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
ours therefore I shall not trouble my self with it but the first of them which you say is so directly against us t is because you are blind if you do not perceive it to be an express downright declaration of a general justification of all from Adams sin as to life i. e. a resurrection from that bodily death which that sin brought upon all mankind and from which as there is now a universal return of every individual by Christ so there had never bin any returning for any one man in the world but by Christ to all eternity world without end 1 Cor. 15.21.22 Yea as universally as that judgement or condemnation to that first death came by Adam upon all men so that it spreads its black wings upon them all and brings them all down to the dust from whence they came so universally is justification unto life i. e the benefit and resurrection from that death from which else no one man should ever have risen come by Christ upon all men really and truly and not onely so but a capacity also and possibility of eternal happinesse and well being after that resurrection and all this whether persons believe it yea or no yea and a promise and certainty of it in case of belief in this Christ otherwise indeed a losse of the Resurrections becoming a mercy and benefit to them and a lyablenesse even after that escape of the first death that came by the first Adam to a sorer even that second death that lake of fire which by the second Adam by whom comes eternal blessednesse on believers comes upon all unbelievers and that for ever So that if there be no salvation to infants without justification yet ther 's justification of infants without faith or baptism either And whereas you argue from the cart to the horse from the justification and salvation of infants to their faith I argue from their non capacity to believe to their justification and salvation without it no salvation or justification without faith say you but infants are justified and saved therefore they believe if no justification and salvation without faith say I infants who cannot believe can neither be justified nor saved but infants so farre as they need justification for they have no sins of their own are justified and saved also for the kingdome of heaven belongs to them therefore there is justification and salvation for infants without faith To conclude therefore this opinion of you adversaries to the truth which allows no salvation to infants without faith puts you miserably to your shifts viz. either to find out a new way of coming by faith which Paul saies comes onely by hearing or else to damn innumerable dying infants who whilest they lived were uncapable to hear the word preached and so to believe or else as you do p. 18. to dream out a new kind of hearing whereby infants come by their faith viz. an inward wonderful miraculous hearing of some voice of the spirit within such a sigment of your own brains as the Scripture is wholly silent in and no true Church of God nor rational man but your selves who dream dreams and divine â—alse divinations and things of nought deceits of your own heart and tell them to the deceiving of others did ever dream of and whosoever shall consider the impertinencies of your proofs in a cause of so great consequence shall have just cause to suspect all your other doctrines and to take heed how they take any thing any more upon trust as the whole world hath done now of old from these new masters the Clergy who instead of being ministers in truth or servi servorum dei have bin domini dominorum Lords over the heritage and over the faith of all civil powers and people teaching them instead of the true doctrine of the old ministers the traditions and commandements of men And so I have done both with the head of this third argument and with that long tail also that trails after there remains no more of it to be meddled with but a certain slender sting that sticks to this tail put forth against us with more length then strength in prosecution of the argument which I shall cut out into many pieces and after set upon each section severally and then I hope your great hope of help from these three unworthies will prove a forlorn hope indeed Review But to prosecute this Argument for the full satisfaction of the simple but honest Reader since there is no way to come to salvation but by justification and no justificatnon but by faith why should it be doubted by any but little infants which are ordained to salvation are also by faith made subjects of justification those soules which please God so well as they are to see him presently after their separation from the body why should they not be capable of faith without which the Apostle saith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 Re-Review The Reader had need be honest for I dare say he will be simple enough that receives full satisfaction your way by your present prosecutions of it because there 's no way for salvation and justification for men that are actual sinners and capable to believe and to whom justification and remission is preached to the end that they might believe it to their comfort is there therefore no other way wherby God willing and ordaining to save little infants from eternal wrath can possibly or doth certainly save them that can neither sin or be preacht to nor believe but that very self same way of believing is he tied to that means to save infants by as we are tied to it in order to the saving of our selves viz. the way of faith if so why not to repentance and self denial also for both these are the way to us Act. 2.38.40 Mat. 16.24 and would it not shift a man out of his seven sences to hear such doctrine that infants as ever they will be saved dying infants must even in their infancy repent is it not manifold more suitable to reason and sense of Scripture that as infants so far as they are guilty become guilty unwittingly to themselves by the presentment and imputation of the first Adams sin without personal disobedience in themselves so also should be justified from that imputed sin by the presentment of the satisfaction and imputation of the righteousness of the second Adam as unwittingly to and without personal obedience in themselves and because without faith t is impossible to please God for such as have actually incurred his wrath such as come to him by prayer for these indeed must believe that is God and is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him ther fore is it impossible for infants also who yet actually disspensed him nor yet are capable to come to him by belief or prayer Is that Scripture think you intended to infants for shame scope the Scripture a little better Review Is it not the
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 that you appealed to me praying me to declare my mind concerning these things whether they were Heresie or no which you charged the inquirer with Reply But not a word all this while was uttered either to prove the things to be as you call them or towards the satisfaction of the Auditory or Inquirer himself in the question Sirs is not this the clutter you commonly keep is not this the Clergies constant custome of confuting and their wonted way of with-holding men from all audience of what ever comes cross to your conceits when on the sudden you have not what to say against it viz. to break out into hydeous out-cries of Heresie Schism a Spirit of Error an Anabaptist an Arminian an Antinomian a Papist a Iesuit Popery Pelagianism Socianism Arminianism and such like when happily not five of fifty among you ever read Pelagius Faustus Socinus or Arminius so as to know what they hold and why any more then by tradition one from another mistake me not for I am now neither justifying nor condemning these men with whom they being dead I have no great matter to do nor you neither but that you love to find your selves more business then you need for my part my business lieth mainly in the Word which is the Rule and being only attended to may for ought I know sooner set us to rights then either Austin or Pelagius the Remonstrants or Arminius for Regula est mensura sui et obliqui but I here take notice of and take occasion to condemn the Popish practise of most Priests in Damâ—ing down for heresie in gross what they neither disprove not prove to be Heresie when called to 't by their own calling it so before the people Report You relate upon your praying me to declare my mind concerning those things whither they were Heresie or no which you the Ministers charged the inquirer with that I said I knew that what ere he said yet he did not hold those things and that your reply was that the inquirer was a stranger and thâ—rfore you wondered his mind should be so well known to me that whatever his opinion was the question being whether his saying that one may be justified without faith and that children are not born in originall sin were heresie or no you desired me to answer positively to that but received no Answer Reply As to this Politick piece of your report wherein I perceive how fallaciously you represent me as rendering the inquirer as to my knowledge speaking contrary to his own mind I have many things to say and it matters not much which I be-begin with first First me thinks I see as you have set things down a certain Sophism of Amphiboly ly lurking iustar anguis in