Truth Defended

THE PREFACE.

THou art here entertained once more with this Controversy; for though some may think it more seasonable for persons in our Circumstances, to be silent at this time of day, yet the restlessness of our Adversaries, makes it needful for us to vindicate that great and necessary Truth of our Christian Baptism, from the affronts put upon it, and its Professors, by men of a quarrelsome, satyrical, and invective spirit. There is an unseasonable (yea a sinful) silence, by which Truth is betrayed and left unrescued as a prey to its invaders: of which, having a clear call, and no other appearing, I am loath to be found guilty, though conscious of my weakness.

I have compendiously handled what's voluminously managed by others, so to draw the matter into the narrowest limits I could.

I find it to be a general Objection, That it is not likely, that our Way should be true, because so many learned and pious men for so many ages, have been of the contrary persuasion. In answer to which I humbly submit these brief Considerations.

1. That the highest attainments of Learning, do not privilege from Error: For the way of arriving to Scripture-knowledge, is not through those gaudy portals of Philosophy, and artificial ratiocinations, but by an earnest waiting, and address to the Lord in Prayer and Scripture meditation; Solomon obtained wisdom by asking it of God, not by ransacking the University, 2 Chron. 1.10. The promise is to the petitioning, faithful Christian, Mat. 7.7. & 21.22. James 1.5, 6, 7, 17. 1 John 3.22. And common experience shows us, that a plain and serious, though illiterate Christian, gets that view of Scripture and spiritual things, which the most subtle and piercing eye of the graceless Schoolman cannot reach. He is most like to come acquainted with God's Counsel, that's most intimate with him, in a most humble and holy retiredness and contemplation. It was in his retiredment that Moses his face was so irradiated with glory, Deut. 34.29.35. whereas the most elevated (whether natural, or acquired) accomplishments, (if ill employ'd, as a sharp Sword in a mad hand does greatest mischief) do but render the possessors fitter Instruments to propagate error: For Refined parts, and witty Reasonings, if unsanctified, do commonly persecute Truth, and advance Falsehood, Philosoph • Haeretic • rum patriarchae; it being in their Judgments a depre • sion of their imaginary glory to acknowledge, that poor Mechanics, or Laics (as they count them) should correct their Learned extravagance, or be better proficience in the School of Christ then they; though we have the very Word of Truth for it, 1 Cor. 1.26. Mat. 11.25. And very suitably does Dr. Carlton Bishop of Chichester, in his Thankful Rememb. Edit. 1627. p. 289. express himself; A L • y-man that hath the Spirit of God, is better able to judge of the Church and its Members, then a man in Ecclesiastical function that hath not the Spirit of God. Inf • lix est sa • ientia, •• trae verbum Dei sapere, says Justin 〈◊〉 And it has ever been found, that plain Divinity •• sts a more radiant luster, then the obscure 〈◊〉 of the Schools, though spangled in their gaud • est attire. And Augustine himself says. Epist. ad Or • sinm, that as the Sun is to be seen only by 〈◊〉 own light; so the light of the Gospel is visible only through the rays it communicates. Sicat S •• nt non videt oculus nisi lumine Solis, sic ver • um 〈◊〉 dominicum lumen non poterit vid • ri n • si • ps • us 〈◊〉 . But you will say, that many • f our oppos • te, • re 〈◊〉 . as well as learned. Which I shall readily grant. And I am persuaded that some of them a • precious in the sight of the Lord, eminent for cr •• e and holiness; yet that renders them not •• fallible. The wisest on Earth, know but in part: And 'tis a most certain rule, that as a Church must be proved by the Doctrine, not the Doctrine by the Church; so men must be counted Orthodox by the soundness of their Judgment; and not the foundness of their Judgment or opinion necessarily concluded, because they (being such pious and learned men) held so.

2. This Argument (if of any weight) lies against the whole body of the Reformation, as well as us: For can it be imagined, (says Cluniacensis in behalf of the Romanists ) that so many great Doctors and Fathers of the Church, pious (in their way) and of stupendous learning, should err all this while? &c. Contra Petro Bruisianos, p. 1124. Edit. 1614. Siccine caecatus est orbis terrarum, tantâque hucusque caligine involutus, ut ad aperiendes oculos suos, & ad tam diuturnam noctem illustrandam, post tot Patres, Martyrs, Pontifices, & universarum Ecclesiarum principes, vos tandiu expectârit, & ad corrigendum longum errorem suum, Petrum de Bruis, & Henricum ejus asseclam, velut Apostolos novissimos elegerit? Itane usque ad novos saeculi reparatores mundns periit? &c. So that when our dissenting Protestant Brethren resolve these Interrogatories for themselves, they Answer this Objection also, for us.

3. The Example of the holiest men, must not be our Rule of worship; for we can have no possible assurance that what they hold is a Truth, (unless it be revealed in the Scripture ) since it is possible for the holiest man on Earth to err, yea in this very thing; therefore the truth of an opinion must be made out by Scripture demonstration, not by the multitude, quality, or holiness of its favorites. We are not to follow a Paul, but as he follows Christ, 1 Cor. 11.1. We are not to follow a multitude anymore in error, then evil, Deut. 23.2. We are not to believe an Angel from Heaven, anymore then he agrees with the Gospel already delivered to us, Gal. 1.8. much less are we to receive any doctrine upon the credit of Man, who is a Creature far short of Angelical spirituality. We conceive it our duty, with the noble Bereans, to search the Scriptures, whether these things be so, Act. 17.11. Our Appeal must be to the Law and to the testimony, Isa. 8.20. not to the number or piety of our party.

But says the Objector, 'It is arrogance in you to think yourselves wiser then your Forefathers; and want of charity, if you say they erred either maliciously or willfully.

Answ. So might the Papists say to the Protestants, so might the Church of England say to all other dissenters, as well as us. And what new discovery can there be made, but must be obnoxious to this censure? We ascribe nothing to our own wisdom; it is the beneplaeitum, or good pleasure of the Lord to reveal his Truths to Babes, which are hid from the wise and prudent, Luk. 10.21. for which we must, as Christ did, express our thankfulness. And no man must presume to call him to account for the exercise of his Sovereignty. We believe that a great many hold Infant Baptism purely out of Conscience, because they think the grounds urged for it from Scripture be valid; and that if they were satisfied, as we are, of its unlawfulness, they would renounce the practice, as a great many do, upon the accession of more light. (2) That vast multitudes hold it, out of pure ignorance. (3) Some because it was the opinion of their Ancestors, and is so generally owned. (4) Most from that wretched and mischievous conceit, with which (except some few of the most refined Protestants) the world is intoxicated, viz. that WITHOUT IT THEIR CHILDREN ARE DAMNED. (5) Many of the great and learned ones hold it, because it is the Cornerstone of the Ecclesiastical Fabric erected by the man of sin, against which they must not declare, if they will be Ministers of that State. (6) Most are brought up in that way, and never examine it, whether right or wrong. (7) Some that would examine it, judge that so great a part of the world would not hold it, if it were unlawful, and so are led by an implicit Faith. (8) Some that examine it are biased by Interest, or Education, so that the clearest Argument, or Reason, cannot remove them. (9) Some are indeed convinced by the force of Truth, yet the love of the world, or some such sinister end, hinders their owning so despised and uncountenanced a practice. And a great many (through grace) are convinced, and wrought upon to own it, and be • r their testimony to it; and certainly the testimony (though but) of a few, that are not blinded with temporal ends, (and that cannot be charged upon us) but swim painfully against the stream, is not to be slighted.

Obj. But you make an Idol of it, and censoriously condemn all that differ from you.

Answ. This is an injurious charge; for we ascribe no more to it, then is warranted in the Word of God. We look upon it as the initiating Ordinance into a Gospel profession, Act. 2.41, 42. An Ordinance of Christ, of the s • me duration with preaching, Mat. 28.19. A lively resemblance of the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ, Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. And we conceive it our duty to be found in the practice and profession of it, though we undergo the censures and affronts of the age we live in, thereby. We make no Idol of it, nor does our Religion consist in it only; we desire to press after Holiness, and to worship our God in Spirit and Truth, to walk blamelessly. Nor do we condemn dissenters, but pray for them, that the Lord would give them more light. We desire to love all men, as far as they appear to us to belong to Christ; and would walk together in love, as f • r as we agree: But when they err from the Rule, we dare go no further with them; — Magis amica veritas, it being (as Aristotle himself said, l. 1. c. 6 Ethicorum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) a sacred thing to prefer Truth before Friendship.

Daille tells us in his Right use of the Fathers, p 97. that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, (I may add Origen) Cyprian, Lactantius, Hillary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Epiphanius, that is, the most eminent, and most approved of the Fathers that ever were, have stumbled in many places, and quite fallen away in others. Of which they themselves were so sensible, that they gave us many cautions not to lean upon their Authority: Non • ecipienda veterum Authoritas, Scripturae testimonio destituta, August. Ep. 19. Ex omnibus Fatribus nemo est, quin suis scriptis aliquando faede erraverit & hallucinatus est, Lubert. de Eccles. l. 3. c. 7. In libris Doctorum Ecclesiae aliquondo errores, aliquando Heresies inveniuntur, non est tamen, ut condemnemus vel librum, vtl Authorem, Deus enim hoc permittit, ut nos veritatem ex ipsis scriptures indagemus, Anselm. Comment. in 2 Cor. Therefore it is the less to be wondered, that such as suck their unexamin'd Religion from their mouths, go astray with them. Nor can we be censured of arrogance, if, upon the trial of their documents, we hold fast only that which is good. The sober Author of the Naked Truth tells us, p. 42. That in matters of Faith, there were some errors very Primitive, and at the time of the Evangelical Reformation by Luther, Melancthon, Calvin he can show some errors generally received in most, if not all, the Churches of Christendom, but neither approved nor known by the Primitive Church. Now, this being so, let the sober judge what little reason or safety we have, to be led by any man's ipse dixit.

I would not be understood in anything I say about this matter, to cry down human learning as a thing of no use: For I confess it to be of excellent benefit in its place, if rightly employed; and that the knowledge of the Original Languages in which the Scriptures are pen'd, is of very great necessity, that we might converse with that blessed Book in its own emphatical and Native Idiom, and that we might not be imposed upon by wrong Translations. Yet we are to consider the bounds of Philosophy and human literature, viz. it is to be exercised in the things that may be known by the light of Natural Reason; but when it travels beyond that road, and must needs be defining things beyond its sphere, it becomes extravagant and saucy. Accinge te ad Philosophiam, sed hac lege, ut memineris nullam esse Philosophiam quae à mysteriorum veritate nos abdueat: Philosophia veritatem quaerit, Theologia invenit, Religio possidet, says Picus Mirandula ad Ald. Man. Fire is good in the Chimney, but mischievous in the House-top. Learning is good as an handmaid, Hagar -like, but if it must needs be Mistress, and usurp Authority in the Family; if like scoffing Ishmael, Gen. 21.9. Gal. 4.30. it will mock at the Spirit, and the simplicity of the Gospel, let it be cast out. As Reason is above Sense, so Faith is above Reason. 'It is the work of Faith, by the aid of Divine Revelation to be employed in the mysteries of Religion: Therefore our Philosophers when they attempt that undertaking by the dim guidance of Natures light, are guilty of as great an absurdity, as if the eye should encroach upon the ear, and would pretend to distinguish the various gradations of Musical Notes, or the Quavers of a pleasant Instrument; which it cannot so much perform, as the dullest brute can imitate the warblings of the Nightingale. Christ made choice of the despised and unlearned, that his grace might be the more magnified, and that it might be seen, that he is able to qualify a Fisherman, Tentmaker, or any other Tradesman, to be the Messenger of the Everlasting Gospel, and Embassador Extraordinary, as it were, of Heaven, without being beholden to Aristotle, Cicero, or Aquinas. He could by his Almighty power, have converted the great Athenian Academics, as well as command a fish to bring him the tribute money, Mat. 17.27. but his pleasure was to pitch upon a few poor people. And shall we despise his grace when appearing in • uch now? God forbid.

We are opposed by men of different persuasions, Prelatical, Presbyterian, Independent, &c. all agreeing in the practice of Paedobaptism, though from very different grounds. And I must confess that I find the greatest Ingenuity in Mr. Walker, who very honestly holds Infant Baptism upon the same ground the Antiquity he alleges did, viz. the conceit of its necessity, though perhaps not in so very gross a degree as some of them: And insists most upon the old Mediums, to the shame of those that look upon themselves more Refined, who twist themselves into so many new forms, before they will part with it. So that he may be allowed many hundred years, whereas the others can claim no Antiquity for their faederal Right above the 16th. Century. So that if things be weighed in the balance of an unprejudic'd mind, Mr. Walker 's undertaking, may be likely (though not so Intended by him) to convince people, that since the grounds their adored Antiquity has laid for this practice, and he has so fully produced, be so weak and unscriptural, they ought not to venture their Faith in so leakie a bottom, but to reform, and reduce it to its Primitive purity: It being an undoubted maxim, that (in Controversies especially) Omne certius eligibilius est incerto; and Omne quod est propinquam vero, est magis eligendum; — Whatsoever is most certain, and bordering upon Truth, is to be chosen, before that which is doubtful and disputable. And whether our way, or theirs, he most agreeable to the Word of Truth, and the practice of the Primitive Saints, is submitted upon a fair trial, to the decision of the judicious and unbiased Reader.

I have with as much brevity as I could, given a short Answer to each of our Adversaries who have lately appeared against us, (unreply'd to:) There remains something to be said to one Mr. William Allen, (an Apostate Baptist ) for some late Arguments for Infants Baptism; which I should have done also, but that it is performed by an able hand, and designed speedily for the public.

Most of these Papers were ready for the Press many months since; but we find it a difficult thing to pass it; wanting the privilege of an Imprimatur. My great distance permitted me not to see the sheets, in which are some errors injurious to the sense, some of which upon a cursory reading I gathered, the rest are left to thine Ingenuity to correct or pardon.

PREFACE.

IT would appear to me somewhat strange, had I not seen a late example in the forwardest Champions of Paedo-baptism (even Mr. Baxter and Mr. Wills ) that a man of so exuberant an invention as Mr. Whiston, and so copious in venting his Notions, should yet shift off his Antagonist with so disingenious and unscholar-like a Return, as he gives Mr. Hutchinson in his Postscript. Whether he be such an admirer of his own clocution, that studying to display his faculty, he has neither leisure nor Candor to give his adversary any other answer, then Contempt, or Naked Gainsaying? Or whether the evidence of truth has not so substantially silenced him, that (yet loath to seem so) be is forced to betake himself to such Evasive Subterfuges, I will not determine. But I have just cause to think the later; for can any man imagine that one of his Forwardness, Acquisition and Leasure, (being as he says, Postscript, p. 250. Free from all Family entanglements, &c.) had he anything to the purpose to offer, would fail to publish it so seasonably in vindication of the cause he manages. How unconvincing such a method of disputation as he takes, is, he cannot be ignorant of, and such as will be imposed upon thereby, may quietly enjoy that liberty for me. And I would have Mr. Whiston know, that the notice that I take of his Books, is not because I think he has done more then others of his persuasion, nor that I apprehend any stronger authority in his ipse d •• ir, then in the Dictates of his Predecessors: But because he seems (as he tells us in the Preface to his Essay) to tread a new Path, and proceed in another Strain, then either the Prenitive Fathers, or the Major 〈…〉 • ound out: For of the first he tells in the Language of an Oracle; That wherein they dissent from him, they themselves dis •• nted from the Truth: And of the later, That their mistakes need Rectisying.

But to prevent the ill influence this his new started Argumentation may have upon the well meaning and enquiring Christian Mr. Hutchinson endeavored in some late Animadversions upon Mr. Whistons answer to Mr. Danvers, to make him sensible how unrighteous and liable to exception his said undertaking was. And therein did not proceed upon bare Dictates, but plain and solid Demonstration from Scripture-evidence.

And though the singleness Mr. Whiston appears in, be a just motive to us to slight his new stamped Divinity, especially since it consists of little more then mere Affirmations; yet he was opposed with such strength of Demonstration, that I see he is loath to encounter it, but in that New way of Postscripting Mr. Baxter taught him, viz. To Answer Books by general Negations. Therefore I see no Reason but it may be taken for granted, that he is drawn to the Lees of his Ratiocination.

And whereas he complains of Mr. Hutchinsons overlooking the first Treatise of Infant Baptism, p. 251. Mr. Whiston may consider, it was Mr. Hutchinsons work then to detect and refel his injurious Cavils against Mr. Danvers. And truly I must inform him for my part, that it is a service of no grateful relish to me to take in hand and peruse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so tedious and incoherent a Discourse, and upon which with more truth and honesty, that Character he gives Mr. Danvers his Treatise, may be retorted, viz. That it carry's sufficient Antidote against its own embracements. — But to prevent his glorying; I shall only take a Brief Survey of that Piece, and leave a few Remark. upon it, with the Reader.

And as to his quar • lling with Mr. Hutchinson for taking no notice of his Intimations given by 〈…〉 lishing something further, concerning this Controversy: I cannot conceive how he can frame any just Charge thence against Mr. Hutchinson, unless he fancy'd him to have Mr. Baxter's faculty of Prophecying, what his adversary is impre • nate • with. But since no man besides Mr. Baxter is master of such aforeknowledge, few besides Mr. Whiston would blame an Antagonist for that neglect, viz. Of answering a man, before he hears his Arguments. Or if Mr. Whiston would have no Answers made him, till he publishes all he has to say — It will be found an Imposition of two Majestical an Aspect. And in my opinion, it had been more Consonant to the general Reformation he bespeaks, (not only from us, but from those Paedobaptists, that hold up that practice upon grounds different from his) to have published his labors in an entire Tract, then thus by parcels. But since he is in the humor of Writing, as we know not when it will be over, so he must give us leave, (without staying for what's behind) to ataque his forces already mustered, and encounter the rest (if worth any opposition) as they come on. Yet from me (who am by the last Commands of Mr. Hutchinson, (now with the Lord) obliged to give Mr. Whiston this Return to his Postscript, which Mr. Hutchinson saw a little before his Death) I think fit to let him know, that I have more value for my time then hereafter to consume it upon the refutation of his Dictates, already sufficiently defeated.

And though in Mr. Hutchinsons Animadversions, p. 54. he was earnestly called upon, that if he thought himself concerned to appear further in this Contest, he would lay down his Thesis distinctly, and set down his Arguments Syllogistically, Yet how little notice he hath taken thereof, and how like a Dictator be appears in his Essay, is left to consideration.

And since he over passes the Arguments opposed against their practice, insinuating as if Mr. Hutchinson had mistaken the right ground thereof, since he does but a • d Dictates, to Dictates: And his Essay is but a 〈…〉 built upon a foundation already overture 〈◊〉 : since be takes those 3 prepositions for granted, p. 3. b • by; and upon that suppesition feigns those high privileges of the seed of Believers, those glo •••• benents and advantages which he tells us p. 244. have been assigned to them, as in Covenant, and having the token thereof (he means Baptism) applied to them; since (I say) these tedious branches of his Dis ••• se sprang from an unsound Root, or mere figment, viz. A supposing that the Covenant of Grace is made with Believers, and their natural seed in their generations, and so have a right to Baptism: We might spare the labor of confuting such fancyes afresh.

Therefore the method I shall use in this Return shall • e. 1. To Refor the Reader for an answer to the Argumentative part of Mr. Whistons Books to such places, where they are soundly confuted already by the late Writers of our way. 2. I shall wholly wave his impertinent fictions in his Essay, concluding that in the overthrow of those points he takes for granted, p. 3. Those glorious privileges he dreams of will vanish into guilded Chyme •• 's, or the mere apparitions of a beguiled 〈◊〉 . 3. With same Rest •• ions upon his Poliscript (a Cant way of consuting Books, by the Argument used against Belamine ) I shall leave all at the Tribunal • f the Reader.

A Brief Survey and Confutation of Mr. Whistons Books, &c.

I Shall begin with his large Preface of about 46 pages: Wherein he says page 7. That if he errs, it is cum ration. To which I say, that error is too often disguised under the plausible show and semblance of truth, and some man have the art so to paint it. But instead of making it therefore reasonable, it is rendered the more pernicious; in as much as 'tis so much the more likely to ensnare and deceive; And Satan is never more capable to do mischief, then when he is transformed into an Angel of Light. Therefore Mr. Whiston had need be wary, lest what he goes about to establish, be found in the great day, to be no part of the Doctrine once delivered to the Saints. For then an erravi cum rations, will scarce be sufficient to answer that Question; Who hath required this at your hands?

Preface p. 14. Mr Whiston assigns 6 causes of our Rejecting Infant Baptism, the substance of which are. 1. Want of tender affections towards Relations. 2. Confounding either some supposed, or real irregularities in the administration, with the practice. 3 Not considering the true Reason of primitive Christians Baptism at Age. 4. Our comparing the little good, and small advantage accruing to believers seed, with the variety of inconveniences, and ill consequences of Paedo-baptist Doctrine. 5. Placing too much of our Religion in an external way and mode. 6. By preposterous enquiries after the will of Christ, as not taking our rise from the Covenant made with Abraham,

To the first, I say, that as Mr. Whiston only speaks his thoughts without proof, so little more needs be said in disproof of it; save to tell him that it is not so. We have as much natural love to our Children as any I presume that oppose us: and we look upon that as no instance of affection to them, to cross our Lord's Institutions, (which should be more dear to us, then that Imaginary fondness he talks of) in Communicating an Ordinance to them, that's not appointed for them.

2. We have produced our Arguments (even such as we find unanswerable) against the Pedo baptists mode of administration, and the subjects they apply Baptism to, and therefore the 2 d particular is frivolous.

3. We make the New Testament Scripture our warrant in the practice of New Testament Duties and Ordinances; and the primitive Christian's exact conformity is the best explication and comment upon the precepts there; and ought to be our pattern We find neither express nor Consequential warrant for Baptizing Infants there. For,

A necessary consequence is that which proves the matter concluded certainly so to be. Yea, certe ita esse, nec aliter se habere pass. There must be tam necessarius nexus, & indissolubilis aependentia, such an infallible dependence between the subject and predicate, that the conclusion must be universally and perpetually true. And every necessary consequence demonstrates à priori; For, Demonstratio est ex prioribus, notioribus, & causis. A posteriori only the discovery of habits is made. Now we never yet could find a Medium in Scripture that proves Infant Baptism (nor that they have any qualification that Intitles them to it) by any consequence in the true, logical, and direct notion of it. 1. No acts of faith, or repentance can be seen in them. 2. Nor any discovery of gracious habits. 2. Nor yet can it be demonstrated that they have in foro Ecclesiae, any interest in the Covenant of Grace, till at years, and capable to profess and act faith. Though, for ought we know, they may (in foro Dei) be invisible members of the mystical body of Christ, and in a capacity of salvation, through the presentment of that satisfaction made by Christ, the free gift coming upon all, Rom. 5:18. Yet that being uncertain of any Individual, can be no ground for Baptism. And how can we without incurring a most dreadful breach of 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 merely for the non-application of a Sacrament (provided it to be not contemned) I can nowhere 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 sal • 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 Logic, 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 everyone 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 privilege abolished, 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 undeniable 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

We 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. We 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 Writings. 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 Logic. We profess to worship God in Spirit and Truth, (according to our measute, and by Divine assistance) in an exact conformity to his Revealed Will.

6. Our enquiry's after the will of Christ, are from the Revelations of his will in his word, and if that be termed prepostero • s, let our opposites find a better foundation for their enquiry's, and it shall be considered. We think it a fruitless, and • indeed preposterous undertaking to seek for the Institution of Baptism in Gen. 17.7. We 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 lays down his grand proposition p. 1. thus

Page 3. He distinguishes Abraham's seed into natural, and spiritual, or Mystical.

Answer, As to Mr. Whistons 1st. subordinate proposition before rejected; I say. To insist at large in a fresh Confutation of the use Mr. Whistons makes of this Scirpture, viz. Gen. 17.7. were but Actam agere: Therefore as I said, I will refer him, and the Reader to such as have already proved this plea to be vain. Mr. Tombs (a learned Writer now with the Lord) sufficiently clears it in his Writings upon the subject, particularly in his 3d. Review, (a large Book never yet answered) Printed 1657. Sect. 2. p. 5 and so on. Mr. Blackwoods Storm of Antichrist, p. 31. 32. 33. 34. and onwards. Mr. Patient in his Book of Baptism p. 72. and onwards. Mr. Lawrence p. 17 • . and onwards. Mr. Danvers p 171. 2d. Edict. and onwards. Mr. Skynner in his Treat. of Baptism p. 8. and so on. Mr. Hutchinson in his Treat. p. 12. and so on. Mr S •• d and Mr. Chear, p. 8. and so on.

