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
him yet it is said to be of him as all the Sacrifices also were which were of old before circumcision because he gave them all anew and plainer promulgation and was Mediator of all that old Testament service which ended in Christ and was even from the very beginning Moreover Though the Gospel Covenant was preached in a type to Abraham in Gen. 17. where circumcision was also first appointed yet that in reference to which Circumcision of the flesh was there instituted was immediately that first and old covenant of the Law which was in some parcels and pieces of it before Abraham and now was propounded a little more fully in the promise of that land to his fleshly seed and the express appointment of that one more special precept thereof i. e. Circumcision though the fulnesse of it came not till four hundred and thirty years after yea he that hath but half an eye in his head must needs see that to be the covenant viz. that which was made in a type I grant of another yet really with the seed of Abrahams body whereof that circumcision was the token which covenant and circumcision were so neer kin that Stephen calls that Acts 7. the Couenant of circumcision which also I have spoken to so sufficiently above that howbeit you here give me the occasion de novo yet I le trouble you no further with it here Review 1. These are the seed of Abraham Semen fidei Gal. 3.7 so Zacheus by believing was made a son of Abraham nay the spiritual seed 2. The promise is to believers and their seed Act. 2.39 3. The Gospel is a better Covenant Heb. 8.6 and it would be far worse if the children of believers under the Gospel should not be counted within the covenant nor have right to the seal nor be esteemeed members of the visible church as well as the Iewes children nay according to the Anabaptists valued but as Turks and Pagans Re-Review Here to inforce this Argument a fresh least the front should faile you come up three a breast and let fly at us thick and threefold with a first second and third report First you tell us that these i. e. believers fleshly seed are the seed of Abraham nay the faithful seed or seed of faith and that in such manner too as Zacheus was made the son or seed of Abraham and how was that viz. by believing nay the spiritual seed quid ni they cannot chuse I warrant buâ— ipso sacto be believers i. e. born again by faith for such only are of faith yea and the spiritual seed too i e. born of the spirit for such only are a spiritual seed and that so well as Zacheus himself if once barely born of the bodies of the flesh of such spiritual parents as do believe alias live in Christendome at least in reformed Christendome for if all papists be not a spiritual body of believers with you as they are with the Pope all protestants are taken by you so to be I mean to be such whose fleshly seed are of faith and the spiritual seed of Abraham and so to be baptized O fy Sirs O fy O fy Babist Our meaning is not that these are or are to be counted in the spirit or of the faith as Abraham was but only to be accounted under the Gospell and reckoned all to Abraham as his children in an outward sense fo fâ—r as to a being in his family i. e. the visible Church Baptist. 1. Me thinks any mans own mother wit should tell him that God never appointed things to be accounted by us otherwise then they are or at least appear much less otherwise then they can be 2. Appeal and lay close siege Sirs to your own consciences search and see whether they will tell you that the place you quote viz. Gall. 3.7 be at all for you or be not much rather against you mean which of these two waies you will For if you mean in as plain English as you speak it that the infants of believers are really the seed of Abraham the seed of faith the spiritual seed so as Zacheus himself was that is by believing doth that Scripture so much as implicitly say any such thing either that the seed of believers do believe or that they are the seed of Abraham when it saith v. 7. they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham and ver 9. they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham doth that phrase I say they which be of faith signifie believers infants or believing infants quid rides such folk as those though some are ashamed to say they see yet some are not ashamed to say are to be seen in the world or doth it signifie such as are true believers indeed which of the two think you doth it expresse such persons at years onely as are in the faith or onely the natural fleshly seed of such or if you say both that that one phrase viz. they which be of faith should express two kinds of persons so differently descended of two so different births viz. believers themselves born of God by faith in Christ and also the meer fleshly seed of believers who are no higher born then of their bodies is so far from truth that it is more then flat folly to conceive it And if you mean it not of their being Abrahams children really by faith so as thereupon to be assured heirs of salvation but of their being counted of the faith so as to outward membership in the Church onely t is plain that Gal. 3.7.9 speaks of such onely as are truly in the faith i. e. faithful as Abraham was so as to be not onely outwardly inchurched but eternally saved also as none can say all believers children are some of them proving wretches when they come to years for as many as be of faith saith he i. e. faithful as Abraham was are blessed and shall be justified and saved with faithful Abraham whose faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse as faith shall be imputed to us also Rom. 4.22.23 if we believe on him that raised up Iesus from the dead c. answerable to that also is Gal. 3.26.29 ye are all the children of God by faith in Iesus Christ if ye be Christs i. e. by faith then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise i. e. the promise not of the law or old covenant or earthly Canaan for the Galatians were never heirs according to that nor yet of meer membership and participation of ordinances in the Church that 's more pertaining to the preceptory then the promissory part of the Gospel but of the eternall inheritance it self which is made not onely to believers and their seed as you lace it up but to all men and their seed on terms of believing and comming in at Gods call and made good to as many as are so effectually called so that they obtain the promise of that eternal inheritance indeed
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
