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
Adoption and the glory and the Covenants i. e. both Testaments the Type and the Anti-type unto whom pertained not only the giving of the law but also the promises and that not only of the Earthly Canaan but of the Gospel Covenant in the first tender of it not in respect of any right they had to it by birth whether they received it or not but as I said in respect of the first tenders of it which appears because by speciall order and appointment it was to be offered to them in the first place Nor was it carried to the Gentiles till the Jews had slighted it in proof whereof the Scripture is very plain Math. 10.5 6 7. Christ forbids his Disciples to go to any of the Gentiles or to any save the lost sheep of the House of Israel yea they were Children at this time whose Bread till they loathed it was not to be given to dogs except a few crums of it Hence the Jews were first bid to the wedding Math. 22.3 but they would not come So they are called the Children of the kingdom Math. 8.12 that were to be cast out because they would not receive the Gospel for he came unto his own and his own received him not yea Paul tells the Jews it was necessary the word of God should first be spoken unto them Act. 13.46 Notwithstanding all which glory and preheminence of this people Israel who were the fathers also and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came Paul after he had shewed their high priviledges comes with Alas and great sorrow of heart that he was forced to exclude them save a few with whom the Gospel took effect even from the name of Israelites and from standing Abrahams Children any longer For saith he as who should say the more is the pitty they are not all Israel that are of Israel that is all that are Israel after the flesh are not Gospel Israelites Abrahams seed are no longer counted his seed but they that are Christs by faith are counted for the seed and that this is the meaning of the words is evident from them that follow For saith he neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called that is these which are the Childsen of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed A clear illustration we have of this Gal. 3.7.9 where the Apostle urges this term they which are of faith that is which believe for none else are of faith the same are the Children of Abraham and are blessed with faithfull Abraham He saith not they which be of Abrahams flesh for such are not accounted his Children as to the Gospel Covenant much lesse doth he say or mean that those which are born of the body 's of them that be of faith are Abrahams children and so to be signed as his sons by Baptism as his own fleshly seed were signed by Circumcision as heirs with him of the old Canaan As if because Abraham is the spiritual father of all that believe and walk in his steps therefore he must be a father to all their natural posterity too and be the spiritual father not of their persons only but of their off-spring also But let me tell you he is not so much as a father to his own seed in a Gospel sence neither can these stand his children nor the children of God or heirs of the heavenly blessing and kingdom because they come out of his loins unless they do as he did For though his fleshly seed as a type for the time then being stood denominated the children of God and holy in an outward sense and heirs according to the earthly promise yet that account is now gone there is no other way whereby the Jews themselves much lesse any generations amongst the Gentils can be stil'd the children of God or of Abraham so as to expect the Gospel portion but by believing in Christ Jesus in their own persons Gal. 3.26 ye are all the Children of God by faith in Iesus Christ and if ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise Another Scripture that proves that Abrahams own seed in the old Covenant account are not his seed in the account of the Gospel so as thereupon to have right to ordinances is John 8.33 to the 40. where Christ being cavilled at by the Jews for promising freedom from sin to which they were slaves and servants notwithstanding the legal freedom they so much boasted of discovers plainly the cutting off the Jews from three things 1. From the repute and denomination of Abrahams children 2. From any share in the spiritual blessings of the Gospel 3. From any further right to Church-membership and ordinances First they alledge that they are Abrahams seed ver 33. that they were not born of Fornication ver 39. meaning as Ishmael was but they had one father even God v. 41. To which Christ answers not by denying of any of all this for it was all true in that sense in which they meant it yea they were Abrahams children and Christ confesses it ver 37. I know you are Abrahams seed yea they were all the Children of God by an outward and Typicall adoption of them unto himself But Christ overthrows all by telling them that Abrahams children are accounted of otherwise now then formerly not as coming out of his loyns but doing his works as being allyed to him not so much after the flesh as after the faith Whereupon not yet believing he denies them to be now Abrahams Children in the true and substantiall sense and that appears in this Hypothesis ver 39. If ye were Abrahams children ye would do the works of Abraham To which do but add the Minor But ye do not the works of Abraham And then the conclusion follows Therefore ye are not the children of Abraham You see Christ asserts them to be Abrahams children in the old account so as to stand members of the old house but denies them to be Abrahams children in the sense of the New 2ly They say they are freemen and were never in bondage this Christ also grants it was so indeed in the outward Typical sense they were freemen and heirs of that earthly glory that was promised to Abraham in that old Canaan but deny's them to be freemen as to the Gospel with heavenly freedom of that Jerusalem which is above which is the mother of all believers Gal. 4.20 yea asserts that they were but servants and in bondage to sin which is the greatest slavery of all ver 34. he that commits sin is the servant of sin So that for all their sonships in truth they were but servants He grants their sonship and title to the old inheritance but denies it to the new 3ly They boast or blesse themselves in their standing in the house or family of Abraham that is the visible Church
