place though he doth not drop out o th' clouds or slide down thither from the moon that worthy friend and beloved Brother under which name I the rather own him here because I had a letter from a prime one of your Party that speaks somewhat scoffingly of that compellaton and besides though with Dr. Featly and his faction he is one of the Clergy of Laicks and an Apron Levite yet as his name is Temple-man so I take him to be a better Church-man then many a one who for not troubling his people with too much truth goes under the Denomination of a good one this man I dare say as far as he said he came by accident so farre he came by accident as he said and this proves your hearsay for its like so you had what you here say to be Heresie if an erring from the truth may as I know not why not be so stiled in civill matters as well as spirituall And this conducts me to another figment wherein you father as false a thing upon my self as any of those you feâ—…ned of me before which is at the bottom of that discourse which you record as passing between your selves and him concerning justification of Dying infants whether it be by faith or without it in which discourse though the folly of your opinion in that point and truth of his which is also mine namely that dying Infants are justified without faith I shall shew in due time and place yet I cannot but take notice by the war before I speak of that which more concerns my self of some Legerdemain and illogicall dealings of yours with him Report Reporting him asserting thus viz that there may be justification which is not by faith you report your selves replying thus page 9 that it is the grossest piece of Popery to hold â—…ustification by works and not by faith onely and the greatest controversie between them and Protestants Reply What shameful Sophistryâ—…ave â—…ave you shewn here in foisting in a foolâ—…sh phrase and term that was neither used nor touched on by him in any of his fore-going speeches nor yet in that which your reply most immediately relates to viz. Iustification by works whereas you know well enough even as well as he and I and the rest that were there for your wits could not be so far gone a wool-gathering as to need Hellebor here that he neither spake nor meant of Iustification by works whether without faith or with it but of the Iustification of Infants without either faith or works neither of which as your selves confess they are in infancy capable to act although you say but if a man will not believe you he may chuse for there 's neither Scripture sense nor reason for it they have the habit this I say again you know to be the sence of such as you call Anabaptists witness your selves in two places viz. p. 8. where you give account of our opinion thus viz That way of the presentment of the righteousness of Christ without faith is a figment of the Anabaptists also p. 15. thus the adversaries are put to theirshifts to find out a new way for the salvation of infants dying in their minority viz. the presentment of the satisfaction of Christ without faith in both which places you give the world to understand that you know our opinion to be that infants are justified by neither works nor faith which is a work but if at all by that which your selves hold is the material cause of the justification of men that act faith and of whom they being capable to act faith it is required as instrumentall viz. the righteousness of Christ secondly you know that this opinion is farther off and more flatly contradictory to that Popery that holds Iustification by works then yours can possibly be found to be for the very Iesuits may have some colour for saying that you say the same with them whilst their Tenet is justification by works yours by faith which say they and truely too is a work theirs by faith and works concurrent yours by faith that hath works concomitant and necessarily consequent thereunto between which two doctrines neither of which need be so much condemned each by other for ought I find as they are provided that all merit on our part be cashiered for there Rome errs besides us all for you will find them both true in the end viz. that both are instrumentally subservient and not either of them alone to the justification of not Infants but men and women of whom both as well as one are required in order unto life beâ—…ween which two I say there 's not so vast a difference as you deem there is much less so great as is between these viz. Iustification by works and faith both which is that of the Papists and Iustification without either faith or works which is that of ours when we speak of justification with reference to infants only for between these there 's not the least colour of coincidence yet this was that justification that Inquirer spake of viz. of Infants by Christ without faith or any other work either which you know is no part of Popery yet first you reply besides the business which he spake to and define it gross Popery to hold justification by works as if he had held it yea secondly which is worse and down-rightly injurious you are not ashamed to tell-tale him to the world in the words below that he fell into this popery and that for asserting of a Iustification of Infants so farr as they need any neither by faith nor works but Christ without either so much as instrumentall on their part then which you see nothing more fully contradicts it if ye were blind indeed you had not fin'd so much in