Baby-baptism meer babism, or, An answer to nobody in five words to every-body who finds himself concern'd in't by Samuel Fisher.

Re-Review.

This is wit whether wilt thou: I think he is wise that well knows either what you say, or what to say to what you say, so reasonless are severall pieces of the

return that is here rendred to reasons objection.

I speak not of a few faults, which in the first part of it escaped the presse, and made it nonsence, for those you corrected in the copy you sent to me, so that I might do no less then do you right so far as to transprint it (as I have done) according to your own emendation: Nec tibi Typographi crimina dem vitio.

But of the faults which escaped the pen, or rather the pates of those that com∣posed this rambling responsion, the major part of which, whether it past from you willingly, and ingenuously, or rashly, and unadvisedly rather I know not, is a most flat unsaying of most of that you have said before; and much of what you say again in the next page after, and an acknowledgement of the clear con∣trary to that, which you have hitherto tugged for, and which you persue the proof of well-nigh throughout your whole Pamphlet, an absolute overturning of the basis on which your book builds infants baptism, which is this assertion, viz. That it sufficiently appears that these little infants in particular have faith, mea∣ning infants of believers in contradistinction to those of Turks and Pagans, whom as concerning their original condition, and their birth-right to salvation you ra∣ther rank with the Devils, then with the children of Christians; I say a plain deponing of that position you ground all on, viz. that tis apparent the in∣fants you sprinkle do believe, and so a serving of our turn as much as we desire; and as for that little which seems not so directly for us, though by reason of, not the profundity (for tis shallow enough) but the darkness, and muddiness of the matter, it be hard to see clearly to the bottom of it, yet if I do truly sound the sense of it, and reach to the utmost of your meaning in it, it seemes to speak as li•…•…tle for your selves.

You tell us first, that an Argument from comparison is subject to many obje∣ctions, and cannot hold, unlesse caeteris paribus be first proved; whereby you subject the most of your own Arguments in the present point to exception, for I appeal to your selves, and all men to judge, whether they are not mostly drawn from comparisons between the children of the Jewes, and the children of Gentile believers, the circumcision of the one, and baptism of the other; and yet caete∣ris paribus is not at all proved by you to this hour, nor yet ever can be, sith cae∣teris imparibus, I mean disagreement almost in all things between Jewes chil∣dren and Christians, between circumcision and baptism is so manifestly made appear by us, that there hardly appears any analogy at all between them. Be∣sides,

Secondly, So far as to the freeing of this Argument from comparison between infidels and Christians infants, so as that it may hold without any exception, caeteris paribus is granted by your selves, for if by this parity in other things you mean an equality of souls by creation, your selves assert that parity but a page above, viz. p. 16. where you say all souls are equall in their creation, and so the souls of believers and unbelievers infants.

But thirdly, If by parity in other things, which you would have proved, you mean an equallity in their natural capacities, and endowments of wit and ingenuity, then either there is such a parity in infants of Christians and infidels, or else so far as disparity is, the excellency may much rather of the two be supposed to be in the children of Christians, in whom yet caeteris paribus, suppose them to have the same education, and instruction, there is no more inclination to be∣lieve in Christ by verrue of any habit of faith infused into them in infancy above the other, then there is in the children of Indians.

Next you tell us, If the Objector had considered &c. he would not have con∣cluded thus as he doth, The objector you say is Reason, so that Reason belike was much besides it self in arguing so unreasonably against your fiction of faith in the Infants of Christians; but what if Reason should consider the very same, that you here wish it would, must its conclusion against the belief of believers infants

be thereupon ere a whit the more unconcluded? and what though among chil∣dren born of the same Christian parents, under the same education, one gives a better specimen, not onely in acts of piety and religion, but of knowledge also, may not therefore the habit of faith be more groundedly denyed to be in one, then the facultie of understanding can be denyed to be in the other.

What still Sirs? still will you make the being of faith in the infants of Christians of equall necessity with the being of the principle of reason and facultie of understanding in infants? the faculty of understanding is an in∣nate habit necessarily to be concluded, and that in the highest degree to be in all infants, tis in omni, per se, quâ ipsum, but faith in Christ is by your own con∣fession, but an infused habit, and by your own confession as not in all infants, so in you know not which, and which not till you see them act it: and yet by your own conclusion (to go round again) tis in such not in such, viz. not at all in Turks and Pagans infants (for they are all in a damnable conditi∣on with you) but in all infants of Christians, even such as yet give no specimen of it, and that so necessarily, that a man may as truly deny that which is naturall to them, even the faculty of understanding, as deny the habit of faith to be in them.