priviledges of the old Covenant and are not all counted his seed in the sence of the new Thirdly that Abrahams natural seed have no right to the priviledges of the new Covenant by vertue of Abrahams faith Fourthly that seeing Abrahams own seed his natural children have no right to the Gospel-Covenant or priviledges thereof much lesse can the children of believing Gentiles lay any claim thereunto either by vertue of Abrahamâ—s faith or the faith of their own parents And so I might here end this matter but because you shall have full measure I will add another testimony concerning the Covenant and the little ground there is to baptize Infants from that Scripture Gen. 17.7 Know then that the Covenant of grace is to be considered either of the promise of eternal life and salvation made to all the elect in Christ the which remains one and the same in all ages though variously administred in the times of the old and new Testament Or else of the manner of its Administration in which sence it s now in respect of the old Testament administration which was a distinct Covenant in it self for the time being called the new Covenant and the other to have waxen old and to vanish away Heb. 8. last Which cannot be said of the promise or Covenant of eternal life that being an everlasting covenant and over remains one and the same Now it s one thing to be in the Covenant of grace i. e. to have a right to the promise which is only proper to the elect another thing to be under the administration of the Covenant which is common to the elect and reprobates and depends meerly upon Gods appointment Now if the Covenant be understood in the first sence of the promise of eternal life and salvation made to the elect in Christ that did never belong to all the children born of believing parenâ—s as might be instanced in Ishmael and Esau c. but only to such as are elected of them Rom. 9.7.8.9 neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children c. The Covenant of grace being first made between God and Christ all the elect in Christ And therefore in Scripture it is cal'd the promise of eternal life which was made to the elect before the world began who are therefore called the heirs of promise which promise had its first promulgation to Adam in the garden of Eden Where we have also the first discovery of the mystery of the two seeds Now the Covenant taken in this sence is not the ground and reason of administring ordinances to any person whatever But the law of institution is the ground or reason of visible Administrations For the administration of ordinances belongs not to the substance of the Covenant but to its administration as to the persons to whom they shall be administred and that meerly on the law of institution without any other consideration and hence we finde that from the first promulgation of the Covenant to Adam until Gods renewing of it to Abraham there was no ordinance to be administred to Infants though some Infants as well as grown persons both of believers and unbelievers might be comprehended in the Covenant yet not to be circumcis'd and so not to be baptiz'd for want of an institution So the promise in Act. 2.39 is said to be to them a far off in the present tense while uncalled even to as many as shall be called and yet not to be baptized before calling unlesse you will baptize Gentiles in professed Gentilism and so the Jews some not yet born some not cal'd have the Covenant of grace made to them Rom. 11.27 For this is my Covenant unto them when I shall take away their sins and yet they are not to be baptized till converted Nor can the Covenant considered in its pure nature be a ministers rule to administer Ordinances by seeing it is unknown who are in the Covenant and who are not but that which is their rule must be something that is manifest Secondly when it is said that the Covenant of grace belongs to believers children and that is the ground of their Baptism If it be meant of its Administration you have heard that depends meerly on the law of institution and hath varied in several ages according to the will of the law-giver For during all that period of time from Adam to Abraham there was no Ordinance to be administred to Infants but when God renewed the promise to Abraham he instituted circumcision which ordinance belongs peculiarly to the old Testament administration and was part of Moses law which is now abrogated and done away And this was the first ordinance that was administred to Infants and not to all Infants but only to male Infants living in Abrahams family if they did live to the eight day otherwise they had no right to this ordinance though many of them doubtlesse in the Covenant of grace and so saved so we say of Infants in the days of the Gospel many of them are in the Covenant of grace and so saved by vertue of the free promise