this but sure you cannot but see how you shuffle therefore without repentance your sin remaineth Another thing I take notice of by the way as I travel toward that fiction I mention above as referring to my self is this Report That when the quere was put to you by the inquirer as you call him what need infants have of being justifyed at all since they have no original sin which whether it were put for satisfaction in the thing or meerly to hear how readily you would resolve it I cannot say you bring in one of the Ministers in the name of the rest crying out as before of Popery so now of Pelagianism and that he had not heard so much Heresie in so few words that the inquirer should take heed how he vented himself in publique hereafter for it became him to suspect himself least God had given him over to the Spirit of error and to another that out of the body of the Congregation replyed That that way which you the Ministers called Heresie so wershipt they God you go on still in the old tone thus that you were sorry to hear him profess himself a Papist and a Pelagian in saying he worshipt God that way and
that you appealed to me praying me to declare my mind concerning thâ—…se things whether they were Heresie or no which you charged the inquirer with Reply But not a word all this while was uttered either to prove the things to be as you call them or towards the satisfaction of the Auditory or Inquirer himself in the question Sirs is not this the clutter you commonly keep is not this the Clergies constant custome of confuting and their wonted way of with-holding men from all audience of what ever comes cross to your conceits when on the sudden you have not what to say against it viz. to break out into hydeous out-cries of Heresie Schism a Spirit of Error an Anabaptist an Arminian an Antinomian a Papist a Iesuit Popery Pelagianism Socianism Arminianism and such like when happily not five of fifty among you ever read Pelagius Fanstus Socinus or Arminius so as to know what they hold and why any more then by tradition one from another mistake me not for I am now neither justifying nor condemning these men with whom they being dead I have no great matter to do nor you neither but that you love to find your selves more business then you need for my part my business lieth mainly in the Word which is the Rule and being only attended to may for ought I know sooner set us to rights then either Austin or Pelagius the Remonstrants or Arminius for Regula est mensura sui et obliqui but I here take notice of and take occasion to condemâ—… the Popish practise of most Priests in Damning down for heresie in gross what they neither disprove nor prove to be Heresie when called to 't by their own calling it so before the people Report You relate upon your praying me to declare my mind concerning those things whither they were Heresie or no which you the Ministers charged the inquirer with that I said I knew that what ere he said yet he did not hold those things and that your reply was that the inquirer was a stranger and therfore you wondered his mind should be so well known to me that whatever his opinion was the question being whether his saying that one may be justified without faith and that children are not born in originall sin were heresie or no you desired me to answer positively to that but received no Answer Reply As to this Politick piece of your report wherein I perceive how fallaciously you represent me as tendering the inquirer as to my knowledge speaking contrary to his own mind I have many things to say and it matters not much which I hebegin with first First me thinks I see as you have set things down a certain Sophism of Amphiboly ly lurking iustar anguis in herbâ in these words Those things as you express them the second time in this parcel by reason of which if they be not understood by the Reader in a right sence I am set forth by you as guilty of a double crime from censure of which I see a call to clear my self and my friend whom you strive to stain together with in that case that truth may suffer dammage by us in nothing for if by those things be meant in that second place those two opinions of Iustification of infants without faith and their not having original sin which were indeed the things that he said then I am falsly reported not to say fowly belied by you in that passage wherein you relate me saying thus viz. that I knew that whatsoever the inquirer had said yet he did not hold those things and am made also to speak falsly against my conscience as my conscience tells me not that I did in all that day for verily as great a stranger as that inquirer was to your selves and the major part then present yet he was not such a stranger saving all your wonder to my self but that his mind was so well known to me in that that I knew he held those things viz. that infants have all the justification they have need of without faith and have no originall sin for I hold them my self in what sence since you ask me you shall see by and by and if I should have said thus viz. that I knew what e're he said yet he did not hold those things I should have been both a belyar of that my friend and also as very a â—…yar as your selves Sirs would herein fain make me seem to be but I was both well a ware what he held and confident that he did not say those things and not hold them But if by those things in that place be understood not those two opinions but those things