done and we find not a syllable there of Infant Baptism is it not very injurious to blame us for renouncing such a practice as we find no warrant for This very man tells us pl. Script p. 301. That he finds it a hard Controversy to prove Infant Baptism it is so dark in the Scripture And More Proofs p. 219. That it hath considerable difficulties and that his proofs are not so clear as every good man can perceive And yet he has published a Book Intituled plain Scripture-proof for Infant Baptism strange considence and Contradiction But now he produces as he tells us a full command for Infant Baptism Math. 28.19 because Nations must be Baptized Answ VVhat shall we say to men whose Judgements are fore stalled by a darling error I need not add much to disprove this but referr the Reader to our Books where this text is vindicated from Mr. Baxters senseless gloss Nations are to be discipled and so Baptized Certainly the Pronown then governed by the participle Baptizing can possibly relate to no other Substantive then the Persons commanded before to be taught For as Dr. Holmes truly tells us p. 7. 't is not the Nations in gross For then all must be Baptized if the word Nation universally taken doth there denote the Subjects of Baptism But 't is the Nations with restriction that is such as are discipled by teaching and no more that are commanded to be baptized And if this be not the sense they must baptize them in the lump Heathens Unbelievers Professors Infants and all and that whether they would be baptized or nor Let Mr Baxter consider what a full command he hath met with for his practice Mr. Baxters further talk about Infants being Disciples and his parity of Reason from their being the Kings Subjects Ergo why not Christs I look upon as frivolous His frequent urgeing the parents Faith to be the ground of their Baptism and that the Parents will go for theirs in consenting shall be answered in the words of a learned Doctor If they have imputative faith so let the Sacrament be too that is if they have the Parents faith or the Churches then so let Baptism be imputed to them by derivation from them and as in their mothers womb and while they hang on their mother breasts they live upon their mothers nourishments so they may upon the Baptism of their parents or their mother the Church For since faith is necessary to the susception of Baptism and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the matter up such as the Faith such must be the Sacrament for there is no proportion betwen an actual Sacrament and an Imputative faith this being an immediate and necessary order to that And whatsoever can be said to take of the necessity of actual faith all that and much more may be said to excuse from the actual susception of Baptism c. And a little further he adds That if baptism be necessary to the salvation of Infants as the Fathers of old and the Church of Rome and England since yea and Mr. Baxter too upon whom is the imposition laid to whom is the Command given to the Parents or the Children Not to the Parents for then God hath put the salvation of innocent babes into the power of others and Infants may be damned for their parents carelesness or malice It follows that it is not necessary at all to be done unto them to whom it cannot be prescribed as a Law and in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably intrusted to others with the appendant necessity And if it be not necessary it is certain it is not reasonable and most certain it is no where in terms prescribed And therefore it is presumed that Baptism ought to be understood and administred according as other precepts are with reference to the capacity of the subject and the reasonableness of the thing And again If any man runs for succour to that exploded Cresphugeton that Infants have faith or any other inspired habit of I know not what and how we desire no more advantage in the world then that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason common sense and all the experience in the world Haec ille Reader I take Mr. Baxters Review hitherto to be shewed vain and his ground for Paedo-baptism to be very weak and frivolous He comes next p. 20 to add and enlarge upon 4 particulars and those subdivided into many others which comprehend the rest of the Review 1. The benefits of Infant Baptism And I think most of the benefits he enumerates he learnt of the Pope 2. The evils that follow not baptizing them These are meer whimsies of his own making not worth a serious Readers patience I willingly pass them there is nothing argumentative in them therefore no need of a Reply 3. The sins we would draw men to by rejecting it And here he is very fruitful he finds them to be no less then 15. And all without Proof therefore I pass them with a naked Negation which is ever as valid as a naked assertion By way of digression before he comes to the fourth particular Mr. Baxter quarrels with Mr. Hutchinson for desiring him to repent of his absurd position of a Baptismal Covenant of grace running in a fleshly line and seems to deny that ever he used such a phrase but if he remembers himself he uses the words baptismal Covenant frequently as More Proofs p. 198. 224. 