Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	heaven_n	know_v	see_v	2,464	5	3.3554	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86928	An ansvver to Mr. Tombes his scepticall examination of infants-baptisme: wherein baptisme is declared to ingraft us into Christ, before any preparation: and the covenant of the gospel to Abraham and the gentiles is proved to be the same, extended to the gentiles children, as well as to Abrahams: together with the reason, why baptize children, is not so plainly set down in the gospel, as circumcise children, in the law, and yet the gospel more plain then the law. / By William Hussey, minister of Chislehurst in Kent.	Hussey, William, minister of Chiselhurst.	1646 (1646)	Wing H3815; Thomason E343_3; ESTC R200939	83,416	79

turns in the day of the Lord to say we did not know who did believe and who did not it may and will be answered again who made thee a judge of faith thou art a Minister of baptisme not a judge of faith that is flatly denied thee he that is a judge is a Lord over them whom they judge which thou art not it were indeed great impiety to administer baptisme to any whom we knew God had destinated to everlasting damnation but to take upon us to passe that sentence on any person were most high presumption much more on any Infant we have commission to baptize all nations but without consent we cannot baptize any nation and this is a good excuse he saith the Text speaketh not of Infants but children indefinitely but it speaketh of children in reference to the promise made to Abraham which was extended not to Abrahams children only but the Infants of beliving Gentiles as before thus of the Argument from Acts 2. As for the first argument taken from 1 Cor. 7.14 that the Infants of a believer are holy I have already proved that Infants of a believer though not of the seed of Abraham are federally holy and that in the words of the promise made to Abraham doth appear As for that the words in 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your children unholy I say it may well be an allusion to that federall holinesse as I conceive though the argument be not so cleer that among others more plain I shall insist upon yet not so improbable that much may not be said for the present thing I affirm that the children of believing Gentiles are federally holy for the argument I neither assert it nor disclame it but refer my Reader to that that hath been spoken of that matter by other men whose learning and judgements I honour and come to the sixth argument The sixt argument is taken from Mat. 19.14 which is repeated in Mark and Luke suffer little children to come to me for of such is the kingdome of God The argument is that those of whom the kingdome of heaven is are to be baptized but Infants are such of whom the kingdome of heaven is therefore Infants are to be baptized For that of coming to Christ though the reason doth plainly convince that in this place more is meant then a corporall coming seeing many come to Christ corporally of whom nothing is affirmed concerning the kingdome of God as for his eight circumstances he hath gathered nothing for or against the argument they serve for nothing but to make a noise of Mr. Tombes his learning that he can observe eight circumstances of which he rejected divers as not pertaining to the argument the other he maketh nothing of but that Christ did not baptize these children which no man that I know ever affirmed but doth it follow because they were not baptized therefore children may not be baptized after Christ had given direction to his Apostles and Ministers unto the end of the world to baptize all nations and now telleth his Disciples that to such belongeth the kingdome of heaven which kingdome of heaven in other places is understood of the state of the Church after the publication of the Gospel which began after that Christ rose from the dead into which kingdome Iohn the Baptist never entred Now these little children Luke 18.16 were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recens nati young ones Secondly they were such unto whom the kingdome of God did belong Thirdly they were such in their visible condition they were in and these things do all plainly appear 1. that they were little ones by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the derivation doth signifie or shew it but Mr. Tombes saith words are not be expounded by their derivation but by their use But how can he know how a word is used but by its signification Suppose a man should call a man that is grown a babe for some childish condition that he perceiveth in him doth it follow that a bab●e doth signifie a man of twenty or thirty yeers old I conceive Authors do use liberty of words but where infirmity cannot be laid upon the Auhour nor penury of words upon the language much must be ascribed to the choyce of words with consideration of their derivation but see what confutation that they were not Infants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Mr. Tombes signifies no more but embrace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth so much the Proposition 〈◊〉 may adde something more then to embrace but why must it signifie to embrace a grown person because Mar. 9.36 he places them in the midst as though a child that can stand alone might not be taken up in arms yea but he warneth not to scandalize them as though a childe might not be taken up in arms that may be taught to swear and lie and by many evill examples led out of the way of God or cause to stumble but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he signifieth a childe capable of teaching it is apparent that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie an Infant in his mothers belly Luke 1.44 Now how long it doth continue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the question Mr. Tombes saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a childe capable of teaching but see how he proveth it from the 2 Tim. 3.