when you say Infants have faith potentia And yet if they have Power and Ability to do it it must needs be their Sin if they do it not So that our Gentlemen's great Plea for Infants seems to prove a very Fatal Charge against them for the damning Sin of willful Unbelief must needs lye upon them if they have Strength Might and Ability to believe and make no use of it to act accordingly Moreover What reason have you to conclude any Man to be an Artist tho but potentially so when you see him asleep if you never saw nor knew any thing at all of his being an Artist before if he had been asleep all the Days of his Life you would have had small cause to have counted him an Artist tho you had put the word potentia to it But now Infants have to follow your Simile been asleep all their Life-time in this case You never so much as saw or knew of a time when they were so far awake as to shew themselves Believers as the Artist was to shew himself and Artist So that as you have no reason to conclude any Man to be an Artist potentially when asleep that you never knew to be any thing of an Artist actually at one time or another before so you have no reason to conclude Infants Believers potentially unless you had seen or known them at one time or another to have been actually such So that I think you had as good blot out potentia unless you will put it to their Baptism too and let your Children rest without Actual Baptism till you can write upon their Faith Actu visibili But you say our Saviour is full to the purpose who assures us as you tell us in your Second that Children have Faith when he saith Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me c. Sirs I do plainly confess that our Saviour is full to the purpose but not to your purpose for he does assure us that the Persons here spoken of were such as did really properly and actually believe in him he does not so much as intimate any thing of their having Faith potentia but not in actu visibili but in down-right terms tells us they are such as do believe in him which little Infants I think by your own Confession cannot do therefore little Infants not here intended by our Saviour in this Passage but only such as were converted and become as little Children in Plainness of Spirit Humbleness Innocency and freedom from Malice Our Saviour does not only assure us that such shall be greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven but also plainly tell us that whosoever shall offend or scandalize one of these thus converted little ones which believe in him shall certainly incur great Displeasure from God And this is easily discern'd with a little Consideration in reading the Text and Coherence of the same That after our Saviour had call'd a little Child and taught his Disciples how they should be converted and become as little Children and humble themselves as that little Child he under that Consideration gives the Denomination of little ones even to such as should so learn and so do which did truly believe in him from that Analogy that was and ought to be between little Children and them therefore whereas you argue thus or to this purpose These little ones which believe in me therefore Infants do believe I argue the direct contrary from the same Text thus Those of whom Christ here speak did really believe in him but little Infants neither do nor can believe in christ Ergo Christ speaks not here of little Infants To prove the Minor here I thus reason Faith in Christ comes by hearing the Word of God understandingly but little Infants cannot hear the Word of God understandingly Ergo Little Infants cannot be Believers in Christ Again if little Infants neither do good or evil nor so much a know good or evil then they can neither hear the Word of God understandingly for if they can they must of necessity be capable of knowing good nor be Believers in Christ for if they be they must of necessity do good for believing in Christ is one of the best things that can be done in the world But the Scripture it self besides Experience plainly tells us concerning Infants that they neither do good or evil nor know good or evil Ergo Rom. 9.11 Deut. 1.39 Isa 7.14 15 16. See the Assembly Annotations on this Passage of our Saviour and Reverend Diodate on the same See also these Scriptures where this Phrase little ones or little Children is us'd to grown Believers and Disciples of Christ Mat. 10.41 42. Joh. 21.5 Gal. 4.19 1 Joh. 2.1 12 13 18 28. 3.7 18. 