238. even in this Review p. 3. 38. And several other places And doth he not call that Covenant a Covenant of grace through all his writings If that be not his meaning why doth he not tell us what other Covenant he means And doth he not as confidently affirm that that Baptismal Covenant of grace is convey'd to the Children by their believing parents And is not that a running in a fleshly line and in his conceit hereditary if so what reason has he to exclaim as if that were charged upon him which he holds not Doth he not call our Dispute against this conceit a Hectoring men out of their Inheritances Review p. 34 which fully explains what Covenant he means it seems he dares not own his opinion when stated in the proper terms but would mince it into a more disguised and specious Phrase to impose with the more artifice upon his credulous can 〈◊〉 But let them take warning if they be wise not to take such rotten precepts of men for Gospel though set off in plausible language by such a man of tongue The rest of his talk better deserves those titles of supercilious and insulting and Rhetorical invective canting c. which he bestows upon his admonisher then the Letter sent him 4. At last he comes to the 4 particular containing 13. other particulars which he says he might be seduced into if he had owned Anabaptism Answ But that as Mr. Eyres said long ago it is too
in unbelief that have a Zacheus to believe for them Surely this is none of Christs Gospel Rom 1.17 and 3.28 Joh. 3.5 c. 3ly Act. 2.38 39. Yields as little proof for this assertion as the other And he that can find this Consequence there deserves to be stiled Magnus Apollo The promise to the Children was not as they were the seed of Believers For their Parents were not then Believers Nor to them nor any other but as called by the Lord which calling made them Christs and capable of Baptism The whole as the context shews is an incouragement against despair by reason of their Crucifying Christ and wishing his blood upon them and their Children Mat. 27.25 For which very sin the Apostle tells them they may have Remission Christ being raised for their Salvation and their Childrens viz. their posterity and all God should call though a far off if they did Repent and were Baptised into the name of Christ Of our mind herein is Dr. Hamond a great pleader for Infant Baptism who sayes in his Resolutioâ—s concerning Infant Baptism Sect. 81. If any have made use of that unconcludent Argument viz. Act 2 39. I have nothing to say in defence of them the word children there is really the posterity of the Jews not particularly their Infant Children And Dr. Taylor lib. Proph p. 233. Sayes that by Children is meant the posterity of the Jews adding that he that when ever the word children is used in Scripture shall by Children understand Infants must needs believe that in all Israel there were no men but all Infants and if that had been true it bad been the greater wonder that they should overcome the Anakins and beat the King of Moab and March so far and discourse so well for they were all called the Children of Israel 4ly Act. 16. â—1 proves not his Conclusion for the Scripture Records that the Jaylors family had the Word of the Lord spoke to them as well as himself ver 32. Yea that they believed ver 34. 1 Cor. 7.14 Proves not the Salvation of a believers house to assert it is to run into a desperate error viz. That the unbelieving wife is saved by the husbands faith and è contrà Which I suppose no sober Protestant durst affirm And Mr. Whiston will do well to recal that expression p. 108. That the Master of the family believing his house shall be saved upon Condition of his believing it being so grossly contrary to the tenor of the Gospel let him peruse Rom. 1.17 and 3.28 Heb. 11.6 Mar. 16.16 John 3.5 c. Mr. Whiston I observe all along his Book in defence of Infants Baptism borrows his most formidable Artillery from the Old Testament Yet tells us be argues not from Analogy with Circumcision But if he can make me believe that he has a notable faculty of perswading For alas how does he invita minerva squeeze Arguments from Gen. 17.7 to prove Infant Baptism And I appeal to all Readers whether that place and Circumcision be not the Alpha and Omega of his proofs What a tedious talk does he make to prove that there is an Idendity betwixt the Old and New Covenant how learnedly does he labour to prove that the Covenant entred with Abraham respected his natural seed Whereas if He means the Covenant of Circumcision as 't is called Act. 7.8 who denys it But if he means the Covenant in the first notion laid down before we absolutely deny iâ— and he can never prove it the contrary is largely evinced This exploit fills up almost his whole Book and what a considerable range of words does he muster up to shew the agreement betwixt Circumcision and Baptism p. 226. and so to p. 148 Does he not lay p. 222 That the will of God concerning Circumcision shews us what his will is concerning Baptism and that as the one so the other should be applyed to Infants and what 's this but Analogy His talk p. 240. c That Baptism is the sign or token of the Covenant vow is vain and his Inference that as Circumcision of old so Baptism is now