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
as to the ordinances priviledges and rights whereof who but themselves had the title For this indeed was their advantage of old that to them were committed the oracles of God To which Christ answers true they did stand in the house for a time yet but for a time and though sons and heirs in the laws Typical sense yet they were but servants in the Gospels And being but servants as Moses and his house the old Church were they must anon be turn'd out of the house and abide in the Church that is Abrahams family no longer that believers the true sons and heirs may come in as in the 35. verse And the servant saith Christ abideth not in the house for ever but the son abideth for ever If therefore the son make you free and that he doth not for all your former freedom unlesse you believe in him then shall you be free indeed even to the glory oracles and blessings of the spirituall house the Gospel Church which else you must be cut off from And so indeed it came to passe within a while for not believing and repenting which are the only terms which give right to Gospel ordinances and priviledges So that these Jews though Natural branches still as much as ever if being the fleshly seed of a believer could help them as to a standing there were yet clean broke from the root Abraham as he stands a root to all the faithful because only of unbelief Rom. 11.20 when such as were wild olives and no kin at all to Abraham after the flesh were in their own persons but not their natural seed with them save as they believed with them owned as his Children by believing and as members of the true Church under the Gospel And this was declared by John the Baptist and the rest of the first Ministers of the Gospel who would not admit Jews as Jews though Abrahams own seed unto Baptism when they offered themselves upon the aforenamed terms without faith and repentance See how the Pharisees Sadduces and whole multitude of Abrahams seed come to be Baptized Math. 3.7 Luke 3.7 pretending and pleading that if Baptism were a Church priviledge it must needs belong to them who were the children of Abraham But see how he rejects them as having no part nor portion in this matter O generation of vipers who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come as if he should have said what have you to do with the remission of sins and redemption from wrath which I preach and baptize in token of being notwithstanding your priviledges corrupt and sinful in your lives Bring forth therefore to the end you may be baptized fruits answerable to amendment of life and begin not to say that we have Abraham to our father we are the seed of an eminent believer for God is able of these stones to raise up childeen to Abraham i. e. God will without being beholden to you raise a seed to Abraham rather then to want them from amongst these stones whether he means stones literally or the Gentiles which were as stones in their eyes it matters not But this we gather from it that even at that very time when the birth-priviledge and holynesse of a fleshly seed stood in full force and unrepealed as then it did how much more since the abrogation thereof by faith Abrahams seed could not much less can the seed of believing Gentiles now it is repeal'd be admitted to Baptism without Repentance The Jews as impenitent and unbelieving as they were stood uncast out of the Jewish Church while the Church it self stood But they could not passe out of that Church into the Gospel Church nor from their right to circumcision prove their right to Baptism yet this they might have done if what gave right of old to one of those ordinances doth in like manner in right persons to the other So then seeing Abrahams own seed had no right to Baptism as such how can you expect it from your seed who are not Abrahams seed For Abraham hath but two seeds as I know of except Christ the first is his seed after the flesh and such were all those that were born of his body as Ishmael and his children by Keturah and those that come of him by Isaac and Jacob which only were heirs with him of the land of Canaan for Esau sold his birth-right 2. His seed after the faith and they are all those that walk in his steps Rom. 4.12 and such that do his works John 8. but to suppose that Abraham hath a third seed and they are the children of believing Gentiles is a fancy for non datur tertium semen Abrahae Two seeds of Abraham the Scripture mentions but a third sort cannot be assign'd The first are only these that descend from his loyns as the Midianites and others by Keturah the Ishmaelites by Hagar The Edomites and Israelites by Sarah which last only were the holy seed and children of promise in reference to the Hagarens in a type and sole heirs of the Typical Canaan All these I say were the first sort and all believers of what Nation soever are the second sort but the natural seed of believers are neither of the one nor of the other Poed But were not the proselytes or strangers counted Abrahams seed and circumcis'd upon that account Bap. No they were not Abrahams seed and circumcis'd on that account but from a positive instruction an expresse command from God as they were the males in the family of one that was a Jew at least by devotion for which see Gen. 17.12.13 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcis'd among you every man child in your generations he that is born in the house or bought with mony from any stranger which is not of thy seed He that is born in thy house and he that is bought with mony must needs be circumcis'd and in Exod. 12.48.49 it is called a law When a stranger shall sojourn with thee and will keep the passeover let all his males be circumcis'd and then let him eat the the Passeover and he shall be as one that is born in the land and for the stranger And in Numb 9.14 it is called an Ordinance Ye shall have one Ordinance for him that is born in the land and for the stranger Shew but so much for Infants-Baptism that it is called a law an ordinance or hath any institution for it and the controversy is ended So that you see the prosclites were circumcis'd by vertue of a law as they were Males in the family and not as Abrahams seed for so they were not nor heirs either of the temporal or spiritual Canaan In the temporal Canaan they had no inheritance nor any right to the heavenly unless they were true believers as Abraham was So that the sum of what hath been said is First the seed of believers are not Abrahamâ—s seed Secondly that Abrahams seed are cut off from all the
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
which Mr. Baxter drives at can never be prov'd viz. that there was a lineal successive conveyance of grace from the parent to the child If so it is strange that all flesh should so soon have corrupted its ways that God saw cause to bring the flood upon the world of ungodly Surely had there been any such Covenant holyness as the Poedo-Baptists dream of before the flood there would have been some godly society some greater number of believers to have been preserv'd besides Noah and his Family who were not all godly neither there was a Cham among them which would not have been if there were such a conveyance of grace and Covenant holyness from the Father to the son So that notwithstanding what hath been said Infant Church-membership came in with the law of Circumcision and went out and was repealed with it as hath been abundantly proved For when there was a change of the Priesthood there was a change of the law which must needs include Circumcision with all the appurtenances and priviledges belonging to it Poed But what think you of that principle that some told that Infants are Church-members before they are baptized so Mr. Wills pag. 27. saith The first and chief end of Baptism is to be the initiating sign and seal of Gods Covenant and favour to us in Christ and not to give an entrance or admission into the Church Vnless persons are to be reputed members of the Church they are not to be baptized For Baptism in its own nature is the seal of our being already ingrafted into Christ and consequently into the Church For which he Quotes Dr. Ames And pag. 45. We deny saith he that Baptism doth give Formality or make a man a member of a visible Church though that Orthodox Divines have frequently termed Baptism the Sacrament of our initiation into the Church and have ascribed our admission or entrance into it thereunto pag. 46. To which I answer Bap. It seems then that Mr. Wills is wiser then his orthodox Divines 2. If Baptism be a sign of our being already in Christ and so members of the Church before they are Baptized Then I hope our children may be in Christ reputed members of the Church though they are not Baptized And then what need is there of these clamours against the Baptists for keeping their children out of the Church and in as much as in them lyes hindring their salvation when they are in Christ and members of his Church before Baptism by vertue of their parents faith And if you say we deny them a priviledge that is due to them We say we do not Our great desire is they should be Baptized and do instruct them in the principles of Christianity for that end that as soon as they are capable to improve the priviledge they may have it And as for the Circumstance of time your selves say that is not materal wâ—eâ—her it be done on the 8th 10th or 20th day and why may not the Baptists deferr it to the 20th year there being as much warrant in Scriptures for the one as for the other though indeed no positive rule for either only the time of believing is the most certain time assigned for Baptism 3. But thirdly Mr Wills spoiles all he has said and contradicts himself pag. 229. where he saith that as Circumcision gave entrance into the Church of the Jews so are believers and their seed by Baptism entred into the Gospel Church And it will not help him to say that Infants by vertue of their parents faith are only members of the universal visible Church as he calls it before Baptism but not of any particular Church For he himself saith that he that is a member of the universal Church may at any time claim his priviledge in any particular Church What confusion is here sometimes Baptism gives not admittance into the Church but they are members of the Church before as pag. 27 28. And then again that believers and their seed are by Baptism admitted into particular Churches at another place that Baptism only admits them into the Universal visible Church I think Mr Wills has little hopes to reconcile the Baptistâ— and the Poedo-Baptists seeing he is not reconciled to himself But as to the principle you mention that persons may be Church members before they