goes on p. 9. and tells us that being called to a Review he remembers our Saviour himself was a Church-member in his Infancy even the head though he said in his Plain Scriptare p. 62. that 't is disputable whether ever Christ was a Church-member properly or no And if an Infant was capable of being the head King Priest and Prophet relatively though yet he had never ruled sacrificed or taught then there is nothing in the Infant age which maketh it uncapable of being members subjects and Disciples of Christ Answ 1. This vain plea is already sufficiently answered by Mr. Tombs And to me what Mr. Baxter urges seems to make more against then for his Paedo baptism For if Christ whose title to the headship of Churchmembers in his Insancy was undoubted was not for all that baptized till at age to set a pattern for us in our approaches to that Ordinance then certainly it is an audacious practise to baptize Infants whose title to Churchmembership and Discipleship is impossible to be made out with parallel clearness and that too in exprest dissonancy to that great and most illustrious example of our Christian Baptism 2ly To argue from Christs headship that Children should be baptized is a meer non-sequiter Christ in his Infaney was head of the Church but not in acts exercito so for ought we know Infants may be members of his Mystical hody yet are no actual Disciples till they hear the Gospel and profess the faith And invisible Membership being uncertain to us can be no ground for Baptism Besides as Mr. Tombs says by this Reasoning an Infant in the womb may be a visible member because then Christ was head of the Church and an old man should not be a member for Christ was not an old man And I may add that Infants by this argument should be Prophets Priests and Kings in their Infancy as well as Church-members because Christ was so But Mr. Baxter will not be hasty to make this Conclusion Mr. Baxter queries are not Infants members of other societies families the Kings subjects And why not Christs as well as the Kings Answ So are Pagans Children unbelievers Children c. members of Families Kingdoms c. therefore they also by this Medium should be Baptized 2ly There is a Characteristical mark that distinguishes the Church of Christ from all other societies It must consist of visible Saints 1 Cor. 14.33 Act. 2.41.47 There must be a right dispensation of the word and Sacraments Act. 2.41 Math. 28.19 From every member of this society there is required a profession of his faith and a holy conversation Act. 8.37 1 Pet. 3 16 17 Rom. 10.10 Math. 3.36 Act. 19.18 Now no Parity of Reason drawn from the Constitutions or practise of other societies or corporations is of any force to obtrude any Law upon this society so distinct from all others It must be governed by its own sanctions which are no where to be had but in the word of Gâ—d From a close conformity to which no parallels framed by our carnall Reasoning must sednce us In agreement to our definition of a visible Church Mr. B. thus exprefies him self in his Book of Bpatism p 87. A self society of persons separated from the world to God or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called out of the world c. And Dr. Featly p. 4. A particular company of men professing the Christian saith known by two marks the sincere preaching of the word and due administration of the Sacraments And how this Definition can agree to a society of which the Major part are ignorant Babes let them judge Wollebius in his Compend Theol. Edit Cantabr 1642. lib. 1. c. 25. p. 135. defines a visible Church Caetus hominum verbo sacramentis ad gratiae statum vocatorum a company of men and women called by the word and sacraments to a state of grace This book is in great repute in the Univerfities and commonly first read by young students in Divinity and if we adhere to this definition Infants are excluded because they are not called by the word to a state of grace And though the term Sacraments be redundant in the Definition yet 't is certain Wollebius held that the bare application of the Sacraments converts not to a state of grace but in conjunction with the effectual preaching of the word And all Divines agree that Ecclesia a Church coming of a Greek verb that signifies evocare to call from is Caetus hominum ex universo genere humano collectus seu evocatus per Evangelium a company of people gathered or called from the universal race of mankind by the preaching of the Gospel And the greek is derived of the hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a congregation He says p. 11. he could theeasilier bear with our delay of external Baptism if we did not deny all Infants their part in the Covenant of life Answ That we deny all Infants their part in the Covenant of life is a false suggestion we charitably hope and our hope is built upon the free grace of God that though the Scriptures clearly reveal nothing of their salvation or Damnation forasmuch as none can be saved but by Christ Act. 4.12 And that all are guilty of sin Rom. 5.14 Infants by the presentment of the satisfaction of Christ are saved the free gift coming upon all Rom. 5.18 Of this satisfaction there is a two-fold application 1. by Faith in the Adult 2. without Faith to dying Infants by vertue of the election and free grace of God Rom. 11.7 5.18 And if we question how Infants dying after Baptism are saved we must have recourse to this way it being owned by Protestants that Baptism doth not conser grace nor wash away Original sin And if we determine nothing positively in this matter Mr. Baxter should not find fault with us he telling us in his Christian Directory p 821. That almost all Infants cases are to us obscure He says p. 12. That we lay such grounds as destroy and exclude them by a sentence of damnation because if we add them not to the Church we exclude them from salvation Answ This language is spoke without book We limit not salvation to the pale of the Church as this Dictator doth We have no rule to add any to our Churches but such whose professions give us ground to Judge that they belong to the Lord being Converted We pass no such damnable sentence upon any that are not joyned to us we hope the best and our judgement we pass when called to it according to appearance de non apparentibus de non exiftentibus tadem est ratio Is the language of the Schools 2ly This is Mr. Baxters own harsh Divinity to destroy and exclude Multitudes of Infants by a sentence of Damnation when he holds that the vast progeny of such as are in his conceit unbelievers have no right to the Baptismal Covenant and Church membership and consequently according to his
in unbelief that have a Zacheus to believe for them Surely this is none of Christs Gospel Rom 1.17 and 3.28 Joh. 3.5 c. 3ly Act. 2.38 39. Yields as little proof for this assertion as the other And he that can find this Consequence there deserves to be stiled Magnus Apollo The promise to the Children was not as they were the seed of Believers For their Parents were not then Believers Nor to them nor any other but as called by the Lord which calling made them Christs and capable of Baptism The whole as the context shews is an incouragement against despair by reason of their Crucifying Christ and wishing his blood upon them and their Children Mat. 27.25 For which very sin the Apostle tells them they may have Remission Christ being raised for their Salvation and their Childrens viz. their posterity and all God should call though a far off if they did Repent and were Baptised into the name of Christ Of our mind herein is Dr. Hamond a great pleader for Infant Baptism who sayes in his Resolutioâ—s concerning Infant Baptism Sect. 81. If any have made use of that unconcludent Argument viz. Act 2 39. I have nothing to say in defence of them the word children there is really the posterity of the Jews not particularly their Infant Children And Dr. Taylor lib. Proph p. 233. Sayes that by Children is meant the posterity of the Jews adding that he that when ever the word children is used in Scripture shall by Children understand Infants must needs believe that in all Israel there were no men but all Infants and if that had been true it bad been the greater wonder that they should overcome the Anakins and beat the King of Moab and March so far and discourse so well for they were all called the Children of Israel 4ly Act. 16. â—1 proves not his Conclusion for the Scripture Records that the Jaylors family had the Word of the Lord spoke to them as well as himself ver 32. Yea that they believed ver 34. 