righteousness as well as of that eminent prerogative the Fatherhood of the faithful which God gave him upon that great faith Circumcision was given him as a seal in such a sence as t was never given to his seed a Seal I said for it was a sign only but no seal to his posteritie to honor the greatness not to strengthen the weakness of his faith i. e. to confirm him that was so great a believer even beyond hope n that honorable title which God put upon him therfore I told you it runs thus viz. he received the sign circumcision i. e. circumcision which in its ordinary use was a sign a seal to him in this special sense i. e. as a seal of the righteousness of that eminent faith which he had that he might be i. e. to that very end and purpose as to ratifie him in that royal title The father of all that believe to this purpose I then spake shewing withall that in the same sense in which the father is said to seal the sonne Iohn 6.27 to be the giver of that meat that endures to eternall life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 him hath the father sealed i. e. authorized to that business honoured with that office and as Pharoah honoured Ioseph with the sole Dispensation of all the Corn and Government of his Kingdome and as Kings under the Broad seal do seal men to i. e. honour them with and settle them in great Places Trusts and Titles c. in such a sense is God in that place said to give Circumcision to Abraham whereby to seal him up and settle him for ever in that glorious title viz. the father of all that believe in which sense Circumcision though a sign of some things in common to him with his posterity was never given to any one of Abrahams posterity at all this as it is clearly held forth in that place so was so clearly held forth to you from that place of your own naming at that very time that as I wondered you could be ignorant of it then so I much more admire that you are not ashamed to bewray such dissembling in the recording of it as you do and such wretched ignorance of it still besides I know not whether I instanc'd then in any other but I am sure as shy as you seem to be of it there were divers more promises made and priviledges made over to Abraham under the great Seal Circumcision which were neither made nor given much less confirmed by Circumcision as a seal thereof to all his posterity viz. that his seed should inherit Canaan this though it was made and made good to Abraham and that seed of his to whom it was promised yet not to the seed of all his seed for many of his posterity as Ishmael who was circumcised and his children by Keturah also and their whole race had none of all this seal'd to them by Circumcision Again that Christ should come out of his loyns that in his seed all Nations should be blessed these were made to Abraham and were as the rest also great Priviledges to the honour of which he was sealed yet though 't was signified to all his seed by Circumcision that Christ should come of him after the flesh all of them had not that previledge by promise that Christ should come of them after the flesh by all which it undeniably appears that the same Covenant of Circumcision in every of those respects in which Circumcision was given him as a seal of it was not given to all the Iews and their children and that fore-named place speaks of Circumcision onely in reference to Abrahams person and in that sense and respect in which it was given to him only as a Seal of his faith i. e. that strong faith he acted and gave glory to God by Rom. 4.20 for which God also gave that great glory and dignity to him viz. the father-hood of the faithfull All which notwithstanding and much to the same effect that was uttered then to shew that Circumcision had more ends and relations to Abrahams Person then to the Persons of his seed yea and though your own paper which lastly I appeal to doth testifie that I I multiplied words that is to say spake much about other ends of Circumcision to Abraham then to his seed yet you both be-lie me and give the lie to your selves so far as to say I was extreamly foundered which to say and yet to say in the very same line that I multiplied words about other ends of Circumcision the very point your selves had urg'd me to speak to if it be not at once to say and unsay then verily I know not what is for these two are contradictory to each other but perhaps you think to salve all with this that being call'd to speak punctually to that end viz. whether Circumcision were a seal of the righteousness of faith to Abrahams posterity at all or not or if not to shew it I answered nothing to that particular that carried any sense or reason in it but really Sirs I said no less to that very end but rather much more then I have said a little above which whether it have any sense or reason in 't or no yet was it both sensless and reasonless in you however to leave it wholly out and you had dealt far more ingenuously and judiciously in your own Account and in every rationall mans also had you set down what I answered and so put your Reader into a capacity of discerning whether it were to the purpose yea or no but that its like you were very loath to do least as nothing as it was to your purpose it should have been more serviceable then you desire it to be to ours As for that ingagement whereby how wisely a fool may see you bound your selves to become Anabaptists in case I made discovery of what I did abundantly discover I freely dis-engage you from that double performance and shall accept much more of your single submission to that ordinance it being no matter of rejoicing to to me to see any man translated from A-no-baptist to be an Anabaptist for that is from one extream to another Report Next you relate p. 5. that I said I did not deny but that little children might have the holy Ghost and these texts of Scripture viz. Mar. 10.14 Mat. 19.14 Luke 18.16 2. Cor. 13.5 did seem to intimate as much but that it could not be made appear that they had it to the making of them subjects of baptism Reply To this which is another flat falsity and counterfeit resemblrnce I reply thus first that little children might have the holy spirit if God please extraordinarily to infuse it I might then possibly not deny nor dare I yet deny but that possibly they may but it 's more then God hath manifested if they have to either us or you nor will this grant either prove the propriety of your Position who down-rightly
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
of themselves is as seems by your selves a faith and practise against Reason why else doth reason object against it Indeed the Papists aâ—e so unreasonable in sundry articles of their faith that they hold some things not onely above but against Reason and that 's tâ—e worst that can be said of the most absurd and â—bominable tenets that are amongst them and that is so bad that even thereupon the Protestant priesthood finds occasion enough to abhor them witnesse their Tenet of transubstantiation or real presence of Christs very body in the supper of which when we say how can this be its not onely against other articles of faith viz. his bodily ascention session and local mansion in heaven but also against common sense and reason it being in reason impossible that one body should be at once in two places as well as in consubstantiation it is for two distinct bodies viz. the bread and Christs body to be at once in one place they say much what as you say here and in the lines above viz. that howbeit its difficult to understand how it should be so in Reason yet if we had learnt to believe the Scriptures which in plain terms assert the thing saying of the bread this is my body we would believe it and leave the manner of its being so to him who saies it with whom all things are possible as we do in the articles of faith e g. the resurrection of the body not asking how it can be because the Scriptures have declared it The Reformists tell them again that the resurrection of the dead is a thing not onely in respect of God who can do all things save such as imply imperfection as to lie and die c. and contradiction for its impossible utterly that pure contradictories should be both true but also in respect of the thing it self possible to be effected but the ubiquity and the actual universal eating of one and the same numerical body and so smal a body too as that of Christs and at one and the same time in so many several places are matters and fancies savouring of such contradiction and so adverse to the very nature of God that as Kekerman system log p. 42. saies Ne deus quidem producere potest et logica eas e suis excludit ordinibus such as God doth not and Reason knows not O but saith the Papists nothing but humane reason judges this impossible and repugnant to other articles of faith to whom among other things our Divines use to reply that in matters of religion and faith and things of God reason is not to be laid aside as if we were to bring bare bruit sence i. e. blind implicit faith onely to the word of God but to be used by us that we may thereby as without which we cannot distinguish truth from falshood yea to speak yet in the very words of your own author in this case I mean Vrsins Catachise to which you send us whose these words mostly are which I have already spoken see page 414.415 For even therefore was reason given us of God that we might by the light of the mind discover contradictory opinions and clearly understanding what is agreeable to the word of God and what repugnant to it may imbrace this and refuse that Hoc nisi firmum maneat nullum erit dogma tam absurdum c. Vnlesse this stand for granted no opinion though never so absurd and impious yea nothing in the sincks of all hereticks though never so impure and monstrous can be confuted out of the holy Scripture for hereticks and deceivers will reply their opinions do not contradict the word of God but onely it seems so to humane reason You see then how among your own writers the foundation of faith and true religion is laid not onely in the Scripture as the rule and fountain whence we fetch all but secondarily in sound Reason also improved in way of trial of things by it as without which no use can be made of Scripture so that though some Divines proclaim it to the whole world for so do your selves in this place that Reason it self is against them in their way and consequently that their way is against Reason and many Divines confesse their faith and religion in some articles and particles of it to be above Reason which is but a gentle-gigg too if by above Reason they mean so as that Reason cannot comprehend how they are at least conceive them possible so to be yet however farewel such a faith for ever for me as Reason fights with and far be it from me either to do or believe any thing against reason for as they that see not good ground in reason to believe what they believe can never be alwayes ready as every Christian ought to render a reasonable answer to such as ask them a Reason of the faith that is in them and are at best but implicit in believing so they who believe not only without and beyond but even against Reason it self opposing them in their faith are most unreasonable believers indeed and such as shall find that Reason as easily as they think t is answered will make good what objection it makes against the most unreasonable of them all but to leave this and to come to the discourse or ratiocination it self which followes between Reason and reasonlese for what else can I fitly stile such an Antagonist as stiffens himself against Reason and counts it nothing to refute it yea t is done here in your Review for satisfaction to the Reader as you say but t is undone again in the Re-review to the undeception of the deceived and the deceiver The objections of Reason and replies of reasonlesse and re-replies of Reasons friend are as followes Review 1 Infants have no knowledge of good or evil Ergo no faith By the same reason they should be denied to have the faculty of understanding the exercise of their faculty they have not no more have they of their faith not the act but the habit as was said before Re-Review Good Sirs consider what a reasonlesse reply to reason this is For if by faith you mean only a faculty of believing what ever in time may be told them which is the adaequate object of faith in general that is in all reasonable creatures and is de esse to them universally innate in them as a part of the rationall soul as well as the faculty of remembring what in time they may hear and of willing and chosing what in time may be propounded to them and of understanding what in time may be taught them but what is all this to your purpose who plead faiths being in some infants onely not in all when as faith in that sense is as much in all infants as in some and would if it could at all entitle such as have it to baptism entitle all mankind to baptism as well as some sith all have the faculty of
believing things as beasts which are meerly sensitive have not flowing naturally from the rationall soul in man But if by faith you mean restrictively that faith in special whose adequate object is the word of God preached in the promise and precept of it which onely makes us subjects of salvation and baptism dare you say that t is of equal necessitie and certainty that faith in such a sense is in infants as the faculty of Reaâ—on and understanding is so that by the same Reason that we deny one of these to be in them it may be therefore denied that they have the other and that their non knowledge of good or evill will as much prove them to be habitually no reasonable creatures as it proves them to be habitually no true believers of the Gospel For shame Sirs blot out and abjure this absurdity for you cannot but know that the faculty of understanding in man is Habitus a naturâ innatus a habit ingendred in them in very nature yea in all mankind necessarily qua id ipsum but your selves say faith in the sense in which we speak of it is but Habitus infusus a habit infused and that into some only for all say you have it not and I say t is Habitus acquisitus rather an acquired habit which comes if not without the gift of God to persons therein yet also in that way of hearing the word which on our parts is first done in order to its being begotten in us whereby we come to know good and evil first i. e. to be convinced of sin and guilt in our selves and righteousness and mercy in God through Jesus Christ and then to have faith in him to justification in this therefore Reason remains unrefuted and rather routs you then is routed by you Review 2. Their dislike at baptism testifyed by their crying if they had faith they could endure it with much patience The same reason might be brought against circumcision children when they felt the pain it is likely cried as much Besides we must denie faith to be in the best of Gods children if their sense under the cross and their complaing of it be an argumâ—nt to conclude against it against the weaknesse of faith it may not against the being Re-Review Had circumcision bin administred on perswasion that the subjects to whom it was set were believers as baptism is to be Acts 8. this same reason might have been brough also against infants circumcision though I must confesse it to be the least among an 100 that in reason may be brought to disprove infants believing and therefore possibly you whom I observe sometimes to set up a man of straw of least strength to annoy you and then to shew your skill in fencing at him have singled out this easie opposite to encounter with and yet so far as I see you do not as the proverb is give him as he brings neither but circumcision as is weâ—l known well-nigh to every body but your selves was dispensed to persons upon a far different account from this viz. meerly on their being males of a Jewish houshold and sometimes one a more slender acquaintance with Abrahams family then so witness the whole City of the Shechemites whose males were all all circumcised on meer hopes of their princes mariage with Iacobs daughter but t was not dispensed as you senselessly suppose it was on supposition of its subjects having faith for as there was not present evidence to any body that any of those infants that were signed had faith so for all your childish conclusion p. 4. that the children of the Jewes had faith witness their circumcision therefore the children of believing parents have now by â—uture experience t was evident to every body that they had it not how else came they to be complained on in general when at years as a body of wicked ones and unbâ—lievers unlesse you will say they lost and fell from their faith as I am sure you dare not and for my part I cannot say they did except I could see more clearly then yet I do see or you can ever make me see that at first they had it As for your further following flim-flam wherein you tell us that we must deny faith to be in the best of Gods children as well as in little children if their sense under the cross and their complaining of it be an Argument to conclude against their faith I give you to understand Sirs that its an ignorant inconsequence and so you will your selves discern it to be by then you have weighed what a difference there is between that voluntary submission which by the power of faith in the Saints is acted and yielded to the cross and yoak of Christ in either circumcision or baptism or any other difficult duty or dispensation service or suffering they are called to for Christs sake and that forced and not more unpleasant then unwelcome imposition of it that is made when that cross or yoak viz. the affliction or pain of circumcision or baptism is put upon the necks of infants for the one freely choses it when they have the liberty to refuse and decline it if they please and therefore though they have some sense out to the flesh no affliction being joyous but grievous yet are so far from complaining of it that they rather comply with it of their own accord as counting it better then to be without it witnesse Moses who by faith chose rather affliction and reproach with Christ as deeming these better then the pleasures and treasures of Egypt which were at his choice as well as these but the other i. e. infants are so far from offering themselves to either dutie or difficulty for Christ as by faith esteeming it better so to do then to escape that they rather are solely sensible of the smart so as to gainsay refuse and avoid it what they can but onely that will they nill they men make them bear it and cross them whether they will or no neither can infants by faith choose well-come or delight in either the disease that is by dipping or the sore that seconds circumcision but suffer both full sore against their wills and whereas you say the sense of the cross may conclude against the weaknesse of faith not against the being that clause reasons Reasonlesly against Reason indeed for it hath neither good sense nor reason in it to your own purpose or ours either the best I can make on it for your turn is to suppose it a meer mistake and that 's the least a man so concerned to meddle with it as I am can well say of it for surely Sirs if I read it right you write it wrong and set down your mind in words the sense whereof is just contrary to your meaning for certainly you would or at least should have said Against the strength or greatness of faith and you say Against the weakness of it if this were but
as then ended Reply But Sirs will this be taken for A true Account think you or A true Counâ—terfeit rather by wise men that were there present when they shall see how you huddle over the matter in such hast as to leave no less then half of it behind you what dispatching and patching up of things to an end you make before your heads are half heated in the handling of them for verily as Hanun shamefully intreated Davids servants shaving oâ—â— the one half of their beards cutting off their clothes in the midst and sending them away 2 Sam. 10.4 so have you dealt by the Disputation cutting off the business by the buttocks and so sending it out naked into the wide world your THEN Sirs is a word out of joint 't was not then but a pretty while after then before the Disputation came to this full point which you have already brought us too in your Account after which you say there was no other Answer given by me nor to be expected for as I often offered fuller Answer to all you urg'd in one intire Discourse but that 't was an unseasonable motion in your Account p. 10. and in no wise so pleasing to your Priestly patience as 't was to the peoples to expect so long as to hear it so there was much more then this uttered by some of your selves though you give us not not so much as the sum of it in this your sum Here 's but one particular mans influence toward the maintenance of Infant-baptism inserted here in your Account viz. onely Mr. Willcocks this was he who when had been the prime pleader in your cause was afterward and good reason too for he was the fittest for your turn though not the truths very gravely desired by you how justly judge you to be judge in it and to determine his own Disputation and be the main moderator of what came out of his own mouth and mine too a thing never heard of in Accademicall Disputations the Rules of which you were so stiff to have us steer by this was he who if he were as not I but Report saies he was your special Pen-man in the Account as he was your special spoks-man at the Disputation sets so light it seems by every mans else as to set down no mans Arguments but his own it 's like they were not very much to the matter and indeed they were not nor his neither though his own are exprest for the most material but better or worse there were more Arguments urg'd then these one by a Scotchman who then liv'd at Kenington what he is call'd I know not so well as whether for he had a call to Dover since that from whence whether he is now call'd I know not he laid down his Argument in this form viz. to whom the Covenant belongs to them the initiall seal of it belongs but the Covenant belongs to infants c. but seeing me startle at his Anti-scripturall term of Initial seal by which he denoted baptism whether he urg'd more or what more he urg'd I remember not well but I 'm sure he was at Ne plus ultrâ in that for I durst not admit of that improper term which made his Syllogism Sophisticall and his Disputation ex falso suppositis for he took it for granted by all men that baptism as he call'd it is an initiall seal about which yet sub judice lis est it being doubted by many whether baptism be a seal at all and deny'd by some of whom I profess my self one so opinion'd who in its due place shall I doubt not give good account on 't there was likewise another Argument urg'd by Mr. Vahan who from Acts 2. would have drawn the right of baptism to believers infants and being askt whether those Peter then spake to were believers or unbelievers when he spake to them and replying that they were believers heard the contrary both clear'd by my self and confessed by his Partner Mr. Prigg my quondam friend unless I became his enemy that day because I told him the truth who convening with me in that though not in the true Consequence of it did however so contradict Mr. Vahan that he came in to his help ore the shoulders There were also two more Arguments besides these in the Account urg'd by Mr. Willcock viz. one ex particulari the other ex negativo as I took occasion to give a hint thereof above which he or whoever was the pâ—nâ—man of these passages was it seems as little willing to own as his own name or his handy work it self sundry more Arguings there were and some Arglings also made by some who would have now and then a snatch and away which me thinks you might have given a transient glance at at least in A true Account for your utter silence concerning which you might justly be blamed yet I blame you not much when I consider how sensible you might easily be of liableness to more blame for the matters themselves had you shewn them such untempered morter were they then can well be conjectured by you you are now under for letting them alone altogether Report Another flat falsification and abuse of me and the world is this you misreport me and that in two places viz. at the bottom of both your sixth and seventh pages which makes you doubly guilty of that single fiction as having confessedâ—hat â—hat circumcision was the seal of the Gospel Covenant and that Ishmael who was that carnall seed of Abraham onely because born in Abrahams house had right to it and received it Reply That this is A true Account of what you then said I said I dare not deny but do deny it to be A true Account of what I said whether you understood or understood not my words I know not but I utter'd not a word to such a purpose and were you not men minded to mis-understand when to understand seems never so little to make against you I make no doubt but to make your own true Account make you eat some of that you have here uttered that Ishmael who was Abrahams carnal seed even meerly because born in Abrahams house had right to Circumcision and received it as every male so born also did I confess I confessed but denied all along that Circumcision was a seal as to Ishmael of the Gospel-Covenant or that he had it under such a notion as a Seal at all I said it was a Seal to none save to Abraham and that even to him 't was a Seal of not any thing at all save of the righteousness of the faith he had which words in the sense I then expounded them are not meant of the Gospel-Covenant but of that particular personal Covenant God made with him concerning his father-hood of the faihful a peculiar privildege which God gave to him and to none in all the world besides him as for Ishmael yea and Isaac himself they neither of them had it in this
