proper if that be true of the Custome â—hereof there is no cause to make question for the use at present any man I think knows how to inform himself For that of elder times I can produce two pregnant and notable testimonies one of the Jews and people of God another of the Gentiles The first you shall finde in the 16. Chapter of Ezekiel where God describes the poor and forlorn condition of Jerusalem when he first took her to himself under the parable of an exposed Infant As for thy Nativity saith he in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee thou wast not salted at all nor swadled at all no eye pitied thee none to do any of these things unto thee to have compassion on thee but thou wast cast out in open field to the loathing of thy person in the day that thou wast born Here you may learn what was wont to be done unto infants at their nativity by that which was not done to Israel till God himself toâ—k pitty on her cutting of the Navel string washing salting swadling upon this place S. Hierome takes notice but scarce any body else that I can yet finde that our Saviour where speaking of Baptism he says Except a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God alludes to the custome here mentioned of washing Infants at their Nativity The other testimony and that most pertinent to the application we make I finde in a story related by Plutarch in his Questiones Romanae not far from the beginning in this manner Among the Greeks if one that were living were reported to be dead and funeral obsequies performed for him if afterwards he returned alive he was of all men abominated as a prophane aad unlucky person No man would come into his company and which was the highest degree of calamity they excluded him from their Temples and the sacrifices of their Gods it chanced that one Aristinus being fallen into the like disaster and not knowing which way to expiate himself therefrom sent to the Oracle at Delphos to Apollo beseeching him to shew him the means whereby he might be freed and discharged thereof Pythia gave him this Answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What women do when one in childbed lyes That do again so maist thou sacrifice Aristinus rightly apprehending what the Oracle meant offered himself to women as one newly brought forth to be washed again with water from which Example it grew a custome among the Greeks when the like misfortune befell any man after this manner to expiate them they called them Hysteropotmi or Postliminio nati How well doth this befit the mystery of Baptism where those who were dead to God through sin are like Hysteropotmi regenerate and born again by water and the holy Ghost These two passages discover sufficiently the Analogy of the washing with water in Baptism to regeneration or new birth according as the text I have chosen for the Scope of my discourse exppesseth it namely that washing with water is a signe of spiritual Infancy for as much as Infants are wont to be washed when they came first into the world Hence the Jews before John the Baptist came amongst them were wont by this rite to initiate such as they made Proselytes to wit as becoming Infants again and entring into a new life and being which before they had not That which here I have affirmed will be yet more evident if we consider those other rites anciently added and used in the celebration of this mystery which had the self same end we speak of to wit to signify spiritual Infancy I will name them and so conclude as thâ—t of giving the new baptized milk and hony ad infantandum as Tertullian speaks ad infantiae significationem so S. Hierome because the like was used to Infants New born according to that in the 7th of Isay of Immanuels infancy A virgin shall conceive and bear a son butter and honey shall he eat that he may know to refuse evil and choose good Secondly that of Salt as is implyed in that of Ezekiel thou wast not washed with water nor salted with salt That of putting on the white garment to resemble swadling all these were anciently especially the first used in the Sacrament of our spiritual birth out of reference to that which was done to Infants at their natural birth who then can doubt but the principal rite of washing with water the only one ordained by our blessed Saviour was chosen for the same reason to be the element of our Initiation and that those who brought in the other did so conceive of this and from thence derived those imitations Thus for Mr Mede From whom we learn these truths 1. That it not lawful to assigne significations to sacramental Types of our own heads without warrant from the Scriptures 2. That in every Sacrament there is the signe and the thing signified res terrena res caelestis 3. That in Baptism there is an Invisible and caelestial thing signified 4. That though the blood of Christ is the fountain and cause of all that grace and good we receive in Baptism yet it is not the thing signified by the water in Baptism but the spirit cleansing the soul from sin in the work of Regeneration according to Tit. 3.5 5. That in the Baptism of Christ the mistery of all our Baptism was visibly acted 6. That God says to every one truly Baptized as he said to Christ in a proportionable sence thou art my beloved son in whom I am well pleased 7. That there is a plain Analogy between water and the spirit confirmed by divers Scriptures But not so between the water in Baptism and the blood of Christ 8. That the Fathers and primitive Church did not suppose any other correlative to the water in Baptism but the spirit though they did allude to Christs blood for illustration thereof 9. That in our Liturgy the water in Baptism is made to signifie the holy spirit in our Regeneration But not the Blood of Christ 10. That there was no such thing as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or sprinkling used in the Apostles times nor many ages after 11. That the Analogy between washing with water in Baptism and Regeneration appears from the custome of washing infants from the pollutions of the womb when first born according to the practice of Jews and Gentiles 12. That the Fathers and ancient Church did use to give the new baptized Milk and honey and put white garments on them to signify their spiritual birth out of reference to that which was done to infants at their natural birth From all which you see that baptism is not so much a sign of purging our sins by the bloud of Christ though that concurs by way of merit and efficacy but is not the thing there signifi'd or figured then to what purpose are infants baptized Thus you see how this learned man ere he was aware hath spoyl'd infant-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
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
believers have their breeding amongst unbelievers and the children of unbelievers amongst believers in that case these laâ—t have not only no less priviledge as to the promise of salvation by bare birth but a priviledge also by that breeding above the other That therefore that the promise of the Gospel covenant in any sence in the world is made to believers seed as barely such more then to the natural seed of unbelievers can never be proved by the word yea the contrary is evident from this place Acts. 2.38.39 For first neither were these parents believers as yet when Peter said the promise is to you and your children but only were pricked at the heart upon some measure of conviction that the person whom they had crucified was the Lord of life which the devils believe tremble at in order to begetting that saving faith which yet they had not he spake these words of encouragement Secondly doth Peter make the promise any otherwise to them and their children then he doth to all others in the world viz. on condition of their coming in at Gods call 't is sayd to you and your children and them that are afar off all manner of persons in all nations and generations as the Lord our God shall call viz. as are prevailed with to come when God calls them which to be the sence of this place is further illustrated by that parallel place Heb. 9.15 they that are called receive the promise of eternal inheritance Thirdly when the parents did believe were baptized were any of their children baptized with them which they must have been had that promise been to the Infants as well as to the parents on that single account of being their seed but that no Infants were then baptized appears because the Scripture recording how many were baptized at that time it concludes them under such a term as excludes the Infant from that days work while it says as many meaning no more or else we are deceived in the relation as gladly received the word this Infants could not do were then baptiZed which number as they are recorded to be about 3000 might in all likelyhood have amounted to three times 3000. if all the Infants of those had been baptized also so that I conclude if they had Infants why did they not bring them or at least send for them here being so fit an opportunity to baptize them and so for ever to put the controversy out of doubt But fourthly neither were there any more enchurched that day but such as gladly received the word and were thereupon baptized For of these only and not infants its said they continued together in the Apostles doctrine in Fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayers But all their Infants must have been Enchurch'd also if they had been baptized Fifthly it crosseth the current of all other Scripture to put such a construction upon this for that the promise of old I mean the old promise of the law which was of the Earthly Canaan and but a Type of this did pertain unto a fleshly holy seed I grant But that the new Covenant or Gospel promise is made to any mans fleshly seed that thereupon we may baptize them in token of it I deny For sure I am the Scripture holds out no other seed of Abraham to be heirs with him of the heavenly Canaan but his spiritual seed i. e. Believers that do his works Nor doth it own any but these to have the right of membership and Fellowship in his family i. e. the visible Church For if it should be granted that the visible Church is Abrahams family under the Gospel as well as under the law yet it is so altered from what it was so different in its constitution that it is even turned upside down and in a manner nothing remains as then it was For as the covenant is not the same with that of the law so neither is there the same Mediator nor the same Priesthood nor the same Law nor the same Law-giver nor the same promises That being of an Earthly this of an heavenly inheritance nor the same holy seed to which the promises are made that being to the Typical seed Isaac and his posterity this to the true seed Christ and believers Nor the same ordinances theirs being Circumcision and the Passe-over ours Baptism and the supper Nor the same subjects for those ordinances those being by nature Jews or at least by profession and their Male seed only ours Male and female theirs whether believing or not ours only as believing So that whatever can be said of the Covenant the promise the holy seed is only this they were Typical ceremonial abiding only to the time of Reformation Heb. 9.9 and are now all abrogated and out of date so that we may say as he fuit Ilium so fuit Canaan fuit lex fuit Templum fuit sacerdotium fuit sacrosanctum semen There was indeed a holy land a holy law a holy Priesthood a holy seed But all these belonging to a first Covenant which was faulty are now long since vanished before a better and whatever was glorious hath now no glory by reason of a glory that excelleth 2 Cor. 3.9 10 12 13. Poed Sir I thank you for your opinion of this text Act. 2.39 But though the children of believing Gentiles have no right to the Covenant by vertue of their Parents faith yet may they not have a right by vertue of Abrahams faith Bap. In no wise for the natural posterity of believing Gentiles are so far from being heires apparent with Abraham of Gospel promises and priviledges that even Abrahams own natural seed as such only are not at all his seed at this day nor at all holy with the birth-holynesse they once had nor entail'd as heirs of that heavenly Canaan without faith and Repentance in their own persons and because this is the very root and knot in the state of this controversy the unfolding of which will discover the whole mystery of your mistakes all which arise originally from your erring in it for error minimus in principio fit major in medio maximus in fine Give me leave therefore to enlarge a little upon this point First then let it be considered that Abrahams own seed even those that were heirs with him of the earthly Canaan though born of his body now as truly though more remotely of his body who was the greatest believer in the world Christ excepted even these are not his seed in the Gospel account nor heirs of the Gospel promise nor as born of his body to be admitted to Baptism and Church priviledges which I make appear from Rom. 9.6.7.8 in which pray observe how the Apostle denies Abrahams own Natural Children the name of Abrahams seed in the sense of the Gospel First he magnifies them exceedingly in the 4th verse and sets out their dignity and preheminence above all people under the name of Israelites to whom pertained the