1 Cor. 7.14 Proves not the Salvation of a believers house to assert it is to run into a desperate error viz. That the unbelieving wife is saved by the husbands faith and è contrà Which I suppose no sober Protestant durst affirm And Mr. Whiston will do well to recal that expression p. 108. That the Master of the family believing his house shall be saved upon Condition of his believing it being so grossly contrary to the tenor of the Gospel let him peruse Rom. 1.17 and 3.28 Heb. 11.6 Mar. 16.16 John 3.5 c. Mr. Whiston I observe all along his Book in defence of Infants Baptism borrows his most formidable Artillery from the Old Testament Yet tells us be argues not from Analogy with Circumcision But if he can make me believe that he has a notable faculty of perswading For alas how does he invita minerva squeeze Arguments from Gen. 17.7 to prove Infant Baptism And I appeal to all Readers whether that place and Circumcision be not the Alpha and Omega of his proofs What a tedious talk does he make to prove that there is an Idendity betwixt the Old and New Covenant how learnedly does he labour to prove that the Covenant entred with Abraham respected his natural seed Whereas if He means the Covenant of Circumcision as 't is called Act. 7.8 who denys it But if he means the Covenant in the first notion laid down before we absolutely deny iâ— and he can never prove it the contrary is largely evinced This exploit fills up almost his whole Book and what a considerable range of words does he muster up to shew the agreement betwixt Circumcision and Baptism p. 226. and so to p. 148 Does he not lay p. 222 That the will of God concerning Circumcision shews us what his will is concerning Baptism and that as the one so the other should be applyed to Infants and what 's this but Analogy His talk p. 240. c That Baptism is the sign or token of the Covenant vow is vain and his Inference that as Circumcision of old so Baptism is now the token of the Covenant is groundless But suppose that were granted which yet there is no ground for his definition of a sign produced from Austiâ— p. â—16 viz. id quod se ipsum sensui preter se aliquid animo repraesentat or his later Author Signum est quod se ipsum sensibus id cujus signum est intellectai aufert or another Author I can help him to viz. Scheibler Metaphys lib. 1. cap 26. Signum est quod potentiae cognoscenti aliquid representat viz. That a sign or token is that which represents something signed to the mind or understanding will do him more hurt then good For Baptism according to these definitions cannot be a sign or token of the Covenant of Grace to any Infants for it doth not represent the Covenant either to their sense or understanding Learned men divide signs into Natural and Arbitrary Natural have a natural connexion with the thing signified as Smoke to Fire Arbitrary signs signifie only by Ordination or Institution Now Baptism is no natural sign to the Covenant of Grace nor do learned men so account it And those that affirm it to be an Instituted sign would do well to produce the Institution if they know where to find it in Scripture Further Signs are divided into Rememorative Demonstrative and Prognostick The first shews what 's past as the Lords Supper shews Christs Death The second something present The third something to come as Physitians Prognosticate the event of Diseases by the Symptoms Now Baptism is in neither of these acceptations a sign to Infants For it neither Remembers them of the Covenant nor Demonstrates it to them nor Prognostcates that they shall ever be in it Therefore it is not a sign or token to Infants to the Covenant of Grace any way that I know of Mr. Whiston comes at length to improve the Instances of Baptized Housholds for his service And insists much on Lydia's p. 273. But that this will do him no good is apparent in my answer to Mr. Baxter His Criticism upon the phrase Act. 16.34 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rending it he rejoyced with all his house he believing in God is vain For by this Interpretation his whole family was capable of rejoycing Therefore no Infants there they being uncapable of such impressions The word was spoke to them all and its evident they all believed the adverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with his whole family in the propriety of the phrase having an immediate relation and connexion to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believing And therefore I fee no reason to reced from the vulgar translation and lean upon such an extorted Criticism as contradicts the plain meaning and scope of the text He labours to fasten an absurd sense also upon that text Mat. 28.19 viz. That the persons to be baptized are the Nations in gross But
I refer him to what I have spoke to Mr. Baxter about this and to Mr. Hutchinsons Animadversions p. 20. In the course of his writings he frames sundry Objections which in my opinion though not stated with such advantage as they might he are enough to confute his allegations And some as being too strong for him he avoids giving a dâ—rect answer to for he fetches such circuits and cunningly wasts the time in circular preambles till he thinks the Reader forgets the Objection and then stoutly sets upon another yet when all 's done he either very sorrily or not at all answers it Insomuch that as it happens his Book carryes a sufficient antidote against its own ill influence to any persons that have not a mind to be deceived There are several things more lyable to exception in this Book But I shall spare him having I hope sufficiently though briefly razed his strongest hold with which the other petty Auxiliaries will stand or fall And therefore I have done with this first part His Essay is wholly applicatory Therefore as I said I pass it and come to his Postscript where I shall have occasion to enlarge where it is meet by way of Vindication of Mr. Hâ—tâ—hinsons Animadversions upon this second Book Mr. Whistons Postscript p 246. alledges That they Baptige no Infants from the ground of their Relation to Abraham as his seed But from the tenor of the Covenant as made with Abrahams seed in their generations and sayes that because Mr. Hutchinson proceeded to disprove that opinion which is none of his he is not concerned to answer him But I shall shew the evasion to be frivolous For whoever pleases to peruse Mr. Whistons book will find that he makes this very ground he renounces the main foundation of his pleading as preface to the first Book p. 3â— 33. he calls it in express terms the foundation to his whole structure so p. 62 63. 107.114.117.126 127.262 and almost all along raises his Arguments from that Topick Therefore doth it not naturally follow that when he is put to it he will quit his main Garrison rather then stand to it This is an Instance of a weak Cause Abrahams seed are to be understood in a twofold sense 1. Natural 2. Spiritual And each of these again is to be considered as his next and immediate or more remote seed The Jews were his Natural seed some next some remote And such as were born of his body as Isaac and such as believed as he did were his spiritual seed too Yea more distant generations bore that title as well as those that more immediatly sprung from him Hence the Jews stifly pleaded their priviledge Mat. 3.9 but were rejected the dispensation that gave it them being expired No Gentile can lay claim to Abraham as their Father upon a natural account he standing in no such Relation to them But he is a spiritual Father to them if they believe and nor otherwise Gal. 3.29 Nor can a believing Gentile convey that title to his Children which he has not himself The title of Natural Sonship to Abraham no believing Gentile has Therefore he cannot convey it to his Posterity For nil dat quod in se non habet A spiritual son of Abraham 't is true every believing Jew and Gentile is but spiritual priviledges as Gospel Sonship c. are not hereditary A believers Child can no more be saved by his fathers faith then an unbelievers child can be damned for his fathers sin And if the Fathers faith must serve the childs turn there 's all the reason in the world that the farhers Baptism should also be Baptism enough to the child Why the one shou'd not be imputed as well as the other is a question worth Mr. Whiston's Resolution Now Mr Hutchinsons Arguments in his Treatise of Baptism were managed to make out That Infants can stand in no Relation to Abraham now neither immediatly or remotely considered And consequently not to be baptized upon that account as p. 4 that Act. 2.38 39 is no ground for Infant Baptism p 7. That Abrahaeâ—â—s own natural seed are not his spiritual seed without personal faith p. 12. That there 's no such thing as a Jewish Birth-priviledge in Gospel dayes p. 14 That Abraham has two seeds neither of which are Infants of believing Gentiles p. 20 That the Law of Institution not the Covenant is to be the ground of vâ—sible administrations in Gospel-dayes p. 26. That 't is a mercy not a misery to be broken off from the piviledges of Circumcision p. 4â— That Christians Children lose no priviledge by being unbaptized p. 48. That the same Arguments urged to prove Childrens right to Baptism will as well prove their right to the Supper and that in Infants there is the same thing wanting which qualisies for both p. 55. That Infant Baptism is Will-worship p. 60. That Infants of believers have no more faith then unbeliever Infants And Animadversions p. 16 that Mat 28.19 is a full and plain Commission to which we must adhere and thaâ— Infants are not there included p 19. That Infant Church-menbership is repealed p 22. That the promises to Believers houses are not to be understood in Mr. Whistons sense p. 22. That infants are are uncapable of the ends and uses of Baptism p. 35. That the Jews came to Johns Baptism Mat. 3.7 upon the same mistakâ— of a federal right as the Paedâ—baptists do now and that their rejection is a notable Argument against this practice p 36 That Baptism succeeds not in the pâ—ace roam and use of Circumcision p. 45. That Circumcision was not administred to the adult as â—rlievers p. 49. Nor to their seed as such p. 50. All which points with many other particulars directly tending ter refute the practice of Infant Baptism are in the said â—reatise fully and substantially made out And if the disproof of these Arguments concerned not Mr. Whiston as he 〈◊〉 a promoter of Paedobaptism I know not what does But since he waves theâ—â— so slightly we look upon them as substantial and unconfured And I appeal to any Judicious Reader whether the Arguments that disprove Infant Baptism from that pretended title they are said to have to Abraham as their common father as believers Children do not also disprove it substantially when urged â—â—om the like title derived from their immediate Parents 'T is certain that the title that 's found rotten in the root cannot be found in the branches And if Abrahams next and natural Children have no title to Baptism upon that account much less his more remote Children and least of all other believers Children whose title is originally pretended from him Mr. Whiston p. 247. Denyes that the Covenant of Grace is made with the Eleâ—l as such Answ Our sense of the Covenant of Grace you have in the preceding pages Let Mr. Whiston shew where any Covenant of Grace is made with Reprobates 'T is true such were under external administrations under the Law