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence hee gathereth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie a childe capable of teaching Mr. Tombes will put no difference between from his childhood and in his childhood from intimateth that whilst he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then he knew not but when he ceased to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then he knew that is saith he ever since he was a boy then not when hee was a boy but when doth a man ●ease to be an infant and begin to become a boy For my part I understand not by what rules he walketh seeing they were infants in Christs armes for ought Mr. Tombs hath or can say to the contrary But saith he they were capable of teaching such they might be though in armes but how doth or can hee prove these children were such he will say the proofe lyeth on our part that they were not capable of instruction true it doth if we will have any benefit by the argument a demonstration that they were not I cannot give but probably I can and far before any you can give to the contrary First those that brought them brought them not to that end that they should bee instructed but that he should touch them and biesse them neither doth our Saviour at all teach them or say any thing to the children certainly if they had been capable of instruction he would not have omitted to have given them some small directions such as they were capable of and not have blessed them and taught them nothing for that derivation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉

primary end of baptisme that it should be a signe the baptized sheweth himself a disciple and confesseth the faith Mr. Tombes telleth us that many things argue that it should be such a signe but keepeth his arguments to himself for my part I know none I know nothing charged upon the party to be baptized as a preparation to his baptisme as for profession of faith that is no where required its true Philip did teach the Eunuch baptisme and faith but profession of faith he taught him not It is likewise true that St. Luke doth historically relate that the Eunuch did confesse his faith but of this before But Mr. Tombes doth prove that men must confesse their faith before baptisme because baptisme is a signe that the baptized sheweth himself a disciple and confesseth himself a disciple To this I first say that baptisme may be a signe of profession but not a sacramentall signe A sacramentall signe is to signifie what Christ hath set it to signifie namely food and nourishment this is the end of a sacrament to lead our infirmities to the apprehension of the great things of God to comprehend the vertue and efficacy of the body and blood of Christ the participation of the fulnesse of Christ to lead our faith by the authority of God to the apprehension of the things of God It is true our duty is annexed to receiving of sacraments whereunto we are bound by vertue of the command of Christ but the signification of the sacrament is not in our duty but in Gods mercy were not our duty conversant about an incomprehensible object we should have had no need of sacraments But for Mr. Tombes to deny sacraments to be visible signes of grace without giving any reason for it when St. Luke doth plainly tell us that baptisme doth wash away sin Acts 22 16. arise and be baptized and wash away thy sin and St. Paul doth tell us plainly that the bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ shewing that it is a distribution of the body of Christ communication is properly superiorum ad inferiorae I remember I have read in Arist Topic. lib. 4. cap. 1. Partic. 6. Keck lib. 1.72 that participare est suscipere ejus quod communicatur definitionem and Keckerman in the quoted place saith effective individua multa communicant ut ignis cal●r●● aquae where you see that communication is still rendred by giving the whole nature and definitions as in universali or in exciting qualitatem similarem a like quality in another body whereby it must appear that Christ in the sacrament doth communicate or distribute some grace among us as for our duties that 〈◊〉 vertue of the command are annexed to the receiving of the sacrament those are externall to the nature of the sacrament though necessary to the efficacy thereof unto us This must needs be a declining cause that enforceth the strongest patron of it in its defence to deny the nature of a sacrament But see further Mr. Tombes saith that baptisme is a signe of profession Profession is taken popularly and materially for the Art or Trade that is professed and then men may be said to wear some badge or signe of his profession otherwise in a proper and strict sense Profession is nothing else but a signe of something in the heart or minde of him that doth professe so that profession of our faith is but a signe of our faith and a signe of that profession is but a signe of a signe nay profession it self is more manifest then any sacrament can be and therefore needeth no signe but grant it were the signe of our profession what were that to prove that profession must be before baptisme sure signum signatum be simul natura the signe and thing signified are of the same continuance one cannot be before another Here is in this argument another circumstance that baptisme is frequently put for doctrine therefore doctrine must go before baptisme