was no questioning of their faith no enquiry into their conversations c. But now you practically own no children to have right to Baptism but those whose immediate parents have given some visible demonstration of their conversion and manifested their faith and Repentance who are so few that were their number reckoned up it would not amount to one amongst a hundred of them that are true believers in the world But further if the children of believers only as you say have right to the Covenant and Baptism and that of such believers as you count so and so their parents only have hope of their salvation then what shall become of the children of unbelievers yea of such whom you count unbelievers may not they make this appeal to their parents and say O wretched and miserable parents that have brought forth so deplorable an off spring other children as soon as they are born are in the Covenant of grace and by vertue of their parents faith have aright to Church membership and baptism wherein they are made children of God heirs of Christ and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven But wo and alas to us that ever we were born of unbelieving parents or at least of such that were never enchurcht nor members of any Presbyterian or Independant congregation We are unholy unclean doggs that must not meddle with the childrens bread without the pale of the Church aliens from the common weal of Israel without hope and without God in the world We must not be admitted to the priviledges of the Covenant of grace though diverse of our parents are professed Christians and believe Christ crucified c. yet because they have not made a personal manifestation of their faith and repentance and so joyned to some Church diverse ministers will not admit us to Baptism But stay children there is hope for you for all this If you dye in infancy as many of you as belong to the election of grace shall be saved though ye are not baptized and if you live to years of discretion and understanding if then you believe in Christ and repent of your sins and obey the Gospel you shall be saved as soon as they yea upon those terms and none other shall those that are Baptized in their infancy be saved if they live to years of understanding Poed Well Sir I see it is a hard matter to prove that the infants of believers have a right to the Covenant more then the infants of unbelievers but yet methinks they should have right to the administration of the Covenant Bap. In no wise and that for the want of an institution as you have heard and it is answer enough to satisfy any that are willing to be satisfy'd for none ever had a right to the administrations of the Covenant any otherwise then by vertue of a law had it been otherwise of old then Enoch Lot Noah and their seed had been circumcis'd and Ishmael Esau and others had not been circumcis'd now if the natural branches the seed of Abraham had not this priviledge to be circumcis'd by vertue of a right but vertue of a law how can you expect that your infants should have a right to the administrations of the Covenant by vertue of your faith Besides you your selves deny one administration to your infants but what reason you have for so doing I know not seeing the same grace is signified in both Will you say because your children are not capable to examine themselves then let them plead their own cause and suppose they should make this Apostrophe to their parents O our tender and indulgent parents you have brought us into the visible Church as you say and admitted us to Baptism and membership but why must we not partake of the Lords supper that soul strenghtning and soul-nourishing ordinance you take care to feed our bodies dayly and that in order to our growth and have you no pitty to our souls must they starve the children of the Jews of old were admitted to the passeover all the males were to appear thrice in a year and very early partook of that Sacrament and were instructed in the use and end of it and have we lost this priviledge by this coming of Christ besides the ancient Church did use it for many years and must we be kept from it till we be come of age yea and not then neither notwithstanding our Baptism contrary to all Scripture president unless we make a personal manifestation of our faith and repentance Will you say it is because we cannot examine our selves We answer that Scripture concerns the Adult not us You might as well have kept us from Baptism because we could not believe and repent but surely the Apostle never intended that infants should examine themselves Besides you say we are clean holy with a federal holyness innocent in the Covenant of grace Church members that we have habituall faith and without any sin except original therefore there is no need of self-examination Why then are we not admitted will our parents faith serve to admit us to Baptism and not to the supper Who will unriddle this surely we want some Alexander to cut this Gordian knot for none will ever untie it But again if infants have a right to the administration of the Covenant by vertue of the parents faith then if the parents turn Atheists or Apostates the children lose their right and are cast out from the said priviledges That it must be so appears if we consider Rom. 11.20 thou standest by faith that is say you thou standest in the Gospel Covenant and hast right to ordinances by vertue of their own faith and thy children by vertue of thine Now this standing is not unalterable a state which cannot be fallen from but a changable state from which thou mayst fall for the Apostle adds be not high minded but fear Now if thou fallest by unbelief and so casts out thy self thy children must needs be cast out with thee for ablatâ causâ tollitur effectus take away the cause and the effect ceaseth thy personal and actual faith was the ground and cause of thy Childrens admittance so then thy unbelief must dispriviledge them for so it was with the Jews when they were cut off how many thousands of their infants were cut off with them from membership ordinances remain so to this day by reason of their parents unbelief And do you expect a greater priviledge then the natural branches the Apostle lays them in an equal ballance Rom. 11.20 21 22. and what ground have you to expect better the unbelief of their parents broke off their Children By unbelief they were broken off and thy standing is but conditional if thou abide in his goodness otherwise thou shalt be cut off By which you see what absurdities and contradictions to your own practise your opinion leads to if the father be cast out the children must be cast out with him Thus you see that as
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
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
should direct us to and so end the Controversie We have read the Bible over and over and an find no such thing we guess what he drives at and believe hee 'll settle at last in the Old shift of Gen. 17.7 But when he comes there we are prepared to encounter him He saies page 28. 'T is not necessary that oâ—r Lord Christ should expresly declare his whole mind in any part of his Word no not in the Commission it self for the administration of them He would do well to forbear charging Christ with Mental Reservations in his Directions and Commissions to his APOSTLES We think our selves concerned to obey that part of his will he is pleased to reveal to us and that he exacts our Obedience no futher And if Mr. Whiston durst do things in presumption that they are that paâ—t of his Will he reveals not so taking upon him to pry into the Arcana of God we will not be of his Confederacy nor Abettors to so desperate a piece of Arrogance Hee 'll find himself puzled to answer that Question Who hath required these things at your hands He proceeds and would make us believe that the Commission Mat. 28.19 is so intricate and insufficient that nothing of the principal things therein included can be made out by it and the better to make the Reader out of conceit with it propounds five or six Questions whether to puzzle or give us work or shew his dexâ—erity in quiâ—bling is not much to the matter It is 〈◊〉 discretion of Foxes to raise a dust that in the Obâ—curityâ—â— makes they may make an unobserved retreat â—o their Hole from the Hortsman's pursuit Our Author has learnt that policy his meaning is involved in a Labyrinth of Obâ—curities and inextricable Meanders 1. He tells us if we will believe him That it is not determinable by the Commission Whether the Nations were to be Discipled by Teaching or Baptizing That this is an idle Criticism will appear to any Body that understands the meaning of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to make Disciples by Teaching for Baptism cannot make one a Scholar and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the participle of the present-tense â—olds forth that immediatly upon their being made Disciples by the Word they are to be added to the Church by Baptism which is the interpretation that 's exemplified by the Apostles Acts 2.41 2. Who among the Nations to whom the Gospel is preached ought to be accounted Disciples and as such the proper subjects of Baptism This he proposes as a knotty point but as Aenigmatical as he would make it we evidence the Justice of our practice by this Dilemma Either Christ sent them to Baptize all the World whether they will be Baptized or not or such only as receive their Doctrine The former Mr. Whiston will not nor dares not avouch therefore the latter answers his Question Besides the Scripture plainly Resolves it and that he cannot say of his Infant Baptism for the dear sake of which he makes this clutter when it tells us That they were such as gladly received the Word Act. 2.41 and such as professed they believed with all their hearts Act 8 37. c. 3. Whether the Nations were to be Baptized as Discipled or as men the Resolution of the former may be enough for this also the Text saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizing but who why certainly it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples understood in the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which exactly agrees with the Apostles practice the best Comment upon the Text And if you refer the Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is false Syntax too unless you run for refuge to the figure Synthesis which is Oratio congrua sensu non voce and so conclude that all the Nation whether Discipled or not are baptizable 't is evident you pervert the meaning of Christ and would make up a Synagogue of Heathens instead of a Christian Church 4. What the manner of Baptism is whether to be administred by Dipping or Sprinkling this he saies is not determinable by the Commission But we affirm and he cannot deny that the Word properly and natively signifies to dip or plunge under water never to sprinkle and therefore conclude it the safest way to keep to the proper meaning of the VVord If Sprinkling had been Christs way he wanted not a fit expression for it And if he and his party durst play the Critticks upon his words and commit a Rape upon his very expressions we durst not joyn with them in it 5. Whether only Males or both Males and Females ought to be Baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the Masculine gender He might as well raise this scruple whether Females are concerned in most Christian Duties because the words of the Text are addrest to the Male kind the Masculine as the most worthy comprehending the other Gender Is a Woman excluded from the duty of Self-examination because the Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Masculine Gender 1 Cor. 11.28 or from the duty to abide in the Calling whereunto she is called because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 7.20 is so Doth not the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 respect both Man and Woman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they two shall be made one flesh And why we cannot be allowed the same liberty here I know not Having raised this mist he thinks in the Obscurity he has made about the Commission he might bring in Infant Sprinkling that it may lurk there too telling us that since these Particulars are as difficultly to be made out by the Commission as Infant-Baptism he may have recourse to other Revelations to evidence it Answ He might have had that liberty without making so Critical an Invasion upon this grand Commission 2. We tâ—ke it as an instance of the unlikelihood of his producing any other Revelation because he tampers with the Commission at that rate and spins out time never coming to any such Revelation wearying the Reader with such a Circuit and Maze of words that he forgets the beginning before he comes to the end But 3ly Let him from other Scriptures or Revelations make out That Infant-Baptism is warranted in this Commission as clearly and undeniably as we can Evidence that those only ought to be Baptized in pursuance of it as gladly receive the word Females as well as Males being the thing he would make us believe are so indemonstrable by it and we shall submit unto it In the mean time let him not take it ill if we take no more notice of him then of a man under a great and radical mistake though he may perhaps expect as much Reverence as Delphos He saies p. 32. The very not mentioning Infants does strongly imply his will they should be Baptized That 's a Consequence I never heard before and proves the Baptism of a Turks Child or of Bellâ— as well as the
