Infant's Faith, AND RIGHT TO BAPTISM, Proved from Scripture; WITH THE Chief Objections against it Answered.  
By John Hunt, Pastor of a Particular Congregation in Northampton.  Isa. 8.20. 
To the Law and to the Testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no Light in them.  Joh. 5.34. 
I receive not Testimony from Man.  2 Tim. 4.3. 
For the time will come, when they will not endure sound Doctrine.  Joh. 12.48. 
The word that I have spoken, the same shall Judge him in the last Day.  
LONDON, Printed by R. Janeway, and Sold by the Author.   

THE EPISTLE TO THE READER.  
Christian READER,  
THou mayest well wonder, that in this Day, when the World can scarce contain the Books already Written, that this Little Piece should crowd in among the rest under my Hand: And more especially, on such a Subject, as hath been so Frequently and Learnedly insisted on by so many Worthy Servants of Christ; who have been daily bringing out of their Treasury concerning this Matter, contained in this Book, things New and Old; and what can the Man say that cometh after the King? But though it may seem strange on this Account, yet I hope some Satisfactory Reasons may be produced why I have engaged in this Work.  
For since the Providence of God hath cast my Lot at Northampton, it hath no little concerned me, to see how Generally the County is Infected, not only with Anabaptism, but also with those many and gross Errors, which commonly that Doctrine is an inlet into; and especially, with that Soul-damning Error of : And not only so, but even some among my own Flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made me Overseer, (though, Blessed be God, far enough from the Doctrine of ) are dissatisfied about Infants Right to Baptism: And for the sake of those I have Printed this; not designing it, if possible, to be exposed beyond the extent of my Church; and if it goes further, I would have the Reader look upon it as having strayed beyond its designed Bounds.  
And could not other Reason be given but this, I think it may excuse me; for since God hath set me a Watchman over this Flock, I think myself bound (as ever I hope to give up my Account with Joy) to take all the Care of them I can, and to do my utmost to reduce such as are wandering, and to establish such as are wavering; and to keep the Plague out of their Head, as well as their Hands, from being Defiled: Judging a Blind Eye, worse than a Lame Foot. Errors in Judgement are like to be an inlet into continual Errors in Practice.  
And as some of my People stand in need of information in this Point, so there are some that desire to be informed; which is no small Motive to me to Write: And because I love not to spend my time in my Pulpit in Controverted Points, I have therefore exposed my Sentiments to the meanest Capacity that can but Read.  
But besides all this, I have been importunately urged by several Friends, whom I highly esteemed, to Print this, (having seen the Copy) who hope it may be Serviceable to the Church of God in the Neighbouring Parts; and though I love to live an obscure Life, and never could entertain one thought of appearing at so public a Post; tho' frequently, in other Cases, urged thereunto: Yet for these Reasons, I have been prevailed upon; and while I find my Mind so strangely changed in this respect, I would hope I have the Mind of God in it.  
READER, Though I have not studied to please this wanton Age, having never affected Novelties in Matters of Religion, but rather to stand and inquire for the Good Old Way; and to Contend earnestly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints; Yet I doubt not but much of what is contained herein, will seem new to most Vulgar Capacities. But as I judge it not safe to embrace any thing because new, (as is the Custom with many in our Day) for thus we may be ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth: So on the other Hand, I judge it dangerous to reject any Truth proved to be so from Scripture, because it seems new, or above our reach: But however strange it may appear, I could have cited several worthy Authors of my Judgement; but I receive not my Testimony from Men.  
If therefore I have not proved what I have laid down from Scripture, then reject it; but if I have, you are bound to receive it; and not to look upon it as mine; and must own, 'tis through your ignorance if it seems strange unto you.  
I have not studied Eloquence in Composing of this; nay, rather I have studied to shun and avoid it, and to speak in the Demonstration of the Spirit of God; comparing Spiritual things with Spiritual; that so the ensuing Discourse might the better suit with those for whom I designed it. I hope, Reader, thou wilt find that I have managed this Discourse with all Mildness and Moderation; and have only put a Genuine Construction on those many Texts I have cited; and yet I cannot but fear this will enrage some Men, who are lovers of a Party, more than lovers of Truth; who can easier cry up their own Opinions than solidly confute other Arguments.  
As I did not intent in Writing this, to Enter the List with any in a Public. Debate, or to provoke any to make a Reply; so, if contrary to my expectation, any of the common Disputants of our Age shall think good to Answer it, I design to take no further notice of it, than to Read it; not doubting but they will be found to oppose God as well as me, in the Judgement of any who esteem the Scripture as the Word of God, or prefer it above their own Fancies; and that while they open their Mouths to oppose the Truth so clearly proved; they will but belch out their Arminian Tenets; and as Raging Waves, foam out their own shame, and be as unsuccessful in their Attempts, as those who never would cease endeavouring to set up Dagon, in opposition to the Ark; till only the Stump remained. But however this may enrage others, who know not what manner of Spirit they are of; yet if it may but profit my own Flock, I have gained my chief Design. Which that it may, shall be the Earnest and Continual Prayer, of him who bears a dear Love and Affection to their Souls; and who is willing to serve the advancing the Interest of Christ in the meanest Place in his House;  
John Hunt.   

Infant's FAITH AND RIGHT TO BAPTISM, Proved from Scripture, etc.  
THE Consideration of the unhappy Differences, which are this Day among the People of God, about the Doctrine of Infant Baptism; (whereby God is much dishonoured, and the Adversaries Mouths opened, to reproach the Ways and People of God; whereby much time is spent in Controversies, which might be better improved in giving diligence To make our Calling and Election sure; and in helping each other forward in the way to Heaven; hath moved me to try, if by the Blessing of God on my weak Endeavours, I might be that happy Instrument, to put an end to that Controversy: For it's pity such as agree so in Fundamentals, should so much differ about Smaller Matters; and that they who hold one Lord, and one Faith, should not hold one and the same Baptism all respects: And though enough hath been Delivered and Printed on this Subject by divers worthy Lights, to satisfy any impartial Reader, and clear Understanding; yet because many have not time to Read, or Money to Buy, or Capacities to Understand large Volumes; I shall add this short Tract, as a Mite to the former Treasury: In which I shall Study both Brevity and Plainness of Speech; to though End that, if possible, I might not overreach the meanest Capacity; since it is for the sakes of such, I design this; and therefore to prevent tediousness, I shall sum up all I shall say, as to the Subject of Baptism, in two Arguments more generally.  
First, Argument in Defence of Infant Baptism is this; If we Gentiles do come in the room of the Jews than we must partake of their Privileges; but we Gentiles do come in the Jews room, therefore we must partake of their Privileges. The Major I must take for granted: For how, or to what end do we come in their room; unless we partake of their External Church Privileges? One of which was Circumcision. Rom. 3.1,2. What advantage then hath the Jew? Or what Profit is there of Circumcision? Much every way, etc. which Ordinance was to be administered unto Infants of Eight Days Old; in the stead of which God hath appointed the Ordinance of Baptism, as is clear from that plain Text, Col. 2.10,11,12. And ye are complete in him, which is the Head of all Principality and Power. In whom also ye are Circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands, in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh, by the Circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in Baptism, etc. In which place the Apostle is encouraging the Believing Colossians to stand fast in opposition to those false Teachers, who would Preach the Law as a Covenant of Works, or at least mixed Law and Gospel together, in opposition to whom, he tells them they were complete in him, that is, in Christ; and however these false Teachers might pretend a necessity to keep the Law, yet he here lets them know, forasmuch as Christ was made under the Law, and did bring in an everlasting Righteousness, and that he did in their room and stead; hence they that believed were complete in Christ their Head, and so under no Obligation to keep the Law, as a Covenant of Works, Christ being the End of the Law, (in that respect) to every one that believeth.  
But lest those false Teachers should prevail to draw away Disciples after them, by urging the necessity of Circumcision, he tells them they were Circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands, or had received the End of Circumcision; for that signified a necessity of the Heart being Sanctified, Rom 2.28. which Grace of Sanctification, as well as Justification, they received from Christ, and so were complete in him; but that they should not think themselves inferior to them for want of the external Seal, he tells them they had the Seal of the Covenant also; and though not the same, yet a milder in its room; Buried with him in Baptism. Nor do I see what other design the Apostle can have in these words, but to prove, that Baptism to us, comes in the room of Circumsision to the Jews; and that you may see that this is not my own private Sense of these Words, I shall cite another Witness or two to confirm it. Of the same Judgement is the Learned Paraeus; saith he, Quod Apostolus precedente versu, de Externa & Interna Circumcisione dixit ad Institutionem & Consolationem fidelium, contra pseudo-Judees; eadem nunc applicat ad fideles in Novo Testamento, in quo Circumcisioni successit Sacramentum Baptismi, i. e. That which the Apostle had said in the foregoing Verse, concerning External and Internal Circumcision, for the Instruction and Consolation of Believers against the false Jews, he applies the same to Believers in the New Testament, in which the Sacrament of Baptism doth succeed in the room of Circumcision: Of the same Judgement is Calvin, Aretius, and many more; whose words for brevity sake I shall omit, and come to my Minor Proposition.  
Minor. But we Gentiles do come in the Jews room; which I prove from that plain Text, Rom. 11.19,20,24. Thou wilt say then, The Branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well: because of Unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by Faith, be not highminded, but fear. For if thou wert cut out of tho Olive Tree, which is wild by Nature, and wert graffed contrary to Nature into the Good Olive Tree, etc. Now our Graffing in, must answer to the Cutting off of the Jews; or else the Apostle miss of his Scope and Design. Nor was their breaking off, a breaking off from a real Union with Christ, as some of the Anabaptists have in my hearing affirmed, to avoid the force of this Text; but from External Church Privileges. Now, since the Infant Seed of the Jews had a Right to Circumcision; if then we Believing Gentiles do come in their room, and Baptism in the room of Circumcision, as I think I have sufficiently proved (if Scripture may determine the Matter) than we and our Seed must have a Right to Baptism under the New Testament, as the Jews and their Seed had to Circumcision under the Old Testament: But notwithstanding the Scripture is so clear for this, yet that no doubt may remain, I shall answer such Objections as may possibly be made against it.  
Object. 1. If we come in the Jews room, than all the Children in the Nation ought to be Baptised; since all the Children in the Jewish Nation were Circumcised: But according to your Practice all ought not to be Baptised; therefore from your Practice we may Judge you do not think we come in their room.  
Answ. All that can be truly inferred from hence is this, That as all in their Church, which was National, were to be Circumcised; so all in our Particular Churches ought to be Baptised; and this is no more than I earnestly contend for.  
Object. 2. But if we come in their room, than we must be a National Church, as they were, or else how can we be said to partake of their Privileges?  
Answ. It was not of the Essence of the Jewish Church, that it was National; nor was it any Privilege above what it would have been, had it been divided into particular Churches as we are. I grant, that so long as the Temple stood, which was a Type of Christ, so long God required they should meet to worship him there; which might serve to show how the gathering of the People should be unto Christ: But now, though it was their Privilege that they might Worship, yet it must needs be burdensome to come from all Parts of the Nation to Worship at the Temple, and at such expense: But now God hath eased us of this burden, while he hath appointed Particular Churches, where we enjoy all the Worship of God, with as great a Promise of the Presence of God as they had in the Temple, Matt. 18.20. So that we only want (if I may so say) the Inconveniency of the Worship. God hath not now confined us to Places; John. 4.20,21. The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this Mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem Worship the Father; that is, with respect to Places. And yet though we are not confined to their Place of Worship, yet we are said to be graffed into their Olive; and as for such as lay such stress on this, as if it was impossible we should come in the Jews room, unless we were a National Church, I would ask them this Question, Do you believe that the Jews shall in time be brought home again, and Ingraffed into their own Olive, from which they have been so long broken off? And further, Whether you think at that Day, they shall Worship God in the Temple, and offer Gifts and Sacrifices, as once they did? Now that they shall be restored and brought home again, is clear from Rom. 11.12,15,26. Now if the Fall of them be the Riches of the World, and the Diminishing of them the Riches of the Gentiles; how much more their Fullness? For if the casting away of them be the Reconciling of the World: What shall the receiving of them be, but Life from the Dead? From these and the following Verses it is most clear, that the Jews shall be one Day restored, and it is that which we now are expecting; but that they shall then Worship at the Temple, when it hath been demolished so many hundred Years; and that they shall offer Sacrifices, after they come to Believe that Christ the great Sacrifice is offered, or that the Tribe of Levi should only Minister before the Lord, when all the Tribes have been so shattered and confused in this Dark and Gloomy Day, all seem to me to be things incredible. Now if they shall be graffed again into their own Olive (as the Scripture affirms) notwithstanding so many, and so great alterations in their Worship, as we have good ground from Scripture to believe there will be; Why may not we Gentiles be said to come in their room, though we are not confined to all the Circumstances of their Worship, and since we want nothing that was a Privilege?  