For Ishmael and others were Circumcised that had no Interest in the Covenant of Grace But that by any party from thence the natural seed of believers as such should be baptized under the now-administration of the Covenant of Grace is not warranted in the Bible That the Covenant of Grace is made with the Elect in Christ is clear in the Scriptures take these Texts instead of many that may be produced Jer. 31.31 33. Heb. 8. and 10 Chapters And our Learned Divines so understand it See the Assemblies Cathecism Piscator is clear in it Obs 8. in Hebr. Promittit Deus in hoc saedere tria ex gratuito favore praestanda Electis viz. Remissionem peccatorum gratuitam propter Christum illuminationem mentes ad cognoscendum Deum renovationem voluntatis ad obdiendum legibus dei quae tria in loco Jeremiae satis claré ac distincté proponuntur So Wollteus Compend Theol. lib. 1. Can. 2. Faedus gratiae testamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dispositio nominatur quia hac Deus filiâ—s suis Caelestem haereditatem destinat morte Jesu Christi silii sâ—i interveniente consequendam Piscator again on Rom. 9.6 7. Pactam autem dci tantummodo ad Isaacum reliquos filios promissionis id est Electos per illam praefiguraturos quod Apostolus probat testimonio ipsius Dei Gen. 21.12 And upon the 8 and 9 ver That the promise of Grace made to Abraham pertains properly to the Elect only whom the Aposâ—le calls the Children of the promise promissio gratiae Abrahamo facta ad solos electos quos vocant filios promissionis pertinet Wollebius is yet very express Compend Theol. lib. 1. c. 21. Subjectum seu objectum fâ—ederis oblati sunt omnes vocati proprie tamen electi To these may be added the stream of Ancient and Modern Writers which in my opinion will Counter ballance Mr. Whistons Denyal That this Covenant of Grace belongs not to believers Infants as such is evident because many such have not the grace of that Covenant desecribed Jer. 31.31 c bestowed upon him Iâ—hmael though a great Believers Son is branded for a Reprobate And it belongs to many of the called posterity of unbelievers as common experience eviâ—ces The Conditional Covenant of Grace if they will so call it I can find it to be no other then this Whosoever believeth shall be saved and 't is certain this Covenant concerns not Infants much less the Iâ—â—ants of Believers only The Covenant of Grace gives what it requires and enables the Covenanters to perform the Conditions required by receiving the Graces therein promised And it cannot be affirmed that it does so to Infants while such Mr. Whiston sayes that Baptism is not to be administred to adult or Infant upon the account of election We grant it and Mr Whiston by this Concession spoiles the Argument drawn from Mar. 10.14 for Infant Baptism for which I believe his brethren will reckon with him We baptize none because they are elected but because they profess Faith and Repentance His Inference of the perpetuity of the Covenant as it respected Abrahams Natural seed from the term Generations is vain For that term holds forth a limited season viz. During the legal Administration In which sense the term Generations is frequently used as Levit. 3.17 and 6.18 and 23.41 c. The term as it respected Abrahams spiritual seed comprehends both the legal and Evangelical Dispensations but what 's that to Infants who are in that sense his seed In concurrence to what we say that Learned man Mr. William Strong is very pathetical in his Select Sermons Printed 1656. p. 333. on Gal. 4 21 22 23 24. where he tells us 1. That there are two Coverants the 1. of Works the 2. of Grace typed by Sarah and Hagar 2. That there are two sorts of persons in the world under these two Covenants the one born after the flesh the other by promise The one unregenerate the other Regenerate 3. That the first sort are in a state of bondage the other in a state of freedom as the mothers were 4. That no man can stand under both Covenants at the same time no more then he can be born of two Mothers 5. That from the first Covenant there must be a translation to the second and that supernatural This I briefly abstract the Discourse at large is worth perusual and gives a fatal blow to Paedobaptism though perhaps Mr. Strong who was a Paedobaptist was not thereof aware Object But youâ—â— say how are Infants saved then if under a Covenant of Works I answer with Dr Taylor That as we are sure God hath not commanded Infants to be baptized so we are sure he will do them no Injustice nor damn them for what they cannot help therein 2. Baptism translates not to a state of Grace unless in Conjunction with Faith Therefore baptized Infants are never the nearer Salvation meerly for their Baptism And the same way they are saved when baptized the very same way are the unbaptized Infants saved also For the medium that proves the one proves the other also Two or three other passages Mr. Whiston produces as Reasons why he reckons Mr. Hutchinsons book useless as to the design carryed on in it But they are of the same strain with this and therefore need no other answer P 248. He charges Mr. Hutchinson with some Contradictions and absurdities as his calling the Covenant of Grace and its administration two distinct Covenants and his saying that Circumcision is a Covenant of works from which sayes Mr. Whiston It will follow that a Covenant of Works may be the administration of the Covenant of Grace which is incongruous To which I Reply It is before demonstrated I hope undenyably that the Covenant of Grace is immutable and everlasting That in respect of its various administrations under Law and Gospel it is called two Covenants New and Old That the Covenant of Works so called under the Law administred to the Covenant of Grace in Types and Figures of which Circumcision being the head Ordinance was Synechdocally called the Covenant Gen. 17.10 And that the Covenant of of Grace is now under the Evangelical Dispensation administred in that purity and spirituality Typed out by the Law Therefore what incongruity or absurdity is to be hereon chargeable is to me unknown He charges Mr. Hutchinson with another absurdity for affirming Isaac to be the subject of the prâ—mise made to Abraham as taken both wayes viz. as it respâ—ctâ—d temporal and spiritual blessings But if this be an absurdity as I am sure it is not Dr. Owen and other Protestant Divines are guilty of it See Dr. Owens Exercit on the Heb. p. 56. 1 Tom. Two instances more he produces but the same or like this therefore I pass them as frivolous What Mr. Whiston sayes further are but general evasions in which I find nothing worth a Reply But p. 253. he tells Mr. Hutchinson That he greatly
the Church and true believers and their seed if believers a part in Gods Covenant and Mercy I am confident he cannot do it and therefore what shall we call this but in his own Language More Proofs p. 236. a bold-fac'd falshood 3. What he hath proved essewhere is sufficiently disproved elsewhere also 4 He would do well to produce those Church-Laws that gave Infants the priviledge of Church-membership in Innocency or name any Infant that was in the World then He is a notable searcher into Antiquity indeed if he can bring to light such an Arcanum Besides we could yet never find in the word of God I believe it will put Mr. Baxter to his Trumps to produce any Scripture to evince that any Infants were Church-members before Circumcision nor yet after it came to a period with the legal dispensation that gave being to it If he clearly proves this Dictate we shall submit 5. We believe that true Believers and their seed if Believers have a part in Gods Covenant and Mercy and to deny it them were to impeach free grace The thing we deny is that Christ appointed the seed of Believers before Conversion to the priviledge of membership in his visible Church And how we wrong them in not forcing that upon them which no Divine Law gives them Right unto Mr. Baxter hath not convinced us He says be is not hardned enough to reject so plain a text as 1 Cor. 7.14 or to own our interpretation of it Answ That that text affords not the least colour of proof for Paedo-baptism and that our sense of it is genuine and Orthodox is at large evinced by Mr. Tombs 3 Review p. 7.91 93 94 95. Mr. Danvers Treat p. 160. 2 Ed. Mr. Lawrence Treat of Baptism p. 260. Mr. Blackwoâ—ds Storm of Antichrist p. 43 and several others who havâ— unanswerably vindicated this text from Mr. Baxters unsound sense as to the enquiring Reader by consulting the places referred to may clearly appear And if Mr. â—axter rests in his satisfaction and still will pertinaciously desend his corrupt gloss 't is not in our power to unharden him we leave that to omnipotency The term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holyners as Mr. Tombs notes is only found among Ecclesiastical writers yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to preserve chastity as Stâ—phanus observes out of Demosthenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where a Pâ—iest of Bâ—â—â—hus speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is I am holy and pure from tâ—e company of man And learned men tell us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chast Chastity to be Chast come from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy Holyness was predicated under the Law of the temple and its Uteâ—sils the City Jerusasem called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Math. 4.5 and 27.53 of places Math. 24.15 stand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the holy place and divers other things And in this very text the same holyness or sanctification which is predicated of the Children is predicated also of the unbelieving husband and wise for as it is said of the Children they are holy so of the unbelieving Yoke-fellow it is said they are sanctified that is in English they are holy and the words in the Greek are the very same The verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the preter tense passive of the active 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which