Infant Baptism Plainly Proved, Open letter
To the Godly and Learned among the Antipaedo-baptiſts, eſpecially the Authors of the late Confeſſion of their Faith.
Reverend and beloved Brethren,
THe Deſign of the preceding Sheets being to lay level with ordinary Capacities, what I have already made publick in a Method more ſuting Scholaſtick Educations, the adjoining an Addreſs unto you may juſtly be deemed improper. That I may therefore do both you and my ſelf right, I ſhall give you a brief account of my thus doing. Far be it from me once to imagine, that the one or the other of thoſe Tracts, or any thing in them (a Recapitulation of which this is) is unto you unintelligible. I doubt not but that at leaſt (will you make uſe of thoſe Abilities, both natural and acquired, you are ſo plentifully furniſhed with) you can take a proſpect of what I have ſaid from firſt to laſt, and by comparing one thing with another, paſs a judgment upon the whole. It is true, to note in one paſſage, thoſe two, (viz. Mr. H. and Mr. D L.) who have ſeen meet to take notice of what I have written, ſeem to complain of obſcurity, as though I had neither ſet down my Theſis diſtinctly, nor proſecuted my Arguments ſyllogiſtically, at leaſt in a form intelligible to all Perſons. But I am perſwaded their Complaints had their riſe from ſome other Cauſe, and not from any difficulty themſelves found; and whether I had any reaſon to take any notice of the former's Complaint, or the latter, to object it as a Failure in me that I did not, I ſhall leave with you to determine.
I ſhall not deny, but that the Method I have proceeded in hath render'd thoſe Diſcourſes ſomewhat obſcure to Capacities unacquainted with the Rules of Logical Argumentation, neither was I without ſome previous Intimations that it would ſo do; yet was not I thereby diſcouraged from the publication of them; my main deſign being, by the rectifying ſome Miſtakes I ſaw ſome of the chief Aſſerters of Infant-Baptiſm lay under, and the addition of ſome few Arguments overlook'd by them, to eſtabliſh more fully that Practice in the Minds of the Learned; wherein what ſucceſs I have had, or yet may have, through the Bleſſing of God upon my weak endeavours, I ſhall leave to the obſervations of others, and the diſcovery of Time. This I can through Grace ſay, I have not as yet ſeen any Cauſe to repent, either of the Pains I have taken, or the Charges I have been at; neither had I any cauſe to fear that I ſhould willingly, or could be juſtly ſuſpected deſignedly, through any unſound Mediums, or fallacious Reaſonings, to promote an Error, while I deſigned to eſtabliſhed the Truth. I was well aſſured there were thoſe of your Perſwaſion, who could ſufficiently underſtand me, and were able to detect both the unſoundneſs of my Mediums, and Fallaciouſneſs of my Arguments, had the one or the other been ſo: but no Attempt of that Nature has as yet been made by any. But to return, this I was ſaying, It is far from me to imagine, that what I have already written is to you unintelligible: Let not therefore my adding this Addreſs to you to this Compendium be offenſive, either to you or any others, as though't were a reflection upon your Underſtandings: but three things have induced me hereunto.
1. The Encouragement you have given me in your late Confeſſion, and Appendix thereunto annexed, and that not only by your Orthodoxy in the main Doctrines of the Goſpel, but more eſpecially by that Diſcovery you have there made of your Love to the Truth, Moderation of Spirit, and being through the anointing of the Spirit not only ſhewn but led into that foreign, recommended in 1 Cor. 12.31. to us by the holy Apoſtle of the Gentiles. It is indeed hard for any reciprocare ſerram in Polemical Divinity, eſpecially in that dawning Light we are yet under, without being in one reſpect or another, if not really,Solent Injuriae illis praeſtare ſuffragium, quibus ſtudium eſt non de verit ate ſed proprià gloriari victoriâ; in his autem qui totâ Intentione cupiunt de compertâ veritate gaudire locum hac penitus non habent. Maxent. Dialog. contra Neſtorian. lib. 1. yet in appearance, injurious one to another. Now when it is not Love to Truth, but Deſire of Victory, that keeps up the Conteſt, theſe Injuries, whether real or ſuppoſed, will ordinarily be more heeded than the Arguments urged: but when Love to Truth prevails, eſpecially if attended with thoſe other bleſſed Fruits of the Spirit, Moderation and Charity, as Plain-dealing will not be reputed injurious, ſo even that which may be really judged to be ſo, will be overlook'd and paſſed by. Which things I having more abundant Ground to hope are true of you, I cannot but promiſe my ſelf, that as what I ſhall ſay, though it be with much freedom of Speech, ſhall meet with a candid Interpretation, yea, and a kind Reception from you; ſo in caſe any thing injurious ſhould unwittingly (for wittingly there ſhall not) drop from my Pen, that ſhall be no Let to your more through weighing the Arguments I have offered, or embracement of Truth, ſo far as by them it is demonſtrated.
2. That in caſe any of you ſhall farther appear in the ventilation of this Controverſy, which I would by no means diſcourage you from, you may with more eaſe take a full proſpect of it, at leaſt as managed by me, both as to the Foundations I have laid, and the whole Structure built thereupon, and not be put to the trouble of bringing things together, that lay in my former Treatiſes at ſome diſtance one from another, in order to a due comparing them one with another.
3. I may probably here have put my laſt hand to this Controverſy, I am aware of the uncertainty of Life; neither am I (ſuppoſing God ſhould lengthen out that) altogether without hope that the addition of any thing more in purſuance of it will be utterly unneceſſary; the Reaſons of this my Hope will more fully appear before I take my leave of you.
And now, Brethren, having given you this brief Account, both negatively and poſitively, of my adding theſe Lines to you to the foregoing Copendium, bear with me, though I ſay to you, as Elihu to Job, I am ful of matter, the Spirit within me conſtraineth me; I muſt ſpeak, that I may be refreſhed; and let me I pray you (as he there adds) not accept any Mans perſon. I ſpeak to you as Friends, yea, as Brethren, as Joint-heirs with us of the common Salvation, purchaſed by our Lord Chriſt both for you and us. Hence, ad Plainneſs of Speech moſt becomes me, ſo to you (I hope) it will neither be offenſive nor grievous. Your Orthodoxy and Soundneſs of Judgment in the main Fundamental Doctrines of the Goſpel, with that Love to Truth, Moderation of Spirit, and Chriſtian Charity, afore taken notice of, appearing in your late Confeſſion, and Appendix thereunto annexed, are greatly commendable; and I hope I may truly ſay, they have endeared you, not only unto me, but to all that love our Lord Chriſt in ſincerity: neither ſhall you (as I hope) at any time find me in Endeavours after mutual Love, Converſation, and Chriſtian Communion, in things wherein we are agreed, in the Rear, as you have ſtill done in theſe unpleaſing Conteſts. For though I would, and dare do no leſs than*Quia inextricabile quodammodò malum nanquam deſinit humana corda pulſare, at que inopinatis argumentis fidem inquietare Catholicam, neceſſe eſt Sectatoribus veritatis prudenter captioſas ejus ſententias praevidere, ſapientér que detegere, prolatás que in medium malleo veritatis cohibere, & uſque ad effuſionem ſanguinis contra eas pro verstate certare. Ibid. praef. manifeſt a true Zeal in maintaining the Truth; yet that through Grace ſhall be no Let to me in an amicable and peaceable walking with you according to what we have jointly attained unto. I have of a long time been, and ſtill am wholly perſwaded, that thoſe Alienations of affections, and Diſtances in point of Chriſtian Converſation and Communion in things wherein they all agree, found among Chriſtians, holding the Head, and ſincerely embracing and practiſing the Truth as it is in Jeſus, according to the meaſures of Light they have reſpectively received, are utterly diſſonant from the Doctrine of our Lord Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and the Simplicity of the Primitive Practice. And ſurely, might we be ſo happy, as to take true meaſures of thoſe Differences that are between us, and manage them with that Spirit of Moderation and mutual Forbearance that the Goſpel requires, it would not only not a little conduce to our mutual Edification and Comfort, but greatly obviate thoſe Offences taken at them by the Men of the World. Grace never ſhines more brightly, nor appears with a greater luſtre, than when it is duly exerciſed under viſible Diſadvantages. Hence if that mutual Love of Chriſtians (when yet thinking the ſame thing) appeared ſo beautiful in the eyes of the Heathens, that they could not behold it without an, Ecce quam mutuò ſe amant: much more would it ſo do, when it is kept up under the diſadvantages of ſome Differences both in judgment and Practice. And hence the Diſadvantages Religion may lie under through the Differences in Judgment and Practice among the more ſtrict Profeſſors of it, would be abundantly recompenſed through the Illuſtriouſneſs of their Grace, rendred more beautiful by occaſion of them. And hence, as I cannot but greatly commend in you that Goſpel-becoming Frame of Spirit you have diſcovered; ſo you may aſſure your ſelves, I ſhall through Divine Aſſiſtance always endeavour to maintain and promote the like, both in my ſelf, and all others walking in the ſame ſteps with me, according as opportunity is put into my hands.