which the Minister charged the Inquirer with viz. Heresie Popery the tenet of justification of Infants by works which were those things the Ministers so cried out upon him for in which sence it is in my speech to be understood then t is no other then the plain truth which I spake and to give you all the advantage that is possible to have by them I here say it again that I knew that whatsoever was then said by that our brother yet he held not those things i. e. that Heresie and Popery you then falsly accused him of And now sith you complain that you received no answer when you desired me to answer positively to that question whether Infants are justified without faith and have any originâ—…ll sin yea or no and whether the things as we hold them in contradistinction to your selves be heresie yea or no as you call them I must coâ—…plain of your selves as the sole persons then in fault that you received not as full an answer as you desired for I appeal not only to the whole people but to the â—…ame page of your own pâ—…pers also wherein in the very next line but one or two below this in which you charge me with the fault of giving you no answer your own selves are witnesses to me that I offered to answer you to all exceptions you had against us in an Entire Exercise which if you had heard and not lik't you should have had libertie enough to have replied to as long as you pleased but your selves only opposed it with all your might but to wave any further recrimination as concerning that at present and that you may have no occasion in future to feigâ—… as if we feared to answer you so positively whether those things viz. Infants Iustification without faith and their freedome from that which not so much in Scripture language as by an Epithite of mens own coining is called originall sin be heresie or no I answer no as to the first though Iustification of Infants by works is the Heresie of a Romish Clergy whether by works we mean the work of faith Ioh. 6. 29. or any other yet Iustification of Infants without that work of faith or any other work either of their parents or their owâ—… is the truth as it is in Iesus
to believe therefore we passe no other judgement then that of charity onely on them to be the subjects of baptism herein you grossely mistake our grounds of baptizing for though that of charity onely is the judgement whereby we judge them to be believers yet that is not the onely judgement whereby we judge them to be the subjects of baptism but as to that we go upon a judgement of certainty and infaellibility also for though it be not infallible to us that every one that professes to believe doth as truly believe as he professes yet this is infallible to us concerning him that professes viz. both that he professes and also that professing to believe with all his heart so that we in charity may judge him so to do whether he lie or no he is by the rule of the word quoad noâ—… a warrantable undoubted and as no infant is infallible subject of baptism for the word requires us to baptize such as after our preaching the faith to them do truly professe to believe whether they believe as truly as they profest or no for that indeed is not so infallible to us but it warrants us not to baptize any infants who can neither believe nor professe Moreover sith you say let us pass the same judgement upon little infants as you do of whom in generall say you the Scripture gives so good a report and against whom in particular no exception can be raised and so the controversie shall be at an end I tell you we do passe not the same but a far surer judgement then that of charity upon infants dying in infancy and have an hundred fold moreclear and more tender opinion of them then your selves whilst we have from the word well grounded hopes and assurance that no dying infant is damned but you with over pleading the bare outward priviledges of some most ignorantly damn 20 dying infants to one But as to your judgement of charity concerning infants believing and being thereby inrighted to baptism or that same judgement of charity which we act toward professors of faith you may dream as long as you will on such erroneous Enthusiasm but those that are awake to righteousnesse and resolved to sin no more by popish superstition know well enough that infants though nere the worse for want out yet cannot believe in Christ of whom they are not capable to hear much less can they professe so to do and thereby give that good ground which right charity must have whereupon to build her faith of this i. e to believe that they do believe and believing are certainly to be baptized so that we have charity well grounded concerning infants and such as comparatively to which your tender mercy to millions of them is meer cruelty and yet the controversie is not ended nor is likely to come to an end in such a way Give me leave therefore a little to play upon you here with your own weapons and to call for an answer from you to your own queres and so it may be in a fair way towards an end in time whereas then you plead the baptism of believers infants and no others upon such a sufficient appearance that they have faith and the holy spirit I ask First how do these make it appear that they have faith and the holy spirit since they cannot do it by profession Secondly how far forth do they make it appear to you infallibly or but probably your selves say not infallibly for the spirit is not bound to all