herbâ in these words Those things as you express them the second time in this parcel by reason of which if they be not understood by the Reader in a right sence I am set forth by you as guilty of a double crime from censure of which I see a call to clear my self and my friend whom you strive to stain together with in that case that truth may suffer dammage by us in nothing for if by those things be meant in that second place those two opinions of Iustification of infants without faith and their not having original sin which were indeed the things that he said then I am falsly reported not to say fowly belied by you in that passage wherein you relate me saying thus viz. that I knew that whatsoever the inquirer had said yeâ— he did not hold those things and am made also to speak falsly against my conscience as my conscience tells me not that I did in all that day for verily as great a stranger as that inquirer was to your selves and the major part then present yet he was not such a stranger saving all your wonder to my self but that his mind was so well known to me in that that I knew he held those things viz. that infants have all the justification they have need of without faith and have no originall sin for I hold them my self in what sence since you ask me you shall see by and by and if I should have said thus viz. that I knew what e're he said yeâ— he did not hold those things I should have been both a bâ—lyar of that my friend and also as very a lyar as your selves Sirs would herein fain make me seem to be but I was both well a ware what he held and confident that he did not say those things and not hold them But if by those things in that place be understood not those two opinions but those things which the Minister chargâ—d the Inquirer with viz. Heresie Popery the tenet of justification of Infants by works which were those things the Ministers so cried out upon him for in which sence it is in my speech to be understood then t is no other then the plain truth which I spake and to give you all the advantage that is possible to have by them I here say it again that I knew that whatsoever was then said by that our brother yet he held not those things i. e. that Heresie and Popery you then falsly accused him of And now sith you complain that you received no answer when you desired me to answer positively to that question whether Infants are justified without faith and have any originall sin yea or no and whether the things as we hold them in contradistinction to your selves be heresie yea or no as you call them I must complain of your selves as the sole persons then in fault that you received not as full an answer as you desired for I appeal not only to the whole people but to the same page of your own pâ—pers also wherein in the very next line but one or two below this in which you charge me with the fault of giving you no answer your own selves are witnesses to me that I offered to answer you to all exceptions you had against us in an Entire Exercise which if you had heard and not lik't you should have had libertie enough to have replied to as long as you pleased but your selves only opposed it with all your might but to wave any further recrimination as concerning that at present and that you may have no occasion in future to feigâ—
as if we feared to answer you so positively whether those things viz. Infants Iustification without faith and their freedome from that which not so much in Scripture language as by an Epithite of mens own coining is called originall sin be heresie or no I answer no as to the first though Iustification of Infants by works is the Heresie of a Romish Clergy whether by works we mean the work of faith Ioh. 6.29 or any other yet Iustification of Infants without that work of faith or any other work either of their parents or their own is the truth as it is in Iesus and such sound Doctrine as notwithstanding your outcries of gross popery and I know not what upon it you will never with right reason refute while you breath as for the other of those things viz. infants not having originall sin two questions may be askt concerning this viz. whether they have it secondly whether they ever had it if you ask whether they ever had any I answer that as to hold dying infants to be damned unless they believe which is your doctrine is as to the poor little ones at least that cannot believe somewhat too damnable a Heresie so to say that infants never had the sin of Adam so much as imputed to them how farr forth it may possibly be to a person in whom yet is no inherent corruption is seen in Christ who had the imputation of sin to him though none in him is for ought I have ever found yet to the contrarie nor a truth but if your quere be whether infants have any guilt as from Adams sin abiding on them after birth I reply that as in order of nature Infants must stand guilty by the first Adams sin before they can be said to be justified by the righteousness of the second so in order of time I believe them universally to be no sooner guilty as from Adam then clear'd by Christ which Tenet he that tryes it will find it I perswade my self so farre from meriting to be cried out on for Heresie as it is at random by the Clergy that it rather comes as nigh to truth as 4 pence to a groat but such a Bug-bear makes the Priest of what ere suits not with his wonted imagination that almost all is damnable that differs from him and what ere he meets out of the Kings high-way or sees Sectarizing from the common Rode of his own Cloudy conception and Clericall Cassicall Convocationall Canonicall constitution he draws at it presently as a thief that comes to Rob him commits it to prison and condemns it all to be hang'd for Heresie before he hears it Report You relate that after that none did propound any more questions Reply As if all men had been so astonished at your understanding and answers as they were at Christs that none durst open their mouthes before you any more that day yet some would with the help of Christ have ventured to have told the truth in your presence but to your praise be it spoken as you speak below of your selves you would not let them Report So say you the Congregation was again dismist Reply An argument of your itching after an end and being well nigh betwatled to be gone if the people had not been more forward to quere after truth then the Priest was willing to Answer for all his liberty granted in the seventh Article and his pretended forwardness to resolve page 27. where disswading men from going to seducers you advise them as from God to ask the Priest and if others had not been more free to both then the Preachers were either to Preach or hear As for what follows 't is not so much a model of mis-reports and mis-representations as thus farre of your Account is for the most part as of true reports and representations of some few more of the Ministers mis-apprehensions mis-affections and mis-actions under a colour of acting for the truth Report You say that your Respondent hindred their departure by making an unseasonable motion viz. that they would hear him preach Reply Emphatically even to a scoff that they would hear him preach alià s Sirs give Account in an intire discourse and this too after his offer to hear any of you first if you would but you would not of what he held and why which was the very business he profest to come thither for more then to dispute aliâs to shew upon what grounds he invaded the practise of the Church of England Scotland Rome c. in her infant sprinkling which say you in words in the fifth Article he ought to have done but here in your deeds and denial of it that he ought not Do you think that all save such as have eyes and see not discern not your dawbing your double-dealing and your Egypt-like requiring men to make brick allowing no straw delaâ—ing that 't is our Duty to shew our grounds yet prohibiting our discharge of it pressing people to prove all things yet not abiding they should hear all thâ—ngs tesâ—ing your Respondent that in reason he should have been opponent yet yielding him no opportunity on that day to urge so much as one argument though he offere'd it much less yielding to be responsible to him on the next magnifying preaching as much as any yet withstanding it more then all and making it an unseasonable motion almost at any time save when time comes by course to make mention of it as if any time were unseasonable for that which is strictly to be attended at all times by Christs Ministers both in season and out of season also 2 Tim. 4.1 2. Report This required some time to debate Reply As well it might being a matter of weighty concernment on both hands viz. of consequence too advantagious to truth as well as dangerous to your falshoods besides the more time was taken up in debating against it so much the less time if it fortuned to be cast that way that it must be done would be left to do it in Report The Ministers opposing it Reply And lying in the manger having no mind to hear themselves nor yet that those should who had a mind to it having the key of knowledge the keys and power of that place yet neither abiding there nor abiding that others should abide there to so precious a purpose which is so much to their commendation that men must needs see them to be not like Christs Ministers for if they had they would have rejoiced in Christs being preached whether in pretence or in truth of envy or good will well knowing all should have tended to the furtherance of the Gospel Phil. 1.15 16 17 18 Ob. And if they object that preaching of error will hinder it Ans. I say that publishing whether of error or truth gives that advantage of trying all things which as it is that duty men cannot do unless they hear all so that which they might not do by any means in ages above when the
