prove thus from this following Argument and it seems cogent Argument 2. Those that the Scripture give us good ground to hope are Believers may and ought to be Baptized but the Infant Seed of Believers are such as we have good ground from Scripture to hope are Believers therefore such may and ought to be Baptized All that I can conceive can be said against my Major Proposition is to deny that we are to Baptize any upon hopes that they are Believers and to affirm that we ought to Baptize none but such as we are sure have true Justifying Faith But sure I am such an Objection savours of high Presumption since this is to pretend to be Wiser than the Apostles and as Wise as God himself First Wiser than the Blessed Apostles as you may see by comparing Acts 8.13 with 22.23 where you read of one Baptized that was in the Gall of Bitterness and Bonds of Iniquity and yet we cannot be so uncharitable as to think they had no hopes of him when they Baptized him But if any should so judge it makes the more for me for if the Apostles themselves Baptized such as they had no hopes had true Faith then sure we may Baptize such 〈◊〉 we have good ground to hope 〈◊〉 Faith But if they had Hope 't is evident it was but Hope unless he could lose his Faith or have Faith and at the same time be in the Gall of Bitterness and Bonds of Iniquity neither of which could be Secondly This is to pretend to be as wise as God at least in this point since he only that works Faith can infallibly judge where it is 'T is peculiar to God to search the Heart where Faith is seated the Lord only knows who are his we see the best of Churches have been mistaken in taking in of Members The Apostles did not know Judas to be a Hypocrite till he betrayed his Lord unless we can suppose they would take in known Hypocrites And I would ask my Friends the Anabaptists if they themselves have not Baptized some as Believers who have afterward discovered themselves to be in the Gall of Bitterness So that in a word if we must Baptize none but such as we are sure have true Justifying Faith we must Baptize none in this World For though many have such a Faith yet no Man can infallibly tell the Anabaptist themselves not excepted who they are This is that new Name which none knows but God and them that have it So that I think it needless to add any more to confirm the former part of my Argument viz. That we can only hope that this or the other Person hath true Faith Minor Proposition But the Infant Seed of Believers are such as we have good ground from Scripture to hope are Believers Now if any thing of force be Objected it must be against this and therefore I shall labour the more to confirm it But before I come to the Proof I must add a Caution that when I speak of Faith in Infants I mean Habitual Faith for though it cannot on good ground be denyed but that some Infants may actually Believe since God is able to cause them so to do and hath no where in his Word declared he will not yet it may easily be proved that some Infants have Habitual Faith and that will render one as truly a Believer as the Act. He that hath the Habit of Faith is a Believer though asleep and so as uncapable of Acting Faith as an Infant having during that time no more use of Reason than a Child at the Breast nor perhaps so much for an Infant hath so much Sense as to know when it is Hungry or to Cry for Food and if it be in Pain But let a Man be never so Hungry or in Pain yet when asleep he is unsensible of either And yet such may be Believers in the mean time they having the Habit of Faith Now by the Habit of Faith in Infants I mean a Principle of Grace or Internal Renovation which is wrought in Regeneration for Regeneration is an infusing the Seeds of all Grace into the Soul and consequently of Faith This being premised I come to lay down a Proposition for the clearing the Way to that which I intend more largely to insist upon Proposition That Infants are capable of having the Habit of Faith wrought in them And though we cannot from hence conclude that all such have it yet it is a good Foundation for my following Argument And because in all Cases the Foundation had need stand fast I shall therefore confirm it that Infants are capable of Grace is not my Judgment alone however strange a Doctrine it may seem to some for I have the Judgment of all the Church of England on my side their Words after Baptism are Seeing now Dearly beloved Brethren that this Child is by Baptism Regenerate c. And again We yield thee most hearty thanks most merciful Father that it hath pleased thee to Regenerate this Infant by thy Holy Spirit c. Now though I am far from being of the Judgment which they seem to be in this that all that are Baptized are in that Ordinance Regenerated and so consequently many fall from Grace My Soul abhorrs that Popish Doctrine that Baptism confers Grace ex opere operato from the Work-wrought but while they thank God for the Work done 't is evident they suppose them capable of having that Work wrought in them and so far I agree with them But because the very citing any thing from the Church of England may make some giddy-headed People who have more Zeal than sound Knowledge nauseate what I have said I shall therefore proceed to prove that both they and I have Divine Testimony on our side in this that Infants are capable of Grace and I shall make use of plain Scripture since the Anabaptists pretend so much delight in it and I shall produce several Instances that in the Mouth of two or three Witnesses this truth may be established Jer. 1.5 Before thou camest out of the Womb I Sanctified thee and Luke 1.15 of John it is said He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his Mothers Womb and then no doubt Sanctified And of Christ it is said verse 35. That Holy Thing that shall be born of thee c. mind born of thee was Holy when Born From whence it is past all dispute unless we dare dispute with God that Infants even in the Womb and as soon as Born are capable of Grace nor doth it seem harder to me to conceive that Infants should have Grace wrought in them than Adult since the latter are purely passive in the Work and so may the former be If it was a Work of Reason or performed by Humane Power or Policy something might be said but it is not Eph. 1.19 Nay according to our apprehension it seems harder to work Grace in Adult than in Infants for as a Tender Plant