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-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
A TREATISE Concerning the COVENANT and BAPTISM Dialogue-wise between a BAPTIST a POEDO-BAPTIST Wherein is shewed That Believers only are the Spirituall Seed of Abraham Fully discovering The Fallacy of the Argument drawn from the Birth Priviledge WITH Some Animadversions upon a Book Intituled Infant-Baptism from Heaven and not of men Defending the Practise of Baptizing only Believers against the Exceptions of M. Whiston By Edward Hutchinson 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. It is necessary first to believe and afterwards to be signed with Baptism Basil l. 3. contra Eunom I beseech you regard not what this or that man says but enquire all things of the Scripture Chrysost 13. hom 2 Cor. If you be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the Promise Gal. 3.29 LONDON Printed for Francis Smith at the Elephant and Castle near the Royall Exchange in Cornhil 1676. The Epistle DEDICATORY To the spiritual seed of Abraham especially those of the Baptized Congregations BEloved for the fathers sake first premising that they are not all Israel that are of Israel I know there is drosse mingled with your silver chaff amongst your wheat and the Canaanite is still in the land and troubles you but to you that are indeed the true seed of Abraham by faith in Jesus Christ do I dedicate this Treatise You beloved are of God and have your fathers name written in your foreheads you are the true Israelites to whom pertaineth the Adoption and the glory the Covenants and Gospel promises whose are the fathers and for whom Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever You are a chosen generation a Royal priesthood a holy nation a peculiar people walking in the steps of your father Abraham hearkning to that great Prophet whom God hath raised up among your brethren and have been baptized into the name of the father son and holy spirit But the devil that implacable enemy of souls hath endeavoured to wreak his malice upon you above all people opening his floodgates to overwhelm you the Archers have shot sorely at you the plowers have made deep furrows upon your backs yet you are still supported by the rock of Ages and strengthned by an Everlasting Arm they have laboured in vain for the blessings of your father Abraham have prevailed above the blessings of your progenitors Your begining in these nations of late years was but small yet when it pleased the Lord to dispel those clouds that overshaddowed us and scatter some beams of the Gospel amongst us he gave you so great an increase that Sion may say with admiration who hath begotten me these c. Nor is it lesse observable that whereas other Reformations have been carryed on by the secular arm and the Countenance and allowance of the Magistrate as in Luthers time by several German Princes the Protestant Reformation in England by King Edward Q. Elizabeth c. The Presbyterian reformation by a Parliament Comittee of Estates Assembly of Divines besides the favour and assistance of great personages you have had none of these to take you by the hand but your progresse was against the impetuous current of humane opposition attended with such external discouragements as bespeak your embracing this despised truth an effect of heart-sincerity void of all mercenary considerations Yea how active has the Accuser of the Brethren been to represent you in such frightful figures exposing you by that mischievous artifice to popular Odium and the lash of Magistracy in so much that the name of an Anabaptist was crime enough which doubtlesse was a heavy obstacle in the way of many pious souls And what our dissenting brethren have to answer upon that account who instead of taking up have laid stumbling blocks in the way of Reformation will appear another day Yet notwithstanding the strenuous oppositions of those great and learned ones The mighty God of Jacob hath taken you by the hand and said be strong Besides it has a considerable tendency to the advancement of divine grace if we consider the way and manner of the Reviving this costly truth When the professors of these Nations had been a long time wearied with the yoke of superstitious ceremonies traditions of men and corrupt mixtures in the worship and service of God it pleased the Lord to break these yokes and by a very strong impulse of his spirit upon the hearts of his people to convince them of the necessity of Reformation Divers piâ—us and very gracious people having often sought the Lord by fasting and prayer that he would shew them the patern of his house the goings out and comeings in thereof c. Resolved by the grace of God not to receive or practise any piece of positive worship which had not precept or Example from the word of God infant-Infant-Baptism coming of course under consideration after long search and many debates it was found to have no footing in the Scriptures the only rule and standard to try doctrines by but on the contrary a meer innovation yea the prophanation of an ordinance of God And though it was purposed to be laid aside yet what fears tremblings and temptations did attend them lest they should be mistaken considering how many learned and Godly men were of an opposite perswasion How gladly would they have had the rest of their brethren gone along with them But when there was no hopes they concluded that a Christians faith must not stand in the wisdom of men and that every one must give an account of himself to God and so resolved to practise according to their light The great objection was the want of an Administrator which as I have heard was removed by sending certain messengers to Holland whence they were supplyed So that this little cloud of Witnesses hath the Lord by his grace so greatly encreased that it is spread over our Horizon though opposed and contradicted by men of all sorts And now friends I can safely bear you record that it is not humour conceitednesse or singularity so often charged upon you that makes you decline the BaptiZing your little ones For I know they are as dear to you as children are to any parents under heaven your sighs and tears those heart-breaking desires and pathetick wishes you send to the mercy-seat for them is a sufficient testimony hereof and your petitions that Ishmael may live before God that your children may be converted that they may have an Interest in the new Covenant that the law of God may be written in their hearts that their sins may be pardoned their natures sanctifyed and their souls eternally saved And did you know that Baptism could contribute the least iota hereunto how readily and zealously would you perform it besides it is an easy service that would bring you into the credit and esteem of differing professors divers of your natural relations c. yea 't is as safe as easy nothing of self-denyal or the Cross attending it And it is very remarkable that
as to the scriptural part and I would not anticipate him whose works will praise him in the gate notwithstanding the disingenuous cavils and querulous janglings that fill up Mr Wills's invective Pampblet I hope our Opposites will not disallow the liberty they themselves take of making use of some pious and learned men that have trod the paths of this controversy before us of late years I could wish that the voluminous and accurate Treatises of M. Tombs were epitomiZed for the information of the ordinary well meaning Christian the Arguments of the Poedobaptists being there learnedly and solidly confuted and perhaps to the conviction of many of the learned ones who had not reputation interposed having born a signal testimony to some excellent truths which they fear might be called in question had they subscribed a Recantation of this would possibly own as much It is not arrived to the degree of Miracle that even good men are loath to own themselves transgressors and destroy the things they built Pezelius reports that when one from Frankford brought Calvins institutions to Luther demanding his opinion of it he replyes profecto non inepte hic Author dixit indeed this Author hath not said foolishly meaning that he had spoke right yet recanted not his opposite Doctrine but privately communicates his mistake to Melancthon fearing that a publique conviction might discredit all his Doctrine To conclude Reader I offer my conceptions of this bandied point to thy candid acceptation and with this assurance that nothing but a zeal for Gospel reformation should invite me to expose my sentiments to this Censorious age and if they contribute ought to that end I have my aim And so I commend thee to the good spirit of truth to lead thee into all truth and remain Thine in all Christian Respects E. H. Feb. 10. 1674. A DIALOGUE Between A Baptist and a Poedobaptist Bap. MY Dear Friend I am glad to see thee pray what News in the Countrey Poed O Sir the Controversy about Baptism is again renewed which I fear will occasion great differences amongst Professors whereas we did hope to live in love and peace together but I see the point must farther be enquired into and the people must have more satisfaction before they will walk in communion and fellowship together Bap. Well but what is your opinion do you still hold infant-Infant-Baptism Poed Yes I am still of that opinion but am willing to be inform'd for I would not practise any thing that is not warranted from the Scriptures Bap. You say well in that but have you been at disputes where you might receive satisfaction Poed Yea I have been at divers but their Logical way of discourse does so obscure and hide the truth that when the Dispute is done we are no wiser then before now Sir is there no way to finde out truth but by Logick Bap. My Friend you must know that there is a natural Logick which all men have except fools and Idiots and it is nothing else but reason methodized but as for School-Logick which men make a great flourish with especially amongst women and illiterate persons though by it also truth may be discovered if men were ingenuous and desired truth more then victory but alas it is miserably abused by men of corrupt minds to the deceiving of the hearts of the simple but seeing you have mentioned it I shall give you the opinion of a Learned man about it Nothing saith he hath spoyled truth more then the invention of Logick it hath found out so many distinctions that it inwraps reason in a mist of doubts t is reason drawn into too fine a thred tying up truth in a twist of words which being hard to unloose carry her away as a prisoner 't is a net to entangle her or an art instructing you how to tell a reasonable lie like an overcurious workman it hath sought to make truth so excellent that it hath marred it Vives saith he doubts not the devil did invent it It hath layd on so many Colours that the Counterfeit is more various then the pattern It gives us so many likes that we know not which is the same nature it self makes every man a Logician they that brought in the art have presented us with one that hath over-acted her But I speak this of Logick at large there may be an excellency found in the art and it is good to retayn it that we may make it defend us against it self in matters of Religion we must make faith the means to ascertain for other matters simple nature is the best reason and naked reason the best Logick Poed Sir I thank you for your opinion about Logick and I think it were better if our Ministers did less use it and dispute after the same manner as they preach which is to lay down a proposition and to prove it by Scripture and reason it would better satisfy the people but we have gone a little out of our way my great desire is to discourse with you about Infants-Baptism and especially concerning the Covenant made to Abraham and to his seed which if you can remove I resolve to be of your opinion Bap. It s true the Covenant or promise made to Abraham and to his seed is the great hinge or Engine upon which the whole business of Infants-Baptism moves now if I prove that the Infants of believing Gentiles are not the seed of Abraham then Infant Church-member-ship under the Gospel and Baptism falls to the ground Poed True Sir and therefore pray let me hear your arguments Bap. First then I argue thus If none be the Children of Abraham but those that do the works of Abraham Then infants are not the seed of Abraham But the Antecedent is true John 8.39 If ye were the Children of Abraham ye would do the works of Abraham So therefore is the consequent Poed But our Ministers tells us this is meant of the adult and not of Infants Bap. I know they do so and they think they had better say something then nothing but I proceed The Second Argument If those that are Christs are only Abrahams seed then Infants are not Abrahams seed The Antecedent in true Gal. 3.3.19 Ergo the consequent And if you say Infants are Christs I answer some are so by Election but the Apostle speaks of such as are Christs by calling not Election which is secret to us But 3dly If none are blessed with Abraham but those that are of faith then infants are not the seed of Abraham But the Antecedent is true Gal. 3.9 so then they that are of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham Ergo the Consequent is true also 4thly If the Children of the flesh are not the Children of God then infants are not now the seed of Abraham But the Antecedent is true Rom. 9.8 they which are the children of flesh these are not the children of God But the children of the promise are counted for the seed Ergo so is