sense as neither had they that Covenant or promise of a father-hood which it was a Seal of though even Ishmael himself and the lowest males in Abrahams house were all to be circumcised upon this account only if if there had been no other as he was commanded to circumcise all his males As to a fuller account of my grounds for this opinion I shall suspend it till I take my other Account of these passages in yours and take notice only here first of your sacred Sophistication in giving that out for granted which was so abundantly denied Secondly that close contradiction you here give not onely to the truth but your selves also for you give out in the next page but one before that I denied Circumcision to be a seal of the Righteousness of faith which in your own sense is as much as of the Gospel-Covenant to any of Abrahams posterity and that I multipli'd words in proof of the contrary and yet here in relation to that very Relation of your own in the weak wilfulness of your memories you give out that I had confessed Circumcision to be even to Ishmael the seal of the Gospel-Covenant that is with you still of the righteousness of faith thus for your own ends fathering your own false-tenet upon me ye have not lost all by the shift for you have fastn'd the fault of sorgery upon your selves and this puts me in mind of another of your mis-reports which because t is so suitable to this I 'le give you some little sense of it here though I find it farre off hence in your Review p. 13. l. 1.2 where looking or rather licking over all your arguments again as somewhat rude and deform'd in their first delivery and among the rest this from Circumcision of infants to their baptism you positively affirm thus that the Adversaries confess baptism to be the seal of the Gospel-Covenant whereas if by Adversaries you mean your friend my self among others besides what else shall elsewhere be produced in proof of my dissent from you in this point your selves can bear me witness or if you will not a thousand others will that on the very day of Disputation when the Clergy-man of Kenington stiled baptism an initial seal I deni'd it to be a seal at all and am sure it would have found you all more work then you are aware of to have made good that un-gospel like expression of it though I grant it to be a sign of the Gospel-Covenant Report Another as flat a falsiâ—y as ever fell from the mouths or pens of men who pretend to truth is that clause which lies in the last line of the seventh page and first line of the eighth wherein consider it with the words before you say I confessed that the spiritual seed of Abraham and their children had under the Gospel as good right to the seal thereof which is baptism as Ishmael who was that carnal seed of Abraham had right to the seal of the Gospel-Covenant Circumcision Reply Whereas besides my constant denial of Circumcision to be a seal to any but Abraham as I said immediately above and as your selves testifie of me and besides my denial of baptism to be a seal at all I either did deny the children of the spiritual seed i. e. of believers to have right to baptism or else to what purpose did you oppose me for this was the very question between uâ— which as you affirm'd so I from the beginning to the end of the Disputation all along most inalterably deny'd Indeed I confessed ore and ore again that Abrahams spiritual seed i. e. believers have right to baptism but that the natural seed of this spiritual seed of Abraham are Abrahams spiritual seed as so born or that believers children quâ— tales are semen fidei as well as their parents is a most silly saying of your own page 14. but that which all the day long I most strenuously stood against much more that they were the subject of baptism yet you say here in the Preter-plu-perfect tense that I had confessed their right to baptism as good as Ishmaels to Circumcision which me thinks if I had done so would have been exprest some where or other in the foregoing part of your true Account or else it is not so true as 't would be taken for but sith it is not to be found that I confest such a thing in all your Relation of the most materiall things that past among which this had it been confest as you here say had been the most materiall of all for it had been the full giving you the cause and saving you the labor of more Disputing we 'l take it for granted if you please rather then charge your true Relation of the most materiall things as not relating the most materiall of all that this your Testimony of my confession of this matter is most prodigiously false and abusive Sirs I wonder you are not ashamed so palpably to speak contrary to what you have here recorded I know not well what you mean by so many foul mis-reports unless as a certain great Benefactor to the Romish religion perceiving it unable to stand by the Scriptures bestowed a Legend of lyes towards its support which is call'd Legenda aurea so you supposing your Infant-baptism uncapable to be maintain'd any longer by principles of truth and reason have thereupon been so bountiful to the cause as to give in this golden-leaden-legend Another sorry tale and strange story you tell is not of me but of one of my side as you are pleased to speak and this me thinks if I be not mistaken with a kind of Emphasis of the Featlean strain as if it were some presumption for a Russet Rabby or secular Artizan to climb so high and flutter and sile so neer the pulpits and pompous Belconies of the Priests and as if he were a man Sacerdotalis ambitionis loving the uppermost Room and chief place in the Synagogue more to be taken notice of himself then that the truth should be taken notice of by the people in which things if you muse as you use yet know Sirs that we have no such custome nor the Churches of God of whom you say thus Report That having plac'd himself on the highest of the pulpit stairs to be seen of all and craved the liberty granted by the propositions to ask questions and receive satisfaction he profest himself a stranger and to come thither by accident though both afterwards appeared contrary Reply Though both will yet appear to be contrary to what you would have them appear to be if you could tell how viz. a couple of untruths for verily he was a stranger and so I then told Mr. Prigg who askt me of him that had not been long in the Countrey and was unknown both by face and name not to my self and some others yet however to most of that Auditory in which I believe not one of many could say who or whence he
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—
and supposing still that you speak of the right subject viz. infants of believing parents we will cast this your Enthusiasm into this Enthememe Disputation Little children of believing parents have faith Ergo little children of believing parents have the holy spirit Disproof First I deny your Consequence secondly your Antecedent as both stark false and that is as much as can well be false in an Enthememe First I shall be bold to tell you Sirs that your Argumentation from present faith to a present having the holy Spirit is most invalid and unconsonant to the Scripture for if by the holy Spirit you mean as you must else it serves not your turn at all to the proof of baptism the spirit in that special sense viz. the holy spirit of promise the consequenâ—e from faith to the having of it will not universally hold true for as much as faith not only must be in time before it unless God be better than his word and that he may be when he pleases and so he was Act. 10 44. where the spirit by Anticipation was given out before obedience at least in baptism which yet by promise cannot be expected till after it Ast. 2. 38. I say not only must be before it but also may be a pretty while without it this will be counted the mad mans mad Divinity with you I doubt not but I le clear it to the Dimmest Divine of you all yea see if the whole body of the Testament of Christ doth not tell you plainly that as faith must be before it in an ordinary way before we have warrant to expect it so it may for some while be without it and therefore cannot prove the holy spirit to be alwaies where it is for the spirit of promise is given after faith if given according to the promise and so long after it too now and then as is enough to make it undeniably appear that the having of faith is no proof of ones present having the holy spirit among sundry others let those Scriptures be seriously searcht into Ephes. 1.13 In whom after ye believed ye were sealed with the holy spirit of promise Act. 19.2 have ye received the holy spirit since ye believed they answered no also Act. 8.12 when they believed c. they were baptized c. but verse 16. the holy spirit was fallen upon none of them only they were baptized Act. 5.32 The holy spirit which God hath given to them that obey him yea the gift of the spirit though Gods ordinary way so limits not himself but that he may give it extraordinarily before Act. 10. yet is it neither promised nor as by promise to be expected but upon obedience in faith repentance turning to God baptism and prayer Pro. 1.23 Act. 2.38 Luke 11.15 Iohn 7.38.39 the places are so plain to the purpose that I 'le not disparage your judgement so much as like a fresh man to stand to frame formal Syllogisms to you out of them to conclude then as to your Consequence had you argued from the holy spirit in the special sence in which you take it to faith it might have past for me without correction but â—ith you began at the wrong end of your business I beseech you take it for a warning Sirs and begin again Secondly I deny your Antecedent which if your Consequence were never so true is most false for infants of believers have not faith if they have unbelievers infants for ought you make appear to the contrary have as much and so though that grieve and go against you and cannot be owned so kindly by you in opinion as it is in practise must de jure be baptized i. e. humano for Divino neither may as well as they but in truth as it will not appear by what you here bring to evince it by that faith is in either so I trust it will appear by what shall be said in disproof of your proofs that faith can possibly he in neither Disputation You prove infants of believing parents to have faith two waies as you say first by express texts of Scripture secondly Arguments of consequence Your express Scripture is Mat. 18.6 Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the third verse say you they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence upon my confession and concession that in ver 2. and 4. is meant one in respect of age because it is said there he called to him a little child and who so humbleth himself as this little child you therfore argue that little ones in respect of age are meant in that 6 verse also Disproof Sirs let me ask you two questions first are you sure these are infants indeed Secondly are you sure they were infants of believers of whom Christ saies whoever offends one of these little ones that believe in me for my part if there were any probability that he spake of little ones literally taken at all as I know none there is yet I am sure there is none that they were the little ones of believers he then spake of in contradistinction to the infants of unbelievers for t is not specified either one way or other and is most probable that the child he occasionally called to him might be some unbelievers child or other the number of believers where e're he came being few and not comparable to them that believed not but what e're that child was yet this is much more then probable that by the term these litâ—le ones in v. 6. he means not infants but his Disciples whom having first perswaded them to become such as that little one or as little children in such things as are generally found in them viz. plainness of spirit humbleness innocency freedome from malice in which respects David saies Psal. 131.2 my soul is as a weaned child from that Analogy that was and ought to be between little ones and them he here bespeaks as it was very ordinary for him to do under the title of these little ones besides the plurall number he speaks in implies he spake of such of whom there was a plurallity then present for saith he these little ones pointing as it were to more then one but there was but one little one then in the midst of them of whom when Christ speaks he speaks in the singular saying this little child as to the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used in the third verse whence you argue that they were children in age spoken of by our Savior by which you seem much to strenghthen your selves in your Dabling of Infants foreheads I must tell you that of the two you more marre than make your matter by so much as mentioning of it in this case for first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though by some philosophicall or poeticall license it may possibly be used to signify Infantem some youngling of three or four years old as though beginning to prattle can scarcely
because they have need of his protection and all the help they then have comes from him also though in infancy they knew it not nor him so as actually to hope and trust in him for it or properly to believe in his name even more then inanimate creatures in the other case this is the first way whereby you profess to prove infants of believing parent onely if you speak to your proposed purpose to have faith which how weak it is the weakest eye may discern it that is not disposed to be blind and the second is like unto it which is as followeth by two arguments of inconsequence Disputation Children of the Iews had faith Ergo children of believing parents now The Antecedent is proved thus viz. God himself did witness that the children of the Jews had faith by setting to his seal which was circumcision called by the Apostle the seal of righteousness of faith Disproof There 's but two things to be own'd or disow'd at all in this piece of proof as also in the former viz. the Argument and the Antecedent and I 'le deny him to be a Seer that sees not good ground whereon to deny them both O fine O fine O fy these you call your Arguments of Consequence but saying that you say so I am verily perswaded the verieft implicit Simpleton that ever saluted the University or sware Allegeance to your Crown and dignity or was ever implicitly canonized into the obedience of your faith will never see them so to be when ceasing to see through your eyes he shall come once to behold things with his own for really they are the most false absurd and inconsequent that ever I saw with mine Sirs give me leave to make an answer by these ensuing Interrogatories and I 'le expect your Answer to them again had the children of the Iews faith and did God himself witness that they had it by setting Circumcision to them as his seal of it i. e. for that 's the sense in which you take the word seal to assure men that they had it and is it the consequent that the children of believing parents have it now let me then ask you First do you conclude that all the children of believing parents have it now that I think for shame you will not say sith every experience witnesses the contrary or that some believers children have it now therefore all believers children are to be baptized and if so that is as silly an inference as if you had argued thus viz. some people believe therefore all must be baptized Secondly had the Jews children faith first I wonder how they came by it sith the word saies faith comes by hearing and how can there be believing on him of whom they have not heard and how can they hear without a preacher and how can they preach except they be sent and how can they be sent to preach to infants that understand not what is said except you say as you are fain to do not for want of blindness p. 18. that infants have an hearing and the spirit works upon them miraculously and yet not extraordinarily neither but in that ordinary way as he doth on men in the conversion of whom you say the spirits working is but ordinary and yet miraculous too which Popish Bull deserves well to be baited but I le fotbear to fall upon it till I meet it in its proper place in the Review Secondly when had they it begotten in them in the womb or if after birth on what day on the 1st 2d 3d 4th 5th 6th 7th or 8th for on some of these they received it if on the 8th day they were as you say they were circumcised in token that they had it but I muse and am yet to learn on which and so are your selves too I believe for all your confidence in asserting it Thirdly was Circumcision Gods witness yea Gods seal to assure men of thus much that those children to whom it was set had faith First Risum teneatis amici did you ever read or hear that circumcision was set to infants to this end viz. to testifie to the world that they had faith was it set to Ishmael as Gods witness that Ishmael had faith was it set to Esau as Gods witness that Esau had faith when God who would not witness a ly knew that neither the one of these had it nor yet the other unless they lost it again which sure you will not say for shame leave such sorry Shuffles are your Masters in Israel and know not this that Circumcision was set to the Iews children not to shew others that they did believe but as a permanent sign thereof to shew them when they should be at years to take notice of it by sight as of that transient unseen sign of sprinkling in infancy they cannot do what things they then should believe viz. Christ to come of Abraham after the flesh and circumcision of their hearts by him c. was it ever set under this notion as a seal of faith to any person in the world save to Abrahams proper person only to whom too t was a seal not so much to witness or assure men that he had faith as to honor that faith that more evidently and eminently then ordinary he had before with that famous title i. e. the Father of the faithful therefore circumcision as given to Abraham in Rom. 4.11 is not said to be the seal of the righteousness of faith as you corruptly rehearse the words leaving out the residue of the verse which makes them relate to Abraham only as if it had stood as a seal in such a sense to all Abrahams posterity but a seal of the righteousness of the faith i. e. that famous faith which he himself had and to this end that he might be as none of his meer fleshly seed ever were the Father of all them that believe Secondly if circumcision were Gods witness that these infants to whom it was dispensed had faith then certainly baptism which with you at least is of such Analogy and Identity with Circumcision that it hath the same subjects and significations must also with you be Gods witness to others that those infants to whom it is dispensed have faith also and if so then I must make bold to ask you two things First Is not this round about our coal fire to prove two things no otherwise then one by another for when you prove that children are to be circumcised or baptized which with you is all one who falsly call baptism as Paul doth not in Col. 2.12 for he means another thing by that phrase viz. that of the heart the circumcision without hands I say when you prove that children are to be circumcised either one way or other in answer to our why you say because they have faith and thereby right to the Covenant and the seals of it but when you come to prove that children have faith which we deny you say
