THou art here entertained once more with this Controverſie; 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 needfull 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 ſinfull) ſilence, by which Truth is betray'd 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 perſwaſion. In anſwer to which I humbly ſubmit theſe brief Conſiderations.

1. That the higheſt attainments of Learning, do not priviledge 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, faithfull Chriſtian, Mat. 7.7. & 21.22. James 1.5, 6, 7, 17. 1 John 3.22. And common experience ſhews 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 Gods 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 imploy'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 Falſhood, Philoſoph • Haeretic • rum patriarchae; it being in their Judgments a depre • ſion of their imaginary glory to acknowledge, that poor Mechanicks, or Laicks (as they count them) ſhould correct their Learned extravagance, or be better proficients 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 Thankfull 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 luſtre, 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 rayes 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'l ſay, that many • f our oppoſ • te, • re 〈◊〉 . as well as learned. Which I ſhall readily grant. And I am perſwaded 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 ſtupendious learning, ſhould erre all this while? &c. Contra Petro Bruiſianos, p. 1124. Edit. 1614. Siccinè caecatus eſt orbis terrarum, tantâque hucuſque caligine involutus, ut ad aperiendes oculos ſuos, & ad tam diuturnam noctem illuſtrandam, poſt tot Patres, Martyres, Pontifices, & univerſarum Eccleſiarum principes, vos tandiu expectârit, & ad corrigendum longum errorem ſuum, Petrum de Bruis, & Henricum ejus aſſeclam, velut Apoſtolos noviſſimos elegerit? Itanè 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 erre, 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 favourites. We are not to follow a Paul, but as he follows Chriſt, 1 Cor. 11.1. We are not to follow a multitude any more in error, then evil, Deut. 23.2. We are not to believe an Angel from Heaven, any more 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, 'Tis arrogance in you to think your ſelves wiſer then your Forefathers; and want of charity, if you ſay they erred either maliciouſly or wilfully.

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 Soveraignty. 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 WITHOƲT IT THEIR CHILDREN ARE DAMNED. (5) Many of the great and learned ones hold it, becauſe it is the Cornerſtone of the Eccleſiaſtical Fabrick 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 unlawfull, and ſo are led by an implicite Faith. (8) Some that examine it are byaſſed 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 blameleſly. 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 erre 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 Haereſes inveniuntur, non eſt tamen, ut condemnemus vel librum, vtl Authorem, Deus enim hoc permittit, ut nos veritatem ex ipſis ſcripturis indagemus, Anſelm. Comment. in 2 Cor. Therefore it is the leſs to be wondred, 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 tryal 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 ſhew 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 mans ipſe dixit.

I would not be underſtood in any thing I ſay about this matter, to cry down humane learning as a thing of no uſe: For I confeſs it to be of excellent benefit in its place, if rightly employ'd; and that the knowledge of the Original Languages in which the Scriptures are penn'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 humane 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 ſphear, it becomes extravagant and ſawcy. 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. 'Tis the work of Faith, by the aid of Divine Revelation to be employ'd 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 qualifie 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 Academicks, 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.

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 leaſure 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 ſayes, Poſtſcript, p. 250. Free from all Family entanglements, &c.) had he any thing 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 perſwaſion, 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 Maior 〈…〉 • 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 indeavoured in ſome late Animadverſions upon Mr. Whiſtons anſwer to Mr. Danvers, to make him ſenſible how unrighteous and lyable 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 ſtampt Divinity, eſpecially ſince it conſiſts of little more then meer 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 ſome thing 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. Baxters 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 labours in an intire Tract, then thus by parcels. But ſince he is in the humour 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 incounter 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) oblidged 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 concern'd 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 priviledges 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) applyed to them; ſince (I ſay) theſe tedious branches of his Diſ ••• ſe ſprang from an unſound Root, or meer 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 labour 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 priviledges he dreams of will vaniſh into guilded Chyme •• 's, or the meer 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.

The Conſequences produced for Infant Baptiſm, we find to be ſophiſtical wretched Non-ſequitur's, and againſt the rules of that Logick, ſo celebrated by the Authors that make them.

The Jewiſh high-Prieſthood, will prove a high-Prieſthood now, by as good Conſequence of the faederal right, then, proves a faederal right now. And the Paſſover being to be taken and eaten, Exod. 12.4. according to the number of jouls in the houſe, and by every one according to his eating (and therefore by Children) will afford a conſequence of Infants right to the Supper, as valid, as that drawn from their Circumciſion to their Baptiſm.

But that indeed there is no Birth-holineſs now (that being a legal priviledge aboliſht, and not comporting with the Goſpel) is unanſwerably evident by this Argument.

If the legal commoneſs and uncleanneſs of ſome meats, Fleſh, Birds, Beaſts, Perſons and their natural ſeed above others be taken away; then the legal holineſs and cleanneſs of ſome meats, Fleſh, Birds, Beaſts, Perſons and their natural ſeed above others, is alſo taken away. But the Antecedent is true; Ergo, ſo is the Conſequent.

The major is undenyable from theſe received Maxims, Contrariorum eadem eſt ratio: And Contrariorum uno ſublato, tollitur alterum, viz. Of Contrary's take away one, and the other cannot remain in its oppoſition to it any longer. The minor is evident from Act. 10.11, to 28, Act. 11.2 to 9. Gal. 2.11. to 28. But to the matter

VVe find the true reaſons of the primitive Saints being Baptzed at age, to be, becauſe they durſt not recede from the Rule. And that's our reaſon for practicing as they did.

4. VVe know no advantage accruing to Infants from their Baptiſm, it makes them in your own eſteem nominal, not real Members of the viſible Church. And the name without the nature is worthleſs. And the abſurdities and inconveniencies of that practice are obvious in our VVritings. The Goſpel Church muſt conſiſt of living Stones, at leaſt ſuch as (to our cognizance) profeſs ſo to be, not ignorant Babes untransformed out of their natural ſtate.