Next in order to a fuller, and more direct answer you prepare the way by a pan∣nel of six or seven positions, which you say you must necessarily hold, concerning two or three of which we may say its no great matter whether you hold them or no, for any undoubted, and infallible truth that is to be found in them, in the sense wherein you take them, or at least for any great matter of assistance, that a∣crues to your cause by them, and as for the rest, of which you say you must neces∣sarily hold them, you might have said rather you must necessarily yield them to us, for indeed they are the giving up of your cause, and no other then the draw∣ing of a dash with your own pen over all that ever you say, throughout the resi∣due of your works, as concerning that sufficient appearance of faith, you assert to be in believers infants: yea he is blind that doth not see you thereby perfectly blotting out again, what ever you penned in that particular with your own hands.

First say you the habit of faith must be before it can work, I know no neces∣sity of holding this for truth, neither indeed would you hold it but that you ima∣gine faith to be another kind of habit then it is, for there are more kinds of ha∣bits then one, though you speak of habit by the lump all along, as if you were a∣ware of but one, for heres ore and ore again, habit, habit, habit, habit, ha∣bit, but not the least hint of what kind of habit you mean; you are never the men that distinguish of habits, whereas qui bene distinguit bene docet, there being some habits acquired, and obtained no otherwise then by acting, and faith it self is such a habit, as will hardly be proved (for all your confidence in the con∣trary) to be any other, at least to be apparent in any one, or visible to the view of others till some act thereof hath past the persons in whom it is, neither is any one in the world, that I know of habitually a believer in Christ, till having heard of him or his word he doth actually believe.

Secondly, whereas you say the spirit of God infuses this habit; I grant he in∣fuses it, if you take the word infuse in a true sense i. e. for begetting it in per∣sons by the preaching of the word, other infusion of faith (if yet that may be properly called infusion, which is a phrase rather of your own coining in this case) the word knows none: God indeed gives it, but he gives it in the way of hear∣ing the word of faith, in the way of hearing Christ preached, in which way he ne∣ver gave it to infants, neither is it his gift to them in any other. the spirit works it, but not without the use of means, not per saltum. and in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ocul. i. e. so suddenly as you fancy, but by the discharge of that office he bears from the father to that end and purpose, towards the whole world, i. e. moving, striving, per∣swading inwardly, whilest the word doth without, inlightning, convincing a man

of sin in himself, of righteousness to be had, and of a judgement to come, where∣in we shall be saved, or damned according as we believe, or believe not, accept, or neglect so great salvation; upon which motions and convictions, which are stricter and stronger in some then in other foure, some yield, and believe, and o∣bey the Gospel, and some for all this rebel and obey not, so that tis true the spirit thus effects the business within us yet not so as that he is said wholly to do it without us; he is the supreme efficient, the operative cause of it, but we are to be concurrent cum causa operante, we have a part to do as well as he, when he hath done his part towards us, i. e. to believe, which if we do not, he will not force us, he will go no further, nor shall he be blamed, but we, and we not onely blamed, but damnd for not doing it accordingly: but if we do be∣lieve, and turn at his reproof; then indeed there is a promise of an infusion, or ra∣ther effusion of the spirit in other i. e. those more special and peculiar offices, of a witnesse to our spirits, that we are Gods children, a seal, a comforter, a re∣ve•…•…ler of the things freely given us of God, a supporter under sufferings &c. all which it performes towards the Saints, and in respect of which onely its called the holy spirit of promise Eph. 1. 13. in this manner the spirit of God in order to that sweet infusion of it self into us may be said (if you will call it infusion, for which a fitter word may be found) to infuse i. e. to work faith, other infusion of faith into men, much lesse into infants, or such a downright infusion as I suppose you dream on, the Scripture makes no mention of at all.

Thirdly in that you say he is not bound to work it in all the children of Christi∣an parent, nor barred from working it in any of the children of infidels: this indeed you must necessarily hold (as you say) for tis undeniable truth, but in holding it you must wholly let go •…•…ll you held before, concerning believers infants appear∣ing to have faith, and that in contradistinction to the infants of unbelievers; for first you use to say as p. 14. out of Act. 2. that the promise of it is to believers, and their seed, i. e. as believers seed, and so consequently to all, and onely their seed, not the seed of unbelievers: for quod convenit qua ipsum, convenit omni, soli, semper, belongs alwayes, to all of one sort, and not any man of another, and thereby you use to bind the spirit (unlesse he will bee unfaithfull) to work faith, as without which you think he cannot give them salvation, in all the seed of be∣lievers, for a promise that is made to such or such a seed (qu•…•… si•…•…) must needs be sure as the Scripture saith Romans 4. 16. and made good (or else God that cannot lie breaketh his word) to all the seed to whom (as such) it is made.