And more especially, if we consider that we have good ground to believe that their graffing in again, will be no more than to bestow those very Privileges on them, which we Gentiles do now enjoy; as seems clear to me from Rom. 11.31. Even so have these also now not believed; that through your Mercy, they also may obtain Mercy. Mind, that through your Mercy, or the Mercy of God to you, they also may obtain Mercy: As if he had said, the consideration of your Mercies, or the Privileges which you enjoy under the Gospel, shall be a means not only to convince them that the Messiah is come, but shall also stir them up to embrace the same Faith, that so they may partake of the same Mercies with you. So that it seems evident, not only from Scripture, but Reason itself; that when the Jews come to be Restored, it will only be to share with us Gentiles in our Privileges: And yet this is called in Scripture, a graffing in again. So that there is no more necessity for us to be confined to all the Circumstances of their Worship, in order to our coming in their room; than for them to be confined to all the Circumstances of their wont Service, when graffed in again: Nor doth it seem credible, that when they are graffed in again, they shall enjoy neither Circumcision, nor any other Seal in its room, and that their Privileges should be less under the New Testament Dispensation, than under the Old; that God should own their Seed then, and reject them now. Sure I am, this would in all probability, be a great Block in their way, to prevent their embracing the Gospel. Circumcision was an Ordinance of high esteem with them, as we may judge by their cheerful undergoing so much pain and smart as it occasioned; as we may gather from Ex. 4.26. A Bloody Husband thou art, because of the Circumcision. But now, if we can convince them that we have a milder Ordinance, and Seal in its room, this may have a great Influence upon them, by tsie Bleffing of God, in order to the bringing them in.  
Thus I have finished my first Argument, and should I add no more in Defence of the Doctrine of Infant Baptism, it might suffice; unless Persons are resolved to shut their Eyes that they might not behold the Light, since I have clearly proved from Scripture, that we Gentiles do come in the Jews room, and Baptism in the room of Circumcision: But to the end there may not be left one Stone upon another of that Strong Hold, which the Anabaptists have raised against this Truth, which may not be thrown down, I shall raise one. Argument more as a Battery against it, and shall add no more: And indeed I think I need add no more, being satisfied these Arguments will be as a twofold Cord that will not easily be broken. Now the great Objection of the Anabaptists, against Infant Baptism, is founded on such Scriptures as hold forth Faith as necessary in order to Baptism; as Mark 16.16. He that Believeth, and is Baptised, shall be saved, Acts 8.37. And Philip said, if thou Believest with all thy Heart, thou mayest. Acts 18.8. And many of the Corinthians hearing, Believed, and were Baptised. And from these, and such like Texts, confidently conclude, that because none but Adult Persons have or can have Faith, therefore none but such aught to be Baptised: And if I mistake not, here lays the stress of all their Arguments.  
Now for the preventing any mistake, (that none may suppose the Difference to be wider than it is) if it be enquired there some Adult may not be Baptised; I grant they may; provided they never have been Baptised in their Infancy; and yet this may rationally be Inferred from such Texts; for those that Believed and were Baptised, had never before been Baptised, nor had they made any Profession of Christ before then, that we know of; the Text seem to prove they were Baptised immediately upon their Confession of Faith; and should I meet with such, I should think myself bound from such Examples to Baptise them. So that we agree with the Anabaptists in this, that some Adult ought to be Baptised. But the Grand Question in Debate is, whether some Infants ought not to be Baptised as well as Adult; this the Anabaptists deny, and I affirm, and 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 aught to be Baptised; but the Infant Seed of Believers are such as we have good ground from Scripture to hope are Believers; therefore such may and aught to be Baptised. All that I can conceive can be said against my Major Proposition is, to deny that we are to Baptise any upon hopes that they are Believers; and to affirm that we ought to Baptise 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 Baptised 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 Baptised him: But if any should so judge, it makes the more for me; for if the Apostles themselves Baptised such as they had no hopes had true Faith; then sure we may Baptise such 〈◊〉 we have good ground to hope 〈◊〉 Faith: But if they had Hope, 'tis 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. 'Tis 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 Baptised some as Believers, who have afterward discovered themselves to be in the Gall of Bitterness. So that (in a word) if we must Baptise none but such as we are sure have true Justifying Faith, we must Baptise 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 denied 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 intent 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 Judgement alone (however strange a Doctrine it may seem to some) for I have the Judgement of all the Church of England on my side; their Words after Baptism are, Seeing now, Dear beloved Brethren, that this Child is by Baptism Regenerate, etc. And again, We yield thee most hearty thanks most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to Regenerate this Infant by thy Holy Spirit, etc. Now though I am far from being of the Judgement which they seem to be in this, that all that are Baptised are in that Ordinance Regenerated, and so consequently many fall from Grace. My Soul abhors that Popish Doctrine, that Baptism confers Grace, ex opere operato, from the Workwrought; but while they thank God for the Work done, 'tis 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 Mother's Womb; and then no doubt Sanctified. And of Christ it is said, verse 35. That Holy Thing that shall be born of thee, etc. mind, born of thee, was Holy when Born: From whence it is passed 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 itself. 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 'tis 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, than some Infants have Faith: But some Infants do get to Heaven, therefore some Infants have Faith. 'Tis 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 loath to resign up such a Gospel Truth, merely 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 show 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 ourselves, 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 form 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 'tis 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 easy to see both, yet we cannot fully comprehend either. Nay, at this rate, we must not believe ourselves to be Creatures, since we cannot tell how we were form 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 'tis 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 tenderhearted 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 newfound 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, by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to them. An Answer no doubt pleasing to the Ignorant sort, that will Swallow down any thing, true or false, that hath but the Name of Christ, or the Righteousness of Christ annexed to it: But sure this bold Asserter had forgotten that Text, Isa. 8.20. To the Law and to the Testimony, if any Man (an Anabaptist not excepted) walk not according to this Rule, 'tis because there is no Light in him; or rather, I have reason to judge, he was resolved his own Fancy should guide him in this Matter. Now I would fain know where this Author can prove from Scripture, any imputation of Christ's Righteousness to any but Believers. I am sure he cannot; and till he can, however fond he or his Brethren may be of his Notion, it not agreeing with the Rule in God's Word, we are bound to look upon it as arising from the Darkness his own deluded Fancy. Since I have been a Student in Divinity, I have been taught, both out of God's Word, and from our most Worthy Authors, that the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ had respect to the removal of our Gild; and that it was the Work of the Spirit within us, to remove the Filth, and destroy the Power of Sin. Tit. 3.5. By the washing of Regeneration, and renewings of the Hely Ghost: Hence we are said to be born of the Spirit. Justification and Sanctification, though inseparable, yet are widely distinguished by all but Papists, and such as do adhere to them: Sure this Gentleman had strangely forgot the great difference between our Title to Heaven, and our Meetness for Heaven; unless he looks upon our Claim to rise from our Meetness. The Righteousness of Christ, though it gives us a Title to Heaven, as we do apprehend the Person of Christ by Faith, yet it doth not take away our Filth any other way than by way of Purchase. 'Tis the Spirit of God in us that is the Efficient, and that is the thing we are enquiring into. Why then doth this Author thus beguile his unwary Reader, when he is enquiring how Sin comes to be subdued, he tells him how Sin comes to be pardoned. As if a Pardon to a Malefactor would change his Heart, or as if that Promise of a new Heart added to Forgiveness was a Promise of little worth; I know not what it is to him, I am sure 'tis precious to all Saints; what doth this imply, but that the Righteousness of Christ was imputed to Infants, to the end they may go to Heaven reeking in Sin; and that they might be exempted from Regeneration? But to put all out of doubt, I come now to prove there is a Necessity for Infants to have Faith (in the Sense aforesaid) if ever they get to Heaven, whatever such bold Men may say to the contrary, who care not how much they say, and how little they prove. Let God be true, tho' all such are found Liars. Now there is a twofold Necessity for Infants to have Faith, in order to their getting to Heaven, one arising from God's Ordination and Appointment, the other from the Corruption of our Natures, as we come into the World.  
First, From God's Appointment and Ordination, he hath made this the way, and the only way to Heaven, Mark 16.16. He that believes not shall be damned. I think that is plain Scripture, since 'tis so desired by the Anabaptists; and the Expression being Indefinite, is equivolent to a Universe. He, that is, any he, High or Low, Rich or Poor, Adult or Infant. So John 3.3,5. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a Man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God. And then adds by way of Explanation, Except a Man be born of Water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Now Regeneration is an Infusing the Principles of all Grace into the Soul, as the Learned Pemble observes, (one Grace not being the Cause of another,) and if of all Grace, then of Faith, for that is a Grace.  
But perhaps the Anabaptists may object, that by the Word Man we are to understand Adult only, yet at best this is but a bare Conjecture, which in others Cases is contemned by them; and therefore with their Leave, or without it, I shall tie them up to the same Measures: For it seems unreasonable to contemn this in others, which we allow in ourselves, especially in Matters of Religion; may we not by the same Rule exclude Women? And then I know no Scripture to prove a Necessity for them to be regenerated. But lest this should not suffice, (for by this time I may suppose the Anabaptists to be like a Man drowning, that catches hold of every Straw to keep him from sinking) I shall therefore prove from Scripture, that the Word Man oft takes in Women and Children, without Distinction of Age or Sex; and to this end I might multiply Texts, but I shall only give you Two for many. The first is, Gen. 6.7. I will destroy Man. Now it is well known that all the old World was destroyed, both Men, Women and Children, excepting those few in the Ark, and yet only Man is mentioned. So John 16.21. A Woman, when she is in Travail, hath Sorrow, because her Hour is come; but as soon as she is delivered of the Child, she remembreth no more her Anguish for Joy that a Man is born. Mind that which in the beginning was called a Child, is after called a Man; nor can we once suppose that we come grown Men immediately out of the Womb; and yet this may be as easily proved as the former. And as the Word Man sometimes is of this extent, so 'tis most evident it is so here: For the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek signifies any one. Beza renders it Aliquis, any Body, or any one. But notwithstandstanding all that hath been said, I lately saw a Piece, put out by one of the Ablest of the Anabaptists, in which he will prove that Christ in that Place meant Adult only; and he proves it thus. It must be so, because Nicodemus understood him so; but to me it seems strange, that any, unless one as ignorant as Nicodemus, of the new Birth, should think such a blind Idiot as he, a meet Judge of Christ's Meaning; and infallibly to conclude it must be so, because he understood him so, as if Nicedomus was an infallible Judge of this Matter. That Nicedomus understood him so I cannot deny; but if that must be his meaning, because he understood him so, than we must conclude Christ meant a natural Birth also, for so Nicodemus understood him, Verse 4. Can he enter the second time into his Mother's Womb, and be born; which was a gross Mistake, as is clear from Verse 5. Which Words are a Reproof of his Ignorance and Carnal Conceptions, and an Interpretation of Christ's own Words; and might he not mistake as to the Subject, as well as concerning the Nature of the thing? Sure I am that Cause is like to be lost, that hath no better Witness than an ignorant Nicodemus; and we may suppose the Anabaptists at a Loss, when the ablest and most learned among them are forced to summons in Nicodemus as a Witness; for tho' they must own him to be a poor Evidence, if they will believe Christ, (Verse 10.) Art thou a Master in Israel, and knowest not these things? (and they that do not know things are unmeet to prove them) But either this Person put more Confidence in Nicodemus than Christ, or else knowing his Cause was almost gone, would rather cite Nicodemus (concerning which, he knew neither what he said, nor whereof he affirmed) rather than have no Witness; but 'tis no wonder to see the most Learned of the Anabaptists run into such gross Absurdities, and to be at such a Loss in such Mysteries; for if Learning could teach a Man the Mysteries of the Gospel, Nicodemus had not been so grossly ignorant of Christ's meaning; and I leave it to any Judicious Person to determine, whether we have not as good Ground, and better, to judge that this Objecter was of the same Mind of Nicodemus, in understanding it to be a natural Birth, then to conclude, that because he understood it, as spoken of Adult only, therefore it must be so; for we may suppose, had not this Doctor had great Confidence in the Infallibility of Nicodemus, he would never have ventured that Cause which was as dear to him as his Life upon his single Evidence, and especially in such a Cause, wherein he had so many Hundreds opposed him; and sure, had he judged him in a gross Mistake, as to the Nature of that new Birth, he would never have put such Confidence in what he said with the same Breath, as to the Subject; and as we have infallible Ground to conclude, (from his own Words) that this Objecter is far from believing any Necessity or Possibility for Infants to be regenerated, so I think I do him no Wrong, if I suppose 'tis his Judgement, that there is no more Necessity for grown Persons to be regenerated; for of this Judgement was his trusty and wellbeloved Friend Nicodemus; for had Nicodemus once supposed that grown Persons (any more than Infants) must be born again Spiritually, he would never have mentioned such a gross Absurdity as to be born again Carnally, but taking it for granted, that Adult (to give the Objecter his Sense) could not be born again Spiritually, absurdly supposes it to be meant a Carnal Birth; and why we may not suppose the Objecter to be of his Judgement in the one, as well as the other, (especially since he puts such Confidence in him) I see not; and now I leave it to my understanding Reader to judge, whether we have not better Ground to believe, that under the Word Men, Children are comprehended, because the Word signifies both, than to conclude Christ only meant grown Men, because Nicodemus understood him so, since it is passed all dispute the Word signifies so; but whether Nicodemus did rightly understand Christ's meaning, may justly admit of a Debate; nay, it seems almost past all Dispute he did not, by his gross Mistake about other Passages relating hereunto.  