2d. That no Covenant Interest entitles to Baptism without Repentance. See at large evidenced by Mr. Tombs in the said 3d. Review, Sect. • . p. 15, 23, 40, &c. That no agreement between Circumcision and Baptism justifies Infant Baptism, Sect. 11. Such Arguments as are drawn from the Covenant in savor of this practice of Paedobaptism are largely confuted, Sect. 12, 13, 14. That the Gospel Covenant is not exten •• d to believers Infants as such, Sect. 16. That the 〈◊〉 are not Seals of the Covenant of Grace. Sect. 31. That 〈◊〉 is not by Birth, nor the Church as 〈◊〉 Corporations, Sect. 36. That the holiness, 1 Cor. 7.14. is Matrimontal, evinced at large Sect. 76.92, 93, 94, 95. The succession of Baptism to Circumcision at large considered. Sect. 81. That the enlargement of our privileges under Gospel administrations prove not Infant Baptism, Sect. 84.

Now this proposition (which Mr. Whiston p. 62. calls the foundation to his whole Superstructure ) by the conferring of his assertions with the Books quoted, will (I doubt) be found rotten, and consequently his whole superstructure must needs fall. But in regard some of the Books mentioned are scarce, being out of Press, I shall with what brevity I may abstract from them, our understanding of the Covenant of Grace; which term is applied to signify.

1st. The Covenant of Grace in its own nature, singly or universally considered.

2ly. The manner of its administration, according to Divine Institution.

In the first signification, it signifies the great Mystery of the mercy of God in Christ, wherein the Father hath established Jesus Christ his Son, the head of all things, and given him a blessed seed of the sons of men, to be by him, and with him, Heirs of the glorious Inheritance of the Grace of God, and the blessed Consequences thereof, against all possibility of miscarriage, according to his eternal purpose. This Covenant was at first published Gen. 3.15. 'tis spoken of Psal. 2.7, 8, 9. Is. 42. and 49. This is the Everlasting Covenant, still one and the same, immutable from Everlasting to Everlasting. This Covenant was at sundry times, and after divers manners, under divers Signs, Figures, Types, Promises, and Prophesies, renewed and ratified with the blessed Patriarchs Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Sem, Melchizedek, and with the Fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; with Moses, and the Prophets, before the coming of Christ; And brought to light, and revealed in all the Mysteries of it by John the Baptist, Christ and his Apostles, which still continueth, and shall continue without Change, to the worlds end. This Covenant hath one spiritual Father, viz. Christ. Isa. 9.6. and one spiritual Seed, Psal. 22.30.

2ly. The Covenant of Grace, as it signifies the manner of Administration, may be thus described. It contains the whole, and every part of that Instituted Worship, whereby God doth ordinarily bring about the purposes of the Everlasting Covenant, viz. To set Christ upon his Throne, and to gather him the Seed given him by the Father, And the Covenant under this acceptation is not one and the same always, but hath passed under many great alterations and changes. The Lord suiting his Ordinances and Appointments to the Persons, Seasons, and Works he had to do. Therefore all its force and authority thus considered depends entirely upon the Law of its Institution, and is in force as that Law directeth, and not otherwise.

In this sense 'tis distinguished under, two known heads, respecting two seasons; The first before, the second after the ascension of Christ.

Before Christ's coming it passed under the great alterations and Changes, for the first 2000 years, from Adam to Abraham — The Ordinances and form of worship then in practice, and other occasional figures, representing the mystery of the everlasting Covenant, and Chosen and Rejected Seeds therein considered, was a Ministry dignified with as eminent and glorious Saints as any the Book of God recordeth. And though for the nature of it the same with the Law of • oses, proportioned to it, and after fell in with it; Ye • in all that long series of time, there was no distinguishing Ordinance Administred to Infants of • elievers, nor any unknown Doctrine to that purpose.

'It is true at Circumcision that began, which (viz. Circumcision ) by the Law of Moses was taken in with the preceding Institutions, and there received its full Instalment, and became the Head Ordinance of the Levitical Ministry. This Administration of the Covenant of Grace, is usually called the Old Covenant, or the First Covenant, Heb 8.7, to 13. the Law, Rom. • .13, 14. Heb. 10.1. Gal. 4.21.

This Covenant while it stood, though Glorious; yet the Spirit of God never exalted it above the degree of a Handmaid, appointed for the time being to Minister to the Everlasting Covenant; And then to be utterly cast out of the Church together with her Seed according to the flesh; whom the Apostlecalleth Servants, and not Sons, Gal. 4.7. Prophetically instanced in Abraham's family under the • Type of the Gospel Church in the persons of Hagar and • hmael, Gen. 21.10, 11, 12 unveiled at large, Gal. 4.22. to 31.

This old Administration is termed, A service unto the example and 〈…〉 Heavenly things, Heb 8, 5. A figure for the time th • present. Heb. • .9. It 〈…〉 perfect, Heb. 7.19. and 10.1. The Lord 〈…〉 it not as an hand writing 〈…〉 , and 〈◊〉 it to be Cross, Col. 2.14. There ended 〈◊〉 Covenant, there expired the Law; the force and authority upon which that administration stood. There was 〈…〉 , to the flesh cast out, as Typified G •• . 21.10. And henceforth the children of the promise are counted for the feed, Rom. 9.8. Thus we find a total abolition of the legal Covenant, with all its appurtenances, of which Circumcision was a chief: And therefore the fleshly seed is excluded for ever upon the exclusion of that Covenant, because it can claim a standing by no other Right: But in what is said touching the abrogation of the legal Covenant; I would not be understood to teach the Abrogation of any Moral Doctrine or Precipt.

The last Administration of the Covenant of Grace, usually called the New Covenant, is that which was established by Jesus Christ at his coming. This Covenant ministered not to any Doctrine above or beyond itself. Heb. 10.1. but was itself the Mystery of the Grace of God plainly administered, Col. 1.26. Eph. 3.8, 9. It was under a veil, till Christ revealed it; And the whole scope of Christ and his Apostles Doctrine, runs quite beyond the privilege of the seed after the flesh, and is placed upon the seed after the spirit, as being indeed the true seed, who were really stated by God in the privilege of the everlasting Covenant, through their New-birth, and not otherwise, Mat. 3.8, 9. and 16.18. The Gospel Church is built upon the foundation of actual faith in Christ, and the Birth Privilege cannot be squared by that rule, to have place in that building. Isa. 54.13. with John 6.44, 45. Luk 14.26. Gospel Privileges are a part of Gospel Inheritance and follow Gospel Son-ship — If Sons, then Heirs, Gal. 4.7, Rom. 8.17. Gospel Sons are not born such, Jam. 1.18. And therefore the visible profession hereof must be the common principle to constitute visible Children of the Gospel Covenant, under the administration of Jesus Christ, by whom Grace and Truth was administered, not Flesh and Figure.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do not always note a Mutual Covenant and mutual performances, as Gen. 9.9, 10. where a Covenant is made with Fowl, Cattle, Beasts, &c. There is a single, as well as mutual Covenant. And if there must needs be a Convertibility between those that Contract then there can be no Covenant with Infants, because, they cannot Contract. And if their Parents Contact for them, let them be also sealed for them.

That this may be further illustrated the learned Reader may note, that there is an exact Conformity betwixt us • in our sense and understanding of the Covenant of Grace) and the most learned of the Orthodox Writers as Piscator in Sext. Observ. in Heb 8 also upon Rom. 9. Alsted praecogn. Theol. l. 2. c. 123. Ames in his Coronis to Remonstrants Art. 5. c. Wollebius in Compend. Theol. l. 1. Can. and lib. 1: ca. 21. Twisse. Vind. Grat. lib. 3. errat. 8. Sect. 5. and lib. 1. p. 3. digress. 2. Scultetus in Sermon. in Isa. 41. Boltons Instructions for Comfort. Afflict. Consciences, p. 272, 273. 2 Ed. Diodat. on Rom 9.6. Norton. Resp. ad Appollon. cap. p. 30, 31. I forbear to transcribe the several passages refer'd to, because I intend to confine myself to what bravity I can, and being certain, if the learned Reader will have recourse to the Originals quoted, he will find them in this case expressly and directly for us, and against our Opposites.

Baptism a part of Gospel instituted Worship, and all the force and authority it hath upon the conscience in point of practice is to be derived from the plain and express Law and word of God, by which it is made an Ordinance. God keeps his Ordinances exactly to his own Methods and Manner, and man's nature is very presumptuous to be interposing and meddling, so Heb. 8.5. Exod. 25.9 to 40. All Instituted worship must be conformed to the Heavenly pattern.

The Covenant thus stated, with the Scriptures enforcing it, duly weighed, (I question not) would put an end to the Controversy about the Birth Privilege upon which the Baptism of Infants is founded; and to balance what Mr. Whiston, and those of his party offer, I submit what's here briefly offered, to the serious scanning of the Indifferent and Unbyassed Reader.

As for those several texts urged by Mr. Whiston to confirm his second subordinate Proposition, particularly mentioned, before, I cannot upon the most exact examination I am capable to exercise, find that they make anything for him. And but that I question not, but any Reader that has the use of his Reason, and any Compentency of understanding in the Covenant of Grace (or has not a mind to be bolstered up in his conceit, and so is loath to be abused) will so find it, I would by particular Demonstration evidence it. Therefore I shall only earnestly recommend to the Christian Reader this Caution, that he think not the bare naming of a text or texts enough to confirm an opinion, but that he seriously note the Context, with the Scope and Drift of the Holy Ghost, and the coherence of the sense alleged, with other Texts, before he be inveigled to a closure with this, or that converted Tenent. And should I deliver my Judgment, it must for all that come at last to this Decision: Therefore I freely appeal to the serious Reader; and if he finds Mr. Whiston hath not Wrested those Texts from their direct and native scope and meaning, he is at liberty to join with him. For my part I cannot but say, that as far as I see, they make far more against, then for the Doctrine of the birth privilege now in Controversy.

The most considerable New Testament Scriptures I find Mr. Whiston insist upon for proof of Paedobaptism, are Mar. 10.10. Luk. 19.9. Act. 2.38, 39. and 16.31. 1 Cor. 7.14. from which he draws a bold Conclusion; That the promise of Salvation appertains to the houses of Believing Parents as such, without respect to the personal saith of any in their houses besides their own.

As to Mar. 10.10. there is nothing relating to the thing in Controversy — The Disciples propound a question about Divorcement; and what's that to the point in hand?

2ly, Luke 19.9 Affords no color for such a conclusion: For Salvation may be said to become to Zacchaeus his house. though none but himself be saved. He that believes upon a Dictate, that a family may be saved by the Masters faith, will believe anything. Salvation is tendered to all, but it is applied only by every ones faith in Jesus Christ. If it be not so, they are happy families indeed that can obtain it at so easy a rate as their Masters faith! They may lie in unbelief, that have a Zacchaeus to believe for them! Surely this is none of Christ's Gospel, Rom: 1.17. and 3.28. Joh. 3.5. &c.

3ly. Act. 2.38, 39. Yields as little proof for this assertion as the other. And he that can find this Consequence there, deserves to be styled Magnus Apollo. The promise to the Children was not as they were the seed of Believers; For their Parents were not then Believers, Nor to them, nor any other, but as called, by the Lord, which calling made them Christ's, and capable of Baptism. The whole (as the context shows) is an encouragement against despair by reason of their Crucifying Christ, and wishing his blood upon them and their Children, Mat. 27.25. For which very sin, the Apostle tells them they may have Remission, Christ being raised for their Salvation, and their Children's ( viz. their posterity) and all God should call though a far off, if they did Repent and were Baptized into the name of Christ

Of our mind herein is Dr. Hamond (a great pleader for Infant Baptism) who says in his Resolutio • s concerning Infant Baptism. Sect. 81. If any have made use of that unconcludent Argument (viz. Act 2 39.) I have nothing to say in defense of them, the word [children] there, is really the posterity of the Jews, not particularly their Infant Children. And Dr. Taylor lib. Proph p. 233. Says that by Children is meant the posterity of the Jews — adding — that he, that when ever the word (children) is used in Scripture, shall by Children understand Infants, must needs believe that in all Israel there were no men, but all Infants and if that had been true; it bad been the greater wonder that they should overcome the Anakins, and beat the King of Moab, and March so far, and discourse so well, for they were all called the Children of Israel

4ly. Act. 16. • 1. proves not his Conclusion; for the Scripture Records that the Jailors family had the Word of the Lord spoke to them, as well as himself. ver. 32. Yea that they believed. ver. 34.

1 Cor. 7.14. Proves not the Salvation of a believers house; to assert it, is to run into a desperate error, viz. That the unbelieving wife is saved by the husbands faith, and e contrà. Which I suppose no sober Protestant durst affirm▪ And Mr. Whiston will do well to recall that expression p. 108. That the Master of the family believing, his house shall be saved upon Condition of his believing; it being so grossly contrary to the tenor of the Gospel. let him peruse Rom. 1.17. and 3.28 Heb. 11.6. Mar. 16.16. John 3.5. &c.

Mr. Whiston I observe all along his Book in defense of Infants Baptism — borrows his most formidable Artillery from the Old Testament, Yet tells us be argues not from Analogy with Circumcision. But if he can make me believe that, he has a notable faculty of persuading. For alas! how does he invita minerva squeeze Arguments from Gen. 17.7. to prove Infant Baptism. And I appeal to all Readers, whether that place, and Circumcision be not the Alpha and Omega of his proofs. What a tedious talk does he make to prove that there is an Idendity betwixt the Old and New Covenant? how learnedly does he labor to prove that the Covenant entered with Abraham respected his natural seed? Whereas if He means the Covenant of Circumcision (as 'tis called Act. 7.8.) who denys it? But if he means the Covenant in the first notion, laid down before, we absolutely deny i • ▪ and he can never prove it; the contrary is largely evinced. This exploit fills up almost his whole Book, and what a considerable range of words does he muster up to show the agreement betwixt Circumcision and Baptism p. 226. and so to p. 148? Does he not lay p. 222 That the will of God concerning Circumcision, shows us what his will is concerning Baptism, and that as the one, so the other should be applied to Infants? and whats this but Analogy?

His talk p. 240. &c That Baptism is the sign, or token of the Covenant vow, is vain, and his Inference, that as Circumcision of old, so Baptism is now the token of the Covenant, is groundless. But suppose that were granted (which yet there is no ground for) his definition of a sign produced from Austi • , p. • 16 [viz. id quod se ipsum sensui & preter se aliquid animo repraesentat, or his later Author, Signum est quod se ipsum sensibus, & id cujus signum est intellectai aufert, or another Author I can help him to, viz. Scheibler. Metaphys. lib. 1. cap, 26. Signum est quod potentiae cognoscenti aliquid representat viz. That a sign or token is that which represents something signed to the mind or understanding, ] will do him more hurt then good; For Baptism according to these definitions cannot be a sign or token of the Covenant of Grace to any Infants; for it doth not represent the Covenant either to their sense or understanding.

Learned men divide signs into Natural, and Arbitrary: Natural, have a natural connection with the thing signified, as Smoke to Fire. Arbitrary signs, signify only by Ordination or Institution. Now Baptism is no natural sign to the Covenant of Grace, nor do learned men so account it, And those that affirm it to be an Instituted sign, would do well to produce the Institution if they know where to find it in Scripture.

Further, Signs are divided into Rememorative, Demonstrative, and Prognostick; The first shows what's past, as the Lord's Supper shows Christ's Death. The second something present. The third, something to come; as Physicians Prognosticate the event of Diseases by the Symptoms. Now Baptism is in neither of these acceptations, a sign to Infants; For it neither Remembers them of the Covenant; nor Demonstrates it to them; nor Prognostcates that they shall ever be in it. Therefore it is not a sign or token to Infants to the Covenant of Grace, any way that I know of.

Mr. Whiston comes at length to improve the Instances of Baptized Housholds, for his service; And insists much on Lydia's, p. 273. But that this will do him no good, is apparent in my answer to Mr. Baxter.

His Criticism upon the phrase Act. 16.34. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rending it, he rejoiced with all his house, he believing in God; is vain. For by this Interpretation, his whole family was capable of rejoicing; Therefore no Infants there, they being uncapable of such impressions. The word was spoke to them all, and its evident they all believed, the adverb [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with his whole family ] in the propriety of the phrase, having an immediate relation, and connection to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , believing. And therefore I fee no reason to reced from the vulgar translation, and lean upon such an extorted Criticism, as contradicts the plain meaning and scope of the text. He labors to fasten an absurd sense also upon that text Mat. 28.19. viz. That the persons to be baptized are the Nations in gross. But I refer him to what I have spoke to Mr. Baxter about this, and to Mr. Hutchinsons Animadversions, p. 20.

In the course of his writings he frames sundry Objections, which in my opinion, though not stated with such advantage as they might he, are enough to confute his allegations. And some as being too strong for him, he avoids giving▪ a d • rect answer to; for he fetches such circuits, and cunningly wastes the time in circular preambles, till he thinks the Reader forgets the Objection; and then stoutly sets upon another; yet when all's done, he either very sorrily, or not at all answers it. Insomuch that as it happens his Book carries a sufficient antidote against its own ill influence, to any persons that have not a mind to be deceived.

There are several things more liable to exception in this Book; But I shall spare him, having I hope sufficiently, (though briefly) razed his strongest hold, with which the other petty Auxiliaries will stand or fall. And therefore I have done with this first part.

His Essay is wholly applicatory; Therefore as I said, I pass it, and come to his Postscript, where I shall have occasion to enlarge, (where it is meet) by way of Vindication of Mr. H • t • hinsons Animadversions upon this second Book.

Mr. Whistons Postscript p 246. alleges, That they Baptige no Infants from the ground of their Relation to Abraham as his seed — But from the tenor of the Covenant as made with Abraham's seed in their generations; and says, that because Mr. Hutchinson proceeded to disprove that opinion which is none of his, he is not concerned to answer him.

But I shall show the evasion to be frivolous; For whoever pleases to peruse Mr. Whistons book, will find, that he makes this very ground he renounces the main foundation of his pleading, as preface to the first Book. p. 3 • , 33. he calls it in express terms, the foundation to his whole structure — so p. 62, 63. 107.114.117.126, 127.262. and almost all along raises his Arguments from that Topic. Therefore doth it not naturally follow, that when he is put to it, he will quit his main Garrison, rather then stand to it? This is an Instance of a weak Cause.

Abraham's seed are to be understood in a twofold sense. 1. Natural. 2. Spiritual. And each of these again, is to be considered as his next and immediate, or more remote seed. The Jews were his Natural seed, some next, some remote. And such as were born of his body as Isaac, and such as believed as he did were his spiritual seed too. Yea more distant generations bore that title, as well as those that more immediately sprung from him▪ Hence the Jews stiffly pleaded their privilege, Mat. 3.9. but were rejected, the dispensation that gave it them being expired

No Gentile can lay claim to Abraham as their Father upon a natural account, he standing in no such Relation to them. But he is a spiritual Father to them, if they believe, and nor otherwise, Gal. 3.29. Nor can a believing Gentile convey that title to his Children which he has not himself; The title of Natural Sonship, to Abraham, no believing Gentile has; Therefore he cannot convey it to his Posterity; For, nil dat quod in se non habet. A spiritual son of Abraham, 'tis true, every believing Jew and Gentile is, but spiritual privileges (as Gospel Sonship, &c. ) are not hereditary. A believers Child can no more be saved by his fathers faith, then an unbelievers child can be damned for his fathers sin. And if the Fathers faith must serve the child's turn, there's all the reason in the world, that the farhers Baptism, should also be Baptism enough to the child Why the one should not be imputed as well as the other, is a question worth Mr. Whiston's Resolution.

Now Mr Hutchinsons Arguments in his Treatise of Baptism were managed to make out.

And I appeal to any Judicious Reader, whether the Arguments that disprove Infant Baptism, from that pretended title they are said to have to Abraham as their common father, as believers Children; do not also disprove it substantially when urged •• om the like title derived from their immediate Parents. 'It is certain, that the title that's found rotten in the root, cannot be found in the branches. And if Abraham's next and natural Children have no title to Baptism upon that account, much less his more remote Children, and least of all other believers Children, whose title is originally pretended from him.

Mr. Whiston p. 247. Denyes that the Covenant of Grace is made with the Ele • l, as such?

Answ. Our sense of the Covenant of Grace, you have in the preceding pages. Let Mr. Whiston show where any Covenant of Grace is made with Reprobates. 'It is true, such were under external administrations under the Law: For Ishmael and others were Circumcised, that had no Interest in the Covenant of Grace. But that, by any party from thence, the natural seed of believers, as such, should be baptized, under the now-administration of the Covenant of Grace, is not warranted in the Bible.

That the Covenant of Grace is made with the Elect in Christ is clear in the Scriptures; take these Texts instead of many that may be produced, Jer. 31.31, 33. Heb. 8. and 10 Chapters. And our Learned Divines so understand it. See the Assemblies Cathecism; Piscator is clear in it Obs. 8. in Hebr. Promittit (Deus) in hoc saedere tria ex gratuito favore praestanda Electis, viz. Remissionem peccatorum. gratuitam propter Christum illuminationem mentes ad cognoscendum Deum, & renovationem voluntatis ad obdiendum legibus dei, quae tria in loco Jeremiae satis clare ac distinct proponuntur.

So Wollteus Compend. Theol. lib. 1. Can. 2. Faedus gratiae & testamentum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dispositio nominatur, quia hac Deus fili • s suis Caelestem haereditatem destinat morte Jesu Christi silii s • i interveniente consequendam.

Piscator again on Rom. 9.6, 7. Pactam autem dci tantummodo ad Isaacum, & reliquos filios promissionis, id est, Electos per illam praefiguraturos, quod Apostolus probat testimonio ipsius Dei, Gen. 21.12. And upon the 8 and 9 ver. That the promise of Grace made to Abraham pertains properly to the Elect only, whom the Apos • le calls the Children of the promise — promissio gratiae Abrahamo facta, ad solos electos, quos vocant filios promissionis pertinet.

Wollebius, is yet very express Compend. Theol. lib. 1. c. 21. Subjectum seu objectum f • ederis oblati sunt omnes vocati, proprie tamen electi. To these may be added the stream of Ancient and Modern Writers; which, in my opinion, will Counter balance Mr. Whistons Denyal.

That this Covenant of Grace belongs not to believers Infants as such, is evident, because many such have not the grace of that Covenant desecribed Jer. 31.31. &c bestowed upon him; I • hmael, though a great Believers Son, is branded for a Reprobate. And it belongs to many of the called posterity of unbelievers, as common experience evi • ces.

The Conditional Covenant of Grace (if they will so call it) I can find it to be no other then this — Whosoever believeth shall be saved — and 'tis certain this Covenant concerns not Infants, much less the I •• ants of Believers only. The Covenant of Grace gives what it requires, and enables the Covenanters to perform the Conditions required by receiving the Graces therein promised. And it cannot be affirmed that it does so to Infants while such.

Mr. Whiston says that Baptism is not to be administered to adult or Infant, upon the account of election▪ We grant it; and Mr Whiston by this Concession, spoils the Argument drawn from Mar. 10.14. for Infant Baptism, for which I believe his brethren will reckon with him. We baptize none because they are elected, but because they profess Faith and Repentance

His Inference of the perpetuity of the Covenant as it respected Abraham's Natural seed, from the term [Generations] is vain: For that term holds forth a limited season, viz. During the legal Administration — In which sense the term [Generations] is frequently used as Levite. 3.17. and 6.18. and 23.41. &c. The term as it respected Abraham's spiritual seed, comprehends both the legal and Evangelical Dispensations; but what's that to Infants, who are in that sense his seed?

In concurrence to what we say, that Learned man Mr. William Strong is very pathetical in his Select Sermons Printed 1656. p. 333. on Gal. 4 21, 22, 23, 24. where he tells us.

1. That there are two Coverants, the 1. of Works, the 2. of Grace; typed by Sarah and Hagar.

2. That there are two sorts of persons in the world, under these two Covenants, the one born after the flesh, the other by promise: The one unregenerate, the other Regenerate.

