the whole law Secondly God promised to be a God to Abraham and his spiritual seed such as walk in his steps that is believers whether Jews or Gentiles in giving unto them an eternal inheritance Heb. 9.15 incorruptible and undefiled that fadeth not away purchased by the blood of Jesus and reseved for them in heaven of which the earthly inheritance in the land of Canaan was but a type So there is a twofold seed of Abraham a fleshly and a spiritual typed out by Ishmael and Isaac and a two-fold inheritance an earthly and a heavenly But the heavenly inheritance was not given to the fleshy seed but only in Types offered to them and confirmed to the spiritual seed who are therefore called the heirs of promise Heb. 6.17 Neither was the Covenant made with Abraham a pure Gospel Covenant but a mixt Covenant consisting partly of promises of temporal blessings of which Isaac who is said to be born by promise was the true and proper heir And partly of promises of spiritual blessings of an heavenly inheritance and of these Jesus Christ was the true her and Antitypical Isaac for as Ishmael the child of the flesh had no right with Isaac in the outward Typical promise so Isaac himself by vertue of his fleshly descent had no right nor Interest in the heavenly inheritance and Gospel priviledges Rom. 9.7 any otherwise then he came to have an interest in Christ And therefore we find the Apostle in Gal. 3.16 expounding the word of promise i. e. I will be a God to thee and thy seed sheweth that the Gos-promises of Abrahams Covenant were not made to any ones fleshly seed no not with the meer fleshly seed of believing Abraham himself but the promises did all run to Christ the inheriting seed to whom they were made and when Christ was come they all center in him see and consider the text Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made he saith not to seeds as of many but as of one and to thy seed which is Christ to Isaac in the type but to Christ in the Antitype and in him are all the promises yea and Amen Having thus followed the promises down along from Abraham to Christ and found them all to center in him let us now see to whom they came forth again And it is not to any ones fleshly seed whatever but from Christ they all flow forth again to believers and only to believers and that by vertue of their union with Christ and therefore says the Apostle If ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise for there is no other way to partake of the promise but by faith in Christ Gal. 3.22 The Scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise by the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe where two things are observable first to whom the promise is given viz. to them that believe secondly by what means they come to partake of them and that is by the faith of Christ so in verse the 26. you are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ and if ye be Christs that is by faith then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise So then it seems all promises run to Christ and from him flow forth again only to believers Which being impartially considered is a full answer to all Arguments drawn from the Covenants and the promise made to Abraham and certainly and unavoidably cuts off Infants Church membership in the days of the Gospel unlesse the Poedobaptists can finde a new institution for it But for a further illustration of this and that you may see that this is not my opinion alone I shall present you with some select passages that the judicious and eminent divine Dr Owen hath upon this subject it is in his Exercitations upon the Epistle to the Hebrews tom 1. p. 55. c. to which the Reader is referred which by another hand may be shortly improved In the mean time take these few instances Two Priviledges did God grant unto Abraham upon his separation to a special interest in the old promise and Covenant First that according to the flesh he should be the father of the Messiah the promised seed who was the very life of the Covenant the fountain and cause of all the blessings contained in it That this Priviledge was temporary having a limited season time and end appointed unto it the very nature of the thing it self doth demonstrate For upon this actual exhibition in the flesh it was to cease In pursuit hereof were his posterity separated from the rest of the world and preserved a peculiar people that through them the promised seed might be brought forth in the fulnesse of time and be of them according unto the flesh Rom. 9.8 Secondly together will this he had also another priviledge granted unto him namely that his saith whereby he was personally interested in the Covenant should be the pattern of the faith of the Church in all generations and that none should ever come to be a member of it or a sharer in its blessings but by the same faith that he had fixed on the seed that was in the promise to be brought forth from him in the world On the account of this Priviledge he became the father of all them that do believe for they that are of the faith the same aere the children of Abraham Gal. 3.7 Rom. 4.11 as also heirs of the world Rom. 4.13 in that all that should believe throughout the world being thereby implanted into the Covenant made with him should become his spiritual children Answerable unto this twofold end of the