But Brethren, though I cannot but in faithfulneſs commend what appears in you ſo greatly commendable; yet I muſt, and that alſo in faithfulneſs to you, ſhew you wherein I cannot but judge you blame-worthy. I remember what the Comick ſaith, Aſſentatores non veniunt ut arrideant, ſed ut arrodant. Flattery, however it may pleaſe, yet is prejudicial. Two things more eſpecially I cannot but judge blame-worthy in you:
1. That when you come to give the Reaſons why you cannot acquieſce in what (as you expreſs) is urged by us againſt you, or (as you elſewhere candidly interpret) is offered for your Satisfaction, you wholly overlook thoſe Scriptures and Scripture-Arguments, that we, at leaſt ſome of us, conceive moſt cogent, and anſwerably are moſt inſiſted on by us, to eſtabliſh our Practice, and convince you of your Miſtakes, and either only ſuppoſe us to reaſon quite otherwiſe than indeed we do, or only ſingle out ſome of thoſe Scriptures and Arguments drawn from them, that we only make uſe of as additional enforcements of our main Arguments, but not as demonſtrative of themſelves.
Firſt, I ſay, you ſuppoſe us to reaſon quite otherwiſe than indeed we do, or to make uſe of other Mediums than indeed we do. Thus in your 114th and 115th pag. you thus expreſs your ſelves, That albeit this Covenant-Holineſs & Church-Memberſhip ſhould be, as is ſuppoſed, in reference unto the Infants of Believers; yet no Command for Infant-Baptiſm does immediatly and directly reſult from ſuch a Quality or Relation; inſinuating thereby as though we ſhould affirm there did, which we do not. So Pag. 125. you again thus expreſs your ſelves, Of whatſoever nature the Holineſs of the Children mentioned, 1 Cor. 7.12. be, yet they who do conclude that all ſuch Children (whether Infants or of riper years) have from hence an immediate Right to Baptiſm, do (as we conceive) put more into the Concluſion, than will be found in the Premiſſes.
Whereas we do not conclude meerly from their Covenant-Holineſs, that they have from thence any immediate Right to Baptiſm; we only improve that Scripture as a Confirmation of their Covenant-ſtate, which you at preſent deny not, neither will you determine of what Holineſs the Apoſtle there ſpeaks; ſo that as you grant not, ſo you deny not but the Apoſtle may ſpeak of foederal Holineſs, which is all that we affirm. Hence what you ſubjoin in thoſe 114 and 115 pages, ſo in 125, and onwards to 129, is utterly impertinent. We ſay not that a Command for Infant-Baptiſm doth immediatly and directly reſult from their Intereſt in the Covenant, or Church-Memberſhip; but this we ſay, that God having graciouſly extended his Covenant to them, hath been pleaſed of his Sovereign will and pleaſure to annex a Command, that the Token of his Covenant (whatever that ſhould be) ſhould be kept both by Parents and Children, which Token of the Covenant we ſay was Circumciſion under the firſt Teſtament, but now is Baptiſm. And beſides, there are other Arguments which you cannot certainly be unacquainted with, which do (ſuppoſing that their Foederal Holineſs and Church-Memberſhip) undeniably eſtabliſh the dueneſs and rightfulneſs of their Baptiſm. So that (I conceive) you cannot poſſibly, grant their Foederal Holineſs and Church-Memberſhip, but you muſt grant their Baptiſm. Now for you to overlook all theſe Arguments, and fain us to argue quite otherwiſe than indeed we do, (or if poſſibly any have done, yet their Miſtakes have been rectified) is (to ſay no more) matter of great admiration. The reaſons of your ſo doing muſt be left with your ſelves; yet I cannot but tell you that ſuch Dealings have a ſad tendency to obſtruct that good Deſign, viz. the Reconciliation of our mutual Love each to other, which you ſeem to carry on. It will beget a kind of Suſpicion in the minds of Men, that you too wilfully ſhut your Eyes againſt that Light that is held forth unto you.
Secondly, You only ſingle out ſome of thoſe Scriptures and Arguments drawn from them, that we make uſe of as additional Enforcements, but not as demonſtrative of themſelves. Thus for thoſe Inſtances of whole Families being baptized, we only improve them as a further Confirmation of our main Arguments, but not as demonſtrative as of themſelves, and that upon ſuppoſition of the foederal Holineſs and Church-Memberſhip of the Infant-Seed of Believers, and the validity of thoſe Arguments we have urged for their Baptiſm upon that Suppoſition. That theſe Inſtances may be taken in as additional Confirmations of our Practice, I am verily perſwaded your ſelves will not deny. So that alas! Brethren, what a ſlender account have you given us of the Reaſons of your non-acquieſcence in what is urged by us againſt you. No wonder if you ſo greatly miſtake us on the one hand, and on the other hand overlook our main Arguments, and then only take notice of what Scriptures and Arguments we make uſe of only as additional Confirmations, though you cannot comply with our practice.
2. That which I cannot but judge alike blameworthy in you, is your too evident Partiality. This is ſo apparent in you Citation of, and Remark upon Dr. Lightfoot's Interpretation of that Rom. 4.11. that it is a wonder your ſelves ſhould not ſee it. The Doctor conceives that Circumciſion is there ſaid to be a Seal not meerly (for in ſome ſence he grants it might be) of that Righteouſneſs Abraham had while in his Ʋncircumciſion; but more eſpecially of that Righteouſneſs which his uncircumciſed Seed, that is, believing Gentiles, ſhould have when they ſhould come to imitate his Faith. Now you conceive that this is ſo evidently the true ſence and meaning of the Apoſtle in that place, that it is impertinent for any to alledge that Scripture to prove that Circumciſion was a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, either to Abraham himſelf, or to any of his circumciſed Poſterity. But Brethren, let me prevail with you ſeriouſly to weight theſe few things, which I ſhall but as it were propoſe to your conſideration.