comes from the Root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy And therefore there is as much holyness from this text to be ascribed to the unbelieving husband or wise as to the Children And why the unbelieving husband or wise may not be therefore baptised and in Church too as well as their Infants this holyness being pleaded by Mr. Baxter to be sederal though it be as clear as the Sun that the persons Denominated holy were at that very time privative unbelievers and so cannot be said to be soederally holy or sanctyfied is a question worth the Resolution of such an Oedipus as himself But in my opinion he can never make any clean evasion from this absurdity And if he can satisfie his Conscience that this text is so plain to prove the federal holyness of the Children of believers it is to me an Instance that his Judgement is enslaved by a peremptory and tenacious will Now I apdeal to any considerate Reader whether there be any other holyness meant in this text but what may befall an unbeliever for the unbelieving yokesellow is sanctified with this holyness though still unbelieving And as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying proles soholes issue or off-spring extends it self beyond Infants to all Children as Math. 15.16 Rom. 8.16 Math. 11.19 where the same word is used so the word holy as I said before being the same attributed to the Unbelieving husband or wife is as applicable to a child of years and not believing as to an Unbelieving bushand or wise And of such a holy child what great cause will there be to boast as a fit subject for Baptism And whether such a holyness be not so far from foederal that it is purely Matrimonial and Civil and opposed to that Uncleanness contracted by Cohabiting with strange wives prohibited under the Law is submitted to the determination of the Judicious Besides I only add that as the native scope and tendency of the text evidences the Holyness there to be only civil and Matrimonial so we have some parallel places as Mal. 2.15 1 Thes 4.3 4 5. and Deut. 23.7 Mr. Baxter knows how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy is rendred and holyness is opposed to fornication 1 Sam. 214 5 6. Next Mr. Baxter tells us that man must not teach God how to speak but carefully enquire what he hath spoken To which I willingly assent And if Mr. Baxter had been so securely modest and sober as to content himself with what was spoken to him by the Lord and had not given his licentious Imagination so unbounded a scope as to pester the Nation with his confounding unscriptural legions of distinctions and frivolous niceties with which his Polemicks are so stufft he had done more service then the utmost exploits of his talking faculty will ever amount to Another of his Arguments he moulds into a Quere thus Do you think that Paul mentioneth that as agreat and comfortable priviledge of believers which belongs to Heathens equally with them Answ VVhere Paul useth that phrase viz a priviledge of believers upon this account or any words equipollent I cannot find Mr. Baxter quotes no Scripture for it But I humbly conceive the question needs a resolution from himself For the holyness in the text is indeed attributed to Heathens for such was the unbelieving yokefellow as well as the children and therefore 't is his part to make it out such a great and comfortable priviledge as he talks of And the term Heathen is all one with Gentiles contradistinct to Jews the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signyfies both Act. 4 25 27. Mr. Baxter
Of answering a man before he hears his Arguments Or if Mr. Whiston would have no Answers made him till he publishes all he has to say It will be found an Imposition of two Majestical an Aspect And in my opinion it had been more Consonant to the general Reformation he bespeaks not only from us but from those Paedobaptists that hold up that practice upon grounds different from his to have published his labours in an intire Tract then thus by parcels But since he is in the humour of Writing as we know not when it will be over so he must give us leave without staying for what 's behind to ataque his forces already mustered and incounter the rest if worth any opposition as they come on Yet from me who am by the last Commands of Mr. Hutchinson now with the Lord oblidged to give Mr. Whiston this Return to his Postscript which Mr. Hutchinson saw a little before his Death I think fit to let him know that I have more value for my time then hereafter to consume it upon the refutation of his Dictates already sufficiently defeated And though in Mr. Hutchinsons Animadversions p. 54. he was earnestly called upon that if he thought himself concern'd to appear further in this Contest he would lay down his Thesis distinctly and set down his Arguments Syllogistically Yet how little notice he hath taken thereof and how like a Dictator be appears in his Essay is left to consideration And since he over passes the Arguments opposed against their practice insinuating as if Mr. Hutchinson had mistaken the right ground thereof since he does but aâ—d Dictates to Dictates And his Essay is but a 〈…〉 built upon a foundation already overture 〈◊〉 since be takes those 3 prepositions for granted p. 3. bâ— by and upon that suppesition feigns those high priviledges of the seed of Believers those gloâ—â—â—â— benents and advantages which he tells us p. 244. have been assigned to them as in Covenant and having the token thereof he means Baptism applyed to them since I say these tedious branches of his Disâ—â—â—se sprang from an unsound Root or meer figment viz. A supposing that the Covenant of Grace is made with Believers and their natural seed in their generations and so have a right to Baptism We might spare the labour of confuting such fancyes afresh Therefore the method I shall use in this Return shall â—e 1. To Refor the Reader for an answer to the Argumentative part of Mr. Whistons Books to such places where they are soundly confuted already by the late Writers of our way 2. I shall wholly wave his impertinent fictions in his Essay concluding that in the overthrow of those points he takes for granted p. 3. Those glorious priviledges he dreams of will vanish into guilded Chymeâ—â—'s or the meer apparitions of a beguiled 〈◊〉 3. With same Restâ—â—ions upon his Poliscript a Cant way of consuting Books by the Argument used against Belamine I shall leave all at the Tribunal â—f the Reader A Brief Survey and Confutation of Mr. Whistons Books c. I Shall begin with his large Preface of about 46 pages Wherein he sayes page 7. That if he errs it is cum ratione To which I say that errour is too often disguised under the plausible shew and semblance of truth and some man have the art so to paint it But instead of making it therefore reasonable it is rendered the more pernicions in as much as 't is so much the more likely to insnare and deceive And Satan is never more capable to do mischief then when he is transformed into an Angel of Light Therefore Mr. Whiston had need be wary lest what he goes about to establish be found in the great day to be no part of the Doctrine once delivered to the Saints For then an erravi cum rations will scarce be sufficient to answer that Question Who hath required this at your hands Preface p. 14. Mr Whiston assigns 6 causes of our Rejecting Infant Baptism the substance of which are 1. Want of tender affections towards Relations 2. Confounding either some supposed or real irregularities in the administration with the practice 3 Not considering the true Reason of primitive Christians Baptisme at Age. 4. Our comparing the little good and small advantage accruing to believers seed with the variety of inconveniences and ill consequences of Paedo-baptist Doctrine 5. Placing too much of our Religion in an external way and mode 6. By preposterous enquiries after the will of Christ as not taking our rise from the Covenant made with Abraham To the first I say that as Mr. Whiston only speaks his thoughts without proof so little more needs be said in disproof of it save to tell him that it is not so We have as much natural love to our Children as any I presume that oppose us and we look upon that as no instance of affection to them to cross our Lords Institutions which should be more dear to us then that Imaginary fondness he talks of in Communicating an Ordinance to them that 's not appointed for them 2. VVe have produced our Arguments even such as we find unanswerable against the Pedo baptists mode of administration and the subjects they apply Baptism to and therefore the 2 d particular is frivolous 3. We make the New Testament Scripture our warrant in the practice of New Testament Duties and Ordinances and the primitive Christian 's exact conformity is the best explication and comment upon the precepts there and ought to be our pattern VVe find neither express nor Consequential warrant for Baptizing Infants there For A necessary consequence is that which proves the matter concluded certainly so to be Yea certe ita esse nec aliter se habere passe There must be tam necessarius nexus indissolubilis aependentia such an infallible dependance between the subject and predicate that the conclusion must be universally and perpetually true And every necessary consequence demonstrates à priori For Demonstratio est ex prioribus notioribus causis A posteriori only the discovery of habits is made Now we never yet could find a Medium in Scripture that proves Infant Baptism nor that they have any qualification that Intitles them to it by any consequence in the true logical and direct notion of it 1. No acts of faith or repentance can be seen in them 2. Nor any discovery of gracious habits 2. Nor yet can it be demonstrated that they have in foro Ecclesiae any interest in the Covenant of Grace till at years and capable to profess and act faith Though for ought we know they may in foro Dei be invisible members of the mystical body of Christ and in a capacity of salvation through the presentment of that satisfaction made by Christ the free gift coming upon all Rom. 5 18. Yet that being uncertain of any Individual can be no ground for Baptism And how can we without incurring a most dreadful breach of
