Doctrine are not of Christs Church or body and therefore he is not their Saviour Let him tremble at this dreadful conceit Hhis talk that they may visibly belong to the Kingdom of God or satan is a meer fancy For Infants are neither in Gods nor the Devils visible Kingdom till they declare by their professions to whom they belong visibly Every Infant is in the invisible Kingdom of God or Satan that is elect or reprobate yet no child till he make profession doth visibly belong to the one or to the other We have no Warrant to take cognizance of them as in the one or the other visibly but as at years they visibly appear to cleave to either None are visibly Satans subjects but the Children of disobedience in whom he works Eph. 2.2 Such are not Infants visibly And none are Christs Diciples Subjects or Servants but such as obey him Rom. 6.16 His Servants are ye to whom ye obey c. 1 John 3.10 In this the Children of God are manifest and the Children of the Devil whosoever doth not Righteousness is not of God neither he that loveth not his Brother But I ask Mr. Baxter in whose visible Kingdom are Believers Infants before Baptism If he say in the Devils then he is guilty of the same execrable Doctrine he charges upon us If he say they are in Christs visible Kingdom before Baptism viz. his visible Church as Mr. Baxter himself calls it Review p. 12. Then how can they be said to be admitted by Baptism Is it not non-sense to say it enters them into a state they were in before To let one into a Room when he is already there is impossble Nor will the distinction of compleat and incompleat member serve Mr. Baxters men or members in fâ—eri and imperfectly as he stiles unbaptized Infants Christian Directory p. 806. since according to his own maximes an incompleat member has only jus adrem non in re ad Ecclesiam non in Ecclesia A title to not a standing in the Church But if they be compleat or perfect members after Baptism why have they not the supper and other Ordinances of the Church administred to them If they be still incompleat as before Baptism What benefit have they by Baptism being as lame Members after as before it Now as Mr. B. was told he must hold two first entrances into the visible Church viz. Natural-birth and Baptism of else he must hold that Baptism is not the first entrance Or else that Believers Infants are not entred and if not so not in the visible Church before Baptism If he says the first he contradicts all he says of entring the visible Church in his Plea against the seekers p. 343. If the second He contradicts all he says of Baptism's being the only entrance If the third then of these two things he must necessarily say one viz Either all the Infants of believers that die before their visible entrance into the visible Church by Baptism are damned without hope which he dares not aver if he be a Protestant or else that they may be in a state of Salvation and yet not be visible Members of the Church let him avoid this if he can And doth not this same Mr. Baxter tell us in his first Book of Baptism p 72. That it is not the denyal of Baptism directly that leaveth Infants in the visible Kingdom of the Devil And if he still holds this for a truth how can he honestly exclaim against us at this rate as if our denyal of Baptism to them had damned them all The text Act. 2.47 That God added to the Church such as should be saved is not as he falsly imagines to be understood of all or only such but only such men and women not such Infants as should be saved The impartial consideration of this makes his loud talk about our placing all Infants Unbaptized in the Kingdom of the Devil an empty jangle And if Mr Baxter thinks indeed that all unbaptized Infants are under that unmercyful and too cruel Character and that the meer act of external Baptism translates them to the Kingdom of Christ in holding the first he dreadfully preaches Millions of poor harmless souls to Hell And in holding the second he ascribes more to Baptism then ever God did viz. that it procures salvation and differs in nothing from the blasphemous feats ascribed by the Pope to his opus oparatum Mr. Baxter gives another argument why upon his Review he sees cause to plead a fresh for his Infant Baptism and that is the Baptizing of housholds Answ This argument is over and over answered And is it not strange that the word houshold in those few places mentioned must include Infants when Baptism is spoken of but when the passover is spoken of then Infants are excluded because else we shall argue from thence to their eating the Supper as they from Circumcision to their Baptism Do not these men force that signification upon words that best serve their turn 2ly There is no probability that Lydia had a husband or Children or she may be an ancient widdow and her children if she had any grown up In Act. 16.40 we read that those in her house were capable of consolation 2. The Jaylors family believed Act. 16.34 3. The houshold of Stephanus addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints 1 Cor. 16.15 4. Crispus believed in God with all his house Therefore there were no Infants Act. 18.8 We read of no more Baptized housholds in Scripture Narcissus and Aristobulus housholds are