my attention and to make some ostentation of himself I replyed not to his vain talk but called for Scripture proof Reply THe Argument drawn from the Essence of Baptism was not a new one as he mistakes but a continuation and confirmation oâ— the former for when after four Syllogisms orderly proposed he had no way of evasion but petere principium to fly back to his first Sanctuary I was forced again to prove the consecution of thâ— propositions that they were both actually true especially that iâ— controversie that some Infants may be baptized which I diâ— thus To whom belongs the Essence of Baptism they may be baptized to some Infants belongs the Essence of Baptism ergo some Infants may be baptized Here he confesses he denyed the Minor where he should have denyed the Major And which is worse though he perceived by my next Syllogism he was mistaken he could not recall himself by reason of my quickness and multiplying words would not permit him pittifull figge leaves Did not he first heare the Argument from me and then repeat it himself what quickness Is not the Syllogism briefly couched that took away his Minor what multiplying of words But now he makes amends and repaires the loss by a distinction of a twofold Essence of Baptism which is a meer Cymera or rather an Ens fictum impossible never heard before for as Ens is unum but one so Essentia una essence is but one who ever read of this new Divinity and Metaphysicks that the essence of Baptism belonging to Infants may have two senses First as he glosses it that the baptism of Infants is true Baptism that is according to transcendental verity such as hath the nature of Baptism And in this sense he grants the proposition is true that the essence of Baptism belongs to Infants The other sense is the essence of Baptism that is that which is of the essence to the right administration of Baptism belongs to Infants in which sense he sayes he denyes that the essence of Baptism belongs to Infants as if the essence were not indivisible that they that had one part had all wanted one part wanted all For as Eustachius hath it Metaphys pag. 21. every created essence consists of parts Physical or Metaphysical eatenus tamen dicuntur indivisibiles quod nulla sit natura quae secundum naturam specificam inaequaliter participetur ab individuis Therefore essences are called indivisible because there is nothing of nature that according to the specifical reason may be unequally participated of Individuals As appears by induction humane nature belongs not more to one man than another so that one man cannot more be said to be a man than another and he gives a reason because nothing that belongs to the essence of a thing can be added or withdrawn but presently the nature and essence is changed whence Aristotle Metaphys 8. cap. 3. Tom. 10. compares essences to numbers to which if we add or substract but an union the same specifical number is changed hence the result is if the essence of Baptism belongs to Infants then indivisibly and equally to them with those of riper age but Mr. Tombes being Judge the essence of Baptism according to Transcendental verity belongs to Infants therefore Baptism belongs indivisibly and equally to Infants with them of riper years Neither will his parallel instance relieve him that Infants eating bread and drinking wine is true eating and drinking the Lords Supper and have the essence of it which is his groundlesse dictate and hath no truth in it for upon supposition that Infants are excluded the Lords Supper in the divine institution which is the fundament and gives being to the relation they are no more capable of the essence and true eating of the Lords Supper while Infants than degs and mice which how ridiculously the Canonists of the Church of Rome Dispute whether they eat the Lords Supper or no every man of common sense knowes As for the other part of the distinction which he also calls the essence of Baptism it is so farr from being the essence of it as his own terms right administration implies that it is but an accidental perfection superadded to the essence If his distinct on had been of the truth of Baptism it might have had some ground in it though not as applyed to Infants for as the Church of Rome and other Churches that holds the fundamentals according to Bishop Hall and Davenant are true Churches in transcendental verity but in relation to their erronious superstructions they are not true Churches eatenus in moral verity Baptism with water in the Church administred by a Priest in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is true Baptism in Transcenâ—ental verity though in respect of their additions of salt spittle exorcism and other superstitious circumstances morally not true But Baptism of Bells is neither Transcendentally nor morally true much lesse have they thâ— essence of Baptism as wanting the fundament which is the root of the entâ—tie Whereas Mr. Tombes confesses Infants may have the essence of Baptism or that it belongs to them which the Argument