4.4 5.21 Besides Gentlemen if you must and will have little Infants here intended then it must and will of necessity be but a Prosopopoeia however and so do you no Service at all tho we should out of Charity give you what you so earnestly beg for A few words to your Answer to the fifth Question and so I draw to a Conclusion The Question is only thus Why Sprinkling and not Dipping To which you answer and say Our Church denies not the latter to any one that desires it but looks upon it as a clear Representation of our Saviour's descending into the Grave abiding there and rising up again according as the Apostle makes use of it when he says we are buried with him in Baptism Sirs it 's a clear case that Dipping or Covering the Body under Water was the true Primitive Apostolical and Scriptural way of Baptizing and you and your Church both seems plainly to be convinc'd of the Truth hereof by this free and full Confession and Acknowledgment which here you make that it is a clear Representation of our Saviour's descending into the Grave abiding there and rising up again and this you deliver not as a Conceit that may come into a Man's Brains by chance no but 't is very seriously given us as a thing by your own Acknowledgment which is according to Scripture as the Apostle himself makes use of it when he tells us we are buried with him in Baptism Now Sirs stand by this and all 's well but if you will be so unfaithful as to dissert these true primitive Colours you certainly run away from Truth and Substance to close with Falshood and Vanity for either this is the mind of God which you have here ventur'd to give us or it is not If it be not wherefore did you urge it as a thing not only acceptable to you and your Church but even acceptable to God himself as being according to Scripture If it is the mind of God what 's the reason that you tattle of a dispensing Power in your Church with respect to this matter As if the Mind of God were altogether insignificant with you that let God command what he please you will be so stately
of Circumcision you would still be as far to seek for Infant-Baptism as ever you were For you know it is not Circumcision and Baptism running parallel in some things that will make them parallel in every thing and by the same Rule you grant them to differ in the case of Women why may they not also differ in the case of Infants Your other two Texts is 1 Cor. 10.2 and 1 Pet. 3.21 the one speaks of the Israelites being baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and the other of Noah and his Family being saved in the Ark c. Now let all the World judge how these Texts prove Circumcision to be a Type of Baptism What course shall we take to frame an Argument from these Texts for such a purpose Gentlemen because I perceive you are such Friends to a Syllogistical way of arguing I 'le try how well I can do your work for you which you seem to have no Stomach to do for your selves First thus If the Cloud and Sea were a Type of Baptism then Circumcision was a Type of Baptism But this Text implies That the Cloud and Sea were a Type of Baptism Ergo Circumcision was Again If Noah 's Ark were a Type of Baptism then Circumcision was so But Noah 's Ark was a Type of Baptism Ergo. But if you think this Hypothetical way of Syllogizing is not so good as the Catagorical way I 'le try how they will look when they are laid down Catagorically Then thus it must be The Cloud and the Sea were a Type of Baptism But Circumcision was the Cloud and the Sea Ergo Circumcision was a Type of Baptism Again Noah 's Ark was a Type of Baptism But Circumcision was Noah 's Ark Ergo Circumcision was a Type of Baptism If our Gentlemen should not like these Arguments I would advise them to study a better Cause that they may know how to mend them In the mean time whoever is in love with such Logick let them go to these Gentlemen to learn it But Gentlemen I have not yet done with your Jewish Custom I am willing to paraphrase a little farther upon it before I pass it Wherefore in the first place I must needs tell you that I see no reason but why we may yet question the very Truth of it even with respect to matter of Fact for although 't is true I lay no great stress upon the Business for I do not much care whether it be true or false yet I cannot but reckon it is at least lawful to question whether your Story be true or no especially a Truth of such an ancient standing as you talk of and not only so but a Truth sufficient to make the Bottom and Foundation of a Gospel-Ordinance You had need of good Evidence Sirs to palliate your Boldness but if you had far better Evidence than you have as to Matter of Fact it will not excuse you in imposing it upon us as a Gospel-Duty How great is your Folly then if it should happen to be but a Fiction which seems at least to be likely if we seriously consider these two or three Things First Because there is not the least mention of such a Thing in all the Old and New Testament the Scripture knows nothing of such a Story which is a very probable Argument to prove it false For if there had been such a remarkable Custom amongst the Jews so long ago as you intimate Is it not strange that neither Moses nor any of the Old Testament Writers nor our Saviour nor any in the New Testament should ever give us the least hint of such a Thing And yet you confidently dictate that our Saviour took that Custom and turn'd it into a Gospel-Sacrament and yet never gave us the least Signification that ever there was such a Custom in the World Which does at least very strongly imply one of these two Things First That either there never was such a Custom in the World in those Days or if there was our Saviour had nothing to do with it at least in your Sense your choice of either Gentlemen wholly destroys your Cause But Secondly Matter of Fact may yet be doubted because as far as I can yet perceive this Story is originally