is more easily eradicated than a Grown Tree so in this Case Sin by Custom and Continuance gets root and though all things are equally possible to God yet to change an Old Sinner is most difficult in it self We may conceive a greater opposition in the Heart of Grown Persons to a Work of Grace than in Infants The longer we have been wedded to Sin the more unwilling we shall be to give it a Bill of Divorce and put it away So that Infants are as capable of Grace as Adult and more capable as to the Humane Conception of any unless Arminians And though 't is said Faith comes by hearing yet that only points out the ordinary way of God's Working Faith in Adult This directs us to our Duty but sets no bounds or limits to his Power God can work Faith other ways than by the hearing of the Ear if he will Thus having cleared my Proposition that Infants are capable of Faith I now come to confirm the Minor Proposition of my Argument which was this That the Infant Seed of Believers are such as we have good ground from Scripture to hope are Believers Before I proved Infants were capable of Faith now I come to prove some Infants have Faith which I prove thus Argument If some Infants get to Heaven then some Infants have Faith But some Infants do get to Heaven therefore some Infants have Faith 'T is possible that the Anabapatists may say That there is no necessity for Infants to have Faith in order to their getting to Heaven but I am loth to resign up such a Gospel Truth meerly because they have said it I shall lay down nothing but what I shall prove from plain Scripture and I shall expect the same of them especially in Matters of such grand Import And sure I am the Scripture no where affirms any such thing that any can get to Heaven without Faith-Nay Nay I am certain the whole Currant of Scripture doth in most express terms run directly contrary thereunto as I shall shew anon So that we cannot open our Mouths in Defence of such a Notion unless we dare even fight against God I grant indeed there are some Secrets in God's working in Infants yet this makes nothing against the Truth of the thing because we cannot comprehend it We cannot conceive the manner how God works Grace in Adult unless very imperfectly As John 3.8 the Wind Bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest the Sound thereof but canst not tell whence it cometh nor whither it goeth so is every one that is Born of the Spirit Mind every one Adult as well as Infants where Christ himself makes it as hard to know how God Regenerates as to give Account of the Wind which hath puzzled our wisest Philosophers We may feel the Wind refresh us and see the effects of it but cannot tell exactly how it is caused So in this Case we may find and feel the refreshing Influence of the Spirit in our selves and may see the effects of it in others yet can no more comprehend the manner of his working than we can conceive how the Body is formed in the Womb of her that is with Child Eccles 11.5 There you have these two compared Why then should it be thought incredible that God should Work Faith in Infants Though we cannot fully comprehend his way of Working God can make use of various ways to effect one and the same thing though in the mean time he gives us no account of his Matters His ways are in the deep Waters and his Footsteps are not known And sure I am if we must believe nothing but what we can fully comprehend the Articles of our Faith may stand in less room for what can we say as to the Trinity we are bound to believe such a thing because God hath revealed it but alas how little can we comprehend of Three in One or to the Hypostatical Union of Two Natures Personally united What shall we say as to the Resurrection of the Dead Of the Joys of Heaven or the Torments of Hell If nothing must be Believed but what we can comprehend we must blot out these and many more Articles of our Creed Is not this the way to Atheism if we must not believe God to be unless we can comprehend him since 't is but a little portion we have heard of him Job 26.14 and since none can by searching find out God to Perfection This is to prefer the Light within or Carnal Reason above the Word of God if we must not believe God's Word unless we can comprehend it Nay this is to make a Man worse than a Beast while he must not believe that which he sees Hence we must not believe such a thing as the Tide or Sun since though it is easie to see both yet we cannot fully comprehend either Nay at this rate we must not believe our selves to be Creatures since we cannot tell how we were formed in the dark Recesses of the Womb for we are said to be wonderfully made In a word by this Rule we must believe nothing because there is nothing but what doth in some respect or other exceed our shallow Understandings This is a Rule to be observed among all that profess themselves Christians whatever God reveals we are to believe though it be as far above the reach of our Reason as the Heavens are above the Earth since 't is impossible for God to Lie and Blasphemous for us to suppose he should and worse to suppose God to Lie than to suppose him not to be As once Plutarch said Malo de me dici nullum esse Plutarchum quam malum Plutarchum I had rather said he Man should say I am not than say I am wicked And therefore since God hath in his Word set forth the necessity of Grace and Faith in order to our getting to Glory we ought to Believe the one or to Despair of the other Some time since I was reading a Book put out by one of the most Learned of the Anabaptists and in that he owns the Sins of Children are done away and that some such if not all such do go to Heaven but most boldly affirms they are not done away in Regeneration But sure that Gentleman would have done well to have told us which way they are cleansed and not to leave so many tender-hearted Parents mourning for their deceased Infants as those without hope as they must needs do if they are not capable of Regeneration or if they cannot tell some others way how they may be fitted for Heaven But I perceive that Gentleman was resolved none should know his new-found way but himself let the effects be what they will But though he is thus unkind his Dear Brother Mr. C. seems to be a Man of a better Spirit and though he seems to agree with him in the former yet he tells us if we will believe him how Sin comes to be destroyed in Infants and that is saith he