nay rather then baptisme doth teach for that which is any where translated metaphorically must have resemblance with the primitive signification as if a man shall call his son the staf●e of his age the son must sustain his father in his feeble condition though I do not know how any of these places do prove any such thing that baptisme is taken for doctrine otherwise then materially as in Acts 10.37 John is said to preach baptisme so is he said to preach repentance As for Mr. Tombes Argument from witchcraft which he confuteth I leave every judicious Reader to think what he pleaseth as not being worthy the consideration of a Divine and thus I conceive Mr. Tombs Argument answered I come now at last to mine own Arguments for Infants baptisme Those that in mans judgement ought to be esteemed fit for the kingdome of God are by man to be admitted to the priviledges of the kingdome viz. baptisme but all Infants in mans judgement are to be esteemed fit for the kingdome of God therefore all Infants must be admitted to the priviledges of the kingdome Matth. 19.13 I have already discussed this point Christ findeth fault with his Disciples for not suffering little children to come and saith not I know these are of the kingdome of God but telleth his Disciples not only they that were brought but such as they and that not only such as they in his estimation but their view otherwise there had been no ground of a rebuke but commendation rebukes be instructions for the time to come at least it is not well done do so no more when you see any such as these are suffer them and forbid them not You see the precept for the future is generall men do not use to reprove but to the purpose that the thing reproved be no more done therefore the Disciples were to estimate not them only but such as they were and that in an assigned liknesse namely in that they were little children as fit for the kingdome of God and upon that ground suffer them to come to Christ If these and the like had only been fit for the kingdome of God in the estimation of Christ by his omniscience here had not been matter of reproof but commendation Christ would then have said rather ye did well to forbid the little children to come to me for you did not know whether the kingdome of God did belong to them neither can I give you any direction concerning other children for the time to come because you cannot tell to whom the kingdome of heaven doth belong however let these come for I know the kingdome of heaven doth belong to them and such elect children as these are but ye see Christ doth rebuke them and thereby giveth them directions for the time to come which he could not have done if the likenesse had been in secret and things only known to God But here Mr. Tombes and Mr. Blackwell and others will tell me by this rule Turks children

〈◊〉 madidus that cannot be understood of the moisture of temperature which in some sense is given to young persons till they cease to grow till a naturall drith falleth upon their bones that hindereth their further augmentation but that moisture is such as is on children new borne what Mr. Goodwin saith of it I have not seen But Mr. Tombes saith that it is doubtfull whether our Saviour saith of them is the Kingdome of heaven because the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such not of them It is plaine our Saviour urgeth the relation they had to the Kingdome of heaven to move his disciples to suffer them to come to him now it could not have been any reason why these should be admitted into the presence of Christ because others had relation to the Kingdome of God but the truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath a further emphasis for the words are not urged to shew a reason why the children should come to Christ but why the disciples should suffer them and therefore Christ doth represent these children to his disciples not under such a character as they did appear to him by his omniscience but such as they were able to judge of and therefore he saith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he should say well ye have forbidden children to come unto me but it was out of ignorance now I tell you if any such as these are shall come hereafter forbid them not for of such is the Kingdome of heaven The precept is given to the Disciples in terminis intelligibilibus in words and in a sense that may be understood by them as if Christ should have said To many of these little ones the Kindome of heaven doth not belong but you are excused for that insomuch as the Kingdome of heaven doth belong to such you are not able to discerne the difference and therefore it cannot 〈◊〉 said to your charge that you did suffer any wilfully to enter into the Kingdome of God that the Kingdome of God did not belong unto But the Apostles might have answered nay Sir but we can discerne these unfit for the Kingdome of heaven they have not actuall faith and repentance and therefore we may not admit them into the Kingdome of heaven to this our Saviours answer is plaine the Kingdome of heaven doth belong to such as these therefore suffer them to come to me Now for the further manifestation of the sense of these words the Kingdome of God is understood either of the Kingdome of grace or the Kingdome of glory belonging to the elect only or of the Kingdome of the visible Church where men walke under the meanes of grace 2. The comming unto Christ may be understood of comming to Christ motu locali or comming to him by faith as he sitteth in his Kingdome of grace and glory or last of all comming to him as he sitteth in the Kingdome of the visible Church Christ hath a residence in the Kingdom of glory and in the