Yes and before they actually believe which I prove thus The blessing is as large as the curse But the curse extended even to children before they could actually believe his blood be upon us and upon our children Therefore the blessing T. Master T. answered to the Major thus If by blessing was meant the inward and spiritual part of the Covenant it might be true but that was nothing to the present purpose seeing it was not known to us But if the outward and visible part he denied that Infants were capable of the blessing as well as liable to the curse C. Which distinction was took away thus They that are holy with a Covenant-holinesse are capable of the outward and visible part But Infants of believers are holy with a Covenant-holiness Therefore they are capable of the outward and visible part T. Mr. T. denied the Minor and said that Covenant-holiness was gibberidge which they that spoke did not understand themselves C. Master C. replyed it was the language of learned men of all ages amongst whom were Volsius Bullinger and Hugo Grotius and that Children of believing Parents were holy before baptism and that baptism did not make but declare them to be Christians Then cryed out a cobler I. E. that hath been dipped this is Blasphemy C. Well you discover of what spirit you are and your ignorance Are not these the words of the learned assembly of Divines in the Directory confirmed by Ordinance of Parliament That Infants are Christians and federally holy before baptism and therefore are they baptized Pag. 12. And that Infants of believing Parents are thus holy with a federall or Covenant-holiness I thus prove from 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unclean but now they are holy T. That sayes Master T. Is meant of Matrimoniall holyness or a lawfull use of the Marriage-bed that they are no Bastards C. That Answer I thus infringe That which in Scripture is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not so much as once for Matrimoniall holiness cannot be so meant here But it is taken in Scripture almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for Matrimoniall holynesse Therefore it cannot be so meant here T. That Argument sayes Master T. I will retort upon you That which in Scripture is taken six hundred times in a distinct sense and never once for Covenant holiness cannot be meant here But it is taken six hundred times in a distinct sense and never once for Covenant-holiness Therefore it cannot be meant here C. To which was replyed this is to invert the order of the dispute you are to answer and not to oppose T. I may oppose by retorting of an Argument and I will answer anon C. Well to satisfie you I deny your Minor for it s taken oft in Scripture for Covenant-holiness T. Where C. The proof lyes upon you that it is not yet I le give you one instance or two Rom. 11. 16 if the first fruits be holy the Lump is also holy and if the root be holy so are the branches T. That is not meant of a Covenant-holyness C. Yes it s as cleer as the light and so you your self interpreted it at Ross as there are hundreds that will witness which was upon this occasion I pressed that if the immediat parents were holy the children were holy with a Covenant holiness you denyed the inference and said the meaning of it was that Abraham the father of the faithfull was the first fruits and root that was holy and therefore his posterity was holy and in covenant And in this exposition as he agreed with truth so with Beza who says that children are holy that is comprehended in covenant from the womb and with Bowles who saith that they are holy with outward holiness by which they are judged to be in covenant But to return from whence by your retortion we have digressed I am to prove that holyness is never taken in Scripture for Matrimoniall cleaness in opposition to Illegitimation Not in that place Ezra 9. 2. the holy seed have mingled themselves with the seed of those lands which is either your onely or principall hold as far as I can gather out of your books therefore in no place T. He denyed the Antecedent C. Which was proved thus If it be meant of Matrimoniall cleanness then this must be the meaning of the words The holy seed that is the lawfully begotten Jews have mingled themselves with the seed of those lands that is the bastards of those lands But that cannot be the meaning for happily there were some Bastards among the Jews and in that sense not holy and no Bastards among the Nations but all or the most Legitimate and therefore in that sense not unholy Therefore it is not meant of Matrimoniall holiness T. He denyed the Major affirming that both Jews and Nations were holy before their mixture but then both they and their Children became unclean because God had forbidden them to marry with the Nations C. To which was answered they that are Saints are not unholy But some Saints have been begot by this mixture or unlawfull bed as Jepthah who Hebr. 11. is said to be justified by faith Therefore they are not unholy T. He denyed the Major saying they may be unholy by their Naturall Generation and first birth and yet holy by Regeneration and new birth C. This strikes not home Moses had children by his Ethiopian woman but they were not illegitimate therefore those that were begot by mixture with the Nations were not Illegimate T. Master Tombes said that was before the Law was given C. Well that Answer will do you little service after the Law was given Salomon had children by Rahab who was a Cananitish and Boaz by Ruth who was a Moabitish woman and yet they were not Illegitimate or unholy as you would have it T. They became Proselites and received the Religion of the Jewes C. Well then while they were not of the Jews Religion though no Bastards they were unholy when they embraced the Jews Religion by your own confession they became holy what is this but a Covenant holyness which you have opposed all this while and now grant it T. Mr. T. Vsed many words to clear himself but with little satisfaction to the greaiest part of the hearers and still denyed that children were holy and in Covenant C. Which was further proved thus They that Christ took up in his arms blessed said the Kingdom of God belonged unto them pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would receive are holy with a Covenant-holyness But Christ took up little children into his arms blessed them said the Kingdom of God belonged unto them pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would not receive them Therefore little Children are holy with a Covenant-holiness T. Mr. Tombes began to be netled as if something in this Argument galled him saying it was a fallacie and that he went about to entrap
12. some descending some ascending up the scale of Primitive practise till they loose it into Apostolical use and divine institutâ—on To passe by Dionysius the Areopagite contemporanian with the Apostles Clemens the Author of the Questions ad Orthodoxos Justin Martyr who flourished 150. years after Christs Nativity 48 years after St. John Irenâ—us that lived in 180. Origen in the year 230. Nizianzâ—n 280. Cyprian and a Councel of sixty six Bishops 260 Augustine who flourished 405 do all harmoniously avouch the Universal practise of Infant-Baptism of whom Augustine is the mouth The Church says he alwayes had it alwayes kepâ— it received it from the faith of their Ancestors kept it perseveringly unto the end To which I will onely add that of Pelagius which is unanswerable a man who lived but 400 years after Christ a great Scholer of eminent parts that travelled over Europe Asia and Afâ—ice whereby he gained great experience knew the custome of most places Amongst many other dangerous opinions he maintained that Infants were conceived and borne without Original sin which came unto them when growing in years not from an inward principle of corruption but from their imitation of outward ill Examples presented unto them S. Austin confutes this by an Argument drawn from the custome of the Church in all ages to baptize Infants and that expresly in his 150. Epistle unto Sixtus in the 18 chapter of his book of Marriage and Concupiscence in his four books to Bonifacius in his books against Julian one of Pelagius his Scholers to wave many more instances that might be produced The Argument in forme is this Those who according to the custome of the Church have been baptized in all ages have Original sin But Infants according to the custom of the Church have been baptized in all ages therefore Infants have original sin If there had been the least colour that he could without shamelâ—sse impudencie have denyed the Minor he might have said I have been a travellour and have conversed with the most Churches in Christendome have read over the Annals Histories and Antiquities of these four hundred years since Christ as doubtles he had and I find the custome hath not been Universal nor the spring and rise from Christ and the Apostles But he avouches nothing of this as knowing it was such a notorious untâ—uth as would render his other Tenets ignominious But endevoured to evade Austin's Argument by this device namely by pleading that Baptism was administred to Infants not to wash away their Original sin but to bring them to the kingdome of Heaven This Master Tombes confesses but his figg leaves to cover the shame of it are most pittifull that the Pelagians did grant the baptizing of Infants because they durst not oppose the custome of the Church that was generall was it general then and not before When began it Durst he not tell them that it was an innovation encroachment and not so from the beginning if there had been the least colour of plea for a position so advantagious for his interests when he durst broach errors so pernicious and destructive maugre the opposition of Prelates Councells and the whole Church The seventh untruth is That when Infants were baptized it was very rarely The contradictory whereof hath been sufficiently evidenced Austin's hoc ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuit may well outvie Mr. Tombes's non habuit non tenuit Let our Adversaries show if they can that the Baptism of Infants in the primitive times was denied or deferred unlesse it be for the foregoing or the like reasons Walfridus Strabo his sayings chapt 26. de rebus Ecclesiasticis that in