from the definâ—tion further proves in forme thus To whom belongs the definition of Baptism to them belongs the essence to some Infants belongs the definition of Baptism therefore to some Infants belongs the essence This is no Identical probation or all one as he sayes as to argue Infant-Baptism is Baptism therefore it is right Baptism it is not Identical for an Argument taken from the definition is a demonstration â priori notiori from the former and better known It is not all one to argue Infant-Baptism is Baptism therefore it is right Baptism but it concludes Infant-Baptism is Baptism therefore Infants may be baptized which is the Question by this inference put out of Question And if we make a deeper Scrutinie into the parts of the definition we shall find that their Baptism is right Baptism and that Infants may rightly be baptized for the entire definition of Baptism comprehends in its wombe these parts 1. The fundament which is the divine Institution infolding Infants in all Nations in several families 2. The principal cause the Holy Ghost of which they are capable what then can forbid water 3. The Instrumental cause the Minister whose commission extends to them go baptize all Nations 4. The matterial cause water of which Christian children are as capable as the Jewish children were of Circumcision 5. The formal cause also into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost 6. Tho correlative Christ of whose Union children are receptive 7. The final cause grace and glory from which they cannot be excluded for to such belongs the Kingdom of God And this is the Argument perticularised by which I proved the definition of Baptism belonged to Infants thus The definition of Baptism as of all other relations is made up of the fundament correlative and Termini but all these three
are a part of Nations Therefore he that commanded to baptize all Nations commanded to baptize infants T. He denyed the consequent though the whole included every part and Nations were the whole and Infants were a part of Nations yet it did not follow that Infants were to be Baptized C. He returned that that saying of Aquinas posito toto generali pars ejus negari non potest a generall whole being granted no part of it can be denyed was an axiome both in Logick Philosophie and Divinity as Psalm 117. 1. Prayse the Lord all yee Nations is interpreted by another Psalm Old men and babes young men and maidens prayse ye the Lord. T. Mr. T. Said it was an Axiome that the whole includes every part where there is no exception but here is an exception C. He replyed Saint Ambrose upon the place sayes there is no exception Qui dixit omnes nullos exclusit neque parvulos c. He that said baptize all Nations excepted none no not infants T. Mr. T. Pished at it sleighting Ambrose his Authority C. Then said Mr. C. whether we shall obey Ambrose Bishop of Millain with Scripture or Mr. Tombes Vicar of Lemster against Scripture judge you But that there is no exception thus I prove If infants be excepted from Baptism it is either because they are not named in the text or because we find no instance that any were Baptized or because they are not capable But for none of these three Therefore infants are not excepted T. Mr. T. Denyed the Major and said that a fourth reason might be given because they were not Disciples C. He told him that in this answer he shewed himself to be no good Logician for it is an Axiome that in no division one member can be affirmed of another because they are opposite now to be Disciples and capable of Baptism were not opposite but subordinate And to be Disciples if it made them not capable it was no exception at all if it made them capable it was the same with the third to which Dilemma when he could receive no answer he demanded where it was required that those that are to be Baptized must be Disciples T. He said out of the Text for that which is translated Teach all Nations is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples of all Nations C. He replyed at Ross you found fault with me for that translation asking me was I wiser than the translators and now when it seems to make for you you urge it Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea modo I confess it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Aorist ye shall make Disciples for it must be interpreted by the future 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing or by baptizing in the present tense as if Discipling were the end and baptizing the means and required no qualification before as learned men with great probability press but I will not insist upon that now But that which you denyed I prove that infants may be Disciples from that place Rom. 15. 10. compared with the 5. verse for so Mr. C. said mistaking it for Acts 15. 