come by faith and not of the way wherein infants have it and t is confest that faith in adultis in them that are capable to hear and understand is begotten by this means of hearing but not so in infants who cannot hear the spirit is not tyed to work by means in little infants to the bringing of them to the faith as he doth in men but without the outward hearing of the word he works saith in little children Baptist. This same that you now say fits us very well to you ward again when you say justification comes by faith for we grant that adultis to them that are capable to act faith justification comes by faith nor shall they by any means obtain it who are capable to believe and yet believe not but not so to infants who cannot believe the spirit is not tied to work by means in little infants to the justification or bringing of them to salvation as he doth in men but by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed without obedience in baptism or faith either he saves them in nonage and farther that they cannot believe which is properly as I shewed before not onely to have but act faith in Christ your selves tell us saying they have not the use the second act the exercise the fruit of it and so do not believe and so must according to your sense of Scripture if the word speak of them be cast into the lake of fire Rev. 21.8 but further grant they could have faith in both the habit and act of it also yet can they not obey Christ in other things which are required necessarily to salvation in the word of the Gospel at least concomitanter et consecutivè as well as faith it self they cannot hear Christs voice in all things they cannot confess Christ before men nor to be come in the flesh they have not crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts of it they cannot deny themselves and take up their cross and follow Christ nor hate father and mother and life for him nor keep his commandments nor abide in his Doctrine and many such like things all which the Gospel saies as universally whosoever doth not as well as whosoever believes not cannot be his disciple Mat. 18. Luke 14. Is not Christs Gal. 5.24 hath not God 2 Iohn 9. is a lyar and shall not enter into the holy City 1 Iohn 2.4 Rev. 21.27.22.14.15 is a deceiver and an Antichrist 2 Iohn 7. shall be denyed by Christ yea punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of Christ for non obedience to the Gospel 2 Thes. 1.6 so that if the Scriptures speaking of the waies and means of salvation be to be understood as the terms and conditions on which dying infants shall be saved as well as men and without which they must be damned then all dying infants must perish contrary to your sense of Mat. 18.14 who take the little ones there for infants for it s said there it is the will of my Father that not one of these little ones should perish put the case therefore that infants could believe yet their case would be little the better as to salvation so long as still they must be short of shewing their faith by other good works without which faith is not saving nor worth a straw for what would it profit if infants could go so far as to say they have faith and yet have not works can faith save them Iam. 2. 14.26 no its dead and helpless for as the body without the spirit is dead so faith without works is dead also Therefore the body of Scripture is to be understood as spoken concerning men and women and the means and way of their salvation and not of infants Babist Yea when the word speaks of works of holiness self denyal suffering mercy c. as the way to life which infants cannot do it excepts them from the doing thereof as no capable subject and not from the salvation nevertheless nor yet doth at except infants when it speaks of faith Baptist. Is not faith a work as well as repentance and the rest yea the main and principal work of the Law of Christ i. e. the Gospel Iohn 6.28.29 Secondly is it not as difficult a work for infants to believe in Christ as to obey Christs voice in other things and are they not still as uncapable a subject to do that as to do any more things that are required why then not exempted from that for the sake of their incapacity as well as from other things Thirdly if the spirit doth go extraordinary waies to work at all about the salvation of infants as you must confess he must and brings them to it without and besides the ordinary means he brings men by why will you tie and limit him him more to the ordinary way and meanes of faith then of obedience in other matters as repentance self denyal c as to their salvation seeing he must go out of the road and tract in the saving of them wherein he saves men may be not as well save infants without faith without which he will save no man as without self deniall and suffering and confessing of Christ c. without which he will save no man Fourthly specially since infants are not mentioned as meant a jot more in the places that speak of salvation by faith then in the places that speak of salvation by obedience in all things for as it is said He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and be that believeth not shall be damned infants no where expressed or meant there so t is said as universally he is the Author of all them that obey him and he shall take vengeance on all them that obey him not and cut them off that hearken not to his voice infants no way expresly excepted as not meant there The Scriptures therefore are still to be understood de subjecto capaci when they promise or threaten things on conditions and terms of faith unbelief and other good and evill works as confessing and denying Christ and exclusively of infants where infants cannot possibly perform them for as when it s said he that works not let him not eat infants are no where excepted yet are not by the spirits appointment to starve though they work not neither are they meant there because they cannot work and as under law when it was said Cursed is he that continues not in every thing written therein and do this and live the way wherin men were to live or dy was set forth by those words and not the way wherein infants should be cursed or blessed accordingly as they were or were not found therein in infancy so Analogically when it 's said under the Gospel the just must live by faith and he that believes not shall be damned and Christ in flaming â—ire shall render vengeance to him that obeys not the Lord c. it is to be understood as spoken of the waies wherein men
was as to his coming thither by accident so he did too i. e. unappointed and unsent for in which sense I 'm sure some of you came not by accident but as specially bespoke in the name of a great Patron of your Party both to be there and undertake the business and appointed if not primarily yet secondarily or upon their refusal for whom some too confidently undertook they should undertake it who yet say of your selves page 3. you were not the men appointed to undertake it if by accident you mean thus as well you may for a man may come by accident enough to a place though he doth not drop out o th' clouds or slide down thither from the moon that worthy friend and beloved Brother under which name I the rather own him here because I had a letter from a prime one of your Party that speaks somewhat scoffingly of that compellation and besides though with Dr. Featly and his faction he is one of the Clergy of Laicks and an Apron Levite yet as his name is Temple-man so I take him to be a better Church-man then many a one who for not troubling his people with too much truth goes under the Denomination of a good one this man I dare say as far as he said he came by accident so farre he came by accident as he said and this proves your hearsay for its like so you had what you here say to be Heresie if an erring from the truth may as I know not why not be so stiled in civill matters as well as spirituall And this conducts me to another figment wherein you father as false a thing upon my self as any of those you seigned of me before which is at the bottom of that discourse which you record as passing between your selves and him concerning justification of Dying infants whether it be by faith or without it in which discourse though the folly of your opinion in that point and truth of his which is also mine namely that dying Infants are justified without faith I shall shew in due time and place yet I cannot but take notice by the way before I speak of that which more concerns my self of some Legerdemain and illogicall dealings of yours with him Report Reporting him asserting thus viz that there may be justification which is not by faith you report your selves replying thus page 9 that it is the grossest piece of Popery to hold justification by works and not by faith onely and the greatest controversie between them and Protestants Reply What shameful Sophistry have you shewn here in foisting in a foolish phrase and term that was neither used nor touched on by him in any of his fore-going speeches nor yet in that which your reply most immediately relates to viz. Iustification by works whereas you know well enough even as well as he and I and the rest that were there for your wits could not be so far gone a wool-gathering as to need Hellebor here that he neither spake nor meant of Iustification by works whether without faith or with it but of the Iustification of Infants without either faith or works neither of which as your selves confess they are in infancy capable to act although you say but if a man will not believe you he may chuse for there 's neither Scripture sense nor reason for it they have the habit this I say again you know to be the sence of such as you call Anabaptists witness your selves in two places viz. p. 8. where you give account of our opinion thus viz That way of the presentment of the righteousness of Christ without faith is a figment of the Anabaptists also p. 15. thus the adversaries are put to their shifts to find out a new way for the salvation of infants dying in their minority viz. the presentment of the satisfaction of Christ without faith in both which places you give the world to understand that you know our opinion to be that infants are justified by neither works nor faith which is a work but if at all by that which your selves hold is the material cause of the justification of men that act faith and of whom they being capable to act faith it is required as instrumentall viz. the righteousness of Christ secondly you know that this opinion is farther off and more flatly contradictory to that Popery that holds Iustification by works then yours can possibly be found to be for the very Iesuits may have some colour for saying that you say the same with them whilst their Tenet is justification by works yours by faith which say they and truely too is a work theirs by faith and works concurrent yours by faith that hath works concomitant and necessarily consequent thereunto between which two doctrines neither of which need be so much condemned each by other for ought I find as they are provided that all merit on our part be cashiered for there Rome errs besides us all for you will find them both true in the end viz. that both are instrumentally subservient and not either of them alone to the justification of not Infants but men and women of whom both as well as one are required in order unto life beâ—ween which two I say there 's not so vast a difference as you deem there is much less so great as is between these viz. Iustification by works and faith both which is that of the Papists and Iustification without either faith or works which is that of ours when we speak of justification with reference to infants only for between these there 's not the least colour of coincidence yet this was that justification that Inquirer spake of viz. of Infants by Christ without faith or any other work either which you know is no part of Popery yet first you reply besides the business which he spake to and define it gross Popery to hold justification by works as if he had held it yea secondly which is worse and down-rightly injurious you are not ashamed to tell-tale him to the world in the words below that he fell into this popery and that for asserting of a Iustification of Infants so farr as they need any neither by faith nor works but Christ without either so much as instrumentall on their part then which you see nothing more fully contradicts it if ye were blind indeed you had not sin'd so much in this but sure you cannot but see how you shuffle therefore without repentance your sin remaineth Another thing I take notice of by the way as I travel toward that fiction I mention above as referring to my self is this Report That when the quere was put to you by the inquirer as you call him what need infants have of being justifyed at all since they have no original sin which whether it were put for satisfaction in the thing or meerly to hear how readily you would resolve it I cannot say you bring in one of the Ministers in the name of the rest
