manifest to the world nor to any of those in it that do not and other such like precious performances in all which he officiates peculiarly towards the Saints onely that submit to him not wicked resisters of him to which Saints or true Disciples of the Lord Jesus he was promised to be given under the Gospel in a fuller measure then in former daies and sent to be their comforter whilst to such as entertain him not but a bare convincer in which respect he is call'd the spirit of promise as being promised in this sense to all those that obey Christ that believe repent and are baptized into his name for remission of sins and ask the father for him and to be set as by office to minister in way of succor to the mournful spouse in the bridegrooms absence to help poor soules that give up themselves to be lead by him and accordingly was is and ever shall be given to those that do not grieve resist and quench him and that are found observing all things that ever Christ commanded non-observation of which disingages Christ of his promise so that it failes not though he be not with men that name themselves his Church for ages and generations together In which senses he is not at all in infants in their infancy neither doth he at all guid or provoke them how far forth soever he may guard and protect them till they come to such capacity as to have good or evil fasten'd on them by perswasion nor doth he any of the aforenamed good offices for infants in whom there 's yet no need they should be done nor doth he delight ordinarily to be where either he must be idle as he must in infants of one two or three daies old or unless he work miraculously imployed altogether to no purpose As to that of Iohn concerning whom 't was promised he should be filled with the holy spirit from the womb besides the singularness and extraordinariness of the case which renders it unfit for you to argue from who deny that such examples are to be drawn in as an ordinary rule to judge by and confess that ex particulari non est Syllogizari I add moreover that there 's no necessity for such an immediate acceptation of that word from the womb as to make the sense of it thus viz. in the very moment of his birth for it may well be taken as elswhere the same phrase must be viz so soon as ever he should be capable to receive it and be assisted and guided by it which might be in his tender years but was not I believe in such meer non-age as you wot off thus the wicked are said Psal. 58. 3. ab alinare se ab utero to estrange themselves from God from the womb to go astray as soon as they be born speaking lies stopping their ears not hark-ring to the voice of the Charmer which terms do all denote actuall sinne by which your selves confess infants cannot bar themselves p. 5. or deserve exemption it must therefore be understood thus viz. so soon as ever they are capable to do this or that to take the right away or the wrong or to know and act either good or evil I assert therefore once again that the spirit in this second sense is not in infants in their infancy nor know I in what sense they can be said to have him as to have right thereby to baptism unless you can assign me some more senses out of Scripture which if you can do I shall tell you what to say to them and as I cannot find they have the holy spirit in them so neither find I any promise of the holy spirit in such non-age as you wot of if by the spirit you mean the spirit of promise as you must if you plead a right to baptism there from and if you should refer me to Act. 2. I find there no more made to any then to all indeed it s said the promise is to you and your children but I advise you to consider first that t is not said to you and your infants neither are children and infants all one in signification the one expressing the age or rather non-age the other the Relation to the parents of whom they are born all infants are children of some parents or other but all children are not infants Infants are at least such younglings as cannot speak but children may be children in respect of their parents though the parents be eighty years old and the children sixty so that the promise of the spiriâ—… might be to them and their children too i. e. their posterity as well as to the Gentiles that were yet far off in both time and place and their posterity to all succeeding generations and be made good too on the same terms upon which and the same time in which it s made good to the parents themselves viz. the terms of faith and the time of their believing and yet all this while not be made to them and their infants as in their infancy moreover it appears most evidently that these parents were yet in unbelief and bare inquiry after what they should do having acted neither faith nor repentance as yet when Peter said thus to them repent and be baptized and ye shall receive the holy spirit for the promise is to you and your children therefore it may seem rather to be to unbeleevers children by that place then unto belieuers children but in very deed t is to all men and their children throughout the world as they and their children should believe repent receive the word gladly come to God at his call and that in all ages and places to the worlds end and as children of unbelievers have as much promise of the holy spirit so as much manifestation of it as the other and that is just none at all But say you these appear to have it first by their faith i. e. as other mens infants do not by their faith Sirs this is no demonstrative Argument I am sure that they have the Spirit for demonstratio est ex notioribus conclusione but this is Ignotum per ignotius or at least per aeque ignotum for now you have much more ado by something else hoc aliquid nihil est to demonstrate to us that they have faith then before you had to demonstrate them to have the spirit yea this will puzzle you the more by how much the last error is worse than the first and more confuted in other places by your selves however we will consider your Argument and supposing still that you speak of the right subject viz. infants of believing parents we will cast this your Enthusiasm into this Enthememe Disputation Little children of believing parents have faith Ergo little children of believing parents have the holy spirit Disproof First I deny your Consequence secondly your Antecedent as both stark false and that is as much as can well be false in an
you please these or those t is utter untruth to utter any such thing as that infancy have the holy spirit much more that believers infants have it more then others neither is there any strength in any one thing you have presented the world with to prove either one of these or yet the other and howbeit I say suppositively that all appear to have it if any at all by what you have here produc'd in proof on 't yet I 'le positively prove and partly by way of answer to your own argument that neither â—…ll infants have the holy spirit nor any at all in such non-age as you falsly supposing they have it do thereupon baptize in to this end I would I wist what you mean by the holy Ghost as you call him but I all along the holy spirit I am in doubt you scarcely well know your selves oâ—… else you would not predicate him to be in infants in such wise as here you do I 'le indeavour therefore to search out what your meaning may be by á serious survey of the senses which the holy spirit seems to be taken in in the word of which I am confident if you know what you mean you must mean one The spirit which is but one and the self same in substance where ere he is is yet spoken of in Scripture in two and but two different senses in general so far as I find and that answerably to two different offices which he exercises towards two different kinds of men in the world viz. godly and wicked believers and unbelievers Saints and sinners these two several offices which that one holy spirit is found in towards these severall sorts of men are either more common or more special general or peculiar the common or general office of the spirit is to convince and inlightes draw move perswade strive with men to bring them into the way of obedience to God and of their own good and this he executes universally to all men and in this sense is in all men and women good and bad godly and wicked Saints and sinners Jews and Gentiles Christians and heathens but not in the one day old infants of any of all these that I know of The will of man even every man so soon as he comes to such capacity as to be able to discern between good and evill stands ever after even all the daies of his life between two wooers that sollicit him and seek to win him to their service and which ere wins him finally to its service will everlastingly and accordingly reward him with life or death Rom. 6. 17. to v. 23. Gal. 6. 7 8. And these two are mans flesh and Gods spirit which are evermore lusting in him one against the other and between them perswading him each in their kind in this sense he is in the blindest heathens that breath on earth natural fools and infants onely excepted of whom as far as nothing is required because nothing revealed so far they have nothing to answer for yea the very Gentiles which have not any law in an outward letter as we have are said Rom. 2. 