urged by some but there is no mention of houshold in the Greek but it may be Friends or Kindred Rom. 16.10 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reader I should weary thee and my self if I should run over the long-winded Repetitions of Mr. Baxter in this Review What I said already if well weighed Answers his tedious talk in the succeeding pages And I think my time more worth then to wast it in disproving naked dictates What becomes of Heathens dying Infants is known only to God and it is no better then sinful curiosity to be wrangling and too confidently obtruding our conceptions about such unrevealed matters 'T is certainly the safest way to be sober and advance no further in such quests then the Scripture guides We have enough revealed to employ our studies upon and make us wise to salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 To enervate our Plea for non-Baptising Infants viz. the want of Scripture president or grecept he propound a question to us thus There is no Scripture-president for Baptizing Kings he might add Coblers too must none therefore be Baptized Answ This is a gravelling quere he thinks But we find Scripture president for Baptizing men and women And in my Judgement Kings and Queens and Coblers also are men and women He says p. 17. The Scripture tells us not all that was done but all that must be done VVe grant it And if the Scripture tells us all that must be
charity exempt dying Infants from the benefit of that grace they having by no actual sins barred themselves from its saving communications And what Scripture can be produced that any one is damned meerly for the non-application of a Sacrament provided it to be not contemned I can no where find Ursinus tells us in his Catechism that it is not the want but the contempt of the Sacraments damns Privatio Sacramenti non damnat si non accedat contemptus Christus non adimit salâ—tem eis quibus adimitur Baptismus The Consequences produced for Infant Baptism we find to be sophistical wretched Non-sequitur's and against the rules of that Logick so celebrated by the Authors that make them The Jewish high-Priesthood will prove a high-Priesthood now by as good Consequence of the faederal right then proves a faederal right now And the Passover being to be taken and eaten Exod. 12.4 according to the number of jouls in the house and by every one according to his eating and therefore by Children will afford a consequence of Infants right to the Supper as valid as that drawn from their Circumcision to their Baptism But that indeed there is no Birth-holiness now that being a legal priviledge abolisht and not comporting with the Gospel is unanswerably evident by this Argument If the legal commoness and uncleanness of some meats Flesh Birds Beasts Persons and their natural seed above others be taken away then the legal holiness and cleanness of some meats Flesh Birds Beasts Persons and their natural seed above others is also taken away But the Antecedent is true Ergo so is the Consequent The major is undenyable from these received Maxims Contrariorum eadem est ratio And Contrariorum uno sublato tollitur alterum viz. Of Contrary's take away one and the other cannot remain in its opposition to it any longer The minor is evident from Act. 10.11 to 28 Act. 11.2 to 9. Gal. 2.11 to 28. But to the matter VVe find the true reasons of the primitive Saints being Baptzed at age to be because they durst not recede from the Rule And that 's our reason for practicing as they did 4. VVe know no advantage accruing to Infants from their Baptism it makes them in your own esteem nominal not real Members of the visible Church And the name without the nature is worthless And the absurdities and inconveniencies of that practice are obvious in our VVritings The Gospel Church must consist of living Stones at least such as to our cognizance profess so to be not ignorant Babes untransformed out of their natural state 5. That we place too much of our Religion in an external mode is false suggestion not to be made out by Mr. Whistons Logick VVe profess to worship God in Spirit and Truth according to our measute and by Divine assistance in an exact conformity to his Revealed VVill. 6. Our enquiry's after the will of Christ are from the Revelations of his will in his word and if that be termed preposteroâ—s let our opposites find a better foundation for their enquiry's and it shall be considered VVe think it a fruitless and â—indeed preposterous undertaking to seek for the Institution of Baptism in Gen. 17.7 VVe have it nearer home in the New Testament and that we adhere to No Arguments from the pretended Analogy to Circumcision are deemed by us of any greater force then those drawn from the Levitical Priesthood and its Ceremonious appurtenances to vindicate the Papal or National Prelacy and its concomitant rites In Mr. Whistons 1 Book he layes down his grand proposition p. 1. thus That it is the will of our Lord Jesus Christ that the Infant seed of one or both believing Parents should be baptized To prove which p. 2. he layes down three subordinate propositions viz. That God in Gen. 17.7 Intended Abraham and his natural seed 2. That God settled the same promise upon and confirmed it