the fiâ—st times the grace of Baptism was wont to be given to them onely who were come to the integritie of mind and body that they could know and understand what profit was to be gotten in Baptism what is to be confessed and believed what lastly to be observed by them that are to be new-born to Christ is meant onely of them that are converted when of age being not borne of believing parents as appears by his instance of Augustine whose parents cannot be proved out of any Authentick history to be Christians when he was born and the words following backs this Interpretation Afterwards being Christians and understanding original sin c. ne perirent parvuli si sine remedio regenerationis gratiae defungerentur statuerunt eos baptizari in remissionem pâ—ccatorum least their little ones should perish if they dyed without the remedy of the grace of regeneration they appointed to baptize them for the remissioâ— of sins Afterward being Christians they understood Original sin when they were not Christians they understood it not and then it was not fit their Infants should be baptized but being Christians and understandâ—ng it their Infants were baptized That saying of Grotius that many of the Greeks deferred the baptism of little ones till they could themselves make confession of their faith is a groundlesse fiction which he invented partly to ingratiate with the Socinians partly with Cardinal Peronius with both whereof he agreed like Sampson's Foxes in the taile of this Question though otherwise there were fire brands of dissention between them Photius a learned Grecian who knew better the custom of the Greeks than either Grotius or the Anabaptists his clyents produces an Imperiall constitution wherein it was decreed that all baptized Samaritans and Grecians should be punished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who brought not their wives and children in their families to holy Baptism Tit. 1. de fide cap. 10. Here you see that there was a Law that upon strict penalty required of Grecians that were baptized themselves that they should bring their children to baptism He alledges another imperial constitution that the Samaritans should not be admitted to be baptized till catechised in or after conversion but their children though they knew not the doctrine were to be baptized The Councell in Trullo canon 84. requires that all the Graecians little ones without delay should be baptized One of the eight Canons in Carthage concluded against Pelagius affirmed that whosoever denyed Baptism for the remission of sins to a new-born Infant should be Anathematized Balsamon in his glosse upon the forementioned Canon relates that the Romans buying children taken captive by the Scythians and Hagarens from a Christian Country put it to the Question whether they were to be baptized or no some pleaded they came from a Country where Christians dwelt and therefore it was to be presumed they were baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their Infancie others doubted whether they were baptized or no all concluded if they were not they ought to be baptized All which clearly testifies that Infant-Baptism was generally in use amongst Christians seeing they presumed where Christians inhabited Infant-Baptism was in use Now if such among the Greeks as brought not their children to Baptism were to be punished If Imperial lawes and Synodical Canon required Infant-Baptism if
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
will not stand them so much in stead as to admit them to the Lords Supper be such an inestimable treasure as is not recompensed with the glory of the Gospel now exhibited to spiritual persons in spiritual benefits by the spirit in stead of the carnal promises ordinances and Church state of the Law Reply THe ninth Argument is drawn from many dangerous absurdities that would follow if children should be ouâ— of visible Covenant under the Gospel it being all one to be baptizable or baptized and to be in vâ—sible Covenant none are in visible Covenant but are or may be baptized all that are baptized are in visible covenant The absurdities are these Infants would be loosers by Christs coming and in worse condition than the Jewish Infants were they with the parents were admitted to the seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision and not parents with children to baptism Mr. T. his Answer is frivolous and impertinent saying he rather thinks that by being not admitted to circumcision the condition of parents and children is the better by Christs coming which I grant but it is nothing to the purpose our condition under the Gospel is better than theirs under the Law theirs under the law infinitly better than the heathens which had not circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith Christians Infants if they had not baptism were worse than Jewes Infants no better than Pagans Circumcision was the yoke Acts 15. 10. of which the Apostle said neither we nor our fathers were able to bear it that seale or ordinance by which the Jewes were bound to observe the ceremonial Law of Moses and yet a rite that under that troublesome Oconomy sealed the righteousnesse of faith in Christ to come baptism under an easier yoke seals Christ that is come Secondly it s acknowledged though Baptism and other Sacraments be pure Evangelical priviledges yet they are not such priviledges but parents and children did well without them as well as without Scriptures before Abraham's time all the femals from Abraham's time till Christ that were without actualâ— but not virtual circumcision What then May we therefore cast away Scriptures with the Anti Scripturians cast off baptism with them above ordinances Tempora distingâ—â—e tutus eris There was first a time without ordinances then a time of legal now a time of Gospel-ordinances And those priviledges of the Law what ever they were are abundantly recompensed by Christs coming and the Gospel-ordinances he instituted whereof Infant-baptism is one which though it will not stand them in so much stead as to admit them to the Lords Supper for the seals ought not to be confounded yet it brings more with it than an empty title of visible Church-membership for its the dore and the only ordinary way we know God hath appointed us to enter into the invisible communion and fellowship with Christ and administers an entrance to that inestimable treasure of the glory of the Gospel now exhibited to spiritual persons in spiritual benefits by the spirit instead of Levitical rites and ceremonial Church estate wherein there were also spiritual blessings of the Jewes Mr. Tombes 22 Section THe second is answered already though Infants be not baptized grace is larger under the Gospel being extended to believers in all Nations than under the Law to the Israelites and some few Prosâ—lites The third is a speech that hath neither truth nor sobriety of expression nor proof it is but a bug-hear to affright the ignorant people to make use of such as he is and to make odious them that wil not baptize Infants as counting them as vile as the children of Turks Tartars or Cannibals even as they make them odious that will not bury their dead as not affording them Christian burial though they are buried as Christ was without â— Priest but burying as dogs But we know how to put a difference between Believers and Pagans children in regard of the love God bears to us some promises he hath made to us concerning them the hopefulness of them by reason of prayers education example society confirmed by many experiences that are comfortable all which things we should be contented with and not complain for want of an imaginary priviledge which is indeed no priviledge but a dammage to our children I for my part look upon the children of believers unsprinkled as pretious and rather more hopefull than those that are and I think Mr. C. as hard a conceipt as he hath of the Anabaptists and their children yet would be ashamed to say as he doth here of them That they are as vile as the children of Turks Tartars or Canniballs But that which he closeth with sheweth he was minded to affright the poor ignorant people as the popish Priests did of old Reply THe second absurdity was If Infants should be in covenant then and not now grace would be larger under the Law than under the Gospel which his Answer does not reach for the Question is not of extending means of salvation to Gentiles not proselired but independent of the Jewes which by degrees were multiplyed as was before from Abraham's sole family to a great nation surpassing in number the sands of the sea But whether all sexes ages degrees be in covenant which were before from which if Infants were excluded till actual professors the one half of Christendom would be excommunicated whereas Bucer saith on Mat. 19. that no age affordeth heaven so many Citizens as infancy The third for all his stormy blustering speaks with a great deal of evidence the words of sobriety and truth and is used as a motive to bring home the ignorant but well meaning people whom such as he hath seduced to make use of godly and Orthodox Ministers to baptize their Infants as they and all their progenitors were and to convince not to make odious those that will not whom we pitty for making their own children as much as in them lies as vile as the children of Turks Tartars and Canniballs yet hope God will not punish the innocent babâ—â— for their sins It is a malitious slander that we make them odious that will not bury that is officiate at the burial of the dead in which some of us may challenge precedency of Master Tombes who turned not with and it s to be feared for the times as he but prevented them yet we cannot be perswaded Christs burial ought to be a more necessary president than his death for ours till he can prove the Jewish burial rites and amongst them those that dyed as Malefactors to be our directory for then he must bury his friends out of Towns Churches or Church-yard in the fields in rocks or caves and not cover them with Earth we know not from Scripture to put any difference between believers and Pagans children unless the one be in visible covenant and may have the seal whereas the others are without them God hath made no promise to any that are out of
