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
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
charity exempt dying Infants from the benefit of that grace they having by no actual sins barred themselves from its saving communications And what Scripture can be produced that any one is damned meerly for the non-application of a Sacrament provided it to be not contemned I can no where find Ursinus tells us in his Catechism that it is not the want but the contempt of the Sacraments damns Privatio Sacramenti non damnat si non accedat contemptus Christus non adimit salâ—tem eis quibus adimitur Baptismus The Consequences produced for Infant Baptism we find to be sophistical wretched Non-sequitur's and against the rules of that Logick so celebrated by the Authors that make them The Jewish high-Priesthood will prove a high-Priesthood now by as good Consequence of the faederal right then proves a faederal right now And the Passover being to be taken and eaten Exod. 12.4 according to the number of jouls in the house and by every one according to his eating and therefore by Children will afford a consequence of Infants right to the Supper as valid as that drawn from their Circumcision to their Baptism But that indeed there is no Birth-holiness now that being a legal priviledge abolisht and not comporting with the Gospel is unanswerably evident by this Argument If the legal commoness and uncleanness of some meats Flesh Birds Beasts Persons and their natural seed above others be taken away then the legal holiness and cleanness of some meats Flesh Birds Beasts Persons and their natural seed above others is also taken away But the Antecedent is true Ergo so is the Consequent The major is undenyable from these received Maxims Contrariorum eadem est ratio And Contrariorum uno sublato tollitur alterum viz. Of Contrary's take away one and the other cannot remain in its opposition to it any longer The minor is evident from Act. 10.11 to 28 Act. 11.2 to 9. Gal. 2.11 to 28. But to the matter VVe find the true reasons of the primitive Saints being Baptzed at age to be because they durst not recede from the Rule And that 's our reason for practicing as they did 4. VVe know no advantage accruing to Infants from their Baptism it makes them in your own esteem nominal not real Members of the visible Church And the name without the nature is worthless And the absurdities and inconveniencies of that practice are obvious in our VVritings The Gospel Church must consist of living Stones at least such as to our cognizance profess so to be not ignorant Babes untransformed out of their natural state 5. That we place too much of our Religion in an external mode is false suggestion not to be made out by Mr. Whistons Logick VVe profess to worship God in Spirit and Truth according to our measute and by Divine assistance in an exact conformity to his Revealed VVill. 6. Our enquiry's after the will of Christ are from the Revelations of his will in his word and if that be termed preposteroâ—s let our opposites find a better foundation for their enquiry's and it shall be considered VVe think it a fruitless and â—indeed preposterous undertaking to seek for the Institution of Baptism in Gen. 17.7 VVe have it nearer home in the New Testament and that we adhere to No Arguments from the pretended Analogy to Circumcision are deemed by us of any greater force then those drawn from the Levitical Priesthood and its Ceremonious appurtenances to vindicate the Papal or National Prelacy and its concomitant rites In Mr. Whistons 1 Book he layes down his grand proposition p. 1. thus That it is the will of our Lord Jesus Christ that the Infant seed of one or both believing Parents should be baptized To prove which p. 2. he layes down three subordinate propositions viz. That God in Gen. 17.7 Intended Abraham and his natural seed 2. That God settled the same promise upon and confirmed it to believing Gentiles 3. That all under the promise ought to be Baptized Page 3. He distinguishes Abrahams seed into natural and spiritual or Mystical p. 4. He subdistinguishes the spiritual or Mystical into visible and Denominative 2. Invisible and Real Rom. 9.6 Tells us p. 5. That Baptism doth not properly incorporate into the body of Christ as invisible but as visible p. 7. Sayes the difference between both Seeds is only Respective because the same persons in different respects may be both his Natural and Spiritual Seed Natural Seed are such as descend immediatly from Abrahams own Lovns or 2. his whole race and Posterity p. 10 He sayes that under the term Seed both Natural and Mystical are comprehended p. 17. That under this Covenant both Jews and Gentiles are comprehended And that God had a peculiar regard to the Natural Seed that Parents performing the Conditions of the Covenant convey to their Children the same Interests themselves had Cap. 1 p. 19. He labours to prove that all Abrahams immediate Natural seed were intended as the immediate subjects of his promise Gen 17.7 p. 36. That the Covenant made with Abraham was a Covenant of Grace And the same for substance that believers are now under That it was conditional p. 51. A Covenant being a mutual compact p. 52. That the Condition required of Abraham was also required of his Natural Seed p. 54. Chap. 4. p. 64 The 2 d. subordinate proposition is Prosecuted into which service these Scriptures are pressed Deut. 29.10 to 13. Isa 59.21 and 65.25 and 44.3 4. Jer. 3.12 Ezek. 37.21 22. with Rom. 11.26 That is the same Covenant Jews and Gentiles are under Jer. 31.31 with Heb. 8.8 Isa 54.1 with Gal. 4.27 Hos 1.11 and 2 3. with Rom. 9.25 26. Amos 9.11 with Acts 15.20 so out of the New Testament Gal. 3.13 14. Chap. 6. p 104. He proceeds to make our that the promise of Salvation appertains to the houses of believing Parents as such without respect to the personal faith of any in the said houses of such besides there own for which he urges Mar. 10.31 Luke 19.8 9. Acts 2.38 39. and 16.31 1 Cor. 7.14 And p. 106. sayes the promise believers are under is not absolute but Conditional and so it must be understood of their houses which Condition he expounds p. 108. viz. That the Master of the Family believing his house shall be saved upon Condition of his believing He affirms ibid. that Children in an especial manner are included and comprehended under the term house p. 203. That the Interest of any of Abrahams natural seed arises from their Relation to their immediate Parents included in the phrase their generations Affirms p. 205. that the Infant seed of believing Gentiles are to be accounted of numbred amongst Abrahams Mystical seed Chap. 7. p. 213. The 3 d. subordinate proposition is prosecuted from Gen. 17.9 That as Circumcision of old so Baptism is now the token of that Covenant And p. 222. That the will of God concerning Circumcision shews us what is his will concerning Baptism
