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
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
to him and his Houshold upon the condition of his and the Housholds Faith individually If this latter be his sense we joyn with him in it but renounce the former as absurd and unsound For if it were allowed then one may be Saved by the Faith of another a Fancy exploded by all Protestants and so it were enough to Save all England if every Master of a Family had been a Believer I would ask Mr. W. if taking himself to be a Believer he would Baptize his Servant and believe him Saved though an Unbeliever upon that ground If it be his Religion his practise shall not be my example Besides if the Covenant promise they so vehemently affirm to belong to Believers Children only must be limited to them and extend no further how come Servants that are not so concerned in the Birth-priviledg nor the Seed of Believers to be pleaded for by this man to have a right to Baptism and Salvation upon the Masters Faith We grant they have as much right to it as the Children that is none at all till Converted for the Text saies Thou and thy House and I presume the Servant is one of the House So that a Believers Servant has as much right to be Baptized as the Believers Child though the Servant cannot pretend to be the Issue of Faithful Parents And if so What 's the Reason they Baptize not their Servants they having the same Title with their Children to it And indeed if they will grant that the Master or Chief Man's Faith is enough to intitle all his Family or those under his Government to Baptism and Salvation then if the King of Spaine or the Pope or Great Turk be Converted 't is enough to Warrant our Paedo-Baptists to Baptize not only all in their great Courts but all that Inhabit their Territories also their Subjects being their Servants And how pure such a Doctrine is that would force so gross an absurdity upon the Scriptures let the World judge So that I humbly conceive it is very evident that neither the one nor the other Scripture jointly or severally holds forth the promise of Salvation or a right to Baptism to any one upon any other account than the Condition of personal Faith And that Mr. Whiston's confident boast of other Revelations is an empty flourish He saies p. 35. It was very rational yea necessary the Commission should be exprest in the Order it is because those to whom the Apostles were sent were in a state of darkness and ignorance wholly estranged from God and his wayes That 's a certain truth which we oppose not but is there not the same necessity still Are not the Nations in a state of darkness ignorance and wholly estranged from God now as well as then till Converted Are not the Infants you Sprinkle Children of Wrath as well as others And therefore is it not as necessary that the preaching of the Gospel should be antecedent to Baptism now as they confess it was then For my part I know no difference between a Heathen and an Vnbeliever they are both alike distant from God and both equally capable of his converting Grace And this serves for an Answer to this as well as the two following Considerations being of the same purport He affirms page 37. That the promise of Salvation and Covenant of Grace in which the promise is contained is still extended to the Houses or Families of Believers as such To which I say as before that his sayings would be more regarded if he would condescend to prove them But however if he means it conditionally viz. if they believe they may be Baptized and Saved we grant it But if he intends it positively that the Master's Faith is enough to Intitle the whole Family to Salvation the Covenant of Grace and Baptism without their personal Faith we absolutely deny it and he has not yet proved it nor indeed is he able to do it He goes on still harping upon the same string and tells us page 38. That if Mr. Danvers could have produced any one Scripture wherein the Apostles did exclude Infants or in their practice did refuse to Baptize them he had said something to his purpose 'T is an unpleasant task to be answering to the very same thing so often that when this Protaeus varies his word but not his sense to make the Reader believe it is a new Argument shall we be obliged to be as impertinent in replying as he is in inhauncing the bulk of his Book by such trifling Repetitions Have we not over and over again told him his own party with open mouth affirming the same thing that for every positive part of Gods Worship there is need of Scripture-precept or example to warrant it And is not our practice of Baptizing Believers confirmed by both as all parties confess Whereas Mr. Baxter and others own that Infant-Baptism has no express mention in Scripture nor in the Records and Histories of the Church More proofs p. 279. c. 2. Have we not again and again affirmed and which is no other than pure Protestant Doctrine Witness Dr. Owen in his answer to Mr. Parker page 345. where he calls what Mr. W. here urges a captious and sophistical Tale by which ten thousand things may be made lawful And a little further saies that every thing esteemed as any part of Divine Worship is forbidden that is not commanded That the affirmative Command includes the Negative and so the command to Baptize Believers and the constant practice of the Apostolical primitive times to Baptize only such is enough to warrant the exclusion of Infants from that Ordinance so that the Scripture indeed excludes them in as much as it doth not include them and the command of Baptizing persons upon a profession of Faith excludes such as cannot or will not make such a profession But he would have us tell him Where or when the Apostles refused to Baptize any But it were more proper for him to give us some instance when any were brought or offered to them to be Baptized for we read of none refused because none offered and certainly had it been the practice to Baptize Infants we should have some instance of it in some part of the New-Testament We never yet found in Scripture that the Apostles refused to Baptize the Children of Unbelievers shall we therefore conclude they were Baptized But we read Mark 10.14 the Text so often produced for Infant-Baptism but a pregnant place against it that the Disciples rebuked such as brought Children to Christ which surely they would not have done had it been the practice to Baptize them Besides the Text saies they brought them only to be touched by our Saviour and he blest not Baptiz'd them and certainly if any Infants had a right to be Baptized those Infants had it for Christ says of such is the Kingdom of Heaven he knew if they were of the Elect and therefore it would be no Hazard to baptize
priviledges of the old Covenant and are not all counted his seed in the sence of the new Thirdly that Abrahams natural seed have no right to the priviledges of the new Covenant by vertue of Abrahams faith Fourthly that seeing Abrahams own seed his natural children have no right to the Gospel-Covenant or priviledges thereof much lesse can the children of believing Gentiles lay any claim thereunto either by vertue of Abrahamâ—s faith or the faith of their own parents And so I might here end this matter but because you shall have full measure I will add another testimony concerning the Covenant and the little ground there is to baptize Infants from that Scripture Gen. 17.7 Know then that the Covenant of grace is to be considered either of the promise of eternal life and salvation made to all the elect in Christ the which remains one and the same in all ages though variously administred in the times of the old and new Testament Or else of the manner of its Administration in which sence it s now in respect of the old Testament administration which was a distinct Covenant in it self for the time being called the new Covenant and the other to have waxen old and to vanish away Heb. 8. last Which cannot be said of the promise or Covenant of eternal life that being an everlasting covenant and over remains one and the same Now it s one thing to be in the Covenant of grace i. e. to have a right to the promise which is only proper to the elect another thing to be under the administration of the Covenant which is common to the elect and reprobates and depends meerly upon Gods appointment Now if the Covenant be understood in the first sence of the promise of eternal life and salvation made to the elect in Christ that did never belong to all the children born of believing parenâ—s as might be instanced in Ishmael and Esau c. but only to such as are elected of them Rom. 9.7.8.9 neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children c. The Covenant of grace being first made between God and Christ all the elect in Christ And therefore in Scripture it is cal'd the promise of eternal life which was made to the elect before the world began who are therefore called the heirs of promise which promise had its first promulgation to Adam in the garden of Eden Where we have also the first discovery of the mystery of the two seeds Now the Covenant taken in this sence is not the ground and reason of