Infant Baptism, Postscript
POSTSCRIPT.
SO great and glorious are thoſe priviledges, benefits and advantages that have been aſſigned to the ſeed of Believers, as received into the Covenant of Grace, and having the Covenant with the promiſes appertaining to them ratified ſealed and confirmed to them by the application of the token thereof, that it cannot be rationally expected that what hath been ſaid ſhould meet with a ready imbracement by conſciencious Chriſtians, while either the grounds of that their Covenant Intereſt and right to the token, or the neceſſary redundancy of theſe peiviledges benefits and advantages therefrom remain obſcure and inevident to them: As for the neceſſary redundancy of theſe priviledges benefits and advantages from their Covenant-ſtate, taken in conjunction with the promiſes appertaining to them, as the one and the other are ratified ſealed and confirmed by the application of the token, I conceive that is ſufficiently evident from the foregoing diſcourſe. I ſhall add no more to that; But it ſeems ſomewhat neceſſary that I ſhould a little reflect upon both the grounds laid to their Covenant-Intereſt, and the dueneſs of the application of the token to them on the account thereof (for the eſtabliſhment of which I have amongſt others caſt in my mite in a Treatiſe ſometime ſince publiſhed) which in the general are theſe two.
Firſt, the tenour of the Covenant it ſelf both in reſpect of the promiſſory and preceptive part of it.
Secondly, the practice of the Church and People of God throughout all ages in appropriating the Covenant with the promiſes of it, and applying the token to their Inſant-ſeed, notified to us partly by Scripture, and partly by Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory; becauſe two late Authots have endeavoured to raiſe ſome duſt for the obſcruing both of them, and hiding their evidence from perſons of leſs peircing underſtandings and weaker Judgment: As for the one of them, viz. Mr. Danvers, his main deſign being only to hide the latter of theſe grounds, and that as the knowledg of it is conveyed to us by Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory which we ſtand not much upon, it being enough, if ſo be it evidently appear from Scripture that the tenour of the Covenant be ſuch as neceſſarily infers the Infant-ſeed of Believers intereſt in it, and right to the token of it, and that anſwerably the practice of the Church and People of God, during the times Scripture-records extend unto, was to appropriate the Covenant, and apply the token of it to their infant Seed. Hence I ſhall add little beyond what I have elſewhere ſaid for the ſcattering of that duſt raiſed by him, partly becauſe the main deſign he hath ſeen meet to lay out himſelf in purſuance of is but of an inferiour importance, and more eſpecially becauſe of the little ground there is to fear that what he has done in purſuance of his deſign ſhould be muchregarded in ſuch an age of light as this is, the practice of the Church being ſo generally among all learned Men known to be otherwiſe than he endeavours to repreſent it; beſides, his own Book ca…ies a ſufficient Antidote againſt any evil influence it might otherwiſe have upon wiſe Men: and therefore I ſhall immediately come to the other, viz, Mr. Hutchiſon; I am more eſpecially concerned in his attempts, which are to obſcure that foundation laid to the Covenant-intereſt and Baptiſm of the Infantſeed of Believers in the tenour of the Covenant it ſelf, in order whereunto he has made publick a ſmall Treatiſe concerning the Covenant and Baptiſm, compoſed Dialogue-wiſe between a Baptiſt and an Anti-Paedo-Baptiſt, with ſome Animadverſions upon a late Piece put forth by my ſelf in anſwer to Mr. Danvers his Treatiſe of Baptiſm. As for the Gentleman himſelf, I am an equal ſtranger to him as to Mr. Danvers, and therefore can have no prejudice againſt either of their Perſons, neither would I in the leaſt diſcourage or oppoſe any in any attempts to further the deciſion of this great Controverſie; why ſhould I grudge any the Eberty that my ſelf have taken? only I could wiſh that thoſe, that conceive themſelves under a call to appear either in the defence of what they conceive to be according to truth, or againſt what they conceive to be oppoſite thereunto, would remember that exhortation of the Apoſtle to timothy, where he exhorts him to ſhew himſelf a Workman that need not be aſhamed. 'Tis true, unavoidable failures will attend humane weakneſs and imperfection, which may juſtly cauſe ſomewhat of ſhame; but, notwithſtanding them, the deſign and intendment of that exhortation may be anſwered. Whether our Author have ſhewed himſelf ſuch a Workman will preſently appear; whether himſelf be ſo free from Gall and Vinegar (which he ſo vehemently impeaches his Oppoſites writings of) as becomes a reprover, I ſhall leave to the judgment of others; 'tis what he hath written, not the manner of his writing, that I ſhall concern my ſelf about. To begin with this Treatiſe of the Covenant; three things ly ſo obvious in it, that to me (how it may be to others I know not) it is utterly uſeleſs as to the deſign carried on in it, which I ſhall only remark, and leave it to every one to value and improve it as they ſee cauſe.