14 15. to be a law unto themselves and to shew the work of the law written in their hearts and to have their conscience and thoughts witnessing within accusing and excusing one another which can be no other though commonly call'd the light of nature then a light from God and Christ who is said to enlighten every man that cometh into the world and so doth more or less even such as never yet knew his person as the Sun sends some light in some corners of the earth where the body of it is not at all discerned yea the very spirit of God shining and striving in them answerably to which Gods spirit is said Gen. 6. to strive with man even those evill men of the old world that rebell'd against it by which spirit Christ himself is said to have preacht to those disobedient persons while the long suffering of God waited on them in the daies of Noah whose outward ministry he also used while the Ark was preparing 1 Pet. 3. 19 20 the same spirit is said Ioh. 16. to be sent to convince the very world of sin righteousness and judgement yea the stiff-necked and uncircumcised Iews both in heart and ears are said Act. 7. alwayes to have resisted the holy spirit which they could not have done had he not wrestled with them yea within them thus farre all men have him even ill men the worst in the world at some time or other by which spirit the Son of righteousness is the light of the Microcosme or inward world of mans heart as the Sun by the beams that stream from the body of it is the light of the Megacosme or outward universe In this sense I cannot conceive you take the holy spirit here or if you do you mistake not a little if you say infants have him thus for howbeit in these ordinary wayes of his acting all persons male and female may be said to have him at the years of capacity to distinguish yet infants of one day old have him not in this sense or if they had 't will make no more for the baptism of them then of all men and women in the world much less have they him in those special waies of acting in which he acts in the Saints till at least they come to be so far past that minority as to be sensible of his acting towards them Which speciall and more eminent acts and offices of the spirit are on this wise viz. special assisting in doing good when by common strivings with them men are perswaded and prevaild with to set about it and when in his first motions he is obey'd also comforting supporting in and under troubles trials sufferings temptations persecutions which will assuredly light on those that do obey him assuring souls more and more clearly of Gods love and favour witnessing to their spirits that they are the children of God enabling them with boldness to cry Abba father sealing them up to the day of Redemption confirming them as an earnest in their present confidence of a future inheritance kingdom glory revealing to them more plainly the things freely given of God so that they rejoice mainly therein whilst others to whom these things are foolishness rejoice in the things of the world lusts of the flesh and of the eye and of the pride of life lusting strongly against the flesh delivering from the law of sin and death warring against the law of the members effectually which else would carry captive to the law of sin mortifying the deeds of the body teaching all things leading into all truth guiding and gifting persons for the Churches service severally as he will bringing all things to remembrance which Christ spake which are subject to be forgotten manifesting the Father the Son and many more things to them that love Christ and keep his commandements which he will not
the natural seed of believers be they never so ungodly in their own persons must be faithful to fulfil his own part and their ungodliness non obstante make it good to them concerning their salvation which drives you oft to such a Dilemma in discourses that for your ears almost you dare not answer distinctly to us when we ask you what that Gospell promise is which is made as you say to believers infants and upon what terms it is made to them beyond the infants of unbelievers Babist We do not say that being born of believing parents only intitles persons to the Gospell promises but they are heirs thereof and of all the glory and priviledges and salvation held forth therein as they shall hereafter believe themselves also and live godly when they come to years and not otherwise Baptist. Yea say you so then pray how doth the promise of the Gospel appear to belong one joâ—… more to believers children then to unbelievers for the believers child it seems by you now cannot by promise be saved upon his parents faith unless he believe also himself and then he may and what is this more then I can say to the full of all unbelievers children yea and as well of all unbelievers in the world for even the children of Turks and Pagans and all the children of all the men upon the face of the Earth shall be saved upon these terms viz. believing and obeying the Gospel themselves when they come to years whether their parents ever obeyed it yea or no where then is the preheminence of your believers seed above unbelievers if you go this way to work either therefore grant the one or else the other viz. either that believers children are heirs of salvation upon their fathers faith onely without their own or if you say not so but by their own faith t is that they must be saved then that the Gospel promise belongs not to believers children beyond other mens and that one mans seed hath no such birth-priviledge and preheminence as you dote of about anothers for unbelievers children may as well as they by promise be saved upon their own faith when they come to age without their Fathers Babist We can easily answer you to all this by distinguishing upon the promise thus The promise of the Gospel is either of salvation life remission of sins the holy spirit as the earnest and the inheritace it self to come or else of external priviledges only and participations of Ordinances as Baptism Churchmembership c. the promise of the eternal inheritance life and salvation we grant is not made much less made good to any upon terms of the parents faith but upon our own personal belief and obedience but the promise of outward priviledges and of right to participation of ordinances as to be baptized and inchurchâ—… this belongs to children upon their fathers faith so that believers children are children of the promise in this sense when others are not and in this last sense it is that Peter saies the promise is to you and to your Children c. i. e. you and yours have the priviledge of right to baptism Baptist. Then it seemes you quit the former sense I pray therefore let us here no more of that till next time however but let me tell you one thing by the way concerning that first sense before I say ought to your second viz that if the promise of salvation belong to persons upon their own personal belief and obedience as undoubtedly it doth according to the whole tenor of the Scripture as to men at years and such onely then as very a sigment of ours as you feign it to be t will put you to your shifts to find out what way dying infants are saved in unless you own another way then that which the Scripture tenders it to men in for the justification and salvation of infants viz. the presentment of the righteousness of Christ for them without belief in them or any other kind of obedience And sith in such sense as this only you own the Gospel promise to be made by Peter Act. 2. to believers infants viz. that they shall by right be admitted to outward priviledges as baptism and membership when others shall not I beseech you consider what a poor piece of promise is made by him and what a miserable comforter the Apostle is made by you in making as if this were all his meaning and all that he intends by that precious word of promise I suppose his drift was to support the Jewes now smitten down under sense of sin and the guilt of Christs blood which then lay upon them by propounding to them some ground of consolation but here is cold comfoâ—…t in what he saith if that be all which you saie is the sense he speaks in he had spoke little to their purpose and as good he had said never a whit as never the better for this promise as you take it hath more matter of mourning in it then otherwise to say you shall be brought nearer to the Church but never the nearer to salvation thereby further then you do that which others doing that are further off the Church shall be saved so doing as well as you Sirs you had as good cut off the entail of that piece of promise which you intitle believers infants to as cut of the best part of the promise from them which yet you seem to entail as from their parents to them for this is not worth a rush without the other for abstract this great priviledge you seem to invest them with from that which you divest them of by this distinction and its worth little or nothing if not plainly worse than nothing without the other what better to be under a promise of being priviledged with and what priviledge at all to be admitted to this and yet to be no more nor upon any other terms under the promise of the inheritance it self then others such as were yet never at all signed to it Is it not râ—…ther a burden and a bondage for outward ordinances verily are part of the preceptory part of the Gospel and the precept in point of ordinances as well as in point of manners is part of the yoke and burden of Christ and of the hard sayings of his which flesh and blood brooks not to hear off for though the way of Christ is light and easie and not grievous where it is lessened by thoughts of the recompence of reward yet is it in it self a burden and a yoke and such a one too as considering the sufferings of all such as submit to own it well nigh wearies them that walk under it though under clearest title to the Kingdome for which they suffer much more may it be a misery and not a mercy to such who have a promise of being barely admitted to it but no more of life and salvation or at least upon no other terms then such as have not the