Circumcision was first instituted to Believing Abraham I think it would have been unanswerable because there is nothing of Christ appears in such Parents no not so much as a Profession and how such Infants can be supposed to stand in the Place or partake of the Priviledges of Abraham unless one of their Parents stood in Abraham's room I see not But since the Objection is made against such as only Baptize such as have Believing Parents I must further Answer The forecited Scripture seems not in the least to oppose the Truth I have laid down as will appear if we consider the Apostle is there speaking to Adult Gentiles and doth assure them that though they were not the Natural Seed of Abraham and so could not on that account lay claim to the Promise either to themselves or Children as they might have done had they been so and their Conversations had been becoming the the Gospel of Christ yet by Virtue of their Relation to Christ or their believing in Christ though not of Abraham's Natural Seed they shall partake of Abraham's Priviledges And as at the first the Promise was made to Abraham and his Seed so when the Gentiles came to initiate the Faith of Abraham the Promise should be to them and their Seed as it was to Abraham Now the Promise at first reached unto Abraham's Natural Seed as is clear from Gen. 17.7,8,9,10 Now we cannot suppose the Seal to be applied to any but such as the Promise was made to But such as were Eight Days Old were Circumcised therefore to such the Promise was made For though I grant that all in Abraham's House were Circumcised both Old and Young the Adult being such as we may suppose were at least Professors For 't is said of Abraham he would teach his House yet it is evident none were excepted if but Eight Days old So that this Text strongly confirms my Argument for if upon our Believing we come to be Abraham's Seed and to partake of his Blessedness as in Gal. 3.9 then it follows by an undeniable consequence that as the Promise at first was made to Believing Abraham and his Natural Seed so it must he continued to us Believers and our Seed or else we are not Blessed as Abraham for it was no small part of his Blessedness that the Promise extended to his Seed But to put all out of doubt if the Promise was made to a Spiritual Seed then it must be to such as we are sure are Spiritual or to such as we have good ground to hope are so If you say the former then we must Baptize none either Old or Young because as I have proved we can-never infallibly tell who are Spiritual it being only proper to God who is the Father of Spirits to know that But if you say the latter that is such as we have good ground to hope are Spiritual then the Infant Seed of Believers must come in since I hope I have sufficiently proved we have good ground to hope such are inwardly renewed and if such as are renewed and born again by the Spirit and have the Image of God Engraven on their Hearts may not be reckoned for a Spiritual Seed I know not who must So that till my former Argument is overthrown concerning the necessity for Infants to be Regenerated and the good ground we have to hope some are so on the account of the Promises made to them I say till then all that is here added is of no Force Object 5. But we have no Instance in Scripture of any Infants ever Baptized therefore we have ground to think such ought not to be Baptized for we cannot suppose the Apostles were wanting in their Duty in that Case To which I answer Tho' we have no express Instance of any Infants Baptized yet we have some Texts that will I conceive infallibly prove either that some then were Baptized or at least now ought to be Baptized 'T is said of the Jaylor Acts 16.33 He was Baptized he and all his straightway Now we have good Ground to believe that all his takes in Children and that some of these all were little Children or at least so small as not to be able to make a Profession of their Faith but suppose they were able yet there is no express mention made that they did so before they were Baptized 'T is said indeed he spake to them the Word of the Lord but we cannot from thence conclude they that heard believed 't is said indeed after that he rejoiced believing in God with all his House but this was after he and all his were Baptized But there is one Text more that will be as a sharp two-edged Sword which will wound the Anabaptists let them defend themselves with all the Subtilty they can Acts 16.15 of Lydia And when she was Baptized and her Houshold c. Now the Enquiry is who this Houshold were But let them be who they will yet the Anabaptist will not reckon little Children among them because none such are mention'd but if so then because neither Husband Servant nor Kindred are mentioned therefore there was none And thus the Anabaptists have by an Art never before heard of reduced this Houshold to just no Body but Lydia and her self but I will suppose and I can do no other that in this Houshold there were more than Lydia And First I will suppose some of them Children as I have good ground to do from the use of the Word in Scripture and I find some of the Anabaptists do not deny this only say Lydia was too old to have young Children Now if there was any young Children in this Houshold as we have ground to suppose then here we have an Instance of such Baptized but I will suppose those Children of Lydia's as the Anabaptists affirm to be grown up then I ask by what Claim they were Baptized Now that her Houshold were Baptized the Word expresly affirms if they say as they were Professors I deny that and it lyes on them to prove it there is not one Word of their believing or any of them either before or after they were Baptized and had they made any Profession we have ground to think some mention would have been made of it but since the Scripture is silent tho' the Anabaptists should never so boldly affirm it yet I am confident scarce any but those of their own Perswasion will in the least regard what they say If they were Baptized as being related to Lydia tho' they made no Profession themselves then this overthrows the Practice of the Anabaptists since here are some Baptized that made no Profession of their Faith and also it gives us the Cause by an undeniable Conclusion for if such Children as are Adult but no Professors yet have a Right to Baptism on the Account of their Relation to a Parent that did believe then it follows that what belongs to any Child meerly as the Child of such a Parent