But sith now you say that the spirit is not bound to give faith and salvation to believers seed, nor barred from giving it to any of the seed of infidels, which is as much as to say he is at liberty from all obligation of himself by promise to either of these above the other, and to work it in which he pleases, you will I hope (un∣less you be more ashamed of seeming to have been ignorant, then ashamed of your ignorance, so as to give glory to God by confessing it) relinquish that wonted po∣sition of a birth priviledge in this point, in believers seed, more t•…•…en in others, which you ground and prove from that promise A•…•…t. 2. and ingenuously confesse, that for ought you know the one hath no more ingagemeat of God to them by promise then the other: so that unlesse there were more warrant then you have to single out one from the other as the special subjects of baptism, and heirs of salva∣tion, you ought to baptize them all alike i. e. in very deed to let them all alone till you come, as in infancy you confesse you cannot, to presume what children have the habit of faith, and what have not.

Fourthly, whereas you say wheresoever the habit of faith is, it inclines to ho∣ly actions, when there •…•…s opportunity and the season for bringing them forth: whether this be necessary to be held or no, yet weel hold it to do you a pleasure, in calling you thereby from your false cause, for else its like to do you more displeasure

in your cause of infants faith, then you well considered, when you penned and printed it: for wheresoever faith is, the opportunity and season for its bearing fruit, and working by love and other holy actions is ever present and perpetual: yea its never unopportune or unseasonable for him that hath faith to be acting obedience in one thing or other: yea if any one say I have faith and have not works, and holy actions, much lesse, if no inclinablenesse to holy actions, that faith cannot save, nor stand him instead faith without works being dead and pro∣fiting nothing: therefore if where ever faith is it inclines to holy actions when opportunity and season for it is, then I am sure there is no faith at all in infants, for there is no opportunity or season at all in infancy, wherein faith is found fruit∣full in them: and if you will say they have faith though you have no evi∣dence of it, and prove it is so because it is so, then it is a faith without works, and that faith is dead, unprofitable and cannot save them, Iames 2. and if so, you would be better opinioned towards infants in my mind, to hold them saved with∣out faith, then to hold they have a faith which cannot save them, for better ne∣ver a whit at all then never the better.

Fiftly, whereas you say that this inclination to holy actions is not equally alike in all, in whom the habits themselves are, that may be so too, yet Sampson and David are no such sufficient instances of it, but that more sufficient might have been given, for as there are many worthy things recorded which both these did by the power of faith, Heb. 11. so he of whom you say he exceeded in acts of piety was in some things, not to say as impious, yet impious as well as the other; be∣sides to make comparisons between two such worthies, as doing, the one more good, the other lesse, both which by faith did no lesse the subdue, and in their times fully deliver Israel from the Philistines, for which the spirit is pleased to record, and recommend them both as examples to all ages, and rank them among others, of whom the world was not worthy, in one line Heb. 11. 32. caeteris paribus unproved too, such comparison (if any be so) is beyond all comparison odious, and subject to many exceptions, but be it all just as you have said it, yet as little yields it to the support of your infant faith, and childish baptism, as if you had said nothing at all.

Sixthly, whereas you say that instruction of the understanding in matter of faith in some sort must go before any act of faith can be discovered.

And seventhly and lastly, that no judgement of science can be passed i. e. true demonstration made of this habit of faith till the acts themselves be seen, and examined, and that a posteriore onely the discovery of habits is made, and then from all these preparative premises draw up your conclusive answer in three heads answering thus in the first place viz.

That it cannot be certainly presumed what children have faith, what have not, and that the working of the spirit in that particular is not known to us, and ore again also that the spirit is not bound nor barred, and therefore there can be no conclusion made.

I say tis all necessarily to be held for truth, yea tis a truth so preciously pertinent to our purpose against the purpose of your own pamphlet, that had we been to con∣clude in a little compasse all that need be said toward the appearance of this positi∣on viz. that it doth not sufficiently appear by any evidence of it in their infancy, that infants of believers have faith, any more then other infants, we could not in so few words have spoken so pithily to such a purpose, which when I consider, I cannot but wonder, and conceive you will once wonder at your selves, when your eyes are open, that they whose words all these are should act against them all, so absurdly, as to make it the biggest business throughout their book, to make it appear and that sufficiently, that believers infants have faith beyond o∣ther infants.