the children of Christian parents nor barrd from any of the children of infidels Thirdly what judgement do you passe upon believers infants to be the subjects of baptism rather then other infants that of charity or that of certainty that of certainty you disclaim p. 18. in these words no judgement of science can be passed till the Acts of faith themselves be seen and examined and in these also viz. unlesse it could be certainly presumed what children have the habit what have not for the working of the spirit is not known to us he is not bound nor barrd there can be no conclusion made That of charity then is the onely judgement you passe on these and whereby you judge believers infants and no other to have faith the spirit and right to baptismâ—… which charity teacheth us praesumere c. to believe and hope all things hope the best concerning all till ye see the worst especially since little children of believers have not by any actuall sin barrd themselves or deserved to be exempted from the generall state of little children declared in Scriptures Well then to close up all let me but desire you to passe the same judgement of charity on all little infants as you do on some even upon the little ones of unbelievers Infidels Turks and Pagans whilst infants of whom in general and indiscrimmatim the Scripture gives a good report not commending believers infants above them and against whom in particular no exception can be raised more then against the other saving that one fault of theirs onely that they were not born of believings parents which I hope you have so much charity as to pardon Hope I say as well of the infants of unbelieving parents that they have faith and the holy spirit specially since it cannot appear that these have by any actual sin barred themselves or deserved any more then the other to be exempted from the general state of little infants declared in Scripture and then the controversie between you and me which is whether little children born of believing parents only may be lawfully baptized is like to be at an end for then certainly you will either agree to it that all infants in the world even of infidels Turks and Pagans there being in the judgement of Charlty as undeserving damnation as others may be and are dying in infancy though this with you is as heinous a thing as to say the Divels may be saved p. 7. in as much possibility to be saved and so at least in as much right as the others to be baptized or else that no infants at all it being not possible to be presumed certainly which have the spirit and which not and charity judging a like of all till it see a difference are at all to be baptized both which being the very truth I am content for my part to agree with you therein with all my heart To which Dilemma I am well enough assured you can answer nothing in the least measure satisfactory as the most judicious readers if you Ministers inquire of them will undoubtedly affirm also and so I proceed to your other Arguments Dispuration That opinion which makes the Covenant of the Gospell worser then that under the Law contrary to the Apostle in Heb. 8. 6. is a wicked and false opinion But the opinion of the Anabaptists which denieth baptism to little children whereby a moity of the Christian world is cut off at once
that thou maiest remember it another time that Ierusalem is thus and thus scituated and then when he comes to age without any more resemblance of it to him in the map to indoctrinate him in what was done in his iafancy and bid him reflect back and call to mind what was shewn him in that map in which it was manifested to him what manner of city Ierusalem was and other such like ridiculous stuff and prate of the things so long since done that they are now flown both out of sight and mind even such and no better is it yea such piteous poor and meer painted piety is it for persons whether Priests or parents to stand prating to and ore poor ignorant infants and signing them at a Font or Bason whilest if they be not a sleep as my owâ—… silly experience teaches me they have been many a time while I have been sprinkling them in the midwives or the mothers armes yet they are at best no better then asleep because as heedless of what 's done saying to them very seriously by name as if they would have them mind what is said Thomas â—…nne c. I baptize thee in the name of the Father c. in token of remission of sins and then to sign them with the sign of the Cross in token to them still that hereafter when it is impossible they must by what is now so clearly manifested to their senses understand and remember that they must not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified c. and then when they are grown up to set them to School to the Font again and wish them to learn by what was once done to them there that this and that is signified saying you must understand that Christ was crucified dead and raised for the remission of your sins and that you are now to leave your sins to dy to them live a holy life take up your cross and follow him and all these things I now inform you in by word of mouth you must call to mind how they were most plainly manifested to you and lively evidenced to your very external senses and thereby to your internal senses in your baptism which is a visible sign to you and a most sensible demonstration therof a most lively preaching and resembling of them before your eies these things you must remember by the same token that you had once such a most not able remarkable memorable matter done unto you so long since that you cannot possibly observe perceive discover remember that ever it was done at all but as we tell you Babist This reflects with no small disparagement on the wisdome of God in appointing the sign circumcision to be set to infants even in their infancy Baptist. No such matter for God did not appoint it to be set to infants for any such end or use as to be a sign of any thing to infants themselues in their infancy but when at age Babist Nor do we set baptism to infants for any such end as to signifie any thing to them in their infancy but when they come to years Baptist. Circumcision being a permanent mark in the flesh remained Gen. 17. 