not this absurdity ensue which I dare say you will evade if you can if the holiness be such as you say viz. that the unbelieving husbands and wives must be baptized and inchurched also upon their yoke-fellowes faith being sanctified thereby as well as the Inâ—ants therefore is it not rather think you a Civil and Matrimonial then an Ecclesiastical faederall sanctity Your usual evasion is this Babist The Parents are sanctified by the faith one of the other not so as to be in covenant themselves by their sanctification nor yet so as to be baptized thereupon but they are sanctified as a holy root so as to bring forth a holy issue that hath by vertue of its holiness a right to the Church Covenant and Baptism Baptist. Then it seems the unbeliever is with you a holy root as well as the other and gives holiness to the child and makes it holy as well as the other parent yea so holy that by that concurrence the child is in covenant and to be baptized First do you not say somtimes that the child hath its holiness from the believing party onely as if there were no influence passing from the unbeliever towards its holiness why then do you say sometimes again that from a holiness which is in both they are co-contributers of holiness to the Infant which of the two is most undoubtedly true for the holiness what ever t is is such and such it could not be if it were any but Matrimonial as is in and equally flowes from the unbelieving parent as much as the believing to the infant Secondly if the Root be holy are not the branches so and if the branches be holy is not the root at least as if not more so in the same sence with the holiness of the same kind which it conveyeth to the branches and if so then must not this unbelieving parent being a Root have the same kind of holiness the child hath is he not as holy as the child is and so as capable of being baptized and in covenant thereby sith you all agree that Nil dat quod in se non haâ—â—â— and Quodcunque efficit tale id est propriè est magis tale whatever is a proper efficient to make another so or so must be more so it self so that if the unbelivnig parent be as holy with your very covenant holiness it self as his child must he not as well by vertue thereof be admitted to the same priviledges having though no more faith then his child yet somewhat else viz. That holiness that with you intitles to baptism yea it is more eminently in him than the other either therefore deny those old received Axiomes and that I think you need not do for they are truths or else deny that which is so commonly asserted by you viz. that the unbelieving parents are sanctified so as to be holy Roots to their children by the faith of their believing yoke-fellows as well as the believing yoke-fellows are by their own and this you will be very loath to do for you will hardly coin such a handsome shift as that is in hast again if you let it go or else deny that the unbelieving husband and wife is sanctified or holy at all but that you cannot do for the text saith they are hallowed as well and in the same sense as their children and believing companions are in being married to them what sense soever that is or else grant us they are holy with the holiness we stand for as that onely which is meant in this place viz. Legitimacy freedome from the least tincture of uncleanness and baseness in their cohabitations generations and issue and this I believe you must do when all is done but then you lose such a supporter of your practise that let go one more viz. Act. 2.38.39 which must be handled also hereafter and Iachin and Boaz the two prime pillars that stand by the entry into your Temple i. e. Infants sprinkling which is your entring ordinance will be removed a matter of no small tendency to its ruin or else le ts see in you rejoinder for I put these things upon you by way of quaere expecting to see if by silence you give not the cause how well you will distinguish your selves out of the briars which your opinion upon the place brings you into and how well you will wind your selves out of those many absurdities which you are led aside into from the way of truth by the extravagancies and cunning concavities of your crooked logick lane Thirdly let it be considered that the holiness here predicated of the unbelieving parent and the children is not such as is the result of the faith and faederal holiness of the believing parent as is so frequently asserted among you but of the marriage Covenant which being holy by institution and honourable among all and undefiled gives the denomination of civil sanctity to the unbelieving couple and their seed as to a couple of believers and their seed as also the denomination of honourable in an unbelieving magistrate and master arises not from any praise worthy qualification in their persons much less in the persons of the Correllatives as you say the holinesse of the unbeliever doth from the faith of the believer but from Divine ordination which constitutes them as holy in their places this will be evident First if you consider the manner of speech here used by the Apostle who saies not the unbeliever is sanctified in the believing wife and believing husband but in the wife and in the husband i. e. in her being his wife and his being her husband and howbeit its true which is commonly return'd to this viz. that 't is the believing wife of the unbelieving husband and the believing husband of the unbelieving wife when the marriage is between believers and unbelievers yet the believing party is not here preferred before the unbelieving parent as to the conferring of this holinesse upon the issue but they are said to be both and that by your selves who confesse they jointly make one holy root equall in this influence and are sanctified not one by the faith of the other as you suppose the unbeliever to be by the faith of the believer but both by the ordinance of God viz. their marriage each of other so that they both alike do sanctifie the issue Secondly if you consider the true genuine proper direct tendency and weight of this Relative particle else which if you allow it a right reference relates not to the faith or believing of either but to their being true man and wife to the lawful wedlock of them both for that which is the ground of your error about this place is the forcing of this particle else the wrong way for Else i. e. say you if one of the parents be not a believer then the children are unclean wheras the sense of it runs thus vix else i. e. if you be not holy in your copulations
cut off from standing as till Chirist they did now any longer upon their own Root Abraham because of unbelief I say then that no infant in infancy of what believing parent soever is either Abrahams spiritual seed or dying in infancy is saved upon any such account as a believers seed or Abrahams seed nor whilst living an infant onely may be signed by baptism as an heir apparent of salvation for if Abraham stand not a spiritual father to his own meer fleshly seed he stands not so sure to the meer fleshly seed of any believing Gentile for that were to priviledge every ordinary believer and his natural seed above either himself or his own Nor doth this hinder or deny the salvation of the dying infants of believers or dispose them ere the sooner muchless necessarily to damnation to say they are not Abrahams spirituall seed quâ believers infants nor heirs to salvation upon any such account as that for though neither upon that nor any other account at all they may warrantably be baptized yet it s more then possible or probable either because infallible that there 's other Scripture account enough upon which when we see them die in infancy we may assert them undoubtedly not to be damned for as it is most sure and true that all that are apparently if really Abrahams spiritual seed by faith must so living so dying be saved in token and farther evidence of which to themselves more then others they are by the good wil of Christ to be baptized yet is it neither true nor necessary that all that are saved must be Abrahams spiritual seed by faith but most certain that some shall be saved that never were Abrahams seed in any sense at all witnesse not onely the faithful fore-fathers of Abraham for he was their seed and not they his but also all dying infants of what parents soever both before Abrahams time and since of whom to salvation notwithstanding those are the onely termes on which it belongs to adult ones to whom it s preacht Mark 16.15 16. these being truly capable of neither 't is not required that they should either repent believe or be baptized I know this Iustification of dying infants without faith is uncouth and little less for all it holds forth so much salvation then damnable doctrine among you Divines that plead the contrary but I shall by the help of God make it good to the faces of you all when I come to consider the baldness of your consequence in this point as you give