charity exempt dying Infants from the benefit of that grace they having by no actual sins barred themselves from its saving communications And what Scripture can be produced that any one is damned meerly for the non-application of a Sacrament provided it to be not contemned I can no where find Ursinus tells us in his Catechism that it is not the want but the contempt of the Sacraments damns Privatio Sacramenti non damnat si non accedat contemptus Christus non adimit salâ—tem eis quibus adimitur Baptismus The Consequences produced for Infant Baptism we find to be sophistical wretched Non-sequitur's and against the rules of that Logick so celebrated by the Authors that make them The Jewish high-Priesthood will prove a high-Priesthood now by as good Consequence of the faederal right then proves a faederal right now And the Passover being to be taken and eaten Exod. 12.4 according to the number of jouls in the house and by every one according to his eating and therefore by Children will afford a consequence of Infants right to the Supper as valid as that drawn from their Circumcision to their Baptism But that indeed there is no Birth-holiness now that being a legal priviledge abolisht and not comporting with the Gospel is unanswerably evident by this Argument If the legal commoness and uncleanness of some meats Flesh Birds Beasts Persons and their natural seed above others be taken away then the legal holiness and cleanness of some meats Flesh Birds Beasts Persons and their natural seed above others is also taken away But the Antecedent is true Ergo so is the Consequent The major is undenyable from these received Maxims Contrariorum eadem est ratio And Contrariorum uno sublato tollitur alterum viz. Of Contrary's take away one and the other cannot remain in its opposition to it any longer The minor is evident from Act. 10.11 to 28 Act. 11.2 to 9. Gal. 2.11 to 28. But to the matter VVe find the true reasons of the primitive Saints being Baptzed at age to be because they durst not recede from the Rule And that 's our reason for practicing as they did 4. VVe know no advantage accruing to Infants from their Baptism it makes them in your own esteem nominal not real Members of the visible Church And the name without the nature is worthless And the absurdities and inconveniencies of that practice are obvious in our VVritings The Gospel Church must consist of living Stones at least such as to our cognizance profess so to be not ignorant Babes untransformed out of their natural state 5. That we place too much of our Religion in an external mode is false suggestion not to be made out by Mr. Whistons Logick VVe profess to worship God in Spirit and Truth according to our measute and by Divine assistance in an exact conformity to his Revealed VVill. 6. Our enquiry's after the will of Christ are from the Revelations of his will in his word and if that be termed preposteroâ—s let our opposites find a better foundation for their enquiry's and it shall be considered VVe think it a fruitless and â—indeed preposterous undertaking to seek for the Institution of Baptism in Gen. 17.7 VVe have it nearer home in the New Testament and that we adhere to No Arguments from the pretended Analogy to Circumcision are deemed by us of any greater force then those drawn from the Levitical Priesthood and its Ceremonious appurtenances to vindicate the Papal or National Prelacy and its concomitant rites In Mr. Whistons 1 Book he layes down his grand proposition p. 1. thus That it is the will of our Lord Jesus Christ that the Infant seed of one or both believing Parents should be baptized To prove which p. 2. he layes down three subordinate propositions viz. That God in Gen. 17.7 Intended Abraham and his natural seed 2. That God settled the same promise upon and confirmed it to believing Gentiles 3. That all under the promise ought to be Baptized Page 3. He distinguishes Abrahams seed into natural and spiritual or Mystical p. 4. He subdistinguishes the spiritual or Mystical into visible and Denominative 2. Invisible and Real Rom. 9.6 Tells us p. 5. That Baptism doth not properly incorporate into the body of Christ as invisible but as visible p. 7. Sayes the difference between both Seeds is only Respective because the same persons in different respects may be both his Natural and Spiritual Seed Natural Seed are such as descend immediatly from Abrahams own Lovns or 2. his whole race and Posterity p. 10 He sayes that under the term Seed both Natural and Mystical are comprehended p. 17. That under this Covenant both Jews and Gentiles are comprehended And that God had a peculiar regard to the Natural Seed that Parents performing the Conditions of the Covenant convey to their Children the same Interests themselves had Cap. 1 p. 19. He labours to prove that all Abrahams immediate Natural seed were intended as the immediate subjects of his promise Gen 17.7 p. 36. That the Covenant made with Abraham was a Covenant of Grace And the same for substance that believers are now under That it was conditional p. 51. A Covenant being a mutual compact p. 52. That the Condition required of Abraham was also required of his Natural Seed p. 54. Chap. 4. p. 64 The 2 d. subordinate proposition is Prosecuted into which service these Scriptures are pressed Deut. 29.10 to 13. Isa 59.21 and 65.25 and 44.3 4. Jer. 3.12 Ezek. 37.21 22. with Rom. 11.26 That is the same Covenant Jews and Gentiles are under Jer. 31.31 with Heb. 8.8 Isa 54.1 with Gal. 4.27 Hos 1.11 and 2 3. with Rom. 9.25 26. Amos 9.11 with Acts 15.20 so out of the New Testament Gal. 3.13 14. Chap. 6. p 104. He proceeds to make our that the promise of Salvation appertains to the houses of believing Parents as such without respect to the personal faith of any in the said houses of such besides there own for which he urges Mar. 10.31 Luke 19.8 9. Acts 2.38 39. and 16.31 1 Cor. 7.14 And p. 106. sayes the promise believers are under is not absolute but Conditional and so it must be understood of their houses which Condition he expounds p. 108. viz. That the Master of the Family believing his house shall be saved upon Condition of his believing He affirms ibid. that Children in an especial manner are included and comprehended under the term house p. 203. That the Interest of any of Abrahams natural seed arises from their Relation to their immediate Parents included in the phrase their generations Affirms p. 205. that the Infant seed of believing Gentiles are to be accounted of numbred amongst Abrahams Mystical seed Chap. 7. p. 213. The 3 d. subordinate proposition is prosecuted from Gen. 17.9 That as Circumcision of old so Baptism is now the token of that Covenant And p. 222. That the will of God concerning Circumcision shews us what is his will concerning Baptism
as the one so the other should be applyed to the Infants of believing Parents Yet sayes he argues not from Analogy only takes Circumcision as a Comment upon the Command Gen. 17.7 p. 226. He comes to shew the agreement of â—aptiâ—m to Circumcision as being both the solemn rite of admittance into the Church 2 d. To seal and assure the subiects of it their enjoyment of the good things blessings and benefits promised in the Covenant as Remission of sins 3 d. To oblidge the person receiving it to keep exactly the Articles of this Covenant Jer. 4.4 4th â—o be a visible badge to distinguish the people of God from all other people Chap. 10. p. 249. He brings the several instances of several Housholds to confirm his tenent Act. 16.14 15 33. 1 Cor. 16.16 as Lydia p. 273. the Taylor p. 27â— Stephanus p. 274. Chap. 11. and the Chapters not mentioned as 3 7 8. c. He pretends to answer Objections amongst which he insists upon Mat. 28.19 with Mar. 16.15 16. p. 288. Answer As to Mr. Whistons 1st subordinate proposition before rejected I say To insist at large in a fresh Confutation of the use Mr. Whistons makes of this Scirpture viz. Gen. 17.7 were but Actam agere Therefore as I said I will refer him and the Reader to such as have already prov'd this plea to be vain Mr. Tombs a learned Writer now with the Lord sufficiently clears it in his Writings upon the subject particularly in his 3d. Review a large Book never yet answered Printed 1657. Sect. 2. p. 5 and so on Mr. Blackwoods Storm of Antichrist p. 31. 32. 33. 34. and onwards Mr. Patient in his Book of Baptism p. 72. and onwards Mr. Lawrence p. 17â— and onwards Mr. Danvers p 171. 