the token of the Covenant is groundless But suppose that were granted which yet there is no ground for his definition of a sign produced from Austiâ— p. â—16 viz. id quod se ipsum sensui preter se aliquid animo repraesentat or his later Author Signum est quod se ipsum sensibus id cujus signum est intellectai aufert or another Author I can help him to viz. Scheibler Metaphys lib. 1. cap 26. Signum est quod potentiae cognoscenti aliquid representat viz. That a sign or token is that which represents something signed to the mind or understanding will do him more hurt then good For Baptism according to these definitions cannot be a sign or token of the Covenant of Grace to any Infants for it doth not represent the Covenant either to their sense or understanding Learned men divide signs into Natural and Arbitrary Natural have a natural connexion with the thing signified as Smoke to Fire Arbitrary signs signifie only by Ordination or Institution Now Baptism is no natural sign to the Covenant of Grace nor do learned men so account it And those that affirm it to be an Instituted sign would do well to produce the Institution if they know where to find it in Scripture Further Signs are divided into Rememorative Demonstrative and Prognostick The first shews what 's past as the Lords Supper shews Christs Death The second something present The third something to come as Physitians Prognosticate the event of Diseases by the Symptoms Now Baptism is in neither of these acceptations a sign to Infants For it neither Remembers them of the Covenant nor Demonstrates it to them nor Prognostcates that they shall ever be in it Therefore it is not a sign or token to Infants to the Covenant of Grace any way that I know of Mr. Whiston comes at length to improve the Instances of Baptized Housholds for his service And insists much on Lydia's p. 273. But that this will do him no good is apparent in my answer to Mr. Baxter His Criticism upon the phrase Act. 16.34 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rending it he rejoyced with all his house he believing in God is vain For by this Interpretation his whole family was capable of rejoycing Therefore no Infants there they being uncapable of such impressions The word was spoke to them all and its evident they all believed the adverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with his whole family in the propriety of the phrase having an immediate relation and connexion to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believing And therefore I fee no reason to reced from the vulgar translation and lean upon such an extorted Criticism as contradicts the plain meaning and scope of the text He labours to fasten an absurd sense also upon that text Mat. 28.19 viz. That the persons to be baptized are the Nations in gross But
Mr. Wills knows these things is not be disingenuous in corping where he knows no error but the vulgar rules Justifie If he knows them not how can it be thought that he came honestly by the stile of M. A. Or that he is a person qualified to be such a Corrector of Books as he proclaims himself Besides be perverts my meaning in that verse for by patrocinio novo I mean not Mr. Baxters Whistons and Wills's successors in the Controversy But I meant as may be easily understood thus that the cause viz. of Paedobaptism is not to be substituted or set up instead of the true Baptism by that new Patronage or Sanction viz Gen. 17.7 which I call new because it was not made the maine prop of Infant Baptism till the other foundations it was built upon by the Popes grew crazy and the Reformers being ashamed of them as being too rank inverted this in the 16th Century viz. a Covenant made Gen. 17.7 with â—elievers and their Natural seed which they say intitles to Baptism And the participle substituenda is not a prophetick but an ennuciative term An enunciation being defined Oratio in qua aliquid de alio verè vel salsò pronunciatur So that this Bagle-ey'd corrector of small and sometimes no faults is out in his Logical as well as his Grammatical faculty I have one thing more to reckon with him for and that is his presumption that I was the person pitcht upon to examine the particulars of his Appeal who by my ignorance brought them to justifie Mr. Danvers his addition to the Milevitan Canon by the passage in Pervetusto Codice insinuating as if none but my self had examined it which is imply'd in that expression of his that he is satâ—sfied some of them have learning enough to have discovered the mistake had they considered it themselves But here also I must inform him that his presumption is false and no better then the petulant excursion of an idle thought that has no umbrage of truth to guide it And to leave him no cloak for that presumption I do assure him that those persons whose learning he acknowledges sufficient to discover the mistake have as well as I individually examined every particular of his Appeal And that they are not under such a mistake as to this of the Milevitan decree is already apparent Thus Reader you see this particular charge against me is no instance of the Baptists partiality in their examination of Mr. Wills his Appeal And to put the matter beyond any