3. That the first sort are in a state of bondage, the other in a state of freedom as the mothers were.

4. That no man can stand under both Covenants at the same time, no more then he can be born of two Mothers.

5. That from the first Covenant, there must be a translation to the second, and that supernatural.

This I briefly abstract, the Discourse at large is worth perusual, and gives a fatal blow to Paedobaptism, though perhaps Mr. Strong (who was a Paedobaptist ) was not thereof aware.

Object. But you •• say how are Infants saved then, if under a Covenant of Works.

I answer with Dr Taylor; That as we are sure God hath not commanded Infants to be baptized, so we are sure he will do them no Injustice, nor damn them for what they cannot help therein.

2. Baptism translates not to a state of Grace, unless in Conjunction with Faith — Therefore baptized Infants are never the nearer Salvation merely for their Baptism — And the same way they are saved when baptized; the very same way are the unbaptized Infants saved also; For the medium that proves the one, proves the other also.

Two or three other passages Mr. Whiston produces as Reasons, why he reckons Mr. Hutchinsons book useless as to the design carried on in it; But they are of the same strain with this; and therefore need no other answer.

P, 248. He charges Mr. Hutchinson with some Contradictions and absurdities, as his calling the Covenant of Grace and its administration two distinct Covenants, and his saying that Circumcision is a Covenant of works, from which (says Mr. Whiston) It will follow, that a Covenant of Works may be the administration of the Covenant of Grace, which is incongruous. To which I Reply.

It is before demonstrated (I hope undeniably) that the Covenant of Grace is immutable and everlasting — That in respect of its various administrations under Law and Gospel it is called two Covenants, New and Old — That the Covenant of Works (so called, under the Law administered to the Covenant of Grace in Types and Figures, of which Circumcision, being the head Ordinance, was Synechdocally called the Covenant, Gen. 17.10. And that the Covenant of of Grace is now under the Evangelical Dispensation administered in that purity and spirituality Typed out by the Law. Therefore what incongruity or absurdity is to be hereon chargeable, is to me unknown▪

He charges Mr. Hutchinson with another absurdity, for affirming Isaac to be the subject of the pr • mise made to Abraham as taken both ways, viz. as it resp • ct • d temporal and spiritual blessings. But if this be an absurdity (as I am sure it is not) Dr. Owen and other Protestant Divines are guilty of it. See Dr. Owen's Exercit on the Heb. p. 56. 1 Tom.

Two instances more he produces, but the same, or like this, therefore I pass them as frivolous.

What Mr. Whiston says further are but general evasions, in which I find nothing worth a Reply. But p. 253. he tells Mr. Hutchinson, That he greatly wrongs Dr Owen, insinuating that Mr. Danvers and he are unworthy men for wresting Authors words at such a rate; — adding that Dr. Owen su • poses Infants visibly in the Covenant, as the seed of parents visibly so.

Reply, That Mr. Hutchinson truly and faithfully quoted the Doctors Exer • itation word for word I can truly affirm; and he that will confer the quotation with the Doctors Book will find it so. Therefore, how can he be said to wrest the Doctors words? Mr. Wh • ston should recall that rash and incon • iderate expression.

2. What the Do • or supposes to Infants being in the Covenant, in his Judgment or practice concerns not the matter in hand. But I am certain he has not a word of that nature in that Exercitation, nor in the whole Book that I can find. And I am as certain, that the Doctors discourse of the Covenant, wholly excludes them from any such title. And if Mr. Whiston can no better reconcile the Doctors words to h • s Practice, he had better have held his peace.

Next he den • es that he ca •• s Mr. Danvers his Book all forg • ry, &c. By which I see he needs a good memory▪ And I refer the Reader to Mr. Whistons second Book. p. 56. where he says, that Mr. Danvers his Book will remain as a public evidence of his forgeries, falsities, &c. So Pref. 1, 2. he calls it a mere cheat, supported by fraud and guile, pref. p 4. false and disingenious, — proceeding from immodesty to impudence. p 8. •• rgeries designed to de • eive unwary Readers — p. 10. and p. 8. of the Book, he calls Mr. Danvers a knowing falsifier; without the actual fear of God before his eyes. p. 55. A downright falsifier p. 47. &c. Producing amaze of Nonsensical words, p. 69. one of the most unworthy and disingenuous men that ever put Pen to paper, p. 136. and more of this railing stuff. Which, whether it comports with Mr. Whistons profession, or suits with Gal. 6.1. Eph. 4.31. Tit. 3.2. Exod. 23.1. let his second thoughts inform him.

And how pitifully he hath made these high and extravagant Charges appear, is already very evident. And that Book he loads with these railing Epithites, will stand upon Record as a substantial confutation of this Ridiculous practice Mr. Whiston labors to support. And that Worthy person he traduces (in the esteem of persons eminent for piety, quality, and parts, ) deserves a quite contrary Character, then those uncivil scandalous and ill-applied reproachful terms Mr. Whiston disgorges. Discovering nothing more, then that he rails upon and reviles him, because he cannot answer him as his other Antagonists, Mr. Wills and Mr. Baxter did before him, supplying the want of Reason with Rage and Malice. Perhaps he'l tell us, that he wrote all this in the spirit of meekness. But for my part he'l hardly persuade me to believe it; nor will it gain credit with any sober person, unless he has that Grecian saith spoken of by Plautus in Asin. Let him therefore if it be his humor, please himself with such language, and deny it when he has done. I have almost done with him.

His Epilogue is somewhat pleasant: He tells Mr. Hutchinson. That if he can procure him a Certificate, that his Book deserves a more full consideration, he shall be gratified. — That's a notable Confutatian indeed from a wordy Author of Controvery! 'It is discreetly done however, to slight the Book he cannot answer. And I think he is like to have but little more provocation from us; for he has already said too much to little purpose.

The Preface.

MR. Wills in the Prologue to his Appeal, (that the world may see he walks by pattern ) produces the Example of the Quakers Appeal to the Baptists against Mr. Hicks as his Precedent. And I confess he has in some things exactly followed his Copy: For as the Quakers with great Outcry and Conndence provokit the Baptists to examine the Controversy then in hand, and to pass their Sentence; so with like heat and vehemence Mr. Wills falls into the same strain of rash and unrighteous accusation against Mr. Danvers. And as the Quakers (when a just Sentence was past against them, evidencing their Clamours to be Calumnies, yet) like obstinate, and incorrigible accusers, fall foul upon the persons they themselves had before invested their Judges, and with great wrath and severity arraign and condemn them, for speaking Truth: So Mr. Wills with Quaker-like insolence, because the persons Appealed to, did not please his Spleen in condemning Mr. Danvers, right or wrong; brands them with Ignorance and Partiality in a Paper lately published, Intituled, Censura Censurae.

That the Baptists acted with Christian equity and fairness in their Examination of the matter in Controversy, and with great care end pains searchit into the Authors quoted, I am as sure of, as I can be of anything, being an eye-witness to, and assistant in that work. And that their Answer to Mr. Wills was so Modest, that it is beyond the exception of a sober man, the thing itself impartially considered will evidence.

If it be inquired why the Subscribers of the Answer to Mr. Wills do not all concern themselves in a Vindication? I answer. — That they have already done what's needful in giving their Judgment in the things they ought to take cognizance of; And I know no Law, that oblidges them to the drudgery of confuting the Cavills of such an inconsiderate decuser. They are persons engaged in a greater and more necessary work, and to give themselves any further interruption in such a contest, is thought to be a needless task, and an intrenchment upon their more weighty Affairs. Having something else to do, then to attend the drudgery of drawing the saw with such a lamentable trifler.

I am (I confess) the weakest of them, yet Providence has been pleased to cast this task of their Vindication upon me. And Mr. Wills himself has given me a particular challenge and provocation, in making some exceptions against me, (distinct from the rest) which I am obliged to say something to. And I hope, if what I offer be demonstrative, the Reader will express so much equity as to judge of the matter in dispute from the evidence and reason of it, and not from the Authority or Number of the parties contending. To chose an opinion by voices is not safe. Error, when it becomes the darling of a man of parts (and such are frequently its Patrons) is set off with all the imbellishments, which the Schoolmen and Sciences can furnish him with, which gaudy paint makes it often cheat, (and pass for the truth with) vulgar eyes, who (gazing on its superficial dress) seldom discern Counterfeit from Current. Hence it happens that such become Heterodox; few receiving the naked and unadorn'd Truth when rival'd with asplended and specious error. Sophistry is but perverted logic; and that person that in his Disputations borrows his keenest weapons from it is to be suspected as being scarce sound. I have often found the Advocates of a bad cause (as Ribera expresses • it— Curam habent nitoris, cultusque verborum, venustatis & numerositatis sententiarum ) careful of their Cadencies, and the Handsomness of their style; that what's wanting of Native Beauty, may be made out with a supplement of Paint.

How far Mr. Wills has contracted the guilt of playing the Sophister, let his discerning Readers determine: For my part I think his greatest Excellency lies there, as far as appears to me in his published Treatises. And that he is a mere Word-pecker, is very obvious: For if he finds one misplac'd, misinserted, or by chance misapply'd (as oft happens with the most accurate, through the Transcriber or Printers fault) he glories and insults, as if he had gained an Olympic prize: Though his own Writings are obnoxious to the same Correction, as I could abundantly show if needful.

It is worth notice, that the main thing in Controversy (viz. the Antiquity of Infant Baptism ) is quite given up and forsaken by Mr. Wills, it being evident by Mr. Danvers, &c. That for the first 300 years, The Baptism of grown persons professing faith, was universally owned and practiced; and no Record of credit that assures us, that Infant Baptism was at all owned as Christ's ordinance. The most that can be said, is, that it was Creeping in, in the third Century, when Tertullian opposed it, and got some small footing by degrees, from the opinion of its necessity to salvation (and that from a fatal mistake of John 3.5. ) And in the year 416. received its instalment by human Authority; being imposed by a dreadful Anathema at the Milevitan Council. Certainly had it been the practice of the universal Church, Tertullian (the ancientest Latin Father) could not have opposed it, uncontradicted. And it is past doubt, that it was dislikit and cried down by many, when that Council sat, else their Canon was ridiculous and vain. The Eclcesiastical Empire was then upon its erection, and Paedobaptism was thought a necessary pillar to support it therefore was the opposite party from time to time crushit with these terrifying Canons and Curses. Now Mr. Wills having lost his Garrison, with incorrigible obstinacy, man's his Outworks, and Approaches, pouring out Contempt and Appeals, as if he would carry all by noise; but how such a re-attack shall prevail, is easy to be conjectured.

Had Mr. Wills accepted of Mr. Danvers's modest endeavors, to give him satisfaction in a private way, with promised assurance, that he would publicly recant any mistakes, which the closest scrutiny of indifferent persons, mutually chosen could bring to light; it had been a strong argument that he had sought to clear and defend Truth, not purchase Applause, &c. And had saved a great deal of labor and trouble.

But in Print he must be; yet has not the ingenuity and common honesty to retract, or repent for his own Noterious mistakes and falsehoods (so fully detected and enumerated by Mr. Danvers in his Writings, particularly in his Rejoined. from p. 49. to 77. whilst he has the confidence (not to say impudence) with so much severity, to take by the throat, and exact from him the utmost mite, yea and that for mistakes of his own making too which he so unjustly Fathers upon him.

Discovering hereby his folly and shamful partiality, that whilst as concerning his own errors, he can overlook Beams, swallow Camels, and leap over Mountains, He can with such an Eagle eye discover the Motes, strain at the Gnats, & magnify the Male-hills of others.

The notority whereof you will find further Exemplified in the following pages by

A just Reproof to Mr. Obed Will's, &c.

IN p. 14: of our Answer to Mr. Will's Appeal, after we had as mildly treated him, and with as much impartiality as was possible; we made a motion to him, that if he thought himself concerned to appear any further in the Controversy, he would be persuaded that things may be transacted in an amicable and friendly way, which we hoped may tend to our mutual satisfaction, in the clearing up of truth, and to cherish that love, that all that fear the Lord should bear each other, though differing in some things. Yet notwithstanding, he comes forth in such a Contemptuous, Sarcastical, and Insulting spirit, as if that mode of writing were the very Sinews of his undertaking, and of the essence of his faculty. Which I shall mention only once for all, and betake myself more immediately to the matter of his Censure, having neither leisure, nor will to strive with him for mastery in such Rhetoric.

1st. He says p. 5. That we accuse him for what was never brought to our Bar. But if he must needs call us forth, without any seeking of ours, and invest us with a power to Judge his Appeal, he must give us leave also, (which is not denied to any in that Capacity, as appealed unto) to hint unto him what Circumstances we found, that made his grievance not so notirious as he pretended, and the antecedent passages that argued him precipitant, and the Defendent far from Contumacious.

2ly. He says we borrow our accusations from Mr. Danvers Preface. But suppose we had, that's no excuse sufficient for him: For he should have disprov'd the things if untrue. We noted them from our own knowledge of the truth of them, and not merely because Mr. Danvers said so.

His talk that we gave Mr. Danvers's Judgment, not our own; and that the things brought to our Bar, we carried back to his; is utterly untrue: For we consulted with him no more then the nature of the matter before us required; Nor did we hold any Intelligence with him, but what consisted with Justice and Impartiality. We were obliged in equity to hear him, before we could proceed to a determination: For Alteram andire partem, is allowed in every Law. And that our answer was à capite ad Calcem of Mr. Danvers forming, as Mr. Will's has the confidence to publish, p. 8 is a gross falsehood, and his Inference of our Collusion, unrighteous; His very parallels confute him; We must needs have the same matter, as far as we treat upon the same thing; yet our expressions are not of Mr. Danvers's framing.

Whether Mr. Will's hath done such great service, as he boasts of p. 6. in detecting Mr. Danvers his mistakes, any further then what are acknowledged, is left to understanding Readers to determine. What we found fault with, in Mr. Will's his appeal, deserves a smarter reprehension then we gave him. Mr. Danvers truly, and sufficiently demonstrates it; and Mr. Will's answers it not but with an excuse of little weight. For if Mr. Danvers upon a private intimation, had retracted publicly, what he misrepresented, why may it not be as satisfactory, as if after this public, and clamerous way of detection? We know no reason to the contrary; but that then perhaps Mr Wills might miss of the glory of the Conquest he fancies he has obtained, and the opportunity of making this Ostertation of his parts.

His own method he is left to follow • ; But that method of an Appeal, that accepts of no treatment with the person charged, and yet cries out for Justice, is most irregular, if squared with the rule of God in cases of offense, Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. And if Mr. Will's find nor the Apellatees contumacy, to be a necessary circumstance in the Lawyers Definition of an Appeal, yet he may find it in Christ's directions in cases of Appeal, in the text cited; Yea so necessary, that no appeal must be made, but upon the Criminals refusal to hear, Mat. 18.16. &c. And surely that Pattern ought to challenge more of our Conformity, then the Lawyers Maxims, which are not to teach us Divinity. Hence we made a Difference of the binds of Appeals, which Mr. Will's might have understood, if he had been candid, when we said An appeal in these cases, viz. Religions Contests, which is not his Lawyers business to Define. Now whether that Law above mentioned be not against the form of Mr. Will's his Appeal, is left to his more serious consideration.

But he tells us p. 7. That if we had considered things as we ought, we might have seen good caust for his way of procedure. And gives 4 Instances to prove Mr. Danvers Contumacious; Three from the Magdeburgs, and a quotation from Luther.

To which it is replied, that the three instances from the Magdeburgs afford no Justification of Mr. Will's his procedure. For any judicious Reader will find upon perusal of the 1st. of those places he cites, that Mr. Danvers is guilty of no greater mistake, then not observing an exact variation of the character; which Mr. Will's knows is too often the Printers fault, (and his own Books are not free from it) For which Mr. Danvers makes amends enough, in owning publicly the words to be his own.

2ly. As to that of adding the word [only] Mr. Danvers gives a very satisfactory Return to it, in his Reply p. 32. (and Rejoyned p. 54, 55.) His words being a necessary Consequence from the Magdeburgs speech, who expressly say — Baptizatos esse adultos exempla probant, and, de Infantibus baptizatis exempla annotata non leguntur, which put together amounts to what he says, viz. That the Magdeburghs find only examples for adult baptism viz. In the Scripture instances they produce. Therefore it is strange that Mr. Will's should insist with so much Obstinacy upon this particular.

3ly. As to the third, that Mr. Danvers quoted those pages 125, 126. as relating to the superstitious rites, may (without any such impossibility as Mr. Will's talks of) be understood by a mean Reader. And surely none but a man of Cavil would insinuate it, as such a Justification, for so irregular, and clamerous an Appeal as his is, if you read Mr. Danvers Treat. p. 101. Reply p. 36. and Rejoinder p. 71.

4ly. As to the Quotation from Luther, as we compared it with the plain and well grounded Treatise Mr. Danvers mentions p. 40. Rejoined. whence he took it, and which we found to be word for word, as he expressed, and where it seems it was misquoted, so, we are satisfied he is therein no forger. And though he mentioned it not in his Reply, yet one mistake not owned, will scarce be enough to vindicate Mr. Will's his procedure; (and his refusing the civil accommodation tendered him) to rectify all mistakes as in his Preface to Rejoinder most amply appears: And let it be considered that if one mistake, not owned by a sufficient ground to render a person contumacious and stubborn, and will justify an Appeal against him. Then what will those many do which Mr. Danvers in his Rejoined. p. 21. to 77. charges upon Mr. Will's? In that appeal to his conscience for his Impenitency, for Backbiting, Scoffing, Railing salfe Accusation Slandering, Prevarication, Forgery, Mistranslation, &c. As demonstrated by divers instances out of his Writings.

Yet let it withal be understood as to that one particular, had Mr. Will's had but had so much patience to have heard Mr. Danvers Answer thereto, as is so fully expressed in his Rejoinder before he had Appealed, he had doubtless saved himself and others the trouble thereof.

So that upon a candid survey of these four passages, nothing can be found in them to justify Mr. Wills his rash and inconsiderate procedure.

That we consulted with the party accused for a sentence (which he bids us deny if we can, p. 10.) is not demonstrated by his Instances, compared with this Reply. And is hereby denied, and hope a bare Negation will be deemed as valid, as the unprov'd assertion of a man, that shows himself so frequently halting in this kind, as (to an indifferent Reader ) may easily appear.

He tells us p. 10. That there is much in our dealing with his Appeal that looks like partiality, of which he pretends to give a fourfold Instance. In remarking some things in his Appeal as false and Injurious, or unfit, and passing by in silence some things in Mr. Danvers of the same or like nature.

Reply, If Mr. Wills had considered things with candor and sobriety, he might have known, that it was our work to give Judgment only in matter of fact disputed by them both, and such as were Mr. Wills his mistakes, and never owned so, was our part to remark to him in order to his acknowledgment. Whereas there was not the like reason to remark Mr. Danvers his mistakes, they being already owned in Print. For which we made a sufficient Apology in our answer p. 13. No more being required from us, but to bring Mr. Danvers to such a public acknowledgment. And Mr. Wills his bare saying, that Mr. Danvers his answers to some of them, are not only weak, but untrue, is no proof, that they are so.

2ly. In giving our Judgments only upon part of his Appeal, and passing by others, as the strange Doctrines he charges upon him, which Mr. Will's says we slightly answer.

Reply, For this also we give the Reason, p. 14. Because they were things Controverted ( viz. betwixt us and Paedobaptists, who sometimes bestow that Epithet upon some Doctrines which we own not to be so) And it were as proper for Mr. Will's to put the Question, whether Infants Baptism be lawful to our Decision as these things. And to put it out of doubt, Mr. Danvers his answer to them is owned to be good and substantial Rejoinder, p. 49, 50, 51. And our saying they were Collateral, is no untruth; the grand Question before us, being, Whether Mr. Danvers was such a falsister as his accuser pretended; and not whether Infant Baptism was lawful: For to put that Cuestion to us, would be Ridioulous. And whether what we mention about the Milevitan Canon, be so Collateral, as Mr. Will's pretends, shall be considered in its due place.

3ly. In taking Mr Danvers words for Answers to some of the particulars in his Appeal, and for sufficient answers to the trivial and insignificant.

Reply, — If Mr. Danvers his answers were full and proper, here lies no just charge against us, nor any instance of partiality. And when Mr. Will's demonstrates they were not so, it shall be considered.

4ly. As to what relates to myself, I refer you to my particular defense made afterwards by itself.

Next Mr. Will's, having, as he says (though untruly) manifested our Partiality, comes to show that Mr. Danvers his acknowledgments are not so ingenuous as we make them; And

1st. About the passage of Nazianzen Baptizandos peccata sua confiteri solitos, which Mr. Danvers owns should be Translated, The Baptized were wont to confess their sins. And what would Mr. Will's have more? Would he have Mr. Danvers say he prevaricated, when his Conscience tells him no such matter? Or can Mr. Wih's make out, that that sense Mr. Danvers deduced is not to be Consequently drawn from that expression?

2ly. Mr. Danvers his acknowledging his error about Deus Dedit, prevented that fear of Mr. Will's, that the Reader might conclude that gifts were given by the Baptized to the Church, and his guessing happily thereby that none were Baptized, but the adult. And is not that enough?

3ly. As to the quotation out of Walden about Wycliffe, the thing charged upon Mr. Danvers, was, That he made Walden say, that Wycliffe’s Doctrine was very agreeable to the Doctrine of former Heretics, as Pelagius, &c. App. p. 173. Which he owned to be his mistake. And what could we expect more from him? It was not our business to launch into the Controversy, whether Wycliffe opposed Infant Baptism &c. That must be sub judice. Though by the way, since Mr. Wills acknowledges that Wycliffe and the Albegois did deny that Infants were to be Baptized with Water, as necessary to their Salvation; has himself confirmed the truth of the thing, till he make appear that the Paedohaptists in those days did upon any other ground Baptize their Infants. Which Mr. Timbes and Mr. Danvers have so often called for. That of the Faederal right, which the Protestant Paedobaptists have so boasted of, being but of yesterday; never heard of as said, till Zwinglius time. And as to Mr. Will's his talk, that we never examined the History of these things, it is untrue, and just of the complexion of the rest.

4ly. That mistake about Zonaras, p. 41. is also owned; and if Mr. Will's in his own conceit magnifies it as no such trifle; he must give us, and others, the liberty of our thoughts

5ly. The mistake about Lanifrank, Mr. Danvers very honestly owned, and intended to rectify it before Mr. Will's minded him of it; which is enough to satisfy any man of common ingenuity. And those other untruths Mr. Will's found complicated there (as he says) were acknowledged in the grand error that produced them, and could no more injure any afterwards, then branches can grow, when the root is taken away.

6ly. The mistake of Sericius for Hi • omarus is also owned, which was to us enough; though the following words of Mr. Danvers should be omitted.

Next Mr. Will's comes to show, That the particulars in his Appeal, which we call trivial and insignificant, deserve not those epithetes: And that Mr. Danvers his answers, which we make our own, are very insufficient to satisfy an Impartial Reader.

Reply, In regard Mr. Will's makes the greatest Flourish, and • angling about the particulars he brings under this head; I shall offer these few considerations to all impartial men, in justification of our procedure herein.

1st That the thing charged upon Mr. Danvers was forgery and perverting of Authors, which indeed is a great charge, and reflects much infamy upon the Cause that must be beholden to such props for its support.— And that Mr Wills • n these particulars made that charge good, doth not yet appear.

2ly: It is acknowledged Mr. Danvers was in some particulars mistaken, which we found him very willing to own, as publicly as he had before delivered them; and which, as far as he was convinced of, are acknowledged in his Rejoinder, but how inconsiderable the Reader can best judge.

3ly. It must be declared (that as far as we are capable to judge, both from the experience of his Integrity, Candor, and piety, as well as our tracing him upon this occasion, in his quotations) we could not find any of his mistakes to proceed from that principle Mr. Wills insinuates, Infant Bapt. p. 57. viz. That he will not refuse the most sordid, and shameful ways to promote his cause; or that he knowingly misrepresented any of his Authors. And we cannot but judge Mr. Will's an egregious over-lasher, in that confident assertion, p. 34. of the same book viz. That never any writer did more prevaricate, or show more falsehood then he hath done; and that he would certainly have forborne it, if he had thought any man would have been at the trouble to examine and search, whether he spoke truth or not. But,

4ly. Inasmuch as we found no such weight in the particulars under this head, as Mr. Will's would suggest, to prove his charge of prevarication, but on the contrary, an enumeration of Cavilling exceptions of no great affinity to the general charge of Forgery, &c. And in our Judgments for the most part sufficiently defended by Mr. Danvers, we thought no law, did oblige us to condemn him for a Forger, from such instances as carried no sufficient evidence in them, that he was so. And therefore these particulars coming so far short, of what Mr. Will's produced them for; what fitter Epithets could we give them, then that they were trivial and insignisicant, and merited not a second Confutation?