members are born unto it not offlesh but of faith not by being of Abraham himself but as Abraham himself was not by being of believers after the flesh but by being believers with them In the Allegory while Isaac the typical promised seed was only in the word of promise and not in actual being Ishmael dwelt in the house but soon afterhe came into the world Ishmael must abide in the house no longer so while Christthe true Isaac typified by the other to whom the Gospel promises were made was but barely in the promise the fleshly Israel vaunted it in the Church but when the fulnesse of time was come for him to be â—…ncarnate and in esse reali that fleshly holy seed much more the fleshly seed of believing Gentiles could have no right of residence in the family of Abraham nor are any saving believers allowed members thereof to this very day Babist But it seems to be the Iews themselves even the naturall seed of Abraham to which in that Rom. 11. 19. Abraham is said by Paul to stand a holy root if it be considered with reference to the verse before where he speaks plainly of them as in contradistinction to believieng Gentiles therefore Abrahams own fleshly seed are holy branches still of that holy root Baptist. In no wise as they are his natural seed onely but as they may hereafter be hoped to become his seed by faith also and be grafted again upon their root Abraham and their own olive tree i. e. the visible Church their fathers family by believing and imbracing the Gospel from which they were broken off through unbelief in which if they abide not still they shall saith he verse 23. be grafted in again but never simply as they are his natural seed onely Abraham may be said to stand a holy root to his own bodily issue two wayes first onely as they were born of his body by Isaac and Iacob with whom and whose seed that typically holy Covenant was established which being now vanisht away he is no longer such a holy root to those natural branches of his body as that they have any birth holiness now therefrom Secondly as the same persons that were his natural seed might also be his spiri-seed by faith in Christ and so he is here said to be a holy root and the Jews in reference to him holy branches viz. in respect not to their fleshly birth of him for as they are his natural branches onely and no more they are broken off but in respect to their future calling to the faith and receiving in again in time to come upon account of their owning of the Gospel the spititual branches onely are now grafted into the olive-tree and growing up upon the root the natural branches are broken off and the root as a holy root to them withered that holiness of it faded it is alive as a holy root now to none but the believer not its own natural branches muchlesse to the natural branches of believing Gentiles Babist When the Iews were broken off their naturall children were broken off with them therefore when the believing Gentiles were grafted in their stead their naturall children must in like manner be grafted in with them Babist No such matter Sirs there 's either no good Antecedent or else no good Consequence in this for first if you mean as to the Gospel Church and Covenant the children of the unbelieving Jews are not so broken off and excluded with their parents in such a sence as you imagine i. e. upon the Account of their parents unbelief onely but for want of faith in their own persons and as succeeding their fathers in unbelief for if any children of the unbelieving Jews when they come to years and children when at years are the naturall seed of their parents I hope as well as in infancy it self if being the children of such or such parents alone would either ingraft or exclude if I say unbelieving Iews children do believe the promise is so made to them that their parents unbelief cannot exclude them but if the children at years do not believe the promise is so little made to believers and their seed as that the parents belief availes no further then to the engrafting of himself and hecannot at all entitle all his natural seed by his single faith nor as heirs of the same heavenly inheritance with him inright them to the ordinance in token of it but if you mean as to the old Church and Covenant then Secondly it follows no more then if you should go about to make a way for the needle by the thred that because the Iews and their seed under the law were taken in and thrown out of Covenant altogether so the Gentiles under the Gospel and their seed must be owned and disowned thus collectively for as to that old Covenant of the law made with the fleshly Israel concerning the earthly Canaan the very promise of that was made to the whole body of that nation and people that came of Abraham Isaac and Iacobs loins in such a manner as that their infants were by very naturall descent according to the promise as tâ—…y and fully heirs of it as themselves from which consequetnly when once God took his advantage by the breach first made on their part to break it on his part also he must necessarily turn them all out together and so he did discovenanting the whole nation at once and as it is said in Zach. 11. 10. breaking the Covenant which he had made with all the people discarding and disinheriting them from all that glory in the lump but the Gospel Covenant and promise concerning the heavenly inheritance is not at all on this wise but of a different nature taking in no whole nation in the world nor any one or more mens meer natural seed no not Abrahams Isaacs and Iacobs as the other did to all generations of its continuance but rather Sigillatim such several persons out of every nation tongue kindred and people that fear God and work righteousness Rev. 5. 9. Act. 10. 34 35. even all and onely such as obey him Singulos generum credentes not genera singulorum credentium vel non If therefore you speak of the Jews standing upon the Root Abraham and in the Church before Christ upon the old Covenant account then I confess that the whole body of them were broken off altogether and that as they and their fleshly seed were all incovenanted so they were all discovenanted at once when that covenant of circumcision which God gave to Abraham and his fleshly seed Gen. 17. concerning the land of Canaan was it self abolished in Christ crucified but then the consequence will not hold from that covenant to this of the Gospel these being two distinct and different covenants the terms of standing in which are in no wise the same But if you speak of the covenant of the Gospel then your Antecedent is false for I deny utterly that the Jews