are Baptized Its true Mr Wills makes a great stir against Mr Paul and others whom he calls rigid Anabaptists because they cannot see any ground to admit persons to the supper before Baptism And therefore labours hard to prove that which he confesses Orthodox divines are against yet he would be singular and force this novelty upon the world which himself but few others have of late contended for But what would the man have suppose a Turk or a Jew should be converted would he admit them to the supper before Baptism and so own them Church members whether ever they were baptised or not God strictly commanded of old that no uncircumcised person should eate the passeover And what rule have you that unbaptized persons should be admitted to the supper But he tells us this is the opinion only of some rigid Anabaptist and thinks there to shelter himself Indeed Mr Iessey and some other good men were of that opinion that some persons might be admitted to the supper who were not yet convinced but that their Infant-Baptism was true Baptism But why must all others be counted rigid Anabaptists because they cannot see with other mens eyes But this is one of the many scurrilous reflections in Mr Wills's Book to supply the scarcity of Argument I could tell him of some rigid Independents and rigid Presbyterians too who are so far from having Communion with the Baptists that they would pluck up such Tares so they account them out of the â—ield of the world and that before the harvest contrary to the expresse words of our Saviour Let both grow together till the harvest And the reason is very cogent lest plucking up the tares you pluck up the wheat also But Mr Wills makes amends for this and tells us that some of the Baptists are godly liberal men of holy and pious conversations and such whom he could have communion with but this is Joabs curtesy who salutes Abner friendly but smote him under the fifth ribb And I may say Meliora sunt amici vulnera quà m inimici oscula The many hard speeches and uncomely reflections the so often mentioning the miscariages of the people in Germany he calls by that denomination shew what gall his pen was dipt in But for all these things I say The Lord forgive him Paedo Sir I thank you for this discourse and the pains you have taken in order to my satisfaction I confesse I finde my self more convinc'd then I was and do think you are of the surest side it being most certain that believers were and ought to be baptized but whether any Infants were or ought is very uncertain And surely it
is safest in controverted matters to adhere to that side that is most certain Besides there are two things that I am much stumbled at The First is the great ignorance of the members of the Paedo-baptist congregations in this matter Not one amongst many is able to prove Infant-Baptism or to answer your Arguments but are forced to referr the matter to their ministers whereas hardly any amongst you but are able to give a satisfactory reason of their hope in this thing and can presently prove believers Baptism from Scripture precept and example As of old if a heathen had demanded of any Jew the reason and Ground of his circumcision he could presently turn to the 17th of Genesis and there prove it from a positive command of God But if a heathen should ask us why we baptize our Infants we that are but ordinary persons know not how to satisfy him we cannot direct him to any Scripture where it is written Which is strange that a Gospel ordinance should be left so dark and intricate and the ordinance of circumcision under the law be so plain and obvious that every child of any reason could presently shew the ground of it This makes me suspect the truth of it because the Apostle says he used great plainesse of speech and not as Moses who put a vail upon his face c. surely Gospel Ordinances should be so plain especially as to the subjects that he that runs may read them 2ly The next thing that offends me is the great difference amongst Ministers about the ground of Infant-Baptism as if they knew not where to fasten it what basis to build it upon some as Mr Danvers observes draw it from the Universality of grace and the necessity of Baptism to salvation as Cyprian and others Some from the faith of the Church some from a supposed seminal faith that may be in the child Some from the faith of the parents others from the faith of the sureties some if the immediate parents be not Godly think the faith of the Grand-father or great-Grand-father may serve Some upon the account of Covenant holynesse or the promise made to Abraham and his seed others if both or one of the parents be a member of a gathered Church Some think they are born members of the visible Church by vertue of their parents faith and so may be baptized Besides this there is a great difference about baptizing of bastards some think if the father repent the child may be baptized others think otherwise because a Bastard was not to enter into the Congregation to the 10th generation and so about the children of excommunicate persons c. All which makes us fear that we are out of the way and our leaders have caused us to err seeing they cannot agree upon what ground to baptise our Infants It s true Mr Wills pretends to answer this but very weakly he tells us the baptists differ amongst themselves about the ground of their practise but sure I am there is no such material difference as there 's amongst us You are all agreed that the profession of faith and Repentance is the ground of Baptism and if some desire a larger confession then others and signes of grace I think it is no great error but rather an evidence of zeal to God and good to the parties soul But what is this to those material and essential differences before mentioned These things will put me upon further search and I hope what you have said will be of advantage to me In the mean time I take leave and bid you farewell Errata P. 64. l. 16. r. marrs all p. 95. l. 1. r. betternesse In the letter to Mr Will 's 5. l. 3. r. Magisterially p. 9. l. 11. for heat r. heart Mis-spellings and mis-pointings correct as you meet them FINIS Concerning Vnity OUr Opponents cry out for Unity and would fain lay the cause of that hateful Word Division at our doors and methinks they might well forbear making such a noise unless they assign us what kind of the several sorts of Unity they mean and propound some Mediums to make the same practicable And I may say What Unity so long as that imperious reflecting and condemning Spirit remains in them Some forbidding of their Members to hear our Ministers or to read their Books rather allowing them liberty to joyn with the Multitude than to appear in our Societies But if I may spell out their meaning it seems to be this That all the Anti-paedo-Baptists should break up their Societies and joyn with them and own their Ministers for their Pastors suffer them quietly to Baptize Infants c. and so sin against their Consciences it appearing to them to be gross Superstition and the Prophanation of an Ordinance But should they tell you they judge there is as good if not better grounds that you should joyn with them and own the Baptism of Believers the only Scripture Baptism I know not where a Moderator or Umpire would be found to determine this matter And how can Two walk together except they be agreed So that the Unity of the Verity is not surely the thing they hope for for though it be greatly desirable yet very hard to obtain because one man thinks this to be truth and another that according to the several Lights they have received And if it be the Unity of Authority they intend that the Magistrate should set down some Uniform practice and command all manner of persons to comply thereunto this looks like divers of them But were there such a practice attempted and yielded unto it might make many Hypocrites in the highest degree of Hypocrisie but be far from that spiritual Unity they talk of Nor can an Unity of perswasion be hoped for seeing both in Press and Pulpit and other wayes both Parties have endeavoured to perswade one another but to little or no Effect Nor can it be an Unity of Necessity now in Times of common danger for Tyes of necessity usually bind no longer than one Side hath need of another Nor can any Unity of Covenant do it for that is forced in many places and I fear too many say as the Heathen did Juravi Lingua mentem injuratam gero I swore with my tongue but not with my heart Seeing then we cannot find out what kind of Unity is intended it is best for both parties to continue in the Societies to whom they belong till God shall convince them otherwise provided they do not put out their light and sin against their Consciences nor neglect any opportunity better to inform their Judgments But there is one kind of Unity yet behind and that is the unity of Affections and if you mean this I am willing to joyn issue with you and in this I cannot but blame the whole generation of Professors who are greatly faulty in this matter For my own part I know the shadows of the everlasting Evening are upon me and am every day walking
command expresly notes the time age and sex The Levitical and Typical Holiness in Abraham's Houshold whether natural or adopted included not Regeneration nor heart cleanness which is our holiness land fruit and trees were holy in a typical consideration when Circumcision was predicated of Trees as well as Men Lev. 9.23 And for us to affirm that Trees ought to be now baptized as they were then reputed to be Circumcised is a wild way of reasoning And therefore since things become Ordinances to us by vertue of a word of institution and no such word is found to make out that Baptism succeeds Circumcision in its room place and use we think it safe to be sober and advance no further than the Scripture guides And to make Circumcision institutive of Baptism is to send us to School to the Law and that Old first vanishing Covenant as it is stiled Heb. 8. as if the Law-giver in the New-Testament had not by a positive institution establisht his Ordinances there nor left us any Warrant for our Gospel-Duties without that retrogression to Moses and assimilating them to the Paedagogy and similitude of Types So that these things being found meer mistakes on Mr. Whiston's side we may conclude in his own words that they have no sure footing in the Covenant for the baptizing of Infants He saith page 81. The Covenant Gen. 17.7 was made with Abraham in both capacities viz. as a Natural and Spiritual Father What then This is a meer Ignoratio Elenchi and Mr. W. has a peculiar Talent to prove that which is not deny'd But to this I have spoke before He argues page 89. thus If Jacob and Esau in their Infant-state were heirs