is safest in controverted matters to adhere to that side that is most certain Besides there are two things that I am much stumbled at The First is the great ignorance of the members of the Paedo-baptist congregations in this matter Not one amongst many is able to prove infant-Infant-Baptism or to answer your Arguments but are forced to referr the matter to their ministers whereas hardly any amongst you but are able to give a satisfactory reason of their hope in this thing and can presently prove believers Baptism from Scripture precept and example As of old if a heathen had demanded of any Jew the reason and Ground of his circumcision he could presently turn to the 17th of Genesis and there prove it from a positive command of God But if a heathen should ask us why we baptize our Infants we that are but ordinary persons know not how to satisfy him we cannot direct him to any Scripture where it is written Which is strange that a Gospel ordinance should be left so dark and intricate and the ordinance of circumcision under the law be so plain and obvious that every child of any reason could presently shew the ground of it This makes me suspect the truth of it because the Apostle says he used great plainesse of speech and not as Moses who put a vail upon his face c. surely Gospel Ordinances should be so plain especially as to the subjects that he that runs may read them 2ly The next thing that offends me is the great difference amongst Ministers about the ground of Infant-Baptism as if they knew not where to fasten it what basis to build it upon some as Mr Danvers observes draw it from the Universality of grace and the necessity of Baptism to salvation as Cyprian and others Some from the faith of the Church some from a supposed seminal faith that may be in the child Some from the faith of the parents others from the faith of the sureties some if the immediate parents be not Godly think the faith of the Grand-father or great-Grand-father may serve Some upon the account of Covenant holynesse or the promise made to Abraham and his seed others if both or one of the parents be a member of a gathered Church Some think they are born members of the visible Church by vertue of their parents faith and so may be baptized Besides this there is a great difference about baptizing of bastards some think if the father repent the child may be baptized others think otherwise because a Bastard was not to enter into the Congregation to the 10th generation and so about the children of excommunicate persons c. All which makes us fear that we are out of the way and our leaders have caused us to err seeing they cannot agree upon what ground to baptise our Infants It s true Mr Wills pretends to answer this but very weakly he tells us the baptists differ amongst themselves about the ground of their practise but sure I am there is no such material difference as there 's amongst us You are all agreed that the profession of faith and Repentance is the ground of Baptism and if some desire a larger confession then others and signes of grace I think it is no great error but rather an evidence of zeal to God and good to the parties soul But what is this to those material and essential differences before mentioned These things will put me upon further search and I hope what you have said will be of advantage to me In the mean time I take leave and bid you farewell Errata P. 64. l. 16. r. marrs all p. 95. l. 1. r. betternesse In the letter to Mr Will 's 5. l. 3. r. Magisterially p. 9. l. 11. for heat r. heart Mis-spellings and mis-pointings correct as you meet them FINIS Concerning Vnity OUr Opponents cry out for Unity and would fain lay the cause of that hateful Word Division at our doors and methinks they might well forbear making such a noise unless they assign us what kind of the several sorts of Unity they mean and propound some Mediums to make the same practicable And I may say What Unity so long as that imperious reflecting and condemning Spirit remains in them Some forbidding of their Members to hear our Ministers or to read their Books rather allowing them liberty to joyn with the Multitude than to appear in our Societies But if I may spell out their meaning it seems to be this That all the Anti-paedo-Baptists should break up their Societies and joyn with them and own their Ministers for their Pastors suffer them quietly to Baptize Infants c. and so sin against their Consciences it appearing to them to be gross Superstition and the Prophanation of an Ordinance But should they tell you they judge there is as good if not better grounds that you should joyn with them and own the Baptism of Believers the only Scripture Baptism I know not where a Moderator or Umpire would be found to determine this matter And how can Two walk together except they be agreed So that the Unity of the Verity is not surely the thing they hope for for though it be greatly desirable yet very hard to obtain because one man thinks this to be truth and another that according to the several Lights they have received And if it be the Unity of Authority they intend that the Magistrate should set down some Uniform practice and command all manner of persons to comply thereunto this looks like divers of them But were there such a practice attempted and yielded unto it might make many Hypocrites in the highest degree of Hypocrisie but be far from that spiritual Unity they talk of Nor can an Unity of perswasion be hoped for seeing both in Press and Pulpit and other wayes both Parties