administring ordinances to any person whatever But the law of institution is the ground or reason of visible Administrations For the administration of ordinances belongs not to the substance of the Covenant but to its administration as to the persons to whom they shall be administred and that meerly on the law of institution without any other consideration and hence we finde that from the first promulgation of the Covenant to Adam until Gods renewing of it to Abraham there was no ordinance to be administred to Infants though some Infants as well as grown persons both of believers and unbelievers might be comprehended in the Covenant yet not to be circumcis'd and so not to be baptiz'd for want of an institution So the promise in Act. 2.39 is said to be to them a far off in the present tense while uncalled even to as many as shall be called and yet not to be baptized before calling unlesse you will baptize Gentiles in professed Gentilism and so the Jews some not yet born some not cal'd have the Covenant of grace made to them Rom. 11.27 For this is my Covenant unto them when I shall take away their sins and yet they are not to be baptized till converted Nor can the Covenant considered in its pure nature be a ministers rule to administer Ordinances by seeing it is unknown who are in the Covenant and who are not but that which is their rule must be something that is manifest Secondly when it is said that the Covenant of grace belongs to believers children and that is the ground of their Baptism If it be meant of its Administration you have heard that depends meerly on the law of institution and hath varied in several ages according to the will of the law-giver For during all that period of time from Adam to Abraham there was no Ordinance to be administred to Infants but when God renewed the promise to Abraham he instituted circumcision which ordinance belongs peculiarly to the old Testament administration and was part of Moses law which is now abrogated and done away And this was the first ordinance that was administred to Infants and not to all Infants but only to male Infants living in Abrahams family if they did live to the eight day otherwise they had no right to this ordinance though many of them doubtlesse in the Covenant of grace and so saved so we say of Infants in the days of the Gospel many of them are in the Covenant of grace and so saved by vertue of the free promise But yet not to be baptised if they do not live to the time of believing and repenting the only time appointed for Baptism so that the Administration of ordinances to Infants depends upon an Institution and not upon their being in Covenant And as to that place Gen. 17.7 I will be a God to thee and to thy seed that is say you the Covenat was made with Abraham as a believer and so with all believers and their seed To which I answer The Covenant was not made with believers and their seed but with Abraham and his seed Now Abraham is to be considered under a double relation First as the father of the Jews his fleshly seed Secondly as he is the father of his spiritual seed both Jews and Gentiles Rom. 4.11.12 Now to both seeds doth God promise to be a God but in a different manner and respect First he promises to be a God to his fleshly seed in giving to them the land of Canaan for an inheritance the promise of which is expresly called the Covenant made with Abraham and his seed as on Gods part Psal 105.9.10.11.12 which Covenant he made with Abraham saying unto thee will I give the land of Canaan the lot of your inheritance c. See also 1 Chron. 16.16.17.18 and Neh. 9.8 This I say was the Covenant on Gods part And their obedience to circumcision is expresly called the Covenant on their parts Gen. 17.10 This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you Every male shall be Circumcis'd So Act. 7.8 And he gave them the Covenant of Circumcision and so Abraham begat Isaac and circumcis'd him the eight day By which they stood engaged to keep all those other additional ordinances which Moses gave them when they were about to enter their promised inheritance as Gal. 5.3 I testify that whoever is Circumcis'd is bound to keep
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
or similitude it is requisite to consider in what sence or respect Images or similitudes are forbidden Images or similitudes then are forbidden not as Objects of worship for all false objects of worship are the false Gods forbidden in the first Commandement but Images and similitudes are forbidden in the 2d Commandement not as false objects or worship wherein the worship of God is terminated but as false means of worshiping the true God The Golden Calf was not considered as the God of Israel but as an Image of that Jehovah which brought them out of Egipt whence it is said that Aaron proclaimed a feast not to the Calfe but to Jehovah whereof the Calfe was an Image the Calfe then was not the God but an Image of that God they worshipped as that which resembled him and put them in minde of him And then further the Image forbidden in the 2d Commandement is not only a false means of worship devised by man but a false manner also and therefore when the Samaritan-strangers knew not the manner of worshiping God in the Calves of Jeroboam it is said they knew not the manner of the God of the Country 2 King 17.26 and one of the Priests was sent to teach them the manner of fear or worship of Jehovah and so they feared Jehovah after the same manner that was in serving him after their own devising So that under this one kinde of false worship is forbidden by a Synechdoche not only all worship of God in carved moulten or painted Images all bodily representations of God but all spiritual Images too which are the Imaginations and inventions of man whether they be ordained for worship as the high places and the devised feast of the eighth Month 2. Kin. 12.33 or whether they be brought in and used as helps and means of worship as the strange fire of Nadab Lev. 10 and Davids new Cart to carry the Ark he did not make a new Ark but a new cart which devise of his there being no command for it fell under the condemnation of the second Commandement And so all Images and Imaginations of men all forms and manner of worship devised by man and not ordained by God are forbidden as Idolatrous Poed But Sir if your way be true is it not strange that so many learned men should be of a contrary opinion Bap. No it is not more strange then that there are so many learned men against the Protestant Religion and especially against your practise of baptizing the children of believers only and upon those grounds you do it for the whole Christian world as it s called of learned men are against your grounds of baptizing Infants for they administer Baptism for the taking away of Original sin and to confer grace and that not restrained to such believers Infants as you do it but to the Infants of all persons in the nations where they live so that your opinion is a very novelty 2. But Secondly it is not strange if you consider what Christ saith Math. 11.25 I thank thee O father that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent c. Even so because it seemed good in thy sight There is the reason given it is beneplacitum his good pleasure 3. And Thirdly I answer we have not been without the testimony of learned men not only in this but in former ages for it is well known that Infant-Baptism was very early opposed and for any thing I know as soon as it was born for no Antiquity mentions Infant-Baptism to have any peaceable being in the world any long time before it was opposed and if it be said it was not opposed at the beginning as soon as we heard of it in the world It may be so for Christ saith while the servants slept the evil ones sow'd tares and surely it was a sleepy time amongst Christians when it came in but when they begun to awake they opposed it Besides all this we have the testimony of some of your own party whose tongues and pens God hath at least so over-ruled that they have born a famous testimony for our practise First Doctor Taylor saith This indeed is true Baptism when it is both in the Symbol and in the mistery whatsoever is lesse then this is but the Symbâ—l only and a meer ceremony an opus operatum a dead letter an empty shadow an instrument without an agent to manage it 2ly Baptism is never propounded mentioned or enjoyn'd as a means of remission of sins or of eternal life but something of duty choice and sanctity is joyn'd with it in order to the production of the end so mentioned 3ly They that baptize children make Baptism to be wholy an outward duty a work of the law a carnal ordinance it makes us adhere to the letter without regard of the spirit and to relinquish the mysteriousnesse the substance the spirituality of the Gospel which Argument is of so much the more consideration because under the spiritual Covenant or the Gospel of grace If the mystery goes not before the Symbol which it doth when the Symboles are consignations of grace as the Sacraments are yet it always accompanies it but never follows in order of time and is cleare in the perpetual