to believing Gentiles 3. That all under the promise ought to be Baptized Page 3. He distinguishes Abrahams seed into natural and spiritual or Mystical p. 4. He subdistinguishes the spiritual or Mystical into visible and Denominative 2. Invisible and Real Rom. 9.6 Tells us p. 5. That Baptism doth not properly incorporate into the body of Christ as invisible but as visible p. 7. Sayes the difference between both Seeds is only Respective because the same persons in different respects may be both his Natural and Spiritual Seed Natural Seed are such as descend immediatly from Abrahams own Lovns or 2. his whole race and Posterity p. 10 He sayes that under the term Seed both Natural and Mystical are comprehended p. 17. That under this Covenant both Jews and Gentiles are comprehended And that God had a peculiar regard to the Natural Seed that Parents performing the Conditions of the Covenant convey to their Children the same Interests themselves had Cap. 1 p. 19. He labours to prove that all Abrahams immediate Natural seed were intended as the immediate subjects of his promise Gen 17.7 p. 36. That the Covenant made with Abraham was a Covenant of Grace And the same for substance that believers are now under That it was conditional p. 51. A Covenant being a mutual compact p. 52. That the Condition required of Abraham was also required of his Natural Seed p. 54. Chap. 4. p. 64 The 2 d. subordinate proposition is Prosecuted into which service these Scriptures are pressed Deut. 29.10 to 13. Isa 59.21 and 65.25 and 44.3 4. Jer. 3.12 Ezek. 37.21 22. with Rom. 11.26 That is the same Covenant Jews and Gentiles are under Jer. 31.31 with Heb. 8.8 Isa 54.1 with Gal. 4.27 Hos 1.11 and 2 3. with Rom. 9.25 26. Amos 9.11 with Acts 15.20 so out of the New Testament Gal. 3.13 14. Chap. 6. p 104. He proceeds to make our that the promise of Salvation appertains to the houses of believing Parents as such without respect to the personal faith of any in the said houses of such besides there own for which he urges Mar. 10.31 Luke 19.8 9. Acts 2.38 39. and 16.31 1 Cor. 7.14 And p. 106. sayes the promise believers are under is not absolute but Conditional and so it must be understood of their houses which Condition he expounds p. 108. viz. That the Master of the Family believing his house shall be saved upon Condition of his believing He affirms ibid. that Children in an especial manner are included and comprehended under the term house p. 203. That the Interest of any of Abrahams natural seed arises from their Relation to their immediate Parents included in the phrase their generations Affirms p. 205. that the Infant seed of believing Gentiles are to be accounted of numbred amongst Abrahams Mystical seed Chap. 7. p. 213. The 3 d. subordinate proposition is prosecuted from Gen. 17.9 That as Circumcision of old so Baptism is now the token of that Covenant And p. 222. That the will of God concerning Circumcision shews us what is his will concerning Baptism
under your wings took your ipse dixit for Scripture verities and waited for your Oraculous pronuntiations It being feared that God is punishing their Confidence in you as he did Israels wise men of old when the people trusted in them Isa 29.14 The wisdom of their wise men shall perish and the understanding of their prudent men shall be bid And seeing you are so well acquainted with Repentances it is just to admit of their acknowledgment especially if they be ready as some are to promise in the words of Job that Wherein they have done foolishly they will do so no more And though it be now a common question whether you 'l ever die a Martyr And most resolve it in the Negative wondering that out of your Magazine of distinctions you cannot pick out some to shist off the present perset cution so loudly recorded or indempnifie those that suffer by proxy for you when you took your flight Yet we have the charity to believe if your friends be faithful to reprehend and you ready to receive it a possibility of establishing your wavering mind after all your transformations and perhaps to fix you on that unerring soundation of the Prephets and Apostles from which you have gone so much afiray and that you may yet preach the truths you have destroyed And we are confirmed in our hope not only from the omnipotent power of God but also from the Connaturalness of Change to your disposition It s pitty a man of your figure one that God like Saul hath made higher then divers of your Brethren should be such a man of Contention such an Unus contra Populum in your generation And so your pious labours in other things useful to the Church be either burred in oblivion or greatly slighted because of your dissonancy in some great points of faith and heteredoxy to the pure and incorrupt discipline of the primitive Churches We have been informed from your own pen that the shadows of the Eternal evening are upon you and you have been some time waiting at the door of eternity And it is a trembling consideration to some that love you that you should take your leave of us so unreconciled to your self as well as to the of truth of God especially that point of Scripture Baptism to which you have born so famous a testimony in some of your writings and