Thus I have, I hope, sufficiently proved a Necessity for Infants to have Faith, if they get to Heaven, from God's Appointment; and what can be more cogent to confirm any Point, than the express Mind of God? And I am certain, had the Anabaptists such-clear Proof, that no Infants ought to be Baptised, as I have given to prove, that all Infants that get to Heaven must have Faith, they would soon cry Victory; nor should I ever hold up my Weapons against them, (was it so) lest haply, by so doing, I was found fight against God himself.  
Secondly, There is a Necessity for Faith in Infants, (if they get to Heaven) arising from the Corruption of their Natures: Which tho' the Anabaptist may probably deny, yet I doubt not but to confirm this also from Scripture. When Adam had sinned, by eating the Forbidden Fruit, he was immediately seized with a Spiritual Death, according to the Commination, in the Day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die: And Adam being a public Head and Representative of all Mankind, this Spiritual Death is entailed on all his Posterity. Hence we are said to bear the Image of the Earthly; nor is this true of Adult only, but of all his Posterity, 1 Cor. 15.22. As in Adam all die. Mind, all die, Infants as well as grown Persons; and this I shall further prove from most express Scripture, Eph. 2.3. And were by Nature the Children of Wrath, even as others. Gen. 8.21. For the Imagination of Man's Heart is evil from his Youth. The Evil in our Hearts is the Cause of all the Evil in our Lives. Hence Foolishness is said to be bound up in the Heart of a Child, Prov. 22.15. It is so bound up, that for a while it may not discover itself, yet is in his Heart. See Psal. 58.3. The Wicked are estranged from the Womb, they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking Lies: That is, they have a straying Principle as soon as born. Once more, Psal. 51.5. Behold I was shapen in Iniquity, and in Sin did my Mother conceive me. So that by Nature we not only want a Title to Heaven, but a Meetness also, Col. 1.12. Giving Thanks unto the Father, who hath made us meet to be Partakers of that Inheritance of the Saints in Light: Implying that by Nature they were unmeet; and if Children are not thus corrupt by Nature, how came they to die, since the Wages of Sin is Death. Now if Death reigned, as the Apostle saith, from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the Similitude of Adam's Transgression, (that is, Infants that had not sinned actually) than it must be, because they were Sinners in Adam, and had the Seed of Sin in themselves habitually, for the Gild of Adam's Act is not transferred to any of the mere Sons of Men, but such as partake of his Image also; and I dare be bold to say (and can abundantly from Scripture prove) that the Seed and Spawn of all our Actual Sins are in our Hearts before we commit one of them; for as in Grace there must first be the Habit, and then the Act; so in Sin, the Heart is first Wicked, than the Life. The Tree is first evil before the Fruit is; so Mat. 12.33,35. Now if the Nature of all is so corrupt, as I have proved, then 'tis impossible for any thus corrupt to get to Heaven without an inward Change, for what would Heaven be to an unregenerate Soul? What would the Works of praising God be to one that hates God? Or what would Holy Company be to such as are dead in Trespasses and Sins, and to every good Word and Work reprobate? But least this should not suffice, I shall prove from Scripture, that such cannot get to Heaven in an unchanged State, 1 Cor. 15.50. Now this I say, Brethren, that Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, neither doth Corruption inherit Incorruption. Where we must not understand the Word Flesh Physically, or in Point of Being; for so we believe Christ is now in our Humane Nature in Heaven. We believe also the Resurrection of the Body, when the Saints shall in their Flesh see God, Job 19.26. But Flesh here must be understood morally as corrupted; as Gal. 1.16. Immediately I conferred not with Flesh and Blood; in which Place he means he did not hearken to the corrupt Reasonings of the Flesh: That this is the meaning, seems clear; for in the foregoing Verse he had been mentioning our Earthly Image, which consists in the Depravity of our Nature, and then concludes, That Flesh and Blood, that is, such as retain that Earthly Image, cannot inherit the Kingdom of God; so Heb. 12.14. Without Holiness no Man shall see God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no one, no Body, as it signifies. Nor is it to be understood of actual Holiness in our Conversation only; for should a Man die the same Moment that he closes with Christ, he shall as surely see God to his Comfort, as if he had lived a holy Life never so long, our Title to Heaven arising from our Union to Christ, and not from our Holiness, tho' never so great; nor do his good Works so properly render him meet for Heaven, as that Holy Principle, from whence they proceeded: A clear Instance we have in the Thief on the Cross that was converted, and in Heaven in a few Hours. By his embracing of Christ, he came to have a Title to Heaven, and his inward Change of Heart rendered him meet for Heaven, notwithstanding he had no time to spend in a Holy Conversation. From all which it doth appear, that as we are corrupt by Nature, so this Nature, till renewed, can never enter into Heaven; nor do I see what the Anabaptists can say to this, unless they deny the Corruption of our Nature; and I perceive some of them have fled thither for Refuge: But this is so confuted by the former Scriptures, that I judge it needless to add any more; and I cannot but wonder how such as pretend so high an Esteem for plain Scripture, dare cast such Contempt on those many plain Texts I have cited, (and more that I might cite) to prove the Corruption of our Natures, as we come into the Would. This gives us sad ground to Fear, that whatever high esteem such may pretend to plain Scripture, when it seems to make for them; yet they prefer their own Fancies before it, when it really makes against them. Thus I hope I have sufficiently proved a necessity for Infants to have Grace, if ever they get to Glory. I come now to the close of my Argument.  
Minor Proposition. But some Infants do get to Heaven. Now I need not spend much time to prove his; for I hope the Anabaptists will not be so uncharitable as to Sentence all Infants to Eternal Destruction, rather than receive the Truth of the Gospel: And indeed I find some of them so far from denying that some Infants get to Heaven, that they rather believe that none miss of Heaven. But if any of the rest of the Anabaptists should so far differ from their Brethren as to deny it, yet 'tis our comfort the Scripture doth in most express words affirm it, Mat. 19.14. Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven; not that the Kingdom of Heaven consists only of such, but that some such are of that Kingdom. By the Kingdom of Heaven, saith Marlorate, we must understand the Eternal Felicity of the Elect. Some indeed understand it of the visible Kingdom of Christ on Earth: But such do not understand it so in opposition to their Eternal Felicity; and indeed if some of such as are in Christ's Visible Kingdom here on Earth do not get to Heaven, I know not who shall come there, Visible not being opposed to Invisible; but only distinguished from it. So that since some such do get to Heaven (as I have proved) but none get to Heaven without Renovation, hence it unavoidably follows, some such are renewed; which Renovation takes in the Seeds or Habit of Faith, and all other Graces. And thus have I confirmed my Argument, which I am confident stands so firm on Scripture ground, that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against it. All I shall add shall be to Answer some Objections that may be made by some against it; though indeed the truth is so clear, that Objections are not worthy to be heard, much less to to be answered. But to the End that things may be made plain to the meanest capacity, and nothing wanting for satisfaction to such as desire it, I proceed.  
Object. 1. We see no such Ground to hope such have Grace. Do not we see that ofttimes the Children of Godly Parents prove wicked; which they would not have done, if they had Grace in Infancy, unless they fall from Grace; which we may suppose you do not Believe.  
To which I answer, That some Children of Believing Parents do prove Graceless and Wicked, by too sad experience we find true: Nor can we from hence infer, that such fall from Grace; for I know none that hold that all such have Grace, I mean of Unbaptized Infants; for as to Baptised Infants, the Papists and Church of England both hold, That all such have Grace; though for my own part, tho' I hope well of all such as are Baptised, the jure, of right; yet to affirm that all such have Grace, I dare not; neither do I think any from Scripture have good ground so to do. Should none have Grace (among the Seed of Believers) but such as Die in Infancy, or who do in time appear Gracious, but know not so exactly the time of their Conversion, who may be supposed to be wrought upon in Infancy, they would amount to a vast number: And perhaps as many by the Rule of Proportion as may be found to have Grace (in the great Day, when all must be weighed in the Balance of the Sanctuary) in our particular Churches. But if we must not hope of any, because some prove wicked; what shall we say of Adult Professors, who are Members in Churches? Do not many of them prove Hypocrites? Must the Eleven therefore be condemned for Hypocrites, because a Judas was among them? Would not this be to Judge before the time? Sure I am, at this rate, we must hope of none, Adult or Infants. But if you say, notwithstanding some professors prove Wicked, yet we are to hope well of others, till such time as their Wickedness discovers itself: So say I as to Infants; though some prove wicked, yet till others appear so, we ought to hope well of them, if we see nothing that doth cut off our hope; and not so to do must be judged the greatest uncharitableness.  
Oject. 2. But Adult Persons make a Profession of Christ, so do not Infants.  
Answ. All their Profession is but the ground of our hope of an inward Change; and was it possible to see the Heart unrenewed: Whatever Profession such a one might make, it would be a Sin to Baptise such a one. So that if we have but good ground to hope they have Faith, be it by Profession, or otherwise it matters not. If the Objecter say, 'tis his bare Profession gives a right, than they give away the cause they have so contended for; since Faith and Profession are not only distinct, but separable. If they say, Faith gives them a right, this makes for me; as I have proved: If they say, 'tis Faith as Professed, and no otherways, this is evidenly to lay more stress upon their Profession than Faith; since whatever other ground we have to hope they have Faith, yet without a Profession of that Faith, they must not be Baptised.  
Object. 3. This makes Baptism a Regenerating Ordinance, which is not a Truth.  
Answ. I have reason to think this a mere Cavil, and a wilful Mistake of the Objecter. For my own part, tho' I am for Infant-Baptism (and am fully persuaded from Scripture I have good reason so to be) yet I must again declare, I am far from approving of that Popish Doctrine, that Baptism conferrs Grace from any Virtue in it; though I cannot deny but God may work Grace in some in that Ordinance.  
I believe some have Grace that never were Baptised; and that some are Baptised that never had Grace, both of Adult as well as Infants: Nor doth our practice give the least countenance to believe that this Ordinance Regenerates. Nay it seems clearly to hold forth the contrary, since I do not pretend to Baptise to the end they may be Regenerated; but in hopes they are already so. There must first be a Right before they partake of the Seal But I expect some should say, to what end should Parents bring their Children to this Ordinance, if they hope they are Regenerated before? Answer, If the Objecter be an Anabaptist, I answer him, to the same end they bring their Adult, whom they own to be Believers; but if of another Judgement, I answer, to the same end Adult Believers come to the Lord's Supper after they are in Christ; and that which will serve for an Answer to the one, may serve as an sufficient Answer to the other. There may be a necessity of doing a thing in order to our avoiding Sin, when there is not a necessity to do the same in order to avoiding of Hell. For instance, A Saint is bound in his own Person to fulfil the Moral Law perfectly, in order to his avoiding Sin, but not in order to his avoiding Hell: If he was, who then could be saved? And if no other Reason can be given, but because God will have it so, 'tis sufficient to justify our practice: But to this I add, (ex abundanti) that as a grown Person, who hath Grace, stands in need of Prayer, Preaching, and the Lord's Supper, for to strengthen his Grace, they being appointed to that end: So though we were sure Infants had such Faith as we Baptise, yet we ought to Baptise them, for the strengthening of that Faith, and to look on it as our Privilege as well as Duty.  