surther exception that Epistle of mine which he Cavils at was but then in the Press and was not seen by any of the Subscribers at that time of our examining the Appeal which is enough if no more had been said to clear them from this frivolous insinuation The Reason why I am â—o large in my Return to so inconâ—iderable a charge as this is because I observe Mr. VVills strikes at the cause he opposes through my sides and therefore I am the more concern'd in my particular vindication For 1. You see he insinuates though nothing more false That I was the only person to whom the examination of his Appeal was committed 2. When he has possest his Reader with that suggestion he represents me as a very ignorant unqualified person for such work on purpose that the Reader may conclude the answer coming from such a person to be but sorry and ignorantly managed and that Mr. VVills is therefore apparently abused But that artifice shall not serve his turn for as I said before I declare that I was so far from being the single Examiner that I was no more then an assistant to those persons whose learned accomplishments parts and worth I readily own far superior to mine And are possessors of a Reputation too well fortified for Mr. VVills his art to Undermine And who I question not will as they see cause vindicate themselves and their professions from the Criminations of such an unrighteous Accuser and Gainsayer The 5th of the 3d. Month 1676. Tho. Delaune FINIS Mr. Richard Baxter's REVIEW Of the State of Christians Infants EXAMINED And his Grounds for the Baptism of such found to be Insufficient and groundless With a Postscript in Defence of Mr. Danvers his Third Reply further discovering Mr. Baxters Notorious Equivocations in palliating his Slanderous methods of Writing against his Opposers By Tho. Delaune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athen. ex Passid Quae in singulos essundos inspiciam obiter verborum acrimoniam in os Autoris retorquebo Puâ— 12. Diatrib Printed Anno Dom. 1676. Mr. Baxters Review of the state of Christians Infants Examined c. THat Baptism as administred to Believers is a Gospel Ordinance no man I presume but such as reject all Ordinances ever could deny it having so express a sanâ—â—ion in the word of God And whether any but such ought to be baptized has been an ancient Controversy and much agiâ—ated in this and the neighbouring Nations of late years Insomuch that any inquirer into the state thereof may easily â—urnish himself with what 's alleadged on both hands therefore I see no necessity of Polemical Aâ—â—ditions Among all the opposites of Antipaedobaptism in this Nation no man in my opinion has with more virulence be stir'd himself then the 〈◊〉 of this Review His Books of Baptism save me the labour of demonstrating it And the experience he has given the world convinces me that he is the person his own Pen describes in the Preface to his More proofs viz. One that can find words at length for almost any cause And p. 45. of this Review where he tells us That there are but few confess so clear that a man may not talk against as long as his talking faculty holds out And that Mr. Baxter hath not yet lost this faculty this Review plentifully instances At every turn he takes in the lists of dispute he rails with plenty of exclamation at such as divert him from doing greater service to the Church and extort such striâ—â— from him which is an outery without Cause for doubtless he is never more in his Element then when he is tossing the Ball of Contention and I think there is scarce any Sect that call themselves Christians but have been made the objects of his talking faculty and have selt the keeness of his Polemicks and mostly without any challenge from them And what exploits he hath done for the Church in his peaceable Intervals is worth another Review It is known to such as converse with the Writings on the Subject of Baptism what Mr. Tombes Mr. Danvers Mr. Hutchinson c. on the one hand and Mr. Baxter Mr. Wills Mr. Whiston c. on the other have produced about that point For me to re-captiulate it is needless My present task is only to consider briefly what weight there is in this Review The occasion of which is briefly thus Mr Baxter having in some of his VVritings exprest a great deal
Ark so none that we are sure of are saved without Baptism What need Infants have of Salvation the same they have of Baptism for their Salvation p. 156. calls an Unbaptized state a damnable state p. 142. with much more to that effect And pray what 's all this but an Opus Operatum or a tying the Grace of God to the Sacrament I know not that the Papists say any more then Mr. Walker p. 113. viz. that it hath a saving efficacy for such end communicated by God to it c. but I would fain learn of Mr. Walker who made him acquainted with that part of Gods counsel for I could never yet find it in the Bible that Baptism was dignified with so transcendent an energy as in disjunction from Faith and so 't is in all Infants to effect Salvation 'T is true to a qualified subject viz. a penitent Believer the Lord has made it an Instrument through which he conveys the saving communications of his Grace and to such it is necessary not absolutè