〈◊〉 madidus that cannot be understood of the moisture of temperature which in some sense is given to young persons till they cease to grow till a naturall drith falleth upon their bones that hindereth their further augmentation but that moisture is such as is on children new borne what Mr. Goodwin saith of it I have not seen But Mr. Tombes saith that it is doubtfull whether our Saviour saith of them is the Kingdome of heaven because the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such not of them It is plaine our Saviour urgeth the relation they had to the Kingdome of heaven to move his disciples to suffer them to come to him now it could not have been any reason why these should be admitted into the presence of Christ because others had relation to the Kingdome of God but the truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath a further emphasis for the words are not urged to shew a reason why the children should come to Christ but why the disciples should suffer them and therefore Christ doth represent these children to his disciples not under such a character as they did appear to him by his omniscience but such as they were able to judge of and therefore he saith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he should say well ye have forbidden children to come unto me but it was out of ignorance now I tell you if any such as these are shall come hereafter forbid them not for of such is the Kingdome of heaven The precept is given to the Disciples in terminis intelligibilibus in words and in a sense that may be understood by them as if Christ should have said To many of these little ones the Kindome of heaven doth not belong but you are excused for that insomuch as the Kingdome of heaven doth belong to such you are not able to discerne the difference and therefore it cannot 〈◊〉 said to your charge that you did suffer any wilfully to enter into the Kingdome of God that the Kingdome of God did not belong unto But the Apostles might have answered nay Sir but we can discerne these unfit for the Kingdome of heaven they have not actuall faith and repentance and therefore we may not admit them into the Kingdome of heaven to this our Saviours answer is plaine the Kingdome of heaven doth belong to such as these therefore suffer them to come to me Now for the further manifestation of the sense of these words the Kingdome of God is understood either of the Kingdome of grace or the Kingdome of glory belonging to the elect only or of the Kingdome of the visible Church where men walke under the meanes of grace 2. The comming unto Christ may be understood of comming to Christ motu locali or comming to him by faith as he sitteth in his Kingdome of grace and glory or last of all comming to him as he sitteth in the Kingdome of the visible Church Christ hath a residence in the Kingdom of glory and in the Kingdom of grace Now no man can come to Christ as he sitteth in the state of grace or glory but by faith agreed on by all parties but Christ likewise sitteth in the Kingdome of his visible Church and teacheth them as the Prophet promised by Moses and there inviteth all nations to the use of the meanes and commandeth his Ministers to baptize all nations and suffer little children not those onely that Christ blessed and gave especiall testimony unto but those that were but like unto them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they must be permitted to come to Christ Now the question is whether this comming to Christ is understood only of corporall comming to Christ or any or in which of those respects this comming to Christ is here understood though I dare not deny a corporall comming to Christ is there intimated yet this is not all that is meant in the direction Suffer little children to come to me for the bare comming to Christs person could not have beene inferred from this assertion for to them belongeth the Kingdome of God I sit in the kingdome of the visible Church to dispence ordinances to all the world which I doe by my Ministers A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you like me saith Moses and him shall you heare according to which promise I sit alwayes in the visible Church teaching the minde of God as I thus sit ready to teach Suffer little children to come to me for to such belogeth the visible Church if thus you understand the Kingdome of God and the belonging of Infants thereto to signifie their interest to the visible Church then come to me signifieth no more in the direction then suffer them to bee received into the visible Church which is no more then suffer them to be baptized or hereafter when ye shall have commission to baptize all Nations baptize them Neither will Mr. Tombes his distinction serve turne that those whose is the Kingdome of heaven may be baptized when it appears that the kingdome of heaven belongeth to them the text is not of these but such that is of such as have no difference from these as far as you can judge in reference to the Kingdome of God these are to be permitted to come to me Now whereas Mr. Tombes saith such that is such in meeknesse that is a liberty not to be allowed in interpreting of Scripture to assigne or rather restraine the likenesse to humility whereas our Saviour applieth the likenesse only in this that they were little children it was not similitudo qualitatum but subjecti ob omnes qualitates for a subject cannot be said to be like another if any notable disparity can be found it is true if a quality be assigned wherein they doe agree that one quality is enough to make