1. Conſider, that this Interpretation ſeems utterly inconſiſtent with the Apoſtle's deſign and ſcope in that place. The Apoſtle's deſign is to ſhew that Abraham both had a Righteouſneſs imputed to him, and had Circumciſion given him as a Seal thereof, That he might be the Father of all that ſhould believe, who were of the Circumciſion; but this Interpretation ſuppoſes him already their Father.
2. But ſecondly, And rather conſider the utter Improbability, that this is indeed the true ſence and meaning of the Apoſtle; let me ſay, cum pace tanti viri, that the Doctor's words are ſo far from having any evidence, as you conceit, that they have not any probability of Truth in them. For,
(1.) Should it be granted, which yet it is not, that Circumciſion might be of this uſe as applied to Abraham himſelf, who was the Father of all that ſhould believe; yet why it ſhould be of the ſame uſe as applied to all his natural Poſterity, as this Interpretation takes it for granted that it was, no reaſon can be imagined. A Seal is for confirmation of ſomewhat to the Parties to whom it is given; now why God by this seal of Circumciſion ſhould confirm to the Jews the Promiſe of juſtifying the Gentiles, through a Righteouſneſs imputed to them upon their believing, when it did not ſeal or confirm the ſame Good to themſelves, is hard to imagine.
(2.) Circumciſion is expreſly ſaid to be the Token of that Covenant eſtabliſhed with Abraham and his Seed in their Generations; but now the Imputation of Righteouſneſs to us Gentiles upon condition of our believing, was no Article on God's part in the Covenant, as entred and eſtabliſhed with Abraham's natural Seed, at leaſt as ſeverally and particularly conſidered, and as the Covenant was ſo entred with them, Circumciſion was the Token of it. Hence how it could ſeal to them what was no-where promiſed to them is hard to imagine.
(3.) This Interpretation, at leaſt as you ſeem to take it, ſuppoſes hat the natural Seed of Abraham, though in Covenant, yet had not a Righteouſneſs imputed to them: for how unreaſonable would it be to ſay that Imputation of Righteouſneſs to the Gentiles was ſealed to the Jews, and yet that Righteouſneſs imputed unto them not alike ſealed unto them; that would be to ſay, they had a Good of which they had no Promiſe ſealed to them, and yet that Good of which they had a Promiſe not ſealed to them.
(4.) According to this Interpretation the Apoſtle's words can hardly be good ſence, ſeeing the Righteouſneſs of Faith is not a Quality inherent in, but a Relation predicable of thoſe to whom it is imputed; but according to this Interpretation the Apolſte's words muſt run thus, He received Circumciſion, a Seal of the Righteouſneſs which ſhould be in the Circumciſion; for the words are, foreign.
(5.) Adde this one thing more, That the very ſame Phraſe in the next verſe is and muſt neceſſarily be render'd as it is by our Tranſlators in this. Now to underſtand the ſame Phraſe after ſuch a different manner in one verſe, from what it muſt neceſſarily be underſtood in the next, when there is no warrant from Scripture, nor any juſt reaſon from the Context ſo to do, is unreaſonable. But,
3. Suppoſe we ſhould grant the Doctor's Interpretation to be right, which you ſee we have no reaſon to do, yet neither is your Cauſe at all advantaged, nor ours prejudiced thereby, ſeeing he grants that Circumciſion in ſome ſence was a Seal to Abraham of that Righteouſneſs which he had by Faith while in his Uncircumciſion. Now of what uſe it was to him, of the ſame uſe it was to all to whom it was rightfully applied, as I have elſewhere fully proved: Now ſuppoſe it might have a further reſpect, yet that not ways prejudices the Uſe and Improvement we make of the Text for the eſtabliſhment of our Practice. So that I cannot but greatly wonder that you ſhould put ſuch a Remark upon that Interpretation of that Scripture, which ſeems evidently inconſiſtent with the Apoſtle's ſcope, is utterly improbable in it ſelf, and yet is of no uſe to the furthering of your Cauſe, nor makes any head of Oppoſition againſt ours.
And truly, Brethren, I now begin to leſs wonder that you acquieſce not in what is offered by us for your ſatisfaction; it cannot be thought ſtrange that you ſhould continue your Practice different from ours, when you either only ſuppoſe that our Practice is eſtabliſhed by ſuch Arguments as we make no uſe of, or if any haply have made uſe of them, yet they are confeſſed by others of us to be invalid, and in the mean time overlook thoſe Arguments which we conceive to be cogent and demonſtrative, and withal take a Conceit of one ſingle Man, (however Learned, and in other matters Judicious) that indeed hath no probability of Truth in it, nor really of any uſe to you, to carry ſuch evidence of Truth, as though ſufficient to counter-ballance the Judgments of all others, though at leaſt ſome of them not inferiour unto him either in Learning or Judgment, that are otherwiſe minded; though it is to me matter of no ſmall Admiration, that you who can with great Judgment examine other controverted Doctrines, and hold faſt that which is good, ſhould ſo do.
And when I find you thus partial towards this Cauſe you have eſpouſed; wherein I am enforced to appear in oppoſition to you, I have ſome Ground to ſuſpect that what is written by any other in oppoſition to what has been offered for your ſatisfaction, or in fayour of your Cauſe, may find that entertainment with you, which otherwiſe ſhould any conſidering what is written ſuppoſe that it would find, you probably would return ſome ſuch Anſwer as Hazael returned to Eliſha, 2 Kin. 8.13. And therefore I have judged it not altogether in vain herewith to preſent you with ſome brief Reflections upon a Sheet of Paper not long ſince publiſhed by one Mr. D'Laune, making a ſhew of a Confutation of my Books. Indeed had I not ſome Intimations, whether my Information fail me or no I cannot certainly ſay, as though one of no ſmall note among you ſhould ſay, That Mr. D Laune bad performed his Ʋndertaking with a great deal of Reaſon. or words to that effect, though himſelf had been told, and that by one of no ſmall Judgment in this Controverſy, that Mr. D'Laun's Book as to me ſignified not two Straws, I could hardly have imagined, what power ſoever Anticipations and Prejudices may have upon the minds of Men, it could have ſignified any more to any of you. Whether it do at leaſt deſerve to ſignify any thing more, I ſhall now refer to the determination of God's Vice-gerent, I mean Conſcience in you. The Title Mr. D'Laun gives his Papers is, A brief Survey and Confutation of Mr. Whiſton's Books: but he hath ſeen meet to aſſault only the firſt, with the Poſtſcript of the laſt, and that at ſuch a vaſt diſtance that I can hardly think (ſetting aſide what he ſaith to the Preface wherein the Controverſy is not directly concerned, and that brief Account that he gives of my Books) had he not mentioned my Name, that any Reader could ever imagine he had any reſpect to my Book, yea, or had ever ſeen or read it, ſo far is he from a Confutation of it. The whole of what he faith hardly makes fourteen Pages, five and a great part of the ſixth of which contains a Confutation (according to his Title) of my Preface, and a brief Account of ſome part of my Book.