taken out of the Jews Fictitious and Lying Talmud in which is contain'd such a Bundle of fabulous and ridiculous Stories which almost every Man in his Wits is so far from believing that they must rather conclude them to be abominable Falshoods Thirdly Because as Sir Norton Knatchbull observes as I find him quoted by Mr. Danvers there is a difference in this Matter even between the Jewish Rabbies themselves two eminent Rabbies that were Contemporaries plainly contradicting each other in this Point even as to matter of Fact Eliezer affirm'd that the Proselytes were Circumcised and not Baptized and Rabbi Joshuah attested the quite contrary that they were Baptized and not Circumcised Whereupon Sir Norton demands to which of them must we adhere to Eliezer that affirms what the Scriptures teach or to Joshuah that asserts what the Scriptures no where teach All these things well consider'd it seems to be more than probable to be but a lying Invention I confess had you not brought this Story as a Basis of that which all Christians count part of Divine Worship I should not so much have concern'd my self in questioning the Truth of it neither had your Weakness been so apparent whether the Story had been true or false we might have believ'd just what we had listed in it without being one jot better or worse But now Sirs with respect to what you bring it for nothing less than Scripture-Testimony ought to serve the turn therefore your Disingenuity to say no worse appears to be exceeding great in going about to put us off with the Story of Alexander the Great Cato and Hannibal Alas Sirs we may make a pretty good shift to believe such things as these if Human Testimony do but hang well together about them because they are of the same Nature and Concernment with the Testimony that gives them and if they should happen to be false yet our Souls have no Dependency upon them But if any Body shall tell me that Alexander or any Body else consulted the Apostle Paul about Baptizing Bells and Pots and the Apostle's Answer was that it is a Christian Duty so to do 't is part of God's Divine Worship and it ought to be done in the Name of the Sacred Trinity and should refer me to some old Human History to prove it by as a Divine Truth I shall only say that he that takes this for good pay deserves to be cheated But Secondly If your Story as to matter of Fact were unquestionably true and that it 's so certain that the Jews had such a Custom that none needs doubt it this would be far from being satisfactory to the matter in hand For first Who bad them do it Did they come
Consequence for by this Rule Moses might have baptis'd Infants as well as you if a bare being in the Covenant c. were sufficient to warrant the Practice however Sirs he might have circumcis'd them the first second or third Day after they were born as well as to have staid till the eighth Day for certainly they were as holy and as much in the Covenant and as fit for the Kingdom of Heaven the first or second Day as they were the eighth and what 's the reason think you that he did not He might also have circumcis'd Females if this had been good Reasoning for there 's no doubt to be made but they were holy and in the Covenant and such as should be saved as well as the Males But if he had done so would he not think you have been a Transgressor rather than a faithful Servant Yet he might have taken up your Plea and defended himself altogether as well as you do or can in the business of Infant-baptism but it 's a plain case he did not like this Argument But Sirs you ought to remember that the Will and Pleasure of God ought in a special manner to be heeded in all such Cases for it is the Command of God that gives Life and Being to all Duty without which all your Allegations are in vain with which we should gladly cease to contend and that 's the reason why Infants were circumcis'd precisely upon the eighth Day either before or after would certainly have incurr'd Displeasure And this was that which kept Females from Circumcision tho holy and in Covenant as well as Males Nay if Christ had not commanded Believers to be baptis'd their being Believers would not have justified the Practice neither will it now justify any other Practice that he never commanded or appointed to be done Besides Sirs do you not herein sin because Grace abounds for is God so good and gracious as to place our Infants in Covenant with himself must we therefore take the holy Name of God in vain and sprinkle Water upon their Faces as if we suppos'd the Covenant worth nothing unless we confirm it with our own Inventions and clap a Seal to it of our own making without any order from him so to do Sirs if Infants be in Covenant be content there to let them rest without disturbing or interrupting them in it be content with that till you are able to make them sensible of the Obligations that may lie upon them by virtue thereof to discharge Duty towards God I have only two Demands to make and then I shall leave this to Consideration First Pray Sirs tell us do you think Christ and his Apostles did not know as much of this Nature concerning Infants as you do do you think they were not as well acquainted