for infant baptism from the several Housholds that are said to be baptized discovered and disproved p. 185. to 188. Old England Scotland New England concurring together by the ears about their infant-rantism 227. to 237. All those Eulogies or high commendations that are given to little infants in those Scriptures Mark 10.14 Mat. 19.14 Luke 18.16 cannot possibly prove them to have any right to baptism and the childish disputings of the Ashford disputers therefrom disproved also Dr. Holms's weak Arguings from Mark 10. for infant baptism and that Scripture opened and urg'd as a strong Argument against the Priests in that point p. 132. to 142. F Faith their apparent having of which is the first way whereby the Ashford Disputants would prove believers infants to have the Spirit not possible to be in any infants much lesse to be manifested to be in believers infants more then in those of unbelievers the childish disputings of the Ashford Disputers in proof of infants Believing from Matth. 18.6 from Faiths being and witnessed by their circumcision to be in the Jewes infants from their uncapablenesse to be justifyed and saved without it and from all other considerations whatsoever abundantly disproved p. 69. to 75.195 to 201.271 to 279. and their unreasonable repulses to such objections as themselves confesse Reason makes against infants faith on Reasons behalf replyed to p. 279. to 299. Not onely the primitive Fathers viz. F. Peter F. Paul F. Jude F. James F. John are all for us but the sub-primitive Fathers which the Ashford Disputers pretend they would fain have pleaded it from perhaps are more versed in then in the other discovered to be more against then for Infant baptism p. 214. to 226. H Imposition of Hands asserted unanimously by Paraeus Calvin Hophman Marlorat Bullinger Cotton and Dr. Holmes who cites these to be dispensed in antient time to baptized persons when at yeares in order to their admittance into church-fellowship p. 139. One undeniable Argument for the present use and practise of that doctrine of laying on of Hands on baptized believers before their admission into fellowship in the Church p. 492. in prosecution of which A Paper newly extant stiled Questions about laying on of Hands with the grounds thereof is answered p. 493. to 510. What Heresie and Schism is who is a Schismatical Hereâ—ick p. 524.525 the PPPriests proved to be the chief Hereticks and Schismaticks p. 526. to 528. the Churches of the Baptists clearing themselves from the crime of Heresie and Schism out of Calvins own mouth p. 529.530.531 Heresies Idolatry false worship 〈◊〉 to be tolerated in civil States the parable of the tares and Wheat Mat. 13. opened liberty of conscience in matters meerly of Religion proved and pleaded therefrom and by many other Arguments as the mind of Christ and the Higher Powers of the earth strictly summoned in the name of Christ as they will answer the contrary at their peril to cease acting according to the PPPriesthoods bloody Tenet of persecution for cause of conscience p. 532. sundry causes why God suffers Hereticks to be four great causes of the CCClergyes so great Heresie and erring from the truth viz. 1 Amor sui self conceit 2 dislike of their own places 3 Gloriae secularis Aucupium a desire to be Some body 4 Covetousnesse p. 590. to 608. Holinesse threefold 1 Morall none of this in infants p. 75. to 78. 2 Matrimoniall this in all infants as well as some save onely Bastards but proves not the holy Spirit to be in its subject nor gives any right to baptism yet this proved to by the Holiness onely meant in 1 Cor. 7.14 p. 78. to 85 3. Ceremoniall viz. that of the Jewes by nature that entitled them to circumcision commonly called Faederall by the Priests the common Topick whence they Analogically plead a Birth Holines in believers infants consequently their right to baptism proved abundantly to be abolished and the extream contradiction follies absurdities of Mr. Blakes Baby book stiled the Birth-priviâ—edge discovered p. 85 to 132. The Holinesse of the Iews seed confest by both Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter to be the same whereby the Land City Temple were holy which being ceremonial and abolished the other must needs be so also p 114.115 The Babish disputings of the Ashâ—ord Disputers and of Mr. Baxter for infant baptism from the Hope or Hopelessnesse of their salvation according as we dispense or deny baptism to them discovered and disproved and grounds to hope the salvation of all dying infants whether baptized or no exhibited p. 189. to 193. also 442. to 462. I Innocency of infants no argument for their baptism but much rather for the contrary p. 77.78 As Ishmael and his seed was cast out of Abrahams house before Isaac so Isaac and his seed before Christ. Gal. 4.22 to the end and many other Scriptures illustrating that truth opened Johns Baptism why called Johns how differing from Christs and how it was Christs p. 478.479.480.401 M The National Ministry whether we consider their ordination or manners and many more matters no Ministry of Christs making but of the Popes p. 558. to 588. O The reasons ordinarily rendred against the use of baptism or any Ordinances at all refelled p. 476. to 491 509. to 522. P The Gospel Promise not made to believers seed as such nor to the meer fleshly seed of any man in the world Act. 2.39 which is made so much of by the Priests as of force to prove infant baptism opened and cleared to make against them p. 89. to 95.261 to 266. S Scripture up in armes against infant baptism as coted in proof of it out of Mr. Baxters own mouth 206.207.211.212 Of Sprinkling when and how it came instead of baptism p. 311. P. 311. line 27. for Fidus read Magnus Caetera tam nil sunt ut vix funt digna notatu Crimina Typographi parva remitte precor ANTI-DIABOLISM OR THE TRUE ACCOUNT A TRUE COUNTERFIT ANd now Sirs to say nothing of your pretty Preface till anon for even that also must then be forth coming to give Account of its dawbery and incongruity as well as your Account it self I will begin with your book which as diminutive as it is you have for all that stitcht up in no less than three Treatises First A Report of your Disputation Secondly A Review of your Arguments Thirdly A Ratiocination about Hereticks In all which how far forth you quit your selves like men of truth and reason comes now before the world to be examined The first I say is a Story of the long Disputation that was held at Ashford Iuly 27 1649. from noon till neer seven at night and it 's contained in the five first leaves whereof two whole ones at least but say so they had need are spent in your exact setting down of the Arguments and Answers and the rest in praevious and posteriour passages So that in this first part of your Pamphlet there are two things in generall