but only VVater supposing that if there was but Water be it more or less there could be no Hindrance why he should not be Baptized on that Account as to the Element Had an Anabaptist been there no doubt but he should have had a sharp Rebuke for his Ignorance thus VVhat hinders VVhy 't is not deep enough but Philip never in the least opposes him but seems rather to answer by way of Concession If thou believest thou may'st as if he had said True indeed if there is but VVater there can be no Hindrance on that Account But some may say This was a deep VVater of which he spake Answer I desire the Anabaptists to prove that But suppose it was so yet here is no mention made of that as not at all material to his present Purpose Now the Eunuch no doubt being inform'd by Philip as well touching the Manner of the Ordinance as the Necessity of it would in all Probability had Dipping been the only way have said See here is VVater enough to be Baptized in but since he only mentions VVater and Philip seems to consent to him I frame an Argument thus If nothing can hinder a Person being Baptized as to the Element where there is Water then Dipping is not absolutely necessary but nothing can hinder where there is Water therefore Dipping is not absolutely necessary the major is most evident for there may be Water where there is not enough to Dip any one in The minor is clear from express Scripture See here is Water what hinders c. Clearly holding forth that the not being deep enough to Dip in could not hinder for tho' it is by way of Interrogation yet it carries in it the Force of an Affirmation So that tho' we see from hence some Water is necessary yet this Scripture gives us not the least Countenance to believe or think that much Water is necessary but doth in Words next to most express Terms prove the contrary unto us Thus I hope I have not only proved from Scripture that some Infants have a Right to Baptism but also have given good Proof that our Way of Baptizing by throwing or pouring Water upon the Face is according to the Mind of God or at least have given as good Proof for that as can be given for Dipping and better and since the Scripture doth as well approve to say no more of our Way of Baptizing as of Dipping doth not the Law of God and Nature direct and excite us to use that Way which may be least hurtful to our Bodies For if God give us but equal Liberty to Baptize by Dipping or some other more safe Way we ought to avoid Dipping especially in our cold Climate since we cannot Dip in the Winter Season especially without endangering our Lives so that of Necessity the Ordinance must sometimes be long deferred and I am sure we have no President for that Lydia and her Houshold the Jaylor and all his were immediately Baptized when those two believed but now if we were to imitate them and should Baptize by Dipping we must extreamly hazard the Lives even of Adult in the Winter and whether of these three we should chuse to Baptize by throwing Water on the Face since the Word of God approves that Way as well as any other or Dip them in the Winter Season when we have no express Precept or President in Scripture so to do and so endanger the Life or sinfully to deferr the Ordinance I leave it to you to judge by long deferring the Ordinance we certainly Sin by Dipping or Plunging the Party under Water may under some Circumstances be in Danger to commit Sin to say no more but to Baptize by pouring on of Water carries no Appearance of Evil in it I have heretofore for some time preached occasionally in Burnham in the Hundreds of Essex where there were many Anabaptists tho' at great Variance among themselves one Party most vehemently accusing another because one Party Baptized any that were Adult if they desired it whether they were Believers or not by reason of which they in a small Village set up Meeting against Meeting whereby I see they are fallible in some things and so may be in others and there I was informed by one that well knew it that some Women being perswaded to be Dipped soon after Childbearing were immediately taken ill and never recovered I hope I have said enough as to the manner how this Ordinance may and ought under our Circumstances to be administred and now desire my Christian Friends the Anabaptists to prove that the Word is never used to any other End than to signifie Dipping or Plunging the whole Body under Water or because they went down into the Water or were where much VVater was that therefore of Necessity they must be dipped but if none of these can be proved as I am most certain they cannot I hope they will no more contend about this Point but will see it their Duty to comply with us in our way of Baptizing since they cannot thus hazard their Lives by Dipping without tempting of God since we may as lawfully use some other way less dangerous to the Body But if I cannot prevail in this yet since we have so much to say in Vindication of our Practice I hope they will suspend their Uncharitable Censures which I find them so prone unto may I judge of some Mens Spirits by their Writings the Poyson of Asps seems to be under their Tongue 'T is not long since I saw a Book put out by one of the most eminent of the Anabaptists who writing against one of ours who for Piety Gravity and Ministerial Ability deserved to be more Honourably treated by him however in that Point differing from him and in that he charges his Antagonist with Railery and Unbecoming Language telling him how unlike such a Spirit is to do good in Controverted Points and Promises by the Grace of God to discover no such Spirit in his Writing against him But this Gentleman had either a Bad Head or a Malicious Revengeful Heart for within a few Pages instead of Confusing him which he hath discovered himself in the Judgment of most to be unable to do he falls into such Scurrilous Filthy Abominable Language as for modesty sake I omit rendring much more of that Nature than ever he had received From whence I have cause to fear that Gentleman was not much influenced by the Grace of God while he no sooner scarce resolves by God's Grace against a known Sin which he pretends to abhor but commits it again and again deliberately and seemingly with the greatest delight and rather than conceal his Wit in making a Jest will commit a Sin to the Dishonour of God and Wrong of his own Soul It would have been well for that Gentleman if he had never Promised by God's Grace unless he had had more Grace to perform his Promise while he like that Disobedient Son said I go but