them alike though they differ in all other things but for a man barely to say such as he is fit for this or that employment he that is fit must be such with respect to his skill fidelity and all other conditions requisite for that employment Now if any thing were named wherein they were like it was in that they were little children now that which they were a like fit for was the Kingdome of God and if any children can be fit for the Kingdome of God what unfitnesse can be found in one more then another by any mortall man therefore Christ saith Suffer all children to come to me for they are all alike fit for the Kingdome of God the visible Church and the invisible too for ought you know neither doe I know that the unfitnes of the Infidells childe is in the childe but in the parent that will not bring it nor covenant for it that it shall be a disciple of Christ nor undertake to bring it up in the doctrine of the Gospell nor is that man that is an Infidell himselfe fide dignus to be beleeved in
rejoyced beleeving in God with all his house I confesse Passor and others render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so yet it is an adverbe of place and can reasonably signifie no more but the place where he rejoyced besides if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie with all in the house it must signifie more then were baptized because none were baptized but his and if under the name of his then he had an interest in presenting them Now man can have no more interest in any then in his children they are his in a more especiall manner so that if he had any children it is apparent they were baptized or else they were none of his all his were baptized And whereas Mr. Tombes saith all the houshold beleeved or all that were baptized beleeved it is plaine that the Master of the house onely is said to beleeve for the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is referred to the nominative case the adverbe that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it should be translated with all his house is to be referred to the verbe which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rejoyced they rejoyced to see their master or father so merry if beleeving had been referred to all the house it must have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 domo credente with his house beleeving whereas it is now to be rendred hee beleeving rejoyced with all his houshold none is said to beleeye but himselfe as in Lydias case is likewise plaine from whence it will appeare that a beleeving master may present his servant and children to baptisme though it doth not follow that a beleeving master may or will present those of his servants or children that are adult or of yeares without their consent yet he may be his authority require them to it as an externall duty he cannot compell them to any duty or restraine them from any vice without their consent yet he may correct them and incline their will to any outward duty by his authority and having wrought upon them â—o consent and submit the commissioner may baptize them that come so presenâ—ed the master of a family is a King a Prophet and a Priest if by any of these offices he can prevaile with his houshold he may bring them to the performance of their duties Now baptizing as a duty and precept lyeth on the Minister antecedenter to the faith of the baptized and is at least annexed to doctrine and not to faith they must teach and baptize all Nations now it is plaine they must teach as well them that beleeve not as them that beleeve againe baptizing is modus decandi a manner of teaching as I have said and shall further be made appeare upon occasion Now whereas Mr. Tombes further saith that then it will follow that the whole houshold must necessarily beleeve if the Master doth and proveth that some time it falleth out otherwise I say that though it bee the master or husbands duty to move his family yet he cannot alwaies prevaile and speciall direction concerning the wife is given to suffer her in regard of the bond of Matrimony and that under some limited and restrained tearms in hope of her conversion yet nothing is said concerning servants but that he may either force them or be rid of them if they continue Infidels in that sense that is refuse to list themselves among Disciples the publike worship of some God being the bound of all humane society 101. Ps 6. He that walketh in a perfect way he shall serve me he that keepeth any servant that will not be baptized is not a good Christian it is true all men of discretion ought to consent to every duty but baptisme is a duty without consent as all other precepts are it is pactum impositum as before and so I come to follow his arguments lapping up two or three of them because he maketh sleight of the arguments we shall take occasion to shew the weaknesse of some of his answers and where the arguments be weak the weaknesse is his to bring them in The first argument of this sort is taken from the generall promises to the godly and their seed this hath already been handled how they conclude for baptisme he citeth Exod. 20.6 Psal 112.2 he saith they are for the most part concerning temporall things then spirituall also as confessed generall and indefinite if generall and indefinite it must be so by reason of the necessity of the matter otherwise indefinite would be particular election doth not stop children they are elect when children or never these promises are with condition of faith and repentance therefore not belonging to this place saith