The firſt is the miſtakes he proceeds upon, to give only a twofold inſtance.
Firſt, He ſuppoſes, the only ground that can be laid to the Church-memberſhip and Baptiſm of Infants, is their relation to Abraham as his Seed. Hence having, as he ſuppoſes, proved that they can ſtand in no ſuch relation to him, he conceives he has utterly overthrown their Church-memberſhip and Baptiſm, thus Page 3. A groſs miſtake, we found their Church-memberſhip and Baptiſm upon the tenour of the Covenant as made with Abraham's Seed in their Generation, that is, with them and their natural Children, but whether they are to have the denomination of, and are to be reckoned among Abraham's Seed, is another Queſtion. And if it be ſaid
Obj. But we do account them as Abraham's Seed, though we do not ground their Church-memberſhip and Baptiſm thereupon.
Anſw. It's true we do ſo; but then it will be ſaid, how can we avoid the abſurdities mentioned, Page the 5.
Anſw. They are no other than what our Author himſelf fathers upon the Holy Ghoſt (to uſe his Phraſe) in affirming ſome Infants to be ſaved without a perſonal Faith; for it may be thus argued; If none are ſaved but ſuch as believe, then no Infants can be ſaved; but the antecedent is true, Mark 16. He that believes ſhall be ſaved: and if it be ſaid that's meant of the Adult; the ſame ſuppoſed abſurdity will follow; for, according to our Author, then Chriſt muſt be ſuppoſed to ſay, he that believes and he that believes not ſhall be ſaved. Let him avoid the abſurdity in the one, and we ſhall alike avoid the abſurdity in the other.
Another miſtake that he proceeds upon is, That at leaſt ſome Paedo-Baptiſts may aſcribe their Childrens intereſt in the Covenant to Abraham's Faith, and conſequently may plead that though their Children have no right to the Covenant by vertue of their Parents Faith, yet they may have a right to it by vertue of Abraham's, thus Page 12, and he ſpends about ten Pages to confute this Plea that he ſuppoſes ſome Paedo-Baptiſts may make: which is a mere miſtake about his Oppoſers Principles, or rather a mere impertinency; for where hath he found in all the writings of Paedo-Baptiſts ſuch a Plea managed? and hence whereas he ſuppoſes himſelf to have utterly overthrown the chief grounds laid by Paedo-Baptiſts to the Covenant-intereſt and Baptiſm of the Infant-ſeed of Believers, and thereupon tells us Page 22. he might end the matter there; the truth is, he hath ſaid nothing at all to the purpoſe, but proceeded merely upon miſtakes; neither the one nor the other of the grounds that he ſuppoſes Paedo-Baptiſts bottom their claim to the Covenant-intereſt and Baptiſm of their Infant-ſeed upon, is the true ground they bottom that their claim upon; whence his diſcourſe hitherto hath been utterly impertinent, of no uſe at all as to the end he deſigns by it.
Another thing rendring his whole diſcourſe uſeleſs to me, is his aſſuming and taking for granted without the leaſt ſhew or proof what he knew, at leaſt might have known, is abſolutely denied by at leaſt ſome if not a conſiderable part of Paedo-Baptiſts. I ſhall inſtance in three things:
Firſt, That the Covenant entred with Abraham and his Seed in their Generation did extend to and take in all his Seed at leaſt deſcended by Iſaac and Jacob during their firſt-Teſtament-adminiſtration, and that merely as his Seed; upon this ſuppoſition he proceeds in a conſiderable part of his Book; but now he knew, at leaſt might have known, that this is abſolutely denied, and on the other hand it is affirmed, that Jacob, who was Abraham's grandchild, was not in Covenant merely as he was of Abraham's Poſterity, but as he was the child of believing Iſaac included with him in that Phraſe, thy Seed in their Generations.