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
so the blood of Christ cleanseth us from the guilt and pollution of sin And there is no question but the bloud of Christ is the fountain of all the grace and good communicated to us either in this or any other Sacrament or mistery of the Gospel But that this should be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the counter part or thing figured by the water in Baptism I believe not because the Scripture which must be our guide and direction in this case makes it another thing to wit the spirit or holy Ghost this to be that whereby the soul is cleansed and renewed within as the body with water is without so sayth our Saviour to Nicodemus in John 3. Except a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God And the Apostle in the words I have read parallels the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the holy Ghost as Type and Countertype God saith he hath saved us that is brought us into the state of salvation by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the holy Ghost Where none I trow will deny that he speaks of Baptism The same was represented by that vision at our Saviours baptism of the holy Ghosts descending upon him as he came out of the water in the similitude of a dove For I suppose that in that Baptism of his the Mistery of all our Baptisms was visibly acted and that God says to every one truly baptiZed as he said to him in a proportionable sense thou art my son in whom I am well pleased And how pliable the Analogy of water is to typifie the spirit will appear by the figuring of the spirit thereby in other places of Scripture as in that of Isay I will pour water upon him that is thirsty and flouds upon the dry ground I will pour my spirit upon thy seed and my blessing upon thine off-spring where the later expounds the former Also by the discourse of our Saviour with the samaritan woman John 4.14 Whosoever saith he drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up to everlasting life By that also John 7.37 where on the last day of the great feast Jesus stood and said If any man thirst let him come unto me and drink He that believeth on me as the Scripture saith that is as the Scripture is wont to expresse it for otherwise there is no such place of Scripture to be found in all the Bible out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water But this saith the Evangelist he spake of the spirit which they that believe on him should receive Nor did the fathers or ancient Church as far as I can find suppose any other correlative to the element in baptism but this of this the speak often of the bloud of Christ they are altogether silent in their explications of this mistery many are the allusions they seek ouâ— for the illustration thereof and some perhaps forced but this of the water signifying or having any relation to the bloud of Christ never comes amongst them which were impossible if they had not supposed some other thing figured by the water then it which barred them from falling on that conceâ—t The like silence is to be observed in our Liturgy where the holy Ghost is more â—â—en once paralleld with the water in baptism washing and regeneration attributed thereunto but no such notion of the bloud of Christ and that the opinion thereof â—â— noveâ— may be gathered because some 〈◊〉 Divines make it peculiar and proper to the 〈◊〉 Calâ—in Whatsoever it be it hath no 〈◊〉 in Scripture and we must nâ— of our own heads assign significations to Sacramental types without some warrant thence For whereas some conceive those two expressions of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or sprinkling of the bloud of Christ and of our being washed from our sins in or by his bloud do intimate some such matter they are surely mistaken for those expressions have reference not to the water of Baptism in the new Testament but to the rise 〈◊〉 manner of sacrificing in the old where the Altar was wont to be sprinkled with the bloud of the sacrifices which were offered and that which was unclean parisâ—ed with the same bloud Whence is that elegant aâ—â—course of S. Paul Heb. 9. comparing the sacrifice of the law with that of Christ upon the Crosse as much the better And that whereas in the law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Almost all things are purified with bloud so much more the bloud of Christ who offered himself without spot to God cleanseth our consciences from dead works but that this washing that is cleansing by the bloud of Christ should have reference to baptism where is that to be found I sâ—ppose they will not alledge the water and bloud which came out of our Saviours side when they pierced him for that is taken to signify the two Sacraments ordained by Christ that of bloud the Eucharist of water baptism and not both to be referred to baptism I add because perhaps some mens fancies are corrupted therewith that there was no such thing as sprinkling or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in baptism in the Apostles times nor many ages after them and that therefore it is no way probable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Peter should have any reference to the laver of baptism Let this then be our conclusion thht the bloud of Christ concurrs in the mistery of baptism by way of efficacy and merit but not as the thing there figured which the Scripture tells us not to be the bloud of Christ but the spirit And so I come to my other Quaere from what property or use of water the washing therewith is a Sacrament of our new birth for so it is here called the washing of Regeneration our Saviour says to Nicodemus except a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God For in every Sacrament there some Analogy between what is outwardly done and what is thereby signified therefore in this But what should it be It is a thing of some moment and yet in the tractats of this mistâ—ry but little or seldom enquired after and therefore deserves the more consideration I answer this â—â—alogy between the washing with water and regeneration lies in that custome of washing infants from the pollutions of the womb when they are first born for this is the first office done unto them when they come out of the womb if they purpose to nourish and bring them up As therefore in our natural birth the body is washt with water from the pollutions wherewith it comâ—s into the world so in our second birth from above the soul is purified by the spirit from the guilt and pâ—â—â—tion of sin to begin a new life to God-ward The Analogy you see is apt and
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
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
to question that either he thinks they want Relief being very near a Defeat or have not so singular a Talent as himself to set off a bad Cause For my part I cannot conjecture what his design is unless by making up a Triumvirate of Champions he thinks to carry the Cause by Clamour and so share of the Applause their admiring Votaries are liberal enough of But as his Book needs little more Confutation than to be perused so the infirmity of his Reasoning serves to illustrate not foil the Truth he invades Our Adversaries themselves are forced to confess that most of those great Fathers the generality of Christians are so fond of have been of Corrupt Principles and tainted with Superstitious conceits and unsound Notions and that there are but very few of them to be found throughly Orthodox though of great Learning Zeal and Industry which is an Item to us not to lean upon the Authority of man though never so Celebrated by Ages and Nations but to have recourse to the Word of truth left for our Instruction and to seek our Warrant for Religious Duties there This consideration satisfies me That this Triumviri however acted by confidence or self-conceit may be out of the way and that their Dictates are no farther to be received than they agree with the Word of God The perplexing Systems spun out of mans own brain nice subtil Distinctions and long-winded periods may be taking with such as are firmly Espoused to a Party right or wrong or such as think him Conqueror that has most words but the sober enquiring Soul that seeks Truth not Victory will easily perceive the Vanity and Error of such a procedure Error cannot be disputed against without giving it its name and its Abettors cannot be reproved nor admonished but in words accomodated to their mistakes which indeed is not Railing but plain-dealing and which I hope is Apology enough for me if any Expressions should seem to be of too acute an Edge The Scripture commands us to reprove Errors sharply or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cuttingly Tit. 1.13 I love the Godly Paedo-Baptist as one that I know my Master Christ loveth but having such a Call to Witness to and Contend for his Truth I will as he shall enable me do it without daubing on the one and unnecessary sharpness on the other hand I know how to distinguish between such as by a mistaken Zeal utter provoking rash words and such as in pursuance to their Duty contend earnestly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints And that Believers Baptism is such an Ordinance as Christ delivered to his Saints I never heard doubted And that Infant pretended Baptism is not such is our work to manifest After all the Clutter our Antagonists kept to find some Evidence for the practice of paedo-Paedo-Baptism in Fathers Councils c. the Scripture as they fully own being silent about it they are glad to run for refuge at last to their new Invention of a Covenant they imagine to be made with the Carnal Seed of Believers Gen. 17.7 which they say Intitles them to be Baptized but to no other Ordinance under the New Testament a most pittiful Paradox and being ashamed to own the mistaken absurd Mediums its old and most celebrated Patrons have Insisted upon for its Support in Old Times they have Center'd in a more plausible pretence for it viz. the aforesaid Covenant which is their only Reserve at present And I cannot but admire that Men of any Reason should cry up Antiquity Antiquity at the Rate they do when at the same Instant they reject the Grounds and Reasons the Ancients used for the same And is it fair to derive the practice from Antiquity and add Reasons of their Own when the Old Reasons are found to be indeed Irrational We know Infant-Baptism has been of an Early Birth viz. in the Third or Fourth Century to save the Child's Soul and upon a mistake that it might be Damned without it But Infant-Baptism upon the modern ground of a Hereditary Covenant is new and altogether unknown to the Ancient Paedo-Baptists as by other hands is clearly made good And how plausible this New Argument is in the following Pages is examined And before I come to a particular Survey of this present Vndertakers Book I would tender to his Christian consideration hoping him to be a man that Fears God Whether it be so consistent with his Profession in so Taunting and proud a manner to scorn and reproach his Opponent whereas a meeker way would be not only his Duty but more graceful 2. Whether it be