Analogy of holy Scripture 4. That the words mentioned in St. Peters sermon Acts. 2. which are the only Records of the promises are interpreted upon a weak mistake the promise belongs to you and your children therefore Infants are actually receptive of it in that capacity That is the Argument but the reason of it is not yet discovered nor ever will for to you and your children is to you and your posterity to you and your children when they are of the same capacity in which you are receptive of the promise but he that whenever the word children is exprest understands Infants must needs believe that in all Israel there were no men but all were Infants c. 5. From the action of Christ blessing infants to infer that they were Baptized proves nothing so much as that there is want of better Arguments for the conclusion would with more probability be derived thus Christ blessed Children and so dismissed them but baptized them not Therefore Infants are not to be baptized But let this be as weake as its enemy yet that Christ did not Baptize them is an Argument sufficient that he hath other ways of bringing them to heaven then by Baptism And we are sure God hath not commanded infants to be baptized so we are sure God will do them no injustice nor damn them for what they cannot help viz. if the parents baptize them not Many theusand ways there are by which God can bring any reasonable soul to himself but nothing is so unreasonable because he hath tyed all men of years of discretion to this way therefore we of our own heads shall carry Infants to him that way withâ—ut his direction The conceit is poâ—r and low and the action
finds Contention raging within him for now those inferior powers will be no longer subject unto Reason but the rebellious pride of the Carnal appetite is such that the Body ceaseth to be any longer subject to the Soul upon which strivings and contentions enter and from thence all manner of Diseases and Distempers upon the Body for death and all corporeal infirmities are but the immediate effects of the disobedience of the Body to the Soul and man is entred into Contrariety not only with himself but others also and hath a property and principle of Contradiction whereby he opposes quarrels divides from and contends with others And is so far departed from the unity and harmonious agreement that should be in the minds of men especially Christians that now there ariseth passion anger and envy which so disturbs torments and disquiets the mind because others are not like us that from thence follow in a great measure diseases infirmities and bodily distempers because the Soul departs from Harmony and is in continual vexation and anxiety so that the Humors of the Body are disquieted and the radical moisture destroyed Persons that are of a Cholerick Temper are more subject to Diseases than those of a more quiet and sâ—rene disposition their passion inflames the inward parts and disorders the whole frame of Nature and envious men are subject to Consumptive distempers Invidus alterius rebus macrescit Opimis because his mind is full of dissatisfaction and disquietness being departed from Unity And Solomon tells us The bloody-minded man shall not live out half his dayes And we know those Anchorets and Monks that have retired from the World into Dens and Caves of the Earth that they might live a contemplative Life and be free from all manner of discord contention and division have lived to an exceeding Old Age and free from those distempers and Bodily Infirmities that others meet with the unity agreement and harmony of their minds much conducing to their bodily health So it 's said of Moses that he was an hundred and twenty years old when he dyed his Eye was not dim nor his natural force abated Deut. 34.7 we know of what quiet serene and meek Spirit he was of Numb 12.3 Now the man Moses was very meek above all the men which were upon the face of the Earth so that the quietness of his mind did very much contribute to the sanity of his Body And if Men and Women would more follow the Counsel of the Physitian of their Souls who bids us live in peace unity and love they would not perhaps so often want a Physitian for their Bodies FINIS Some Short Questions and Answers for the Younger Sort. Quest WEre not the Children of Believers Church-Members before Abraham's time Answ No the Scripture makes no mention of any such thing neither was there any visible sign or mark appointed by God to distinguish them from the Children of Unbelievers Quest Was there no successive conveyance of Grace from believing Parents to their Children Answ No because the Children of Believers prov'd as wicked as others insomuch as all flesh had corrupted its wayes and God brought the flood upon the World of Ungodly Quest What then became of the Children that Dyed from Adam to Abraham Answ Those that belonged to the Election of Grace were Saved though in no outward Covenant nor signed by any Visible Ordinance Quest Why then did God make a Covenant with Abraham and his Seed and distinguish them from all Nations Answ Because he had a design that the Messiah should come of his Loins and therefore his Males only are commanded to be Circumcised to signifie that Christ should be a Man-child and should shed his Blood for the sins of Believers Quest What other Ends were there of Circumcision Answ To distinguish them from other Nations with whom they were not to Marry lest the Succession should be Interrupted and so the Messiah not come of Abrahams Loynes Quest What advantage had they of Circumcision besides Answ They were counted the Visible people of God for a time had the Laws of God committed to them and the Land of Canaan and divers Earthly Blessings bestowed upon them Quest But had any other People any right to Eternal Life and Salvation Answ Yea It being evident that God had divers of his people amongst the Gentiles who belonged to the Election of Grace as Job and his Three Friends and others which appears by Bildad's appeal to the Ancients Job 8.8 10. For enquire I pray thee of the Former Age and prepare thy self to the search of their Fathers and vers 10. shall not they teach thee c. Quest But how came it to pass that the Jews became the People of God and not others Answ By vertue of a Grant from God to Abraham who freely made a promise to be a God to him and his Seed after him Quest Was this promise made to Abraham because he was better than others or before or after he Believed Answ No It was freely of Grace for God sound him an Idolater and these Promises were made to him before he Believed for we hear nothing of his Faith till Gen. 15.6 Quest Were his Children then Partakers of those Priviledges meerly by being descended from his Loynes Answ Yea we find no other Reason rendred Quest But we hear Abraham was a Believer and received the sign of Circumcision as a token of the righteousness he had by Faith Is it necessary then that his Children have the like Faith Answ 'T is true Abraham Believed after the Promise and was Circumcised but it was not Commanded that his Children should Believe in order to Circumcision Quest But as Abraham was a Believer before his Children had a right to Circumcision so should it not be known that every Father in Israel were a Believer before his Child were admitted to Circumcision Answ No for all were required to Circumcise their Children whether the Parent Believed or not Quest Were none to be Circumcised but those that Descended from Abraham Answ Yea all that were born in his House or bought with money Quest But was it not required that those Servants in Abraham 's House should profess Faith before they and their Children were Circumcised Answ No It was not commanded to be done upon any condition of Faith in the Parent or Child that was a Servant Quest Were Abrahams Children Circumcised by vertue of any right they had to the Covenant of Grace above others Answ No for some of Noah's Children c. had a Right to the Covenant of Grace yet not Circumcised and Esau and Ishmael c. had no right to the Covenant of Grace and yet Circumcised Quest Were not Infants Church-Members in Abraham 's time Answ Yea the Church and the Common-wealth being all one they must needs be Members Quest When did their Membership cease Answ When Christ came and had suffered when the Priesthood was changed when the Law of Circumcision ceased when the natural