As to what he ſaith to my Preface, of how little ſignification it is I ſhall wholly leave to your Judgments. I ſay not that the Cauſes there aſſigned of the prevailing of your Judgments and Practice, are the Cauſes of all their rejecting the Practice we contend for, and embracing yours, who do reject the one and embrace the other, nor will he (as I ſuppoſe) engage for all of your Perſwaſion, that the Cauſe of their embracing of that Perſwaſion is not the one or the other o the things there mentioned; or if he ſhould, doubtleſs there are not many will believe him to have ſuch acquaintance with the Hearts of Men, as to put any value upon that engagement; but ſuppoſe he could, how is the Cauſe contended for by me prejudiced thereby? And as for the Digreſſion concerning Conſequences he falls into upon occaſion of the third Cauſe aſſigned by me, I dare boldly ſay, you know and cannot but acknowledg he perfectly trifles; neither can I imagine any other Reaſon of that Digreſſion, (for I ſuppoſe we are fully agreed about Conſequences) except it be to uſher in that Argument he lays down in his third Page, which he would have his Reader believe unanſwerably proves that there is indeed no Birth-Holineſs under the Goſpel-Adminiſtration; but whether it be of any more weight than if he had ſaid, There is none, becauſe there is none, is left to your Judgments. How abſurd is it to jumble together the Covenant-Intereſt or Foederal Holineſs of the Seed of Believers, with things purely Ceremonial? That all Ceremonial Differences between Meats, Birds, Beaſts, and ſo forth, are taken away, we readily grant; but that the Birth-Priviledg of the Seed of Believers was ever founded in that Law, we utterly deny, and affirm on the other hand, that it is founded in the Covenant of Grace, which is one and the ſame in all Ages, nor doth Mr. D'Laun offer the leaſt Proof that it is otherwiſe. So that I ſhall appeal unto Mr. Delaun's own Conſcience, whether in this Argument he did not knowingly and deſinedly paraſyllogize, or put a Fallacy on his unwary Reader?
Brethren, I muſt tell you plainly, and ſure you cannot but know it, that ſuch Dealings greatly reflect upon your Party, they will (do Men what they can) beget Prejudices in their Minds, they ſavouring ſo much of that foreign the Apoſtle ſpeaks of, whereby Men not only of unſound Judgments, but corrupt Minds, lie in wait to deceive. Now then be you your ſelves Judges, to how little purpoſe Mr. D'Laun has ſpent above one third part of his pretended Confutatio of this firſt Books.
But to come to his Confutation. And thus after the afore-mentioned account he gives of my Book, he thus begins, pag. 6 As to Mr. Whiſton's firſt ſubordinate Propoſition, being before rejected, I ſay, &c.
Mr. D'Laun here tells us he hath rejected my firſt Propoſition, but refers us not to the place where, that we might ſee whether he hath done it upon any rational Grounds or no; nor do I find where he had afore rejected it, much leſs any Reaſon of his ſo doing. As for his following Diſcourſe, that which he drives at in it I ſuppoſe is this, viz. to ſhew, That the Covenant of Grace is ſuch, as that neither the natural Seed of Abraham, or of any other believing Parents, as ſuch, can have an Intereſt in it, or Right to the Promiſes of it. And hence he would have his Reader conclude, that this my firſt propoſition cannot be true, unleſs ſuppoſing by Covenant I mean the Covenant of Circumciſion; nor can I rationally make that uſe of that Promiſe for the eſtabliſhing the Practice of Infants Baptiſm that I do. Now let us ſee how he hath performed his Undertaking; in order whereunto I ſhall firſt pare off what is impertinent as to his preſent purpoſe, ſeeing he is now in pretence confuting my Book; and thus his whole Diſcourſe, which takes tip upward of two more of his fourteen Pages, about the manner of the Covenant's Adminiſtration, muſt be laid aſide, as that wherein my Book is no way concerned, ſeeing I ſufficiently declare, and certainly Mr. D'Laun could not but know it, that when I affirm the Infant-Seed of Abraham and of all other Believers are taken with their Parents into the Covenant, I ſtill mean the Covenant it ſelf, and not its outward Adminiſtration; and then to what end and purpoſe he ſhould enlarge ſo much upon the manner of the Covenants Adminiſtration remains with himſelf, nothing I have ſaid is at all concerned therein. Now then take the Covenant as conſidered in regard of its Eſſence and Subſtance, and let us ſee,
Firſt, How far Mr. De-Laun and I are agreed, and we evidently agree in two things.
1. That God in that Promiſe, Gen. 17.7. intended Abraham's natural Seed. That Mr. D'Laun agrees with me in this, is evident; for in his 12th pag. he expreſly grants, that if I mean the Covenant of Circumciſion, as it is called Acts 7.8. neither himſelf nor any Body elſe denies this my firſt Propoſition. Now I have ſufficiently declared that that is the Covenant that I mean; and by the Covenant of Circumciſion I mean the Covenant the Sign or Token of which was Circumciſion, and ſo for ought I know doth Mr. D'Laun too. I confeſs, there is a Paſſage or two in his Papers that ſeem to intimate, that by the Covenant of Circumciſion he intends Circumciſion it ſelf, or the Command enjoining Circumciſion; but his granting, that if when I ſay that Promiſe of God's being a God to Abraham and his Seed reſpected his natural Seed, I mean the Covenant of Circumciſion, neither he nor any Body elſe denies it, plainly ſhews that he cannot ſo underſtand the Covenant of Circumciſion here, ſeeing that is a Command laid upon Abraham and his Seed, and not a Promiſe; and he cannot poſſibly imagine that I ſhould have reſpect to that Command, becauſe I not only ſpeak of a Promiſe, but expreſly ſhew that it is that very Promiſe v. 7. that I have reference unto; ſo that Mr. D'Laun and I are plainly agreed in this.
2. We are agreeed in this, viz. Either that there are two Covenants, each of which may bear the denomination of the Covenant of Grace, the one abſolute, the other conditional, or elſe that one and the ſame Covenant, uſually called the Covenant of Grace, may be diſtinguiſhed of as abſolute or conditional. And that we are agreed in this is evident, becauſe Mr. D'Laun, having ſpoken of the abſolute Covenant of Grace, and having affirmed that this Covenant belongeth not to Infants (as I am far from ſaying that it doth) he immediatly adds, The conditional Covenant of Grace, if they will ſo call it, &c. It may ſeem he would rather have it called a mutual Covenant; but we ſee that he plainly diſtinguiſheth between the ſingle or abſolute Covenant, which he ſaith was made with the Elect, and the mutual or conditional Covenant, which is offered to all, and actually made with Believers as ſuch.
So that in theſe two things Mr. D'L. and I are agreed. And if it be ſaid, wherein then lies the Differences between us?
I anſwer, I conceive it lies here, That whereas I affirm that this Covenant mentioned Gen. 17.7. was not only a Covenant of Grace, but is the conditional Covenant of Grace, under which Believers always have been, and ſtill are. Mr. D'Laun either holds that it was the old Covenant, which he ſuppoſeth to have been a Covenant of Works, and which is ſaid by the Apoſtle to be vaniſhed away; or elſe that it was a complicated Covenant, both the Covenant of Grace, and alſo the Covenant of Works, as he calls it, or the old Covenant. Which Conceit, ſuppoſing either Mr. D'Laun or any others have embraced it, may claim the Primogeniture among all the Abſurdities that have ever dropt from the Pen of any that ever communicated any thing to publick view. That one and the ſame Promiſe ſhould conſtitute both the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works, (as he muſt hold it of one and the ſame Promiſe, viz. that mentioned in Gen. 17.7. or he ſpeaks nothing to the purpoſe) is ſo extravagantly abſurd, that it ſeems very harſh to charge any Man with it, unleſs he had in expreſs words affirmed it; yet I much ſuſpect it is Mr. D'Laun's Conceit, as well as it was Mr. Hutchinſon's before him, but I ſhall leave Mr. D'Laun to explain his own Notions. Surely he could not but know, I having ſo expreſly declared my ſelf in that matter, (ſee Book 1. pag. 51.) that both in my firſt Propoſition, and the whole uſe I make of that Covenant eſtabliſhed with Abraham, for the eſtabliſhing the Practice of Infant-Baptiſm, I ſtill look upon it as the conditional Covenant of Grace, or the Covenant as conditionally made.
