordinance of circumcision under the law be so plain and obvious that every child of any reason could presently shew the ground of it This makes me suspect the truth of it because the Apostle says he used great plainesse of speech and not as Moses who put a vail upon his face c. surely Gospel Ordinances should be so plain especially as to the subjects that he that runs may read them 2ly The next thing that offends me is the great difference amongst Ministers about the ground of Infant-Baptism as if they knew not where to fasten it what basis to build it upon some as Mr Danvers observes draw it from the Universality of grace and the necessity of Baptism to salvation as Cyprian and others Some from the faith of the Church some from a supposed seminal faith that may be in the child Some from the faith of the parents others from the faith of the sureties some if the immediate parents be not Godly think the faith of the Grand-father or great-Grand-father may serve Some upon the account of Covenant holynesse or the promise made to Abraham and his seed others if both or one of the parents be a member of a gathered Church Some think they are born members of the visible Church by vertue of their parents faith and so may be baptized Besides this there is a great difference about baptizing of bastards some think if the father repent the child may be baptized others think otherwise because a Bastard was not to enter into the Congregation to the 10th generation and so about the children of excommunicate persons c. All which makes us fear that we are out of the way and our leaders have caused us to err seeing they cannot agree upon what ground to baptise our Infants It s true Mr Wills pretends to answer this but very weakly he tells us the baptists differ amongst themselves about the ground of their practise but sure I am there is no such material difference as there 's amongst us You are all agreed that the profession of faith and Repentance is the ground of Baptism and if some desire a larger confession then others and signes of grace I think it is no great error but rather an evidence of zeal to God and good to the parties soul But what is this to those material and essential differences before mentioned These things will put me upon further search and I hope what you have said will be of advantage to me In the mean time I take leave and bid you farewell Errata P. 64. l. 16. r. marrs all p. 95. l. 1. r. betternesse In the letter to Mr Will 's 5. l. 3. r. Magisterially p. 9. l. 11. for heat r. heart Mis-spellings and mis-pointings correct as you meet them FINIS Concerning Vnity OUr Opponents cry out for Unity and would fain lay the cause of that hateful Word Division at our doors and methinks they might well forbear making such a noise unless they assign us what kind of the several sorts of Unity they mean and propound some Mediums to make the same practicable And I may say What Unity so long as that imperious reflecting and condemning Spirit remains in them Some forbidding of their Members to hear our Ministers or to read their Books rather allowing them liberty to joyn with the Multitude than to appear in our Societies But if I may spell out their meaning it seems to be this That all the Anti-paedo-Baptists should break up their Societies and joyn with them and own their Ministers for their Pastors suffer them quietly to Baptize Infants c. and so sin against their Consciences it appearing to them to be gross Superstition and the Prophanation of an Ordinance But should they tell you they judge there is as good if not better grounds that you should joyn with them and own the Baptism of Believers the only Scripture Baptism I know not where a Moderator or Umpire would be found to determine this matter And how can Two walk together except they be agreed So that the Unity of the Verity is not surely the thing they hope for for though it be greatly desirable yet very hard to obtain because one man thinks this to be truth and another that according to the several Lights they have received And if it be the Unity of Authority they intend that the Magistrate should set down some Uniform practice and command all manner of persons to comply thereunto this looks like divers of them But were there such a practice attempted and yielded unto it might make many Hypocrites in the highest degree of Hypocrisie but be far from that spiritual Unity they talk of Nor can an Unity of perswasion be hoped for seeing both in Press and Pulpit and other wayes both Parties have endeavoured to perswade one another but to little or no Effect Nor can it be an Unity of Necessity now in Times of common danger for Tyes of necessity usually bind no longer than one Side hath need of another Nor can any Unity of Covenant do it for that is forced in many places and I fear too many say as the Heathen did Juravi Lingua mentem injuratam gero I swore with my tongue but not with my heart Seeing then we cannot find out what kind of Unity is intended it is best for both parties to continue in the Societies to whom they belong till God shall convince them otherwise provided they do not put out their light and sin against their Consciences nor neglect any opportunity better to inform their Judgments But there is one kind of Unity yet behind and that is the unity of Affections and if you mean this I am willing to joyn issue with you and in this I cannot but blame the whole generation of Professors who are greatly faulty in this matter For my own part I know the shadows of the everlasting Evening are upon me and am every day walking