of the Kidnies and the burning of the Fat of Beasts to be Sacrificed is said to be a perpetual Statute in their Generations Lev. 3.17 So the Offerings made by fire Lev. 6.18 The Feast of Booths Lev. 23.41 which nevertheless have their period with the Law So where God promises to be a God to Abraham and his carnal Seed in their Generations it is meant during the Legal administration not but that if Abraham be understood as a Spiritual Father God will be a God to him and his Seed viz. such as did believe as he did without limitation for ever Whereas if he be understood as a Political and Natural Parent the Covenant then must needs be understood to make any thing for them absolute and everlasting but that were absurd for the Natural Seed of Abraham viz. the Unbelieving Jews have broke the Covenant and are now cut off which they could not have been if that Position were true But that the Covenant was not absolute as it respected the Temporal ot Spiritual Seed of Abraham I evince thus If while the Church of the Jews was in being God denies himself to be their God and disowns them as his people because of their transgression then the promise was Conditional not absolute but the Antecedent is true Hos 1.9 Exod. 19.5 6. Jer. 23.14 But if you lay so much stress upon that expression that God should be a God to you and your Seed what account will it amount unto for you can apply nothing of the Promise to them but the bare outward act of Baptizing or rather Rantizing but what of favour or Spiritual saving-mercy is that or what advantage is it since the Children that dye Unbaptized are as capable of Salvation as those you Baptize For it is the Protestant Doctrine not to ascribe Salvation Opere operato and therefore Baptism confers not Grace nor Saves the dying Soul unless in conjunction with Faith which applies the blood of Christ The Covenant made to Abraham and his Spiritual Seed respects Salvable Mercies Grace here and Glory hereafter but Baptism of Infants can confer neither therefore it is not the Covenant made with Abraham Nor need we yield to that Opinion that would force us to acknowledg no Covenant but what is mutual because this Covenant consists of Free Donation and so rather a Testament than Covenant as Ames Mar. Divinity lib. 1. cap. 23. affirms And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place by the 70 and in all places of the Old Testament except Isai 28.15 where they render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faedus vel pactum inter partes a Covenant betwixt parties as Leigh in his Critica sacra And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Englisht a Testament see Matth. 26.28 Mark 14.14 Heb. 9.15 17. 1 Cor. 11.25 Luke 22.20 So that the properest expression is to call it the Testament of Grace and this name is most agreeable to the nature of the thing for God doth hereby dispose convey and bestow all that Grace which may fit all his Heirs for his Eternal Glory By vertue of this Testament or Covenant of Grace was the Land of Canaan promised to Abraham for his Natural Posterity which Typified the Heavenly Canaan which his Spiritual Seed should enjoy upon the exhibition of the Messiah and which is indeed the chief Blessing Not but that some of his natural Seed too should enjoy the later provided they be his Spiritual Seed by Faith as well as his Natural Seed by Generation See Jer. 32.40 Heb. 8.8 9 10 11 12. and 10.16 17. Jer. 31.23 and that same condition of Faith is still required of the Seed of Believers and without it they have no interest in Christian Ordinances which Mr. W. takes no notice of but concludes in contradiction to what he said before That as Abraham and his Seed were Circumcised Believers and their Seed must be Baptized the main thing in doubt betwixt us and for which he offers no proof But he goes on page 77. If the Covenant Believers are now under be the same with that establisht with Abraham and his Seed and that as such that Circumcision was the sign token or seal of the Covenant and Baptism doth now succeed in the place room and use of Circumcâ—sion then Infants ought to be Baptized as of old they were Circumcised observe his frequent contradictions just now he renounced what here he concludes But if these or any of these things be not so but are meer mâ—stakes on our parts I must confess we have no sure footing for Infant-Baptism in the Covenant as at first established with Abraham and his Seed in their Generation This is indeed the grand Fabrick whereby Infant-Baptism has been of late Years supported which if we can demolish the Super structure must needs fall as now ingeniously acknowledged Nor need we employ any greater strength against it then what Dr Owen lends us Exercit. 6. page 55. c. quoted before where he solidly confutes the Plea from the Birth-priviledg to Christian Ordinances And therefore to produce Dr. Owen against Mr. Whiston is a sufficient Confutation if we had said no more And this being the Radical Thesis to which the other Considerations he wastes his paper and time about are only subservient as Attendants that the number and equipage of the retinue might bespeak its grandeur and port If we should take no notice of any thing he saies further but apply our Arguments only to that it were enough since if this be once comâ—ted the rest of his Book is cashier'd of course Which piece of Service the Doctor has excellently done to our hands proving undeniably that Abraham has but two Seeds the natural Jew and actual professing Believers and that such only as are Heirs of Abraham's Faith have right to Gospel priviledges the old Faederal right being insufficient to entitle the Jews thereto therefore let Mr. Whiston either convince the Doctor if this be an error or be convinced by him in case it be a truth Or let him reconcile that Exercitation to the practice of Baptizing Infants upon a Faederal Right or tell us plainly in what third capacity the Infant seed of Believers now are the children of Abraham since they are not his natural Seed as all must own nor as the Doctor well words it in the case of the Jews can they wanting personal Faith be counted his Spiritual Seed But however a little to examine this foundation-principle three Things are to be offered to our Enquiry 1. Whether the Covenant Believers are now under be the same establisht with Abraham and his Seed 2. Whether Circumcision be the sign token or seal of that Covenant 3. Whether Baptism doth succeed in the place use and room of Circumcision To the first I say as before that the Covenant must be considered in a two-fold respect 1. In respect to Spiritual Blessings Grace here and Glory hereafter so it is and was
Monarchy that great thing Catechrestically call'd a Church must vanish and the large Revenues pomp and grandeur of its active Janizaries expire with it since the matter of such a synagogue is the collective body of the nations which because of its unbelief and prophanesse the word of God excludes out of the Church till in Gods time and by his power gradually converted it being evident from the mouth that errs not that the greatest part of Mankind traverses the broad way to destruction Math. 7.13 Surely this one consideration has a more forcible rhetorick to keep up this pernicious practise then all the juglings of its abettors or the gaudy flourishes or specious Fulcrums its defenders produce to illustrate and support it It is one of the Popes political and very necessary maximes and I fear borrowed by many from him wanting that power by which the Gospel ministers acted to principle the emissaries that manage his cause very ripely in school-sophistry and such other subtile qualifications that their learned craft and seeming profoundness of wisdom and parts may amuse and captivate the generality of mankind And indeed we find them too apt to be gaping after those ornaments which the Apostle elegantly calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and well translated the inticing words of mans wisdom 1 Cor. 2.4 They are well versed in the perplexing Idle whimsies of Aristotle Scotus c. but meer dunces and fools in plain Scripture doctrines their Heathen Philosophy and the Gospel being at as wide a distance as the Earth is from the third Heaven See Job 5.12.13 and 32.9 1 Cor. 1.19 But what is most lamentable is that ministers that are separatists from national corruption and prophaness and in the judgment of charity in many things orthodox and pious should be the forwardest opposers of so necessary a reformation and not only so but when they find the pretences upon which it was with a ridiculous retinue obtruded upon the world rotten and reeling they must invent new supporters for it viz. a Covenant right derivative from a believing parent c. As if spiritual graces would admit of carnal propagations or that a Christian doth always beget a Christian a divinity as novel as 't is absurd And with this modern auxiliary this otherwise yeelding cause is reinforced In the judgment of some it may parhaps add to the credit of that fancy that so famous a man as Mr. Baxter is should patronize it But he is not the first Theological grandee that has been mistaken Performances of never so exalted a kind conferr not the priviledge of Infallible 'T is only the great Creator is unerring A man may preach and write of the most seraphick verities and yet know but in part Mr Baxter is to be honoured as far as he has laid himself out to preach the Gospel and improve his Talent for the Conversion of souls in this evil day But when he forgets himself and instead of promoting practical holyness fills the nation with notions as uncertain as they are numberless puzling such as arrive not to the subtilty of his distinction creating more doubts then ever he 'l be able to resolve making Christianity a meer riddle which no man understands but he and liable to as many forms and interpretations as