but necessitate praecepti because God commanded it Yet the want of it where it may not be had damus not though the contempt of it is a horrible affront to the Divine Majesty and consequently a dangerous sin But 't is not necessary necessitate medii since salvation which is the end may be had without it as in the ease of the Thief upon the Cross c. But to Infants it is no way necessary 1 t is not so necessitate praecepti because Christ no where commanded such to be baptized nor 2 necessitate medii because Christ no where appointed it to be the means of their salvation We have several passages in Scripture that give us encouragement of the salvation of dying Infants through the rich grace and tender mercy of him who is we hope their Redeemer as well as ours But I have in my Answer to Mr. Baxter p. 16. touched upon this point Next Mr. Walker in 5 Chapters labours to shew that children are not incapable of Baptism but his Reasons are not convincing to me nor do I believe they can be so to any that with an unprejudiced mind reads our Books wherein is amply made out that Infants are not capable subjects of Baptism no more then of other Church Ordinances because they want Faith and Repentance as the Church Catechism informs us and which the same Book tells us is required of persons to be baptized Neither will the Sureties profession for the Child serve the turn for we find no such practice allow'd of or so much as mentioned in Scripture Neither by any Law of God or man is such a dispensation granted that a substitution of another's Faith should supply the desect of the person to be baptized Nor does the Child give them any Commission to believe for him nor can they perform what they promise which is no less then the performance of the great and principal graces of the New Covenant viz. Faith and Repentance which are the peculiar gifts of God But I shall dismiss this particular referring Mr. Walker to Mr. Tombs his Just Reply p. 105. Printed 1675. where by way of Animadversion on that part of the Common-Prayer-Book he confutes this practice unanswerably And Mr. Danvers his Treat p. 83 84. and 218 219 220. where it is also refelled by substantial and yet unanswered Reasons It is an inconsiderate expression of Mr. Walker to say p. 203 That in this argument of twistâ—d hairs viz from the order of the words Mat. 28.19 the greatest strength of these Sampsons lyes For we do not infist upon the order of the words only but upon the order of the things also as constantly practised And I challenge any man to produce that the order of the things ever differed from the order of the words or was by any Apostolical practice inverted or that any person was baptized by them that was not first taught So that having the order of words and things also for us and that from a mouth that never spoke an incongruous word we conceive we deserve no blame in adhering to so plain a rule But Mr. Walker says the order of words is for them because here is teaching after baptizing and Mar. 1.4 5. John baptized and preach'd and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signisying not teach but to make another a Disciple and so reads a Grammatical Lecture ending in this that unless it be understood make disciples by baptizing them and by teaching them there is a Tautology in the phrase as Teach all Nations c. Teaching them c. Answ That Mr. Walker hath made choice of a wrong Interpretation yea such as will be guilty of a signal absurdity will be easily apparent And 1. I confess the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies discipulate or maâ—e disciples And if the phrase be admitted to bear that sense Mr. Walker would have viz. to make Disciples by baptizing and teaching yet Infants will be excluded because to the making of Disciples these two actions are required viz. baptizing and teaching and Infants are uncapable of the later till they come to years therefore cannot be discipled But that making Disciples and baptizing are as hinted already above two distinct actions is clear in John 4.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he maketh and baptizeth more disciples c. you see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the conjunction copulative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is set down as a distinct work from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore he did not make them Disciples by Baptism but by something acted towards them before And if this be not understood so and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Synonima's here will be a manifest Tautology for then the words will run Jesus baptized and baptized more Disciples then John And I appeal to Mr. Walker's Conscience whether what is express'd Mat. 28.19 by the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may not without any violation of the sense be read imperatively by the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus Disciple all Nations and baptize them and if so whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would be terms equipollent and so by consequence Tantology viz. go baptize all Nations and baptize them a gemination elegant in the Hebrew but supperâ—fluous in the Greek Tonguâ— But to clear our own Interpretation as well as I demonstrate the absurdity of theirs it is necessary to know that there is a general teaching to acquaint persons with the Gospel which whoâ— once they believe and are baptized there is a second teaching to bring them on towards perfection You know what a short Consession was required of the Eunuch Act 8.37 If thou believest with all thy heart says Philip thou mayst The profession of which short Creed qualified him being by that a Disciple fit for Baptism But was there no need think you of any further teaching Yes doubtless he had need of Instruction in the