the true dispensation of it to believers yet that it is so much as a sign at all to infants in infancy or when grown to years either if dispensed in infancy I absolutely deny and affirm that the very nature use and office of it as a sign to its subject is totally destroyed by such immature administration for a sign specially propriè dictum that is properly and not improperly so called in reference to that person whose sign it is is some outward thing appearing to the senses through which some other thing some inward thing is at the same time apprehended by the understanding This is the most true and proper difinition that your Divines give of a sign in general but in special of these signes viz. baptism and the supper so Pareus and Kekerman both do define a sign out of Austin and so do you all define these signs viz. in oculis incurrentia signa but such a thing baptism cannot be to infants in their infancy nor after their infancy neither if dispensed while they are infants the sign and thing signified being not possible in that way to be ever apprehended both together as they must be viz. the sign by the senses the thing signified by the understanding and that at the same time when the sign appears to the senses or else the sign is a meer Nullity and of no use and benefit as a sign at all for though infants may have the sense of the thing so as to see and feel if they were dipt in infancy yet have they then no understanding of its meaning and though when they come to years they are capable to gather the meaning of things or from an appearing sign to conceive what is signified thereby yet then the sign it self is fled out of sight and so far out of the reach of their remembrance that as ther 's nothing now presented so neither ever was there any thing for ought they can conjecture any more then by meer human hearsay objected to their senses at all when the Jewes required a sign of Christ they required something that might be seen what sign shewest thou that we may see and believe A sign then must be some memorandum some object obvious to the senses of that person to whom t is a sign properly taken either continually or at sometime or other even then which the understanding drinks in the thing signified else if there neither is nor ever was any such sight or sense of the sign as from the then or now present appearance of it while the understanding of the party whose sign it is is lively acted on the thing then to that person the sign unlesse improperly and improper signes the sacraments are not can possibly be no sign at all this Pareus teacheth us to the life p. 35. 7. where desining baptism and the supper to be signa in oculos incurrentia hoc est visibilia signs that are or once were to be seen by him whose signes they are even at that time while he is to learn something by them he further backs it as I have set down in his own words in the margent and for the use of the unlearned Englished thus viz. for they ought to be such that they may signifie things invisible for if they ought to be helps to our faith they must be perceived by the external sense whereby the internal sense is moved for what thouseest not is no sign to thee he that makes an invisible signim plies a contradiction and makes the sign not a sign at all they are invisible things not signes otherwise also the signes could not so much as signifie the things much lesse confirm them because an uncertain thing would be confirmed by a thing as uncertain as it self hence the antients define a Sacrament thus a sacrament is a visible sign of some invisible grace So then we see that according to your selves a sign is no sign at all to him that is never seen all by him who is to observe it and that too at some time or other after he comes to observe what is meant by it whereupon I testifie that what was done to us in infancy had it been the true sign of Christs own institution viz. baptism as t was rather a sign of meer mans institution viz. the sign Rantism and the sign of the crosse neither was nor is nor ever will be any sign at all to you or me if at any time it be a sign to vs it must be either while we are infants or when grown to years but not while infants for then we apprehend not the thing signed nor when at years for then we apprehend not the sign How mighty your memoties and how exquisite your apprehensive powers are to bring these two I mean the sign and thing signified together in your thoughts I know not but I plainly acknowledge notwithstanding Dr Channels councel to the Auditory at the Dispute at Petworth Ian. 5. 1651 to remember and call to mind what was signified to them in their infant baptism that as in infancy I perceived not to what purpose I was signed so now save what I have by hearsay I perceive not nor ever did of my self to my best remembrance that I was then so signed at all As for that true baptism which I have since submitted to some 4 or 5 years ago as it then preached so far as a sign may be said to preach most precious things to my understanding so it lively appeared to my senses and left such impression upon then and such an Idea thereof in my mind that me thinks I both see and remember it still and so shall I hope have good cause to do whilest I live I conclude then that to signifie things to infants by baptism in infancy is a meer blank and utter nullity a silly cypher that stands for nothing and is of no use to them at all Yea as it would be thought no better then meer mockery or witless wisdom for any Priest to stand talking and making signs over one a sleep while he is understandingly sensible of nothing and then after he is awake and as little a ware of any thing as before begin to make the application and will him to divine both what was done to him by whom and why and to take cognizance and clearer evidence of such and such things by the same token that they were told him and signified to him by what was done while he was asleep by certain signs which he never saw yet nor never shall so is it to me to baptize meet infantâ—… or as it were no better than flat folly for any father in a serious and not lusory way to shew the form of the City Ierusalem to his infant iâ—… infancy by the figure and draught of it in a Map saying look here child this stands for the Temple this signifies and sets forth the manner of Mount Sion and and all this is shewed thee now
that thou maiest remember it another time that Ierusalem is thus and thus scituated and then when he comes to age without any more resemblance of it to him in the map to indoctrinate him in what was done in his iafancy and bid him reflect back and call to mind what was shewn him in that map in which it was manifested to him what manner of city Ierusalem was and other such like ridiculous stuff and prate of the things so long since done that they are now flown both out of sight and mind even such and no better is it yea such piteous poor and meer painted piety is it for persons whether Priests or parents to stand prating to and ore poor ignorant infants and signing them at a Font or Bason whilest if they be not a sleep as my owâ—… silly experience teaches me they have been many a time while I have been sprinkling them in the midwives or the mothers armes yet they are at best no better then asleep because as heedless of what 's done saying to them very seriously by name as if they would have them mind what is said Thomas â—…nne c. I baptize thee in the name of the Father c. in token of remission of sins and then to sign them with the sign of the Cross in token to them still that hereafter when it is impossible they must by what is now so clearly manifested to their senses understand and remember that they must not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified c. and then when they are grown up to set them to School to the Font again and wish them to learn by what was once done to them there that this and that is signified saying you must understand that Christ was crucified dead and raised for the remission of your sins and that you are now to leave your sins to dy to them live a holy life take up your cross and follow him and all these things I now inform you in by word of mouth you must call to mind how they were most plainly manifested to you and lively evidenced to your very external senses and thereby to your internal senses in your baptism which is a visible sign to you and a most sensible demonstration therof a most lively preaching and resembling of them before your eies these things you must remember by the same token that you had once such a most not able remarkable memorable matter done unto you so long since that you cannot possibly observe perceive discover remember that ever it was done at all but as we tell you Babist This reflects with no small disparagement on the wisdome of God in appointing the sign circumcision to be set to infants even in their infancy Baptist. No such matter for God did not appoint it to be set to infants for any such end or use as to be a sign of any thing to infants themselues in their infancy but when at age Babist Nor do we set baptism to infants for any such end as to signifie any thing to them in their infancy but when they come to years Baptist. Circumcision being a permanent mark in the flesh remained Gen. 17. 