10. T. At which Mr. Tombes insulted saying he was a good text-man C. He replyed he was in hast and did not think of this before but that his answer did drive him to it and he in his elaborate books did oftentimes quote one place for another then how much more might he that was extemporall it had been enough to have said as our Saviour to the tempter it s written but to leave these catches and come to the proof They upon whom the Pharisies would have layd the yoak were Disciples verse 10. Why tempt ye God to put a yoak upon the neck of the Disciples But many of them were Infants Therefore Infants are Disciples T. He denyed the Minor that many of them were not Infants C. Which was proved thus The yoak was Circumcision verse 5. the Pharisies saying that it was needfull to Circumcise them But they upon whom the yoak was to be imposed by Circumcision were onely infants amongst the Jews and Infants together with Parents amongst the Gentiles Therefore many of them were infants T. He denyed the Major and said the yoak was not Circumcision C. He replyed it was apparent by comparing the 5. and 10. with the foregoing verses 1. verse Certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren except ye be Circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved where observe that Circumcision is the subject of the Question In the 2. verse they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders about this Question to wit Circumcision In the 5. certain of the Sect of the Pharisees said that it was needfull to circumcise them In the 6 the Apostles came together to consider of the matter that is Circumcision and when there had been much disputing Peter rose up in the 7. and determined the Question in the tenth verse why tempt ye God to put a yoak upon the neck of the Disciples T. Mr. T. Said that Circumcision could not be the yoak that neither they nor their fathers could bear C. He returned that it was a bloody and a heavy yoak therefore the Israelites had a dispensation for 40 years in the wilderness Moses neglected the Circumcision of his child probably for this cause and his wife when the Child was Circumcised called him a bloody husband The Sichemites were slain as unable to defend themselves while they were sore of the wound of Circumcision T. Mr. T. Said that the Doctrine of Moses was the yoak of which Infants were not capable C. He replyed that Circumcision was principally meant and the doctrine of Moses onely as an Appendix of it and children were as capable of the doctrine then as they were in Abraham and Moses his time when all in the moment of Circumcision were tyed to the observation of the doctrine though they of ripe years to use Vossius his distinction were taught the doctrine antecedenter before Circumcision infants of eight days consequenter after Circumcision when age made them capable I know sayes God Abraham will teach his Children So it is apparent all those upon whom Circumcision with the doctrine of Moses was to be imposed were called Disciples But some of these were Infants for onely Infants were Circumcised among the Jews and Infants with the Parents among the Gentiles therefore some infants are Disciples Mr. T. Without any distinct answer would have broke through the pales to rove abroad again C. But he pressed him to keep within the lists urging this Argument They to whom is the promise they may be baptized it s the Apostles own inference Acts 2. 28. Be baptized for the promise is to you But to Infants of believing parents is the promise the promise is to you and your Children therefore Infants may be baptized T. He denyed the Minor that to infants of believing parents
be gathered to be so from the story Mr. Tombes 16. Section FOr sure if infants had been to be baptized Christ would then have appointed them to be baptized and blamed his Apostles for not doing it And therefore Mr. C. questions are answered by Questions 1. Doth Christ take Children in his arms and would he have all put out of his visible Church Answ Doth Christ no more but take them up in his arms lay his hands on them and bless them and shall we presume to do more without any warrant of his even to admit them into his visible Church by Baptism 2. Would he have us receive them in his name and yet not receive them into his visible Church Answ Where doth Christ ever bid us receive little children in age Where did he ever send them That they might be received in his name must we make Christs words to import that which we would in another censure as a spice of madness when he hath told us plainly they are his Apostles and other Preachers he hath sent whom we are to receive in his name Mark 9. 41. Luke 9. 48. though they are as mean and contemptible as a little child How should children be received but by providing nurses would Christ have us provide nurses for little children our Lord Christ expresseth a cup of cold water to drink as some part of the reception in his name Mark 9. 