Now then having ſeen wherein we agree, let us ſee how ſubſtantially either this my firſt Propoſition, or the uſe I make of that Gen. 17.7. for the Ends mentioned, is by all that Mr. D'Laun hath ſaid, confuted. And in Confultationem, the Sum of all he hath ſaid amounts but to this, That he himſelf and ſome others, both Paedobaptiſts and Antipaedo-baptiſts, have ſuch a ſence and underſtanding of the abſolute or ſingle Covenant of Grace, as that it admits not any Infants (as ſuch) to have an Intereſt in it. But how either my Propoſition, or any Uſe I make of that Scripture, ſhould be concerned in any Man's ſence or underſtanding of a Covenant, I neither intend, nor have any reſpect unto, or at leaſt of the Covenant of Grace, as falling under another Notion than that I conſider'd it under, I ſhall leave to you and all other Men, to judg and determine as you and they ſee meet. But ſuppoſe Mr. D'Laun and thoſe others he mentions, ſhould ſpeak of one and the ſame Covenant, or of the Covenant under one and the ſame Notion that I do, what a ſlender Confutation of my Propoſition is it to tell us, that he and ſome others have a different underſtanding of that Covenant from what I have? And yet this it ſeems muſt go for a Confutatio, yea, a rational Confutation of my Book. But who knew not that thoſe who deny Infant-Baptiſm have a different ſence and underſtanding of the Covenant of Grace than what I have, before Mr. D'Laun's Papers ſaw the Light?
And if any ſhall ſay, Though it is true, what Mr. D'Laun here ſaith is no ſufficient Confutation, either of my firſt Propoſition, or of the Uſe I make of this Covenant, ſeeing what he ſaith concerns a diſtinct Covenant, or the Covenant as conſidered under a different Notion from that Covenant that I make uſe of for the eſtabliſhing the Practice of Infant-Baptiſm, or the Notion under which I conſider it; yet take the Covenant in that ſence that I do, and Mr. D'Laun (when he comes to vindicate Mr. Hutchinſon) hath proved that it concerns not Infants; So in his 18th Page, and he ſeems to have proved it by two Reaſons.
Firſt, Becauſe he can find that Covenant to be no other than this, that he that believes ſhall be ſaved.
2dly. Becauſe the Covenant of Grace (he ſpeaks of the conditional Covenant) gives what it requires, and enables the Covenanters to perform the Condition required, which cannot be affirmed that it doth to Infants while ſuch.
In reference whereunto I ſhall only ſay, that neither of theſe Reaſons is a ſufficient Proof. For as for the firſt,
1. The Fault is in Mr. D'Laune; would he ſearch the Scriptures, and open his Eyes to the Light held forth from them, he may eaſily ſee the Covenant, as thus conſider'd, may, yea, doth take in Infants with their Parents.
2. As to his other Reaſon, It amounts to neither more nor leſs than if he had ſaid, The Covenant as conditional concerns not Infants, becauſe it is an abſolute Covenant. To ſay, the conditional Covenant gives what it requires, is of a like import as if it ſhould be ſaid, the abſolute Covenant requires Conditions. But would Mr. D'Laune have attended to what (I ſuppoſe) he hath read, he might have ſeen how Infants may be in the conditional Covenant, and yet never be enabled to perform the Conditions of it, and yet that not from any failure on God's part in his Promiſes. See my firſt Book, pag. 49, &c. 208, &c. See alſo my Eſſay, pag. 88.
Now then, Brethren, whether Mr. D'Laune hath rationally rejected my firſt Propoſition, or confuted that, or the Uſe I make of the Covenant entred with Abraham, I ſhall freely leave to your, as well as all other Mens Judgments, and proceed to his Confutation of my other two Propoſitions.
As to his pretended Confutation of my ſecond ſubordinate Propoſition, I ſhall freely leave it at the Bar of your, yea, of all Mens Conſciences, to determine, whether what he hath ſaid carries the leaſt real appearance of ſuch a Confutation as he pretends unto. Nay, I dare appeal to any Man of a competent underſtanding, whether what I have ſaid for the proof of this ſecond Propoſition may not be much more juſtly accounted an Anſwer to, and Confutation of his Suggeſtions, than what he hath ſaid accounted a Confutation of my Propoſition. Alas! what hath he ſaid? for whereas I had proved this ſecond Propoſition four ways, he only takes notice of the laſt. And whereas I had quoted ſeveral Texts of Scripture, from all which, as compared together, and mutually explaining each other, I had drawn five Concluſions, the three firſt of which I had inſiſted more eſpecially upon by way of Proof, as making more directly to the proof of this Propoſition; he wholly waves thoſe Arguments and the Reaſons by which I had confirmed them, and only cites the Scriptures themſelves, and that without the leaſt notice of their mutual Aſpect one upon another, and gloſſes upon them ſeverally as he ſees meet and that in a direct oppoſition to what I had evidenced to be the Mind of the Holy Ghoſt in them.
Indeed he ſets down one of my Concluſions, but how wretchedly he wreſts my ſence and meaning in it, will appear to any that will read what be faith, and turn to my firſt Book, pag. 124. and to my Anſwer to Mr. Danvers, pag. 113. Alas Brethren! can you think your Cauſe can be long upheld by ſuch ſhufling, yea, and I may ſay, diſhoneſt dealing; But to haſten.
As to what Mr. D'Laun hath ſaid either for the Confutation of this ſecond, or my third ſubordinate Propoſition, I have only this further to ſay, My Books, as well as what he hath ſaid either in this Sheet, or in his Reply to Mr. Baxter, are extant, and may be compared together; which in caſe any ſhall neglect to do, their Oppoſition to this part of the Counſel of God that concerns the Baptiſm of Infants, ſuppoſing them drawn thereinto, or eſtabliſh'd therein by any thing Mr. D'Laun hath ſaid, will be juſtly charged upon themſelves.
