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
if you be not sanctified one in to and by the other as lawful man and wife by your union formerly contracted notwithstanding your now disunion in Religion then your children are unclean and this is truth for so the children are in this civil sense if begotten and born out of matrimony whether the parents be believers or no buâ— the other is not truth for whether both or but one or none of the parents believe the infants for that cause alone and without respect to matrimony are in no sense ere the more holy or unclean Thirdly and this will yet appear more plainly if you consider that faith alone in either one or both the parents begetting out of wedlock cannot sanctifie the seed so begotten with this civil holiness here meant no nor with that faederall holiness you plead for nor could it do so even then when that holinesse or birth priviledge you talk of was in force as now it is not viz. in the daies of the law for if two believers came together then out of marriage their seed were not onely base born and so unclean in this our sense but also to the tenth generation uncapable to be admitted into the congregation and so consequently unclean even in your own Deut. 32.2 whereupon how Pharez and Zarah were dealt with it matters not sith they were born before the law was given Ieptha was exempted from any inheritance with his brethren because he was the son of a strange woman Iudg. 11.2 and Davids unclean issue by Bathsheba that in the wisdome of God was taken away by death on the seventh day might not surely without breach of the law have been accounted holy and of the congregation if he had lived beyond the eighth whereupon your selves also are much fumbled about the holinesse of bastards and the baptism of base-begotten babies so that you scarcely know how to behave your selves about it though the parents sinning be believers at least en-churched in your Churches yea it s generally known saith Mr Cotton that our best Divines do not allow the baptism of bastards and though he is pleased to say they allow it not sine sponsoribus without Sureties yet I wonder sith Deut. 32.2 Gods denial of such of old is made the ground of their denial of such now to enter into the Congregation as unholy that our Divines dare take on them to admit cum sponsoribus and so to go besides their own Rule viz. the order of things under the law wherein God gave no such allowance but to let that tolleration pass which they take to themselves you may learn thus much of your selves if you will that though wedlock without faith make a holy seed in our sense yet faith without wedlock in the parents can make a holy seed neither in our sense nor in your own nor any at all for the infants of the married are holy but believers bastards are both civilly and federally unclean inso much that your selves see cause to refuse as federally holy the spurious seed euen of those whose lawfull issue you unlawfully sprinkle Fourthly if you more seriously consider that the holinesse in the Infant here must needs be the fruit and result of that and that must needs be the cause of the holiness here spoken of in the infant quo posito ponitur sanctitas sublato tollitur which being in the parents a holinesse must necessarily be thereupon which not being in the parents a holinesse cannot be in the seed for positâ causà ponitur effectus sublata tollitur abstract the cause and the effect cannot be suppose the cause and the effect cannot but be now that which if it be not in the parents the holiness is not but being in them the holinesse is consequently in the infants 't is not the faith but the conjugal or marriage Relation of the parents for as for the first of these viz. faith it may be in one yea in both of the parents and yet no federal holinesse at all be in the infants witness Ishmael the seed of Abraham the father of the faithful and his Sons by Keturah also born of him after Covenant made with him and his seed in Isaac and Iacob and yet neither of them in that Covenant witnesse the base born children of true believers among the Jews suppose David and Baâ—â—sheba which for all the parents faith could not by the law be admitted in thâ— Congregation nor have that birth-priviledge to be reputed holy which from the parents faith you universally intail to the infants moreover this birth-priviledge and Covenant-holiness by generation which did inright to Church ordinances which once was but now is a non-entity and out of date might be then when it was in being in children in whose parents faith was not found at all for most of the Iews were unbeiievers yet all their legitimate children were holy federally therefore faith in the parent cannot be the cause of such a thing yea if you will believe Mr Blake himself the strictest pleader for a birth-priviledge of federal holiness in Infants that ever I met with and that from this very place he condescends so far as to contribute one contradiction to himself toward the helping of the truth in this case viz. That faith in the parâ—nt is not the cause of this holinesse whilst making the holinesse in this text to be a birth priviledge or Church-Covenant holinesse and to be the fruit and result of the faith of the believing parents and consequently their faith to be the sole and proper cause of the same he confesses flatly elsewhere page 4. that a loose life in the parent and mis-belief which is as bad in some cases worse then unbelief for which is worse to believe false things or not to believe true yea Apostacy from the faith which all if they be not inconsistent with faith I know not what is do not divest nor debar the issue from having that holiness which himself saies is meant in this text Babist Perhaps he means not by faith strictly the parents true believing but in generall his being in the covenant and faederally holy himself and so a cause of this federal holiness in the issue Baptist. First Paul means true believing here in 1 Cor. 7.14 whether Mr Blake do or no. Secondly what will he get as to the point in hand by his Synonamizing faith and faederall holiness for still neither the one nor the other is made here the cause of the holiness of the seed for the holiness here spoken of may be where neither of them is and may not be in the seed even where they are both in the parent as for example in Ezras time Ezra 10 3. we find abundance of the Jews both Priests and people that were in the faith or at least in faederall holiness yet the children were put away as unholy as well faederally as otherwise because their marriage was unlawfull and that bed adulterous wherein they lay with strange
