Ark so none that we are sure of are saved without Baptism What need Infants have of Salvation the same they have of Baptism for their Salvation p. 156. calls an Unbaptized state a damnable state p. 142. with much more to that effect And pray what 's all this but an Opus Operatum or a tying the Grace of God to the Sacrament I know not that the Papists say any more then Mr. Walker p. 113. viz. that it hath a saving efficacy for such end communicated by God to it c. but I would fain learn of Mr. Walker who made him acquainted with that part of Gods counsel for I could never yet find it in the Bible that Baptism was dignified with so transcendent an energy as in disjunction from Faith and so 't is in all Infants to effect Salvation 'T is true to a qualified subject viz. a penitent Believer the Lord has made it an Instrument through which he conveys the saving communications of his Grace and to such it is necessary not absolutè but necessitate praecepti because God commanded it Yet the want of it where it may not be had damus not though the contempt of it is a horrible affront to the Divine Majesty and consequently a dangerous sin But 't is not necessary necessitate medii since salvation which is the end may be had without it as in the ease of the Thief upon the Cross c. But to Infants it is no way necessary 1 t is not so necessitate praecepti because Christ no where commanded such to be baptized nor 2 necessitate medii because Christ no where appointed it to be the means of their salvation We have several passages in Scripture that give us encouragement of the salvation of dying Infants through the rich grace and tender mercy of him who is we hope their Redeemer as well as ours But I have in my Answer to Mr. Baxter p. 16. touched upon this point Next Mr. Walker in 5 Chapters labours to shew that children are not incapable of Baptism but his Reasons are not convincing to me nor do I believe they can be so to any that with an unprejudiced mind reads our Books wherein is amply made out that Infants are not capable subjects of Baptism no more then of other Church Ordinances because they want Faith and Repentance as the Church Catechism informs us and which the same Book tells us is required of persons to be baptized Neither will the Sureties profession for the Child serve the turn for we find no such practice allow'd of or so much as mentioned in Scripture Neither by any Law of God or man is such a dispensation granted that a substitution of another's Faith should supply the desect of the person to be baptized Nor does the Child give them any Commission to believe for him nor can they perform what they promise which is no less then the performance of the great and principal graces of the New Covenant viz. Faith and Repentance which are the peculiar gifts of God But I shall dismiss this particular referring Mr. Walker to Mr. Tombs his Just Reply p. 105. Printed 1675. where by way of Animadversion on that part of the Common-Prayer-Book he confutes this practice unanswerably And Mr. Danvers his Treat p. 83 84. and 218 219 220. where it is also refelled by substantial and yet unanswered Reasons It is an inconsiderate expression of Mr. Walker to say p. 203 That in this argument of twistâ—d hairs viz from the order of the words Mat. 28.19 the greatest strength of these Sampsons lyes For we do not infist upon the order of the words only but upon the order of the things also as constantly practised And I challenge any man to produce that the order of the things ever differed from the order of the words or was by any Apostolical practice inverted or that any person was baptized by them that was not first taught So that having the order of words and things also for us and that from a mouth that never spoke an incongruous word we conceive we deserve no blame in adhering to so plain a rule But Mr. Walker says the order of words is for them because here is teaching after baptizing and Mar. 1.4 5. John baptized and preach'd and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signisying not teach but to make another a Disciple and so reads a Grammatical Lecture ending in this that unless it be understood make disciples by baptizing them and by teaching them there is a Tautology in the phrase as Teach all Nations c. Teaching them c. Answ That Mr. Walker hath made choice of a wrong Interpretation yea such as will be guilty of a signal absurdity will be easily apparent And 1. I confess the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies discipulate or maâ—e disciples And if the phrase be admitted to bear that sense Mr. Walker would have viz. to make Disciples by baptizing and teaching yet Infants will be excluded because to the making of Disciples these two actions are required viz. baptizing and teaching and Infants are uncapable of the later till they come to years therefore cannot be discipled But that making Disciples and baptizing are as hinted already above two distinct actions is clear in John 4.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he maketh and baptizeth more disciples c. you see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the conjunction copulative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is set down as a distinct work from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore he did not make them Disciples by Baptism but by something acted towards them before And if this be not understood so and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Synonima's here will be a manifest Tautology for then the words will run Jesus baptized and baptized more Disciples then John And I appeal to Mr. Walker's Conscience whether what is express'd Mat. 28.19 by the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may not without any violation of the sense be read imperatively by the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus Disciple all Nations and baptize them and if so whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would be terms equipollent and so by consequence Tantology viz. go baptize all Nations and baptize them a gemination elegant in the Hebrew but supperâ—fluous in the Greek Tonguâ— But to clear our own Interpretation as well as I demonstrate the absurdity of theirs it is necessary to know that there is a general teaching to acquaint persons with the Gospel which whoâ— once they believe and are baptized there is a second teaching to bring them on towards perfection You know what a short Consession was required of the Eunuch Act 8.37 If thou believest with all thy heart says Philip thou mayst The profession of which short Creed qualified him being by that a Disciple fit for Baptism But was there no need think you of any further teaching Yes doubtless he had need of Instruction in the