Secondly, He aſſumes and takes for granted, that the Covenant of Grace is made with the Elect as ſuch, and conſequently that all the Elect and only they are in the Covenant of Grace; hence he tells us Page 23. that the Covenant or Promiſe of eternal Life (which he calls (and I blame him not for it) the Covenant of Grace) is only proper to the Elect. This he might have known would be denied; and it is on the contrary affirmed that no Covenant is actually made with any of the Elect as ſuch.
Thirdly, He affirms, and takes it for granted, that that Covenant, called by the Apoſtle the old Covenant, which was then vaniſhing, is a Covenant made with Abraham, which he might have known is denied, and that it is affirmed, that that Covenant ſpoken of by the Apoſtle, is that Covenant made with the People of Iſrael at Mount Sinai; and his affirming ſo many things, and proceeding in a conſiderable part of his Book upon a ſuppoſition of the truth of them, when they are all miſtakes and unſound ſuppoſitions, his whole Diſcourſe muſt needs be, if not wholly, yet in a great meaſure uſeleſs.
Thirdly, That which yet further renders his Treatiſe altogether uſeleſs to me, is the great confuſion attended with ſeveral abſurdities and contradictions that it labours under: thus for his whole Diſcourſe upon that of Gen. 17.7. beginning Page 22. and reaching to Page 39. this confuſion, with the abſurdities and contradictions attending it, will appear, if we take notice of ſome of his aſſertions, and compare them one with another, together with what they do, either as taken ſingly or joyntly, neceſſarily infer and imply, thus:
Firſt, He poſitively affirms, that the Covenant of Grace, and its Adminiſtration, are two diſtinct Covenants, thus, Page 23. and tells us Page 93. that the Covenant of Circumciſion, which muſt neceſſarily intend that Covenant which before he affirmed to be the Adminiſtration of the Covenant of Grace, may be called a Covenant of Works, and then a Covenant of Works may be the Adminiſtration of the Covenant of Grace; which, whether rational and congruous, I ſhall leave all Men to judge.
Secondly, He expreſsly affirms, that the Adminiſtration of the Covenant of Grace under the New Teſtament is called the New Covenant; thus again, Page 23. where it is evident, he hath reference to Heb. 8.8. and then all thoſe Promiſes there mentioned by the Apoſtle of God's putting his Law in the mind are not of the ſubſtance, only appertain to the Adminiſtration of the Covenant of Grace.
Thirdly, He affirms, at leaſt neceſſarily implyes, that that grand Promiſe of the Covenant, wherein God promiſes to be a God to Abraham and his Seed, as made to one, yea to one and the ſame Perſon, as conſidered under one notion, appertains only to the Adminiſtration, but as made to another or to the ſame Perſon conſidered under another notion, is of the eſſence and ſubſtance of the Covenant of Grace, thus Page 26. he tells us (ſpeaking of this very Promiſe) that in it God promiſed only to Abraham's fleſhly Seed to be a God to them in giving them the Land of Canaan, but to his ſpiritual Seed to be a God to them in giving unto them eternal Life; and he takes Iſaac to be the ſubject of the Promiſe as taken both ways, and the Promiſes as made to Abraham's fleſhly Seed he calls the Covenant of Circumciſion, which elſewhere he ſays was but the Adminiſtration of the Covenant, and may be called a Covenant of Works. And what confuſion and what abſurdities this implyes, let every one judge. But to get out of theſe dark labyrinths,
Fourthly, He affirms, that Iſaac himſelf by vertue of his fleſhly deſcent, as he ſpeaks, had no intereſt in the Covenant of Grace, ſo he tells us Page 27. and yet,
Fifthly, He poſitively affirms, that none had or have an intereſt in the Covenant of Grace, but through a perſonal Faith in Chriſt, thus Page 28. which as it directly contradicts what he had ſaid of the Covenant of Grace, its being made only with the Elect, and with all them; for ſure he will grant ſome are Elect that are not actual Believers: ſo it utterly deprives Iſaac as well as all the reſt of Abraham's Seed, and indeed all Infants whatſoever, of any benefit by the Covenant of Grace, by which yet he affirms them to be ſaved, ſuppoſing their Election and Death in their Infancy. Let us ſee then what a Good God promiſed to Iſaac as one of Abraham's Children, why only this, that he would be a God to him in giving him the Land of Canaan, which yet he never did, nor ever intended to give him: Of what uſe ſuch a confuſed abſurd and contradictory diſcourſe can be to any, I cannot imagine. I might yet further ſhew what renders his diſcourſe uſeleſs to me, (viz.) his overlooking ſeveral of none of the leaſt forcible Scriptures and Scripture-arguments produced by his Oppoſers in confirmation of their Judgements and Practice; but I ſhall go no further, but leave his Book to every one to make what uſe they ſee meet of it. And proceed to his Animadverſions upon my anſwer to Mr. Danvers. Indeed would but Readers take Mr. Danvers's Book and my Anſwer, with my former Treatiſe ſo often referred to, and his Animadverſions, and peruſe them with equal and unbyaſſed minds, it would be all that I deſire; yet that all Men may ſee how needleſs a thing it is to make any Returns to ſuch Replyes, as theſe Animadverſions carry a ſhew of, and may know how to regulate their expectations for the future,
I ſhall with much brevity review them. My Anſwer conſiſts of three parts.
