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 compellaton 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 feâ—…ned 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 war 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 â—…ustification by works and not by faith onely and the greatest controversie between them and Protestants Reply What shameful Sophistryâ—…ave â—…ave you shewn here in foisting in a foolâ—…sh 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 theirshifts 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 fin'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 crying out as before of Popery so now of Pelagianism and that he had not heard so much Heresie in so few words that the inquirer should take heed how he vented himself in publique hereafter for it became him to suspect himself least God had given him over to the Spirit of error and to another that out of the body of the Congregation replyed That that way which you the Ministers called Heresie so wershipt they God you go on still in the old tone thus that you were sorry to hear him profess himself a Papist and a Pelagian in saying he worshipt God that way and
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. 23 〈◊〉 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 effect us 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 Co venant 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—…hsheba 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 Mâ—… 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 neither 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 ens-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 every 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 spirituaâ—…ly 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 〈◊〉 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 all 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 deâ—…ilements 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 and his sons must thus swagger in their service and
t is most certain that they had been not onely spectators of Iohns Baptism but dispensers of baptism themselves also long enough before this time to have been instructed in the true subject of it for the bringing of those infants was after Iohn was beheaded but Christ by his disciples had baptized in Iudea before Iohn was in prison and whilest Iohn was yet himself baptizing in Eâ—…on yea and had made and baptized more disciples than Iohn Besides the ground of their rebuke of those that came with little children was no doubt their care and loathness to have Christ too much prest in which case they sometimes rebuked others when they throngd upon him so fast for healing that they had no leasure so much as to eat bread Secondly that they came not now under Imposition of hands in that sense the Dr treats on is most evident First by the Dr own quotations of Mr Calvins and Mr Cottons readings concerning the practise 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 dispensed 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 Congories 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 hands 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 non-age 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 but 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
3. 5. it thinketh no evil Charity believeth all things it hopeth all things especially since it cannot appear that the little children of infidels have by any actual sin bard themselves or deserved any more then others to be exempted from the General state of little children declared in Scripture Ergo to doubt that little children of infidels have the holy Ghost is a breach of Christian Charity In which though both propositions be flatly false yet I call heaven and earth to witness whether all that you bring in proof of the Minor do not prove it as much breach of Christian charity to doubt that any infants as t is to doubt that believers infants have the holy spirit one infant having no more deserved ill by actual sin then another Thus all that ever you have done hitherto is utterly undone for the Argument you began upon and the basis of your building is that believers infants for their baptism only you plead denying the baptism of other infants as well as we have the holy spirit this upon denial of any sufficiencie 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 it 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 wherupon 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 any 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 offaith 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 dothem 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
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 eredit 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 satisfaction 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 iâ—… 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 flourishes them advancing with a company of broad bragges of what Innumerâ—…e 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 câ—…mming in from all quarters toward its defence and so to a secure continuance in your crazy cause and to keep close still to the Clergy and their colours in order thereunto also highly inhauncing the price of three following forlorn-hope highway Hacksters and Hachny Arguments as not the last nor least though not the first three among the worthies that are engaged in it Whereas that poor blind Implicit-opinion'd pâ—…ople and Clergy-claw'd christen'd creatures may no longer to their utter erring from the way of Christs truth and their own peace trust in the lying words of their Prophets that profit themselves more then them by their traditionary doctrine I do here in the name of the great King Jesus who gave commission Mat. 28. 18 to make persons disciples and to teach them first and then to baptize them proclaim it aloud to the whole earth that all these are either clearly against you or all things considered nothing for you First the whole region of Scripture in every coast and quarter thereof is up in armes against you neither is there any one part or place throughout it wherein you ever find that way of infant baptism much lesse your way of infant-rantism so much as probably to have been practised or the war you wage for it promoted by so much as one piece of a precept that such a thing should be done or inch of instance that ere it was done at all yea in all places where ever baptism was dispensed you find it done onely and downrightly in that despised way wherein we do at this day i. e. of dipping persons immediately after but never before converted and discipled all they of Ierusalem and Iudaea and Galilâ—…e that were baptized by Iohn in Iordan and by Christs disciples in his presence and by his appointment confessed their sins 3. Mat. were first taught and instructed or made disciples Mat. 28. 18. Iohn 3. 22. Iohn 4. 1. 2. 3. all they who were baptized by Peter and others after his sermâ—…n at Ierusalem to the number of 3000. did first gladly receive the word Act. 2. 