may as well walk as a Man Spiritually Dead come to Christ Now then I ask have all Men such a vital Principle If you affirm it you oppose the Scripture Ephes 2.1 if you deny it then you either give me the Cause or affirm a Dead Man can walk And further in all Corporal Motion there is the Term from which and to which so in the Spiritual Motion of the Soul to Christ we come from Sin to Christ And now I have proved this from Scripture I shall cite some Authors of my Judgment that so my Reader may see it is not only my Opinion And I shall only cite such as the Patrons of this Opinion seem to admire as well as I that so you may see how they not only oppose the Scripture and me but also those Authors which they seem to confide in more than either that so you may see how these like Mad-Men even tear themselves The Learned Pemble is of my Mind in his Treatise of Grace and Faith and there spends many Pages to prove that the habits of all Grace are infused into the Soul in Regeneration before an Act of Faith can be put forth by that Soul and why these Men should not as well believe him in this as well as in his Notion of Eternal Justification especially since he hath clear Scripture on his side for the former but not a word for the latter seems strange to me But indeed I need not wonder since they that thus pick and cull this Author taking what suits with their Opinion and rejecting the rest do serve the unerring Word of God no better And if they dare serve Paul so 't is no wonder if they deal so with Pemble Dr. Goodwin is on my side in his Treatise on the Ephesians he hath these words 'T is affirmed saith he by Sound and Able Divines and that on good Ground that the Principles of all Grace are infused into the Soul before the Soul can put forth an Act of Faith with several passages to the same purpose which for brevity sake I omit Dr. Owen gives abundant Testimony to the same Truth in his Treatise on Justification he saith thus Justifying Faith is not to be found in any but those whose Natures are renewed and in whom there is a Principle of all Grace Thus you may see in a little how far these Divines were from this Error But because I have not to do with professed Arminians but with such as privily bring in this Erroneous Doctrine I shall therefore come to consider what their Pleas are and in Answering of them I shall further clear the Point I am upon and then I shall answer some Questions 1. Some I have heard say by coming in Sin we mean such must be sensible of Sin and so come Ans If such mean as they say why do they not always explain their meanings And sure I am if this is all such mean such Preachers are miserably mistaken by their Hearers who hereupon conclude they must come without any Change 'T is well known how with some Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion and I am well satisfied this is but a Jesuitical Shift that when they cannot justifie that rotten Notion of coming to Christ in their Sin then they tell us if we will believe them they mean only sensible of Sin but this Notion shall never be heard of till no other Answer will serve But what Soul-cousening is it to say one thing and mean another suppose they do mean so Pulpits should be places to to Explain things in But that this Cobweb may not cover such Deceit consider when they say we must be sensible of Sin they mean either that they have some Sin adhering to them or else that they are sensible they are in that Moment in a Sinful Unchanged State If they mean the former only they give away the Cause for we are enquiring into the State and certainly if not in a Sinful State 't is because in a Changed State unless some do not come into the World in such a State and so need no Change but if by being sensible of their Sin they mean a Sinful State then they are sensible of that which is or is not if sensible of that which is then they openly declare such are in an Unchanged State only add a Sence to the thing it self if they say they are sensible of a sinful State when their State is not so then this is no less than to affirm that a Delusion is the only Qualification prerequisite in order to our coming to Christ 2. But some may say we own 't is Christ that brings us and so we do not rob Christ of his Honour or Arrogate any thing to our selves as you suppose but we affirm he brings us unto himself in our Sins To which I answer 't is not enough to honour Christ to say he doth a thing unless the thing done be well done 't is far from being an Honour to Christ to make him the Author of Sin But to come to a more direct Answer I lay down this Proposition That some things are impossible to be done by God himself the Scripture affirms 't is impossible to God to Lie and that he cannot deny himself whatever is sinful cannot be done by that God that is Goodness it self nor doth this inability arise from weakness but strength Some things are contrary in Nature and so cannot be done as to make it Dark and Light at the same time and in the same place to make a Man Dead and Alive at the same time and in the same respect Now I shall enquire whether 't is not impossible under one or both of these Considerations for a Soul to be brought to Christ though by the power of Christ in his Sins as aforesaid I shall not now insist on the former how far such a Work would savour of Sin but sure I am in the latter Sence it is impossible and for the clearing this Consider our coming to Christ is an Act of the Will we are willing to renounce all confidence in the Flesh and to rely alone on Christ Now I would ask whether this Will is in all Men by Nature if such deny it then where this Will is there is a change wrought in that Soul and a great change too Psal 110.3 A willing People in the Day c. If such say this Will is in Men by Nature then they not only prove themselves Arminians but virtually deny what before they affirmed that they come by the power of Christ But if they say tho' unwilling by Nature yet they are made willing by the Power of Christ to come yet without a Change in the Will this is a grand contradiction in Nature to say that a Person who is unwilling should be made willing and yet no change made in his Will and yet this gross absurdity my Opposers will unavoidably hereby pluck down upon their own Heads I think it is safest to