if you be not sanctified one in to and by the other as lawful man and wife by your union formerly contracted notwithstanding your now disunion in Religion then your children are unclean and this is truth for so the children are in this civil sense if begotten and born out of matrimony whether the parents be believers or no buâ— the other is not truth for whether both or but one or none of the parents believe the infants for that cause alone and without respect to matrimony are in no sense ere the more holy or unclean Thirdly and this will yet appear more plainly if you consider that faith alone in either one or both the parents begetting out of wedlock cannot sanctifie the seed so begotten with this civil holiness here meant no nor with that faederall holiness you plead for nor could it do so even then when that holinesse or birth priviledge you talk of was in force as now it is not viz. in the daies of the law for if two believers came together then out of marriage their seed were not onely base born and so unclean in this our sense but also to the tenth generation uncapable to be admitted into the congregation and so consequently unclean even in your own Deut. 32.2 whereupon how Pharez and Zarah were dealt with it matters not sith they were born before the law was given Ieptha was exempted from any inheritance with his brethren because he was the son of a strange woman Iudg. 11.2 and Davids unclean issue by Bathsheba that in the wisdome of God was taken away by death on the seventh day might not surely without breach of the law have been accounted holy and of the congregation if he had lived beyond the eighth whereupon your selves also are much fumbled about the holinesse of bastards and the baptism of base-begotten babies so that you scarcely know how to behave your selves about it though the parents sinning be believers at least en-churched in your Churches yea it s generally known saith Mr Cotton that our best Divines do not allow the baptism of bastards and though he is pleased to say they allow it not sine sponsoribus without Sureties yet I wonder sith Deut. 32.2 Gods denial of such of old is made the ground of their denial of such now to enter into the Congregation as unholy that our Divines dare take on them to admit cum sponsoribus and so to go besides their own Rule viz. the order of things under the law wherein God gave no such allowance but to let that tolleration pass which they take to themselves you may learn thus much of your selves if you will that though wedlock without faith make a holy seed in our sense yet faith without wedlock in the parents can make a holy seed neither in our sense nor in your own nor any at all for the infants of the married are holy but believers bastards are both civilly and federally unclean inso much that your selves see cause to refuse as federally holy the spurious seed euen of those whose lawfull issue you unlawfully sprinkle Fourthly if you more seriously consider that the holinesse in the Infant here must needs be the fruit and result of that and that must needs be the cause of the holiness here spoken of in the infant quo posito ponitur sanctitas sublato tollitur which being in the parents a holinesse must necessarily be thereupon which not being in the parents a holinesse cannot be in the seed for positâ causà ponitur effectus sublata tollitur abstract the cause and the effect cannot be suppose the cause and the effect cannot but be now that which if it be not in the parents the holiness is not but being in them the holinesse is consequently in the infants 't is not the faith but the conjugal or marriage Relation of the parents for as for the first of these viz. faith it may be in one yea in both of the parents and yet no federal holinesse at all be in the infants witness Ishmael the seed of Abraham the father of the faithful and his Sons by Keturah also born of him after Covenant made with him and his seed in Isaac and Iacob and yet neither of them in that Covenant witnesse the base born children of true believers among the Jews suppose David and Baâ—â—sheba which for all the parents faith could not by the law be admitted in thâ— Congregation nor have that birth-priviledge to be reputed holy which from the parents faith you universally intail to the infants moreover this birth-priviledge and Covenant-holiness by generation which did inright to Church ordinances which once was but now is a non-entity and out of date might be then when it was in being in children in whose parents faith was not found at all for most of the Iews were unbeiievers yet all their legitimate children were holy federally therefore faith in the parent cannot be the cause of such a thing yea if you will believe Mr Blake himself the strictest pleader for a birth-priviledge of federal holiness in Infants that ever I met with and that from this very place he condescends so far as to contribute one contradiction to himself toward the helping of the truth in this case viz. That faith in the parâ—nt is not the cause of this holinesse whilst making the holinesse in this text to be a birth priviledge or Church-Covenant holinesse and to be the fruit and result of the faith of the believing parents and consequently their faith to be the sole and proper cause of the same he confesses flatly elsewhere page 4. that a loose life in the parent and mis-belief which is as bad in some cases worse then unbelief for which is worse to believe false things or not to believe true yea Apostacy from the faith which all if they be not inconsistent with faith I know not what is do not divest nor debar the issue from having that holiness which himself saies is meant in this text Babist Perhaps he means not by faith strictly the parents true believing but in generall his being in the covenant and faederally holy himself and so a cause of this federal holiness in the issue Baptist. First Paul means true believing here in 1 Cor. 7.14 whether Mr Blake do or no. Secondly what will he get as to the point in hand by his Synonamizing faith and faederall holiness for still neither the one nor the other is made here the cause of the holiness of the seed for the holiness here spoken of may be where neither of them is and may not be in the seed even where they are both in the parent as for example in Ezras time Ezra 10 3. we find abundance of the Jews both Priests and people that were in the faith or at least in faederall holiness yet the children were put away as unholy as well faederally as otherwise because their marriage was unlawfull and that bed adulterous wherein they lay with strange
gospel 1 Cor. 4 15. thus he travelled with the Galathians till Christ was form'd in them whom also he bespeaks as Iohn also doth his converts 1 Iohn 2.1 by the name of my little châ—ldrâ—n Gal 4.19 thus far if you will I agree with you but your cause will be no gainer by this agreement that as ceremonially holy ones begat ceremonially holy ones under the law as a tipe in a way of carnall copulation so spiritually holy ones beget spiritually holy ones in a Gospel sense by their spiritual communion and communication for as Christ himself who supremely begets so true Christians as agents and instruments under him may be said to multiply and see their seed when in their endeavours to beget others to the faith the work will way and pleasure of the Lord doth succeed and prosper in their hands that holy seed therefore that answers under the Gospel to that holy seed the Jews infants under the law as the substance of that shadow that with all the rest is now fled away is Christ and his truely morally and spiritually holy ones onely for the holy seed of the law or that seed which was holy in the old Covenants account were but as the leaves of an oak which though they flourish and make a shew for a time yet at last are cast off and fall to the ground but the holy seed in the Gospel sense i. e. the Saints and true believers not their natural seed with them for they are onely Semen carnis and that not of Abraham neither as the Iew is who yet hath thereupon onely no part nor portion in this matter but of the Gentiles these Saints I say are the true Semen fidei children of the faith and spâ—ritual seed of Abraham and also the very substance thereof as Isa. 6.13 as the Prophet there speaks of the truly Godly so I say the substance of the Church of the Iews now it hath cast it leaves i. e. all its former figurative holinesse holy Priests and holy seed the substance thereof is still in them For all things under the law and old Testament even the whole Covenant and Testament it self as well as every part and parcel of the same did but serve unto the example and shadow of the New Testament will and Covenant that stands ratified by the blood of the Testator as neither was the first dedicated without blood and the more holy and true heavenly things thereof yea as well the holy promises that were made to that holy seed as the holy precepts upon performance of which they were made and the holy seed it self also to whom the promises were made and of whom these precepts were required did exemplifie a better Testament and those better promises upon which it is established and the better and more spiritual ordinances which in order thereunto are to be observed and that better and far more holy seed that observing these ordinances shall at last inherit which all were to come in under Christ and before which all the other were to vanish viz. First a heavenly Canaan Country Kingdom inheritance substance peace prosperity plenty advancement rest immunity glory answering to all that of Israels which was but earthly Secondly the life of faith and obedience to Christs law which is more inward and spiritual Mat. 5. answering that law of commandements conteined in ordinances given by Moses which was more ad extra and carnal Thirdly that holy seed which is not of the law of Moses nor of the flesh of Abraham by generation but of Christ by regeneration the seed or successors of the faith of Abraham and so heirs with him by that faith of all Gospel-promises answering Antipically to the other for though the promise of being heirs of the old Canaan which was but a spot of the world and pickt out as a pattern for the time was made to Abraham and his seed through the law i. e. the children of Isaac and Iacob which were counted for his seed under the law viz. the natural branches of his body for these onely were the heirs of that old earthly legall and tipical land of promise in token of which all the males were circumcised in their flesh yet the promise that Abraham should be heir of the world which is the Gospel pointed at couched and exhibted tipically in the delivery of the other was not made to Abraham and that seed of his through the law quâ tales only unless they were as some few were by faith his seed in the other sense also but through the righteousness of faith i. e. to the branches grafted in by personal believing in Christ Rom. 4.13 14. where the Apostle saies plainly that if they which are of the law and circumcision only meaning the fleshly seed of Abraham as such unless they also walk in the steps of that faith which Abraham had be heirs with him of the world which is the thing promised in the Gospel then faith which is made the onely term intitling to Gospel-promises is made void and the promise of just no effect at all much more may we say if the fleshly seâ—d of your Gentile believers most of which are no believers neither be heirs of this Gospel-promise and Gospel-inheritance as so born so that they may be signed for heirs by the Gospel-ordinance of baptism upon that meer and simple account of their parents being believers without respect to faith in their own persons then the Gospell requires faith to be acted by us in order to salvation altogether in vain and to no purpose yea if goâ—pel-promises and priviledges be intailed to me upon my fathers being a believer I need no faith of mine own as to the making of me an heir thereof and if it were so as you commonly say but most horrible in considerately from Acts 2.39 that the promise of the Gospel is not onely to the believers but also to their bodily issue as barely descending from them qua sic simpliciter and without their own personal faith which in infancy appears no more to be in them then infants of unbelievers and which if it appears as oft it doth in unbelievers children when they come to years and not in the other declares them to be heirs apparent thereof when the other are not then I say plainly that all believers children must unavoidably be saved if God be true in his promise though when they come to years they never believe and live never so prophanely the terms being still fulfilled upon which you say the promise is made to them which is this being born of believing parents for the prophanness of their lives and non-believing themselves Non est causae quo minus c. is no cause whereupon they are a whit less the seed of believers after the flesh and if so and also that that only gives a title to the promise then he that made that promise on those terms viz. being the fleshly seed of believers the terms of being so born
being fulfilled by all the natural seed of believers be they never so ungodly in their own persons must be faithful to fulfil his own part and their ungodliness non obstante make it good to them concerning their salvation which drives you oft to such a Dilemma in discourses that for your ears almost you dare not answer distinctly to us when we ask you what that Gospell promise is which is made as you say to believers infants and upon what terms it is made to them beyond the infants of unbelievers Babist We do not say that being born of believing parents only intitles persons to the Gospell promises but they are heirs thereof and of all the glory and priviledges and salvation held forth therein as they shall hereafter believe themselves also and live godly when they come to years and not otherwise Baptist. Yea say you so then pray how doth the promise of the Gospel appear to belong one jot more to believers children then to unbelievers for the believers child it seems by you now cannot by promise be saved upon his parents faith unless he believe also himself and then he may and what is this more then I can say to the full of all unbelievers children yea and as well of all unbelievers in the world for even the children of Turks and Pagans and all the children of all the men upon the face of the Earth shall be saved upon these terms viz. believing and obeying the Gospel themselves when they come to years whether their parents ever obeyed it yea or no where then is the preheminence of your believers seed above unbelievers if you go this way to work either therefore grant the one or else the other viz. either that believers children are heirs of salvation upon their fathers faith onely without their own or if you say not so but by their own faith t is that they must be saved then that the Gospel promise belongs not to believers children beyond other mens and that one mans seed hath no such birth-priviledge and preheminence as you dote of about anothers for unbelievers children may as well as they by promise be saved upon their own faith when they come to age without their Fathers Babist We can easily answer you to all this by distinguishing upon the promise thus The promise of the Gospel is either of salvation life remission of sins the holy spirit as the earnest and the inheritace it self to come or else of external priviledges only and participations of Ordinances as Baptism Churchmembership c. the promise of the eternal inheritance life and salvation we grant is not made much less made good to any upon terms of the parents faith but upon our own personal belief and obedience but the promise of outward priviledges and of right to participation of ordinances as to be baptized and inchurcht this belongs to children upon their fathers faith so that believers children are children of the promise in this sense when others are not and in this last sense it is that Peter saies the promise is to you and to your Children c. i. e. you and yours have the priviledge of right to baptism Baptist. Then it seems you quit the former sense I pray therefore let us here no more of that till next time however but let me tell you one thing by the way concerning that first sense before I say ought to your second viz that if the promise of salvation belong to persons upon their own personal belief and obedience as undoubtedly it doth according to the whole tenor of the Scripture as to men at years and such onely then as very a figment of ours as you feign it to be t will put you to your shifts to find out what way dying infants are saved in unless you own another way then that which the Scripture tenders it to men in for the justification and salvation of infants viz. the presentment of the righteousness of Christ for them without belief in them or any other kind of obedience And sith in such sense as this only you own the Gospel promise to be made by Peter Act. 2. to believers infants viz. that they shall by right be admitted to outward priviledges as baptism and membership when others shall not I beseech you consider what a poor piece of promise is made by him and what a miserable comforter the Apostle is made by you in making as if this were all his meaning and all that he intends by that precious word of promise I suppose his drift was to support the Jewes now smitten down under sense of sin and the guilt of Christs blood which then lay upon them by propounding to them some ground of consolation but here is cold comfort in what he saith if that be all which you saie is the sense he speaks in he had spoke little to their purpose and as good he had said never a whit as never the better for this promise as you take it hath more matter of mourning in it then otherwise to say you shall be brought nearer to the Church but never the nearer to salvation thereby further then you do that which others doing that are further off the Church shall be saved so doing as well as you Sirs you had as good cut off the entail of that piece of promise which you intitle believers infants to us cut of the best part of the promise from them which yet you seem to entail as from their parents to them for this is not worth a rush without the other for abstract this great priviledge you seem to invest them with from that which you divest them of by this distinction and its worth little or nothing if not plainly worse than nothing without the other what better to be under a promise of being priviledged with and what priviledge at all to be admitted to this and yet to be no more nor upon any other terms under the promise of the inheritance it self then others such as were yet never at all signed to it Is it not rather a burden and a bondage for outward ordinances verily are part of the preceptory part of the Gospel and the precept in point of ordinances as well as in point of manners is part of the yoke and burden of Christ and of the hard sayings of his which flesh and blood brooks not to hear off for though the way of Christ is light and easie and not grievous where it is lessened by thoughts of the recompence of reward yet is it in it self a burden and a yoke and such a one too as considering the sufferings of all such as submit to own it well nigh wearies them that walk under it though under clearest title to the Kingdome for which they suffer much more may it be a misery and not a mercy to such who have a promise of being barely admitted to it but no more of life and salvation or at least upon no other terms then such as
should inherit the old Canaan and such is Christ in the reall spiritual Evangelical and everlasting account in relation unto Isaac himself for not Isaac and his seed as they were Abrahams seed by Sarah though they were the children of the promise of the earthly Canaan and a promised seed in respect of Ishmael but Christ who is the true Isaac and those that believe in him among whom sith Isaac was one he will inherit here also as else he could not these are the promised seed that must inherit heaven Rom. 4.13 Gal. 3.16 these children of the promise i. e. these that are of Christ by faith and so his seed after the faith are accounted Abrahams seed his sons and heirs of the world with him and of the eternal inheritance A cleerer illustration of this to be the true sense and meaning of the spirit in Rom. 9. you have in Gal. 3.7.9 where the Apostle uses this term viz. they which are of the faith to express no other then the very same persons whom he here stiles the children of the promise know ye saith he there that they which are of the faith i. e. which believe for none else are of faith that I know of the same are the children of Abraham and blessed with faithfull Abraham he saith not they which be of Abrahams flesh for such neither are accounted his children as to the gospel promise nor simply as such are heirs thereof with him muchless doth he say or mean that those which are born of the bodies of them that be of faith are Abrahams children and such as must be signed as his sonnes and heirs by baptism in such wise as his own fleshly seed were signed by Circumcision as heirs with him of the old Canaan yet these are your common sayings who raise such a sort of seed to Abraham at second hand or third remove as will never be able to prove their pedegree or descent from him either after the flesh or after the faith either till they believe themselves whilest they breath on earth as if because Abraham is the spiritual father of all that believe and walk in his steps and they his seed and sons and heirs with him by promise of eternal life therefore he must patrizare to all their natural posterity too and be the spiritual father not of their persons onely but of their off-spring also But Sirs let me tell you he is not so much as a father to his own seed in the Gospel sense neither can they stand his children or the children of God and heirs of the heavenly blessing and kindome because they come out of his loines unless they do as he did for though his fleshly seed as a type for the time then being stood denominated the children of God and holy in an outward sense and heirs according to the earthly promise yet that account is gone now and there 's no other way whereby the Iews themselves much less any generations among the Gentiles can be stiled the children of God or Abraham so as to expect the gospel portion but believing in Christ Iesus in their own persons Gal. 3.26.29 Ye are all the children of God by faith in Iesus Christ if ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise Another place which cleers it that Abrahams own seed in the old Covenants account are not his own in the account of the gospel so as barely thereupon to stand in any title to either the priviledges or ordinances thereof or to fellowship now in his family is Iohn 8. where Christ being cavill'd at by the Iews for promising them the priviledge of the Gospel-freedom from sin to which they were slaves servants and bondmen for all that legal freedom they did so boast of upon faith and continuance in his words discovers so plainly that a man may run and read it the discarding of the Jews from all these three things which I am now proving that for want of faith they are perished from them since the gospel First from the repute and denomination of Abrahams children any longer Secondly from any share in the glorious or spirituall blessing of the Gospel Thirdly from any right of abiding longer in the Church which they were the children of before which Church as visible now as well as then and to the end of the world since Gods conferring the fatherhood of the faithful upon him is called the house or family of Abraham First they say in a snuff two or three times ore that they are Abrahams seed v. 33. that Abraham is their father v. 39. that they are not born of fornication meaning as Ishmael the Son of the bond-woman or servant to their mother Sarah was but they had one father even God v. 41. to which Christ replies not by denial of any of all this for 't was true every tittle in that sense in which they meant it i. e. the typical sense and meaning of the old Covenant yea they were Abrahams children and this Christ confesses in plain terms verse 37. I know you are Abrahams seed yea they were also the children of God by an outward and typicall adoption of them unto himself as his peculiar ones and heirs of that typical inheritance Ezek. 16.8 c. but by telling them that Abrahams children are accounted of otherwise now then formerly viz. not as comming out of his Ioines but as doing his works as being like him and allied to him not so much after the flesh as after the faith whereupon they not yet believing he denies them to be and goes about to prove them not to be Abrahams children in the true and substantial sense in this Hypothesis verse 39. if ye were Abrahams children ye would do the works of Abraham to which do but add the minor viz. but ye do not the works of Abraham and the conclusion follows thus viz. therefore ye are not the children of Abraham you see Christ asserts them to be Abrahams children in the old account so as to stand members of the old house but denieth them to be Abrahams children in the sense of the new Secondly they say they are free men and were never in bondage to any man to which Christ replies by granting it was so indeed in the outward typical sense that they were free men and true heirs of that earthly glory that was promised to Abraham in that old Canaan but denies them to be freemen as to the gosspel with that heavenly fredom of the Ierusalem which is above the mother of all true believers Gal. 4.26 yea in those spiritual respects in which the Son makes free indeed those that know and receive the truth and gospel they were but servants verse 34. and in bondage to sin which is the greatest slavery of all as also Paul sayes Gal. 3.25 that Ierusalem was which was of old and was in bondage with her children so he saies for all their Sonship yet in truth they are but servants and
