but directly and properly and by their own personal faith which I despair ever to hear of though Mr B. himself that unparalleld distinguisher should undertake it Poed But our Ministers tells us that when the promises are said to be made to Christ it is not meant of Christ personally but of Christ mystically as in the 1 Cor. 12.12 and so it s to be understood of the visible Church of which infants born of believing parents are a part Bap. It s true these are your sayings but I must tell you we must not be put off with fancies and bare affirmations but we expect solid proof from Scripture And whereas you say the promises are to be considered as made to Christ mystically that is to the visible Church the contrary appears in Gal. 3.16 where he affirms that Christ was the seed to whom the promises were made And in vers 19th he saith the law was added because of transgression till the seed should come to whom the promise was made where it is observable that the law i. e. the Mosaical administration is said to be before the seed was come and was to have its period then Now if by Christ the seed be not understood personally but mystically for the visible or invisible Church take which you will then the law could not have been before the seed for God had his Church in Abrahams family 400 years before the law was of which Christ was the head and they his mystical body And so by this interpretation the seed should have been before the law contrary to the Apostle who makes the law to have been before the seed and to have its period when the seed to whom the promise was made was come and now the promises running to Christ personally God makes him over for a Covenant to the Elect and all the promises in him Isa 42.6 So that in Christ he is our God and in Christ he takes us to be his people In Christ and a right to the promises out of Christ and strangers to the Covenants of promise Eph. 2.12 So that it is evident that the promises respecting the eternal inheritance and spiritual blessings were first made to Christ personally and in him to his mystical body the Church who are united to him by faith Secondly as to that Scripture 1 Cor. 12.12 for as the body is one and hath many members and all the members of that one body being many are one body so also is Christ It rather seems to be meant of the invisible Church of true believers then of the visible for the Apostle there calls none the body of Christ but such as â—ad received the gifts of the spirit and such as by one spirit as the concurring cause had been baptiZed into one body yea such who had received the spirit to profit withall such that had a real sympathy one with another vers the 26th If one Member suffers all the members suffer with it if one member be honoured all the members rejoyce with it All which cannot in any tolerable sence be applyed to the visible Church amongst whom there are many hypocrites that never received the spirit nor by the spirit could sympathize one with another c. But however it is most certain infants are not called the body of Christ if it be meant of the visible Church indeed by vertue of the grace of election some of them may be members of his mystical body the invisible Church but not at all members of the visible especially from this chapter for it is said if one member suffer all the members suffer with it and the manifestation of the spirit is given to every one to profit withall which cannot be applicable to infants For none in this Chapter are counted the body of Christ but such as are usefull to the body as an eye an eare or a foot a hand a head c. as vers 21. the eye cannot say unto the hand I have no need of thee nor the head to the feet I have no need of you So that I draw these two conclusions First every member in a Chuch stands in need of the help of all the other members Secondly that every member in a Church must be usefull in his place to the rest of the members But of what use are infants to the rest of the members in respect to edification Now this objection being answered I hope you see plainly that all the promises respecting spiritual blessings and the eternal inheritance were first made to Christ personally and in him they are made over to his mistical body the Church who are united to him by faith which being well weighed would put an end to the whole Controversy And in the next place you may see to what little purpose the promise in Gen. 17.7 is brought to prove that God made a Covenant of eternal life with believers and their Children The text speaks of a Covenant made with Abraham and his seed it doth not say with all believers and their seed or all Church-members and their seed neither doth it follow by any necessary consequence that because God made a Covenant with Abraham and his seed therefore he hath made a Covenant with believers and their seed sure I am the Apostle was of another mind who when he expounds the Covenant Gen. 17.7 understands it to be made to Abraham as it contains Gospel blessings not as a natural father but as the father of the faithfull both Jews and Gentils Rom. 4.11 12. he received the sign ef Circumcision that he might be the father of all them that believe and walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham so Gal. 3.7 know ye therefore that they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham And these only are the seed to whom the Covenant was made in respect to Gospel priviledges and not to the natural seed either of Abraham or of any other believers as hath been evidently made appear before and that beyond all Contradiction And whoever affirms otherwise preaches another Gospel then Paul knew and incurrs that doom mentioned Gal. 1.8 9. Poed But we are told that as the Jews and their Children are broken off from the Covenant so the Gentils and their Children are ingrafted in in their room according to Rom. 11.20 because of unbelief they were broken off and thou standest by faith Bap. in answer to which I grant there was a time when the Jews and their children were broken off as the Apostle saith but there are two things to be considered First why they were broken off Secondly from what they were broken off 1. Why Answ It was not because they had not believing Parents for Abraham Isaac and Jacob were the fathers of them all and upon whose account they had right to the priviledges of the Covenant 2. Not because they wanted title for they were Abrahams seed when they were broken off but 3. Because the terms of standing in the Church