branches were broken off the old House removed and a new one built Quest Are not the Infants of the Gentiles Church-members now in the dayes of the Gospel Answ No there being no Institution or Command for it besides the Church and the Common-wealth are now divided and God hath not taken in any one Nation or sort of people distinct from others to be his Church but Believers only out of every Kindred Tongue and Nation Quest Have not then the Infants of Believing Gentiles less priviledg than the Jews had Answ No For Circumcision had been no priviledg nor duty had there been no Institution for it Neither is Baptism a priviledge or duty to any but to those to whom it is Commanded But the priviledges of the Children of Believing Gentiles are greater than the Jews because the Messiah being come which is the sum and substance of all their shadows of Circumcision of Membership and all their Typical Ordinances So that as soon as Infants are capable of Understanding they are to be brought up in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord i. e. the Lord Jesus the Anti-Type of all their Types who is to be made known unto them as being already come and hath suffered for all that Believe in him Whereas the Jews could but inform their Children that Christ would come and suffer for the sins of men Quest Have not those that had a right to the priviledges of the Old Covenant a right to the priviledges of the new by vertue of their former right Answ No for then the Jews had a right to Baptism without any profession of Faith and Repentance Besides the Apostle saith Heb 13.10 We have an Altar whereof they have no right to eat that serve the Tabernacle And so we say we have a Baptism that Infants have no right to as they had to Circumcision because there is no Institution for it Quest But may not the Children of the Gentiles be counted Abraham 's Seed Answ No For Abraham hath but two Seeds the natural Jew and professed Believers amongst Jews and Gentiles a third Seed cannot be assigned him Quest But may not Infants be counted Christs Seed Answ No for Christ left no natural Issue who shall declare his Generation shewing us that he did not intend to build his Church of Natural Children as of Old not of dead but of living Stones Besides Believers Children are Children of Wrath by nature as well as others and therefore not to be accounted Christs Seed or to be Baptized while so considered Quest Is not Baptism an Ordinance of the New Testament and must it not be proved by a New-Testament Institution Answ Yea. Quest Where is your Institution then for Infant Baptism Answ It is urged to be Gen. 17.7 I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed Quest Is there any thing concerning Baptism in this Scripture Answ No But we draw this Consequence that as God promised to be God to Abraham and his Seed so he will be a God to every Believer and his Seed Quest Did God in these words promise to save Abraham and all his Natural Seed Answ No But the meaning is that he and his Seed should be the Visible Church and enjoy the Ordinances which no other people should Quest And does this promise belong to believing Gentiles and their natural Seed that they only shall be the visible Church of God and their Children only enjoy the Ordinances of God successively from their Parents Answ No for then these Absurdities would follow 1. That God has not been as good as his promise for the Church has not been continued in the posterity of Believers since Christs time but often passed out of their Race into the Posterity of Unbelievers 2. That then since the first promulgation of the Gospel there is no such need of Preaching to the Heathen in as much as these being not of the Posterity of Believers they are not to be of the Visible Church nor enjoy the Ordinances So that it is a fallacy to hold that God hath promised to be a God to Believers and their Natural Seed as he did to Abraham and his Seed to continue his Church only in the Posterity of them that first received the Gospel But he is still gathering his Church out of the posterity of Unbelievers and therefore before the end of the World the Angel is said to Preach the Everlasting Gospel to every Nation Kindred and Tongue and People who are not of the posterity of Believers Quest Why do the Paedo-baptists Baptize their Infants Answ Because they say they are in the Covenant of Grace Quest How do they know that Answ Because both or one of the Parents are in the Covenant of Grace Quest How does that appear Answ Because they profess so to be Then if the Parent be an Hypocrite the Child is not rightly Baptized Quest From what Ground do the Baptists Baptize Persons Answ Because they make a Profession of Faith and Repentance which is warrant enough from the Scripture Quest But how if they be Hypocrites are they rightly Baptized Answ Yea because it is not necessary for them to know that the Person is in the Covenant of Grace but that he professes himself a Disciple of Christ for which they have Scripture-president and many Examples POSTSCRIPT SOon after I had finished this Treatise Mr. Baxter's Book came to my Hands And in regard of his long silence some great matter was expected but after my perusal of it I find no News at all The first part of his Book even 180 pages is nothing else but a Collection of certain Old Letters that past between him and Mr. Tombs long since In which whether he hath dealt Candidly with Mr. Tombs I know not the contrary is justly feared if the Reader take notice of those Pieces Scrips and Parcels of Letters from Mr. Tombes but his own Written at large As to the matter contained in those Letters I find it to be nothing but what hath been Answered long since and it would amount to no other than Superfluity and Tautology to Answer over again The truest Verdict I can give of it is that it is like most of his other Controversies a lump of Logical Superfluity a System of Syllogistical Vanity wherein the Man manages his War like some Fresh man that is newly Matriculated into the Faculty of Logicking in Mood and Figure that delights to hear himself Syllogize out every Syllable and so comes out with a huge heap of Hypotheticals arguing at a vast difference from the business of Baptism and sometimetimes Ex Suppositis non Supponendis too as if he should fetch Infant baptism from far since 't is so dark in Scripture as he has confessed it is that he cannot have it nigh at hand proving in a great Circumference of Consequence upon Consequence Syllogism upon Syllogism thus if this then that if this then that but this therefore that when very often neither this nor that is
down from Heaven to the Infernal Seats whom though baptized in Infancy their life by its Holiness the World by its testimony and Divinity by Miracles have made famous they must be made the Collegues of Devils who were the Companions of Angels and they that through their pious Labours are arrived to Eternal life will suddenly be flung into everlasting death Our Holy dayes shall be turned to mourning our Sabbaths into shame and our Honour into nothing Who can bear these who can hear it who would not shut his ears and with all those they labour to damn would not rise against these Arch Hereticks But come unto me and repent of so great a Prodigie You scorn and deride that one should be Saved by the Faith of another denying it with great Mockery among the Rusticks and unlearned Multitude A brutish and impious Heresie Petrus Cluniacensis contra Paetro brusianos haeret p. 1124. Edit Paris 1614. As to those late Authors he sayes whose testimonies deserve no credit as to the first Ages viz. Willifrid Strabo Boemus Lud. Vives I conceive however they are to be believed as soon as Mr. Whiston And he that leans so much upon Origen and Cyprian though those Books Father'd upon them are judged spurious to prove matter of Fact in the First Age though they lived in the Third Century should clear himself before he falls foul upon others And Lastly Since he declines all Humane Authority as of no weight so do we and proceed to examine the Scripture grounds which we desire only to adhere to and own it to be our Principle to receive no Article of Faith however entertain'd or cry'd up by Nations Fathers c. that is not made Authentick by the Written Word of God And whether Mr. Danvers the Exceptions here made being so few and of so little weight deserves so severe a Castigation as this Author is pleased to give him let the World judge And therefore we go on to try the opposition he makes as to the Doctrinal part And first we affirm That Believers Baptism is only Christs Baptism which Mr. Danvers proved by the order laid down in the Commission Matth. 28.19 to which Mr. Whiston makes this demur That this Commission doth not exclude Infants from Baptism supposing their Baptism elsewhere in Scripture warranted That this is a very sorry Evasion will appear if you consider that this is the solemn Institution and Commission given to the Apostles impowring them to Preach the Gospel and Baptize and to charge it with darkness and imperfection as Mr. Whiston doth is to reflect upon the Law giver and for us to observe any Order but what is here laid down is to go beyond our Commission and be wise above what is written Which is not only our Opinion but the great Basil's own words upon the place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i e. But we think it necessary to have recourse to the order prescribed by the Lord viz. first to Teach then Baptize page 636. de Baptismo 2. It has been else where sufficiently proved that Infants because Unbelievers till Converted Eph. 2.3 and so uncapable of the qualification pre-required here are excluded 3. If it should be urged that Infants have Faith as several Learned Paedo-baptists affirm though not