But since Mr. Will's now falls upon us, the said particulars shall be reviewed, and the naked sense given of them, and so discharge any further transaction, in such contests, with so unreasonable an opposite. And if Mr. Will's will have the last word, I think I shall not quarrel with him for it.

And as for his menace of an answer to Mr. Danvers Rejoinder, it is like his way of dealing, and scarce to be reconciled to the Conclusion of his first preface vind. Where he gives security for his future silence. But if the Circumstances he supposeth his Antagonist is under, may encourage Mr. Will's, to revive his clamours, and perpetuate, the quarrel, we hope If his attempts be worth opposition) truth shall not want an Advocate, that may disappoint this i • vader of the Trophyes he promises himself in its spoil. But to the matter,

1st. Mr. Danvers having quoted a passage from Bellarmine, to show that Apostolical tradition was esteemed the principal ground of Infant Baptism, (it seems) omitted that saying— deducitur evidenter ex Scriptures. And Dr. Fields saying, (after such another expression) that the Scriptures deliver us the ground of it Mr. Will's though he pleads for himself in the like case, Vind. p. 7. accuses him for it App. p. 162. To which 'tis said, that in all such cases, to prevent Cavil and offense, it were better; if the entire sentence were always expressed. But the Circumstances that made this appear to us, to have, no great weight in it, were these, 1st. Mr. Danvers sets down Rep. p. 74. these words of Bellarmine omitted before, of which we were bound to take notice, being a Book precedent to Mr. Will's his appeal, and before any reproof for the omission. as we can find.

2ly. It is evident the Jesuit urged Tradition for their practice of Paedobaptism; And that phrase was but a faint Insinuation, that it may be gathered from Scripture, viz. Joh. 3.5. and such mistaken places. And the quotation was pertinently enough applied, if Mr. Will's his example were a sufficient excuse for those that imitate him, in giving only what Authors say to the matter in hand.

But in Mr. Danvers his Answer in his Rejoinder p 25. here are two new errors charged 1. That he says he quoted Bellarmine under the head of Tradition. 2. That he quotes the passages before omitted, under the head of Consequences p. 74. Reply.

1st. 'It is true, the term [Tradition] is not mentioned in the Contents of that Chapter, but there is that that's equivalent, viz. The Scriptures total silence about Infant Baptism; with the necessity of Scripture warrant to Authorize every Ordinance. For both which branches several Authors are produced; And Bellarmine for the first, which he expressly owns, viz. That there is no express Scripture for it, though he pretends it may be deduced from thence.

That Mr. Danvers quotes that passage Rep. p. 74. (as before) Mr. Will's owns, being not able to contradict it. And though the Chapter or Section, has not the term [consequence] mentioned, no more then the other [Tradition,] Yet the Marginal note expresses it to be a Tradition (as they word it) gathered from the Scriptures — which is the same with them as Consequence. So that upon the whole matter, it doth nor appear how this charge can be advanced to any other title then trivial and insignificant, nor can we expect that labor can turn to any great account, that's spent in consulting such a mere Catching at words.

2ly. 'It is true, we find not Dr. Field expressly quoted in that 74th. page; Yet it is to be considered that it is plainly refer'd to. For Mr. Danvers drawing a Parallel between the Popish and Protestant Paedobaptists, says thus p. 74. Do the Papists affirm that notwithstanding it is a Tradition or custom of the Church, yet that it is plainly enough gathered out of the Scriptures, viz. from Circumcision; for which he quotes Bellarmine. And then adds — so doth Mr. Will's for the Protestants say (who in p. 105, 106, 107, 108. Infant Baptism gives their sentiments from Rivet, Calvin, Dr. Field, the later in this very quotation word for word, all which Mr. Danvers sums up) that notwithstanding there is neither precept nor practice expressly written in the Scripture, yet it is gathered thence by consequence, as coming in the room of Circumcision; and therefore that Infants have a right to Baptism, from the right that Infants had to Circumcision Mr. Will's p. 105. Now Mr. Danvers referring to the place where Mr. Will's quotes the Protestants, one of which was Dr. Field, referred necessarily also to Dr. Field there, which the matter disputed, must needs lead the enquiring Reader to; And though it were better in order to prevent the Cavils of such as lie at Catch to be more express in references, yet we conceive a Candid and Judicious Reader will have better thoughts of Mr. Danvers in this particular, then what are suggested by an Antagonist, that so ground lesly perserveres in his severe and unjust inculcations of unfaithfulness in Mr. Danvers, and partiality in us; and that without stronger demonstration then such frivolous Instances as this, and what are ejusdem farinae.

2ly. As to the passage of Dr. Owen, Mr. Danvers his answer is full and proper, and satisfactory (doubtless) to any ingenious Reader, as appears in his Reyonder p. 25, 26. It being indeed needless to add anymore thereto.

3ly. Mr. Will's Appeals to the Reader p. 22, 23: Whether the passages about Lydia, Beza and Ames App. p. 167. be so trivial and insignificant as we make them. And which is also left to be determined at that Tribunal, whether they be not indeed so? Or have evidenced enough in them, to prove Mr. Danvers a forger?

Next he Renews his Charge of Self-contradiction against Mr. Danvers, viz. That if he made the ground of the Corinthians scruple 1 Cor. 7.4. To arise from the instance of putting away strange Wives in Ezra and Nehemiah's time, it was a plain contradiction to make the words [ else were, &c] an Argument ab absurdo, because from those Instances they could conclude no otherwise, but that their children were Bastards, and to be put away; And then desires such of us, as know what an Argument abassurdo is, to exercise our reason about this matter, and again affirm it no contradiction, if we can, and the Instance trivial and insignificant.

Reply, What Mr. Will's calls a contradiction here, appears not so to be, but the contrary. For the Jews being under a strict inhibition to marry with strange wives, or mix with the Gentiles as appears Ezra. 10.2. &c. and Neh. 13.27. &c. Yet transgressed against the Lord in that particular, and began a Reformation in Ezra's time. Which practice of old, questionless gave ground to the Corinthians scruple, whether the believing husband or wife may cohabit with the unbelieving Yokefellow. Which doubt the Apostle Resolves in the affirmative; as if he had told them, 'tis true, you were strictly prohibited under the law to cohabit with strange wives; but that was under a Dispensation, which is now relaxt: And the end of such a prohibition [viz. to keep the people of whom according to the flesh, the Messiah was to come, unmixed with the Idolatrous Nations ] is now come to pass, as so the cohabiting with a strange or unbelieving Yokefellow, which was then a sin, is not so now; and the issue of such a marriage, is not illigitimate now, as it was then; Therefore the relation is mutually sanctified, else (that is, had not the Gospel dispensation taken off the legal inhibition aforesaid, and the Relation were not so sanctified your children were unclean, (that is, the issue of an unlawful bed;) but now, [the Gospel dispensation allowing this Cohabitation] are they holy; that is, not the product of an unlawful marriage, as in Ezra, and Nehemians time, but legitimate. And therefore the Apostle uses an Argument ab absurdo (which is drawn from the absurdity following the contrary practice) to persuade them to dwell together, that so they might not fall into the absurdity, they were by their separation thinking to avoid; the way to have an unhallowed issue, being now contrary to what it was in Ezra's time, viz. theirs was so by cohabiting, but ours by separation.

Therefore where to find any other contradiction here, then what is between the two dispensations of Law and Gospel, we cannot yet discover. Was it Contradiction in the Apostle to satisfy the seruple of his doubting Gorinthians, and to show them, that the way they would take to escape an absurdity, was to fall into it? Certainly this charge is easily avoided, and the Contradiction found there, if any, degenerates from its definition given by Aristotle l. 1. poster. c. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So that I conclude there is no inconvenience in affirming this instance to be still trivial and insignificant.

Mr. Will's his next instance of self contradiction is as p. 24. That Mr. Danvers tells us [from Sabastin Franck ] 2 Ed. p. 231. That about the year 610. Children's Baptism was held in many places of little esteem [by the learned endeavors of Adrianus and others] And yet in his Reply p. 140. He tells us [ viz. from Austin ] That Infants Baptism was universally received in the 7 Age [in other parts of the World] to beget them to regeneration [as imposed by the Church of Rome —

But as to this Mr Will's would do well to consider that the contradiction (if any) lies betwixt his two Authors Austin and Franck. And which kind of scruings may be very unsafe, least absurdity be reflected upon the Scriptures themselves; who tell us in one place, that the Disciples went out preaching the word in every place Mar. 16.20. Act. 8.4. And yet again that the Ap. Paul afterwards preached in many places where the word had not been preached Rom. 15.14.20. And that Infants Baptism itself, as Mr. Danvers observes may be of little esteem in many places in England where so universally imposed and received in every Parish: A sign how hard Mr. Will's was put to it when he went so far, and yet could find no greater contradiction then this.

5ly. As for Innocents giving Divine honor to the Popedom, 'tis true, we find not the Original words literally bear any such thing, though he joined Peter with God himself in his invocation. And the veneration Papists give Peter, as they fancy him to be their Proto-Pope induced Mr. Danvers to think Innocent addrest his adoration to him as such, he not mentioning any other Saint.

6ly. In the Quotation from Vossius App. p. 108. Mr. Will's is grossly out. Mr. Danvers said 2 Ed. p: 118, 119. That Vossius informeth us from good authority, that from Austin to Bernard's time, seven or eight hundred years the Custom was to Baptize naked, both men, women, and children, with the reasons usually given by the Ancients for the same, viz. That they might therein be as in the state of Innocency, and as naked in their second as at their first Birth; and as they expected to be in heaven, and therein no otherwise then Christ was upon the Cross, which you may read at large in p. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36. quoting these several authorities to justify it, Cyril, &c. (Mr. Danvers mentions all p. 119.

In our former examination of this Charge, finding Mr. Wills under a mistake, we let it pass under that remark of trivial and insignificant, but since he is not contented therewith, it shall now be demonstrated, that Mr. Will's his accusation, was not only trivil, but a gross falsehood, and therefore he had better have been satisfied, with our first Answer. For,

1st. In Mr. Will's his quotation of Mr. Danvers, he disingenuously conceals the later part, which plainly evidences that Mr. Danvers gave only the sum of what's largely insisted upon by Vossius in the said pages, and should necessarily be inserted. But Mr. Will's saw, that that would spoil his charge. And let any man of common reason judge, whether it be not an unrighteous and unhandsome procedure in Mr. Wills, thus to frame a charge of his own, and produce a large quotation from Vossins, insinuating that Mr. Danvers had mistranslated it; whereas Mr. Danvers only takes a few words out of that quotation, and the following pages comprehending the substan • e thereof, which he faithfully gives.

2ly. As to the matter of fact in Controversy, viz. Whether the Ancients gave those as the reasons, for Baptizing naked, whichr M. Danvers asserts, and Mr. Wills denies, charging Mr. Danvers with ignorance and gross perversion, of that quotation, is certainly Mr. Wills's gross perversion, if not ignorance; as these instances clearly prove, and as clearly Justify Mr. Danvers.

Vossius in his • hes. Theol. Edit Bellositi Dobunorum 1628. p. 350. &c. and in the Ed. quoted by Mr. Danvers p. 32, 33. &c. Cites Cyril, Hierosol, Catech, ystag. 11. Statim igitur ut ingressi estis vestem exvistis, quod quidem exuti hominis antiqui cum operibus suis imago fuit. Atque ita exuti, eratis nudi, imitantes & in hac eum, qui in cruce nudatis fuerat, Christum — that is; Therefore as soon as you were entered, you put off your Clothes, which was indeed the signification of your putting off the Old man, with his works; which being so put off, ye were naked, so imitating Christ, who was naked upon the Cross. And a little further — nudi fuistis in conspectu omnium, & non vos pudebat, Revera in hoc enim protoplasti Adam ferebatis exemplum, quia nudus in paradiso fuit, & tamen nullo afficiebatur pudore, that is, ye were naked in the sight of all men, and were not ashamed, in which you did truly hold forth the example of your first parent (or first formed) Adam, who was naked in Paradise, and was not ashamed. So Amphilochius in the life of Bazil, writing thus of him — Petebat adeo aliquod suae fidei signum ostendi: surgensque cum tremore, suis se vestibus spoliat, unáque cum vestibus, veterem exuit hominem — that is — he besought of God that some sign of his faith may be shewn, and arising with fear, disrobes himself of his apparel, and with his Clothes, put off the old man, Ergo (says Vossius ) eo quod vestimenta exuebant, mystice significabatur veterem, exui hominem — that is — therefore in as much as they put off their Cleathes, the putting off the old man was mystically signified. And to this purpose several other Fathers are Cited; concluding with a passage from Bernard's 46 Sermon de paupertate — Ideo nudi nascimur in hoc saeculo, nudi etiam accedimus ad Baptismum, ut nudi & sine impedimento perveniamus ad Caelum — that is — Therefore we come naked into this world, and naked do we approach Baptism, that naked and without any impediment we may come to heaven.

Now is it not evident that the Ancients baptized naked (as Mr. Danvers says) to signify the state of innocence, and that they may be as naked in their second, as at their first birth, &c. And if so, is not Mr. Wills his charge false and injurious? and his Reflection upon us, (of partial and inconsiderate ) rash, and unrighteous? And if he has read Vossius, how can he clear himself from ignorance or dishonesty, so to misrepresent him? or if he has not read those pages, how unfit is he to control or correct those that have?

7ly. As to the Quotation about Arnobius, I cannot Judge Mr. Wills his quarrel about it, to be any other then an instance of his unrighteous vociferation — for Mr. Danvers rold him he mentioned that some only of those that followed where taken from the Magdeburgs, and if Arnobu • be not there, how could he take him thence, But under this head it may be necessary to prevent further Cavils of this nature, to acquaint the Reader that Mr. Danvers sometimes, when he takes some quotations from the Magdeburgs, adds also (as in this particular, and that from Jerome. 2 Ed. p. 56. and that of Bazil p. 55. and some few others) some quotations; from the original Authors themseives, not taken from the Magdeburgs; and sometimes takes part of a quotation from the Magdeburghs, and adds to it out of the Original, which indeed should be so mentioned, in distinction from what he borrows from the Magdeburghs; though Ingenuous and Candid Readers would have recourse to the Authors themselves whom he mentions, in their examinations, before the publication of their Censures; yet it were better to prevent those that are not Ingenuous from this ground of Cavil by mentioning particularly what he took from the Magdeburgs and what from the Originals.

8ly. As to what Mr. Wills complains about himself p. 27. of his Censure that Mr. Danvers patched up words at a 100 pages distant, to make him say that Infant Baptism may be lawful because not forbidden in Scriptures. I say that I find what Mr. Danvers quoted as Mr. Will's Speech, is truly recited, and Mr. Danvers only gathers from Mr. Wills that he insinnates such a thing, and Mr. Wills his words seem to lookas if he would have such an inference take place, though in direct terms not so worded as Rep. p. 93. to which I refer, and to Rejoined. p. 43.

9ly. As to the phrase, is puerum sine baptismo mortuum resusitârit ex mortuis & tandem baptizarit; It is granted the most genuine Interpretation is, that he raised a child that died unbaptized from the dead and Baptized him. And Mr. Danvers denys it not, only pleads for an equal liberty of offering the Reasons that induced him to that translation, and remark which is but fair to allow him.

10ly. As to the Synod of Illerdon in Spain, we found by the restimony of two able persons in the Dutch Tongue, that Mr. Danvers had it from that Dutch Martyrology cited a sew lines below it. p. 114. And Mr. Danvers citing it from thence acquits him from the Charge of forging or perverting it. And if they that inserted it there misapply it, they ought to bear the blame.

11ly. Next Mr. Wills p. 30. repeats his charge of strdnge Doctrines, and conceals Mr. Danvers his answers to them which is scarce honest dealing. But the Reader is referred to Mr. Danvers his Rejoinder p. 49, 50, 51. For an Answer to this Charge.

At length Mr. Wills p. 31. comes to vind cate the particular instances we remark to him. And 1st. makes an Apology for leaving out part of Nazianzens sentence; to which it was said that the reason of that remark was to make him sensible, that he should not bear so severely upon Mr. Danvers for such matters, as he himself was guilty of, as that particular was a proper instance of; and that it is but equity in him to take the same plea he himself makes use of. As for his calling Mr. Danvers his address to him about the passage in Bazil (trepanning,) is doubtless an expression that argues Cholar and passion, which commonly overmaster judgment and charity too. But how candid Mr. Danvers was therein, let p. 74. of Rejoinder be considered.

2dly. Next he endeavors to excuse his stopping his translation out of Calvin, which we mention to him p. 4. And says, He translated so much of it as might satisfy any that bad the use of their reason, that Calvin owned it was nowhere expressly mentioned (viz. Insant Baptism) therefore although, &c. Clearly implied it.

Reply, • st. If Calvin owned (as Mr. Wills is forced to confess) that there was no express Scripture for the practice, what ground had he to accuse Mr. Danvers for so representing hith?

2dly. An English Reader might be imposed upon, though having the use of his reason, notwithstanding Mr. Wills his For although, &c. His talk that our affection to our Champion would not suffer us to be so just a • to blame Mr. Danvors, is a sarcastick and groundless surmise. Mr. Danvers says that Calviz confesses, no Infants were by the Apostles bands baptized; which is true, and appears from the very Latin Quotation cited by Mr. Wills, p. 161, 162. Appeal Therefore how could we blame Mr. Danvers for speaking truth?

3dly. As to his excuse about charging Mr. Danvers for adding to Jerome, whereas the words (as we found) were Verbatim his; cannot be esteemed so plausible as to acquit Mr. Wills, who should (before so rash an assertion, that the words were not Jeromes) examine Jerome himself. Mr. Danvers says some, not all that follows, are given by the Magdebargs. Though 'tis confessed, it were better (as said before) if what he took from them, and what from the Originals they refer to, were so specified.

4ly. Whether Mr. Wills his palliation of leaving out Estins Ann. Gen. 17.7 at the end of the Quotation fathered upon Calvin, be sufficient to cover so willful an abuse, we leave the Judicious Reader to determine. And judge Mr. Wills his senseless shifting it over, not worth while to detect.

5ly. As to the Quotation from Dr. Hammond, Mr. Wills was mistaken in affirming so confidently that Mr. Danvers misquoted it; whereas he did not, as was demonstrated Rejoined. p. 31. with some concurrent passages, that evidenced Dr. Hammond was of that mind sully (as of truth he ought.) And if Mr. Wills esteems that first, a worse edition, we are not of his mind in that particular: For we judge that passage as it is altered to contain an untruth, as may be easily demonstrated; and the Drs. first to be sound and consonant to the most Orthodox Writers, and to himself also in the same thing. 'It is true some of us saw a late Edition of the Drs. Annotations, wherein that passage was as Mr. Wills quoted: but being Printed since the Drs. death, we knew not but it may be an alteration of some others making, and so not to be regarded, having an undoubted Book before us. Nor did we see that Review Mr. Wills speaks of. And so could not tell where more properly to place the mistake then at Mr. Wills his door; who should of right examine the first Edition too (and later Editions always put in mind of a former) before he had so presumptuously exhibited an accusation; and backed it, with so heedless and untrue a Remark as App. p 171.

6ly. Next Mr. Wills would clear himself for leaving out [pa • v • lis] in the quotation from Walden. And if his excuses in relation to it be sufficient, let the Reader acquit him. We think it needless to make his winding shifts to get off any reply. He lays, if it be an error, it is venial, and not willful. Be it so, but to us it appeared suspiciously, that he should leave out that word, and take the words going before, and coming after.

7ly. Our producing that Milevitan Canon from the Collectione Regia, was to convince Mr. Wills and his Readers that Mr. Danvers forged it not. And indeed all the error Mr. Danvers is guilty of, is, that he did not originally quote the Regia Collectione where it is, for it, which he rectifies Rejonder p. 37. But Mr. Wills says, we are mistaken when we affirm this to be an Anathema against those that held children might be saved without Baptism; and to make his assertion believed, mangles the Caron and perverts it grossly; disjoining words in a continued sentence most disingenuously to serve his turn. To evidence which, we will here again recite the Canon, and translate it. 2. We will show Mr. Wills his interpretation to be false, and not to be with any show of sense Grammatically gathered from the words. The Canon is.

Item placuit, ut siquis dicit, ideo dixisse dominum; In domo Patris mei mansiones multae sunt, ut intelligatur, quia in Regno Caelorum, erit aliquis medius, aut ullus, alicubi locus, ubi beat vivant parvuli, qui sine baptismo ex hac vita migrârunt sine quo in regno Caelorum quod est vita aeterna intrare non possunt, Anathema sit, that is It also pleaseth us, that whosoever affirms, that the Lord therefore said, In my Fathers house are many mansions, that it may be understood, that in the Kingdom of Heaven there will be some middle or any other place, where little ones may live blessedly, who departed this life without Baptism; without which they cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, which is eternal life, let him be accursed.

Now is it not as clear as the day, that the persons against whom this Anathema was made, held, that Children dying unbaptized were to be received into the Kingdom of Heaven, grounding their upon conceit the text recited in the Canon viz. In my Fathers house are many mansions — Though they sancyed that such Infants should enjoy some distinct place there from others. And if the must have any place in the Kingdom of Heaven, then certainly they are saved — unless Mr. Wills can with some new Criticism distinguish Regnum Caelorum, from Regnum Caelorum, the Kingdom of Heaven, from the Kingdom of Heaven.

But Mr. Wills says, Those persons Anathematized, held that Infants who died without Baptism, cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; and recites that part of the Canon to prove it— qui sine baptismo ex hac vita migrârunt, in regne caelerum quod est vita aeterna intrare non possunt.

Reply, But the quite contrary is true; and it is very strange that Mr. Wills should so confidently betray either his ignorance or dishonesty, thus to interpret the Canon, and impose his mistake with such a face upon his Reader: For I appeal to any man that understands the Grammatical construction of a Latin phrase, whether he doth not grossly pervert it? And his beginning at qui sine baptismo, &c. giving it as an entire sentence, is deceitfully done. For these words have an immediate connection to the preceding words, and cannot without a manifest intention of perverting them, be taken disjunctive from them, not being divided by so much as a Comma: And they are indeed the sense and opinion of the Anathema makers themselves, not of those they curse, who (its apparent) held, That Infante may enter into the Kingdom of Heaven without Baptism. And for that cause was this Anathema framed against them. And so we dismiss this particular, referring the Keader to our Answer, p. 8, 9. and Mr. Danvers his Rejoinder p. • 7. where it is sully spoken to. Where you have the words of the Councils Letter to Innocent, and his decretal Letter to them again, so expressly demonstrating the grounds of the Anathema to be, That some did then assert that Children might be saved, or enter into the Kingdom of Heaven without Baptism.

8ly. As to the passage about Bazil, I gave already a hint that this is one of the quotations which Mr. Danvers should express as taken from its Original, not from the Magdeburgs; and 'tis like that of Jerome before mentioned. Mr. Danvers cites Bazil as saying, that Faith must needs precede and go before Baptism. And we find the words as we cited them in our Answer, p. 11. viz. It is necessary: first to believe, and after to be singed with Baptism. And whether it be not the same thing, let the Reader judge, though not the same syllables.

And thus 〈◊〉 our Answer Reviewed to Mr. Wills his Appeal, having gone over every particular in this unjust Gensure of his, (not mentioning that of the Virgin Mary's being added to the form of Baptism, Mr. Wills owning it his mistake to aver the contrary) and we hope have evidenced that his charge against us of ignorance and partiality is unrighteous and groundless; and that our Carriage towards him deserves not so uncivil a treatment as he gives us. Therefore (as said before) there is no farther cause at present to trouble ourselves with him; being satisfied that we have given the sober and impartial no cause to censure or blame us. And if Cavillers will set themselves to carp (since, as Mr. Baxter says, a man may find words at length for almost any cause ) we will give them their liberty of pursuing such unworthy undertakings, which seldom meet with any better success, then the hiss of the Judicious, and the just Indignation of all Readers, but such as have little of serious employment for their time.

POSTSCRIPT.