be said to lay our Sins upon him But because there are some few Texts which seem to some to favour the Point I have been confuting I shall cite them and see how far they will prove the Point One is in Isa 42.18 Look ye blind here say some such as have no Sight must look To which I answer I own many things are commanded which we cannot do but this is not the Point but the Question is whether these blind ought to look without Eyes Which to affirm would be a grand Contradiction for if he looks it must be with his Eyes When God commands Sinners to look they must look with their Eyes for as a Visive Faculty is necessary in order to our looking so in this Case there must be a Power wrought in us by God whereby we are able to look before we can by Faith look unto Christ Next Text is Rom. 4.5 there God is said to justifie the Ungodly from whence some argue thus If in the Act of justifying us God finds us ungodly and yet we are said to be justified by Faith then it seems evident the Soul is ungodly when he believes I am satisfied this Text hath been no little abused in our Day while it hath been molded into what Form some please to promote their own Interest The Apostle tells us some Scriptures are hard to be understood and I am perswaded this is one of them nor do I much wonder if the Ignorant wrest it I shall labour therefore to clear this sweet Portion of Scripture that so you may know the Truth as it is in Jesus Now the great Enquiry for the clearing this Text is to know what we are to understand by the Word Ungodly and I shall shew you First Negatively How we are not to understand it and Secondly Positively How we must understand it First Negatively By ungodly we are not to understand one utterly devoid of all Grace and this will abundantly appear both from the Context and Text it self you will find in the foregoing Verses this Instance is taken from Abraham from whence it is evident and I think past all Dispute that if by Ungodly we are to understand such as have no Grace then it will follow that Abraham had then no Grace but that cannot be supposed for Abraham had then been a Believer many Years and yet is said to believe in him that justifieth the Ungodly And this appears further even from the Text it self for here is believing set before Ungodly so that this Ungodly Person must be one that hath Faith and consequently not one without Grace for Faith is it self a Grace so that this Text is so far from proving Justification before or without Faith that it strongly proves the contrary because this ungodly Person is before stiled a Believer and such as lay so much Stress on the Order of the Words as to conclude that because the Word Justifie is set before Ungodly that therefore the Person Justified must be an unrenewed Man would do well to consider here is Believing set before the Word Justifieth But to shew you in the next Place Positively By Ungodly I understand one that is Legally so one that hath not any Righteousness inherent in him to answer the Demands of the Law and thus a Person is renewed Ungodly For since the Law requireth perfect and perpetual Obedience hence we who are now renewed having been heretofore unrenewed and now in part defiled hence 't is impossible but that we must in a Legal Sence be Ungodly This Text strongly proves that the Grace of God in us is not that for which we are justified Therefore to me it seems a gross Mistake to affirm as some do that God accepteth of our sincere Obedience in the room of Adam's perfect Obedience for this is to set up our selves instead of Christ God will not justifie any but upon perfect Obedience either inherent in us or imputed to us not in us for you see the Law pronounces Believers ungodly Men so that of Necessity we must look beyond our Grace for that is imperfect even to that compleat and spotless Righteousness of Christ nor am I fingular in my Sence of this Text for I have the Reverend and Learned Doctor Goodwin on my side in his Exposition on part of the Ephesians Part I. Page 389. saith he The meaning is not one that hath no Grace for then Abraham should not have been saved He instanceth in him and adds To believe on him that justifieth the ungodly these are the Terms on which he must believe First These are the Terms on which he must believe all his Days so that you see the Doctor was far from understanding Ungodly here for one without Grace unless you can suppose a Believer may live all his Days and have no Grace and he gives the Reason elsewhere why such as believe and have Grace are termed Ungodly because saith he they are in themselves legally so Thus you see this Text makes nothing to prove that a Person can believe while in an unrenewed State but much to the contrary Thus I have at large cleared this Scripture and have answered all such Questions as I know proper to the present Point and doubt not after all but this Doctrine of Sinners coming in their wreeking Lusts to Christ will appear to be erroneous to all but such as are under the Power of their Lusts and no more pass current for a Doctrine of Free-Grace as it hath done nay this is so far from being a Doctrine of Free-Grace that it is grand Arminianism and a setting up of Free-Will which will appear to any understanding Reader if we consider that the Soul in coming to Christ moves from a Gracious Principle or a Natural Principle if from a Gracious Principle then the Soul doth not come wreeking in his Sin to Christ for it 's a grand Contradiction to say a Sinner is a Gracious Person but if they say the Soul moves from a Natural Principle this is a grand Free-Will as ever Arminius himself deliver'd The Substance of this Question is whether the Union between Christ and the Soul begins on Christ's Part or ours Or whether without any Priority in Nature the Soul from a Natural Inclination and Christ do mutually consent they who say the Soul comes in its Sin make the Union to begin on Man's Part they that say the Soul acts in that Case from a renewed Principle do own the Union to begin on Christ's Part they that say they both consent together as aforesaid attribute as much to Man as to Christ and by so doing discover themselves to be no sincere Friends to the Bridegroom but rather Judas-like betray Christ with a Kiss and whether of these doth most magnifie the Grace of God to affirm the Union begins on Man's side or that Man Naturally consents to Christ at the same time with Christ without any Priority in Nature on Christ's side or they who affirm as I do that
each other forward in the way to Heaven hath moved me to try if by the Blessing of God on my weak Endeavours I might be that happy Instrument to put an end to that Controversie For it 's pity such as agree so in Fundamentals should so much differ about Smaller Matters and that they who hold one Lord and one Faith should not hold one and the same Baptism all respects And though enough hath been Delivered and Printed on this Subject by divers worthy Lights to satisfie any impartial Reader and clear Understanding yet because many have not time to Read or Money to Buy or Capacities to Understand large Volumes I shall add this short Tract as a Mite to the former Treasury In which I shall Study both Brevity and Plainness of Speech to tho End that if possible I might not over-reach the meanest Capacity since it is for the sakes of such I design this and therefore to prevent tediousness I shall sum up all I shall say as to the Subject of Baptism in two Arguments more generally First Argument in Defence of Infant Baptism is this If we Gentiles do come in the room of the Jews then we must partake of their Priviledges but we Gentiles do come in the Jews room therefore we must partake of their Priviledges The Major I must take for granted For how or to what end do we come in their room unless we partake of their External Church Priviledges One of which was Circumcision Rom. 3.1,2 What advantage then hath the Jew Or what Profit is there of Circumcision Much every way c. which Ordinance was to be administred unto Infants of Eight Days Old in the stead of which God hath appointed the Ordinance of Baptism as is clear from that plain Text Col. 2.10,11,12 And ye are compleat in him which is