lays no stress upon the witness of Origen because we have no original of it And it is unquestionable that what we find in him about Infant Baptism to wash away Original sin quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam spiritum ablui deberent was foisted in For Origen as Dr. Owen truly says was a great Pelagian which Sect as is well known denied Original sin Mr. D. Rep. p. 88. made this Objection but Mr. W. gives no answer to it as I can find nor indeed can he These are all the Antiquities pretended from the first 3â—0 years And let the judicious and impartial Reader consider whether that cause be not in a forlorn and languishing case that has no better then such a rotten basis to rest upon What Mr. Walker urges from the lying Talmud as the learned Sir Norton Knatchbull calls it in his Animadversions p. 315 to evince that Baptism was used by the Jews in the initiation of Proselytes is of no force against us who receive not their Custom as Gospel nor durst we practice Infant Rantism which is no Baptism from Jewish principles it having been never appointed by Christ or his Apostles but corruptly arose with Infant Communion from a conceit of necessity as is already evident Mr. Walker proceeds to argue p. 292. that Infant Baptism is an Apostolical practice for which he urges the baptizing of housholds but what I have said to Mr. Whiston and Mr. Baxter about this may also serve here But I hope if that satisfies not Dr. Hammonds opinion in the matter will be convincing he says Resol p 471. sect 21. that to conclude Infants were baptized because housholds were so mentioned to be is unconvincing and without demonstration it being so uncertain whether there was any Child in the samilies But 1 Cor. 7.14 is the great Topick he insists upon viz. the unbelieving husband is sanctified by it should be to the wife c. which he says should be rendred hath been sanctified as Dr. Hammond formerly said it being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that the sense of hath been sanctified is hath been baptized the effect being put for the act by a Metonymie Answ I have already spoke to this Text in my Answer to Mr. Baxter p. 12 to which I shall add now that Mr. Walker chuses a very absurd Interpretation For according to his talk the words of the Text will run thus The unbelieving husband hath been baptized by the believing wise and the unbelieving wise by the husband which is ridiculous for if it should be true then a prosess'd unbeliever should be a fit subject of Baptism and a woman a fit administrator and the Papists are beholden to Mr. Walker for helping them to a Scripture to warrant their practice of womens baptizing in case of necessity And then what need the Apostles be sent to baptize or the Ministers of the Church of England to Monopolize that practice now when all the men and women in the respective Nations may baptize one another This Interpretation deserves indeed to be laughed at Neither doth Mr. Walker p. 299. avoid the danger of the absurdity that follows it by his shifts there Besides he being well skill'd in the use of Particles having indeed excellently advanced that kind of learning knows that the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be rendred to not by in this place unless he will make the Apostle say that the saith of the wife sanctifies the unbelieving husband foederally and is therefore capable of baptism by his wises saith which is not to be affirm'd for the faith of the one is not the next and effectual cause of the others Saâ—ctification for this Sanctification is contingent that is it may or it may not be as verse 16. Thus it s rendred Col. 1.23 preacht 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every creature Rom. 1.24 God gave them up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to uncleanness 2 Cor. 8.1 the grace of God is bestowed or given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred in Latine in the dative Ecclesiis to the Churches 2 Pet. 1.5 adde to your faith c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 27.