Object. 4. If we may Baptise Infants on this ground, than we may Baptise the Infants of Unbelieving Parents; for we have the same ground to hope of them: And further, we find such were Circumcised; but you do not Baptise such, therefore you ought not to Baptise others.  
Answ. Though I cannot deny but some such may be Saved, and so consequently must have Grace; yet this no way weakens my Argument laid down, as I shall prove by another Argument, thus,— Those to whom God hath made special Promises, of them we have special ground to hope: But the Infant Seed of Believers are such to whom God hath made special Promises; therefore of such we have special ground to hope. The Major is clear: For though we cannot from hence infallibly conclude the certainty of the Salvation of all such, (the Promise respecting the External, as well as Internal part of the Covenant) yet sure I am such Promises give more ground to hope, than where he hath made none; and for any to deny this, is no better than to charge God with mocking of his Dear Children; since in their Judgement all the Promises God hath made to their Seed, will not afford sufficient ground so much as to hope concerning their future Happiness. And sure I am, if there is no ground to hope of them, there is none of others; and so all must (in their Judgement) perish.  
Minor Proposition. But God hath made special Promises to the Seed of Believers. First, He hath made Promises unto such, Gen. 17.7,8. And I will establish my Covenant between thee and me, and thy Seed after thee in their Generations, for an Everlasting Covenant, to be a God to thee, and thy Seed after thee. So Acts 2.39. For the Promise is to you and to your Children, etc. Which Promise being renewed in the New Testament, and so many hundred Years after it was given to Abraham, proves it was no bare Promise of the Land of Canaan, as some vainly suppose. Secondly, I say, special Promises; I mean such as are not made in common to the Seed of Unbelievers; and I challenge any to show me one such promise made to them. For though I cannot deny but some such may be Saved; yet I see no more ground to hope of such dying in Infancy, than of the Infants of Heathens; there being no more Promise to the former than the latter, according to the best of my knowledge, in Scripture. Nor can we conclude, (as was Objected) that because the Seed of Unbelievers as well as Believers were Circumcised, (suppose it so); that therefore the Seed of all, both Unbelievers as well as Believers, must be Baptised, no more than we can conclude, that 'tis lawful for Women to Baptise, because Zipporah Circumcised her Son. There was no fixed Officer in the Jewish Church (as Mr. Strong hath observed) to administer that Ordinance; and then no wonder if there was some Maladministration as to the Subject: But suppose it was the Will of God it should be so in that Day, it doth not follow it must be so now: Though Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision, for the same God that had power to Change the Seal, may, if he will, Change or Limit the Subject also. But is Objected by some, That the Promises were not made to Abraham's Natural Seed, but Spiritual. For 'tis said, Gal. 3.29. If ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham 's Seed, and Heirs according to Promise. And from hence conclude, there is no ground to Baptise the Natural Seed of Believers as Believers; because the Promise is not made to them as Natural Seed. To which I Answer, Had this Objection been brought against the Corrupt Practice of such as Baptise the Infants of such Parents as are openly Profane (for 'tis evident 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 Privileges 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 Baptise 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 Privileges: 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 'tis 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. than 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, than 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, than we must Baptise 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, than 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 Baptised; therefore we have ground to think such ought not to be Baptised, 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 Infant's Baptised, yet we have some Texts, that will, I conceive, infallibly prove either that some than were Baptised, or at least now ought to be Baptised. 'Tis said of the Jailor, Acts 16.33. He was Baptised, 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 Baptised. 'Tis said, indeed he spoke to them the Word of the Lord; but we cannot from thence conclude, they that heard believed; 'tis said indeed, after that he rejoiced, believing in God with all his House, but this was after he and all his were Baptised. 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 Subtlety they can. Acts 16.15. of Lydia, And when she was Baptised, and her Household, etc. Now the Enquiry is, who this Household were? But let them be who they will, yet the Anabaptist will not reckon little Children among them, because none such are mentioned; 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 Household to just no Body but Lydia, and herself; but I will suppose (and I can do no other) that in this Household 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 Household, as we have ground to suppose, than here we have an Instance of such Baptised; 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 Baptised? Now that her Household were Baptised, the Word expressly affirms; if they say, as they were Professors, I deny that, and it lies on them to prove it; there is not one Word of their believing, or any of them, either before or after they were Baptised; 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 Persuasion, will in the least regard what they say. If they were Baptised, as being related to Lydia, tho' they made no Profession themselves, than this overthrows the Practice of the Anabaptists; since here are some Baptised 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; than it follows, that what belongs to any Child, merely as the Child of such a Parent, belongs to all the Children of the same a Parent: But it may be some may say this Household were all Servants; but if they were, yet here is not a Word of their Faith or Profession: And then I conclude, that if Lydia's Servants were Baptised, by Virtue of that Relation to Lydia, much more should her Children be Baptised, standing in a nearer Relation to her. Thus I have shown you there are some Texts that afford us good ground to think some Infants or little Children were Baptised; but yet if there were not any such therein contained, yet the same Scriptures do afford undeniable Consequences, that some Infants have a Right to Baptism, as I have proved at large. But suppose no Instance in Scripture could be given of an Infant Baptised, or any thing like it; yet if I prove from Scripture they ought to be, it is a sufficient Warrant for us so to do; and I conceive I shall extort a Consent to this from my Brethren from this following Consideration, That there was a time when no Instance could be produced of any Adult that had been Baptised; I mean, in its first Institution; as Abraham could produce no Instance of any that had been Circumcised. Now then according to this Rule none must be Circumcised or Baptised, because no Instance could then be produced of any that had; but you must say, Tho' no Instance could be given of any Adult that had been Baptised, yet when God made it known to be his Will, that so it should be, it was sufficient to justify their Practice in so doing. So say I as to Infants, tho' no Instance could be given of any Infant that had been Baptised, yet if God hath made it known to us in his Word, such aught to be, it is a sufficient Warrant to us so to do; and whether I have proved some Infants Right to Baptism from Scripture, I leave it unto any Understanding, Impartial, and Unprejudiced Reader to judge; and I must tell you, if I have proved their Right to this Ordinance, it is far more than if I could produce an Instance, or many Instances, of such as had; for Right will be Right; but 'tis possible the best of Men (being imperfect) may fail as to some particular Fact. Hence we say, a facto ad jus non valet Argumentum; that is, we cannot from the Fact conclude the Right of the thing. We are not to imitate David in his Adultery, nor Peter in his denying Christ, tho' the one was a Prophet, and the other an Apostle. For tho' it cannot be denied that they did so, yet the Scripture proves they ought not to have done so; and if the Apostles in Baptising of Adult, and not Baptising Infants, (suppose it to be so) did not do the former, and omit doing the latter, upon the Account of the Right the one had, and want of a Right to the other, tho' you could produce a Thousand Instances, we are no more bound to imitate them, than to imitate David in his Adultery, or Peter in Cursing and Swearing; because we are not to live by Examples, but Laws; nay, as notwithstanding such sad Instances in Scripture, we have Liberty, and are bound (not only not to imitate them, but) to act contrary thereunto; so could you prove, that the Apostles never Baptised one Infant; yet if I can prove from Scripture, (as I hope I have) they ought to be Baptised, we ought in this to act contrary to their Practice, and not make one Sin an Inlet into another; since the Right of the thing is more than if you could produce as many Instances as there are Stars in the Firmament without this Right. Let not any think I do this to reflect on the Practice of the Blessed Apostles, God forbidden; for I am confident they were not wanting in the due Administration of any Ordinance in God's House; but I do it to show, that the Right of this Ordinance is more than barely the Action; and that you may see how unreasonable it seems in the Anabaptists to make such a noise about one Infant Baptised, when we can produce that which is more than a Thousand Instances, simply considered; the Apostles did first consider their Right before they Baptised any.  
Obj. 6. But we find no Command in Scripture to Baptise such, and so have good ground to believe it is not the Mind of God such should be Baptised.  
A. There is no need of a Positive Command, or an Express Scripture, in so many plain Words to affirm a thing, in order to the proving a Duty or Truth. We have a Matter of as great Concern, as the Baptism of Old or Young, proved by Christ himself by a bare Consequence, and that is the Resurrection. Mat. 22.31,32. But as touching the Resurrection of the Dead, have ye not read that which was spoken to you of God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: God is not the God of the Dead, but of the Living. This Scripture he citys from Ex. 3.6. to prove the Resurrection, and yet not one Word of the Resurrection mentioned in it, but proves it by Consequence thus; That because God is the God of Abraham, but not the God of the Dead; therefore Abraham must live, not only in his Soul, but the Body, they both making up but the whole of Abraham. And if nothing must be received as a Truth, but what we have a plain Scripture for in so many Words, how will my Friends, the Anabaptists, prove, That the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to any of us, since (tho' we have Scriptures that will prove it as to the Substance, of it yet) I know no Scripture, which in so many plain Words doth affirm it, but perhaps some of the Anabaptists will rather reject this as a Truth, than admit of Infant Baptism; and as to Doctrines, so in Point of Duty. There is no Necessity of an express Command to make it a Duty; to illustrate this, if God command us to be Charitable to poor Saints, tho' the Command makes no mention of any expressly by Name, yet when we see such in Wants, we are bound to relieve them, and cannot omit it, (if able) without Sin; it will not excuse us to say, I am not commanded to relieve such by Name; so tho' Sinners are not called by Name to come to Christ, 'tis their Duty to come; so when God commands us to Baptise all such as we have good ground to hope are Believers, if some Infants are found in that number, we are as much bound to Baptise them as any others, as if mentioned by Name. God once commanded Circumcision to the Jews and their Infant Seed; but if in the New Testament he hath declared (as I have shown) that we come in the Jews room, and that Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision, that Command of Circumcising Infants doth as much enjoin the Baptising of Infants: And no wonder Infants are not mentioned expressly in the New Testament, as the Subjects of Baptism; for since Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision, the Subjects of that Ordinance were so well known, they needed not to be again mentioned; if an express Command is so necessary, I would know what Command the Anabaptists can produce (or instance either) for to Baptise by Dipping. I am certain they can produce no such Command in Scripture; but they will reply, Tho' they have neither Precept or Precedent, yet because the Word signifies so, therefore they do it so, say I, (to say nothing now, how variously that Word is used) as to Baptising Infants. Tho' we have no express Precept in so many Words or Precedent, yet because we have many Words, and great part of some Chapters too in Scripture, that signify to us that some Infants have been, and aught to be Baptised, therefore I do it; and why Significations and Meanings in Scripture may not be allowed to us as well as them, I see not.  
And thus, having produced plain Scripture for Infant Baptism, (since nothing less will do) or at least I conceive as plain as can be produced to Baptise Adult, I shall conclude this Point (touching the Subject) with a reasonable Request to my Christian Friend the Anabaptists, which is, that either they would receive the Doctrine laid down, or give some plain Scripture, to prove something of what I have laid down to be false; and if they will not comply with my Request, that which I have often feared will too evidently appear to be a Truth, that it is Love to a Party (more than to the Truth) that hath made them so earnestly contend; I have often observed, 'tis no easy Matter to convince some Men of Truth; when they have been accustomed to Error, they scorn to be informed by others; the Pride of their Hearts makes them shut their Eyes, that they will not see; (and we say none are so blind as they that will not see) and if this Spirit, or Ignorance, do not prevail with my Reader, I hope he and I shall be both of one Mind for the time to come, which will be the Joy of my Heart; yet not so much, that I have gained the Cause I have been contending for, as that this unhappy Controversy is like to be ended, and my Friends, the Anabaptists, brought to the Acknowledgement of the Truth, as it is in Jesus.  