as the one so the other should be applyed to the Infants of believing Parents Yet sayes he argues not from Analogy only takes Circumcision as a Comment upon the Command Gen. 17.7 p. 226. He comes to shew the agreement of â—aptiâ—m to Circumcision as being both the solemn rite of admittance into the Church 2 d. To seal and assure the subiects of it their enjoyment of the good things blessings and benefits promised in the Covenant as Remission of sins 3 d. To oblidge the person receiving it to keep exactly the Articles of this Covenant Jer. 4.4 4th â—o be a visible badge to distinguish the people of God from all other people Chap. 10. p. 249. He brings the several instances of several Housholds to confirm his tenent Act. 16.14 15 33. 1 Cor. 16.16 as Lydia p. 273. the Taylor p. 27â— Stephanus p. 274. Chap. 11. and the Chapters not mentioned as 3 7 8. c. He pretends to answer Objections amongst which he insists upon Mat. 28.19 with Mar. 16.15 16. p. 288. Answer As to Mr. Whistons 1st subordinate proposition before rejected I say To insist at large in a fresh Confutation of the use Mr. Whistons makes of this Scirpture viz. Gen. 17.7 were but Actam agere Therefore as I said I will refer him and the Reader to such as have already prov'd this plea to be vain Mr. Tombs a learned Writer now with the Lord sufficiently clears it in his Writings upon the subject particularly in his 3d. Review a large Book never yet answered Printed 1657. Sect. 2. p. 5 and so on Mr. Blackwoods Storm of Antichrist p. 31. 32. 33. 34. and onwards Mr. Patient in his Book of Baptism p. 72. and onwards Mr. Lawrence p. 17â— and onwards Mr. Danvers p 171. 2d Edict and onwards Mr. Skynner in his Treat of Baptism p. 8. and so on Mr. Hutchinson in his Treat p. 12. and so on Mr Sâ—â—d and Mr. Chear p. 8. and so on 2d That no Covenant Interest intitles to Baptism without Repentance See at large evidenced by Mr. Tombs in the said 3d. Review Sect. â— p. 15 23 40 c. That no agreement between Circumcision and Baptism justifies Infant Baptism Sect. 11. Such Arguments as are drawn from the Covenant in savour of this practice of Paedobaptism are largely confuted Sect. 12 13 14. That the Gospel Covenant is not extenâ—â—d to believers Infants as such Sect. 16. That the 〈◊〉 are not Seals of the Covenant of Grace Sect. 31. That 〈◊〉 is not by Birth nor the Church as 〈◊〉 Corporations Sect. 36. That the holiness 1 Cor. 7.14 is Matrimontal evinced at large Sect. 76.92 93 94 95. The succession of Baptism to Circumcision at large considered Sect. 81. That the enlargement of our priviledges under Gospel administrations prove not Infant Baptisme Sect. 84. Now this proposition which Mr. Whiston p. 62. calls the foundation to his whole Superstructure by the conferring of his assertions with the Books quoted will I doubt be found rotten and consequently his whole superstructure must needs fall But in regard some of the Books mentioned are scarce being out of Press I shall with what brevity I may abstract from them our understanding of the Covenant of Grace which term is applyed to signifie 1st The Covenant of Grace in its own nature singly or universally considered 2ly The manner of its administration according to Divine Institution In the first signification it signifies the great Mystery of the mercy of God in Christ wherein the Father hath establisht Jesus Christ his Son the head of all things and given him a blessed seed of the sons of men to be by him and with him Heirs of the glorious Inheritance of the Grace of God and the blessed Consequences thereof against all possibility of miscarriage according to his eternal purpose This Covenant was at first published Gen. 3.15 't is spoken of Psal 2.7 8 9. Is 42. and 49. This is the Everlasting Covenant still one and the same immutable from Everlasting to Everlasting This Covenant was at sundry times and after divers manners under divers Signes Figures Types Promises and Prophesies renewed and ratified with the blessed Patriarchs Abel Seth Enoch Noah Sem Melchisedeck and with the Fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob with Moses and the Prophets before the coming of Christ And brought to light and revealed in all the Mysteries of it by John the Baptist Christ and his Apostles which still continueth and shall continue without Change to the worlds end This Covenant hath one spiritual Father viz. Christ Isa 9.6 and one spiritual Seed Psal 22.30 2ly The Covenant of Grace as it signifies the manner of Administration may be thus described It contains the whole and every part of that Instituted Worship whereby God doth ordinarily bring about the purposes of the Everlasting Covenant viz. To set Christ upon his Throne and to gather him the Seed given him by the Father And the Covenant under this acceptation is not one and the same alwayes but hath passed under many great alterations and changes The Lord suiting his Ordinances and Appointments to the Persons Seasons and Works he had to do Therefore all its force and authority thus confidered depends intirely upon the Law of its Institution and is in force as that Law directeth and not otherwise In this sense 't is distinguished under two known heads respecting two seasons The first before the second after the ascention of Christ Before Christs coming it passed under the great alterations and Changes for the first 2000 years from Adam to Abraham The Ordinances and form of worship then in practice and other occasional figures representing the mystery of the everlasting Covenant and Chosen and Rejected Seeds therein considered was a Ministry dignified with as eminent and glorious Saints as any the Book of God recordeth And though for the nature of it the same with the Law of â—oses proportioned to it and after fell in with it Yeâ— in all that long series of time there was no distinguishing Ordinance Administred to Infants of â—elievers nor any unknown Doctrine to that purpose 'T is true at Circumcision that began which viz. Circumcision by the Law of Moses was taken in with the preceding Institutions and there received its full Instalment and became the Head Ordinance of the Levitical Ministry This Administration of the Covenant of Grace is usually called the Old Covenant or the First Covenant Heb 8.7 to 13. the Law Rom. â— 13 14. Heb. 10.1 Gal. 4.21 This Covenant while it stood though Glorious yet the Spirit of God never exalted it above the degree of a Handmaid appointed for the time being to Minister to the Everlasting Covenant And then to be utterly cast out of the Church together with her Seed according to the flesh whom the Apostlecalleth Servants and not Sons Gal. 4.7 Prophetically instanced in Abrahams family under theâ— Type of the Gospel Church in the persons of Hagar and â—hmael Gen. 21.10 11 12 unveiled at large