of the World through the righteousness of Faith when they had no personal faith then the Infant-seed of Believers may be so too But Ergo the Text he grounds upon is Heb. 11.9 dwelling in Tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob heirs with him of the same Promise The vanity of which consequence will appear if you consider 1. That there is nothing in that Text to countenance his assertion We grant Isaac and Jacob were heirs of the same Promise as well in respect of Gods Covenant with their Father Abraham and his Seed as their own personal faith when they came to years but that it should follow that all the Carnal Seed of Believers should be so too is that that needs proof and we deny 2. I humbly conceive That to be heirs of the world through the righteousness of faith and yet have no personal faith as he words it is meer contradiction and non sense 3. The promise to which Isaac and Jacob were heirs is That the Messiah should come of their Loins according to the Flesh and how that being already fulfilled can be applicable to the children of believers I cannot tell nor Mr. Whiston neither Therefore his Syllogism is vain and empty He proceeds pag. 93. To demand Whether there be any Original Sin If so how came any Infants to be saved unless through the righteousness of faith viz. Gods non imputation of guilt to them c. Now says he if they are capable of the righteousness of faith why may they not have that righteousness sealed to them by an outward and visible sign To wave many things that may be said to shew the childishness of the Quaere we say The same reason may be urged for Vnbelievers children for if they be capable of the grace and mercy of Christ in order to their salvation viz. non imputing sin and imputing the righteousness of Christ to them as well as the children of Believers then at your rate of reasoning they have as good right to the outward visible Sign If you deny the former you impeach the free grace of Christ and have little of Christian Charity If you grant it your Position's overthrown In pag. 101. he tells us if we 'll believe him That Circumcision was administred to the Adult considered as believers Here I confess I do not understand what he means by Believers I thought the term Believer had not been used to have been appropriated to any person but in respect to Christ viz. Such as had some knowledge of and believed in the Messiah to come or already come Otherwise sueh of the Ethnicks who believe a Deity but not a Redeemer must needs be saved I am sure the Jews are accounted Vnbelievers to this day because they reject Christ which could not be if their admission to Circumcision and to be Members of the Commonwealth and the Church of Old had been upon the account of faith So that there is no truth in this position for it doth not appear that the Proselytes or any others were informed of the Messiah before they were circumcised or that they gave any testimony of their belief in him but only that they owned the God of Israel to be the true God and were willing to be joyned to that Common-wealth And Mr. W. knows that that is not sufficient now there must be saith in Christ else no believer But what would he conclude from hence Suppose the Adult that were circumcised were eonsidered as Believers if he say So all the Adult that are baptized are to be so considered which is the most natural inference that can be drawn hence we are agreed But I perceive the pains he takes here is to make way for that absurd Position he is now coming to and which I conceive he is the Protoplast of pag. 116. That Circumcision was administred to the Jewish infants considered as the seed of Believers By the way I wonder the man will trouble himself so much about Circumcision when he professes so gravely pag. 75. That he pleads not for Baptism from any Analogy with it Which would make one suspect that he is apt to forget himself or that he thinks we 'll believe any thing so soon as he pronounces his Magisterial Thus I say it c. But let 's hear how he proves it Why says he because the Adult that were circumcised were considered as the seed of Believers A worthy proof indeed but 't is all we are like to have He takes it for granted it seems that the Adult were circumcised as Believers and grounds his Argument upon it as his Medium But Logicians will tell him that such a way of Argumentation is but a silly Petitio Principii or begging the question But in order to a further and more particular satisfaction I offer these Considerations 1. That the Congregrative Body of the People or Jewish Males were Circumcised in their Infancy pursuant to the Command of God being else to be cut off from his people Gen. 17.14 and therefore this Argument being grounded upon a false Hypothesis will vanish Besides it is a non-sequitur for will it follow That if the Adult were circumcised upon their own faith which is but begg'd too therefore Infants were circumcised upon the faith of others 2. All that the Scripture mentions
the whole law Secondly God promised to be a God to Abraham and his spiritual seed such as walk in his steps that is believers whether Jews or Gentiles in giving unto them an eternal inheritance Heb. 9.15 incorruptible and undefiled that fadeth not away purchased by the blood of Jesus and reseved for them in heaven of which the earthly inheritance in the land of Canaan was but a type So there is a twofold seed of Abraham a fleshly and a spiritual typed out by Ishmael and Isaac and a two-fold inheritance an earthly and a heavenly But the heavenly inheritance was not given to the fleshy seed but only in Types offered to them and confirmed to the spiritual seed who are therefore called the heirs of promise Heb. 6.17 Neither was the Covenant made with Abraham a pure Gospel Covenant but a mixt Covenant consisting partly of promises of temporal blessings of which Isaac who is said to be born by promise was the true and proper heir And partly of promises of spiritual blessings of an heavenly inheritance and of these Jesus Christ was the true her and Antitypical Isaac for as Ishmael the child of the flesh had no right with Isaac in the outward Typical promise so Isaac himself by vertue of his fleshly descent had no right nor Interest in the heavenly inheritance and Gospel priviledges Rom. 9.7 any otherwise then he came to have an interest in Christ And therefore we find the Apostle in Gal. 3.16 expounding the word of promise i. e. I will be a God to thee and thy seed sheweth that the Gos-promises of Abrahams Covenant were not made to any ones fleshly seed no not with the meer fleshly seed of believing Abraham himself but the promises did all run to Christ the inheriting seed to whom they were made and when Christ was come they all center in him see and consider the text Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made he saith not to seeds as of many but as of one and to thy seed which is Christ to Isaac in the type but to Christ in the Antitype and in him are all the promises yea and Amen Having thus followed the promises down along from Abraham to Christ and found them all to center in him let us now see to whom they came forth again And it is not to any ones fleshly seed whatever but from Christ they all flow forth again to believers and only to believers and that by vertue of their union with Christ and therefore says the Apostle If ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise for there is no other way to partake of the promise but by faith in Christ Gal. 3.22 The Scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise by the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe where two things are observable first to whom the promise is given viz. to them that believe secondly by what means they come to partake of them and that is by the faith of Christ so in verse the 26. you are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ and if ye be Christs that is by faith then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise So then it seems all promises run to Christ and from him flow forth again only to believers Which being impartially considered is a full answer to all Arguments drawn from the Covenants and the promise made to Abraham and certainly and unavoidably cuts off Infants Church membership in the days of the Gospel unlesse the Poedobaptists can finde a new institution for it But for a further illustration of this and that you may see that this is not my opinion alone I shall present you with some select passages that the judicious and eminent divine Dr Owen hath upon this subject it is in his Exercitations upon the Epistle to the Hebrews tom 1. p. 55. c. to which the Reader is referred which by another hand may be shortly improved In the mean time take these few instances Two Priviledges did God grant unto Abraham upon his separation to a special interest in the old promise and Covenant First that according to the flesh he should be the father of the Messiah the promised seed who was the very life of the Covenant the fountain and cause of all the blessings contained in it That this Priviledge was temporary having a limited season time and end appointed unto it the very nature of the thing it self doth demonstrate For upon this actual exhibition in the flesh it was to cease In pursuit hereof were his posterity separated from the rest of the world and preserved a peculiar people that through them the promised seed might be brought forth in the fulnesse of time and be of them according unto the flesh Rom. 9.8 Secondly together will this he had also another priviledge granted unto him namely that his saith whereby he was personally interested in the Covenant should be the pattern of the faith of the Church in all generations and that none should ever come to be a member of it or a sharer in its blessings but by the same faith that he had fixed on the seed that was in the promise to be brought forth from him in the world On the account of this Priviledge he became the father of all them that do believe for they that are of the faith the same aere the children of Abraham Gal. 3.7 Rom. 4.11 as also heirs of the world Rom. 4.13 in that all that should believe throughout the world being thereby implanted into the Covenant made with him should become his spiritual children Answerable unto this twofold end of the separation of Abraham there was a double seed alloâ—â—ed unto him A seed according to the flesh separated to the bringing forth of the Messiah according to the flesh and a seed according to the promise that is such as by faith have an Interest in the promise or all the elect of God Not that these two seeds were always subjectively divers so that the seed separated to the bringing forth of the Messiah in the flesh should neither in whole or in part be also the seed according to the promise or on the contrary that the seed according to the promise should none of it be his seed after the flesh Our Apostle declares the contrary in the instancos of Isaac and Jacob with the remnant of Israel that shall be saved Chap. 9.10.11 But sometimes the same seed came under diverse considerations being the seed of Abraham both according to the flesh and promise and sometimes the seed it self was divers those according to the flesh being not of the promise and so on the contrary Thus Isaac and Jacob were the seed of Abraham according unto the flesh separated unto the bringing forth of the Messiah after the flesh because they were his carnal Posterity and they were also the seed of the promise because by their own personal