the washing of the new birth or regeneration as is manifest to every one Now what is this washing of Regeneration but Baptism Which could not succeed circumcision unlesse children that were circumcised were in his judgment baptized These are the Evidences in part of the Greeks concerning Infants interest in Baptism proving that de facto in their times and from the beginning of Christianity they were baptized The Latine Fathers come up with a full body to joyn with them whereof Tertullian marches in the front who as Helvicus records wrote his book of Prescriptions about the year 195. Which was about 97 years after the decease of St. John So that by this calculation he lived about 70. or lesse years after St. John in which short tract of time the Apostolical practise of Infant-Baptism could neither be clouded nor forgotten Neither would he have commended his private opinion as more profitable that the Baptism of some Infants for some respects should be deferred but have called it down as an Innovation if the practise of it had not been as transparent to every mans apprehension as if it had been writ with the sun-beams That Infant-Baptism was in practise in Tertullians dayes it appears by this Question libr. de Bapt. cap. 8. Quid sestinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatâ—rum Why does innocent age meaning children in their infancie make hast for remission of sins meaning Baptism which is a clear case whatsoever Semi Socinian Grotius say to the contrary That Tertullian was for Infant Baptism himself appears that in his book de Animâ cap. 39 he presses it when the child is in danger of death and gives his reason libr. de Bapt. cap. 12. praescribitur nemini sine Baptisme competere salutem it is prescribed that salvation is to none without Baptism That cavill of his advice to deferr Baptism in some cases I shall answer anon Cyprian succeeds who flourished as Trithemius and others observe about the year 240. in his 59 Epistle ad Fidum is not onely expresse for Infant-Baptism himself but mentions a Councell of sixty six Bishops who had declared the same and all this to satisfie the said Fidus who was not aginst the divine Institution and Apostolical practise of Infant-Baptism but conceived that Infants might not be Baptized before the eighth day because they might not be circumcised Cyprian tells him that Infants might not onely be baptized before the eighth day but any day Austin approves of this Epistle and his judgment saying Epist 28. ad Hier. Cyprianus non novum aliquod decretum condens sed Ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servaÌ„s That Cyprian did not devise any new decree but faithfully observed what the Church had done before him Augustine that bright day-star of Afâ—ick gives further evidence Sermon 15. de vâ—rbis Apost speaking of Infant-Baptism says hoc Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuiâ— hoc a majorum fide accepit hoc usque in finem persâ—veranter custodit The Church always had it always observed it received it from the faith of their Ancestors keeps it with perseverance to the end Neither do those exceptions against him any whit impeach the credit of it much lesse the fact First because he calls it an Universal Tradition Not denying that it is grounded upon Scripture as before but with the Oxford Convocation avouching that which in general terms by consequence and sub obscurely is delivered in Scripture is more plainly interpreted by Tradition as following the River Nilus the heads that are somewhat obscure are found out And that Constantine Augustine Alipius Adâ—odatus were not baptized when Infants was either because their parents were not Christians or they were not converted till of age or were tainted with some heresie or afraid of persecution as Philip the first Christian Emperour no sooner baptized â—ut privately made away The second exception is that Austin held that Infants dying without Baptism were damned This Rivet fathers upon him de patrum authoritate cap. 9 Augustinus aeternis flammis adjudicat infantes sine Baptismo morientes Austin adjudges to Eternal flames Infants dying without Baptism To which I answer he maintained Infant-Baptism upon other grounds though partly upon this which afterwards he retracted Thirdly it s excepted for that of giving them the Eucharist is impertinent that he held a certaintie of regeneration by Baptism and he makes no question of the regeneration of Infants I answer he does indefinitly of the species or sort of baptized Infants seeing God hath promised to be a God of those that are in covenant with him and their seed and we have a promise and consequently faith of none else But he does not say that every individual baptized Infant without limitation is regenerated but the contrary cortâ—cem sine nucleo the shell without the kernell as he averres there are some quirem Baptismi absque Sacramento Baptismi consequuntur that have the matter of Baptism that is the outward Elements without the Sacrament of Baptism that is without the inward and invisible grace The other Antients are of the same judgment as Ambrose â—â—stifies of Valentinian quem in Evangelilio geniturus eram amisi sed ille non amisit gratiam quam poposcit I have lost him whom I was a begetting by the Gospel but he hath not lâ—st the grace he desired but enjoyes eternal life and how seeing he was not baptized He gives the reason he was baptized inwardly in will though not outwardly with water The last exception is that Austin maintained that not onely Infants of Beleevers but Unbelievers also might be baptized It s true if Christians had the Tuition of them and would engage for them they might as well be baptized as the children Abraham's posteriâ—y boughâ— wâ—th mony or captives might be circumcised therefore Tertullian pleads both prerogative of birth and education as giving capacity to baptism To these I might add Ambrose that sayes that every age is liable to sin therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament of Baptism Lactantius Fulgentius Prosper Aquatanicus the Milevitan Councel with all the succeeding worthies enough to swell a Volume goes in the same Equipage But says Mr. Tombes Infant-Baptism as it is now used was opposed by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen Which Argument made into form sounds thus That which was opposed by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen was not held by the whole Church but Infant-baptism was opposed by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen Therefore Infant-Baptism was not held by the whole Church I deny both propositions first the Major for if it were true two mens opposing does not weaken an Evidence of fact not interrupted for so many Centuries Secondly the Minor is most false for it is formerly proved that Tertullian and Gregory were both for Infant-Baptism True it is the one advised to deferre it till the Infants were two or three years old unless they were in danger of death as it is conceived least dipping impair their health what is this against
Baptizing of believers we confess had its spring from Christ John Baptist and the Apostles but not onely of actuall believers excluding Infants Though Master T. confesses that Infants may habitually believe nay by extraordinary means have actuall faith And here by the way observe two things 1. He cunningly alters the subject of the Question from Anabaptists that is denyers of Infant Baptism and Rebaptizers of Baptized to Baptizers of believers Secondly his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calling him Nicholas Stork or as others Pelargus not Stork as it is apparent per Antiphrasin by the contrarie for he was so far with the Stork 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 piously to relieve his Mother the Church that he did rather Viper-like eat through her bowels as too many of his children do at this day The second untruth is That we call the Baptizers of believers Anabaptists we do according to the Nottaion of the word call those Anabaptists that refuse to Baptize Infants of believing Parents and being baptized by others rebaptize them when they come to age according to Master T. his judgement and practise who calls Infant-Baptism a nullity a mockery that all that will be saved must be baptized again when they become actuall believers and this he puts in execution by making as many Proselytes by rebaptizing as he can The third untruth is that baptizing of believers without Infants or excluding Infants had not its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork The Epistle affirmed Anabaptism which is an other thing had its spring thence I am content to wave that and trace him in his own words and meaning This is a negative Question concerning matter of fact and is best confuted by rendring invalid his own Instances alledged against it in his writings Constantine the Great Gregory Nazianzen Chrysostom Augustine Adeodatus c. Were not baptized when Infants says he therefore baptizing of believers without infants was before Nicholas Stork This is a strange consequence and may be paralleled with this Abraham ' Ishmael Naaman Ebedmolesh men of forty years old in the wilderness besides many Proselytes were not circumcised when Infants therefore circumcising of believers without Infants was antient or alwayes The Question is not whether onely Infants were baptized in every Century for we acknowledge that as Abraham was circumcised when a hundred years old Ishmael when thirteen the Proselytes at what age soever they became Proselytae foederis or entered into covenant with the Jews So Jews and Gentiles of what age soever were baptized as soon as they became Christians not onely in the Primitive but in succeeding ages But the Quere is whether before Nicholas Stork and John of Leydens time Infants of believers de facto were excluded from Baptism which the foregoing instances do not prove They prove indeed that those parties were not baptized when Infants but they do not prove that they were Infants of believing Parents Here the Anabaptists shamefully begs the Question being not able to prove that the Parents of any one of these were in covenant or believers when they were born but rather the quite contrary as those two worthies Master Marshall and Master Baxter have cleared beyond exception out of Authentick histories And that they were