so timerously asserting Infant Baptism in others assuring us it hath such considerable difficulties that it may justly make wise and good men to doubt and that you your self though its most industrious undertaker tells us of your self that you think you have proved it but not by evidence so clear as every good man can perceive More Proofs p 219. But Sir since you do but think so and we think otherwise viz. that you have not prov'd it why may not our think be as good as your think Therefore we desire you before you take your final leave to suffer a word of Exhortation And we beseech you in the bowels of Jesus Christ and as you will shortly answer at the great and dreadful Tribunal that amongst your other errata you would repent of that absurd and heretical position of a Baptismal Covenant of Grace running in a fleshly line by which you have not only deceived many thousand souls but so proselyted some Ministers and furnisht them with matter to repair the breaches that have been made in Babylon to the great binderance of that Reformation so solemnly endeavoured and Covenanted for and thereby make your self the person you arraign viz. One that trains up militant heirs and successors to propagate the Contention witness Mr. Parret your Index-maker who might from your works raise 1500 as well as 50. queries that so the multitude might secure him from Resolution For I conceive he might fish doubts enough out of your writings which are known to be fruitful enough of Riddles of that grain To conclude Sir if this advice may be successful it will be an encouragement to us to follow you while we live with our prayers that though some of your works may be burnt yet your soul may be saved in the day of the Lord Which is the earnest desire of Your Soul-Friend Edw. Hutchinson In Return to this comes the Review in hand But the Lord was pleased to take the worthy and pious Author of that Letter to himself before Mr. Baxters Review came to his hand Which Providence with some concurring circumstances necessitates me to appear in his vindication That choice labourer in his Lords Vineyard was long even at the time of writing that letter exercised under such a Distemper as certainly premonished him of his approaching period And therefore was glad if he could be Instrumental in bringing Mr. Paxter to a Review of what he inconsiderately published Hoping that so he might be convinced that his corrupt writings stood more in need of an humble and penitent Retraction then so contumacious a plea as he now exhibits But it s now too apparent that no such Repentance is to be expected But the talking faculty must to work once more and palliate with a fresh torrent of words whatever extravagant fit his luxuriant pen ever fell into If I should pursue Mr. Baxter in all his turnings and windings to support his tottering reputation and insist upon every particular in his Review capable of exception my undertaking would swell into such a volume as I have neither leasure nor mind to compile Therefore his discourse being so loose and full of incoherencies I shall willingly leave his impertinent digressions and address my self to 〈◊〉 upon such passages as are most likely to affiright the unwary Reader from a closure with the truth we contend for He tells us p. 7. Review That upon the deepest search he is able to make in above 20 years consideration he is satisfied we hainously wrong the mercy of God and the Church and true Believers and their seed by denying them that part in Gods Covenant and mercy which he hath proved to be stated on them in Gods word That God never had Church Laws on earth whether in Innocency or since the fall which extended not the priviledge of a Covenant and church-Church-state to the Infants of the Church And so he runs on telling us that from Adams time till now Infants were Church-members and that Christ so found them and so continued them Answ By the Marshalling of his Comma's and if all these particulars be antecedents to the pronoun them here lyes a heavy Charge for it seems if he be believed that we deny the mercy of God the Church and true believers and their seed a part in Gods Covenant and Mercy which Mr. B. says he hath proved that God hath stated on them in his word But let him consider whether the mercy of Gods having a part in the Covenant and Mercy of God be not non-sense 2. He would do honestly to produce from any Anti-paedo-baptist where they ever deny'd
goes on p. 9. and tells us that being called to a Review he remembers our Saviour himself was a Church-member in his Infancy even the head though he said in his Plain Scriptare p. 62. that 't is disputable whether ever Christ was a Church-member properly or no And if an Infant was capable of being the head King Priest and Prophet relatively though yet he had never ruled sacrificed or taught then there is nothing in the Infant age which maketh it uncapable of being members subjects and Disciples of Christ Answ 1. This vain plea is already sufficiently answered by Mr. Tombs And to me what Mr. Baxter urges seems to make more against then for his Paedo baptism For if Christ whose title to the headship of Churchmembers in his Insancy was undoubted was not for all that baptized till at