2d Edict and onwards Mr. Skynner in his Treat of Baptism p. 8. and so on Mr. Hutchinson in his Treat p. 12. and so on Mr Sâ—â—d and Mr. Chear p. 8. and so on 2d That no Covenant Interest intitles to Baptism without Repentance See at large evidenced by Mr. Tombs in the said 3d. Review Sect. â— p. 15 23 40 c. That no agreement between Circumcision and Baptism justifies Infant Baptism Sect. 11. Such Arguments as are drawn from the Covenant in savour of this practice of Paedobaptism are largely confuted Sect. 12 13 14. That the Gospel Covenant is not extenâ—â—d to believers Infants as such Sect. 16. That the 〈◊〉 are not Seals of the Covenant of Grace Sect. 31. That 〈◊〉 is not by Birth nor the Church as 〈◊〉 Corporations Sect. 36. That the holiness 1 Cor. 7.14 is Matrimontal evinced at large Sect. 76.92 93 94 95. The succession of Baptism to Circumcision at large considered Sect. 81. That the enlargement of our priviledges under Gospel administrations prove not Infant Baptisme Sect. 84. Now this proposition which Mr. Whiston p. 62. calls the foundation to his whole Superstructure by the conferring of his assertions with the Books quoted will I doubt be found rotten and consequently his whole superstructure must needs fall But in regard some of the Books mentioned are scarce being out of Press I shall with what brevity I may abstract from them our understanding of the Covenant of Grace which term is applyed to signifie 1st The Covenant of Grace in its own nature singly or universally considered 2ly The manner of its administration according to Divine Institution In the first signification it signifies the great Mystery of the mercy of God in Christ wherein the Father hath establisht Jesus Christ his Son the head of all things and given him a blessed seed of the sons of men to be by him and with him Heirs of the glorious Inheritance of the Grace of God and the blessed Consequences thereof against all possibility of miscarriage according to his eternal purpose This Covenant was at first published Gen. 3.15 't is spoken of Psal 2.7 8 9. Is 42. and 49. This is the Everlasting Covenant still one and the same immutable from Everlasting to Everlasting This Covenant was at sundry times and after divers manners under divers Signes Figures Types Promises and Prophesies renewed and ratified with the blessed Patriarchs Abel Seth Enoch Noah Sem Melchisedeck and with the Fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob with Moses and the Prophets before the coming of Christ And brought to light and revealed in all the Mysteries of it by John the Baptist Christ and his Apostles which still continueth and shall continue without Change to the worlds end This Covenant hath one spiritual Father viz. Christ Isa 9.6 and one spiritual Seed Psal 22.30 2ly The Covenant of Grace as it signifies the manner of Administration may be thus described It contains the whole and every part of that Instituted Worship whereby God doth ordinarily bring about the purposes of the Everlasting Covenant viz. To set Christ upon his Throne and to gather him the Seed given him by the Father And the Covenant under this acceptation is not one and the same alwayes but hath passed under many great alterations and changes The Lord suiting his Ordinances and Appointments to the Persons Seasons and Works he had to do Therefore all its force and authority thus confidered depends intirely upon the Law of its Institution and is in force as that Law directeth and not otherwise In this sense 't is distinguished under two known heads respecting two seasons The first before the second after the ascention of Christ Before Christs coming it passed under the great alterations and Changes for the first 2000 years from Adam to Abraham The Ordinances and form of worship then in practice and other occasional figures representing the mystery of the everlasting Covenant and Chosen and Rejected Seeds therein considered was a Ministry dignified with as eminent and glorious Saints as any the Book of God recordeth And though for the nature of it the same with the Law of â—oses proportioned to it and after fell in with it Yeâ— in all that long series of time there was no distinguishing Ordinance Administred to Infants of â—elievers nor any unknown Doctrine to that purpose 'T is true at Circumcision that began which viz. Circumcision by the Law of Moses was taken in with the preceding Institutions and there received its full Instalment and became the Head Ordinance of the Levitical Ministry This Administration of the Covenant of Grace is usually called the Old Covenant or the First Covenant Heb 8.7 to 13. the Law Rom. â— 13 14. Heb. 10.1 Gal. 4.21 This Covenant while it stood though Glorious yet the Spirit of God never exalted it above the degree of a Handmaid appointed for the time being to Minister to the Everlasting Covenant And then to be utterly cast out of the Church together with her Seed according to the flesh whom the Apostlecalleth Servants and not Sons Gal. 4.7 Prophetically instanced in Abrahams family under theâ— Type of the Gospel Church in the persons of Hagar and â—hmael Gen. 21.10 11 12 unveiled at large
Gal. 4.22 to 31. This old Administration is termed A service unto the example and 〈…〉 Heavenly things Heb 8 5. A figure for the time thâ— present Heb. â— 9 It 〈…〉 perfect Heb. 7.19 and 10.1 The Lord 〈…〉 it not as an hand writing 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 it to be Cross Col. 2.14 There ended 〈◊〉 Covenant there expired the Law the force and authority upon which that administration stood There was 〈…〉 to the flesh cast out as Typified Gâ—â— 21.10 And henceforth the children of the promise are counted for the feed Rom. 9.8 Thus we find a total abolition of the legal Covenant with all its appurtenances of which Circumcision was a chief And therefore the fleshly seed is excluded for ever upon the exclusion of that Covenant because it can claim a standing by no other Right But in what is said touching the abrogation of the legal Covenant I would not be understood to teach the Abrogation of any Moral Doctrine or Precipt The last Administration of the Covenant of Grace usually called the New Covenant is that which was establisht by Jesus Christ at his coming This Covenant ministred not to any Doctrine above or beyond it self Heb. 10.1 but was it self the Mystery of the Grace of God plainly administred Col. 1.26 Eph. 3.8 9. It was under a veil till Christ revealed it And the whole scope of Christ and his Apostles Doctrine runs quite beyond the priviledge of the seed after the flesh and is placed upon the seed after the spirit as being indeed the true seed who were really stated by God in the priviledge of the everlasting Covenant through their New-birth and not otherwise Mat. 3.8 9. and 16.18 The Gospel Church is built upon the foundation of actual faith in Christ and the Birth Priviledge cannot be squared by that rule to have place in that building Isa 54.13 with John 6.44 45. Luk 14.26 Gospel Priviledges are a part of Gospel Inheritance and follow Gospel Son-ship If Sons then Heirs Gal. 4.7 Rom. 8.17 Gospel Sons are not born such Jam. 1.18 And therefore the visible profession hereof must be the common principle to constitute visible Children of the Gospel Covenant under the administration of Jesus Christ by whom Grace and Truth was administred not Flesh and Figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not alwayes note a Mutual Covenant and mutual performances as Gen. 9.9 10. where a Covenant is made with Fowl Cattle Beasts c. There is a single as well as mutual Covenant And if there must needs be a Convertibility between those that Contract then there can be no Covenant with Infants because they cannot Contract And if their Parents Contact for them let them be also sealed for them That this may be further illustrated the learned Reader may note that there is an exact Conformity betwixt us â—in our sense and understanding of the Covenant of Grace and the most learned of the Orthodox Writers as Piscator in Sext. Observ in Heb 8 also upon Rom. 9. Alsted praecogn Theol. l. 2. c. 123. Amesius in his Coronis to Remonstrants Art 5. c. Wollebius in Compend Theol. l. 1. Can. and lib. 1 ca. 21. Twiss Vind. Grat. lib. 3. errat 8. Sect. 5. and lib. 1. p. 3. digress 2. Scultetus in Sermon in Isa 41. Boltons Instructions for Comfort Afflict Consciences p. 272 273. 2 Ed. Diodat on Rom 9.6 Norton Resp ad Appollon cap. p. 30 31. I forbear to transcribe the several passages referr'd to because I intend to confine my self to what bravity I can and being certain if the learned Reader will have recourse to the Originals quoted he will find them in this case expresly and directly for us and against our Opposites Baptism a part of Gospel instituted Worship and all the force and authority it hath upon the conscience in point of practice is to be derived from the plain and express Law and word of God by which it is made an Ordinance God keeps his Ordinances exactly to his own Methods and Manner and mans nature is very presumptuous to be interposing and meddling so Heb. 8.5 Exod. 25.9 to 40. All Instituted worship must be conformed to the Heavenly pattern The Covenant thus stated with the Scriptures inforcing it duely weighed I question not would put an end to the Controversy about the Birth Priviledge upon which the Baptism of Infants is founded and to ballance what Mr. Whiston and those of his party offer I submit what 's here briefly offered to the serious scanning of the Indifferent and Unbyassed Reader As for those several texts urged by Mr. Whiston to confirm his second subordinate Proposition particularly mentioned before I cannot upon the most exact examination I am capable to exercise find that they make any thing for him And but that I question not but any Reader that has the use of his Reason and any Compentency of understanding in the Covenant of Grace or has not a mind to be bolstered up in his conceit and so is loath to be abused will so find it I would by particular Demonstration evidence it Therefore I shall only earnestly recommend to the Christian Reader this Caution that he think not the bare naming of a text or texts enough to confirm an opinion but that he seriously note the Context with the Scope and Drift of the Holy Ghost and the coherence of the sense alledged with other Texts before he be inveigled to a closure with this or that converted Tenent And should I deliver my Judgment it must for all that come at last to this Decision Therefore I freely appeal to the serious Reader and if he finds Mr. Whiston hath not Wrested those Texts from their direct and native scope and meaning he is at liberty to joyn with him For my part I cannot but say that as far as I see they make far more against then for the Doctrine of the birth priviledge now in Controversy The most considerable New Testament Scriptures I find Mr. Whiston insist upon for proof of Paedobaptism are Mar. 10.10 Luk. 19.9 Act. 2.38 39. and 16.31 1 Cor. 7.14 from which he draws a bold Conclusion That the promise of Salvation appertains to the houses of Believing Parents as such without respect to the personal saith of any in their houses besides their own As to Mar. 10.10 there is nothing relating to the thing in Controversy The Disciples propound a question about Divorcement and what 's that to the point in hand 2ly Luke 19.9 Affords no colour for such a conclusion For Salvation may be said to become to Zacheus his house though none but himself be saved He that believes upon a Dictate that a family may be saved by the Masters faith will believe any thing Salvation is tendered to all but it is applyed only by every ones faith in Jesus Christ If it be not so they are happy families indeed that can obtain it at so easie a rate as their Masters faith They may lye