not baptized as soon as converted as it is impertinent to the present controversie so it is fallacia non causae ut causae a Paralogism that would impose upon us but frontlesly that denyall of Infant Baptism was the reason The consequence will be strange Constantine Nazianzen Chrysostom Augustine c. deferred their baptism after their conversion therefore Infant-baptism was not in those days either de jure or de facto It concludes as this Proselytes of the gate deferred their circumcision after their conversion therefore Infants then were not circumcised The true reasons why they superstitiously deferred Baptism were these 1. An imitation of Christ who was not baptized till he was thirty years of age 2. An ambition to be baptized in the same place where Christ was that is Jordan thus Constantine and Valentinian but fell shoâ—â— the one was baptized at Nicomedia where he dyed the other expired without Baptism 3. Some deferred Baptism till they could receive it from some Bishop of an eminent Sea which ambition Nazianzen reproves 4. Some thought Baptism washed away all their sins therefore they deferred it as Gregory Nyssen records sine carne abutar turpi libidine fruar c. Baptismum tum demum suscipiam cum à vituÌ„s iniquitatibus desistam give me leave to abuse the flesh and to enjoy my filthy lusts then at the length I will undertake Baptism when I can give over my vices and iniquities 5. Some thought that Baptized persons might live and not sin or if they sinned after baptism their sin was unpardonable abusing that place Heb. 6. 4. Thus the Novations to one whereof the Emperour Theodosius said well if it be so that none can be saved that sins after Baptism fac tibi Acesi scalam per quam ascendas solus ad Coelum Acesius make thy self a ladder by which thou mayest alone ascend to Heaven 6. Some put off Baptism to avoid persecution by Imperiall decrees it was forbidden to buy sell eat drink or converse with Christians as Eusebius and Socrates records the very name of a Christian was odious bonus Vir Caius Seius in hoc tantum malus quod Christianus Caius Seius was a good man says the storie in this onely blame-worthy that he was a Christian 7. Even Infant-Baptism out of urgent necessity not scruple of conscience might be deferred which makes nothing against the present Tenet as upon these or the like occasions 1. When a Christian lived amongst Pagans and could not easily meet with a Minister 2. Though they lived amongst Christians yet Baptism was not a thing feisable when they pleased by reason of some violence this Gregory Nazianzen hints at Orat. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that though they would they could not enjoy the grace of Baptism neither for themselves and questionless the reason is the same nor for their children 3. It fell out sometimes that the Orthodox lived amongst Hereticks who corrupted the faith and grated the foundation and therefore they would not have their children baptized by them like Antiochus who refused to be ordained by Jovinian an Arrian Bishop which was not simply to refuse ordination but ad hoc from such profane hands so they might deny their Infants baptism not absolutely but ad hoc to be baptized by Hereticks according to the judgement of Cyprian and other Africanes who held their baptism null 4. They might out of neglect or some other humane frailtie defer Infant baptism being tyed to no day as Moses did Circumcision of his Infant from the eighth day so precisely commanded â—nd yet for all this baptizing of believers without Infants pressed as a duty had its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork and in the sense as questioned had no footstep before
purport but that they knew well those that were baptized before were not to be baptized again And it is neither a Logicall nor Thelogicall conclusion in Mr. T. as proceeding neither from reason nor charity to say from thence its probable that I am a bloudy minded man who would rejoyce to see innocent men put to death when it is well known that even in Abergaveny when the most eminent dipper in these parts was sentenced to death by a councell of war and the Engine for execution prepared I laboured with others what I could to reverse it when that could not be to defer it to procure some liberty from close imprisonment and consequently his escape Methinks if Mr. Tombes out of tenderness of conscience should follow that which he thinks though mistakingly the plain rule of Christ he should be more meeke than causlesly judge it not unlikely to be my aim or my complices in printing the brief relation of a dispute and sermon which suits both with the Laws and Religion of our Land to stir up Magistrates or furious common people against them when he hath printed many Volumes disputing with both whereby both Church and State are disquieted and as the wolf in the fable did the lamb accuses us of that which never entred into our thoughts which he hath effected in part and is to be feared with his complices is further projecting against us The Authors I cite and by citing approve that do make dying the first dipping the second of the significations of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not cross my resolution of the former doubt that baptizing is not dipping but prove it for if there be four manners of Baptizing whereof dipping is but one then baptizing is not onely dipping Species non praedicatur de genere nec cum eo reciprocatur I undertake to prove that Infants may nay ought to be baptized whose Advocate Christ was commanding them to be brought to him that could not come themselves spoke in the behalf of them that could not speak for themselves In subordination to whose will I speak for them in speaking for their Baptism it tending to their good as thereby being made visible members of the Church more compleatly out of which ordinarily there is no salvation Poore they are in regard they are self-helpless Saints or holy in regard of birth-privilege or election of grace whch none but Satan and his complices denyes them The preface which the pittiless Herodian Infanticides oppugne recommends two considerations first that those truthes that were not in controversie in the primitive times the Apostles were not so punctuall in pressing of them seeing there was no need Solon being asked why he made no Law against murderers of Parents answered because he conceived none would commit that unnaturall act If the Apostles had been asked why they did not put down Infant-Baptism in plainer terms they would have answered that none would have denyed it as being so firmly founded in Christs appointment and their practise that the gates of Hell and the Locusts swarming thence in succeeding ages should not prevail against it The second consideration which is not so much taken from Mr. Baxter as Mr. T. his whole fabrick from the German Anabaptists Grâ—tius and the Jesuits is that those things that are pressed oft in the Old Testament are mentioned more sparingly in the New as the Sabbath and Magistracy which he sayes is answered in his answer to Mr. Baxter but so weakly that whosoever reads and understands cannot but be further confirmed against him but I follow him to the view of mine Arguments Mr. Tombes 8. Section HIs first is Those that are in covenant with God ought to have the seal of the covenant which is Baptism But Infants of believing Parents are in covenant with God Ergo. He sayth the former proposition is firm by the confession of all Divines even our adversaries and cites five but not where they say it nor is any one his adversary in this point It is true Ferus was a Popish frier though more ingenuous than the most of them But doth Mr. C. think that we must take that for true which Protestants and Papists do avow without any proof from Scripture If so then let us lay aside the Scripture and read their books But he might know and t is likely did know that I though I will not take on â—e the name of a divine yet have denyed yea and proved his former proposition to be false Exam. part 3. Sect. 1. letter to Mr. Bayly Sect. 3. Antipaedobap or full Review 1. part Sect. 5. Which shall be fully vindicated God assiâ—ting in the Third part yea were his Argument good it would prove Infants were wronged because they had not the communion for I can as well from his own Medium prove that they are to have it as he Baptism Reply THe first Argument is Those meaning under the Gospell that are in Covenant with God meaning outward and visible ought to have the seal of the Covenant which is Baptism But Infants of believing parents are in Covenant with God therefore they ought to have the seal of the Covenant which is Baptism The former proposition I truely sayd is firm by the confession of all Divines even our adversaries meaning Mr. T. himself whose Plea for Antipaed page 12. confesses he affirmed in his sermon that visible Church-members were to be baptized visible Church-members and visible Covenanters are Synonima And that those that were actually received into Covenant might be Baptized to be visibly in covenant and actually received into covenant are both one I cited five more four eminent Protestants Danaeus Davenant Wendel and Perkings One a Papist Ferus who he sayes is more ingenuous than them that are fore-mentioned see his affection and if you please Ferus his ingenuity who upon Matth. 19. sayth juste ac vere ex spiritu Christi ecclesiae etiam pueros baptizat non igitur Christianum sed plane Herodianum vel si mavis Egyptiacum est parvulos populi Dei necare Justly and truely from the spirit of God the Church even baptizeth children therefore it is not a Christan act but plainly like Herod or rather like the Egyptians to murder the little ones of Gods people by denying them Baptism I think we must take that for true which is instituted by Christ practised by the Apostles and all succeeding ages adhere to Scriptures not the writings of a few novel Anabaptists whose dictats poysons the Church I knew that Mr. T. who will not take upon him the name of a Divine yet thinks himself wiser than all the Divines in the World hath denyed and attempted to prove Exam. part 3. Sect. 1. letter to Mr. Bayly Sect. 3. Antipaed 1. part Sect. 5. That those that were in covenant with God had no seal before Abrahams time from Abraham till Christ women were in covenant and not circumcised since Christ the elect are in covenant invisibly before they be members visible