wives Ezra 10.3 and that both parents possibly may be faithful and faederally holy and yet their seed be in all senses utterly unclean is evident for the child of two believing Jews begotten besides the marriage bed was both a Bastard and also barr'd from the Congregation Deut. 32.2 again this faederal holiness as well as faith may be in neither parent and yet the issue not be unclean but holy still and so are all Matrimonially and civilly at least that among Pagans are the issue of the marriage bed and with the holiness of the Covenant of Grace too when they come to years and believe themselves as not a few children of unbelievers do and sometimes the seed of Turks and Tartars this therefore i. e. the faith or faederal sanctity of the one parent nor of both cannot be the cause of this sanctity is here denominated of the seed for holiness in the infants is not alwaies when this is and sometimes it is in the infant when this is not in the parent which being of each without other cannot be between a true cause and its effect but as for the second viz. the marriage sanctity in the parents it is that which being in the parents holiness is naturally and necessarily in the seed that is born of them whether they be both or either or either in faith or unbelief but being not in the parents there can be no holiness no birth holiness in their infants nor Matrimonial nor Congregationall neither therefore this is that which is the cause of the holiness of the issue in this Scripture the result of which and not of faith in the parents is this non-uncleanness in their posterity and so I have done with this kind of holiness and with this Scripture which speaks of this Matrimonial holiness and no other Thirdly Ceremonial holiness I call that same holiness which properly peculiarly and pro tempore only pertained to the whole nation and congregation of Israel denominating them all holy every one of them and distinguishing them from all other people and nations which during the time of the Iews pedagogy according to Gods own imposition were then accounted sinners common and unclean by a certain â—â—s-rationis an extrinsecall meerly notional and nominal rather then either real moral or substantiall sort of sin and uncleanness to which the others holiness was directly opposite and answerable The subjects of which Accountative holiness were not only the people of the Jews themselves which were a holy people Deut. 7. ver 8. Exod. 22.31 but also and more specially the Priests and more specially yet or in a higher degree but in the same kind of holiness for degrees do not vary nature the High Priests which were holiness to the Lord Exod. 39.30 also their parents which were not matrimonially only nor often morally yet to allow your own phrase here because they were outwardly in Covenant with God concerning outward promises and priviledges on performance of outward ordinances everâ— faederally a holy parentage a holy root Rom. 11. also their natural if withall matrimonial issue which were not at all in their infancy and but seldome when at years spiritually allwaies faederally holy branches a holy seed also their land of Canaan which was the holy Land their Metropolitan City Ierusalem which was the holy City their Temple which was a holy Temple the Utensills vessels vestments and other accomplishments which were all holy a holy Lavar a holy Altar a holy Ark holy Candlesticks holy Cherubims most holy place c. and in a manner all things belonging to the Law of Moses and that first Covenant made with Abraham and his fleshly seed whether hollowed or consecrated by God himself or dedicated to him by men at his appointment viz. the first born the first fruits tithes offerings sacrifices daies feasts which were al holy and had relation as shadowes and types for a while unto things Evangelically Spiritually and substantially holy that were to be there after yea with this same kind of holiness some meats were holy some flesh Hag. 2.12 13. was holy some birds and beasts were sanctified as holy and lawfull to be used and eaten when others were prohibited as prophane common and unclean not so much as to be touched without sin without contracting such an outward fleshly kind of guilt and impurity as made their souls in that ceremonial sense abominable yea with an uncleanness oppositely answerable to this carnall holiness those fleshly purities and purifyings that then were some actions as the touch of a dead body some issues of men and women some diseases as the Leprosie some bodily blemishes as crookedness dwarfishness blindness lameness yea the very easements and excrements that passed from them in the camp without covering did defile and render them sinners prophane unclean unholy and guilty before the Lord Levit. 