consistent with the Word of Truth to go about to impose his bare Ipse dixit's upon the World without any material proof from the Scripture 3. Whether it be consonant to the plainness of the Gospel to confound rather than Instruct the ordinary plain Reader with such a variety of needless impertinent Distinctions Hypotheticals Tedious and rambling Circumlocutions Preambles and dark miserable shiftings to find a Covert for his I adorantism in the Word of God 4. Whether it be Ingenuous or Honest to supply the want of Argument with such phrases as these proceeding from Immodesty to Impudence Warning his Reader to be wary of crediting any of his viz. Mr. Danver's perswasion can any man think he had any true actual Fear of God before his Eyes Down-right Falsities Forgeries meer Cheats c. though not the least Tittle of them proved to be justly chargeable upon Mr. Danvers And to all which I think as it is the product of an Vnruly provoking Spirit actuated by prejudice and its ireful concomitants the best return will be silence Let him consider Gal. 6.1 Mat. 5.5 We shall not Insist upon his uncomely carriage throughout the whole Book we leave it to his cooler consideration and the Reader 's Observation and shall present you with a brief account of his Book and then Select what wants our Reply and leave all to the judgment of the Reader The Book consists of Two parts 1. An attempt to weaken the Humane Authority urged by Mr. Danvers for Illustration of Believers Baptism in opposition to Infants Baptism 2. To Confute him in the Doctrinal part About the first he spends 24 pages his Objections are some scraps of what Mr. B. and Mr. W. have more at large urged and already Answered by Mr. D. of which nevertheless I shall anon take a brief View From p. 25. to 71. he goes about to disprove that Believers Baptism is only Christ's Baptism 2. To prove that the silence of the Scripture about Infant-Baptism tends more to its establishment than overthrow 3. To vindicate Tradition as he defines it viz. the Discoveries made by the Church Doctrinally and Practically from the Apostles time to us as a subordinate means whereby we come to know and are more fully confirmed what 's contained in the Doctrine of the Apostles 4. From page 71. to 129. he considers the Arguments from the Covenant and Faederal
Holiness 5. From page 129. to the end He endeavours to prove the Validity of Baptism as Administred by Sprinkling Of which in Order ANIMADVERSIONS UPON Mr. Whiston's Book c. HE Intitles his Book Infant Baptism from Heaven and not of Men This indeed may raise the Expectation of such as have not Read Mr. Baxter's Plain Scripture proof I began to think he had lighted upon some Rarity else he would not Front his Book with such a Title nor trouble the World especially at this juncture when such men of Noise are already Engaged against us But Empty Casks give the greatest sound and pregnant Mountains bring forth a Mouse From Heaven and has he been there then and searcht the Records and was of the Cabinet Counsel of the Almighty what if we doubt it we have but his bare word for it He must pardon me if I say infant-Infant-Baptism from Rome or beneath for if it had been of Heavens making the Scriptures and the Records and Histories of the purest Primitive times would not be so silent about it as the most Learned Paedo-baptists confess and particularly Mr. B. our keenest Adversary is forced to own they are But the Author is cunning and would Decoy the Reader by a specious Title so the Vintners gaudy sign often Trapans to a costly though unwholsome Entertainment The plain Scripture-proof man himself confesses Infants baptism has its considerable difficulties the Ingenious Papist counts it a Miracle to have it proved by Scripture Most of the Learned Paedo-baptists have recourse to Tradition for help and how come they to miss of this mans Invention all this while This Apollo this Oepidus this Alexander which you will might have done good service to unriddle the Aenigma or cut that knot the unfolding of which cost so much Debate Had he brought that from Heaven sooner which was ever there he had saved many Learned men the labour of their Elaborate Systems pro and con But this Author has as dexterous and nimble a way of confuting all Antiquity as the Junior Sophister in Oxford used with Bellarmine when he writ in the end of his Works Bellamine thou liest therefore I will make bold to tell him that he stamps his uncertain Conjectures with a Divine Character and fathers his Forgeries and contrivances upon Heaven which is a during piece of Confidence to say no more So that I shall say of him and from just ground as the Poet of Pigmalion extreamly doting upon the fair Image he made Operisque sui concepit amorem c. He tells us Mr. Danvâ—rs his Book is all Forgery which he leaves to the Readers Observation wishing him to have a care of crediting any of his perswasion But if this be not Inconsistent with the Laws of Ingenuity Equity and the Generositie of a Scholastick Education I know not what is Had he been as nimble to attacque the Cause we maintain as we find him a keen Satyrist against the person he Opposes who never gave him the least Provocation it would be more honest and taking But instead of a fair unprejudiced Examination of our Arguments he laies bout him terribly and deals his strokes unmercifully charges the whole with Forgery Falshood and what not without vouchsafing to tell us wherein those Forgeries and Falshoods lye But stay Sir as loâ—ty a conceit as you have of your self wee 'll not believe you upon your bare word Have you hit upon that pernicious Knâ—â—k â—â— assassinating mens credit at a breath It seems you â—corn to be â—uch a petty Chapman â—s Mr. Ws. who comes to Particulars but you would knock us down by whole Sale You lâ—â—ve the â—â—ader to his own observation And is that all as if he had stood gaping till you become his Monitâ—â— could not the Reader make his Observations without thâ— impertinâ—â—t memento Be wary of crediting any of his perswasion In this I would appâ—al to Mr. Whiston's Conscience or any â—â—â—â—â—of commoâ— genuity whether it be just and 〈◊〉 for him to charge the whoâ—e party of Antipâ—edâ— baptists at this rate although Collonel Danvers as 't is possible a Learned man may had been mistaken in some things among so numerous a Tract of Quotations of which he has made no significant discovery neither Would he think it fair dealing if we should improve the particular errors or miscarriages of Paedo Baptists to the scandal of all under that denomination particularly the apparent Injustice and unchristian Dealings of Mr. B. and Mr. Ws. in their late conspiracy wrongfully to impeach us and the truth we profess and their malicious Contrivances in prosecution thereof fully detected by another hand And whether we have not just ground to conclude his infant-Infant-baptism is not from Heaven not only from the weakness of his Arguments but from his manner of Arguing also the Apostles way being to convince in meekness and confute in terms full of Love and void of all Opprobrious and Canting Railery The Scripture tells us that the wisdom that is from Above is first pure then peaceable gentle and easie to be intreated full of mercy and good Works without partiality and without Hypocrisie James 3.17 Whereas he accosts us in so haughty and domineering an Equipage as he thinks will crush and disable us from any farther Encounters with so dreadful a Gigas as he takes himself to be Exposing us to the scorn and odium of the whole World as if we had not felt enough of its unkindness till he comes to open the mouth of Calumny wider and make our Enemies bâ—â—l louder But these things we hope our Lord God whom we desire to serve will give us patience to endure for his Name and Truths sake But to put the better face upon the matter he pretends to give some instances of Mr. Ds. his unfaithfulness in his Quotations and of a great many picks out two with singular judgment which he thinks â—e can toss to the purpose and makâ—s his Reader sport to see how ridiculous he would make them But to check his triumphant Insultings we shall joyn issue with him in the fair Tryal of those particulars he impeaches 1. He charges Collonel Danvers for unfaithfulness in affirming that the Magdeburgs say in the place he cites That in the first Century they find they baptized only the Adult or Aged c. whereas the Word only is not there This Exception Mr. Ws. made and is answered by Mr. D. in p. 31 32. of his Reply and I conceive it is no part of ingenuity in Mr. Whiston to be inculcating that which he could not be ignorant was so justly replyed to already But What if Mr. D. has been in the right and the falshood be laid at Mr. Whistons door is not Mr. Whiston then the unfaithful man and that it is so the Reader is desired to consider that what we desire to prove from the Magdeburgs is matter of Fact viz. whether Infants were Baptized in that Age which in plain terms they tell
us they read no Example of Exempla annotata non leguntur and that the Adult of Jew and Gentile were Baptized as is exemplified Acts 2.8 10 16 19 c. and is not this Equivalent with what he alleges viz. that they Baptized only the Adult finding examples for the one and not for the other any man in his sences may see that there is no more difference between them than there is between two six pences and a shilling We confess the Mageburgs were for Infant-Baptism and that they cite Origen and Cyprian as Authors that it was an Apostolical Tradition in these words Sed Origines Cyprianus alii Patres Authores sunt Apostolorum etiam tempore baptizatos esse Constat enim hoc ex Apostolorum Scriptis quod Infantes a Baptismo non excludant nam dum Circumcisionis locum Baptismum supplere Paulus docet Col. 2. Aâ—que Infantes atque Adultos ad Baptismum admittendos judicat that is Origen and Cyprian and other Fathers tell us that in the Apostles time some were Baptized for this is evident from the Apostles Writings that they did not exclude Infants from Baptism and where Paul teaches Col. 2. that Baptism succeeds in the place of Circumcision he declares that Infants as well as the Adult are to be admitted to Baptism The Reader is desired to note how Craftily Mr. Whiston stops in his Quotation at the words Constat ex Apostolorum Scriptis i. e. it is evident from the Apostles Writings to make the Reader believe they mean it that Infants were Baptized whereas it relates to the following part of the sentence viz. Quod Infantes a baptismo non excludant that they did not exclude Infants from Baptism rendring himself guilty of what he unjustly accuses Mr. D. But to the Quotation Wherein we have Three Things urged by them as Arguments for their practice First the Testimony of Origen and Cyprian Secondly Arguments from Infants non-exclusion from Baptism Scriptures Thirdly an Inference to prove it lawful as succeeding Circumcision 1. The Testimony of Origen and Cyprian this I shall say little to being substantially enervated by Mr. Danvers already in his Rejoynder where it is made out 1. that Origen and Cyprian say no such thing 2. that if they had it s no great matter the Books being from just grounds judged spurious 3. that if the Books were genuine their Testimonies in the Third Century is not sufficient to prove matter of Fact the First Age. 2. The Arguments from Infants non Exclusion being Mr. Whiston's dear Argument so oft repeated and made such a flourish withall and filling a good part of his Book our Answer shall be refered to the place where he urges it 3. The Inference from Circumcision this Mr. Whiston in express terms tells us is not made any ground of Infant Baptism by them in these words We plead not for Infants Baptism meerly from the Analogy it bears to Circumcision and is angry they should be charged with it though his practice contradicts the expression very often as well as the Mageburgs thereby therefore I shall not spend time to disprove that which he owns not The Second Instance he gives of Mr. Ds. unfaithfulness is page 7. Mr. D. sayes thus As to Baptism in the Second Century they say Cent. 2. cap. 6. p. 109. that it doth not appear by any approved Author that there was any Variation or Mutation from the former Which Mr. Whiston is angry for and sayes Mr. D. would make people believe he spake this of the subject of baptism whereas it is of the Rites and Ceremonies I have Examined what Mr. Danvers sayes and that Century and I find that he mentions neither subject nor rite but only cites their words and applies it as fairly their words are Simplicem baptiâ—andi formam fuisse retentam ex eo apparet quod in probatis anteribus nulla insignis reporitur variatio aut mutatio annotata It is apparent that the simple or old form of baptizing was kept viz. in the Second Age because no remarkable Variation or Mutation is noted by any approved Author and that this comprehends