But yet not to be baptised if they do not live to the time of believing and repenting the only time appointed for Baptism so that the Administration of ordinances to Infants depends upon an Institution and not upon their being in Covenant And as to that place Gen. 17.7 I will be a God to thee and to thy seed that is say you the Covenat was made with Abraham as a believer and so with all believers and their seed To which I answer The Covenant was not made with believers and their seed but with Abraham and his seed Now Abraham is to be considered under a double relation First as the father of the Jews his fleshly seed Secondly as he is the father of his spiritual seed both Jews and Gentiles Rom. 4.11.12 Now to both seeds doth God promise to be a God but in a different manner and respect First he promises to be a God to his fleshly seed in giving to them the land of Canaan for an inheritance the promise of which is expresly called the Covenant made with Abraham and his seed as on Gods part Psal 105.9.10.11.12 which Covenant he made with Abraham saying unto thee will I give the land of Canaan the lot of your inheritance c. See also 1 Chron. 16.16.17.18 and Neh. 9.8 This I say was the Covenant on Gods part And their obedience to circumcision is expresly called the Covenant on their parts Gen. 17.10 This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you Every male shall be Circumcis'd So Act. 7.8 And he gave them the Covenant of Circumcision and so Abraham begat Isaac and circumcis'd him the eight day By which they stood engaged to keep all those other additional ordinances which Moses gave them when they were about to enter their promised inheritance as Gal. 5.3 I testify that whoever is Circumcis'd is bound to keep
the whole law Secondly God promised to be a God to Abraham and his spiritual seed such as walk in his steps that is believers whether Jews or Gentiles in giving unto them an eternal inheritance Heb. 9.15 incorruptible and undefiled that fadeth not away purchased by the blood of Jesus and reseved for them in heaven of which the earthly inheritance in the land of Canaan was but a type So there is a twofold seed of Abraham a fleshly and a spiritual typed out by Ishmael and Isaac and a two-fold inheritance an earthly and a heavenly But the heavenly inheritance was not given to the fleshy seed but only in Types offered to them and confirmed to the spiritual seed who are therefore called the heirs of promise Heb. 6.17 Neither was the Covenant made with Abraham a pure Gospel Covenant but a mixt Covenant consisting partly of promises of temporal blessings of which Isaac who is said to be born by promise was the true and proper heir And partly of promises of spiritual blessings of an heavenly inheritance and of these Jesus Christ was the true her and Antitypical Isaac for as Ishmael the child of the flesh had no right with Isaac in the outward Typical promise so Isaac himself by vertue of his fleshly descent had no right nor Interest in the heavenly inheritance and Gospel priviledges Rom. 9.7 any otherwise then he came to have an interest in Christ And therefore we find the Apostle in Gal. 3.16 expounding the word of promise i. e. I will be a God to thee and thy seed sheweth that the Gos-promises of Abrahams Covenant were not made to any ones fleshly seed no not with the meer fleshly seed of believing Abraham himself but the promises did all run to Christ the inheriting seed to whom they were made and when Christ was come they all center in him see and consider the text Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made he saith not to seeds as of many but as of one and to thy seed which is Christ to Isaac in the type but to Christ in the Antitype and in him are all the promises yea and Amen Having thus followed the promises down along from Abraham to Christ and found them all to center in him let us now see to whom they came forth again And it is not to any ones fleshly seed whatever but from Christ they all flow forth again to believers and only to believers and that by vertue of their union with Christ and therefore says the Apostle If ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise for there is no other way to partake of the promise but by faith in Christ Gal. 3.22 The Scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise by the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe where two things are observable first to whom the promise is given viz. to them that believe secondly by what means they come to partake of them and that is by the faith of Christ so in verse the 26. you are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ and if ye be Christs that is by faith then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise So then it seems all promises run to Christ and from him flow forth again only to believers Which being impartially considered is a full answer to all Arguments drawn from the Covenants and the promise made to Abraham and certainly and unavoidably cuts off Infants Church membership in the days of the Gospel unlesse the Poedobaptists can finde a new institution for it But for a further illustration of this and that you may see that this is not my opinion alone I shall present you with some select passages that the judicious and eminent divine Dr Owen hath upon this subject it is in his Exercitations upon the Epistle to the Hebrews tom 1. p. 55. c. to which the Reader is referred which by another hand may be shortly improved In the mean time take these few instances Two Priviledges did God grant unto Abraham upon his separation to a special interest in the old promise and Covenant