cut off from standing as till Chirist they did now any longer upon their own Root Abraham because of unbelief I say then that no infant in infancy of what believing parent soever is either Abrahams spiritual seed or dying in infancy is saved upon any such account as a believers seed or Abrahams seed nor whilst living an infant onely may be signed by baptism as an heir apparent of salvation for if Abraham stand not a spiritual father to his own meer fleshly seed he stands not so sure to the meer fleshly seed of any believing Gentile for that were to priviledge every ordinary believer and his natural seed above either himself or his own Nor doth this hinder or deny the salvation of the dying infants of believers or dispose them ere the sooner muchless necessarily to damnation to say they are not Abrahams spirituall seed quâ believers infants nor heirs to salvation upon any such account as that for though neither upon that nor any other account at all they may warrantably be baptized yet it s more then possible or probable either because infallible that there 's other Scripture account enough upon which when we see them die in infancy we may assert them undoubtedly not to be damned for as it is most sure and true that all that are apparently if really Abrahams spiritual seed by faith must so living so dying be saved in token and farther evidence of which to themselves more then others they are by the good wil of Christ to be baptized yet is it neither true nor necessary that all that are saved must be Abrahams spiritual seed by faith but most certain that some shall be saved that never were Abrahams seed in any sense at all witnesse not onely the faithful fore-fathers of Abraham for he was their seed and not they his but also all dying infants of what parents soever both before Abrahams time and since of whom to salvation notwithstanding those are the onely termes on which it belongs to adult ones to whom it s preacht Mark 16.15 16. these being truly capable of neither 't is not required that they should either repent believe or be baptized I know this Iustification of dying infants without faith is uncouth and little less for all it holds forth so much salvation then damnable doctrine among you Divines that plead the contrary but I shall by the help of God make it good to the faces of you all when I come to consider the baldness of your consequence in this point as you give me good occasion to do in some places where me thinks you meddle with it somewhat clumsily as it were in mittins as if because there 's no other way revealed for the salvation of such by Christ to whom the gospel is preached who are capable to hear and do what 's required for such onely the word universally speaks of when it speaks of salvation in that way but the way of belief and actuall obedience onely therefore there 's no other way for the salvation of dying infants by Christ who can possibly neither believe in him nor obey him which as it is such shameful stuff that I cannot bear it with out inward blushing at your blindness so whether you have not as much cause to be ashamed on 't within your selves is well worth your inmost inquiry I say therefore again so far is this from excluding dying infants of believers from entrance into the kingdome of heaven to say they are neither Abrahams spiritual seed by faith nor heirs thereof upon that ground onely of being so that it rather concludes and supposes there 's some other ground that is common with them to the innocent infants of even infidels and all the world upon which these whom though they are hundreds to one yet your selves in your fierce wrath and merciless cruelty devote universally to damnation may dying in infancy universally be saved also which ground if you will yet know it is the righteousness of Christ the free imputation of which universally from the father saves not onely all that believe from both that and their actuall transgressions too but even the whole world whether they believe it or no from the the imputation of Adams transgression so that none at all ever perish upon that account in which respect he is said to be the Saviour of all men but especially of them that believe much more doth it and that without faith save all dying infants who as they believe not so have not as yet by any actual sin bard themselves or deserved exemption or become liable at all to the second death i. e. the damnation of hell which befalls not any but upon personal neglect of the light and grace of life brought in by the second Adam as the first death onely overtakes mankind for onely that sin of the first Adam Babist If all dying infants are saved then not few but many if not the maior part must be saved contrary to that of Christ Mat. 7.13.14 Luke 13.23.24 where he saith few there are that are saved Baptist. There are indeed but few inter adultos among persons that come to years of whom alone and not of Infants at all Christ there speaks and even every where else where he speaks to us of the way of life and this is plain by the reason he there gives why so few are saved which is the straitness of the gate and narrowness of the way that leads to life viz. of self-denial and suffering for Christ which men mostly being very loath to walk in it comes to pass that few of them come to life by it but infants being altogether uncapable to walk in it are are altogether dis-ingaged from walking in it till they come to capacity so to do and yet are not damn'd for not walking in it when we come to years of understanding and to apprehend the good will of God to us in providing a Saviour for us his good will concerning us in order to salvation by him is that we believe in him and obey him and apply his righteousness unto our selves Gal. 3.27 but whilst we are yet in such minority as neither to know what God hath done for us nor to be capable of putting on the Lord Iesus our selves he himself is pleased to impute his righteousness to salvation to us so dying even as we our selves whilst our infants are new born do not onely provide but also put on what clothes we have provided in our pitty towards them for the covering of their nakedness but when they come to years of such discretion as to discern and be sensible of their own shame and capable to dress themselves with their own hands we expect when in our love we have once provided raiment for them they should put it on themselves or go without it thus candid are we towards the dying infants of all sorts nevertheless though we tell you of our charity towards them and of your own cruelty in sending all
of lessening the grace of God under the Gospel in comparison of what it was under the law because we deny the ordinances thereof to infants to whom the ordinances of the law were dispensed then you that judge us condemn your selves also as being in the same kind guilty of the same to this purpose le ts see what you bring in proof of your Minor in the last Syllogism and how punctually it concludes to your present purpose thus you argue Disputation Vnder the Law the seal of the Gospel Covenant was by Gods appointment set to little infants viz. circumcision which was the seal of the righteousnesse of faith which is the Gospell covenant and therefore is called by God an everlasting covenant and that I my self confesse it to be the seal of the Gospell Covenant and that even Ishmael onely because born in Abrahams house had right to it and received it Ergo this opinion denying the seal of the Gospell Covenant which the defenders acknowledge baptism to be to little infants makes the covenant of the Gospel worser to the spiritual seed of Abraham then it was to the carnall seed under the Law Disproof How often shall I adjure you the next time you write to write no more then truth at least in matter of fact if you will needs utter falsehood in matter of Doctrine do not your selves bear me witness before all the world not above two pages behind that I denyed circumcision to be a seal of the righteousness of faith to any but Abrahams person only and avouched it to be no such thing to his posterity and yet how quickly have you forgotten your selves so far as to the contradicting of your selves as well as the truth to represent it here as if I had confessed it and having began to faulter and falsifie things for your own ends how easily do you multiply misreport and run from ore shooes as the Proverb is to ore boots too for no less than a pair of pretty ones are here recorded for how be it my declared judgement then was now is and I believe ever will be for ought you can say to clear the contrary that circumcision though a seal to Abraham to honor the greatness of that faith he had and to notify him to be the father of the faithful as it is plainly exprest Rom. 4.11 was not set as a seal in any sense at all to any other but as a bare sign and token in their flesh to mind them upon sight thereof immediately of the Covenant that then was remotely as a type as every other thing under the law did of something in the Gospel Covenant viz. circumcision of the heart and that baptism it self is no seal at all but a bare sign of the Gospel Covenant and is not so much as a sign or any thing else but a meer nullity to little infants yet the world is here belied into the belief of it that I confesse both that circumcision was a seal of the Gospel Covenant and that under such a notion as a seal of that Covenant Ishmael himself had right to it and received it for so you expresse it p. 7. and that baptism is the seal of the Gospel Covenant even to little infants themselves as well as others I do therefore in answer to this last piece of yours and in order to your better understanding of me for the future and of the truth too as it is in Jesus at present professe against two things herein First your forgeries and misrepresentations of my opinion to the world which was not so darkly declared at that time as that you must needs mistake it Secondly against the falsities and mistakes that are in your own opinion in this point viz. in stiling both circumcision as dispensd to Abrahams fleshly posterity and baptism also as dispensed not to others onely but even to infants by the name of seals of the Covenant of grace As for circumcision that it was not so though I might adde much more to what hath been before spoken in proof hereof in my animadversion of your account yet I le save my self that labor and refer you for fuller understanding what circumcision was and was not to a certain book that is extant of one Mr. Iackson once of Bidenden in Kent stiled 19. Arguments proving circumcision to be no seal of the Covenant of grace whereunto is annexed the unlawfulnesse of Infant baptism upon that ground of which book I must needs give testimony thus far to the world that it being brought to me whilst it was but a manuscript and my self a Presbyter of your high places in some confidence that I could answer it how easily I might have shufled it off had I set my self so to do I will not say but I could not answer it solidly nor salva consciencia and therefore I let it alone for a time till considering further of it and of other things I was stirrd up to the study of by it I was at last converted to the truth whereupon as the best answer I was capable to give I signed it in such wise as I find Luther once signed another book in the like case viz. memorandum that taking this book in hand at first to confute it I was at last convinced by it Which 19. proofs of circumcision to be no seal of the Covenant of Grace if they be weak and invalid such a multitude as you are have time enough among you to disprove them but if you yield to them be silent and say nothing As for baptism I confesse it to be truly and properly a sign and that of the Covenant of Grace remission of sins by Christ his death and resurrection which are both not onely signified but also lively represented and resembled in the true dispensation of it to believers yet that it is so much as a sign at all to infants in infancy or when grown to years either if dispensed in infancy I absolutely deny and affirm that the very nature use and office of it as a sign to its subject is totally destroyed by such immature administration for a sign specially proprie dictum that is properly and not improperly so called in reference to that person whose sign it is is some outward thing appearing to the senses through which some other thing some inward thing is at the same time apprehended by the understanding This is the most true and proper difinition that your Divines give of a sign in general but in special of these signes viz. baptism and the supper so Pareus and Kekermaen both do define a sign out of Austin and so do you all define these signs viz. in oculis incurrentia signa but such a thing baptism cannot be to infants in their infancy nor after their infancy neither if dispensed while they are infants the sign and thing signified being not possible in that way to be ever apprehended both together as they must be viz. the sign by the senses
the thing signified by the understanding and that at the same time when the sign appears to the senses or else the sign is a meer Nullity and of no use and benefit as a sign at all for though infants may have the sense of the thing so as to see and feel if they were dipt in infancy yet have they then no understanding of its meaning and though when they come to years they are capable to gather the meaning of things or from an appearing sign to conceive what is signified thereby yet then the sign it self is fled out of sight and so far out of the reach of their remembrance that as ther 's nothing now presented so neither ever was there any thing for ought they can conjecture any more then by meer human hearsay objected to their senses at all when the Jewes required a sign of Christ they required something that might be seen what sign shewest thou that we may see and believe A sign then must be some memorandum some object obvious to the senses of that person to whom t is a sign properly taken either continually or at sometime or other even then which the understanding drinks in the thing signified else if there neither is nor ever was any such sight or sense of the sign as from the then or now present appearance of it while the understanding of the party whose sign it is is lively acted on the thing then to that person the sign unlesse improperly and improper signes the sacraments are not can possibly be no sign at all this Pareus teacheth us to the life p. 35.7 where deâ—ining baptism and the supper to be signa in oculos incurrentia hoc est visibilia signs that are or once were to be seen by him whose signes they are even at that time while he is to learn something by them he further backs it as I have set down in his own words in the margent and for the use of the unlearned Englished thus viz. for they ought to be such that they may signifie things invisible for if they ought to be helps to our faith they must be perceived by the external sense whereby the internal sense is moved for what thouseest not is no sign to thee he that makes an invisible signimplies a contradiction and makes the sign not a sign at all they are invisible things not signes otherwise also the signes could not so much as signifie the things much lesse confirm them because an uncertain thing would be confirmed by a thing as uncertain as it self hence the antients define a Sacrament thus a sacrament is a visible sign of some invisible grace So then we see that according to your selves a sign is no sign at all to him that is never seen all by him who is to observe it and that too at sometimâ— or other after he comes to observe what is meant by it whereupon I testifie that what was done to us in infancy had it been the true sign of Christs own institution viz. baptism as t was rather a sign of meer mans institution viz. the sign Rantism and the sign of the crosse neither was nor is nor ever will be any sign at all to you or me if at any time it be a sign to vs it must be either while we are infants or when grown to years but not while infants for then we apprehend not the thing signed nor when at years for then we apprehend not the sign How mighty your memories and how exquisite your apprehensive powers are to bring these two I mean the sign and thing signified together in your thoughts I know not but I plainly acknowledge notwithstanding Dr Channels councel to the Auditory at the Dispute at Petworth Ian. 5. 1651 to remember and call to mind what was signified to them in their infant baptism that as in infancy I perceived not to what purpose I was signed so now save what I have by hearsay I perceive not nor ever did of my self to my best remembrance that I was then so signed at all As for that true baptism which I have since submitted to some 4 or 5 years ago as it then preached so far as a sign may be said to preach most precious things to my understanding so it lively appeared to my senses and left such impression upon them and such an Idea thereof in my mind that me thinks I both see and remember it still and so shall I hope have good cause to do whilest I live I conclude then that to signifie things to infants by baptism in infancy is a meer blank and utter nullity a silly cypher that stands for nothing and is of no use to them at all Yea as it would be thought no better then meer mockery or witless wisdom for any Priest to stand talking and making signs over one a sleep while he is understandingly sensible of nothing and then after he is awake and as little a ware of any thing as before begin to make the application and will him to divine both what was done to him by whom and why and to take cognizance and clearer evidence of such and such things by the same token that they were told him and signified to him by what was done while he was asleep by certain signs which he never saw yet nor never shall so is it to me to baptize meer infants or as it were no better than flat folly for any father in a serious and not lusory way to shew the form of the City Ierusalem to his infant 〈◊〉 infancy by the figure and draught of it in a Map saying look here child this stands for the Temple this signifies and sets forth the manner of Mount Sion and and all this is shewed thee now that thou maiest remember it another time that Ierusalem is thus and thus scituated and then when he comes to age without any more resemblance of it to him in the map to indoctrinate him in what was done in his iâ—fancy and bid him reflect back and call to mind what was shewn him in that map in which it was manifested to him what manner of city Ierusalem was and other such like ridiculous stuff and prate of the things so long since done that they are now flown both out of sight and mind even such and no better is it yea such piteous poor and meer painted piety is it for persons whether Priests or parents to stand prating to and ore poor ignorant infants and signing them at a Font or Bason whilest if they be not a sleep as my own silly experience teaches me they have been many a time while I have been sprinkling them in the midwives or the mothers armes yet they are at best no better then asleep because as heedless of what 's done saying to them very seriously by name as if they would have them mind what is said Thomas Anne c. I baptize thee in the name of the Father c. in token of remission
presentment of the righteousness of Christ without faith is a figment of the Anabaptists without ground or reason from Scripture the Covenant of the Gospel being the righteousness of faith To which I contradictorily reply that there is another way revealed for the salvation and justification of little infants from all the guilt that lies upon them in infancy which is no other then that which comes upon them for the sin of Adam onely and from all that mischief which comes on them onely meerly and simply for that sin then that way of faith and that is the presentment of the righteousnesse of Christ to God on their behalf without faith and this way is no figment of the Anabaptist as you No-Baptists do foolishly fancy but that which hath such strong ground and reason from Scripture as you will never overthrow while you live although to men at years that have acted transgression in their own persons and are capable to act faith and other good as well as evil the Gospel is granted to be a Covenant that gives righteousnesse by Christ in no other way then that way of faith and obedience to him We usually put cloaths upon infants but men put their clothes on themselves and so must we put on Christ by faith in order to justification when we come to years of discretion Gal. 3.27 and not before I know the multitude of Scriptures that speak in general or at least in such indefinit terms as are in sense equivalent to universal concerning salvation to all them that believe and nothing but condemnation to all them that believe not as Mark 16.15.16 Iohn 3.15.16.18.19.36.11.26 Act. 10.42 Act. 13.43 Rom. 1.17.3.22.25.26.28.30.4.6.24 a most monstrous mistake of all which as also of the whole Scripture makes you miserably misbelieve this matter viz. the way that all dying infants are saved in for you deem or rather dream that the Lord by these expressions whosoever believeth in me shall never dye he that believeth not shall be damned he that believeth not on the Son shall not see life c. delivers his will and testament not onely concerning persons at age but concerning infants in their very infancy also whereas if you Divines had not Divin'd your selves to very dotage you could not but understand that little infants are not intended in any of these or any other places that hold out faith as the way of our salvation for do but judge in your selves were it not shameful senslessnesse to read thus out of those places viz. God so loved the world c. that whosoever infants in infancy as well as men believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life those infants that do believe on him are not condemned but those infants that believe not are condemned already and why because they have not believed in the name of the onely begotten Son of God And this shall be the condemnation of infants as well as men that light and life is come to them and yet infants believe it not neither will come unto Christ that they might have life but but love darknesse more then light because their deeds are evil for thus you may read it if infants as well as men be there meant and so were it not sottish to read thus out of Rom. 4.23 it was not written for Abraham onely that faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse but for infants also to whom it shall be imputed if they do believe on him that raised up Iesus our Lord from the dead c. so would it sound any whit savourly in the ears of one that 's of a sound judgement to read Mark 16.15.16 so as to understand infants together with others viz. go preach the Gospel to every creature who ere believeth and is baptized shall be saved but whoever believes not man or woman old or young infant or suckling shall be damned would not this grate harshly upon charitable ears but surely infants are not spoken of here nor are they in any other Scripture for ought I can find with the best sight I have where faith is spoken of as the condition on our part without which nothing is to be expected but condemnation I am sorry Sirs to see you Clergy men cloath your selves with such darke conceits and confusednesse of mind as not to know of whom and to whom things are spoken in the word nor whom in general the Scriptures you professe to be so profound in concern and preach to and I beseech you be not too wise in your own conceits to learn one lesson at least from him that is a fool among you for Christs sake viz. whereas you say infants must believe or not be saved the Scriptures declaring no other way to salvation but faith in Christ that the Scriptures were written only for our instruction that are at years to understand them and not for the use and instruction of infants in infancy in the way of life the Scriptures were given as a coppy of the testament and the will of God concerning men and women to declare to them what he requires of them and in what way he would have them to wait upon him in order to the attaining of that salvation he hath purchased by the blood of Christ and will freely confer on them for his sake viz. the way of faith repentance baptism supplication submission self-denial obedience both active and passive perseverance therein to the end and in a word attendance to the law of Christ the voice of that prophet that he hath now raised up in all things or else to have no part among his people from all which conditions and performances I say from every of them as well as any one of them from believing as well as obeying in baptism or any other part of his will or any other works of God under the Gospel among which belief is a chief one Iohn 6.28.29 little infants as being yet uncapable subjects to obey in any of these are universally exempred in their infancy otherwise I dare a vouch no dying infants in the world shall ever be saved for can they do any of these things in infancy so such as are to be baptized are called to do Act. 22.16 and who ever so doth shall be saved and whoever doth not shall perish Ier. 10.25 if the way wherein men are to be saved must be walkt in by all infants too in order to their salvation then wo to all infants that die in non-age for alas how shall infants call on him in whom they have not believed and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not yet heard and how shall they hear without a Preacher and who can preach to them before they can understand Rom. 10.14.15 so then they cannot believe for faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God some way or other outwardly as well as inwardly preached Babist The spirit here speaks de subjecto capaci onely viz of the way how men
