Truth Defended, Survey
A Brief Survey and Confutation of Mr. Whiſtons Books, &c.
I Shall begin with his large Preface of about 46 pages: Wherein he ſayes page 7. That if he errs, it is cum ratione. To which I ſay, that errour is too often diſguiſed under the plauſible ſhew 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 pernicions; in as much as 'tis ſo much the more likely to inſnare 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 Baptiſme 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 Lords 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. VVe 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 VVe 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 paſſe. There muſt be tam neceſſarius nexus, & indiſſolubilis aependentia, ſuch an infallible dependance 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 meerly for the non-application of a Sacrament (provided it to be not contemned) I can no where find. Urſinus tells us in his Catechiſm, that it is not the want, but the contempt of the Sacraments damns, Privatio Sacramenti non damnat, ſi non accedat contemptus, Chriſtus non adimit 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 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.
Cap. 1, p. 19. He labours to prove that all Abrahams immediate Natural ſeed—were intended as the immediate ſubjects of his promiſe, (Gen 17.7.) p. 36. That the Covenant made with Abraham was a Covenant of Grace— And the ſame for ſubſtance that believers are now under.—That it was conditional. p. 51. A Covenant being a mutual compact. p. 52. That the Condition required of Abraham, was alſo required of his Natural Seed. p. 54. Chap. 4. p. 64 The 2d. ſubordinate propoſition is Proſecuted, into which ſervice theſe Scriptures are preſſed, Deut. 29.10. to 13. Iſa. 59.21. and 65.25. and 44.3, 4. Jer. 3.12. Ezek. 37.21, 22. with Rom. 11.26. That is the ſame Covenant Jews and Gentiles are under, Jer. 31.31. with Heb. 8.8. Iſa. 54.1. with Gal. 4.27. Hoſ. 1.11. and 2, 3. with Rom. 9.25, 26. Amos 9.11. with Acts 15.20. ſo out of the New Teſtament Gal. 3.13, 14.
Chap. 6. p 104. He proceeds to make our that the promiſe of Salvation appertains to the houſes of believing Parents, as ſuch, without reſpect to the perſonal faith of any in the ſaid houſes of ſuch, beſides there own; for which he urges, Mar. 10.31. Luke 19.8, 9. Acts 2.38, 39. and 16.31. 1 Cor. 7.14. And p. 106. ſayes the promiſe, believers are under, is not abſolute, but Conditional; and ſo it muſt be underſtood of their houſes — which Condition he expounds p. 108. viz. That the Maſter of the Family believing, his houſe ſhall be ſaved upon Condition of his believing. He affirms ibid. that Children in an eſpecial manner are included and comprehended under the term (houſe.) p. 203. That the Intereſt of any of Abrahams natural ſeed, ariſes from their Relation to their immediate, Parents included in the phraſe (their generations.) Affirms p. 205. that the Infant ſeed of believing Gentiles are to be accounted of, numbred amongſt Abrahams Myſtical ſeed.
Chap. 7. p. 213. The 3d. ſubordinate propoſition is proſecuted from Gen. 17.9. That as Circumciſion of old, ſo Baptiſm is now the token of that Covenant. And p. 222. That the will of God concerning Circumciſion, ſhews us what is his will concerning Baptiſm, as the one, ſo the other, ſhould be applyed to the Infants of believing Parents — Yet ſayes he argues not from Analogy, only takes Circumciſion as a Comment upon the Command, Gen. 17.7. p. 226. He comes to ſhew the agreement of …apti…m to Circumciſion, as being both the ſolemn rite of admittance into the Church: 2d. To ſeal and aſſure the ſubiects of it their enjoyment of the good things, bleſſings and benefits promiſed in the Covenant, as Remiſſion of ſins. 3d. To oblidge the perſon receiving it to keep exactly the Articles of this Covenant. Jer. 4.4. 4th. …o be a viſible badge to diſtinguiſh the people of God from all other people. Chap. 10. p. 249. He brings the ſeveral inſtances of ſeveral Houſholds to confirm his tenent. Act. 16.14, 15, 33. 1 Cor. 16.16. as Lydia p. 273. the Taylor p. 27…. Stephanus p. 274.
Chap. 11. and the Chapters not mentioned, as 3, 7, 8. &c. He pretends to anſwer Objections, amongſt which he inſiſts upon Mat. 28.19. with Mar. 16.15, 16. p. 288.
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.
foreign and foreign 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. foreign 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 [foreign, with his whole family] in the propriety of the phraſe, having an immediate relation, and connexion to foreign, 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.
Mr. Whiſtons Poſtſcript p 246. alledges, 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 Abrahams ſeed in their generations; and ſayes, that becauſe Mr. Hutchinſon proceeded to diſprove that opinion which is none of his, he is not concerned to anſwer him.
