them For as it 's another word so it hath a different respect and signification Matheteusate in Mat. 28.19 importing that the Apostles should teach and instruct the Gentiles who were Strangers and Aliens in the Faith and Doctrine of the Gospel that they might believe it and become Disciples of Christ But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 20. Teaching them vero docere significat eos qui jam discipuli redditi sunt Magisterio nostro jam addicti By which it 's plain that you have no reason to imagine that Infants can possibly be here intended qua talis because the first word intends such as were to be made Disciples by their Ministry and the latter respects their being instructed in all those other Duties this new Master of theirs the Lord Jesus required of them after they were first made Disciples and believed and were baptized that they might be made perfect and compleat in all the will of God How false therefore and incougruous is that rendring of the Words Matheteusate panta ta ethne Discipulize all Nations as you have done to say Go disciple me all Nations teaching them when the plain meaning is That they were first by their Ministry to be made Disciples of Christ and then to be baptized as it follows in the Text. And not as you say That when the Parents being taught believe they are discipled and their Infants with them For if that be the meaning of the Word Matheteusate that such who are so taught as to believe are discipled their Infants not being capable to be so taught by the Ministry of the Apostles as to believe they cannot be Disciples in your own Understanding from any meaning can be put upon these Words by you recited Mat. 28.19 But further here is an express Command to baptize some Persons That they were Believers we affirm because it 's said in that Parallel Text Mark 16.15 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved That any Infants can be intended by it you must deny because you say there is no express Command to baptize them For in Part 1. page 41. you put this Objection But we have no express Command in the New Testament to baptize Infants Your Answer is I have shewn there needed none And in page 37. you bring in this Objection If it be God's will Infants should be baptized why is there no Command for it as there was for their Circumcision Your answer is There was no need of any particular mentioning of them And further say It had been absurd to have given a New Command for Children and your saying that the general Command includes Children and yet never tells us what it is or where to be found is a covering too narrow for you to escape this consequence For if there be an express Command in Mat. 28.19 given by Christ to his Apostles to baptize fome Persons or other and there be no express Command by your own Confession in the New Testament to baptize Infants then Infants are not at all intended in this great Commission And I pray Sir tell me how it is then an Ordinance of God if it be no where commanded by him in his Word For baptism is a part of instituted Worship And you ought to shew the Institution or else forbear practising it any more I will now shew you what Grounds we have from Scripture for baptizing penitent Believers that are adult Persons able to give an account of their Faith And because Mr. Richard Baxter is an Author you so much esteem I shall give you his Arguments from Scripture for proof thereof in his Book called The second Disputation of Right to Sacraments p. 149 150. in these words upon this very Text Mat. 28.19 20. This is not like some occasional mention of Baptism but it is the very Commission it self of Christ to his Disciples for Preaching and Baptizing and purposely expresseth their several works in their several Places and Orders Their first Task is to make Disciples which are by Mark called Believers The Second Work is to baptize them whereto is annex'd the promise of their Salvation The Third Work is to teach them all other things which are after to be learned in the School of Christ To contemn this Order is to contemn all Rules of Order for where can we expect to find it if not here I profess my Conscience is fully satisfied from this Text that it is one sort of Faith even saving that must go before Baptism the profession whereof the Minister must expect Of which see what is to this purpose before cited by Calvin and Piscator which Words are mentioned by him p. 85. and are as follows Calvin upon Mat. 3.6 saith Therefore that Men may rightly offer themselves to Baptism Confession of Sins is required othewise the whole Action would be nothing else but Sport And Piscator upon Mark 1.4 saith It is called the Baptism of Repentance for Remission of Sins because John preached the Remission of Sins to the Penitent Believers Mr. Baxter further saith p. 149. If there can be no Example given in Scripture of any one that was baptized without the profession of a saving Faith nor any Precept for so doing then must we not baptize any without it But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequence To prove this Assertion he produces the several Examples in Scripture which he saith might afford us so many several Arguments but I shall put them together viz. First John as I have shewed you required the prosession of true Repentance and that his Baptism was for the Remission of Sin Secondly When Christ layeth down the Apostolical Commission the Nature and Order of the Apostles