But to proceed and touch upon Mr. D'Laun's Vindication of Mr. Hutchinſon, and at the very entrance he thus expreſſes himſelf, Where I ſhall have occaſion to inlarge (where it is meet) by way of Vindication of Mr. Hutchinſon's Animadverſions upon this (I ſuppoſe it ſhould be) his ſecond Book, meaning my Anſwer to Mr. Danvers: but the truth is, he is ſo far from inlarging, that he offers not one word or ſyllable by way of Vindication of his Animadverſions upon that Book; ſave only that in the Cloſe he reflects upon (not without ſome ſeverity) ſome (as he judges) harſh Paſſages uſed by me with reſpect to Mr. Danvers, of which more anon, and conſequently has left Mr. Danvers utterly deſtitute of any Relief by theſe Animadverſions. What he ſaith to my Poſtſcript is meerly to vindicate Mr. Hutchinſon's Treatiſe of the Covenant, from thoſe Reaſons I gave therein, why I judged it utterly uſeleſs as to the Deſign carried on in it. And how meanly he has done it too, will ſoon appear. For whereas I gave three Reaſons why I judged it ſo; as, (1.) Becauſe he proceeds upon ſuch groſs Miſtakes about the Ground we lay for the Covenant-Intereſt, Church-Memberſhip, and Baptiſm of Infants. (2.) Becauſe he aſſumes and takes for granted, without any ſhew of Proof, ſeveral things, which he knew or might have known were denied by us. (3.) Becauſe his Treatiſe labours under ſuch ſad Confuſion, and that attended with ſeveral Abſurdities and Contradictions. And I gave ten Inſtances to make good what I affirm of, and charge his Treatiſe with, in thoſe Reaſons. He only ſingles out four of them, and conſequently leaves his Book juſtly chargeable with all thoſe things that I aſſign of its Uſeleſneſs; though ſuppoſing Mr. D'Laun had fully vindicated him in reſpect of thoſe four Inſtances he takes notice of, it would not be ſo in reſpect of ſo many as I gave. And in reſpect of thoſe Inſtances he takes notice of: as for two of them he has no other way to vindicate Mr. Hutchinſon but by meer falſhood, thus in his firſt and laſt. Let what he ſaith pag. 15. ten firſt lines, be compared with my Book, and it will be found that in none of thoſe Pages cited by him there is any mention of the Relation of the Infant-Seed of Believers unto Aaraham, except only in the laſt, nor any one word giving the leaſt Ground to ſuppoſe that I ground my Plea for their Intereſts in the Covenant or Baptiſm upon that their Relation; the whole Deſign of my Book is of another Import. And even in that pag. 262, the laſt Page cited by him, where I mentioned that their Relation, I expreſly ſay, That in the application of Baptiſm to them, we have a direct and primary reſpect to their State, as Joint-Subjects with their Parents of the Promiſes of the Covenant. It is true, I add that, Look what reſpect we have to the Myſtical Relation of believing Parents to Abraham, in the Application of Baptiſm to them; the ſame reſpect we have to the Myſtical Relation of their Infant-Seed to him, in the Application of Baptiſm unto them. But my meaning is plainly only this, that it is both Parents and Childrens Intereſt in the Covenant and Promiſes, that gives them Right to, and is the Ground upon which we apply Baptiſm the preſent Token of the Covenant to them; though we own and acknowledge both to ſtand alike related to Abraham as his Seed; but it is not their Relation unto Abraham that we ground their Baptiſm upon, that is their Covenant-Intereſt. So that do they ſtand related to Abraham or no, which is wholly another Queſtion, yet ſeeing they have an Intereſt in the Covenant, they ought to have the Token of it applied to them. So that I had juſt cauſe to charge Mr. Hutchinſon with that Miſtake, and ſo far as he proceeds thereon, his Book muſt needs be utterly uſeleſs; and yet ex abundanti in that very place in my Poſtſcript to Mr. Hutchinſon I do expreſly own that their Relation to Abraham, and ſhew the Inſufficiency of his Reaſonings againſt that Ground. Suppoſe we had pleaded for their Church-Memberſhip and Baptiſm from it, which we do not, which Mr. D'Laun takes no notice of, and yet has the Confidence as though we had indeed argued from it, and I had ſaid nothing for our Juſtification againſt Mr. Hutchinſon, in caſe we had run into an impertinent Diſcourſe about Abraham's Seed; and as impertinently talks of a Queſtion worth my Reſolution, which had he read my Eſſay, he might have ſeen already reſolved. So again in the laſt Inſtance, in reſpect of which he attempts Mr. Hutchinſon's Vindication, pag. 20. Let Mr. D'Laun, or any one elſe, ſhew where I charge Mr. Hutchinſon with any ſuch Abſurdity as he there ſaith, I do and ſhall acquit him of Falſhood in this matter. So that Mr. Hutchinſon's Book remains utterly unvindicated, in reſpect of eight of thoſe ten Inſtances I gave to ſhew the Uſeleſsneſs and Inſignificancy of it, as to the End deſigned in it. And as for thoſe other two Inſtances, with reſpect to which Mr. De-Laun may ſeem to have ſaid ſomething for his vindication; yet if his Words be well look'd into, they will be found of no uſe for that purpoſe.
For, as for the one of them, he plainly grants what I charge him with, only attempts his Relief another way, which is no Vindication at all of Mr. Hutchinſon.
And as for the other, which concerns the Abſurdities and Confuſion Mr. Hutchinſon's Book labours under; how has he vindicated him by falling into a double Abſurdity himſelf? (1.) In ſaying the Covenant of Grace, in reſpect of its Adminiſtration, is a Covenant of Works. (2.) In implying that whatever adminiſters to the Covenant of Grace (for upon that Suppoſition he muſt go, or his Vindication of Mr. Hutchinſon ſignifies nothing) may be called its Adminiſtration; than which what can be more abſurdly ſpoken is not eaſy to imagine: but that is all Mr. D'Laun has to ſay for Mr. Hutchinſon; and whether he has not left his Book as he found it, be your ſelves Judges. Indeed, had Mr. D'Laun ſaid, That as under the firſt Teſtament the Old Covenant did; ſo under the New-Teſtament the New Covenant does ſubſerve or adminiſter to the Covenant of Grace properly ſo called, he had poſſibly hit upon a Truth of no ſmall Importance for the right underſtanding the various Covenants God has made with Men.
But to have done. As to what Mr. D'Laun ſaith concerning my denying that I call Mr. Danvers's Book all Forgery, which he inſinuates to proceed from weakneſs of Memory, you ſhall be my Judges whether I had not reaſon ſo to do, and whether my ſo doing argues any weakneſs of Memory or no; ſurely had I called it all Forgery, Mr. D'Laun would have produced my words, which he cannot do. It is true, ſome have thought I was over-ſharp in ſome Paſſages in that book, to whom I have two things to ſay:
1. That (as Mr. Hutchinſon apologizing for himſelf expreſſes it Error cannot be diſputed againſt without giving it its Name; and its Abetters cannot, be reproved and admoniſhed but in words accommodating to their Miſtakes; which inded is not railing, but plain-dealing. If this be a ſufficient Apology for Mr. Hutchinſon, why not for me?
2. The true Reaſon why I did expreſs my ſelf in more ſharpneſs than is uſual for me to do; was, that I might have engaged either Mr. Danvers, or ſome other learned Antipaedo-baptiſts, in a thorow examination of the Arguments, I had both in my firſt Book, and occaſionally in that Anſwer, offered for the eſtabliſhment of the Practice of Infant-Baptiſm. I knew the way of my Procedure was ſomewhat different from what others had gone before me in; and I concluded that a thorow Examination of my Arguments might be greatly uſeful, either for the detection of my Miſtakes, ſuppoſing I had lain under any, or for the farther eſtabliſhing of the Practice I pleaded for. A rational Logical Diſcourſe (as I had expreſſed my ſelf) in the examination of the chief Grounds I had laid down, would have been exceeding welcom unto me, and I judged that ſuch quickning Expreſſions might have engaged ſome body in that Service.