But I ſhall ſhew 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 Topick. 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.
Abrahams 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 immediatly ſprung from him▪ Hence the Jews ſtifly pleaded their priviledge, 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 priviledges (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 childs turn, there's all the reaſon in the world, that the farhers Baptiſm, ſhould alſo be Baptiſm enough to the child Why the one ſhou'd 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. That Infants can ſtand in no Relation to Abraham now, neither immediatly, or remotely conſidered; And conſequently not to be baptized upon that account, as p. 4 that Act. 2.38, 39 is no ground for Infant Baptiſm, p 7. That Abrahae…s own natural ſeed, are not his ſpiritual ſeed without perſonal faith, p. 12. That there's no ſuch thing as a Jewiſh Birth-priviledge in Goſpel dayes p. 14 That Abraham has two ſeeds, neither of which are Infants of believing Gentiles, p. 20▪ That the Law of Inſtitution, not the Covenant is to be the ground of v…ſible adminiſtrations in Goſpel-dayes, p. 26. That 'tis a mercy, not a miſery to be broken off from the piviledges of Circumciſion, p. 4…. That Chriſtians Children loſe no priviledge by being unbaptized, p. 48. That the ſame Arguments urged to prove Childrens right to Baptiſm, will as well prove their right to the Supper, and that in Infants there is the ſame thing wanting, which qualiſies for both, p. 55. That Infant Baptiſm is Will-worſhip, p. 60. That Infants of believers have no more faith then unbeliever; Infants. — And Animadverſions, p. 16 that Mat 28.19. is a full and plain Commiſſion, to which we muſt adhere, and tha… Infants are not there included, p 19. That Infant Church-menberſhip is repealed, p 22. That the promiſes to Believers houſes are not to be underſtood in Mr. Whiſtons ſenſe, p. 22. That infants are are uncapable of the ends and uſes of Baptiſm, p. 35. That the Jews came to Johns Baptiſm, Mat. 3.7. upon the ſame miſtak… of a federal right as the Paed…baptiſts do now, and that their rejection is a notable Argument againſt this practice. p 36▪ That Baptiſm ſucceeds not in the p…ace, roam, and uſe of Circumciſion, p. 45. That Circumciſion was not adminiſtred to the adult as …rlievers, p. 49. Nor to their ſeed as ſuch. p. 50.— All which points with many other particulars directly tending ter refute the practice of Infant Baptiſm, are in the ſaid …reatiſe fully and ſubſtantially made out: And if the diſproof of theſe Arguments▪ concerned not Mr. Whiſton, as he … a promoter of Paedobaptiſm. I know not what does. But ſince he waves the… ſo ſlightly, we look upon them as ſubſtantial and unconfured.
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. 'Tis certain, that the title that's found rotten in the root, cannot be found in the branches. And if Abrahams 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 ſhew where any Covenant of Grace is made with Reprobates. 'Tis 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 claré ac diſtincté proponuntur.
So Wollteus Compend. Theol. lib. 1. Can. 2. Faedus gratiae & teſtamentum foreign 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 ballance 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 ſayes that Baptiſm is not to be adminiſtred to adult or Infant, upon the account of election▪ We grant it; and Mr Whiſton by this Conceſſion, ſpoiles 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 Abrahams 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 Levit. 3.17. and 6.18. and 23.41. &c. The term as it reſpected Abrahams 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 meerly 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 carryed 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 (ſayes 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 undenyably) 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 adminiſtred 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 adminiſtred 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 wayes, 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. Owens 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 ſayes 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 truely 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 recal that raſh and incon…iderate expreſſion.
2. What the Do…or ſuppoſes to Infants being in the Covenant, in his Judgement 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 ſayes, that Mr. Danvers his Book will remain as a publique evidence of his forgeries, falſities, &c. So Pref. 1, 2. he calls it a meer 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 labours 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-applyed reproachful terms Mr. Whiſton diſgorges. Diſcovering nothing more, then that he railes 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 hee'l tell us, that he wrote all this in the ſpirit of meekneſs. But for my part hee'l hardly perſwade 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 humour, 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! 'Tis 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.
FINIS.
A JUST REPROOF TO THE Clamorous Cavils OF Mr. OBED WILLS, the Turbulent Appealer.
Wherein the vanity of his Raſh Cenſure of the BAPTISTS Anſwer (to that his frivolous Appeal made to them againſt Mr. Danvers) is detected, and his unjuſt Charge of Ignorance and Partiality is refelled.
By Thomas De-laune, one of his abuſed Judges.
Prov. 9.7, 8, 9. He that reproveth a ſcorner, getteth to himſelf ſhame; — and a blot; — and hatred: Rebuke a wiſe man, and … …ill love thee; — and be yet wiſer.
Printed, Anno Dom. 1676.