13. and though set in infancie yet was a sign visible to the persons to whom it was set and to be seen by them as long as they lived but to baptism being a transient thing which vanishes soon after the dispensation without making or leaving any mark or impression upon the body whereby any one that nores it not while dispensed to him can possibly be capable to note it another time it is gone and lost and can be no sign to him any more for ever A permanent sign may be set at any time without prejudice to their use of it as a sign to whom it is set but the use of a transient sign must be made when it is set and it must be set at such times when its subject is capable to catch the meaning of it whilest it passes before the sences and upon occasion to recollect an Idea of what was done or else it perishes from being a sign to those persons from thenceforth even for ever Babist Then Circumcision might have been as well for born till the persons were of years the use being not made till then yet God who doth nothing in vain and out of season did for all that enjoin it long before why therefore may not baptism by the like reason Baptist. Besides that baptism is transient and that permanent which is enough to satisfie in this particular there was much other use and end for which circumcision was rightly dispensed to the infants of the Jews for which there 's not the like reason in baptism as namely to distinguish and sign them out to be what they were viz. heirs of the kingdome by birth Babist That is the very end on which we baptize infants and no other viz. to sign and distinguish the seed of believers from the seed of unbelievers and sign them out to be what they are by birth and what when they come to years they learne that they were made in Baptism viz. heires of the Kingdome of Heaven Baptist. When you have the same evidence of believers seed in infancy that the Jewes had of theirs viz. that they are heirs of the kingdom then I will allow you to do as they did viz. to sign and distinguish them as such but of the one of these you have evidence in nonage not so of the otherâ—… the kingdome that the Jews by very nature were heirs of according to the promise was that of the Earthly Canaan of which and that as a type they were apparent heirs by no other then very natural birth and that so soon as ere they were born and therfore full well within a while might they be signed But that which you take upon you so timely to sign persons as heirs to in baptism is the Antitype or heavenly Canaan which no creature is an apparent heir to according to the Gospel promise upon meer natural birth of any parents whether Jew or Gentile till he appear to us unless he dy before he hath deserved exemption by actual transgression and then Charity teaches us to hope as well of all as of one to be born by faith in Christ which birth if any infants were capable of it as to us none are yet because we cannot presume which have it and which not the workings of the spirit being so unknown to us that there can be no conclusion made we cannot by dispensation give right distinction but as in the type they sign'd them well nigh as soon as they were born with that natural birth of Abraham Isaac and Iacob after the flesh upon which alone they were heirs by promise of that earthly Canaan so we sign them so soon as they appear to be born with that birth of Christ by faith by which they are heirs of the true Canaan and that 's all the
the image for when the picture is understood that even that of which it is the picture is made cleer and verily farre more cleer then without a picture and as a true picture is not well understood if the likenesse or lively resemblance of the picture be not observed so neither are the sacraments unlesse the likenesse of the outward signes and things thereby signified be understood in this sense the Appollogy of the Augustinian confession doth divers times call the sacraments by the name of pictures And again p. 363. shewing wherein the sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified consists it stands saith he in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel similitudine signorum cum rebus signatis in the analogy and likenesse that is between the signes and things signified And then he goes on quoting Austin thus De qua Agustinus Si inquit sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt non haberent omnino sacramenta non essent and then again p. 365. speaking of those sacramental locutions as you call them whereby the sign is oft called by the name of the thing signified and said to do and be that which onely the thing signified is and doth in truth This saith he is by a sacramental metonimy and the meaning of it is not that one is changed really into the other but because the sign doth so lively resemble the thing signified Next to which he cites again the very same sentence out of Austin which is rehearsed in latin just above together with somewhat more all which I English thus viz. If the sacraments should not have in them some likenesse to the things whereof they are sacraments they could not be sacraments at all but by reason of this likenesse it comes often to passe that they bear the very names of the things they resemble By the way I cannot but take notice what an argument here is against infants baptism as well as against the form of Rantism fot if true baptism must resemble as well as signifie to the very eyes and so mediante oculo to the understanding and minds of persons to whom it s dispensed is it possible for that baptism that was dispenst in Infancy to represent lively and cleerly to my sense and reason when I am at years the things therein signified for to call that a sign much more a lively resemblance of a thing before our eyes so Buchau saies of baptism ante oculos objicit which we never saw at all or if we did t was when we could not apprehend it and so long since that we necessarily and universally forget it and that so farre that our fancy can never possibly recollect that outward appearance of those inward things is no better then meer childishnesse and very vanity to me Rantist This shewes indeed that t was the opinion of these Reverend men that there ought to be of necessity as cleer a resemblance as may be of the thing signified in the administration of the outward and visible sign in all sacraments or else they are no sacraments but that is nothing binding to us without some good ground out of Scriptures to believe it therefore le ts see it appear from thence and if you will from the Scriptures you began upon Rom. 6. Col. 2. in which I see nothing on which you can ground that in baptism there must be visibly and representatively a death burial and resurrection though I grant all these are signifyed thereby Baptist. I rejoice much to see you renounce that implicit faith whereby you have formerly lived it may be more upon the mouth of Calvin Ursin Austin and other Authors then on the mouth of Peter and Paul or the mouth of Christ himself in his word neither do I urge any thing out of these Authors to be taken upon trust without trial yet prove what they say however in this point and hold it fast too if by the word you find it to be good I come therefore to consider that which first occasioned all this discourse and to see if such a matter as a death burial and resurection of Christ be not here expressed or at least implyed neither of which yet is granted by Mr. Cook or Mr. Blake as things to which true baptism is to bear some resemblance and here let me tell you though you and the rest are engaged to make the best of your rantism now you see it questioned and have begun in the face of the world to defend it will sooth men up and tell them there is none but the Anabaptists gather that there must be a representation of death burial and resurrection from those places and such like yet we are not alone in our assertions even from those places that these are to be resembled for some that wrote impartially upon the places Rom. 6. Col. 2. even of your own way before the matter came so much in question have shewed their sense therof to be the same with ours as concerning the representation of all these witnesse one Mr. Thomas Wilson who in an exposition of his upon Rom. 6. declares from the 3 and 4 verses thereof in this manner That baptism is a pledge of our sanctification in all the parts of it thus the death of sin saith he is effectually represented by the water cast on us at our baptism though by his favor who was I perceive of Mr. Cooks conceit that infusion might serve turn not half so effectually as by the water overwhelming us the burial of sin by our being under the water and by our comming out of the water our arising out of our sins to a better life through the power of the holy spirit applying Christs death and burial for the bâ—…ating down of our corrupt nature and his Resurrection for our quickening to godlinesse of living Thus he Neither is he alone in this sense upon these places but most if not all modern writers that do purposely or but occasionally touch upon these places as Calvin Ursin Paraeus Tiâ—…enus Zanky c. do fully agree with him in this particular viz. that the lively resemblance of Christs death burial and resurrection and of ours with him that is to be held forth in the administration of Baptism is among other things signified in those Scriptures and do with him expound the words baptized in his death buried with him in baptism into death wherein yee are also risen with him c. not of the things signified only viz. our Mortification of sin and rising to holinesse in a way of likeness to Christs death and resurrection but also of the outward right and form of administration of the sign it self to be done in a way of likenesse to them both so that we by that as by an image or lively resemblance may not only be kept in a lively remembrance of the matter of them but may beat the manner of those matters also in our minds Thus Calvin l. 4. c. 15.