under your wings took your ipse dixit for Scripture verities and waited for your Oraculous pronuntiations It being feared that God is punishing their Confidence in you as he did Israels wise men of old when the people trusted in them Isa 29.14 The wisdom of their wise men shall perish and the understanding of their prudent men shall be bid And seeing you are so well acquainted with Repentances it is just to admit of their acknowledgment especially if they be ready as some are to promise in the words of Job that Wherein they have done foolishly they will do so no more And though it be now a common question whether you 'l ever die a Martyr And most resolve it in the Negative wondering that out of your Magazine of distinctions you cannot pick out some to shist off the present perset cution so loudly recorded or indempnifie those that suffer by proxy for you when you took your flight Yet we have the charity to believe if your friends be faithful to reprehend and you ready to receive it a possibility of establishing your wavering mind after all your transformations and perhaps to fix you on that unerring soundation of the Prephets and Apostles from which you have gone so much afiray and that you may yet preach the truths you have destroyed And we are confirmed in our hope not only from the omnipotent power of God but also from the Connaturalness of Change to your disposition It s pitty a man of your figure one that God like Saul hath made higher then divers of your Brethren should be such a man of Contention such an Unus contra Populum in your generation And so your pious labours in other things useful to the Church be either burred in oblivion or greatly slighted because of your dissonancy in some great points of faith and heteredoxy to the pure and incorrupt discipline of the primitive Churches We have been informed from your own pen that the shadows of the Eternal evening are upon you and you have been some time waiting at the door of eternity And it is a trembling consideration to some that love you that you should take your leave of us so unreconciled to your self as well as to the of truth of God especially that point of Scripture Baptism to which you have born so famous a testimony in some of your writings and so timerously asserting Infant Baptism in others assuring us it hath such considerable difficulties that it may justly make wise and good men to doubt and that you your self though its most industrious undertaker tells us of your self that you think you have proved it but not by evidence so clear as every good man can perceive More Proofs p 219. But Sir since you do but think so and we think otherwise viz. that you have not prov'd it why may not our think be as good as your think Therefore we desire you before you take your final leave to suffer a word of Exhortation And we beseech you in the bowels of Jesus Christ and as you will shortly answer at the great and dreadful Tribunal that amongst your other errata you would repent of that absurd and heretical position of a Baptismal Covenant of Grace running in a fleshly line by which you have not only deceived many thousand souls but so proselyted some Ministers and furnisht them with matter to repair the breaches that have been made in Babylon to the great binderance of that Reformation so solemnly endeavoured and Covenanted for and thereby make your self the person you arraign viz. One that trains up militant heirs and successors to propagate the Contention witness Mr. Parret your Index-maker who might from your works raise 1500 as well as 50. queries that so the multitude might secure him from Resolution For I conceive he might fish doubts enough out of your writings which are known to be fruitful enough of Riddles of that grain To conclude Sir if this advice may be successful it will be an encouragement to us to follow you while we live with our prayers that though some of your works may be burnt yet your soul may be saved in the day of the Lord Which is the earnest desire of Your Soul-Friend Edw. Hutchinson In Return to this comes the Review in hand But the Lord was pleased to take the worthy and pious Author of that Letter to himself before Mr. Baxters Review came to his hand Which Providence with some concurring circumstances necessitates me to appear in his vindication That choice labourer in his Lords Vineyard was long even at the time of writing that letter exercised under such a Distemper as certainly premonished him of his approaching period And therefore was glad if he could be Instrumental in bringing Mr. Paxter to a Review of what he inconsiderately published Hoping that so he might be convinced that his corrupt writings stood more in need of an humble and penitent Retraction then so contumacious a plea as he now exhibits But it s now too apparent that no such Repentance is to be expected But the talking faculty must to work once more and palliate with a fresh torrent of words whatever extravagant fit his luxuriant pen ever fell into If I should pursue Mr. Baxter in all his turnings and windings to support his tottering reputation and insist upon every particular in his Review capable of exception my undertaking would swell into such a volume as I have neither leasure nor mind to compile Therefore his discourse being so loose and full of incoherencies I shall willingly leave his impertinent digressions and address my self to 〈◊〉 upon such passages as are most likely to affiright the unwary Reader from a closure with the truth we contend for He tells us p. 7. Review That upon the deepest search he is able to make in above 20 years consideration he is satisfied we hainously wrong the mercy of God and the Church and true Believers and their seed by denying them that part in Gods Covenant and mercy which he hath proved to be stated on them in Gods word That God never had Church Laws on earth whether in Innocency or since the fall which extended not the priviledge of a Covenant and Church-state to the Infants of the Church And so he runs on telling us that from Adams time till now Infants were Church-members and that Christ so found them and so continued them Answ By the Marshalling of his Comma's and if all these particulars be antecedents to the pronoun them here lyes a heavy Charge for it seems if he be believed that we deny the mercy of God the Church and true believers and their seed a part in Gods Covenant and Mercy which Mr. B. says he hath proved that God hath stated on them in his word But let him consider whether the mercy of Gods having a part in the Covenant and Mercy of God be not non-sense 2. He would do honestly to produce from any Anti-paedo-baptist where they ever deny'd
done and we find not a syllable there of Infant Baptism is it not very injurious to blame us for renouncing such a practice as we find no warrant for This very man tells us pl. Script p. 301. That he finds it a hard Controversy to prove Infant Baptism it is so dark in the Scripture And More Proofs p. 219. That it hath considerable difficulties and that his proofs are not so clear as every good man can perceive And yet he has published a Book Intituled plain Scripture-proof for Infant Baptism strange considence and Contradiction But now he produces as he tells us a full command for Infant Baptism Math. 28.19 because Nations must be Baptized Answ VVhat shall we say to men whose Judgements are fore stalled by a darling error I need not add much to disprove this but referr the Reader to our Books where this text is vindicated from Mr. Baxters senseless gloss Nations are to be discipled and so Baptized Certainly the Pronown then governed by the participle Baptizing can possibly relate to no other Substantive then the Persons commanded before to be taught For as Dr. Holmes truly tells us p. 7. 't is not the Nations in gross For then all must be Baptized if the word Nation universally taken doth there denote the Subjects of Baptism But 't is the Nations with restriction that is such as are discipled by teaching and no more that are commanded to be baptized And if this be not the sense they must baptize them in the lump Heathens Unbelievers Professors Infants and all and that whether they would be baptized or nor Let Mr Baxter consider what a full command he hath met with for his practice Mr. Baxters further talk about Infants being Disciples and his parity of Reason from their being the Kings Subjects Ergo why not Christs I look upon as frivolous His frequent urgeing the parents Faith to be the ground of their Baptism and that the Parents will go for theirs in consenting shall be answered in the words of a learned Doctor If they have imputative faith so let the Sacrament be too that is if they have the Parents faith or the Churches then so let Baptism be imputed to them by derivation from them and as in their mothers womb and while they hang on their mother breasts they live upon their mothers nourishments so they may upon the Baptism of their parents or their mother the Church For since faith is necessary to the susception of Baptism and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the matter up such as the Faith such must be the Sacrament for there is no proportion betwen an actual Sacrament and an Imputative faith this being an immediate and necessary order to that And whatsoever can be said to take of the necessity of actual faith all that and much more may be said to excuse from the actual susception of Baptism c. And a little further he adds That if baptism be necessary to the salvation of Infants as the Fathers of old and the Church of Rome and England since yea and Mr. Baxter too upon whom is the imposition laid to