Liturgy and practise of the Church of England and though you did not read your self but another didâ—t it was because you were not able which if you were you would do it Answ Mr. Danvers charges no more upon you then what you confess here viz. Your profession of Conformity to the Liturgie and practice of the Church of England 2. You would evade this by telling us that he that saith the Lords Prayer doth not use another manner of worship then the Church but I appeal to your conscience whether by the words of your declaration you would not have the Conforming party understand that by your Reading you meant the common-prayer-Common-prayer-book if so is it not wretched equivocation and do you think God will be served with such deluding reservations And whether you did not pen your declaration in such ambiguous and equivocal terms as on the one hand to blind the Conformists make them think you theirs so on the other hand to excuse your self to the Non-consormists by telling them you meant the Reading the Scriptures and so cunningly play an Ambidexter in Divinity And so your reading some part of the Scriptures it may be the Lords prayer ten Commandments Epistle and Gospel for the day c. as that once in Buckinghamshire may serve to elude the Conformists because read out of the Common Prayer Book but if taken notice on by a Nonconformist then it was only reading the Scripture not Common Prayer And for observing hereof you so violently fly in the face of Mr. D. You tell us you are not able to read your self But what why Reader if thou art a Conformist he means Common prayer but then he could hear it read well enough If thou art a Non conformist he means the Scripture But Sir are you not able to read the Scriptures Can you have leasure and ability to write voluminous Directories Bodies of Divinity Catholick Theologies and no time nor leasure to read the Scripture It seems your Divinity is no Scripture Divinity As for your talk of a considerable part of the writing being left out I must profess I cannot believe you my incredulity is grounded upon firmer evidence then your flander of naked dipping if you desire to know it 't is like you may The matter of fact charged your own pen acknowledges which at present is enough You say you are no greater adversary to the Liturgy then Mr. Hildersham Knowstubs Ball Bradshaw Paget and Mr. Gifford were Answ What adversaries they were to is I have not leasure to examine But I know what adversary you have been to it I can to refresh your Memory tell you that In your Book dedicated to Rich. Cromwell Protector Prief p. 17. you said that most that are serious in practical Christianity were against such formal ways of worship And the spirit of prophaness comply'd with it c. p. 36. you said English Episcopacy gratified the Devil and wicked men that the rabble of ignorant persons worldlings Drankards Haters of Godlyness were very Zealous for them c. p. 3â—8 you called the Church of England the sink of all the other Churche in England The Bishops Government you called Ceremonious impositions Usa pation and pretended Office First disp p. 457. Have you not said in your Savoy Conference of which you are said to be the Penman but certainly you were an approver if not the 〈◊〉 that tâ—â—â—e are no Records of known credit for any 〈◊〉 for the first 3â—0 years p. 11. And have you not given 60 exceptions against it of which some were that it 〈◊〉 little from the Romish formâ— p. â— part 1. That it Unites only in a dead Religion p. 23. That a Coat may be made for the Moon as well as a Liturgy framed suited sufficiently to the variety of places times subjects c. p 55 And this is the friend ship you exprest to the Liturgy and the Bishops when you were in your highest elevation But now you complement them by the titles of the Right Reverend Fathers in God c. in the Account of the Savey Conference As to Mr. D. leaving out any part of the Paper was not your exception but for his grosly falsifying it and which your own Book seller at first told me was respecting the alteration of that clause viz. I would accordingly read the same For I would accordingly read my self and which Mr. D. rectified by a copy affirmed to be from the Originall in the Clerks hand and with all the little cause given you thereby for so severe a Remark and doubtless had there been any such gross falsisication or any considerable clause left out we should have heard of it in words at length before this Sir Your disease seems to me to be the more incurable in that you have turned scorner since your admonition Mr. Danvers in his 2. Reply gave you a very demonstrative one and which I suppose you can find no equivocations to shift off which is wonderful therefore you take no notice of it But you say you will hear some Scriptures he sends you to And you draw such mock-consequences from them as if they were not pertinent to your case But if you please I 'le give my self the trouble to draw consequences more pat from them and leave you to apply them 2 Cor. 6.4 5 6. Paul exhorts the Corinthians to approve themselves Ministers of God in much patience afflictions necessities distresses c. Ergo say you Did R. B. do ill to come out of the Goal when he was put in or not put himself in again p. 61. No Sir that 's not the right Ergo but Ergo R B. did ill to slink his neck out of the Collar and inveigble a poor Country Minister in to suffer for him in the common Goal â— For I very well remember that giving that Country Minister that was clapt upt in your stead avisit in the Gate-house he slewed me a copy of the Warrant by vertue of which he was takenâ— which was against Richard Paâ—ter of the parish of St. Giles but when they sound you were withdrawn they blotted out your name and interlined your Deputy-sufferers name just over it And if you have not reimburs'd his charges 't is just you should 2. The second text is Act. 20 1â— 1â— 13. Paul preached till break of day c. Ergo say you R B. should not preach in the Country you deny the Consequence adding that perhaps Mr. Danvers meant as 't is like he did Act. 21.13 Paul was ready to be bound or die at Jerusalem Ergo say you R. B. did sin in a voiding it oft before c. Whether this consequence be applicable to you I shall not now dispute but I may safely draw this consequence Ergo R. B. should not avoid preaching in the City to insnare another nor avoid being bound to bind another 3. The third is Matt. 10.38 He that taketh rot his Cross and followeth me is not worthy of me Ergo you
himself in its spoil But to the matter 1st Mr. Danvers having quoted a passage from Bellarmine to shew that Apostolical tradition was esteem'd the principal ground of Infant Baptism it seems omitted that saying deducitur evidenter ex Scripturis And Dr. Fields saying after such another expression that the Scriptures deliver us the ground of it Mr. Will 's though he pleads for himself in the like case Vind. p. 7. accuses him for it App. p. 162. To which 't is said that in all such cases to prevent Cavil and offence it were better if the intire sentence were alwayes exprest But the Circumstances that made this appear to us to have no great weight in it were these 1st Mr. Danvers sets down Rep. p. 74. these words of Bellarmine omitted before of which we were bound to take notice being a Book precedent to Mr. Will 's his appeal and before any reproof for the omission as we can find 2ly It is evident the Jesuite urged Tradition for their practice of Paedobaptism And that phrase was but a faint Insinuation that it may be gathered from Scripture viz. Joh. 3.5 and such mistaken places And the quotation was pertinently enough applyed if Mr. Will 's his example were a sufficient excuse for those that imitate him in giving only what Authors say to the matter in hand But in Mr. Danvers his Answer in his Rejoynder p 25. here are two new errors charged 1. That he sayes he quoted Bellarmine under the head of Tradition 2. That he quotes the passages before omitted under the head of Consequences p. 74. Reply 1st 'T is true the term Tradition is not mentioned in the Contents of that Chapter but there is that that 's equivalent viz. The Scriptures total silence about Infant Baptism with the necessity of Scripture warrant to Authorize every Ordinance For