visible covenant And if the hope fullness of our children without the covenant or promise depend onely upon our prayers education example society Their condition even in this also is no better than of Infidels children who if they should live amongst us ought to participate of all these which we ought not to be contented withall seeing God hath enlarged his bounty further but complain of them who deny infants those reall and Scripture-grounded priviledges which would consequently for any thing we know deprive them both of grace and glory We look upon children of believers that die unbaptized through invincible necessity as hopefull despair not wholly of Anabaptists children that through Parents contempt are not baptized It may be he that said Genes 17. 14. The uncircumcised child shall be cut off from his people he hath broken my covenant will not visit the Parents sins upon the children they being federally holy and in covenant their Parents infidelity in that perhaps cannot defeat them though they want the seal And methinks Mr. T. might be ashamed to use this forgery when he had my words before him to say I said The children of Anabaptists are as vile as the children of Turks Tartars and Cannibals when my words were expresly all the Infants of Christians if they were out of covenant would be as vile as the children of Turks Tartars and Cannibals I hope all Christians are not Anabaptists and for the Parents to contemne the seal though commanded is not simply to put the children out of covenant This is not to affright the poore ignorant people as he further traduces me as the Popish priests did of old with a Limbo or Purgatory of Infants but to tell them their danger who detract from or diminish the word and institution of Christ and make the way and entrance into the Church narrower than God hath made it Mr. Tombes 23. Section FOurthly saith he They would be without God without Christ without hope in the World not the children of God but would all be damned for out of the covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation Answ By covenant he means doubtless no other than the outward covenant which is not shewed to be any other than Baptism and indeed we do not otherwise put them out of the covenant than by denying of them baptism which being presupposed Mr. C. speech must needs imply that denying baptism infers all this which cannot be true without conceiving that all that are unbaptized are without God without Christ without hope in the World not the children of God but of the Devill will be all damned have no salvation which is not onely more than what the Epistler makes haynous in me all that would be saved must be baptized after profession though it were understood by me duely of necessity of precept which Mr. C. himself asserts to be imported Mark. 16. 16. but worse than Austin sayes whom Mr. C. himself called the hard father of Infants and sayes went too far worse than Papists themselves speak of the dying unbaptized which shews that he preached this Sermon with a bitter and furious spirit His closing speech out of covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation if understood of the covenant of saving according to election I grant that neither ordinarily nor extraordinarily is there salvation If of the outward covenant as they call it that iâ— ther outward administration of seals it is certain there may be salvation unless profane contempt or wilfull neglect against conscience do hinder salvation The speech Out of the Church is no salvation hath been interpreted by Protestants of the invisible church A person of years that believes though he be joyned to no particular visible Church if there be not prophane contempt or wilfull neglect against conscience may be saved But they that are onely negatively or privatively out of the Church visible meerely for want of age to understand the faith and ability to make profession may ordinarily if it be meant frequently constantly be saved though they be not ordinarily saved are ordinarily notes ordinary means preaching the word and profession of faith Reply THe fourth Absurdity was If Christian Infants were without visible covenant and consequently baptism they would be without God without Christ without hope in the World not the children of God but of the Devill would all be damned for out of the covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is salvation which his answer does not impeach for by covenant I mean outward covenant which is not onely nor properly at all baptism but foederall holyness that as the Directory sayes gives capacity thereto By denying of both of them they put them out of covenant and my speech implyes that denyall of visible covenantship foederall holyness and baptism infers all this which comes far short of that the Epistle relates and the Examiner confesses he delivered in his Sermon for he affirmed there was no hope of salvation to those that were baptized when Infants if they were not baptized again that is that contemned a second baptism as his necessity of precept infers which necessity I onely understand for baptism of Infants and conceive that Austin was called a hard Father of Infants for sometimes holding as well a necessity of means as precept But Anabaptists denye not onely the seal but foederall holyness and visible Church-membership to Infants This I delivered in the Sermon with the spirit of truth and meekeness which for Mr. T. to traduce and aggravate as he does becomes no professed Christian much less a Minister of the Gospell By interpreting my closing speech out of covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation that is out of the covenâ—nt of savâ—ng accordâ—ng to election he makes it a Tautologie and non-sense The word visible added as Epitheâ—e to Church mâ—ght have chalked him out my meaning that out of the outward covenant whâ—ch gâ—ves capacity to the administration of seals is no salvation which seals though we be bound by necessity of precept to accept yet I confess there may be salvation without them unless prophane contempt or some neglect not out of invincible ignorance do hinder the acceptation However that speech of his out of the Church is no salvation hath been interpreted by Protestants it weakens noâ— the truth of mine out of covenant and visible Church ordinarily is no salvation That supposition is vain and implyes a contradiction that a person of yâ—ars should be a believer and be joyned to no particular visible Church congregational Parochial Provincial National c. without prophane contempt or wilfull neglect against conscience for iâ— he receive baptism and other ordinances from any of these he joyns with them if not there is prophane contempt and willfull neglect And indeed is not intelligible how he became a believer without joyning in some measure with some My meaning is out of covenant and visible Church ordinarily is no salvation That is God hath not promised
there were any Infants of whose Baptism they doubted they required they should be baptized why should Master Tombes out of Grotius give this false Echo That Infants in the Primitive times were baptized very rarely The eighth untruth is That Infants in the Primitive times were baptized only in case of danger of nearnesse of death the contradictory whereof is so evident that it need no other refutation but reflexion upon the Premises to which I referre the Reader None of the Anti-Paedobaptists have hitherto which their peremptory assertion requires given us historical evidence that either all or the major part put off their baptism till believers except as is alledged in case of danger of death Nay that any dogmatically and out of scruple of conscience denyed or refused Infant-Baptism True it is that Tertullian that lived about eighty years after the decease of S. John and Gregory Nazianzen after him who lived about 370 years after the incarnation in some cases as hath been formerly alledged advised to put off Infant-Baptism which irrefragably proves that Infant-Baptism was generally in practise in their times that they approve of the lawfulnesse of it onely advises the conveniency of deferring in some cases forementioned neither do we find upon record that either of them prevailâ—d In case of urgent necessity death approaching they more vehâ—mently pressed the necessity of Baptism according to Tertullians own ground Tertul. de Baptismo Praescribitur nemini sine baptismo competâ—re salutem none can be saved sayes he without baptism from that sentence of our great Master unless one be born of water he hath not had life for he hath tyed faith to the necessity of Baptism thus farre he From whence we may gather that as Tertullian elsewhere confesses the universal custome of baptizing Infants so here impliedly he approves of the lawfulness nay the conveniencie of it seeing Infants every moment are liable to death and of a further necessity death approaching which necessity we are not to suppose to be absolute and Medii of the means as if God could not save Infants without baptism but conditionall and praecepti bâ—cause God hath commanded it for I cannot find that God hath promised to save any that walks not in his way and are not actually or at the least habitually disposed to be admitted into the Church visible by his own ordinances God could have clensed Naamans leprosie without washing in Joâ—dan but would not if he had stubbornly refused therefore that was good counsell of his servants 2 Kings 5. 