work is first to make them Disciples and then to baptize them That it was saving Faith that was required of the Jews and professed by them Acts 2.38 is plain in the Text. The Samaritans believed and had great Joy and were baptized into the Name of Jesus Christ Acts 8.12 whereby it appeareth that the Understanding and Will were both changed And they had the profession of saving Faith yea even Simon himself ver 37. The Condition upon which the Eunnch must be baptized was If he believed with all his Heart which he professed to do and that was the Evidence Philip expected Paul was baptized after true Conversion Acts 9.18 The Holy Ghost fell on the Gentiles before they were baptized Acts 10.44 Lydia's Heart was opened before she was baptized and she was one the Apostles judged faithful to the Lord and offered to them the evidence of her Faith Acts 16.30 The Example also of the Jaylor is very full to the resolution of the Question in hand He first asketh What he shall do to be saved The Apostle answereth him Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and thy House So that it was a saving Faith that is here mentioned He rejoiced and believed with all his House and was baptized the
same hour of the Night or straightway Crispus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue believed on the Lord with all his House and many of the Corinthians bearing believed and were baptized Acts 18.8 Philip in Acts 8.37 is determining the Question and giveth this in as the decision If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest And to say that this is but De bene esse meaning that it includes not the Negative otherwise thou may'st not is to make Philip to have deluded and not decided or resolved In a word I know not of one Word in Scripture that giveth us the least Intimation that ever Man was baptized without the Profession of a saving Faith He also affirms positively That we must not baptize any without the profession of true Repentance which he thus proves Argu. 1. If John Baptist required the profession of true Repentance before he would baptize them then so must we but John did so therefore the Consequence is clear The Antecedent I prove saith he from mark 1.3 4. he preached the Baptism of Repentance unto remission of Sins and doubtless that Repentance which is to remission of Sins is true special Repentance Argu. 2. If Jesus Christ hath by Scripture Precept and Example directed us to baptize those that profess true Repentance and no other then we must baptize them and no other but the Antecedent is true so therefore is the consequent which is fully made good from Mat. 4.17 Mark 1.15 16. Acts 17.30 Luke 24.47 when Christs himself did and sent forth his Disciples also to preach Repentance to prepare them for Baptism which afterwards followed as Mat. 3.11 Mark 1.8 Luke 3.16 Acts 2.37 38 41. And in page 156. if according to the Institution the Answer of a good Conscience must be joyned with Baptism for the attaining of its end then we must admit of none that profess not the answer of a good Conscience But the former is certain from the Text for Baptism is said to save that is its appointed use yet not the external washing but the answer of a good Conscience doth it therefore this is of a necessary injunction and without it Baptism cannot attain its End But it is to be administred and received only in order to the Attainment of its end and therefore never in a way by which the End is apparently not attainable Paul calleth all the Baptized Church of Corinth justisied none that profess not justifying Faith are called justified therefore none such should be baptized I confess saith he t is sad that good Men should be so unfaithful to the Truth which is so preclous and is not their own and which they should do nothing against but all they can for it Divers other Testimonies might be added besides these already recited but these shall suffice at this time And Sir If these do not plainly prove our practice of baptizing Persons upon profession of Faith and also that Infants cannot be the Subjects of Holy Baptism as not being capable of performing the necessary pre-requisites thereto I have no Skill in Polemicks I proceed therefore to what you say Part 1. page 44. Objection The baptizing Persons before they know occasions much gross Ignorance To which you answer Christ is the Occasion of the Ruine and Damnation of thousands I reply Dear Sir Altho' you make bold to abuse the Baptists and throw very Reproachful Scandals and Calumnies upon them Methinks you might have spared their Lord and Master and not have laid the Ruine and Damnation of thousands at his Door Who came not into the World to condemn the World but that the World through him might be saved But I need not wonder at this in you when divers of your party have charged Christ with being the greatest Sinner in the World notwithstanding he did no sin neither was Guile found in his Mouth Sir These are unsavoury Expressions unbecoming the Pen of one who would fain be esteemed a Minister of Jesus Christ And now Dear Sir as a Close I have some few things to speak to your self by way of Caution and Advice which I wish may be received by you as candidly as they are imparted by me In all your Discourses about Polemical Divinity that you would observe these few short Rules which may be of use to your self and others 1. Be careful to avoid all invective Calumnies Wrath Bitterness and Reviling against the