come by faith and not of the way wherein infants have it and t is confest that faith in adultis in them that are capable to hear and understand is begotten by this means of hearing but not so in infants who cannot hear the spirit is not tyed to work by means in little infants to the bringing of them to the faith as he doth in men but without the outward hearing of the word he works saith in little children Baptist. This same that you now say fits us very well to you ward again when you say justification comes by faith for we grant that adultis to them that are capable to act faith justification comes by faith nor shall they by any means obtain it who are capable to believe and yet believe not but not so to infants who cannot believe the spirit is not tied to work by means in little infants to the justification or bringing of them to salvation as he doth in men but by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed without obedience in baptism or faith either he saves them in nonage and farther that they cannot believe which is properly as I shewed before not onely to have but act faith in Christ your selves tell us saying they have not the use the second act the exercise the fruit of it and so do not believe and so must according to your sense of Scripture if the word speak of them be cast into the lake of fire Rev. 21.8 but further grant they could have faith in both the habit and act of it also yet can they not obey Christ in other things which are required necessarily to salvation in the word of the Gospel at least concomitanter et consecutivè as well as faith it self they cannot hear Christs voice in all things they cannot confess Christ before men nor to be come in the flesh they have not crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts of it they cannot deny themselves and take up their cross and follow Christ nor hate father and mother and life for him nor keep his commandments nor abide in his Doctrine and many such like things all which the Gospel saies as universally whosoever doth not as well as whosoever believes not cannot be his disciple Mat. 18. Luke 14. Is not Christs Gal. 5.24 hath not God 2 Iohn 9. is a lyar and shall not enter into the holy City 1 Iohn 2.4 Rev. 21.27.22.14.15 is a deceiver and an Antichrist 2 Iohn 7. shall be denyed by Christ yea punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of Christ for non obedience to the Gospel 2 Thes. 1.6 so that if the Scriptures speaking of the waies and means of salvation be to be understood as the terms and conditions on which dying infants shall be saved as well as men and without which they must be damned then all dying infants must perish contrary to your sense of Mat. 18.14 who take the little ones there for infants for it s said there it is the will of my Father that not one of these little ones should perish put the case therefore that infants could believe yet their case would be little the better as to salvation so long as still they must be short of shewing their faith by other good works without which faith is not saving nor worth a straw for what would it profit if infants could go so far as to say they have faith and yet have not works can faith save them Iam. 2. 14.26 no its dead and helpless for as the body without the spirit is dead so faith without works is dead also Therefore the body of Scripture is to be understood as spoken concerning men and women and the means and way of their salvation and not of infants Babist Yea when the word speaks of works of holiness self denyal suffering mercy c. as the way to life which infants cannot do it excepts them from the doing thereof as no capable subject and not from the salvation nevertheless nor yet doth at except infants when it speaks of faith Baptist. Is not faith a work as well as repentance and the rest yea the main and principal work of the Law of Christ i. e. the Gospel Iohn 6.28.29 Secondly is it not as difficult a work for infants to believe in Christ as to obey Christs voice in other things and are they not still as uncapable a subject to do that as to do any more things that are required why then not exempted from that for the sake of their incapacity as well as from other things Thirdly if the spirit doth go extraordinary waies to work at all about the salvation of infants as you must confess he must and brings them to it without and besides the ordinary means he brings men by why will you tie and limit him him more to the ordinary way and meanes of faith then of obedience in other matters as repentance self denyal c as to their salvation seeing he must go out of the road and tract in the saving of them wherein he saves men may be not as well save infants without faith without which he will save no man as without self deniall and suffering and confessing of Christ c. without which he will save no man Fourthly specially since infants are not mentioned as meant a jot more in the places that speak of salvation by faith then in the places that speak of salvation by obedience in all things for as it is said He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and be that believeth not shall be damned infants no where expressed or meant there so t is said as universally he is the Author of all them that obey him and he shall take vengeance on all them that obey him not and cut them off that hearken not to his voice infants no way expresly excepted as not meant there The Scriptures therefore are still to be understood de subjecto capaci when they promise or threaten things on conditions and terms of faith unbelief and other good and evill works as confessing and denying Christ and exclusively of infants where infants cannot possibly perform them for as when it s said he that works not let him not eat infants are no where excepted yet are not by the spirits appointment to starve though they work not neither are they meant there because they cannot work and as under law when it was said Cursed is he that continues not in every thing written therein and do this and live the way wherin men were to live or dy was set forth by those words and not the way wherein infants should be cursed or blessed accordingly as they were or were not found therein in infancy so Analogically when it 's said under the Gospel the just must live by faith and he that believes not shall be damned and Christ in flaming â—ire shall render vengeance to him that obeys not the Lord c. it is to be understood as spoken of the waies wherein men
seriously and understandingly c. professe Christianity laying by at present the consideration of meer Relative infant discipleship for I speak but his own words p. 128. and yet makes it good that your rule of baptizing children of Christians at years is utterly inconsistent with the rule of Christ and that constant example of Scripture wherein baptizing did immediately follow making disciples forasmuch as the true beginning of the discipleship or conversion or sincere profession of faith in men who are born and brought up of Christian parents cannot possibly be discerned it is wrought on by such insensible degrees and consequently they cannot be baptized when first made disciples unless they be baptized in their first infancy Baptist. Unless they be baptized in their infancy why are you so sure of hitting upon the day and hour of their first discipleship or conversion to the faith if you baptize them in the first of their infancy what are all the children of Christians I hope he doth not take Christians in so large a sense as Mr. Blake does for Papists and formall Protestants as well as zealous professors and yet by some passages in his book me thinks he makes the pale of the visible church as wide to the full as the other are all these I trow disciples with him not only relatively but really also i. e. converted truly from their mothers womb or if he mean not this of nominall Christians or the seed of Christians at large which with Mr. Blake at least are born Christians but of the children of true converts sincere believers such as are Christians indeed what is it evident that all or at least the most as Mr. Baxter saies of the children of real disciples are as real disciples as their parents so soon as they are born are the seed of true believers true converts mostly by birth how then do so many of them as well of the seed of meer nominal Christians prove wretches and ungracious a great while till God workes on them and many of them to the grief of their parents even to their dying day and yet thus it should seem they are in Mr. Baxters opinion so that if they be baptized in their first infancy under â—he notion of such they are in all likelyhood baptized when they are first made disciples even immediately upon the point and period of their conversion and besides if they may so safely be supposed all or most of them to be truly converted and upon that account baptized in their first â—efancy as he saies then how doth this square a squint with what he saies also to go round again in the same chapter p. 128 viz. That men are usually who are born and brought up of Christian parents wrought to this meaning to conversion and true discipleship by such insensible degrees that the true beginning cannot be discerned 1. by others 2. no not themselves And p. 139. Now if it be the sincerity that is looked after who knoweth what day or year the child began to be sincere in his profession for my own part I aver from my heart that I neither know the day nor year when I begun to be sincere nor the time when I first began to be a Christian how then should others know it and when Mr. Tombes would have baptized me I cannot tell and as large experience as I have had in my Ministry of the State of Souls and the way of conversion I dare say I have met not with one of very many that would say they knew the time of their Conversion and of those that would say so by reason that they then felt some more remarkable change yet they discovered such stirrings and workings before that many I had cause to think were themselves mistaken and that I may not tell men only of mine own experience and those of my acquaintance I was once at a meeting of very many Christians most eminent for zeal and holinesse of most in the land of whom diverse were Ministers and some at this day as famous and as much followed as any I know in England and it was there desired that every one should give in the manner of their conversion that it might be observed what is Gods ordinary way and there was but one that I remember of them all that could conjecture at the time of their conversion but all gave in that it was by degrees and in long time now when would Mr. Tombs have baptized any of these All this Mr. Baxter saies in proof on t that the time of the first conversion of children of christian parents or when they are first discipled cannot be known for the most part by either themselves or others whereupon he concludes that if we baptize them at age though never so punctually at the time of their profession of faith repentance and desire of baptism we cannot possibly baptize them when first discipled or immediately after conversion as we ought to do by the example of the primitive times wherein yet they did thus and no otherwise witnesse all the instances of his own alledging but those that baptize them without delay so soon as ever they are born they cannot do otherwise then jump just with the very time wherein they are first discipled according to the primitive pattern he himself produces wherein of all that were baptized whether Iews or Gentiles immediately upon their being discipled we read not of one infant And good reason why they must needs hit right upon their first being discipled or converted that baptize them in the first infancy for though the time of the first conversion or discipling of the children of Christian parents be not scarce possible to be conjectured at either by themselves or others yet to go round again it may so safely and surely be supposed and conjectured to be in the first of their infancy that they may warrantably be baptized then as then newly made disciples without any danger of aberration from either Christs commission or the primitive custom of baptizing persons when first discipled and professing themselves disciples O the wisdom he that being in the fire would not come out to hear how bravely Mr. Baxter brings about and about again his businesse in that 8 chapter of the second part of his book t is pitty but he should be burnt And lastly whereas Mr. Baxter queries so oft when Mr. Tombs would have such baptized the set time of whose conversion is not distinctly known leaving Mr. Tombs to tell him his mind as he sees good himself I tell him if he ask me the same question that in my mind such whose conversion is not known when it is as by his own confession the conversion of Christians children some times is not witnesse that one in which he instances and as few as he knowes of that sort yet how many hundreds of the children of Religious parents among whom I my self make one do know when they were first truly converted such I say
upon you above that are held out by any of you out of the armory of Scripture in defence of infant baptism and those are Col. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 10.1.2 both which not onely knock sprinkling oth'head but may also very easily be sheathed in the bowels of baby-baptism As for the first it speaks as well nigh all scripture doth not much medling with infants not onely to buâ— of adult disciples only of whom as well as to whom and not of infants in way of satisfaction to them and answer to those that would have brought in the old circumcision made with hands among them Paul saies ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands which circumcision without hands there spoken of is not baptism neither as some dream who thence also draw in circumcision and baptism to be of so neer kin that as they have both one name so they must both have one subject also for baptism is no more done withoutehands then the other but the sanctification or inward circumcision of the heart cutting off the foreskin i. e. the filth of the heart which things infants do not in token of which he tells them they are not sprinkled but buried i. e. overwhelmed in water with Christ in the outward baptism wherin also they are risen with him through faith c. All which things he that imagins they more include then exclude the sucking infants of such to whom he speaks is no man in discretion with me As for the other place its most evident the Apostle speaks not of baptism litterally but Metaphoically onely there they were baptized unto Moses i. e. by the visible tokens of Gods presence amongst them viz. the cloud and Sea assisting and siding with them and overthrowing their adversaries they were confirmed in the belief of God and his servant Moses as we by baptism are in the faith of Gods goodnesse to us and of his Son Jesus Christ in further confirmation of which meer figurative sence of the word baptized you may do well to consider that though they were said to be baptized in the cloud and in the sea which phrases however sound forth such a total immersion as is not in two or three drops of water fingered on the face yet they were not so much as wetted with either the cloud or the sea for its said Exod. 14.21.22 the sea was made dry land under them and they went through it dry shod or on dry ground which they could not be well said to do had it so much as rained upon them such a figurative sence of the word baptize there Mr. Baxter himself denies not p. 90. yet Dr. Channel urged that place in a publique dispute at Petworth Ian. 1651. as one of his arguments for infant baptism besides Secondly if you will needs have it properly taken that they were baptized really and not quasi baptized as Mr. Baxter yields they were and if you will needs make that baptism such an emblem of ours that ours must have an adequate subject to that which say you was infants as well as parents then t will put you to your trumps to excuse your selves handsomly in your now denying to infants the same spiritual meat and drink in the supper which they then eat and drank of in a figure also viz. the Manna and the Rock which both were no other Antitypically then the bread and wine are mistically in the supper i. e. the Lord Jesus Christ. For all your vain boasting therefore of what innumerable arguments you have from Scriptures I say the Scriptures are sure enough on our side nevertheless taking the word in a sutable sense you do well to call your Scripture armes or arguments innumerable for indeed they are not to be numbred for even unit as much more nonit as non est numerus being no more than just none at all Secondly whereas you boast of the innumerable Arguments which may be brought for your infant rantism from reason the full force of reason is utterly against you and so wholly assistant to our cause that the unreasonablest man amongst you will once see it when sound reason comes to reign and sway the scepter indeed Yea not to stand reasoning on it now how reasonless a thing it is to ask a company of men and women as the priests were wont to do at the font thus viz. do you believe in God the Father and Christ c. and will you be baptized in this faith and when they answered yes that is all our desire then instead of them who profess their faith and desires to be baptized to take a small sucking babe out of their armes and dat him with a drop or two on the face and send away all the other unbaptized Babist The sureties or parents in so saying do but represent the child that could not speak for it self and expresse his good resolutions to forsake the divel c. and his desires to be baptized Baptist How reasonless is it to put questions to infants through their parents ears and then very gravely suppose them answering again through their parents mouthes yea as reasonless as to suppose that all people should see through none but the blind priests eyes nor yet to stand reasoning how reasonless a thing it is to signifie things to sucklings while they understand them not and that too by such a vanishing visible sign that when they can understand they neither see nor never shall and such like Trumpioall transactions to which there are as few grains of reason concurring as there are inches in an Apes tail even your selves however it happens that you so contradict your selves yet that is no news with you as to sound it out here how Reason fights on your sides for infant baptism are even in this very cause found falling out with and fighting down right against reason hand smooth but some four or five pages below this why else is there such a reasonles reply made to seven or eight several objections which by your own confession p. 16. reason makes against infant baptism but I le spare you till I come thither 3ly That the practise and authority of the Church of God you so much boast of from the beginning and the Fathers thereof which you complain and grumble much p. 1.11.12 that t was set aside and might not be admitted into your assistance at the Disputation is so utterly against your infant baptism that even this alone were it of any esteem with you had bin enough to have silenced all your disputes for it and laid the itch and quencht the heat of your hearts after that meer novelty is most manifest if by the Church of God and the Fathers therof you mean what I do viz. the Church of God in the primitive which were the best and purest times of the Gospel whose practise in this particular is set out in the word but specially in the Acts of the Apostles the fathers of which Church and of the Church
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