faith they were Interessed in the Covenant of Abraham their father Multitudes afterwards were of the carnal seed of Abraham and of the number of People separated to bring forth the Messiah in the flesh and yet were not of the seed according to the promise nor interested in the spiritual blessings of the Covenant because they did not personally believe as our Apostle declares Chap. 4. of his Epistle And many afterwards who were not of the carnal seed of Abraham nor interested in the priviledge of bringing forth the Messiah in the flesh were yet designed to be made his spiritual seed by Faith that in them he might become heir of the world and all Nations of the Earth be blessed in him Now it is evident that it is the second Priviledge and spiritual seed wherein the Church to whom the Promises are made is founded and whereof it doth consist namely in them who by faith are interested in the Covenant of Abraham whether they be of the carnal seed or no. And herein lay the great mistake of the Jews of old wherein they are followed by their Posterity unto this day They thought no more was needful to interest them in the Covenant of Abraham but that they were his seed according to the flesh and they constantly pleaded the latter Priviledge as the ground and reason of the former It is true they were the children of Abraham according to the flesh but on that account they can have no other Priviledge then Abraham had in the flesh himself And this was as we have shewed that he should be set apart as a special Channel through whose loins God would derive the promised seed into the world In like manner were they separated to be a peculiar people as his Posterity from among whom he should be so brought forth That this separation and priviledge were to cease when the end of it was accomplished and the Messiah exhibited the very nature of the thing declares For to what purpose should it be continued when that was fully effected whereunto it was designed but they would extend this priviledge and mix it with the other contending that because they were the children of Abraham according to the flesh the whole blessing and Covenant of Abraham belonged unto them But as our Saviour proved that in the latter sense they were not the children of Abraham because they did not the works of Abraham so as our Apostle plainly demonstrates Rom. 4.9.10.11 Chapters Gal. 3.4 Chap. That those of them who had not the faith of Abraham had no interest in his blessings and Covenant seeing therefore that their other priviledge was come to an end with all the Carnal ordinances that attended it by the actual coming of the Messiah whereunto they were subservient if they did not by faith in the promised seed attain an Interest in this of the spiritual blessing it is evident that they could on no account be considered as actually sharers in the Covenant of God We have seen then that Abraham on the account of his faith and not of his separation according to the flesh was the father of all that believe and heir of the world And in the Covenant made with him as to that which concerns not the bringing forth of the promised seed according to the flesh but as unto faith therein and in the work of redemption to be performed thereby lyes the foundation of the Church in all ages Wheresoever this Covenant is and with whomsoever it is established with them is the Church unto whom all the promises and Priviledges of the Church do belong Hence it was that at the coming of the Messiah there was not one Church taken away and another set up in the room thereof but the Church continued the same in those that were the children of Abraham according to the faith The Christan Church is not another Church but the very same that was before the coming of Christ having the same faith with it and interested in the same Covenant It is true the former Carnal Priviledges of Abraham and his Posterity expiring on the grounds before mentioned the Ordinances of worship which were suited thereunto did necessarily cease also And this cast the Jews into great perplexityes and proved the last tryal that God made of them For whereas both these namely the carnal and spiritual Priviledges of Abrahams Covenant had been carried on together in a mixed way for many generations coming now to be separated and a tryal to be made Mal. 3 who of the Jews had Interest in both who in one only those who had only the Carnal priviledge of being children of Abraham according to the flesh contended for a share on that single account in the other also that is in all the Promises annexed unto the Covenant But the foundation of their plea was taken away and the Church unto which the promises belong remained with them that were heirs of Abrahams faith only It remains then that the Church founded in the Covenant and unto which all the promises did and do belong abode at the coming of Christ and doth abide ever since in and among those who are the children of Abraham by faith And a little further he saith No individual person hath any interest in the promises but by vertue of his membership with the Church which is and always was one and the same with whomsoever it remains the promises are theirs and that Not by application or Analogie but directly and properly The Church unto whom all the promises belong are only those who are heirs of Abrahams Faith believing as he did and thereby interested in the Covenant So far this learned man whose words need no comment nor need we draw any inference but recite his bare words which are both perspicuous and Orthodox clearly and fully evidencing our position That believers only are the children of Abraham and none but such have an Interest in the Covenant made with him which unavoidably excludes infants from Gospel-Ordinances untill they believe in their own persons And then and not before they may lay a just claim that they are Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise And if our opponents think Dr. O. injured as they are apt to clamour to that purpose for our improvement of his words to our advantage he being for Poedobaptism we say that they are at liberty to reconcile his words to his practice if they can to do which they have need of a considerable stock but they are seldome unfurnisht of artifice and distinction to help at this dead lift The Dr. treating about the nature of the Covenant and promises made to Abraham and perhaps forgetting Infant-Baptism opens and expounds them with such spirituality and Orthodoxy as leaves no room for Infant Baptism but excludes it beyond all possibility of reconciliation unless it can be proved that they viz. Infants are heirs of Abrahams faith believing as he did and that the promises are theirs not by application or Analogie
were now altered and the Church it self removed For before the Gospel came they stood members of the old Church though as much unbelievers for many generations as they were when they were broken off and why did not their unbelief break them off before But now Abrahams Church state is at an end and all the priviledges and immunities cease the Jewish Church must give way to the Gospel Church the Messiah being come and about to build him a new house into which none are of right to enter but profest believers and the Jews not believing now in that saviour who has the substance of the shadows and which all their types pointed out and whom all those ordinances signified yea for whose sake they did enjoy their ordinances and to which end were committed unto them the oracles of God the giving of the law and the promises yea therefore was their seed counted holy to point out and keep them in memory of that holy child Jesus that was to come as the Anti-type of all these things For the old house or Jewish Church was not intended to abide for ever but to the time of reformation then the law must be changed the priesthood chang'd the priviledges and ordinances chang'd the seed chang'd yea the Covenant chang'd which they not believing being willing to abide in the old house still and to remain Churchmembers upon a meer fleshly and natural birth still crying out Abraham is our father and we are his seed and are free and were never in bondage and here it seems they are resolved to stand wherefore they were broken off and that whether they would or not by reason of their unbelief that is because they would not believe that the old Covenant and all the priviledges thereof were ended and the substance come the Lord Jesus the Antitype of their types The second thing is from what they were broken off I answer From all the glory they boasted so much of as the Apostle sayes thou art called a Jew and makest thy boast of God and trustest in the law but all these things are now gone yea the Typical Adoption the glory and the Covenants the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises all their birth-priviledges Church membership and ordinances which continued but till the time of reformation yea from that Covenant which had also ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary which is now all abolished as you see Heb. 9.1.2.3.4 c. And all because they did not believe in him who was the Antitype and substance of all their shadows but were willing to abide in the old house still and loath to lose their outward priviledges their worldly sanctuary their ordinances and Church membership upon the account of Abrahams faith for it was indeed an easy service a flesh pleasing religion if salvation could have been obtained by it notwithstanding the bondage and laboriousness of some services yet how willing would the carnal Jew have born all if he might have been saved by the faith of another rather then to lose all the righteousness of the law and to count his circumcision and Church membership as dung to winn Christ as Paul did when converted and be found in him only not having his own righteousnesse which is of the law but that