Having finished my Discourse as to the Subject of Baptism, I designed at first to proceed no further, but to the end that nothing may be wanting, for the full Satisfaction of such as desire it, about the whole of Baptism, I shall make some brief Enquiry as to the manner how this Ordinance ought to be Administered, whether by Dipping only, or otherwise; for I never expect that the Anabaptists should resignup their beloved Errors, so long as they have any thing which looks like a Strong Hold to shelter them: And therefore knowing how earnestly they contend about the Manner how, as well as the Subject who, I shall a little insist on that also. And though perhaps my Reader may cry Victory before he read any further, yet I would desire him to forbear Boasting, at least till he put off the Harness; lest all that hear him in the end Laugh at him. Now the Grand Plea of the Anabaptists for Dipping is, the word in the Original signifies so: But what if the only Reply to them in this Case, should be the same they give to us in other Cases? Give me a plain Scripture, since, Significations, and doubtful Meanings, are of no force with them: But referring my Reader to the late Portsmouth Disputation about the Signification of the word, by Mr. Chandler, etc. not being willing to trouble my Reader with any thing of this Nature in my Book which he may read in another: I shall keep to plain Scripture, since that is most like to convince the common sort of Readers, and shall consider, if the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is used by Christ and his Apostles, (whom we must suppose well knew how to use proper words to express their meaning) can with any show of reason always signifies Dipping under Water; but to prevent all mistakes, (and that the difference may not be by any supposed to be greater than it is) if it be enquired, whether it may not in some case be lawful to Baptise by Dipping? I grant it may; but the Question is, whether we may not as lawfully Baptise some other way? This the Anabaptists deny, and I affirm; and hope I shall prove by these following Texts, Acts 1.5. John Baptised with Water. Now, while 'tis said with Water, not in Water, it seems to imply he did not Dip them, only made use of Water in that Ordinance; for how improper would it be to say, I Dipped such a thing with Water? But not at all to say I washed, such a thing with Water, when we only sprinkle it, or throw Water upon it: See another Text, Mark 7.4. And when they come from the Market, unless they wash they Eat not. Those words, unless they wash, are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unless they Baptise; and the Words of Tables in the end of the Verse is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Beds: Now it is scarce consistent with Reason to suppose that they should so frequently dip their Beds: If they did, we may suppose them very unfit to lie on for some time. The Pharisees had such a proud conceit of themselves, that they thought if they did but deal with others they are defiled by so doing; and therefore after they came from the Market, they were to wash their Hands with which they had delivered any thing to, or received any thing from others; but that they should on all such occasions Dip themselves wholly under Water, seems to be both incredible and ridiculous; and yet this is in the Original called a Baptising, as you have heard. All I have found answered to this, is, that in washing they Dipped their Hands, and so it was Dipping still, though not the whole Body: To which I answer, In washing our Hands we are not wont to Dip them, unless some part of them: So that all they can from hence infer, is, that some little part of the Body ought to be Dipped in Baptism, as much as the Hands or Finger's end; why then do the Anabaptists impose Dipping the whole Body, and hazard the Life by so doing, when it might as well be some little Part of the Body only? If they love Peace, why do they not show themselves willing to comply with us as far as they can with a good Conscience, since they are forced from this Scripture to own there is no necessity from the signification of the Word, to Dip or Plung the whole Body under Water.  
Another Text to be considered, is 1 Cor. 10.2. And where all Baptised into Moses in the Clouds, and in the Sea. But can we suppose they were dipped in the Cloud? On the other hand, doth not the falling of the Rain from a Cloud most exactly answer to our manner of Baptising? The chief Reply I have met with to this, is, That if the Cloud reigned on them while they were going through the Sea, than they could not be said to go through on dry Ground, as the Text affirms. To which I Answer, They that are so careful of the Sense of the Text in one thing, should also of another; for as it is said, They went through on dry Ground; so it is said, They were Baptised in the Cloud; and sure it must mean, some Water came from the Cloud, either to plunge them, or to wash them, or else how could it be called Baptism? Can any be Baptised without Water? I doubt not but if this Scripture would but have countenanced Dipping, as well as some other Washing, the Anabaptists would never have stood on the dry Ground. But what a poor Reply is this, That the Rain could not fall on them; because 'tis said, They went on dry Ground? As if that Mighty God who made a Way for them through the Deep, that the Water (even to a Miracle) stood as a Wall to defend them, could not cause also that the Ground should be dry, notwithstanding some shower might Fall. As if he that dried up the Ocean, could not also dry up some Drops. Suppose the Rain from the Cloud did fall on the Ground, might they notwithstanding go on dry Ground? Yes sure, without a Miracle: We read Gen. 8.14. The Earth was Dried; where the Word Dry, is opposed to the Flood, and not to all Moisture; for it is scarce credible, in an ordinary Way, that after the Earth had been so long soaked by such an unheard of Flood, it should within so few Days be so dried, that it should not have so much Moisture as a small shower of Rain might occasion. When 'tis said the Earth was dried, it shows that the Flood was so far gone that they might walk upon it. So the Israelites, though some Rain might fall on them, yet might properly be said to go on dry Ground; because no doubt but the dry Ground is opposed to the Sea, that was wont to overflow that place.  
See what poor shifts the Ablest of the Anabaptists are forced to make use of to support their tottering Cause: Sure I am, it gives any rational Man cause to suppose they are at a loss, when they can make no better a Reply than thus: See on what slender Grounds they can oppose the plainest Scripture when it makes against them; as if they were resolved to follow their own Fancies, let the Scripture say what it will. Thus you see the Word will justify our way of Baptising; and if so, than the Anabaptists can never justify their Separation from us, or Calumnies against us on that Acount: But because there are some Scriptures which are urged as precedents of Persons Baptised by Dipping, I shall therefore weigh them in the Balance, and see if they are not wanting, to that End for which they are brought. The first Text I shall mention is Rom. 6.4. where we are said to be buried with Christ in Baptism; and so they conclude, that as Persons when Buried are put under the Earth, so when Persons are Baptised, they should be put wholly under the Water. But here they would do well to consider this is but a Metaphor; and 'tis a known Maxim, Similitudes will not run on all four; but if this Metaphor must hold good in all things, then let the Anabaptists be careful that the Party Baptised lie as long under the Water, as the Dead do under the Earth, before they Rise again; but if you say the comparison will not hold good in that, then by your own Confession not in all; and so proves nothing to the point: But if a Burial may serve to set forth Baptism, this makes for us; for as in Burying a Person, they throw the Earth upon him; so we in Baptism throw the Water on the Party Baptised. Another Text is, Acts 8.38. And they went both down into the Water; and so draw a Conclusion, (such a one as it is) that because he went down, therefore he was Dipped: But here I must remind my Friends this is not a plain Scripture to prove Dipping; nor will it afford any more than a poor consequence, (such as I am sure they would reject with the greatest scorn and derision, if brought against them) to conclude, because one went into the Water, therefore under the Water with their whole Bodies, when they might as truly be said to go into the Water, if their Feet were but in● as if under the Water with their whole Body; and no wonder that 'tis said, they went down, since Water usually lies in some bottom; and they that will have it, must go down for it. But now that this going down was not a Dipping, is so clear even from the Text itself, that all that do not wilfully shut their Eyes, must needs see it. 'Tis said, They went both down; and what is said of the one is (in that respect) said of the other. So that if from hence it can be proved that the Eunuch was Dipped, it proves that Philip was Dipped also: From whence I frame an unanswerable Argument from the Words, that the Eunuch was not Dipped. Thus the Eunuch went down no more under Water than Philip: But Philip was not Dipped, therefore not the Eunuch. The Major is clear, for 'tis said, both went down; and if any Scripture can be produced to prove the Eunuch went lower into the Water than Philip, I will believe it: But sure I am this Text is silent, nay, it seems to speak the contrary; for 'tis said, both went down; which Words seem to imply, both went equally down. The Minor I conceive will by most readily be granted, that Philip was not Dipped: And before I would have the Anabaptists believe he was, I desire them to prove it; but though I doubt not but they can produce many Instances of Baptised Persons Dipped among themselves; yet I am ready to believe should they search the World through, they could not produce one instance of an Administrator Dipped. If they think Philip was Dipped, why do not they then imitate him? That the Baptizer, as well as Baptised are Dipped. But do they thus? No, they bind heavy Burdens to lay on others Shoulders, but care not for bearing any part themselves. But I wonder how such as pretend to walk so exactly by Scripture Rule, dare thus mangle it, while they force it to speak in what Langnage they would have it; while they readily embrace what of it seems to make for them, and in the mean time trample under Foot what doth really make against them. They own that Philip was not Dipped: The Text says not one word of the Eunuches going lower than he, into the Water, but much rather proves the contrary; and yet notwithstanding all that this, Scripture speaks against it. Such is the Love of the Anabaptists to Dipping, that the poor Eunuch, will he, nill he, down under Water he must go, whatever becomes of him. He went down into the Water for his own Profit and Pleasure, and they will force him down under the Water for theirs; but I'll soon bring him up again, if they will but have Patience to stand by till I open another Word in that Text. 'Tis said, Both went down. Mind, both were active in going down; from whence I form an Argument to prove this going down was not Dipp●…g in Baptism; thus in Baptism the ●…a●…y Baptised is passive; but in this the Eunuch was not passive; therefore in that Action of going down 〈◊〉 was not Baptised: So that in Baptism the Party to be baptised is passive. I need not stand to prove, since I know none that do affirm that a Persen may in Baptism Dip himself: And if going down is not an Action, I know not what is; so that instead of Pr●…ng from this Text that the Eunuch was Dipped, they have, I am sure, Plunged themselves deep enough into an Ocean of Nonsense, which perhaps may do them more harm (if they have not a care of themselves) than ever the Eunuches going down is like to do them good. But now if we take this Text in its Genuine Sense; it seems to be this, That they both went down into the Water, to the end that Philip might Baptise the Eunuch, but in what manner this Scripture is silent; but it seems most likely by throwing some Water upon him, as we do on those whom we Baptise: And now I leave it to my Reader to judge, whether, this Text (they have so gloried in) will so infallibly prove Dipping; or rather, whether it will not infallibly prove the contrary: But if this is not sufficient to prove it, perhaps some other may; and therefore I come to consider of the next, that so all their Ministers may be heard speak before their Cause is lost.  
Another Text, much urged, to prove a Necessity of Dipping, is Mat. 3.16. And Jesus, when he was Baptised, went up straightway out of the Water; and so conclude, that because he went up, therefore he had been wholly under Water. But sure I am, if we observe the Words, we shall see but little, if any Cause, to suppose, that in that coming up, it was a rising from under Water in Baptism; for 'tis said he went up, was still active. 'Tis not said he was taken up; and I have shown you the Person is Passive in Baptism; and further, 'tis observable, 'tis said he went up when he was Baptised: His going up was an After-Act; now the Anabaptist cannot deny but the coming up out of the Water, as well as going down into it, is a Part of Baptism; for in that Text they so urge; where it is said, We are buried with him in Baptism. Then he mentions Christ's rising again: If then his going up was after Baptism, (as saith the Text) than it can never prove a Necessity for us to go down in Baptism; it seems clear to me, that this going up was not a rising up from under the Water, but a going up from the Water, after he had been Baptised; for we cannot suppose he could live always there; but how he was Baptised before he came up, we know not; if it was by Dipping, this Text will not prove it, no, not by Consequence. The last Text I shall mention, is John 3.23. And John also was Baptising in Enon, for there was much Water there; and conclude, because there was much Water, therefore they were Dipped; but still I find my Friends, the Anabaptists, harping on the same String, (tho' exceedingly out of Tune) as if they were resolved to build their Faith on bare Consequences; a pretty Inference, there was much Water, therefore they were dipped; what may not a Man conclude at this rate? Even what he will, from what he will; as if it was not possible for to Dip our Hand where there is much Water, unless we tumble in over Head and Ears. If I cannot come where much Water is, unless I am dipped, I shall be more ware of it for the time to come; may not a Man as well conclude, because he saw one lighting of a Candle at a good Fire, therefore he is undoubtedly burnt to Ashes? I think he may as well so conclude, and better, since it is certain the Fire was hot enough to burn the one, if he went into it; but it may on good ground be questioned, whether that Water was deep enough to dip the other, had he gone into that. For tho' 'tis said there was much Water there, yet it is most certain, that Water which was counted much with them, would be counted but little with us; for 'tis reported by such as give us the best Account of those Countries, that Water is so scarce in those Parts, that a Man may go Seven Days Journey sometimes before he finds Water enough to drink; and therefore, almost to a Miracle, those Inhabitants are able to live with little or no Drink: And sure I am, our late Writers on this Subject have given good ground to believe, that Water was not so much as the Anabaptists suppose it to be. But if it was Deep enough to Dip, yet here is no mention made, that they were so; and our Enquiry is not, whether they might possibly have been Dipped, but whether they were so; and therefore till this or some other Scripture speaks more plainly of this Matter, I would desire the Anabaptists to be silent concerning it. All that this Text proves, is, that much Water was there, but how much they made use of in Baptism, it mentions nothing of that.  