13. and though set in infancie yet was a sign visible to the persons to whom it was set and to be seen by them as long as they lived but to baptism being a transient thing which vanishes soon after the dispensation without making or leaving any mark or impression upon the body whereby any one that nores it not while dispensed to him can possibly be capable to note it another time it is gone and lost and can be no sign to him any more for ever A permanent sign may be set at any time without prejudice to their use of it as a sign to whom it is set but the use of a transient sign must be made when it is set and it must be set at such times when its subject is capable to catch the meaning of it whilest it passes before the sences and upon occasion to recollect an Idea of what was done or else it perishes from being a sign to those persons from thenceforth even for ever Babist Then Circumcision might have been as well for born till the persons were of years the use being not made till then yet God who doth nothing in vain and out of season did for all that enjoin it long before why therefore may not baptism by the like reason Baptist. Besides that baptism is transient and that permanent which is enough to satisfie in this particular there was much other use and end for which circumcision was rightly dispensed to the infants of the Jews for which there 's not the like reason in baptism as namely to distinguish and sign them out to be what they were viz. heirs of the kingdome by birth Babist That is the very end on which we baptize infants and no other viz. to sign and distinguish the seed of believers from the seed of unbelievers and sign them out to be what they are by birth and what when they come to years they learne that they were made in Baptism viz. heires of the Kingdome of Heaven Baptist. When you have the same evidence of believers seed in infancy that the Jewes had of theirs viz. that they are heirs of the kingdom then I will allow you to do as they did viz. to sign and distinguish them as such but of the one of these you have evidence in nonage not so of the otherâ—… the kingdome that the Jews by very nature were heirs of according to the promise was that of the Earthly Canaan of which and that as a type they were apparent heirs by no other then very natural birth and that so soon as ere they were born and therfore full well within a while might they be signed But that which you take upon you so timely to sign persons as heirs to in baptism is the Antitype or heavenly Canaan which no creature is an apparent heir to according to the Gospel promise upon meer natural birth of any parents whether Jew or Gentile till he appear to us unless he dy before he hath deserved exemption by actual transgression and then Charity teaches us to hope as well of all as of one to be born by faith in Christ which birth if any infants were capable of it as to us none are yet because we cannot presume which have it and which not the workings of the spirit being so unknown to us that there can be no conclusion made we cannot by dispensation give right distinction but as in the type they sign'd them well nigh as soon as they were born with that natural birth of Abraham Isaac and Iacob after the flesh upon which alone they were heirs by promise of that earthly Canaan so we sign them so soon as they appear to be born with that birth of Christ by faith by which they are heirs of the true Canaan and that 's all the
works without them in infants though not in men and hold that he doth work by means among them so that there is no hope to be had by parents of the salvation of their infants out of the way of baptism and no justification of them ouâ—… of the way of belief Thus you tie and unty confine and lose the spirit at your pleasure you give him leave for your own lusts sake either to approve of your baptism of children out of his own declared and onely approved way of faith or if it be needfull as some of you think it is for infants to believe in order to baptism then to beget faith without that outward means of hearing the word but though it is his own good will to justifie and save dying infants by Christ without the outward means of faith and baptism there he is limitted and cannot obtain your good will he must give way to you to baptize infants out of that ordinary way of faith wherein his will is that men shall be baptized but he may not save infants out of the ordinary way of faith and baptism wherein his will is that men by Christ shall be saved no not by any means in the world There 's but a matter of four gross false unsound and absurd assertions in this reasonless reply which I must intreat you to be ashamed of before