which is by faith in Jesus Christ Thus you see why the Jews ars broken off and from what But they are not all broken off from the Gospel Covenant for there is yet a remnant according to the election of grace and as many of them as believe and repent of their sins shall be admitted to the more easy and more excellent priviledges of the Gospel Church membership and ordinances and shall be a pillar in the Temple of God and shall go no more out Besides we see many of the Jews have been converted and shall be more generally in the later days And if you say May not the children of the Jews be broken off from the Gospel Covenant I answer They are no more broken off then the children of the Gentiles for those that dye in infancy as many as belong to the election of grace shall be saved if they live to years of discretion and then believe they shall be saved as soon as any children of believing gentiles But if the children of the Jews be broken off from the Gospel Covenant it is either because of their parents unbelief or their own personal unbelief If it be meerly their parents unbelief then if any do believe in their own persons they cannot be admitted because of their parents unbelief for that which cuts them off will keep them off and so the parents unbelief keeps the children from the Gospel Covenant and so is the cause of their damnation for causa causae est causa causati But where do we finde that children shall be damn'd for the sins of their parents the Scripture saith the soul that sins shall dye And if you say the Jews unbelief doth not keep their children from the Covenant of grace but only from the administrations of it as Baptism c. I answer that according to your principles it amounts to the same thing for you say out of the Church no salvation But if you say their parents unbelief keeps them out of the Church only during their infancy when they come to years if they believe they may be admitted Then it will follow that such children of the Jews yea of all unbelievers that dye in infancy are in a miserable condition their case is deplorable for their parents secundum te can have no hopes of their salvation Poor souls had you lived a while longer you had been in the Covenant of grace and enjoy'd the priviledges thereof but meerly because of your parents unbelief you are cut off while you are infants But if this be true parents have cause to mourn to the breaking of their loynes when their children dye But David was of another mind who when his child dyed rejoyced though it dyed on the seventh day the day before circumsion and that not without hopes of its good estate as learned men conceive for he said I shall go to that but that shall not return to me which is not meant only of going to the grave but to a state of happynesse for our going barely to the grave is no cause of comfort Poed But we are told that Circumcision was a great priviledge as the Apostle saith Rom. 3.1 What advantage is there of Circumcision much every way and therefore to be broken off was their misery Bap. It s true the Apostle propounds that question what profit is there of Circumcision his meaning is that there was a time when they had advantage by circumcision and the main was that Christ should come of their flesh of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came But this and all other advantages are ceased and now it is a mercy rather then a misery though they thought otherwise to
their loyns 2. It did inright them to the land of Canaan none of which we can expect 3. By Circumcision you say they were accounted Gods people and this is the only thing you mean But Is it so great a priviledge to have the name without the nature the shadow without the substance We use to count that a misery rather then a mercy and Sardis is blamed for having a name to live and was dead Is it any benefit for a man to be counted rich when he is poor we see Naomies modesty is commended who would not own the shadow without the substance call me no more Naomi but call me Marah But in the next place you say infants unbaptiz'd lose some priviledge I say some things that were counted priviledges are lost for it was a priviledge that all the sons of the priests were born Priests but it is not so now But further It s you your selves make your children lose a priviledge since the coming of Christ and so make the new Covenant narrower then the old And that because the faith of a believing parent as you say admits only your immediate children to Church membership and Baptism but as to your childrens children they have no benefit by your faith no admittance to Ordinances upon your account but it was otherwise of old the Covenant of circumcision and the priviledges of Church membership was not only to the next generation flowing from Abraham but to his seed after him in their generations Gen. 17.7 and that not only to the third and fourth generation but to Christs time they enjoyed the priviledges of the Covenant by vertue of Abrahams faith But now you have narrowed the Gospel dispensation for you allow Baptism to none but your immediate seed by vertue of the parents faith your childrens children must come in upon another account their parents must be actual believers or else no admittance But what reason you have for so doing I know not yea I chalenge any man to give me a substantial ground why the faith of a believer may not now as well inright his childrens children to the 3d 4th generation to Church-membership and Baptism as the faith of Abraham did inright his seed in their generations to the priviledges of the old Covenant Will you say Abraham was a famous believer and therefore had this priviledge above others These are indeed your sayings but must we believe it therefore where is it so said or what necessary consequence is there from any Scripture to enforce belief that Abrahams personal faith shall inright him and his seed in their generations But a believers faith in the days of the Gospel though in some respect more excellent then that of Abraham viz. in reference to the Messiah already come and Redemption compleated shall inright only his immediate children such as are born of his loynes so that you make the Gospel dispensation narrower then that of the law And whereas you say if believers children are not baptized they have no priviledge above the children of heathens I answer That had God so appointed that believers children should have been baptized and unbelievers children should not you had ground then to consider it as a priviledge but seeing there is no institution you cannot say they are denyed a priviledge but if it be a priviledge then according to your practise you run a great hazard of denying Baptism to such to whom it doth belong For if I should ask you what sort of believers they are whose children have a right to Baptism here you would be at a losse and must needs say such only whom you count believers as your practise evidently proves but it was not so of old it was certainly known what children had a right to Circumcision and what had not but if you do as you do baptize the children only of such parents as you count believers then you may leave out many thousands of children that have as great a right to it as yours For there are no persons called by the name of Christians but do count themselves believers yea doubtlesse there are many believers amongst them to whose children you deny Baptism for Let it be considered how many sorts there are who count themselves believers 1. The Papists have their believers and they are such as own Christ to be the son of God and believe all the Articles of the Church of Rome c. amongst whom surely God hath some people for it is said come out of her my people 2. The Episcopalians have their believers that is such whom they count so and they are such that believe that Christ is the son of God that he dyed for sinners and that whoever believes in him shall be saved and so the whole nation owning and professing the faith of Christ they baptize all their children amongst whom there are many thousand real believers and so their children have as much right to Baptism as yours 3. The Presbyterians have their believers and they are such that is so accounted who own the faith of Christ professe regeneration and are morally righteous in their lives and conversations 4. The Independents have their believers and they are such who own the faith of Christ make a personal manifestation of their faith and repentance and so are enchurcht and become members by a Covenant of some particular congregations Now pray tell me which of all these sorts of believers have right to have their children baptized If you say all of them then you contradict your own practise it being famously known that some of you will baptize none but them of your own party But if you say those children only have right to Baptism whose parents we count believers then you run a hazard of denying Baptism to the children of diverse whose parents are as true believers as your selves and so deny them the priviledges of the Covenant and in as much as in you lyes occasion their damnation as you use to tell the Baptist And if you say so the Baptists themselves may keep persons from Baptism to whom of right it doth belong and so are equally guilty I answer that cannot be for our principles are that no person hath right to Baptism but he that desires it upon the profession of his faith and repentance to such a person we do not deny it unlesse his profession be contradicted by an unholy life By all which it appears 1. That you practically deny the priviledge of Baptism to many that have as real a right to it as your selves 2. That you count the children of diverse true believers to be in no better condition then heathens 3. You do extreamly narrow the Gospel dispensation a fault you use though unjustly to charge the Baptists with and so make the priviledges of the Gospel lesse then the priviledges of the law for whereas of old all the seed of Abraham all his numerous posterity were circumcis'd and that whether their parents believed or not there