have endeavoured to perswade one another but to little or no Effect Nor can it be an Unity of Necessity now in Times of common danger for Tyes of necessity usually bind no longer than one Side hath need of another Nor can any Unity of Covenant do it for that is forced in many places and I fear too many say as the Heathen did Juravi Lingua mentem injuratam gero I swore with my tongue but not with my heart Seeing then we cannot find out what kind of Unity is intended it is best for both parties to continue in the Societies to whom they belong till God shall convince them otherwise provided they do not put out their light and sin against their Consciences nor neglect any opportunity better to inform their Judgments But there is one kind of Unity yet behind and that is the unity of Affections and if you mean this I am willing to joyn issue with you and in this I cannot but blame the whole generation of Professors who are greatly faulty in this matter For my own part I know the shadows of the everlasting Evening are upon me and am every day walking
their loyns 2. It did inright them to the land of Canaan none of which we can expect 3. By Circumcision you say they were accounted Gods people and this is the only thing you mean But Is it so great a priviledge to have the name without the nature the shadow without the substance We use to count that a misery rather then a mercy and Sardis is blamed for having a name to live and was dead Is it any benefit for a man to be counted rich when he is poor we see Naomies modesty is commended who would not own the shadow without the substance call me no more Naomi but call me Marah But in the next place you say infants unbaptiz'd lose some priviledge I say some things that were counted priviledges are lost for it was a priviledge that all the sons of the priests were born Priests but it is not so now But further It s you your selves make your children lose a priviledge since the coming of Christ and so make the new Covenant narrower then the old And that because the faith of a believing parent as you say admits only your immediate children to Church membership and Baptism but as to your childrens children they have no benefit by your faith no admittance to Ordinances upon your account but it was otherwise of old the Covenant of circumcision and the priviledges of Church membership was not only to the next generation flowing from Abraham but to his seed after him in their generations Gen. 17.7 and that not only to the third and fourth generation but to Christs time they enjoyed the priviledges of the Covenant by vertue of Abrahams faith But now you have narrowed the Gospel dispensation for you allow Baptism to none but your immediate seed by vertue of the parents faith your childrens children must come in upon another account their parents must be actual believers or else no admittance But what reason you have for so doing I know not yea I chalenge any man to give me a substantial ground why the faith of a believer may not now as well inright his childrens children to the 3d 4th generation to Church-membership and Baptism as the faith of Abraham did inright his seed in their generations to the priviledges of the old Covenant Will you say Abraham was a famous believer and therefore had this priviledge above others These are indeed your sayings but must we believe it therefore where is it so said or what necessary consequence is there from any Scripture to enforce belief that Abrahams personal faith shall inright him and his seed in their generations But a believers faith in the days of the Gospel though in some respect more excellent then that of Abraham viz. in reference to the Messiah already come and Redemption compleated shall inright only his immediate children such as are born of his loynes so that you make the Gospel dispensation narrower then that of the law And whereas you say if believers children are not baptized they have no priviledge above the children of heathens I answer That had God so appointed that believers children should have been baptized and unbelievers children should not you had ground then to consider it as a priviledge but seeing there is no institution you cannot say they are denyed a priviledge but if it be a priviledge then according to your practise you run a great hazard of denying Baptism to such to whom it doth belong For if I should ask you what sort of believers they are whose children have a right to Baptism here you would be at a losse and must needs say such only whom you count believers as your practise evidently proves but it was not so of old it was certainly known what children had a right to Circumcision and what had not but if you do as you do baptize the children only of such parents as you count believers then you may leave out many thousands of children that have as great a right to it as yours For there are no persons called by the name of Christians but do count themselves believers yea doubtlesse there are many believers amongst them to whose children you deny Baptism for Let it be considered how many sorts there are who count themselves believers 1. The Papists have their believers and they are such as own Christ to be the son of God and believe all the Articles of the Church of Rome c. amongst whom surely God hath some people for it is said come out of her my people 2. The Episcopalians have their believers that is such whom they count so and they are such that believe that Christ is the son of God that he dyed for sinners