speak plain yet cannot so much as poetically much less properly signifie Infantissimum such a one day old infant as you talk of nor such a six dayes old suckling as you sprinkle but properly it expresses at least one capable of erudition and how beit it hath not its derivation from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as setting the cart before the horse I say not ungraciously for many a gracious man is no good Grecian but ungraecianly you greek it out yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath its derivation from it for to say the truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the primitive of the two and though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the diminutive of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 puer which is the primitive to them both yet this is enough to shew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be used and yet not infancy meant by it neither but childhood which is a distinct age from the other for there 's difference between Infantiam and pueritiam as inter adolescentiam inventutem all which have their severall and proper periods yea in truth it signifies child-ship at least capable to be taught not such meer babeship as you baptize Secondly if it did yet what 's that to your present purpose which is to prove by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the third 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the fourth verse that Christ means the very same viz. little ones literally taken in the sixth as much as if you had said nothing at all for verily as it follows not that he doth so its evident enough that he doth not mean the very same in this phrase verse six viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom he means in the third by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for who doubts on 't but that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the third verse natural little children are to be understood the intent of Christ there being to shew how his disciples must be like them if ever they enter into heaven but in verse six owning his disciples to whom he tells that they must be such as already such in some measure as they should be he speaks of them under that very same name and notion and this was no unusual term for Christ to denominate disciples nor yet for them to denominate one another by for besides that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self is the title by which though not here yet elsewhere all believers and new converts to the truth are often stiled by yea and your word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. sucklings too which you make so much of a little below yea and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the very diminutive of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a child which word you make such a matter of when you find it Acts 2.36 in proof of all which consult Iohn 21.35 Gal. 19. 1 Iohn 2.1.12 13.18.28.3.7.18.4 4. also 1 Pet. 2.2 even this very phrase that is here used viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also used by Christ himself to his disciples Mat. 18.42 and a place wherein as no little infant as here was apparently present so compare it with the two foregoing verses in which the same who are call'd little ones and disciples ver 42. are stiled Prophets Righteous men and I 'le say you sell your selves to stark soâ—tishness if you expound it of any other then of such as are from Disco their having learn'd the truth as infants yet have not stiled Christs Scholars or Disciples But above all the most undoubted reason of all the rest which to me doth and may to any one most plainly clear it that he means not infants is even this very expression viz. which believe in me whereby he denotes and denominates his disciples distinctly enough from all little infants who are in no wise capable to do that he here ascribes to the other i. e. to believe in Christ for this infants being utterly uncapable to do it shews plainly that he means not them whereas Mr. Willcock whose argument this was and whose urging it ore again in print if this be it shall not trouble my conscience if it do not his own whereas he I say argues thus viz. These little ones which believe in me therefore infants do believe I argue quite contrary from the same Scripture thus viz. these of whom Christ speaks Mat. 18.6 did believe therefore they could not be infants who cannot possibly believe And if you ask me how I prove it that infants cannot believe I might answer out of the mouth of Paul Rom. 18.14 how can they believe on him of whom they have not heard but sith you have a reply to this p. 18 I le onely hint that here and handle it further as I have occasion given me to do by your answering it as our objection when I come to review your review and at present prove the matter out of Mr. Willcocks own mouth that infants cannot believe for to believe is to act faith and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Docere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 legere c are speeches that point at the act and not the Habit or faculty denoting actum secundum non primum This Mr. Willcock knows as well as I yet the same Mr. Willcock page 8. asserts as plainly and truely so clearly to the contradiction of himself in this place that infants have not the exercise and fruit of faith have it not in actu secundo c. but I spare him in hope that he will consider it of himself verbum sat sapienti but suppose it were meant of infants literally yet however it could be but a Prosopopeia i. e. a figure whereby that is attributed to certain creatures as done by them which yet is neither really done nor so much as capable to be done by them at all by which figure that is sometimes attributed not only to infants but even to but sensible and bruit and sometimes to insensible things which can properly be done by none possibly but men at years as not onely David is said to be made to hope in God while he hung upon the breasts because God indeed was even then the God that did defend him yea as well in as from his mothers womb though he was never sensible of nor acquainted with it so as to hope it in the womb but the whole creation also figuratively Rom. 8.19 20 21 22. is said to groan wait hope desire expect deliverance because it stands in need of it from the bondage of corruption and God also hath determined the time wherein by Christ to redeem it though many creatures under the curse are no more sensible of it or capable to groan then the fruitless fig tree Christ cursed and the Ox Ass Horse Sheep and sensible creatures that may groan are capable to hope for and expect such a glorious day as shall once come to the creation thus figuratively indeed infants may be said to believe on Christ
heathen infants to hell and this no less then twenty times over yet we must expect to hear it from ore the pulpit cloth twenty times ore again before the devil be dead how blessed and charitable your doctrine is and what most bloody and cruel opinionists the Anabaptists are concerning infants Infants then I say of what parents soever are either such as die in the personall innocency of their own infancy and so are universally saved and yet in token or as a sign thereof to themselves there 's neither need nor sense nor reason to baptize them or else such as live to understanding and then they appear either not to do Abrahams works and then we own them not yet as Abrahams seed though born of believing parents yea though of believing Abraham himself not as heirs according to the Gospel-promise or else to belieue in Christ and walk in the steps of Abraham and then of what parents soever though of infidels we are to own them as Abrahams spiritual seed and such as so abiding are heirs apparent by promise of the heavenly Canaan this we can never discern by them in their infancy not knowing yet whether they shall die infants or live to years nor whether when they come to years they will reject Christ or receive him To conclude this then that any mans fleshly seed in the world is upon the meer account of their natural descent of such or such parents or further then as dying in infancy they have no actual sin to condemn them or living to act sin they believe in Christ in both which cases the seed of unbelievers are as capable of salvation as the seed of believers themselves are by promise heirs of salvation and in token thereof are to be baptized and in baptism visibly sign'd more then other children as children oâ— God members of Christ and inheritors of the Kingdom of heaven t is a lesson which I learn'd once by roat and had by root of heart when in the minority of my standing in the false ministry with you I was verst in the Priests Primmer of Common-prayer and as to Gospel-administrations was skild but little further then the Psalter but when I once turn'd over a new leaf and began â—o advance a little further even into the Scripture which in some volumes was in those dayes annexed as some certain appendix at the end of it I could never read that lesson perfectly since neither can I learn now that any mans fleshly seed that lives and yet believes not can make any clearer claim of kindred to Abraham as their father or to the Gospel inheritance by a meer bodily birth of believers only then I can make of my kindred to the Great Turk and of my tight to succeed him as his heir in his dominion by pleading that between them both his Grandmother and mine had four elbowes Now therefore Sirs let it be seriously considered by you that that outward meer denominative birth holiness which was once in the seed of the Iews and is now supposed and asserted by you to be in the seed of believing Gentiles as it was then peculiar to that people only that were Iews by either nature or Religion so it is now universally and utterly ended in Christ crucified and no more to have a being among them or any other people under