holy child Jesus 2. It was a type of the holyness of all Abrahams spiritual seed under the Gospel true believers who are made holy by believing in Christ Poed But we have heard that when the Jews were broken off their natural Children were broken off with them so when the Gentiles are grafted in their Children are grafted in with them Bap. You have heard that the children of the unbelieving Jews was not so broken off from the Gospel Church and covenant and excluded with their parents unbelief for if any of the children of the unbelieving Jews when they come to years and children when at years are the seed of their parents I hope if I say those unbelieving Jews children do believe the promise is so made to them that their parents unbelief cannot exclude them but if when at years they do not believe the promise is so made to believers and their seed as that the parents faith avails no further then to the ingrafting of himself but he cannot at all entitle his natural seed by his single faith to the Gospel Covenant or ordinances For if it be otherwise then the natural seed of those thousands of Jews that were converted in the primitive times have a birth priviledge and are holy to this day upon which they may claim admittance unto baptism as well as any for they may plead as you do and say Baptism is our right we are the posterity of those believing Jews mentioned Act. 2. And if the first fruits be holy so â—s the lump if the root be holy so are the branches Now we are the lump of these holy first fruits and the branches of the holy root yet for all this I believe you would not Baptize them unlesse they did believe in their own persons By which you do no lesse then grant what we contend for that the faith of Ancestors gives no right to their posterity to stand at all in the Gospel Church and Covenant but faith in the particular persons So that the Jews were broken off by unbelief and thou and thine O believing Gentile must stand by faith Yet not thy seed by thy faith but thou thy self by thine and they by their own faith Faith is that by which thou standing and not thy seed hast right to stand in the Church and not they But if thy seed have faith and thou hast none they have right to stand in the Church and thou shalt be kept out By which it appears that the root may be holy in a Gospel sence and not the branches and the branches may be holy and not the root so that your consequence from Rom. 11.16 if the root be holy so are the branches is false and the whole Argument vain and empty And if you still say for nothing will satisfy some persons that the natural seed may be counted holy with a denominative and dedicative holynesse I answer 1. That then the first born of every creature both of man beast is still to be called and counted holy for these were sanctifyed and holy by dedication as well as the seed Sanctify unto me all the first born of every creature both of man and beast they are still to be called and counted holy for these were sanctifyed and holy by dedication as well as the seed See Exod. 13.2 Sanctify unto me all the first born whatsoever openeth the womb amongst the children of Israel both of man and beast it is mine So that you may as well dedicate the first born still and count them holyer then the rest yea and that with better warrant then you can count the seed of believers only holy because as you say you dedicate them to God there being an inâ—titution for the first but none for the last For God no where saith that believers shall sanctify all their natural seed whatsoever openeth the womb for it is mine 2ly If the seed be to be accounted holy with a dedicative holynesse then you may as well count all things holy which were dedicated of old as Temples Altars Tables Garments Tapers Candlesticks yea the very windows Fonts Rails Copes Surplices c. But this you deny and have laboured hard both by pen and pulpit to make these holy things unholy Though those that own this dedicative holynesse still have more to say for Infant-Baptism then you who disown it in all things else but in the natural seed But pray Sirs let me ask you a few questions 1. Si aliquando quare non nunc If so once why not now If under the law why not under the Gospel The same question you put to us when we deny any birth holynesse in your fleshly seed So we say concerning Temples Altars Garments c. Si aliquando quare non nunc If so of old why not now 2ly Si aliquid quare non quicquid If any thing holy with a dedicative ceremonial holynesse why not every thing yea quare non aequaliter if you will Judaize why not in every thing alike as it was of old but I may expect an answer ad Gracas Calendas Poed But Sir may not Infants be capable of the main and principal end of Baptism which our Ministers tells us is the washing away our sins by the blood of Christ If so why may they not then be baptized Bap. There are not wanting learned men that are of another opinion and say that the blood of Christ is not the main thing signified in Baptism but that Baptism is a signe of our Regeneration and that is the principal end of Baptism And herein I will give you the opinion of Judicious and learned Mr. Mede upon that text Tit. 3.5 By the washing of Water and renewing of the holy Ghost and shall beg the Readers patience to read his entire sence upon that text He saith thus The words as it is easy to conceive upon the first hearing are spoken of Baptism of which I intend not by this choice to make any full or accurate â—ractation but only to acquaint you with my thoughts concerning two particulars therein one from what propriety analogy or use of water the washing therewith was instituted for a signe of new birth according as it is here called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washing of Regeneration The other what is the Countertype or thing which the water figureth in this Sacrament I will begin with the last first because the knowledge thereof must be supposed for the explication and more distinct understanding of the other In every Sacrament as ye well know there is the outward Symbol or signe res terrena and the signatum figured and represented thereby res Caelestis In this of Baptism the signe or res terrena is washing with water the question is what is the signatum the iâ—visible and celestial thing which answers thereunto In our Catechetical explications of this mystery it is wont to be affirmed to be the blood of Christ that as water wâ—sheth away the filth of the body
in as much as he that hath builded the house hath more honour then the house Moses was faithful as a servant but Christ as a son over his own house whose house are we if we hold fast the confidence c. where the servants are also described they are belivers not infants hence they are also called living stones and a spiritual house 1 Pet. 2.3 And that none but such are of this houshold appears in that Christ the great Master of this house is compared to a king travelling into a far Country who called his servants all his servants and delivered unto them his goods that is Certain Talents to improve Math. 25.14 15. which cannot be supposed to be delivered to infants while they want the use of reason for these â—alents are presently to be improv'd and laid out not laid up So again Christ is compared to a house-keeper who made a great supper and invited his guests but they were not infants because the first that were invited made excuses The next are compeld to come in which supposes an unwillingness in the parties and that they were persons capable to consent or deny The summe of all is that the old house the Jewish Church with all the appurtenances and priviledges of it is pulled down and a new one built into which infants are not admitted because not invited nor appointed by any law They were of the houshold of old but it was by a positive law shew us the like now or you say nothing Sure I am there is no institution that makes infants now fellow Citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God Neither are they so to be accounted till they believe and are able to do service in the house And if you say that amongst men infants are counted of the houshold though they can do no service I answer that comparison does not run upon four feet it doth not follow that because we count our infants of our family therefore they are to be accounted members of Gods family the Gospel Church unless God by any institution had made them so The houshold of God is called the houshold of faith do good unto all especially the houshold of faith or a house consisting of believers now unless you prove your infants to be believers they are not of this house For all the servants here must be believers either really or Historically and professedly which infants cannot be And it will not help you to say the Church was or may be called the houshould of faith synecdochically from the greatest part for it is evident all the materialls of the first Churches were adult persons and professed believers as appears by the narrative we have in the Acts of the Apostles the direction of all the Epistles and divers Scriptures Besides it may so happen that the infants may be the greatest part of a Congregation and then where is your houshold of faith Poed But Mr. Wills tells us that Mr. Baxter saith That Infant Church membership did take place as an ordinance of God before Circumcision was enjoyned or the Ceremonial law instituted and why then should it cease with it It was no part of the typical administration but a moral institution of God even from the beginning of the world God ever made a distinction between the seed of the faithful and the seed of the wicked as visibly belonging to several kingdomes of God and of Satan Mal. 2.15 Therefore they are called a holy seed Wills pag. 54. Bap. Here is vox praeterea nihil 'T is true Mr. Baxter saith so but if it be warrant enough for Mr. Wills to believe it it is not for me It is strange of what authority some mens words are when they have got the estimation of Orthodox and pious and we have no great cause to wonder at the implicite faith of the Church of Rome when an ipse dixit from an English oracle commands such credit and vassals us to their raw and undigested dictates But let us examine this assertion He saith that Infant Church-membership did take place as an ordinance of God before Circumcision c. But where is that ordinance why are we not directed to some place of Scripture where we may find it Did God make Mr. Baxter of his Cabinet Councel and reveal it to him and no body else Or in what Ancient father did he find it Did any one ever say so before him 2. He saith that it was no part of the typical Administration but a moral institution of God c. I answer there hath been enough said to prove the fallacy and novelty of this position Therefore I referr you to what hath been written But he saith it is a moral institution We still demand where we shall find that institution or else wee 'l say Mr. Baxter is wise above what is written 3. He saith God ever made a distinction between the seed of the faithful and the seed of the wicked But what distinction Did God single them out and separate them by any visible sign or character before the law of Circumcision It is evidently known he did not Or did God distinguish them by his providential care of them or provision for them more then others The