First that according to the flesh he should be the father of the Messiah the promised seed who was the very life of the Covenant the fountain and cause of all the blessings contained in it That this Priviledge was temporary having a limited season time and end appointed unto it the very nature of the thing it self doth demonstrate For upon this actual exhibition in the flesh it was to cease In pursuit hereof were his posterity separated from the rest of the world and preserved a peculiar people that through them the promised seed might be brought forth in the fulnesse of time and be of them according unto the flesh Rom. 9.8 Secondly together will this he had also another priviledge granted unto him namely that his saith whereby he was personally interested in the Covenant should be the pattern of the faith of the Church in all generations and that none should ever come to be a member of it or a sharer in its blessings but by the same faith that he had fixed on the seed that was in the promise to be brought forth from him in the world On the account of this Priviledge he became the father of all them that do believe for they that are of the faith the same aere the children of Abraham Gal. 3.7 Rom. 4.11 as also heirs of the world Rom. 4.13 in that all that should believe throughout the world being thereby implanted into the Covenant made with him should become his spiritual children Answerable unto this twofold end of the separation of Abraham there was a double seed alloâ—â—ed unto him A seed according to the flesh separated to the bringing forth of the Messiah according to the flesh and a seed according to the promise that is such as by faith have an Interest in the promise or all the elect of God Not that these two seeds were always subjectively divers so that the seed separated to the bringing forth of the Messiah in the flesh should neither in whole or in part be also the seed according to the promise or on the contrary that the seed according to the promise should none of it be his seed after the flesh Our Apostle declares the contrary in the instancos of Isaac and Jacob with the remnant of Israel that shall be saved Chap. 9.10.11 But sometimes the same seed came under diverse considerations being the seed of Abraham both according to the flesh and promise and sometimes the seed it self was divers those according to the flesh being not of the promise and so on the contrary Thus Isaac and Jacob were the seed of Abraham according unto the flesh separated unto the bringing forth of the Messiah after the flesh because they were his carnal Posterity and they were also the seed of the promise because by their own personal
but directly and properly and by their own personal faith which I despair ever to hear of though Mr B. himself that unparalleld distinguisher should undertake it Poed But our Ministers tells us that when the promises are said to be made to Christ it is not meant of Christ personally but of Christ mystically as in the 1 Cor. 12.12 and so it s to be understood of the visible Church of which infants born of believing parents are a part Bap. It s true these are your sayings but I must tell you we must not be put off with fancies and bare affirmations but we expect solid proof from Scripture And whereas you say the promises are to be considered as made to Christ mystically that is to the visible Church the contrary appears in Gal. 3.16 where he affirms that Christ was the seed to whom the promises were made And in vers 19th he saith the law was added because of transgression till the seed should come to whom the promise was made where it is observable that the law i. e. the Mosaical administration is said to be before the seed was come and was to have its period then Now if by Christ the seed be not understood personally but mystically for the visible or invisible Church take which you will then the law could not have been before the seed for God had his Church in Abrahams family 400 years before the law was of which Christ was the head and they his mystical body And so by this interpretation the seed should have been before the law contrary to the Apostle who makes the law to have been before the seed and to have its period when the seed to whom the promise was made was come and now the promises running to Christ personally God makes him over for a Covenant to the Elect and all the promises in him Isa 42.6 So that in Christ he is our God and in Christ he takes us to be his people In Christ and a right to the promises out of Christ and strangers to the Covenants of promise Eph. 2.12 So that it is evident that the promises respecting the eternal inheritance and spiritual blessings were first made to Christ personally and in him to his mystical body the Church who are united to him by faith Secondly as to that Scripture 1 Cor. 12.12 for as the body is one and hath many members and all the members of that one body being many are one body so also is Christ It rather seems to be meant of the invisible Church of true believers then of the visible for the Apostle there calls none the body of Christ but such as â—ad received the gifts of the spirit and such as by one spirit as the concurring cause had been baptiZed into one body yea such who had received the spirit to profit withall such that had a real sympathy one with another vers the 26th If one Member suffers all the members suffer with it if one member be honoured all the members rejoyce with it All which cannot in any tolerable sence be applyed to the visible Church amongst whom there are many hypocrites that never received the spirit nor by the spirit could sympathize one with