both which branches several Authors are produced And Bellarmine for the first which he expresly owns viz. That there is no express Scripture for it though he pretends it may be deduced from thence That Mr. Danvers quotes that passage Rep. p. 74. as before Mr. Will 's owns being not able to contradict it And though the Chapter or Section has not the term consequence mentioned no more then the other Tradition Yet the Marginal note expresses it to be a Tradition as they word it gathered from the Scriptures which is the same with them as Consequence So that upon the whole matter it doth nor appear how this charge can be advanced to any other title then trivial and insignificant nor can we expect that labour can turn to any great account that 's spent in consulting such a meer Catching at words 2ly 'T is true we find not Dr. Field expresly quoted in that 74th page Yet it is to be considered that it is plainly referr'd to For Mr. Danvers drawing a Parallel between the Popish and Protestant Paedobaptists sayes thus p. 74. Do the Papists affirm that notwithstanding it is a Tradition or custome of the Church yet that it is plainly enough gathered out of the Scriptures viz. from Circumcision for which he quotes Bellarmine And then adds so doth Mr. Will 's for the Protestants say who in p. 105 106 107 108. Infant Baptism gives their sentiments from Rivet Calvin Dr. Field the later in this very quotation word for word all which Mr. Danvers sums up that notwithstanding there is neither precept nor practice expresly written in the Scripture yet it is gathered thence by consequence as coming in the room of Circumcision and therefore that Infants have a right to Baptism from the right that Infants had to Circumcision Mr. Will 's p. 105. Now Mr. Danvers referring to the place where Mr. Will 's quotes the Protestants one of which was Dr. Field referred necessarily also to Dr. Field there which the matter disputed must needs lead the enquiring Reader to And though it were better in order to prevent the Cavils of such as lye at Catch to be more express in references yet we conceive a Candid and Judicious Reader will have better thoughts of Mr. Danvers in this particular then what are suggested by an Antagonist that so ground lesly perserveres in his severe and unjust inculcations of unfaithfulness in Mr. Danvers and partiality in us and that without stronger demonstration then such frivolous Instances as this and what are ejusdem farinae 2ly As to the passage of Dr. Owen Mr. Danvers his answer is full and proper and satisfactory doubtless to any ingenious Reader as appears in his Reyonder p. 25 26. It being indeed needless to add any more thereto 3ly Mr. Will 's Appeals to the Reader p. 22 23 Whether the passages about Lydia Beza and Ames App. p. 167. be so trivial and insignificant as we make them And which is also left to be determined at that Tribunal whether they be not indeed so Or have evidenced enough in them to prove Mr. Danvers a forger Next he Renews his Charge of Self-contradiction against Mr. Danvers viz. That if he made the ground of the Corinthians scruple 1 Cor. 7.4 To arise from the instance of putting away strange Wives in Ezra and Nehemiah's time it was a plain contradiction to make the words else were c an Argument ab absurdo because from those Instances they could conclude no otherwise but that their children were Bastards and to be put away And then desires such of us as know what an Argument abassurdo is to exercise our reason about this matter and again affirm it no contradiction if we can and the Instance trivial and insignificant Reply What Mr. Will 's calls a contradiction here appears not so to be but the contrary For the Jews being under a strict inhibition to marry with strange wives or mix with the Gentiles as appears Ezra 10.2 c. and Neh. 13.27 c. Yet transgressed against the Lord in that particular and began a Reformation in Ezra's time Which practice of old questionless gave ground to the Corinthians scruple whether the believing husband or wife may cohabit with the unbelieving Yokefellow Which doubt the Apostle Resolves in the affirmative as if he had told them 't is true you were strictly prohibited under the law to cohabit with strange wives but that was under a Dispensation which is now relaxt And the end of such a prohibition viz. to keep the people of whom according to the flesh the Messiah was to come unmixt with the Idolatrous Nations is now come to pass as so the cohabiting with a strange or unbelieving Yokefellow which was then a sin is not so now and the issue of such a marriage is not illigitimate now as it was then Therefore the relation is mutually sanctified else that is had not the Gospel dispensation taken off the legal inhibition aforesaid and the Relation were not so sanctified your children were unclean that is the issue of an unlawful bed but now the Gospel dispensation allowing this Cohabitation are they holy that is
to sit Judge with them upon his Appeal though he sayes 1. A party in the cause and apparently byassed 2. Virulent in my Scoffs And then 3. hints an absurdity to me from whence be inferrs That I am unqualified for the examination of Latine Authors noting in his Margent that I undertook to prophesy that after Mr. Baxter Mr. Whiston and himself none shall stand up in the defence of Infant Baptism And 4. He presumes I was the person pitch'd upon to examine the particulars of his Appeal and so by my ignorance brought them to Justifie Mr. Danvers his Addition to the Milevitan Canon by a passage found in Pervetusto codue This is what he sayes to me in particular And to which I Reply 1. I can in sincerety say that what I writ by way of encomium as Mr. Wills calls it upon Mr. Danvers his Works or against his Antagonists both Mr. Danvers and Mr. Wills being when I writ that Epistle equally Strangers to me was the result of that perswasion which the clear and substantial evidence of truth begets in an impartial searcher And I shall not be ashamed to own that my judgment is still the same for all the pains which Mr. Wills hath taken which seems to me to manifest him rather an impertinent captious wrangler whose master-piece is Sophism and Logomachy then an Author of such Reason and Sobriety that all his Readers must be charmed into a subscription to his ill-prov'd affirmations And I am very certain that men as clear sighted as himself and at least as well advantag'd in Learning and Piety are fully of my opinion that though Mr. Danvers through the toil of so many quotations and being not Infallible had mistook some inconsiderable things yet the grand matter in dispute is managed with such Scripturer evidence and illustrated with such humane concurrence as is beyond the power of Mr. Wills his Negatives to invalidate at least with the sober and impartial 2. It is to we an instance that this Advocate of Paedo-baptism manages a languishing Cause because be is driven to infist upon such a parcel of exceptions as truly and really deserve the Epithetes of trivial and insignificant and of so little moment to the point in hand that had Mr. Danvers wholly left them out his Cause had been fortified well enough without them not only by the intire Book of God but many of the most undoubted humane Testimonies not at all or very faintly assaulted Insomuch that Believers Baptism has been evidently cleared to be the only Scripture Baptism and so practiced for the Primitive Centuries and eminently witnessed unto by some People and Churches all along But I