Kingdom of grace Now no man can come to Christ as he sitteth in the state of grace or glory but by faith agreed on by all parties but Christ likewise sitteth in the Kingdome of his visible Church and teacheth them as the Prophet promised by Moses and there inviteth all nations to the use of the meanes and commandeth his Ministers to baptize all nations and suffer little children not those onely that Christ blessed and gave especiall testimony unto but those that were but like unto them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they must be permitted to come to Christ Now the question is whether this comming to Christ is understood only of corporall comming to Christ or any or in which of those respects this comming to Christ is here understood though I dare not deny a corporall comming to Christ is there intimated yet this is not all that is meant in the direction Suffer little children to come to me for the bare comming to Christs person could not have beene inferred from this assertion for to them belongeth the Kingdome of God I sit in the kingdome of the visible Church to dispence ordinances to all the world which I doe by my Ministers A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you like me saith Moses and him shall you heare according to which promise I sit alwayes in the visible Church teaching the minde of God as I thus sit ready to teach Suffer little children to come to me for to such belogeth the visible Church if thus you understand the Kingdome of God and the belonging of Infants thereto to signifie their interest to the visible Church then come to me signifieth no more in the direction then suffer them to bee received into the visible Church which is no more then suffer them to be baptized or hereafter when ye shall have commission to baptize all Nations baptize them Neither will Mr. Tombes his distinction serve turne that those whose is the Kingdome of heaven may be baptized when it appears that the kingdome of heaven belongeth to them the text is not of these but such that is of such as have no difference from these as far as you can judge in reference to the Kingdome of God these are to be permitted to come to me Now whereas Mr. Tombes saith such that is such in meeknesse that is a liberty not to be allowed in interpreting of Scripture to assigne or rather restraine the likenesse to humility whereas our Saviour applieth the likenesse only in this that they were little children it was not similitudo qualitatum but subjecti ob omnes qualitates for a subject cannot be said to be like another if any notable disparity can be found it is true if a quality be assigned wherein they doe agree that one quality is enough to make them alike though they differ in all other things but for a man barely to say such as he is fit for this or that employment he that is fit must be such with respect to his skill fidelity and all other conditions requisite for that employment Now if any thing were named wherein they were like it was in that they were little children now that which they were a like fit for was the Kingdome of God and if any children can be fit for the Kingdome of God what unfitnesse can be found in one more then another by any mortall man therefore Christ saith Suffer all children to come to me for they are all alike fit for the Kingdome of God the visible Church and the invisible too for ought you know neither doe I know that the unfitnes of the Infidells childe is in the childe but in the parent that will not bring it nor covenant for it that it shall be a disciple of Christ nor undertake to bring it up in the doctrine of the Gospell nor is that man that is an Infidell himselfe fide dignus to be beleeved in

that point but if he will sell the interest of his child to a Christian I doe not know but that Christian might bring that childe to be baptized as his upon that promise that he will bring him up in the feare of God I am certaine notwithstanding the promise was made to Abraham and his seed yet hee that was bought with money might be circumcised all children therefore that are brought may be baptized so as they be brought by persons that have interest in them and in any charitable construction may be credited that they will bring them up Christians it is sufficient for us if they be such as unto whom the Kingdome of heaven doth belong though the Kingdome of God belong not to them neither can that any way belong to this argument that Christ doth teach men that are of yeares humility from the emblem of a childe yet one childe cannot be distinguished from another as more or lesse fit to come to Christ by their humility for that Mr. Tombes saith Baptisme doth not bring to Christ I say it doth as Christ sitteth in the visible Church into which presence the Ministers of the Gospell have commission from Christ to admit all Nations baptize all Nations as for the kingdome of grace or glory Ministers certainly have no power or authority to keepe any out of them or hinder any from comming to Christ by faith The seventh argument is from Acts 15 32 33. Acts 18.8 1 Cor. 1.16 If the Apostles baptized whole housholds then Infants c. but c. ergo This argument saith Mr. Tombes rests on a sleight conjecture that there were Infants in those houses and that these Infants were baptized but saith he the words plainly prove under the name of the whole house are understood those only that heard the Word and believed Hence he denieth the consequence implying that many whole houses may be baptized yet no Infants because it is possible they may be without children And he further affirmeth either these were without children or else the children were not comprehended under the whole