In the firſt I lay down ſeveral conſiderations with reference to Mr. Danvers's authorities. In the two firſt, which Mr. Hutchinſon more eſpecially takes notice of, I charge him with unfaithfulneſs and impertinency, in reſpect of both which Mr. Hutchinſon pretends his vindication. For the former, (viz.) his unfaithfulneſs, I only gave two Inſtances, and both in his Quotations out of the Magdi-Burgenſian Hiſtory, for the truth of which charges, I ſhall refer the Reader to that Famous Hiſtory; with this only remark beyond my Anſwer it ſelf, that there is a vaſt difference between, ſaying, they find they baptiſed only the Adult, and they only find they baptized the Adult: indeed they neither ſay the one or the other, but the direct contrary; yet allow our Oppoſers the utmoſt they can with the leaſt ſhew of reaſon deſire, it is only the latter that can be ſaid of them; And ſurely there is a greater difference between ſaying they find they baptized only the Adult, and they only find the Adult were baptized, than is between two ſix pences and a ſhilling: hence no Man can excuſe him of unfaithfulneſs; but he will find at laſt he hath given juſt cauſe to his own Conſcience to accuſe himſelf. For the other (viz.) his impertinencies, and thus Mr. Hutchinſon pretends his vindication two ways.
Firſt, By way of Recrimination.
Secondly, By acquitting his Book of that charge.
For this latter I ſhall only refer the Reader to my Book, with the inſtances there given.
For the former, I have only this to ſay: Whether that inſtance given by Mr. Hutchinſon will prove his charge, I ſhall not be Judge, but this may be ſaid, for me to be guilty only of one impertinency (and but one is charged upon me,) is no juſt vindication of Mr. Danvers in the multitude I have charged upon him. And this I ſhall add, that had I known all Mens hearts, as well as Mr. Hutchinſon pretends to know mine, and had ſeen no ſuch objection, as that ſuppoſed impertinency deſigns the obviating of, I had not been guilty of that one neither, but that ſuch an objection may poſſibly enter into the minds of men Mr. Hutchinſon's Book abundantly confirms me, and therefore I ſhall be ſo far further impertinent, as to tell him, I am yet in ſtatu quo, and conſequently if I had any ſuch deſign as he intimates his ſuſpition I had, it has miſcarried, only I have this in lieu, that being freed from family-intanglements, I have a greater liberty to attend the ſervice of Chriſt in vindicating his truths from ſuch aſſailants. But to go on, the ſecond part of my Anſwer ſhews the inſufficiency of Mr. Danvers proofs for Believers Baptiſm in oppoſition to that of Infants, with reference to Mr. Hutchinſon's Animadverſions. To this part I ſhall only remark three things, and leave them.
Firſt, Is his complyance with me, in what he yet ſeems, and that with ſevere reflections upon me, to oppoſe, thus in all thoſe inſtances I had given of things indeterminable by the Commiſſion for the preaching of the Goſpel, and adminiſtration of Baptiſm, to evidence the neceſſity of taking in other Scriptures for the full underſtanding of Chriſt's mind therein.
Now Mr. Huthinſon himſelf does, what I ſay we ought to do, neither dares he deny any of thoſe things I offer to conſideration to ſhew the invallidity of Mr. Danvers his Argument drawn from that Commiſſion; and yet with what vehemency does he ſeem to oppoſe it?