not the product of an unlawful marriage as in Ezra and Nehemians time but legitimate And therefore the Apostle uses an Argument ab absurdo which is drawn from the absurdity following the contrary practice to perswade them to dwell together that so they might not fall into the absurdity they were by their separation thinking to avoid the way to have an unhallowed issue being now contrary to what it was in Ezra's time viz. theirs was so by cohabiting but ours by separation Therefore where to find any other contradiction here then what is between the two dispensations of Law and Gospel vve cannot yet discover VVas it Contradiction in the Apostle to satisfie the seruple of his doubting Gorinthians and to shevv them that the vvay they vvould take to escape an absurdity vvas to fall into it Certainly this charge is easily avoided and the Contradiction found there if any degenerates from its definition given by Aristotle l. 1. poster c. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that I conclude there is no inconvenience in affirming this instance to be still trivial and insignificant Mr. Will 's his next instance of self contradiction is as p. 24. That Mr. Danvers tells us from Sabastin Franck 2 Ed. p. 231. That about the year 610. Childrens Baptism was held in many places of little esteem by the learned endeavours of Adrianus and others And yet in his Reply p. 140. He tells us viz. from Austin That Infants Baptism was universally received in the 7 Age in other parts of the VVorld to beget them to regeneration as imposed by the Church of Rome But as to this Mr Will 's vvould do vvell to consider that the contradiction if any lyes betvvixt his tvvo Authors Austin and Franck. And vvhich kind of scruings may be very unsafe least absurdety be reflected upon the Scriptures themselves vvho tell us in one place that the Disciples went out preaching the word in every place Mar. 16.20 Act. 8.4 And yet again that the Ap. Paul aftervvards preached in many places vvhere the vvord had not been preached Rom. 15.14.20 And that Infants Baptism it self as Mr. Danvers observes may be of little esteem in many places in England vvhere so universally imposed and received in every Parish A sign hovv hard Mr. Will 's vvas put to it vvhen he vvent so far and yet could find no greater contradiction then this 5ly As for Innocents giving Divine honour to the Popedome 't is true vve find not the Original vvords litterally bear any such thing though he joyned Peter vvith God himself in his invocation And the veneration Papists give Peter as they fancy him to be their Proto-Pope induced Mr. Danvers to think Innocent addrest his adoration to him as such he not mentioning any other Saint 6ly In the Quotation from Vossius App. p. 108. Mr. Will 's is grosly out Mr. Danvers said 2 Ed. p 118 119. That Vossius informeth us from good authority that from Austin to Bernards time seven or eight hundred years the Custome was to Baptize naked both men women and children with the reasons usually given by the Ancients for the same viz. That they might therein be as in the state of Innocency and as naked in their second as at their first Birth and as they expected to be in heaven and therein no otherwise then Christ was upon the Cross which you may read at large in p. 31 32 33 34 35 36. quoting these several authorities to justifie it Cyril c. Mr. Danvers mentions all p. 119. In our former examination of this Charge finding Mr. Wills under a mistake vve let it pass under that remark of trivial and insignificant but since he is not contented therewith it shall novv be demonstrated that Mr. Will 's his accusation vvas not only trivil but a gross falshood and therefore he had better have been satisfied vvith our first Ansvver For 1st In Mr. Will 's his quotation of Mr. Danvers he disingenuously conceals the later part vvhich plainly evidences that Mr. Danvers gave only the sum of vvhat 's largely insisted upon by Vossius in the said pages and should necessarily be inserted But Mr. Will 's savv that that vvould spoil his charge And let any man of common reason judge vvhether it be not an unrighteous and unhandsome procedure in Mr. Wills thus to frame a charge of his ovvn and produce a large quotation from Vossins insinuating that Mr. Danvers had mistranslated it vvhereas Mr. Danvers only takes a fevv vvords out of that quotation and the follovving pages comprehending the substanâ—e thereof vvhich he faithfully gives 2ly As to the matter of fact in Controversy viz. Whether the Ancients gave those as the reasons for Baptizing naked vvhichr M. Danvers asserts and Mr. Wills denyes charging Mr. Danvers with ignorance and gross perversion of that quotation is certainly Mr. Wills's gross perversion if not ignorance as these instances clearly prove and as clearly Justifie Mr. Danvers Vossius in his â—hes Theol. Edit Bellositi Dobunorum 1628. p. 350. c. and in the Ed. quoted by Mr. Danvers p. 32 33. c. Cites Cyril Hierosol Catech ystag 11. Statim igitur ut ingressi estis vestem exvistis quod quidem exuti hominis antiqui cum operibus suis imago fuit Atque ita exuti eratis nudi imitantes in hac eum qui in cruce nudatis fuerat Christum that is Therefore as soon as you were entred you put off your Cloathes which was indeed the signification of your putting off the Old man with his works which being so put off ye were naked so imitating Christ who was naked upon the Cross And a little further nudi fuistis in conspectu omnium non vos pudebat Revera in hoc enim protoplasti Adam ferebatis exemplum quia nudus in paradiso fuit tamen nullo afficiebatur pudore that is ye were naked in the sight of all men and were not ashamed in which you did truly hold forth the example of your first parent or first formed Adam who was naked in Paradise and was not ashamed So Amphilochius in the life of Bazil vvriting thus of him Petebat adeo aliquod suae fidei signum ostendi surgensque cum tremore suis se vestibus spoliat unáque cum vestibus veterem exuit hominem that is he besought of God that some sign of his faith may be shewn and arising with fear disrobes himself of his apparel and with his Cloathes put off the old man Ergo sayes Vossius eo quod vestimenta exuebant mysticè significabatur veterem exui hominem that is therefore in as much as they put off their Cleathes the putting off the old man was mystically signified And to this purpose several other Fathers are Cited concluding vvith a passage from Bernards 46 Sermon de paupertate Ideo nudi nascimur in hoc saeculo nudi etiam accedimus ad Baptismum ut nudi sine impedimento perveniamus ad Caelum that is Therefore we