13. If the Prophet had bid thee do some great thing wouldst thou not have done it How much rather then when he saith wash and be clean So that Tertullian's advise to put off Baptism was but either as before till Infants were strengthened to endure the water or a mistake as he also advâ—sâ—d young men unmarried and widowes though professiâ—g Christ to delay their baptism till they were either marryed or confirmed in chastity that is single life Now as this would be a strange Argument Tertullian advised young men and widdowes to delay their Baptism till they were either married or confirmed in chastity Therefore young men and widdowes in the Primâ—tive times when converted from Paganism were not baptized As strange is this Tertullian advised to deferre the baptism of some Infants therefore in his time and the ages before him infants were not baptized save in the case of danger of death every one may see the weakness and this is their main fort which being taken they must needs yeild up their armes The ninth untruth is That when reformation of other Popish abuses was sought the reformation of Infant-Baptism was sought with the first some hundred years before Luther Nunc ad Triarios perventum est This is the Rereward which our Adversaries boast much in as Nestor did of his in Homer but being examined it will end like Nebuchadnezar's image in feet of clay or as Jordan the Dippers talk so much off in Sodomes gulf or the dead sea What! was Infant-Baptism instituted by Christ practised by the Apostles used in the first Centuries a custome so sacred in Pelagius his dayes by Mr. Tombes's own confession as he durst not oppose it And yet a Popish abuse when Popery had yet no being Did Augustine averre the Church was alwayes Popish when he said the Church alwayes held Infant-Baptism Did Origen say the Apostles practised Popery when he said de peccatorum meritis Ecclesia traditionem ab Apostolis accepit etiam parvulis dare baptismum the Church received a Tradition from the Apostles to give Baptism even to little ones Was it used in Asia Europe Greece before the Bishop of Rome was as much as a Provincial Bishop Nay more frequently as Master Tombes would have it in Africe then Italy and yet a Popish abuse This is a strange Prodigie Indeed there are that under the notion of Popery comprehnds the Trinity Magistracy Ministry Sacraments all Ordinances Scriptures and even the truth of the deity with the Persons and Office of Christ. The Trinitarians and Anabaptists of Transilvamia Anno 1568. in their Antitheses of their false and true Christ at Alba Julia have delivered something like this which our Seekers Ranters and Mortalists have improved of late impugning all glorious truths under the Notion of Popery But that Master Tombes would be esteemed a judicious and learned man much versed in Antiquity should account Infant-Baptism a Popish abuse and interpretatiuely accuse the Magistracy and Ministery of all the reformed Churches of Popery is somewhat strange But when or in what hundred years was the reformation of Infant-Baptism sought For he saies it was sought some hundred years before Luther Sought by whom At the hands of what Councell Magistracy Presbytery He mentions here none but Pithagoras like thinks his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sufficient In his Examen of Mr. Marshals Sermon he gives four instances for proof of his pretended allegationâ— 1. Berengarius 2. The Albigenses 3. A nameless Sect out of Bernard 4. The Petro-Busians which whether any or all of these sought reformation of Infant-Baptism as a Popish abuse comes now to the Test For his first instance of Berengarius he sayes that Cassander in his Testimonies of Infant-Baptism in the Epistle to the Duke of Cleve tells us that Guitmand Bishop of Averse mentioneth the famous Berengarius Anno 1030. opposing not onely the corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist but also the baptism of little ones For answer observe it is nor said that Berengarius desired reformation of Infant-Baptism but opposed it nay that Guitmund did but say that he opposed it and if he seek further he shal find that Guitmund took it upon the credit of Deoduinus Leodiensis and he took it up as a common fame how far does this fall short Besidâ—s this fame was a lyer for in so many Synods held against Berengarius we never find any saith Bishop Usher thing of this nature laid to
the internal and spiritual part may be made intentionally to Infants as the spiritual seed of believers and yet the external part and that of Ordinances to Infants as the natural seed of believers as well under the Gospel as under the Law That under the Law it is apparent by the History of the Old Testament confirmed by that of Pâ—â—â— Galat. 2. 15. We who are Jewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles And Rom. 4. 12. Where Abraham is said to be the Father of circumcision to them that are not of circumcision onely but also walk in the steps of his faith which implies that he was the Father of them who are of circumcision onely and walk not in the steps of his faith The same reason is of the Gospell unless they were two distinct covenants and essentially different and that made with Abraham and his seed carnall as the carnall Anabaptists affirme which absurdity supposes it little better comfort for Abraham and his seed to have such a portion onely sealed to him than Turks and Tarters enjoy who were never in covenant with God True in the covenant there was a promise of Canaan and temporal blessings but yet the covenant was in the main spiritual Rom. 4. â—1 else we should make the Jewes little better than the beasts that perish as some grosse Anabaptists do So Calvine well observes Judaeos adeo carnales nobis depingunt ut pecudum similiores sunt quà m hominum Calvin Instit lib. 1. c. 16. s 10. The covenant of free grace that God made with Abraham in Christ is an everlasting covenant and stands more firme than the pillars of the earth or the poles of the heaven hence God himself calls it an everlasting covenant Gen. 17. 7. and that it is not meant of any limitted time is put out of doubt Isai 54. 8. 10. With everlasting kindnesse will I have mercy on thee saith the Lord thy Redeemer and the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed but my kindness shall not depart from thee neither shall the Covenant of my peace be removed saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee So that the Gospel Covenant for substance is still in force to the natural seed of Beleevers though not as natural but natural of Believers as well as under the Law And though the Jewes had priority in the Covenant yet not sole propriety for the Gentiles becoming visible professers they and their Infants did partake in it whosoever fears the Lord his children were Olive plants as well as theirs Psalm 128. 1. 3. Master Tombes 7. Section ANd for that which he saith This unchurcheth the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation if he mean by Christendome all that are commonly called Christians I grant it if the Infants be the one half of them and their unchurching be in respect of visible Church-membership but count it no absurdity Nor do know what ordinary means of Salvation he conceives they are left without except Baptism which I take not to be an ordinary means of salvation without faith and therefore think it no inconvenience to say that Infants are without ordinary means of salvation which are the preaching the Word c. Yet are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit Reply MAster Tombes denying the consequent of the Major that though the Covenant of the Gospel was a better Covenant than that under the Law yet Infants were not in covenant as well under the Gospel as under the Law which in the Dispute was thus taken away That which unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation cannot be a better Covenant to deny Infants to be in covenant unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation therefore it cannot be a better Covenant Then he gave no direct answer but now sayes if I mean by Christendome all that are commonly called Christians he grants it this is his concession but with two limitations 1. If the Infants be the one half of them 2. If their unchurching be in respect of visible Church-membership but then he counts it no absurdity there is his Epanorthosis or correction Again he sayes that he knowes not what ordinary means of salvation I conceive they are left without except Baptism which he takes not to be an ordinary means of salvation and therefore thinks it no inconvenience to say that Infants are without ordinary means of Salvation c. yet are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and works of his spirit All this being summed together is in his sense to deny the major and interpretatively averrs That which unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of salvation may be a better Covenant I le trace him in his own foot steps First to gratifie him I mean by Christendome all that are commonly called Christians that is them and their children that hold the fundamentals till they deny them by their life or doctrine and then too so far that after repentance they are not to be baptized again or readmitted by iteration of the seal contrary to Cyprian the Novatians and Donatists with the Councell of Carthage 2. I conceive that Infants that is besides those that dye in their mothers wombes they that expire before and after Baptism before years of discretion with the number of those that lives before the dippers will admit them to their water-ordinance are the one half if not the greater of visible members as by examining of Registers hath been observed Thirdly I grant him that their unchurching is in respect of visible Church membership though not onely so but of invisible Church-membership also interpretatively and consequently for they that are not in covenant and members of the Church-visible have no promise no present hope of Salvation Ephes 2. 12. This he seems to overthrow by these positions following 1. That he knowes not what ordinary means of Salvation Infants out of Covenant are left without except baptism 2. That he takes not Baptism to be an ordinary means of Salvation without faith 3. He thinks it no inconvenience to say that Infants are without ordinary means of Salvation 4. That Infants are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit without ordinary means These are his slight works that he intends to entrench himself in but God willing we shall easily levell them First he sayes that he knowes not what ordinary means of Salvation Infants out of Covenant are left without except Baptism And is not that enough An Infant under the Law left without any ordinary means of salvation save onely circumcision was in a sad condition seeing God said Gen. 17. 14. The uncircumcised Manchild whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised that soul shall be cut off from his people for he hath broken my Covenant and shall we not think