with their being holy and in the Covenant and such as should be sav'd as you are I hope as Learned as you are you will hardly venture to say they did not yet where did Christ or any of his Apostles give either Command or Permission to any Body to baptise their Infants upon any of these accounts Where is thee the least Sign or Shadow of such a thing in all the New-Testament If you know of any pray produce it and let us see it that we may read and understand such a thing as well as your selves and in so doing the Controversy would soon be ended but if there be no such things signify if you should argue and write for three seven Years together what is it all worth unless you bring Scripture-warrant for what you affirm and practise My second Demand upon this account is as followeth Supposing all these things to be unquestionably true that you talk of that Infants are in the Covenant holy and such as shall be saved and what you please of that kind How comes this to intitle them any more to Baptism than it doth to the Lord's-Supper What 's the reason I beseech you you do not receive them to the Lord's Table upon these Accounts as well as admit them to Baptism Are you able to give us an Instance in all the New-Testament of any that were accepted as fit Subjects of Baptism and at the same time as such reckon'd and known to be unfit for and uncapable of the Communion of Saints in the Supper of the Lord I marvel Sirs what you make of Baptism that you should think Infants so fitly and fully qualify'd for that and yet dare not venture to plead either Right or Obligation to any other Gospel-duty Is not Baptism a Gospel-requirement as well as the Lord's Supper a Command of Christ an Ordinance of Heaven and part of that Service and Obedience which Christians owe to God in and under the Gospel And do you think it ought not to be done with more Knowledg Judgment and Reverence than Infants of seven Days old are capable of What Subjection or Obedience to God is there or can there be in a little Infant in the performance of that which you call its Baptism when it knows nothing at all of the thing commanded nor of the Law-giver commanding nor any reason in the World why it should or should not submit neither is it capable of thinking either well or ill concerning any thing relating thereunto How then can it be done as a Duty in Obedience to Christ as the answer of a good Conscience towards God when the Subject knows nothing of these things and is altogether uncapable of the least motive to Subjection But if you say Infants must notwithstanding all this be admitted to Baptism certainly you must needs wrong them greatly in debarring them from the Lord's Supper Gentlemen these things deserves to be well consider'd and then take Advice and speak your Minds As to what you say about universal consent of Churches and Antiquity for Infant-Baptism I shall not so much as concern my self to enquire after the Truth or Falshood of the matter because let it be true or false all the while it is Scriptureless there is not the weight of a Feather in it It neither hurts us nor helps you in this Case For what does all the Consent you talk of signify unless you can clearly prove the thing consented to to be Truth without it And if you can then you have no need of its help but if you cannot it has no help for you for it is not the greatest Consent imaginable that can make a Falshood Truth It must either be Truth previous to that Consent or else it remains a Falshood notwithstanding that Consent The Consent it self can be no Argument to prove it Truth So that all that appears from this Argument if all that you say were suppos'd to be unquestionably true is only this That a great many People a great while agoe held Infant-Baptism but whether they did well or ill in so doing still remains the Question as much as ever And if it want the true Primitive Mark of Antiquity
let it be as old as it will 't is never the better for that but indeed the worse for that only serves to prove it an old over-grown Error As old as it is it is not old enough to be Truth because from the beginning it was not so 'T is in vain to talk of Antiquity all the while you want the true ground thereof for if that be wanting all your talk of Antiquity is so far from being an Argument for it that it is clearly an Argument against it For if it be very old and of a long standing and yet not old enough to be Truth it 's high time for us even for that Reason to reject and explode it with Indignation As a Learned Church of England Doctor well observes and directs speaking of old Popish Pretensions When they obtrude saith he their Revelations or teach for Doctrines of God the Commandments of Men we must ask them every one how they read in the Beginning We may not draw out of their Ditches be the Current never so long whilst we have Waters of our own of a nobler taste which we can easily trace back to the Chrystal Spring c. The next Question you undertake to Answer is Whether Infant-Baptism is to be found in Scripture Your Answer is not expresly in the Letter but from necessary and unavoidable Consequences as say you we have already shewn c. Now Gentlemen if the