I leave it The first is that old piece of sing song which is canted ore some three or four times before but would be rather recanted if you were not resolved on perseverance in perverseness wherein you tune it out as if faith in Christ and the faculty of understanding were both so con-naturally and con-necessarily in believers infants and them onely that we may as rationally and safely conclude neither to be in them as not both This blue vain of artificial non-sense keeps its course well nigh throughout this whole discourse of yours against reason so that every foot when reason alledges any thing that 's clearly conclusive against the being of belief in Christ in believers infants as namely their not knowing good and evil their giving no testimony of faith when at years without instruction nor upon instruction neither sometimes so much as the adult children of unbelievers their not having any faith at all for the most part witnesse your successelessenesse in your preachings to your parishes to beget it whereby it is evident that either they never yet had it when rantized or else have lost it if they had their non inclinablenesse to believe caeteris paribus more then other peoples children their uncapablenesse to hear the word with understanding which is the only way and means whereby the word declares faith to be given and to be gotten you answer all along Cuckoo-like in one tone and that 's this viz. That by the same reason we may conclude against the faculty of understanding in them and against their having a reasonable soul as if it were full as clear and altogether as absurd to doubt that these infants have faith which yet your selves confesse you cannot presume what infants have and what hâ—…ve not as to doubt that they have the reasonable soul which is notoriously known to every Novice in very nature to be in all mankind by nature without exception and that so also as essentially to difference them from other creatures The second remaining and remarkable absurdity is this viz. in that you most shamelessely assert that the faculty of understanding comes to persons by the same way and means whereby justifying faith comes and no other i. e. by hearing the word preached for when reason argues against infants believing thus viz. faith comes by hearing the word of God but infants cannot hear so as to understand the word of God preached Ergo not believe you reply thus viz. They might also conclude they have no faculty of understanding neither for that i. e. the faculty of understanding comes by hearing i. e. as faith doth O prodigious piece of priestly prudence did ever any but men minded to manifest their folly to all men utter such a thing that the faculty of understanding comes as faith in Christ viz. by hearing the word of God are not the faculties of the soul of man I say the faculties of it i. e. the facultie of understanding the faculty of the will so inseperable from it so essential to it that a person is neither sooner nor longer a reasonable soul then it hath these I confesse that Plus notitiae or acquisitio ulâ—…erioris intelligentiae increase of knowledge and the obtaining of more and more understanding may come by hearing wherein the faculty of understanding being set on work not onely exercises but improves it self also and comes to act it self on more intelligible objects then before now newly discovered to it but that Ipsa facult as intelligendi or ipse intellect us the very faculty of understanding it self which comes by nature and generation and is as essentially in man as the reasonable soul it self doth come by hearing is such a mess of matter as was never heard of to this hour nor can I conceive what kind of hearing any faculty of the soul can come by sith the understanding and will must both be known to be in persons and they thereby to be both reasonable intelligible and eligible creatures before they can be fit subjects to be spoken to and before intelligible or eligible objects can reasonably seasonably or any other wise then senslessely be propounded to them in preaching neither if at all they had such a monstrous kind of inward teaching from the spirit as you talk of can they have even that teaching before they have the faculty of understanding for that teaching must be at least after they have a being but they are not in being sooner then the faculty of understanding hath a being in them yea in order of time the sense of hearing it self is not in us before it And howbeit the Axiome be true if rightly taken Nil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu the understanding apprehends nothing which some sense or other doth not first some way or other apprehend yer still the faculty of understanding whereby we conceive and the will whereby we receive begin to be in us at least as soon as the senses whereby we outwardly perceive i. e. as we our selves begin to be Thirdly other ridiculous silly stuff that with the rest this section is stufft with is this in that you would seem to make the spirits converting and begetting little children to faith to be some strange miraculous and more marvellous piece of businesse then his converting and begetting faith in grown persons because in infants he uses not that ordinary means whereby he converts men without the outward preaching of the word say you he works faith in little children his manner of working i. e. in little children is miraculous and yet when all comes to all