5. That we place too much of our Religion in an external mode, is falſe ſuggeſtion, not to be made out by Mr. Whiſtons Logick. VVe profeſs to worſhip God in Spirit and Truth, (according to our meaſute, and by Divine aſſiſtance) in an exact conformity to his Revealed VVill.

6. Our enquiry's after the will of Chriſt, are from the Revelations of his will in his word, and if that be termed prepoſtero • s, let our oppoſites find a better foundation for their enquiry's, and it ſhall be conſidered. VVe think it a fruitleſs, and • indeed prepoſterous undertaking to ſeek for the Inſtitution of Baptiſm in Gen. 17.7. VVe have it nearer home in the New Teſtament, and that we adhere to. No Arguments from the pretended Analogy to Circumciſion are deemed by us of any greater force, then thoſe drawn from the Levitical Prieſthood and its Ceremonious appurtenances to vindicate the Papal, or National Prelacy and its concomitant rites

In Mr. Whiſtons 1 Book he layes down his grand propoſition p. 1. thus That it is the will of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, that the Infant ſeed of one, or both believing Parents ſhould be baptized. To prove which p. 2. he layes down three ſubordinate propoſitions, viz. That God in Gen. 17.7. Intended Abraham and his natural ſeed. 2. That God ſettled the ſame promiſe upon, and confirmed it to believing Gentiles. 3. That all under the promiſe ought to be Baptized.

Page 3. He diſtinguiſhes Abrahams ſeed into natural, and ſpiritual, or Myſtical. p. 4. He ſubdiſtinguiſhes the ſpiritual, or Myſtical into viſible and Denominative 2. Inviſible and Real, Rom. 9.6. Tells us p. 5. That Baptiſm doth not properly incorporate into the body of Chriſt, as inviſible, but as viſible. p. 7. Sayes the difference between both. Seeds is only Reſpective, becauſe the ſame perſons in different reſpects may be both his Natural and Spiritual Seed. Natural Seed, are ſuch as deſcend immediatly from Abrahams own Lovns, or 2. his whole race and Poſterity. p. 10 He ſayes that under the term (Seed) both Natural and Myſtical are comprehended. p. 17. That under this Covenant both Jews and Gentiles are comprehended. —And that God had a peculiar regard to the Natural Seed — that Parents performing the Conditions of the Covenant, convey to their Children the ſame Intereſts themſelves had.

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 prov'd 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 intitles 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 ſavour 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 priviledges under Goſpel adminiſtrations prove not Infant Baptiſme, 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 applyed to ſignifie.

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 eſtabliſht 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 Signes, Figures, Types, Promiſes, and Propheſies, renewed and ratified with the bleſſed Patriarchs Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Sem, Melchiſedeck, 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 alwayes, 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 confidered depends intirely 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 aſcention of Chriſt.

Before Chriſts 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.

'Tis 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 Abrahams 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 eſtabliſht by Jeſus Chriſt at his coming. This Covenant miniſtred not to any Doctrine above or beyond it ſelf. Heb. 10.1. but was it ſelf the Myſtery of the Grace of God plainly adminiſtred, 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 priviledge 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 priviledge 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 Priviledge cannot be ſquared by that rule, to have place in that building. Iſa. 54.13. with John 6.44, 45. Luk 14.26. Goſpel Priviledges 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 adminiſtred, not Fleſh and Figure.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do not alwayes 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. Ameſius in his Coronis to Remonſtrants Art. 5. c. Wollebius in Compend. Theol. l. 1. Can. and lib. 1: ca. 21. Twiſſ. 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 referr'd to, becauſe I intend to confine my ſelf 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 expreſly 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 mans 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 inforcing it, duely weighed, (I queſtion not) would put an end to the Controverſy about the Birth Priviledge upon which the Baptiſm of Infants is founded; and to ballance 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 any thing 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 alledged, 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 joyn 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 priviledge 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 colour for ſuch a concluſion: For Salvation may be ſaid to become to Zacheus 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 any thing. Salvation is tendered to all, but it is applyed only by every ones faith in Jeſus Chriſt. If it be not ſo, they are happy families indeed that can obtain it at ſo eaſie a rate as their Maſters faith! They may lye in unbelief, that have a Zacheus to believe for them! Surely this is none of Chriſts 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 ſtiled 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 Chriſts, and capable of Baptiſm. The whole (as the context ſhews) is an incouragement 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 Childrens (viz. their poſterity) and all God ſhould call though a far off, if they did Repent and were Baptiſed into the name of Chriſt

Of our mind herein is Dr. Hamond (a great pleader for Infant Baptiſm) who ſayes 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 defence 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. Sayes 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 Jaylors 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 è contrà. Which I ſuppoſe no ſober Proteſtant durſt affirm▪ And Mr. Whiſton will do well to recal 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 defence 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 perſwading. 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 labour to prove that the Covenant entred 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 ſhew 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, ſhews us what his will is concerning Baptiſm, and that as the one, ſo the other ſhould be applyed 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 connexion with the thing ſignified, as Smoke to Fire. Arbitrary ſigns, ſignifie 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 ſhews what's paſt, as the Lords Supper ſhews Chriſts Death. The ſecond ſomething preſent. The third, ſomething to come; as Phyſitians 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 rejoyced with all his houſe, he believing in God; is vain. For by this Interpretation, his whole family was capable of rejoycing; 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 connexion 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 labours 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 waſts 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 carryes a ſufficient antidote againſt its own ill influence, to any perſons that have not a mind to be deceived.

There are ſeveral things more lyable 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.