another c. But however it is most certain infants are not called the body of Christ if it be meant of the visible Church indeed by vertue of the grace of election some of them may be members of his mystical body the invisible Church but not at all members of the visible especially from this chapter for it is said if one member suffer all the members suffer with it and the manifestation of the spirit is given to every one to profit withall which cannot be applicable to infants For none in this Chapter are counted the body of Christ but such as are usefull to the body as an eye an eare or a foot a hand a head c. as vers 21. the eye cannot say unto the hand I have no need of thee nor the head to the feet I have no need of you So that I draw these two conclusions First every member in a Chuch stands in need of the help of all the other members Secondly that every member in a Church must be usefull in his place to the rest of the members But of what use are infants to the rest of the members in respect to edification Now this objection being answered I hope you see plainly that all the promises respecting spiritual blessings and the eternal inheritance were first made to Christ personally and in him they are made over to his mistical body the Church who are united to him by faith which being well weighed would put an end to the whole Controversy And in the next place you may see to what little purpose the promise in Gen. 17.7 is brought to prove that God made a Covenant of eternal life with believers and their Children The text speaks of a Covenant made with Abraham and his seed it doth not say with all believers and their seed or all Church-members and their seed neither doth it follow by any necessary consequence that because God made a Covenant with Abraham and his seed therefore he hath made a Covenant with believers and their seed sure I am the Apostle was of another mind who when he expounds the Covenant Gen. 17.7 understands it to be made to Abraham as it contains Gospel blessings not as a natural father but as the father of the faithfull both Jews and Gentils Rom. 4.11 12. he received the sign ef Circumcision that he might be the father of all them that believe and walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham so Gal. 3.7 know ye therefore that they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham And these only are the seed to whom the Covenant was made in respect to Gospel priviledges and not to the natural seed either of Abraham or of any other believers as hath been evidently made appear before and that beyond all Contradiction And whoever affirms otherwise preaches another Gospel then Paul knew and incurrs that doom mentioned Gal. 1.8 9. Poed But we are told that as the Jews and their Children are broken off from the Covenant so the Gentils and their Children are ingrafted in in their room according to Rom. 11.20 because of unbelief they were broken off and thou standest by faith Bap. in answer to which I grant there was a time when the Jews and their children were broken off as the Apostle saith but there are two things to be considered First why they were broken off Secondly from what they were broken off 1. Why Answ It was not because they had not believing Parents for Abraham Isaac and Jacob were the fathers of them all and upon whose account they had right to the priviledges of the Covenant 2. Not because they wanted title for they were Abrahams seed when they were broken off but 3. Because the terms of standing in the Church
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
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
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
to him and his Houshold upon the condition of his and the Housholds Faith individually If this latter be his sense we joyn with him in it but renounce the former as absurd and unsound For if it were allowed then one may be Saved by the Faith of another a Fancy exploded by all Protestants and so it were enough to Save all England if every Master of a Family had been a Believer I would ask Mr. W. if taking himself to be a Believer he would Baptize his Servant and believe him Saved though an Unbeliever upon that ground If it be his Religion his practise shall not be my example Besides if the Covenant promise they so vehemently affirm to belong to Believers Children only must be limited to them and extend no further how come Servants that are not so concerned in the Birth-priviledg nor the Seed of Believers to be pleaded for by this man to have a right to Baptism and Salvation upon the Masters Faith We grant they have as much right to it as the Children that is none at all till Converted for the Text saies Thou and thy House and I presume the Servant is one of the House So that a Believers Servant has as much right to be Baptized as the Believers Child though the Servant cannot pretend to be the Issue of Faithful Parents And if so What 's the Reason they Baptize not their Servants they having the same Title with their Children to it And indeed if they will grant that the Master or Chief Man's Faith is enough to intitle all his Family or those under his Government to Baptism and Salvation then if the King of Spaine or the Pope or Great Turk be Converted 't is enough to Warrant our Paedo-Baptists to Baptize not only all in their great Courts but all that Inhabit their Territories also their Subjects being their Servants And how pure such a Doctrine is that would force so gross an absurdity upon the Scriptures let the World judge So that I humbly conceive it is very evident that neither the one nor the other Scripture jointly or