and that whoever believes in him shall be saved and so the whole nation owning and professing the faith of Christ they baptize all their children amongst whom there are many thousand real believers and so their children have as much right to Baptism as yours 3. The Presbyterians have their believers and they are such that is so accounted who own the faith of Christ professe regeneration and are morally righteous in their lives and conversations 4. The Independents have their believers and they are such who own the faith of Christ make a personal manifestation of their faith and repentance and so are enchurcht and become members by a Covenant of some particular congregations Now pray tell me which of all these sorts of believers have right to have their children baptized If you say all of them then you contradict your own practise it being famously known that some of you will baptize none but them of your own party But if you say those children only have right to Baptism whose parents we count believers then you run a hazard of denying Baptism to the children of diverse whose parents are as true believers as your selves and so deny them the priviledges of the Covenant and in as much as in you lyes occasion their damnation as you use to tell the Baptist And if you say so the Baptists themselves may keep persons from Baptism to whom of right it doth belong and so are equally guilty I answer that cannot be for our principles are that no person hath right to Baptism but he that desires it upon the profession of his faith and repentance to such a person we do not deny it unlesse his profession be contradicted by an unholy life By all which it appears 1. That you practically deny the priviledge of Baptism to many that have as real a right to it as your selves 2. That you count the children of diverse true believers to be in no better condition then heathens 3. You do extreamly narrow the Gospel dispensation a fault you use though unjustly to charge the Baptists with and so make the priviledges of the Gospel lesse then the priviledges of the law for whereas of old all the seed of Abraham all his numerous posterity were circumcis'd and that whether their parents believed or not there
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
in as much as he that hath builded the house hath more honour then the house Moses was faithful as a servant but Christ as a son over his own house whose house are we if we hold fast the confidence c. where the servants are also described they are belivers not infants hence they are also called living stones and a spiritual house 1 Pet. 2.3 And that none but such are of this houshold appears in that Christ the great Master of this house is compared to a king travelling into a far Country who called his servants all his servants and delivered unto them his goods that is Certain Talents to improve Math. 25.14 15. which cannot be supposed to be delivered to infants while they want the use of reason for these â—alents are presently to be improv'd and laid out not laid up So again Christ is compared to a house-keeper who made a great supper and invited his guests but they were not infants because the first that were invited made excuses The next are compeld to come in which supposes an unwillingness in the parties and that they were persons capable to consent or deny The summe of all is that the old house the Jewish Church with all the appurtenances and priviledges of it is pulled down and a new one built into which infants are not admitted because not invited nor appointed by any law They were of the houshold of old but it was by a positive law shew us the like now or you say nothing Sure I am there is no institution that makes infants now fellow Citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God Neither are they so to be accounted till they believe and are able to do service in the house And if you say that amongst men infants are counted of the houshold though they can do no service I answer that comparison does not run upon four feet it doth not follow that because we count our infants of our family therefore they are to be accounted members of Gods family the Gospel Church unless God by any institution had made them so The houshold of God is called the houshold of faith do good unto all especially the houshold of faith or a house consisting of believers now unless you prove your infants to be believers they are not of this house For all the servants here must be believers either really or Historically and professedly which infants cannot be And it will not help you to say the Church was or may be called the houshould of faith synecdochically from the greatest part for it is evident all the materialls of the first Churches were adult persons and professed believers as appears by the narrative we have in the Acts of the Apostles the direction of all the Epistles and divers Scriptures Besides it may so happen that the infants may be the greatest part of a Congregation and then where is your houshold of faith Poed But Mr. Wills tells us that Mr. Baxter saith That Infant Church membership did take place as an ordinance of God before Circumcision was enjoyned or the Ceremonial law instituted and why then should it cease with it It was no part of the typical administration but a moral institution of God even from the beginning of the world God ever made a distinction between the seed of the faithful and the seed of the wicked as visibly belonging to several kingdomes of God and of Satan