age to set a pattern for us in our approaches to that Ordinance then certainly it is an audacious practise to baptize Infants whose title to Churchmembership and Discipleship is impossible to be made out with parallel clearness and that too in exprest dissonancy to that great and most illustrious example of our Christian Baptism 2ly To argue from Christs headship that Children should be baptized is a meer non-sequiter Christ in his Infaney was head of the Church but not in acts exercito so for ought we know Infants may be members of his Mystical hody yet are no actual Disciples till they hear the Gospel and profess the faith And invisible Membership being uncertain to us can be no ground for Baptism Besides as Mr. Tombs says by this Reasoning an Infant in the womb may be a visible member because then Christ was head of the Church and an old man should not be a member for Christ was not an old man And I may add that Infants by this argument should be Prophets Priests and Kings in their Infancy as well as Church-members because Christ was so But Mr. Baxter will not be hasty to make this Conclusion Mr. Baxter queries are not Infants members of other societies families the Kings subjects And why not Christs as well as the Kings Answ So are Pagans Children unbelievers Children c. members of Families Kingdoms c. therefore they also by this Medium should be Baptized 2ly There is a Characteristical mark that distinguishes the Church of Christ from all other societies It must consist of visible Saints 1 Cor. 14.33 Act. 2.41.47 There must be a right dispensation of the word and Sacraments Act. 2.41 Math. 28.19 From every member of this society there is required a profession of his faith and a holy conversation Act. 8.37 1 Pet. 3 16 17 Rom. 10.10 Math. 3.36 Act. 19.18 Now no Parity of Reason drawn from the Constitutions or practise of other societies or corporations is of any force to obtrude any Law upon this society so distinct from all others It must be governed by its own sanctions which are no where to be had but in the word of Gâ—d From a close conformity to which no parallels framed by our carnall Reasoning must sednce us In agreement to our definition of a visible Church Mr. B. thus exprefies him self in his Book of Bpatism p 87. A self society of persons separated from the world to God or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called out of the world c. And Dr. Featly p. 4. A particular company of men professing the Christian saith known by two marks the sincere preaching of the word and due administration of the Sacraments And how this Definition can agree to a society of which the Major part are ignorant Babes let them judge Wollebius in his Compend Theol. Edit Cantabr 1642. lib. 1. c. 25. p. 135. defines a visible Church Caetus hominum verbo sacramentis ad gratiae statum vocatorum a company of men and women called by the word and sacraments to a state of grace This book is in great repute in the Univerfities and commonly first read by young students in Divinity and if we adhere to this definition Infants are excluded because they are not called by the word to a state of grace And though the term Sacraments be redundant in the Definition yet 't is certain Wollebius held that the bare application of the Sacraments converts not to a state of grace but in conjunction with the effectual preaching of the word And all Divines agree that Ecclesia a Church coming of a Greek verb that signifies evocare to call from is Caetus hominum ex universo genere humano collectus seu evocatus per Evangelium a company of people gathered or called from the universal race of mankind by the preaching of the Gospel And the greek is derived of the hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a congregation He says p. 11. he could theeasilier bear with our delay of external Baptism if we did not deny all Infants their part in the Covenant of life Answ That we deny all Infants their part in the Covenant of life is a false suggestion we charitably hope and our hope is built upon the free grace of God that though the Scriptures clearly reveal nothing of their salvation or Damnation forasmuch as none can be saved but by Christ Act. 4.12 And that all are guilty of sin Rom. 5.14 Infants by the presentment of the satisfaction of Christ are saved the free gift coming upon all Rom. 5.18 Of this satisfaction there is a two-fold application 1. by Faith in the Adult 2. without Faith to dying Infants by vertue of the election and free grace of God Rom. 11.7 5.18 And if we question how Infants dying after Baptism are saved we must have recourse to this way it being owned by Protestants that Baptism doth not conser grace nor wash away Original sin And if we determine nothing positively in this matter Mr. Baxter should not find fault with us he telling us in his Christian Directory p 821. That almost all Infants cases are to us obscure He says p. 12. That we lay such grounds as destroy and exclude them by a sentence of damnation because if we add them not to the Church we exclude them from salvation Answ This language is spoke without book We limit not salvation to the pale of the Church as this Dictator doth We have no rule to add any to our Churches but such whose professions give us ground to Judge that they belong to the Lord being Converted We pass no such damnable sentence upon any that are not joyned to us we hope the best and our judgement we pass when called to it according to appearance de non apparentibus de non exiftentibus tadem est ratio Is the language of the Schools 2ly This is Mr. Baxters own harsh Divinity to destroy and exclude Multitudes of Infants by a sentence of Damnation when he holds that the vast progeny of such as are in his conceit unbelievers have no right to the Baptismal Covenant and Church membership and consequently according to his