fleshly seed did not make the Gospel promise to him and his fleshly seed but onely that seed of his that believes with him can we think that he made that promise to the Gentile believer and his fleshly seed for his fathers sake unlesse he have faith of his own Babist No we do not say without respect to his own faith but as the believers seed shall believe so it s made to him as well as to his parents Baptist. So it s made to the unbeliever and his seed also viz. as they shall believe as well as to either of the other and by that account you may baptize all the world Again none of the Jews though the natural seed of Abraham and partakers of all the ordinances of the old testament as Abrahams children could be admitted to be baptized upon that same natural relation though they pleaded it never so stiffly Mat. 3 but only on manifestation of amendment besides that 3000 converts should not baptize their children when they were baptized themselves as Abraham by command took all his males and cirmumcised them the self same day with himself argues plainly that both the covenant and the promise as Mr. Marshal saies truly as to the manner of administration was now changed and not continued to parents and children both alike but as they both alike believed And that these were not baptized with their parents I take Mr. Cotton at his word who as I have shewed before confesses it and if he should not stand to his testimonie herein yet these words viz. as many as glady received the word were baptized which exclude infants and were an imperfect relation if he meant not onely them that received the word are so cogent that they cannot but compell him So I have escaped two of your bullets and as for the third viz. that the Gospel which is a better Covenant would be far worse if believers children be not counted in it and have not right to baptism and membership as well as the Iews children and be valued but as Turks and Pagans this is so sick of the same disease of absurdity with the rest that I fear not its doing much execution besides we have lamed it before having told you before and proved it too and now will again that the exclusion of the fleshly seed from this Covenant and administration which was taken into the first doth not lessen or straiten the grace of God under it at all nor render this covenant worse then the first contrary to Heb. 8.6 the place twice quoted by you where it s called a better for the meliority there spoken of of this covenant above that lies not so much in the extension of the grace of it to such subjects as in the meliority of its promises for this is a better covenant still then the other who ere it belongs or belongs not to forasmuch as it makes better promises then the other viz. of a heavenly Canaan and all spiritual blessings in and by Iesus through faith when that promised an earthly Canaan onely and certain temporal blessings therein on performance of those tedious services of the law T is true theirs in this sense and thus farre was a Covenant of great grace too as t was made freely to that people above other nations for he did not so to any people else concerning outward benefits and such statutes and judgements as should on their observation of them not onely continue them therein but as a shadow type and schoolmaster conduct them to this yet greater is the glory of the Gospel covenant which now is so that the other had no glory in respect of this glory that excelleth therefore the grace of God under the covenant to them that are under it is greater also Besides if you speak not onely of the intention but extension of the grace of God in this Covenant and in the administration of it too it goes beyond the other for not only is the Gospel a clearer promulgation of the eternal covenant then that typical covenant was whereby the glory of it may be seen more plainly and with open face then when it was seen onely in the type as a thing to come for we preach Christum exhibitum Christ crucified a sacrifice already offered and baptize and break bread in token hereof but they and that in much dimnesse too Christum exhibendum a Messiah to come he was veiled though seen through the veil in the old but revealed in this new dispensation but also it is of larger extent in respect of the subject to which it belongs for the revelation of it by preaching and real proferring of the grace of it in the name of God who is not willing that any should perish and fail of his grace unlesse they will is to all people in the world the old administration of circumcision and other pertinances of that covenant which was the type of this was limitted and narrowed into a little corner the land of Israel the people of the Iews yea more the very new covenant administration that we are now under as preaching baptizing c. while the old covenant did continue as it did for two or three year after the beginning of this by Iohn till Christ crucified was streitned exceedingly above what it is among us for saith Christ then go not into any way of the Gentiles but now since Christ crucified its extended freely to every nation and every person in it of capacity of years to receive it and till then dying before they shall never be damned for rejecting it without any exception as they believe for go saith he into all the world c. Mark 16 Mat. 28. then circumcision was limitted to males among the Iews but Christ and baptism is to Jew and Gentile male and female without difference as they believe so that the grace is rather lengthned in the administration of baptism by taking in the females that were not circumcised then straitned by the denial of it to infants in their infancy onely for even those also may be baptized too if they will when they come to years the grace of the new covenant therefore is even thus as well as otherwise better then the old in respect of the extent of it and its administration also to more subjects for the Jews onely were the subjects of that grace and heirs by promise of the earthly Canaan but all the world are heirs of heaven by promise according as they repent and believe the Gospel Besides if you think that ever God took the whole body of that nation Israel that belonged all to the typical salvation of the old covenant into the covenant of everlasting salvation by Christ in relation to their fathers faith without their own and thence conclude that the whole body of believers seed must be by faith of their parents admitted into that same Covenant of the Gospel this is a meer Chimaera of your own brain for no such grace of
this because they understand not the nature of baptism it is Gods seal he sets it they that receive it are passive in that he appoints it to be set to whomsoever he hath made the promise and with whom he hath entered into covenant A seal of an estate made to infants in their cradles is firm so is God's Now here must be a sealing on the other side for both parties must seal in a Covenant we seal when we believe John 3.33 The Covenant is sealed on both sides when faith comes God may set to his seal as he did to many of the Iewes and the seed made void to them through unbelief The End of Gods setting it to such as he foresaw would have no benefit of it is the same with the making of his promises and sending of his Sonne to let them know how he would have received them how sure his mercies should have been unto them but they would not Re-Review The reason of all your Objectations against our way of baptism and pleas for Paedo-Rantism which you practise is this you understand not the nature of baptism it is not Gods seal which he sets which you sillily suppose for that is his spirit only as I shewed you plainly enough above but Gods sign which man sets which they that receive aright are not altogether passive in but voluntary and very active i. e. confessing their sins calling on the name of the Lord desiring to be baptized professing faith in order thereunto going down inâ—o the water with the dispenser and there setting their senses and understandings on work upon the sign and things thereby signified submitting their bodies freely to the dispensation Neither doth God appoint it to be set to whomsoever he hath barely made the promise for in the word preached he makes it to every Creature Mark 16.15.16 but to such as professedly believe in that promise he hath made and visibly verily for ought we can judge have entered into covenant with him to become obedient such only so far as it is possible for us to know are those with whom he hath entred into Covenant for say you there must be a sealing on the other side and both parties must seal in a Covenant we seal when and not before we believe neither is the Covenant sealed on both sides so that it can be said these two parties are now entertained into covenant each with other till faith come and that is not in infancy but after And this your manner of speech viz. when faith comes here implies to be your own opinion as well as ours though else where as p. 3.4.8.9.15.16.17.18 19. you strenuously contend it yea and to say the truth t is well nigh the whole businese of your book to assert and assay to prove it that faith comes to infants in their infancy and to make it appear to us as well as you can by contradiction that infants do believe Moreover if ever men were troubled with the simples I think you are is baptism Gods seal of an estate i. e. the heavenly inheritance made over to infants in their cradels and is that seal of his firm to i. e so sure that it cannot fail then I wonder how that seal for so you still stile circumcision and baptism is made void and infirm to so many Iews and Christian people as it is for not all yea few of many do obtain that estate at last and that most lose it for all that seal you tell us by their unbelief but I had thought you had been of the mind when you wrote your 4th page that children of Iews and of believing parents did believe all without any exception for asserting it there positively that the Iews children did believe and consequently that believers children do now you prove the Antecedent viz. that the Iews children did believe because God did witnesse it by setting to his seal circumcision which if it were Gods seal to them of their eternall salvation by faith and witnesse to the world that they had faith also that seal must be firm and that testimony true concerning them all being set to all as well as some so that unlesse they depart from the faith which you say God who cannot ly witnessed they once had and that your principle of not falling from faith will in no wise give way too they could not possibly void it by unbelief and so must necessarily and universally obtain the inheritance but sith t is most clear you selves also yielding it that they do not therefore assuredly one of these must be true viz. either that circumcision was not to infants in their cradels Gods seal of their eternal salvation as you say it was or else that that seal of God is not firm as you attest it is or else that God did not witnesse by it that those to whom it was set had faith as you say he did or else that Gods witnesse and testimony was not true which were blasphemy to think or else that they fell from that faith which at first they had in infancy and at the time of their circumcision and that self confutes you in another case among all which grant which you will to be true you must contradict and convict your selves of falshood And lastly if the end of Gods setting baptism to persons be no other then the very same with that of making his promises and sending his son meerly to let them know how he would have received them how sure his mercies should have been unto them but they would not not to speak of your telling truth here unawares viz. that mans own will rejecting God first and not Gods own will first rejecting them without respect to their fore-seen rejection of him in time is the true cause of their condemnation then as God makes his promises to all and sends his son in his love a Saviour to all so baptism should be dispensed to all without exception belonging as well as Christ himself tell they appear finally to reject him to every one as well as any one in the world but that being denied by both you and us doth shew that the end of baptizing a person is somewhat more viz. not to beget him to the faith before he doth but to improve him in it when he doth believe To conclude this whole train of stuff or long tail of that short shower of shot that went before it is not of so much force as a scottish mist nor scarce enough to wet a naked man to the skin therefore bear with my folly in sheelding my self so much against it i. e. in saying so much in answer to it for a wise man would have said no more to it but mumm Review The third argument is this Those that have the holy spirit that have faith the Anabaptists will not deny but are the subjects of baptism but children have so as their justification declares without which there is no salvation Hence it is that the
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
to children of believing parents as to persons at years for we have Gods testimony concerning them in this matter whilest you have but mans testimony concerning himself yea Christ hath amply declared his good will to them in Scripture whose testimony is not onely Tanta-mount but to be preferred before mens from which it more plainly appears that infants have faith then the testimony of any particular person can make it appear for himself Baptist So you say indeed both before page 5. and behind p. 19. but how dare you assert then that you go not about to prove certainly but only probably that believers infants do believe for verily if it be so as you say that God himself gives testimony for them in Scripture that these little infants do believe then never say no judgement of science can be passed no discovery made of the habit of faith nor peremptory presuming what infants have faith and what not till you see them act it for Gods testimony is more credible then mans indeed hath he said it and is it not so yea verily let him be true but every man a lyar for mans own word can create but probability and charity and not so much neither unless he speak it from Gods word that believers infants do believe and infidels infants do not but if God have said so then cursed be he that will not believe it to be so for if his word be not perfectly demonstrative and scientifical and past all doubt but I confesse I find not a word of his concerning such a thing then I le never trust self confuting Clergy men any more 2. Whereas you answer that in those children where there is lesse promptness to acts of faith then in others we cannot argue ad negationem habitus because they work not equally What is this to the present question and position concerning no more inclinablenesse to holy actions in children of Christians then of infidels for those are such of whom your selves assert the one have faith the other have none but these you speak of now are adult ones such as in whom there is some promptness to acts of faith appearing differenced only secundum magis minus some inclining more some lesse to acts of faith concerning all whom sith those of them that have least promptness have at least an apparent promptnesse to acts of faith who denies but that they may have faith though they work not equally but what 's this to the proof of more or lesse inclinablenesse to holy actions among infants who are so far from having some more some lesse that even none of them have any promptnesse thereto at all 3. Whereas you fiddle it on a little further and think to coop us up by your crosse interrogatory you may well call it a crosse one indeed for its a net that catches your selves let us answer it which way soever you would have us For if we say heathens infants are inclined to acts of faith and should make that good against you as we shall hardly ere trouble our selves to do unlesse we did believe it to be truth can you give any just account of your denial of baptism to these yea who can forbid water why they may not be baptized that have and are inclined to act faith as well as the other and in whom as in those of believing parents the work is palpably at least possibly and probably the very same But if we say no infidels infants are not inclined then we must take what comes on it for you are resolved to hit us home indeed and so you do while you do that at last cast which had you done at first you had saved your selves a deal of hurt which you have done your selves by circumlocuting so long in way of proving the very Minor proposition of that last Argument which Reason urged against you viz. that Christians children are not more inclined to actions of faith then those of infidels for at last you fall flatly as your safest way to deny that Minor and assert contrarily thereto that children of Christians are more inclined to holy actions then other children which if it be true First how grosly do you contradict that you say in the lines above where you seem to grant that there may be more inclinablenesse in infidels children and promptnesse to holy actions then in Christians Secondly I wonder how you come to be experienced in it for if you Clergie men be all Christians and so you are in your own account your children excepting some that by the breeding you give them grow up to the same stamp of Christianity you print upon them do for all their native holy inclinations not seldome prove the lewdest and rudest of any mens children in a Countrey for not onely through the Priests and Prophets own practise but from their posterity too oft times prophaness goes out into all the world or else the Popes had never filled it with iniquitie as they have done The nexâ— objection of Reason is as followes Review 7. Faith comes by hearing Little children cannot hear must lesse understand Ergo they have no faith They might also conclude they have no faculty of understanding neither for that comes by hearing but infants have an hearing the spirit opens their ears he must do it in adultis or for all their hearing they will never believe He is not tyed to means though we are without the outward hearing of the Word he works faith in little children The manner of his working is miraculous as it is in the conversion of every soul enough hath been said to that before nor ought it to be objected if miraculous then not ordinary for the work of the spirit in the conversion of men is both Re-Review Had Reason had the managing representing and writing of this Argument her self she would not have set it down in so weak absurd and silly a manner as Reasonlesse hath done it in in this place Reason never held such a thing yet as is asserted in this Minor viz. that children cannot hear much lesse understand for abstract hearing from understanding and take these two in sensu diviso as you do here and children can hear but in sensu composito they cannot it cannot rationally nor truly be said they cannot so much as hear much lesse understand but they cannot hear so as to understand or they cannot hear understandingly as those must that hear in order to believing and whose faith comes by hearing a hearing t is true infants have for they are not destitute of that sense more then of seeing and the rest Auriculas Asini quis non habet the same hearing that an Asse horse or other bruit beast hath which is only the sound of words without the knowledge of the sense who hath not save he that is deaf but the hearing they have is neither such as Paul speaks of there nor yet that heating you say they have viz. an inward hearing
inchurched and gave his oracles to besides Israel of whom it is said God dealt â—n that particular as he did not with any other Nations suffering all others to walk after their own waies Act. 14.16 nor can there be now any universall visible Church but what is made up of the particular visible Churches so that a person must first be a member of some particular Congregation before he can be of that universal the Membership I say of infants that belonged to that Church onely which was to be National and tipical of that true holy nation i. e. all the saints where ever scattered is now repealed nor can any of that Mr. Ba. syllogizes to us evince the contrary He tells us that if it be repealed then either in justice or mercy to infants but it is in neither saith he p. 38. Ergo. he falls a proving the Minor but with his leave I shall make bold to deny the Major it was neither better nor worse as to the whole speâ—ies of infants it was severity to unbelieving Jewes goodnesse to believing Gentiles but t was not done with any such special respect to infants in their nonage as that if it had stood the whole species of infants through the world would have been much the better for such a meer titular thing as membership in the Church unlesse that membership would ipso facto have more intitled them to heaven nor now it s taken away are sucking infants ere the worse for saying the great dignity that you deem to ly in the bare title of being a member of the visible Church whether they dy before your admâ—ssion of them or just after if in infancy their salvation is for that neither more nor lesse and if they live to years as they are then are no longer infants and no neerer heaven for their being baptized when they were infants unlesse they repent and believe the Gospell so repenting and believing it they are as capable then of heaven though they were not as if they had been baptized and in bare church-membership from the womb this therefore is petty reasoning indeed as Mr. T. calls it see Mr. Ba. 40. His second third fourth fifth six Arguments are all out of Rom. 11. which place as I have declared my sense of it before so I testifie again is so clear against the standing of infants as members in the family of Abraham or Church of God now under the Gospel that he is as blind as a beetle that sees any thing in it tending to the proof of it for it seems plainly that the natural branches or seed of Abraham Isaac and Iacob themselves that stood the children of the Church before without faith upon the meer account of being their naturall branches cannor stand children of the Church now unlesse they be also spiritual branches as Abraham Isaac and Iacob were yea if being the fleshly seed of a believer could ingraft persons into the Gospel Church as it did of old into the Jewish Church without faith then the Jewes to this day being asmuch believing Abrahams natural seed as ever might by that birth stand Members as truly as any Gâ—ntile believers seed but they cannot yea the same persons that were members of that Church without filth were not admitted to passe from that Church to membership in this for want of faith but when very forraigners that had no relation to nor descent from Abraham became his children in the Gosspel sense and members of the Gospel Church by personal faith the very naturall seed of Abraham was cut off through unbelief so that the standing before was by a fleshly birth of Abraham or some believing proselited Gentile but the standing now in the Church is not by a birth natural of any parent no not of Abraham himself unlesse â—here be faith in the persons themselves as Mr. Baxter believes not there is in any infants for to the confutation of the Ashford Pamphlet which pleads infant-faith Mr. Baxter p. 98. Makes the very essence of faith to lie in assenting to it that Christ is King and Saviour and consenting that he be so to us and whether infants do thus both assent and consent let Mr. Ba. be judge of it if he please Because of unbelief the natural seed were broken off thence Mr. Bax. argues that infants stand still in the Church but thence I argue they cannot stand because those that stand now stand by faith ver 20. i e. personal not parental thou standest saith Paul by faith i. e thy faith not thy Fathers for then we may as well say the just shall live by his fathers faith not by fleshly descent though of Abraham Isaac and Iacob themselves as of old they did and infants cannot stand by faith unlesse they had it and therefore not at all Mr. Baxter argues it was the Jewes own Olive tree or Church they were cut off from for unbelief Therefore infants stand in it still But thence I argue that our infants cannot stand therein for if god spared not the Naturall Branches of Abraham but broke them off their own root their own father Abraham and his family so as to be counted no longer his children their own olive tree the church so as to abide no longer in it because they believed not the terms of standing church-members being now no fleshly descent but faith then much lesse will he admit any Gentiles that are not naturall branches of Abraham to be grafted into the good olive tree without faith and therefore no infants that believe not Mr Ba. tells us that some branches only were broken off therfore not infants It is true all were not broken off and why because some believed and so abode in the family others and those the most believe not when they should others and those all infants nor believed nor yet could and therefore could not abide nor have a visible being a visible membership a visible standing in that visible church the termes of standing in which is only and alone by faith Mr. Bax. argues that Israel shall again be grafted into their own olive tree and saved even the children with the parents and therefore infant-membership in the Gospel church is not repealed I answer it is true that if they abide not still in unbelief they shall be grafted into their own olive tree the visible Church and family of Abraham that is so many as shall believe onely this infants do not but whether they believe or believe not when the Redeemer i. e. Christ Jesus shall come all Israel shall be saved and be owned and made the most glorious people upon earth and enter into a flourishing state indeed but not in this way of baptism and membership Mr. Baxter speaks of who I perceive is not a little ignorant of this mystery as yet how long blindnesse shall happen unto Israel and in what manner their calling shall be of which I also have at this time as little list as leasure to inform him Mr.