am byassed he sayes because I express my contempt of him c. I must confess that I have no such esteem of his works as Mr. Baxter bespeaks for him in his Epistle nor do I look upon him to be so infallible as to greet him for an Oracle nor does his Paedo baptism appear to me to be so scriptural a practice and so ancient as he would make it And I believe all the Baptists in England are so far byassed And therefore his Appeal was but at best ridiculous if he insists upon that Objection that none of them should be admitted to examine his Appeal whose Judgements bespeaks them Parties And he might level that exception against any of them as well as against me since they are all parties so far as to disapprove Infant Baptism Which makes me conceive that Mr. Wills promised himself since no Baptist must without becoming obnoxious to this objection pass a sentence upon his Appeal that it might pass without Answer But 2. For any contempt or prejudice to his person which as I said I am a meer stranger to as far as I know my own heart I can say I have none And though I am fully satisfied his undertaking is very much against truth yet have I as far as I have been concern'd examined things as to matter of fact which only come under our Cognizance as appealed unto without any respect to person or cause And I know that the persons concern'd in the examination besides my self have cted their parts with naked impurtiality and candor and truly stated things as they appeared unto them And that they are not such Ignorant byassed persons as this man of modesty represents them is already evident He sayes I confine the Church of God within the narrow limits of my own party which I affirm to be an untruth and challenge him to make it good from any word or writing of mine the contrary is evident from the second line of the verses he speaks of where I mention them as well as our selves by that term Christi-colae worshipers of Christ Mr. Wills sayes I am virulent in my Scoffs But he has taught me how to esteem his Censure If I answer him according to his folly Prov. 26.5 will justifie me And I profess I have seldom seen a serious argument managed with such Jocoseness and Captring Sarcisms as he does it And to express a rebuke to 〈◊〉 without those terms that usually are bestowed upon such frothyness I need a new Dictionary And till that be found out I judge it scarce possible to give him a faithful reprehension in any mode but he will be ready to count it virulence 3. He sayes I am unqualified for the Examination of Latine Authors as not able to form Sustinco and puts a Scoffing Remark in the margent that I undertook to prophecy that after Mr. Baxter Mr. Whiston and himself three matchless Heroes indeed none shall stand up in the defence of Infant Baptism Reply What my Abilities are in that Language it is not my humour to boast of But that I may satis facere Momo I will shew Mr. Wills that my disability in that tongue is no consequence flowing from that absurdity he fancies And therefore I will take the liberty to inform him that whatsoever fault it is it is the Printers not mine and he can avouch for me that I found fault with it my self my original being nec unquam Causa patrocinio substituenda novo est for which substituenda he printed sustinuenda but it was too late to be corrected when I saw it that sheet being last printed off its errors could not be gathered amongst the errata gathered else where before And if I had seen it before it was wrought off the Press that mistake and two others in p. 12. of the Epistle in the same sheet lines 10. and 29. viz. counted for routed and defer for deter had not past uncorrected But that this very word printed for it as it happens yields Mr. Wills no such instance of my ignorance will be very evident to him that considers what Epenthesis Syncope Anthiteses c. are That the exastest Poets often cross the known rules of quantity Epenthesis a letter may be added to Sustinenda to adapt it for a verse and but one is added Now if
of wrath and contempt towards the Antipaedobaptists and their practice of adult baptizing And loaded them with some standerous Charges which when to his shame detected he yet persisted in a pertinacious defence or rather equivocation endeavouring with all the artifice of his talking faculty to disintangle himself and further to bespatter and Reproach his Monitors VVhich kind of Carriage as it bespeaks a desperate Disease that will not be Cured as Dr. Pierce tells him with soft usage so it could not but justly provoke the indignation of those that were under the lash of his Calumny to express some Checks to him to awaken his Repentance Amongst the rest Mr Ed. Hutchinson sent him a private Letter which Mr. Baxter makes the occasion of his Review and yet ingenuously conceals the Letter though he publishes an answer of about 46 pages to it To supply which defect it shall be here incerted It was Verbatim thus Sir Though the fiery temper your reprovers commonly find you in Mr. Hutchinsons Letter to Mr. Baxter might discourage them from any further adress of that kind to you yet Christian Charity oblidges me to represent unto you some of those Grâ—evances you gave an Original to and which are likely to survive you unless you can be perswaded to make the abused world some reparation I can say and I know that it is the mind of many that what of Christ and his Gospel is visible in you we highly prize and esteem and your works as far as they tend to advance true Piety we duely value But you must give us leave to say also that as in some things you have surpast a vulgar eminence so the corruptions alwayes concomitant to frail nature have more notoriously raged in you then most of your size and denomination and that which superadds no mean aggravation is that you have had frequent admonitions and reprehensions but with a contrary effect then usually is seen in Saints For instead of reforming and allaying that unhappy spirit you were acted by it has been but the more disturbed and invenomed And though in the intermissions of your passion you drop many wholsome truths and aphorisms worth notice and which impeach their author roundly at other times yet some unlucky fit of rotten Dictating or fiery intemperat Disputation spoils all and tend strongly to convince us that you are then left to your self to rove in the wide wilderness of your own spatious imaginations And this is motive enough to us to be cautious what we receive from you and examine whether it comes from the Lord or instampt with your own authority and accordingly to receive or reject it Hence it is that whereas the point of Infant Baptism which you tell us has its considerable difficulties came under a fresh disquisition several pious and judicious persons hoped that a serious and full debate thereof would fix the minds of men and establish that truth so long contraverted But Mr. Wills appearing in that insulting rude and vain-glorious manner made wise men doubt whether God had appointed him to be one of those Prophets that should feed his people with knowledge and understanding But when he became your herald loudly proclaiming your approath to the lists after so tedious an interval our hopes were pregnant since we could not but think that the whole force of Paedo-baptism was muster'd up to encounter us in your teeming self and what a combat must that be But upon the appearance of that bulky piece of Circumlocation artifice and distinction we found our expectation frustrated and that you had