went not it will be well for him if such as are no more esteemed by him than Publicans do not get into the Kingdom of God before him I hope my Writing doth not in the least savour of such a Spirit and therefore desire my Friends the Anabaptists impartially to weigh what I have laid down and if it will not hold weight in the Ballance of the Sanctuary reject it if it doth let it not be rejected because of the weakness or unworthiness of the Instrument but rather let it be received because it is the Mind of God If you receive Light into any Truth herein bless God for it But if through my weakness I have laid down any thing Erroneous then I desire that in as mild a Spirit they confute me with solid Arguments from Scripture which Confutation shall not break my Head or inrage my Heart nor I hope cause me to speak unadvisedly with my Tongue but shall be as a precious Ointment to me I long to see more clearly into the Truth acknowledging I know but in part and so can but Prophecy in part and if God will make use of an Anabaptist to inform me to the end I may know the Ways and Truths of God more perfectly I hope I shall rejoice I must confess in the reading of some Authors of the Anabaptist Perswasion I have been so far from being convinced that I am in an Error that I am the more confirmed in my present Sentiments while I find that in their Endeavours to confute us they wrest the Scripture and most grosly abuse Authors they cite for them Sometime since I read an Author on this Subject supposed to be Mr. Danvers whom upon Examination I find dexterous at abusing Authors as if he was resolved to confirm his Opinion from Antiquity per fas aut nefas right or wrong he there cites Calvin against Infant-Baptism I had almost said Calvin against himself on his Exposition on Mat. 3.6 thus That Men may rightly offer themselves in Baptism Confession of Sins is required otherwise the whole Action would be nothing else but sport But leaves out his words immediately following no doubt on purpose knowing otherwise his Cause had been betrayed and his abuse of that worthy Author discovered his Words are these Porro notandum est de Adultis hic verba fieri that is Let it be noted I am speaking here concerning Adult And who differs from him in this Not I. But as to Infant-Baptism I could weary my reader to cite passages to that purpose especially out of his common places but his Judgment is so well known I may spare my Labour Had this Author had as much Honesty as Learning I am perswaded he would have cited the whole passage of Calvin's If no Body could have read Calvin in Latin how miserably would this Author have beguiled his Ignorant Reader The same Author hath filled his Book almost with citations of Authors but if he hath dealt no better with them than he did with Calvin as 't is certain he did not with some of them no wonder he concealed his Name lest on this account it should be rendred hateful to the World Why did he not cite that whole passage of Calvin's May not Scripture it self be turned into Blasphemy at this rate I do assure my Brethren the Anabaptists such Men as these will never strengthen their Cause were it never so good 'T is a poor shelter to make Lies our Refuge and under Falshood to hide our selves and no commendable practice to force Men to speak in Vindication of that when Dead which they abhorred wrote against and always spoke against while Living And therefore I would desire my Friends the Anabaptists that if they will again Write in Vindication of their Sentiments that they would not always imploy the most Learned but the most Gracious and that they would fix on a Man of Good Report a Man Fearing God and Hating Wickedness not a Slanderer or a Reviler but on such a one who Labours to keep a Conscience void of Offence towards God and Man for though for my own part I am perswaded many of the Anabaptist Perswasion are Persons dear to God I mean of those that are against the Doctrine of Free-Will and that what some of them hold is out of Tenderness of Conscience yet that wicked Spirit which hath discovered it self in some of their Writers hath caused the rest to be the worse thought of while in their Writings they seem liker unto Men acted by their own Spirit striving for a Party than contending for Truth by the Spirit of God I would in all Love to my Friends the Anabaptists caution them in one thing and that is to beware of putting too much Considence in their own Writers especially in citing old Authors for they oft cite this and the other of the Fathers speaking for Believer's Baptism and by this Means beguile their unwary Reader with a strong Opinion that they were against Infant Baptism one Instance of which I have cited out of Mr. Calvin to prove this as if he that was for Baptizing Believers who never were Baptized before which is as many of them do certainly mean must needs be against Infant Baptism which is as unnatural a Consequence as to conclude if a Man loves his Wife therefore he must hate his Child whereas his Love to his Wife is no Hindrance to his loving his Child For my part I am for Infant Baptism but withal I am as much for the Baptism of grown Believers if never Baptized before So that these two do no ways contradict each other I leave this as a Caution for my Friends for the time to come I shall hasten to a Close and sum up all in a Word of Exhortation to my Christian Friends the Anabaptists that if they see any weight in what I have said or cannot from Scripture confute me that then they would embrace this Doctrine and practice accordingly for 't is dangerous living in Neglect of that which God in his Word reveals to be a Duty as is clear from Exod. 4.24 There you read how God sought to slay Moses because he had but neglected to Circumcise his Child longer than the time appointed Tho' Moses was dear to God tho' the meekest Man on Earth tho' intimately acquainted with God yet he had died if his Son had not been Circumcised and what ground we have to think that God will more approve of our Neglect of Baptism as to the Subject now than he did the Neglect of Circumcision as to the time then I see not for as God appoints no Ordinance in vain so he cannot bear to see them neglected or despised tho' by his own People And sure I am such Parents not only offend God by so doing but seem to be without all natural Affection to their Seed Even the Sea-Monsters will draw out the Breast to their young ones Lam. 4.3 And they seem Monsters of Parents that can deny such