Party with whom you contend For that is so far from being a means to convince them that it rather begets a Prejudice in them against what you shall say I know every Person is naturally a Friend to what he supposeth to be a Truth and wisheth that others were of his Mind and it 's both lawful and commendable to promote it in a sober and judicious way But surely it is an Excess to propagate Truth a thing divine by the Methods of Hell as Anger Biterness Fraud Reviling Reproaches and throwing out Scandalous and Vile Invectives against your Antagonists Sir You have more Reason to believe your Adversaries are in the right than your self For that they have both Precept and Precedent for their Practice in the Holy Scripture but you have neither for your own What need was there therefore of all those bitter Revilings you have poured out against us Sir We could use the Liberty of Lex talionis if we were minded to recriminate in such instances against your Party that would blacken you with a Witness of which you could never acquit them by all the Artifices you could use But we do not think it comports with Charity to exasperate your Enemies against you and make you vile in their Eyes notwithstanding you have so unchristianly dealt by us 2. When any of your Christian Neighbours labour to convince you of some Truth you are yet ignorant of do not scorn their Advice nor trample upon the Truth for their sakes because they are but mean in the Worlds Esteem but remember that Apollo altho' he was a Man mighty in the Scriptures did not disdain that Aquila and Priscila should expound unto him the way of God more perfectly Acts 18.26 A Cardinal could once say upon the Words of a Shepherd Unlearned Men take Heaven by force whilst we with all our Learning are thrust down to Hell 3. Let me entreat you to search the Scriptures and see whether the things I have said be so or no give your self to Fasting and Prayer cry mightily to God to give you his Spirit to open your Understanding that you may understand the Scriptures Lastly Give me leave to tell you That it 's not likely your People should think you in earnest when in the Pulpit you Press them to Meekness and Charity when they find so much Railing and Reviling in your Books Truly Sir If Ministers Books of Disputation were as full of Charity as they require their People to be in their Sermons our Disputes and Writings would be Excellent Expedients of improving Knowledge and discovering Truth
So that the main design of the Apostle among other Mercies of God bestowed upon that People is to commemorate that great and wonderful deliverance at the Red Sea and then to shew us what an ungrateful People they were thus to sin against him and to cause him for their sins to destroy them in the Wilderness And if this be the Scope of the place as I believe it is that so we might be warned by their fall to avoid falling into Apostacy against God as they did and had our translators so rendred the word as it imports in our English Tongue no Man would ever have dreamt of an Ordinance of Baptism from this Text. If notwithstanding all that I have said upon the Text Mr. H. will still insist upon it that it was a Baptism and that by sprinkling I shall oppose thereto the Dutch Translators to shew him their Opinion to the contrary who being Presbyterians their words may possibly have the greater force upon his Understanding They read it thus Ende alle in Mosen gedoopt Zin And they were all dipt unto Moses So that you may see the Learned Men in Holland of his own perswasion do directly contradict what he saith I will only offer one Consideration more and so pass it viz. That by the same Argument that in the word all their Infants were included their Cattle were included also for they all passed under the Cloud and thro' the Sea as well as their Little Ones for it is written Exod 10.26 Our Cattle also shall go with us there shall not a hoof be lest behind And altho' the Papists are for baptizing of Bells I hope Mr. H. will not be also for baptizing of Cattle even the Beasts of the field But let him avoid the consequence if he can in case it be not restrained to the Fathers as in the Text. The next thing Mr. H. insists upon is That there are three sorts of Baptism that of Water that of the Spirit and that of Afflictions to which I concede And whereas he saith it 's expressed by one Greek Word I do also agree but that those three as he saith are but one Baptism that I deny He is the first that I ever knew affirm it But pray Sir consider what you say Is Water the Spirit and Fire Is Affliction the Spirit or Water Affliction or Fire Water Take it which way you will I believe you will find it attended with difficulties Indeed Sir it 's one of the most intricate Metaphors that you have yet sported your self with in your whole Book and if you understand it no better than I do you might have forbore to acquaint the World with the conceited fineness of the thought But Sir I suppose I may have the same liberty to give you my thoughts as you had to impart yours The Text you have brought to prove that these three Baptisms are but one and exprest by one word is Eph. 4.5 One Lord one Faith one Baptism How this proves that those three Baptisms are but one Baptism I see not Sir you are very unhappy in one thing to lay down Assertions and when you come to prove it you urge such Texts that do not conclude the thing in Question but altho' this doth not prove three