SInce Mr. Wills in his Censure upon the Baptists Answer to his Appeal, is pleased to single me out from the rest that subscribed it; I hope it will be allowed me to make also a particular defense to what he charges me with p • 3.

He observes, as he tells us p. 10. That there is much in the Baptists dealing with his Appeal that looks like partiality, and to make his insinuation believed, gives 3 or a Instances, whereof the last is, Their taking in myself to sit Judge with them upon his Appeal, though (he says) 1. A party in the cause, and apparently biased. 2. Virulent in my Scoffs, And then 3. hints an absurdity to me, from whence be infers, That I am unqualified for the examination of Latin Authors; noting in his Margent that I undertook to prophesy that after Mr. Baxter, Mr. Whiston, and himself none shall stand up in the defense of Infant Baptism. And 4. He presumes I was the person pitched upon to examine the particulars of his Appeal, and so by my ignorance brought them to Justify Mr. Danvers his Addition to the Milevitan Canon by a passage found in Pervetusto codue. This is what he says to me in particular. And to which I Reply,

1. I can in sincerety say, that what I writ by way of encomium, as Mr. Wills calls it, upon Mr. Danvers his Works, or against his Antagonists (both Mr. Danvers and Mr. Wills being, when I writ that Epistle, equally Strangers to me) was the result of that persuasion which the clear and substantial evidence of truth begets in an impartial searcher. And I shall not be ashamed to own that my judgment is still the same, for all the pains which Mr. Wills hath taken, which seems to me, to manifest him rather an impertinent captious wrangler, ( whose master-piece is Sophism and Logomachy) then an Author of such Reason and Sobriety, that all his Readers must be charmed into a subscription to his ill-proved affirmations. And I am very certain, that men: as clear sighted as himself, and at least, as well advantaged in Learning and Piety, are fully of my opinion; that though Mr. Danvers (through the toil of so many quotations, and being not Infallible) had mistook some inconsiderable things; yet the grand matter in dispute is managed with such Scripturer evidence, and illustrated with such human concurrence, as is beyond the power of Mr. Wills his Negatives to invalidate, at least with the sober and impartial.

2. It is to we an instance that this Advocate of Paedo-baptism manages a languishing Cause, because be is driven to infist upon such a parcel of exceptions, as truly and really deserve the Epithets of trivial and insignificant, and of so little moment to the point in hand, that had Mr. Danvers wholly left them out, his Cause had been fortified well enough without them; not only by the entire Book of God, but many of the most undoubted human Testimonies, not at all, or very faintly assaulted. Insomuch that Believers Baptism has been evidently cleared to be the only Scripture Baptism, and so practiced for the Primitive Centuries, and eminently witnessed unto, by some People and Churches all along.

But I am biased, he says, because I express my contempt of him, &c. I must confess that I have no such esteem of his works, as Mr. Baxter bespeaks for him in his Epistle; nor do I look upon him to be so infallible as to greet him for an Oracle; nor does his Paedo baptism appear to me to be so scriptural a practice, and so ancient as he would make it. And I believe all the Baptists in England are so far biased. And therefore his Appeal was but at best ridiculous, if he insists upon that Objection, that none of them should be admitted to examine his Appeal whose Judgments bespeaks them Parties. And he might level that exception against any of them as well as against me, since they are all parties so far as to disapprove Infant Baptism. & Which makes me conceive that Mr. Wills promised himself, (since no Baptist must without becoming obnoxious to this objection, pass a sentence upon his Appeal) that it might pass without Answer But,

2. For any contempt or prejudice to his person, (which as I said I am a mere stranger to) as far as I know my own heart, I can say, I have none, And though I am fully satisfied his undertaking is very much against truth; yet have I as far as I have been concerned, examined things, as to matter of fact (which only come under our Cognizance as appealed unto) without any respect to person or cause. And I know that the persons concerned in the examination besides myself, have cted their parts with naked impurtiality and candor, and truly stated things as they appeared unto them. And that they are not such Ignorant, biased persons, as this man of modesty represents them, is already evident.

He says, I confine the Church of God within the narrow limits of my own party — which I affirm to be an untruth, and challenge him to make it good from any word or writing of mine; the contrary is evident from the second line of the verses he speaks of, where I mention them, as well as ourselves, by that term [Christi-colae] worshipers of Christ.

Mr. Wills says, I am virulent in my Scoffs. But he has taught me how to esteem his Censure. (If I answer him according to his folly, Prov. 26.5.) will justify me. And I profess, I have seldom seen a serious argument managed with such Jocoseness and Captring Sarcisms as he does it. And to express a rebuke to 〈◊〉 without those terms that usually are bestowed upon such frothyness, I need a new Dictionary. And till that be found out, I judge it scarce possible to give him a faithful reprehension in any mode, but he will be ready to count it virulence.

3. He says I am unqualified for the Examination of Latin Authors, as not able to form Sustinco, and puts a Scoffing Remark in the margent, that I undertook to prophecy that after Mr. Baxter, Mr. Whiston, and himself (three matchless Heroes indeed! ) none shall stand up in the defense of Infant Baptism.

Reply, What my Abilities are in that Language, it is not my humor to boast of. But that I may satis facere Momo I will show Mr. Wills that my disability in that tongue, is no consequence flowing from that absurdity he fancies. And therefore I will take the liberty to inform him, that whatsoever fault it is, it is the Printers, not mine, and he can avouch for me, that I found fault with it myself, my original being

Causa patrocinio substituenda novo est. for which substituenda, he printed sustinuenda] but it was too late to be corrected when I saw it; that sheet being last printed off, its errors could not be gathered amongst the errata gathered else where before. And if I had seen it before it was wrought off the Press, that mistake, and two others in p. 12. of the Epistle in the same sheet, lines 10. and 29. viz. counted for routed, and defer for deter, had not past uncorrected.

But that this very word printed for it (as it happens) yields Mr. Wills no such instance of my ignorance, will be very evident to him that considers what Epenthesis, Syncope, Anthiteses, &c. are. That the exastest Poets often cross the known rules of quantity. Epenthesis a letter may be added to Sustinenda to adapt it for a verse; and but one is added. Now if Mr. Wills knows these things, is not be disingenuous in corping where he knows no error but the vulgar rules Justify? If he knows them not, how can it be thought, that he came honestly by the style of M. A.? Or that he is a person qualified to be such a Corrector of Books as he proclaims himself? Besides be perverts my meaning in that verse; for by patrocinio novo, I mean not Mr. Baxter's, Whistons and Wills's successors in the Controversy: But I meant, as may be easily understood thus; that the cause, viz. of Paedobaptism, is not to be substituted (or set up) instead of the true Baptism, by that new Patronage or Sanction, viz Gen. 17.7. which I call new, because it was not made the main prop of Infant Baptism, till the other foundations it was built upon by the Popes grew crazy, and the Reformers being ashamed of them, as being too rank, inverted this in the 16th. Century; viz. a Covenant made Gen. 17.7. with • elievers and their Natural seed, which (they say) entitles to Baptism. And the participle (substituenda) is not a prophetic, but an ennuciative term; An enunciation being defined, Oratio in qua aliquid de alio vere vel salso pronunciatur. So that this Bagle-ey'd corrector of small, and sometimes no faults, is out in his Logical, as well as his Grammatical faculty.

I have one thing more to reckon with him for, and that is, his presumption that I was the person pitched upon to examine the particulars of his Appeal, who by my ignorance brought them to justify Mr. Danvers his addition to the Milevitan Canon, by the passage in Pervetusto Codice, insinuating as if none but myself had examined it; which is implied in that expression of his — that he is sat • sfied some of them have learning enough to have discovered the mistake, had they considered it themselves. But here also I must inform him that his presumption is false, and no better then the petulant excursion of an idle thought, that has no umbrage of truth to guide it. And to leave him no cloak for that presumption, I do assure him, that those persons, whose learning he acknowledges sufficient to discover the mistake, have as well as I, individually examined every particular of his Appeal. And that they are not under such a mistake, as to this of the Milevitan decree, is already apparent

Thus Reader you see this particular charge against me is no instance of the Baptists partiality in their examination of Mr. Wills his Appeal. And to put the matter beyond any further exception, that Epistle of mine, which he Cavils at, was but then in the Press, and was not seen by any of the Subscribers at that time of our examining the Appeal, which is enough if no more had been said to clear them from this frivolous insinuation.

The Reason why I am • o large in my Return to so incon • iderable a charge as this, is, because I observe Mr. Wills strikes at the cause he opposes through my sides, and therefore I am the more concerned in my particular vindication. For, 1. You see he insinuates (though nothing more false) That I was the only person to whom the examination of his Appeal was committed. 2. When he has possessed his Reader with that suggestion; he represents me as a very ignorant unqualified person for such work; on purpose, that the Reader may conclude the answer coming from such a person to be but sorry and ignorantly managed, and that Mr. Wills is therefore apparently abused. But that artifice shall not serve his turn; for as I said before, I declare that I was so far from being the single Examiner, that I was no more then an assistant to those persons, whose learned accomplishments, parts, and worth I readily own, far superior to mine. And are possessors of a Reputation too well fortified for Mr. Wills his art to Undermine. And who I question not will, as they see cause, vindicate themselves, and their professions, from the Criminations of such an unrighteous Accuser and Gainsayer.

Mr. Baxter's Review of the state of Christians Infants Examined, &c.

THat Baptism as administered to Believers, is a Gospel Ordinance, no man I presume (but such as reject all Ordinances) ever could deny, it having so express a san •• ion in the word of God. And whether any but such ought to be baptized, has been an ancient Controversy, and much agi • ated in this and the neighbouring Nations of late years: Insomuch that any inquirer into the state thereof, may easily • urnish himself with what's alleged on both hands; therefore I see no necessity of Polemical A •• ditions

Among all the opposites of Antipaedobaptism in this Nation, no man (in my opinion) has with more virulence be stirred himself then the 〈◊〉 of this Review. His Books of Baptism save me the labor of demonstrating it, And the experience he has given the world, convinces me, that he is the person his own Pen describes in the Preface to his More proofs viz. One that can find words at length for almost any cause. And p. 45. of this Review, where he tells us; That there are but few confess so clear that a man may not talk against as long as his talking faculty holds out. And that Mr. Baxter hath not yet lost this faculty, this Review plentifully instances

At every turn he takes in the lists of dispute, he rails with plenty of exclamation at such as divert him from doing greater service to the Church, and extort such stri •• from him — which is an outery without Cause; for doubtless he is never more in his Element, then when he is tossing the Ball of Contention, and I think there is scarce any Sect that call themselves Christians, but have been made the objects of his talking faculty, and have selt the keeness of his Polemicks, and mostly without any challenge from them. And what exploits he hath done for the Church in his peaceable Intervals is worth another Review.

It is known to such as converse with the Writings on the Subject of Baptism, what Mr. Tombes, Mr. Danvers, Mr. Hutchinson, &c. on the one hand; and Mr. Baxter, Mr. Wills, Mr. Whiston, &c. on the other have produced about that point. For me to re-captiulate it, is needless. My present task is only to consider briefly what weight there is in this Review. The occasion of which is briefly thus. Mr Baxter having in some of his Writings expressed a great deal of wrath and contempt towards the Antipaedobaptists, and their practice of adult baptizing: And loaded them with some standerous Charges, which when (to his shame ) detected; he yet persisted in a pertinacious defense, or rather equivocation; endeavoring with all the artifice of his talking faculty to disintangle himself, and further to bespatter and Reproach his Monitors. Which kind of Carriage, as it bespeaks a desperate Disease, that will not be Cured (as Dr. Pierce tells him) with soft usage; so it could not but justly provoke the indignation of those, that were under the lash of his Calumny, to express some Checks to him, to awaken his Repentance.

Amongst the rest, Mr Ed. Hutchinson sent him a private Letter, which Mr. Baxter makes the occasion of his Review, and yet ingenuously conceals the Letter, though he publishes an answer of about 46 pages to it. To supply which defect, it shall be here incerted, It was Verbatim thus.

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. Baxter's Review came to his hand. Which Providence (with some concurring circumstances) necessitates me to appear in his vindication.

That choice laborer in his Lord's 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 its 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 leisure nor mind to compile. Therefore his discourse being so loose and full of incoherencies, I shall willingly leave his impertinent digressions, and address myself 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 heinously wrong the mercy of God, and the Church, and true Believers, and their seed, by denying them that part in God's Covenant and mercy, which he hath proved to be stated on them in God's word — That God never had Church Laws on earth, whether in Innocency or since the fall, which extended not the privilege of a Covenant and 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 lies 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 God's 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 God's 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 denied the Church, and true believers, and their seed (if believers) a part in God's Covenant and Mercy. I am confident he cannot do it; and therefore what shall we call this but (in his own Language, More Proofs, p. 236.) a bold-faced falsehood? 3. What he hath proved essewhere, is sufficiently disproved elsewhere also. 4 He would do well to produce those Church-Laws that gave Infants the privilege of Church-membership in Innocency, or name any Infant that was in the World then. He is a notable searcher into Antiquity indeed, if he can bring to light such an Arcanum! Besides we could yet never find in the word of God (I believe it will put Mr. Baxter to his Trumps to produce any Scripture to evince) that any Infants were Church-members before Circumcision, nor yet after it came to a period with the legal dispensation that gave being to it. If he clearly proves this Dictate, we shall submit 5. We believe that true Believers and their seed (if Believers) have a part in God's Covenant and Mercy, and to deny it them, were to impeach free grace. The thing we deny, is, that Christ appointed the seed of Believers before Conversion to the privilege of membership in his visible Church. And how we wrong them in not forcing that upon them, which no Divine Law gives them Right unto, Mr. Baxter hath not convinced us.

He says be is not hardened enough to reject so plain a text as 1 Cor. 7.14. or to own our interpretation of it.

Answ. That that text affords not the least color of proof for Paedo-baptism: and that our sense of it is genuine and Orthodox, is at large evinced by Mr. Tombs 3 Review p. 7.91, 93, 94, 95. Mr. Danvers Treat. p. 160. 2 Ed. Mr. Lawrence Treat. of Baptism p. 260. Mr. Blackwo • ds Storm of Antichrist p. 43, and several others, who hav • unanswerably vindicated this text from Mr. Baxter's unsound sense, as to the enquiring Reader by consulting the places referred to, may clearly appear. And if Mr. • axter rests in his satisfaction, and still will pertinaciously descend his corrupt gloss, 'tis not in our power to unharden him, we leave that to omnipotency.

The term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 holyners, as Mr. Tombs notes, is only found among Ecclesiastical writers; yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to preserve chastity, as St • phanus observes out of Demosthenes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where a P • jest of B ••• hus speaks thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, I am holy and pure from t • e company of man. And learned men tell us, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Chast, Chastity, to be Chast, come from the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , holy.

Holyness was predicated under the Law of the temple and its Ute • sils, the City Jerusasem (called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Math. 4.5. and 27.53.) of places, Math. 24.15. stand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the holy place, and divers other things. And in this very text the same holiness or sanctification which is predicated of the Children, is predicated also of the unbelieving husband and wise: [unspec 2] for as it is said of the Children they are holy, so of the unbelieving Yoke-fellow it is said, they are sanctified, that is in English, they are holy, and the words in the Greek are the very same: The verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , being the preter tense passive of the active 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which comes from the Root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 holy. And therefore there is as much holiness from this text to be ascribed to the unbelieving husband or wise, as to the Children. And why the unbelieving husband or wise may not be therefore baptized and in Church too, as well as their Infants, this holiness being pleaded by Mr. Baxter to be sederal, (though it be as clear as the Sun that the persons Denominated holy were at that very time privative unbelievers and so cannot be said to be soederally holy or sanctyfied) is a question worth the Resolution of such an Oedipus as himself. But in my opinion, he can never make any clean evasion from this absurdity. And if he can satisfy his Conscience that this text is so plain to prove the federal holiness of the Children of believers, it is to me an Instance, that his Judgment is enslaved by a peremptory and tenacious will. Now I apdeal to any considerate Reader whether there be any other holiness meant in this text, but what may befall an unbeliever; for the unbelieving yokesellow is sanctified with this holiness, though still unbelieving. And as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , signifying proles, soholes, issue, or offspring, extends itself beyond Infants, to all Children, as Math. 15.16. Rom. 8.16. Math. 11.19. where the same word is used, so the word holy (as I said before) being the same attributed to the Unbelieving husband or wife) is as applicable to a child of years, and not believing, as to an Unbelieving bushand or wise. And of such a holy child what great cause will there be to boast as a fit subject for Baptism? And whether such a holiness be not so far from foederal, that it is purely Matrimonial and Civil, and opposed to that Uncleanness contracted by Cohabiting with strange wives prohibited under the Law, is submitted to the determination of the Judicious. Besides I only add, that as the native scope and tendency of the text evidences the Holyness there to be only civil and Matrimonial, so we have some parallel places, as Mal. 2.15. 1 Thes. 4.3, 4, 5. and Deut. 23.7. Mr. Baxter knows how 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 holy, is rendered, and holiness is opposed to fornication, 1 Sam. 214, 5, 6.

Next Mr. Baxter tells us, that man must not teach God how to speak, but carefully inquire, what he hath spoken — To which I willingly assent. And if Mr. Baxter had been so securely modest and sober, as to content himself with what was spoken to him by the Lord, and had not given his licentious Imagination so unbounded a scope, as to pester the Nation with his confounding, unscriptural legions of distinctions, and frivolous niceties with which his Polemicks are so stufft, he had done more service, then the utmost exploits of his talking faculty will ever amount to.

Another of his Arguments he moulds into a Quere, thus; Do you think that Paul mentioneth that as agreat and comfortable privilege of believers which belongs to Heathens equally with them?

Answ. Where Paul useth that phrase (viz a privilege of believers) upon this account, or any words equipollent, I cannot find, Mr. Baxter quotes no Scripture for it. But I humbly conceive the question needs a resolution from himself; For the holiness in the text is indeed attributed to Heathens (for such was the unbelieving yokefellow) as well as the children; and therefore 'tis his part to make it out such a great and comfortable privilege as he talks of. And the term Heathen is all one with Gentiles, contradistinct to Jews, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signyfies both, Act. 4 25, 27.

Mr. Baxter goes on p. 9. and tells us, that being called to a Review, he remembers our Savior himself was a Church member in his Infancy, even the head (though he said in his Plain Scriptare p. 62. that 'tis 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 Church members 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 practice to baptize Infants, whose title to Church membership and Discipleship is impossible to be made out with parallel clearness, and that too, in expressed dissonancy to that great and most illustrious example of our Christian Baptism.

2ly. To argue from Christ's headship, that Children should be baptized, is a mere 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 Christ's, 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 practice 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 nowhere to be had, but in the word of G • d; From a close conformity to which, no parallels framed by our carnal Reasoning, must sednce us.

In agreement to our definition of a visible Church Mr. B. thus exprefies himself in his Book of Bpatism, p 87. A self society of persons separated from the world, to God; or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 'tis 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 twofold application, 1. by Faith, in the Adult. 2. without Faith, to dying Infants by virtue 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 joined to us; we hope the best; and our judgment, 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. Baxter's 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 Doctrine) are not of Christ's Church or body, and therefore he is not their Savior Let him tremble at this dreadful conceit

Hhis talk that they may visibly belong to the Kingdom of God or Satan, is a mere fancy. For Infants are neither in God's 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 Satan's subjects, but the Children of disobedience in whom he works, Eph. 2.2. Such are not Infants visibly. And none are Christ's Disciples, 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 Christ's 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 complete and incomplete member serve Mr. Baxter's men, or members in f • eri and imperfectly, as he stiles unbaptized Infants, Christian Directory p. 806. since according to his own maxims, an incomplete 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 complete or perfect members after Baptism, why have they not the supper and other Ordinances of the Church administered to them? If they be still incomplete, 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 entered; and if not so not in the visible Church before Baptism. If he says the first, he, contradicts all he says of entering 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 denial 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 denial 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 falsely 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 mere 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 households.

Answ. This argument is over and over answered. And is it not strange that the word (household) 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 widow, 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 Jailors family believed. Act. 16.34. (3.) The household 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 households in Scripture. Narcissus and Aristobulus households are urged by some; but there is no mention of household in the Greek; but it may be Friends or Kindred, Rom. 16.10, 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Reader, I should weary thee and myself, 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. 'It 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 Cobblers too) must none therefore be Baptized?

Answ. This is a gravelling query he thinks. But we find Scripture president for Baptizing men and women. And in my Judgment Kings and Queens, and Cobblers also, are men and women.

He says p. 17. The Scripture tells us not all that was done, but all that must be done. We grant it — And if the Scripture tells us all that must be done, and we find not a syllable there of Infant Baptism; is it not very injurious to blame us for renouncing such a practice as we find no warrant for? This very man tells us, pl. Script. p. 301. That he finds it a hard Controversy to prove Infant Baptism, it is so dark in the Scripture — And More Proofs p. 219. That it hath considerable difficulties, and that his proofs are not so clear as every good man can perceive — And yet he has published a Book Intituled, plain Scripture-proof for Infant Baptism — strange confidence, and Contradiction!

But now he produces (as he tells us,) a full command for Infant Baptism, Math. 28.19. because Nations must be Baptized.

Answ. What shall we say to men whose Judgments are fore stalled by a darling error? I need not add much to disprove this, but refer the Reader to our Books where this text is vindicated from Mr. Baxter's senseless gloss. Nations are to be discipled, and so Baptized, Certainly the Pronown [then] governed by the participle [Baptizing] can possibly relate to no other Substantive, then the Persons commanded before to be taught. For as Dr. Holmes truly tells us p. 7. 'tis not the Nations in gross. For then, all must be Baptized, if the word Nation universally taken doth there denote the Subjects of Baptism. But 'tis the Nations with restriction, that is, such as are discipled by teaching, and no more, that are commanded to be baptized. And if this be not the sense, they must baptize them in the lump, Heathens, Unbelievers, Professors Infants, and all, and that whether they would be baptized or nor. Let Mr Baxter consider what a full command he hath met with for his practice.

Mr. Baxter's further talk about Infants being Disciples, and his parity of Reason from their being the Kings Subjects; Ergo, why not Christ's, I look upon as frivolous. His frequent urgeing the parents Faith to be the ground of their Baptism, and that the Parents will go for theirs in consenting, shall be answered in the words of a learned Doctor.

Reader, I take Mr. Baxter's Review hitherto to be shown vain, and his ground for Paedo-baptism to be very weak and frivolous. He comes next p. 20 to add and enlarge upon 4 particulars, and those subdivided into many others, which comprehend the rest of the Review.

1. The benefits of Infant Baptism — And I think most of the benefits he enumerates he learnt of the Pope.

2. The evils that follow not baptizing them. These are mere whimsies of his own making, not worth a serious Readers patience. I willingly pass them, there is nothing argumentative in them, therefore no need of a Reply.

3. The sins we would draw men to by rejecting it — And here he is very fruitful, he finds them to be no less then 15. And all without Proof; therefore I pass them with a naked Negation, which is ever as valid, as a naked assertion.

By way of digression, before he comes to the fourth particular, Mr. Baxter quarrels with Mr. Hutchinson for desiring him to repent of his absurd position of a Baptismal Covenant of grace running in a fleshly line, and seems to deny that ever he used such a phrase, but if he remembers himself, he uses the words [baptismal Covenant] frequently, as More Proofs, p. 198. 224. 238. even in this Review p. 3. & 38. And several other places. And doth he not call that Covenant, a Covenant of grace through all his writings? If that be not his meaning, why doth he not tell us what other Covenant he means? And doth he not as confidently affirm, that that Baptismal Covenant of grace is conveyed to the Children by their believing parents? And is not that a running in a fleshly line, and in his conceit hereditary? if so, what reason has he to exclaim, as if that were charged upon him, which he holds not? Doth he not call our Dispute against this conceit, a Hectoring men out of their Inheritances, Review p. 34? which fully explains what Covenant he means: it seems he dares not own his opinion, when stated in the proper terms, but would mince it into a more disguised and specious Phrase, to impose with the more artifice upon his credulous can 〈◊〉 But let them take warning (if they be wise) not to take such rotten precepts of men, for Gospel, though set off in plausible language by such a man of tongue.

The rest of his talk better deserves those titles of supercilious, and insulting, and Rhetorical invective canting, &c. which he bestows upon his admonisher, then the Letter sent him.