5.2.3.5 11.43 to 46. also Chapters 14.15.22 also Levit 20.25.26 21.18 to the 24. Deut. 23.12.13.14 which defilements did then reach to pollute the flesh only which the bloud of Bulls and Goats that could not cleanse the conscience morally did sanctifie to the purifying of Hebr. chap. 9. ver 13. neither do these things defile any man now in any such sense at all This is the holiness which when you say infants of believers are holy I have ground to perswade my self you Ashford Disputants mean not but rather some inherent morall holiness when I consider how you talk of infused habits in the hearts of infants in your Disputation and Review and yet again I have ground to believe you mean this holiness which was in the Jewish infants and their implements if I may imagine your meaning by what is extant in the writings of your brethren upon the subject specially if I may measure your meaning by Mr Blakes in his Birth-priviledge or covenant-holiness of believers and their issue wherein he laies himself out at large and yet is too short when all is done in proving from the like under the law among the people of the Iews and their issue that even now in the times of the Gospel also a people that enjoy Gods ordinances convey to their issue a priviledge to be reputed by birth not unclean but holy persons and thereupon to be baptized the absurditie and inconsequence of which doctrine and so I hope to make it appear now I am upon it is little less then if he had argued thus as the Pope doth from that time to this viz. there was an Hierarchy or holy principallity among the Priests under the law therefore there must be such another under the Gospel and as then the high-Priests Aaron and his Sons who were holiness to the Lord wore holy garments in their ministration for glory and for beauty viz. Coats and robes embroydered with gold and blew and purple and scarlet and fine linnen and curious girdles of needle work nnd miters and holy Crowns upon the miters so his Holiness to the Lord the High-Priest of Christendome Appollyon
of the first times for so far are they from clearing such a thing as he alledges them for that they clear the clean contrary the subjects of that imposition of hands they speak of being only professors of the faith and not infants yea how doth D Holmes belabor himself to prove it that those to whom the primitive Churches dispeased Imposition of hands were persons grown to years more then doth his cause good and more then any wise man puts him to by the denial of it but those that were brought to Christ for it here spoken of none other then very infants in their nonage Secondly in that this ordinance of laying on of hands was not likely yet in use and being in this prae-primitive-period wherein Christ laid his hands on these infants the ends in order whereunto it was enjoined and practised when it was being such as in this juncture not only infants but also the very disciples themselves were uncapable of viz. as the Doctors own quotations truly shew perfect and full fruition of confirmation in Church state Gospel Church liberties Church-fellowships in all Church ordinances viz. the Supper and suppications and also the receiving of the holy spirit none of all which were yet given to any in such wise as afterwards they were no not to the Disciples till either just before as the Supper or else after Christ was crucified for howbeit matter for the Gospel Church and fellowship was fitting preparing and gathering in by preaching and baptizing even from Iohn who began the Gospel two or three years before that and the Gospel Church was as it were in a certain Chaos or Congeries of matter not yet digested into its perfect form somewhile before the Jews Church was ended in Christ death yet it came not to have its own formall constitution in point of visible order posture fellowship government officers discipline endowments with the spirit whereby they might be built up an habitation of God and ordinance of laying on of hands in prayer specially relating thereunto till after Christ crucified and ascended the holy spirit being not yet come because Jesus not yet glorified Thirdly they came not for this but for another kind of Imposition of handâ— which is otherwise called touching which who ever had from him were in case of diseases made whole They came surely for that laying on of hands which Dr Holmes himself speaks of p. 57. out of Hophman viz. a laying on in order to healing for which healing by a touch of him many men women and children came or else were brought to Christ while others that were well came to hear him Mark 5.27.28.29.30 Luke 6.17.18.19 Mat. 14.13.14.34.35.36 This Imposition of hands therefore that these infants had was not that which persons when past infancy only had in the Churches after and for Dr Holmes to say the Apostles and ancient Churches confirmed persons by prayer and laying on of hands when they were past infancy and not in it therefore surely Christ to the same intent and purpose laid hands on these in infancy is equally absurd as to argue thus viz. the Apostles and primitive times practised baptism to men and women onely confessing sin and professing faith therefore it is most fitting and likely now to be the will of Christ that persons should be sprinkled in their nonage so brittle are all the bottoms you yet build on but to proceed Disputation Know ye not that the spirit of God is in you except ye be reprobates and they dare not say that little children are all reprobates Also Review page 16. They are not Reprobates Therefore Christ is in them Disproof Nor do we say that little children are all reprobates nor durst you say that any of them are reprobates if meer blindness did not embolden you thereunto for the truth is consider them yet living in the capacity of infants and so though in foro Dei in esse intentionali conditionali i. e. with God who calleth things that yet are not as though they were and foresees both what they will do and what he accordingly will do with them hereafter they are already known to be either of one sort or the other yet in foro