And now I have considered such Texts as seem to make for Dipping, I desire my Reader to consider well of two Texts that seem to make against it, that so we may see how far the Scripture doth prove an absolute Necessity for Dipping in Baptism: One is, Acts 16.33. And he took them the same Hour of the Night, (that is, at Midnight, Ver. 25.) and was Baptised, he and all his straightway: For tho' we cannot infallibly conclude they were not Dipped, because it might be possible; yet sure I am we may as well conclude from hence they were not Dipped, as they could conclude they were, because there was much Water there. 'Tis said, at Midnight, he and all his were Baptised; now we cannot well suppose, that they should rise, and be plunged in a River at Midnight. But suppose they were willing, yet (since Water was so scarce, as I have hinted) it may justly be questioned, whether there was Water enough near at Hand to Dip, for we cannot suppose them to go far at Midnight to seek for such a Water; but there is one Text more, which seems as if it were given on Purpose to confute the Necessity of Dipping, in Acts 8.36. See here is Water, what hinders me that I may not be Baptised? Observe he doth not say, here is deep Water, or much Water, but only Water; supposing, that if there was but Water, be it more or less, there could be no Hindrance, why he should not be Baptised, 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: What hinders? Why, 'tis 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 Water, there can be no Hindrance on that Account. But some may say, This was a deep Water of which he spoke. 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 informed 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 Water enough to be Baptised in; but since he only mentions Water, and Philip seems to consent to him, I frame an Argument thus; If nothing can hinder a Person being Baptised (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? etc. 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 Baptising, 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 Baptising 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 Baptise, 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 Precedent for that. Lydia and her Household, the Jailor and all his, were immediately Baptised, when those two believed; but now if we were to imitate them (and should Baptise, by Dipping) we must extremely hazard the Lives, even of Adult in the Winter; and whether of these three we should choose, to Baptise 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 Precedent in Scripture so to do) and so endanger the Life, or sinfully to defer 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 Baptise, 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 Baptised 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 persuaded 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 aught, under our Circumstances, to be administered, and now desire my Christian Friends, the Anabaptists, to prove, that the Word is never used to any other End, than to signify Dipping or Plunging the whole Body under Water; or because they went down into the Water, or were where much Water 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 Baptising, 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 men's Spirits by their Writings; the Poison of Asps seems to be under their Tongue. 'Tis 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 Raillery 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 Judgement of most to be unable to do) he falls into such Scurrilous, Filthy, Abominable Language, as for modesty sake I omit, rendering 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 Balance 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, than I desire that in as mild a Spirit they confute me with solid Arguments from Scripture; which Confutation shall not break my Head, or enrage 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 Persuasion, 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 wrist the Scripture, and most grossly 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 citys 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 Judgement is so well known, I may spare my Labour: Had this Author had as much Honesty as Learning, I am persuaded 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 'tis certain he did not with some of them) no wonder he concealed his Name, lest on this account it should be rendered hateful to the World. Why did he not cite that whole passage of Calvin's? May not Scripture itself 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. 'Tis a poor shelter to make Lies our Refuge, and under Falsehood to hid ourselves; 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 employ 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 persuaded many of the Anabaptist Persuasion are Persons dear to God, (I mean of those that are against the Doctrine of ) and that what some of them hold is out of Tenderness of Conscience; yet that wicked Spirit which hath discovered itself 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 Confidence 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 Baptising Believers, who never were Baptised 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 Baptised 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 practise accordingly; for 'tis 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 a Privilege to their own Children, and so rob them of their Birthright. Such may fitly be compared to the Ostrich, a  Creature, Job 39.16. who is said to be hardened against her young Ones, as if they were none of hers. Suppose a wicked Parent have godly Children grown up, and should confine them from the Ordinances of God's House, (tho' he could not destroy their Souls thereby, yet because he did what he could in order thereunto) any godly Person would judge such a one an unmerciful Parent; how much more may believing Parents be so counted, while they deny the Infant Seed the Ordinance of Baptism, which God hath given them a Right unto, tho' they cannot destroy their Souls. So that as you would not be charged for not having natural Affection, as you would not contract Gild upon your Souls, and pluck down Judgements upon yourselves, by not walking in all the Ordinances of the Lord blameless, bring your Infant Seed to be Baptised, be found in God's Way, doing for them what you can, and then you may with the more Comfort expect God should do for them that which you cannot; and that while you lay them at the Pool side, the Waters may be made healing to their diseased Souls; for we can never, without Presumption, expect the Blessing of God, in Neglect or Contempt of those Means he hath appointed, in order to enjoy it.  
Were your Children sick Corporally, Nature would stir you up to use the Means which God hath appointed in order to their Recovery; and if you believe your Infant Seed stand in need of Mercy, one would think Grace should excite you to use the Means which God hath appointed for the Good of their Souls, that so they may not curse you in Hell, for not doing what you might do, and aught to have done, in order to the bringing them to Heaven.  
Obj. But against the Practice of this Duty I have heard some argue thus: Tho' they cannot answer the Arguments brought to prove it a Duty, yet they cannot see into it; and because whatever is not of Faith is Sin, hence conclude it would be Sin in them so to do.  
Ans. Suppose it is so, I would ask such whether it may not be a far greater Sin, that it is not of Faith? Or do you think that your Sins of Ignorance (when Light shines so clear) must not be accounted for? Paul hath declared, that once he was so ignorant, that he verily thought he ought to do many things contrary unto the Name of Jesus; as in Acts 26.9. And he did so, and made Havoc of the Church, and Blasphemed. And here we will suppose it would have been his Sin, not so to have done, because he verily thought he ought; and so, had it been absolutely a Duty, he would have neglected it. But I would ask such Objectors, if they think it was not his Sin, that he was so persuaded? Nay, was it not a far greater Sin than we can once suppose it to have been, had he in that Case acted contrary to his Faith or Persuasion? If you deny it, you are guilty of as great Blasphemy as ever he was. Well then, it seems there is Danger of Sin on either Hand; thou may'st (we will suppose) sin in doing it, and thou may'st sin also in not doing it. Now in this Case there is a Rule for ever carefully to be observed, That when two Evils lie before us, and one of them cannot possibly be avoided, the least is to be chosen; and if this Rule is to be observed, then to me it seems far safest for such to Baptise their Infant Seed, since their doing that which they are not fully satisfied in, may be but accidentally a Sin, but their not doing that which God hath made known to be a Duty, (whether they, through Ignorance, see it to be so or no) is directly a Sin; and more especially is it safest for such as are Members in such Churches, where the Pastor and Majority of the Church are of that Judgement, because then by not doing it, they not only are in Danger (to say no more) of contracting Gild to their Souls, by not being found in their Duty, but hereby take the ready way to cause Strife and Contention in that Church, whose Peace they are obliged to seek, if our Persuasion touching the Lawfulness of a thing will make it Lawful; then this is to measure ourselves by ourselves, and to esteem our own Fancies above the Word of God. Since let the Word of God hold forth what it will, it no ways obliges (in those Person's Judgement) unless I am persuaded 'tis a Truth. Cursed Doctrine! What is this but grand Quakerism, to prefer the Light within before the Word of God in the Scripture? But if (as Christ saith) the Light within be Darkness, (as sure it is when it opposes the written Word) than how great is that Darkness?  
Thus, Christian Reader, I have in all Plainness of Speech taken Liberty freely to express my Sentiments about the Doctrine of Infant Baptism; and whatever the Effects may be, if I know my Heart, I designed nothing in it but God's Glory, and thy Good, and to put an end to our unprofitable Differences; and should I miss my Aim in this latter Respect, yet I hope this will not indirectly cause our Differences to be wider; for what if we cannot fully agree in this, yet since we agree many of us in Fundamentals, and hold one Lord, and one Faith, this Consideration should surely more unite us, than our Differences in smaller Matters should divide us; we cannot suppose, while so much Darkness remains upon our Understandings, that we should all be fully of one Mind in all things, any more than we can suppose we should all be of the same Complexion, or Stature of Body; but as it is enough, in order to bring us into a rational Converse, that we are all Men and Women, tho' we may vastly differ in Features, and Proportion of Body; so it should be enough to reconcile us in Love and Affection, that we are Christians, tho' not in all things of the same Mind, and same Judgement, and that we are all Fellow-Travellers to the New Jerusalem. Tho' we may not walk in the same Path, or tread exactly in each others Steps, sure I am, when we get to Heaven, we shall sweetly agree. O desirable Day! when Ephraim shall no more envy Judah, nor Judah vex Ephraim; when we who now know but in part, and see but darkly, shall then see Face to Face, and know even as we now are known; when all our dark and confused Conceptions about the Mysteries of the Gospel shall all vanish and disappear, as the Mists and Fogs before the rising Sun. And when that time (much of which was spent in Striving and Contending) shall wholly be spent in Praising and Admiring him that loved us, and washed away our Sins in his own Blood; how shall we then all be employed (who are Saints) in the same Work, sing all the same Song, all joined in the same Assembly, all behold and love the same Object? Yea, how shall we then hug and embrace each other, as Fellow-Heirs of the same Kingdom, and Children of the same Father, and Members of the same Body. I am fully satisfied our Differences are not so great here, as our Love to one another will be there; we shall no more strive about the Way, when we enjoy the End.  
And since we are so unlike fully to agree here, and so certain to agree there, how should it make all the sincere Lovers of Peace (who have been mourning for these Divisions which are among the People of God) cry out with the most Earnest and Longing Desires, come Lord Jesus, come quickly? Amen.  
FINIS.   

A QUESTION Briefly Handled, CONCERNING What State or Condition the Soul is in, in the very Act of Coming unto Christ.  
A QUESTION Briefly Handled, CONCERNING What State or Condition the Soul is in, in the very Act of Coming unto Christ.  
READER, we live in a Luxurious Wanton Age, when many, even of Professors, who instead of Offering Violence to the Kingdom of Heaven, instead of giving all Diligence to make their Calling and Election sure; who instead of earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered to the Saints, are spending most of their Precious Time no better than those Athenians, Acts 17.21. either to tell or to hear some new Thing. To mention all those new Opinions which have been vented of late by Men of Corrupt Minds, Reprobate concerning the Truth, would be tedious to me to Write, and unprofitable to you to Read. I shall only Discourse Briefly upon one, which is this, That Sinners wreeking in their Lusts, must come to Christ as they are. 'Tis too well known how this Notion hath been spread abroad of late, and received too even with such full satisfaction and content, that it is a Gospel Truth, that by such all others are despised as no Gospel Preachers, that dare open their Mouths to oppose it: And sure I am, when Error thus abounds, it highly concerns such as are set for the Defence of the Truth, to open their Mouths in Vindication of it. I confess I have a long time only bewailed these things, to see the Truths of the Gospel Despised, and Precious Souls lie Entangled in the Snare of the Devil, and unwilling to be delivered; But while I refrained my Speech the Fire kindled; and now of necessity I must speak in Defence of the Truth as it is in Jesus, come on what will; and I do it for these Reasons.  
First, Because I have been judged Erroneous by some (who have been too empty of Knowledge, or full of Prejudice) who have heard me oppose this Doctrine, who I have reason to think are no less concerned than those Ephesians, Acts 19.34. who without consulting the Truths the Apostle had Preached, or proving the Lawfulness of their Idolatrous Practice, cry out like Madmen for the space of two Hours, Great is Diana of the Ephesians; and no wonder, because they Lived upon the Silver Shrines; and had their Goddess been contemned, their Craft had been ended. And since I have delivered my Sentiments on this Point, it stands me in hand to Vindicate it, since I have Truth on my side; for otherwise I should rather take shame to myself: And since it must needs be difficult for any, or at least for most to judge of such deep Mysteries and Niceties upon a Transcient hearing, I am willing to expose my Sentiments, that so I may either silence my Opposers, or they may shame me. For my part, as I never durst utter any thing rashly in so weighty a Point, before I had exactly weighed it in the Balance of the Sanctuary; so I am so far from recanting any thing I have delivered on this Point, (notwithstanding all the Calumnies of my Adversaries, whose Eyes the God of this World hath in part blinded) that I hope I shall be able to defend it to my last Breath; and I am the more encouraged to defend this Truth, That no Man can or aught to come to Christ in his Sins, by the good Success I have had in many private Conferences about it; for I never yet Conversed with any that opposed it, but either I have convinced them of their Error, and brought them to embrace the truth they once despised, or at least so stopped their Mouths that they have been able no longer to be Gainsayers; and indeed what can be said against the Truth? That will stand, when Errors will, like the Chaff, be driven away: Errors are but Windy Doctrines.  