me good occasion to do in some places where me thinks you meddle with it somewhat clumsily as it were in mittins as if because there 's no other way revealed for the salvation of such by Christ to whom the gospel is preached who are capable to hear and do what 's required for such onely the word universally speaks of when it speaks of salvation in that way but the way of belief and actuall obedience onely therefore there 's no other way for the salvation of dying infants by Christ who can possibly neither believe in him nor obey him which as it is such shameful stuff that I cannot bear it with out inward blushing at your blindness so whether you have not as much cause to be ashamed on 't within your selves is well worth your inmost inquiry I say therefore again so far is this from excluding dying infants of believers from entrance into the kingdome of heaven to say they are neither Abrahams spiritual seed by faith nor heirs thereof upon that ground onely of being so that it rather concludes and supposes there 's some other ground that is common with them to the innocent infants of even infidels and all the world upon which these whom though they are hundreds to one yet your selves in your fierce wrath and merciless cruelty devote universally to damnation may dying in infancy universally be saved also which ground if you will yet know it is the righteousness of Christ the free imputation of which universally from the father saves not onely all that believe from both that and their actuall transgressions too but even the whole world whether they believe it or no from the the imputation of Adams transgression so that none at all ever perish upon that account in which respect he is said to be the Saviour of all men but especially of them that believe much more doth it and that without faith save all dying infants who as they believe not so have not as yet by any actual sin bard themselves or deserved exemption or become liable at all to the second death i. e. the damnation of hell which befalls not any but upon personal neglect of the light and grace of life brought in by the second Adam as the first death onely overtakes mankind for onely that sin of the first Adam Babist If all dying infants are saved then not few but many if not the maior part must be saved contrary to that of Christ Mat. 7.13.14 Luke 13.23.24 where he saith few there are that are saved Baptist. There are indeed but few inter adultos among persons that come to years of whom alone and not of Infants at all Christ there speaks and even every where else where he speaks to us of the way of life and this is plain by the reason he there gives why so few are saved which is the straitness of the gate and narrowness of the way that leads to life viz. of self-denial and suffering for Christ which men mostly being very loath to walk in it comes to pass that few of them come to life by it but infants being altogether uncapable to walk in it are are altogether dis-ingaged from walking in it till they come to capacity so to do and yet are not damn'd for not walking in it when we come to years of understanding and to apprehend the good will of God to us in providing a Saviour for us his good will concerning us in order to salvation by him is that we believe in him and obey him and apply his righteousness unto our selves Gal. 3.27 but whilst we are yet in such minority as neither to know what God hath done for us nor to be capable of putting on the Lord Iesus our selves he himself is pleased to impute his righteousness to salvation to us so dying even as we our selves whilst our infants are new born do not onely provide but also put on what clothes we have provided in our pitty towards them for the covering of their nakedness but when they come to years of such discretion as to discern and be sensible of their own shame and capable to dress themselves with their own hands we expect when in our love we have once provided raiment for them they should put it on themselves or go without it thus candid are we towards the dying infants of all sorts nevertheless though we tell you of our charity towards them and of your own cruelty in sending all
to believe witness not my self only who am of little credit with you but Mr. Cotton also none of the least of your Champions that appear for infant baptism whose very words p. 48.49 of his Way of the Churches in New England these are viz. It is not the seed of faith nor faith it self that knitteth a man to this or that visible Church but an holy profession of the faith and professed subjection to the Gospell of Christ in their communion Be ashamed therefore of such a monstrous position that persons not appearing to believe in Christ can conclude no more against their faith in Christ then against their reasonable souls Determination The seed of faith sown after discovers it self when the season comes Detection Yet so audacious are you that whilest it is but in the seed at most by your own confession as in infancy to attempt a discovery of it to all the world to be in these infants viz. of believers and not in those viz. of infidels before the season Determination The testimony of Scripture concerning their faith and the proofs taken from thence are equivalent to the best testimony and profession of any man concerning his own faith Detection O Sapientia as if the Scripture did as punctually personally and particularly testify concerning this and that individual infant which you sprinkle that it doth believe and those infants that you deny to sprinkle that they do not believe as men at years do to us by their words and works that they do or do not believe Secondly there is but one testimony of Scripture alledged by your selves where you say it s asserted of infants that they do believe viz. Mat. 18.6 and that as I have shewed First speaks not of little ones in your sense but of little ones in Christs sense viz. believes indeed and his disciples whom he stiles little ones also a little above Matth. 10.42 a place where we read not that any infant was among them Secondly that Scripture testifies of those of whomsoever it speaks in actu secundo that they do believe and so to do your selves yield is impossible for infants therefore it cannot be meant of them Thirdly if it did speak of little ones properly so called so as to say they do believe yet that they were believers and not unbelievers infants is a thing which a wise man may fumble himself 55 times over and become a fool before he once find it so to be Fourthly 't were but a Prosopopeia however Determination If it be further askt how faith is bread in them it is answered by the holy spirit whose waies are inscrutable who ties not himself to means works where he will and how quo magistro quam cito discitur quod docet saith Cyprian Detection And yet you scrue so farr into the inscrutable waies of the spirit in this matter as though he works where he will and how both to bind and bar him and to determine both where he doth and must work faith and where he doth not and must not viz. in believers infants not in infants of infidels else why do you refuse to baptize the one upon non-appearance of faith and yet plead for the baptism of the other as in whom it appears to you so clearly that by argument you say you make it more plainly appear to any one that will not deny Scripture and reason that they have faith then the profession of any one particular person that ever I baptized can make it appear of himself for thus you peremptorily conclude p 5. and then as prettily unconclude it all ore again p. 18. saying unlesse it could be certainly presumed what children have the habit of faith what have not for the working of the spirit is not known to us there can be no conclusion made why also do you say the promise is to believers and all their seed which is as much as to say God is bound upon his word and covenant unto these children not unto others and therefore must be as good as his word for I hope you all agree that God will not lie p. 14. though I confesse p 18. you unsay all this ore again and grant that he is not bound to work it in all the children of Christian parents nor bard from working it in any of the children of infidels O fine whifles Determination If it be inquired how faith can be said to be in them without their consent the answer is as well as originall sin to which they never consented and that Christ is more powerful to salvation then Adam to condemnation Detection That original sin is in infants so far as it is in them without their consent I do not deny it being a matter more imputative as I have shewed above then inhaesive and that Christ is more powerful to salvation then Adam was to condemnation is an undoubted truth which makes me believe otherwise then once I did viz. that whatsoever befel whomsoever meerly by Adams sin is as universally as well in respect of the subject made miserable thereby viz. whole mankind as of the misery befalling that subject by the coming of the Second Adam taken away for which tenet I could give more proof then you can easily disprove were it not besides the Argument I am in hand with but that faith is in any persons without the consent of those in whom it is is a lesson that I shall never consent to learn while mine eies are open I have found many Divines defining faith by the very term of an assent or consent unto the things promised preacht profered or propounded to us to believe and making assent or consent such a necessary ingredient to the very essence being or nature of faith that faith cannot be faith without it thus Mr. Baxter your fiercest fellow-fendent of infants baptism the very essence of faith saith he p. 98. lyeth in assenting that Christ is king and saviour and consenting that he be so to us Yea he denies them to have any true faith who do not thus assent and consent but of all the faiths that ever I have heard or read of and of all the kinds of believing that ever were broacht in the brains of men I never yet heard of a believing of things whether one will or no I mean a real believing and not such a feigned forced faith as that of those who must say they believe as the Church believes when happily they know not what that is nor did I ever hear of believing without assenting to the things believed since I was born till I met with this figment of yours nor ever shall again I am perswaded while the world stands from any men but such as having uttered one absurdity are resolved rather then to recant it to uphold it with an 100 worse then it self Determination It is further added that there is no other way revealed for the salvation of little infants but by justification and that by faith that way of the