was no questioning of their faith no enquiry into their conversations c. But now you practically own no children to have right to Baptism but those whose immediate parents have given some visible demonstration of their conversion and manifested their faith and Repentance who are so few that were their number reckoned up it would not amount to one amongst a hundred of them that are true believers in the world But further if the children of believers only as you say have right to the Covenant and Baptism and that of such believers as you count so and so their parents only have hope of their salvation then what shall become of the children of unbelievers yea of such whom you count unbelievers may not they make this appeal to their parents and say O wretched and miserable parents that have brought forth so deplorable an off spring other children as soon as they are born are in the Covenant of grace and by vertue of their parents faith have aright to Church membership and baptism wherein they are made children of God heirs of Christ and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven But wo and alas to us that ever we were born of unbelieving parents or at least of such that were never enchurcht nor members of any Presbyterian or Independant congregation We are unholy unclean doggs that must not meddle with the childrens bread without the pale of the Church aliens from the common weal of Israel without hope and without God in the world We must not be admitted to the priviledges of the Covenant of grace though diverse of our parents are professed Christians and believe Christ crucified c. yet because they have not made a personal manifestation of their faith and repentance and so joyned to some Church diverse ministers will not admit us to Baptism But stay children there is hope for you for all this If you dye in infancy as many of you as belong to the election of grace shall be saved though ye are not baptized and if you live to years of discretion and understanding if then you believe in Christ and repent of your sins and obey the Gospel you shall be saved as soon as they yea upon those terms and none other shall those that are Baptized in their infancy be saved if they live to years of understanding Poed Well Sir I see it is a hard matter to prove that the infants of believers have a right to the Covenant more then the infants of unbelievers but yet methinks they should have right to the administration of the Covenant Bap. In no wise and that for the want of an institution as you have heard and it is answer enough to satisfy any that are willing to be satisfy'd for none ever had a right to the administrations of the Covenant any otherwise then by vertue of a law had it been otherwise of old then Enoch Lot Noah and their seed had been circumcis'd and Ishmael Esau and others had not been circumcis'd now if the natural branches the seed of Abraham had not this priviledge to be circumcis'd by vertue of a right but vertue of a law how can you expect that your infants should have a right to the administrations of the Covenant by vertue of your faith Besides you your selves deny one administration to your infants but what reason you have for so doing I know not seeing the same grace is signified in both Will you say because your children are not capable to examine themselves then let them plead their own cause and suppose they should make this Apostrophe to their parents O our tender and indulgent parents you have brought us into the visible Church as you say and admitted us to Baptism and membership but why must we not partake of the Lords supper that soul strenghtning and soul-nourishing ordinance you take care to feed our bodies dayly and that in order to our growth and have you no pitty to our souls must they starve the children of the Jews of old were admitted to the passeover all the males were to appear thrice in a year and very early partook of that Sacrament and were instructed in the use and end of it and have we lost this priviledge by this coming of Christ besides the ancient Church did use it for many years and must we be kept from it till we be come of age yea and not then neither notwithstanding our Baptism contrary to all Scripture president unless we make a personal manifestation of our faith and repentance Will you say it is because we cannot examine our selves We answer that Scripture concerns the Adult not us You might as well have kept us from Baptism because we could not believe and repent but surely the Apostle never intended that infants should examine themselves Besides you say we are clean holy with a federal holyness innocent in the Covenant of grace Church members that we have habituall faith and without any sin except original therefore there is no need of self-examination Why then are we not admitted will our parents faith serve to admit us to Baptism and not to the supper Who will unriddle this surely we want some Alexander to cut this Gordian knot for none will ever untie it But again if infants have a right to the administration of the Covenant by vertue of the parents faith then if the parents turn Atheists or Apostates the children lose their right and are cast out from the said priviledges That it must be so appears if we consider Rom. 11.20 thou standest by faith that is say you thou standest in the Gospel Covenant and hast right to ordinances by vertue of their own faith and thy children by vertue of thine Now this standing is not unalterable a state which cannot be fallen from but a changable state from which thou mayst fall for the Apostle adds be not high minded but fear Now if thou fallest by unbelief and so casts out thy self thy children must needs be cast out with thee for ablatâ causâ tollitur effectus take away the cause and the effect ceaseth thy personal and actual faith was the ground and cause of thy Childrens admittance so then thy unbelief must dispriviledge them for so it was with the Jews when they were cut off how many thousands of their infants were cut off with them from membership ordinances remain so to this day by reason of their parents unbelief And do you expect a greater priviledge then the natural branches the Apostle lays them in an equal ballance Rom. 11.20 21 22. and what ground have you to expect better the unbelief of their parents broke off their Children By unbelief they were broken off and thy standing is but conditional if thou abide in his goodness otherwise thou shalt be cut off By which you see what absurdities and contradictions to your own practise your opinion leads to if the father be cast out the children must be cast out with him Thus you see that as