the Head of all Principality and Power In whom also ye are Circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ Buried with him in Baptism c. In which place the Apostle is incouraging the Believing Colossians to stand fast in opposition to those false Teachers who would Preach the Law as a Covenant of Works or at least mixed Law and Gospel together in opposition to whom he tells them they were compleat in him that is in Christ and however these false Teachers might pretend a necessity to keep the Law yet he here lets them know forasmuch as Christ was made under the Law and did bring in an everlasting Righteousness and that he did in their room and stead hence they that believed were compleat in Christ their Head and so under no Obligation to keep the Law as a Covenant of Works Christ being the End of the Law in that respect to every one that believeth But lest those false Teachers should prevail to draw away Disciples after them by urging the necessity of Circumcision he tells them they were Circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands or had received the End of Circumcision for that signified a necessity of the Heart being Sanctified Rom 2.28 which Grace of Sanctification as well as Justification they received from Christ and so were compleat in him but that they should not think themselves inferiour to them for want of the external Seal he tells them they had the Seal of the Covenant also and though not the same yet a milder in its room Buried with him in Baptism Nor do I see what other design the Apostle can have in these words but to prove that Baptism to us comes in the room of Circumsision to the Jews and that you may see that this is not my own private Sence of these Words I shall cite another Witness or two to confirm it Of the same Judgment is the Learned Paraeus saith he Quod Apostolus precedente versu de Externa Interna Circumcisione dixit ad Institutionem Consolationem fidelium contra pseudo-Judees eadem nunc applicat ad fideles in Novo Testamento in quo Circumcisioni successit Sacramentum Baptismi i. e. That which the Apostle had said in the foregoing Verse concerning External and Internal Circumcision for the Instruction and Consolation of Believers against the false Jews he applies the same to Believers in the New Testament in which the Sacrament of Baptism doth succeed in the room of Circumcision Of the same Judgment is Calvin Aretius and many more whose words for brevity sake I shall omit and come to my Minor Proposition Minor But we Gentiles do come in the Jews room which I prove from that plain Text Rom. 11.19,20,24 Thou wilt say then The Branches were broken off that I might be graffed in Well because of Unbelief they were broken off and thou standest by Faith be not high-minded but fear For if thou wert cut out of tho Olive Tree which is wild by Nature and wert graffed contrary to Nature into the Good Olive Tree c. Now our Graffing in must answer to the Cutting off of the Jews or else the Apostle missed of his Scope and Design Nor was their breaking off a breaking off from a real Union with Christ as some of the Anabaptists have in my hearing affirmed to avoid the force of this Text but from External Church Priviledges Now since the Infant Seed of the Jews had a Right to Circumcision if then we Believing Gentiles do come in their room and Baptism in the room of Circumcision as I think I have sufficiently proved if Scripture may determine the Matter then we and our Seed must have a Right to Baptism under the New Testament as the Jews and their Seed had to Circumcision under the Old Testament But notwithstanding the Scripture is so clear for this yet that no doubt may remain I shall answer such Objections as may possibly be made against it Object 1. If we come in the Jews room then all the Children in the Nation ought to be Baptized since all the Children in the Jewish Nation were Circumcised But according to your Practice all ought not to be Baptized therefore from your Practice we may Judge you do not think we come in their room Answ All that can be truly inferred from hence is this That as all in their Church which was National were to be Circumcised so all in our Particular Churches ought to be Baptized and this is no more than I earnestly contend for Object 2. But if we come in their room then we must be a National Church as they were or else how can we be said to partake of their Priviledges Answ It was not of the Essence of the Jewish Church that it was National nor was it any Priviledge above what it would have been had it been divided into particular Churches as we are I grant that so long as the Temple stood which was a Type of Christ so long God required they should meet to worship him there which might serve to shew how the
by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to them An Answer no doubt pleasing to the Ignorant sort that will Swallow down any thing true or false that hath but the Name of Christ or the Righteousness of Christ annexed to it But sure this bold Asserter had forgotten that Text Isa 8.20 To the Law and to the Testimony if any Man an Anabaptist not excepted walk not according to this Rule 't is because there is no Light in him or rather I have reason to judge he was resolved his own Fancy should guide him in this Matter Now I would fain know where this Author can prove from Scripture any imputation of Christ's Righteousness to any but Believers I am sure he cannot and till he can however fond he or his Brethren may be of his Notion it not agreeing with the Rule in God's Word we are bound to look upon it as arising from the Darkness his own deluded Fancy Since I have been a Student in Divinity I have been taught both out of God's Word and from our most Worthy Authors that the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ had respect to the removal of our Guilt and that it was the Work of the Spirit within us to remove the Filth and destroy the Power of Sin Tit. 3.5 By the washing of Regeneration and renewings of the Hely Ghost Hence we are said to be born of the Spirit Justification and Sanctification though inseparable yet are widely distinguished by all but Papists and such as do adhere to them Sure this Gentleman had strangely forgot the great difference between our Title to Heaven and our Meetness for Heaven unless he looks upon our Claim to rise from our Meetness The Righteousness of Christ though it gives us a Title to Heaven as we do apprehend the Person of Christ by Faith yet it doth not take away our Filth any other way than by way of Purchase 'T is the Spirit of God in us that is the Efficient and that is the thing we are enquiring into VVhy then doth this Author thus beguile his unwary Reader when he is enquiring how Sin comes to be subdued he tells him how Sin comes to be pardoned As if a Pardon to a Malefactor would change his Heart or as if that Promise of a new Heart added to Forgiveness was a Promise of little worth I know not what it is to him I am sure 't is precious to all Saints what doth this imply but that the Righteousness of Christ was imputed to Infants to the end they may go to Heaven reeking in Sin and that they might be exempted from Regeneration But to put all out of doubt I come now to prove there