4. At last he comes to the 4 particular, containing 13. other particulars, which he says he might be seduced into, if he had owned Anabaptism. Answ. But that (as Mr. Eyres said long ago) it is too well known that Mr. Baxter's tongue is no slander, I would particularly demonstrate, either those evils he insinuates us to be guilty of, and led unto by our principle, are none of ours; and that through grace we are kept from such opinions or practices; (as our public Confessions and Conversations are ample testimonies of) and which none but a man of Calumny would charge us with. But in the consciences of all sober dissenters we question not but we shall be freed from an imputation uttered in heat, and that looks with such an aspect as if mere malice had given it birth.

And as these particulars are the mere product of that peevishness and anger he is commonly in, when he corrects these bawling and Crying Children, as he calls us, More Proofs p. 2. 3. and so scarce worth our notice; so I observe he blesses God for delivering him from some things, which yet he was foully guilty of; as the 3. particular, viz. A proud overvaluing of his own opinion, &c. And the 4. viz. having a hand in all the turnings and overturnings; settings up, and pulling down; praying, and unpraying, owning and disowning; bloody days; and thanksgiving for them, &c. And that in a more notorious degree then any of the persons he accuses, as is already to his shame made out from his own pen. So that I could retort these particulars almost generally upon him; for he deserves much of that Character he vainly boasts he is free from, but such applications we find by experience do him little good, and therefore at present I spare him.

And whether he be not fallen point-blank into his 9. particular, viz. That when once prepossession, prejudice and Interest of Reputation had engaged him in so bad a cause (as Infant Sprinkling) he studied all that he could rak • together to maintain it, and to have stretched all his wits to have opposed all that is brought against it, &c. let his Conscience determine.

I desire the Reader to note, that it any passages of his are past without Animadversion, they are either such things as are largely confuted already, or else apparently frivolous; and so not worth mine nor the Readers time.

A Postscript to Mr. Richard Baxter, showing the Uanity and Equivocation of his Return to Mr. Danvers his Third Reply.

THat worthy person at whose Invitation you say you published your Review being now with the Lord; And your accosting Mr. Danvers so Cowardly (when, I verily believe, you knew him to be under such Circumstances as necessarily obliged him then to wave further contest with you) are two motives to qualify your wonder at my appearing in both their vindications. And I assure you I know no cause of repentance for the undertaking, unless my disability in defending them, renders it not so completely done as their own (more able) pens might have done it. Therefore Sir, notwithstanding the hazard I undergo of being branded with those r • aiting Epithets you dispence with great freedom amongst your Monitors, I will make bold to tell you, that it were more safe for you to have returned a private answer to that private Letter of Mr. Hutchinsons, and have performed your promise of silence to Mr. Danvers, then in the first to expose your ridiculous thread-bare Plea to a new scanning, and in the Second to give a notable Instance, that you are like that pompious Cardinal, that would not be a slave to his word.

Your general exclamations against Mr. Danvers; your charging him with strange heaps of untruths (without any Reply to his demonstrative and large defense, and taking no notice of the gross falsehoods he proved you guilty of, and his delineating you in your several true shapes and colors, that your disguise may no longer delude us) will scarce pass for Oracles, with such as know that such language is become a Second nature in you. Sir, I am satisfied these things are evidenced to your just conviction, else you, being such a proficient in the talking faculty, and one that can Hector it at such a rate in more minute and unnecessary wranglings, would let us here on it on both ears. But since you are silenced in such matters as evidence your tongue to be no slander, we need say but little more.

Are not you the man who without the least reverence or regard to truth, had the boldness to publish to the world, in your Key to Oath. p. 312, &c. That Sir H. V. was a Papist, and a Jesuit, and had brought his wicked and corrupt opinions from Italy, and how the Papists were strong in England under his ma • k; And that he had his hand in chief in the Kings death. And that notwithstanding your many Reproofs for those horrid and notorious Forgeries and slanders, and the many calls given you to repentance, and satisfaction, for such impieties, yet have not you hardened yourself against all admonition therein to this day? as though your tongue and pen was your own, to use how you pleased against any man.

Are not you the man who accused that worthy and Learned Mr. Bagshaw of eighty untruths in the compass of a few pages? when scarce one could be made appear with any demonstration.

And if you suffer your milk to boil over at such a rate, and be so lavish with a slanderous tongue and pen against others, have we not cause to conclude your clamorous and railing out cries and invectives against Mr. D. to be of the same stamp, especially since you please only to give us your own word for them.

Do not you tell us p. 47. That you had detected voluminous untruths in Mr. D's former Book, and p. 49. That the very first Paragraph of the latter hath more then one or two lies in it. And yet neither show the insufficiency of his defense to the former, nor give the least demonstration of the latter; • nd is not this a very convincing way, and who but Mr. B. think you, appropriateth to himself such mediums.

But lest you should be thought wholly silent as to particulars, you are pleased to condescend to give us one particular instance wherein Mr. D. has not answered your charge telling us p. 48. His accusation of the Novatians the neither defendeth (that you see) nor confesseth to be aslander, but silently passeth all the matter by. And is not this very strange that you should so punctually call him to an account for this one, being in so great an Arreare with him, there being so many Forgeries and falsehoods of far greater moment he hath laid at your Door, which you have neither confessed nor defended. But what cause you had to fall upon him for this supposed omission let the Reader judge.

For Mr. D's having in his 2 Reply in answer to you defended [the Donatists, some of his witnesses] against your cavils, whom he had in several particulars made to appear to have been one in principal with the Novatians, as Treat. p. 223, &c. And 1. Reply p 1 • 6. Doth in p. 49. 2. Reply, tells us in there Lord's. And that the Novatians were the same with the 〈…〉 ways doubt from the Reasons, before expressed groan of which you refutes) and to which I shall add, what 〈…〉 in Gabriel Prateolus de vit. sict. concerning the Novations p. 123. viz. That they affirmed Infants did not stand in need • , Baptism; Infantes non egere Baptismo.

And if this be neither to defend nor confess, but to pass over all the matter in silence, will ease • lie be determined.

You come on afresh to excuse your slander of Naked dipping, and tell us, that it was not the way of most of them when you wrote that Book; And that you heard of none of those few that for any considerable time continued it. Sir, this condems you notoriously, that notwithstanding you knew it was not the way of most, you should yet charge it to be their ordinary practice in indefinite and Universal terms; which no Reader could understand otherwise, then that it was the general way of all Anabaptists, and the ratify because you thereupon levey your Arguments against Anabaptisty itself for the breach of the 6. and 7. Commandments charging Murder and Adubery upon it; and I observe your craft in stuffing in the Quakers quaking, &c. as parallel Cases, to make the Reader think the matter of equal probability. But Sir, I am satisfied your conscience knows (and it is evident enough to others) that you only delude the world by your similiturdes; there being not the least color of proof, or shadow of evidence (nor scarce same which you call a liar ) to be produced that ever any such practice hath been amongst us. The Quakers having not only owned their quaking in Print, but thousands of eye witnesses in readiness to attest the same (it denied by them;) whereas neither word nor witness can be produced for Anabaptists naked dipping. And you are not ignorant, that Samuel Fisher in that Book of his (recommended by you,) did upon your first broaching of this slander (challenge all the world to bring fofth any one faithful witness to confirm the same) if they could. Therefore for shame go not about to palliate so wretched a misreport, and spend no more of your learned non-sense to extricate yourself. But rather honestly repent that ever you broached it.

You would now alter the state of the question p. 50 which it seems must be not whether you reported such •• thing? (that's too evident to be cluded) nor whether it was true? (this too, to your shame, is made our to be your lie ) But, whether you did well, or ill to believe it. And you tell us you would disbelieve it, but you cannot.

To the question as you now state it. I hope an answer from your own pen will be satisfactory. It is in your Christian Directory p 156. Fame is too ordinary a liar, and they shall be liars who will be its messengers, &c. And a little further you thus express yourself — If you know 〈◊〉 not to be true, or that there be not sufficient evidence to prove it, you are guilty of lying and slandering Interpretatively; though it should be true, because it might have been a lie for ought you know; more of this Mr. Danvers quotes 2 Reply p. 118. worth your notice, though you superciliously slight it. Pray consider another Answer to your question Exod 23 1.

You say you are not able to dis believe it — What are you indeed hardened in your unbelief? can neither Scripture, notorious evidence, nor your own pen convince you, that you ought not only to dis believe, but also repent for false report, which you have no other ground for but that fame which you call a liar? If you be such conviction proof, your case is desperate.

But Sir, you pretended you had more then common fame for your report. Your very words are p 131. plain Script. We dispute not against bare words, but experiences and known practices; For their naked dipping is a known thing, and the wickedness that hath followed on some, and that some have died on it. And to excuse this you tell us p. 53. Review That you never alleged your own experience — But Sir this will not excuse you from the sentence your own tongue passes upon you, viz. That you are a lying Messenger of lying same, and lying reporters. For you put the question Christ. Direct. p. 156. How know you whether the thing reported is true? Is it only because a credible person spoke it? But how did that person know it to be true? might not he take it upon trust as well as you? and might he not think a person to be credible that is not? And how commonly doth faction, interest, passion, or credulity make the person incredible in one thing, who is credible in another? &c. Can you avoid this condemnation from your own mouth, having pronounced yourself an interpretative liar? if not, blushing more becomes you, then to wast more Ink in palliating so pilpable a falsehood.

You say, you are past doubt that you have read of their Baptizing naked in Forreign writers, p. 53. But what then? was not your calumny of English Anabaptists? and must Forreign writers be believed by you (when yet you can produce none) against known practice at home.? I am weary of further exposing so temerarious an accuser.

But what need I say anymore hereto, since Mr. D. has in so many particulars (in his 3. Reply) so substantially detected your falacy and falsehood herein, discovering that all your endeavors to extricate yourself, has but involved you into further guilt.

Therefore Sir, suffer me in conjunction with your other Monitors, earnestly to exhort you to Review & lay to heart this your slanderous way of writing, and be prevailed with once in your life to retract some of your bad, and particularly, amongst other of your calumnies, let not your slanderous Reviling of the Vanists and Anabaptists be forgotten by you. And in the mean time, that you will cease justifying or palliating such impieties which will do nothing but inhance your reckoning in the day of Account.

You come next to avoid, as well as you can, the use made of the paper lest with the Clerk — telling us, the motive of it was your pity to two Parishes, containing a million of souls (consider whether you are not out in your Arithmetic) of which not above sixty thousand can bear in the Parish Churches, which induced you to be as busy in propagating the Gospel near Whitehall, as the Jesuits (you say) to their just praise are in America.

Whatever your motives were, God and your own heart knows. But in my opinion you have fitted yourself ad amussim with parallel preachers, your justly praised Jesaites. For you have taken much pains to preach their Gospel, as several learned pens have made out.

You tell us the substance of your declarations, viz. That you did not meet to worship God with any other manner of worship, then what is according to the Liturgy and practice of the Church of England, and though you did not read yourself, but another did • t, it was because you were not able; which if you were, you would do it.

Answ. Mr. Danvers charges no more upon you, then what you confess here, viz. Your profession of Conformity to the Liturgy and practice of the Church of England.

2. You would evade this by telling us, that he that saith the Lord's Prayer, doth not use another manner of worship then the Church; but I appeal to your conscience, whether by the words of your declaration you would not have the Conforming party understand, that by your Reading you meant the Common-prayer-book? if so, is it not wretched equivocation, and do you think God will be served with such deluding reservations? And whether you did not pen your declaration in such ambiguous and equivocal terms, as on the one hand to blind the Conformists, & make them think you theirs; so on the other hand, to excuse yourself to the Non-consormists, by telling them, you meant the Reading the Scriptures? and so cunningly play an Ambidexter in Divinity.

And so your reading some part of the Scriptures, it may be the Lord's prayer, ten Commandments, Epistle and Gospel for the day, &c. (as that once in Buckinghamshire, ) may serve to elude the Conformists, because read out of the Common Prayer Book, but if taken notice on by a Nonconformist, then it was only reading the Scripture, not Common Prayer. And for observing hereof, you so violently fly in the face of Mr. D.

You tell us, you are not able to read yourself. But what? why Reader, if thou art a Conformist, he means Common prayer, but then he could hear it read well enough. If thou art a Non conformist, he means the Scripture. But Sir, are you not able to read the Scriptures? Can you have leisure and ability to write voluminous Directories, Bodies of Divinity, Catholic Theologies, and no time nor leisure to read the Scripture? It seems your Divinity is no Scripture Divinity.

As for your talk of a considerable part of the writing being left out, I must profess I cannot believe you, & my incredulity is grounded upon firmer evidence, then your flander of naked dipping; if you desire to know it, 'tis like you may. The matter of fact charged, your own pen acknowledges; which at present is enough.

You say you are no greater adversary to the Liturgy then Mr. Hildersham, Knowstubs, Ball, Bradshaw, Paget, and Mr. Gifford were.

Answ. What adversaries they were to is I have not leisure to examine. But I know what adversary you have been to it I can to refresh your Memory tell you, that.

In your Book dedicated to Rich. Cromwell Protector, Prief. p. 17. you said, that most that are serious in practical Christianity, were against such formal ways of worship — And the spirit of profaneness comply'd with it, &c. — p. 36. you said, English Episcopacy gratified the Devil and wicked men — that the rabble of ignorant persons, worldlings, Drankards, Haters of Godliness, were very Zealous for them, &c. p. 3 • 8. you called the Church of England, the sink of all the other Church, in England. The Bishops Government, you called Ceremonious impositions, Usa pation, and pretended Office, First disp. p. 457.

Have you not said in your Savoy Conference, of which you are said to be the Penman (but certainly you were an approver, if not the 〈◊〉 that t •• • e are no Records of known credit for any 〈◊〉 for the first 3 • 0 years. p. 11. And have you not given 60 exceptions against it, of which some were, that it 〈◊〉 little from the Romish form • , p. • . part 1. That it Unites only in a dead Religion, p. 23. That a Coat may be made for the Moon, as well as a Liturgy framed, suited sufficiently to the variety of places, times, subjects, &c. p 55?

And this is the friend ship you expressed to the Liturgy, and the Bishops when you were in your highest elevation. But now you complement them by the titles of the Right Reverend Fathers in God, &c. in the Account of the Savey Conference.

As to Mr. D. leaving out any part of the Paper, was not your exception, but for his grossly falsifying it, and which your own Book seller at first told me was respecting the alteration of that clause, viz. I would accordingly read the same, For I would accordingly read myself, and which Mr. D. rectified by a copy affirmed to be from the Original in the Clerks hand, and with all the little cause given you thereby for so severe a Remark; and doubtless had there been any such gross falsisication, or any considerable clause left out, we should have heard of it in words at length before this.

Sir, Your disease seems to me to be the more incurable, in that you have turned scorner since your admonition, Mr. Danvers in his 2. Reply gave you a very demonstrative one, and which I suppose you can find no equivocations to shift off (which is wonderful) therefore you take no notice of it: But you say, you will hear some Scriptures he sends you to. And you draw such mock-consequences from them, as if they were not pertinent to your case. But if you please, I will give myself the trouble to draw consequences more pat from them and leave you to apply them.

2 Cor. 6.4, 5, 6. Paul exhorts the Corinthians to approve themselves Ministers of God, in much patience, afflictions, necessities, distresses &c. Ergo say you, Did R. B. do ill to come out of the Goal, when he was put in? or not put himself in again? p. 61. No Sir, that's not the right Ergo: but Ergo R B. did ill to slink his neck out of the Collar, and inveigble a poor Country Minister in to suffer for him in the common Goal • For I very well remember, that giving that Country Minister, (that was clapt upt in your stead ) avisit in the Gate-house; he slewed me a copy of the Warrant by virtue of which he was taken • which was against Richard Pa • ter of the parish of St. Giles, but when they sound you were withdrawn, they blotted out your name, and interlined your Deputy-sufferers name just over it And if you have not reimburs'd his charges, 'tis just you should.

2. The second text is Act. 20 1 • , 1 • , 13. Paul preached till break of day &c. Ergo, say you, R B. should not preach in the Country; you deny the Consequence, adding that perhaps Mr. Danvers meant (as 'tis like he did) Act. 21.13. Paul was ready to be bound or die at Jerusalem — Ergo say you, R. B. did sin in a voiding it oft before. &c. — Whether this consequence be applicable to you I shall not now dispute: but I may safely draw this consequence, Ergo R. B. should not avoid preaching in the City to ensnare another, nor avoid being bound to bind another.

3. The third is Matt. 10.38. He that taketh rot his Cross and followeth me, is not worthy of me: Ergo, you say, R. B. must make his own Cross, or sins in avoiding it; or must • o into a prison to a void preaching — But you miss the right Ergo here too: For it should b • , Ergo R.B. should not make a Cross for another, nor make another go to prison to hinder him from preaching. Your phrase of pleasing his spleen in preserring a prison before a Pulpit, relishes your Gall Mary have chosen a station in a prison, before such a Pulpit as you tell us is near a kin to an Ale-house or Tavern, p. 113. Grotian Religion or Augean stable, which none but such a Hercules as you, would undertake to mundifie

4. The fourth is John 10.12.13. The hireling seeth the Woolf coming, leaveth the sheep, &c. Here you make no Ergo's, but say you are no hireling. But Sir, the Ergo that should follow this, should be; that if you have a Meeting house built at the great expense of others, and undertake to preach in it: Ergo, you should not upon the notice of danger, trepan another to undergo the imprisonment due to you, and slily march off, under the pretence of Country air.

And for your saying, you are not so much as the Pastor of any Flock, It may not be un-worthy the enquiry how you came to be absolved from your Pastoral charge of your Flock at Kidderminster, once owned to be committed to you by Christ, (viz. those in that Parish who gave an account of their faith and good life to you, and thereupon admitted by you to the Lord's Supper) and whether that is a relation holding good only in fair weather, or to be plaid fast and loose with at leisure.

5 The last is Matt 2 • .2, 3, 4. They bind heavy burders grievous to be horn; and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of their singers, &c. Ergo you say, R. B. should not preach in the parish Churches; or should bind heavy burdens for himself — No Sir, that Consequence is not in the premisses. But Ergo R. B should not when he builds a Meeting-place, preach there only in calm weather, but rather their (when danger comes) others should bare the burden of the affliction (viz imprisonment in the Gate-house ) upon their — shoulders, R. B. himself should put in his little singer (of equal fortitude it seems with another's shoulder) and move off the burden himself. Or Ergo, if R. B. has no mind to be prisoner, he should not subtly draw in others, that perhaps have no more stomach to the entertainment there then himself.

Sir, you have long abused the world, too apt of itself to receive opinions upon the bare (though mistaken ) reputation, of such voluminous triflers as you. And I am persuaded several of your proselytes have sucked in your corrupt Notions, (without any serious examination of your reasons) merely because you said so. And therefore what Dr. Pierce, Dr. Tully, Mr. Crandon, Mr. Danvers, Mr. Bagshaw, and several other learned men have writ to detect your corruptions, is, in my judgment, very good service; that you may not under your disguise of piety, learning, and purity, longer infect the Nation with that dangerous leaven your books abound with. And if men will still, after such fair warning, make you the Oracle of their Divinity, let them blame themselves only if they find the effects of it malignant and perilous.

'It is like you can write another Book (at least a Postscript ) if you be in the humor, to consute all we say; and that you will call what I say to you, Quaker-like oratory and obtestations, and that 'tis in hypocrisy (as you tell Mr. Hutchinson, though you boldly assume a prerogative, that belongs not to you, of judging the heart ) and 'tis probable you will still out-face Mr. Danvers his large Demonstrations, with Postscripts containing general exclamations and dictates, and belike you think your ipse dixit is of as uncontroll'd authority as that of Pythagoras — But Sir, 'tis my present intention to give you leave to talk, till you talk yourself quiet: for there's no gaping against an Oven.

Yet I can (if you will but hear it) cure your pretended ignorance, why people talk of your averseness to martyrdom. And 'tis not (as you would insinuate) because we judge all persons graceless, that are not Martyred, (for so we judge them not) nor that you may be capable enough of our good opinion though unmartyred; nor do we mock at Paul for being let down by the wall in a Basket; nor at our blessed Savior's withdrawing into Egypt, into the Wilderness, or Galilee; which you would sain make examples in your case — But Sir, it is because you have given too large an experience, that you can conform to whatever mode of worship is uppermost in the Nation, at least so far, as to stave off suffering And that you are surnisht with words to such a degree, as to out-face all the world, that they must take you as their exampler in Religion. That when formerly you said, the English Episcopacy was a government that gratified the Devil, you upbraidingly told them, all blasphemers, and baters of Godliness, voted for them, Disp. pref. p. 17. And now on the other hand, you can change your note, and tell such as conscientiously dissent from that way you branded so dreadfully, that they are ignorant, peevish Church-dividers, sectaries, and what not? And what security can you give, but if Popery should come (as we hope it never shall) to have the upper hand, you would cry up that too, and proclaim all dissenters from it, as deserving the same Epithets? Your prasing the Jesuits for their industry in converting the Americans from their Heathen to a Romish Idolatry, Review. p. 55. That Popish leaven wherewith you mix the most cardinal Protestant Doctrines; your bold arguings against the Divine & self-evidencing light of the holy Scriptures, &c. bespeak a latitude in you capable enough of such a transformation. And though the examples you mention are a sufficient plea for avoiding a persecution so Circumstanced as Christ's and Paul's were; yet where do you find, that they procured others to supply their Rooms, viz. to suffer as proxies for them? If you can produce that, you do something towards your vindication.

POSTSCRIPT.

In Answer to Mr. Walker 's Modest Plea, &c.

MR. Walker 's Modest Plea for Infant Baptism coming to hand, whilst those Papers were delayed at the Press, I thought fit to say something to it; yet shall observe my wonted brevity: and the rather because his Arguments (as he says, p. 425.) are mostly those that were used by Dr. Taylor, and Dr. Hammond, now fitted by him for vulgar capacity. As for Dr. Taylor, whether we respect the Authority of the Person, or the strength of his Reasoning, let his Liberty of Prophecy determine, whether he has not given Paedobaptism such a wound, as neither he himself, nor any other of that persuasion, (no not Dr. Hammond himself) were, or ever will be, able to cure. So that whatever he urged against us afterwards, (which was but very faint too) is upon record substantially confuted by his own pen. As to Dr. Hammond 's Arguments, they are largely and learnedly refelled by Mr. Tombs, in the later Sections of the second and third part of his Review, which Mr. Walker should have taken notice of; and to which the enquiring Reader is now referred.

As to the style and manner of Mr. Walker 's writing against us, I own it to be indeed, for the most part, modest and sober, having not given himself the libert • of such an unsavory treatment, and unchristian Refl •••• ons, as is almost the common language of our other Antagonists; And 〈◊〉 ground for his so fairly treating us, in the beginning 〈…〉 Preface, [viz. as lying under the strongest prejud ••• 〈…〉 dissenters from the Church of England, because 〈…〉 ingly fair pleas, from Scripture, and Ecclesiast 〈…〉 few of our fellow dissenters can paralli •• 〈…〉 more favor and kindness to be treat 〈…〉 ness and clearness ought our 〈…〉 candid and ingenuou • 〈…〉

As to the matter of his Book, it is confessed, his labor in quoting so many Greek and Latin Authorities, has not been small; (And Mr. Danvers before him gave through every Century a collection of their real, as pretended Authorities:) And I confess freely, that he hath much more to pretend from Antiquity, then those have who assert Infant Baptism from a faederal right, a Medium not to be found among the Fathers, nor in the world (as I can find) till about Zwingli his time in the 16th. Century. For all the Fathers that held the Baptism of Infants, for these last 1200 years it has been in the world, have asserted it [and Vossius himself says, that it was the mind of the Catholic Church, Magnus est (antiquitatis) consensus, quod — Infantes per baptismum vitae ac felicitatis aeternae participes fiant, p. 594.] from its necessity to salvation. Which dismal opinion growing common, that none without baptism could be saved, from John 3.5. mis-understood; and the Interest of their Children's salvation, having so near an influence and impression upon them, caused them to admit a conclusion of so great moment and concernment, upon very easy and infirm considerations. And hence came the pract • ce to give them, as Baptism, so the Lord's Supper, for 600 years together, from its necessity also to salvation, as they inferred it (and indeed with as much reason as the other) from John 6.53.