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
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—
t is clear because they have circumcision and baptism which are Gods witnesses seals or evidences to us that they have it this is not Idem per Idem the same by the same that is too effeminate a probation but t is eadem inter se or per se invicem the same things reciprocally by each other and well nigh as womanish as that for whether is it better to say they have it because they have it or to say it is apparent they have this because they have that and that being as much doubted to clear it thus viz. it is apparent they have that because they have this and if these two viz. faith and baptism faith and Circumcision did ponere se invicem so that one could not possibly be without the other they might the better probare se invicem but 't is not so for as faith may possibly be where neither Circumcision nor baptism are dispensed witness the thief on the Cross so ther 's neither of them but may be and is too too much dispensed where faith is not Secondly let me ask you is Gods witness Gods testimony true or is it false for say you God himself did witness it that the children of the Iews i. e. in infancy had faith false you dare not say it is nay you do not but rather p. 5. that his testimony as to the truth of it is to be preferred before mans yea I say let God be true and every man a liar but if it be true how then appears it to be so if your testimony be not false how then came it to pass that the most of the Iews and their children sucessively in all generations had not faith when they came to years for it 's most evident that most of them were unbelievers and therfore they could not enter into their rest but their carcasses fell in the wilderness I know but two shifts you can make and 't is much at a pass which you take for you will contradict your selves in either of them both for surely either they fell from that grace as those infants do also whom you sprinkle from that faith which as you say and seem to see once they had and this flatly contradicts your own doctrine of impossibility of falling from faith or else they never had any such faith as you say they had in infancy and then either Gods witness of such a thing must be a lye which what horrid heresie were it to think and abominable blasphemy once to utter or else God by Circumcision never witnessed such a thing and that flatly contradicts your Antecedent and so your selves will be found false witnesses of God because you have testified of him that he himself did witness by Circumcision that the children of the Iews had faith when he never witnessed it at all Fourthly the fourrh grand Interrrgatory is this Sirs what children of the Jews had faith in their infancy witnessed by Circumcision were they the children of the believing or unbelieving Jews for you are shy me thinks of expressing too often which you mean and proceeed as indefinitely that you may deceive as indiscernably as you can if of the unbelievers then is not this goodly disputing viz. Children of the unbelieving Iews had faith and circumcision Ergo children of believing Gentiles onely have faith and must have baptism Secondly Is not this goodly doing if 't were your practise as strictly as 't is your plea to baptize onely believers children now upon their own faith because unbelievers children of old were circumcised upon their own faith this straitens the grace of God under the Gospel in comparison of the largness of it under the law for then all children of unbeliving Iewes were circumcised by his appointment as well as the infants of believers Answerably to which if you go by that rule you should conclude thus uiz all the Gentiles children should be baptized now as well those of unbelievers as believers ' but you turn out unbelievers children from the priviledge that unbelievers children had before but if you say children of believing Jews onely had faith then therefore of believing parents now then first how doth your Argument and proof drawn from Gods witnessing by Circumcision that there was faith in the Infants hold any more to the proof of it in believers infants then in unbelievers for he set Circumcision to the infants of the wicked and unbelievers among the Jews as well as of the godly and believers Secondly how doth it appear at all that godly and believing parents children then had faith more usually then children of ungodly parents when good Ely had two vile sonnes Hophni and Phineas good David wicked Absolom good Solomon wicked Rehoboam good Iehosaphat wicked Ioram good Iosiah wicked Iechoniah and his brethren c. when contrariwise wicked Ahaz begat good Hezekiah wicked Abia good Asa wicked Amon good Iosia which shews that faith is not entail'd from parents to posterity as you would make it Thus I have spoken to your first way wherby you prove Infants of believers to have the spirit and thereupon right to baptism viz. their faith and to a first and second of those whereby you seem to prove them to believe there is yet a third way whereby you would make men believe that Infants of believers do believe viz. their Iustification without which there is no salvation but because that 's not inserted here at all but toward the end of the disputation and is prosecuted most vigorously in your Review I will suspend the prosecution of that head till I come thither and proceed next to a consideration of the second third fourth and fifth ways as they lie in order whereby you would prove believers infants to have the spirit above the infants of unbelievers Disputation The next thing whereby you offer proof of it that infants of believing parents onely remember these still are the subject on which you pretend to proceed and predicate that these denominants viz. the spirit faith holiness c. that these I say have the holy spirit is their holiness from whence you confess here that there was no Argument taken that is to say 't was not proved and yet a little above p. 3. in the fourth and fifth line of this sum aliâs some of your disputation you as blindly as boldly bolt it out that it was proved by their holiness the Apocaliptical beast that was and yet was not scarcely seems more Apocriphal to you then this was and was not of yours seems Apoplexical or brainsick to me This True-ly might have been rankt among the rest in your true Account but to let it pass thus this cannot but be granted for a truth that you made as if you would have proved it by their holiness that infants of believers have the spirit but did not because I wisht you but fool that I was I have been sorry since that I did at all wish you to forbear it for as I was not