I have only thus much more to add, That whereas Mr. Hutchinſon and Mr. D'Laun again and again inſinuate, as though I had only dictated, and not added any thing for proof of my Poſitions and Aſſertions, I ſhall appeal to your Conſciences whether it be ſo or no, and challenge Mr. D'Laun, yea, or any other,
1. To produce any one Poſition or Aſſertion wherein the Cauſe of Infant-Baptiſm is concerned, that I have laid down without proof, yea, and that when it can rationally have been judged to be neceſſary, by Arguments laid down and proſecuted ſyllogiſtically.
2. To inſtance in any one Argument or Objection, that is offered and raiſed againſt our Judgment and Practice by Mr. Tombs in the third Part of his Review, or any where elſe, or any other, that I have not either expreſly anſwered, or at leaſt may not receive a juſt and full Anſwer from what I have ſaid in the one or the other of thoſe Tracts I have made publick.
To inſtance in any one of all thoſe Arguments I have laid down, that either Mr. Hutchinſon, or Mr. D'Laun, or any one elſe, have ſo much as attempted to ſhew the weakneſs and invalidity of. And ſure all Men muſt needs conclude it is a ſtrange Confutation of Books when there is not any one Argument that is laid down from firſt to laſt, the invalidating or weakning of which has been ſo much as attempted. For Men to cry out of dictating, when they know in their Conſciences that nothing is affirmed but what is proved, and that by ſuch Arguments as they dare not undertake to anſwer, ſignifies but little. Surely I may do with ſuch Confutations and Animadverſions, as Job profeſſes he would have done with any Book his Adverſaries ſhould have written againſt him, viz. take them upon my Shoulder, and bind them as a Crown to me.
And now, Reverend and beloved Brethren, Bear with me, though I take the boldneſs earneſtly to inteat and beſeech you, having laid aſide all Anticipations and Prejudices, yea, all ſuperfluity of naughtineſs, yet once again ſeriouſly to receive,Eſt aliquid ſpectare Deos, & adeſſe putare. Ovid. and in the fear of God our Father, and our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, throughly ponder the Arguments, that have been both by by others and my ſelf (which in part are here again in Love, and I hope I may ſay in a Spirit of Meekneſs, preſented to you) for your ſatisfaction, and chuſe rather to become victorious Captives unto Truth, than to lie under the Charge of holding faſt Deceit, and refuſing to return. It is true, you have given us ſome account why you cannot receive that for Truth which we judge to be ſo, but I can hardly think (bear with my plainneſs) but upon a ſerious Review your ſelves muſt needs own it to be unſatisfactory. I doubt not but you have weighed again and again the Arguments pleaded by ſome on the behalf of our Judgment and Practice, drawn from the Covenant: But let me ſay, Have not ſome Miſtakes, which ſince have been diſcovered and rectified, occaſioned your rejection of them? For my own part I muſt ſay, had not I evidently ſeen a way to rectify thoſe Miſtakes, if I had not been in your Tents, I ſhould not have abode in your oppoſite's with any conſiderable ſatisfaction to my ſelf. Had it been ſo indeed as ſome have thought, that the Covenant entred with Abraham had taken in all his Poſterity, at leaſt deſcending by Iſaac and Jacob, during the Firſt-Teſtament-Adminiſtration, meerly as ſuch, I could not but have judged it a very rational Suppoſal, that that had been a Priviledg peculiar to himſelf, and not continued to all believing Parents; or could I not have maintained the Covenant-Intereſt of the Infant-Seed of Believers, but by diſtinguiſhing of the Covenant as Internal and External, I ſee not how I could upon any ſolid Grounds have maintained it. Or did the Covenant only convey unto them External Priviledges, as the Ground upon which their Covenant-Intereſt and Baptiſm are pleaded upon, would have appeared to me leſs ſure and firm; ſo I ſhould have ſomewhat haeſitated whether the Advantages redounding to them, at leaſt in reſpect of thoſe that die in their Infancy, would countervail the Inconveniences of a Conteſt thereabout. Or had it been ſo that that grand Promiſe of the Covenant, wherein God promiſes to be a God to Abraham and his Seed, had (as ſimply and abſolutely conſidered) included all Spiritual Good, and conſequently that all that have an actual Intereſt in that Promiſe, muſt needs either de preſenti actually have, or de futuro be infallibly aſſured of ſaving Grace, I ſhould have judged it at leaſt very probable that the Covenant might be reſtrained to the Elect; or yet could I not have allowed Infants, as ſuch, an other Intereſt in the Covenant, than a viſible ſtanding under the out ward Adminiſtration of it, I ſhould have readily granted they had indeed no Intereſt at all in it, and conſequently not to be baptized. But I am fully ſatisfied theſe things are meer Miſtakes, it is quite otherwiſe. And hence not only that the Infant-Seed of Believers are in Covenant, but the Conſiſtency of their being ſo with all thoſe Orthodox Doctrines maintained both by you and us againſt the Arminians, with the very great Benefit and Advantage they have thereby, appears with ſo much plainneſs and evidence to me, that I can hardly forbear to wonder they ſhould not do ſo to all others, who have attained to any Competency of Ability for the comparing one Scripture with another. And though I ſuppoſe ſome of you may ſay ſomewhat more to purpoſe, than any of thoſe, who ſince theſe Miſtakes have been rectified, and our Practice truly founded upon its right Baſis, have appeared in favour of your Cauſe, have ſaid: Yet let me ſay, I verily believe they will never be able to anſwer, either ſome of thoſe Arguments Mr. Baxter has laid down for the Church-Memberſhip of the Infant-Seed of Believers, or that I have offered for the eſtabliſhing of their Covenant-Intereſt and Right to Baptiſm thereupon. So as that a tender Conſcience reſiding in a Heart, from whom God has not hid Ʋnderſtanding, can quietly acquieſce therein. As for thoſe two who have concerned themſelves in my poor Endeavours to let in ſome further Light into this Controverſy, let your Conſciences ſpeak out, Did you ever read ſuch inſignificant Animadverſions and Confutations, neither the one nor the other attempting in the leaſt to ſhew the Inſufficiency of any one Argument I have laid down? ſurely neither could the Authors: nor can you ſuppoſe that ſuch Diſcourſes can yeild any other Advantage to your Cauſe than this, viz. that although they ſignify nothing to thoſe that read them, yet will give riſe to a general Rumour that ſuch a book is anſwered. And alas! how are they forced, that what they ſay may carry ſome appearance of a Reply to our Arguments, to feign us to uſe other mediums, or to argue quite otherwiſe than indeed we do, and impoſe upon us ſuch Conceſſions as we are no way obliged to, but do expreſly reject.
As to the former, in reſpect of which your ſelves are not wholly innocent, how evident is it both in that Suppoſal of Mr. Hutchinſon, juſtified by Mr. D'Laun, that the main Ground we lay or can lay, to the Church-Memberſhip and Baptiſm of the Infant-Seed of Believers, is their Relation to Abraham as his Seed; and alſo that Suppoſal, that I argue from the Analogy Baptiſm bears with Circumciſion, which is apparently falſe, and is expreſly diſowned by me. It is the Command to keep the Covenant that I argue from, and only mention Circumciſion to ſhew that by Covenant is there meant the Token of the Covenant.
As for the latter, take two Inſtances at preſent, Both Mr. Hutchinſon and Mr. D'Laun will needs ſuppoſe and ſeem to think, that we muſt grant that that Covenant entred with Abraham, Gen. 17. was the Old Covenant, ſaid by the Apoſtle to be vaniſhed away. 2dly. That that Covenant did reach unto, and take in all Abraham's natural Poſterity, meerly as ſuch, during the Firſt-Teſtament-Adminiſtrations. Both which things we abſolutely deny.