which was done v. 41. to be consequent on that which was done before v. 40. Reply HE denying that these Jewes Acts 2. 38. were sufficiently qualified for Baptism by outward profession or a willingness to receive the ordinance was assaulted with this Argument They whom the Apostle commanded to be baptizâ—d were sufficiently qualified but the Apostle commanded them to be baptized Therfore they were sufficiently qualified He denyed that the Apostle commanded them to be baptized which was proved verse 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imperatively be baptized every one of you his answer was upon condition of repentance repent and be baptized That I told him was a condition of his own making and an adding to the Word of God for the Scripture no where expresly or implyedly sayes that repentance is a condition of baptism if it be meant of compleat repentance for though it was their duty both to repent and to be baptized to repent in relation to crucifying of Christ to be Baptized in relation to Judaism which they were to put off and Christianity which they were to put on but that they must have compleat repentance before baptism is not so much as hinted at all this he passes by which might have given light to that which followes onely â—atches at this what I say that Acts 2. 38. repentance is not maâ—e a condition of being baptized is in his apprehension manifestly false where he unfaithfully reciâ—es my words leaving out that whith is the hinge of the controversie for I said not but granted that repentance was a condition in adultis of being baptized but denyed that compleat repentance was for then none were to be baptized till they were compleat Christians then the Pharisees and others John Baptized were such Then the Apostle preached to baptâ—zed and brought to that perfection three thousand Jewes in one day then the Goaler and his family were perfected in a part of a night Lydia and her houshold with one sermon whereas Mr. T. hath been preaching writing disputing these twelve years for Antipaedobaptism and yet by report hath scarce dipped a hundred and how many of these had compleat repentance I leave it to him that searches the heart it being pretended that the spirit is poured â—ut more abundantly now than it was in former times and his reason is as feeble as the quotation false for the requiring sayes he repentance as first to be done and then Baptism to be annexed doth make it a condition of Baptism To which I answer first incompleat repentance which consists in acknowledging ones former errour and inclining to accept of Christ is a condition requisite and therefore he idly beats the aire Secondly I deny that he requires compleat repentance first to be done Thirdly that he requires Baptism to be annexed to compleat a repentance 1. He requires not compleat repentance first to be done for first repentance is pressed there as the end Baptism as the means repentance is a continued act all our life long Baptism like regeneration but once repentance is the first in intention and therefore oftentimes first expressed as analytically in all practical methods according to Arist 2. Phys cap. 9 t. 69 Finis est unde principium ducitur non agendi sed cogitandi Finis est principium actionum 1. Metaph. 2. Hence arises this philosophical Canon omnis Intellectus operativus incipit a fine every practical act of the understanding begins at the end Therefore 2 he requires not Baptism to be annexed to compleat repentance but presupposes it before it therefore the Catechumeni or converted Pagans in the infancie of the Church and the baptized in latter times in full constituted Churches did promise by themselves or sureties to forsake the Devil the World and the Flesh and to keep all the Commandements So that Baptism does not necessarily pâ—esuppose but is a tye for the future obliging to complete repentance therefore John Baptist sayes Matth. 3. 11. 1 Baptize 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to repentance and they were baptized v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confessing their sins first baptising is expressed then repentance and confessing of sins So that from the order of the words if there be any force in such an Argument we might as well conclude requiring baptism first to be done and then repentance and confession of sins to be annexed doth make baptism a condition of repentance And his Instance is as weak and impertinent believe and thou shalt be saved believe is made a condition of salvation what then Repent and be baptized for it is not repent and thou shalt be baptized therefore complete repentance is made a condition of Baptism a strange consequence and hath couchant two fallacies in it first a secundum quid ad simpliciter for if some thing that is first placed in order be a condition of another as faith of salvation it doth not follow from a particular to an universal that alwayes that which is placed first is made a condition of the latter 2. It is fallacia accidentis but a contingent thing that the former in order is a condition of the latter Me thinks Mr. T. that will allow no Argument from Analogies in positives without a precept should not enforce an Argument from placing oâ— words without a precept But to his Instance believe and thou shalt be saved believe is made a condition of salvation what belief actual For so it s meant Mark 16. 16. What then will become of all Infants unless God work a miracle upon them to use his own parallel as he did upon Baalam's Asse Exam. pag. 134 But as actual belief is pâ—t before salvation so before Baptism that from his ground it will follow none but actual believers are to be baptized which without extraordinary revelation is impossible for the Baptist to know and would be an unanswerable Argument for the Socinians But as believing is placed before Baptism is not Baptism placed before Salvation He that is baptized shall be saved by his Logick it will follow that Baptism is a necessary condition of Salvation why does he then insult so much upon Austin and some of the ancients for holding the necessity of baptism to salvation and against the Doctors of the Church of Rome for maintaining a Limbum Infantum when he furnishes them with a medium to inforce their conclusions If this his assertion hath any truth iâ— it as indeed it hath none Having unfaithfully as you see recited my proposition by concealing the word compleat after it had wrought a while upon his stomack he was forced to vomit it up and with it some gall faying my talk about incompleat repentance because they were pricked in their hearts as a sufficient qualification for baptism doth make the Apostles speech idle which requires that which they had already if I say true Soft and faire let him take patience along with him and look before he leape I say again incompleat repentance not onely because they were pricked
children but of holiness adhering to them outwardly that is of the holiness of the Covenant for the children of believers are comprehended in the Covenant of grace and so far forth are judged holy of God Well said Hugo What now says Master T. to his beloved Pamphilus being defeated of his Philomena but in the language of Charinus nullane in re cuiquam hominum esse fidem Terent. Andr. The Assemby of Divines consisting of a hundred and fiftie Reverend and learned Ministers indeed the Representative of the Church of England crosses him in this First in the Directory pag. 21. Infants are Christians and federally holy before Baptism and therefore are they Baptized and this confirmed by Ordinance of Parliament Larger Catechism pag. 138 Infants descending from Parents either both or but one of them professing Faith in Christ and obedience to him are in that respect within the Covenant and to be baptized Lesser Catechism pag. 176. Infants of such as are Members of the visible Church are to be baptized in both places quoting 1 Cor. 7. 14. else were your children unclean but now they are holy All these he sayes with Vossius Bullinger the Parliament with hundâ—eds more of the greatest lights the world hath had are meerâ— mistaken and that holiness of Children which is menti 〈…〉 1 Cor. 7. 14. is truly said by him to be onely matrimoniall s 〈…〉 iness or legitimation O infallible Oracle Credite me folium vobis recitare Sibylles we have found another Socrates but with this difference 1. The former was judged the wisest man by the Oracle of Apollo this by his own Oracle and opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I truly said The former was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissembling he knew nothing This other is plain-dealing professing in Mysteries the whole Church was ignorant of before he knowes all things I will not loose time nor blur paper about his Triviall criticism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it be the unbelieving husband is or hath been sanctified in or to or for the wife or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believing wife as Beza's Copies hath it Nor will I take advantage of his grant that it is easie for us to bring ten for one who interpret this Text as we do if we understand it of those who are called Calvinists though he thinks scarce so many of the Papists and Lutherans His impertinent quotation of Augustine Tom. 7. de peccat merito remission c. 26. who rejects not the Covenant-holiness but original holiness I will pass by his Acyrology or Catachresis that in impropriety or abuse of speech the sense might be as he conceived it most likely to be thus understood The unbelieving husband though an unbeliever is sanctified that is all one to his wife in respect of the lawfull enjoyment of him as her husband as â—f he were indeed sanctified to God because forsooth Piscator interprets some thing in the fore going verse so Neither will I take notice of the feebleness of his Argument taken from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies chastitie or to be chast therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie so and because it may signifie therefore it does signifie so because they all come from the same root which I believe is untrue for whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy come from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to worship as Jansenius would have it or from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aretius in his Problems or from the Hebrew word signifying a feast as Pasor from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Beda and the best Grammarians it hath no affinity with the forementioned words These with a miscellanious â—ubbidg of much more I supersede whereby like the Limner that could not draw the picture to the life he casts a veil over the face of truth and with that General that durst not face his enimy raises a thick mist that he may march away in the dark But to his answer That 1 Cor. 7. 