both the subject and way of Administration of the first Age is evident to such as are not critically contumacious and blind and it is very probable yea certain that had the Magdeburg's found any Example for Infant-Baptism in this Age more than in the former they would not fail to mention it and though they say Nec usquam legiter Infantes hoc saeculo remotos esse that we read not of Infants being excluded in this Age we may as truly say Nec usqâ—amlegitur Infantes hoc saeculo baptizari We read of no Infants baptized in this Age So that it is a sure Argument the thing was not in being because no mention is made of it as practiced or not practiced I have read the Story of the Jew which he upbraids Collonel D for over-looking who like to dye was upon his earnest request baptized as they call it by his fellow Travellers by flinging Sand upon him there being no possibility of having Water there But what advantage this makes for Mr. Whiston we know not let him make the best of it if he had thought it so much for his purpose why did not he mention it but he choses rather to make the Reader believe there is something in it for his advantage when indeed it signifies nothing for him The Second thing he remarks is the impertinency of his proofs and of which he gives Five Instances how proper we are noâ— to enquire But first Is it not unjust for Mr. Whiston to charge his Adversary with that Crime whereof he himself is notoriously guilty as I could instance if I would be impertinent and for a taste will begg the Readers pardon to remark one Is it to Mr. Whiston's purpose or does the Argument he manages require it that he should publish in print first part of his Infant-Baptism that he is a Batchelor c. is the World concerned in the changes of his state or does he think that by the Charms of his Wit and Oratory some great Cometissa will fall in Love with him Is not that as impertinent a Proclamation as the Ecclesiastical Politician's publishing his dull and lazy distemper I would not have said this but to shew how he that 's so nimble to fall upon others in print should take care first to amend himself And as to his Exceptions under this head they are indeed so frivolous and insignificant that it is in vain to spend time to refute that which any Reader may do in the very perusing for what does he more than pick up some scripshere and there pickeering at a part as the preamble or that that makes way to the main thing wherein all the force is put and to which these passages he snatches up may be only Circumstantial So that Mr. Whiston beats the Ayre and fights manfully with a Figment of his own brain For
down from Heaven to the Infernal Seats whom though baptized in Infancy their life by its Holiness the World by its testimony and Divinity by Miracles have made famous they must be made the Collegues of Devils who were the Companions of Angels and they that through their pious Labours are arrived to Eternal life will suddenly be flung into everlasting death Our Holy dayes shall be turned to mourning our Sabbaths into shame and our Honour into nothing Who can bear these who can hear it who would not shut his ears and with all those they labour to damn would not rise against these Arch Hereticks But come unto me and repent of so great a Prodigie You scorn and deride that one should be Saved by the Faith of another denying it with great Mockery among the Rusticks and unlearned Multitude A brutish and impious Heresie Petrus Cluniacensis contra Paetro brusianos haeret p. 1124. Edit Paris 1614. As to those late Authors he sayes whose testimonies deserve no credit as to the first Ages viz. Willifrid Strabo Boemus Lud. Vives I conceive however they are to be believed as soon as Mr. Whiston And he that leans so much upon Origen and Cyprian though those Books Father'd upon them are judged spurious to prove matter of Fact in the First Age though they lived in the Third Century should clear himself before he falls foul upon others And Lastly Since he declines all Humane Authority as of no weight so do we and proceed to examine the Scripture grounds which we desire only to adhere to and own it to be our Principle to receive no Article of Faith however entertain'd or cry'd up by Nations Fathers c. that is not made Authentick by the Written Word of God And whether Mr. Danvers the Exceptions here made being so few and of so little weight deserves so severe a Castigation as this Author is pleased to give him let the World judge And therefore we go on to try the opposition he makes as to the Doctrinal part And first we affirm That Believers Baptism is only Christs Baptism which Mr. Danvers proved by the order laid down in the Commission Matth. 28.19 to which Mr. Whiston makes this demur That this Commission doth not exclude Infants from Baptism supposing their Baptism elsewhere in Scripture warranted That this is a very sorry Evasion will appear if you consider that this is the solemn Institution and Commission given to the Apostles impowring them to Preach the Gospel and Baptize and to charge it with darkness and imperfection as Mr. Whiston doth is to reflect upon the Law giver and for us to observe any Order but what is here laid down is to go beyond our Commission and be wise above what is written Which is not only our Opinion but the great Basil's own words upon the place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i e. But we think it necessary to have recourse to the order prescribed by the Lord viz. first to Teach then Baptize page 636. de Baptismo 2. It has been else where sufficiently proved that Infants because Unbelievers till Converted Eph. 2.3 and so uncapable of the qualification pre-required here are excluded 3. If it should be urged that Infants have Faith as several Learned Paedo-baptists affirm though not so fortunate as to agree what kind of Faith some being for a Seminal some a Federal some an Imputative Faith c. verifying the Proverb Tot capita tot sensus then we may conclude that there 's no such thing as Regeneration for if we be Believers from the Womb where is there any room for the New Birth and if that be once admitted the whole scope and frame of the Gospel is subverted for it would be an absurd Errand to call such to Believe who are Believers by a Birth-priviledg and in a state of Regeneration as soon as Born But common Experience confutes this Childish fancy And for that distinction some of them make of Faith in actu primo or Potential Faith not yet grown up to actual were it admitted for which there is no Reason the Maxim being just and safe Vbi lex non distinguit non est distinguendum Where the Law distinguishes not we must not distinguish yet it would not serve the turn since Unbelievers Children may be as truly said to have Faith in Actu primo or potentially as Believers Children they proving frequently Converts and precious Saints whilst Believers Children often run the broad way of Wickedness Besides if Children had such a Faith and that the distinction were as it is not good it would not be enough because no Faith but an actual personal Faith qualifies for Baptism But he sayes Supposing their Baptism else-where warranted in Scripture But why is not that Scripture produced 't is much talk'd of but we can never see it which makes us conclude that men that are so nimble to press Scriptures into their service that not a whit be friend their Cause if they could hit upon any such plain Text would be brisk enough to bring it forth But alas if they had their Warrant from Scripture they would not take such pains to prove that the silence of the Scripture is such an Argument to evince the lawfulness of their practice a very mad and wild way of reasoning nor run to the beginning of the World to find some protection for it among the Jewish Rites Gospel Ordinances must be evidenced by Gospel Authority What institution of the New Testament but is plainly to be proved by New-Testament Scripture Must Baptism alone though so plainly yea in words at length both as to subject and form of Administration there instituted be beholden to Circumcision Gen. 17.7 for its Original though as different and remote from it as the Gospel is from the Law If so Why are not the Baptized Infants now admitted to the priviledges the Circumcised were of old viz. to be Members of the Church now as they were then of the Common-wealth to come to the Supper as they to the Passeover c. this Riddle we desire may be unfolded But he goes on in the same Tune and tells us that as here is no express mention of Infants that 's well granted so no word phrase or clause that can be rationally interpreted to exclude them No more is there any word phrase or clause excluding Vnbelievers Children nay which is more not so much as a word phrase or clause that litterally excludes Bells Church walls Standards c. from Baptism and if there be ground enough for this Author to Baptize them let him take the Honor of the Employment He sayes Christ may have given this Commission only with reference to the Adult that we believe and contend for and 't is now happily granted us and may have sufficiently declared his will concerning the Baptism of Infants in other parts of his Word that 's the thing he should prove and that other part of his Word if he knows it he
Baptism he pleads for But why so because Mr. Whiston takes it for granted that Infants were Church-members under the Law and this Commission nor no other Text in Scripture doth not repeal those priviledges Is that it why then let us examine whether this be sound Doctrine And that it is not so will â—ppear from Acts 21.21 where you have plain Scripture-proof that Infant-Church membership is repealed The words are And they are informed of thee that thoâ— teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses saying that they oâ—ght not to Circumcise their Children neither to walk after the Customes These words were spoken by the Elders of the Church at Jerusalem to Paul in which are these things to be considered 1. A Report of a certain new Doctrine that Paul had Preached among the Jews 2. The Doctrine it self that they ought to forsake Moses c. Concerning the first we are to examine Whether Paul did Preach such a Doctrine or no 2. Whether the Doctrine he Preachâ—d were true For the first it is evident that Paul did preach so that they must forsake Moses and not Circumcise their Children c. otherwise he need not have consented to purifie himself and so far to Judaize contrary to the Gospel and his own light his denial only of the matter of Fact would have been a sufficient Confutation of such a Rumor But he denies it not that would be to forsake his Gospel-Ministry but in a peaceable condescension complies to purifie himself that he may appear to be no Contemner of the Law that removing their prejudice he may have opportunity to preach Christ the Anti-type of all their Typical Administrations 2. That also is undoubted that the Gospel-Doctrine he preached viz. that the Jews and all others ought to forsake Mâ—ses c. is true and suitable to the Gospel dispensation It Mr. Whiston denies it he is more Jew than Christian The next doubt is What is meant by forsaking of Moses To which I Answer 1. To forsake him as a Prophet or Minister of the Gospel Church God having now raised up another Prophet whom we must Hear in all things relating to the matter and manner of Worship in the House of God For though Moses was faithful in his House as a Servant yet he must give way to Christ the Great Prophet Heb 3. and no longer give Laws or prescribe Rules about the matter or manner of Worship yea nothing as to the Subject Time or Place is to be received from him but in all things we must be instructed by that Prophet that God hath raised up from amongst our Brethren this is the substance of Paul's Doctrine 2. Not to Circumcise their Children is to forsake Moses as the Text particularly makes out because Circumcision was a Law or Doctrine they had learn't from Moses for though Circumcision was first given to Abraham yet it is called Moses Law John 7.22 Moses therefore gave unto you Circumcision c. But you must forsake this Law or Doctrine of Moses and not Circumcise your Children any more This sounds very Harsh and was very grievous and offensive to them that it caused such Fear in the Elders that some Trouble and Hazard to his Person would follow which was the ground of that Compliance in purifying themselves to pacifie the Jews for the present they being so exceeding zealous for the Law and especially for Circumcising their Children that Opposition was Death or severe Punishment Now had Paul told them their Children should be Baptized and that Baptism was come into the room of Circumcision c. in all likelihood it would have quieted them But seeing there is no mention of any such thing that He preached such Doctrine amongst them which without Controversie would have been mentioned had