heaven It was not by Christ comming communicated or as Mr. Blake cloudily contends throughout his Mistaken Treatise of birth-priviledge and covenant holiness conveyed from the Iews to believing Gentiles and their seed but clearly cashiered and confiscated so that ther 's now no such thing to be found at all 'T is not devolved downwards but rather resolved into that Gospel truth and substance which it shadowed out yea and totally dissolved ecclipsed annihilated swallowed up as the light of the Moon before the Sun being clothed upon with a far greater and more glorious holiness than it self for as the type was in time to give way and be gone when the thing typified thereby should once come into existence so all that old covenant holiness even the holiness of that seed Isaac and his posterity as well as other things that were predicated by it was as but a type of a more perfect holâ—nes and holy seed to come to flee away as Ishmael before himself when once Christ should come and that holy seed to stand in the house to whom the promises of the Gospel do belong Babist This seed you speak of viz. believers was come before Christ and in being under the law as well as now therefore they sure cannot be the holy seed shadowed out by that holy seed that came of Isaac Baptist. True the Gospel holy seed was under the law but not the Laws holy seed under the Gospel the substance being ever when and where the shadow is but the shadow not alwaies when and where the substance Novum Testamentum semper ubique fuit in vetere velatum vetus non in novo nisi revelatum the law and its holy things are not in being but only revealed what they were under the Gospel but the Gospel and its holy things were in being though veiled over under the law and yet for all that the Gospel is said truly to come then because it came not into its full force till Christ came so faith is said to come in with Christ Gal. 3.23.25 not as if there were no faith in the world before but because both the fulness of the things before believed came in then and things before believed came then into full force and act and also because the way of standing in the Church which before was chiefly by a fleshly birth comes now to be no otherwise then by a spirituall birth from above by faith in Christ Iesus Rom. 11. thou standest by faith faith Paul speaking of the manner of the Gospel standing in the visible Church so that the holy seed and heirs of the Gospel covenant i. e. believers which are the seed of Christ Esay 53. He shall see his seed are said to come then though there was such a seed in the world from the beginning thereof because they then came to dwell alone as it were in the house where Ishmael the sonne of the Bondwoman to speak after the Allegory I mean the fleshly Israelites a meer fleshly seed dwelt together with them as Ishmael did with Isaac till he was cast out in former time for even as Ishmael the servant dwelt as it were the Son and heir in the house till Isaac was born and then after a while was cast out that Isaac the true heir might dwell alone and such as should successively come from him so Israel after the flesh though a servant in reference to the Gospel Israel dwelt and domineered as the only child of the Church till Christ the true Isaac was born and then after a while was cast out of the Church that his seed might dwell there alone forever after Babist
upon denial of any sufficience in all your former proofs to make it appear is at last undertaken by you to be made sufficiently appear in this last Syllogism which if it do not make it as sufficiently appear concerning unbelievers infants considering your own matter used to prove the Minor as concerning the other then my candle is quite gone out but if it do then surely the very light that is in you is utter darkness In the next place you dispute upon us by way of Question and Interogation thus Disputation 1. How do those men and women that are baptized at years make it appear to those that baptize them that they have faith and the holy spirit If it be answered by their profession 3. Whether their profession since it is possible they may lie can make it appear infallibly If it be answered no. 3. What judgement then can they that baptize them passe upon them to be the subjects of baptism as they call them whether any other than that of charity If it be answered that of charity T is replyed then let them passe the same judgement upon those little infants of whom in general the Scripture hath given so good a report and against whom in particular no exception can be raised and the controversie between us is at an end Disproof First whereas you quere how those we baptize make it appear that they have the holy spirit before we baptize them I answer I know no necessity of making ir appear that persons have the holy spirit before their admission to baptism for though we find once that God Anticipated his promise and gave the holy spirit before baptism Act. 10. yet I know not nor yet do you any promise there is whereupon in an ordinary way we can expect it of receiving the holy spirit of promise till after faith repentance obedience turning to God baptism and asking of it Prov. 1.23 Iohn 7.38.39 Act. 2.38 chap. 5.32 chap. 8.16.19 Luke 11.13 Ephes. 1.13 Secondly as for the holy spirits appearing infallibly I answer first it may possibly appear infallibly to be in some in whom it is as Act. 10.44.45.46.47 by sundry fruits and manifestations of it which may warrant us to say God is in them of a truth Mat. 7.16.17.18.19.20 1 Cor. 12.7 1 Cor. 14.25 It may I say undoubtedly appear to be in men and women but cannot and way at all so appear to be in infants if we may believe your selves who tell us p 8. that infants have not the exercise and fruit of faith and p. 18. that instruction of the understanding in matter of faith in some sort must go before any act of faith can be discovered and that no judgement of science can be past upon infants till the acts themselves be seen and examined for a posteriore onely the discovery of habits is made and that unlesse it could be certainly presumd what children have it what have not there can be no conclusion made And howbeit I am not of the seekers mind that an appearance of the holy spirit in any person before baptism in water doth exempt him from it but am well assured that it strictly rather ingages him to it or else Peter could not have commanded them in name of the Lord to be baptiz'd in water upon whom the holy spirit fell Act. 10. but must rather have forbid it as frustraneous and altogether superfluous yet that the spirit should appear at all to be in men in order to their baptism much more that it should appear infallibly to be in them is a matter of no necessity that I know of sith in the word it s not required that persons be baptized with the holy spirit first in order to their baptism with water but that they be first baptized in water in order to their receiving the holy spirit Act. 2.38 for the baptism of the spirit as t is promised onely to believers so we believing obeying the Gospel and asking the holy spirit t is signified to us as one thing that shall be given among the rest in that very way of water baptism so that its enough for us as to the baptism of persons to take cognizance of it that they believe and repent which things though they cannot do without the spirit performing its common office of striving drawing moving inlightning convicting of good and evil sin and righteousness c. in all which it acts to the whole world Gen. 6. Rom. 1.20 Iohn 16.8 Act. 7.51 yet they not only may do them without but must do them before they can by promise expect the spirit in those special respects wherein he is promised to believers and calld that holy spirit of promise And now because you ask how we know they have faith whom we baptize I answer by their profession which gives though not infallibility yet by your leave for all your preferring the Eulogies given in general to all infants above any mans personal profession for himself in this case a far clearer and better grounded judgement of charity concerning them that they have faith then that you have concerning infants which at best is but charity mistaken for cruelty whilst it takes that to be in infants and that on pain of their damnation too they dying without it viz. believing see p. 8. which infants are utterly uncapable of and whilst it takes even that too without which it holds no infants are saved to be in but very few infants viz. believers infants onely and so damns all other dying infants which are far more innumerable and as capable of faith and as little barring themby actual sin from salvation and as little deserving damnation as the other so that whether we or you plead the cause of innocent infants let the world judge And whereas you suppose that because in charity onely we judge men and women to believe therefore we passe no other judgement then that of charity onely on them to be the subjects of baptism herein you grossely mistake our grounds of baptizing for thought that of charity onely is the judgement whereby we judge them to be believers yet that is not the onely judgement whereby we judge them to be the subjects of baptism but as to that we go upon a judgement of certainty and infallibility also for though it be not infallible to us that every one that professes to believe doth as truly believe as he professes yet this is infallible to us concerning him that professes viz. both that he professes and also that professing to believe with all his heart so that we in charity may judge him so to do whether he lie or no he is by the rule of the word quoad nos a warrantable undoubted and as no infant is infallible subject of baptism for the word requires us to baptize such as after our preaching the faith to them do truly professe to believe whether they believe as truly as they profest or no for that indeed is not so infallible to