And that exceſſive Wrong done to ſeveral worthy Antipaedobaptiſts in wreſting and perverting their Writings in favour of your Practice, is an effect of the ſame Cauſe.
Brethren, theſe things ought not to be ſo, neither (could the Aſſerters of your Practice give any rational Reply to our Arguments without the help of ſuch Artifices) would they be ſo. Can you anſwer our Arguments? ſpare us not, but do not feign us to argue from ſuch Topicks, and after ſuch a manner as we do not. If any Antipaedo-baptiſts have written any thing that really countenances your Cauſe, let their words be candidly produced, but wreſt not their words, whoſe Owners abhorred Ʋnion with your Aſſemblies, to ſuch a ſence as they never intended, nor will their words juſtly bear. But Brethren, did the Supportation of your Judgment and Practice only enforce thoſe that engage therein thus to deal with us, it might be more eaſily paſſed over. But alas! how do they injure even the Holy Ghoſt himſelf, partly by openly contradicting the expreſs letter of his holy Oracles. Thus to deny that God in that Promiſe Gen. 17.7. intended Abraham's natural Childen, and in particular thoſe that immediatly proceded from his own Loins, as ſome do; or to affirm that that Covenant was the Covenant of Works, which Believers are now dead unto; or to deny the Continuation of that Promiſe to believing Gentiles, and that in the ſame extent in which it was given to Abraham, as a believing Parent of natural Children: What is it but to ſay to the Holy Ghoſt, as they to the Prophet, thou ſpeakeſt falſly? Let that Gen. 17.7. be compared with Gal. 3.14, 17, 29. Partly by impoſing upon his words ſuch a ſence as which himſelf hath no-where elſe uſed them in, and that in a direct oppoſition to that ſence he uſually and frequently hath uſed them in; ſo in reſpect of that Luk, 19.9. and 1 Cor. 7.14. Partly by charging him with ſuch impertinent Probations of his Aſſertions, and Enforcements of his Exhortations, as Men of common Capacities are not ordinarily incident unto: thus in reſpect of that Acts 16.31. 1 Cor. 7.14. Neither can the Covenant-Intereſt of the Infant-Seed of Believers be rejected without at leaſt a ſeeming Reflection upon the grace and Love of God, that he ſhould utterly conceal from his People what becomes of their Infant-Seed, who are cropt off in the Bud, before they have arrived to a Capacity of refuſing the Evil, and chuſing the Good; as in eaſe the Covenant ſecures not their ſuture ſtate (which in caſe it reaches them not, it cannot do) he has undoubtedly done.
As to that Suppoſition, that the Covenant is made with the Elect, it is a meer Miſtake, as I conceive may be undeniably demonſtrated from thoſe Reaſons among others that Mr. D'Laun offers to prove that Infants cannot be concerned in it. And if you ſhall ſay, As for our own parts we deny not their Covenant-Intereſt, it is their Baptiſm we deny.
Let me ſay, brethren, It would be the Joy of our Hearts to underſtand that it were ſo indeed. But pray deal plainly, let not your Auditors and Followers lowers be kept in the dark, either expreſly own and aſſert it, or expreſly deny it. And if you do indeed own it, let theſe Arguments, offered to prove the Rightfulneſs of their Baptiſm upon that Suppoſition, be throughly weighed; the Addition of more, till the Inſufficiency of thoſe he ſhewed, is unneceſſary, Fruſtra fit per plura.
And there is yet one thing more that I would remind you of, though thereby I am forced renovare dolorem; for I am perſwaded you do obſerve it, and the obſervation of it is a vexation to your righteous Souls; I mean the variety of Errours, yea, and Hereſy, found (I fear it may be ſaid without and Hyperbole) with the Generality of thoſe who as to this Practice walk in the ſame ſteps with you; yet I ſhall rather refer you to your own obſervation, and ſuch as you can credit, and in part clear Mr. F. than become your Informant my ſelf. But ſure you can conclude no leſs than that either too many of your Perſwaſion are, if not Men of corrupt Minds, yet but Children, and ſubject to be toſſed to and fro by every wind of Doctrine, or elſe that Divine Diſpleaſure antedates the Judgment of the great Day, inviſibly recompenſing Deceit with Vanity. Either of which, eſpecially the latter, ſuppoſing they muſt, as (to ſpeak plainly) I am much perſwaded they ought to be aſcribed thereunto, calls aloud, as to all Men, not to enter into your Paths, ſeeing what befalls others may befall them, without great Deliberation, Prayer, and utmoſt Search of the Scriptures, and yet at laſt ſuppoſing them to be ſatisfied that that is the way they ſhould walk in, to do it with a holy fear and trembling, ſo that you do reveiw your Grounds again and again, and be ſure you can ſatisfy your Conſciences in your perſiſtency therein, before him who will judge without reſpect of Perſons. Seeing then they are in part chargeable upon you, your owning and defending that Opinion and Practice, thus viſibly purſued with Divine Puniſhments and Judgments, having no ſmall Intereſt in the prevailing thereof among Men, and Cauſa Cauſae, &c.
Brethren, There are ſeveral other things I could willingly have ſaid to you; but theſe things I judg neceſſary to ſet before you, partly as matter of Lamentation, and partly as Motives, yet once again with all ſeriouſneſs to review this Controverſy ſo long depending between us. And remember, that not only your ſelves, but God our Father, and our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, his Church and People, with the Souls of not a few Infants, eſpecially of ſuch whoſe Months are limited to Immaturity of Age, are neerly concerned in the Review you make, and the Reſolutions you thereupon fix in. As for our Judgment and Practice, this Quietes vivit adhuc, Chriſtus manet inſuperabile verum. As for you, in reviewing this Controverſy, and fixing your Reſolutions thereupon, let me beſeech you to keep in mind what your ſelves perfectly know, vsz. That Conſcience is Res delicata, it cannot lie with eaſe as Job's Leviathan can, when ſharp-pointed things are ſtrewed under it; and beſides it may, and often does, record ſuch things as at preſent it does not ſenſibly diſcover any offence at.
I ſhall add no more, ſave only to beg your Pardon for my plainneſs, and commend you to God, and the Word of his Grace, in ſpecial that good Word uttered by our Lord Chriſt himſelf in that John 16.13. and aſſure you, I am ſincerely yours, to ſerve you in all Offices of Chriſtian Love to my power.
JOSEPH WHISTON.
FINIS.
READER,
THe Author hath treated more largly on this Subject in three Books, entituled,
I. Infant-Baptiſm from Heaven, and not of Men. The firſt Part.
II. Infant-Baptiſm from Heaven, and not of Men; the ſecond Part; being an Anſwer to Mr. Danver's Treatiſe of Baptiſm.
III. An Eſſay to revive the Primitive Doctrine of Infant-Baptiſm, in the Reſolution of four Queſtions.
1. What are the reaſons of God's appointing the Token of the Covenant to be applied to the Infant-Seed of his People?
2. What is the Good or Benefit they receive thereby?
3. What is the Duty of parents towards their Children, as bearing the Token of the Covenant?
4. What is the Improvement that Children, as grown up to years of maturity, may and ought to make of their Baptiſm?
All three ſold by Jonathan Robinſon, at the Golden Lion in St. Paul's Church-Yard.
End of the text · Joseph Whiston, Infant Baptism Plainly Proved (1678)