shamefutlly baffled your admirers who may justly exclaime in the language of the Prophet Surely every man in his best estate is altogether vanity And pray to be delivered from the Comination pronounced Jer. 17.5 Cursed is the man that trusteth in man and whose heart departeth from the Lord. Therefore Sir you must give us leave to tell you that notwithstanding that keeness so essential to your humour in treating your opposites we find little of argument in your attempt And your More proofs instead of confuting the allegations and sentiments of Mr. Danvers has strongly contributed to confirm and ratifie them and inclines not a few that were before wavering to close with that Scripture Baptism so evidently demonstrated from undenyable arguments drawn from the Example and Commission of our great Lawgiver into whose throne you tell us no man must step pretending to mend his work Christian Dire p. 683. the practice of the primitive Churches and the best and purest Antiquity And since this effect of your Book was against your will the accident greatly adminishes the kindness Therefore we hope neither you nor any Judicious person 〈◊〉 blame our perseverence nor their choice unless you or some of your party can produce some more nervous and convincing demonstrations which we despair to hear of then is hitherto exhibited in your most eager disputations I confess the truth is therefore thus much beholden to you that as Contraria juxta se posita magis elucescunt so it s made more transparent by being confronted with Cavil and terâ—iversation ' Sir As you are esteem'd the Goliah of your party so it was expected you would produce those invincible argument so often threatned and whether it be fair for you to put them off with proofless Dictates loud outeries and frightful exclamations with some new miuted distinctions is submitted to your second thoughts But Sir you must not expect that men of Reason will any longer swallow your â—â—certain Dictates They are Camels too gross for their throats And I must inâ—orm you that not only your Notâ—rious aberrations from Scripture Reason and the practice of antiquity but also your frequent waverings and unsteadiness have mightily weakned your authority and â—ncâ—ested your credit insomuch that we are necessitated to hearken to the Counsel of Solomon a wiser man then your self meddle not with them that are given to Change And if we utterly reject that opinion you have so stifly espoused I dare say we are Justified in your own Conscience considering how lamely you have vindicated your self in your Diminitive Rejoynder to Mr. Danvers's several notorious charges against you in plain matter of fact and his just anatomizing of your Changes self Contradictions and Repentances Certainly had you not been grosly and egregiously guilty and beyond the slyness of your distinction to wipe off you would have published a Vindication to each particular needing it far more then your corrupt Aphorisms And wise men judge you had never in your life more need of employing your fluid Invention and never before sailing faculty of gainsaying if you can say any thing then at this time But your prâ—ting us off with a flam is the wonder of the Age and will be so to the next if your numerous progeny of Books furvive so long though others think it an instance of no mean craft in you to hold your peace since you can say nothing but
goes on p. 9. and tells us that being called to a Review he remembers our Saviour himself was a Church-member in his Infancy even the head though he said in his Plain Scriptare p. 62. that 't is disputable whether ever Christ was a Church-member properly or no And if an Infant was capable of being the head King Priest and Prophet relatively though yet he had never ruled sacrificed or taught then there is nothing in the Infant age which maketh it uncapable of being members subjects and Disciples of Christ Answ 1. This vain plea is already sufficiently answered by Mr. Tombs And to me what Mr. Baxter urges seems to make more against then for his Paedo baptism For if Christ whose title to the headship of Churchmembers in his Insancy was undoubted was not for all that baptized till at age to set a pattern for us in our approaches to that Ordinance then certainly it is an audacious practise to baptize Infants whose title to Churchmembership and Discipleship is impossible to be made out with parallel clearness and that too in exprest dissonancy to that great and most illustrious example of our Christian Baptism 2ly To argue from Christs headship that Children should be baptized is a meer non-sequiter Christ in his Infaney was head of the Church but not in acts exercito so for ought we know Infants may be members of his Mystical hody yet are no actual Disciples till they hear the Gospel and profess the faith And invisible Membership being uncertain to us can be no ground for Baptism Besides as Mr. Tombs says by this Reasoning an Infant in the womb may be a visible member because then Christ was head of the Church and an old man should not be a member for Christ was not an old man And I may add that Infants by this argument should be Prophets Priests and Kings in their Infancy as well as Church-members because Christ was so But Mr. Baxter will not be hasty to make this Conclusion Mr. Baxter queries are not Infants members of other societies families the Kings subjects And why not Christs as well as the Kings Answ So are Pagans Children unbelievers Children c. members of Families Kingdoms c. therefore they also by this Medium should be Baptized 2ly There is a Characteristical mark that distinguishes the Church of Christ from all other societies It must consist of visible Saints 1 Cor. 14.33 Act. 2.41.47 There must be a right dispensation of the word and Sacraments Act. 2.41 Math. 28.19 From every member of this society there is required a profession of his faith and a holy conversation Act. 8.37 1 Pet. 3 16 17 Rom. 10.10 Math. 3.36 Act. 19.18 Now no Parity of Reason drawn from the Constitutions or practise of other societies or corporations is of any force to obtrude any Law upon this society so distinct from all others It must be governed by its own sanctions which are no where to be had but in the word of Gâ—d From a close conformity to which no parallels framed by our carnall Reasoning must sednce us In agreement to our definition of a visible Church Mr. B. thus exprefies him self in his Book of Bpatism p 87. A self society of persons separated from the world to God or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called out of the world c. And Dr. Featly p. 4. A particular company of men professing the Christian saith known by two marks the sincere preaching of the word and due administration of the Sacraments And how this Definition can agree to a society of which the Major part are ignorant Babes let them judge Wollebius in his Compend Theol. Edit Cantabr 1642. lib. 1. c. 25. p. 135. defines a visible Church Caetus hominum verbo sacramentis ad gratiae statum vocatorum a company of men and women called by the word and sacraments to a state of grace This book is in great repute in the Univerfities and commonly first read by young students in Divinity and if we adhere to this definition Infants are excluded because they are not called by the word to a state of grace And though the term Sacraments be redundant in the Definition yet 't is certain Wollebius held that the bare application of the Sacraments converts not to a state of grace but in conjunction