separation of Abraham there was a double seed alloâ—â—ed unto him A seed according to the flesh separated to the bringing forth of the Messiah according to the flesh and a seed according to the promise that is such as by faith have an Interest in the promise or all the elect of God Not that these two seeds were always subjectively divers so that the seed separated to the bringing forth of the Messiah in the flesh should neither in whole or in part be also the seed according to the promise or on the contrary that the seed according to the promise should none of it be his seed after the flesh Our Apostle declares the contrary in the instancos of Isaac and Jacob with the remnant of Israel that shall be saved Chap. 9.10.11 But sometimes the same seed came under diverse considerations being the seed of Abraham both according to the flesh and promise and sometimes the seed it self was divers those according to the flesh being not of the promise and so on the contrary Thus Isaac and Jacob were the seed of Abraham according unto the flesh separated unto the bringing forth of the Messiah after the flesh because they were his carnal Posterity and they were also the seed of the promise because by their own personal
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
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
Monarchy that great thing Catechrestically call'd a Church must vanish and the large Revenues pomp and grandeur of its active Janizaries expire with it since the matter of such a synagogue is the collective body of the nations which because of its unbelief and prophanesse the word of God excludes out of the Church till in Gods time and by his power gradually converted it being evident from the mouth that errs not that the greatest part of Mankind traverses the broad way to destruction Math. 7.13 Surely this one consideration has a more forcible rhetorick to keep up this pernicious practise then all the juglings of its abettors or the gaudy flourishes or specious Fulcrums its defenders produce to illustrate and support it It is one of the Popes political and very necessary maximes and I fear borrowed by many from him wanting that power by which the Gospel ministers acted to principle the emissaries that manage his cause very ripely in school-sophistry and such other subtile qualifications that their learned craft and seeming profoundness of wisdom and parts may amuse and captivate the generality of mankind And indeed we find them too apt to be gaping after those ornaments which the Apostle elegantly calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and well translated the inticing words of mans wisdom 1 Cor. 2.4 They are well versed in the perplexing Idle whimsies of Aristotle Scotus c. but meer dunces and fools in plain Scripture doctrines their Heathen Philosophy and the Gospel being at as wide a distance as the Earth is from the third Heaven See Job 5.12.13 and 32.9 1 Cor. 1.19 But what is most lamentable is that ministers that are separatists from national corruption and prophaness and in the judgment of charity in many things orthodox and pious should be the forwardest opposers of so necessary a reformation and not only so but when they find the pretences upon which it was with a ridiculous retinue obtruded upon the world rotten and reeling they must invent new supporters for it viz. a Covenant right derivative from a believing parent c. As if spiritual graces would admit of carnal propagations or that a Christian doth always beget a Christian a divinity as novel as 't is absurd And with this modern auxiliary this otherwise yeelding cause is reinforced In the judgment of some it may parhaps add to the credit of that fancy that so famous a man as Mr. Baxter is should patronize it But he is not the first Theological grandee that has been mistaken Performances of never so exalted a kind conferr not the priviledge of Infallible 'T is only the great Creator is unerring A man may preach and write of the most seraphick verities and yet know but in part Mr Baxter is to be honoured as far as he has laid himself out to preach the Gospel and improve his Talent for the Conversion of souls in this evil day But when he forgets himself and instead of promoting practical holyness fills the nation with notions as uncertain as they are numberless puzling such as arrive not to the subtilty of his distinction creating more doubts then ever he 'l be able to resolve making Christianity a meer riddle which no man understands but he and liable to as many forms and interpretations as his wavering mind Then I humbly conceive he may be very safely left 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a golden Aphorism of a heathen poet Sure as peaceable as he would make us believe he is that party or person that incurs his displeasure must expect an unmerciful handling He is so invenom'd an Antagonist that whoever encounters him has need of an Antidote Nor is his reverend new Author Mr. Wills to whom he is so liberal of his encomiums much behind in this Excellency A strenuous satyrist that by the flashes of his Academick wit makes some blaze little of solid heat or warmth As for Mr. Baxter it feems he has something prophetical in him he says in his last book he knows what can be said in answer and what he 'l reply and the others rejoynder c. Belike