14. is meant only of matrimonial holiness or legitimation it was thus replyed That which in Scripture is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for matrimonial holiness or legitimation cannot be so meant here but it is taken in Scripture almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for matrimonial holiness or legitimation therefore it cannot be so meant here In stead of answering he goes about 1. To disgrace this Argument and his Opponent saying it is out of Mr. Baxter What then May not I as well entertain truth from him as Mr. Tombes errour from Grotius the German Anabaptists and them of Alba-Julia Whose Monument he does not only prodigiously erect as Artimesia did of her husband Mausolus but with her drinks drown their very ashes Valer. Max. 171. That in England Ireland Scotland his Trophies are erected Barbara Pyramidum sileat miracula Memphis Secondly he sayes That in six hundred times in which holy is used in Scripture in none of them it is found for outward Covenant holyness entituling to Baptism Entitling to Baptism Is there any such thing in my Syllogism Look you never so strictly to that Gamester he will slir a die Etsi non aliquo nocùisset mortuus esset Let us see how he makes that good anon In the mean time observe how he manages his Bactrian like fight tergiversando shooting over his shoulders which he calls retorting and a right way of answering though it be called indirect by the Logicians What Logicians call it a right way of answering Seton in his Officio Respondentis sayes non est fas ut responsor ulla disputanti objiciat aut questiones proponat suum agat negotium id est objecta repetat repellat solvat It is not lawfull for the Râ—…pondent to object any thing to the Opponent or propound Questions let him tend his own business that is let him repeat the Objections repell unty them with him agrees Crakenthorp Burgersdicius and others Neither do I find any thing that makes for him in his sense its true Keckerman System Log. pag. 444. speaks of an indirect Syllogism which concludes by that which is indirect or absurd which by Aristotle lib. priorum cap. 2. is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Syllogism bringing to that which is impossible And 2. priorum cap 15. is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Syllogism of contraries but this is in the Opponent not unmannerly snatching from him by the Respondent howsoever not to be used to invert the order of the Dispute when there is another way of answering But to return to his retorting Syllogism That which in Scripture is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for Covenant-holiness cannot be meant here but it is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for covenant-holyness Therefore it cannot be meant here I might deny his Major which may be false and mine in a contingent
neither have we ground to believe or hope the salvation of any but of them that are in covenant and members of the Church visible Though I deny not but God can by his absolute power and secret will save otherwise extraordinarily Infants of believers are neither negatively nor privatively out of the Church visible for neither want of age to understand the faith nor ability to make profession excludes them more now than it did the Jewes children under the Law who were ordinarily that is according to Gods promise annexed to the covenant saved If any Gentiles children unproselyted were saved it was extraordinarily that is without promise or visible covenant And Anabaptists giving us no more ground of Christians Infants salvation than of these are miserable comforters Mr. Tombes 24 Section HIs last Argument is That which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success must needs be lawfull But Infant-baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles times Ergo The Minor is denyed The blessed success he proves not In my exercitation I shew many errours and corruptions which have come from it not by accident in respect of some persons that embraced it onely but even from the tendency of the practice it self I may truely say that Paedobaptism hath been as cursed a roote of corrupting the Churches and loosing the gifts of the spirit conferred at first commonly at baptism by laying on of hands as I think except some few any other corruption in the rites of Christian Religion But Mr. C. thinks to draw it down from the Apostles dayes He begins with words of Dionysius Arcopagita â— Holy men have received a tradition of the Fathers which very words shew it was not Dionysius Areopagita mentioned Acts 17. he would doubtless have said I have received it from blessed Paul not have told what other holy men have received from the Fathers whom Mr. C. vainly conceives to be meant of the Apostles But the books that go under his name have been so often by so many learned men Papists and Protestants proved to be meere counterfeits that either it is much ignorance or much impudence that this is produced as his Salmatius sundry times speaketh of them as certain that the Author of them was not till the fift age The Apostolicall constitutions appear by many observations of Sculteâ—us and others not to have been witten by Clement but of much later time Irenaeus his words make nothing for Mr. C. as he cites them nor as they stand in his own works Reply THe last Argument was That which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success must needs be lawful But Infant-baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles Therfore it must needs be lawfull He denyes the Minor saying in his exercitation he shewed many errours and corruptions which have come from it not by accident in respect of some persons that embraced it onely but even from the tendency of the practice it self whereas Dr. Homes Mr. Marshall Mr. Hussey proves the contrary and makes his own accusations recoyle as dung into his face yet like the dragon in the Revelation he casts out a venemous flood to poyson the Churches of all ages saying that Paedobaptism hath been as cursed a roote of corrupting the Churches as he thinks excepting some few any other corruptions in the rites of Christian Religion I make no doubt but the Antiscripturians will say as much of the Bible and the Ranters of marriage But what are his corruptions Infant-baptism hath brought in 1. Private baptism Answ as if we might not as well baptize Infants in houses As the Apostle did the Jayler or two or three of them steal to a river side to duck or cuck a Proselyte 2. Baptism by women Answ Protestant Churches allowes no such thing since Luther but closes with the Councell of Carthage Can. 10. Mulier baptizare non praesumat let not a woman presume to baptize Bold Zippora circumcising must be no president 3. Baptizing of Infants not yet brought into light Answ If he mean the mother with child Councells are against it If he mean the child we know no such approbation or practice 4. Baptism of children of uncertain progeny Answ we approve and know of none if the Parents be not believers and Christians engage for them 5. They are baptized in the name of the Lord that know not the Lord. Answ As well as Jewish Infants circumcised with the seal of righteousness of faith in Christ who knew not Christ 6. It admits the ignorant and prophane to the Lords supper because the sacraments are concommitants Answ The Antecedent and consequent are both Scriptureless and false the one is the Sacrament of initiation the other of perfection to which the former is a preparative 7 It. perverts the order of discipline by baptizing before Catechizing Answ In Infants it does as in Isaack and the Jewes males but not in adultis and what inconvenience 8. It s turned to a feast and men forget baptism Answ There was a feast at the weaning of Isaac and feasts of charity at the Lords Supper without prophaness we can minde at ripe years what was bequeathed us by Legacy when we were Infants may we not as well our solemn vow which we are put in minde of dayly Thus his vainly pretended errours and corruptions vanish without impeaching the blessed success of Infant-baptism since the Apostles which briefly here I drew down from the Apostles times more largely before beginning with the words of Dionysius the Areopagite whom the Apostles converted at Athens who said Holy men have received a Tradition from the Fathers that is the Apostles to baptize Infants instancing not in one Apostle as Paul but all former authority whom the converts called fathers as they them children which is no vain but a Scripture grounded conceit vos genui per Evangelium Though I am not ignorant some Papist and Protestants have questioned the authority which censure the most books in Scripture have undergone But that either Councell Synod or University have declared them counterfeit is more than I have heard And to produce them as his whose namâ— they have born in all Libraries in all Countries for many Centuries is modest verity which for one Grammatian Salmatius and one quondam Surrogate M. T. to oppose relishes rather of insolency Clemens who is recorded by some of the Antients to succeed Peter in his Ministery at Rome says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptize your Infants does Master T. think that we will admit of the conjecturall observations of one poore yesterdayes Palatinat Minister Scultetus to overthrow the Apostolicall constitutions when he himself denyes the authority of all Protestants joyntly as convâ—ncing Irenaeus who lived in the second Century says Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est Christ became a little one for little ones sake and lib. 2. cap. 39. Christ came to save all that are new born by him into God Infants and little