that sense as the Gentiles were of old in reference to the Jewes either common or unclean and if no man can be called by birth common or unclean in reference to other then none may be called by birth holy in reference to other for this birth holinesse and uncleannesse are such Correlatives that the one cannot be supposed to be in the world without the other albeit I say no infants have now such standings in such external happines and salvation yet they are in no les capacity to be saved then the Jews children of old so neither their parents whoever they be in any worse condition in regard of their comforts in their children whether they dy infants or live to years then the godliest Jewes were in regard of theirs for either infants dy in infancy or else do not if any mans infants dy in such nonage as in which they never committed actual transgression our Ashford Pamphlet tells us they have not deserved to be exempted from the generall state of little infants declared in Scripture viz. that of such is the Kingdome of heaven yea I wonder what should damn such dying infants as never had iniquity of their own sith God himself assures us that the son shall not dy i. e. eternally for the iniquity of his father but every soul that dyes shall dy onely for his own iniquity Ezekiel 18. and no better hopes could be harboured of the Godliest Jewes infants then this that dying infants they were not damned But if any mans children even his that is ungodly and prophane do live to years then if they believe and obey the Gospel the tender of which is to every creature they may be saved though their parents be wicked when Iewes children not doing so shall be damned for all their father Abrahams faith and their own Church-membership for a time and that with so much the greater condemnation whereas theâ—efore Mr. Ba. tells us such a story of a meliority of being in the visible Church rather then out I tell him it is not universally true but as it may happen for besides that children may aswell be prayed for and instructed by their godly parents remaining unbaptized and non-members in their nonage as if in infancy they be admitted to both it may so fall out and mostly it did among the Iewes that a lifting up to heaven in respect of participation of outward priviledges and ordinances may prove an occasion unhappily through their abuse of it of their sinking deeper into hell His next Argument is drawn from Deut. 29 10.11.12 a place that doth as well prove that all the wives and the servants and the slaves even all the hewers of wood and drawers of water are to be taken into Covenant with God as his and admitted into Church-membership upon the Membership of Masters and Husbands as little ones upon the membership of the Fathers and so indeed it was in those daies wherein the whole body of the Nation was inchurched together though not so now therefore though I might easily discover that yea he is blind that sees it not in the same chapter notwithstanding it is alledged in that allusion of Paul in the tenth chapter of the Romans to that place to be no other then that covenant which was made with the nation in particular which God brought out of Aegypt yet I shall trouble my self to say no more to it then so His 13 Argument is from Rom. 4.11 where circumcision is said to be a seal of the righteousnesse of the faith which Abraham had is answer'd above where I have given out the genuine sense of that place and disproved that crooked construction which is by others aswell as him commonly made of it therefore I le say no more to it here His 14 Argument is also answered but a little above where I have shew'd the inchurching of that fleshly seed to be ceremonial and also what it typed out therfore no more of that also in this place His 15. plain Scripture-lesse proof for infants present churchmembership and baptism is this viz. If all infants who were members of any particular Church were also Members of the Vniversall Visible Church then certainly the Membership of infants he means by vertue of the membership of their parents is not repealed But all infants who were c. Ergo. The consequence saith he is beyond dispute because the universal Church never ceaseth here yea the whole Argument so clear that were there no more it is sufficient To which as unanswerable as he judges it I answer first by denying the consequence of his Major as most flatly false and inconsequent Secondly by saying as Mr. T. did whose answer is both solid and sufficient viz. that infants membership in the universal visible church was only by reason of their then membership in that particular national church neither can Mr. Ba. while he breathes prove them to have bin members of that universal visible as he calls it but as they were members of that and therefore when that particular nationall church of the Jewes ceased the standing of infants as members upon the meer account of their parents membership ceased also therewith as one of the things that were not essentiall to a church but circumstantial onely to that church as one of the particular accidental ceremonies pertaining onely to that individual nationall church for accidental ceremonies Mr. Ba. himself confesses and must confesse did cease still with that particular church to which particularly they related otherwise he will be paid home with his own weapon and in his own coin yea if Mr. Baxters consequence be true and if it be not so as we say that accidentall ceremonies and so this accidental ceremony and circumstance of infants being members upon the membership of their parents did cease with that particular church of the Iews t will passe all the braines Mr. Ba. hath in his head to answer his own argument if we retort it on him in proof of that which he denies as much as we do the inchurching of infants upon the fathers membership viz. the inchurching of wives and servants to this day upon the membership of their husbands and masters for whereas he argues thus viz. if all infants who were members of any particular church were also members of the universal visible church then certainly the membership of infants by vertue of their parents membership is not repealed but all c. Ergo What answer will he make if we answer him by arguing back upon him thus viz. if all wives and servants who were members by vertue of their husbands and masters membership of any particular visible church were also members of the universall visible church then certainly the membership of wives and servants hewers of wood and drawers of water by vertue of their husbands and masters membership is not repealed but all c. Ergo. I leave it to wise men to consider and examine whether Mr. Bs. argument doth not as
fully tend to the proof of it that the wives and servants ought as of old to stand members in the visible church now upon the husbands and masters membership as infants upon the membership of their parents Several other palpable absurdities are obvious to every observant eye in his amplification of this argument which whoever notes will take heed of pinning his faith implicitly on Mr. Bs. sleeve and of listning to his Logick so as to be led by it besides all sense and reason To say nothing to his universall visible which is little lesse then a visible bull for sensus adeoque visus est propriè solummodò singularium intellectus universalium the proper object of sense and so of sight is particulars onely and universalls onely properly of the understanding yet this universal visible church is the universal vision and dream of the universal Clergy but to bate them the baldnesse of that term and grant that there is a Catholike visible church is there any unversal visible church but what is existent in and made up of all the particular visible churches I trow not yea that was wont to be good Logick and Theology too heretofore to say that all the particulars make up the unversal that the universall visible Church and all the particular visible Churches are adaequate and convertible yea Dr. Featley p. 12. makes the universall visible church and all the particular visible churches equivalent the universal or formall church saith he i. e. all the assemblies of Christians in the world the whole is not broader then all its parts collectively taken nor without its parts for omne totum ex suis partibus constituitur ordinatur mensuratur determinatur every whole consists of its parts is measured and determined by its parts and so the whole universal visible Church and all the homogeneall parts of it simul sumtae i. e. all the particular visible churches taken together are of equall latitude so that he that is of a any particular visible church must needs be of the whoâ—e and he that is of the whole universall visible must needs be of some particular visible church yea cui adimuntur omnes partes totius universalis eidem etiam totum universale adimi necesse est whoever is not a part of some part or other i. e. of some particular visible church cannot be a part of the whole i. e. the universal visible this I say is the Logick and Theology which was wont to passe for currant among your selves but Mr. Ba. learnes men a new kind of Logick viz. that all the parts put together are not so big as the whole that the universall visible church is larger then all the particular visible churches in the world of which yet it consists so that there is room enough for a person to stand a member in the universal visible church though he be of no particular visible church at all I ever understood yet that he who is removed and cast out of all the particular visible churches of the Saints is consequently cast out of the universal visible church but he tells me a tale that to be removed out of every particular visible church is consistent still with a standing in the universal visible so that excomunication out of all the particular visible churches in the world is not excomunication out of the whole visible church with him Another thing worth noting though worth nothing is this he tells us there that Keturahs children when they left the family of Abraham that they continued members of the universal visible church still which compared with the clause above where he tells us that it is a far higher priviledge to stand in the universal visible church then to stand in any particular whatsoever amounts to thus much viz. that the Midianites for they were some of Keturahs children had far higher priviledges then those that the Israelites had by being members of that particular visible church of Israel which if it were so then we may say what advantage hath the Iew indeed and what profit by circumcision and by Gods commission of his oracles unto them yea what necessity of circumcision of themselves and their males at all for any strangers or of joining themselves to that particular church of the Jewes sith they might have had as high priviledges if they had joined themselves to the seed of Abraham by Keturah of whose posterity circumcision nor the strict law it bound to was not required and so consequently what need of baptism if persons might be of the uniuersal visible which is the greater though not of the particular visible church of the Iews without circumcision and keeping the law But it is a question with Mr. Bax. whether Keturahs children must leave their seed uncircumcisied p. 60. yet I tell him it is out of question that unlesse it were in order to joining and inchurching themselves with that individual Church of of the Iewes to which pertained peculiarly the adoption and glory and covenants and law and promises and which was all the visible church that I know God had then upon the earth circumcision was not enjoined to any other of Abrahams own posterity not the Ishmalites nor Midianites but those onely that came of Sarah by Isaac and Iacob for the covenant of which circumcision was a sign was establisht with none of them but with Isaac onely and with Iacob and his seed after him and so many as should join themselves unto them Many more odd conceits about this universal visible church Mr. Ba. broaches but I spare him and hasten to what followes His 16. plain Scripture-lesse proof for infants church-membership and baptism is from a clause in the second commandâ—ment viz. I will shew mercy to 1000 s of them that love me and keep my commandements a phrase out of which a man may as easily prove the Pope to be head of the church as prove either of those points in proof of which he doth produce it Yet oh the miserable muddy wretched ragged crooked cloudy piece of disputation for infant baptism which this man makes from that place For my part I mean not to wander after him in that wildernesse of worthlesse discourse that he vents about mercy Church covenant promises nor am I so wise as to wot what he means nor so foolish as to believe he knows well what he means himself by much of that he there utters or else he would never say that wicked men in the church are within the covenant and so have this mercy spoken of in the second commandement stated on them by promise as if wicked men in the church were in some special wise beloved of God when yet they are more hateful to him by far then heathens It is enough to serve my present purpose that what proof Mr. Baxter pens in the head of this argumentation his own pen dashes it all out again in the taile of it For first after a great deal of wrestling to make
so surely he seems to me to do all his Epistles to the whole church and speaks to the whole body yet I cannot conceive that to any infants who are uncapable to be edifyed and comforted Yea 1 Cor. 12.25.16 The Members of the visible body of Christ ought to have the same care one for another so that if one Member suffer all the Members suffer with it if one be honoured all rejoice with it This cannot infants do Therefore surely are not of this visible body of Christ. Another Argument which Master Baxter himself mentions and slights as simply supposing that it excludes infants from salvation is that of Mr. Tombs viz. That the onely way now appointed by Christ to make visible church Members is by teaching the persons themselves and that none else must be Members of the visible Church but those that have learnt as infants have not This Argument is of great weight and receives as trifling an answer from Mr. B for saith he then it will much more follow that they are not or at least that we may not judge them to be of the invisible Church at all i. e. to be such as so dying shall be saved The contrary to which and inconsequence of which I have shewed above and shall shew more by and by Secondly saith he If they may argue from Matth. the 28.20 that none but those that are taught are true Disciples and are to be baptized why may they not as well Argue from Mark the 16. chap. 16. verse who ever believeth not shall be damned that all infants are certainly damned To which I say first I am one who argues from Math 28. that none but such as are taught are disciples and to be baptized for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is teach ye or make ye disciples by teaching or cause to learn then which I testify to Mr. Bs. face that there is no other way whereby we can make disciples of Christ persons being properly called disciples of disco 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to learn and I blush at that bald stuff wherewith he strives and streines his wits till he becomes ridiculous to make the denomination of disciple appear to be due to infants p. 23. as namely Because they are taken into Christs school and Kingdome i. e. his visible Church whereas t is before persons are taken into this School that they are disciples therefore not by it also because they are not lesse docible then some bruits as if some brutes are so docible as to deserve the name of disciples of Christ therfore much more infants because Mothers Nurses teach them by gesture action and voice partly and dishearten and take them off from vices and if not at first to know Christ yet if any of the duty of a rationall creature it is somewhat somewhat indeed but nothing to purpose for as if mothers could take them off from vices in such meer nonage wherein you baptize them as or if they could learn them any of a natural creatures duty so young as at eight or nine daies old as if to learn the duty of a rational creature which many a man learns but no infants could denominate disciples of Christ because Christ can teach them immediately by his spirit if they can learn nothing of their parents by action and voice from which Christ can teach them to denominate believers infants disciples of Christ before we have any evidence that he does teach them any more then other infants that must be no disciples when Christ can teach these as well as those I cannot conceive the foppery of it it is so great because when a Philosopher was hired to teach a man and his children those were children disciples of that Philosopher as if ever any wise man did hire another wise man to teach him and his nine daies old infants because infants can so quickly learn to know father and mother and what they mean in their speeches and actions as if so quickly as you baptize them and lastly as if this will be an accurate account for baptizing of infants and accepted as an answer of Christs commission who there bids us teach or make persons disciples to plead thus viz. Lord we could not teach infants nor make them thy disciples by teaching yet seeing they could quickly learn to know father and mother we supposed upon this and several such like reasons that the name disciple of Christ was their due and so that t was our duty to baptize them Moreover Ad hominem as he saies of the word holy p. 82. So I of the term disciple whose constant meaning is one that hath learnt as Mat. 11.29 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Iohn 6.46 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every one that hath learned we shall have better defence before the Iudgement seat of Christ for taking the term disciple in that sense as the Scripture uses it in scores of times viz. for persons learnt or taught then they that take it for indocible infants a sense the Scripture never uses it in at all but a hundred times otherwise to say nothing of Iohn 8.31 Luke 14.26.33 where Christ saies if we do what I am sure infants do not we are and if we do not what infants cannot do we cannot be his disciples Secondly as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is teach them i. e. the Gospel so none are here bid to be baptized but the very same individual persons that are bid also to be taught first baptizing them and after teaching them again whom those persons in the Nations whom they have taught onely and not their infants for we may as well say the men that they never taught as them since Christ hath in precepto conjoined teaching or our discipling and baptizing together and infants cannot by our teaching of them be discipled visibly The argument in its true form is this viz. What Christ hath conjoined i. e. in his commission for baptizing that man must not separate i. e. in his practise But Christ hath conjoined our discipling persons and baptizing them in his commission for baptizing as a standing course to the end of the world as Mat. 28.19.20 shews Ergo no man must separate these two in his practise If Dr. Featley were alive to answer this he would happily say t is no Topical but a Sophistical Syllogism for when A. R. makes much what the like from Mar. 16.16 viz. What God hath joined together no man ought to separate But faith and baptism God hath joined together Acts 8.37 Ergo faith and baptism none ought to separate He saies there 's a double falacy in it viz. homonimiae or ambiguity in the premises i e. in the termes joined together for it may be meant saith he either in precepto and that no man denyeth or insubeâ—cto the subject i. e. so as to say that all that are baptized have faith and none have faith but the baptized and in this sense it is apparently false saith