closes withall that our practice of Dipping is a breacb of the Sixth and Seventh Commandements Let the same return serve his impious insinuation as is given to Mr. B. and Mr. W. after whose Copies he writes And so I shall conclude with an admonition to Mr. Whiston to more Christian moderation and if he thinks himself concerned to appear farther in ths Controversie that he lay aside all passion and heat as inconsistent with a Gospel-frame of Spirit and tending to the extirpation of that Charity and Mutual Forbearance our Lord Jesus expects from us And let him lay down his Thesis distinctly and set down his Arguments syllogistically or in a form more intelligible to all persons which he will and directly to the matter in debate and not to trouble us nor the world with extraneous and needless rambles leaving the Cardinal pretence unessay'd as he hath done save at a very great distance and with such timorousness and collateral approaches as would make one think he has no great confidence in the attempt however he would carry it in tongue and confidence And I can assure him that if there be any escape or undue reflection in what I have offered which may tend to the breach of Peace or Charity I allow not my self in it and will be willing to receive an admonition if offered in meekness I would further advertise Mr. Whiston not to make Mr. Baxter nor Mr. Ws. his pattern in dealing with us whose pens run at so licentious a rate that the most unspotted innocence is not armor enough against their virulence As for the first no pencil can pourtray him better than his own pen A man of quarrel sometimes friend and sometimes foe to most perswasions to reject whose poyson is to provoke his sting And to slight his Dictates how incongruous soever to truth and inconsistent among themselves is to undergo the severe Discilpine of his lashing pen. Man-kind it seems must gape for his Oraculous Dictates and must believe him as his present Sentiments actuate him or else take what comes after Nor need we express Mr. Ws. in a more averting Character than that he squires â—t after him and should we apeal to Mr. Whiston or any sober man of his perswasion we doubt not but we may have so much equity as to disallow his late dealing with us Figuring and Traducing us in his invective reflections upon the person of Collonel Danvers as if we had been such dangerous persons c. in these phrases When their hands are tyed from fighting Exploits done in the time of his Collonelship c. And what is that but to exasperate the world against us and expose us to the frowns of Authority as much as he can how does this poysonous insinuation consist with his pretences of respect This looks like Juda's kiss Would he think it fair if we should use the engine of Repercussion here doth it not rather in his own Oratory discover the ebullition of a temporizing waspish spirit But he loves us Brethren and desires not our shame He is as courteous as lightning that spares the Scabbard but destroys the blade After he has represented us as such mishapen Bug bears and woundded us with his keenest Railery he would lick over the place he bit and make us believe it is all stark love and kindness Well he hath shot his Bolt tells us our Doctrine is ominous not fit for any Age of the Church with a fixation of black characters upon it leading to blasphemy and immorality and yet all this is not to desire our shame He may by the same artifice knock a man down and laugh upon him and tell him he does him good service He must pardon us if we be coy to so rude a kind of Courtship Therefore upon the whole if Mr. Whiston perseveres in that Intemperate angry frame he began withall in Imitation of the other two I shall not think my self obliged to divert my self from more grateful studies to vye tongue with him knowing that whatever he says or what hard measure he may give me Truth will remain always answerless and unconquered FINIS POSTSCRIPT TO THE READER Courteous Reader IT is now humbly submitted to thine impartial judgment Whether our practice of Baptizing Believers so fully made out by the Scriptures the Suffrage of Learned men in every Age of the Church since Christ owned by our Severest Adversaries to be a Scriptural Baptism exemplified by the practice of all Antiquity deserves such sharp Rebukes as our present Opponents dispence to us And whether that cause we maintain though under so sacred a Patronage deserves to be so persecuted as it is by them and delineated in such frightful Characters since on all sides the baptizing of the Adult is granted but Infant-baptism by one side only and upon such uncertain grounds too every distinction or denomination of Paedo-baptists administring it upon a different pretence some upon a mistake that it takes away sin and saves the Child's Soul some affirming the Infant to have Faith some upon the Parents some upon the Pro-parents or Gossip's some upon Abraham's some upon the Churches Faith a very uncertain sound whilst opposed on the other side with such a dint of Reason both from Scripture-Authority and primitive Antiquity And suppose you had been called to decide a matter in controversie betwixt two and find that what one affirms is granted on both sides but what the other maintains granted by one only and rationally opposed by the other would you not judge his cause best and most safe that 's allowed by both And such is our present case A Queen of England demanded of the Protestant Prelates whether the Church of Rome was a true Church and if Salvation may be had in it They answered in the affirmative The Queen replies that since both sides grant there may be Salvation in the Church of Rome and but one only that there may be Salvation obtainable in the Church of England therefore it was the safest way to remain on that side that both agreed Salvation may be had in And though we plead not for the inference as then applyed yet it holds well in other cases For if one should ask whether Adult or Infant-baptism be a true Scriptural Baptism both sides are agreed that Adult baptism is so and one side only holds Infants baptism to be lawful May not the Querist safely and certainly conclude that side that hath the suffrage of both to be safest And therefore we hope upon a serious weighing this Consideration we may have the Justice and Equity of an open Ear from any denomination of the Christian Religion and that understanding the reason of our consciencious dissent from the practice of Infant-baptism they would not condemn us for affirming what the Scripture invincibly makes out the suffrage of Antiquity ratifies and they themselves own Farewell A BUCKET of WATER To Quench the FIRE Or a Letter to Mr. Obed. Will 's concerning the