Mal. 2.15 Therefore they are called a holy seed Wills pag. 54. Bap. Here is vox praeterea nihil 'T is true Mr. Baxter saith so but if it be warrant enough for Mr. Wills to believe it it is not for me It is strange of what authority some mens words are when they have got the estimation of Orthodox and pious and we have no great cause to wonder at the implicite faith of the Church of Rome when an ipse dixit from an English oracle commands such credit and vassals us to their raw and undigested dictates But let us examine this assertion He saith that Infant Church-membership did take place as an ordinance of God before Circumcision c. But where is that ordinance why are we not directed to some place of Scripture where we may find it Did God make Mr. Baxter of his Cabinet Councel and reveal it to him and no body else Or in what Ancient father did he find it Did any one ever say so before him 2. He saith that it was no part of the typical Administration but a moral institution of God c. I answer there hath been enough said to prove the fallacy and novelty of this position Therefore I referr you to what hath been written But he saith it is a moral institution We still demand where we shall find that institution or else wee 'l say Mr. Baxter is wise above what is written 3. He saith God ever made a distinction between the seed of the faithful and the seed of the wicked But what distinction Did God single them out and separate them by any visible sign or character before the law of Circumcision It is evidently known he did not Or did God distinguish them by his providential care of them or provision for them more then others The Scripture is silent as to this also Or did God love them with a saving love more then the children of unbelievers This seems to be his meaning because of his next words as visibly belonging to several kingdoms of God and Satan But is it so Did all the children of believers from Adam to Abraham belong to the kingdom of God and all the children of unbelievers belong to the kingdom of the Devil If it be Mr. Baxters Divinity or M. Wills charity it shall be none of mine But he thinks to salve all with the word visibly But pray when the sons of God took the Daughters of men and all flesh had corcupted its ways to what kingdom did they belong Did not the seed of believers grow prophane and wicked and the seed of unbelievers pious and Godly as appears in divers even Abraham himself whose father was an Idolater as is probably supposed he himself being bred up in Idolatry But Mr. Baxter hath some Scripture for his warrant and it is Mal. 2.15 that he might seek a godly seed But he that can find infants Church-membership in this text and that the seed of believers did always belong visibly to the kingdom of God and all others to the kingdom of the Devil erit mihi magnus Apollo What though God says he that sâ—ught a godly feed therefore let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth implying that children born in lawful wedlock are this Godly seed Let none whether believer or unbeliever unless you hold that children of unbelivers may not be a godly seed But these are such Non sequiturs that it is in vain to spend further time about them So that the Morality of Infants Church-membership is a very fancy And that
1. The piece of the Waldensian Confession which he sayes is not to our purpose is but an Introduction to the 7th Article in the same page which sayes That by baptism we are received into the Holy Congregation of the people of God declaring openly our Faith c. which our Answerer takes no notice of That of Vignier is pertinently enough brought wherein the Waldenses reject all Doctrines which have not their foundation in Scripture and all Ceremonies and Romish Traditions because the Baptism of Infants at that time was practiced from that ground And that he gives â— testimonial of them that they denyed Infants Baptism in totidem Verbis See what he sayes viz. Nicholas Vignier in his Book called la Vraye Histoire de l' Eglise p. 354. upon the year 1136. speaking of the Waldenses and some of their principal Barbs where he hath these words Et qu'ils condamnoient le Baptesme de Petits Enfans alleguans que le Baptesme n'aportoient qu' a ceux qui ont foi i. e. And they condemned the Baptizing of little Infants alledging that Baptism belongs to none but those that have Faith As to the agreement between the Donatists and Novations it is also properly enough applyed for all Mr. Whiston's hast as the following words of Mr. Ds. make out viz. they held That none ought to be received into Churches but such as were visibly true Believers and read Saints c. The way of being received into the Church Mr. W. knows to be Baptism but he overlooks this also As to the Three other Particulars out of the Waldensian Confessions p. 282 283 284. 