under your wings took your ipse dixit for Scripture verities and waited for your Oraculous pronuntiations It being feared that God is punishing their Confidence in you as he did Israels wise men of old when the people trusted in them Isa 29.14 The wisdom of their wise men shall perish and the understanding of their prudent men shall be bid And seeing you are so well acquainted with Repentances it is just to admit of their acknowledgment especially if they be ready as some are to promise in the words of Job that Wherein they have done foolishly they will do so no more And though it be now a common question whether you 'l ever die a Martyr And most resolve it in the Negative wondering that out of your Magazine of distinctions you cannot pick out some to shist off the present perset cution so loudly recorded or indempnifie those that suffer by proxy for you when you took your flight Yet we have the charity to believe if your friends be faithful to reprehend and you ready to receive it a possibility of establishing your wavering mind after all your transformations and perhaps to fix you on that unerring soundation of the Prephets and Apostles from which you have gone so much afiray and that you may yet preach the truths you have destroyed And we are confirmed in our hope not only from the omnipotent power of God but also from the Connaturalness of Change to your disposition It s pitty a man of your figure one that God like Saul hath made higher then divers of your Brethren should be such a man of Contention such an Unus contra Populum in your generation And so your pious labours in other things useful to the Church be either burred in oblivion or greatly slighted because of your dissonancy in some great points of faith and heteredoxy to the pure and incorrupt discipline of the primitive Churches We have been informed from your own pen that the shadows of the Eternal evening are upon you and you have been some time waiting at the door of eternity And it is a trembling consideration to some that love you that you should take your leave of us so unreconciled to your self as well as to the of truth of God especially that point of Scripture Baptism to which you have born so famous a testimony in some of your writings and so timerously asserting Infant Baptism in others assuring us it hath such considerable difficulties that it may justly make wise and good men to doubt and that you your self though its most industrious undertaker tells us of your self that you think you have proved it but not by evidence so clear as every good man can perceive More Proofs p 219. But Sir since you do but think so and we think otherwise viz. that you have not prov'd it why may not our think be as good as your think Therefore we desire you before you take your final leave to suffer a word of Exhortation And we beseech you in the bowels of Jesus Christ and as you will shortly answer at the great and dreadful Tribunal that amongst your other errata you would repent of that absurd and heretical position of a Baptismal Covenant of Grace running in a fleshly line by which you have not only deceived many thousand souls but so proselyted some Ministers and furnisht them with matter to repair the breaches that have been made in Babylon to the great binderance of that Reformation so solemnly endeavoured and Covenanted for and thereby make your self the person you arraign viz. One that trains up militant heirs and successors to propagate the Contention witness Mr. Parret your Index-maker who might from your works raise 1500 as well as 50. queries that so the multitude might secure him from Resolution For I conceive he might fish doubts enough out of your writings which are known to be fruitful enough of Riddles of that grain To conclude Sir if this advice may be successful it will be an encouragement to us to follow you while we live with our prayers that though some of your works may be burnt yet your soul may be saved in the day of the Lord Which is the earnest desire of Your Soul-Friend Edw. Hutchinson In Return to this comes the Review in hand But the Lord was pleased to take the worthy and pious Author of that Letter to himself before Mr. Baxters Review came to his hand Which Providence with some concurring circumstances necessitates me to appear in his vindication That choice labourer in his Lords Vineyard was long even at the time of writing that letter exercised under such a Distemper as certainly premonished him of his approaching period And therefore was glad if he could be Instrumental in bringing Mr. Paxter to a Review of what he inconsiderately published Hoping that so he might be convinced that his corrupt writings stood more in need of an humble and penitent Retraction then so contumacious a plea as he now exhibits But it s now too apparent that no such Repentance is to be expected But the talking faculty must to work once more and palliate with a fresh torrent of words whatever extravagant fit his luxuriant pen ever fell into If I should pursue Mr. Baxter in all his turnings and windings to support his tottering reputation and insist upon every particular in his Review capable of exception my undertaking would swell into such a volume as I have neither leasure nor mind to compile Therefore his discourse being so loose and full of incoherencies I shall willingly leave his impertinent digressions and address my self to 〈◊〉 upon such passages as are most likely to affiright the unwary Reader from a closure with the truth we contend for He tells us p. 7. Review That upon the deepest search he is able to make in above 20 years consideration he is satisfied we hainously wrong the mercy of God and the Church and true Believers and their seed by denying them that part in Gods Covenant and mercy which he hath proved to be stated on them in Gods word That God never had Church Laws on earth whether in Innocency or since the fall which extended not the priviledge of a Covenant and Church-state to the Infants of the Church And so he runs on telling us that from Adams time till now Infants were Church-members and that Christ so found them and so continued them Answ By the Marshalling of his Comma's and if all these particulars be antecedents to the pronoun them here lyes a heavy Charge for it seems if he be believed that we deny the mercy of God the Church and true believers and their seed a part in Gods Covenant and Mercy which Mr. B. says he hath proved that God hath stated on them in his word But let him consider whether the mercy of Gods having a part in the Covenant and Mercy of God be not non-sense 2. He would do honestly to produce from any Anti-paedo-baptist where they ever deny'd