whom is the Command given to the Parents or the Children Not to the Parents for then God hath put the salvation of innocent babes into the power of others and Infants may be damned for their parents carelesness or malice It follows that it is not necessary at all to be done unto them to whom it cannot be prescribed as a Law and in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably intrusted to others with the appendant necessity And if it be not necessary it is certain it is not reasonable and most certain it is no where in terms prescribed And therefore it is presumed that Baptism ought to be understood and administred according as other precepts are with reference to the capacity of the subject and the reasonableness of the thing And again If any man runs for succour to that exploded Cresphugeton that Infants have faith or any other inspired habit of I know not what and how we desire no more advantage in the world then that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason common sense and all the experience in the world Haec ille Reader I take Mr. Baxters Review hitherto to be shewed vain and his ground for Paedo-baptism to be very weak and frivolous He comes next p. 20 to add and enlarge upon 4 particulars and those subdivided into many others which comprehend the rest of the Review 1. The benefits of Infant Baptism And I think most of the benefits he enumerates he learnt of the Pope 2. The evils that follow not baptizing them These are meer whimsies of his own making not worth a serious Readers patience I willingly pass them there is nothing argumentative in them therefore no need of a Reply 3. The sins we would draw men to by rejecting it And here he is very fruitful he finds them to be no less then 15. And all without Proof therefore I pass them with a naked Negation which is ever as valid as a naked assertion By way of digression before he comes to the fourth particular Mr. Baxter quarrels with Mr. Hutchinson for desiring him to repent of his absurd position of a Baptismal Covenant of grace running in a fleshly line and seems to deny that ever he used such a phrase but if he remembers himself he uses the words baptismal Covenant frequently as More Proofs p. 198. 224. 238. even in this Review p. 3. 38. And several other places And doth he not call that Covenant a Covenant of grace through all his writings If that be not his meaning why doth he not tell us what other Covenant he means And doth he not as confidently affirm that that Baptismal Covenant of grace is convey'd to the Children by their believing parents And is not that a running in a fleshly line and in his conceit hereditary if so what reason has he to exclaim as if that were charged upon him which he holds not Doth he not call our Dispute against this conceit a Hectoring men out of their Inheritances Review p. 34 which fully explains what Covenant he means it seems he dares not own his opinion when stated in the proper terms but would mince it into a more disguised and specious Phrase to impose with the more artifice upon his credulous can 〈◊〉 But let them take warning if they be wise not to take such rotten precepts of men for Gospel though set off in plausible language by such a man of tongue The rest of his talk better deserves those titles of supercilious and insulting and Rhetorical invective canting c. which he bestows upon his admonisher then the Letter sent him 4. At last he comes to the 4 particular containing 13. other particulars which he says he might be seduced into if he had owned Anabaptism Answ But that as Mr. Eyres said long ago it is too
illustrate by their indiscreet zeal and imbellish Christian knowledge by Artificial forms and figures but rather desaced it Col. 2.8 That the Greeks fond of niceties transplanted their beloved Rhetorical flowers into Christian Gardens which prov'd indeed Weeds Haec ille So that the conclusion I shall in this particular come to is That we are not under the notion of Consequence to admit any thing in point of Religion but what is of such clear and undoubted Scripture demonstration as might satisfie the Conscience that it is the Will of God And that we are to use all endeavours to rescue Christianity from those incumbrances of humane inventions and Traditions which the wanton and licentious Schoolmen have mixt with it and so reduce it to its primitive purity and simplicity by adhering close to the Word of God and rejecting all those corrupt glosses that under the title of explaining render it indeed more obscure unintelligible and confounding As to Mr. Walker's Arguments from the benefits of Infant Baptism which he says are an early Consecration being brought thereby into Covenant under a Vow and others care united to Christ made thereby Children of God heirs of Heaven partakers of Grace consigned to a Resurrection are saved by it freed from Original sin c. they are all in the notion Mr. Walker holds them Popish and exploded for the most part by our learned Protestants as vain and idle conceits Insomuch that 't is needless for me to spend time in disproof of that which is so fully done already For what tendency has this kind of arguing but to ascribe that vertue to the bare application of an Ordinance which the Lord never gave to it and so set up an Opus Operatum which the Protestant Churches vehemently disclaim Dr. Owen in his Theologomena lib. 6. c. 5. p. 477 c. has excellently refelled this position viz. Regeneration by Baptism ex opere operato concluding with this verdict of it Neque sanè dogma perniciosius aut quod peccatorum animis praesentius venenum propinaret facilè excogitaret ipse mendaciorum pater That the very Father of lyes could not easily invent a more pernicious opinion or which might instill a more deadly poison into the hearts of sinners And then very amply discovers how all are born in sin being children of wrath by nature and that Regeneration is effected by the Spirit through the Word in the hearts of believers according to the New Covenant and not by these Popish Inventions Of the same Judgment with Dr. Owen herein were our first impugners of Popery the Waldenses in their Treatise of Antichrist writ as is said by Peter Bruys Anno 1120. P. Perin l. 3. p. 267. So was the famous Wickliff as Mr. Danvers demonstrates at large p. 121. c. of 2 Reply And Dr. Usher in his State and succession of the Church Dr. Taylor Lib. Proph. p. 242 243 c. and in a word the whole stream of modern Doctors Calvin's words are memorable in inveighing against the mischiefs of this opinion Instit l. 4. c. 15. sect 20. Quantum damni invexerit dogma illud male expositum baptisma esse de necessitate salutis pauci animadvertunt Ideoque minus sibi cavent nam ubi invaluit opinio perditos esse omnes quibus aquâ cingi non contingit nostra conditio deterior est quam vtteru populi quasi restrictior esset Dei gratia quam sub lege venisse enim Christus censebitur non ad implendas promissiones sed abolendas quando promissio quae tunc ante octavam diem saluti conserendae per se erat satis efficax nunc absque signi adminiculo rata non esset And sect 32. saith Non arceri à regno Coelorum Infantes quibus à praesenti vita migrare contingit antequam aqua mergi datum fuerit atqui jam visum est fieri non levem injuriam Dei faederi nisi in eo acquiescimus ac si per se infirmum eset quum ejus effectas neque à baptismo neque ab ullis accessionibus pendeot c. So Rogers in his Analysis of the 39 Articles p 167 168. tells us in behalf of the Church of England We condemn the Opinion of the Russe is that there is such a necessity of Baptism that all that dye without it are damned Reverend Mr. Perkins on Gal 2. Vol. 2. Edit 1617. p. 191 c. tells us That the outward washing doth not make any man a member of Christ that Baptism is not of absolute necessity that Adoption and Life begin not in Baptism but before that a Sacrament hath not the grace of God tyed to it or shut up in it but is an Instrument to which grace is present in the right use thereof that this Doctrine viz. that a Sacrament confers grace by the work done is a fiction of the brain of man 1 Pet. 3 21. that Regeneration is a work of Creation therefore it is of God immediately and not immediately from the Sacrament And much more to this effect but 't is too tedious to transcribe it therefore I refer to the Book it self which notably confutes this conceit Yet to add ex abundanti I shall cite one more as a witness against the absolute necessity of Baptism it is Mr. Wills p. 150. Infant Bapt. who to give him his due speaks notably to it If Baptism says he be of absolute necessity to salvation and that Regeneration is affixt to it and none can be saved without it then it is in mans power to save and to destroy If they will baptize their children they may save them if they neglect it damn them which is horrible absurdity to conceive And in the next page makes out very well that Baptism is not at all concerned in John 13.5 but Regeneration and in so doing proves himself to be more Orthodox in that particular then all his Antiquity for Paedobaptism who all of them expounded that Text of external baptism though very absurdly But what need I particularize a few when the whole stream of the Reformed Writers exclaim with one consent against this Doctrine and bend much of their labours to refell it Mr. Walker indeed says as p. 113. That it hath not any Physical vertue in it self in the way of a Natural cause to effect Salvation But the very Papists say so much for no man will be so ridiculous as to assert it a Natural cause of salvation and I am certain the Papists say no more then Mr. Walker when he tells us that Baptism saves Infants as p. 108. That it must needs make our Hell the more hot to find our unbaptized children there p. 147. That the baptized are rescued wholly or in a great measure from Original sin p. 150. No Baptism then no Son of God and then no Heir of his p. 153. No Baptism no entrance even for Infants into the Kingdom of Heaven that is ordinarily c. p 154. None were saved without the