house which he laboureth to prove out of the severall circumstances of the severall Texts which I shall endeavour to examine along with Mr. Tombes not only as he mentioneth them here in this pag. 20. of his Exercitation but as in his Ex●men of Mr. Marshals Sermon from p. 137. to 142. Mr. Marshall saith that the Gospel took place as the old administration by taking in those families together This Mr. Tombes strongly endeavoureth to oppose and endeavours to set up an assertion opposite to that for true saith he the administration is quite opposite to that of circumcision the opposition which he fancieth he feigneth to consist in severall differences First that Abrahams family was singled out the males only whether in the covenant of grace or not children or servants elder or younger at eight dayes old in the house by the Master or others in his stead For his first difference was Abrahams family only singled out for circumcision that is boldly affirmed it is plain the promise in the seed of Abraham was to all the families of the earth Gen. 12.3 which is rendered by nations 18.18.22.18 there promise is made in the seed of Abraham which in the 3. of Galat. is applied to Christ so that Abrahams family is not singled out for the blessing it is true Abrahams family is singled out to be the line of Christ according to the flesh many families could not have that priviledge but the priviledge of circumcision was not restrained to Abrahams family but extended to all the nations of the earth and was actually afforded to so many families as would dwell among them or desired to eat the Passeover as I have formerly proved it it is plain as many as would be or were partakers of the blessing must be circumcised but the blessing was promised in actu signato to all the nations of the earth though before Christ it was in actu exercito performed to no nation but the Jewes yet many other families besides Abraham were circumcised therefore that difference is not between baptisme and circumcision that circumcision did belong to Abrahams family alone For his second diffence that males only were circumcised I have already spoken to that and the third wherein all the knot of the question doth consist what is here affirmed by Mr. Tombes is but petitio principii as circumcision was to be administred in all the families that would eat the Passeover whether persons that were circumcised did belong to the covenant of grace or not so is baptisme there being no man on earth that can judge of any but himself whether he belong to the covenant of grace or no As for the circumcision of children servants elder younger I know not baptisme doth make any more difference then circumcision doth for that in the house and by the Master of the family or some in his stead I say that in Abrahams time all the publike offices of King and Priest were in Abrahams person Levi was in the loines of Abraham what hand the Priest or the Judge had in the act of circumcision the Scripture is silent but certainly whether it were to be administred privately or publikely there must be a publike account given of it for as much as the person that was not circumcised must be cut off which could not be done but by a publike act neither do I know a more publike dispensation under the Gospel should inforce a more particular administration but the agreement in the last circumstance is that whereon the argument doth rest that is that whole families were brought to baptisme under the Gospel To which Mr. Tombes saith that it was but contingent to families that they were baptized no precept no prophesie for it contingent it is I confesse in respect of any causes that any nation family or person in the world should be baptized but that nations should be baptized is not without either precept or prophesie the Apostles are commanded to baptize all nations the blessing is promised to all nations in Abraham and all nations are prophesied to flow to the mountain of Gods Church Isai 2. but we find not infants baptized nor families baptized in conformity to circumcision Mr. Tombes saith that the conformity is not intimated I say that families were baptized the conformity ariseth of it self But Mr. Tombes desireth to elude this argument by shewing that actuall faith was first required in every person before he were baptized and therefore the Apostles did not baptize any but such as actually did believe and make profession of their faith so that they did not baptize any family unlesse upon particular cognizance of every particular mans faith this you shall see how fairly he will prove as for the examples from John and before the commission I know they walked by speciall light but what we cannot tell after they had their commission certainly they walked by it The first

most weakly of any thing we can please our selves better in the opinion of our works then of faith but when we come to deal with man we are sure we treat of colours before blind men there we can boldly talk we may speak as freely as travellers we cannot be disproved whereby it cometh to passe often times that heart that is least upright is most bold faith is indeed in time of need very heroick in her exploits in that she acteth by the power of God but ascribeth little of her best actions to her self she is alwayes conversant with God and therefore cannot but be conscious of much weaknesse and infirmity faith is so always loaden with difficulties that she hath very little to say of her self there must be great preparation on Gods part before there can be any sense or feeling in man of the things of faith there must be the mighty operation of the Word and Spirit and God is pleased to adde baptism too for faith to work upon these things are of mighty operation and so they had need considering the sloth of heart that is in us to believe it is well if after the Word and sacrament of baptisme faith do come God layeth it as a ground and foundation for faith to work upon and accordingly all the arguments of Scripture are to raise us to walk worthy of amendment of life and to rise with Christ Rom. 6. as if it should be said God hath offered you grace in baptisme therefore accept of it ye are born anew in baptisme let it appear in your conversation Argum. 