latter part of your Answer here were but as true as the former is I should very readily give you the Case and Dispute no more for I am clearly of the Opinion that whatsoever is truly prov'd by necessary and unavoidable Consequences from Scripture is sufficiently prov'd as you say to all disinterested Persons But the misery of it is we could never yet see these necessary and unavoidable Consequences but your Consequences are all so grievous sick of one Distemper or another that all the Doctors in Christendom will never be able to make them sound And this we have pretty well found by your Consequences hitherto produc'd unto which I refer having not now time to repeat Besides Gentleman if it be true that there is nothing of Infant-Baptism to be found expresly in the Letter of the Scripture I cannot readily understand how you can come by those necessary and unavoidable Consequences you talk of for tho it is true you may lay down a Proposition in such Terms as cannot be proved verbatim from Scripture and yet I confess it may be well enough prov'd from very good Consequences But if there is nothing at all expresly in Scripture about it not one Word in the Letter concerning it I 'me afraid you must be content to go without those necessary and unavoidable Consequences Sirs will you say that there is nothing of the Doctrine of the Trinity or three in one to be found expresly in the Scripture Is there nothing expresly of the God-head of Christ or of his being born of the Virgin Mary to be found in the Scripture If there is not for my part I know no Reason in the World they should be received for such Great and Orthodox Truths But if there is What strange Men are you to talk at this extravagant Rate as if the Scripture spoke nothing expresly about these Matters And how boldly do you insinuate and endeavour to make the World believe that Infant-Baptism is at least altogether as plain in Scripture as Christ's being born of the Virgin Mary and that altogether as dark and as hard to be prov'd from Scripture as Infant-Baptism Now Sirs this Insinuation is either true or false If false don't you deserve to be severely corrected for such Imperious Tricks But if you stand by it and say it is true How do you think you would come off if we should join Issue with you about it and bring the matter to a Tryal But I confess I have been so large hitherto beyond my first Thoughts or Intentions that I shall say no more to this at present and not much to what remains There is no less than three Questions following which you undertake to answer which I reckon so inconsiderable and insignificant both Questions and Answers that I count it not worth my while to spend one Line about them I therefore purposely omit them time being precious with me for the sake of something else which I judg more worthy to be noted wherefore I wave the Fourth Sixth and Seventh Questions and pass on to the Eighth and shall take some small notice of the Fifth last of all and so draw to a Conclusion The Eighth and Last Question you undertake to answer runs thus Whether Children have Faith or no since Faith and Repentance are pre-requisite to Baptism To which you answer and say That you have already shew'd that according to the Words of the Commission Baptizing goes before Teaching Therefore there is no such pre-requisiteness as some dream of c. But Sirs I tell you plainly this is a meer idle swagger for you have shewed no such matter but the contrary does most evidently appear therefore there is a greater pre-requisiteness of Faith and Repentance than you dream of Why you refer us to Acts 9. and tell us our Saviour was born King of the Jews I cannot imagine I wish I did but know your Inference But you say further Admit Faith as pre-requisite to Baptism you could answer that Children have Faith potentia tho not in actu visibili as an Artist when he is indispos'd or asleep is potentially an Artist tho not actually Sirs it 's a plain Case that you meerly speak what you list not knowing what you say nor whereof you affirm What is it that you may not say Infants have and are if this kind of talk be allow'd you for good Whatsoever you have a mind your Infants shall have or be put but potentia to it and it 's done What if you had been in the Humour to have told us that Infants have the Greek Tongue and the rest of the Oriental Languages and are as good Preachers as any in the World potentia tho not in actu visibili as an Artist when he is a-sleep is potentially an Artist tho not actually Could you have expected that any Body in their Wits should have regarded you And why not in this I marvel as well as in the other Besides Sirs what can you mean by Childrens having Faith potentia You do not mean that they do actually and visibly believe no by no means that is not to be imagin'd Well but what then do you mean For my part I think it is partly the same thing at if you had told us only that they have Power Might Strength and Ability to believe but yet whatever the matter is they do not believe Notwithstanding this potency of believing they neither do nor can make any improvement of it so as to do the thing And if this be true good now what is it you talk of