Second Reason moving me to clear this Point, is, because 'tis so weighty a Doctrine, and even the turning Point of Christianity, the Foundation Stone of all the Building; and Errors in the Foundation are dangerous; what greater concern than to know how a Soul must close with Christ? Since that Soul that closes not with him, shall never be Saved by him: For he that Believes not shall be Damned, Mark 16.16. And how unmerciful must that Minister be to Souls, and unfaithful to Christ, that canst see a Multitude at once running on with such a Lie in their Right Hand, and not inform them. If we see one going to Drink down some Deadly Poison, though the Person through a Distempered Brain, or by violence of some strong Temptation desire to Drink it; yet if we know it, and do not our utmost to prevent it, we cannot be clear of his Blood; so when we see Persons imbibing Damnable Doctrines, we ought speedily to provide an Antidote, and that though we cannot inform all in all the deep Mysteries of the Gospel, by reason of that gross Darkness that hath covered many; yet that we might not shun to declare the whole Counsel of God, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear.  
Third Reason, Because the Error I oppose, not only passes for a Truth with many, but for such a Truth as doth most magnify the Grace of God, and so is like to do the more harm. When Error appears with a bare face, it will seem so Deformed, that but few will fall in Love with it; but when the Devil wraps himself in Samuel's Mantle, it's hard toknow him. This Doctrine sets up  by Craft, and that under a Notion of Freegrace; and though nothing differs more than those Two yet the Patrons are minded to let the World see what they can do by Art; and whether they cannot make some take bitter for sweet, Is. 5.20. But because that Monster of  is but of low esteem with some, therefore for love they have to this Creature, they have bestowed a new Garb upon it, and have changed its Name too; calling that which always went by the Name of , now Freegrace; whereby they have so altered the Property of the thing, that the owners thereof scarce know it; and so Gilled over their Poisonous Pill that it may go down the better.  
Fourth, Because this Doctrine I oppose, suiting so with our Corrupt Nature, is like to infect the more: But I shall not stay you any longer at the Threshold, but lead you into the Point before us. But that our Differences may not seem greater than they really are, I shall lay down some things, as Cautious to prevent mistakes; for I am persuaded that most of our unhappy Differences do arise from a want of a right Understanding of each others Terms; and therefore observe carefully.  
1. The Enquiry is not concerning the State and Condition which Christ finds the Soul in, when he first comes to take hold on us by his Spirit, in order to Regenerating of us; if it was, I would readily grant, he than finds the Soul wreeking in Sin indeed, without the least propensity or inclination to do Good; yea, to every Good Word and Work Reprobate, with a strong inclination to Evil, in a Dead, Blind, Ignorant, Senseless, and Stupid Condition, in the Snere of the Devil: In this State we all are by Nature, and consequently in this State he must find all when he comes to Change their Nature, our Nature's being all the same, as derived from one Common Root; though our Actions may differ according to the various Temptations we may meet with. But 'tis about the Souls coming to Christ; between which a clear distinction must be made; for though Christ enable us to come to him, or believe in him, yet he doth not Believe for us to excuse us: The Act of coming is ours, and till the Soul thus come the union is incomplete; I grant when Christ comes thus to the Soul, that Soul shall come to Christ; yet his coming to us, is not our coming to him, though the Cause of our coming: Things that are inseparable, must not be confounded; the Humane and Divine Nature are inseparable in Christ; yet the Divine is not the Humane, nor the Humane the Divine: So in Marriage, the Man consents to the Woman, and the Woman to the Man; but yet the consent of the Woman is not the consent of the Man. So in this Case, Christ is first willing, and he makes us willing, yet his Will and our Will are distinct.  
2. Nor are we Enquiring by what Power the Soul is enabled to come to Christ; for tho' I have just cause to question, whether those that differ from me in the other, will agree with me in this; yet for my own part, tho' I plead for a mighty Change wrought in order to our coming to Christ, yet I freely acknowledge this Change to be of God; and that the very Seeds of our Life of Sanctification are from Christ working as a most free Agent in us, and that it is a mighty and irresistible Power by which he works.  
3. Nor are we Enquiring what Virtue there is in this Act of coming in order to our Justification or Glorification: For though I believe, and the Scripture affirms, that unless we Believe, we shall never be Justified nor Glorified, yet I believe both are according to the Riches of God's Freegrace: It is Freegrace that works this Change, enabling of us to come; and it is Freegrace that we are accepted when we do come.  
But positively the Enquiry is, whether there is such a thing as a Change wrought in the Soul, in order to our coming to Christ? Or whether we must come as we are, in a Natural and Unregenerate State, wreeking in the Filth of Sin, and Power, and Dominion of our Lusts? Or whether the Drunkard, Swearer, etc. can or aught, without any Change, to come in those Lusts to Christ? So that the Question is, whether a Sinner can or aught to come to Christ in his Sins? But before I affirm or deny, I must further explain, if possible, what we mean by coming, and what by coming in our Sins, lest my Opposers, when not able to stand their Ground, should slip out at some Backdoor. Now, by coming to Christ, I understand believing in Christ according to Scripture Dialect, Isa. 55.1. Mat. 11.28. and to put all out of doubt, I have been assured again and again from the Mouths of those that differ from me in this Point, that they mean nothing else; and by coming in Sin, I understand it, for one utterly devoid of any Principle of Grace, one in the Gall of Bitterness, and Bonds of Iniquity, and not one that only falls into Sin: And so I have also been assured by my Opposers they mean; and indeed we cannot understand it otherwise; for tho' the best of Saints have Sin, yet the least of Saints is not a Sinner. I distinguish between Actions and a State, a Sinner in this Sense is not opposed to Perfection, but to Sincerity: So that in the most plain Terms, the Question lies thus, Whether a Person utterly devoid of all Grace, and under the Power and Dominion of Sin, can or aught to believe in Christ in that State, before any Change be wrought in him? This some affirm, and I deny: And in speaking to this Point, I shall prove none can come thus in their Sins to Christ; and then, that none ought to come thus in his Sins to Christ. I prove the former from most express Scripture, Eph. 1.19. And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who Believe; and if we cannot believe without this Power, than not as we are; for all are not acted by this Power, John 6.44. No man can come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him. Now I would ask if all Men are thus drawn? If not, you give away the Cause; if you say they are, than it follows that all must actually be Saved, or else some are able to resist those drawings; the latter of which is Grand Arminianism, the former many degrees worse. So John 15.5. For without me ye can do nothing. Now I would ask, if coming to Christ is not something? Nay, is it not the most noble act the Soul can put forth; and that which is most pleasing and acceptable to God? And if so, the Text says, without Christ we cannot do it. Now I would ask, if every Man hath Christ in him, as the Quakers affirm? If you say he hath, you show what you are; if not, then when assisted by Christ we do not come as we were. Thus you see how expressly the Scripture is on my side; and whether we may most safely trust that Word of God, or the Deluded Fancies of Men, judge ye.  
And as I have proved it from most express Scripture; so I shall further prove it from those Metaphors the Scripture uses to express it: As first, It is frequently styled a Coming; a Metaphor or borrowed Expression from a Man walking from one place to another. And from this two Considerations offer themselves for the confirming and illustrating the Truth, I have affirmed; for as no Man can act corporally till he is first alive; so no Man can put forth such a vital Act as believing in Christ, till Christ hath first infused into him a vital Principle; and till then, a Dead Man may as well walk, as a Man Spiritually Dead come to Christ. Now than I ask, have all Men such a vital Principle? If you affirm it, you oppose the Scripture, Ephes. 2.1. if you deny it, than you either give me the Cause, or affirm a Dead Man can walk: And further, in all Corporal Motion, there is the Term, from which and to which; so in the Spiritual Motion of the Soul to Christ, we come from Sin to Christ. And now I have proved this from Scripture, I shall cite some Authors of my Judgement, that so my Reader may see it is not only my Opinion: And I shall only cite such as the Patrons of this Opinion seem to admire as well as I, that so you may see how they not only oppose the Scripture and me, but also those Authors which they seem to confide in more than either, that so you may see how these, like Madmen, even tear themselves. The Learned Pemble is of my Mind in his Treatise of Grace and Faith; and there spends many Pages to prove that the habits of all Grace are infused into the Soul in Regeneration, before an Act of Faith can be put forth by that Soul; and why these Men should not as well believe him in this, as well as in his Notion of Eternal Justification (especially since he hath clear Scripture on his side for the former, but not a word for the latter;) seems strange to me: But indeed I need not wonder, since they that thus pick and cull this Author, taking what suits with their Opinion, and rejecting the rest, do serve the unerring Word of God no better: And if they dare serve Paul so, 'tis no wonder if they deal so with Pemble. Dr. Goodwin is on my side; in his Treatise on the Ephesians, he hath these words, 'Tis affirmed, saith he, by Sound and Able Divines, and that on good Ground, that the Principles of all Grace are infused into the Soul before the Soul can put forth an Act of Faith; with several passages to the same purpose, which for brevity sake I omit. Dr. Owen gives abundant Testimony to the same Truth; in his Treatise on Justification he saith thus, Justifying Faith is not to be found in any but those whose Natures are renewed, and in whom there is a Principle of all Grace. Thus you may see in a little how far these Divines were from this Error. But because I have not to do with professed Arminians, but with such as privily bring in this Erroneous Doctrine, I shall therefore come to consider what their Pleas are, and in Answering of them I shall further clear the Point I am upon; and then I shall answer some Questions.  
1. Some I have heard say by coming in Sin, we mean such must be sensible of Sin, and so come.  
Ans. If such mean as they say, why do they not always explain their meanings? And sure I am, if this is all such mean, such Preachers are miserably mistaken by their Hearers, who hereupon conclude they must come without any Change. 'Tis well known how, with some, Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion; and I am well satisfied this is but a Jesuitical Shift, that when they cannot justify that rotten Notion of coming to Christ in their Sin, than they tell us (if we will believe them) they mean only sensible of Sin; but this Notion shall never be heard of till no other Answer will serve: But what Soul-cousening is it to say one thing and mean another; suppose they do mean so, Pulpits should be places to to Explain things in. But that this Cobweb may not cover such Deceit, consider when they say, we must be sensible of Sin; they mean, either that they have some Sin adhering to them, or else that they are sensible they are in that Moment in a Sinful Unchanged State: If they mean the former only, they give away the Cause; for we are enquiring into the State; and certainly if not in a Sinful State, 'tis because in a Changed State, unless some do not come into the World in such a State, and so need no Change; but if by being sensible of their Sin, they mean a Sinful State; then they are sensible of that which is, or is not; if sensible of that which is, than they openly declare such are in an Unchanged State, only add a Sense to the thing itself; if they say they are sensible of a sinful State, when their State is not so; then this is no less than to affirm that a Delusion is the only Qualification prerequisite in order to our coming to Christ:  
2. But some may say, we own 'tis Christ that brings us, and so we do not rob Christ of his Honour, or Arrogate any thing to ourselves as you suppose, but we affirm he brings us unto himself in our Sins. To which I answer, 'tis not enough to honour Christ, to say he doth a thing, unless the thing done be well done; 'tis far from being an Honour to Christ to make him the Author of Sin: But to come to a more direct Answer, I lay down this Proposition, That some things are impossible to be done by God himself; the Scripture affirms 'tis impossible to God to Lie, and that he cannot deny himself; whatever is sinful cannot be done by that God that is Goodness itself; nor doth this inability arise from weakness, but strength. Some things are contrary in Nature, and so cannot be done, as to make it Dark and Light at the same time, and in the same place; to make a Man Dead and Alive at the same time, and in the same respect. Now I shall inquire whether 'tis not impossible, under one or both of these Considerations, for a Soul to be brought to Christ (though by the power of Christ) in his Sins as aforesaid: I shall not now insist on the former, how far such a Work would savour of Sin; but sure I am in the latter Sense it is impossible; and for the clearing this, Consider, our coming to Christ is an Act of the Will; we are willing to renounce all confidence in the Flesh, and to rely alone on Christ. Now I would ask whether this Will is in all Men by Nature; if such deny it, then where this Will is, there is a change wrought in that Soul, and a great change too, Psal. 110.3. A willing People in the Day, etc. If such say this Will is in Men by Nature, than they not only prove themselves Arminians, but virtually deny what before they affirmed, that they come by the power of Christ: But if they say, tho' unwilling by Nature, yet they are made willing by the Power of Christ to come, yet without a Change in the Will, this is a grand contradiction in Nature to say, that a Person who is unwilling, should be made willing, and yet no change made in his Will; and yet this gross absurdity my Opposers will unavoidably hereby pluck down upon their own Heads; I think it is safest to attribute the Work to Christ in such a manner as may not in the least savour of Sin, or carry in it the least absurdity or contradiction. But now Christ can no ways be chargeable with Sin in bringing a Soul from Sin; nor is it the least contradiction to say a Man of unwilling is now changed and made willing; or for a Dead Man, when made alive, to act and move; it would have been strange to see Lazarus have risen and walked while Dead; but not strange at all to see him walk when Christ had quickened him: So in this case.  