Mr. Tombes Well then he was too blame to bring it 2. Isai 49.22 it is foretold that Gentiles should bring their children in their armes therefore the Prophets foresaw the baptisme of Infants It is the happinesse of the best arguments to have the weakest answers they might be brought to other ends which he proveth from Mat. 19.15 but were those in that place brought to the Church according to the prophesie then Christ must needs be understood as sitting in the Church and suffer them to come to me must be admit them into the Church as I have said it is true that men which come to the Church come for other ends then to be baptized but if baptisme be the door of the Church as it is the sacramentall door of the visible Church nemine contradiâ—ente besides Independents then whatsoever be their businesse they did come in by the door of baptisme And whereas Mr. Tombes saith that was an analogie and was performed by the perswasions in which the Gentiles did perswade their children to imbrace Christ he formerly affirmeth little ones in armes are not to be baptized because not capable of instructions and must bringing of little ones in armes be interpreted by instructions it is true that Junius doth say cum vexillâ— Evangelii quod est potentia Dei ad salutem haec omnia allegâ—ricâ— dicuntur de amplitudine regni Christi spiritualis but he doth not say that bringing of children in armes should be understood of grown children capable of instruction when it may be literally understood Lastly I shall only mention that argument taken out of Ephes 5.26 where it is said Christ cleansed his Church with washing of water through the Word from whence it is argued that the Church is washed with water of baptisme or not partaker of the washing by the blood of Christ To which Mr. Tombes maketh this answer that if this argument be of force the thief repenting on the crosse Infants catechumeni martyrs and others dying without baptisme are excluded out of the Church and the benefit of Christ he should have said if none of these were capable of baptisme then were they excluded from the benefit of Christs death where God doth prevent any by death the party so taken away by God is not deprived of the benefit of Christs death God
be instituted wherein the whole question must be stated what is meant by communion of the Church whether he understand the visible or invisible Church whose office it is to admit and whose to shut out of the Churches communion what be the rites of a visible and what of an invisible Church how can the Infant come and demand the Lords Supper which he distinguisheth from the communion of the Church but how I cannot tell untill they be instructed to know the Lords body to remember the death of Christ and examine themselves which they are commanded to doe and then eat but where is the Minister commanded to give the Sacrament to all that are in the Church or else to turne them out of the Church these things must be proved plainly or else otherwise the argument drawne from hence against childrens baptisme is abignotioribus Christ giveth you a charge to baptize all Nations you say nay we shall then let in ignorant and prophane persons into the Church you will not baptize any untill they be fit to receive the Sacrament you were as good say you will make commissions your selves Christ bids baptize and teach you say there is more in the matter then so you will baptize when you please and whom you please they that will bee baptized must passe your censure and stay your leasure Christ hids you teach and so much examination as is needfull for teaching may be deduced from thence but did God give you in charge to admit and refuse and give you any rules by which ye might walke in the discharge of this duty if so ye might then justly plead this right and make that an argument to remove all that standeth in its way But I wonder extremely at the in temperate zeale of those that plead the duty of admitting and refusing of men ex officio from and to Baptisme and the Lords Supper and herein the Lords Supper is the most cryed up priviledge which you here fall upon whether out of your owne opinion as it seems by some is suspected or to confute your adversaries and make this as a medium to prove that Infants may not be baptized because none may be admitted to the Lords Supper that are wicked though for my part I doe not understand the consequence how baptizing infants and charging their parents to bring them up in the fear of God would be a means to cherish and foster up ignorance and sin But here men cry out against liberty to come to the Lords Supper as if that would pollute the Sacrament and countenance sin as though men might not have liberty to come to the Lords Supper upon their own examination and yet might justly be punished for their sins when they can be proved against them may not men make choice of their owne habitations and drinke when they please and yet be justly punished for adultery and drunkennesse I do not know but the Magistrate may suppresse and punish sin though men may be allowed their liberty to receive Sacraments For my part I wish some stricter course were taken with sin The seventh fault laid to the charge of Infants baptisme is that it perverts the order of discipline that first a man be baptized and after among the catechized but who I pray you Mr. Tombes did lay downe this for an order of Discipline it seems Sacraments are subservient principally to Discipline I had thought the use of Sacraments had been for confirmation of doctrine But let us once heare where this discipline is what footsteps in the doctrine or practice of Christ and his Apostles As for the practice of the Apostles there is nothing found but conversion and baptizing without any interposition of time that of Matth. 