so fortunate as to agree what kind of Faith some being for a Seminal some a Federal some an Imputative Faith c. verifying the Proverb Tot capita tot sensus then we may conclude that there 's no such thing as Regeneration for if we be Believers from the Womb where is there any room for the New Birth and if that be once admitted the whole scope and frame of the Gospel is subverted for it would be an absurd Errand to call such to Believe who are Believers by a Birth-priviledg and in a state of Regeneration as soon as Born But common Experience confutes this Childish fancy And for that distinction some of them make of Faith in actu primo or Potential Faith not yet grown up to actual were it admitted for which there is no Reason the Maxim being just and safe Vbi lex non distinguit non est distinguendum Where the Law distinguishes not we must not distinguish yet it would not serve the turn since Unbelievers Children may be as truly said to have Faith in Actu primo or potentially as Believers Children they proving frequently Converts and precious Saints whilst Believers Children often run the broad way of Wickedness Besides if Children had such a Faith and that the distinction were as it is not good it would not be enough because no Faith but an actual personal Faith qualifies for Baptism But he sayes Supposing their Baptism else-where warranted in Scripture But why is not that Scripture produced 't is much talk'd of but we can never see it which makes us conclude that men that are so nimble to press Scriptures into their service that not a whit be friend their Cause if they could hit upon any such plain Text would be brisk enough to bring it forth But alas if they had their Warrant from Scripture they would not take such pains to prove that the silence of the Scripture is such an Argument to evince the lawfulness of their practice a very mad and wild way of reasoning nor run to the beginning of the World to find some protection for it among the Jewish Rites Gospel Ordinances must be evidenced by Gospel Authority What institution of the New Testament but is plainly to be proved by New-Testament Scripture Must Baptism alone though so plainly yea in words at length both as to subject and form of Administration there instituted be beholden to Circumcision Gen. 17.7 for its Original though as different and remote from it as the Gospel is from the Law If so Why are not the Baptized Infants now admitted to the priviledges the Circumcised were of old viz. to be Members of the Church now as they were then of the Common-wealth to come to the Supper as they to the Passeover c. this Riddle we desire may be unfolded But he goes on in the same Tune and tells us that as here is no express mention of Infants that 's well granted so no word phrase or clause that can be rationally interpreted to exclude them No more is there any word phrase or clause excluding Vnbelievers Children nay which is more not so much as a word phrase or clause that litterally excludes Bells Church walls Standards c. from Baptism and if there be ground enough for this Author to Baptize them let him take the Honor of the Employment He sayes Christ may have given this Commission only with reference to the Adult that we believe and contend for and 't is now happily granted us and may have sufficiently declared his will concerning the Baptism of Infants in other parts of his Word that 's the thing he should prove and that other part of his Word if he knows it he
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
them had he allowed it But this Text indeed informs us that our Children may be blest and be of the Kingdom of Heaven by the application of Gods Free Grace without Baptism which is only a Duty to such as it is commanded to viz. such as are capable of Faith and Repentance But 3. Will Mr. Whiston indeed adventure to practice any thing that is not litterally and syllabicably forbidden in Scripture not allowing any Negative consequences If so then the children of Heathens or Turks c. being not in so many words forbidden to be baptized will give him employment enough And hundreds of the ridiculous inventions of Romish Impostors are not forbidden by name and circumstance being indeed not known any more than Infant-baptism in those times Will he therefore hold them lawful and this is the consequence of his Doctrine utterly exploded by the most Orthodox Protestants He proceeds page 40. and would have us believe That Infants are capable of the ends and uses of Baptism whereof he mentions two 1. To seal confirm and ratifie the Covenant with the promise thereof unto those with whom it is establish'd 2. To give those a solemn admission into the Visible Church who have an antecedent right thereto and this he takes for granted which is begging upon begging concluding He will not spend time in the proof of that which no Body can or will deny Now he has made quick work on 't but should not he have known our minds before so confident a publication of our assent to his Dictate And since that 's all we do here publickly enter our dissent and lay down this as our belief That Infants till