Scripture is silent as to this also Or did God love them with a saving love more then the children of unbelievers This seems to be his meaning because of his next words as visibly belonging to several kingdoms of God and Satan But is it so Did all the children of believers from Adam to Abraham belong to the kingdom of God and all the children of unbelievers belong to the kingdom of the Devil If it be Mr. Baxters Divinity or M. Wills charity it shall be none of mine But he thinks to salve all with the word visibly But pray when the sons of God took the Daughters of men and all flesh had corcupted its ways to what kingdom did they belong Did not the seed of believers grow prophane and wicked and the seed of unbelievers pious and Godly as appears in divers even Abraham himself whose father was an Idolater as is probably supposed he himself being bred up in Idolatry But Mr. Baxter hath some Scripture for his warrant and it is Mal. 2.15 that he might seek a godly seed But he that can find infants Church-membership in this text and that the seed of believers did always belong visibly to the kingdom of God and all others to the kingdom of the Devil erit mihi magnus Apollo What though God says he that sâ—ught a godly feed therefore let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth implying that children born in lawful wedlock are this Godly seed Let none whether believer or unbeliever unless you hold that children of unbelivers may not be a godly seed But these are such Non sequiturs that it is in vain to spend further time about them So that the Morality of Infants Church-membership is a very fancy And that
true So that like a Tree his Book runs out into so many smaller Boughs and Twigs and layes it self out at large into such a train of Trivials so many littles to the purpose that he will find himself great store of small business that shall throw away so much of his precious time to read his Book The next thing I take notice of in his Book is his Answer to Mr. Danvers his Collections c. wherein the Reader will find so much Gall and Vinegar such a proud austere magisterial Spirit such scurrilous unchristian Language that it makes me amased and to question whether this be Mr. Baxter or his Coadjutor Mr. Wills But it seems they are both agreed in their unsavory Dialect Is this the man that Wrote so much for Love and Unity and would make the World believe that he is made up of nothing but Charity Suppose Mr. Danvers should be mistaken in some of his Collections had it nbt been better to have shewed him his mistakes in a Mild Christian and Brotherly way And if you say the offence was publique and therefore deserved a publique reproof Grant that also yet what need these peevish bitter and angry reflections Hath Mr. Baxter forgot that Scripture Gal. 6.1 If any man be overtaken in a fault ye that are spiritual restore such a one in the Spirit of meekness He contemptuously calls him Maj. Danvers a Souldier but why a Souldier I confess an Officer ought to be a Soldier but he was a Collonel as well as Mr. B. was a Chaplain and Mr. B. knows 't is not civil nor do Souldiers love to be retrograded no more than Chaplains Would he think it kindly done if he were dwindled from a Chaplain in Folio to a puny Curate in duodecimo I doubt his ambitious Humor would rather be Pope but I suppose he means that he was so once and perhaps it was when M. Baxter was Chaplain and surely it is the Chaplain's work with all mildness and gentleness to convince his Officers of any error But it 's like in those dayes he used better Language and accomodated himself to the humors of his Officers or else Fama mendax But perhaps hee 'll tell us he looks upon Mr. Danvers as a rigid Anabaptist whom with the Independents he condemns and censures as ignorant silly persons c. in his usual Civility not deserving the least grain of his Charity But what does the man mean do they separate from the Church of Rome so do's Mr. Baxter Do they separate from the Church of England so did Mr. Baxter as constituted by Episcopacy but what he does now is a hard question But I shall leave Mr. Danvers to vindicate himself Another thing notable is his 56 Articles of Faith that he supposes the Anabaptists and others must hold if they deny his Popish Positions in his Christian Directory c. It were no hard matter to Father many grosser absurdities upon Mr. Baxter were his raw and undigested Notions and erroneous principles noted that have past his Pen at several times for above these Twenty years But leaving his other mistakes it will be no Injury to tell you that one Article of Mr. Baxter's Faith is That all the Children all the numerous posterity of Vnbelievers yea of such Vnbelievers whose immediate Parents or Parent were not Enchurcht are all in the Kingdom of the Devil and necessarily damned Seeing he holds that the Children of Believers only are the Subjects of Baptism being born within the Covenant of Grace Children of God Heirs of Christ and inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven But if Mr. Baxter in these Fifty six Articles nay in most of his late Writings hath not more gratified the Papists and contributed to their Cause more than any English Protestant Divine ever did yea at once as much as in him lyes thrown away the Protestant Cause and as far as his Credit goes spoiled all that our Famous Champions have done I am much mistaken having hereby lai'd such stumbling blocks in the way of ordinary Christians far beyond the most crafty Jesuite that ever hath been amongst us He tells us he will Write no more but he hath a mighty Faith that will believe him I am of Mr. Bagshaw's mind who told him some time since when Mr. Baxter told him he would not answer him Mr. Bagshaw replyes I know you will not keep your word for your pride will put you upon Writing and your guilt will necessitate you to do it just in as unbecoming a manner as you have done for an ill Cause must be maintained by Calumny And then in a lusory way tells us That if these Children will after this baul and cry and wrangle and foul the House a savory Metaphor he is not bound to rock the Cradle and to make them clean From whence may it not follow 1. That Mr. Baxter owns the Anabaptists as his Children but whether instead of an indulgent Nurse he has not proved a cruel Step-mother let the World judge 2. That the Anabaptists are soul sweetly spoken and all the paines he hath taken in his Writings these Twenty years has been to clean them But whether he hath not cast more dirt and filth upon them and made them fouler than ever he found them is easie to be determined by any that reads his plain Scripture-proof c. The next thing I observe is How strenuonsly he strives to have the Fathers on his side and fearing he should lose the Argument from Antiquity we see how the sleepy Lyon's roused and roars like a Son of Thunder fearing the Old worn-out cause of Infant-Baptism should be routed and never rally again But he must know we are not so fond of the Fathers from the Third Century that being as Tully sayes Omissis fontibus consectari rivulos we believe Infant-Baptism is ancient and so are other Errors more antient but from the beginning it was not â—o But that which confirms me against this Fallacy of Infant-Baptism is that the first that mention it do also mention the Erroneous Grounds upon which it was practised viz. for the washing away Original Sin for the conferring of Grace and absolute necessity thereof to Salvation c. But let Mr. Baxter shew us if he can that any of the Fathers speaks of Infant-Baptism as to be performed upon the grounds he and others in this Land have practiced it i. e. the Child 's being in the Covenant of Grace by vertue of both or one of the Parents personally manifesting his Faith and Repentance and being an Enchurched Member of some Congregation c. Here I dare say Mr. Baxter has none of the Fathets of his side now his Orthodox Fathers are Heterodox but is it not strange that if Infant-Baptism were an Apostolical Tradition as divers affirmed and some still dream that the Apostles had not delivered the true grounds upon which it should be practiced as well as the practice it self Or did these Holy Fathers only keep the
will be very willing to receive the same measure they give and rest satisfied in this that the Countermand to Circumcise Infants is a Consequential and Virtual Countermand to Baptize them By all which it appears that Infant-Church membership is repealed because the same Law that gave being to it is repealed And whether this be not as plain yea plainer Scripture-proof as any Mr. B. hath in his Book so Intituled is left to the judgement of the Considerate and Impartial Reader Now he comes to it and promises to direct us where those other Revelations of Gods will are that Infants should be Baptized And reading on very attentively and going with patience through his preambular Extravagancies and wide fetches he brings me at last to the saying of Peter to the Jews The promise is to you and your Children and the words of Paul to a Gentile Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be Saved and thy House Which put together is his other Revelation he brags so much of for Infant-Baptism Answ Now we are to encounter with all his strength at once therefore let us try the force of this mighty Argument And 1. If he can spell such a meaning out of it 't is more than we can do and if he had a mind to be understood he should express himself in more familiar terms As what this promise was 2. Whether absolute or conditional 3. How Extensive But since he hath left us in the dark let us a little examine it 1. What this promise is And we say that it must be either of some Temporal Blessing or the Holy Spirit as Ephes 1.13 in this World or Life and Salvation hereafter The two first Mr. Whiston will not pretend to because they have no reference to his Baptism It is the last then viz. the promise of Life and Salvation he insists upon as p. 34. And then the words of Peter will run thus the promise of Life and Salvation is to you Jews and your Children and to as many as are afar off which all agree to be the Gentiles and as many as the Lord your God shall call iâ—definitely without distinction whether Jew or Gentile Now this promise so paraphrased is either Absolute or Conditional If absolute then all Jews Gentiles and their Children are Saved whether they Believe or not If you understand it conditionally viz. that they first profess Faith in the Messiah and receive him as their Saviour then we are agreed And if you say It is Conditional to the Adult not their Seed I answer Then it must be absolute to the Seed if so then all their Seed must needs be Saved And then How come so many of