baptized â—very one of you in the name of Christ for remission of sins yet they put themselves out of all capacity of preaching and you of practising thus whilest they make you believe you are aforehand in the business of baptism because of something like or rather very unlike it which was dispensed to you in infancy called sprinkling which they have sprinkled into the name of baptism yea have not some of them kept the Lords Supper wholly from you all for as many years together as they have lived among you and the rest kept back many hundreds of you as wicked and unworthy from that ordinance communicating in it with two or three score upon such like pretence of Scripture viz. what communion what part hath light with darknsss Christ with Belial the Temple of God and Idolators believers and infidells for what else can they pretend for if you were all believers and all walking in the light as God is in the light ye might have fellowship one with another therin the blood of Christ his son cleansing you from all sin as to the Supper therfore you are unbelievers yet are you not all or at least the most of you believers when you have children to be sprinkled you are unbelievers when your Minister is in the Pulpit and at the Table but owned all as believers while he stands at the Font or Bason whose persons for want of faith repentance and better behavior they will not admit to the Supper do you not see how you are nosed and gulled and Priest-ridden whilest with them you are ungodly persons and yet godly parents Church-members and belivers at one time and yet neither this nor that at another one while sheep specially at washing and sharing time whose little ones are lambs that must be bosom'd and brought to Christ and baptized as those to whom the Kingdome of heaven and priviledges of it are intailed and belong by right of generation and birth of Christian professors and many such good morrowes another while viz. at next Communion that entail is cut off again you being unbelievers and perhaps to go round again at next child you have to christen its tack on again so that when they are pleased or rather profitted by that title you are the flock of God purchased with his own blood over which the holy Ghost hath made them overseers both to feed and feed on and when they please to improve the power and turn the key of the kingdome upon you they shut in with an hand ful of their own leaven as the true Turtle choise Church spiritual Spâ—use Synagogue of Saints and lock twenty to one of you out from feasting with them as a company of Carâ—ion Crowes of Carnal Christians hateful hangbyes Servants of Satan as a heard of Wolves and Goats and Dogs and Swine Again some of you say Paedobaptism is a tradition of the Church as Dr. Gouge who used such an assertion to Mr. Barber as an Argument to him to take the oath ex officio and therefore belike being like to offend his fellowes if he did he would not at any hand deliver his opinion pro or con in answer to Dr. Chamberlain whether the sprinkling of infants were of God or man also Mr. Daniel Rogers who saith it is as reverend a Tradition of the Church as any but confesses himself unconvinced by any demonstration of Scripture for it others say it is an Apostolicall Tradition and institution of Christ and among these some say there is neither expresse â—or positive command or example for it in the New Testament as Mr. Hunton yet good consequence for all that from the Old to prove it Christs Ordinance yea as good from the New as there is for women to eat the Supper as Mr. Marshall though the best consequence that I â—nd the wisest of you make is to me as far fetcht as Peter had the keyes given to him therefore the Pope may sell pardons for money and save as many souls as he pleases and that 's a ground or conseqence as far shorâ— as an improbabillity yea as an impossibility is to a certainty in respect of that which is for womens fellowship in the supper for there 's as much president and precept too for that as there is for mens it either women may be disciples believers and Church members as t is sure they may and were Act. 1.14.2 41.42.17.12 though infants neither were nor can be till they have learned or if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be of the common gender 1 Cor. 11.28 expressing both sexes and as well the woman as the man as those gentlemen know very well it is that shroud themselves under so thin a shrub from the storm that is now lighting on their garisons as Mr. Calvin once did and Mr. Marâ—hâ—l and others still do others not venturing the cause wherein the whole Clergy is so neerly concerned upon such a ticklish term as that of a tradition of the Church stand to it that there 's both precept and president for it in the Scriptures seeming to yield that if at least there be not one of them we have not warrant to meddle with it and of this sort I have met with many a one I am sure with more then one who when they have in publique disputes bin but put to assign and produce those places where that plain precept and president is contained they send us to such Scriptures where unbiassed men may sooner â—ind the way of a serpent upon a rock then either institution or instance of infant sprinkling viz. for precept to the second commandement Exod. 20. so Dr. Channel at Petworth Ian. 1. 1651. saying that the second commandement enjoines us to observe all the institutions of God and Christ from time to time but not seeing that he was by right to have brought some other scripture first whereby to prove infants baptism to be one of those institutions which was the thing denied and not the other for we grant that all Christs institutions are to bâ— obeyed without putting any man to carry us so far back to the second commandement to convince us of it but we deny still that its one of Christs institutions that infants should be baptized aâ—â— to Mat. 28.19.20 which was assigned to me both by Mr. Reading at Foâ—â—â—ton 1650. and also by Dr. Channel at Petworth out of which I making it appear by argument and by comparison of this with the same passage as recorded in other words Mark 16.15.16 that those who are bid to be baptized there are such as are also commanded first to be taught preacht to c. therefore not infants these two men that might both be worthily renowned for ought I know in respect of their worth otherwise were their parts improved as much for as they are against the truth in this point and were it not their hap to be yet besâ—hâ—old beside the Gospel as t is in truth replied both to one the same