secondary that onely sometime signification of vvashing I doubt it must be contented for him and all the Rantists to be vvithout its neerest to be stript of its plainest to be banisht and forct for ever from bearing its truest sense in all places of the book of God unlesse they may be forc't once to be vvithout their vvills for in all the Scripture that I knovv of where the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is placed it is thus displaced from its principall signification by them so that all our desires to them on its behalf that it may sometimes at least be granted the sense of dipping shall in no vvise prevail for its ovvn sense to be allovved it I remember but these places at present vvhere the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used vvhere vvater baptism of persons is spoken of viz. Mat. 3. 6. 11. 13. 14. 16. 28. 19. Mark 14. 5. 8. 9. 10. and the 16. 26. Luke 3. 7. 12. 16. 21. Lâ—…e 7. 29. 30. Iohn 1. 25. 26. 28. and the 3. 22. 23. 26. and the 4. 1. 2. Aâ—…t 1. 5. and the 2. 38. 41. and the 8. 12. 13 16. 36. 38. 39. and the 9. 18. and the 16. 15. 33. and the 18. 8. and the 22. 16. Rom. 6. 3. 4. 1 Cor. 1. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Gal. 3 27. Col. 2. 12. in vvhich of all these places dare they allovv us the prime signification of the vvord not so much as one I dare say yet Scapula quotes but tvvo places viz. Mark 7. Luke 11. vvherein it is taken to vvash vve vvould be contented to allovv them that not sometimes onely as they talk of but that alvvayes it shall signifie to vvash for dipping indeed being a chief kind of vvashing it cannot be rationally gainsayed onely proh dolor vve must not once english it dipping or overvvhelming no not by any meanes in the world But Sirs though you are so accustomed to that trick so that it is to be feared you will be hardly brought off it viz. to have nothing more ordinary among you then to carry vvords and specially the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clearly and that not sometimes onely but continually besides its prime sense of dipping into its farre off sense of vvashing and into its non-sense of sprinkling for it signifies no such thing as that yet vve have no such custome nor the Churches of God but to take vvords ordinarily in the sense vvhich they most properly bear Rantist But Mr. Blake denies dousing over head to be the prime signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and tells you p. 3. that the great Criticks in the Greek tongue will not allow you your sence to douse over head and years to be the prime distingishing between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making the Latter to bear your sense the former to be a dipping more light and overly as Luke the 16. and the 24. it is evidently used Baptist. O that 's another matter he should have said so then at first for because he talked that words are used out of their prime signification and among the rest this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the sake of which he saies the other out of its prime signification of dipping I took it for granted and so I might well for he allowes it to signifie washing in Scripture and what sense is it that he pleads against by that speech viz. that words are oft used out of their prime significations I took it I say for granted and seriously a grant it is if he well examine it that he took dipping or overwhelming to be the prime sense of baptism unlesse almost a page of of his be pennd in vain and dares he now deny it that is worse then all the rest but I wonder what is if that be not the prime for I am sure the prime is not to wash it is quoth he a dipping more light and overly then so To which I say let the persons baptizing dip the persons baptized as lightly and overly as they will so they dipp them and not some of them barely for then I know they must do it underly also for what man is truly to be baptized that man is to be put under water not a part of him only as also what part of a man lesse or greater yea if it be but the tip of the finger that he instances in as an overt dipping is truly to be dipped must not be dipped so overly as that it is not dipped underly I mean put truly under water for else it is not properly a dipping of that part but I would I could hear some of those Criticks for he mentions not one of them that distinguish him so besides the way of God by their fair false glosses upon the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only to signify that we stand for i. e. a total overwhelming and baptizing no more then some dribling kind of darting some part of the subject under water for verily they are but crackt braind Criticks to me if the Lexicons be at all to be heeded for howbeit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify the same that we saie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies viz. dipping or being under water and it may be more deeply then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that is as it were Imum petere to go down to the very bottom yet neither doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify any lesse then we say and that primarily also viz. at least to put under and overwhelm with water which is enough for us or else it would never be rendred by obruo ond submergo which words if they do not as truly expresse as total a covering with water as subco ingredior which are the senses by which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred then I have as much sense in my heel as my head but if those Cricticks think this no right rendition let them do the world that right as to take upon them to correct those Errata's in the Lexicons that are extant and to turn Lexicographers themselves The third exception of Mr. Baxter against what hath been before said in proof of dippping is this viz. The thing signifyed is set forth by the phrase of washing or sprinkling and the sign need not exceed the thing signifyed And in this fashion argue both Mr. Blake and Mr. Cook especially out of whose larger drivings home of this head a man that hath but half an eye may see Mr. Baxter borrowed most of that little he saies in exception against what we say for dipping abridging two or three pages of Mr. Cook viz. page 19 20 21. into these two or three lines of his and coting the same Scriptures and no other and that in the self same order and no other then Mr. Cooke doth viz. the 1 Cor. 6. 11. Tit. 3. 5. Heb. 10. 22. Isa. 44. 3. Ioel 2. 28. Ezek. 36. 26. 1 Pet.