3.5 6. there Jerusalem Judea and all the region round about Jordan came to John the Baptist and were baptized of him as like Acts 2. no catechising either of these persons if ever they meant to know Christ must be catechised after their baptisme or not at all I understand not any such duty of catechising if not comprehended in the duty of teaching and doth this seem a thing so strange to you that men should be taught after they are baptized What may not men be taught after they have bargained to be disciples This is all one as if a man should bargain with a School-master that his son should be his scholler and from that day forward the School-master should never teach him but this rather dependeth upon the use of the Ancients then authority of the Word The three last confute themselves as for recrimination I see the Anabaptists so soundly paid with abuses and faults that have been laid to their charges by others that I shall not meddle with them in this point usus per se abusus per accidens The ninth Reason that which causeth unnecessary disputes that cannot be determined by any certain rule that is deservedly doubtfull but the tenet of Infants baptisme is such All these disputes are determined by a certain rule when the commission plainly chargeth the Ministers to baptize all the world so as they can make them disciples if any will undertake to bring them up in the fear of God and instruction of the Gospel or they of yeers do undertake for themselves submission to the Gospel they may be baptized this is the rule of the Word Abraham had not only right to circumcise his own children but he might buy a childe and circumcise it nay if he bought it he must circumcise it But grant that they must be taught first tell me how will Mr. Tombes satisfie the doubts that may arise from hence how much they must learn first how long they must be catechumeni secondly who must judge of their sufficiency thirdly what if any should baptize them before they were fit whether that must be accounted a void act and the party put again among the catechumeni fourthly whether if this accounted valid whether the party that was baptized before he were sufficiently catechized must for ever after remain ignorant together with many other of the like nature which I shall put among my reasons for childrens baptisme The tenth Reason is the same with the first only there he handleth accidens sine subjecto here in subjecto there he saith it was mixed with other errors here that those that held Infants baptisme held other errors therefore I conceive that already answered The eleventh Pedobaptists agree not among themselves when Anabaptists do this may be an Argument not till then and yet answerable that men may sooner agree in evill then good as arising from a more common principle And now I am at last come to his last Reason and that a weighty one saith Mr. Tombes But it is taken only from a seeming effect of Infants baptisme if there be any weight in an Argument from an effect that is ab effectu proximo per se but this doth but seem to take away one end and perhaps the
2 Colos 11.12 The argument he raiseth thus To whom circumcision doth agree to them baptisme doth agree but to Infants circumcision doth agree ergo also baptisme The major proved If baptisme succeed in the room of circumcision then baptisme belongeth to them that circumcision belonged but the antebedâ—â—â—s true ergo the consequent The major of the Prosyllogisme is apparently false for to them that circumcision did belong to them sacramentall baptisme doth belong the contradictory is true but his meaning is that men of such condition in respect of Infants and he denieth and cutteth and divideth the major of the conditionall Syllogisme into such parts that he may find out something that he may deny that it doth succeed baptisme he cannot deny nor readily sinde out a reason why a man of yeers under the Gospel should not be able to bear as much as an Infant under the Law I speak this in reference to the dispensation under the Law of the promises the condition of the Church is called infancy the heir under age now how shouldâ— childe of eight dayes old when the whole Church is under age be able to receive circumcision and now the Church is at age our Infants not able to receive baptisme He telleth us that the argument supposeth baptisme to succeed circumcision it doth not suppose it but proveth it out of Colos 2.11.12 but he prepareth for a deniall so to succed that those persons to be baptized that by Gods appointment were to be circumcised it should be persons of such quality but because he taketh no advantage of that difference let him alone with his own expressions In this sense it is false saith he females were not circumcised nor believers out of Abrahams family as for believers out of Abrahams family if he understand it of such believers out of Abrahams family as lived before Abrahams time or before the Law of circumcision such a plea to prove all believers under the Law were not circumcised were vain for to prove exemption from a positive Law by some persons that lived before the Law was made were exempt but for persons that were out of Abrahams family the promise was made to all families in Abraham and they might be circumcised though neither bought with money nor born in Abrahams family but desirous