is a Necessity for Infants to have Faith in the Sence aforesaid if ever they get to Heaven whatever such bold Men may say to the contrary who care not how much they say and how little they prove Let God be true tho' all such are found Liars Now there is a twofold Necessity for Infants to have Faith in order to their getting to Heaven one arising from God's Ordination and Appointment the other from the Corruption of our Natures as we come into the VVorld First From God's Appointment and Ordination he hath made this the way and the only way to Heaven Mark 16.16 He that believes not shall be damned I think that is plain Scripture since 't is so defired by the Anabaptists and the Expression being Indefinite is equivolent to a Universe He that is any he High or Low Rich or Poor Adult or Infant So John 3.3,5 Verily verily I say unto thee except a Man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God And then adds by way of Explanation Except a Man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Now Regeneration is an Infusing the Principles of all Grace into the Soul as the Learned Pemble observes one Grace not being the Cause of another and if of all Grace then of Faith for that is a Grace But perhaps the Anabaptists may object that by the Word Man we are to understand Adult only yet at best this is but a bare Conjecture which in others Cases is contemned by them and therefore with their Leave or without it I shall tye them up to the same Measures For it seems unreasonable to contemn this in others which we allow in our selves especially in Matters of Religion may we not by the same Rule exclude Women And then I know no Scripture to prove a Necessity for them to be regenerated But lest this should not suffice for by this time I may suppose the Anabaptists to be like a Man drowning that catches hold of every Straw to keep him from sinking I shall therefore prove from Scripture that the Word Man oft takes in Women and Children without Distinction of Age or Sex and to this end I might multiply Texts but I shall only give you Two for many The first is Gen. 6.7 I will destroy Man Now it is well known that all the old World was destroyed both Men Women and Children excepting those few in the Ark and yet only Man is mentioned So John 16.21 A Woman when she is in Travail hath Sorrow because her Hour is come but as soon as she is delivered of the Child she remembreth no more her Anguish for Joy that a Man is born Mind that which in the beginning was called a Child is after called a Man nor can we once suppose that we come grown Men immediately out of the Womb and yet this may be as easily proved as the former And as the Word Man sometimes is of this extent so 't is most evident it is so here For the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek signifies any one Beza renders it Aliquis any Body or any one But notwithstandstanding all that hath been said I lately saw a Piece put out by one of the Ablest of the Anabaptists in which he will prove that Christ in that Place meant Adult only and he proves it thus It must be so because Nicodemus understood him so but to me it seems strange that any unless one as ignorant as Nicodemus of the new Birth should think such a blind Idiot as he a meet Judge of Christ's Meaning and infallibly to conclude it must be so because he understood him so as if Nicedomus was an infallible Judge of this Matter That Nicedomus understood him so I cannot deny but if that must be his meaning because he understood him so then we must conclude Christ meant a natural Birth also for so Nicodemus understood him Verse 4. Can he enter the second time into his Mother's Womb and be born which was a gross Mistake as is clear from Verse 5. Which Words are a Reproof of his Ignorance and Carnal Conceptions and an Interpretation of Christ's own Words and might he not mistake as to the Subject as well as concerning the Nature of the thing Sure I am that Cause
say Brethren that Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God neither doth Corruption inherit Incorruption VVhere we must not understand the VVord Flesh Physically or in Point of Being for so we believe Christ is now in our Humane Nature in Heaven VVe believe also the Resurrection of the Body when the Saints shall in their Flesh see God Job 19.26 But Flesh here must be understood morally as corrupted as Gal. 1.16 Immediately I conferred not with Flesh and Blood in which Place he means he did not hearken to the corrupt Reasonings of the Flesh That this is the meaning seems clear for in the foregoing Verse he had been mentioning our Earthly Image which consists in the Depravity of our Nature and then concludes That Flesh and Blood that is such as retain that Earthly Image cannot inherit the Kingdom of God so Heb. 12.14 Without Holiness no Man shall see God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no one no Body as it signifies Nor is it to be understood of actual Holiness in our Conversation only for should a Man die the same Moment that he closes with Christ he shall as surely see God to his Comfort as if he had liv'd a holy Life never so long our Title to Heaven arising from our Union to Christ and not from our Holiness tho' never so great nor do his good VVorks so properly render him meet for Heaven as that Holy Principle from whence they proceeded A clear Instance we have in the Thief on the Cross that was converted and in Heaven in a few Hours By his embracing of Christ he came to have a Title to Heaven and his inward Change of Heart rendred him meet for Heaven notwithstanding he had no time to spend in a Holy Conversation From all which it doth appear that as we are corrupt by Nature so this Nature till renewed can never enter into Heaven nor do I see what the Anabaptists can say to this unless they deny the Corruption of our Nature and I perceive some of them have fled thither for Refuge But this is so confuted by the former Scriptures that I judge it needless to add any more and I cannot but wonder how such as pretend so high an Esteem for plain Scripture dare cast such Contempt on those many plain Texts I have cited and more that I might cite to prove the Corruption of our Natures as we come into the VVold This gives us sad ground to Fear that whatever high esteem such may pretend to plain Scripture when it seems to make for them yet they prefer their own Fancies before it when it really makes against them Thus I hope I have sufficiently proved a necessity for Infants to have Grace if ever they get to Glory I come now to the close of my Argument Minor Proposition But some Infants do get to Heaven Now I need not spend much time to prove his for I hope the Anabaptists will not be so uncharitable as to Sentence all Infants to Eternal Destruction rather than receive the Truth of the Gospel And indeed I find some of them so far from denying that some Infants get to Heaven that they rather believe that none miss of Heaven But if any of the rest of the Anabaptists should so far differ from their Brethren as to deny it yet 't is our comfort the Scripture doth in most express words affirm it Mat. 19.14 Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven not that the Kingdom of Heaven consists only of such but that some