done and we find not a syllable there of Infant Baptism is it not very injurious to blame us for renouncing such a practice as we find no warrant for This very man tells us pl. Script p. 301. That he finds it a hard Controversy to prove Infant Baptism it is so dark in the Scripture And More Proofs p. 219. That it hath considerable difficulties and that his proofs are not so clear as every good man can perceive And yet he has published a Book Intituled plain Scripture-proof for Infant Baptism strange considence and Contradiction But now he produces as he tells us a full command for Infant Baptism Math. 28.19 because Nations must be Baptized Answ VVhat shall we say to men whose Judgements are fore stalled by a darling error I need not add much to disprove this but referr the Reader to our Books where this text is vindicated from Mr. Baxters senseless gloss Nations are to be discipled and so Baptized Certainly the Pronown then governed by the participle Baptizing can possibly relate to no other Substantive then the Persons commanded before to be taught For as Dr. Holmes truly tells us p. 7. 't is not the Nations in gross For then all must be Baptized if the word Nation universally taken doth there denote the Subjects of Baptism But 't is the Nations with restriction that is such as are discipled by teaching and no more that are commanded to be baptized And if this be not the sense they must baptize them in the lump Heathens Unbelievers Professors Infants and all and that whether they would be baptized or nor Let Mr Baxter consider what a full command he hath met with for his practice Mr. Baxters further talk about Infants being Disciples and his parity of Reason from their being the Kings Subjects Ergo why not Christs I look upon as frivolous His frequent urgeing the parents Faith to be the ground of their Baptism and that the Parents will go for theirs in consenting shall be answered in the words of a learned Doctor If they have imputative faith so let the Sacrament be too that is if they have the Parents faith or the Churches then so let Baptism be imputed to them by derivation from them and as in their mothers womb and while they hang on their mother breasts they live upon their mothers nourishments so they may upon the Baptism of their parents or their mother the Church For since faith is necessary to the susception of Baptism and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the matter up such as the Faith such must be the Sacrament for there is no proportion betwen an actual Sacrament and an Imputative faith this being an immediate and necessary order to that And whatsoever can be said to take of the necessity of actual faith all that and much more may be said to excuse from the actual susception of Baptism c. And a little further he adds That if baptism be necessary to the salvation of Infants as the Fathers of old and the Church of Rome and England since yea and Mr. Baxter too upon whom is the imposition laid to whom is the Command given to the Parents or the Children Not to the Parents for then God hath put the salvation of innocent babes into the power of others and Infants may be damned for their parents carelesness or malice It follows that it is not necessary at all to be done unto them to whom it cannot be prescribed as a Law and in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably intrusted to others with the appendant necessity And if it be not necessary it is certain it is not reasonable and most certain it is no where in terms prescribed And therefore it is presumed that Baptism ought to be understood and administred according as other precepts are with reference to the capacity of the subject and the reasonableness of the thing And again If any man runs for succour to that exploded Cresphugeton that Infants have faith or any other inspired habit of I know not what and how we desire no more advantage in the world then that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason common sense and all the experience in the world Haec ille Reader I take Mr. Baxters Review hitherto to be shewed vain and his ground for Paedo-baptism to be very weak and frivolous He comes next p. 20 to add and enlarge upon 4 particulars and those subdivided into many others which comprehend the rest of the Review 1. The benefits of Infant Baptism And I think most of the benefits he enumerates he learnt of the Pope 2. The evils that follow not baptizing them These are meer whimsies of his own making not worth a serious Readers patience I willingly pass them there is nothing argumentative in them therefore no need of a Reply 3. The sins we would draw men to by rejecting it And here he is very fruitful he finds them to be no less then 15. And all without Proof therefore I pass them with a naked Negation which is ever as valid as a naked assertion By way of digression before he comes to the fourth particular Mr. Baxter quarrels with Mr. Hutchinson for desiring him to repent of his absurd position of a Baptismal Covenant of grace running in a fleshly line and seems to deny that ever he used such a phrase but if he remembers himself he uses the words baptismal Covenant frequently as More Proofs p. 198. 224. 238. even in this Review p. 3. 38. And several other places And doth he not call that Covenant a Covenant of grace through all his writings If that be not his meaning why doth he not tell us what other Covenant he means And doth he not as confidently affirm that that Baptismal Covenant of grace is convey'd to the Children by their believing parents And is not that a running in a fleshly line and in his conceit hereditary if so what reason has he to exclaim as if that were charged upon him which he holds not Doth he not call our Dispute against this conceit a Hectoring men out of their Inheritances Review p. 34 which fully explains what Covenant he means it seems he dares not own his opinion when stated in the proper terms but would mince it into a more disguised and specious Phrase to impose with the more artifice upon his credulous can 〈◊〉 But let them take warning if they be wise not to take such rotten precepts of men for Gospel though set off in plausible language by such a man of tongue The rest of his talk better deserves those titles of supercilious and insulting and Rhetorical invective canting c. which he bestows upon his admonisher then the Letter sent him 4. At last he comes to the 4 particular containing 13. other particulars which he says he might be seduced into if he had owned Anabaptism Answ But that as Mr. Eyres said long ago it is too
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