presentment of the righteousness of Christ without faith is a figment of the Anabaptists without ground or reason from Scripture the Covenant of the Gospel being the righteousness of faith To which I contradictorily reply that there is another way revealed for the salvation and justification of little infants from all the guilt that lies upon them in infancy which is no other then that which comes upon them for the sin of Adam onely and from all that mischief which comes on them onely meerly and simply for that sin then that way of faith and that is the presentment of the righteousnesse of Christ to God on their behalf without faith and this way is no figment of the Anabaptist as you No-Baptists do foolishly fancy but that which hath such strong ground and reason from Scripture as you will never overthrow while you live although to men at years that have acted transgression in their own persons and are capable to act faith and other good as well as evil the Gospel is granted to be a Covenant that gives righteousnesse by Christ in no other way then that way of faith and obedience to him We usually put cloaths upon infants but men put their clothes on themselves and so must we put on Christ by faith in order to justification when we come to years of discretion Gal. 3.27 and not before I know the multitude of Scriptures that speak in general or at least in such indefinit terms as are in sense equivalent to universal concerning salvation to all them that believe and nothing but condemnation to all them that believe not as Mark 16.15.16 Iohn 3.15.16.18.19.36.11.26 Act. 10.42 Act. 13.43 Rom. 1.17.3.22.25.26.28.30.4.6.24 a most monstrous mistake of all which as also of the whole Scripture makes you miserably misbelieve this matter viz. the way that all dying infants are saved in for you deem or rather dream that the Lord by these expressions whosoever believeth in me shall never dye he that believeth not shall be damned he that believeth not on the Son shall not see life c. delivers his will and testament not onely concerning persons at age but concerning infants in their very infancy also whereas if you Divines had not Divin'd your selves to very dotage you could not but understand that little infants are not intended in any of these or any other places that hold out faith as the way of our salvation for do but judge in your selves were it not shameful senslessnesse to read thus out of those places viz. God so loved the world c. that whosoever infants in infancy as well as men believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life those infants that do believe on him are not condemned but those infants that believe not are condemned already and why because they have not believed in the name of the onely begotten Son of God And this shall be the condemnation of infants as well as men that light and life is come to them and yet infants believe it not neither will come unto Christ that they might have life but but love darknesse more then light because their deeds are evil for thus you may read it if infants as well as men be there meant and so were it not sottish to read thus out of Rom. 4.23 it was not written for Abraham onely that faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse but for infants also to whom it shall be imputed if they do believe on him that raised up Iesus our Lord from the dead c. so would it sound any whit savourly in the ears of one that 's of a sound judgement to read Mark 16.15.16 so as to understand infants together with others viz. go preach the Gospel to every creature who ere believeth and is baptized shall be saved but whoever believes not man or woman old or young infant or suckling shall be damned would not this grate harshly upon charitable ears but surely infants are not spoken of here nor are they in any other Scripture for ought I can find with the best sight I have where faith is spoken of as the condition on our part without which nothing is to be expected but condemnation I am sorry Sirs to see you Clergy men cloath your selves with such darke conceits and confusednesse of mind as not to know of whom and to whom things are spoken in the word nor whom in general the Scriptures you professe to be so profound in concern and preach to and I beseech you be not too wise in your own conceits to learn one lesson at least from him that is a fool among you for Christs sake viz. whereas you say infants must believe or not be saved the Scriptures declaring no other way to salvation but faith in Christ that the Scriptures were written only for our instruction that are at years to understand them and not for the use and instruction of infants in infancy in the way of life the Scriptures were given as a coppy of the testament and the will of God concerning men and women to declare to them what he requires of them and in what way he would have them to wait upon him in order to the attaining of that salvation he hath purchased by the blood of Christ and will freely confer on them for his sake viz. the way of faith repentance baptism supplication submission self-denial obedience both active and passive perseverance therein to the end and in a word attendance to the law of Christ the voice of that prophet that he hath now raised up in all things or else to have no part among his people from all which conditions and performances I say from every of them as well as any one of them from believing as well as obeying in baptism or any other part of his will or any other works of God under the Gospel among which belief is a chief one Iohn 6.28.29 little infants as being yet uncapable subjects to obey in any of these are universally exempred in their infancy otherwise I dare a vouch no dying infants in the world shall ever be saved for can they do any of these things in infancy so such as are to be baptized are called to do Act. 22.16 and who ever so doth shall be saved and whoever doth not shall perish Ier. 10.25 if the way wherein men are to be saved must be walkt in by all infants too in order to their salvation then wo to all infants that die in non-age for alas how shall infants call on him in whom they have not believed and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not yet heard and how shall they hear without a Preacher and who can preach to them before they can understand Rom. 10.14.15 so then they cannot believe for faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God some way or other outwardly as well as inwardly preached Babist The spirit here speaks de subjecto capaci onely viz of the way how men
come by faith and not of the way wherein infants have it and t is confest that faith in adultis in them that are capable to hear and understand is begotten by this means of hearing but not so in infants who cannot hear the spirit is not tyed to work by means in little infants to the bringing of them to the faith as he doth in men but without the outward hearing of the word he works saith in little children Baptist. This same that you now say fits us very well to you ward again when you say justification comes by faith for we grant that adultis to them that are capable to act faith justification comes by faith nor shall they by any means obtain it who are capable to believe and yet believe not but not so to infants who cannot believe the spirit is not tied to work by means in little infants to the justification or bringing of them to salvation as he doth in men but by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed without obedience in baptism or faith either he saves them in nonage and farther that they cannot believe which is properly as I shewed before not onely to have but act faith in Christ your selves tell us saying they have not the use the second act the exercise the fruit of it and so do not believe and so must according to your sense of Scripture if the word speak of them be cast into the lake of fire Rev. 21.8 but further grant they could have faith in both the habit and act of it also yet can they not obey Christ in other things which are required necessarily