his wavering mind Then I humbly conceive he may be very safely left 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a golden Aphorism of a heathen poet Sure as peaceable as he would make us believe he is that party or person that incurs his displeasure must expect an unmerciful handling He is so invenom'd an Antagonist that whoever encounters him has need of an Antidote Nor is his reverend new Author Mr. Wills to whom he is so liberal of his encomiums much behind in this Excellency A strenuous satyrist that by the flashes of his Academick wit makes some blaze little of solid heat or warmth As for Mr. Baxter it feems he has something prophetical in him he says in his last book he knows what can be said in answer and what he 'l reply and the others rejoynder c. Belike he knew by the same prophetick faculty the first year of his ministry when he fell into doubts about Infants Baptism and suspended the practise some years as he says that the Anti-Poedobaptists would be out of the favour of the times and so inconsiderable as he scornfully says they are which scared the man to the other side And to convince the world that he was re-proselyted in good earnest persecutes them with all the obloquy and slaunder a virulent peevish humor could dictate So that poor people 't is well their bones are whole from the furious artillery and crushing grasps of so mighty a Polyphemus It would â—â—artle a man to see what a room he would take up as if the whole world must become his pupill How confident a dictator he is to universal mankind such a reconciler that he will not be stopt in his cariere till he brings us to Rome as if the vast creation must be of his parish But I doubt the Pope will not be so tamely cog'd to resign up to Mr. Baxter his Regalia Petri Sure as nimble a Proteus as he is hee 'l find himself mistaken in these incongruous Topicks We have the Bible in English and in the original too and for all he picks a quarrel with that in his 20. Quaeries c. because perhaps too narrow to confine so boundless a wanderer yet it shall be our Christian Directory wee 'l keep it preciously and leave his rotten and superfluous notions to fill up the vacuums in the Stationers shops That leaven hath so soured his whole lump that for fear of sucking some poyson with his honey we 'l be Christians as well as the Lord shall enable us without him Hold but he gives you his extremum vale at the door of eternity But is very angry that he is importuned to it from some supream transactions he is hatching in his study Possibly his next errand may be to send us to Constantinople nor is the scruple extravagant considering what he has done already to have a treaty of reconciliation with the Muphti and make some part of Mahomets creed by his vast Authority Orthodox But being so successesse in Christendom he may very well despair of that undertaking But what 's his farewel why he begins with his old quarrel with Mr Tombes rallying his defeated quibbles for a new Combat But he is full of words and will leade his reader such a dance that he may sooner grow giddy then finde the truth or whereabouts he is such a continuation of impertinent periphrases though connext with his wonted Artifice that Daedalus's Labyrinth may sooner be travers'd then the more numerous mazes and perplexities of Mr Baxter and all to ecclips a Gospel truth His next project is to take Col. Danvers to task he thinks it beneath a man of his Talent to let him passe without fixing an Epithete upon him as
the children of believers have no right to the Covenant of grace more then the Children of unbelievers by vertue of their parents faith so they have no right to the administration of the Covenant for want of an institution there being no precept nor president in the word of God for such a practise Poed But though there be no precept nor president for Infants-Baptism yet our Ministers tells us there is no weight in that Argument for though we do not finde it written that Infants were baptized yet perhaps some were for a negative Argument don't conclude Bap. Indeed Mr Wills says so and Mr Sydenham before him and diverse of your Ministers and here they cry Victoria this being their beloved Argument they so much boast of but Quisquis amat ranam ranam putat esse Dianam but pray stay a while and let us consider what veriety is in this position a negative Argument don't conclude It 's true in some cases it doth not but in the matter of positive worship we have the opinion of diverse able and Godly men who have told us that what is not commanded in the worship of God is forbidden and that every affirmative command of Christ includes a negative But if it be true that a negative Argument concludes not in matters of Worship then this had been a good plea for Nadab and Abihu Levit. 10. who were destroyed for offering strange fire which God had not commanded they might have said Lord its true thou hast not commanded this strange fire so thou hast not forbid it and a negative Argument don't conclude So God commanded Abraham to circumcise the eighth day but he did not forbid the 7th day And a negative Argument don't conclude So in the passeover God commanded a Lamb a male of the 1st year to be eaten but he did not forbid an ewe or a Ram of the 2d or 3d year and a negative Argument don't conclude So God smote VzZah for holding the Ark but he might have said Lord thou hast not forbid me to support the Ark when the Oxen did shake it and a negative Argument don't conclude So when God threatens Idolatrous Israel for causing their sons and daughters to passe through the fire to Molech which the Lord commanded not neither came it into his heart Jer. 32.35 Yet they might say though he had not commanded it so he had not forbidden it and a negative Argument don't conclude So God hath not forbid Crucifixes beads Altars praying to Saints Images in Churches pilgrimages the Crosse in Baptism c. and a Negative Argument don't conclude So God hath not forbid unbelievers children to be Baptized nor the children of believers to communicate in the Lords supper and a negative Argument don't conclude Lastly Bells are not forbidden to be Baptized and a negative Argument don't conclude Poed But Mr. Wills saith that Bells are not subjectum capax a subject capable Bap. I answer wherein lyes their incapacity Cannot a Minister sprinkle a little water upon a Bell and use the words of Institution in as solemn a manner as he does when he Baptizes a child Or are they uncapable for want of an Institution We say the same of infants But if he say they are not capable of the uses and ends of Baptism as men are I answer If God had pleased he could have made them by an institution capable of some sacred usefulness yea capable of relative holiness as well as Aarons bels or the bels mention'd Zec. 14.20 upon whom it was written holyness to the Lord. But it s well known there are those in the world who think themselves as wise as Mr. Wills that judge Bells capable subjects of Baptism and have done so diverse ages Thus you see what absurdities follow from that position But surely God is more jealous of his honour and tender of his worshâ—â—â— then to leave it to the pleasure of superstitious persons And that God in all ages hath testified his â—â—â—â—ke yea abhorrency of will-worship and thâ—â—â—â— because he hath not commanded it See Jer. 7 3â— They have built the high places unto Tophâ—â— which I commanded them not neither come it into my heart See what God never commanded never came into his heart and for this he threatens great judgments in the following verses So Ezek. 4.3.8 they have set their thresholds by my threshold and their posts by my posts wherefore I have consumed them by mine anger But pray let us reason a little about it and be serious in this matter Do you think will worship is no sin when the same person who is to perform the obedience shall dare to appoint the laws Implying a peremptory purpose of no further observance then may consist with the allowance of his own Judgment whereas true obedience must be grounded on the Majesty of that power that commands not on the judgment of the subject or benefit of the precept proposed Divine laws require obedience not so much from the quality of the things commanded as from the Authority of him that institutes them We are all servants of God and servants are but living instruments whose property is to be governed by the will of those in whose possession they are Will-worship and superstition well may they flatter God they cannot please him He that requires us to deny our selves in his service doth therein teach us that his commands stand rather in fear then in need of us in fear of our boldness lest we abuse them not in need of our judgment to polish or alter them The conquest of an enemy against the Command of his General cost a Roman gentleman his life though his own father were the Judge Christ in Rom. Hom. 2. And the killing of a Lyon contrary to the laws of the Kings hunting though it were only to rescue the King himself cost a poor Persian his head Brisson de Reg. Pers. lib. 1. So the overwise industry of the Architect in bringing not the same but a fitter piece of timber then he was commanded to the Romish Consuâ— was rewarded with nothing but a bundle of rodds So jealous and displeas'd are even men themselves to have their own laws undervalued by the private judgments of those who rather interpret then obey them And therefore we find that those men who erected the Fabricks of superstition and will-worship yet endeavoured to derive the original of them from some divine Revelations And the Roman Captain Scipio before the undertaking any business would first enter the Capitoll and pretend a consultation with the Gods And generally in all the Roman sacrifices the Minister or servant was to attend a command before he was to strike the beast that was offered Semper agatne rogat nec nisi jussus agit Ovid. Horrible then and more then heathenish is the impiety of those who mixing humane inventions and appointments of their own with the institutions of God and imposing them as divine duties with a necessity of