41. Is this a thing fit to entertain an Infant with This is enough to answer Mr. C. frivolous questions And in answer to the words of Master Baxter who is the godly and Reverend Divine he means I say for my part seeing the will of Christ is that I must walk by and his word that I must be judged by and he hath given so full a discovery of his will in this point I will boldly adventure to follow his rule to baptize Disciples professing faith and had rather answer him upon his own incouragement for not admitting by baptism those he never appointed to be baptized than to adventure upon the doing like Uzzah upon mine own head that which doth prâ—sane the Ordinance of baptism and corrupt the Church of Christ Reply MOst surely if Infants had not been baptizable Christ would not have laid his hands upon them and blessed them which presupposeth they were either as most probably baptized before or visible members and capable of Baptism And therefore Mr. T. Questions are answered again by Questions 1. Doth Christ take children in his arms and would he have all put out of the visible Church Answ Christ doth more than take them in his arms for he laid his hands upon them and blessed them and said the kingdom of God was of such and shall not we admit them to baptism an Ordinance which imposition of hands and benediction presupposes 2. Would he have us receive them in his name and yet not receive them into his visible Church Answ Christ bids us Mat. 18. 5. receive little children in age either expresly or à foâ—tiori and Luke 9. 48. which to interpret of Apostles and other preachers sent to be received in his name is a spice of madnesse The words are these Jesus took a child and set him by him and said unto them whosoever shall receive this child not Apostles or Preachers receiveth me and whosoever receiveth me receiveth him that sent me The rest of his expressions relating â—o this second Question are the Paroxysms of a distempered brain and stands in more need of Hellebore to purge than an answer Therefore I say again in the words of Mr. Baxter who is indeed the learned and godly Divine seeing the Will of God is that I must walk by and his word I must be judged by and he hath given me so full a discovery of his will in this point I had rather answer him upon his own encouragement for admitting an hundred Infants into his Church than answer for keeping out one especially after the Anabaptist manner too frequent among us who like Uzzah or the sons of Sheva adventure upon the office of the Ministery without a call or ordination than with Nadab and Abihu offer false fire deliver unsound doctrine than injuriously bereave Infants of baptism and sacrilegiously rebaptize or dip those that were rightly baptized before errour drawes on another Mr. Tombes 17 Section MAster C. sixt Argument is Infants are Disciples Therefore they may be baptized The Antecedent be would prove from Acts 5. 10. in that it was Circumcision which was the yoke which he proves from v. 5. but he confesseth it was not Circumcision onely but the attendants and that it is no shiftâ— but a cleer truth that it is not Circumcision as acted on Infants but as taught imposed on the consciences of believing Gentiles with the rest of Moses his law as necessary to salvation by some Teachers which cannot be said of Infants is so manifest from the Text that I dare boldly say they that assert that by Disciples Acts 15. 10. are meant do but wrangle against clear light and spit against the Sun That the Text Isai 54. 13. is not meant of Infants of believing parents as such but of such as having heard and learned of the father come to Christ is plain from those words of our Saviour John 6. 45. alleadged here by Mr. C. himself as expounding the Prophet Reply MY sixt Argument was All disciples may be baptized But Infants of believing parents are disciples Therefore some Infants may be baptized The Minor I proved from Acts 15. 10. in that it was Circumcision that was the yoke why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples Which I proved v. 5. certain of the Sect of the Pharisees said it was necessary to circumcise them Circumcision with the attendants is the yoke taught to be imposed onely upon the Infants of believing Jewes upon believing parents with Infants among the Gentiles And that it was Circumcision acted appears v. 1. They taught the brethren except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved Moses his manner was Infants of eight dayes old v. 5. they taught it was needfull to circumcise them v. 14. Ye must be circumcised whence it is clear that it is not onely Circumcision taught but acted not acted upon taught brethren onely but their Infants That I dare boldly say they that assert the contrary do but cavill against conscience and with Julian the Apostate throwes the blood of their own self-conviction against the Son of Righteousness That Text Isai 54. 13. is not meant onely of them that having heard and learned of the father come unto Christ but of Infants of believing parents as such which the note of universality intimates all thy children shall be taught of God All but principally Infants which being not capable of the instrumental depend wholly upon the Efficient cause which our Saviours exposition clears for when he applies it to actual hearers he leaves out