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
to believe the Scriptures which by necessary consequence confirm the thing we would leave the manner of doing it to him whose work it is the spirit of God who is able to do it we do it in other articles of faith and the resurrection of the body and ask not how it can be done because the Scriptures have delivered it and this of the renovation of soul is no lesse Miracle Re-Review And well may it be difficult to understand how faith should be bred in infants and doubted that they have it not since if we have learned to believe the Scriptures they are so far from confirming such a thing so much as by any possible or probable consequence that by necessary consequence they contradict it while they tell us that there is but one way whereby faith cometh and that such a one as it can never possibly come to infants in viz. hearing the word of God preached not inwardly by the spirit only as you prate below for he speaks not of such a thing there Rom. 10. but outwardly by some visible or audible creaturely ministration as is plain by the words foregoing viz. How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard how hear without a preacher how preach except they be sent And whereas you tell us the spirit is able to work faith in them therefore we must leave the manner of doing it to him not offering as it were to pry into it Good Sirs spare your labor talk not about the unknown manner of a matter as unknown as the other for the thing it self is not yet clear in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither doth the spirits ability to do it prove that it is done any more then it proves there is a 1000 worlds or that all men have faith because these things are possible to be effected by him but the evidence that he doth such a thing which if it be wanting as it is in this case it is but egregious folly to argue it from the other so as to say God can do it therefore though the manner how he doth it is not known to us yet we must not meddle further then to believe it is leaving the manner of doing it to him Moreover Sirs assure your selves of this that in some sort the manner is usually manifested to us in the word as well as the matter of such things as we are there called upon to believe even that miraculous work of the resurrection of the body which is your present instance wherein 1 Cor. 15.35 to the end the Lord condescendeth at large to explain the manner oâ— it as well as to prove the matter of it before and whereas you say you leave the manner of the doing things when it is nor clear to you to the spirit himself whose the work is in other articles of faith I wonder you are so forgetful as to bear such false witnesse as this against your selves when as in the point of dying infants salvation which for the matter of it is so clear that you cannot deny it though not clear to you in the manner you leave not the manner of it to God himself whose work it is to save them but limit him to the way of Church-membership faith baptism and holinesse c. whereas the word that was not at all for infants instruction declares to men and women what way he will save them in asking in many places of your book how can infants be justified without faith how can Turks and Pagans infants be saved what hopes of our infant salvation without baptism and all this too though there is no fear of their damnation by actual sin though it also ask you plainly enough how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard and consequently how can they be saved by faith though it tell you also plainly enough Act. 8. where that question is expressely askt what hinders c. even because they yet believe not with all their heart you had said true therefore had your words bin thus viz. we do it not in other articles of faith And whereas you say the renovation of a soul is no lesse miracle then the matter of infants having faith it seems you confesse it to be a miracle that faith should be in infants and for my part I fully confâ—sse it with you for surely t is such a thing as was seldome or never yet seen since the world began to this day but the renovation i. e. conversion of soules of men and women depraved and corrupted as infants never were by any actual sin p. 5. is no lesse miracle indeed then the other for the one is not at all and the other where it is is yet no miracle at all but a matter that happens ever and anon in the ordinary course of things as a miracle doth not and besides you are of those I am sure who are in the mind that miracles are ceased And lastly for you to sprinkle all the new born infants in all the Christian nations at this hour as taking it for granted that these all have faith for so you suppose though you see not any individual or particular infant hath it that is brought to you and yet hold infants faith to be a miracle and yet to hold miracles to be ceased also it is if not miraculum yet mirandum monstrum et horrendum at least to me i. e. a marvelous work and a wonder that ever the wisdome of wise men should so perish and the understanding of prudent men so come to nought Thus having done with your forlorn hope I le march on now to give checkmate to that wretched crew of cavillers that are so impudent as to be responsive against reason and its Regiment and to undertake to make it good against them that infants have faith and must have baptism Review The objection that reason makes against it will easily be answered it is done for satisfaction to the Reader Re-Review Yea Sirs is Reason in so little request with you as that you not onely dare so audaciously ingage against but also set so light by it as to say its objections are easily answered let it be put to the voâ—e if you please throughout the whole earth whether you deserve the title of good Logicians i. e. Reasonable men who here professedly wrestle against reason it self and whether your faith can possibly be found any other then faction and meer fiction against which Reason it self is by your selves confest to be opponent I confesse I have heard men called divines speak of many points of Religion and faith as above reason but I yet never met with men under the name of ministers so far devoid of Reason as to say that Religion and faith are against Reason till I met with you whose faith and practise of baptism to believers infants upon account of their appearing to believe more plainly then the profession of persons at years can make it appear