lays no stress upon the witness of Origen because we have no original of it And it is unquestionable that what we find in him about Infant Baptism to wash away Original sin quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam spiritum ablui deberent was foisted in For Origen as Dr. Owen truly says was a great Pelagian which Sect as is well known denied Original sin Mr. D. Rep. p. 88. made this Objection but Mr. W. gives no answer to it as I can find nor indeed can he These are all the Antiquities pretended from the first 3â—0 years And let the judicious and impartial Reader consider whether that cause be not in a forlorn and languishing case that has no better then such a rotten basis to rest upon What Mr. Walker urges from the lying Talmud as the learned Sir Norton Knatchbull calls it in his Animadversions p. 315 to evince that Baptism was used by the Jews in the initiation of Proselytes is of no force against us who receive not their Custom as Gospel nor durst we practice Infant Rantism which is no Baptism from Jewish principles it having been never appointed by Christ or his Apostles but corruptly arose with Infant Communion from a conceit of necessity as is already evident Mr. Walker proceeds to argue p. 292. that Infant Baptism is an Apostolical practice for which he urges the baptizing of housholds but what I have said to Mr. Whiston and Mr. Baxter about this may also serve here But I hope if that satisfies not Dr. Hammonds opinion in the matter will be convincing he says Resol p 471. sect 21. that to conclude Infants were baptized because housholds were so mentioned to be is unconvincing and without demonstration it being so uncertain whether there was any Child in the samilies But 1 Cor. 7.14 is the great Topick he insists upon viz. the unbelieving husband is sanctified by it should be to the wife c. which he says should be rendred hath been sanctified as Dr. Hammond formerly said it being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that the sense of hath been sanctified is hath been baptized the effect being put for the act by a Metonymie Answ I have already spoke to this Text in my Answer to Mr. Baxter p. 12 to which I shall add now that Mr. Walker chuses a very absurd Interpretation For according to his talk the words of the Text will run thus The unbelieving husband hath been baptized by the believing wise and the unbelieving wise by the husband which is ridiculous for if it should be true then a prosess'd unbeliever should be a fit subject of Baptism and a woman a fit administrator and the Papists are beholden to Mr. Walker for helping them to a Scripture to warrant their practice of womens baptizing in case of necessity And then what need the Apostles be sent to baptize or the Ministers of the Church of England to Monopolize that practice now when all the men and women in the respective Nations may baptize one another This Interpretation deserves indeed to be laughed at Neither doth Mr. Walker p. 299. avoid the danger of the absurdity that follows it by his shifts there Besides he being well skill'd in the use of Particles having indeed excellently advanced that kind of learning knows that the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be rendred to not by in this place unless he will make the Apostle say that the saith of the wife sanctifies the unbelieving husband foederally and is therefore capable of baptism by his wises saith which is not to be affirm'd for the faith of the one is not the next and effectual cause of the others Saâ—ctification for this Sanctification is contingent that is it may or it may not be as verse 16. Thus it s rendred Col. 1.23 preacht 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every creature Rom. 1.24 God gave them up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to uncleanness 2 Cor. 8.1 the grace of God is bestowed or given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred in Latine in the dative Ecclesiis to the Churches 2 Pet. 1.5 adde to your faith c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 27.