to salvation in the word of the Gospel at least concomitanter et consecutivè as well as faith it self they cannot hear Christs voice in all things they cannot confess Christ before men nor to be come in the flesh they have not crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts of it they cannot deny themselves and take up their cross and follow Christ nor hate father and mother and life for him nor keep his commandments nor abide in his Doctrine and many such like things all which the Gospel saies as universally whosoever doth not as well as whosoever believes not cannot be his disciple Mat. 18. Luke 14. Is not Christs Gal. 5.24 hath not God 2 Iohn 9. is a lyar and shall not enter into the holy City 1 Iohn 2.4 Rev. 21.27.22.14.15 is a deceiver and an Antichrist 2 Iohn 7. shall be denyed by Christ yea punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of Christ for non obedience to the Gospel 2 Thes. 1.6 so that if the Scriptures speaking of the waies and means of salvation be to be understood as the terms and conditions on which dying infants shall be saved as well as men and without which they must be damned then all dying infants must perish contrary to your sense of Mat. 18.14 who take the little ones there for infants for it s said there it is the will of my Father that not one of these little ones should perish put the case therefore that infants could believe yet their case would be little the better as to salvation so long as still they must be short of shewing their faith by other good works without which faith is not saving nor worth a straw for what would it profit if infants could go so far as to say they have faith and yet have not works can faith save them Iam. 2. 14.26 no its dead and helpless for as the body without the spirit is dead so faith without works is dead also Therefore the body of Scripture is to be understood as spoken concerning men and women and the means and way of their salvation and not of infants Babist Yea when the word speaks of works of holiness self denyal suffering mercy c. as the way to life which infants cannot do it excepts them from the doing thereof as no capable subject and not from the salvation nevertheless nor yet doth at except infants when it speaks of faith Baptist. Is not faith a work as well as repentance and the rest yea the main and principal work of the Law of Christ i. e. the Gospel Iohn 6.28.29 Secondly is it not as difficult a work for infants to believe in Christ as to obey Christs voice in other things and are they not still as uncapable a subject to do that as to do any more things that are required why then not exempted from that for the sake of their incapacity as well as from other things Thirdly if the spirit doth go extraordinary waies to work at all about the salvation of infants as you must confess he must and brings them to it without and besides the ordinary means he brings men by why will you tie and limit him him more to the ordinary way and meanes of faith then of obedience in other matters as repentance self denyal c as to their salvation seeing he must go out of the road and tract in the saving of them wherein he saves men may be not as well save infants without faith without which he will save no man as without self deniall and suffering and confessing of Christ c. without which he will save no man Fourthly specially since infants are not mentioned as meant a jot more in the places that speak of salvation by faith then in the places that speak of salvation by obedience in all things for as it is said He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and be that believeth not shall be damned infants no where expressed or meant there so t is said as universally he is the Author of all them that obey him and he shall take vengeance on all them that obey him not and cut them off that hearken not to his voice infants no way expresly excepted as not meant there The Scriptures therefore are still to be understood de subjecto capaci when they promise or threaten things on conditions and terms of faith unbelief and other good and evill works as confessing and denying Christ and exclusively of infants where infants cannot possibly perform them for as when it s said he that works not let him not eat infants are no where excepted yet are not by the spirits appointment to starve though they work not neither are they meant there because they cannot work and as under law when it was said Cursed is he that continues not in every thing written therein and do this and live the way wherin men were to live or dy was set forth by those words and not the way wherein infants should be cursed or blessed accordingly as they were or were not found therein in infancy so Analogically when it 's said under the Gospel the just must live by faith and he that believes not shall be damned and Christ in flaming â—ire shall render vengeance to him that obeys not the Lord c. it is to be understood as spoken of the waies wherein men
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
that formed them will shew them no mercy and the lord Iesus shall come with flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not his Gospel and that because they received not the truth in the love thereof that they might be saved for this cause God shall send them strong delusions to believe lies that they all might be damned who had pleasure in unrighteousnesse c. who ere transgresseth and abideth not in the the doctrine of Christ hath not God every soul that heareth not the voice of that Prophet shall be destroyed with the mouth confession is made unto salvation and an hundred such like as speak of an necessity of good works as well as of faith viz. self-denyall taking up the cross and following Christ c. speak of and to infants in non age while they know not their right hand from their left But Sirs oh that you would once understand for then all your intricacies sottish and absurd assertions and disputes about infants would be ended and save you a world of perplexity that now you are in by the ignorance of it that the word was not written as the way and will of God concerning infants in infancy but concerning men and women in order to their salvation by Christ Iohn 6.39.40 And this Sirs is no other answer then you use to give us when we argue against infants believing thus viz. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word preached But infants cannot hear so as to know Christ by the word preached Ergo infants cannot believe You tell us true faith in Adultis can come no other way but by preaching but in Infantibus faith is begotten otherwise so you fancy but you have no Scripture for it as we have that faith comes no way but by hearing Babist But that Scripture Rom. 10. speaks only of the way of faiths comming to adult ones Baptist So say I of welnigh the whole body of Scripture it speaks of the way wherein men at years must expect to be justifyed and saved and not of infants for they may be saved without faith so when we plead with you against the baptizing of infants I mean such of you and such there be amongst you as are ashamed as well as some that are not to say that infants have faith we tell you the Scripture speaks only of baptism of persons confessing sin professing faith that faith and baptism use still to go together as he that believeth and is baptized the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized if thou believest with all thy heart c. therefore those that believe not may not be baptized you tell us again of these places and of all that ever we bring out of Scripture where baptism is mentioned that they speak of adult persons of whom t is confessed by you that faith and confession and profession is required in order to baptism but not of infants that cannot perform them So Pareus in Vrsin Cate. p. 384. 385. and also many others and your answer is very true and grants all that we desire for indeed all the places where ever baptism is mentioned throughout the Scripture do speak of it as in relation to grown persons and not to infants therefore because the Scripture is wholly silent in such a thing we dare not meddle to baptize infants but as we grant your answer to be true so I hope you will grant it to be as true in our present case for if some of you when we call for faith to a persons baptism or else deny that person to be baptized say thus viz. true no baptism without faith of such of whom faith is required and who are capable to act it i. e. of men at years but infanâ—s being uncapable to act faith and it being not required of them therfore they may be baptized without it which conclusion you make without book to for the word warrants you not to make it why may not we when you call so universally for faith to every ones salvation or else saying assuredly they are damned return the like viz true no salvation without faith of persons capable to act it and of whom it s required but infants being uncapable to act it and it being not required of them therefore they may be saved without it Babist This conclusion is spoken without book and as unwarrantable by the Scripture as you say ours â—s sith the Scripture speaks as much of salvation by faith as of baptism upon faith and as little of salvation without faith as it doth of baptism without it therefore still we have at least as good ground to say infants may be baptized without