hominum and in esse actuali i. e. actually and in the sight of men they are finally neither reprobated nor elected till they finally receive Christ or reject him yea I wish you were all but as sure to be saved as it is sure that none are quoad nos rejected or devoted in the word which is the coppy of Gods decree to eternal damnation but upon account of their own actual transgression and as t is sure that none at all of them that dy in infancy and no more of those that live to years also are damned 〈◊〉 such as finally put salvation away from them and so judge themselves most worthy of the other for though of Iacob and Esau they being yet unborn neither having done any good or evil it was foretold by God who foresaw what good and evil they would do in time and what he thereupon would do unto them that the Elder should serve the younger yet this was foretold of and fulfilled in their posterity and not their persons for though Edom served Israel yet Esau in person served not Iacob but Iacob rather bowed before him and as for that viz. Iacob have I loved Esau have I hated which you wot was spoken of them as from the womb you shall find if you look again that it was not spoken of their persons but their posterity nor yet secondly of those without respect to Edoms wickedness above the other much less thirdly before Iacob and Esau was born and had acted good or evil but so long after Iacob and Esau were born and had done good and evil that they were also ere that time when this was spoken Mal. 1. many years since dead and rotten but this would lead me into another controversie of as large extent and consequence as this in hand and therfore I will wave it here yet not so as to decline the discourse of it with you upon occasion any more then of the other well then that they are not all Reprobatâ—s it is asserted by you and us too but what is this at all to your purpose For First is there no Medium between being a reprobate and a present having the holy spirit there were twelve Disciples at Ephesus which had not so much as heard of the holy spirit so far were they from having it yet yet dare you say they were all reprobates there were many men and women that believed the things spoken by Philip pertaining to the Kingdome upon which the holy spirit had not yet fallen were they all reprobates because they had not yet received it or those thousands Peter promised the holy spirit to were they all reprobates because they yet had it not when he spake to them yea millions of men ly yet in wickedness and so far from
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
walking shall live or dy and not at all of the way wherein he saves or damnes dying infants for that stands still by good reason from Scripture that they being uncapable to do what on mans part is required to life i. e. to act belief unless wee l hold they are all damned dying in nonage as you pittiful merciless men hold that 20 to one are but we bloody Baptists that none at all are we must hold them to be excused from the terms of believing and presented righteous before the Father by the righteousness of Christ without faith and therefore though I see I shall meet with this argument again in your Review where I le talke with it a little more yet I le conclude here just contrarily to what you conclude with viz. that the tenet of no justification nor salvation for dying infants by the righteousness of Christ without faith in their own persons is a meer figment of the Arch-Anti-baptists i. e. the Priests without ground and reason from Scripture whereby as by â—ome shew of reason to flatter men on to a continuance in that false way of bringing infants to be sprinkled that so their Kingdome and priesthood many continue to spread its black wings over whole provinces and parishes at once and to submit them to their arbitrary jurisdiction as well a ware that it can stand no longer then the other for once give over christening the whole parish infancy and then farewell that parish posture which the Pope set up in all Christendome some 600 years ago yea then down falls the parochial-Church-steeple-house Priest-hood pay and all Amen so be it THE SECOND PART OF ANTI-BABISME OR A REVIEW OF THEIR REVIEW I Come now to take notice of the second piece of your Pamphleâ— a thing made up of several sorts of matter and trickt together into one slender Tractate and entituled A Review of the Arguments used in the Disputation my Animadversion of which I answerably stile a Re-Review or Review of your Review In which Review of yours I find some things said and disputed over again which are before disputed in the Disputation somethings as it were unsaid and undisputed ore again which are disputed before in the Disputation and somthings viz. here a little and there a little disputed which the Disputation disputes not before at all So that the business if you view it one way stands ternal i. e. brancht out into 3 heads barking all like those of Cerberus against the light but if you review and behold it another way it seems to stand Quaternall or quartered out into four heads acting all in their several turns against the truth viz. First A Preaamble or March towards the battle p. 11 12. Secondly An Onset or charge given by a Forlorn hope of three worthies or choice Arguments whereof the first is a freshman that was not in the last dispute the two last old Souldiers that are bold to facâ— about and fight us again though wounded well-nigh to death in the last battel p. 12.13.14.16 Thirdly A very hot dispute or Reply against Reason and its forces storming your strong hold of infant-baptism or an earnest encounter with such objections as Reason saie you makes against it all which you make a puff at and attempt to vanquish in seven or eight several repulâ—es p. 16.17.18.19 Fourthly A Bugbear bringing up the Rear