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to him Act. 7.44 tabernaculum testimonii suit patribus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being in these places and many others rendred to not by Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy and unclean are immediate oppositesâ— and therefore according to Logick Rules look in what sense the one is to be understood in the directly contrary to that sense must the other opposite be understood Thus if the term holy signifies a Non-admittance to Church Ordinances the term unclean must signifie an exclusion from such but that 's untrue for Infidels children upon their conversion were admitted and some children of believers were excluded from Church-Ordinances and Priviledges yea in the state of Infancy as the children got by strange wives in Ezra's time Ezr. 10.3 5 44. were put away as well as the mothers So this holiness being understood of legitimation the uncleanness must necessarily be understood of bastardy as the issues of the strange bed were reputed of old Which sense is so apposite and proper that no other can be reasonably ascribed to this Text and that a holy seed is legitimate see Ezra 9.2 The term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unclean is used for whoredom frequently in Scripture as Rom. 1â— 24. 6.19 Ephes 5.3 Col. 3.5 Rev. 17.4 What Nazianzen's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports is nothing to us the expression is a meer Catechresis And 't is certain the term is no where in Scripture used in such a sense viz. he was sanctified for he was baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is usui sacro destinari as Pasor informs us John 17.19 See 1 Tim. 4.5 Luk. 11.2 Jud. 1. So that this Text affords no colour of proof that Paedobaptism was an Apostolical practice In that old Translation of the Bible done by John Rogers the Martyr as saith Holingshed in his Chron p. 1168. we find in the Notes upon 1 Cor. 7.14 these words viz. Not that children are clean and pure by nature for that were against the Apostle himself who proveth Rom. 5. that all are under Original sin and naturally the children of wrath as Eph. 2. But his meaning is that like as all things are clean to the clean so that he may be conversant with her and not â—ssend in so doing and that the children of them are not to be reputed as unlawful and unclean His Dilemma p. 329. is nugatory and will directly lye against themselves in many points of Popery they reject And his enumeration of things believed yet not expresly delivered in Scripture is frivolous for we deny not but Infant Baptism may be right if prov'd by good consequence yet it is certain that the only Rule in Sacraments is the Institution and practice but we deny the consequences produced for it to be good So that it is not consequences but pretended absurd and illogical consequences we deny therefore his discourse being be sides our practice is insignificant 'T is a very bold and dangerous practice to set up any Invention of our own in Religion under pretence of its being agreeable to Gods secret will as Mr. Walker talks for who can tell whether it be so or no Methinks Nadab and Abibu's tragical end Lev. 10. should teach such what they are to expect for presumptions of that kind The Argument p. 338. is a weak one and will prove the Doctrine of Purgatory and the Invocation of Saints c. to be no sin as well as Insant Baptism But that it is a sin because a transgression of a Law may be thus demonstrated That which is done besides and without any warrant from the Doctrine and practice of the Law-giver is a transgression of a Law But Infant Baptism is such therefore a transgression of a Law and consequently a sin The major is apparent from that maxim received among Protestants and by which they defend themselves against Papists viz. that in positive Worship whatsoever is not commanded is forbidden The minor is proved at large in our Writings The rest of Mr. Walkers discourse as where he affirms that Infant Baptism might be lawfull though there were neither command for it nor example of it as p. 331. is not only against us but against all the Reformers for if such a Doctrine were believed what a gap would it open for all Tradition-mongers to break in and impose what they please upon us that pretence being as allowable in all other exploded points as in this therefore I believe all that make the Scriptures the Standard to try Doctrines by will be of our side in this case therefore at present I think it needless to say any thing more to it What Mr. Walker say in Reply to the Answer made to the Objection from no express Command or Example in Scripture of womens receiving the Lords Supper is not satisfactory nor does it prove that there is as good consequence for Infant Baptism as womens receiving the Supper And he taking no notice of what Mr. Danvers so fully writ about that matter to Mr. Blinman p. 177. 1 Reply it is enough to refer him thither and to Mr. Tombs his Just Reply p. 96. As to his defence p. 409. of those spurious Books ascribed to Justine Martyr Dionysius the Areopagite c. mentioned before being all that 's produced for that practice for the first 300 years it is meerly insignificant he having not answered what Mr. Danvers urged with undeniable demonstration to prove them fabulous as Treat p. 98 c. and 136 c. So that what I said before with this Reference is enough as to that particular And therefore at present I shall say no more but this with Mr. Tombs That if any person be deceived by those arguments urged for Infant Baptism after so full a discovery of the futility of them for these 30 or 40 years past we may conclude that they are deceived because they are willing to be deceived FINIS