faith as you have to assert they may be saved without it Baptist. No I shall leave you behind here for sith the Scripture speaks of the impossibility of infants believing and yet with all of their saluation as your selves confesse in your own interpretation of that clause viz. of such is the kingdome of heaven but no where at all of their baptism it shews that they may be saved without believing but shews not that they may be baptized without it besides to hold any of them to be damned before they have by actual sin debard themselves of salvation is abominable cruelty and breach of Christian charity with you who yet confesse that all of them have not faith p. 19. but to hold they need not to be baptized cannot bear the like construction sith t is acknowledged by them that deny their bapâ—ism and by them also who absurdly assert to the contradiction of themselves that the denyal of baptism to them denies all hope of their salvation that they may be saved nevertheless though they die unbaptized so that whether we who hold that to them all belongs the kindome of heaven though they neither believe nor are baptized before they die or you that hold no salvation to them without faith and yet hold that all of them have not nay that very few of them for how few are believers infants to others have faith whether we or you I say do justly deserve the censure of damning all or at least innumerable infants dying contrary to that evident testimony of Scripture and sentence of our Saviour that to them belongeth the kingdome of heaven and contrary also to the rule of Christian charity set us by your selves which is to presume well of every infant that he is in a good estate till he appear to be in a bad and by actual sin to bar himself and deserve exemption from the general state of little children declared in Scripture which is this that they have right to the kingdome let the most simple but honest Reader judge between us As for the two texts you say are brought in proof of justification of infants without faith viz. Rom. 5.18 Rom. 11.7 who urges the last of them I know not for my part I take it to be of no tendency at all either to your purpose or
believing things as beasts which are meerly sensitive have not flowing naturally from the rationall soul in man But if by faith you mean restrictively that faith in special whose adequate object is the word of God preached in the promise and precept of it which onely makes us subjects of salvation and baptism dare you say that t is of equal necessitie and certainty that faith in such a sense is in infants as the faculty of Reaâ—on and understanding is so that by the same Reason that we deny one of these to be in them it may be therefore denied that they have the other and that their non knowledge of good or evill will as much prove them to be habitually no reasonable creatures as it proves them to be habitually no true believers of the Gospel For shame Sirs blot out and abjure this absurdity for you cannot but know that the faculty of understanding in man is Habitus a naturâ innatus a habit ingendred in them in very nature yea in all mankind necessarily qua id ipsum but your selves say faith in the sense in which we speak of it is but Habitus infusus a habit infused and that into some only for all say you have it not and I say t is Habitus acquisitus rather an acquired habit which comes if not without the gift of God to persons therein yet also in that way of hearing the word which on our parts is first done in order to its being begotten in us whereby we come to know good and evil first i. e. to be convinced of sin and guilt in our selves and righteousness and mercy in God through Jesus Christ and then to have faith in him to justification in this therefore Reason remains unrefuted and rather routs you then is routed by you Review 2. Their dislike at baptism testifyed by their crying if they had faith they could endure it with much patience The same reason might be brought against circumcision children when they felt the pain it is likely cried as much Besides we must denie faith to be in the best of Gods children if their sense under the cross and their complaing of it be an argumâ—nt to conclude against it against the weaknesse of faith it may not against the being Re-Review Had circumcision bin administred on perswasion that the subjects to whom it was set were believers as baptism is to be Acts 8. this same reason might have been brough also against infants circumcision though I must confesse it to be the least among an 100 that in reason may be brought to disprove infants believing and therefore possibly you whom I observe sometimes to set up a man of straw of least strength to annoy you and then to shew your skill in fencing at him have singled out this easie opposite to encounter with and yet so far as I see you do not as the proverb is give him as he brings neither but circumcision as is weâ—l known well-nigh to every body but your selves was dispensed to persons upon a far different account from this viz. meerly on their being males of a Jewish houshold and sometimes one a more slender acquaintance with Abrahams family then so witness the whole City of the Shechemites whose males were all all circumcised on meer hopes of their princes mariage with Iacobs daughter but t was not dispensed as you senselessly suppose it was on supposition of its subjects having faith for as there was not present evidence to any body that any of those infants that were signed had faith so for all your childish conclusion p. 4. that the children of the Jewes had faith witness their circumcision therefore the children of believing parents have now by â—uture experience t was evident to every body that they had it not how else came they to be complained on in general when at years as a body of wicked ones and unbâ—lievers unlesse you will say they lost and fell from their faith as I am sure you dare not and for my part I cannot say they did except I could see more clearly then yet I do see or you can ever make me see that at first they had it As for your further following flim-flam wherein you tell us that we must deny faith to be in the best of Gods children as well as in little children if their sense under the cross and their complaining of it be an Argument to conclude against their faith I give you to understand Sirs that its an ignorant inconsequence and so you will your selves discern it to be by then you have weighed what a difference there is between that voluntary submission which by the power of faith in the Saints is acted and yielded to the cross and yoak of Christ in either circumcision or baptism or any other difficult duty or dispensation service or suffering they are called to for Christs sake and that forced and not more unpleasant then unwelcome imposition of it that is made when that cross or yoak viz. the affliction or pain of circumcision or baptism is put upon the necks of infants for the one freely choses it when they have the liberty to refuse and decline it if they please and therefore though they have some sense out to the flesh no affliction being joyous but grievous yet are so far from complaining of it that they rather comply with it of their own accord as counting it better then to be without it witnesse Moses who by faith chose rather affliction and reproach with Christ as deeming these better then the pleasures and treasures of Egypt which were at his choice as well as these but the other i. e. infants are so far from offering themselves to either dutie or difficulty for Christ as by faith esteeming it better so to do then to escape that they rather are solely sensible of the smart so as to gainsay refuse and avoid it what they can but onely that will they nill they men make them bear it and cross them whether they will or no neither can infants by faith choose well-come or delight in either the disease that is by dipping or the sore that seconds circumcision but suffer both full sore against their wills and whereas you say the sense of the cross may conclude against the weaknesse of faith not against the being that clause reasons Reasonlesly against Reason indeed for it hath neither good sense nor reason in it to your own purpose or ours either the best I can make on it for your turn is to suppose it a meer mistake and that 's the least a man so concerned to meddle with it as I am can well say of it for surely Sirs if I read it right you write it wrong and set down your mind in words the sense whereof is just contrary to your meaning for certainly you would or at least should have said Against the strength or greatness of faith and you say Against the weakness of it if this were but