41. all they that were baptized by Phillip at Samaria and betwen Ierusalem and Gaza were men and women that believed the things spoken by Phillip concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Iesus Acts 8. 12. 36. 37. all they that were commanded to be baptized by Peter in the name of the Lord at Cesarea were such as were converted at the hearing of the word Act. 10. 44. 48. all that were baptized at Corinth by Paul Silas Timotheus were such as believed Act. 18. 8. all they that were baptized by Apollos or any other at Ephesus before Paul came thither which were about 12. were every one of them adult believers Act. 19. 1. 2. c. All that ever we find Aâ—…anias baptized at Damascus though there were other disciples there besides himself with whom Paul walkt a while was Paul that was baptized calling on the name of the Lord. All they of the Church of Rome to every one of whom Paul writes his Epistle Rom 1. 6. that were baptized into Jesus Christ and buried with him by baptism into his death were such as had formerly lived in sin and actually obeyed it in the lusts thereof and yielded themselves up as servants to it and had now visibly obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered unto them Rom. 6. 3. 4. 12. 16. 17. 19. 21. which things I take him to be little better then an infant in understanding that judges they were performed by any infants All they at Galatia who were baptized into Christ were such as had received and imbraced the Gospel and had put on the Lord Iesus Christ and such who through ignorance of God had done service to such as by nature were no gods but now had attained to know God by the preaching of the Gospel to them which things that are spoken to all the Churches of Galatia cannot be said of any infants Gal. 1. 9. 3. 27. 4. 8. 9. 13. verses among all which this is most notable in that he saith As many of you as have bin baptized into Christ have put one Christ we see all along throughout the whole body of the new testament It was not the rule of Christ nor the practise of the primitive times to baptize persons till they had had first preached the Gospel to them and according to the commission converted them or made them disciples indeed so soon as ever they were thus discipled or made disciples that no infants can be so in infancy is shewed above as simply as Mr. Bazter seems to suppose believers infants are so from the very womb I agree with Mr. Baxter that their baptism was not to be delayed and forasmuch as he abundantly proves the period of time wherein persons weâ—… ever baptized in the primitive times by the will of Christ
consequently that believers children do now you prove the Antecedent viz. that the Iews children did believe because God did witnesse it by setting to his seal circumcision which if it were Gods seal to them of their eternall salvation by faith and witnesse to the world that they had faith also that seal must be firm and that testimony true concerning them all being set to all as well as some so that unlesse they depart from the faith which you say God who cannot ly witnessed they once had and that your principle of not falling from faith will in no wise give way too they could not possibly void it by unbelief and so must necessarily and universally obtain the inheritance but sith t is most clear you selves also yielding it that they do not therefore assuredly one of these must be true viz. either that circumcision was not to infants in their cradels Gods seal of their eternal salvation as you say it was or else that that seal of God is not firm as you attest it is or else that God did not witnesse by it that those to whom it was set had faith as you say he did or else that Gods witnesse and testimony was not true which were blasphemy to think or else that they fell from that faith which at first they had in infancy and at the time of their circumcision and that self confutes you in another case among all which grant which you will to be true you must contradict and convict your selves of falshood And lastly if the end of Gods setting baptism to persons be no other then the very same with that of making his promises and sending his son meerly to let them know how he would have received them how sure his mercies should have been unto them but they would not not to speak of your telling truth here unawares viz. that mans own will rejecting God first and not Gods own will first rejecting them without respect to their fore-seen rejection of him in time is the true cause of their condemnation then as God makes his promises to all and sends his son in his love a Saviour to all so baptism should be dispensed to all without exception belonging as well as Christ himself tell they appear finally to reject him to every one as well as any one in the world but that being denied by both you and us doth shew that the end of baptizing a person is somewhat more viz. not to beget him to the faith before he doth but to improve him in it when he doth believe To conclude this whole train of stuff or long tail of that short shower of shot that went before it is not of so much force as a scottish mist nor scarce enough to wet a naked man to the skin therefore bear with my folly in sheelding my self so much against it i. e. in saying so much in answer to it for a wise man would have said no more to it but mumm Review The third argument is this Those that have the holy spirit that have faith the Anabaptists will not deny but are the subjects of baptism but children have so as their justification declares without which there is no salvation Hence it is that the adversaries are put to their shift s 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 our 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
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 brinâ—…ing 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 Hâ—…op 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 teaching 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. noâ—… 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 to many exceptions caeteris paribus being to be proved before it can hold if the objector had considerd that among chil dren born of the same Christian parents under the same education one gives a better specimen not only in acts of piety and religion but knowledge he would not have concluded to the denyal of the habit of faith in one more then of the faculty of understanding in the other We must necessarily hold 1. The habit of faith must be before it can work 2. That the Spirit of God infuses this habit 3. That he is not bound to work it in the children of Christian parents nor barred from working it in any of the children of infidels 4. Whersoever this habit is it inclines to holy actions when there is opportunity and the season for bringing them forth 5. This inclination is not equally alike in all in whom the habits themselves are Sampson and David are sufficient instances David for exceeding in acts of