be found in the Great Day to be but as Hay Wood Stubble or if possible some more Cumbustible Matter Notwithstanding I have thus clearly stated and proved this to be a Truth from Scripture that none can or ought to come to Christ in their Sins yet I doubt not but many who never were led into the Knowledge of their own Hearts to see their Natural Enmity against Christ and Utter Inability to perform any Duty Spiritually will be so far from setting to their Seal that this is true that they will be but the more exasperated We read in Acts 7.54 that when the Apostle had reproved those Jews for their Sin in Crucifying Christ to the end it might not be their ruin they were cut to the Heart but instead of Blessing God for such a Faithful Reprover 't is said they gnashed on him with their Teeth Man is Naturally prone to set up himself and when he cannot make himself the Purchaser of his Salvation he would have a Hand in the Application and how unwelcome shall a Faithful Minister be to such when they come to beat down their Carnal Confidence and to spoil their Glorying in the Flesh And how hard for a Minister who shuns not to declare the whole Counsel of God and whose design is that Christ alone may be exalted to Preach such Doctrine as this but by and by some will be offended Such Doctrine as this would not be received from Christ himself by some was he now on Earth John 6.65,66 And he said Therefore said I unto you that no Man can come unto me except it were given him of my Father From that time many of his Disciples went back and walked no more with him Mind no sooner had he told them in plain words what I have been proving but from that time many went back and walked no more with him Now if I am judged Erroneous yet I hope such as differ from me in this Point will not judge Christ so yet why Christ should be judged a true Witness and I a false Witness for relating his very Words I see not but if I am yet it more encourages me that Christ is on my side than it shall discourage me though all the Devils in Hell wore against me being fully satisfied that he will be the Judge at the Great Day not only of our Lives but of our Doctrines nor will any Doctrines pass for Truth then if they have not a Divine Stamp upon them and sure I am this Doctrine I oppose hath none I am satisfied if those search the Scripture from Genesis to the Revelation they can find no Text written to prove that Sinners can or ought to come to Christ in their Sins though many Texts prove it the Duty of Sinners to come But to take a review of the forecited Text and to see who they were that forsook Christ for delivering such Doctrine you may see Verse 64. Such as believed not none else Christ turns him to the Twelve Will ye also go away Peter on the behalf of the rest replies Lord to whom shall we go Thou hast the Words of Eternal Life As if he had said Lord dost thou think we are so unacquainted with our own Hearts as to go from thee for delivering that Truth that 〈◊〉 who have but tasted thou art Gracious have experienced These are the Words of Eternal Life and therefore thou mayest as well ask us whether we are willing to miss of Life as forsake thee for these Truths sake Thus you see however contemptible this Doctrine was then to those that believed not or may be to such whose Eyes are not yet opened or at least who see no clearer into Divine Mysteries than he who saw Men as Trees yet this was judged such a Fundamental Truth to the Twelve that it behoved them as they tendred the Salvation of their Souls to receive it In a word and I shall close Tho' those that differ from me in this Point may for my good-will become my Enemies because I tell them the Truth yet in love to their Souls I would have them consider whether this Doctrine they defend doth not exclude the Spirit of God from having any hand in the Application of the Benefits purchased by Christ to the Soul And if it doth I hope you will see it to be an Error indeed Now I think none dare deny but that upon our coming to Christ his Benefits are applied to all Now the Question is how or by what power the Soul is enabled to come Say I as renewed and born of the Spirit Tit. 3.3,5 say they though without one Syllable in Scripture to prove it no the Soul comes wreeking in all his Sins unchanged unrenewed and if so then judge if this is not to exclude the Spirit wholly from having any hand in this Work For if such as come to Christ have the Spirit then they do not come as they are in their Sins Let me close all with a Word to you my Auditors and especially to you my Brethren I chiefly designed what is contained in this Book for you that you may be established in the Truth as it is in Jesus Take you heed of rejecting Sound Doctrine lest God give you over to believe a Lie 'T is the Truth must make you free Stand you therefore and Enquire for the good Old Way and walk therein and you shall find rest to your Souls Contend you earnestly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints Beware of such pretended Lights as do not shine forth in God's Word In a word if I have delivered nothing in this Book but what I have proved from Scripture then I hope you will see it your Duty to receive these Truths 'T is sad when any Love Darkness rather than Light But if any of you after all my Labour for your sakes should reject these Truths I leave this Book not as a Legacy but as a Witness against you at the Great Day FINIS