of the battel horribly dressed and horned with seven horns all pushing and poking against the truth on purpose to to fright men from being baptized and make such as are ready to turn to the truth to tremble and forsake its tents alias a warning or Morter-piece charged with a number of small shot viz. the horrid sins this wretched errour of the Anabaptists alias thaâ— odious error of owning the truth involves men in that more hits then hurts them that have the spiritual armour on presented and discharged to scare the Christian Souldier i. e. the Christian Reader if possible out of his Christian wits and senses Thus does this Squadron of militarie matter made and raised in defence of Infant-baptism divide it self and play its part against which notwithstanding we shall God willing adventure forth in the strength of Christ give battel to it and to each part of it successively as it lies in order Review There might innumerable Arguments be brought both from Scripture and Reason for the confirming of the practise of the Church of God from the beginning whose authority alone if it were of any esteem with the adversaries thereof were enough to have silenced these disputes at least to have laid the itch and quenched the heat of them in baptizing the children of believing parents but as the hast of the Disputation did forbid the Ministers then to be so thoroughly provided with them modesty doth now to insert them here Therefore the Christian Reader is desired to peruse Calvins Institutions Ursins Catechism and Dr. Featley's Book upon this subject where he shall be thorowly furnished Besides that opinion of Ovid Etsi non prosint singula multa juvant What ever it may carry of credit in other causses ought to have but little in this where we trust not in multitude nor measure by number but substance and weight of Arguments are the foundation of our faith the other are for pomp and victory these onely for satifaction and verity Whosoever thou art that desirest to be grounded in the Truth examine diligently and understand these three arguments following which are but the same reviewed that were used in the disputation and thou shalt be able being confirmed thy self thorough the grace of God to strengthen thy brethren whose faith is every where assaulted in these miserable dates by the watchfulness and cunning insinuation of the adversary nor are these three commended unto thee as if among David's Worthies they were the first three the composer of them arrogates no such thing to them thou shalt find many both better appointed and more strongly armed and which go forth in strength of those that fight the battels of the Lord among the Worthies of Israel these were never intended but as a forlorn-hope yet till the adversary shall have worsted them thou shalt not need to desire fresh supplies Re-Review This first part or Praeambulary approach to the battel gives big words but no blowes it only vapours and vaunts carries the colours and â—lourishes them advancing with a company of broad bragges of what Innumerable forces your cause hath at command from Scriptures and from Reason and from Churches practise and authority and from Authors of Renown Calvin Vrsin Dr. Featley whereby fearing least they should forgo it upon sight of your own apparent slenderness and that unthorough provision your Disputation presented in proof thereof to flatter your followers First into a false faith of more full and thorough furniture comming in from all quarters toward its defence and so to a secure continuance in your crazy cause and to keep close still to the
adversaries are put to their shifts to finde out a new way for the salvation of infants dying in their minority viz. The presentment of the satisfaction of Christ without faith otherwise they conclude they could not be saved which invention of theirs destroies the Gospel covenant which is the righteousnesse of faith and either damns innumerable innocents whose right to the kingdom of heaven our Saviour hath declared or grounds their salvation upon a figment of their own brains such as the Scriptures are wholly silent in and the Churches of God never dreamed of They alleadge two texts for their proof Rom. 5.18 As by the offence of one judgement came upon all to condemnation so by the righteousnesse of one the free-gift came upon all men unto justification of life Rom. 11.7 Election hath obtained it of which two texts the latter is nothing for them for it excludes not justification for the Apoctle saith plainly Rom. 8.30 Those whom he predestinated he justified and though the elect onely shall be saved yet justification goes between The former is directly against them for it expressely mentions justification of life so that the Anabaptists must either prove that justification is not to go before salvation and so pull in pieces the golden chain by taking out the link Rom. 8.38 or else that justification is not by faith and so destroy the Covenant of the Gospel till when they justly deserve the censure of damning all infants dying contrary to evident testimony of Scriptures and the sentence of our Saviour that to them belongeth the kingdeme of heaven And whosoever shall consider the impertinences of their proofs in a cause of so great consequence shall have just cause to suspect all their other doctrines and take heed how to take any thing upon trust from these new masters Re-Review Here is an argument hath neither head nor tail in it able to hurt for both have bin bruised already we having had to do with them before the one in the front the other in the rear of the disputation therefore no need to fear it yet sith it turns about again and Reviews us hisses in ouâ— faces and makes such a flutter as if it would both bite and sting us to death I shall secure it a little further how ever The head of the argument is this