to eat the Passeover only and so believers they and all their males must be circumcised but for the females circumcision was given in terms that did exempt females baptisme to all nations not males only as circumcision was but females also Besides the Scripture doth tell us that the Apostles did understand all nations male and female and accordingly did baptize Acts 8.12 Now because God hath called in females because they are capable of the signe of baptisme which in circumcision they were not may you without warrant thrust out Infants or doth it any way follow because some persons of some quality are added therefore those that were before capable are now uncapable if God had declared infants uncapable as he hath women capable we must have been satisfied baptisme may succeed circumcision though with such difference as God is pleased to make but because God maketh one difference in reference to the persons man may not take liberty to make another As for Job Lot and Melchisedeck or whom soever else you can name we know if they lived after the Law of circumcision was made they might come and be circumcised the extent of the promise made to Abraham did reach to them and what those persons you name did you cannot tell if they had any particular exemption that is nothing to the question we know none had priviledge to the ordinance but circumcised and in plain terms both in the old and new Testament nouncircumcised person shall eat thereof Exod. 12.48 and Rom. 3.1 2. this is reckoned the profit of circumcision that they had the Oracles of God here is every circumcised person for that it is properly assigned to circumcision as the profit of circumcision there it is no uncircumcised person yet Mr Tombes will tell us all persons in covenant were not circumcised this is the reverence that is given to the Scripture when it crosseth their opinion though they would make the world believe that they were the only men that did respect the Scriptures he should have made his personall difference by believers and not believers by Infants and men of yeers and not by male and female in or out of Abrahams house Two sorts of succession which he denieth of baptisme to circumcision is of time because baptisme began before circumcision ended What if circumcision did overlap a little and baptisme did begin a while before circumcision ended the same Gospel Christ in his person and by his Spirit in his Apostles did put down one and set up another that is all I say to that and surely it is so frivolous I needed not to have said so much In respect of signification here Mr. Tombes is put to his shifts in some signifcations he confesseth but not in others First I will consider the significations he alloweth and observe that wherein they agree cannot hinder their succession they both signifie the righteousnesse of faith saith Mr. Tombes but he must mean it doth sacramentally confirm or seal not demonstratively signifie but how soever he doth agree that baptisme and circumcision have the same respect to the righteousnesse of faith and yet the hinge of all Mr. Tombes his work is on this that Abrahams seed were circumcised whether they believed or no none must be baptized but actuall believers and yet circumcision and baptisme have the same respect to faith Me thinks the bare acknowledgement of this is enough to dash all that any Anabaptist can say the controversie is at an end if there be no difference in respect of faith why should faith be required more to the baptized then the circumcised certainly I would have found out some difference or found some other reason why Infants should not be baptized then want of faith or I would never have opened my mouth in such a case I would never have confessed them both seals of the righteousnesse of faith and yet the whole weight of the busmesse depend on this that one might be given in infancy to them that have not actuall faith the other may not be given in infancy for no other reason but because they want faith What is the reason why circumcision the seal may be given where there is no faith but baptisme the seal of faith may not and that for no other reason but because faith is wanting What may a man make a difference of a common accident or make a genericall form a specificall difference or a specificall form a numericall difference this is all one as if a man should say that a Bear were not a man because he can see or not a Lion because he can hear and yet after confesse that both men and Bears and Lions can both heare
but being commanded to baptize all Nations and told that it should stand us in the same stead that circumcision in reference to such principles as concerne us most and did equally concerne the Iewes in the same respects and telling us now the particular priviledge of the Iewes should cease and the ordinances should freely be communicated to all Nations never speaketh one word of the particular qualification of the person of them that are to be baptized he leaveth that to be understood ex natura rei under the Gospell God dealeth with the Church as fathers with their children when they come of years tell them the ground and reason of things leaving circumstances which necessity will drive them upon unto their own discretion whereas when they are children the father directeth them to the sensitive part not acquainting them with the reason but supplieth the defect of the infant with the particular direction of the fact to be done having a care that he take not more upon him then he is able to beare but when he becommeth a man if he should