years not one of millions gives testimony of his faith without further instruction Nor should he of his reasonable soul not so much as in speaking if he be not taught Re-Review First the faculty of not onely believing in general but also in special of believing the Gospel of believing in Christ to justification is belike as naturally and necessarily in infants of believers as the faculty of reason it self so it seems by your talk why else is that frequent analogy made by you between these two and such frequent allusion in proof of one of them to the other as if whosoever denies one of them viz. the grace of saving faith to be in such infants must needs also deny the other and as if whatsoever concludes against such infants being believers concludes as much against their being reasonable creatures I am much amazed at your ignorance in this specially since your selves agree that all infants even those of Indians Turks and Pagans are reasonable creatures and yet that few not one of many infants are habitually believers as namely the infants of believers onely Secondly I blush at your rudenesse and folly in this also in that you assert that not one infant of millions should give any testimony of his reasonable soul i. e. ever evidence it that he is a reasonable creature when he comes to ripe years if he be not taught What Sâ—â—s will children never shew themselves to be risible and so consequently reasonable by laughing when tickt and toid with in such minority as they are not capable to learn in if they be not taught and instructed how to laugh will they not shew themselves intelligible if not so much as in speaking which with you it seems is the first and least expression of reason in them yet not so much as by understanding what is spoken to them yea how think you must they not be imagined and understood in some measure to be understanding and so consequently to have reasonable souls before they can be rationally instructed at all for verily he is a fool unreasonable and of no understanding himself that offers to teach children to act any act of reason that is to be produced by teaching or to know their letters or to read or write before they can discern them to be at least intelligible and teachable in these things they are to be taught in and consequently to have reasonable souls Yea verily the faculty of reason is habitus naturâ innatus and naturâ notus a habit that comes by generation and puts forth it self into several acts of it self even so many as clearly testifie it to be in us before we are at capacity to be taught and whether ever we be taught any thing or no for a specimen of reason in us must be before we begin to be endoctrinated or else as good endoctrinate a brute creature but justifying faith or belief of the Gospel is such a habit of which we may not onely say as you do truly in the next page p. 18. that instruction of the understanding in the object of it in some sort must â—o before any act of it can be discovered as whereby onely say you discovery of the habit can be made but also that instruction of the understanding in some sort must go before the habit of it can be in us at all for whether you will suppose it to come by infusion onely or by aquisition onely or both it comes not by nature and generation as reason doth but by teaching and instruction if we will believe the word which saith faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God Review 5. They lose it again when they come to more years else why are they taught the element of faith By the same reason they should lose the faculty of understanding also because after they are set to learning learning is for the bringing forth into act and perfecting of the degrees otherwise one that is at 24. years of age having received faith once might give over learning more for if this argument might hold either they lose it or why do they learn Re-Review Hoop Sirs what pretty cutted stuff is here as if you did not know well enough but that for advantage sake to your crooked cause you rather chuse here to seem ignorant of it that reaching and learning is not onely for the further bringing forth of habits that are in us into their acts and perfecting of them in their degrees but also for the begetting of some habits in us that never were before viz. not natural and innate habits as the faculty of reason and understanding for instruction is not for the engendring but improving of these in us but all such kind of habits as faith is viz. acquired habits teaching tends not onely to the perfecting of such a posteriori after they are once begun but a priori also to the very being and begetting of these whether they be habits about matters of this life or that to come t is true therefore learning is to be continued for the perfecting of habits begun and begotten in a man otherwise indeed as you say one of 24 years having once received the faith need be taught no more but it is to be also for the beginning and begetting of faith in him otherwise to one at 24 years of age having not yet received it the faith is preacht by you in vain that he may receive it There is a teaching to beget grace and faith where it is not and a teaching to increase it where it is Mat. 28.18.19 a teaching before and a teaching after faith and baptism and if you ask a reason of both these the one is to beget faith into both the habit and the act the other to build it up into higher degrees the second teaching indeed supposes a being of it in men the first teaching no being of it as yet when you begin first to preach to them for your preaching speaks to them as to unbelievers whereupon this argument holds good that if ever they had faith in their infancy they have lost it now for why else are they taught the element of it why taught in order to the receiving it for reason in this objection must be understood as speaking suppositively onely i. e. in case persons had faith in infancy it s now lost why else are they taught to this end that they might have it but not so positively as your expressions represent it as if reason did really assert that infants do lose any faith they had in infancy for howbeit reason acknowledges that such in whom faith is may lose it if they look not to it yet reason knows well enough that those can never be said to lose faith in whom faith never was at all Review 6. Habits encline more towards their proper actions but children of Christians are not more inclined to actions of faith then infidels An Argument from comparison is subject