State and Condition the Soul is in when by Faith it receives Christ Say some in an unrenewed State without any Principle of Grace miserably forgetting that this coming is it self a Grace and under the Power and Dominion of Sin then saith the Text So walk ye in him Minor but none that receive Christ can or ought to continue in Sin 2 Cor. 5.17 Therefore if any Man is in Christ he is a new Creature So Rom. 8.10 If Christ be in you the Body is dead because of Sin c. So that of necessity the Opinion I am confuting must be false or the Word of God not true But for the more full Satisfaction of the weaker sort who can easier raise Objections against the Truth than understand what it is I shall come now to answer some Questions Quest 1. Must not Sinners be invited to come to Christ Is not the Gospel sent to Sinners Ans Tho' the Gospel is sent to Sinners yet not to encourage them in Sin and tho' Sinners must be invited to come which Work of inviting I hope while I live I shall be employed in yet sure I am tho' Sinners must be invited to come yet not to come in their Sins as aforesaid and such as do so invite them I am sure have no Commission in God's Word so to do I know a Text which invites such as labour and are heavy laden to come Matth. 11.28 which certainly implies a Change I know a Text that invites the Thirsty to come which still implies a Change I know a Text which saith Wash ye make ye clean come now Isa 1.17,18 denoting such a Work must be wrought in us before we come tho' not by our Power I know a Text which saith Let the Wicked forsake his Way and the Unrighteous Man his Thoughts and let him return Isa 55.7 denoting a Necessity of a Change in Heart and Life when we return but I know no Text that either invites or commands Sinners to come to Christ in their Sins and let the Patrons of that Opinion produce but one such Text and I shall acknowledge my Ignorance and do promise for ever to be silent and vindicate this Point no more Quest 2. But must not Sinners come to Christ as Sinners I answer If by these Words as Sinners you mean such as are utterly devoid of any Principle of Grace for that is the Enquiry then I hope I have sufficiently proved such cannot so come But if you mean such as only have the Remainders of Sin in them so such may come or none must come but I have shown you how the Remainder of Sin in the Regenerate doth not properly denominate them Sinners nor is this any thing to the Point in Hand for I am discoursing of the Power of Sin in an unregenerate Soul he that is Born of God sinneth not that is not with Delight and Approbation therefore it savours of most gross Ignorance thus to stile Saints Sinners because not perfectly free from Sins when God himself makes such a vast Difference between them So that these things being laid down my Answer is We are not to come as Sinners in the Sence aforesaid Quest 3. But must not we bring our Sins and lay them on Christ If not where must we lay them Ans Forasmuch as this is judged an unanswerable Plea by some I shall labour the more clearly to answer it and the rather because it is such weighty Concern we all come into the World in Sin and have multiplied our Transgressions as the Sands which lye as a heavy Burden upon us ready to sink us into Hell and it highly concerns us to know how to have this Burden removed nor is any thing more dangerous than to make a Mistake in this Case Now I grant God the Father did once in a way of Soveraignty lay all the Sins of all the Elect on Christ imputing the Guilt of all those Sins to Christ the Scripture is clear to prove this Isa 53.6 And the Lord hath laid on him the Iniquity of us all He came to finish Transgression and to make an end of Sin He stood in our Room and Stead and bore the Curse due to the Elect that they might not for ever lye under Condemnation and to this dying Sacrifice we must look for Comfort as appointed thereto of the Father under the Sence of Sin for without shedding of Blood there is no Remission This is that Scape Goat that must bear our Sins into the Wilderness nor is there any other Way for our Sins to be pardoned But tho' God imputed the Guilt of Sin to Christ to the end that he might make Satisfaction to Justice yet God himself did not lay the Filth and Dominion of Sin upon Christ and that is the Point in Hand Hence he is said to be without Spot Heb. 9.14 and 1 Pet. 1.19 He was a Sin-Offering indeed but not a Sinful Offering If Christ had no Spot then no Filth for that will make Spots where it is or else it would not be Filth But tho' God did once lay Sin on Christ in the Sence aforesaid yet now 't is impossible Sin should be laid upon him by us and those who presume to pretend such a thing do evidently declare they look upon him not to have compleated his Work and tho' the Scripture affirms that by one Offering he hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified Heb. 10.14 yet those Persons are for laying Sin upon him again and that in such a manner as God himself never did and so do what in them lyes to crucifie the Lord afresh and to put him to open Shame and to render all he hath done as imperfect and so virtually overthrow the very Foundation of our Salvation since if Sin be laid upon him again he must suffer for it again since Sin was never laid upon Christ to any other end than to satisfie the Justice of God for it and as this was the end so either Christ hath fully satisfied Justice or not if he hath then no more Sin can be laid upon him unless he must pay the Debt twice which is not consistent with Justice but if they say Christ hath not then they declare their cursed Heresie And as for those who are so confident that their filthy Lusts must of Necessity lye on Christ or them I would ask them this Question where will those Sins lye at Judgment For 't is expresly said Heb. 9.28 He shall appear the second time without Sin unto Salvation then since he will not then bear them they are like to return to them again 'T is a most gross Mistake to think Christ cannot come to us and by his Spirit wash us in the Laver of Regeneration but the Filth which he washes off from us must defile him as if a Physician could not cure another but the Disease must return upon himself Christ by his Spirit destroys the Power of Sin in us but we can in no Propriety of Speech