still continue in such simplicity as insist upon the same rule and take no notice of any reasonable instruction nor by comparing his strength with infancie judge nothing of his owne power but still looke for the same direction as he had when he was a childe when the father chooseth rather to instruct him by reason then by sense he could not escape the just censure of a foole God our Father telleth us that baptisme doth circumcise the heart sealeth faith as circumcision did Go baptize all Nations this is enough for a man when he is told the nature of baptisme by comparison with circumcision and shewed the difference in case of women and appropriation to the Jewes to direct them by a rationall proportion with what God did direct his Church in infancie ye shall circumcise no more but ye shall baptize that shall have the same operation upon the heart and you shall not restraine my worship to Jerusalem as of old but goe to all Nations If any shall further object But what say you to Infants I say nothing but that baptisme in respect of my worship and the operation it hath upon the heart is the same with circumcision and you know what direction I gave to my Church when shee was in infancie concerning circumcision you are capable of as much purity of heart as they were then that is all I say you are now of yeares whilst you were children I taught your sense now I teach your understanding as for argument from analogie though it doth come farre short of an argument from precept yet it is equall with an argument from example for indeed all that can be drawne from an example is by analogie and among analogies those are more certain that are drawne from a precept then those that are drawne barely from an example without any shadow of a precept when the analogie is made by God and we are led to the thing signified by Gods-owne direction and told that circumcision of the heart is the same under baptisme as under circumcision of the flesh how dare we say that infancie maketh men uncapable of circumcision of the heart when God sometime did declare that that should be no obstacle to the administration of the signe seeing we are trusted with administration of the signe not with the judgement of the heart but as for that rabblement of analogies which he talketh of out of Durands Irrationale they are things of no analogie with this I further say that it is not the proportion of the signe with the thing signified that maketh a Sacrament but institution I hope no man will affirme that baptisme wanteth institution and as for the person if you will have him adultus I make no question you shall runne upon a greater necessity of will-worship then by administring of it to Infants as I hope upon further occasion to make appeare Your third argument is out of the verge of your owne method as not being drawne from any place of Scripture and therefore I omit that and come to your fourth Argument from the Acts 2.38 39. He frameth the Argument well if the Proposition wanted not forme it should be they to whom the promise belongeth are to be baptized but Infants of beleevers are they to whom the promise belongeth therefore Infants of beleevers are to be baptized Mr. Tombes before he can make any answer to the argument hee must fit his answer that is he must misquote and misapply two or three places of Scripture to the intent his Reader may conceive that the promise that was there meant was not the promise made to Abraham but the promise of sending Jesus Christ others say sending the Holy Ghost all is one if Christ had not been sent the Holy Ghost had not beene sent and the sending Christ was the promise made to Abraham as I have proved before out of Luke 1.73 But Mr. Tombes quoteth some places of Scriptures as if a man in them should finde so plaine a difference from the promise made to Abraham and there spoken of by St. Peter as must needs give full satisfaction to all that doubt of that but let us view those places Acts 3.25 Yee are the children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers saying unto Abraham And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth bee blessed that is plaine enough of the promise to Abraham Act. 13.32 33. And we declare unto you glad tydings how that the promise that was made unto the Fathers God hath fulfilled the same unto us Rom. 15.8 9. Now I say that Jesus Christ was the Minister of circumcision for the truth of God to confirme the promises made unto the Fathers read and judge and judge what Mr. Tombes hath gotten by these places to prove any difference from this promise here spoken of and the promise made to Abraham But said Mr. Tombes the promise was made to them he spoke to and their children to them that are afar off whether they be Gentiles who are said to be afarre off Eph. 2.17 or Iews in future ages as Beza is doubtfull indeed Beza doth argue that Peter did not then know the call of the Gentiles or if he had it is not likely that he would have told the Iewes of it it might be Peter did not at that time know the Nationall calling of the Gentiles that was afterward made knowne to him for then he could not properly have said of them that they were afarre off in respect of the Iewes but Peter was not ignorant that as many of the Gentiles as the Lord should call had right to the promise and this was in no age offensive to the Iewes they alwayes knew that one law was to the homeborne and the stranger that sojourneth among them Exod. 12 48 that is when and after they were called they were put into the same condition with