piety and relegion 6. Instruction of the understanding in matter of faith in some sort must go before any act of faith can be discovered Lastly that no judgement of science can be passed till the acts themselves be seen and examined for a posteriore onely the discovery of habits is made These premised the answer is 1. That 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 barred there can be no conclusion made 2. That in those children where there is lesse promptnesse to acts of faith then in others we cannot argue ad negationem habitus because they work not equally Lastly by this cross interrogatory are those children of infidels with which the objector makes his comparison being called and instructed inclined to acts of faith or not If the former it presupposes they have the habit and so the working in them and those born of believing parents may be one If the later the Argument is deny'd for the children of Christians are more inclin'd Re-Review This is wit whether wilt thou I think he is wise that well knows either what you say or what to say to what you say so reasonless are severall pieces of the return that is here rendred to reasons objection I speak not of a few faults which in the first part of it escaped the presse and made it nonsence for those you corrected in the copy you sent to me so that I might do no less then do you right so far as to transprint it as I have done according to your own emendation Nec tibi Typographi crimina dem vitio But of the faults which escaped the pen or rather the pates of those that composed this rambling responsion the major part of which whether it past from you willingly and ingenuously or rashly and unadvisedly rather I know not is a most flat unsaying of most of that you have said before and much of what you say again in the next page after and an acknowledgement of the clear contrary to that which you have hitherto tugged for and which you persue the proof of well-nigh throughout your whole Pamphlet an absolute overturning of the basis on which your book builds infants baptism which is this assertion viz. That it sufficiently appears that these little infants in particular have faith meaning infants of believers in contradistinction to those of Turks and Pagans whom as concerning their original condition and their birth-right to salvation you rather rank with the Devils then with the children of Christians I say a plain
gift to them in any other the spirit works it but not without the use of means not per saltum and in 〈◊〉 ocul i. e. so suddenly as you fancy but by the discharge of that office he bears from the father to that end and purpose towards the whole world i. e. moving striving perswading inwardly whilest the word doth without inlightning convincing a man of sin in himself of righteousness to be had and of a judgement to come wherein we shall be saved or damned according as we believe or believe not accept or neglect so great salvation upon which motions and convictions which are stricter and stronger in some then in other foure some yield and believe and obey the Gospel and some for all this rebel and obey not so that t is true the spirit thus effects the business within us yet not so as that he is said wholly to do it without us he is the supreme efficient the operative cause of it but we are to be concurrent cum causa operante we have a part to do as well as he when he hath done his part towards us i. e. to believe which if we do not he will not force us he will go no further nor shall he be blamed but we and we not onely blamed but damnd for not doing it accordingly but if we do believe and turn at his reproof then indeed there is a promise of an infusion or rather effusion of the spirit in other i. e. those more special and peculiar offices of a witnesse to our spirits that we are Gods children a seal a comforter a reveâ—…ler of the things freely given us of God a supporter under sufferings c. all which it performes towards the Saints and in respect of which onely its called the holy spirit of promise Eph. 1. 13. in this manner the spirit of God in order to that sweet infusion of it self into us may be said if you will call it infusion for which a fitter word may be found to infuse i. e. to work faith other infusion of faith into men much lesse into infants or such a downright infusion as I suppose you dream on the Scripture makes no mention of at all Thirdly in that you say he is not bound to work it in all the children of Christian parent nor barred from working it in any of the children of infidels this indeed you must necessarily hold as you say for t is undeniable truth but in holding it you must wholly let go â—…ll you held before concerning believers infants appearing to have faith and that in contradistinction to the infants of unbelievers for first you use to say as p. 14. out of Act. 2. that the promise of it is to believers and their seed i. e. as believers seed and so consequently to all and onely their seed not the seed of unbelievers for quod convenit qua ipsum convenit omni soli semper belongs alwayes to all of one sort and not any man of another and thereby you use to bind the spirit unlesse he will bee unfaithfull to work faith as without which you think he cannot give them salvation in all the seed of believers for a promise that is made to such or such a seed quâ—… siâ—… must needs be sure as the Scripture saith Romans 4. 16. and made good or else God that cannot lie breaketh his word to 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 ingenuously 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 infancy you confesse you cannot to presume what children have the habit of faith and what have not Fourthly whereas you say wheresoever the habit of faith is it inclines to holy actions when there â—…s 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
4. ad 11. 2 Cor. 11. 23. ad 28. and if mighty meanes were such a mighty means to make able Ministers of Christ as is pretended by you Clergymen that tell the State they may as well set Carpenters to build without tools as send forth Ministars without liberal maintenance I wonder there are no better Ministers at Rome where they are maintained more like Monarchs then Ministers of Christ but t is a true proverb that their golden cups made them become such wooden Priests Cum ecclesia peperit divitias filia devoravit matrem you tell the Magistrates that they l discourage persons from medling therwith if they allow not large maintenance to the 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 for 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 apart 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 unnecessary 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 necessities for the truths sake rather then seek supersluities 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 ost 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 sollowed 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 little 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