and so of one as well as the other Sacrament I am the longer upon this point because it will much shorten what follows and to shew how unreasonable the immoderate veneration of Antiquity is which hath well nigh undone the world and justled the simple and primitive purity of Religion almost out of doors and to reduce men to the testimony of the Word of God alone in the decision of Controversies The use we make of Antiquity is not from any force we apprehend in such Reasonings to establish the truth we contend for but barely by way of Illustration and as an argumentum ad hominem only as the Apostle Paul cited the Cretan Poet Epimenides to Tit. 1.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to prove what a censure their own Poets pass'd upon the Cretans And to shew that our Adversaries have no such advantage over us in the matter of Antiquity as they vainly fancy it being unanswerably made out by Mr. Danvers Mr. Tombs and others that the Antiquity of the three first Centuries as well as the Scripture text is expresly for us And of all Antiquity we are most especially to regard those first Centuries it being the ordinary course of things to contract corruptions more or less according as they are more or less removed from their first Institutions And more then so that the truth we own has been eminently witnessed unto by some People and Churches all along yea by the very mouths of our adversaries for whilst by Canons and Curses they labour to establish Infant Baptism to warrant which if they had conceiv'd there were any Scripture ground that would be needless for as Mr. Wille well says Inf. Bapt. p 106. That which prevails by force of a greater needs not be assisted by a weaker Authority Therefore they having no Scripture to bottom it upon employed both their Authority and ablest Pens to perswade the world that it was absolutely necessary that so it might the easilâ—er be received And thereby they declare that it was from time to time witnessed against otherwise their labour was idly spent in making such a doe to establish a practice that non eopposed So that as Mr. Danvers well notes Rep. p. 70. these Canons being made upon occasion of those that deny'd Infant Baptism we have our witnesses through all ages to testifie that our practice is no novelty And if Tertullian's opposing Infant Baptism be brought as an evidence that it was then in the world as Mr. Walker says p. 281. then certainly we ought to have the like freedom of concluding that if those Councils produced against us bent their Authority to establish Infant Baptism it is an evident proof that it was opposed all along and so had no quiet being in the world Certainly the testimonies of Strabo who lived about 837 years ago and Vives that no other but adult baptism was practised of old as cited by Vossius Thes Theol p. 429. are not to be slighted however Strabo or the Scribe mistook the year of Augustine's age And in the midst of Papal darkness about 400 or 500 years ago we find Bernard complaining thus of the Puritans so called of his time Irrident nos quod baptizamus Infantes quod oramus pro mortuis quod Sanctorum sustragta postulamus c. They deride us because we baptize Infants and pray for the Dead and desire the intercession of Saints Serm. 66. in Cantic And Vossius tells us that Tertullian and Nazianzen were of the judgment of Strabo and would have Infant Baptism deferred nisi peâ—iculum mortâ—s urgeat and pray what should cause those great Doctors to oppose the Baptism of such Infants as were likely to live if the Universal Church were of a contrary mind Indeed Vossius says it was only their private opinion but that 's more then he is able to demonstrate from any of their Contemporaries therefore his word for it is but an ipse dixit which must not stand against his plain demonstration of the other Mr. Walker in his Preface reckons 19 particular Reasons why in ancient times adult B. ptism and 4 why Infant Baptism was deferred therefore concludes that because those Reasons are disterent from ours our plea from Antiquity cannot serve our Hypothesis Answ I might here with greater equity retort this consideration upon Paedobaptism as held by many Protestants and say that whereas we find the Antiquity that held up that practice did it from such rotten anti-evangelical and exploded notions viz. the conceit of its absolute necessity to salvation c. as most of our Protestants durst not own though I fear such writers as Mr. Walker border too near upon them but do hold up the practice from another pretence viz. that imaginary Covenant they dream to have been made with believers and their carnal seed therefore our present Paedobaptists retaining only the practice not the ground of Antiquity cannot without a manifest breach of modesty claim Antiquity for their Hypothesis or against ours But 2. We are not much concern'd to 〈◊〉 and time in disproof of this matter since every rational man will allow that though we should take all this for granted yet the erroneous apprehensions of some persons and their practices consequent thereto and that too no higher then the 4th Century is no sufficient argument to prove that the generality of those primitive Christians that lived in the precedent Centuries which we challenge to be for our practice delay'd their own or their Childrens Baptism from those particulars enumerated and no other for all that delay'd their own or Childrens Baptism upon the true and proper ground viz. the want of Faith and Repentance came not justly under reproof and that I presume is the reason why they have had none therefore there is a stronger probability that the writers of those times judged that ground of delay viz. if in a state of unbelief legitimate and so had no occasion to mention it 3. 'T is no strange thing even in our day that persons out of such undue and unwarrantable grounds as mentioned delay their submission to the way and Ordinances of Christ and I am perswaded that a great many that are throughly enlightned do yet at this time of light stifle Conscience and for the Reasons mentioned in Mr. Walker's 2 3 6 14 and 19th particulars slight and neglect the pure worship of God and satisfie themselves in a posture of worship quite foreign from what the Lord has prescribed For where a mode of Religion is establish'd by a Law and where profits preferments safety c. are the baits of its professors no wonder that men carnally minded follow it and neglect that Saviour whose kingdom is not of this world Doâ—s it therefore follow by any rational way of deduction that be cause a great many do so therefore none do the contrary that because many deferred their Baptism for love of the world therefore none deferred it because unqualified subjects viz. unbelievers therefore how can this