syllogism viz. Such as have the holy spirit and faith are the subjects of baptism but children have so The first proposition whereof you say the Anabaptists will not deny but I tell you what the Anabaptists will do I know not because if there be such a people in the world yet I never was so privy to their principles and practises as Dr. Featley and his fellows pretend to be who paints them out and presents them to the world in his title page as dipping naked and daily But in the name of 100s of them you commonly and abusively call so I mean the truest baptists that are in England I le be so bold as to deny it to be true without more for t is not the inward unseen seeds of grace and faith nor that invisible having of these which is the uâ—most you dare or do affirm concerning infants but the visible having thereof so that we see they have them by the fruits effects acts opperations and professions that quoad nos makes a subject for baptism as for what is within it is nothing to us we are strangers to it neither can or may we intermeddle therewith till it shews it self without secret things belong to God onely and things revealed onely to us and therefore for your blind brazen faced minor wherein you positively affirm here again that children not specifying what children nor whose whether of believers or unbelievers nor both nor if of believers onely whether all or onely some of them have the spirit and faith I shall be as bold to deny it ever till they give some better specimen of it then the best infant that ever you or I saw did in that nonage wherein you sprinkle them specially so long as to the stark spoiling utter unsaying and clear contradicting of whatever your own selves would prove it by you are fain to confesse page 16. That all have them not and p. 18. Which have and which have nâ—â— the spirit being no more bound to believers infants then others and no more bar'd from working in unbelievers infants than believers cannot be certainly presumed and that whatever the spirit may work in children yet this is not known to us so that there can be no conclusion made And howbeit this Argument being by your own concession thus crushed in the head i. e. this Prosyllogism turns about with his tail and thrusts at us therewith I mean this ensuing Syllogism viz. No Iustification nor salvation to them that have not faith But justification and salvation is to infants Ergo infants have faith Yet I return thus to your Major viz. that though there is no justification nor salvation without faith of such as are capable to believe and of whom to believe it is required yet of such as neither are capable nor called on to believe in order thereunto there may be and is a justification and salvation without it and this is the case of all dying infants in the world the presentment of the satisfaction of Christ without faith and without obedience also in any thing else both which are in ordine ad vitam injoined to adult ones doth save dying infants or else innumerable of those infants are damned neither is this any new way for the salvation of infants dying in minority nor a grounding their salvation upon a sigment and invention of our own braines nor such as the Scripture is altogether silent in nor such as destroyes the Gospel Covenant which is the righteousness of faith for howbeit it is true that the Scripture runs on this wise saying The just shall live by faith he that believes shall be saved he that believes not shall be damned and to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifyeth the ungodly his faith shall be accounted unto him for righteousnesse and twenty more such like expressions of the Gospel Covenant Rom. 1. Rom. 3. Iohn 3. c. as that which gives righteousnesse and life by faith only without the works of the Law yet I beseech you set your wits on work and see whether these Scriptures were written of infants or to them either or whether only of and to mens at years only to shew unto them on what terms the Lord will accept and save them in the Covenant and promise of the Gospel Me thinks your own reason should dictate thus much that all those places speak no more of infants then they speak to them in minority and that you will assuredly yield that they do not yea you may as well say these places viz. T is a people that have no vnderstanding therefore he that made them will not save them and he
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
all the seed to whom as such it is made But sith now you say that the spirit is not bound to give faith and salvation to believers seed nor barred from giving it to any of the seed of infidels which is as much as to say he is at liberty from all obligation of himself by promise to either of these above the other and to work it in which he pleases you will I hope unless you be more ashamed of seeming to have been ignorant then ashamed of your ignorance so as to give glory to God by confessing it relinquish that wonted position of a birth priviledge in this point in believers seed more tâ—en in others which you ground and prove from that promise Aâ—t 2. and ingenuâ—usly confesse that for ought you know the one hath no more ingagemeat of God to them by promise then the other so that unlesse there were more warrant then you have to single out one from the other as the special subjects of baptism and heirs of salvation you ought to baptize them all alike i. e. in very deed to let them all alone till you come as in infâ—ncy you confesse you cannot to presume what children have the habit of saith and what have not Fourthly where as you say wheresoever the habit of faith is it inclines to holy actions when there is opportunity and the season for bringing them forth whether this be necessary to be held or no yet wee l hold it to do you a pleasure in calling you thereby from your false cause