they grow up and are converted are not capable of the ends and uses of Baptism which are to witness Repentance and Regeneration already wrought to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ the washing away our sins by the blood of Christ our union with and putting on Christ our entrance into and right to partake of all the priviledges in the Visible Church And as to what Mr. Whiston says since he only beggs That the Covenant and Promises are establish'd with Infants and therefore have an Antecedent right to Church membership We reject it as unproved and un-scriptural And he is at liberty to make good his and disprove our assertion if he can Which I shall expect ad Calendas Graecas He tells us page 4.6 That John did not discharge the Jews from any priviledg they afore had only rectifies a mistake they lay â—nder Here he had done honestly if he had acquainted us what their mistake was since he knows John's mind so well but alas he fore-saw that that would spoil his aim therefore that the Reader may not be at a loss altogether I have Transcribed it from Dr. Owen's Exercit before-mentioned and I dare say the Doctor knows their mistake as well as our Answerer he I mean the Doctor calls it a woful and fatal mistake page 55 56. For they would entail Gospel-Priviledges upon the old Faederal right and would share of the blessings belonging only to Believers upon the carnal consideration of being Abrahams natural Posterity They thought saies this Judicious Divine no more was needful to interest them in the Covenant of Abraham but that they were Abraham's Seed according to the flesh pleading the later priviledg as the ground of the former But on that account they could have no other priviledg then Abraham had in the flesh himself viz. that God would derive the promised Seed the Messiah through his Loins into the World And is not this to a tittle the mistake of our Paedo-baptists who plead for Infant-baptism from the very same ground of the Birth priviledg and entailing Church-Ordinances upon the same Faederal Right they did I cannot but note an expression he hath page 38. viz. Because we know not the time when Infant-baptism was instituted we may therefore say it is from Heaven and not of men Now I perceive the reason why he bestows so glorious a Title upon his Book But shall we conclude that the Tares the Enemy sowed while the Watchmen slept were from Heaven and not of men since the drousie Watch-men cannot calculate the time they were sown to a minute Learned Vsher gives Malone the Jesuite an answer to this purpose when he maintained that the Mass was of Divine institution because Protestants could not exactly find 〈◊〉 its Nativity or when the fooleries that attend it had their Original Must we receive every error when we cannot assign the critical minute of its broaching Suppose I know not the time when Mr. Whiston was born shall I therefore conclude him not to be a man nor of men but dropt from Heaven c Is it not enough if we can tell the time when Infant-baptism was not in the Church and that Mr. Baxter has very kindly done for us when he saies that it has no express mention in the Records or Histories of the Church for the first and purest Centuries And if this be the ground of his mock-title I shall conclude it to be like Mr. Bs. plain Scripture-proof of a complexion that cannot blush As to what he saith about Tradition being nothing of weight and upon which he leans not much I shall pass it by only note that Dr. Owen defines Tradition pag. 20. Exercit. on the Heb. Tom. 1. to be a general uninterrupted Fame conveyed and confirmed by particular Instances Records and Testimonies in all ages And no other Tradition the Doctor saies is of any weight And how far short of making out his Infant sprinkling by Tradition so understood this Author hath been is sufficiently demonstrated already And so I proceed He saith page 75. It is their Covenant-interest that we contend for principally and design the proof of from the Covenant at first established with Abraham and again we plead not for Infant Baptism from the Analogy it bears with or to Circumcision but from the Command obliging Abraham's Seed in their Generations to keep the token of the Covenant This is somewhat odd he pleads not for Circumcision but from the token of the Covenant which in another place he calls Circumcision which is in plain English that he pleads and pleads not from Circumcision So that I know not how to come at him This is a new way of distinction to distinguish Circumcision from Circumcision he would seem to leave that baffled argument of some of the Ancients and yet he cannot but be at it again We acknowledg there was a Command obliging Abraham's Seed in their Generations to be Circumcised which he means by the token of the Covenant but that administration came to its period at the coming of Christ and therefore the command of being Circumcised is not in force now Nor have we any new Command that Believers and their Seed must be baptized in their Generations besides the term Generations is frequently used to signifie a certain and limited time the burning