to be one and so afford us a new sort of Trinity I will not be so ungentile as not to give you my thoughts upon the Text before I pass it There is a threefold Baptism spoken of in the New Testament viz. That of Water that of Affliction and that of the Spirit and yet the Apostle here speaks after this manner one Baptism as there is one Lord one God c. Now my thoughts are these That it is Water-baptism only that is here intended And my Reason is this because to speak properly there is no other real baptism for the other two are figurative and metaphorical But besides The Apostle is there speaking of those Believers as incorporated into one body and as having been called into one hope of their calling having Christ for their one Lord and one Faith to unite them to this one Lord and one Baptism to make them visible Members of this one body the Church which Mr. H. owns to be an initiating Ordinance and God as their one common Father to supply all their wants and that these Persons that were members of this Church were baptized with water upon believing you may see Acts 19. beginning And this seems to me the most probable sense of those words One Baptism Now that it is a real Baptism is evident For as the word signifies to dip plunge or overwhelm them in the water and as it signifies the Burial and Resurrection of Christ so in respect of the thing done it 's a real act for that every person who is truly baptized as I have shewed above is plunged into the water and also raised up again out of the water the thing is really performed But that of Affliction is only metaphorical alluding to this of water as likewise also that of the Spirit and of Fire But perhaps Mr. H. may imagine that to be the Baptism of Affliction which is not and therefore let us hear what he saith about it As to the Baptism of Affliction saith he some soffer more some less some suffer lighter crosses as Mocks c. some loss of goods and liberty others Death when he hath said this he then delivers his Opinion about it in these words Now he that suffers least for Christ in a Christian manner doth as truly partake of the Baptism of Afflictions as he that suffers most Now suppose I deny this as I must how doth he prove it why he quotes no Text here but in the foregoing page Mark 10.39 Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of and with the baptism that I am baptized withall shall ye be baptized That this is the Baptism of Affliction I own We must now enquire what this hath a principal respect unto for there is something more than common intended in these words In Luke 12.50 our Saviour saith I have a Baptism to be baptized withall and how am I strained till it be accomplished Now this can be no other than that Death and bitter Agony he was to undergo for our sins that he might bring us to Glory And by his prediction to his Disciples in Mark 10.39 he foretold their deaths also for his sake Now as a Person that is baptized in water is overwhelmed therewith even so that bitter Agony our Lord endured in the Garden and upon the Cross when his Soul was exceeding sorrowful even unto death before wicked men had so much as laid their hands upon him it pleased the Lord so to bruise him and put him to grief that his sweat was as it were drops or clotters of blood falling down to the ground And when he was upon the Cross how did he cry out by reason of that sorrow that overwhelm'd his Soul
preaching to hear him tell them Beloved If your Children dye in their Infancy unless they are elected I can assure you they shall go to Hell and be punished there to all Eternity for that they could never help God hath so ordered it by his Secret Decree unknown to me and all the World Do you think God ever sent him of this Message Especially when he tells you in his Book he knows not who belongs to the Election of Grace Now Mr. H. might have been truly inform'd of this matter if he had minded what Mr. Collins told him in page 35. of his Book in answer to Mr. Mence and him That one of the first Arguments of the Church of Rome for infant-Infant-Baptism is which I suppose is Mr. Harrison's also if he knows what he is talking of that it washes away Original Sin We can saith Mr. H. Collins tell you of a better way of washing away Original Sin namely by the imputation of Christ's Righteousness to Infants dying in Infancy Add to this what Mr. Claridge saith in his Epistle to the same Book And here I would inform all the Readers of Mr. Mence's Book that whereas he charges Mr. Collins for maintaining Infant-damning Doctrine it is altogether a mistake for Mr. Collins is rather inclined to think That all dying Infants are saved by the imputed Righteousness of Christ Notwithstanding all this and much more that hath been said before upon this Subject he still goes on in his confident way of writing and saith he will prove That all by Birth or Nature are by the sin of Adam liable to the condemnation of Hell by plain Scripture He is a bold man at asserting but he commonly fails in his Proof Let us now examine those Scriptures he alledges for probation of this confident assertion Gen. 2.17 In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye Now this was the threatning but in Gen. 3.17 18 19. we have the Sentence denounced against Adam by God himself which serves to explain the former threatning to be only the first Death with its Concomitants Cursed is the ground for thy sake in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy Life Thorns also and Thistles shall it bring forth to thee and thou shalt eat the Herb of the field In the sweat of thy Face shalt thou eat bread till thou return unto the ground for out of it wast thou taken for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return Here you see that what is called Death in the threatning is called returning to the Ground and unto Dust in the Sentence but not one word of punishment in Hell so much as intimated therein As for the other Texts he mentions they are no proofs of what he brings them for and therefore I shall pass them and proceed to his three Arguments Argu. 1. If Children need Regeneration and a Second Birth before they can go to Heaven then they are liable to Eternal as well as Temporal Death But Children do need Regeneration therefore c. John 3.3 5. Except a man be born again c. Now it 's plain Nicodemus understood our Saviour in this sence by his answer viz. not of Children newly born but of adult Persons for he saith How can a man be born when he is old But to answer directly to his Argument I deny his Minor and say they do not need Regeneration and a second Birth in the Sence there intended before they can go to Heaven and if they did they were in a bad Case indeed for they are not capable either of Repentance or Faith both which are comprehended in those words Except a Man be born again Thus you see when he should have brought a Text to have proved Infants must be born again this only proves that a Person of grown years a Man must be born again Let him not imagine that I feign an Interpretation of my own for Mr. Firmin a great Pedo-baptist saith They must be regenerate they must have Faith c. They who are regenerated have Faith and Repentance all saved Infants are regenerated therefore they have Faith and Repentance they must be born of Water and of the Spirit according to John 3.6 else there is no Heaven for them Now that God does cleanse dying Infants from all Impurity and fits them for Heaven I readily grant But this Regeneration they talk of from this Text and apply to Infants I positively deny And certain I am if he had read those Quotations upon that Argument given by Mr. Claridge he might have been sensible of this his Error before he had wrote this his 2d part Whether Infants have Faith or no is a Question saith Dr. Taylor to be disputed by Persons that care not how much they say and how little they prove which is the very case of Mr. Harrison when he hath denyed them to have either personal and actual or habitual Faith he concludes thus This strange Invention is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority but the men are to be excused unless there were a better And again we desire saith he no more advantage in the World against such men than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason Common-sence and all the Experience in the World Dr. Taylor 's Liberty of Prophecy page 240 242. Mr. H's 2d Argum. is this If Infants are not liable to the damnation of Hell for Adam's sin then they may be saved without Christ by vertue of the Covenant of Works But c. This is a strange Assertion What can Infants be saved by Works that are wholly uncapable to Perform any this is meer trifling But I shall deny the Consequence of his Major For If Infants by virtue of Adam's sin must return to the dust and cannot raise themselves to life again but must have remained in that state for ever unless Christ had come in the flesh dyed and rose again and by vertue of his Resurrection raised them again by his mighty Power then it had been impossible for them to have been saved So that it 's a Non-sequitor for altho' they are not condemned to eternal Punishment in Hell yet there is a necessity for them to be saved by Christ if ever they get to Heaven But besides this they stand in need of Christ to purifie their Natures from Original Corruption as I have shewed above His 3d. Argu. is this Such as are by Nature Children of Wrath are liable to the Condemnation of Hell but all are so therefore Infants Eph. 2.1 2 3. Answ In this he hath dealt very unfairly and neither like a Gentleman nor a Scholar for his Argument is not in due form For 1. Infants are no where expressed but in the Conclusion 2. He hath put the word all into the Minor tho' he hath not told us what all he means And in the major it 's only such as are c. I suppose he would have framed a Categorical Syilogism if
saved and in ver 6. how God hath demonstrated this good will of his to all men by asserting that Christ gave himself a ransom for all and in the same Epistle Chap. 4.10 who is the Saviour of all men Now this must be understood of his putting men into a capacity of Salvation by the death of his Son as having afforded all men thereby a Sufficiency of means to obtain it otherwise it is not true for it 's manifest that eventially all men are not saved which by the way proves that God did not absolutely but conditionally will their Salvation by putting them into a capacity to obtain it through Christ I know that all this stir about and opposition against the Death of Christ being sufficient for all and every man is founded upon that false Notion which some have of late licked up from the Stoicks Doctrine of Fate That God hath so determined the Actions of all men by an absolute Decree that there can nothing come to pass in the world without it and that he hath made the greatest number of Men on purpose to damn