By way of premise, and to prevent Repetition, I shall consider how far the practice of Antiquity (so much lean'd upon by Mr. Walker and others) is obliging to us, and of what weight their Testimonies ought to be, in deciding this Controversy. And I shall lay this down for a principle, which no man I presume will deny, — That Proofs ought to be fetched from such things as are confessed and acknowledged by our adversary whom we endeavor to convince, otherwise we shall never be able to move him, or make him quit his former opinion. And therefore no proof from the Fathers, to prove a matter of right, is valid against us, because we own • ot their Authority. To many indeed, that's a great argu 〈…〉 baptizing of Infants, but to us (as I said) such 〈…〉 are so far from being of the first magnitude, 〈…〉 collateral, being as often brought for the 〈…〉 as truth.

〈…〉 as a Rule, or Standard to try 〈…〉 certain and undoubted, and must carry with it, a sufficient authority to satisfy the understanding, which neither can, nor indeed ought to believe anything in point of Religion, (as the excellent Daille at large evinces) but what it knows to be certainly true. It is certain that in the proof of an Hypothesis, to begin with the Fathers and human Authority, is to invert the natural order of things; we ought first to have recourse to the Scriptures of truth, that we may be assured, that the thing is, or ought to be, before we make enquiry whether it hath been in the respective ages believed or not. For to what purpose is it to find that the Ancients believed it, unless we find withal in their writings, some reason of this their belief? and what harm is it to us to be ignorant, whether Antiquity believed it, or not, so long as we know that the thing is? Quod sacris Scriptures traditum non est, non sine peccato inquiritur, sive periculo ignoratur, says Bull • nger.

The greatest admirers of the Fathers confess, that though they err little in matter of right, yet are often out, and have their failings in matter of fact, because right is an universal thing, every way uniform, and all of one sort, whereas matter of fact is a thing which is mixed, and as it were enchas'd with divers particular circumstances, which may easily escape the observation and knowledge of (or at least be not so rightly understood by) the most clear and piercing wits. Now the condition of the Churches belief in every particular age, is matter of fall, and not right, and a point of History, not an Article of Faith. He that will not examine the Reasons, as well as the Opinions of men, (though of never so venerable names) may be soon led into a labyrinth of error. How consonant to Reason is it, that we should allege, not the Names of Books, but the Reasons, and take notice not of the quality of their Authors, but of the solidity of their proofs, so to reduce the dispute from persons to things, according to that memorable saying of Jerome, Ep. 15. Non juxta Pytagorae Discipulos, praejudicata doctoris opinio, sed doctrinae ratio ponderanda est.

What is urged here is to reduce Controversies to be tried before the right bar, viz. the Scriptures, since that alone is of so sacred and undoubted authority as to oblige our belief, to whatever is found there; and against which no objections lie, the Lord having by his gracious providence preserved them in the Church from the injuries of time, ignorance, and fraud, from the beginning hitherto. They have been kept with much greater care, then any other Books, translated into all Languages, retained both by Orthodox and Heretics, diligently observing each other, so that there could not possibly happen any remarkable alteration in them, but that presently the whole world would have exclaimed against it; whereas (as learned Daille truly says) much of the writings that go under the names of the Fathers, are not truly sach, and that the Heretics vented their conceits under those eminent names, to gain them repute; And that their legitimate pieces are wonderfully corrupted and obscure, (and such are not proper for the decision of Controversies) and encumbered with Rhetorical flourishes, and Legical subtleties; and that they have erred in divers points of Religion, and contradicted one another in matters of great importance. So that in this case we are to take the course that's observed in all Sciences whatsoever; we are to prove the truth we propose by such maxims as are acknowledged and allowed, making good that which is doubtful, by that which is certain; and clearing that which is ob •• ure, by that which is evident. The Word of God is our Common Book, let us search into it, for that upon which we may ground our own belief, and by which we may overthrow error; — Regula est mensura sui & obliqui. The Scripture sufficiently delivers us the positive truth, which is enough; for as whatsoever rightly followeth thereupon, is true: so whatsoever clasheth with, or contradicteth the same, is false. No Science gives us any certain account of Negative Propositions, for as much as to go about to number them all, would be both an infinite, and also an unprofitable, useless piece of work: Therefore such as go about to establish an opinion, because not expressly forbidden in Scripture, (as Mr Walker seems to do. p. 218. whose words are, Never stand hunting for a Scripture for it, so long as there is no Scripture against it) do not consider that they undermine the securest ground we stand upon, against the invaders of Religion: For by that argument (as Dr Owen well says) ten thousand things may it made lawful, there being no express Scripture sorbidding the upstart inventions, and impostures of Seducers by name and circumstance. And what a crowd of such corruptions have crept into the worship of God, under this pretext, in times of Superstition, under the Antichristian servitude!

All the use we can make of Antiquity is, either in matter of fact, (viz. whether such an opinion was in being in their time) or matter of right, (viz. whether it ought to be so;) For this later, no sober person will take any of the Ancients to be competent Judges, for that were to slight the Word of God, and bestow the prerogative that belongs to it upon frail man, which the Fathers themselves durst not usurp. Therefore it rests that we can make no further use of them, then to witness matter of fact. And though we find them avouch a matter of fact, yet that proves not that the thing is lawful. As for instance; we find Cyprian, the earliest pretended Patron of Paedobaptism in the 3d. Century, (if that Epistle to Fidus be a legitimate piece of his) make mention of Infant Baptism; and if that proves the lawfulness of that practice, it will also prove the lawfulness of Infants receiving the Lord's Supper, because the same Cyprian asserts it to be necessary for them in order to their Salvation, lib. 3. test. ad Qui. c. 25. And Maldonado affirms, in Joan. 6. num. 116. that this opinion of Augustine 's and Innocent the first 's prevailed in the Church about 6 • 0 years; — que (scil. sententia Augustini & Innocentii primi) sexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesia, Eucharistiam etiam Infantibus fuisse necessariam. Therefore that practice of Infant Commanion being as gray-headed as their Baptism, deserves equal veneration with it.

It appears by this, that it is worth enquiry upon what grounds those alleged Patrons of Paedobaptism went, for if they have erred in the Reason of the foundation, it will be easily believed they did also in the building.

Cyprian held Baptism simply necessary to salvation, lib. 3. Ep. 8. ad Fidum. So Jerome contra Pelag. and Austin l. 1. de peccat mor. & remiss. Si ergo (ait) ut tot, & tanta divina testimonia concinunt, nec salus, nec vita aeterna, sine baptismo, & corpore & sanguine Domini cuiquam spectanda, frustra sine his promittitur parvulis. That is, Therefore if so many, and so considerable divine testimonies agree, that none must expect salvation, nor life everlasting, without Baptism and the body and blood of the Lord, without these it (salvation) is vainly promised to little ones. This was the Universal ground and motive of the Fathers that assert Infant Baptism for many hundred years. And as for their warrant, 'tis certain they built their practice upon Tradition not written, being no more able then other men to find a word of Instituio for it in Scripture, where it is not. 'It is true, that word (Tradition) is general, signifying all Doctrines written or unwritten, 2 Thess. 2.15. But 'twas by the Fathers, as 'tis now, accommodated to signify a Doctrine not written, yet supposed to be Apostolical, which, if allowed to every pretender, would bring miserable confusion into Religion, and soon metamorphose it into an adulterated Form of human Invention, Mat. 15.9. & 10.16. Act. 5.19. Gal. 1.9.

Now all those Fathers that practiced Paedobaptism as an Apostolical practice not written, as most have indeed done, that being their best plea, are justly to be reputed ours, and of our side, for they judge it not from Scripture, therefore fetch its rise from Tradition, which because it cannot bear the weight of an Institution, the whole building is to fall; for by flying for refuge to Tradition, they do with us affirm, that there is no better ground for Infant Baptism then human Tradition, which is indeed none at all. And thus all the Testimony and Authority of these Fathers becomes ours. There hath been (we own) such a thing as the Traditions of Christ and the Apostles, which are of the highest and greatest authority, but they were such things as afterwards were committed to writing by the Evangelists and Apostles; other Traditions we avow none, but esteem them Apocryphal. So that it follows (as I said) that such as avouch Infant Baptism from Tradition, acknowledge in so doing, that there is no better authority for it, and so conclude with us that it hath not the Scripture for its foundation. And so those that give it to Infants as simply necessary to Salvation, will be of no authority against us, nor of any credit to their cause, because the building must be level'd according to the foundation, and that being false, they are necessitated to the mistake of their building. And if there were any force in these authorities for Infant Baptism, why should it not regulate our practice in the other Sacrament, which was as anciently given to Infants as the other, (and says Dr. Taylor p 231. they were honest that understood the obligation to be parallel) and in some places to this day, as Brerewood in his learned Enquiries affirms; viz. by the Jacobites, Christians so called in great numbers in Syria, Cyprus, Mesopotamia, Babylon, Palestine, so by the Habassines inhabiting Ethiopia, and the Armenians, &c. so that if Antiquity be our guide, it will lead us to administer the Supper as well as Baptism to Infants, and if it fail in the one, 'tis to be suspected in the other. I see not why the Supper should be a greater mystery then the other, or the ceremony more significant, or that the Duty of examining should need more of the use of Reason, then believing, repenting, and confessing our sins; 'tis as natural and proper to Infancy to be nourished, as to be born, therefore as capable of the ceremony of their nourishment, as of their birth, and so of one as well as the other Sacrament.

I am the longer upon this point, because it will much shorten what follows, and to show how unreasonable the immoderate veneration of Antiquity is, which hath well nigh undone the world, and justled the simple and primitive purity of Religion almost out of doors; and to reduce men to the testimony of the Word of God alone, in the decision of Controversies. The use we make of Antiquity is, not from any force we apprehend in such Reasonings to establish the truth we contend for; but barely by way of Illustration, and as an argumentum ad hominem only, as the Apostle Paul cited the Cretan Poet Epimenides to Tit. 1.12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; to prove what a censure their own Poets passed upon the Cretans: And to show that our Adversaries have no such advantage over us in the matter of Antiquity, as they vainly fancy; it being unanswerably made out by Mr. Danvers, Mr. Tombs, and others, that the Antiquity of the three first Centuries, as well as the Scripture text, is expressly for us. And of all Antiquity, we are most especially to regard those first Centuries, it being the ordinary course of things to contract corruptions more or less, according as they are more or less removed from their first Institutions. And more then so, that the truth we own has been eminently witnessed unto by some People and Churches all along, yea by the very mouths of our adversaries; for whilst by Canons and Curses they labor to establish Infant Baptism, to warrant which if they had conceived there were any Scripture ground, that would be needless; for as Mr. Wille well says, Inf. Bapt. p 106. That which prevails by force of a greater, needs not be assisted by a weaker Authority. Therefore they (having no Scripture to bottom it upon) employed both their Authority and ablest Pens to persuade the world that it was absolutely necessary, that so it might the easil • er be received. And thereby they declare, that it was from time to time witnessed against, otherwise their labor was idly spent, in making such a do to establish a practice that non eopposed. So that as Mr. Danvers well notes, Rep. p. 70. these Canons being made upon occasion of those that denied Infant Baptism, we have our witnesses through all ages to testify that our practice is no novelty. And if Tertullian 's opposing Infant Baptism, be brought as an evidence that it was then in the world, (as Mr. Walker says, p. 281.) then certainly we ought to have the like freedom of concluding, that if those Councils produced against us, bent their Authority to establish Infant Baptism, it is an evident proof that it was opposed all along, and so had no quiet being in the world.

Certainly the testimonies of Strabo (who lived about 837 years ago) and Vives, that no other but adult baptism was practiced of old, as cited by Vossius, Thes. Theol p. 429. are not to be slighted, however Strabo, or the Scribe, mistook the year of Augustine 's age. And in the midst of Papal darkness, about 400 or 500 years ago we find Bernard complaining thus, of the Puritans (so called) of his time; Irrident nos quod baptizamus Infantes, quod oramus pro mortuis, quod Sanctorum sustragta postulamus, &c. They deride us because we baptize Infants, and pray for the Dead, and desire the intercession of Saints. Serm. 66. in Cantic. And Vossius tells us; that Tertullian and Nazianzen were of the judgment of Strabo, and would have Infant Baptism deferred, (nisi pe • iculum (mort • s) urgeat,) and pray what should cause those great Doctors to oppose the Baptism of such Infants as were likely to live, if the Universal Church were of a contrary mind? Indeed Vossius says it was only their private opinion, but that's more then he is able to demonstrate from any of their Contemporaries; therefore his word for it, is but an ipse dixit, which must not stand against his plain demonstration of the other.

Mr. Walker in his Preface reckons 19 particular Reasons

Answ. I might here with greater equity retort this consideration upon Paedobaptism, as held by many Protestants, and say, that whereas we find the Antiquity that held up that practice, did it from such rotten, anti-evangelical, and exploded notions, (viz. the conceit of its absolute necessity to salvation, &c.) as most of our Protestants durst not own, (though I fear such writers as Mr. Walker border too near upon them) but do hold up the practice from another pretence, viz. that imaginary Covenant they dream, to have been made with believers and their carnal seed; therefore our present Paedobaptists retaining only the practice, not the ground of Antiquity, cannot without a manifest breach of modesty claim Antiquity for their Hypothesis, or against ours. But,

2. We are not much concerned to 〈◊〉 and time in disproof of this matter, since every rational man will allow, that (though we should take all this for granted, yet) the erroneous apprehensions of some persons, and their practices consequent thereto, and that too no higher then the 4th. Century, is no sufficient argument to prove that the generality of those primitive Christians, that lived in the precedent Centuries, which we challenge to be for our practice, delayed their own, or their Children's Baptism, from those particulars enumerated and no other; for all that delayed their own or Children's Baptism, upon the true and proper ground, viz. the want of Faith and Repentance, came not justly under reproof; (and that I presume is the reason, why they have had none) therefore there is a stronger probability that the writers of those times, judged that ground of delay ( viz. if in a state of unbelief) legitimate, and so had no occasion to mention it.

3. 'It is no strange thing, even in our day, that persons out of such undue and unwarrantable grounds as mentioned, delay their submission to the way and Ordinances of Christ, and I am persuaded that a great many, that are thoroughly enlightened, do yet at this time of light stifle Conscience, and for the Reasons mentioned in Mr. Walker 's 2, 3, 6, 14, and 19th. particulars, slight and neglect the pure worship of God, and satisfy themselves in a posture of worship quite foreign from what the Lord has prescribed. For where a mode of Religion is established by a Law, and where profits, preferments, safety, &c. are the baits of its professors, no wonder that men (carnally minded) follow it, and neglect that Savior whose kingdom is not of this world. Do • s it therefore follow by any rational way of deduction, that because a great many do so, therefore none do the contrary that because many deferred their Baptism for love of the world, therefore none deferred it because unqualified subjects, viz. unbelievers? — therefore how can this enumeration hurt us?

4 Besides, of Mr. Walker 's witnesses Tertullian is the eldest, who lived in the 3d Century; Nazianzen and Basil flourished in the 4th. and Chrysostom in the 5th. Century. Of these Tertullian being the earliest, and therefore worth more then all the rest, expressly oppos • s Infant Baptism from the same ground we do; — Let them come (says he) while they learn; — let them be made Christians (that is, baptized) when they can know Christ; — veniant dum discunt; — fiant Christiani quum Christum nosse potuerint, Tert. de bapt. p. 264. So that this witness is expressly for us, (though Mr. Walker was pleased to forget this ground of delay (in the right latitude) in his large ind • ction, though from so considerable a witness) the rest we regard not. We grant that in the following Centuries, Infant Baptism as well as Infant Communion, and other corruptions, gr • w to be more generally practiced, which about the • d. Century were obscurely creeping in, therefore the witnesses produced against us, of those times, if to prove a matter of fact, viz. that Infant Baptism was then in the world, are very needless, for we confess it; viz. first as being only practiced in peril of death, to save their dying souls, as other sick and dying persons; afterwards upon all Infants, as enjoin'd by the Councils, to take away Original sin, Regenerate and save them: If to prove de jure that it ought to be so, we reject their authority, as unfit Judges to determine our Controversies, being frail men, liable to error and corruption.

As to those 4 particulars concerning the delay of Infant B • ptism, for which he says Nazianzen reproves the deferrers, if it were so, it does not hinder but that there might be other Reasons for their delay; for Nazianzen himself was against the Baptism of Infants till they could Answer for themselves, except in case of urgent •• vil of death, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Orat. • 0 p 658 the good man being infected with that superstitious conceit, that Baptism was simply necessary to salvation. So that this witness contributes nothing of disservice to our Hypothesis, nor of advantage to our • dversaries.

The Text whereon Mr. Walker grounds his discourse is Luke 18.16. Suffer little children to come unto me, &c. from whence he infers, that little children are to be suffered to come unto Christ, and ought not to be forbidden coming unto him; which I confess is a sound conclusion. And be it noted by the way, that Dr. Hammond says the Arguments from this Text are imperfect ways of probation, sect. 23. of his Resol. to 6 Queries about Infant Bapt. whose word should do much with Mr. Walker. He that would evince that this Text is a sufficient foundation for the fabric of Paedobptism, should have proved, that there is no other way of coming unto Christ but by Baptism; or that Christ, or his Disciples, actually baptized these children; or that the blessing in the Text is baptizing. 'It is true, we have an ipse dixit from Mr. W. p. 19. that there can be no other way of their coming to Christ, but by Baptism; but he cannot blame us if we rely not upon his authority in so material a point.

Now if those things be not clearly demonstrated, no certain consequence will flow from this Text, that Infants ought to be baptized; and if it will not certainly follow, what rational man dares build his belief upon a foundation so uncertain, and that in opposition both to that plain precept and example we have for adult baptism. But this is so far from certainty, that there is not the least show of probability that our Savior did (or intended to) baptize them. That Christ hath no other way to bring Infants to himself, but by Baptism, is a speech too harsh, if not bordering upon blasphemy; therefore Mr. Walker should recall what he says that is liable to such an Interpretation: for if it were so, then doubtless our Savior would have ordered those children to be baptized, for whose approach unto him he was pleased to express so much willingness. So that as Dr. Taylor notes very pertinently, p. 230. Lib. Proph. we

'It is a most rational conjecture, that if it had been the practice of that time to baptize Infants, as well as the adult, and that they had 〈…〉 true, lawful, and wonted subjects of Bapti •• , the 〈◊〉 could not be so ignorant of, and contra •••• nry to the • r own known custom, as to forbid them, or 〈…〉 their •• wardness, but would have rather encouraged 〈◊〉 . m. But this circumstance discovers that Paeaobaptism was 〈◊〉 none of the Disciples employment; the ground of whose rebuke to those that brought the children (doubtless) was their unwillingness to have Christ too much pressed, and so they reproved others when they thronged so fast upon him, that they had no leisure so much as to eat bread.

Besides, in the 15th. verse we have the end noted, for which these children were brought to Christ, viz. that he would touch them, (and what doubtless) in order to their cure from bodily infirmities, which are as incident to Infants as Men; which is very probable, if you compare this passage as it is in Mat. 19.14. with the 2d. verse, where 'tis said, that he healed great multitudes. And Luke says, that they brought little children also, which term [also] shows that others were brought too, because they heard that virtue went out of him, and that as many as touched him, were perfect • y made whole, Mat. 14.36.

If we pass by without any opposition what Mr. Walker says in the 1, 2, 3 Chapters, it cannot hurt the cause we maintain; for we are willing to bring our children to Christ, as far as we are able, and he hath prescribed; to resig • them up to him, and dedicate them to his service, to pray for them, instruct them in the Faith, and in a word to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; we cannot bring them unto Christ, who is now in Heaven, by way of personal approach, (as the Infants in the Text were brought) therefore we know no other way to bring them unto him, but by teaching them as soon as they are able to learn, what it is to fear him, love him, believe in him, and obey his Laws. So that we agree with Mr. Walker, that we ought not to forbid our children to come unto Christ, but to contribute our endeavors to their early conversion, they having, in common with the rest of mankind, gracious Invitations to come to his Mercy seat, Mat. 11.28. Rev. 22.17. Isa. 55.1. &c. But to prove that Christ appointed the manner of their coming to him to be by Baptism, in any part of his word, (hic labor, hoc opus) is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of this dispute.

P. 13. Mr. Walker tells us, the phrase may be taken figuratively, so notes a becoming or being made a Disciple unto Christ, Mat. 11.28, 29. This is granted, but then the great doubt remains still, whether Infant Baptism singly considered, (I mean without the qualifications requisite in the baptized, which are Faith and Repentance, as the Church Catechism informs us) be of such efficacy as to make one a Disciple? Mr. Walker p. 17. holds the affirmative, his words are, Our children are made Disciples to Christ, by being baptized in the name and with the baptism of Christ. And p. 19 where either of these is, (viz. baptizing or teaching ) there a person may become, or be made a Disciple, though not so complete and perfect, as where there is both.

Answ. To affirm (as Mr. Walker does) that Baptism makes one a Disciple, is to contradict all the experience in the world; For, if we respect the signification of the word in its proper and genuine notion, (it being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , discipulus, of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , disco, and that of the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 didicit ) it signifies a Scholar, or one that learns of another, which necessarily implies a just ripeness and activity of Organs, inward and outward, which all Infants want; therefore, what can they learn by Baptism, who want the exercises of understanding, and in whom Reason is (as it were an embrio ) not yet come to a capacity of acting? And if we use the word according to the constant Scripture acceptation of it, 'tis certain, that though discipling, and baptizing, go together in the adult, the term is nowhere applied to Infants, but always to such as learnt the Doctrine of Christ, who says, Mat. 11.29. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , learn of me, &c. And Luk. 6.40. we have the term ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) which is a Relation, in the same proposition with its correlate ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Doctor, or Teacher. ) And Reason teacheth us, that where there is Discipleship, there must of necessity be Mastership or Doctorship, according to that Rule in Logic, Relata sunt simul naturâ, (nempe quatenus relata) that is, Relations (as they are such) are together in Nature; for though the Father be before the Child, yet he is not a Father till he has a Child; nor can one be a Master, or Doctor, before he teaches, nor a Scholar or Disciple, before he learns. So that Baptism having no such efficacy in itself, nor any such virtue confer'd upon it by any word of God, as to make one a Scholar or Disciple of Christ by the bare action, we may safely conclude that Disciples are made so by teaching, not by baptizing; which is further evidenced from John 4.1: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c Jesus made and baptized more Disciples, &c. where note that it is not said, made or baptized, for then the Greek should be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but 'tis a Conjunction copulative, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) denoting two distinct actions, viz. discipling, and baptizing. And hence it will undeniably follow, that it was the method of our Lord Jesus, to make Disciples first by teaching, and then baptize them. And certainly there can be no error in following so blessed a pattern.

And what warrant Mr. Walker has to wrest this word out of the signification the Holy Ghost constantly puts upon it, to countenance such a Discipleship as is no better then a mere conceit, (or ens rationis ) is more then I can imagine. These Scriptures John 6.45. 1 Cor. 4.6. Phil. 4.11. John 7.15. deserve consideration. So that I cannot see any ground to conclude, that this Text is such a clear Scripture ground for Infant Baptism, as Mr. Walker conceits it is p. 23.

He says p. 24. That a Consequence from Scripture rightly made, is a ground good enough to bear any weight that can be fairly laid upon it, and as valid to all intents and purposes as if it were express Scripture itself, that being eminently contained in the Scripture, whatever it be that may be fairly drawn from it.