he knew by the same prophetick faculty the first year of his ministry when he fell into doubts about Infants Baptism and suspended the practise some years as he says that the Anti-Poedobaptists would be out of the favour of the times and so inconsiderable as he scornfully says they are which scared the man to the other side And to convince the world that he was re-proselyted in good earnest persecutes them with all the obloquy and slaunder a virulent peevish humor could dictate So that poor people 't is well their bones are whole from the furious artillery and crushing grasps of so mighty a Polyphemus It would â—â—artle a man to see what a room he would take up as if the whole world must become his pupill How confident a dictator he is to universal mankind such a reconciler that he will not be stopt in his cariere till he brings us to Rome as if the vast creation must be of his parish But I doubt the Pope will not be so tamely cog'd to resign up to Mr. Baxter his Regalia Petri Sure as nimble a Proteus as he is hee 'l find himself mistaken in these incongruous Topicks We have the Bible in English and in the original too and for all he picks a quarrel with that in his 20. Quaeries c. because perhaps too narrow to confine so boundless a wanderer yet it shall be our Christian Directory wee 'l keep it preciously and leave his rotten and superfluous notions to fill up the vacuums in the Stationers shops That leaven hath so soured his whole lump that for fear of sucking some poyson with his honey we 'l be Christians as well as the Lord shall enable us without him Hold but he gives you his extremum vale at the door of eternity But is very angry that he is importuned to it from some supream transactions he is hatching in his study Possibly his next errand may be to send us to Constantinople nor is the scruple extravagant considering what he has done already to have a treaty of reconciliation with the Muphti and make some part of Mahomets creed by his vast Authority Orthodox But being so successesse in Christendom he may very well despair of that undertaking But what 's his farewel why he begins with his old quarrel with Mr Tombes rallying his defeated quibbles for a new Combat But he is full of words and will leade his reader such a dance that he may sooner grow giddy then finde the truth or whereabouts he is such a continuation of impertinent periphrases though connext with his wonted Artifice that Daedalus's Labyrinth may sooner be travers'd then the more numerous mazes and perplexities of Mr Baxter and all to ecclips a Gospel truth His next project is to take Col. Danvers to task he thinks it beneath a man of his Talent to let him passe without fixing an Epithete upon him as
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
priviledges of the old Covenant and are not all counted his seed in the sence of the new Thirdly that Abrahams natural seed have no right to the priviledges of the new Covenant by vertue of Abrahams faith Fourthly that seeing Abrahams own seed his natural children have no right to the Gospel-Covenant or priviledges thereof much lesse can the children of believing Gentiles lay any claim thereunto either by vertue of Abrahamâ—s faith or the faith of their own parents And so I might here end this matter but because you shall have full measure I will add another testimony concerning the Covenant and the little ground there is to baptize Infants from that Scripture Gen. 17.7 Know then that the Covenant of grace is to be considered either of the promise of eternal life and salvation made to all the elect in Christ the which remains one and the same in all ages though variously administred in the times of the old and new Testament Or else of the manner of its Administration in which sence it s now in respect of the old Testament administration which was a distinct Covenant in it self for the time being called the new Covenant and the other to have waxen old and to vanish away Heb. 8. last Which cannot be said of the promise or Covenant of eternal life that being an everlasting covenant and over remains one and the same Now it s one thing to be in the Covenant of grace i. e. to have a right to the promise which is only proper to the elect another thing to be under the administration of the Covenant which is common to the elect and reprobates and depends meerly upon Gods appointment Now if the Covenant be understood in the first sence of the promise of eternal life and salvation made to the elect in Christ that did never belong to all the children born of believing parenâ—s as might be instanced in Ishmael and Esau c. but only to such as are elected of them Rom. 9.7.8.9 neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children c. The Covenant of grace being first made between God and Christ all the elect in Christ And therefore in Scripture it is cal'd the promise of eternal life which was made to the elect before the world began who are therefore called the heirs of promise which promise had its first promulgation to Adam in the garden of Eden Where we have also the first discovery of the mystery of the two seeds Now the Covenant taken in this sence is not the ground and reason of administring ordinances to any person whatever But the law of institution is the ground or reason of visible Administrations For the administration