but by teaching them as soon as they are able to learn what it is to fear him love him believe in him and obey his Laws So that we agree with Mr. Walker that we ought not to forbid our children to come unto Christ but to contribute our endeavours to their early conversion they having in common with the rest of mankind gracious Invitations to come to his Mercy seat Mat. 11.28 Rev. 22.17 Isa 55.1 c. But to prove that Christ appointed the manner of their coming to him to be by Baptism in any part of his word hic labor hoc opus is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this dispute P. 13. Mr. Walker tells us the phrase may be taken figuratively so notes a becoming or being made a Disciple unto Christ Mat. 11.28 29. This is granted but then the great doubt remains still whether Infant Baptism singly considered I mean without the qualifications requisite in the baptized which are Faith and Repentance as the Church Catechism informs us be of such efficacy as to make one a Disciple Mr. Walker p. 17. holds the affirmative his words are Our children are made Disciples to Christ by being baptized in the name and with the baptism of Christ And p. 19 where either of these is viz. baptizing or teaching there a person may become or be made a Disciple though not so compleat and perfect as where there is both Answ To affirm as Mr. Walker does that Baptism makes one a Disciple is to contradict all the experience in the world For if we respect the signification of the word in its proper and genuine notion it being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 discipulus of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disco and that of the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 didicit it signifies a Scholar or one that learns of another which necessarily implys a just ripeness and activity of Organs inward and outward which all Infants want therefore what can they learn by Baptism who want the exercises of understanding and in whom Reason is as it were an embrio not yet come to a capacity of acting And if we use the word according to the constant Scripture acceptation of it 't is certain that though discipling and baptizing go together in the adult the term is no where apply'd to Infants but always to such as learnt the Doctrine of Christ who says Mat. 11.29 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 learn of me c. And Luk. 6.40 we have the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a Relation in the same proposition with its correlate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Doctor or Teacher And Reason teacheth us that where there is Discipleship there must of necessity be Mastership or Doctorship according to that Rule in Logick Relata sunt simul naturâ nempe quatenus relata that is Relations as they are such are together in Nature for though the Father be before the Child yet he is not a Father till he has a Child nor can one be a Master or Doctor before he teaches nor a Scholar or Disciple before he learns So that Baptism having no such efficacy in it self nor any such vertue conferr'd upon it by any word of God as to make one a Scholar or Disciple of Christ by the bare action we may safely conclude that Disciples are made so by teaching not by baptizing which is further evidenced from John 4.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Jesus made and baptized more Disciples c. where note that it is not said made or baptized for then the Greek should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 't is a Conjunction copulative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoting two distinct actions viz. discipling and baptizing And hence it will undeniably follow that it was the method of our Lord Jesus to make Disciples first by teaching and then baptize them And certainly there can be no error in following so blessed a pattern And what warrant Mr. Walker has to wrest this word out of the signification the Holy Ghost constantly puts upon it to countenance such a Discipleship as is no better then a meer conceit or ens rationis is more then I can imagine These Scriptures John 6.45 1 Cor. 4.6 Phil. 4.11 John 7.15 deserve consideration So that I cannot see any ground to conclude that this Text is such a clear Scripture ground for Infant Baptism as Mr. Walker conceits it is p. 23. He says p. 24. That a Consequence from Scripture rightly made is a ground good enough to bear any weight that can be fairly laid upon it and as valid to all intents and purposes as if it were express Scripture it self that being eminently contained in the Scripture whatever it be that may be fairly drawn from it Answ Here I shall take occasion to consider how far it may be safe to build upon Consequences in matters of Religion And first it is most certain that the All-wise God judging it meet to give us that great and gracious gift of his Word to be a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path Psal 119.105 would not give us an imperfect or obscure Rule of Faith The Lord is so far from leaving us at a loss that as in other cases when objects or things to be believed are in their nature very spiritual and much remote from external sense and the common road or ordinary walks of the Reasons or Understandings of men the eye of Faith being dim wherewith they are to be apprehended he is graciously pleased to relieve the defect of that visive faculty in cloathing those spiritual objects with as much external sensibility as well may be so accommodating and attempering the spirituality of them unto this eye that it is enabled to behold them more steadily thus is the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ our Union and Communion with him Sanctification and Forgiveness of sins brought down in the Sacramental Ordinances of the Gospel and accommodated to us as near as their spiritual and sublime natures would permit by opportunity whereof Faith is much refreshed and encouraged to converse more frequently with them and to meditate with less distraction and more composedness as the Vail on Moses's face qualified its dazling brightness and reduced the disproportion of the object to the children of Israels weak senses Deut. 34.33 Is it not therefore irrational to imagine that the Lord who is so ready to accommodate his blessed Mysteries by apt resemblances to our understandings should yet deliver us his Divine Oracles in such a Dialect as is not to be understood without the subtilties of Logick and the Criticisms of the Schools or that such things as are necessary to be believed and practised are left to the Inferences and Consequential deductions of men which are as different as passion prejudice opinion or Interest influences them Certainly such an oversight is not to be chargable upon the eternal wisdom of God who has in a stile full of gravity simplicity and plainness without fraudulent