The ſecond is the groſs miſtakes Mr. Hutchinſon proceeds upon; thus he miſtakes my very deſign in this part of my Book, ſuppoſes me to be proving Infant-Baptiſm, when that is none of my deſign or buſineſs; that he proceeds on this miſtake is evident as from variety of Paſſages, ſo eminently from that Paragraph Page 21. beginning about line 18. ſo alſo from Page 55. upper end, hence what he animadverts with the greateſt ſhew of plauſability as concerning the baptizing of the Children of Unbelievers, Bells, &c. Page 17. is wholly impertinent: Alas! how eaſie to ſhew, that that will not prove any Doctrine or Practice, which was never deſigned for that end?
Again, as he miſtakes my deſign and buſineſs, ſo he miſtakes about the ground I would have laid for Infant-Baptiſm, had it been my work there to prove that Practice; Hence he ſuppoſes that I take it for granted, that Infants were Chuch-members under the Law, Page 22. when I neither did, nor had any occaſion to meddle with their Church-memberſhip either under the Law, or under the Goſpel: And he ſtill goes upon his miſtakes in his attempts to ſhew the repeal of that Priviledge, from Paul's preaching that the Gentiles ought not to circumciſe their Children, he ſuppoſes that Circumciſion gave a right to, as well as the actual poſſeſſion of Church-memberſhip, and that we hold the command for Circumciſion did vertually include a command for Baptiſm, both which are groſs miſtakes. That which gave a right to Church-memberſhip was the Covenant, and it is the command to keep the Covenant that obliges to Baptiſm: but Mr. Hutchinſon either cannot, or will not diſtinguiſh between that command as more generally laid down, and reaching all Abraham's Seed, whether natural or myſtical, and the command laid upon Abraham's Seed to obſerve that ſpecial Rite of Circumciſion, as the Covenant, that is, the Token of the Covenant, then to be kept: and alas! what heed can be given to Men that proceed upon ſuch groſs miſtakes?
Thirdly, That which lies alike plain and obvious with both the foregoing particulars is his overlooking what he ought to have taken notice of. Thus he wholly overlooks all that I had written in my former Treatiſe deſignedly for the proof of Infant-Baptiſm, and whereunto I often refer in this my Anſwer, though he had ſeen it: So he takes no notice of what intimations I gave of offering ſomething further to publike view (which is now made publick) concerning the Doctrine of the Covenant, as Infants are concerned therein; and from his overlooking of both a conſiderable part of his Animadverſions are either wholly impertinent, as to me, or in anſwering a matter before he hath heard it; take for an inſtance his whole Diſcourſe upon that Promiſe, Acts 2.39. beginning Page 26. and ending Page 30. yea he overlooks what is written in this very Book he animadverts upon. Hence Page 11. he calls for a reconciliation of our ſeeming contradictions, which had been needleſs, had he attended to what he might have found in Page 13, 14, 15 of my Anſwer; Hence again are thoſe Queſtions Page 30. about the Salvation of all in the houſes of Believers, which are anſwered at the 113th Page and ſo on of my Anſwer; and Men will make but ſorry work in their Replyes to our Animadverſions upon any Book, when they overlook what their Antagoniſts have written, or declare their intentions to write.
Thirdly, My Anſwer conſiſts in a vindication of thoſe grounds laid by Paedo-Baptiſts for their Judgment and Practice. As to what Mr. Hutchinſon animadverts upon this part, I need ſay little, he ſeems to have been himſelf utterly at a loſs what to ſay, yea he ſeems to be in a kind of maze, witneſs that Argument, (the only Argument he lays down ſyllogiſtically in his Animadverſion) Page 39. unleſs he be greatly abuſed by the Printer; witneſs alſo his crying out Ignoratio Elencht, where no Argument was laid down by me; yet once again witneſs his reaſonings Page 47. Hence he wholly paſſes over theſe ſeveral Arguments I had occaſionally laid down to prove the tenour of the Covenant to be ſuch as infallibly infers the intereſt of the Seed of Believers in it, excepting only, that afterwards he ſingles out here and there a paſſage without due regard to their Contexts, and animadverts upon them at his pleaſure, and himſelf becomes opponent, and pretends to determine three of thoſe four Queſtions I had ſaid the reſolution of which were neceſſary, and ſufficient for the diſcovery of the grounds laid in the Covenant, as at firſt eſtabliſhed with Abraham, for Infant-Baptiſm, which he only does by a naked repetition of Mr. Danvers unproved dictates, with the addition of ſome by diſcourſes which appertain not to the Queſtions propoſed, and yet hath the confidence to conclude Page 47. So then theſe things being found mere miſtakes on Mr. Whiſtons ſide, we may conclude they have no footing in the Covenant for Infant-Baptiſm.