such are of that Kingdom By the Kingdom of Heaven saith Marlorate we must understand the Eternal Felicity of the Elect. Some indeed understand it of the visible Kingdom of Christ on Earth But such do not understand it so in opposition to their Eternal Felicity and indeed if some of such as are in Christ's Visible Kingdom here on Earth do not get to Heaven I know not who shall come there Visible not being opposed to Invisible but only distinguished from it So that since some such do get to Heaven as I have proved but none get to Heaven without Renovation hence it unavoidably follows some such are renewed which Renovation takes in the Seeds or Habit of Faith and all other Graces And thus have I confirmed my Argument which I am confident stands so firm on Scripture ground that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against it All I shall add shall be to Answer some Objections that may be made by some against it though indeed the truth is so clear that Objections are not worthy to be heard much less to to be answered But to the End that things may be made plain to the meanest capacity and nothing wanting for satisfaction to such as desire it I proceed Object 1. We see no such Ground to hope such have Grace Do not we see that oft-times the Children of Godly Parents prove wicked which they would not have done if they had Grace in Infancy unless they fall from Grace which we may suppose you do not Believe To which I answer That some Children of Believing Parents do prove Graceless and Wicked by too sad experience we find true Nor can we from hence infer that such fall from Grace for I know none that hold that all such have Grace I mean of Unbaptized Infants for as to Baptized Infants the Papists and Church of England both hold That all such have Grace though for my own part tho' I hope well of all such as are Baptized de jure of right yet to affirm that all such have Grace I dare not neither do I think any from Scripture have good ground so to do Should none have Grace among the Seed of Believers but such as Die in Infancy or who do in time appear Gracious but know not so exactly the time of their Conversion who may be supposed to be wrought upon in Infancy they would amount to a vast number And perhaps as many by the Rule of Proportion as may be found to have Grace in the great Day when all must be weighed in the Ballance of the Sanctuary in our particular Churches But if we must not hope of any because some prove wicked what shall we say of Adult Professors who are Members in Churches Do not many of them prove Hypocrites Must the Eleven therefore be condemned for Hypocrites because a Judas was among them Would not this be to Judge before the time Sure I am at this rate we must hope of none Adult or Infants But if you say notwithstanding some professors prove Wicked yet we are to hope well of others till such time as their Wickedness discovers it self So say I as to Infants though some prove wicked yet till others appear so we ought to hope well of them if we see nothing that doth cut off our hope and not so to do must be judged the greatest uncharitableness Oject 2. But Adult Persons make a Profession of Christ so do not Infants Answ All their Profession is but
Circumcision was first instituted to Believing Abraham I think it would have been unanswerable because there is nothing of Christ appears in such Parents no not so much as a Profession and how such Infants can be supposed to stand in the Place or partake of the Priviledges of Abraham unless one of their Parents stood in Abraham's room I see not But since the Objection is made against such as only Baptize such as have Believing Parents I must further Answer The forecited Scripture seems not in the least to oppose the Truth I have laid down as will appear if we consider the Apostle is there speaking to Adult Gentiles and doth assure them that though they were not the Natural Seed of Abraham and so could not on that account lay claim to the Promise either to themselves or Children as they might have done had they been so and their Conversations had been becoming the the Gospel of Christ yet by Virtue of their Relation to Christ or their believing in Christ though not of Abraham's Natural Seed they shall partake of Abraham's Priviledges And as at the first the Promise was made to Abraham and his Seed so when the Gentiles came to initiate the Faith of Abraham the Promise should be to them and their Seed as it was to Abraham Now the Promise at first reached unto Abraham's Natural Seed as is clear from Gen. 17.7,8,9,10 Now we cannot suppose the Seal to be applied to any but such as the Promise was made to But such as were Eight Days Old were Circumcised therefore to such the Promise was made For though I grant that all in Abraham's House were Circumcised both Old and Young the Adult being such as we may suppose were at least Professors For 't is said of Abraham he would teach his House yet it is evident none were excepted if but Eight Days old So that this Text strongly confirms my Argument for if upon our Believing we come to be Abraham's Seed and to partake of his Blessedness as in Gal. 3.9 then it follows by an undeniable consequence that as the Promise at first was made to Believing Abraham and his Natural Seed so it must he continued to us Believers and our Seed or else we are not Blessed as Abraham for it was no small part of his Blessedness that the Promise extended to his Seed But to put all out of doubt if the Promise was made to a Spiritual Seed then it must be to such as we are sure are Spiritual or to such as we have good ground to hope are so If you say the former then we must Baptize none either Old or Young because as I have proved we can-never infallibly tell who are Spiritual it being only proper to God who is the Father of Spirits to know that But if you say the latter that is such as we have good ground to hope are Spiritual then the Infant Seed of Believers must come in since I hope I have sufficiently proved we have good ground to hope such are inwardly renewed and if such as are renewed and born again by the Spirit and have the Image of God Engraven on their Hearts may not be reckoned for a Spiritual Seed I know not who must So that till my former Argument is overthrown concerning the necessity for Infants to be Regenerated and the good ground we have to hope some are so on the account of the Promises made to them I say till then all that is here added is of no Force Object 5. But we have no Instance in Scripture of any Infants ever Baptized therefore we have ground to think such ought not to be Baptized for we cannot suppose the Apostles were wanting in their Duty in that Case To which I answer Tho' we have no express Instance of any Infants Baptized yet we have some Texts that will I conceive infallibly prove either that some then were Baptized or at least now ought to be Baptized 'T is said of the Jaylor Acts 16.33 He was Baptized he and all his straightway Now we have good Ground to believe that all his takes in Children and that some of these all were little Children or at least so small as not to be able to make a Profession of their Faith but suppose they were able yet there is no express mention made that they did so before