3. But say some, when we press Sinners to come to Christ in their Sins, we do not mean that they can so come, but that they ought so to come: And forasmuch as this Reply hath the fairest show of truth; I shall consider what of truth it really hath in it: Now to this I answer, by making this necessary distinction, 'tis one thing for it to be the Duty of Sinners to come to Christ, another thing to come in their Sins to Christ: And though I readily grant 'tis the Duty of such as are in their Sins to come, that is, to cease to do Evil, and to learn to do Well; and by the strength of God's Grace to leave the Sins they now are in, yet I absolutely deny 'tis their Duty to come in their Sins. Though I do not expect all should reach this, who are not used to distinctions. I shall endeavour therefore to illustrate this to you thus; 'tis one thing for it to be the Duty of an unchanged Person to come, another for that Person to come unchanged. 'Tis the Duty of Sinners to keep the Law, but not to keep it in their Sins: 'Tis the Duty of a Man Drunk to praise God, because he is not in Hell, but 'tis not his Duty to praise him Drunk: His praising denotes the Work, his praising of him Drunk would denote the manner how he should perform the Work, and if this should be granted, it would as much be such a Person's Duty to be Drunk, when engaged in that Work, as to be engaged in that Work.  
To illustrate this, God hath made it our Duty to Praise him, and to Worship him in Spirit and Truth; the Worship denotes the Work, to do it in Spirit is the manner of Working, and one is a Duty as well as the other; so that tho' it is the Duty of a carnal Man to Worship God, yet not to Worship him carnally. So though it is the Duty of Sinners to come, yet not to come in their Sins; for this would make Sin a Duty; there may be a great difference in Sense, when there may be but little in Sound. To give you an Instance, whole Christ is one thing, the whole of Christ is another thing; the Protestants own whole Christ to be ; but Hundreds have chose rather to burn at a Stake than to own the whole of Christ to be : But I suppose the Patrons of this Opinion will never suffer much for Truths no clearer distinguished than thus; though to any understanding Person the difference is exceeding great; but unless a Man can find some men's Understandings as well as Truths, the Truths they prepare and explain to them will be but assom any Pearls cast before Swine, which will rather Enrage them, make them turn again and rend them, than be profitable unto them: So Christ assumed the Nature that was Polluted, but not the Pollution of that Nature.  
But to put all out of doubt, I shall come in a more familiar Style to prove, that though it is undoubtedly the Duty of Sinners to come to Christ, or believe in Christ; yet it is not so much as their Duty to come in their Sins to Christ; the great difference between which, I hope by what hath been said you now will understand: For as I have hinted, when I say 'tis the Duty of a Sinner to come, it denotes no more than thus, that it is his Duty to come from Sin to Christ; but for any to come in their Sins to Christ, denotes they must bring their Sins to Christ; which is as impossible as to bring the East and West into one Point; the disagreement between Christ and Sin not being so little as many do imagine, What Communion hath Light with Darkness? Christ is well pleased to see a Soul come from Sin; but it is impossible for a Soul to come in Sin, nor is it his Duty so to come; which I prove from these following Arguments.  
Argument 1. That which no Man was ever able to do, is not so much as our Duty to do; but no Man was ever able to come to Christ in his Sins, therefore 'tis not so much as our Duty so to do. My Major I conceive will be granted, only carefully observe, I say that which no Man ever was able to do; I do not say that which no Man is now able to do, is not his Duty: For if we consider Man in his fallen State, so many things are his Duty to which he hath no strength to do, and God may justly condemn him for not doing them, because his Inability was procured by himself; but God commands us to do nothing now but what Adam had Power to perform, if God had but made it known to be his Duty: And for any to deny my Major Proposition, would be to affirm, that God hath given Man a Law, which was absolutely impossible to be kept, and damns his Creatures for not obeying of it, which hath too harsh a sound to be received for a Truth. Minor Proposition: But no Man ever was able to come to Christ in his Sins. That we who are in a fallen and unregenerate State cannot come to Christ, while such, I hope I have sufficiently proved; and it is impossible that Adam should have Power to come in Sin before he had committed Sin. Therefore I conclude, that tho' it is the Duty of Sinners to come from Sin to Christ, or to believe in Christ, because Thousands have by Grace been so enabled to come, and Adam had once a Power to believe any thing that God should reveal; yet because never any was able to come to Christ in his Sins, therefore 'tis not so much as a Duty so to do; for tho' God hath sent many Sinners to Hell, for not coming to Christ, yet I am confident he never sent one Soul to Hell for not coming to Christ in his Sins; for this would be to damn Souls for not continuing in Sin.  
Argument 2. He that ought to come to Christ in a sinful State, aught to continue in him in the same State; but no Man can continue in Christ, and a sinful State. Therefore no Man ought to come in a sinful unrenewed State to Christ. The former part of my Argument is clear from Col. 2.6. As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord; so walk ye in him. Now you know the present Enquiry is, what 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 itself 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 aught 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, etc. 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) than 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 style 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 Sense 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 lie 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 Sovereignty lay all the Sins of all the Elect on Christ, imputing the Gild 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 lie under Condemnation; and to this dying Sacrifice we must look for Comfort, as appointed thereto of the Father, under the Sense of Sin; for without shedding of Blood there is no Remission. This is that Escape 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 Gild 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, than 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 Sense aforesaid, yet now 'tis 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 completed 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 lies to crucify 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 satisfy the Justice of God for it; and as this was the end, so either Christ hath fully satisfied Justice or not; if he hath, than 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, than they declare their cursed Heresy.  
And as for those who are so confident, that their filthy Lusts must of Necessity lie on Christ or them, I would ask them this Question, where will those Sins lie at Judgement? For 'tis expressly 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. 'Tis 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 aught 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 justify 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, than 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 moulded into what Form some please to promote their own Interest. The Apostle tells us some Scriptures are hard to be understood, and I am persuaded this is one of them; nor do I much wonder if the Ignorant wrist 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 show 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 itself; you will find in the foregoing Verses this Instance is taken from Abraham; from whence it is evident, and I think passed all Dispute, that if by Ungodly we are to understand such as have no Grace, than 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 itself; 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 itself 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 styled a Believer; and such as lay so much Stress on the Order of the Words, as to conclude, that because the Word Justify 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 show 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 'tis impossible, but that we must in a Legal Sense 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 ourselves instead of Christ. God will not justify 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 complete and spotless Righteousness of Christ; nor am I fingular in my Sense 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 Freegrace, as it hath done; nay, this is so far from being a Doctrine of Freegrace, that it is grand Arminianism, and a setting up of ; 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, than 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 , as ever Arminius himself delivered. The Substance of this Question is, whether the Union between Christ and the Soul gins 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 magnify the Grace of God, to affirm the Union gins 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 our consent to Christ is the effect of his consent to us, I must leave it to my Reader to judge.  
Or the Substance of this Question is this, whether the Soul is first Active or Passive? They that affirm that the Soul comes to Christ in its Sins unrenewed, make the Soul first Active; they who say the Soul acts as a renewed Soul, make it first Passive; which is such an undoubted Truth, that I dare venture my Salvation on it; and I hope I have clear Scripture on my side, John 5.25. Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Hour is coming, and now is, when the Dead shall hear the Voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall Live: Which cannot be meant only of the Resurrection of the Body, because it is said the Hour now is; but it hath respect to the quickening of the Soul from the Death in Sin: And it clearly proves that Christ finds the Soul Dead, when he comes to put forth this Quickening Voice; for look, as with Lazarus, Christ calls him while Dead, Lazarus come forth; and by this Call infuses Life into him, and so enables him to come forth: Had another called, he might have wasted his Lungs in calling, before he would have stirred. So Christ calls us when Dead in Sin, and with the call puts Life into us, and so enables us to hear and obey his Voice, Ephes. 2.1. You hath he quickened, etc. Then it seems Christ quickened them; and indeed if he do not, we cannot; and as Gahazi could only lay the Staff on the Face of the Child, but could not put Life into him till the Prophet came, 2 Kings 4.31,32,33. so till Christ the great Prophet bring home the Word to the Heart, we call and cry in vain; we can but Prophecy over dry Bones, but that Breath that quickens them is from the Lord, Ezek. 37.5. Hence Christ the Second Adam is called a quickening Spirit, 1 Cor. 15.45. And to prove yet further, that the Soul is first Passive before it is Active. We have another most clear Text, Eph. 2.10. For we are his Workmanship created in Christ Jesus, etc. Mind, we are created. Now you know that in Creation we were Passive, as the Clay in the Hand of the Potter: Man cannot be supposed to have any Hand in Creating of himself; so that as Man was first purely Passive in the Hand of God, and must receive a Natural Life, before he could perform a Natural Action; so is the Soul as purely passive, while God infuses the first Grace whereby the Soul is enabled to put forth that vital Act of coming to Christ; so Rom. 10.20. I was found of them that sought me not: I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.  
I cannot but pity such deluded Souls as receive the Doctrine I am confuting for a Doctrine of Freegrace, who are ever Learning, and never able to come to the Knowledge of the Truth. It's a sore Judgement to be given over to believe a Lie, and to be left to feed on a Stone instead of Bread, and not to be able to discern between a Fish to nourish us, and a Scorpion to sting us. I have observed one great difference in Doctrine among some Dissenters, whereby Meeting is set up against Meeting in the same Town, to the great dishonour of God, and hindrance to Religion lies in this. Some affirm what I have proved, and are therefore termed Dark, Legal, Muddy Preachers; the others look upon themselves to be the only Gospel Preachers, because they cry down all Qualifications in the Soul when it comes to Christ, Gracious ones not excepted: But who will be best able to defend their Doctrine at the Great Day, I hope, by what hath been spoken, you will be able to Judge, if they mean what they say, or indeed know what they say. The difference between us is this, they own Christ to be the Purchaser of all our Benefits, so do I; but here we differ, they say we must go to him in all our Sins for them; I say, he that purchased them, doth enable us to come to him, and so I attribute the Application to him also; and now judge who Preaches Free Grace most clearly; I make Christ the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End; they make him only the Beginning; and affirm, that if Sinners do not come as they are, they must be Damned. If Christ saves none but such as come to him thus in their Sins, that is, by their own power, (for if Sinners are acted by the Power of God, than they do not come as they are) what a Remnant will be saved? A Remnant did I say? Nay, I dare affirm, if that be true, not one Soul shall be saved: Man is naturally unwilling to come to Christ, John 5.40. And ye will not come to me that ye might have Life: Which Text only proves there is a Will in Man not to come to Christ; though it be for Life, they will Die rather; and how hard a thing do Ministers find it to persuade Souls to come to Christ. Now if this is the Nature of all, than those whose Wills are not changed will never come; and if their Wills are changed by a Divine Power, and they so enabled to come, than they do not come in their Sins in an unchanged State; only God can change the Will, as in Psal. 110.3. They shall be a willing People in the Day of thy Power: How little is Christ beholden to such who would frustrate his design in Dying? He expected a Seed for to serve him as the effect of his Sufferings: But at this rate, he must have none unless they come to him upon the weak Legs of their own . They will give Christ the Honour to lay down his Life for the Sheep, but deny that it is he which goes into the Wilderness to seek them; or that it is he that brings the Lost Sheep home upon his Shoulders. No, say they, the lost Sheep must come home of itself or Perish; The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost, Luke 19.10. And they who own him to be a Saviour, and deny him to be a Seeker, do virtually deny him to be a Saviour: For as it is observed of Sheep, when once they stray from the Fold, they never return again of themselves; so now we are gone astray from God; if he will Save us, he must Seek us; hence Jeremiah 2.24. Man is compared to the Wild Ass, to denote, I conceive, thus much, that as that Creature will never come to Hand, till such time as she is in Pain to bring forth; so Man will never return from his Wilderness State, till he feel the Pangs of the New Birth in his Soul.  
Now though I cannot but hope many that differ from me in this Point are dear to God, (holding this Notion out of Ignorance or Blind Zeal) and that they are upon a good Foundation, yet I am verily persuaded this Doctrine they defend, will 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 aught 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, 'tis 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 aught 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 Truth's 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 tendered 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 goodwill 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, than 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 chief 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. 'Tis the Truth must make you free: Stand you therefore and Inquire 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, than I hope you will see it your Duty to receive these Truths. 'Tis 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.