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
remarkable absurdity is this viz. in that you most shamelessely assert that the faculty of understanding comes to persons by the same way and means whereby justifying faith comes and no other i. e. by hearing the word preached for when reason argues against infants believing thus viz. faith comes by hearing the word of God but infants cannot hear so as to understand the word of God preached Ergo not believe you reply thus viz. They might also conclude they have no faculty of understanding neither for that i. e. the faculty of understanding comes by hearing i. e. as faith doth O prodigious piece of priestly prudence did ever any but men minded to manifest their folly to all men utter such a thing that the faculty of understanding comes as faith in Christ viz. by hearing the word of God are not the faculties of the soul of man I say the faculties of it i. e. the facultie of understanding the faculty of the will so inseperable from it so essential to it that a person is neither sooner nor longer a reasonable soul then it hath these I confesse that Plus notitiae or acquisitio ulterioris intelligentiae increase of knowledge and the obtaining of more and more understanding may come by hearing wherein the faculty of understanding being set on work not onely exercises but improves it self also and comes to act it self on more intelligible objects then before now newly discovered to it but that Ipsa facultas intelligendi or ipse intellectus the very faculty of understanding it self which comes by nature and generation and is as essentially in man as the reasonable soul it self doth come by hearing is such a mess of matter as was never heard of to this hour nor can I conceive what kind of hearing any faculty of the soul can come by sith the understanding and will must both be known to be in persons and they thereby to be both reasonable intelligible and eligible creatures before they can be fit subjects to be spoken to and before intelligible or eligible objects can reasonably seasonably or any other wise then senslessely be propounded to them in preaching neither if at all they had such a monstrous kind of inward teaching from the spirit as you talk of can they have even that teaching before they have the faculty of understanding for that teaching must be at least after they have a being but they are not in being sooner then the faculty of understanding hath a being in them yea in order of time the sense of hearing it self is not in us before it And howbeit the Axiome be true if rightly taken Nil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu the understanding apprehends nothing which some sense or other doth not first some way or other apprehend yet still the faculty of understanding whereby we conceive and the will whereby we receive begin to be in us at least as soon as the senses whereby we outwardly perceive i. e. as we our selves begin to be Thirdly other ridiculous silly stuff that with the rest this section is stufft with is this in that you would seem to make the spiriâ—s converting and begetting little children to faith to be some strange miraculous and more marvellous piece of businesse then his converting and begetting faith in grown persons because in infants he uses not that ordinary means whereby he converts men without the outward preaching of the word say you he works faith in little children his manner of working i. e. in little children is miraculous and yet when all comes to all instead of proving as one might very well expect you should do that the conversion of infants is such a different transcendent and wonderfull matter ore that of men is you confesse plainly in the very next words that the conversion of every soul is a matter as miraculous as that as also above p. 16. where your words are these the renovation of a soul meaning of any soules of either adult ones or infants is no lesse a miracle then that of the resurrection of the dead which you mind us of here also saying enough hath been said to that before and I say too much unlesse it were beetter for they are both alike egregiously absurd and full of falshood as for the conversion of infants at 7. or 8.9 or 10. daies old for then you sprinkle them upon that account t is a figment a meer Ens rationis and yet I can hardly call it so so little reason is in it unlesse I may call a non entity so or that which never hath a being any further then in the brains that broac hit in a word nothing at all and therefore no miraculous thing at all for that which is not is not a miracle and for the conversion of men unto the faith of Christ it is so far from being miraculous that of the two though indeed neither of them is properly a miracle it is more to be admired rather that no more persons are converted and that considering the pains patience and goodnesse of God that leads to repentance the plain dispensations of himself to men in promises and threats and discoveries of the way of their peace they should yet be so obstinate and unbelieving It was wonderful and marvellous indeed that the Jewes for the most part did not believe in the wildernesse for all they saw so many of Gods wonderfull works but no wonder that some few of them did herein is a marvellous thing that ye know not whence Christ is i. e. own him not by faith as the sonne of God saith the man Ioh. 9.30 and yet he hath opened mine â—yes t was not so marvelous that men believed in Christ when they heard his words and saw his works but much rather because they believed not Act. 13.41 t is wonderful when Gods works are not believed though declared yea Christ himself is therfore said to marvel at their unbelief Mark 6.6 t is not marvellous that some men see and accept of excellent things when they are shewn and tendred to them but that most men seeing do not see them much lesse is a persons believing as great a miracle as the resurrection of the body from the dead for then t was as great a miracle that many Jewes believed on Christ when they saw him raise Lazarus as it was that he raised him from the dead which thing who ever doth believe I believe him in that particular to be a marvelous unwise man for his labor it being rather no lesse then marvellous stupidity that when they saw Christs marvelous works yet for all that they did not believe on him Besides if every conversion of a sinner to the faith be a miracle the gift of working miracles is given to men as commonly in these daies as in the Apostles for how usual a thing is it now for men by the gift that is in them and given them from above as instruments under God and no