they were Baptized 'T is said indeed he spake to them the Word of the Lord but we cannot from thence conclude they that heard believed 't is said indeed after that he rejoiced believing in God with all his House but this was after he and all his were Baptized But there is one Text more that will be as a sharp two-edged Sword which will wound the Anabaptists let them defend themselves with all the Subtilty they can Acts 16.15 of Lydia And when she was Baptized and her Houshold c. Now the Enquiry is who this Houshold were But let them be who they will yet the Anabaptist will not reckon little Children among them because none such are mention'd but if so then because neither Husband Servant nor Kindred are mentioned therefore there was none And thus the Anabaptists have by an Art never before heard of reduced this Houshold to just no Body but Lydia and her self but I will suppose and I can do no other that in this Houshold there were more than Lydia And First I will suppose some of them Children as I have good ground to do from the use of the Word in Scripture and I find some of the Anabaptists do not deny this only say Lydia was too old to have young Children Now if there was any young Children in this Houshold as we have ground to suppose then here we have an Instance of such Baptized but I will suppose those Children of Lydia's as the Anabaptists affirm to be grown up then I ask by what Claim they were Baptized Now that her Houshold were Baptized the Word expresly affirms if they say as they were Professors I deny that and it lyes on them to prove it there is not one Word of their believing or any of them either before or after they were Baptized and had they made any Profession we have ground to think some mention would have been made of it but since the Scripture is silent tho' the Anabaptists should never so boldly affirm it yet I am confident scarce any but those of their own Perswasion will in the least regard what they say If they were Baptized as being related to Lydia tho' they made no Profession themselves then this overthrows the Practice of the Anabaptists since here are some Baptized that made no Profession of their Faith and also it gives us the Cause by an undeniable Conclusion for if such Children as are Adult but no Professors yet have a Right to Baptism on the Account of their Relation to a Parent that did believe then it follows that what belongs to any Child meerly as the Child of such a Parent
belongs to all the Children of the same a Parent But it may be some may say this Houshold were all Servants but if they were yet here is not a Word of their Faith or Profession And then I conclude that if Lydia's Servants were Baptized by Vertue of that Relation to Lydia much more should her Children be Baptized standing in a nearer Relation to her Thus I have shown you there are some Texts that afford us good ground to think some Infants or little Children were Baptized but yet if there were not any such therein contained yet the same Scriptures do afford undeniable Consequences that some Infants have a Right to Baptism as I have proved at large But suppose no Instance in Scripture could be given of an Infant Baptized or any thing like it yet if I prove from Scripture they ought to be it is a sufficient Warrant for us so to do and I conceive I shall extort a Consent to this from my Brethren from this following Consideration That there was a time when no Instance could be produced of any Adult that had been Baptized I mean in its first Institution as Abraham could produce no Instance of any that had been Circumcised Now then according to this Rule none must be Circumcised or Baptized because no Instance could then be produced of any that had but you must say Tho' no Instance could be given of any Adult that had been Baptized yet when God made it known to be his Will that so it should be it was sufficient to justifie their Practice in so doing So say I as to Infants tho' no Instance could be given of any Infant that had been Baptized yet if God hath made it known to us in his Word such ought to be it is a sufficient Warrant to us so to do and whether I have proved some Infants Right to Baptism from Scripture I leave it unto any Understanding Impartial and Unprejudiced Reader to judge and I must tell you if I have proved their Right to this Ordinance it is far more than if I could produce an Instance or many Instances of such as had for Right will be Right but 't is possible the best of Men being imperfect may fail as to some particular Fact Hence we say a facto ad jus non valet Argumentum that is we cannot from the Fact conclude the Right of the thing We are not to imitate David in his Adultery nor Peter in his denying Christ tho' the one was a Prophet and the other an Apostle For tho' it cannot be denied that they did so yet the Scripture proves they ought not to have done so and if the Apostles in Baptizing of Adult and not Baptizing Infants suppose it to be so did not do the former and omit doing the latter upon the Account of the Right the one had and want of a Right to the other tho' you could produce a Thousand Instances we are no more bound to imitate them than to imitate David in his Adultery or Peter in Cursing and Swearing because we are not to live by Examples but Laws nay as notwithstanding such sad Instances in Scripture we have Liberty and are bound not only not to imitate them but to act contrary thereunto so could you prove that the Apostles never Baptized one Infant yet if I can prove from Scripture as I hope I have they ought to be Baptized we ought in this to act contrary to their Practice and not make one Sin an Inlet into another since the Right of the thing is more than if you could produce as many Instances as there are Stars in the Firmament without this Right Let not any think I do this to reflect on the Practice of the Blessed Apostles God forbid for I am confident they were not wanting in the due Administration of any Ordinance in God's House but I do it to shew that the Right of this Ordinance is more than barely the Action and that you may see how unreasonable it seems in the Anabaptists to make such a noise about one Infant Baptized when we can produce that which is more than a Thousand Instances simply considered the Apostles did first consider their Right before they Baptized any Obj. 6. But we find no Command in Scripture to Baptize such and so have good ground to believe it is not the Mind of God such should be Baptized A. There is no need of a Positive Command or an Express Scripture in so many plain Words to affirm a thing in order to the proving a Duty or Truth We have a Matter of as great Concern as the Baptism of Old or Young proved by Christ himself by a bare Consequence and that is the Resurrection Mat. 22.31,32 But as touching the Resurrection of the Dead have ye not read that which was spoken to you of God saying I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob God is not the God of the Dead but of the Living This Scripture he cites from Ex. 3.6 to prove the Resurrection and yet not one Word of the Resurrection mentioned in it but proves it by Consequence thus That because God is the God of Abraham but not the God of the Dead therefore Abraham must live not