severally holds forth the promise of Salvation or a right to Baptism to any one upon any other account than the Condition of personal Faith And that Mr. Whiston's confident boast of other Revelations is an empty flourish He saies p. 35. It was very rational yea necessary the Commission should be exprest in the Order it is because those to whom the Apostles were sent were in a state of darkness and ignorance wholly estranged from God and his wayes That 's a certain truth which we oppose not but is there not the same necessity still Are not the Nations in a state of darkness ignorance and wholly estranged from God now as well as then till Converted Are not the Infants you Sprinkle Children of Wrath as well as others And therefore is it not as necessary that the preaching of the Gospel should be antecedent to Baptism now as they confess it was then For my part I know no difference between a Heathen and an Vnbeliever they are both alike distant from God and both equally capable of his converting Grace And this serves for an Answer to this as well as the two following Considerations being of the same purport He affirms page 37. That the promise of Salvation and Covenant of Grace in which the promise is contained is still extended to the Houses or Families of Believers as such To which I say as before that his sayings would be more regarded if he would condescend to prove them But however if he means it conditionally viz. if they believe they may be Baptized and Saved we grant it But if he intends it positively that the Master's Faith is enough to Intitle the whole Family to Salvation the Covenant of Grace and Baptism without their personal Faith we absolutely deny it and he has not yet proved it nor indeed is he able to do it He goes on still harping upon the same string and tells us page 38. That if Mr. Danvers could have produced any one Scripture wherein the Apostles did exclude Infants or in their practice did refuse to Baptize them he had said something to his purpose 'T is an unpleasant task to be answering to the very same thing so often that when this Protaeus varies his word but not his sense to make the Reader believe it is a new Argument shall we be obliged to be as impertinent in replying as he is in inhauncing the bulk of his Book by such trifling Repetitions Have we not over and over again told him his own party with open mouth affirming the same thing that for every positive part of Gods Worship there is need of Scripture-precept or example to warrant it And is not our practice of Baptizing Believers confirmed by both as all parties confess Whereas Mr. Baxter and others own that Infant-Baptism has no express mention in Scripture nor in the Records and Histories of the Church More proofs p. 279. c. 2. Have we not again and again affirmed and which is no other than pure Protestant Doctrine Witness Dr. Owen in his answer to Mr. Parker page 345. where he calls what Mr. W. here urges a captious and sophistical Tale by which ten thousand things may be made lawful And a little further saies that every thing esteemed as any part of Divine Worship is forbidden that is not commanded That the affirmative Command includes the Negative and so the command to Baptize Believers and the constant practice of the Apostolical primitive times to Baptize only such is enough to warrant the exclusion of Infants from that Ordinance so that the Scripture indeed excludes them in as much as it doth not include them and the command of Baptizing persons upon a profession of Faith excludes such as cannot or will not make such a profession But he would have us tell him Where or when the Apostles refused to Baptize any But it were more proper for him to give us some instance when any were brought or offered to them to be Baptized for we read of none refused because none offered and certainly had it been the practice to Baptize Infants we should have some instance of it in some part of the New-Testament We never yet found in Scripture that the Apostles refused to Baptize the Children of Unbelievers shall we therefore conclude they were Baptized But we read Mark 10.14 the Text so often produced for Infant-Baptism but a pregnant place against it that the Disciples rebuked such as brought Children to Christ which surely they would not have done had it been the practice to Baptize them Besides the Text saies they brought them only to be touched by our Saviour and he blest not Baptiz'd them and certainly if any Infants had a right to be Baptized those Infants had it for Christ says of such is the Kingdom of Heaven he knew if they were of the Elect and therefore it would be no Hazard to baptize
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
to be circumcised at Age are 1. Those that were at years at its first Institution 2. The Proselytes that were made from time to time 3. The Jews in Joshuah's time circumcised after 40 years discontinuance of it in the Wilderness Now as to the first We find no other qualification required to entitle them to Circumcision but to be Jews or Abraham's natural Seed nor any mention made that Belief was a condition sine qua non nor any excluded for want of it Yea Ishmael was Circumcised though not in the Covenant when 13 years of age for God said verse 21. My Covenant will I establish with Isaac which phrase is brought by an Antithesis to Ishmael excluding him though born of Abrahams body and we find the numerous Family of Abraham circumcised immediately without any examination of their Faith And whether Mr. Whiston or the Scripture be to be the sooner believed is easie to be determined 2. As to Proselites he says he remembers not any