1 Ed. he Excepts against as not to our purpose let the same return serve them as before That out of Thuanus from Dr. Vsher viz. that the Beringarians held that Baptism did not profit Children to Salvation is a proper and suitable Argument of their denying Infant-Baptism it being elsewhere evidenced and which Mr. Whiston nor his Associates never Answered that that was the only ground of its administration viz. that it Saved the Child's Soul 3. As to his Charge of Mr. Ds. perverting Authors sayings viz. Paedo-baptists in general it is already fully cleared by himself in his Rejoynder to Mr. Ws. and to him the Reader is referred 2. Mr. Whiston would have us shew wherein lyes the inconsistency of their words with their practice which is also fully done But me thinks it might be a properer task for themselves to reconcile their Contradictions which they are loudly called to do if they can and so either yield up the Cause or remove the stumbling blocks they themselves lay in our way 4. He says Some of Mr. Ds. Authorities are against himself and instances Mr. Baxter we confess he is sometimes against us to the purpose but sometimes he is also kind enough and gave us Twenty good Arguments improved by Mr. Tombs in his Felo de Se. But for the rest 't is but meer prattle Chrysostom is instanced to shew the Erroneous ground upon which Infant-Baptism was practiced viz. to take away Original Sin and if it be a proof for Mr. Whiston let him take it I 'll give him another proof too if that will please him out of his Friend Aâ—stin 23 Epist ad Bonif. Nec illud te moveat quod quidam non ea fide ad Baptismum precipiendum parvulos ferunt ut gratia spirituali ad vitam regenerentur Aeternam sed quod eos putant hoc remedio temporalem retinere ac recipere sanitatem non enim propterea illi non regenerantur quia non ab illis hac intentione offeruntur celebrantur enim per eos necessaria Ministeria But he must excuse me if I leave him the pleasure of Translating it seeing he may perhaps do it to most advantage That Peter Bruis and Henricus denyed Infants Baptism we have good ground to believe from many substantial Reasons offered by Mr. D. and if we reject the testimony of Papists in whose hands most of our ancient Writings have been for some Centuries which we are well enough satisfied to do in this why not in other things That Cluniacensis owned to be a very learned man disputed with Peter Bruis and Henry is evident he layes down their Position to be this Nos vero tempus congruum fidei expectamus hominem postquam Deum suum cognoscere in eum credere paratus est non ut nobis imponitis Rebaptizamus sed Baptizamus quia nunquam baptizatus dicendus est qui baptismo quo lavantur peccata locus non est i. e. We wait for the fit season of Faith and when a man knows his God and believes in him we baptize him not rebaptize as you charge us for he cannot be said to be ever baptized that is not washt with the baptism that washeth away sins And then makes this pathetick declamation against them enumerating the Absurdities he fancies that follow their Opinion he saith thus Itane desipuere praeterita saecula tot millibus parvulorum per mille eo amplius annos illusiorum baptisma tribuerent c. which I thus English And have past Ages been so foolish and have given but a mock-baptism to so many thousand Little ones for this thousand years and more and from Christs time to ours have made them not real but fantastick or imaginary Christians Was the whole World so blinded and involved in so huge a mist of darkness hitherto that it mâ—st wait for you at length to open its eyes and to dispel so tedious a Night that after so many Fathers Martyrs Popes and Princes of the Vniversal Churches it must chuse Peter Bruis and Henry his Lackey as the last Apostles to correct its long error What hath all the World perished till the coming of these New Reformers of our Age and have all things been managed by the Sons of Light and Truth in darkness and falshood that whereas all of any Age or Rank having been baptized in Infancy and received their Christian name then and in convenient time have been preferred in divers degrees in the Church no Bishop of the Bishops no Priest no Deacon no Clerk no Monk not one as I may say of those innumerable numbers will be a Christian for whosoever is not baptized with the Baptism of Christ hath not Christ nor can he be of the Clergy People or Church And if it be so what manifest absurdities will follow For whereas all France Spain Germany Italy and all Europe for almost three hundred or four hundred years have none baptized but in Infancy they have therefore no Christian if no Christian then no Church if no Church no Christ and if no Christ then certainly they are damned Our Fathers therefore have perished because they could not be baptized with Christs baptism in their Infancy And we that live shall also perish unless after Christs Baptism we be Baptized with Henries Baptism also And innumerable of the Saints shall be pluck'd
them had he allowed it But this Text indeed informs us that our Children may be blest and be of the Kingdom of Heaven by the application of Gods Free Grace without Baptism which is only a Duty to such as it is commanded to viz. such as are capable of Faith and Repentance But 3. Will Mr. Whiston indeed adventure to practice any thing that is not litterally and syllabicably forbidden in Scripture not allowing any Negative consequences If so then the children of Heathens or Turks c. being not in so many words forbidden to be baptized will give him employment enough And hundreds of the ridiculous inventions of Romish Impostors are not forbidden by name and circumstance being indeed not known any more than Infant-baptism in those times Will he therefore hold them lawful and this is the consequence of his Doctrine utterly exploded by the most Orthodox Protestants He proceeds page 40. and would have us believe That Infants are capable of the ends and uses of Baptism whereof he mentions two 1. To seal confirm and ratifie the Covenant with the promise thereof unto those with whom it is establish'd 2. To give those a solemn admission into the Visible Church who have an antecedent right thereto and this