only in his Soul but the Body they both making up but the whole of Abraham And if nothing must be received as a Truth but what we have a plain Scripture for in so many Words how will my Friends the Anabaptists prove That the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to any of us since tho' we have Scriptures that will prove it as to the Substance of it yet I know no Scripture which in so many plain Words doth affirm it but perhaps some of the Anabaptists will rather reject this as a Truth than admit of Infant Baptism and as to Doctrines so in Point of Duty There is no Necessity of an express Command to make it a Duty to illustrate this if God command us to be Charitable to poor Saints tho' the Command makes no mention of any expresly by Name yet when we see such in Wants we are bound to relieve them and cannot omit it if able without Sin it will not excuse us to say I am not commanded to relieve such by Name so tho' Sinners are not called by Name to come to Christ 't is their Duty to come so when God commands us to Baptize all such as we have good ground to hope are Believers if some Infants are found in that number we are as much bound to Baptize them as any others as if mentioned by Name God once commanded Circumcision to the Jews and their Infant Seed but if in the New Testament he hath declared as I have shown that we come in the Jews room and that Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision that Command of Circumcising Infants doth as much enjoin the Baptizing of Infants And no wonder Infants are not mentioned expresly in the New Testament as the Subjects
but only VVater supposing that if there was but Water be it more or less there could be no Hindrance why he should not be Baptized on that Account as to the Element Had an Anabaptist been there no doubt but he should have had a sharp Rebuke for his Ignorance thus VVhat hinders VVhy 't is not deep enough but Philip never in the least opposes him but seems rather to answer by way of Concession If thou believest thou may'st as if he had said True indeed if there is but VVater there can be no Hindrance on that Account But some may say This was a deep VVater of which he spake Answer I desire the Anabaptists to prove that But suppose it was so yet here is no mention made of that as not at all material to his present Purpose Now the Eunuch no doubt being inform'd by Philip as well touching the Manner of the Ordinance as the Necessity of it would in all Probability had Dipping been the only way have said See here is VVater enough to be Baptized in but since he only mentions VVater and Philip seems to consent to him I frame an Argument thus If nothing can hinder a Person being Baptized as to the Element where there is Water then Dipping is not absolutely necessary but nothing can hinder where there is Water therefore Dipping is not absolutely necessary the major is most evident for there may be Water where there is not enough to Dip any one in The minor is clear from express Scripture See here is Water what hinders c. Clearly holding forth that the not being deep enough to Dip in could not hinder for tho' it is by way of Interrogation yet it carries in it the Force of an Affirmation So that tho' we see from hence some Water is necessary yet this Scripture gives us not the least Countenance to believe or think that much Water is necessary but doth in Words next to most express Terms prove the contrary unto us Thus I hope I have not only proved from Scripture that some Infants have a Right to Baptism but also have given good Proof that our Way of Baptizing by throwing or pouring Water upon the Face is according to the Mind of God or at least have given as good Proof for that as can be given for Dipping and better and since the Scripture doth as well approve to say no more of our Way of Baptizing as of Dipping doth not the Law of God and Nature direct and excite us to use that Way which may be least hurtful to our Bodies For if God give us but equal Liberty to Baptize by Dipping or some other more safe Way we ought to avoid Dipping especially in our cold Climate since we cannot Dip in the Winter Season especially without endangering our Lives so that of Necessity the Ordinance must sometimes be long deferred and I am sure we have no President for that Lydia and her Houshold the Jaylor and all his were immediately Baptized when those two believed but now if we were to imitate them and should Baptize by Dipping we must extreamly hazard the Lives even of Adult in the Winter and whether of these three we should chuse to Baptize by throwing Water on the Face since the Word of God approves that Way as well as any other or Dip them in the Winter Season when we have no express Precept or President in Scripture so to do and so endanger the Life or sinfully to deferr the Ordinance I leave it to you to judge by long deferring the Ordinance we certainly Sin by Dipping or Plunging the Party under Water may under some Circumstances be in Danger to commit Sin to say no more but to Baptize by pouring on of Water carries no Appearance of Evil in it I have heretofore for some time preached occasionally in Burnham in the Hundreds of Essex where there were many Anabaptists tho' at great Variance among themselves one Party most vehemently accusing another because one Party Baptized any that were Adult if they desired it whether they were Believers or not by reason of which they in a small Village set up Meeting against Meeting whereby I see they are fallible in some things and so may be in others and there I was informed by one that well knew it that some Women being perswaded to be Dipped soon after Childbearing were immediately taken ill and never recovered I hope I have said enough as to the manner how this Ordinance may and ought under our Circumstances to be administred and now desire my Christian Friends the Anabaptists to prove that the Word is never used to any other End than to signifie Dipping or Plunging the whole Body under Water or because they went down into the Water or were where much VVater was that therefore of Necessity they must be dipped but if none of these can be proved as I am most certain they cannot I hope they will no more contend about this Point but will see it their Duty to comply with us in our way of Baptizing since they cannot thus hazard their Lives by Dipping without tempting of God since we may as lawfully use some other way less dangerous to the Body But if I cannot prevail in this yet since we have so much to say in Vindication of our Practice I hope they will suspend their Uncharitable Censures which I find them so prone unto may I judge of some Mens Spirits by their Writings the Poyson of Asps seems to be under their Tongue 'T is not long since I saw a Book put out by one of the most eminent of the Anabaptists who writing against one of ours who for Piety Gravity and Ministerial Ability deserved to be more Honourably treated by him however in that Point differing from him and in that he charges his Antagonist with Railery and Unbecoming Language telling him how unlike such a Spirit is to do good in Controverted Points and Promises by the Grace of God to discover no such Spirit in his Writing against him But this Gentleman had either a Bad Head or a Malicious Revengeful Heart for within a few Pages instead of Confusing him which he hath discovered himself in the Judgment of most to be unable to do he falls into such Scurrilous Filthy Abominable Language as for modesty sake I omit rendring much more of that Nature than ever he had received From whence I have cause to fear that Gentleman was not much influenced by the Grace of God while he no sooner scarce resolves by God's Grace against a known Sin which he pretends to abhor but commits it again and again deliberately and seemingly with the greatest delight and rather than conceal his Wit in making a Jest will commit a Sin to the Dishonour of God and Wrong of his own Soul It would have been well for that Gentleman if he had never Promised by God's Grace unless he had had more Grace to perform his Promise while he like that Disobedient Son said I go but