universalis eidem etiam totum universale adimi necesse est whoever is not a part of some part or other i. e. of some particular visible church cannot be a part of the whole i. e. the universal visible this I say is the Logick and Theology which was wont to passe for currant among your selves but Mr. Ba. learnes men a new kind of Logick viz. that all the parts put together are not so big as the whole that the universall visible church is larger then all the particular visible churches in the world of which yet it consists so that there is room enough for a person to stand a member in the universal visible church though he be of no particular visible church at all I ever understood yet that he who is removed and cast out of all the particular visible churches of the Saints is consequently cast out of the universal visible church but he tells me a tale that to be removed out of every particular visible church is consistent still with a standing in the universal visible so that excomunication out of all the particular visible churches in the world is not excomunication out of the whole visible church with him Another thing worth noting though worth nothing is this he tells us there that Keturahs children when they left the family of Abraham that they continued members of the universal visible church still which compared with the clause above where he tells us that it is a far higher priviledge to stand in the universal visible church then to stand in any particular whatsoever amounts to thus much viz. that the Midianites for they were some of Keturahs children had far higher priviledges then those that the Israelites had by being members of that particular visible church of Israel which if it were so then we may say what advantage hath the Iew indeed and what profit by circumcision and by Gods commission of his oracles unto them yea what necessity of circumcision of themselves and their males at all for any strangers or of joining themselves to that particular church of the Jewes sith they might have had as high priviledges if they had joined themselves to the seed of Abraham by Keturah of whose posterity circumcision nor the strict law it bound to was not required and so consequently what need of baptism if persons might be of the uniuersal visible which is the greater though not of the particular visible church of the Iews without circumcision and keeping the law But it is a question with Mr. Bax. whether Keturahs children must leave their seed uncircumcisied p. 60. yet I tell him it is out of question that unlesse it were in order to joining and inchurching themselves with that individual Church of of the Iewes to which pertained peculiarly the adoption and glory and covenants and law and promises and which was all the visible church that I know God had then upon the earth circumcision was not enjoined to any other of Abrahams own posterity not the Ishmalites nor Midianites but those onely that came of Sarah by Isaac and Iacob for the covenant of which circumcision was a sign was establisht with none of them but with Isaac onely and with Iacob and his seed after him and so many as should join themselves unto them Many more odd conceits about this universal visible church Mr. Ba. broaches but I spare him and hasten to what followes His 16. plain Scripture-lesse proof for infants church-membership and baptism is from a clause in the second commandâ—…ment viz. I will shew mercy to 1000s of them that love me and keep my commandements a phrase out of which a man may as easily prove the Pope to be head of the church as prove either of those points in proof of which he doth produce it Yet oh the miserable muddy wretched ragged crooked cloudy piece of disputation for infant baptism which this man makes from that place For my part I mean not to wander after him in that wildernesse of worthlesse discourse that he vents about mercy Church covenant promises nor am I so wise as to wot what he means nor so foolish as to believe he knows well what he means himself by much of that he there utters or else he would never say that wicked men in the church are within the covenant and so have this mercy spoken of in the second commandement stated on them by promise as if wicked men in the church were in some special wise beloved of God when yet they are more hateful to him by far then heathens It is enough to serve my present purpose that what proof Mr. Baxter pens in the head of this argumentation his own pen dashes it all out again in the taile of it For first after a great deal of wiestling to make the mercy here promised to thousands of them that love God necessarily to include church-membership he confesses at last that it lies doubtful in the text what mercy in particular is there meant which if he do then t is not necessary that church-membership be implied in it for there may be much mercy yea special yea eternal saving mercy shewed to persons to whom the mercy of membership in the visible church and baptism is not vouchsafed or else what becomes of such infants as notwithstanding your timely admittance do yet dy without both membership and baptism are they shut out of the kingdom of heaven Secondly he confesses it is doubtfull in the text to how many generations God shewes mercy to the children of parents tâ—…at love him whether it be to the remote or neerest progeny onely and though he passe his judgement that it is onely to immediate children of godly parents that the promise in the commandment is made yet thereby he contradicts his own sense of the place and overthrowâ—…s all that he contends for in that if the words were as he would have them read viz. I shew mercy to a thousand Generations or to the thousandth generation of them that love me it were evident that he meant not the nexâ—… generation only for that to a thousand generation should signifie no more then one generation to come is most irrational and plain brutish to imagine and if he say t is to a thousand generations if such children succeed their parents in godlynesse that sense excludes infants quite from the mercy here promised and extends it to such children oâ—…ely as are at years and that on condition of being godly themselves and on that condition of being godly themselves God shewes mercy to the immediate seed of the very wickedest parents as well as of the Godliest parents in the world But in very deed to put him out of all his doubts at once about this place viz. whether God mean the remote or immediate children I desire Mr. Baxter to consider that this promise is not made to any mans posterity at all but only to all such individual persons as love him and keep his commandements for
busie himself beyond measure in such a boundlesse prate and piece of sillogization about infant membership as it is nor be so extravagant from Mr. Bs. own advice who p. 12. tells us that we shall never be able to justifie it if we lay out but the thousandth part of our time study talk or zeal yet if he have not spent the twenteth part of his own I am must mistaken upon this question it self either for or against it as to lose a moiety of his time in replying distinctly to such a mint of impertinencies as are handled at armes end here by Mr. Ba. for my own part I am not minded to tire my self to much with tracing at large after every new hare that starts in my way nor to stand dancing the hay after Mr Ba. into every corner of that laborinth of Logick into which he leads me and yet leaves me after view and Review as little ground for infant baptism as if he had said nothing at all nor shall I bury my self up from better imployment in the bottomlesse pit of those absurdities which this part of his book also is fully fraught with partly because I find that most that he saies there is in effect answered already in the book called Anti-babism where the genuine sense of the main Scriptures he rests into his own use is given out viz. Rom. 11. 1 Cor. 7. Mar. 9. 36. Rom. 4. 11. Mal. 2. 15. partly also because I perceive a vain of particular contest with Mr. T. to run thorow the whole which Mr. T. according to the particular interest he hath therein hath already taken notice of in Print so far as its worth an answer partly also because I am not so happy as to have the patience of many scarce of any of the churches of Christ whose servant I am suffering me hitherto without such frequent avocations of me from this to services of another nature abroad as are inconsistent with my writing of much more at home Neverthelesse besides some animadversion of as much of its absurdity as may be with conveniency I shall take the sting out so clearly that it shall not hurt and that by both a clear though general disproof of it all and as clear though generall and brief demonstration of the contrary Take notice therefore of the most cardinal argument upon which he grounds infant church-membership under the Gospel It was so once that infants were of the church and it is not repealed therefore it is so now To which I answer by granting t was so from Abrahams time and downward to Christ for before that time all the pairs he takes doth not and all the braines he hath in his head cannot produce the least sollid proof of such a thing for all that Church and the materials of it were a ceremony and a type and never the viler for that as Mr. Ba. foolishly fancies p. 59. of the church under Christ t was so in that outward typicall covenant that God made concerning an earthly Canaan with the natural feed of Abraham in the loines of Isaac and Iacob not Ismael Gen. 17. 20. 21. nor any of his seed by Keturah Gen. 25. 1. 