for else its like to do you more displeasure in your cause of infants faith then you well considered when you penned and printed it for wheresoever faith is the opportunity and season for its bearing fruit and working by love and other holy actions is ever present and perpetual yea its never unopportune or unseasonable for him that hath faith to be acting obedience in one thing or other yea if any one say I have faith and have not works and holy actions much lesse if no inclinablenesse to holy actions that faith cannot save nor stand him instead faith without works being dead and profiting nothing therefore if where ever faith is it inclines to holy actions when opportunity and season for it is then I am sure there is no faith at all in infants for there is no opportunity or season at all in infancy wherein faith is found fruitfull in them and if you will say they have faith though you have no evidence of it and prove it is so because it is so then it is a faith without works and that faith is dead unprofitable and cannot save them Iames 2. and if so you would be better opinioned towards infants in my mind to hold them saved without faith then to hold they have a faith which cannot save them for better never a whit at all then never the better Fiftly whereas you say that this inclination to holy actions is not equally alike in all in whom the habits themselves are that may be so too yet Sampson and David are no such sufficient instances of it but that more sufficient might have been given for as there are many worthy things recorded which both these did by the power of faith Heb. 11. so he of whom you say he exceeded in acts of piety was in some things not to say as impious yet impious as well as the other besides to make comparisons between two such worthies as doing the one more good the other lesse both which by faith did no lesse the subdue and in their times fully deliver Israel from the Philistines for which the spirit is pleased to record and recommend them both as examples to all ages and rank them among others of whom the world was not worthy in one line Heb. 11.32 caeteris paribus unproved too such comparison if any be so is beyond all comparison odious and subject to many exceptions but be it all just as you have said it yet as little yields it to the support of your infant faith and childish baptism as if you had said nothing at all Sixthly whereas you say that instruction of the understanding in matter of faith in some sort must go before any act of faith can be discovered And seventhly and lastly that no judgement of science can be passed i. e. true demonstration made of this habit of faith till the acts themselves be seen and examined and that a posteriore onely the discovery of habits is made and then from all these preparative premises draw up your conclusive answer in three heads answering thus in the first place viz. That it cannot be certainly presumed what children have faith what have not and that the working of the spirit in that particular is not known to us and ore again also that the spirit is not bound nor barred and therefore there can be no conclusion made I say t is all necessarily to be held for truth yea t is a truth so preciously pertinent to our purpose against the purpose of your own pamphlet that had we been to conclude in a little compasse all that need be said toward the appearance of this position viz. that it doth not sufficiently appear by any evidence of it in their infancy that infants of believers have faith any more then other infants we could not in so few words have spoken so pithily to such a purpose which when I consider I cannot but wonder and conceive you will once wonder at your selves when your eyes are open that they whose words all these are should act against them all so absurdly as to make it the biggest business throughout their book to make it appear and that sufficiently that believers infants have faith beyond other infants Babist A charitable judgement concerning their having faith is sufficient to admit them to baptism and that is the utmost that we assert can be had of their belief not a judgement of certainty Baptist. A judgement of charity that there 's faith in persons sufficiently warrantably and certainly grounded is sufficient to baptize upon and such is that judgement on which we baptize who baptize none but such as the word requires us to believe to be believers i e. such as personally profess so to be and of such as those though we have but a judgement of charity concerning their faith yet have we from precept and president out of the word a judgement of certainty concerning their right to baptism but a judgement of charity taken up on meer fancy and conceit without warrant from or rather against both Scripture and reason warrants no man to dispense baptism upon it as from God for if it do I may as well baptize the great Turk as a little infant and no better is your judgement of charity concerning faith in little infants upon which you attempt to baptize them Babist Our charity is better grounded then so yea far better than yours as certain as it is and is as due