of ordinances belongs not to the substance of the Covenant but to its administration as to the persons to whom they shall be administred and that meerly on the law of institution without any other consideration and hence we finde that from the first promulgation of the Covenant to Adam until Gods renewing of it to Abraham there was no ordinance to be administred to Infants though some Infants as well as grown persons both of believers and unbelievers might be comprehended in the Covenant yet not to be circumcis'd and so not to be baptiz'd for want of an institution So the promise in Act. 2.39 is said to be to them a far off in the present tense while uncalled even to as many as shall be called and yet not to be baptized before calling unlesse you will baptize Gentiles in professed Gentilism and so the Jews some not yet born some not cal'd have the Covenant of grace made to them Rom. 11.27 For this is my Covenant unto them when I shall take away their sins and yet they are not to be baptized till converted Nor can the Covenant considered in its pure nature be a ministers rule to administer Ordinances by seeing it is unknown who are in the Covenant and who are not but that which is their rule must be something that is manifest Secondly when it is said that the Covenant of grace belongs to believers children and that is the ground of their Baptism If it be meant of its Administration you have heard that depends meerly on the law of institution and hath varied in several ages according to the will of the law-giver For during all that period of time from Adam to Abraham there was no Ordinance to be administred to Infants but when God renewed the promise to Abraham he instituted circumcision which ordinance belongs peculiarly to the old Testament administration and was part of Moses law which is now abrogated and done away And this was the first ordinance that was administred to Infants and not to all Infants but only to male Infants living in Abrahams family if they did live to the eight day otherwise they had no right to this ordinance though many of them doubtlesse in the Covenant of grace and so saved so we say of Infants in the days of the Gospel many of them are in the Covenant of grace and so saved by vertue of the free promise But yet not to be baptised if they do not live to the time of believing and repenting the only time appointed for Baptism so that the Administration of ordinances to Infants depends upon an Institution and not upon their being in Covenant And as to that place Gen. 17.7 I will be a God to thee and to thy seed that is say you the Covenat was made with Abraham as a believer and so with all believers and their seed To which I answer The Covenant was not made with believers and their seed but with Abraham and his seed Now Abraham is to be considered under a double relation First as the father of the Jews his fleshly seed Secondly as he is the father of his spiritual seed both Jews and Gentiles Rom. 4.11.12 Now to both seeds doth God promise to be a God but in a different manner and respect First he promises to be a God to his fleshly seed in giving to them the land of Canaan for an inheritance the promise of which is expresly called the Covenant made with Abraham and his seed as on Gods part Psal 105.9.10.11.12 which Covenant he made with Abraham saying unto thee will I give the land of Canaan the lot of your inheritance c. See also 1 Chron. 16.16.17.18 and Neh. 9.8 This I say was the Covenant on Gods part And their obedience to circumcision is expresly called the Covenant on their parts Gen. 17.10 This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you Every male shall be Circumcis'd So Act. 7.8 And he gave them the Covenant of Circumcision and so Abraham begat Isaac and circumcis'd him the eight day By which they stood engaged to keep all those other additional ordinances which Moses gave them when they were about to enter their promised inheritance as Gal. 5.3 I testify that whoever is Circumcis'd is bound to keep
Holiness 5. From page 129. to the end He endeavours to prove the Validity of Baptism as Administred by Sprinkling Of which in Order ANIMADVERSIONS UPON Mr. Whiston's Book c. HE Intitles his Book Infant Baptism from Heaven and not of Men This indeed may raise the Expectation of such as have not Read Mr. Baxter's Plain Scripture proof I began to think he had lighted upon some Rarity else he would not Front his Book with such a Title nor trouble the World especially at this juncture when such men of Noise are already Engaged against us But Empty Casks give the greatest sound and pregnant Mountains bring forth a Mouse From Heaven and has he been there then and searcht the Records and was of the Cabinet Counsel of the Almighty what if we doubt it we have but his bare word for it He must pardon me if I say Infant-Baptism from Rome or beneath for if it had been of Heavens making the Scriptures and the Records and Histories of the purest Primitive times would not be so silent about it as the most Learned Paedo-baptists confess and particularly Mr. B. our keenest Adversary is forced to own they are But the Author is cunning and would Decoy the Reader by a specious Title so the Vintners gaudy sign often Trapans to a costly though unwholsome Entertainment The plain Scripture-proof man himself confesses Infants