them and that their sins foreseen were not the cause of his Decree but his Decree the cause both of their Sin and Punishment And that God did not intend any of these should enjoy any saving benefit by the death of his Son and from thence it is they have formed this fancy in their own Imaginations Christum mortuum pro solis electis that Christ dyed only for the Elect. Now this Opinion of theirs hath been Anathemized above 1200 years ago as I find it recorded by a very Learned Author in these words Synodus Arelatensis habita circa annum 490. Anathema illi qui dixerit quod Christus non pro omnibus mortuus sit nec omnes homines salvos esse velit Besides I suppose Mr. Harrison hath qualified himself by Law for a Presbyterian Teacher and then he hath subscribed to the 39 Articles of the Church of England The 31st Article thereof is The offering of Christ once made is a perfect Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the sins of the whole World both original and actual And agreeable to this Bishop Vsher saith We may safely conclude that the Lamb of God offering himself a Sacrifice for the sins of the whole World intended by giving sufficient satisfaction to God's Justice to make the Nature of man which he assumed a sit Object for mercy and to prepare a Medicine for the sins of the whole World which should be denyed to none that intended to take the benefit of it And he also assigns the reason why all are not saved notwithstanding this purchase in these Words But all do not obtain actual remission because most offenders do not take out and plead their pardon as they ought to do Why doth not Mr. H. quarrel with and rail at the Church of England and her Doctors and Bishops have not they given him as much cause as the Baptists But alas he knows full well they esteem such a one as he below their Anger All the Arguments he brings to prove his position being founded upon that word alike they all vanish like smoak before the Wind For suppose that were granted which he labours so much to prove viz. That Christ did not in some sence dye alike for all I do not see how that would in the least hurt the cause we contend for i. e. That he dyed with an Intention to save all if they repent and believe and that he hath afforded a sufficiency of means to all Let them allow this and I will not contend about the other 3. The third Error of the Anabaptists saith he and why not of some of the most Learned and Eminent Doctors of the Church of England is this That God affords all men universal and sufficient Grace and consequently a power of Free-will to be saved if they will The former part of this Charge I own according to the 4th Article of our Confession in the Words by him cited All Men are at one time or other put into such a capacity as that through the Grace of God they may be eternally saved And he rails bitterly at us for saying that if any perish it is not for want of the means of Grace but for the non-improvement of the Grace of God freely offered through Christ And in this Doctrine saith he Papists Socinians Arminians and Anabaptists are all agreed Is it not as true in this Doctrine also that there is but one only true God and one Lord Jesus Christ in which Papists Socinians Arminians Baptists and Presbyterians are all agreed Doth their agreement make it a false Doctrine Surely no. As for his two Reasons I shall speak to them in their order 1. For his instance of the Pagan Heathen World he saith many of them have never heard of Christ c. And therefore concludes they have no sufficient Grace nor means of Salvation Now saith he of these we boldly deny this Monstrous and Erroneous Assertion Answ But as monstrous as it is in his Eyes what if I sorce him to acknowledge his reasoning from it to be wholly groundless from his own Principle viz. That some persons may be saved by Christ without a particular knowledge of him or an explicite Faith in him then some of these Heathens may be saved by Christ and may have a sufficiency of means for their Salvation notwithstanding his contrary Assertion That he holds such an Opinion I prove thus because he asserts That all Elect Infants dying in Infancy are saved Now this must be by Christ altho' they are no more capable to know him and believe in him than those Heathens he speaks of What he says about their incapacity because they have no Preachers to instruct them c. those sayings relates to such as have the Gospel among them upon whom those Duties are enforced and do not relate to Heathens that lye under an invincible Ignorance no more than they do to little Infants For as Dr. Tho. Goodwin saith in his Aggravations of Sin c. Positive Laws come to be in force only where they are promulgated God doth not exact impossible things from his Creatures and then punish them because they do not obey him therein for it is an act of high Injustice shall not the Judge of all the Earth do right Let Mr. H. take care to ensure his own Salvation and not trouble himself with those Secrets which belong only to God Who made him I pray a Judge of Heathens that he presumes to sentence them thus by whole-sale to the torments of Hell fire For the Lord our God is good to all and his tender mercies are over all his Works He is the God of the Spirits of all flesh And he hath sent his Son to dye for them all which bespeaks his great Love towards them from whence we have reason to hope better things than that he made so many thousand millions of Souls