with the effectual preaching of the word And all Divines agree that Ecclesia a Church coming of a Greek verb that signifies evocare to call from is Caetus hominum ex universo genere humano collectus seu evocatus per Evangelium a company of people gathered or called from the universal race of mankind by the preaching of the Gospel And the greek is derived of the hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a congregation He says p. 11. he could theeasilier bear with our delay of external Baptism if we did not deny all Infants their part in the Covenant of life Answ That we deny all Infants their part in the Covenant of life is a false suggestion we charitably hope and our hope is built upon the free grace of God that though the Scriptures clearly reveal nothing of their salvation or Damnation forasmuch as none can be saved but by Christ Act. 4.12 And that all are guilty of sin Rom. 5.14 Infants by the presentment of the satisfaction of Christ are saved the free gift coming upon all Rom. 5.18 Of this satisfaction there is a two-fold application 1. by Faith in the Adult 2. without Faith to dying Infants by vertue of the election and free grace of God Rom. 11.7 5.18 And if we question how Infants dying after Baptism are saved we must have recourse to this way it being owned by Protestants that Baptism doth not conser grace nor wash away Original sin And if we determine nothing positively in this matter Mr. Baxter should not find fault with us he telling us in his Christian Directory p 821. That almost all Infants cases are to us obscure He says p. 12. That we lay such grounds as destroy and exclude them by a sentence of damnation because if we add them not to the Church we exclude them from salvation Answ This language is spoke without book We limit not salvation to the pale of the Church as this Dictator doth We have no rule to add any to our Churches but such whose professions give us ground to Judge that they belong to the Lord being Converted We pass no such damnable sentence upon any that are not joyned to us we hope the best and our judgement we pass when called to it according to appearance de non apparentibus de non exiftentibus tadem est ratio Is the language of the Schools 2ly This is Mr. Baxters own harsh Divinity to destroy and exclude Multitudes of Infants by a sentence of Damnation when he holds that the vast progeny of such as are in his conceit unbelievers have no right to the Baptismal Covenant and Church membership and consequently according to his
Doctrine are not of Christs Church or body and therefore he is not their Saviour Let him tremble at this dreadful conceit Hhis talk that they may visibly belong to the Kingdom of God or satan is a meer fancy For Infants are neither in Gods nor the Devils visible Kingdom till they declare by their professions to whom they belong visibly Every Infant is in the invisible Kingdom of God or Satan that is elect or reprobate yet no child till he make profession doth visibly belong to the one or to the other We have no Warrant to take cognizance of them as in the one or the other visibly but as at years they visibly appear to cleave to either None are visibly Satans subjects but the Children of disobedience in whom he works Eph. 2.2 Such are not Infants visibly And none are Christs Diciples Subjects or Servants but such as obey him Rom. 6.16 His Servants are ye to whom ye obey c. 1 John 3.10 In this the Children of God are manifest and the Children of the Devil whosoever doth not Righteousness is not of God neither he that loveth not his Brother But I ask Mr. Baxter in whose visible Kingdom are Believers Infants before Baptism If he say in the Devils then he is guilty of the same execrable Doctrine he charges upon us If he say they are in Christs visible Kingdom before Baptism viz. his visible Church as Mr. Baxter himself calls it Review p. 12. Then how can they be said to be admitted by Baptism Is it not non-sense to say it enters them into a state they were in before To let one into a Room when he is already there is impossble Nor will the distinction of compleat and incompleat member serve Mr. Baxters men or members in fâ—eri and imperfectly as he stiles unbaptized Infants Christian Directory p. 806. since according to his own maximes an incompleat member has only jus adrem non in re ad Ecclesiam non in Ecclesia A title to not a standing in the Church But if they be compleat or perfect members after Baptism why have they not the supper and other Ordinances of the Church administred to them If they be still incompleat as before Baptism What benefit have they by Baptism being as lame Members after as before it Now as Mr. B. was told he must hold two first entrances into the visible Church viz. Natural-birth and Baptism of else he must hold that Baptism is not the first entrance Or else that Believers Infants are not entred and if not so not in the visible Church before Baptism If he says the first he contradicts all he says of entring the visible Church in his Plea against the seekers p. 343. If the second He contradicts all he says of Baptism's being the only entrance If the third then of these two things he must necessarily say one viz Either all the Infants of believers that die before their visible entrance into the visible Church by Baptism are damned without hope which he dares not aver if he be a Protestant or else that they may be in a state of Salvation and yet not be visible Members of the Church let him avoid this if he can And doth not this same Mr. Baxter tell us in his first Book of Baptism p 72. That it is not the denyal of Baptism directly that leaveth Infants in the visible Kingdom of the Devil And if he still holds this for a truth how can he honestly exclaim against us at this rate as if our denyal of Baptism to them had damned them all The text Act. 2.47 That God added to the Church such as should be saved is not as he falsly imagines to be understood of all or only such but only such men and women not such Infants as should be saved The impartial consideration of this makes his loud talk about our placing all Infants Unbaptized in the Kingdom of the Devil an empty jangle And if Mr Baxter thinks indeed that all unbaptized Infants are under that unmercyful and too cruel Character and that the meer act of external Baptism translates them to the Kingdom of Christ in holding the first he dreadfully preaches Millions of poor harmless souls to Hell And in holding the second he ascribes more to Baptism then ever God did viz. that it procures salvation and differs in nothing from the blasphemous feats ascribed by the Pope to his opus oparatum Mr. Baxter gives another argument why upon his Review he sees cause to plead a fresh for his Infant Baptism and that is the Baptizing of housholds Answ This argument is over and over answered And is it not strange that the word houshold in those few places mentioned must include Infants when Baptism is spoken of but when the passover is spoken of then Infants are excluded because else we shall argue from thence to their eating the Supper as they from Circumcision to their Baptism Do not these men force that signification upon words that best serve their turn 2ly There is no probability that Lydia had a husband or Children or she may be an ancient widdow and her children if she had any grown up In Act. 16.40 we read that those in her house were capable of consolation 2. The Jaylors family believed Act. 16.34 3. The houshold of Stephanus addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints 1 Cor. 16.15 4. Crispus believed in God with all his house Therefore there were no Infants Act. 18.8 We read of no more Baptized housholds in Scripture Narcissus and Aristobulus housholds are urged by some but there is no mention of houshold in the Greek but it may be Friends or Kindred Rom. 16.10 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reader I should weary thee and my self if I should run over the long-winded Repetitions of Mr. Baxter in this Review What I said already if well weighed Answers his tedious talk in the succeeding pages And I think my time more worth then to wast it in disproving naked dictates What becomes of Heathens dying Infants is known only to God and it is no better then sinful curiosity to be wrangling and too confidently obtruding our conceptions about such unrevealed matters 'T is certainly the safest way to be sober and advance no further in such quests then the Scripture guides We have enough revealed to employ our studies upon and make us wise to salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 To enervate our Plea for non-Baptising Infants viz. the want of Scripture president or grecept he propound a question to us thus There is no Scripture-president for Baptizing Kings he might add Coblers too must none therefore be Baptized Answ This is a gravelling quere he thinks But we find Scripture president for Baptizing men and women And in my Judgement Kings and Queens and Coblers also are men and women He says p. 17. The Scripture tells us not all that was done but all that must be done VVe grant it And if the Scripture tells us all that must be
So that whatever he urged against us afterwards which was but very faint too is upon record substantially confuted by his own pen. As to Dr. Hammond's Arguments they are largely and learnedly refelled by Mr. Tombs in the later Sections of the second and third part of his Review which Mr. Walker should have taken notice of and to which the enquiring Reader is now referred As to the stile and manner of Mr. Walker's writing against us I own it to be indeed for the most part modest and sober having not given himself the libertâ— of such an unsavoury treatment and unchristian Reflâ—â—â—â—ons as is almost the common language of our other Antagonists And 〈◊〉 ground for his so fairly treating us in the beginning 〈…〉 Preface viz. as lying under the strongest prejudâ—â—◠〈…〉 dissenters from the Church of England because 〈…〉 ingly fair pleas from Scripture and Ecclesiast 〈…〉 few of our fellow dissenters can paralliâ—◠〈…〉 more favour and kindness to be treat 〈…〉 ness and clearness ought our 〈…〉 candid and ingenuou◠〈…〉 As to the matter of his Book it is confess'd his labour in quoting so many Greek and Latine Authorities has not been small And Mr. Danvers before him gave through every Century a collection of their real as pretended Authorities And I confess freely that he hath much more to pretend from Antiquity then those have who assert Infant Baptism from a faederal right a Medium not to be found among the Fathers nor in the world as I can find till about Zuinglius his time in the 16th Century For all the Fathers that held the Baptism of Infants for these last 1200 years it has been in the world have asserted it and Vossius himself says that it was the mind of the Catholick Church Magnus est antiquitatis consensus quod Infantes per baptismum vitae ac felicitatis aeternae participes fiant p. 594. from its necessity to salvation Which dismal opinion growing common that none without baptism could be saved from John 3.5 mis-understood and the Interest of their Childrens salvation having so near an influence and impression upon them caused them to admit a conclusion of so great moment and concernment upon very easie and infirm considerations And hence came the practâ—ce to give them as Baptism so the Lords Supper for 600 years together from its necessity also to salvation as they inferred it and indeed with as much reason as the other from John 6.53 By way of premise and to prevent Repetition I shall consider how far the practice of Antiquity so much lean'd upon by Mr. Walker and others is obliging to us and of what weight their Testimonies ought to be in deciding this Controversie And I shall lay this down for a principle which no man I presume will deny That Proofs ought to be fetcht from such things as are confess'd and acknowledged by our adversary whom we endeavour to convince otherwise we shall never be able to move him or make him quit his former opinion And therefore no proof from the Fathers to prove a matter of right is valid against us because we own â—ot their Authority To many indeed that 's a great argu 〈…〉 baptizing of Infants but to us as I said such 〈…〉 are so far from being of the first magnitude 〈…〉 collateral being as often brought for the 〈…〉 as truth 〈…〉 as a Rule or Standard to try 〈…〉 certain and undoubted and must carry with it a sufficient authority to satisfie the understanding which neither can nor indeed ought to believe any thing in point of Religion as the excellent Daille at large evinces but what it knows to be certainly true It is certain that in the proof of an Hypothesis to begin with the Fathers and humane Authority is to invert the natural order of things we ought first to have recourse to the Scriptures of truth that we may be assured that the thing is or ought to be before we make enquiry whether it hath been in the respective ages believed or not For to what purpose is it to find that the Ancients believed it unless we find withall in their writings some reason of this their belief and what harm is it to us to be ignorant whether Antiquity believed it or not so long as we know that the thing is Quod sacris Scripturis traditum non est non sine peccato inquiritur sive periculo ignoratur says Bullâ—nger The greatest admirers of the Fathers confess that though they erre little in matter of right yet are often out and have their failings in matter of fact because right is an universal thing every way uniform and all of one sort whereas matter of fact is a thing which is mixt and as it were enchas'd with divers particular circumstances which may easily escape the observation and knowledge of or at least be not so rightly understood by the most clear and piercing wits Now the condition of the Churches belief in every particular age is matter of fall and not right and a point of History not an Article of Faith He that will not examine the Reasons as well as the Opinions of men though of never so venerable names may be soon led into a labyrinth of error How consonant to Reason is it that we should alledge not the Names of Books but the Reasons and take notice not of the quality of their Authors but of the solidity of their proofs so to reduce the dispute from persons to things according to that memorable saying of Jerom Ep. 15. Non juxta Pytagorae Discipulos praejudicata doctoris opinio sed doctrinae ratio ponderanda est What is urged here is to reduce Controversies to be tried before the right bar viz. the Scriptures since that alone is of so sacred and undoubted authority as to oblige our belief to whatever is found there and against which no objections lie the Lord having by his gracious providence preserved them in the Church from the injuries of time ignorance and fraud from the beginning hitherto They have been kept with much greater care then any other Books translated into all Languages retained both by Orthodox and Hereticks diligently observing each other so that there could not possibly happen any remarkable alteration in them but that presently the whole world would have exclaimed against it whereas as learned Daille truly says much of the writings that go under the names of the Fathers are not truly sach and that the Hereticks vented their conceits under those eminent names to gain them repute And that their legitimate pieces are wonderfully corrupted and obscure and such are not proper for the decision of Controversies and incumbred with Rhetorical flourishes and Legical subtilties and that they have erred in divers points of Religion and contradicted one another in matters of great importance So that in this case we are to take the course that 's observed in all Sciences whatsoever we are to prove the truth we propose by such maximes