be said to lay our Sins upon him But because there are some few Texts which seem to some to favour the Point I have been confuting I shall cite them and see how far they will prove the Point One is in Isa 42.18 Look ye blind here say some such as have no Sight must look To which I answer I own many things are commanded which we cannot do but this is not the Point but the Question is whether these blind ought to look without Eyes Which to affirm would be a grand Contradiction for if he looks it must be with his Eyes When God commands Sinners to look they must look with their Eyes for as a Visive Faculty is necessary in order to our looking so in this Case there must be a Power wrought in us by God whereby we are able to look before we can by Faith look unto Christ Next Text is Rom. 4.5 there God is said to justifie the Ungodly from whence some argue thus If in the Act of justifying us God finds us ungodly and yet we are said to be justified by Faith then it seems evident the Soul is ungodly when he believes I am satisfied this Text hath been no little abused in our Day while it hath been molded into what Form some please to promote their own Interest The Apostle tells us some Scriptures are hard to be understood and I am perswaded this is one of them nor do I much wonder if the Ignorant wrest it I shall labour therefore to clear this sweet Portion of Scripture that so you may know the Truth as it is in Jesus Now the great Enquiry for the clearing this Text is to know what we are to understand by the Word Ungodly and I shall shew you First Negatively How we are not to understand it and Secondly Positively How we must understand it First Negatively By ungodly we are not to understand one utterly devoid of all Grace and this will abundantly appear both from the Context and Text it self you will find in the foregoing Verses this Instance is taken from Abraham from whence it is evident and I think past all Dispute that if by Ungodly we are to understand such as have no Grace then it will follow that Abraham had then no Grace but that cannot be supposed for Abraham had then been a Believer many Years and yet is said to believe in him that justifieth the Ungodly And this appears further even from the Text it self for here is believing set before Ungodly so that this Ungodly Person must be one that hath Faith and consequently not one without Grace for Faith is it self a Grace so that this Text is so far from proving Justification before or without Faith that it strongly proves the contrary because this ungodly Person is before stiled a Believer and such as lay so much Stress on the Order of the Words as to conclude that because the Word Justifie is set before Ungodly that therefore the Person Justified must be an unrenewed Man would do well to consider here is Believing set before the Word Justifieth But to shew you in the next Place Positively By Ungodly I understand one that is Legally so one that hath not any Righteousness inherent in him to answer the Demands of the Law and thus a Person is renewed Ungodly For since the Law requireth perfect and perpetual Obedience hence we who are now renewed having been heretofore unrenewed and now in part defiled hence 't is impossible but that we must in a Legal Sence be Ungodly This Text strongly proves that the Grace of God in us is not that for which we are justified Therefore to me it seems a gross Mistake to affirm as some do that God accepteth of our sincere Obedience in the room of Adam's perfect Obedience for this is to set up our selves instead of Christ God will not justifie any but upon perfect Obedience either inherent in us or imputed to us not in us for you see the Law pronounces Believers ungodly Men so that of Necessity we must look beyond our Grace for that is imperfect even to that compleat and spotless Righteousness of Christ nor am I fingular in my Sence of this Text for I have the Reverend and Learned Doctor Goodwin on my side in his Exposition on part of the Ephesians Part I. Page 389. saith he The meaning is not one that hath no Grace for then Abraham should not have been saved He instanceth in him and adds To believe on him that justifieth the ungodly these are the Terms on which he must believe First These are the Terms on which he must believe all his Days so that you see the Doctor was far from understanding Ungodly here for one without Grace unless you can suppose a Believer may live all his Days and have no Grace and he gives the Reason elsewhere why such as believe and have Grace are termed Ungodly because saith he they are in themselves legally so Thus you see this Text makes nothing to prove that a Person can believe while in an unrenewed State but much to the contrary Thus I have at large cleared this Scripture and have answered all such Questions as I know proper to the present Point and doubt not after all but this Doctrine of Sinners coming in their wreeking Lusts to Christ will appear to be erroneous to all but such as are under the Power of their Lusts and no more pass current for a Doctrine of Free-Grace as it hath done nay this is so far from being a Doctrine of Free-Grace that it is grand Arminianism and a setting up of Free-Will which will appear to any understanding Reader if we consider that the Soul in coming to Christ moves from a Gracious Principle or a Natural Principle if from a Gracious Principle then the Soul doth not come wreeking in his Sin to Christ for it 's a grand Contradiction to say a Sinner is a Gracious Person but if they say the Soul moves from a Natural Principle this is a grand Free-Will as ever Arminius himself deliver'd The Substance of this Question is whether the Union between Christ and the Soul begins on Christ's Part or ours Or whether without any Priority in Nature the Soul from a Natural Inclination and Christ do mutually consent they who say the Soul comes in its Sin make the Union to begin on Man's Part they that say the Soul acts in that Case from a renewed Principle do own the Union to begin on Christ's Part they that say they both consent together as aforesaid attribute as much to Man as to Christ and by so doing discover themselves to be no sincere Friends to the Bridegroom but rather Judas-like betray Christ with a Kiss and whether of these doth most magnifie the Grace of God to affirm the Union begins on Man's side or that Man Naturally consents to Christ at the same time with Christ without any Priority in Nature on Christ's side or they who affirm as I do that