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to him Act. 7.44 tabernaculum testimonii suit patribus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being in these places and many others rendred to not by Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy and unclean are immediate oppositesâ— and therefore according to Logick Rules look in what sense the one is to be understood in the directly contrary to that sense must the other opposite be understood Thus if the term holy signifies a Non-admittance to Church Ordinances the term unclean must signifie an exclusion from such but that 's untrue for Infidels children upon their conversion were admitted and some children of believers were excluded from Church-Ordinances and Priviledges yea in the state of Infancy as the children got by strange wives in Ezra's time Ezr. 10.3 5 44. were put away as well as the mothers So this holiness being understood of legitimation the uncleanness must necessarily be understood of bastardy as the issues of the strange bed were reputed of old Which sense is so apposite and proper that no other can be reasonably ascribed to this Text and that a holy seed is legitimate see Ezra 9.2 The term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unclean is used for whoredom frequently in Scripture as Rom. 1â— 24. 6.19 Ephes 5.3 Col. 3.5 Rev. 17.4 What Nazianzen's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports is nothing to us the expression is a meer Catechresis And 't is certain the term is no where in Scripture used in such a sense viz. he was sanctified for he was baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is usui sacro destinari as Pasor informs us John 17.19 See 1 Tim. 4.5 Luk. 11.2 Jud. 1. So that this Text affords no colour of proof that Paedobaptism was an Apostolical practice In that old Translation of the Bible done by John Rogers the Martyr as saith Holingshed in his Chron p. 1168. we find in the Notes upon 1 Cor. 7.14 these words viz. Not that children are clean and pure by nature for that were against the Apostle himself who proveth Rom. 5. that all are under Original sin and naturally the children of wrath as Eph. 2. But his meaning is that like as all things are clean to the clean so that he may be conversant with her and not â—ssend in so doing and that the children of them are not to be reputed as unlawful and unclean His Dilemma p. 329. is nugatory and will directly lye against themselves in many points of Popery they reject And his enumeration of things believed yet not expresly delivered in Scripture is frivolous for we deny not but Infant Baptism may be right if prov'd by good consequence yet it is certain that the only Rule in Sacraments is the Institution and practice but we deny the consequences produced for it to be good So that it is not consequences but pretended absurd and illogical consequences we deny therefore his discourse being be sides our practice is insignificant 'T is a very bold and dangerous practice to set up any Invention of our own in Religion under pretence of its being agreeable to Gods secret will as Mr. Walker talks for who can tell whether it be so or no Methinks Nadab and Abibu's tragical end Lev. 10. should teach such what they are to expect for presumptions of that kind The Argument p. 338. is a weak one and will prove the Doctrine of Purgatory and the Invocation of Saints c. to be no sin as well as Insant Baptism But that it is a sin because a transgression of a Law may be thus demonstrated That which is done besides and without any warrant from the Doctrine and practice of the Law-giver is a transgression of a Law But Infant Baptism is such therefore a transgression of a Law and consequently a sin The major is apparent from that maxim received among Protestants and by which they defend themselves against Papists viz. that in positive Worship whatsoever is not commanded is forbidden The minor is proved at large in our Writings The rest of Mr. Walkers discourse as where he affirms that Infant Baptism might be lawfull though there were neither command for it nor example of it as p. 331. is not only against us but against all the Reformers for if such a Doctrine were believed what a gap would it open for all Tradition-mongers to break in and impose what they please upon us that pretence being as allowable in all other exploded points as in this therefore I believe all that make the Scriptures the Standard to try Doctrines by will be of our side in this case therefore at present I think it needless to say any thing more to it What Mr. Walker say in Reply to the Answer made to the Objection from no express Command or Example in Scripture of womens receiving the Lords Supper is not satisfactory nor does it prove that there is as good consequence for Infant Baptism as womens receiving the Supper And he taking no notice of what Mr. Danvers so fully writ about that matter to Mr. Blinman p. 177. 1 Reply it is enough to refer him thither and to Mr. Tombs his Just Reply p. 96. As to his defence p. 409. of those spurious Books ascribed to Justine Martyr Dionysius the Areopagite c. mentioned before being all that 's produced for that practice for the first 300 years it is meerly insignificant he having not answered what Mr. Danvers urged with undeniable demonstration to prove them fabulous as Treat p. 98 c. and 136 c. So that what I said before with this Reference is enough as to that particular And therefore at present I shall say no more but this with Mr. Tombs That if any person be deceived by those arguments urged for Infant Baptism after so full a discovery of the futility of them for these 30 or 40 years past we may conclude that they are deceived because they are willing to be deceived FINIS