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
practical Duties of Christianity afterwards So that the words are thus easily vindicated from Tautology for they run Paraphrastically thus As if Christ had said Go disciple the Nations that is as Mark 16.15 more plainly delivered preach the Gospel to every Creature and baptize such as are so discipled by your preaching and when they are admitted into Church Communion teach them to observe all my Commands See here as plain as if writ with the Sun beams that the first teaching is what they should believe and the next teaching is what they should doe Faith being necessary to admit them into the Church and a holy Conversation necessary to keep them there And that this is the genuine meaning and Interpretation we need no other proof then the Apostles practice pursuant to it who preach'd first then baptized and then taught too First they gathered Churches by preaching and baptizing and then preach'd to them so gathered the first preaching for Conversion the other for Confirmation and further Instruction a teaching à priori in order to Discipleship and Baptism and a teaching à posteriori in order to Perfection Baptism is to be by precept immediately after the first and the other by precept so immediately after Baptism which is walled in on both sides by teaching that Infants are universally excluded till they be capable of being taught As for Mark 1.4 in the verse before preaching is before baptizing The voice of one crying in the wilderness Prepare ye the way of the Lord. And 't is absurd to imagine that a man can be baptized before he be preach'd unto for then he should be baptized into he knows not what Mr. Walker's urging the Custom of the Catholick Church to baptize Infants and the Constitution of the Church of England in justification of that practice serves to little more purpose then to fill up his paper for neither the one nor the other will prove that it ought to be so for the Universality of an error renders it not authentick Therefore though I could produce several exceptions against Mr. Walker's claim to some of those Authorities he produces yet I shall only glance upon what he says about the 3 first Centuries And truly if we enquire into the quality of the Witnesses produced for these times it will be found that Paedobaptism leans upon a broken reed For the earliest they pretend to is Justin Martyr's Responses which is a spurious piece as is evidently and unanswerably made out by Mr. Danvers Treat p. 140. insomuch that Mr. Walker in his postscript makes no defence to it save to say that it is acknowledged a very ancient piece But by his leave it is not so ancient neither for 't is certain it was forged after the 3d Century probably a very considerable time for mention is made Quest 127. of the Manichees who sprung not up till about 130 years after Justine who wrote his â— Apolog. 150 years after Christ and so this Witness is cashiered There are many Reasons to be seen in Scultetus in Annal. Justin cap. 11. to detect this forgery and the learned Daille Vâ—ssius Rivet Perkins c. reject it therefore no argument from such a cheat is valid against us As for the Constitutions ascribed to Clemens Romanus and Dionysius the Areop Eccles Hierar I wonder Mr. Walker would fill up so many pages from such a Rhapsody of forgery after all the unanswered arguments given against them by Mr. Danvers Treat p. 140. 1 Rep p. 80 81 c. which were so much to Mr. Wills's conviction that he confesses them to be a cheating Tribe p. 127. Inf. Bapt. And they are not only disown'd by us but by learned Paedobaptists also as by Voffius Thes Theol. p. 432. Edit 1628. who though he took great pains to prove the Antiquity of Paedobaptism yet slights Justine's Responses the Eccl. Hier. and these Constitutions as suppositious Mitto â—os neâ—â—rim libri isti corum sunt quibus tribuuntur vulgò I make no account of them says he for the Books commonly ascriâ—ed to them are none of theirs So the learned Daille and many other Paedobaptists whose testimonies are not to be slighted because against their own practice for the witnesses of enemies are ever most convictive The pretended testimonies of Irenaeus Cyprian and Oriâ—en are largely discovered to be invalid by Mr. Danvers Treat p. 134 to 150. Reply p. 84 to 97. and Rejoynd p. 16. to 21. and by Mr. Tombs 3 Review sect 89 90 91 98 c. so that it is indeed labour lost to add any thing thereto Yet 1. 'T is a great doubt whether Irenaeus his speech if it were his own be at all of Infant Baptism the most that can be said is that perhaps it was so and fortè ita solvitur per fortè non All that 's produced from him is that Christ came to save omnes qui per eum renascuntur Infantes Paeros Juvenes Seniores all that are born again through him Infants noys Young men Old men which proves not that Infant Baptism was at that time in the world For 't is more probable that the right deduction from thence is that in the opinion of Irenaeus Infants are capable of the New birth or Salvation as well as elder persons For to be born again and to be baptized are not terms Synonimous or Convertible for many are regenerated and saved that are not baptized and many baptized that are not regenerated and saved Besides if this passage mean Infants to be baptized by Christ it contradicts John 4.2 where 't is said that Christ baptized not See Mr. Tombs 3 Review p. 79. and Mr. Danvers 1 Rep'y p 82. 'T is certainly ill done to take such a Gloss after that impudent Monk Fevardontius who as Rivet tells us Crit. Secr. l. 2. c. 26. was a man of villainous audacity and of no Faith who most filthily and with impious and lying Annotations â—oexupted the â—arks of Irenaeus hamo project and a-cae nuliius fidei soedè in multis corrupit opera Irenaei annotationibus impius mendacious conspureavit As for Tertullian he is as before expresly for us and Vâ—lius Daille Mr. Baxter Mr. Wills yea and Mr. Walker confess so much Nor do those passages Mr. Walker quotes so much as mention Iâ—sant Baptism as approving it nor any thing directly tending thereto for then Tertullian should have contradicted himself Daille says in his Right use of the Fathers l. 2. p. 72. that Tertullian was so far from pressing men to baptize their children while they are young that he allows and indeed perswades the contrary c. and his opinion herein is not much disserent from that of the Anabaptists of our time If Cyprians Epistle be genuine and uncorrupted as is doubted too his Works falling into ill hands 't is rather a shame then a credit to Paedobaptism to infist upon such a ridiculous piece that asserts Infants Baptism from such corrupt grounds as are there insisted upon Vossius