as are acknowledg'd and allow'd making good that which is doubtfull by that which is certain and clearing that which is obâ—â—ure by that which is evident The Word of God is our Common Book let us search into it for that upon which we may ground our own belief and by which we may overthrow error Regula est mensura sui obliqui The Scripture sufficiently delivers us the positive truth which is enough for as whatsoever rightly followeth thereupon is true so whatsoever clasheth with or contradicteth the same is false No Science gives us any certain account of Negative Propositions for as much as to go about to number them all would be both an infinite and also an unprofitable useless piece of work Therefore such as go about to establish an opinion because not expresly forbidden in Scripture as Mr Walker seems to do p. 218. whose words are Never stand hunting for a Scripture for it so long as there is no Scripture against it do not consider that they undermine the securest ground we stand upon against the invaders of Religion For by that argument as Dr Owen well says ten thousand things may it made lawfull there being no express Scripture sorbidding the upstart inventions and impostures of Seducers by name and circumstance And what a croud of such corruptions have crept into the worship of God under this pretext in times of Superstition under the Antichristian servitude All the use we can make of Antiquity is either in matter of fact viz. whether such an opinion was in being in their time or matter of right viz. whether it ought to be so For this later no sober person will take any of the Antients to be competent Judges for that were to slight the Word of God and bestow the prerogative that belongs to it upon frail man which the Fathers themselves durst not usurp Therefore it rests that we can make no further use of them then to witness matter of fact And though we find them avouch a matter of fact yet that proves not that the thing is lawfull As for instance we find Cyprian the earliest pretended Patron of Paedobaptism in the 3d. Century if that Epistle to Fidus be a legitimate piece of his make mention of Infant Baptism and if that proves the lawfulness of that practice it will also prove the lawfulness of Infants receiving the Lords Supper because the same Cyprian asserts it to be necessary for them in order to their Salvation lib. 3. test ad Qui. c. 25. And Maldonate affirms in Joan. 6. num 116. that this opinion of Augustine's and Innocent the first 's prevail'd in the Church about 6â—0 years que scil sententia Augustini Innocentii primi sexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesia Eucharistiam etiam Infantibus fuisse necessariam Therefore that practice of Infant Commanion being as gray-headed as their Baptism deserves equal veneration with it It appears by this that it is worth enquiry upon what grounds those alledged Patrons of Paedobaptism went for if they have erred in the Reason of the foundation it will be easily believed they did also in the building Cyprian held Baptism simply necessary to salvation lib. 3. Ep. 8. ad Fidum So Jerom contra Pelag. and Austin l. 1. de peccat mor. remiss Si ergo ait ut tot tanta divina testimonia concinunt nec salus nec vita aeterna sine baptismo corpore sanguine Domini cuiquam spectanda frustra sine his promittitur parvulis That is Therefore if so many and so considerable divine testimonies agree that none must expect salvation nor life everlasting without Baptism and the body and bloud of the Lord without these it salvation is vainly promised to little ones This was the Universal ground and motive of the Fathers that assert Infant Baptism for many hundred years And as for their warrant 't is certain they built their practice upon Tradition not written being no more able then other men to find a word of Instituio for it in Scripture where it is not 'T is true that word Tradition is general signifying all Doctrines written or unwritten 2 Thess 2.15 But 't was by the Fathers as 't is now accommodated to signifie a Doctrine not written yet supposed to be Apostolical which if allowed to every pretender would bring miserable confusion into Religion and soon metamorphose it into an adulterated Form of humane Invention Mat. 15.9 10.16 Act. 5.19 Gal. 1.9 Now all those Fathers that practised Paedobaptism as an Apostolical practice not written as most have indeed done that being their best plea are justly to be reputed ours and of our side for they judge it not from Scripture therefore fetch its rise from Tradition which because it cannot bear the weight of an Institution the whole building is to fall for by flying for refuge to Tradition they do with us affirm that there is no better ground for Infant Baptism then humane Tradition which is indeed none at all And thus all the Testimony and Authority of these Fathers becomes ours There hath been we own such a thing as the Traditions of Christ and the Apostles which are of the highest and greatest authority but they were such things as afterwards were committed to writing by the Evangelists and Apostles other Traditions we avow none but esteem them Apocryphal So that it follows as I said that such as avouch Infant Baptism from Tradition acknowledge in so doing that there is no better authority for it and so conclude with us that it hath not the Scripture for its foundation And so those that give it to Infants as simply necessary to Salvation will be of no authority against us nor of any credit to their cause because the building must be levell'd according to the foundation and that being false they are necessitated to the mistake of their building And if there were any force in these authorities for Infant Baptism why should it not regulate our practice in the other Sacrament which was as anciently given to Infants as the other and says Dr. Taylor p 231. they were honest that understood the obligation to be parallel and in some places to this day as Brerewood in his learned Enquiries affirms viz. by the Jacobites Christians so called in great numbers in Syria Cyprus Mesopotamia Babylon Palestine so by the Habassines inhabiting Ethiopia and the Armenians c. so that if Antiquity be our guide it will lead us to administer the Supper as well as Baptism to Infants and if it fail in the one 't is to be suspected in the other I see not why the Supper should be a greater mystery then the other or the ceremony more significant or that the Duty of examining should need more of the use of Reason then believing repenting and confessing our sins 't is as natural and proper to Infancy to be nourish'd as to be born therefore as capable of the ceremony of their nourishment as of their birth