purpose but nothing to their own viz. that when Christ saies go reach and baptize and he that believeth and is baptized in these expressions he speaks of persons at years not of infants for such must be taught first but that hinders not but that infants may be baptized before teaching and this is the very common wind away of you all to all whom as to them then so I say now again if the Scriptures and commands of your own assigning do speak of persons at age onely and there 's no mention at all of children in either of them for in those words Dr. Featley expresses all your minds concerning Mat. 28. Mark 16. when brought by us against infant baptism where are the Scriptures that do mention infants so as to institute their baptism if I should assert this that Christ commanded that infants should eat at his table and being put to assign what Scripture it s commanded in should name 1 Cor. 11.28 and when it s argued against me to the contrary saying that place permits them onely to come that can examine themselves as infants cannot therefore t is no command for infants to come should answer thus viz. there 's no mention at all of children in that text much lesse any prohibition of infants to come when Paul saies let a man examine himself he speaks of persons at years onely but that hinders not why infants may not come without self-examination would you not say I were half out of my wits yet thus do you all almost as well concerning places of your own assigning as those we bring viz. Mat. 28. Mark 16.16 Act. 2. Repent and be baptized Act. 8. if thou believest thou maiest return thus viz. those phrases speak of adult ones and not of infants and so say I of these and every Scripture else that speaks of baptism and I trow where is that place that makes mention of any such thing as the baptism of infants Secondly in president of which you send us to the housholds wherein your selves cannot tell that there was any infant therein at all which is as much as to say and urge ab exemplo thus viz. t is not certain by any one instance thereof that any one infant was baptized in those housholds which are said to be baptized in the primitive times Ergo no doubt but by the same example infants ought to be baptized now Again some of you urge Mat. 28. as the institution of Christ for baptizing men of ripe years at least yea and infants also as Mr. Marshall some of you again deny this saying that Mat. 28. is not an exact platform of Christs commission concerning the matter or subject of the administration of baptism as Dr. Holms p. 7. both which men direct their different doctrines to Mr. Tombes in order to his direction but how shall that man be resolved which shall he cleave to whose words shall he take the Doctors or the Divines Again some of you say that semen carnis a fleshly seed is intituled to the promise for even this seed with you is semen fidei some of you say semen sidei the spiritual seed onely i. e. as many as are of the faith and so faith the Scripture are blessed with faithfull Abraham but then semen fidei with you is no other but semen carnis the fleshly seed and that of such too as are Abrahams seed not after the flesh nor after the faith neither thus you wander in a wood and trace too and fro in a thicket moap up and down in a myst are rapt up in a cloud of confusion contradiction and unanswerablenesse about the proof of a popish practise dancing round and crossing the way one of another ever and anon and yet ken it not nor consider how all mens eyes that are but half open are half amazed at your shufles Again some of you pin your practise upon the score of the infants faith and of these again there are several subdivisions for some ground it on seminall faith onely i. e. the habit or on infants having faith denying utterly their capacity to act it i. e. to believe as Mr. Willcock and many more Some again deny that they do build it upon seminall faith but say they go upon more certain grounds as Mr. Blake p. 24. to Mr. Blackwood who saith of faith in the root or of this semniall faith this faith is not our ground for infants baptism being undiscernable Some again upon their acting faith which they assert infants capable to do though against their wills as well as to have it as to the clear contradiction of themselves Mr. Willcock and many more do whilst they with him and he with them speak of children in this phrase viz. that they do believe and thus they speak whilest they interpret that clause Mat. 18.6 i. e. these little ones which believe in me of little ones litterally taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere i. e. to believe expresses not the habit onely but the act of faith as to know to read to teach to love to learn do sound out non munus non actum primum onely but actum secundum also Some of you again put that practise upon score of the parents faith not the childs and of these which are also subdivided some the faith of the next parents onely as Dr Holmes who in his to Mr. Tombes p. 216.217 saith thus the children are not to be baptized whilst the next parents are unbelievers i. e. though the grand parents be believers and Mr. Cotton also who p. 87. of his book stiled the way of the Churches of New England saith thus God never allowed his Church any warrant to receive into Covenant the children of godly parents who lived a thousand years ago nay rather the text is plain that the holynesse of the children dâ—pendeth upon the faith of the next immediate parents or one of them at least as if the seed of parents were not their seed at two or three generations off others the faith of the remote parents as Mr. Rutherford Pres. p. 164 where he saith all infants born in the visible Church what ere the wickednesse of the neerest parents is are to be received into the Church by baptism yea p. 173 Joshua had commandement of God to give the seal of the Covenant to their children who were as openly wicked against the Lord as murderers drunkerds swearers c. also Mr. Marshall and Mr. Baily who commends Mr. Cottons learâ—ed maintenance of infants sprinkling in p. 132 and yet contradicts him in this thing no further off then p. 134. saying although the parents are wicked meaning the immediate parents yet the Lords interest is in the children i. e not of the 3 â— and 4 th but of the 1000 th generation and by this shift the Ishmaâ—â—â—ts the Edomites the Turks are of Abraham though not of Isaac and so Gods by birth yea we and the whole world are of Noah though not of Abraham and
things let that or any judicious Gentleman spel and put together and see if it be not tantamount to such a testimony as this viz that those that believe and aâ—e not baptized shall be damned for to be damned and not saved are all one and as for children of Tuâ—ks and Pagans dying in infancy you record it it as a monstrous thing that I should say that for ought I knew they might be saved yea by the reply that was made to that speech of mine by one who said perhaps I thought the devills might be saved it appears that your party thinks it as possible that the devils may be saved as soon as the dying infants of Turks and Pagans and yet of the children of believing parents who in your opinion do also believe themselves you say the opinion of the Anabaptists which denyeth baptism to little children puts the parents out of hopes of their salvation und makes them to be in no better condition then Turks and Pagans yea you say believing parents may say of their children that dy without baptism what hopes of our child who is in no better condition then the children of infidels and really they say true if the state of infidels dying infants be so damnable as you saie it is is it you or we Sirs whose doctrine damnes believers if they be not baptized I le conclude this matter with you much what in your own words and form of speech Christ shuts out only unbelievers from heaven whosoever believeth not shall and be damned this doctrine of yours that little infants are believers and yet out of all hopes of being saved if not baptized shuts out believers if they be not baptized i e. if they be not rantiz'd for that is the best baptism you use and by consequence if your doctrine which you delivered in this Account as judicious Gentlemen that read it will affirm be true that even believers not baptized shall be damned you had need baptize your believing infants indeed i. e. to do more then cris crosse two or three drops of water on their faces or else for all your plea for their baptizing on pain of their damnation they l be damnâ—d if they be no more then sprinkled for want of true baptism when all is done for that is not so much as the Ceremony it self in truth which you are so hot for without the substance yet would I not have you be an abhorring for all this but pittyed and prayed for rather that you may in time for this and all other your follies and false accusations of others of things whereof you are more guilty your selves abhor your selves in dust and ashes that you may not be an abhorring as he is more then half blind that doth not see who will be once amongst both God and men Rev. 17.16 Rev. 19.2 And thus I have done with your first Argument Review The second is this little Children under the law received the Seal of the Gospel covenant for circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith which is the Gospel-Covenant The Law saith Do this and live the Gospel only believe in the Lord Iesus Christ and therefore God calls it an everlasting covenant and the Apostle saith the Law that came 430 years could not disannull it Gal. 3.17 and he saith expresly the Gospel was preached to Abraham ibid. ver 8. nay more the carnall seed of Abraham Ishmael and Esau men branded for Reprobates in Scripture yet because they were born in Abrahams house received that seal by Gods appointment Why then should not children under the Gospel receive baptism which the Adversaries confess to be the Seal of the Gospel-Covenant Re-Review This poor forlorn wretched Argument hath been handled and laid sprawling once or twice before where both its consequence is denyed and good reason gien of the senselessness of such syllogizing as is here from the Law to the Gospel therefore it is but needless to defend our selves any further against it it being a demi-dead man that is disabled from being dreadful to us already nevertheless sith he hath strengthens himself again what he can and comes up recruâ—ed and attended with a company of scambling and for the most part very unsound sentences at his heels t wil not be amisse to enter the lists a little with him and these his Auxiliaries First then Sirs whereas you come in again with that crooked consequence viz. infâ—nts must be baptized under the Gospel because circumcisied under the law we might more pertinently let up a shout at your shameful folly in this particular then set upon the shewing of it any more it is so palpable for verily as is proved sufficiently above these two viz. the Covenant of the law and the Gospel from the Identity of which you infer an Identity in the subject of the ordinances and administrations of both and by way of analogy would evince them both to belong to the same persons I must tell you these are two Testaments or wills of God concerning men in those two different times viz. before Christ and since and these two so specifically distinct that they not onely run upon different strains and require different terms as your selves here confesse the law saying do this and live the Gospell onely believe but also stand upon different promises whereof the Gospels being of the heavenly Canaan are better then the laws which were but of an earthly one and these also pertaining to two different seeds viz. the legal to the natural children of Abraham i. e. Isaac and his posterity by generation the Evangelical to the spiritual seed of Abraham i. e. such as are of Christ by faith and regeneration and they had also different dispensations the one circumcision the other another thing viz. dipping a thing no way like it and different subjects also for those different dispensations so that if men and their ministers were not all turned Momes they could not but must manifestly perceive it the old Testament admitting to circumcision onely males and these onely on the eighth day in case they were in the house so young and all the males in the house whether sons or servants whether born in the house or bought with money of any stranger and all this without respect to either faith or repentance in the persons to whom dispenst or any prae-preaching to them by the person dispensing the new Testament taking in to baptism as no servants upon the masters faith so all persons in the world both males and females upon their own and that upon any day and not the eighth onely wherein after they have been preacht to they professe to repent and believe Mat. 3. Act 2. Act. 8. Act. 18. The proof of which real specifical diversity of these two Covenant◠〈◊〉 yet farre more evident First because the spirit denominates them so to be in Scripture calling them expressely the two Covenants Gal. 4.24 and also very often in plurali the Covenants the covenants