he done so it plainly appears that Paul knew no such thing neither had he any Commission to preach such Doctrine as the Baptizing of Infants amongst them And this further is confirmed if we consider the determination of the First Council who were met about this very Doctrine of Circumcising Children c. that the Jews were still so zealous for and knew not how to bear the Abrogation of it though they did believe in Christ and they would have enjoyn'd it upon the Gentiles as necessary to Salvation Acts 15. Now if it were a duty to Baptize Children instead of Circumcising of them then the Apostles were unfaithful in not telling them of it especially at this time when there was so fair an opportunity to quiet their Consciences and to put the matter out of doubt and for ever to cashier the Doctrine of Circumcision which we see the Jewish Teachers were afterwards endeavouring to promote But in regard the Apostles mention no such thing as Baptizing of Infants in their debates in this Council nor in their Letters they sent to the Churches it is evident they received no such Commission from Christ And how any man can Believe otherwise and not reflect imprudence yea horrible unfaithfulness upon the Apostles I cannot imagine The next to be considered in this Text is that the Jews are also forbidden to walk after the custom that is after the manner for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Acts 15.1 unless ye be Circumcised after the manner of Moses c. So that this word Custom or Manner of Moses prohibits not only all Observation of the Law of Moses bvt also all walking after the same way and manner as the Ordinances of the Law were administred in Here is not only an Injunction of non-conformity to the Law but to the manner of it also They are not only forbidden to Circumcise their Children but also to walk after the Custom or Manner of Circumcision and therefore not to Baptize their Children Paul might have said indeed to Circumcise your Children was the Custom and Manner of Old but as for the Baptizing them we have no such custom nor the Churches of God And hence it is clear that Infants Church-membership is repealed and consequently have no right to Baptism For If Infants as our Modern Paedo-Baptists alledge were virtually Commanded to be Baptized in the Command for Circumcision and that Infant-Circumcision and Infant-Baptism were both Instituted together as they that bring the later from Gen. 17.7 must needs hold then they are both uncommanded again in these very words Acts 21.21 where God by the mouth of Paul forbad them to Circumcise their Children any longer and to walk after the Old Customs I say again if Infant-Baptism was commanded in the Command for Circumcision of Infants then by Analogie for Contrariorum contraria est ratio Infant-Baptism must needs be abrogated and remanded in the abrogation and remanding of Circumcision And though I do not believe that the precept to Circumcise Infants was so much as a Virtual or Consequential Command to Baptize them yet it is an Argument ad hominem at least and I hope the Paedo-baptists
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-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
command expresly notes the time age and sex The Levitical and Typical Holiness in Abraham's Houshold whether natural or adopted included not Regeneration nor heart cleanness which is our holiness land fruit and trees were holy in a typical consideration when Circumcision was predicated of Trees as well as Men Lev. 9.23 And for us to affirm that Trees ought to be now baptized as they were then reputed to be Circumcised is a wild way of reasoning And therefore since things become Ordinances to us by vertue of a word of institution and no such word is found to make out that Baptism succeeds Circumcision in its room place and use we think it safe to be sober and advance no further than the Scripture guides And to make Circumcision institutive of Baptism is to send us to School to the Law and that Old first vanishing Covenant as it is stiled Heb. 8. as if the Law-giver in the New-Testament had not by a positive institution establisht his Ordinances there nor left us any Warrant for our Gospel-Duties without that retrogression to Moses and assimilating them to the Paedagogy and similitude of Types So that these things being found meer mistakes on Mr. Whiston's side we may conclude in his own words that they have no sure footing in the Covenant for the baptizing of Infants He saith page 81. The Covenant Gen. 17.7 was made with Abraham in both capacities viz. as a Natural and Spiritual Father What then This is a meer Ignoratio Elenchi and Mr. W. has a peculiar Talent to prove that which is not deny'd But to this I have spoke before He argues page 89. thus If Jacob and Esau in their Infant-state were heirs of the World through the righteousness of Faith when they had no personal faith then the Infant-seed of Believers may be so too But Ergo the Text he grounds upon is Heb. 11.9 dwelling in Tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob heirs with him of the same Promise The vanity of which consequence will appear if you consider 1. That there is nothing in that Text to countenance his assertion We grant Isaac and Jacob were heirs of the same Promise as well in respect of Gods Covenant with their Father Abraham and his Seed as their own personal faith when they came to years but that it should follow that all the Carnal Seed of Believers should be so too is that that needs proof and we deny 2. I humbly conceive That to be heirs of the world through the righteousness of faith and yet have no personal faith as he words it is meer contradiction and non sense 3. The promise to which Isaac and Jacob were heirs is That the Messiah should come of their Loins according to the Flesh and how that being already fulfilled can be applicable to the children of believers I cannot tell nor Mr. Whiston neither Therefore his Syllogism is vain and empty He proceeds pag. 93. To demand Whether there be any Original Sin If so how came any Infants to be saved unless through the righteousness of faith viz. Gods non imputation of guilt to them c. Now says he if they are capable of the righteousness of faith why may they not have that righteousness sealed to them by an outward and visible sign To wave many things that may be said to shew the childishness of the Quaere we say The same reason may be urged for Vnbelievers children for if they be capable of the grace and mercy of Christ in order to their salvation viz. non imputing sin and imputing the righteousness of Christ to them as well as the children of Believers then at your rate of reasoning they have as good right to the outward visible Sign If you deny the former you impeach the free grace of Christ and have little of Christian Charity If you grant it your Position's overthrown In pag. 101. he tells us if we 'll believe him That Circumcision was administred to the Adult considered as believers Here I confess I do not understand what he means by Believers I thought the term Believer had not been used to have been appropriated to any person but in respect to Christ viz. Such as had some knowledge of and believed in the Messiah to come or already come Otherwise sueh of the Ethnicks who believe a Deity but not a Redeemer must needs be saved I am sure the Jews are accounted Vnbelievers to this day because they reject Christ which could not be if their admission to Circumcision and to be Members of the Commonwealth and the Church of Old had been upon the account of faith So that there is no truth in this position for it doth not appear that the Proselytes or any others were informed of the Messiah before they were circumcised or that they gave any testimony of their belief in him but only that they owned the God of Israel to be the true God and were willing to be joyned to that Common-wealth And Mr. W. knows that that is not sufficient now there must be saith in Christ else no believer But what would he conclude from hence Suppose the Adult that were circumcised were eonsidered as Believers if he say So all the Adult that are baptized are to be so considered which is the most natural inference that can be drawn hence we are agreed But I perceive the pains he takes here is to make way for that absurd Position he is now coming to and which I conceive he is the Protoplast of pag. 116. That Circumcision was administred to the Jewish infants considered as the seed of Believers By the way I wonder the man will trouble himself so much about Circumcision when he professes so gravely pag. 75. That he pleads not for Baptism from any Analogy with it Which would make one suspect that he is apt to forget himself or that he thinks we 'll believe any thing so soon as he pronounces his Magisterial Thus I say it c. But let 's hear how he proves it Why says he because the Adult that were circumcised were considered as the seed of Believers A worthy proof indeed but 't is all we are like to have He takes it for granted it seems that the Adult were circumcised as Believers and grounds his Argument upon it as his Medium But Logicians will tell him that such a way of Argumentation is but a silly Petitio Principii or begging the question But in order to a further and more particular satisfaction I offer these Considerations 1. That the Congregrative Body of the People or Jewish Males were Circumcised in their Infancy pursuant to the Command of God being else to be cut off from his people Gen. 17.14 and therefore this Argument being grounded upon a false Hypothesis will vanish Besides it is a non-sequitur for will it follow That if the Adult were circumcised upon their own faith which is but begg'd too therefore Infants were circumcised upon the faith of others 2. All that the Scripture mentions
closes withall that our practice of Dipping is a breacb of the Sixth and Seventh Commandements Let the same return serve his impious insinuation as is given to Mr. B. and Mr. W. after whose Copies he writes And so I shall conclude with an admonition to Mr. Whiston to more Christian moderation and if he thinks himself concerned to appear farther in ths Controversie that he lay aside all passion and heat as inconsistent with a Gospel-frame of Spirit and tending to the extirpation of that Charity and Mutual Forbearance our Lord Jesus expects from us And let him lay down his Thesis distinctly and set down his Arguments syllogistically or in a form more intelligible to all persons which he will and directly to the matter in debate and not to trouble us nor the world with extraneous and needless rambles leaving the Cardinal pretence unessay'd as he hath done save at a very great distance and with such timorousness and collateral approaches as would make one think he has no great confidence in the attempt however he would carry it in tongue and confidence And I can assure him that if there be any escape or undue reflection in what I have offered which may tend to the breach of Peace or Charity I allow not my self in it and will be willing to receive an admonition if offered in meekness I would further advertise Mr. Whiston not to make Mr. Baxter nor Mr. Ws. his pattern in dealing with us whose pens run at so licentious a rate that the most unspotted innocence is not armor enough against their virulence As for the first no pencil can pourtray him better than his own pen A man of quarrel sometimes friend and sometimes foe to most perswasions to reject whose poyson is to provoke his sting And to slight his Dictates how incongruous soever to truth and inconsistent among themselves is to undergo the severe Discilpine of his lashing pen. Man-kind it seems must gape for his Oraculous Dictates and must believe him as his present Sentiments actuate him or else take what comes after Nor need we express Mr. Ws. in a more averting Character than that he squires â—t after him and should we apeal to Mr. Whiston or any sober man of his perswasion we doubt not but we may have so much equity as to disallow his late dealing with us Figuring and Traducing us in his invective reflections upon the person of Collonel Danvers as if we had been such dangerous persons c. in these phrases When their hands are tyed from fighting Exploits done in the time of his Collonelship c. And what is that but to exasperate the world against us and expose us to the frowns of Authority as much as he can how does this poysonous insinuation consist with his pretences of respect This looks like Juda's kiss Would he think it fair if we should use the engine of Repercussion here doth it not rather in his own Oratory discover the ebullition of a temporizing waspish spirit But he loves us Brethren and desires not our shame He is as courteous as lightning that spares the Scabbard but destroys the blade After he has represented us as such mishapen Bug bears and woundded us with his keenest