consequent to it bold and venturous Let him do what he pleases with infants we must not Then Mr. Baxter saith if there can be no example given in Scripture of any one that was baptized without the profession of a saving faith nor any precept for so doing then must we not baptize any without it But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent 2. Christ hath instituted no Baptism but what is to be a sign of present Regeneration but to men that professe not a justifying faith it cannot be administred as a sign of present Regeneration therefore he hath instituted no Baptism to be administred to such 3. If it be the appointed use of all Christian Baptism to solemnize our Mariage with Christ or to seal and confirm our union with him then must we baptize none that profess not justifying faith but the Antecedent and consequent are evident Gal. 3.27.28.29 Doctor Hammond saith that all men were instructed in the fundamentalls of faith anciently before they were permitted to be baptized The Lord Brookes saith That the analogy which Baptism now hath with Circumcision in the old law is a fine rational Argument to illustrate a point well proved before But I somewhat doubt whether it be proof enough for that which some would prove by it since besides the vast difference in the ordinance the persons to be Circumcised are stated by a positive law so express that it leaves no place for scruple But it is far otherwise in Baptism where all the Designation of persons fit to be partakers for ought I know are such as believe c. Poed But Mr. Wills and others say that Doctor Taylor did but personate an Anabaptist he himself was for Infants Baptism only he gave some weak Arguments to please the Baptists Bap. It s true Mr. Wills and others say so But must it needs be as they suppose Does it follow infallibly that the Doctor does prevaricate in his first book is it not possible that he might be under some measure of conviction and so receded from the opinion he was once perswaded of and fell from that truth he so strenuously contended for The Galatians once received the Gospel but were so foolish as to fall from it Besides how frequently do we find divers of the fathers contradict themselves and to build again the things that they destroyd But we need not go so far Mr. Baxter himself is a famous instance How often do's Mr. Baxter contradict Mr. Baxter and is it impossible Doctor Taylor should do so But you 'l say he wrote another book wherein he submitted to the Judgment of the Church in the matter of Baptism It s very like he did and perhaps he was of the opinion of a Popish-priest who told me There was indeed no Scripture for baptizing infants but yet it ought to be done because the Church commanded it He spake what many think But suppose the Doctor did as you say only personate an Anabaptist and make use of some weak Arguments to please them Then 1. I wonder Mr. Wills or some other have not answered the Doctors weak Arguments all this while for none that ever I heard of durst enter the lists with the Doctor in the matter And to say he did it by his contrary practise is a frivolous answer 2. But secondly grant all to be true that you would have and that the Doctor was not against baptizing infants which we grant nor Mr. Baxter nor Doctor Hammond c. Yet we make use of their Arguments to a very good purpose viz. to set off the wisdom goodnesse and power of God who as he hath the hearts of all men in his hands so also their tongues and can when he pleases make use of them to bear witness to and proclaim that truth they neither owned nor practised as in the case of the High-priest who prophecied that it was expedient one should die for the people so we say God hath over-ruled the tongues and pens of Doctor Taylor Mr. Baxter c. and made them to bear so famous a Testimony to his truth and strike so deadly a wound to Infants Baptism that whoever shall go about to heal it will prove themselves phisitians of no value Poed But pray Sir what do you say to Rom. 11.16 If the first fruit be holy the lump is holy and if the root be holy so are the branches From whence we are told this inference may be drawn that as Abraham considered as a root was holy so were his children and so to be Circumcised So Believers being holy their Children are so and so to be Baptized Bap. There hath been enough said to shew the fallacy of this consequence But that you may have no cause to complain I shall speak further to it first then you must know that the Apostles purpose is to shew what Abraham was heretofore a holy root to his natural seed but you will not say he is so now and that his children after the flesh are still holy for they are cut off And that he is not a holy root to the Infants of believing Gentiles and that they are none of his branches is abundantly proved but if you say he is a holy root to believers his spiritual seed and they are holy then we are agreed For surely the Apostle intends nothing else but that as Abraham was a two-fold father so he had a two-fold seed so he is a two-fold root and hath two sorts of branches His first sort of branches were holy with a typical ceremonial holyness his second sort are holy by believing as he did and walking in his steps But to pursue your consequence a little further that a believer considered as a root being holy so his seed is holy as of old it was with Abraham Then you must prove that what was promised to Abraham and what was his priviledge just so it is with believers and their seed and herein we expect plain Scripture proof and not forced consequences and groundlesse non sequiturs But Secondly If the natural seed of believers be holy what kinde of holynesse is it surely you do not mean moral holynesse which is opposed to sin and that they have some inward quality inherent habit or principle of grace in them more then unbelievers infants Secondly you do not mean negative holynesse for there is as much also of that in unbelievers infants as in yours But Thirdly perhaps you mean a Covenant holynesse but what kinde of holynesse that is we could never yet learn from you But if believers natural seed be holy with a Covenant holynesse as Abrahams were then you must baptise all their childrens children in their several generations as you have heard whether their parents believe or not as it was of old Abrahams branches yea all his branches were holy to the 3d and 4th yea the 10th generation and so must yours be and so to be baptized If the Grandfather or great-grandfather were or further removed he was
see how this learned man ere he was aware hath spoyl'd Infant-Baptism for if baptism be a symbol of regeneration as undoubtedly it is then unless you say and that from Scripture grounds that your infants are regenerated or seem so to be baptism doth not at all belong to them And it will no ways help you to say that the Baptists do baptize some persons that are not regenerated for it is enough to warrant our practise if they profess so to be and give us those Scripture characters i.e. actuall faith and Repentance Poed But pray Sir what think you of the Covenant made to Abraham and his natural seed what kind of Covenant was it Bap. I confess there are various opinions about it some say it was a Covenant of grace others a Covenant of works others a mixt Covenant But surely that Covenant made with Abraham and his natural seed called the Covenant of Circumcision or Covenant of the Law was not the Covenant of Eternal life and salvation which was made with all the elect in Christ upon the condition of faith but a distinct Covenant of it self concerning the worship and service of God and so may be called a Covenant of works rather then a Covenant of grace though there was also grace in it as there was in all the Covenants that God ever made with men yet we say it was a distinct Covenant and therefore called the old Covenant and the Covenant of grace the new Covenant And if you say the Covenant of grace was the same in all ages under various administrations we confess it and say that the Covenant of grace was made to Adam after the fall to the Patriarchs and to Abraham before the Covenant