years not one of millions gives testimony of his faith without further instruction Nor should he of his reasonable soul not so much as in speaking if he be not taught Re-Review First the faculty of not onely believing in general but also in special of believing the Gospel of believing in Christ to justification is belike as naturally and necessarily in infants of believers as the faculty of reason it self so it seems by your talk why else is that frequent analogy made by you between these two and such frequent allusion in proof of one of them to the other as if whosoever denies one of them viz. the grace of saving faith to be in such infants must needs also deny the other and as if whatsoever concludes against such infants being believers concludes as much against their being reasonable creatures I am much amazed at your ignorance in this specially since your selves agree that all infants even those of Indians Turks and Pagans are reasonable creatures and yet that few not one of many infants are habitually believers as namely the infants of believers onely Secondly I blush at your rudenesse and folly in this also in that you assert that not one infant of millions should give any testimony of his reasonable soul i. e. ever evidence it that he is a reasonable creature when he comes to ripe years if he be not taught What Sâ—â—s will children never shew themselves to be risible and so consequently reasonable by laughing when tickt and toid with in such minority as they are not capable to learn in if they be not taught and instructed how to laugh will they not shew themselves intelligible if not so much as in speaking which with you it seems is the first and least expression of reason in them yet not so much as by understanding what is spoken to them yea how think you must they not be imagined and understood in some measure to be understanding and so consequently to have reasonable souls before they can be rationally instructed at all for verily he is a fool unreasonable and of no understanding himself that offers to teach children to act any act of reason that is to be produced by teaching or to know their letters or to read or write before they can discern them to be at least intelligible and teachable in these things they are to be taught in and consequently to have reasonable souls Yea verily the faculty of reason is habitus naturâ innatus and naturâ notus a habit that comes by generation and puts forth it self into several acts of it self even so many as clearly testifie it to be in us before we are at capacity to be taught and whether ever we be taught any thing or no for a specimen of reason in us must be before we begin to be endoctrinated or else as good endoctrinate a brute creature but justifying faith or belief of the Gospel is such a habit of which we may not onely say as you do truly in the next page p. 18. that instruction of the understanding in the object of it in some sort must â—o before any act of it can be discovered as whereby onely say you discovery of the habit can be made but also that instruction of the understanding in some sort must go before the habit of it can be in us at all for whether you will suppose it to come by infusion onely or by aquisition onely or both it comes not by nature and generation as reason doth but by teaching and instruction if we will believe the word which saith faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God Review 5. They lose it again when they come to more years else why are they taught the element of faith By the same reason they should lose the faculty of understanding also because after they are set to learning learning is for the bringing forth into act and perfecting of the degrees otherwise one that is at 24. years of age having received faith once might give over learning more for if this argument might hold either they lose it or why do they learn Re-Review Hoop Sirs what pretty cutted stuff is here as if you did not know well enough but that for advantage sake to your crooked cause you rather chuse here to seem ignorant of it that reaching and learning is not onely for the further bringing forth of habits that are in us into their acts and perfecting of them in their degrees but also for the begetting of some habits in us that never were before viz. not natural and innate habits as the faculty of reason and understanding for instruction is not for the engendring but improving of these in us but all such kind of habits as faith is viz. acquired habits teaching tends not onely to the perfecting of such a posteriori after they are once begun but a priori also to the very being and begetting of these whether they be habits about matters of this life or that to come t is true therefore learning is to be continued for the perfecting of habits begun and begotten in a man otherwise indeed as you say one of 24 years having once received the faith need be taught no more but it is to be also for the beginning and begetting of faith in him otherwise to one at 24 years of age having not yet received it the faith is preacht by you in vain that he may receive it There is a teaching to beget grace and faith where it is not and a teaching to increase it where it is Mat. 28.18.19 a teaching before and a teaching after faith and baptism and if you ask a reason of both these the one is to beget faith into both the habit and the act the other to build it up into higher degrees the second teaching indeed supposes a being of it in men the first teaching no being of it as yet when you begin first to preach to them for your preaching speaks to them as to unbelievers whereupon this argument holds good that if ever they had faith in their infancy they have lost it now for why else are they taught the element of it why taught in order to the receiving it for reason in this objection must be understood as speaking suppositively onely i. e. in case persons had faith in infancy it s now lost why else are they taught to this end that they might have it but not so positively as your expressions represent it as if reason did really assert that infants do lose any faith they had in infancy for howbeit reason acknowledges that such in whom faith is may lose it if they look not to it yet reason knows well enough that those can never be said to lose faith in whom faith never was at all Review 6. Habits encline more towards their proper actions but children of Christians are not more inclined to actions of faith then infidels An Argument from comparison is subject
yet do I find but that in the primitive times the simple act of baptizing the believers when once converted was any other but an act so inferiour servile and subservient to that of preaching the gospel of preaching repentance faith and baptism in Christs name for remission of sins in order to conversion which more specially belonged to the messenger-shâ—p that it was unlesse any desired the Apostles to do it themselves or when the multitudes to be baptized were so great that t was fit that every he disciple that had two hands as I may say should be assistant committed mostly to more inferior persons common disciples who as they might baptize and preach too occasionally so when any were converted by either themselves or the Apostles did attend more to the bare act of dispensation then the Apostles did we cannot think that Peter himself nor the eleven did baptize all the three thousand without the hands of many other of the 120 to help at least though in that case the Apostles baptized some also t is like Moreover we see Philip baptized the Samaritans and the honourable Eunuch yet though an occasional preacher of the Gospel he did it in the capacity of adisciple only for his deaconship did not make him ere the fitter to baptize and Ananias baptized Paul who is stiled but a certain disciple and the rest of the disciples that together with Philip were scattered abroad by the persecution that arose about Steven went every where even as far as Antioch preaching the Lord Jesus and turned many unto the Lord Act. 11.19 to the end and baptized them surely as Philip did for that businesse was the foundation of the famous Church at Antioch before any such great administrators as Apostles came neer them for though Barnabas who together with Paul was sent forth afterward from that Church with prayer and laying on of hands from which time they both were visibly and in foro Ecclesiae Apostles and were so called and not before Act. 13 3-14.14 was sent to confirm and comfort them and exhorted them to continue in that faith which they were baptized into before yet he was but in the capacity of a teaching disciple only yet and not an Apostle nor do I believe that Peter baptized them with his own hands Acts 10 but by some of them that came with him from Ioppa only he bid it should be done as that which no body could forbid and commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord but by whom t was done we know not The father sent Christ to baptize i. e. to give order for the baptizing of the disciples he should make or else he could not be truly said both to baptize and yet also to speak and do no more then the Father that sent him gave command for as he is Ioh. 3.22.4.1.12.49.40 and yet in another sense it may be said Christ was not sent to baptize i. e. personally to dispense the ordinance it self for if he had been sent to baptize with his own hands he had not fulfilled his message for howbeit it s said he baptized more then Iohn yet he himself dipenst baptism to none with his own hands Iohn 4.1.2 but by the hands of his disciples When therefore Paul saies he was not sent to baptize he means not that baptism was none of those things he had in commission to meddle with for had it been so he had meddled beyond his commission in baptizing those few he did baptize with his own hands which were absurd to think but that he had not such a positive command to dispense it after he had preacht the Gospel to conversion so himself but that others even inferior persons might baptize the disciples of his converting as well as himself he means not that baptism was no part of his message which he received in charge from God to deliver and declare among men as his will for he saies God sent him to preach it not to baptize but to preach the Gospel saith he and what was that but the Gospel of repentance and baptism the baptism of faith and repentance for remission of sins among the nations but that there was no necessity that himself should administer it when it might be done by others not that t was not needful to be done but that t was needlesse he personally should dispense it so it might be done by another Neither doth Paul make that the ground of his giving of thanks to God that no more but Crispus and Gâ—us and the houshold of Stephanus c. were baptized for then he had thankt God that the Corinthians had most of them neglected their duty in that point of baptism which its evident he preacht among them as well as faith or else sure none of them at all would have submitted Act. 18.8 but that he himself had with his own hands baptized but some of them least perceiving what a foolish dotage on his person was in the hearts of many of them any of them at least his party for some doted too much on Paul some on Apollos some on Cephas i. e. Peter should either think the better of their baptism as long as they lived because he dispenst it or else think the worse of him for it i. e. that he had baptized in his own name this is the clear sense in which Paul speaks and not the other 1 Cor. 1.14.15.16.17 viz. that no more then such and such were baptized by his hands not that no more then such and such of them for they were all baptized by one or other were baptized at all for that many more then those he there names as baptized by him were baptized by one or other for all Crispus's house and many more of the Corinthians besides Crispus's his own person whom onely with Gaius and Stephanus his house he here names believed and were baptized as well as he and they is evident Act. 18.8 yea verily and elsewhere that all the Corinthians were baptized for 1 Cor. 1.13 Paul speaking to the whole Church of Corinth none excluded saith thus were ye i. e. ye O Corinthians that were all baptized baptized in the name of Paul and 1 Cor. 12.13 speaking to and of the whole Church again together with himself he saies we are all baptized into one body and have been all made i. e. in the supper to drink into one spirit all the body of them therefore were baptized Ranterist It appears that some of the believing Romans who were beloved of God and called to be Saints Rom. 1.11 and who had from their hearts obeyed the form of doctrine delivered unto them Rom. 6.3 were neverthelesse unbaptized as many of us as have been baptized into Christ c. which words plainly intimate that some of them were not baptized see Ioh. 1.12 to as many as came to him gave he power these words plainly intimate that some of these did not receive Christ as appeareth by the words immediately