Railery he would lick over the place he bit and make us believe it is all stark love and kindness Well he hath shot his Bolt tells us our Doctrine is ominous not fit for any Age of the Church with a fixation of black characters upon it leading to blasphemy and immorality and yet all this is not to desire our shame He may by the same artifice knock a man down and laugh upon him and tell him he does him good service He must pardon us if we be coy to so rude a kind of Courtship Therefore upon the whole if Mr. Whiston perseveres in that Intemperate angry frame he began withall in Imitation of the other two I shall not think my self obliged to divert my self from more grateful studies to vye tongue with him knowing that whatever he says or what hard measure he may give me Truth will remain always answerless and unconquered FINIS POSTSCRIPT TO THE READER Courteous Reader IT is now humbly submitted to thine impartial judgment Whether our practice of Baptizing Believers so fully made out by the Scriptures the Suffrage of Learned men in every Age of the Church since Christ owned by our Severest Adversaries to be a Scriptural Baptism exemplified by the practice of all Antiquity deserves such sharp Rebukes as our present Opponents dispence to us And whether that cause we maintain though under so sacred a Patronage deserves to be so persecuted as it is by them and delineated in such frightful Characters since on all sides the baptizing of the Adult is granted but Infant-baptism by one side only and upon such uncertain grounds too every distinction or denomination of Paedo-baptists administring it upon a different pretence some upon a mistake that it takes away sin and saves the Child's Soul some affirming the Infant to have Faith some upon the Parents some upon the Pro-parents or Gossip's some upon Abraham's some upon the Churches Faith a very uncertain sound whilst opposed on the other side with such a dint of Reason both from Scripture-Authority and primitive Antiquity And suppose you had been called to decide a matter in controversie betwixt two and find that what one affirms is granted on both sides but what the other maintains granted by one only and rationally opposed by the other would you not judge his cause best and most safe that 's allowed by both And such is our present case A Queen of England demanded of the Protestant Prelates whether the Church of Rome was a true Church and if Salvation may be had in it They answered in the affirmative The Queen replies that since both sides grant there may be Salvation in the Church of Rome and but one only that there may be Salvation obtainable in the Church of England therefore it was the safest way to remain on that side that both agreed Salvation may be had in And though we plead not for the inference as then applyed yet it holds well in other cases For if one should ask whether Adult or Infant-baptism be a true Scriptural Baptism both sides are agreed that Adult baptism is so and one side only holds Infants baptism to be lawful May not the Querist safely and certainly conclude that side that hath the suffrage of both to be safest And therefore we hope upon a serious weighing this Consideration we may have the Justice and Equity of an open Ear from any denomination of the Christian Religion and that understanding the reason of our consciencious dissent from the practice of infant-Infant-baptism they would not condemn us for affirming what the Scripture invincibly makes out the suffrage of Antiquity ratifies and they themselves own Farewell A BUCKET of WATER To Quench the FIRE Or a Letter to Mr. Obed. Will 's concerning the
all consulted these Rules or Mr. Baxter before him and Mr. Whiston since or whether there has been any thing of tenderness to their Opponents names and persons any thing of compassion charity meekness whether any serious examination of the absolute certainty and verity of their own Opinion lest themselves should be mistaken as Mr. Baxter confesses it is easie for Wise and Good men to be mistaken in it the point is so dark and dubious or whether they have enquired into the sincerity of their ends whether their heat has been an holy heat purely for Gods Glory and the Salvation of their Brothers Soul all this is now left at the Bar of the Readers Judgement and will shortly be brought before a greater and more impartial Tribunal And truly Sir I must tell you that your dirty Language your extream slighting and contemning your Opponents loading them with Scandals and Reproaches sometimes charging them with ignorance and insufficiency proudly and vainly boasting and trampling over them in your own conceit has not a little spoil'd your cause and given the Anabaptists a great advantage against you in the Consciences of sober and pious Christians I have heard my self some persons of Quality and Piety to say alas what difference is there between Mr. Danvers and Mr. Will 's their Books the later is stuffed with ride rage and passion the first with meekness tenderness and humility And I suppose were the Books searcht that have been Written of late Years on the subject of Baptism as Mr. Baxter Sydenham Cragg Wills and Whiston c. on the one part and Mr. Tombes Blackwood Byfield Den Danvers Patient Norcot c. on the other part it would seem to be discovered by what Spirit they Wrote and men would see in the first party a proud magisterial scurrilous abusive and scornful Spirit in the other a more humble gracious meek and charitable temper If any Question it the Books are Extant and the matter may soon be brought to an issue but Sir you have out-done them all not only in shooting your invenomed Arrows against the whole party but especially against Mr. Danvers as appears by your Appeal to the Baptist Churches against him it seems you have arraigned condemned and executed him already and have said implicitely though audaciously as Paul to the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. for though I am absent in the Body yet have judged him already that that he be delivered to Satan But stay a while Sir and give Wiser men leave to search out the matter Will nothing serve your turn but present Repentance or Excommunication What Scripture-rule have you taken to convince him or must he Repent before any Conviction hath past upon him Surely Illumination is the first work and the same Organ that is for Weeping is for Seeing but a man must see first as Zach. 12. They shall look and then mourn But Sir there are as Wise men as your self and none of his party neither that judge that what Mr. Danver's has Writ was in the simplicity and sincerity of his heart according to his knowledg and as he apprehended the meaning of those Ancients he has quoted and that he had no intention to prevaricate as you charge him with or abuse the Fathers to patronize his Opinion If otherwise you may think him non compos mentis considering he could not be ignorant of the prejudice and sedulity of the Opponents who might have advantage enough against him from the Libraries in the Universities and else-where It 's true indeed some of his Friends wish he had not concerned himself with the Arguments from the Fathers they say they can spare it you very well are content with Father Paul Father Peter and the rest of those Scripture Fathers what can be drawn from the three First Centuries is rather for than against them And in regard the mystery of Iniquity began to work in the Apostles dayes and the Apostacy soon came on they do not value the following Centuries though others think the most part of his Collections justifiable were the matter brought before impartial and indifferent Judges And though you have so concerned your self and serued your Wits to maintain Infant-Baptism and some of you as Mr. B. and Mr. Whiston c. by such strange absurdities and ridiculous Mediums altogether unknown to the Fathers yet wise men judge you have been all this while bringing Brick and Mortar towards the repairing of Babel which else perhaps would have fallen long since for they do not think that the more immediate Ministers and Factors for Babylon would have been able to have brought a stone at this day had not you and others stept in and took the Anti-christian party by the hand and said Be strong and in this matter have say'd as the Adversaries of Judah and Benjamin Ezra 4.2 Let us build with you for we seek your God as ye do so we Baptize Infants as ye do and though we differ in some Circumstances touching the ground of their Baptism yet we all agree in the subject and so you have proved the greatest Enemies to Reformation though it is strange that men who have Covenanted to reform Religion according to the Word of God and have pretended to cast out all the dirt of Romish Superstitions and Traditions of men in the Worship of God should be the greatest upholders of that Babylonish Building But what shall we say The Carpenter encourageth the Goldsmith Isai 41.7 and it seems Gods time is not yet come when Babylon the Great shall be thrown as a Mill-stone into the Sea and rise no more But Sir in the mean time what way is there left but for Christians diligently to search the Scriptures to pray for the Holy Spirit the promise of the Father and wherein they differ modestly to examine the Opinions of one another and where God reveals more light to endeavour to convince their Brethren with a spirit of meekness concealing the Infirmities and covering the Imperfections of one another But those thunder-claps that came from you of late make your Enemies to rejoyce and your Friends mourn and standers by cannot hold their peace but like Craesus his dumb Son are compelled to speak when they see the point of infant-Infant-Baptism so provoke and enrage your Spirits against a people who practice the contrary according to that light and knowledg they have received and profess they would be convinced did they see any solid Arguments from the Scriptures in the mean time it seems they must be exposed to all the calumnies and reproaches a numerous and prevailing party of their Opponents can cast upon them But Brethren is not the Devil our common Enemy and surely could we unite amongst our selves his Kingdom should soon be divided and then and not till then shall we see Satan fall like Lightning and what glorious times might we then expect I desire these Lines may be received in the same Spirit and for the same end for which they were Written which was not to increase our Divisions but to allay them for the effecting of which we shall still pray and till God removes from us every thing that offends and supplants every Plant that his own right hand hath not planted Sir I Rest Your Soul-Friend T. B. BOOKS Treating about the Subject of Baptism Printed for and Sold by Francis Smith at the Elephant and Castle near the Royal Exchange in Cornhill A Treatise of BAPTISM wherein that of Believers and that of Infants is examined by the Scriptures with the History of both out of Antiquity making it appear that Infant-baptism was not practised for near 300 Years after Christ nor enjoyned as necessary till 400 Years after Christ c. With the History of Christianity amongst the Ancient Brittains and Waldensians c. By H. D. Innocency and Truth vindicated or a Sober Reply to Mr. Ws. Answer wherein the Authorities and Antiquities for Believers and against Infant-Baptism are defended and the mis-representations and Forgeries he boasts of are returned upon himself With a brief Answer to Mr. Blinman's Essay by the same Author A Second Reply in Defence of the Treatise of Baptism wherein Mr. Baxter's More Proofs are found no Proof in two parts the First defending the Antiquities against his charge of Forgery The Second justifying the charge of Slander Contradiction and Popery against his Writings As also an Admonition to Mr. B. by the same Author and some Reflections by Mr. Tombs upon Mr. B's More Proofs With a Rejoynder to Mr. W. his Vindiciae and an Answer to his Appeal by the same Author Together with the Baptists Answer to the said Appeal The Book-seller further signifies to the Impartial Reader desiring information into that Principle of Baptizing Believers that he can furnish him with The Learned Treatises of Mr. John Tombs The Works of Mr. Samuel Fisher in Folio A Pious and Learned Piece by Henry Lawrence Esq A judicious Piece by Mr. Christopher Blackwood Intituled the Storming of Antichrist c. ERRATA Candid Reader Literal Escapes and Mis-pointings are left to thine Ingenuity to Correct or Pardon the most material Errors correct thus Last page of the Preface line 20. after endeavours read to remove the absurdities charged upon their practice and. p. 3. l. 9. r. never p. 8. l. 2. dele thereby l. 29. r. legitur p. 12. l. 29. r. lotus p. 13. l. 4. r. illusorium p. 18. l. 2. for there r. that p. 19. l. 1. r. included p. 22. l. 10. dele not There should be a spiritus asper over some Greek words which thou wilt note