of Circumcision was mentioned and is the same to us now But as ours it s called new or renewed yet it doth not follow but this Covenant of Circumcision was a distinct Covenant still for Abraham and all believers in that age were in the Covenant of grace before this Covenant was made and would have been so if the Covenant of Circumcision had never been And if you demand then why the Covenant of works is called the old Covenant and the Covenant of grace the new 1. I answer because of its priority it being the first Covenant God made with man before the fall as Protestant Divines say that God made a Covenant of works with Adam concerning perfect obedience which he had then power to perform And some think God renewed this Covenant of works after the fall as appears by the sacrifices that Adam Abel c. offered and from that Scripture if thou dost well shalt not thou be accepted if not sin lyes at the door And afterwards this Covenant of works or Covenant concerning worship is renewed to Abraham and his posterity 2. It is called the old Covenant in respect to its deteriority it being a Covenant found fault with as the Scripture saith 3. In respect to its decaying and perishing nature it was not durable or lasting as the Apostle saith that which decayeh and waxeth old is ready to perish meaning this Covenant And the Covenant of grace is called the new Covenant First because of its meliority or bitterness it is more excellent as the new heavens and the new earth that God will make will be more excellent then the old 2. In opposition to the old as appears Heb. 8.8 when God says he will make a new Covenant he adds not according to the Covenant when I brought your fathers out of Egipt which was by virtue of the Covenant made with Abraham 3. In respect to its perpetuity and duration it is the everlasting Covenant the Covenant made with Abraham and his natural seed is vanished and done away but this remains as the Apostle says if that which was done away was glorious how much more that which remains That which was done away was the old Covenant or Covenant made with Abraham and his natural seed with all the priviledges of it And that which remains is the new Covenant or promise of eternal life made in Jesus to all believers 4. It is called the new Covenant as to us because renewed in a more Gospel and glorious manner So that we are indeed still under the same Covenant of grace made with Adam and all the partriarchs but not under the same Covenant of works made with Abraham and his natural seed But further that you may know what the Covenant made with Abraham was take the opinion of a late learned Author The old Covenant saith he was a political Covenant made with the Jews as Princes compacts are with their people when they first set up Government God promises them his protection and that he would lead them to a fruitful land overcome all their enemies c. with the like blessings And they promise they will be ruled by him c. To this purpose did God in sundry ways appear to them To Moses to their elders to them all in the cloud and fire and then causes a Tabernacle to be made for him which was a keeping house amongst them where the sacrifices and offerings were his provisions and the Priests his servants that lived on him And unto that Tabernacle and Ark might they repair for counsel and Judgment This people then being under a Theocracy which Samuel does in two places expresly signify at least unto the time of Saul so that the Church and Common-wealth of the Jews were but one It is no wonder if Religion be made their laws and so required of them together with other political Ordinances and statutes for their happinesse and publick peace as a nation And though in their ceremonial offerings and Priests appointmens there was a remembrance still of sin yet had they Types of Christ of remedying mercy and of the glory to come Their sacrifices as I have said serve to the maintenance of this house the Tabernacle and Temple which he was pleased to keep up amongst them for a time God indeed making use of these for Types and representations of other things that is to say spiritual and so the law being a Paedagogy under a temporal dispensation leading men to Christ So far my Author But God hath quite pulled down this house brake up house-keeping as we say and turned the servants Infants and all out of doors Rom. 11. The natural branches are broken off and Heb. 8.13 That which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish And saith the Apostle if that which was done away was glorious c. what was that but this old house with all the priviledges of it But now God hath built him a new house into which he hath admitted none as his houshold servants but believers or such as profess so to be And these two houses are mentioned Heb. 3.2 3 4. where one is called Moses his house and the other Christs house As Moses was faithful in all his house For this man was accounted worthy of more honour then Moses
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
branches were broken off the old House removed and a new one built Quest Are not the Infants of the Gentiles Church-members now in the dayes of the Gospel Answ No there being no Institution or Command for it besides the Church and the Common-wealth are now divided and God hath not taken in any one Nation or sort of people distinct from others to be his Church but Believers only out of every Kindred Tongue and Nation Quest Have not then the Infants of Believing Gentiles less priviledg than the Jews had Answ No For Circumcision had been no priviledg nor duty had there been no Institution for it Neither is Baptism a priviledge or duty to any but to those to whom it is Commanded But the priviledges of the Children of Believing Gentiles are greater than the Jews because the Messiah being come which is the sum and substance of all their shadows of Circumcision of Membership and all their Typical Ordinances So that as soon as Infants are capable of Understanding they are to be brought up in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord i. e. the Lord Jesus the Anti-Type of all their Types who is to be made known unto them as being already come and hath suffered for all that Believe in him Whereas the Jews could but inform their Children that Christ would come and suffer for the sins of men Quest Have not those that had a right to the priviledges of the Old Covenant a right to the priviledges of the new by vertue of their former right Answ No for then the Jews had a right to Baptism without any profession of Faith and Repentance Besides the Apostle saith Heb 13.10 We have an Altar whereof they have no right to eat that serve the Tabernacle And so we say we have a Baptism that Infants have no right to as they had to Circumcision because there is no Institution for it Quest But may not the Children of the Gentiles be counted Abraham 's Seed Answ No For Abraham hath but two Seeds the natural Jew and professed Believers amongst Jews and Gentiles a third Seed cannot be assigned him Quest But may not Infants be counted Christs Seed Answ No for Christ left no natural Issue who shall declare his Generation shewing us that he did not intend to build his Church of Natural Children as of Old not of dead but of living Stones Besides Believers Children are Children of Wrath by nature as well as others and therefore not to be accounted Christs Seed or to be Baptized while so considered Quest Is not Baptism an Ordinance of the New Testament and must it not be proved by a New-Testament Institution Answ Yea. Quest Where is your Institution then for Infant Baptism Answ It is urged to be Gen. 17.7 I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed Quest Is there any thing concerning Baptism in this Scripture Answ No But we draw this Consequence that as God promised to be God to Abraham and his Seed so he will be a God to every Believer and his Seed Quest Did God in these words promise to save Abraham and all his Natural Seed Answ No But the meaning is that he and his Seed should be the Visible Church and enjoy the Ordinances which no other people should Quest And does this promise belong to believing Gentiles and their natural Seed that they only shall be the visible Church of God and their Children only enjoy the Ordinances of God successively from their Parents Answ No for then these Absurdities would follow 1. That God has not been as good as his promise for the Church has not been continued in the posterity of Believers since Christs time but often passed out of their Race into the Posterity of Unbelievers 2. That then since the first promulgation of the Gospel there is no such need of Preaching to the Heathen in as much as these being not of the Posterity of Believers they are not to be of the Visible Church nor enjoy the Ordinances So that it is a fallacy to hold that God hath promised to be a God to Believers and their Natural Seed as he did to Abraham and his Seed to continue his Church only in the Posterity of them that first received the Gospel But he is still gathering his Church out of the posterity of Unbelievers and therefore before the end