us but it warrants us not to baptize any infants who can neither believe not professe Moreover sith you say let us pass the same judgement upon little infants as you do of whom in generall say you the Scripture gives so good a report and against whom in particular no exception can be raised and so the controversie shall be at an end I tell you we do passe not the same but a far surer judgement then that of charity upon infants dying in infancy and have an hundred fold more clear and more tender opinion of them then yourselves whilst we have from the word well grounded hopes and assurance that no dying infant is damned but you with over pleading the bare outward priviledges of some most ignorantly damn 20 dying infants to one But as to your judgement of charity concerning infants believing and being thereby inrighted to baptism or that same judgement of charity which we act toward professors of faith you may dream as long as you will on such erroneous Enthusiasm but those that are awake to righteousnesse and resolved to sin no more by popish superstition know well enough that infants though nere the worse for want on t yet cannot believe in Christ of whom they are not capable to hear much less can they professe so to do and thereby give that good ground which right charity must have whereupon to build her faith of this i. e to believe that they do believe and believing are certainly to be baptized so that we have charity well grounded concerning infants and such as comparatively to which your tender mercy to millions of them is meer cruelty and yet the controversie is not ended nor is likely to come to an end in such a way Give me leave therefore a little to play upon you here with your own weapons and to call for an answer from you to your own queres and so it may be in a fair way towards an end in time whereas then you plead the baptism of believers infants and no others upon such a sufficient appearance that they have faith and the holy spirit I ask First how do these make it appear that they have faith and the holy spirit since they cannot do it by profession Secondly how far forth do they make it appear to you infallibly or but probably your selves say not infallibly for the spirit is not bound to all the children of Christian parents nor barrd from any of the children of infidels Thirdly what judgement do you passe upon believers infants to be the subjects of baptism rather then other infants that of charity or that of certainty that of certainty you disclaim p. 18. in these words no judgement of science can be passed till the Acts of faith themselves be seen and examined and in these also viz. unlesse it could be certainly presumed what children have the habit what have not for the working of the spirit is not known to us he is not bound nor barrd there can be no conclusion made That of charity then is the onely judgement you passe on these and whereby you judge believers infants and no other to have faith the spirit and right to baptism which charity teacheth us praesumere c. to believe and hope all things hope the best concerning all till ye see the worst especially since littâ—e children of believers have not by any actuall sin barrd themselves or deserved to be exempted from the generall state of little children declared in Scriptures Well then to close up all let me but desire you to passe the same judgement of charity on all little infants as you do on some even upon the little ones of unbelievers Infidels Turks and Pagans whilst infants of whom in general and indiscrimmatim the Scripture gives a good report not commending believers infants above them and against whom in particular no exception can be raised more then against the other saving that one fault of theirs onely that they were not born of believings parents which I hope you have so much charity as to pardon Hope I say as well of the infants of unbelieving parents that they have faith and the holy spirit specially since it cannot appear that these have by any actual sin barred themselves or deserved any more then the other to be exempted from the general state of little infants declared in Scripture and then the controversie between you and me which is whether little children born of believing parents only may be lawfully baptized is like to be at an end for then certainly you will either agree to it that all infants in the world even of infidels Turks and Pagans these being in the judgement of Charity as undeserving damnation as others may be and are dying in infancy though this with you is as heinous a thing as to â—ay the Divels may be saved p. 7. in as much possibility to be saved and so at least in as much right as the others to be baptized or else that no infants at all it being not possible to be presumed certainly which have the spirit and which not and charity judging a like of all till it see a difference are at all to be baptized both which being the very truth I am content for my part to agree with you therein with all my heart To which Dilemma I am well enough assured you can answer nothing in the least measure satisfactory as the most judicious readers if you Ministers inquire of them will undoubtedly affirm also and so I proceed to your other Arguments Disputation That opinion which makes the Covenant of the Gospell worser then that under the Law contrary to the Apostle in Heb. 8.6 is a wicked and false opinion But the opinion of the Anabaptists which denieth baptism to little children whereby a moâ—ty of the Christian world is cut off at once from being members of the Church maketh the covenant of the Gospel worser then that under the Law Ergo that opinion is a wicked and false opinion Disproof The Major here is most undeniably true for what opinion soever doth make the Gospel covenant worse then that under the Law contrary to Heb. 8.6 is indeed both false and wicked But the Minor wherein you say that the denial of baptism to little infants makes the Gospel covenant worse then that under the Law contrary to Heb. 8.6 where the Gospel is said to be a better covenant then that of the Law in this respect as it is established upon better promises this is most palpably false yea I appeal to every man who doth not wilfully shut his eies against the truth to judge between us whether our opinion or your own rather doth most clearly contradict that Scripture of your own alledging Heb. 8.6 in order to the true discerning of which First Mark well what it is that is there asserted concerning the meliority of the Gospel covenant above that of law and you shall find it to be this viz. That the Gospel
disputation having more mind that victory then verity should befal us and having fiâ—st given and granted to our selves the priestly prerogative of being sole judges and determiners of that daies disputation between us and our respondent do thereupon determine and by these our letters pattents give and grant the cause and the day to be wholly ours and least it should be hardly confessed and yielded to by fair means we will have it by fowle and wrest it from our Respondent as fully granted by him though we know it was not and take it from him pro confesso by force even by forged cavillation and false accusation and therfore know all men by these presents that though it be most expresly denied by our Respondent that infants of believers have right to be baptized yet it is most expresly confessed by him that infants of believers have good right to be baptized had you said thus well indeed might the world have cryed shame on it more then now but in effect it had been but the proper paraphrase of what you have more closely and covertly presented it with in this place Wherefore Sirs I do you and the world to wit once more to prevent any ones being charmed into a misbelief of me by your juggles how little I concur with you in these things and to say no more then what I have shewed above viz. First That baptism is no seal at all of the Covenant of Grace but a sign of it onely Secondly that believers infants have no right at all to be signed with it in infancy Thirdly That circumcision was no seal of the Gospel covenant but a sign only or token between God and Israel of the old Covenant concerning the Land of Canaan and some other particular peâ—sonal promises and priviledges pertaining to that people though it was a type of Circumcision in the heart where with Abrahams spiritual seed are circumcised and thereby inrighted to the heavenly inheritance Fourthly that it was no seal at all to any but Abrahams person and that in another sense then the word seal is accepted in with you Fiftly that it was dispensed to Ishmael under no such notion as a seal of the Gospel covenant but meerly as he was a male of Abrahams house on which account it was set to every male born in his house or bought with his money though visibly an heir to neither the earthly nor the heavenly Canaan as wicked servants were not and no doubt to his Sons by Keturah also as well as to Ishmael though both he and they before known to Abraham to be no heires of that covenant of circumcision which God gave him in Gen. 17. and told him that he would establish that with Isaac only Gen. 17.19.21 Determination It is further added for satisfaction how children have faith viz. in Semine radice munere habitu actu primo not in fructu folio usu actu secundo in a word they have the habit and the seed not ths exercise and fruit of it Detection You asserted above p. 3. from Mat 18.6 that little ones do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere believe in Christ which phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to believe to drink to eat to read to teach to hear c. do ever expresse productionem potentiae in actum not simply the habit facultie gift inclination power seed c. but the very second act the use the fruit