Ministry But I pray God they may never meddle more with the Ministry that are incouraged to enter on it with respect to maintenance such ever more maimed then maintained the Gospel such which loved the gold of the altar dearer then the altar and Corban more then conscience and minded the wages more then the work as exceptis excepiendis some few onely excepted the national Ministry ever did since donations of dignities from Temporal Princes fell upon them were ever more murderers then Ministers of the Gospel nil tam sanctum the Heathen said but gold would expugne it You would be rich and so fall into temptation and a snare and into many foolish and hurtful lusts that drown men in destruction and perdition your love of money was the mother of all mischief which while you coveted after you were seduced from the faith yea in these daies wherein you vow and protest for the faith as if you would fain follow on to find it fully as t was once delivered to the Saints you l neither find it further nor follow it faster then it keeps pace with your outward enjoyments so that we may say truely Quantum quisque sua nummorum servat in arcâ tantum habet et fidei so much money as you can get by it so much faith religion reformation you l be for and no more yea like Lawyers that look more at the greatnesse of the fee then the goodnesse of the cause nay being feed better leave their old Clients and turn to the other side so do many of you in these daies wherein many run to and fro that knowledge may be increased turn to and fro that livings may still be established on you from masse to liturgy and back again and back again and then to the directory from all which while you stood in the practise of them there was no moving you by Scripture nor reason but qui pecunia non movetur hunc dignum spectatu arbitramur But you plead that the mouth of the Ox must not be muzzled that treadeth out the Corn that t is the will of God that such as have sown in the Church spiritual things should reap their carnal things that such as preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel I answer t is most true there is a power and liberty allowed â—or such as serve the Church to eat and to drink and to subsist in case they cannot subsist otherwise at the charges of the Church when she sets them a part for her service 1 Cor. 9. but it is most commendable and thankworthy in the Ministry to serve the Church and preach the Gospel freely and as far as t is possible not to be burdensome in this kind at all as namely in case they have any estates of their own or can improve themselves in any such outward employment labor or lawful calling wherby to obtain a competent livelyhood and lay out themselves and the gifts that Christ hath freely given them in the service of Christ freely too as men may do many times if they be not idle and loving their own ease more then to ease the church of Christ of unnecâ—ssary pressures in their purses And thus the Apostle Paul and the first Ministers of the Gospel did and though they pleaded a power to live upon them in case they could not live without them that the Church might know it to be their duty freely to minister to their Ministers necessities when they saw them willing freely to expose themselves to necessiâ—ies for the truths sake rather then seek superfluities to themselves yet they did not use that power they had much lesse abuse it too make a trade of it but did rather suffer all things that they might make the Gospel as little chargeable as might me 1 Cor. 9.12.18 yea they received wages sometimes when they went out to warfare i. e. to preach the Gospel up and down so as was utterly inconsistent with the totall maintaining of themselves which while they abode more settledly at one place they did attend to with their own hands for its evident that to this end they might not hinder the Gospell from taking place in mens hearts by seeming too much to make a trade of it they laboured working with their own hands as oft as they could conveniently and their own hands ministred to their own necessities and they had some honest outward occupation as also Christ himself had and followed too till he was wholly taken up in travel to preach the truth therefore Mark. 6.3 is not this the Carpenter wherein they wrought at all times saving when they were actually imployed in some service of preaching to the world writing disputing visiting c. as is plain to him that consults these Scriptures in the last of which least any should think they did more then Ministers now need to do Paul saies plainly they did not use their power that they might be an ensample to others to follow them so Act. 20.35 and therefore howbeit he bids Timothy that was a Minister of the Gospel not entangle himself in the affairs of this life for t is not good indeed that Ministers mind the world so much as to cumber themselves with over much business in it that they may be more free then other men to please Christ who calls them in a more special sense then all Christians to be his souldiers yet I believe he is far from prohibiting him in that speech from following any civil calling at all for in the very verse before 2 Tim. 2.3.4 he bids him endure hardnesse as a good Souldier of Iesus Christ yea Ministers of all men should be patient of all things for the Gospel sake that they hinder it not by their delicacy viz. of hard work sometimes and hard fare too if occasion be and hunger and thirst and cold and nakednesse and extremities and necessities and distresses rather then lie too heavy upon the flock of Christ which is a litâ—le flock and those few mostly poor folks too in this world though rich in faith that may have more mind then ability to Minister to their Ministers and many of them more need to be ministred to by their Ministers if at any time they have abundance then to have their houshold-stuff strein'd and sold as poor folks kettles pots pans and platters are by the Priests and their publican tith-gatherers to pay them You tell us that the first Ministers were gifted from God to preach the Gospel ex tempore and therefore well might they work and yet easily preach the Gospel too but the Ministers now must attain to it by much study and hard pains and therefore had need to be sequestred wholly from all earthly imployments that they may give themselves wholly to that work of preaching and to have such sufficiency of means allowed them as may free them from all thoughts of other things and furnish them to buy abundance of books without which tooles you say in