4. That which maketh the admission into the Church meerly arbitrary that is a false doctrine but the doctrine of Anabaptists maketh admission into the Church meerly arbitrary Ergo the major is plain for that nothing is more directly contrary to the service of God then will-worship but denying any that are tendred according to the mind of Christ in the Word and requiring such disposition in the party to be baptized as the Minister pleaseth without any rule from Gods Word is to make the publike service of God or at least a great part of it wholly arbytrary and this doth appear to flow from their doctrine not yet any man durst affirm what was the measure of faith to be required how much he must believe that must be baptized by means whereof the whole matter dependeth on the will of the Baptizer a thing most contrary to the nature of Religion it cannot be imagined that the Holy Ghost would have been so silent in giving rules for the Ministers to walk by in the triall of the faith of the person to be baptized if any such charge had lain upon his office He must baptize believers only saith Mr. Tombes and the Anabaptists but no Scripture directeth what or how much he must believe must it be as much as the Minister shall think fit then some Ministers will baptize with very small triall others will be very hardly satisfied some will baptize as soon as the childe can be taught to say he believeth in Christ others not till ten or twelve others twenty yeers of age wherein no man can either satisfie his own conscience or any reasonable man for that he walketh without rules neither doth this difficulty from this doctrine come from accidental misconstructions or phansies but inevitable necessity from the doctrine it self that the Minister must baptize none but believers yet cannot tell how much or what he must believe before he be fit for baptisme unlesse he walk by rules of mans making without any intimation from Scripture 5. That doctrine that giveth man that power which is divine that doctrine is blasphemous and false but the doctrine of the Anabaptists giveth man that power which is divine therefore the doctrine of Anabaptists is blasphemous and false That doctrine that giveth man power to judge of faith in another that doctrine giveth man that power that is divine but the Anabaptist giveth men power to judge of faith in another therefore the Anabaptist that power that is divine Faith is in the heart with the heart man beleeveth to righteousnesse and with the mouth he confesseth to salvation Rom. 10.10 He therefore that judgeth of faith must judge the heart which is proper to God I the Lord try the heart Jer. 17.10 Neither will it serve his turne to say that he judgeth by rules of charity if this charge lay upon his office to judge charitably it is one thing another to judge ex officio for the judgement of charity can never pronounce the person so judged to be such as he is judged by charity to be judgements of charity are not alwaies true if it be possible we have warrant enough to judge it so by charity if children may possibly be such as the Kingdome of heaven doe belong too wee may in charity judge them such but if we are tyed by our office to baptize none but beleevers it will not serve turne to say we judge them such by charity to prove that we must baptize none but such as are beleevers seeing we may by charity judge many beleevers which yet are not beleevers againe judgement of faith is denied to belong to the Apostles themselves not that we have dominion of your faith 2 Cor. 1.24 If God had appointed Ministers to have judged of mens faith before they had baptized them he would have given them some rules by which they should have been able to walke which he hath not done he hath annexed baptisme to the Ministers calling to let men know that the grace of baptisme commeth immediatly from Christ therefore he sent the seale of it by that calling that came immediately from him but hath promised those officers of his no speciall qualifications whereby they shall have abilities to discern the faith of men more then other men have the judgement of charity is not a Ministeriall qualification that belongeth to every man and is no Ministeriall qualification 6. That doctrine that denieth the interpretation of the promise made to Abraham which S. Paul maketh that is a false doctrine but the doctrine of Anabaptists denieth the interpretation of the promise made to Abraham wch St. Paul maketh therfore the doctrine of the Anabaptists is false Those that deny the blessing of Abraham and in him of all the Nations of the earth to be the Gospel preached to Abraham in reference to the Gentiles after their call deny the interpretation that S. Paul maketh of the promise made to Abraham but the Anabaptists deny the blessing of Abraham and in him of all the Nations of the earth to be the Gospell preached to Abraham in reference to the Gentiles after their call therefore the Anabaptists deny the interpretation made to Abraham which S. Paul maketh the words of S. Paul are plain Gal. 3.8 the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying In thee shall all Nations be