the putting forth of these faculties into their several acts and exercises this as all well studied Schollars know so your selves cannot but acknowledge that to believe is not only to have faith but to act faith and it cannot properly be said of any that they do believe but such as quoad nos do so indeed As for such as are onely in potentià ad fidem though proximâ and sâ—ch as are in capacity to believe and do not they cannot be said by wisemen to believe for then all men may be said to believe who have facultatem munus credendi as well as intelligendi ratiocinandi Eligendi c. though they never do it I appeal therefore to your own consciences whether your saying that infants do believe and yet cannot act nor shew that faith by any fruit of it hath not in it plus Idiotae quam Idiomatis and be not as palpable a contradiction as can fall from mens tongues or pens Determination Their not declaring of it themselves can no more conclude against infants faith then against their reasonable soul. Detection The Reasonable soul is in them universally essentially in the highest degree necessarily and praedicable concerning them de omni per se qua sic as being de esse constitutive for Animarationalis est forma hominis quae dat esse the very essential form of mankind so that he can as easily cease to be as to be without it therefore there can be no conclusion against that in any infants sith they are no longer then while they have it but faith in Christ is according to your selves Habiâ—us ad placitum a deo infufus only not innatus and is in them neither qua sic nor essentially nor universally in all nay but in a few infants by your own confession and you know not which neither for though you do altum sapere so far sometimes as to conclude it is in infants of believers yet you do insipere fo far sometimes as to undote that again and say the spirit is neither bound nor barred in his working of it in these or those so that till they are at yeares there ean be no conclusion made p. 18. therefore me thinks you should blush at this illiterate and indigested assertion viz. that there can be no more concluding against the being of faith in them then their having reasonable souls Secondly if from their non declaring it there can be no more concluding against their having faith then against their reasonable souls then there is no more concluding against the being of faith in one infant more then its being in another or against its being in unbelievers infants than in those of believers for the reasonable soul is in all even in the infants of unbelievers as well as of believers Secondly if their non-declaring it be no ground to conclude against their having faith yet I am sure it is ground enough to bar you from concluding that they have it specially that this infant hath it more then that for though you confess there can be no conclusion made till you see the fruits of their faith yet that is the bold conclusion you undertake to make Fourthly whether we can upon its non appearance conclude against their having faith yea or no yet upon its non appearance we may boldly conclude against their baptism and admittance into the visible Church here on earth into which not an invisible habit of faith gives right but an outward appearance and profession
by Christ Iesus of resurrection of the dead and the eternall judgement and baptized in water in the name of Christ for remission of sins and together with imposition of hands prayed for that they may receive the holy spirit of promise do afterward continue stedfastly in the doctrine of the Apostles and in fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayers all the true universall visible Church that I know of if you will needs have an universal visible is that which doth exist in these particular visible societies and is neither narrower nor wider then these particulars Such was the visible Gospel Church in the primitive times and the same and no other then that which was the visible Church then is the visible Church now and in all times of the Gospell wherein it is at all the visible Church was that which did consist and was made up of all the particular Churches that then were viz. Rome Corinth and all the rest which were societies and assemblies of persons thus called gathered and built up an house unto God upon the foundation of the first principles of the doctrine of Christ as the six above named are called Heb. 6.1 as they are also called Eph. 2.20 the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles i. e. that form of doctrine as t is called Rom. 6.17 which every beginner in Christ did own and obey and which obeying he was fit matter for the visible church and was after by mutual consent of the party offering himself and their suffering him to join with them Acts 10.26 formally added actually admitted to visible fellowship with them in breaking of bread and prayers for that with freedome on both sides such persons as had thus far been taught and had learned these principles this a b c and owned it i. e. professing to believe what of it was matter of faith and visibly practising what of it was practical were visible disciples new born babes Heb. 5.13 and such babes being baptized and having laid this foundation as to fellowship were then accepted thereunto that they might grow up to perfection in order whereunto unto this visible church Ephes. 3.21 which though it exists in many several particular bodies each of which is independent on any other head then Christ and impowered from him to determine all its own affaires ultimately within it self yet since it endeavours to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace is said to be but one body because of one spirit one call one hope one Lord one faith one baptism one God and father of them all who is above all and through all and in them all God hath given officers gifted for its service viz. some Apostles some Prophets some Pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of this visible body of Christ till we all come to a perfect man to the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ Eph. 4.3.4.5.6.11.12.13 As for that Catholique visible church I mean that voluminous body or part of the world commonly called Christ'ndome which was once all as it were of one language and one speech and is now rather three in one or a Triune treader of the truth viz. Papall Prelaticall Presbyterial yet to this day exists in those particular visibles as were never thus seperated and called and constituted upon the foundation of the doctrine of the Apostles but conglomerated by the lump by the Apostle Peters supposed successor into Nationall Provinciall Parochiall to call a spade a spade I can call it no other then the CCCatholique Beast that bears now in three parts a BBBabilonish CCClergy Rev. 16.19 i. e. indeed the very CCCatholique whore Rev. 17. As for particular persons though professing to be believers that yet are not baptized and added to some such particular visible society or church but are yet abiding in the capacity only of single though visible Saints till they are both baptizd and added as members to walk in fellowship with some particular assembly and congregation in breaking bread and prayers as every such a one as supposes himself to be a saint ought to be or else his saintship may be much suspected if he will not they are no visible members of the visible church but onely fitter materials then they were before their faith and in a neerer right to be both baptized and admitted to be members then when they had none they are better matter for the visible church but not yet formally of the visible church have jus ad rem not in re ad ecclesiam not in Ecclesia a right to the church but not actual standing in it till entered and admitted Nor yet are they immediate matter for or in immediate right to membership though believing till baptized but materia remota and in jure quodam conditionali remoto a certain remote matter though neerer then when meerly men and in a conditional and remote right For as believers are the immediate matter for or in immediate right to baptism so baptized believers after laying on of hands in prayer are the immediate subject i. e. in immediate right to be admitted yet neither are baptized believers actuall members till admitted the formality and most immediate entrance and way of becoming a visible member of a particular visible Church and so consequently of the generall visible if I may so call it which hath its existence in all the particular churches which are the immediate matter of which that is made up being not simply the act of baptism but the act of joining our selves after it Act 9.26 and the constitutive form of a visible Church is not their being all baptized but their free falling into fellowship with each other and though we are said to be all baptized into one body t is an expression of the necessity only of every ones being baptized in order to a being in the visible Church for none hath right to be of the visible body unbaptized but though the baptized have immediate right to be of the body yet are they not meerly of it because baptized till added to it and as one cannot be said to be actually under baptism from an immediate right to it by faith till he have submitted so neither can we be said to be actually in the body from our immediate right to it by baptism till we are admitted Self condemned sinners have a right to believe in Christ believers a right to baptism baptized believers a right to the spirit of promise to have hands laid on with prayer that they may receive it according to the promise Asts 2. Acts 8. Acts 19. such as these to fellowship in the visible Church yet not in fellowship till assaying to join themselves they are accepted and yet in a visible state of salvation too both before baptized as the thief and after baptized before added to the Church visible as the Eunuch who both were seemingly members of the