other were they that wrought miracles to convert sinners from the evil of their waies but that cannot be granted by you however who cry out that the working of miracles was an extraordinary gift that hath ceased since the times of the Apostles finally the conversion of souls of men to faith by the preaching of the word is that which is effected ordinarily and therefore is not miraculous for ordinary and miraculous are clear contrary so that they do rather tollere se invicem then are capable to be denominated of one thing both at once for an ordinary thing is not only that which comes to passe usually and frequently but chiefly which is accomplished secundum ordinem according â—o a common order of meanes and constant course of second causes as faith in infants doth not being wrought if at all without the outward means as your selves confesse and even thereupon and in that very respect here called miraculous and if I could ever see such a thing at all as neither you nor I ever did I should say it were a miracle indeed to see an infant believe on him of whom understandingly they never heard but Miracles are such things which as they are done more rarely then other things so when they are done t is if not contra yet at least praeter extra supra ordinem either against or besides or out of or above the usual way not keeping the accustomed use of means nor process of second causes Fourthly whereas to back one absurdity with another you assert the work of the spirit in the conversion of men i. e. adult ones which is by outward means to be both ordinary and miraculous I judge it to be as very a Bull as ever was conceived and gendred in the braines or calved out of the mouth of man Review 8. The only Scruple is the making it appear concerning particular children which are brought to be baptized whether they have faith or no for say the Anabaptists faith is an inseparable condition required in persons to be baptized and we know not the heart nor the work of the spirit Though enough hath been said to this in the disputation yet these two things are added for further satisfaction 1. That true faith is not required in every one to be baptized for then none but justifyed persons should be baptized and those that are apostates afterwards must be said to fall totally and finally from grace 2. That a charitable judgement concerning their having faith is sufficient to admit them to baptism which judgement is as due to children of believing parents as to any of years that make profession First because the Scripture hath so amply declared the good will of Christ to them which is tantamount to any ones single profession of himself Secondly because we know nothing against any particulars wherby they should be excepted from such judgement Re-Review You begin first to storm the rear or last clause of that Argumentative matter which you have here charged upon the Anabaptists as their opinion but you might have spared that pains if you had pleased for those you call Anabaptists assert not such a thing as that is they say not that faith but that an outward appearance or profession of faith is an inseperable condition required in persons before they be baptized by them for they know not what belief is in the heart but as confession of Christ is made with the mouth and profession of him in the words and works whether therefore persons have faith or not and whether there be any as he that is blind sees no such that receive the truth in truth for a time and after fall totally from it that is neither here nor there to us in this case for if there be inwardly no dram of faith at all yet if there be such an outward serious profession made of it that we thereupon I say again thereupon and not on charity misgrounded can judge it to be we are excused in baptizing such hypocrites and apostates and their comming to holy things with unhallowed hearts will be not upon us but themselves but if there be never so much faith in the heart and no profession of it without whereby it appears concerning this and that particular person that he believes so far as we can discern God will not hold us guiltlesse in baptizing such persons for taking his name in vain That opinion therefore of a necessity of faiths being really in persons as well as a profession of it before we may baptize them Reasonlesse might as well have writen under his own head as under the head of Reason for that is owned no more by one then by the other t is a real profession of it that in foro hominum gives admission and warrants the administration which because it neither is noâ— can be made by any particular infant and consequently no appearance made that it hath faith therefore infants may not be baptized This indeed remaines a scruple unremoved by you to this very hour or is rather a matter unscrupled and altogether undoubted by us viz. that it cannot be made appear concerning this or that particular infant suppose any one of them you sprinkle that it hath any faith at all You tell us enough hath been said to this in the Disputation I tell you that more then enough is said against it in the Disprobation yet fith you are pleased to add as little as can be in further satisfaction I shall add as much as need be in further refutation of your folly You say that a Charitable judgement concerning this or that particular persons having faith for your proof now is to be de individuo is sufficient to admit them to baptism and that this judgement is as due to children of Christian parents i. e. every particular amongst them that are brought to be baptized as to any at years that make profession It seems then that the believing paâ—ents personal profession of his own personal belief which is that onely whereby we judge him to be a believer doth prove himself to us to be a believer not one jot more plainly then it proves all his children if he hath never so many to be believers as well as he and that we are bound by duty to judge all the children of a professor to have faith as certainly as we may judge that professor himself to have it for the same judgement of charity that is due to professed believers is say you equally and every whit as due to such believers children Are you not ashamed of such a blind businesse as this what doth a mans personal visible acting and professing of faith discover it to others that the habit of faith as you call it is in himself no further then it discovers it to be also in his children did you not say but the very next page above that no judgement of science concerning a persons having faith can be passed till the acts of