6. upon the performance of certain carnal ordinances as circumcision and the rest of the ordinances of Divine service pertaining to that covenant which circumcision bound them to till the time of reformation Heb. 9. but that therefore t is so now in the church under the Gospel-covenant that was typified by the other I utterly deny whose heavenly inheritance and spirituall seed of Abraham i. e. believers born of God by faith in Christ answer as the Anti-type to that earthly Canaan and fleshly seed of Abraham and before which the type is fled away for all the ceremonialls of that law are vanisht among which this admitting of fleshly babes was one and what it pointed at is shewed abundantly in Anti-babism which may serve as an answer also to his fourteenth argument for their present membership where if the law of infant-Church-membership were ceremonial he bids us shew what it tipified the membership therefore of infants which belonged onely to that particular Church of the Jewes which was also the whole universal visible Church that God then had upon earth unlesse we shall dream with Mr. Baxter of more particular visible Churches then that of the Jewes during its standing different from it in form order and constitution which together with that made up some one universal visible of which infants were members first as he dotes and then secondarily of that particular which conceit of his concerning such a universal visible is a meer invisible chimaera for who ever saw any visible Church or people whom God visibly inchurched and gave his oracles to besides Israel of whom it is said God dealt in that particular as he did not with any other Nations suffering all others to walk after their own waies Act. 14. 16. nor can there be now any universall visible Church but what is made up of the particular visible Churches so that a person must first be a member of some particular Congregation before he can be of that universal the Membership I say of infants that belonged to that Church onely which was to be National and tipical of that true holy nation i. e. all the saints where ever scattered is now repealed nor can any of that Mr. Ba. syllogizes to us evince the contrary He tells us that if it be repealed then either in justice or mercy to infants but it is in neither saith he p. 38. Ergo. he falls a proving the Minor but with his leave I shall make bold to deny the Major it was neither better nor worse as to the whole species of infants it was severity to unbelieving Jewes goodnesse to believing Gentiles but t was not done with any such special respect to infants in their â—…onage as that if it had stood the whole species of infants through the world would have been much the better for such a meer titular thing as membership in the Church unlesse that membership would Ipso facto have more intitled them to heaven nor now it s taken away are sucking infants ere the worse for saving the great dignity that you deem to ly in the bare title of being a member of the visible Church whether they dy before your admission of them or just after if in infancy their salvation is for that neither more nor lesse and if they live to years as they are then are no longer infants and no neerer heaven for their being baptized when they were infants unlesse they repent and believe the Gospell so repenting and believing it they are as capable then of heaven though they were not as if they had been baptized and in bare church-member ship from the womb this therefore is petty reasoning indeed as Mr. T. calls it see Mr. Ba. 40. His second third fourth fifth six Arguments are all out of Rom. 11. which place as I
have declared my sense of it before so I testifie again is so clear against the standing of infants as members in the family of Abraham or Church of God now under the Gospel that he is as blind as a beetle that sees any thing in it tending to the proof of it for it seems plainly that the natural branches or seed of Abraham Isaac and Iacob themselves that stood the children of the Church before without faith upon the meer account of being their naturall branches cannot stand children of the Church now unlesse they be also spiritual branches as Abraham Isaac and Iacob were yea if being the fleshly seed of a believer could ingraft persons into the Gospel Church as it did of old into the Jewish Church without faith then the Jewes to this day being asmuch believing Abrahams natural seed as ever might by that birth stand Members as truly as any Gentile believers seed but they cannot yea the same persons that were members of that Church without faith were not admitted to passe from that Church to membership in this for want of faith but when very forraigners that had no relation to nor descent from Abraham became his children in the Gosspel sense and members of the Gospel Church by personal faith the very naturall seed of Abraham was cut off through unbelief so that the standing before was by a fleshly birth of Abraham of some believing proselited Gentile but the standing now in the Church is not by a birth natural of any parent no hot of Abraham himself unlesse there be faith in the persons themselves as Mr. Baxter believes not there is in any infants for to the confutation of the Ashford Pamphlet which pleads infant-faith Mr. Baxter p. 98. Makes the very essence of faith to lie in assenting to it that Christ is King and Saviour and consenting that he be so to us and whether infants do thus both assent and consent let Mr. Ba. be judge of it if he please Because of unbelief the natural seed were broken off thence Mr. Bax. argues that infants stand still in the Church but thence I argue they cannot stand because those that stand now stand by faith ver 20. i e. personal not parental thou standest saith Paul by faith i. e thy faith not thy Fathers for then we may as well say the just shall live by his fathers faith not by fleshly descent though of Abraham Isaac and Iacob themselves as of old they did and infants cannot stand by faith unlesse they had it and therefore not at all Mr. Baxter argues it was the Jewes own Olive tree or Church they were cut off from for unbelief Therefore infants stand in it still But theâ—…ce I argue that our infants cannot stand therein for if god spared not the Naturall Branches of Abraham but broke them off their own root their own father Abraham and his family so as to be counted no longer his children their own olive tree the church so as to abide no longer in it because they believed not the terms of standing church-members being now no fleshly descent but faith then much lesse will he admit any Gentiles that are not naturall branches of Abraham to be grafted into the good olive tree without faith and therefore no infants that believe not Mr Ba. tells us that some branches only were broken off therfore not infants It is true all were not broken off and why because some believed and so abode in the family others and those the most believe not when they should others and those all infants nor believed nor yet could and therefore could not abide nor have a visible being a visible membership a visible standing in that visible church the termes of standing in which is only and alone by faith Mr. Bax. argues that Israel shall again be grafted into their own olive tree and saved even the children with the parents and therefore infant-membership in the Gospel church is not repealed I answer it is true that if they abide not still in unbelief they shall be grafted into their own olive tree the visible Church and family of Abraham that is so many as shall believe onely this infants do not but whether they believe or believe not when the Redeemer i. e. Christ Jesus shall come all Israel shall be saved and be owned and made the most glorious people upon earth and enter into a flourishing state indeed but not in this way of baptism and membership Mr. Baxter speaks of who I perceive is not a little ignorant of this mystery as yet how long blindnesse shall happen unto Israel and in what manner their calling shall be of which I also have at this time as little list as leasure to inform him Mr. Ba. argues from the samenesse of the Olive tree the Jew was broken off from and the Gentile was grafâ—…ed into that therefore as infants stood members then so they must now I answer it is true there is some kind of indentity between the Jewish and the Gospel Church but not such as concludes an indentity of membership for infants they are the same ingenere visiblis Ecclesiae they agree in the common name of Church and visible Church elected and segregated from the world but there 's little else that I know of wherin they are the same they differ in circumstantials in their accidental forms in their officers ordinances customs constitutions subjects members that being constituted of one whole nation of people or fleshly seed of Abraham taken out from all other nations this of a spiritual seed of Abraham i. e. believers scaterred here and there taken out of any nation as they happen to be called almost every nation some the ceremony of inchurching Abrahams own much more any other mans meer fleshly seed being ceased Mr. Bax. peddles on a pace and brings a company of Scripures in proof of infants Church-membership and baptism which though he stile them as indeed his whole book Plain Scripture proofs for those two yet a man that is not minded to force the Scripture into the Service of his own fancy because it does not serve it freely may look till dooms day before he see in them any plain perspicuous proof of either one of these or of the other Christ saith he Mat. 23. 37 would have gathered Ierusalem oft as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings but they would not therefore sure he would not have put them or their infants out of the Church the strength of the consequence lies here saith he he would have gathered whole Ierusalem and that into the visible Gospel Church therefore infants also Now that Christ does not speak of whole Ierusalem here as he saith he does both men and infants the circumstances of the text do fully evince to us for he speaks of the same persons he speaks to and the same persons he complains of saying ye would not the same and no other are they to whom he speaks when he saies Oh