of the voice of Christ and the spirit opening their ears so as to make them learn things as adult ones do that is a meer figmâ—nt of your own fancies besides if they had such an internal hearing as you dream of what were that to the matter in hand or to the answering the objection that is grounded upon the alledged Scripture which speaks not of an inward but an outward hearing the word of God preached as that by which faith is begotten and without which it cannot come out of which outward way and meanes if persons be brought to believe as usually as by it and so it must needs be if little infants believe by the understanding of ceâ—tain secret whisperings and teachings within the spirit would not have spoken of it as such an unpossible case as he doth in saying how can they believe on him of whom they have not heard and how hear without a Preacher But say you that is the usual means by which faith is begotten in adult ones but the spirit is not tyed to meanes though we are he works faith in little children without the outward hearing of the word Is it so Sirs that the spirit is not tyed to work by means in little children in the same cases wherein he works by means in men and women I wonder then that you whose opinion this is should be so forgetful as to teach quite contrary to your own tenet for verily of all the men that are I know none that limit the spirit and tie him to means in his dealings with little infants like unto your selves As for us we own this position fully and to a tittle viz. that what God acts at all for infants he acts without meanes as to their salvation but as for your selves you own and disclaim this by turnes according as it seems to serve your own turnes so far as to hold it helpes to hold up your monstrous odd opinion of infants faith which hath no footing at all in Scripture you inwardly entertain it and outwardly proclaim it for undoubted truth but when you find it makes against you then t is no other then a figment of the Anabaptists for when we tell you there is no right to baptism without faith but infants cannot believe because faith comes by hearing understandingly the word preached which infants cannot do then such of you as Rantize infants on such a sottish supposition as their having faith in themselves excuse the matter thus viz. The spirit is not tied to means nor to the outward way of hearing the word so but that though he begets men to faith that way and by that means yet he begets infants to believe without it and such of you as ashamed to assert that the infants themselves have faith do Rantize them on the fathers faith without their own excuse the matter thus viz. The spirit is not bound to admit infants to baptism in that same way wherein he admits men viz. the way of faith but admits infants to have right to it without that outward means of believing But when we tell you faith and baptism are the way wherein and the outward means by which the spirit justifies and saves men and women but without this outward way of faith and baptism he can and doth save dying infants and that the spirit is not tied to the same means of belief and baptism in the justifying and saving infants through Christ by which and which onely he saves men then you plainly disclaim what you proclaimd for truth before viz. the spirit is not tied to means in infants but works without them in infants though not in men and hold that he doth work by means among them so that there is no hope to be had by parents of the salvation of their infants out of the way of baptism and no justification of them on of the way of belief Thus you tie and unty confine and lose the spirit at your pleasure you give him leave for your own lusts sake either to approve of your baptism of children out of his own declared and onely approved way of faith or if it be needfull as some of you think it is for infants to believe in order to baptism then to beget faith without that outward means of hearing the word but though it is his own good will to justifie and save dying infants by Christ without the outward means of faith and baptism there he is limitted and cannot obtain your good will he must give way to you to baptize infants out of that ordinary way of faith wherein his will is that men shall be baptized but he may not save infants out of the ordinary way of faith and baptism wherein his will is that men by Christ shall be saved no not by any means in the world There 's but a matter of four gross false unsound and absurd assertions in this reasonless reply which I must intreat you to be ashamed of before I leave it The first is that old piece of sing song which is canted ore some three or four times before but would be rather recanted if you were not resolved on perseverance in perverseness wherein you tune it out as if faith in Christ and the faculty of understanding were both so con-naturally and con-necessarily in believers infants and them onely that we may as rationally and safely conclude neither to be in them as not both This blue vain of artificial non-sense keeps its course well nigh throughout this whole discourse of yours against reason so that every foot when reason alledges aâ—y thing that 's clearly conclusive against the being of belief in Christ in believers infants as namely their not knowing good and evil their giving no testimony of faith when at years without instruction nor upon instruction neither sometimes so much as the adult children of unbelievers their not having any faith at all for the most part witnesse your successelessenesse in your preachings to your parishes to beget it whereby it is evident that either they never yet had it when rantized or else have lost it if they had their non-inclinablenesse to believe caeteris paribus more then other peoples children their uncapablenesse to hear the word with understanding which is the only way and means whereby the word declares faith to be given and to be gotten you answer all along Cuckoo-like in one tone and that 's this viz. That by the same reason we may conclude against the faculty of understanding in them and against their having a reasonable soul as if it were full as clear and altogether as absurd to doubt that these infants have faith which yet your selves confesse you cannot presume what infants have and what have not as to doubt that they have the reasonable soul which is notoriously known to every Novice in very nature to be in all mankind by nature without exception and that so also as essentially to difference them from other creatures The second remaining and
this because they understand not the nature of baptism it is Gods seal he sets it they that receive it are passive in that he appoints it to be set to whomsoever he hath made the promise and with whom he hath entered into covenant A seal of an estate made to infants in their cradles is firm so is God's Now here must be a sealing on the other side for both parties must seal in a Covenant we seal when we believe John 3.33 The Covenant is sealed on both sides when faith comes God may set to his seal as he did to many of the Iewes and the seed made void to them through unbelief The End of Gods setting it to such as he foresaw would have no benefit of it is the same with the making of his promises and sending of his Sonne to let them know how he would have received them how sure his mercies should have been unto them but they would not Re-Review The reason of all your Objectations against our way of baptism and pleas for Paedo-Rantism which you practise is this you understand not the nature of baptism it is not Gods seal which he sets which you sillily suppose for that is his spirit only as I shewed you plainly enough above but Gods sign which man sets which they that receive aright are not altogether passive in but voluntary and very active i. e. confessing their sins calling on the name of the Lord desiring to be baptized professing faith in order thereunto going down inâ—o the water with the dispenser and there setting their senses and understandings on work upon the sign and things thereby signified submitting their bodies freely to the dispensation Neither doth God appoint it to be set to whomsoever he hath barely made the promise for in the word preached he makes it to every Creature Mark 16.15.16 but to such as professedly believe in that promise he hath made and visibly verily for ought we can judge have entered into covenant with him to become obedient such only so far as it is possible for us to know are those with whom he hath entred into Covenant for say you there must be a sealing on the other side and both parties must seal in a Covenant we seal when and not before we believe neither is the Covenant sealed on both sides so that it can be said these two parties are now entertained into covenant each with other till faith come and that is not in infancy but after And this your manner of speech viz. when faith comes here implies to be your own opinion as well as ours though else where as p. 3.4.8.9.15.16.17.18 19. you strenuously contend it yea and to say the truth t is well nigh the whole businese of your book to assert and assay to prove it that faith comes to infants in their infancy and to make it appear to us as well as you can by contradiction that infants do believe Moreover if ever men were troubled with the simples I think you are is baptism Gods seal of an estate i. e. the heavenly inheritance made over to infants in their cradels and is that seal of his firm to i. e so sure that it cannot fail then I wonder how that seal for so you still stile circumcision and baptism is made void and infirm to so many Iews and Christian people as it is for not all yea few of many do obtain that estate at last and that most lose it for all that seal you tell us by their unbelief but I had thought you had been of the mind when you wrote your 4th page that children of Iews and of believing parents did believe all without any exception for asserting it there positively that the Iews children did believe and 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