Answ. Here I shall take occasion to consider, how far it may be safe to build upon Consequences in matters of Religion And first, it is most certain, that the All-wise God (judging it meet to give us that great and gracious gift of his Word, to be a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path, Psal. 119.105.) would not give us an imperfect or obscure Rule of Faith. The Lord is so far from leaving us at a loss, that as, in other cases, when objects or things to be believed are in their nature very spiritual and much remote from external sense, and the common road or ordinary walks of the Reasons or Understandings of men, (the eye of Faith being dim, wherewith they are to be apprehended ) he is graciously pleased to relieve the defect of that visive faculty, in clothing those spiritual objects with as much external sensibility as well may be, so accommodating and attempering the spirituality of them unto this eye, that it is enabled to behold them more steadily; thus is the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ, our Union and Communion with him, Sanctification and Forgiveness of sins, brought down in the Sacramental Ordinances of the Gospel, and accommodated to us as near as their spiritual and sublime natures would permit, by opportunity whereof Faith is much refreshed and encouraged, to converse more frequently with them, and to meditate with less distraction, and more composedness; as the Vail on Moses 's face qualified its dazzling brightness, and reduced the disproportion of the object to the children of Israel's weak senses, Deut. 34.33. Is it not therefore irrational to imagine, that the Lord, who is so ready to accommodate his blessed Mysteries by apt resemblances to our understandings, should yet deliver us his Divine Oracles in such a Dialect, as is not to be understood without the subtleties of Logic, and the Criticisms of the Schools? or that such things as are necessary to be believed and practiced, are left to the Inferences and Consequential deductions of men, which are as different, as passion, prejudice, opinion, or Interest influences them? Certainly such an oversight is not to be chargable upon the eternal wisdom of God, who has in a style full of gravity, simplicity and plainness, without fraudulent ornaments, accommodated whatsoever is to be believed or practiced to the understanding and capacities of men, and that in express and intelligible terms, which is indeed the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or meet accommodation of words into things. Non movent, non persuadent sacr • e literae (says Picus Mirandula ad Hermol. Barbar.) sed cogunt, agitant, vim inferunt, legis rudia verba, & agrestia, sed viva, sed animata, flammea, aculeata, ad imum spiritum penetrantia. He that with a discursive understanding considers, that the Scriptures in setting forth spiritual things aboundeth with Metaphors, Parables, and Similitudes borrowed from Earthly things, and often calling them by the very names that material or earthly things are called, cannot but arrive at this conclusion, that it is rather to accommodate those spiritual matters to our capacities and understandings, then to hide and obscure them from us; God conveying the knowledge of heavenly things to us, by preaching them by their respective parallels of earthly things; for as Burgersdicius well notes in his Logic, l. 1. c. 24. Oratio Metaphorica est perspicua sensibus, & ad animum assectusque movendos aptissima; A Metaphorical speech is perspicuous to sense, and to work upon the mind and affections most proper.

I shall readily own, (that the Lord having endued us with Reason, that being a discursive faculty, which from apt and proper premisses infers their natural Consequences ) we are not to flight that blessing, but to make use of it in its proper place, viz. in Resolving principles by fit Mediums into their Conclusions. But to be too busy in matters of God's positive worship, (which is as much out of the reach of our Reason to define, as it is beyond the power of a blind man to judge of colors, that depending merely upon God's Institution, and for which we have his plain prescriptiors before us) and boldly obtruding such Consequences in reference thereto, as our dim faculty of ratiocination shall suggest, is to offer strange fire at his Altar, and show ourselves rather bold Interpreters, then obeyers of his Law. Ratio est potentia Discursiva à principiis ad Conclusiones, sed non habet in se principia iliarum rerum quae side apprehenduntur; impudenter itaque Conclusiones aedificat super arenam opinionum suarum, cum sua principia quae sunt vera in ordint Naturae, opponit principtis Theologicis, quae sunt longe supra Naturam. God has lain down the Rules of worship plainly and operly; And as Wollebius says, p. 7. Comp. Theol. E •• i quibusdam locis obscurior sit, aliis tamen se explicat, & primarios Religianis articulos perspicue tradit; Though in some places it may be (seemingly) obscure, yet in other places it expounds itself, delivering the prime Articles of Faith very evidently and clearly, 2 Pet. 1.19, 20, 21. 2 Tim. 3.15, 16. And August. de doctr. Christ. l. 3. c. 26. tells us, that one place of Scripture must be expounded by another; locum unum sacrae Scripturae per alium ejusdem Scripturae clariorem facere est optima interpretatio. So that if the prime Articles of Faith, and practical Duties be evidently and perspicuously laid down and delivered in the Scriptures, (as indeed they are) what necessity is there to have recourse to such far fetched and extorted consequences, as are usually calculated to countenance some beloved error, for the sake of which, the Text is so tormented and racked by the Critical Wits of our age, that there is scarce any Sect but pretend patronage from it, though the Conclusions they squeeze are no more to be found in the premisses, (unless by that wretched art of Sophistry ) then a Dolphin in the Woods.

It is to be bewailed what conviction proof men are, even in so plain a case; has not common (and woeful) experience taught us, that when such a liberty of allowing Articles of Faith, and Opinions from pretended Consequences, was most encouraged, that Religion was then most encumbered (yea stifled) with the products of such wanton wits as played the Sophisters with Scripture, and obtruded such Brats of their own begetting, as legitimate off-springs of the Word, upon the too much abused and credulous Vulgar, to the misleading of their Souls, and fostering, as well as propagating, Division and Confusion in the Church? whereas of right, no products of an human spirit, should be receivable in Evangelical Religion. Therefore in my opinion 'tis the safest way to be sober in a matter of such high concernment, and admit of no consequence in point of faith or practice, that are obscure, doubtful, or uncertain, but only such as are plain, and to be easily seen by any eye to be the natural and undoubted result of the premisses, and consonant to the general nature and tenor of the Gospel. And Mr. Wills his demand, who shall be Judge to determine which consequences are plain, and which not? is a captious question, propounded only to make a noise; for the same interrogation lies against all consequences, viz. who shall Judge, what consequences are rightly deduced, and what not? which, (when he resolves it for himself) resolves the other also for us. 'It is certain, that every man's Reason and discretive Judgment, must in that case be his Judge, no other being invested into that Supremacy. 'It is true, that appears plain to one; which appears not so to another, therefore we are to pray for a discerning and clear understanding, Jam. 1.17. that we might be established in Evangelical Truths, without being beholden to the niceties of the Schoolmen, and their idle speculations.

I have insisted the longer upon this point, because we are generally charged to deny all Consequences from Scripture, which is false; for we grant that after the example of our Lord Jesus and his Apostle, Mat. 22.31, 32 Act. 13.33, 34. we may from plain and lawful premisses, infer their necessary Conclusion. The thing we deny is, that such Sophistical, pretended Consequences, (not at all countenanced in Scripture Text) as our adversaries use in the management of this Controversy of Infant Baptism against us, are of any validity or credit, and should not therefore be used.

It may be well called the Naked Truth, that (a late excellent Pen hath so feelingly expressed)

So that the conclusion I shall in this particular come to, is, That we are not under the notion of Consequence to admit anything in point of Religion, but what is of such clear and undoubted Scripture demonstration, as might satisfy the Conscience that it is the Will of God; And that we are to use all endeavors to rescue Christianity from those incumbrances of human inventions and Traditions, which the wanton and licentious Schoolmen have mixed with it; and so reduce it to its primitive purity and simplicity, by adhering close to the Word of God, and rejecting all those corrupt glosses, that under the title of explaining, render it indeed more obscure, unintelligible and confounding.

As to Mr. Walker 's Arguments from the benefits of Infant Baptism, which he says are an early Consecration — being brought thereby into Covenant — under a Vow — and others care — united to Christ — made thereby Children of God — heirs of Heaven — partakers of Grace — consigned to a Resurrection — are saved by it — freed from Original sin, &c. they are all, in the notion Mr. Walker holds them, Popish, and exploded (for the most part) by our learned Protestants, as vain and idle conceits. Insomuch that 'tis needless for me to spend time in disproof of that which is so fully done already. For what tendency has this kind of arguing, but to ascribe that virtue to the bare application of an Ordinance, which the Lord never gave to it, and so set up an Opus Operatum, which the Protestant Churches vehemently disclaim?

Dr. Owen in his Theologomena, lib. 6. c. 5. p. 477, &c. has excellently refelled this position, viz. Regeneration by Baptism ex opere operato, concluding with this verdict of it; Neque sane dogma perniciosius, aut quod peccatorum animis praesentius venenum propinaret, facile excogitaret ipse mendaciorum pater. — That the very Father of lies could not easily invent a more pernicious opinion, or which might instill a more deadly poison into the hearts of sinners. And then very amply discovers, how all are born in sin, being children of wrath by nature; and that Regeneration is effected by the Spirit, through the Word in the hearts of believers according to the New Covenant, and not by these Popish Inventions.

Of the same Judgment with Dr. Owen herein, were our first impugners of Popery the Waldenses, in their Treatise of Antichrist, writ (as is said) by Peter Bruys Anno 1120. P. Perin. l. 3. p. 267. So was the famous Wycliffe, as Mr. Danvers demonstrates at large, p. 121. &c. of 2 Reply. And Dr. Usher in his State and succession of the Church, Dr. Taylor Lib. Proph. p. 242, 243, &c. and in a word the whole stream of modern Doctors. Calvin 's words are memorable in inveighing against the mischiefs of this opinion, Instit. l. 4. c. 15. sect. 20. Quantum damni invexerit dogma illud male expositum, baptisma esse de necessitate salutis, pauci animadvertunt. Ideoque minus sibi cavent, nam ubi invaluit opinio, perditos esse omnes, quibus aquâ cingi non contingit, nostra conditio deterior est quam vtteru populi, quasi restrictior esset Dei gratia quam sub lege, venisse enim Christus censebitur non ad implendas promissiones sed abolendas, quando promissio quae tunc ante octavam diem, saluti conserendae per se erat satis efficax, nunc absque signi adminiculo rata non esset. And sect. 32. saith, Non arceri à regno Coelorum Infantes quibus à praesenti vita migrare contingit, antequam aqua mergi datum fuerit; atqui jam visum est fieri non levem injuriam Dei faederi, nisi in eo acquiescimus, ac si per se infirmum eset, quum ejus effectas neque à baptismo, neque ab ullis accessionibus pendeot, &c. So Rogers in his Analysis of the 39 Articles, p 167, 168. tells us in behalf of the Church of England, We condemn the Opinion of the Russe is, that there is such a necessity of Baptism, that all that die without it, are damned. Reverend Mr. Perkins on Gal 2. Vol. 2. Edit. 1617. p. 191, &c. tells us,

Yet to add ex abundanti, I shall cite one more as a witness against the absolute necessity of Baptism; it is Mr. Wills, p. 150. Infant Bapt. who to give him his due, speaks notably to it; If Baptism (says he) be of absolute necessity to salvation, and that Regeneration is affixt to it, and none can be saved without it, then it is in man's power to save and to destroy; If they will baptize their children, they may save them; if they neglect it, damn them, which is horrible absurdity to conceive. And in the next page makes out very well, that Baptism is not at all concerned in John 13.5. but Regeneration; and in so doing proves himself to be more Orthodox in that particular, then all his Antiquity for Paedobaptism, who all of them expounded that Text of external baptism, though very absurdly. But what need I particularize a few, when the whole stream of the Reformed Writers exclaim with one consent against this Doctrine, and bend much of their labors to refell it.

Mr. Walker indeed says, as p. 113. That it hath not any Physical virtue in itself, in the way of a Natural cause to effect Salvation: But the very Papists say so much, for no man will be so ridiculous as to assert it a Natural cause of salvation, and I am certain the Papists say no more, then Mr. Walker, when he tells us, that Baptism saves Infants, as p. 108. That it must needs make our Hell the more hot to find our unbaptized children there, p. 147. That the baptized are rescued wholly, or in a great measure, from Original sin, p. 150. No Baptism, then no Son of God, and then no Heir of his, p. 153. No Baptism, no entrance even for Infants into the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, ordinarily, &c. p 154. None were saved without the Ark; so none, that we are sure of, are saved without Baptism; — What need Infants have of Salvation, the same they have of Baptism for their Salvation, p. 156. calls an Unbaptized state a damnable state, p. 142. with much more to that effect. And pray what's all this but an Opus Operatum? or a tying the Grace of God to the Sacrament? I know not that the Papists say anymore then Mr. Walker, p. 113. viz. that it hath a saving efficacy for such end communicated by God to it, &c. but I would fain learn of Mr. Walker, who made him acquainted with that part of God's counsel; for I could never yet find it in the Bible, that Baptism was dignified with so transcendent an energy, as (in disjunction from Faith, and so 'tis in all Infants) to effect Salvation.

'It is true, to a qualified subject, viz. a penitent Believer, the Lord has made it an Instrument, through which he conveys the saving communications of his Grace; and to such it is necessary (not absolute, but) necessitate praecepti, because God commanded it. Yet the want of it, where it may not be had, damus not; though the contempt of it, is a horrible affront to the Divine Majesty, and consequently a dangerous sin. But 'tis not necessary, necessitate medii, since salvation, which is the end, may be had without it; as in the ease of the Thief upon the Cross, &c. But to Infants it is no way necessary; (1) tis not so necessitate praecepti, because Christ nowhere commanded such to be baptized; nor (2) necessitate medii, because Christ nowhere appointed it to be the means of their salvation. We have several passages in Scripture, that give us encouragement of the salvation of dying Infants, through the rich grace and tender mercy of him, who is (we hope) their Redeemer as well as ours. But I have in my Answer to Mr. Baxter, p. 16. touched upon this point.

Next Mr. Walker in 5 Chapters labors to show, that children are not incapable of Baptism; but his Reasons are not convincing to me, nor do I believe they can be so to any, that with an unprejudiced mind, reads our Books; wherein is amply made out, that Infants are not capable subjects of Baptism, no more then of other Church Ordinances, because they want Faith and Repentance, as the Church Catechism informs us; and which the same Book tells us, is required of persons to be baptized. Neither will the Sureties profession for the Child serve the turn, for we find no such practice allowed of, or so much as mentioned in Scripture. Neither by any Law of God or man, is such a dispensation granted, that a substitution of another's Faith, should supply the desect of the person to be baptized: Nor does the Child give them any Commission to believe for him, nor can they perform, what they promise, which is no less then the performance of the great and principal graces of the New Covenant, viz. Faith and Repentance, which are the peculiar gifts of God. But I shall dismiss this particular, referring Mr. Walker to Mr. Tombs his Just Reply, p. 105. Printed 1675. where by way of Animadversion on that part of the Common-Prayer-Book, he confutes this practice unanswerably; And Mr. Danvers his Treat. p. 83, 84. and 218, 219, 220. where it is also refelled by substantial, and yet unanswered, Reasons.

It is an inconsiderate expression of Mr. Walker to say, p. 203 That in this argument of twist • d hairs (viz from the order of the words Mat. 28.19.) the greatest strength of these Samson's lies: For we do not infist upon the order of the words only, but upon the order of the things also, as constantly practiced. And I challenge any man to produce, that the order of the things ever differed from the order of the words, or was by any Apostolical practice inverted; or that any person was baptized by them that was not first taught. So that having the order of words and things also for us, and that from a mouth that never spoke an incongruous word, we conceive we deserve no blame in adhering to so plain a rule.

But Mr. Walker says, the order of words is for them, because here is teaching after baptizing; and Mar. 1.4, 5. John baptized and preached, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signisying, not teach, but to make another a Disciple; and so reads a Grammatical Lecture, ending in this, that unless it be understood, make disciples by baptizing them, and by teaching them, there is a Tautology in the phrase, — as Teach all Nations, &c. — Teaching them, &c.

Answ. That Mr. Walker hath made choice of a wrong Interpretation, yea such as will be guilty of a signal absurdity, will be easily apparent. And 1. I confess the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , signifies discipulate, or ma • e disciples. And if the phrase be admitted to bear that sense Mr. Walker would have, viz. to make Disciples by baptizing and teaching, yet Infants will be excluded; because to the making of Disciples these two actions are required, viz. baptizing and teaching; and Infants are uncapable of the later till they come to years, therefore cannot be discipled. But, that (making Disciples) and (baptizing) are (as hinted already above) two distinct actions, is clear in John 4.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. he maketh and baptizeth more disciples, &c. you see 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by the conjunction copulative [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] is set down as a distinct work from ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) therefore he did not make them Disciples by Baptism, but by something acted towards them before. And if this be not understood so, and that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are Synonima 's, here will be a manifest Tautology, for then the words will run, Jesus baptized, and baptized more Disciples then John.

And I appeal to Mr. Walker 's Conscience, whether what is expressed Mat. 28.19. by the Participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , may not without any violation of the sense be read imperatively by the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , thus, Disciple all Nations, and baptize them; and if so, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 would be terms equipollent, and so (by consequence) Tantology, viz. go baptize all Nations, and baptize them, a gemination elegant in the Hebrew, but supper • fluous in the Greek Tongu • ? But to clear our own Interpretation, as well as I demonstrate the absurdity of theirs, it is necessary to know, that there is a general teaching to acquaint persons with the Gospel, which who • once they believe and are baptized, there is a second teaching to bring them on towards perfection. You know what a short Consession was required of the Eunuch, Act 8.37. If thou believest with all thy heart (says Philip) thou mayst. The profession of which short Creed, qualified him (being by that a Disciple fit) for Baptism. But was there no need (think you) of any further teaching? Yes doubtless, he had need of Instruction in the practical Duties of Christianity afterwards. So that the words are thus easily vindicated from Tautology, for they run Paraphrastically thus: As if Christ had said, Go disciple the Nations, that is (as Mark 16.15. more plainly delivered) preach the Gospel to every Creature, and baptize such as are so discipled by your preaching, and when they are admitted into Church Communion, teach them to observe all my Commands. See here (as plain, as if writ with the Sun beams) that the first teaching is, what they should believe, and the next teaching is, what they should do; Faith being necessary to admit them into the Church, and a holy Conversation necessary to keep them there. And that this is the genuine meaning and Interpretation, we need no other proof then the Apostles practice pursuant to it, who preached first, then baptized, and then taught too. First they gathered Churches by preaching and baptizing, and then preached to them so gathered; the first preaching for Conversion, the other for Confirmation and further Instruction; a teaching à priori in order to Discipleship and Baptism, and a teaching à posteriori in order to Perfection. Baptism is to be by precept immediately after the first, and the other by precept so immediately after Baptism, which is walled in on both sides by teaching, that Infants are universally excluded, till they be capable of being taught.

As for Mark 1.4. in the verse before preaching is before baptizing, — The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord. — And 'tis absurd to imagine that a man can be baptized before he be preached unto; for then he should be baptized, into he knows not what.

Mr. Walker 's urging the Custom of the Catholic Church to baptize Infants, and the Constitution of the Church of England in justification of that practice, serves to little more purpose then to fill up his paper; for neither the one, nor the other, will prove that it ought to be so; for the Universality of an error renders it not authentic. Therefore though I could produce several exceptions against Mr. Walker 's claim to some of those Authorities he produces, yet I shall only glance upon what he says about the 3 first Centuries. And truly if we inquire into the quality of the Witnesses produced for these times, it will be found that Paedobaptism leans upon a broken reed. For the earliest they pretend to, is Justin Martyr's Responses, which is a spurious piece, as is evidently and unanswerably made out by Mr. Danvers, Treat. p. 140. insomuch that Mr. Walker in his postscript makes no defense to it, save to say, that it is acknowledged a very ancient piece. But by his leave, it is not so ancient neither, for 'tis certain it was forged after the 3d Century, (probably a very considerable time) for mention is made Quest. 127. of the Manichees, who sprung not up till about 130 years after Justine, who wrote his • Apolog. 150 years after Christ, and so this Witness is cashiered. There are many Reasons to be seen in Scultetus in Annal. Justin cap. 11. to detect this forgery; and the learned Daille, V • ssius, Rivet, Perkins, &c. reject it; therefore no argument from such a cheat is valid against us.

As for the Constitutions ascribed to Clemens Romanus, and Dionysius the Areop. Eccles. Hierar. I wonder Mr. Walker would fill up so many pages from such a Rhapsody of forgery, after all the unanswered arguments given against them by Mr. Danvers, Treat. p. 140. 1 Rep p. 80, 81, &c. which were so much to Mr. Wills 's conviction, that he confesses them to be a cheating Tribe, p. 127. Inf. Bapt. And they are not only disowned by us, but by learned Paedobaptists also, as by Voffius Thes. Theol. p. 432. Edit. 1628. who though he took great pains to prove the Antiquity of Paedobaptism, yet slights Justine's Responses, the Eccl. Hier. and these Constitutions, as suppositious; — Mitto ( • os) ne • • rim libri isti corum sunt, quibus tribuuntur vulgo; — I make no account of them, (says he) for the Books commonly ascri • ed to them are none of theirs. So the learned Daille, and many other Paedobaptists, whose testimonies are not to be slighted, because against their own practice; for the witnesses of enemies are ever most convictive.

The pretended testimonies of Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Ori • en, are largely discovered to be invalid by Mr. Danvers, Treat. p. 134, to 150. Reply p. 84, to 97. and Rejoined. p. 16. to 21. and by Mr. Tombs, 3 Review, sect. 89, 90, 91, 98, &c. so that it is indeed labor lost to add anything thereto. Yet,

1. 'It is a great doubt whether Irenaeus his speech (if it were his own) be at all of Infant Baptism; the most that can be said is, that perhaps it was so; and forte ita, solvitur per forte non. All that's produced from him is, that Christ came to save (omnes qui per eum renascuntur, Infantes, Paeros, Juvenes, Seniores) all that are born again through him, Infants, noys, Young men, Old men; which proves not that Infant Baptism was at that time in the world: For 'tis more probable that the right deduction from thence is, that in the opinion of Irenaeus, Infants are capable of the New birth, or Salvation, as well as elder persons. For to be born again, and to be baptized, are not terms Synonimous, or Convertible; for many are regenerated and saved, that are not baptized; and many baptized, that are not regenerated and saved Besides if this passage mean Infants to be baptized by Christ, it contradicts John 4.2. where 'tis said that Christ baptized not. See Mr. Tombs 3 Review p. 79. and Mr. Danvers 1 Rep'y p 82.

'It is (certainly) ill done to take such a Gloss after that impudent Monk Fevardontius, who as Rivet tells us, Crit. Secr. l. 2. c. 26. was a man of villainous audacity, and of no Faith, who most filthily and with impious and lying Annotations • oexupted the • arks of Irenaeus; hamo project and acae, & nuliius fidei, soede in multis corrupit [opera Irenaei] & annotationibus impius & mendacious conspureavit.

As for Tertullian, he is (as before) expressly for us, and V • lius, Daille, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Wills, yea and Mr. Walker, confess so much Nor do those passages Mr. Walker quotes, so much as mention I • sant Baptism as approving it, nor anything directly tending thereto; for then Tertullian should have contradicted himself. Daille says in his Right use of the Fathers, l. 2. p. 72. that Tertullian was so far from pressing men to baptize their children, while they are young, that he allows, and indeed persuades the contrary, &c. and his opinion herein, is not much disserent from that of the Anabaptists of our time.

If Cyprians Epistle be genuine and uncorrupted, (as is doubted too, his Works falling into ill hands ) 'tis rather a shame then a credit to Paedobaptism, to infist upon such a ridiculous piece, that asserts Infants Baptism from such corrupt grounds as are there insisted upon.

Vossius 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 3 • 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 households; 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 households 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 Topic he insists upon, viz. the unbelieving husband is sanctified by (it should be to) the wife, &c. which he says should be rendered ( hath been sanctified, as Dr. Hammond formerly said) it being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; And that the sense of (hath been sanctified) is, hath been baptized, the effect being put for the act, by a Metonymy.

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 chooses 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 women's 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 skilled in the use of Particles, having indeed excellently advanced that kind of learning ) knows that the particle ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) should be rendered (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 affirmed; for the faith of the one is not the (next and effectual) cause of the others Sa • ctification; for this Sanctification is contingent, that is, it may, or it may not be, as verse 16. Thus its rendered Col. 1.23. — preached 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to every creature. Rom. 1.24. God gave them up 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to uncleanness. 2 Cor. 8.1. the grace of God is bestowed (or given) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (rendered in Latin in the dative, Ecclesiis ) to the Churches. 2 Pet. 1.5. add to your faith, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Mat. 27.12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to him. Act. 7.44. tabernaculum testimony suit patribus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; the particle ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) being in these places, and many others, rendered (to) not (by) Besides, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , holy, and unclean, are immediate opposites • and therefore according to Logic 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 signify 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 Privileges, 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 ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unclean ) is used for whoredom frequently in Scripture, as Rom. 1 • 24. & 6.19. Ephes. 5.3. Col. 3.5. Rev. 17.4. What Nazianzen 's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 imports, is nothing to us, the expression is a mere Catechresis. And 'tis certain the term is nowhere in Scripture used in such a sense, viz. he was sanctified, for he was baptized; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 color 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 • 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 lie against themselves in many points of Popery they reject. And his enumeration of things believed, yet not expressly delivered in Scripture, is frivolous: for we deny not, but Infant Baptism may be right, if proved 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. 'It is a very bold, and dangerous practice, to set up any Invention of our own in Religion, under pretence of its being agreeable to God's 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 lawful, 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 anything 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 women's receiving the Lord's Supper, is not satisfactory, nor does it prove that there is as good consequence for Infant Baptism, as women's 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 defense 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 merely 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.