of the World the Angel is said to Preach the Everlasting Gospel to every Nation Kindred and Tongue and People who are not of the posterity of Believers Quest Why do the Paedo-baptists Baptize their Infants Answ Because they say they are in the Covenant of Grace Quest How do they know that Answ Because both or one of the Parents are in the Covenant of Grace Quest How does that appear Answ Because they profess so to be Then if the Parent be an Hypocrite the Child is not rightly Baptized Quest From what Ground do the Baptists Baptize Persons Answ Because they make a Profession of Faith and Repentance which is warrant enough from the Scripture Quest But how if they be Hypocrites are they rightly Baptized Answ Yea because it is not necessary for them to know that the Person is in the Covenant of Grace but that he professes himself a Disciple of Christ for which they have Scripture-president and many Examples POSTSCRIPT SOon after I had finished this Treatise Mr. Baxter's Book came to my Hands And in regard of his long silence some great matter was expected but after my perusal of it I find no News at all The first part of his Book even 180 pages is nothing else but a Collection of certain Old Letters that past between him and Mr. Tombs long since In which whether he hath dealt Candidly with Mr. Tombs I know not the contrary is justly feared if the Reader take notice of those Pieces Scrips and Parcels of Letters from Mr. Tombes but his own Written at large As to the matter contained in those Letters I find it to be nothing but what hath been Answered long since and it would amount to no other than Superfluity and Tautology to Answer over again The truest Verdict I can give of it is that it is like most of his other Controversies a lump of Logical Superfluity a System of Syllogistical Vanity wherein the Man manages his War like some Fresh man that is newly Matriculated into the Faculty of Logicking in Mood and Figure that delights to hear himself Syllogize out every Syllable and so comes out with a huge heap of Hypotheticals arguing at a vast difference from the business of Baptism and sometimetimes Ex Suppositis non Supponendis too as if he should fetch Infant baptism from far since 't is so dark in Scripture as he has confessed it is that he cannot have it nigh at hand proving in a great Circumference of Consequence upon Consequence Syllogism upon Syllogism thus if this then that if this then that but this therefore that when very often neither this nor that is
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
to be circumcised at Age are 1. Those that were at years at its first Institution 2. The Proselytes that were made from time to time 3. The Jews in Joshuah's time circumcised after 40 years discontinuance of it in the Wilderness Now as to the first We find no other qualification required to entitle them to Circumcision but to be Jews or Abraham's natural Seed nor any mention made that Belief was a condition sine qua non nor any excluded for want of it Yea Ishmael was Circumcised though not in the Covenant when 13 years of age for God said verse 21. My Covenant will I establish with Isaac which phrase is brought by an Antithesis to Ishmael excluding him though born of Abrahams body and we find the numerous Family of Abraham circumcised immediately without any examination of their Faith And whether Mr. Whiston or the Scripture be to be the sooner believed is easie to be determined 2. As to Proselites he says he remembers not any particular instance of any such that were circumcised but concludes some were Circumcised and that as Believers because they kept the Passeover to the Lord Exod. 12.48 which indeed proves that strangers when Circumcised may keep the Passeover but not any thing to his purpose For if all that kept the Passeover be Believers how come the Jews that kept and do still keep it to be rejected by Christs Law for their Unbelief Or is the Faith he pleads they had some other Faith not sufficient in Gospel-dayes if so then that Faith that 's insufficient for their admission to Christ is not sufficient to intitle them to Gospel Ordinances ordained by Christ But what do's Mr. Whiston think of the 10 Tribes in Jeroboam's dayes when they fell to Idolatry and Worshipped the Calves for 200 Years Were there no Proselytes all that time if so were they when Circumcised considered as Believers Or were the Sechemites after the Rape of Dinah Believers when Circumcised Gen. 34 Were the Servants bought with money Believers or those Proselytes the Pharises compassed Sea and Land to gain Christ says they made them two-fold more the Children of Hâ—ll But this is a fine new Toy and let Mr. W. take the credit of its first promulgation 3. Those that were Circumcised in Joshua's time 5 chap. of whose Faith we find no Enquiry they were Circumcised because God commanded them so to be and if they were to be excluded upon the want of Faith 't is certain that among such a multitude there were many Unbelievers We read of an Achan in the 7 chap. that was stoned and the 36. that were smitten at Ai for the accursed thing though Circumcised a little before and numbers of them fell in Rebellion against the Lord afterwards So that upon the whole the Scripture tells us of no qualification that intitled to Circumcision save to be a natural Jew or such as were Proselyted or bought with money And to invent others is point blank arrogance So that our conclusion is firm viz. that to be the fleshly Seed of a Jew or bought with his money was enough to qualifie for Circumcision no profession of Faith being pre-required of either Gen. 17.12 And he that is eight dayes old shall be Circumcised c. not he that believes or is a Believers Child c. And what advantage the extravagant round-abouts in which Mr. Whiston so abounds has got him I cannot yet perceive I am sure it convinces me that he is in extream poverty of argument when he is forced to have recourse to such Forreign and Remote Projects to uphold his tottering cause As to the trouble he is in about the promises made to Abraham Whether they belong to the Covenant of works nature or grace or no Covenant at all concluding thus If our Author will help us out here he shall have hearty thanks for his pains To which I say that I doubt Mr. W. dissembles egregiously for I cannot conjecture how he can be so ignorant But the perplexity he involves himself in is a needless impertinent one and whoever goes to pluck him out is as idle as himself But yet if he be really at a loss and to deserve his thanks if it be not a complement I shall adventure to direct him where he may learn what the promise made to Abraham was and how to be understood in relation to both Natural and Spiritual Seed Let him turn to Dr. Owen's 6 Exercit. on the Hebrews page 55 56. c. where he will be informed the Doctor exactly agreeing with us and fully speaking our sense in that point and therefore quoted by me at large in my Treatise And I hope Mr. Whiston cannot suspect the partiality of the Informer And for his interpretation of Gal. 3.29 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if ye be of Christ or appertain to Christ were it admitted it is no disadvantage to us it being the same in sense with our Vulgar Translations And if Believers Children as he says be of Christ it must be in respect of Calling or Election the former is not to be alledged and the later may be true for ought we know but that 's no ground for any Gospel-administrations which are dispensable only according to appearance and since no Faith or Signs of Election appears and that de non apparentibus de non existentibus eadem est ratio we according to Scripture-warrant and example suspend our Baptizing them till they can give some evidence of their right to it and if a supposing them to be Elect be a good ground to baptize then the children of Unbelievers have a good plea because some of them are Elect. As to what he offers in order to remove the absurdities charged by Mr. Danver's upon the practice of baptizing Infants and his essay to vindicate the practice of Sprinkling for Dipping they are fully and clearly as to the substance of them already so blaâ—led by Mr. D. himself that I shall pass them and shall only conclude that consideration with the words of Dr. Martin Luther in his Book de Baptismo Tom. 1. p. 71 72. speaking of the signification of the word Baptizmus Graecum est latine potest verti mersio cum immâ—rgimus aliquid in Aqua ut totum tegatur Aqua Et quamvis ille mos jam aboleverit apud plerosque debebant tamen prorsus immergi statim retrahi Et sane si spectes quid Baptismus significet idem requiri videbis that is Baptism is a Greek word and may be interpreted an Over-whelming when we plunge any thing into the Water that it may be covered all over And although that custome is now out of use with many yet they ought truly to be dipt and presently lifted up again And certainly if you consider the nature of the thing you will see that to be necessary which being the true signification of the word we find cause rather to adhere to it than follow Mr. Whiston's unscriptural Dictates As to what he