baptized for that form of doctrine that was at first delivered to them was the form of doctrine spoken of Heb. 6.1 2. even the six first principles of the oracles of God of the doctrine of Christ which as they are here called a form of doctrine so there are called the foundation or ABC of a Christian and of the Church as also Eph. 2 20. the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles i. e. the first doctrine of Christ on which they built the Church of which baptism is there said to be a part yea and that very phrase of Paul Rom. 6.17 viz. ye were the servants of sin but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered to you is no other then a further prosecution and inculcation of the former argument upon the whole Church of the Romans still and is as much as if the had said ye were once i. e. before your baptism the Servants of sin and then nothing but sin could be expected from you but now the case is otherwise you have all obeyed the form of doctrine delivered i. e. have professed your repentance from dead works and faith and been baptized into Christ and thereby listed your selves visibly under him as his Souldiers and are hereby become Servants to righteousnesse therefore now you must not let sin have dominion over you This verily is the very meaning of the Apostle in the whole chapter yea and in those very words know you not that as many of us as have been baptized viz. not to have us suppose that but some of them had been baptized but to give them to understand that as all of them had been baptized so as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his death in token of it that they should now all become new creatures if we speak his mind in a Syllogistical form it runs thus viz. As many of us as are baptized must know this that we are baptized into Christs death and therefore must dy to sin and live holily But we have been all baptized or buried with Christ in baptism into his death Therefore we must all dy to sin and live holily If this were not his sense but we must take the words as many of us as have been baptized to be conclusive of himself and but some of that Church and exclusive of the rest of them as to baptism then I testify they are much more exclusive of many of theâ— from that duty of dying to sin which he there presses upon the whole Church by the consideration of their being baptized yea if that phrase as many of us as have been baptized doth intimate to us that not all but some only of the believing Româ— had bin baptizd then it must needs intimate to us that not all but some of the believing Româ— were engaged by their baptism and pressed by Paul in that chap. from the consideration of their death and burial with Christ in baptism to dy to sin and live to righteousnesse which no rational man can imagine but rather as they were all urged by an Argument drawn from their baptism to live to God so they had assuredly been all of them baptized And the same may be said of that same phrase as t is used to the Galatians Gal. 3. to whom Pauls drift was to prove what he had said of them all in the verse above v. 26. viz. that they were all the children of God by faith in Christ and how doth he prove it that they were so no otherwise but by this Medium viz. that they had been all baptized you are all the children of God by faith in Christ for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have visibly put him on and thereby declared you have faith in him which having you are the children of God in form his Argument runs thus viz. As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ and are thereby apparently declared to be the children of God by faith in him But you have been all baptized into Christ c. Ergo c. This must needs be his sense here too or else if the term as many of you as have been baptized must not be taken as conclusive of all the Galatians to whom he writes but exclusive of some of them from baptism it must be exclusive of the same persons from being proved by Pauls Argument drawn from their baptism to to be the children of God as many as received him to them gave he power to be come the Sons of God is as much as to say he gave power to become the sons of God to no more then such as received him so as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ and are thereby visibly declared to be the children of God by faith in him though it do not signify that all the Galatians had not been baptized but some of them onely yet it signifies this however that no more then such as had been baptized into Christ had put him on and were thereby declared to be Gods children and consequently that if but some of the Galatians were baptized but some of them onely appeared to be Gods children which were absurd to think and would render Paul as contradictory to himself in the verse above where he saies ye are all the children of God so very ridiculous in his Argument and render his proof as pedling as if he had said thus by way of position viz. you are all even every one of you the children of God and then by way of proof thus viz. for some of you have been baptized and by that baptism of yours are declared so to be though the rest are not Ranterist You make baptism I perceive very needfull but the Apostle Peter who very well understood the Commission given to him and the rest of his fellow Apostles Matth. 28 29 20. Mark 16.15.16 when he speaketh of the baptism that saveth 1 Pet. 3.21 least any should think that he meant the baptism of water whereof we speak by which the filth of the body is put away he excludeth the putting away the filth of the flesh and places baptism wholly in the answer of a good conscience towards God neither can any man truely say that by putting away of the filth of the flesh is here to be understood the putting away of the â—ilthy works of the flesh for then could it neither be excluded from salvation which is promised them which mortify the deeds of the flesh but walk after the spirit Rom. 8.1.17 nor opposed to the answer of a good conscience which springs from the putting away of dead works such as the works of the flesh are for he only is truly said to have a good conscience who is not conscious to himself of walking according to the flesh Baptist. That by the words putting away the filth of the flesh is meant that bare outward dispensation of water
a number of ignorant Mass Priests Monks and Friats who blind guids as they were of the blinder people fell with them into the ditch of Superstition Heresie and Sensuallity and say I the English Antichrist i. e. the Arch-bishop of Canterbury a chip of the old block that was an Apprentice at Rome in old'n time till he set up for himself here and became indeed what the old Caiaphas Pope Urbane the second prophesied of him in a complement about 1099 little thinking then God wot that he would serve him such a trick as to set up his posts against his posts and take away his custome and trading here in England Papatus alterius Orbis this English Antichrist I say hath multiplyed many teachers and feeders that are far better â—ed then taught in matters of either God or man and as few Scholars as are among the true Churches if there were none the truth would stand without them and God delights in no mans legs but if there were need of that to the making ministers of the Gospel there is proportionably fewer among your churches considering how little Christs flocks is and how voluminous the fold of the WWWhore and how few truly are so that go under that name among the people with whom hand tam cultus quam cucullus facit monachum for though you talk of secular learning yet if that were so necessary to a Minister as the Ministry say it is it would not onely cut off Peter and Iohn from that denomination who were though better gifted yet lesse learned in that sense then the least of you but most of you CCClergy also among whom throughout your whole dominion of Christndome there 's few Country Curates are well studied Scholars indeed in Logick and other arts and sciences and as for the tongues and original languages of the Scriture I speak it to the shame of the Ministry who unminister themselves in saying it is so necessary there is scarce five of 20. know the originall in the old Testament and not twenty to 5 so well as you should do in the new and as for the onely true learning and original of all wisdom the fear of God growth in grace and the knowledge of Christ and misteries of his kingdom and the spirit that Christ promised to his people to teach them all things which it were better for you by all your learning that you had more of unlearned Peter himself may truly tearm the most of you such unlearned ones as wrest the Scripture to your own destruction Act. 4.13 2 Pet. 3.16 yea so ungifted are the most of you so much as to pray and then well may you be to preach and that is to be unlearned as to the ministers office that unlettered or at least unspirited Artificers may be the proper name of some Clergy men as well as of the teaching tradesmen Dr. Featly speaks of for these receive the holy spirit that gifts them to it but not many of the Clergy are gifted to pray extempore without book if I onely said this you would not believe me but sith your great Patron Dr. Featly to whom you send us is my Patron as to this you must believe it whether you will or no unlesse you would have us believe him whom you will not believe yovr selves who gives this good reason p. 95. why its necessary to have set formes for the Ministers of the church of England to pray by if they pray at all in publique for there is not one Minister saith he or Curate of an 100 specially in Country Villages or Parochial churches who hath any tolerable gift of conceived as they term them or extempore prayers which if so you have smal reason to cry out of others as illiterate yea verily your selves will appear to be as the Anabaptists are stil'd by you an illiterate and Sottish generation in things principally pertaining to Christ and to Ministers of Christ to be skil'd in for that indeed is to be truly learn'd or unlearn'd in quoquo genere viz. to be raw or ready either in that which men supremely pretend to excell in as the Divine doth to excell other men in the things of God or else in that which is most excellent in it self and most worthy ouâ— being learn'd in as the highest and most excellent objects that are knowable being Christ and the mysteries of his kingdome those consequently are the best Scholars in the world that are most deeply insighted thereinto though elsewise never so ignorant Si Christum nescis nihil est si caetera noscis Si Christum noscis nihil est si caetera nescis Now count which of these two waies you will the greatest Clerks will appear to be the greatest Novices the greatest Doctors the greatest Dunces the greatest Schoolmen the least Schollars the prime of the Priesthood the prime Ignoramus's that the Christian earth doth carry for howbeit O yee PPPrists some of you for the most of you will never be mad with much learning even surfeit on inferiour literature viz. arts tongues c. and are taller then other men by the head in the reading of History Oratory pieces of pibald Poetry and such like yet as to the misterious plain Gospel wherein are hid and whence are handed out unto us the treasures of eternity in earthen vessels i. e. the homely base foolish weak wayes and dispensations which are of Christs chusing which it concerns Christs Ministers of all men to be more clear in then in any thing else they are low and therefore too high and wonderful for you high studied men to reach to they are far about out of your sight Yea I thank thee O father Lord of heaven and earth that thou hidest these things because seeing they will not see them from the wise and prudent and revealest them unto babes yea O Lord how great is the multitude of meer Humanists that feed onely upon the common Theory of that Theology they have framed to themselves and relish nothing but what is of man how are thy depths even thy downright deliveries of soul saving truth in plainess of speech by the mouths of stammerers stark duncery to them how will not a poor marred mocked misreputed Saviour and gospel in any wise down with them who did of old and who do still stand out most stiffly against thy gospel O Christ but the proud self conceited Pharisees Priests and Lawyers who while the people believe and justifie God being baptized with the true baptism do generally reject the councel of God against themselves being not baptized therewith where had thy message by the mouth of Paul lesse acceptance then at the university of Athens where hath the word now lesse then in the Academies Christian Academies seemingly reforming Academies where if thou didst not tell us that Christ crucified should be foolishnesse to the wise men after the flesh and disputers of this world who could believe that the Princes of Zoan should be such fools
not cotten at all with that for the subject of Circumcision which you all say though falsely is one and the same with that of Baptism was one of at least eight daies old and an Infant of one day only was not a warrantable subject thereof nor an infant of seven daies neither though likely to die before the eighth but as for you though your chief plea for your timely untimely rantizing Infants be grounded upon that timely dispensation of Circumcision yet as if you had a mind to proclaim your selves be-blinded so that you cannot walk by Christs Right rules nor your own wrong ones neither you take the liberty to out-stand or anticipate the eighth day at your pleasure hence the birth day is as warrantable with you as the eight yea in case of imminent danger of death in which case circumcision might not alter ti 's a learned question among some Infant-sprinklers whether the mid-wife may not sprinkle it before it s born i. e. while is hangs yet between the womb and the world but too soon is too soon in all conscience and again when it fits better with your plum-cake occasions the tenth twelfth or eight and twentyth day must be as acceptable to God as the eighth yea when it seems good to the wisdom of the Church i. e. the Clergy it may be deferred for no less than two or three hundred daies together witness the old Rubrik which saith that in old time baptism was not ministered but at two times in the year viz. at Easter and Whitsontide but that custome being grown out of use for many considerations I know not any but the Clergies good will and pleasure cannot now well be restored Thus you ride people to and fro as you lift and run manie miles from your own rules as well as Christs for if Circumcision be your Rule for the time of Baptisms administration keep punctually to the particular time of the eighth day as well as to the generall time of Infancy or else you may tell me the eighth day is a circumstance not to be regarded whilst I tell you 't is such a substance that Moses was like to be slain for overslipping it yet by your favour Sirs and by the same reason that you take an inch I 'le take an ell yea if you can acceptably go a fingers bredth besides the rule of Circumcision I may go an hundred furlongs and by the same Authoritie that you delay the Dispensation beyond the eighth to the tenth twelft or the hundreth day I may delay it unless belief withall the heart do ingage to it before to the ten thousandth day or more nor can you question me why do you thus Secondly whereas for my undertaking to rectifie you in your gross misapprehension and reduce you from the misconstruction I saw you make of my speech which leaves you without excuse in this rude recording you record me as recalling what I said I protest against that as another of your figments which you had need both to recant and repent of there was but one thing recalled all that day that I know of viz. that Iohn Baptist spake so soon as he came out of the womb that being rashly uttered by one in a Black coat was indeed as readily recalled as for my self what I said then I was so far from recalling that I 'le give you the advantage of saying the same over again hear therefore you deaf that you may understand bring me the children of three or four years old not instructed only for so the wickedst heathen may be but instructed to conversion and profession of faith not verbal onely for a Parret may be taught to prate but real as may seem at least and to desire baptism in Christs name yea more bring me the Infants of three or four daies old thus truly discipled and blame me for ever if I be not as forward to baptize them as your selves are to rantize them undiscipled This is the sense I then spake in the Lord knows my heart to whom I appeal ultimately to judge between us I have spoken it thus over again you have now my mind more fully among you mistake it not but take it dexterously and make your best on 't Report Next you relate and that most fictitiously that I having asserted circumcision to be a seal of the righteousness of saith to Abraham only and not to his posterity and being urged to shew any Scripture that did import a change in the signification and told that such a change must needs intimate that the same covenant was not made with Abrahams seed that was made with himself I was so foundered that though you ingaged to become Anabaptists if I did it yet I answered nothing that carried any sense or reason to the purpose Reply This I say is another of your your figments for first to let pass the Sophisticall terms you used whilst you askt how or when Circumcision ceased to be a seal of the righteousness of faith even to Abrahams posterity as if I had granted that Circumcision was once a seal of the righteousness of faith even to Abrahams posterity as well as himself and then was changed ceased left off to be so wheras I told you then that though 't was so to Abraham himself yet it never was so to them at all do also tel you now that when a man saies of a thing that it never was so it is but an illiterate kind of quere to ask him again when it ceased to be so Secondly confessing that I then affirmed and also still affirming the same viz. that Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham only and not to his posteritie I profess thirdly before the world appealing to your own consciences to witness that as it is most plain in the Scripture so I then made a most plain discoverie of it from the Scripture that there were other ends uses and significations of Circumcision to Abrahams own person though in some respects there were also the same then those for which it was dispensed to his seed and that notwithstanding many things which were promised to Abraham were promised to all his seed together with him yet there were somethings also promised to Abraham in the Covenant of Circumcision which his seed had no promise of at all as namely First That he should be the Father of all Believers This I am most certain I then instanc'd in and according to your then demand cleared by Scripture even that very Scripture which was then quoted by your selves Rom. 4.11 and repeating the whole verse whereof you for your own ends mentioned but a part I told you t was evident even thence that Abraham had one preheminence and priviledge that none of his posteritie had ever after him which he obtained of God by his preheminence in believing viz. the Fatherhood of the faithful of which eminent faith of his which was imputed to him for