is like to infect the more But I shall not stay you any longer at the Threshold but lead you into the Point before us But that our Differences may not seem greater than they really are I shall lay down some things as Cautious to prevent mistakes for I am perswaded that most of our unhappy Differences do arise from a want of a right Understanding of each others Terms and therefore observe carefully 1. The Enquiry is not concerning the State and Condition which Christ finds the Soul in when he first comes to take hold on us by his Spirit in order to Regenerating of us if it was I would readily grant he then finds the Soul wreeking in Sin indeed without the least propensity or inclination to do Good yea to every Good Word and Work Reprobate with a strong inclination to Evil in a Dead Blind Ignorant Senseless and Stupid Condition in the Snere of the Devil In this State we all are by Nature and consequently in this State he must find all when he comes to Change their Nature our Natures being all the same as derived from one Common Root though our Actions may differ according to the various Temptations we may meet with But 't is about the Souls coming to Christ between which a clear distinction must be made for though Christ enable us to come to him or believe in him yet he doth not Believe for us to excuse us The Act of coming is ours and till the Soul thus come the union is incompleat I grant when Christ comes thus to the Soul that Soul shall come to Christ yet his coming to us is not our coming to him though the Cause of our coming Things that are inseparable must not be confounded the Humane and Divine Nature are inseparable in Christ yet the Divine is not the Humane nor the Humane the Divine So in Marriage the Man consents to the Woman and the Woman to the Man but yet the consent of the Woman is not the consent of the Man So in this Case Christ is first willing and he makes us willing yet his Will and our Will are distinct 2. Nor are we Enquiring by what Power the Soul is enabled to come to Christ for tho' I have just cause to question whether those that differ from me in the other will agree with me in this yet for my own part tho' I plead for a mighty Change wrought in order to our coming to Christ yet I freely acknowledge this Change to be of God and that the very Seeds of our Life of Sanctification are from Christ working as a most free Agent in us and that it is a mighty and irresistible Power by which he works 3. Nor are we Enquiring what Virtue there is in this Act of coming in order to our Justification or Glorification For though I believe and the Scripture affirms that unless we Believe we shall never be Justified nor Glorified yet I believe both are according to the Riches of God's Free-Grace It is Free-Grace that works this Change enabling of us to come and it is Free-Grace that we are accepted when we do come But positively the Enquiry is whether there is such a thing as a Change wrought in the Soul in order to our coming to Christ Or whether we must come as we are in a Natural and Unregenerate State wreeking in the Filth of Sin and Power and Dominion of our Lusts Or whether the Drunkard Swearer c. can or ought without any Change to come in those Lusts to Christ So that the Question is whether a Sinner can or ought to come to Christ in his Sins But before I affirm or deny I must further explain if possible what we mean by coming and what by coming in our Sins lest my Opposers when not able to stand their Ground should slip out at some Back-door Now by coming to Christ I understand believing in Christ according to Scripture Dialect Isa 55.1 Mat. 11.28 and to put all out of doubt I have been assured again and again from the Mouths of those that differ from me in this Point that they mean nothing else and by coming in Sin I understand it for one utterly devoid of any Principle of Grace one in the Gall of Bitterness and Bonds of Iniquity and not one that only falls into Sin And so I have also been assured by my Opposers they mean and indeed we cannot understand it otherwise for tho' the best of Saints have Sin yet the least of Saints is not a Sinner I distinguish between Actions and a State a Sinner in this Sense is not opposed to Perfection but to Sincerity So that in the most plain Terms the Question lyes thus Whether a Person utterly devoid of all Grace and under the Power and Dominion of Sin can or ought to believe in Christ in that State before any Change be wrought in him This some affirm and I deny And in speaking to this Point I shall prove none can come thus in their Sins to Christ and then that none ought to come thus in his Sins to Christ I prove the former from most express Scripture Eph. 1.19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who Believe and if we cannot believe without this Power then not as we are for all are not acted by this Power John 6.44 No man can come unto me except the Father which hath sent me draw him Now I would ask if all Men are thus drawn If not you give away the Cause if you say they are then it follows that all must actually be Saved or else some are able to resist those drawings the latter of which is Grand Arminianism the former many degrees worse So John 15.5 For without me ye can do nothing Now I would ask if coming to Christ is not something Nay is it not the most noble act the Soul can put forth and that which is most pleasing and acceptable to God And if so the Text says without Christ we cannot do it Now I would ask if every Man hath Christ in him as the Quakers affirm If you say he hath you shew what you are if not then when assisted by Christ we do not come as we were Thus you see how expresly the Scripture is on my side and whether we may most safely trust that Word of God or the Deluded Fancies of Men judge ye And as I have proved it from most express Scripture so I shall further prove it from those Metaphors the Scripture uses to express it As first It is frequently stiled a Coming a Metaphor or borrowed Expression from a Man walking from one place to another And from this two Considerations offer themselves for the confirming and illustrating the Truth I have affirmed for as no Man can act corporally till he is first alive so no Man can put forth such a vital Act as believing in Christ till Christ hath first infused into him a vital Principle and till then a Dead Man