And alſo what does he think of the Men, even of his own perſwaſion? can he think there is any of them ſo weak, or ſo far blinded, as not to ſee the frivolouſneſs of ſuch Animadverſions? But not to tire the Reader, only I muſt beg Mr. Hutchinſon's patience a little longer, I have a few words to him and have done.
Firſt, Sir, I aſſure you I have read, yea had read, long before my Anſwer to Mr. Danvers ſaw the light, that Exercitation of Doctor Owen, and in ſpecial that part of it you refer me to, and can find nothing in that, or any other of his writings, as a cure to that ignorance you ſpeak of, I am at as great a loſs about thoſe Promiſes Mr. Danvers mentions as I was before, and muſt tell you, you greatly miſtake, and conſequently greatly wrong that learned and judicious Author. How you and Mr. Danvers look upon your ſelves I know not, but certainly I ſhould be juſtly cenſured as a very unworthy Man, ſhould I wreſt Authors words, who are yet alive, to countenance my own ſentiments in a contradiction to their known practice, before I had conſulted the Authors themſelves, and known how they would reconcile their words and practice. Will you but read the whole Exercitation, and allow him the liberty that all writers, whether ſacred or humane, uſe, you will find he is vaſtly more for me than for you; He is only ſhewing how God did preſerve Abraham's natural Poſterity as grown up in a viſible ſtanding under the Covenant till our Lord Chriſt came, that the Promiſe made to him concerning the Meſſias coming of his loyns might be accompliſhed, he meddles not with the caſe of Infants, but ſuppoſeth them viſibly in Covenant as the Seed of Parents viſibly ſo; when will you leave thus to abuſe Authors whoſe names are precious in all the Churches of Chriſt? But
Secondly, I have a few things to reccommend to your Conſcience, and theſe are of two ſorts.
Firſt, Such as concern my ſelf, thus Page 3. where you uſe the Poets words, ſo Page 5. line 10, 11. Page 26. line the laſt, Page 22. line 1, 2. with others of a like nature: can you prove what you have written? if not, what will you call theſe things?
Secondly, Such as concern matter of Fact: thus ſee what you write Page 3. where do I ſay Mr. Danvers Book is all forgery, or leave that to the Readers obſervation? See alſo Page 4. line 2. again ſee what you write Page 34. three laſt lines, and compare it with my Anſwer Page 39. and 40. will you or any Man elſe deny what I there take for granted? Again ſee what you write Page 7. line 24, 25. Is the ſilence of the Scripture, as abſolutely conſidered, my beloved Argument, yea or any Argument at all? I only enquire (and give my Reaſons for the affirmation,) whether, ſuppoſing the Covenant was extended to the Seed of Believers under the firſt Teſtament, (which I judged I had formerly ſufficiently proved that it was,) what may be truly ſaid of the ſilence of the Scripture, (not whether the ſilence of the Scriptures as abſolutely taken) concerning the Baptiſm of Infants do not make it vaſtly more probable that they ought, then that they ought not to be baptized: and that ſuppoſition being granted, I judge I ſhall have but few gain-ſayers. Yet again, ſee what you write Page 50. line 1, 2. and compare it with my Anſwer, Page 117, 118, 119. and ſee whether there is any ſuch reaſon given by me or no; you may alſo reflect upon your 18th Page, and conſider, whether what I ſuppoſe be a granting that the commiſſion was given only with reſpect to the Adult. Sir, I cannot think you can have ſuch a value for your Animadverſions as you ſuppoſe me to have for my Book, as for others I can hardly think there is any one learned Man of your own Perſwaſion but will bluſh to ſee ſuch Animadverſions fly abroad from the pen of any of their party. Sir, I have only one thing more, and that is to intreat you not to complain of unmerciful dealing; will you ſeriouſly review your Book; you will find I have dealt gently with you; and that you may not ſay I have wronged you, if you deſire it, and can procure the teſtimony of any two learned Anti-Paedo-Baptiſts that they judge your Book deſerves, or can know that any two conſciencious learned Paedo-Baptiſts judge it deſerves a more full conſideration, your deſire (if providence interpoſe not) ſhall be gratified.
FINIS.