particular instance of any such that were circumcised but concludes some were Circumcised and that as Believers because they kept the Passeover to the Lord Exod. 12.48 which indeed proves that strangers when Circumcised may keep the Passeover but not any thing to his purpose For if all that kept the Passeover be Believers how come the Jews that kept and do still keep it to be rejected by Christs Law for their Unbelief Or is the Faith he pleads they had some other Faith not sufficient in Gospel-dayes if so then that Faith that 's insufficient for their admission to Christ is not sufficient to intitle them to Gospel Ordinances ordained by Christ But what do's Mr. Whiston think of the 10 Tribes in Jeroboam's dayes when they fell to Idolatry and Worshipped the Calves for 200 Years Were there no Proselytes all that time if so were they when Circumcised considered as Believers Or were the Sechemites after the Rape of Dinah Believers when Circumcised Gen. 34 Were the Servants bought with money Believers or those Proselytes the Pharises compassed Sea and Land to gain Christ says they made them two-fold more the Children of Hâ—ll But this is a fine new Toy and let Mr. W. take the credit of its first promulgation 3. Those that were Circumcised in Joshua's time 5 chap. of whose Faith we find no Enquiry they were Circumcised because God commanded them so to be and if they were to be excluded upon the want of Faith 't is certain that among such a multitude there were many Unbelievers We read of an Achan in the 7 chap. that was stoned and the 36. that were smitten at Ai for the accursed thing though Circumcised a little before and numbers of them fell in Rebellion against the Lord afterwards So that upon the whole the Scripture tells us of no qualification that intitled to Circumcision save to be a natural Jew or such as were Proselyted or bought with money And to invent others is point blank arrogance So that our conclusion is firm viz. that to be the fleshly Seed of a Jew or bought with his money was enough to qualifie for Circumcision no profession of Faith being pre-required of either Gen. 17.12 And he that is eight dayes old shall be Circumcised c. not he that believes or is a Believers Child c. And what advantage the extravagant round-abouts in which Mr. Whiston so abounds has got him I cannot yet perceive I am sure it convinces me that he is in extream poverty of argument when he is forced to have recourse to such Forreign and Remote Projects to uphold his tottering cause As to the trouble he is in about the promises made to Abraham Whether they belong to the Covenant of works nature or grace or no Covenant at all concluding thus If our Author will help us out here he shall have hearty thanks for his pains To which I say that I doubt Mr. W. dissembles egregiously for I cannot conjecture how he can be so ignorant But the perplexity he involves himself in is a needless impertinent one and whoever goes to pluck him out is as idle as himself But yet if he be really at a loss and to deserve his thanks if it be not a complement I shall adventure to direct him where he may learn what the promise made to Abraham was and how to be understood in relation to both Natural and Spiritual Seed Let him turn to Dr. Owen's 6 Exercit. on the Hebrews page 55 56. c. where he will be informed the Doctor exactly agreeing with us and fully speaking our sense in that point and therefore quoted by me at large in my Treatise And I hope Mr. Whiston cannot suspect the partiality of the Informer And for his interpretation of Gal. 3.29 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if ye be of Christ or appertain to Christ were it admitted it is no disadvantage to us it being the same in sense with our Vulgar Translations And if Believers Children as he says be of Christ it must be in respect of Calling or Election the former is not to be alledged and the later may be true for ought we know but that 's no ground for any Gospel-administrations which are dispensable only according to appearance and since no Faith or Signs of Election appears and that de non apparentibus de non existentibus eadem est ratio we according to Scripture-warrant and example suspend our Baptizing them till they can give some evidence of their right to it and if a supposing them to be Elect be a good ground to baptize then the children of Unbelievers have a good plea because some of them are Elect. As to what he offers in order to remove the absurdities charged by Mr. Danver's upon the practice of baptizing Infants and his essay to vindicate the practice of Sprinkling for Dipping they are fully and clearly as to the substance of them already so blaâ—led by Mr. D. himself that I shall pass them and shall only conclude that consideration with the words of Dr. Martin Luther in his Book de Baptismo Tom. 1. p. 71 72. speaking of the signification of the word Baptizmus Graecum est latine potest verti mersio cum immâ—rgimus aliquid in Aqua ut totum tegatur Aqua Et quamvis ille mos jam aboleverit apud plerosque debebant tamen prorsus immergi statim retrahi Et sane si spectes quid Baptismus significet idem requiri videbis that is Baptism is a Greek word and may be interpreted an Over-whelming when we plunge any thing into the Water that it may be covered all over And although that custome is now out of use with many yet they ought truly to be dipt and presently lifted up again And certainly if you consider the nature of the thing you will see that to be necessary which being the true signification of the word we find cause rather to adhere to it than follow Mr. Whiston's unscriptural Dictates As to what he