he takes for granted which is begging upon begging concluding He will not spend time in the proof of that which no Body can or will deny Now he has made quick work on 't but should not he have known our minds before so confident a publication of our assent to his Dictate And since that 's all we do here publickly enter our dissent and lay down this as our belief That Infants till they grow up and are converted are not capable of the ends and uses of Baptism which are to witness Repentance and Regeneration already wrought to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ the washing away our sins by the blood of Christ our union with and putting on Christ our entrance into and right to partake of all the priviledges in the Visible Church And as to what Mr. Whiston says since he only beggs That the Covenant and Promises are establish'd with Infants and therefore have an Antecedent right to Church membership We reject it as unproved and un-scriptural And he is at liberty to make good his and disprove our assertion if he can Which I shall expect ad Calendas Graecas He tells us page 4.6 That John did not discharge the Jews from any priviledg they afore had only rectifies a mistake they lay â—nder Here he had done honestly if he had acquainted us what their mistake was since he knows John's mind so well but alas he fore-saw that that would spoil his aim therefore that the Reader may not be at a loss altogether I have Transcribed it from Dr. Owen's Exercit before-mentioned and I dare say the Doctor knows their mistake as well as our Answerer he I mean the Doctor calls it a woful and fatal mistake page 55 56. For they would entail Gospel-Priviledges upon the old Faederal right and would share of the blessings belonging only to Believers upon the carnal consideration of being Abrahams natural Posterity They thought saies this Judicious Divine no more was needful to interest them in the Covenant of Abraham but that they were Abraham's Seed according to the flesh pleading the later priviledg as the ground of the former But on that account they could have no other priviledg then Abraham had in the flesh himself viz. that God would derive the promised Seed the Messiah through his Loins into the World And is not this to a tittle the mistake of our Paedo-baptists who plead for Infant-baptism from the very same ground of the Birth priviledg and entailing Church-Ordinances upon the same Faederal Right they did I cannot but note an expression he hath page 38. viz. Because we know not the time when infant-Infant-baptism was instituted we may therefore say it is from Heaven and not of men Now I perceive the reason why he bestows so glorious a Title upon his Book But shall we conclude that the Tares the Enemy sowed while the Watchmen slept were from Heaven and not of men since the drousie Watch-men cannot calculate the time they were sown to a minute Learned Vsher gives Malone the Jesuite an answer to this purpose when he maintained that the Mass was of Divine institution because Protestants could not exactly find 〈◊〉 its Nativity or when the fooleries that attend it had their Original Must we receive every error when we cannot assign the critical minute of its broaching Suppose I know not the time when Mr. Whiston was born shall I therefore conclude him not to be a man nor of men but dropt from Heaven c Is it not enough if we can tell the time when Infant-baptism was not in the Church and that Mr. Baxter has very kindly done for us when he saies that it has no express mention in the Records or Histories of the Church for the first and purest Centuries And if this be the ground of his mock-title I shall conclude it to be like Mr. Bs. plain Scripture-proof of a complexion that cannot blush As to what he saith about Tradition being nothing of weight and upon which he leans not much I shall pass it by only note that Dr. Owen defines Tradition pag. 20. Exercit. on the Heb. Tom. 1. to be a general uninterrupted Fame conveyed and confirmed by particular Instances Records and Testimonies in all ages And no other Tradition the Doctor saies is of any weight And how far short of making out his Infant sprinkling by Tradition so understood this Author hath been is sufficiently demonstrated already And so I proceed He saith page 75. It is their Covenant-interest that we contend for principally and design the proof of from the Covenant at first established with Abraham and again we plead not for Infant Baptism from the Analogy it bears with or to Circumcision but from the Command obliging Abraham's Seed in their Generations to keep the token of the Covenant This is somewhat odd he pleads not for Circumcision but from the token of the Covenant which in another place he calls Circumcision which is in plain English that he pleads and pleads not from Circumcision So that I know not how to come at him This is a new way of distinction to distinguish Circumcision from Circumcision he would seem to leave that baffled argument of some of the Ancients and yet he cannot but be at it again We acknowledg there was a Command obliging Abraham's Seed in their Generations to be Circumcised which he means by the token of the Covenant but that administration came to its period at the coming of Christ and therefore the command of being Circumcised is not in force now Nor have we any new Command that Believers and their Seed must be baptized in their Generations besides the term Generations is frequently used to signifie a certain and limited time the burning