baptism has its considerable difficulties the Ingenious Papist counts it a Miracle to have it proved by Scripture Most of the Learned Paedo-baptists have recourse to Tradition for help and how come they to miss of this mans Invention all this while This Apollo this Oepidus this Alexander which you will might have done good service to unriddle the Aenigma or cut that knot the unfolding of which cost so much Debate Had he brought that from Heaven sooner which was ever there he had saved many Learned men the labour of their Elaborate Systems pro and con But this Author has as dexterous and nimble a way of confuting all Antiquity as the Junior Sophister in Oxford used with Bellarmine when he writ in the end of his Works Bellamine thou liest therefore I will make bold to tell him that he stamps his uncertain Conjectures with a Divine Character and fathers his Forgeries and contrivances upon Heaven which is a during piece of Confidence to say no more So that I shall say of him and from just ground as the Poet of Pigmalion extreamly doting upon the fair Image he made Operisque sui concepit amorem c. He tells us Mr. Danvâ—rs his Book is all Forgery which he leaves to the Readers Observation wishing him to have a care of crediting any of his perswasion But if this be not Inconsistent with the Laws of Ingenuity Equity and the Generositie of a Scholastick Education I know not what is Had he been as nimble to attacque the Cause we maintain as we find him a keen Satyrist against the person he Opposes who never gave him the least Provocation it would be more honest and taking But instead of a fair unprejudiced Examination of our Arguments he laies bout him terribly and deals his strokes unmercifully charges the whole with Forgery Falshood and what not without vouchsafing to tell us wherein those Forgeries and Falshoods lye But stay Sir as loâ—ty a conceit as you have of your self wee 'll not believe you upon your bare word Have you hit upon that pernicious Knâ—â—k â—â— assassinating mens credit at a breath It seems you â—corn to be â—uch a petty Chapman â—s Mr. Ws. who comes to Particulars but you would knock us down by whole Sale You lâ—â—ve the â—â—ader to his own observation And is that all as if he had stood gaping till you become his Monitâ—â— could not the Reader make his Observations without thâ— impertinâ—â—t memento Be wary of crediting any of his perswasion In this I would appâ—al to Mr. Whiston's Conscience or any â—â—â—â—â—of commoâ— genuity whether it be just and 〈◊〉 for him to charge the whoâ—e party of Antipâ—edâ— baptists at this rate although Collonel Danvers as 't is possible a Learned man may had been mistaken in some things among so numerous a Tract of Quotations of which he has made no significant discovery neither Would he think it fair dealing if we should improve the particular errors or miscarriages of Paedo Baptists to the scandal of all under that denomination particularly the apparent Injustice and unchristian Dealings of Mr. B. and Mr. Ws. in their late conspiracy wrongfully to impeach us and the truth we profess and their malicious Contrivances in prosecution thereof fully detected by another hand And whether we have not just ground to conclude his Infant-baptism is not from Heaven not only from the weakness of his Arguments but from his manner of Arguing also the Apostles way being to convince in meekness and confute in terms full of Love and void of all Opprobrious and Canting Railery The Scripture tells us that the wisdom that is from Above is first pure then peaceable gentle and easie to be intreated full of mercy and good Works without partiality and without Hypocrisie James 3.17 Whereas he accosts us in so haughty and domineering an Equipage as he thinks will crush and disable us from any farther Encounters with so dreadful a Gigas as he takes himself to be Exposing us to the scorn and odium of the whole World as if we had not felt enough of its unkindness till he comes to open the mouth of Calumny wider and make our Enemies bâ—â—l louder But these things we hope our Lord God whom we desire to serve will give us patience to endure for his Name and Truths sake But to put the better face upon the matter he pretends to give some instances of Mr. Ds. his unfaithfulness in his Quotations and of a great many picks out two with singular judgment which he thinks â—e can toss to the purpose and makâ—s his Reader sport to see how ridiculous he would make them But to check his triumphant Insultings we shall joyn issue with him in the fair Tryal of those particulars he impeaches 1. He charges Collonel Danvers for unfaithfulness in affirming that the Magdeburgs say in the place he cites That in the first Century they find they baptized only the Adult or Aged c. whereas the Word only is not there This Exception Mr. Ws. made and is answered by Mr. D. in p. 31 32. of his Reply and I conceive it is no part of ingenuity in Mr. Whiston to be inculcating that which he could not be ignorant was so justly replyed to already But What if Mr. D. has been in the right and the falshood be laid at Mr. Whistons door is not Mr. Whiston then the unfaithful man and that it is so the Reader is desired to consider that what we desire to prove from the Magdeburgs is matter of Fact viz. whether Infants were Baptized in that Age which in plain terms they tell