them to be so vile and wicked if you say 't is only to some then it must follow that some Believers Children ought only to be Baptized viz. the Elect but 't is impossible to assign which are Elect and which non Elect therefore uncertain from that ground which ought and which ought not to be Baptized And if you say the Covenant of Grace or promise of Life and Salvation be made to Believers Seed only and consequently they only have right to Baptism then it will follow that the Church is not to be raised out of the Posterity of Unbelievers which is absurd for the Gospel is to be Preached to gather in the Elect viz. such as are in the Covenant of Grace But if the Children of Believers only are in the Covenant of Grace then to what purpose is the Gospel preached to the Posterity of Unbelievers unless it be to harden them for suppose a Nation of Indians whose Parents were all Heathens and who therefore according to your Opinion with their present Children are not in the Covenant of Grace Will you Preach to them If you do I ask you to what purpose you 'll say To bring them into the Covenant of Grace Then it seems there are two wayes to come into the Covenant of Grace one by being the Natural Child of a Believer the other by Actual Faith But this is ridiculous for there is no being in the Covenant of Grace but by Election on Gods part and actual Faith on Mans part And if you still say That Believers Infants only are in the visible Covenant of Grace and all the Seed of Unbelievers excluded then I demand Whether you do not make two Covenants of Grace Visible and Invisible But if you deny that for 't is hard to know where to find you and say your Children are Visibly in the Covenant of Grace when others are not I Answer you delude us very often with the word Visible for sometimes your Infants are sometimes they are not in the Covenant visibly so that this term is as ambiguous and mystical as words of Cabal 2. But if you mean by Visibly that they are plainly and manifestly obvious to the view of all persons that are capable of seeing in the Covenant then we deny your Visibility And if you mean by Visible that they are in the Covenant as far as you can judg since you know nothing to the contrary We say the same of Unbelievers Infants for they may be in the Covenant for any thing we know nothing appearing in their Infancy to the contrary and Praesumere unum quemque bonum nisi constet de malo is your own Rule 3. If by Visibly you understand outwardly or in the outward part of the Covenant which is Baptism we answer That Baptism is no more the outward part of the Covenant than the Purse that contains money is the outward part of the money or the Conduit the outward part of the Water or Aarons Pot that held the Manna the outward part of the Manna c. For Baptism is a Symbol of Regeneration viz. Faith Repentance Self-denial c. and to affirm that it is the outward part of the Covenant is a very Fancy and meer Chimaera So that you see what a Heap of irregular Jarrings and Absurdities follow the Assertion that the Believers Carnal Seed as such are to inherit this promise And now I am come to the next consideration which is The extensiveness of this promise and this is determined in the Text it is to all that are afar off equal to the Posterity of Abraham which spoils the pretence from the Birth priviledge But what puts the matter out of doubt is the next phrase Even as many as the Lord your God shall call which expounds the former and proves that calling or Regeneration is the condition of the promise and that only such as are called of Jew Gentile and their Children are Inheritors of it according to Gal. 3.29 As to that expression Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be Saved and thy House Is it Mr. Whiston's meaning that all in the House Servants Children c. are Saved though Unconverted by the Faith of the Master but that 's a conclusion he durst not stand by Or is that promise of Salvation given
the same to Abraham's Spiritual Seed in and through all Generations from him to us viz. such as Believed as he did 2. In respect to Temporal blessings and so it was peculiar to his Natural and Spiritual Seed during the Old Testament-dispensation and Typical administrations and in that respect it is not the same Believers being now under the former not the later As Abraham is considered under the notion of a double Father-hood so there must be a double Son-ship to answer that Relation the Jews were his Sons in one capacity namely a Carnal Generation of which they were wont to bragg as appears by the reproof John gave them Mat. 3.9 Think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father and in the other capacity all Believers whether Jew or Gentile are his children This is evidenced Rom. 9.6 7 8. They are not all Israel that are of Israel they which are the children of the flesh these are not the children of God c. and v. 7. shews us that their Carnal Generation gives not the true notion of Son-ship The Jew as a Natural Son of Abraham may pretend to Baptism and New-Testament-Ordinances by a priority in respect of the Offer Rom. 3.1 2. Therefore Christ commanded his Apostles not to go into the wayes of the Gentiles c. but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel and Preach the Gospel to them Mat. 10.5 6 7. See Rom. 2.10 to the Jew first and also to the Gentile and this gave occasion to the Speech of Peter Acts 2.39 The promise is to you and your Children viz. primarily and to the Gentiles also but secondarily which they of the Circumcision were astonisht at Acts 10.45 The Gentiles are called afar off suitable to Eph. 2.13 Ye Gentiles who sometimes were afar off are made nigh by the blood of Christ Now as it was the preheminence of the Jews to have the Gospel first Preached to them so we find their carnal prerogative stand them in no stead Luke 3.8 where they are informed that Gospel-Ordinances are not bottom'd upon Carnal Generation or priviledges but true Holiness manifested by the fruit it brings forth viz. Fruits meet for Repentance He came to his own but they received him not and therefore as many as received him whether Jew or Gentile to them he gave power to become the Sons of God and to receive him is to believe in his Name Men are now admitted to Ordinances upon other considerations than legal denominations of clean or unclean viz. fearing God and working righteousness which is not generated or conveyed by Birth but by the New birth and the Spirit of the living God Therefore if the Natural Seed of Abraham could not pretend a right to New-Testament Ordinances by that Title much less the Adopted Seed by any such way of Natural Generation And if their Birth-right could not serve them how can our Birth-right serve us And this may serve as an Answer to the first particular that the Covenant as it respected Life and Salvation to Believers is one and the same now as then But as it respects external administrations and the qualification of Church-members it is not the same the legal typical faederal right vanisht and Faith is now the only qualification The second Whether Circumcision be the token sign or seal of the Covennnt This needs but a short Reply for we find it to be called the token of the Covenant Gen. 17.11 And the Apostle Rom. 4.11 calls it the sign of Circumcision a Seal of the righteousness of Faith c. intimating by distinguishing between a Sign and a Seal that Circumcision was to all a Sign but to Abraham alone a Seal of the righteousness of Faith And we find Circmucision never called a Seal but where it speaks of Abraham which intimates that it was only a Seal to him And this is sutable to what Chrysostome Theophilact and others quoted upon the place by a very judicious pen viz. It was called a Seal of the righteousness of Faith because it was given to Abraham as a Seal and testimony of that righteousness which he had acquired by Faith Now this seems to be the priviledg of Abraham alone and not to be transferred to others as if Circumcision in whom ever it was were a testimony of Dâ—vine righteousness for as it was the priviledg of Abraham that he should be the father of all the faithful as well circumcised us uncircumcised and being already the father of all uncircumcised having faith in uncircumcision he received first the sign of Circumcision that he might be the father of the Circumcised Now because he had this priviledg in respect of the righteousness which he had acquired by faith therefore the sign of Circumcision was to him a Seal of the righteousness of Faith but to the rest of the Jews it was a Sign they were Abraham's Seed but not a Seal of the righteousness of Faith 〈◊〉 all the Iews also were not the Fathers of many Nations And Ierom upon Gal. 3. saith Because Christ was to spring from the Seed of Abraham and many Ages were to pass from Abraham to Christ the wise God lest the Seed of beloved Abraham should be mingled with other Nations and should by degrees be joyned more familiarly distinguisht the flock of Israel by a certain mark or Circumcision then for 40 Years together in the wilderness none were Circumcised because they were out of the danger of such mixtures being alone but as soon as they were past the banks of Jordan Circumcision prevented the error of mingling with others whereas it is written that they were Circumcised that second time by Joshua it signifies that Circumcision ceased in the Wilderness which was rationally used in Egypt 3. Whether Baptism doth succeed in the room place and use of Circumcision To answer this doubt let us consider the great difference between Circumcision and Baptism Circumcision was a legal Ordinance appointed to the Jewish Males Reprobate as well as Elect by a positive command to distinguish them from the rest of the World as a Token of the Covenant God made with Abraham viz. that the Messiah should come of his Loins according to the Flesh But Baptism is an Evangelical Ordinance whereby Jew or Gentile Male or Female upon a profession of Faith and Repentance is baptized in Water in token of Regeneration and to signifie the death burial and resurrection of Christ the Messiah already come and so added to the Visible Church and admitted to all the priviledges thereof which being not the Office of Circumcision Baptism cannot be said to succeed in its room place and use The consideration of the great difference in their institution illustrates this also for when Christ instituted Baptism he saies Go teach and baptize and in the administration they confessed and were baptized Believed and were Baptized not a word of Infants And in the Precept of Circumcision not a word of Teaching or Faith but of Infants the
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