solid answer for if that be of force to prove a disannulling of that administration then it s of force much more against the acting of faith it self for as it s not said there from what the falling away shouâ—d be so it s expressely said elsewhere there should be a departure from the faith 1 Tim. 4.1.2 so that if the foretelling that there should be a falling away from the truth of ordinances prove that therefore there must be no practising of them now at all then there being a prophecy of a falling away from the right belief of the Gospel will evince that there ought now to be no right believing and so belike we do as ill in believing the Gospel now as in practising the ordinances of it but this will not not hold and therefore certainly not the other More over that thou maiest see how contrary thou art to the Apostles not in thy actings only but in thy arguings also consider that whereas thou admonishest men thereupon to be carelesse as concerning ordinances they even from their own predictions of a falling away from the purity of the primitive way stir the Saints up to so much the more dilligent and strict attendance to it Iude ver 3.4 from the very consideration of a future falling away exhorts the Saints not therefore to let go but earnestly to contend for that faith which was once delivered to the Saints and I appeal to the understanding of any one that hath not shut up his eyes from seeing and searching afteâ— the mind of God in the Scripture whether Paul doth not charge Timothy 1 Tim. 4 16.5.21.6.13 1 Tim. 3.14 to whom he had told it before in 1 Tim. 4.1 that there should be a departure from the faith even therefore as he would answer it before God to observe those things concerning outward discipline and Church order offices and ordinance in point of laying on of hands and other things of that kind as well as other that he in the name of the Lord had commanded him and to keep them without spot and unrebukeable even to the appearing of Jesus Christ and not onely to continue himself in the doctrine and things that he had learnt from Paul among which many were instructions for the right ordering of Churches 1 Tim. 3.15 but also to take special order for the continuation thereof downwards to succeeding generations without the least hint of any term or period of time wherein they of right should cease the things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses the same commit thou to faithful men that shall be able i. e. after thy decease to teach others also 2 Tim. 2.2 and not onely so but whether he doth not in that very place thou alledgest viz. 2 Thess. 2.15 even therefore enjoin the Saints to hold fast the traditions or ordinances for so the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used here is truely enough reâ—dred 1 Cor. 11.2 because he had told them above that there should come one that should delude many with lyes whereas if Paul had argued as thou O Reasonâ—esse doest he must have said thus viz. there shall come a falling away from the purity of ordinances by a wicked one that shall tread them down therefore be not too stiff in standing for them but let go the ordinances which have been taught you whether by word or Epistle Peter also foreseeing and accordingly foreshewing that there should come scoffers in the last daies walking after their own lusts not Christs commands wills the Saints that should be in those last times as Malachi did the Jewes after a long deformation to remember the Law of Moses with the statutes and judgements Mal. 4 4. in which we now live to look back to and be mindful of the words that were spoken before by the holy prophets and the commandments of the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour 2 Pet. 3.2 as Iude also does in the self same words and upon the self same account Iude 17. And this I find to be the course of the Apostles all along upon foresight of the dark and declining time to refer the Saints of the last times to their primitive orders and by Arguments drawn from the stedfastnesse of the word of the old Testament in every tittle to shew much more a stedfastnesse in the new and a liablenes to punishment for every transgression and disobedience to this as there was for that Heb. 2 2-10.28 every jot of which was so stedfast that even tith of Mint Annis and Cummin which the Pharisees did ill indeed in so doting upon as to neglect the weightier matters of judgement mercy c. was neverthelesse not to be neglected Matth. 23.23 on pain of being accounted Robbers of God Mal. 3.8 and howbeit the greater and higher things of the Gospel as faith holinesse of life c. are not to be forgotten while we attend to lesser and lower yet how the law of Christ was so stedfast as that of Moses if it ly in the power of man or Angel to disannul the least particle of it till Christ himself who is the only abolisher of old dispensations and establisher of new do by his own next personal comming put an end to this as he did by his first comming unto that I am not able to imagine Thou tellest us Suppose the Saints and churches ought to have held fast their administration of ordinances to this day yet what of that the Churches have lost and let go that first outward form of service and Iezebe◠〈◊〉 â—hore hath got into the Temple and filled all with Idolatry and trod all the true way under foot and instead thereof set up her own ordinances and traditions the Clergy hath corrupted and depraâ—ved all that first face of outward worshâ—p therefore it s now no more to be meddled with for ever there must be no more raising the holy City in that form and way wherein it stood before no more Churches nor ordinances but did every any rational spirit argue thus viz. because the true appointed way of Gods worship was lost when it should have been therefore it must not be found recover'd nor returned to again when it may be surely the same rule reason warrant and command by which the Church was bound to have stood in the way of truth without falling away by the same is she now bound to rise from whence she is fallen or else I know not what Christ means when he saies to the Church at Ephesus Rev. 2.4 5. Remember from whence thou art fallen and repent and do thy first works c. Secondly by the same reason and ground that the Jewes returned from Babylon to Ierusalem and built the holy City and Temple that was the type when by the enemy Typical of our Gospel Babylonians the Priesthood and his people that have led the Church captive from her own border for a time times and a half even 70 years it was trodden underfoot and
I shall be saved No condemnation to them that walk not after the flesh but after the spirit so dying but I walk not after the flesh but after the spirit Ergo so doing so dying there 's no condemnation to me and so consequently still I shall be saved Rom. 8.1 * witnesse a paper newly extant subscribed with 15. hands and sent to my self in particular by one of the subscribers while I am just beginning this very treatise of Anti-ranterism which occasions a more distinct handling of this point of laying on of hands then I otherwise intended stiled Questions about laying on of hands with the grounds why they are demanded lovingly propounded to all those churches of Iesus Christ in London or elsewhere or to any one member of the body of our Lord who pleadeth or preacheth for the necessity or usefulnesse of laying on of hands to be practised by all baptized believers The 2d query of which is on this wise viz. We desire to be directed by them unto some place of Scripture if they know of any where our Lord Iesus Christ or any of his Apostles or disciples preached this doctrine viz. that all baptized believers ought to practise or submit unto laying on of hands * Heb. 5.12.6.1 2. Act. 19 6. Act. 8.12.15.16 17. Act. 2.40 42. * because many blame and reprove baptized believers because they do not practise submit to or come under laying on of hands Therefore we desire to know of them if they can tell of any of the servants of Christ that ever did reprove or blame any sort of people whether baptized or not because laying on of hands was not practised or submitted to by them * As if women were not under the promise of the holy spirit repenting believing and being baptized as well as men when as Peter saies Acts â— 39 to the whole multitude of women as well as men repent and be baptized and ye shall receive the holy spirit for the promise is to you and to your children and them that are a far off even as many as the Lord shall call as if John Baptist also did not speak promiscuously to the multitudes of both men and women and to the women as well as the men whom he baptized when he said I indeed baptize you with water but she shall baptize you with the holy spirit and if baptized believing women be under a promise of being baptizd with the spirit as well as men pro. 1.23 then why they should not have hands laid on them and be prayed for that they may receive it as well as the other according to the promise he is a wiser man then I am that knowes any reason Viz. seeing that many draw inferences and deductions as they call them from Heb 6.2 to maintain one laying on of hands onely and none of them upon the forementioned considerations neither in the end purpose or event Therefore we desire to know whether you judge it a command of our Lord Christ that any mans inference or deduction should be of a binding form in point of faith and obedience and because we have seen some of our dearly beloved brethren in the Lord to the grief of our hearts much offended at us because we believe not the inferences or deductions as they call them Heb. 6.2 Therefore we desire to know of them what they will refer us to as the sure rule to try inferences or deductions by because the best of men are liable to mistakes * witness his reproving and threatning of lost labour to those that so do Mat. 15.9 x John 5 30.8.16.17.12â— 49.50.14.31 * Act. 1.1.2 3.10.33 * Act. 2.42 1 Cor. 14.37 Eph. 2.20 Heb. 6.1 2 Pet. 3.2 Jude 17. * For there was a certain form of Christs doctrine delivered by the Apostles to persons as from him which they were to obey and after obedience unto which and not before they were counted unto Christ as now his servants which till they had obeyed they were counted none of his but unto sin as its servants standing in several particulars whereof its most evident that water baptism was one for obedience in baptism and obedience to that form of doctrine delivered are both urged as arguments and ingagements to the Romans now to reckon on themselves or from thenceforth i. e. their obedience thereunto as in foro dei hominum et ecclesiae Christs servants that had formally owned him and whether the rest viz faith repentance laying on of hands belief of a resurrection and judgement which are Heb. 6. all called the foundation which was at first to be laid altogether with baptism called by the name of the form of doctrine Rom. 6.17 which was at first to be obeyed by every beginner in Christs school is worth our serious considerations * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 6.1 * so the Enquirers seem to me to do while they teach men that as yet have not that they need or ought not to submit to prayer and laying the holy spirit and unteach such again as have been targht it till they disown that first principle of the doctrine of Christ after they had once even practically owned it * who would â—ain be our own carvers and either have such visible gifts as some call them as he was pleased to give them or else we will be blind and not see not believe though we see it that he gives any gifts of his spirit now at all * John 14.17 28. Gal. 5. 17. John 16.13 R m. 8.13 1 Cor. 2.12 1 Cor. 12.7 Eph. 4.11 Eph. 4.30 a Eph. 1.13 b Act. 2.39.40 c Prov. 1.23 Joh. 7.38 39. Luke 11.13 Act 5.35 * Iohn did no miracle but all the the things which Iohn spake of this man are true Joh. 10.41 Iohn 7.48 Except ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe Iohn 20.29 Thomas because thou hast seen thou hast believed but blessed are they that have not seen and yet believed Herod hoped to have seen some miracle done by Christ but he would not so much as answer him Luke 23.8.9 He did not many mighty work there because of their unbelief Mat. 13.5 Lord why could not we cast him out Iesus said because of your unbelief â— Joh. 1.16 â—â—f his fulaes we have â—ll received grace for grace Iohn 16.7.13 2. Cor. 13.14 the communion of the spirit be with you all Gal. 5.22 2 Cor. 5.5 God who hath given us the earnest of his spirit Ephes. 1.33.14 in whom after ye believed ye were sealed with the holy spirit of promise which is the earnest of our inheritance c. whereby you are sealed to the day of redemption Ephes. 4.30 * if any doubt it as some do and say prophesy is a gift of speaking infallibly by revelation from God as t is spoken of 1 Cor. 14.1 the 2.3.4.5 verses of the same chapter confute him where prophecy as it is determined to be a far more eminent and profitable gift and greater and more