were vainly reported and taken up to countenance severall errors as delivered from the Apostles if some have disclaimed the proof of Scripture for childrens baptisme and held it notwithstanding lawfull from weaker grounds that doth not any way weaken the authority of Scripture and strength of reason taken from thence If any one hath proved baptisme lawfull from Apostolicall tradition that doth not hinder me or any other from proving it lawfull by Scripture neither doth the mixing it with errors in the same person make the baptisme of Infants erroneous if so all truths would quickly be turned into errors seeing few men have been without their slips which yet have not only held but defended and propagated with admiration many pretious truths Mr. Tombes would be loth if his Anabaptisme be convicted erroneous that all that he hath or shall hereafter speak should be therefore reputed erroneous by the same reason all the truths that were taught among Papists are eo nomine erroneous because they taught them and so not only the doctrine of the Trinity but the incarnation of Christ thâ—◠〈◊〉 of the dead were therefore erroneous because those that held 〈…〉 held likewise many other heresies and so his tenth argument 〈…〉 â—â—â—wered His 6 7 8 and 9. 〈…〉 neer alike and all to little purpose that I had thought wholly to 〈…〉 them but that men would have given some other construction then 〈…〉 were weak and therefore omitted I shall therefore say something of 〈◊〉 leâ—t men willing to be deceived should place strength where indeed there is none He telleth us in his sixth argument that Infants baptisme hath caused many inventions to support it and hath occasioned defect in Church policy but proveth none of that which he saith he only affirmeth that Infants-baptisime was supported by sureties and Episcopall confirmation and that it brought in Church-covenant as a preparation to the Lords Supper for abuses that may creep in with any duty they do not take away the goodnesse or lawfulnesse of the duty it self His seventh argument accuseth baptisme of Infants with four errors First that baptisme conferreth grace by the work done The second is regeneration The third Infants dying are saved by the faith done The fourth regenerate persons may fall from grace To these two arguments I plainly say that none of all these things are occasioned by Infants baptisme or if so men may not doubt of the goodnesse of all such things as wicked men may or will take occasion to be offended at for then Christ and the Gospel should be principally questioned the great stumbling stone and rock of offence so that occasion of offence is an argument rather of goodnesse then of fault Satan being most ready to entice us to corrupt our best actions What doth baptizing Infants imply the conferring of grace by the work done nay we say of Baptisme as Saint Paul of circumcision that is not baptisme that is outward in the ceremony but that which is of the heart but the praise of that is not of man but of God we cannot praise men for baptisme of the heart God baptizeth seeth judgeth the heart we baptise the body but leave the residue to God only in steed of Christ we teach those children that by their parents are brought to be enrolled the disciples of Christ the things that Christ hath commmanded us and tell the baptized when they come to be catechised that they must have the effect of their baptisme by faith in Christ and not by the work done What Mr. Tombes are all Pedobaptists Papists these are strange calumnies and why must Infants baptisme necessarily imply that the regenerate may fall away from grace can none of your baptized persons that are baptized being of full yeers fall away from the effect and benefit of their baptisme if that be not an heresie that such men as are judged believers by your Ministers and so adjudged fit for baptisme and baptized cannot ever after fall away from grace I know not what is I hope Religion and knowledge of God is not brought to that outward formality that all should consist in your humane judicature it seems Mr. Tombes when he baptizeth any he will promise the parties he baptizeth that they shall never fall from grace I have heard many ignorant people use this argument but that Mr. Tombes a man cried up for learning should use such an argument is admirable and strange to me and certainly by this Mr. Tombes doth plainly confute himself guilty of that opinion that baptisme doth conferre grace by the work done For he inferreth that if children may be baptized in Infancy then men may fall away from grace because many not withstanding their baptisme become wicked afterward doth not this imply that if they were baptized they were gracious if baptisme do not conferre grace by the work done how can it be inferred that such men as after baptisme turn wicked do fall away from grace Saint Paul speaking of false teachers 1 Joh. 2.19 saith of them they went from us because they were not of us not that they fell away from grace but they deserted the profession because they were not gracious but saith Mr. Tombes if baptisme be administred to Infants and they walk not according to their profession they fall from grace no such matter unlesse Mr. Tombes will say baptisme cannot be administred but to the gracious they fall from baptisme and so will many that Mr. Tombes or any the most discerning of them all notwithstanding all the caution that can be taken or else it were a most happy case to come under their hands which cannot be imagined unlesse it flow from the operâ—tion of the work done some of them that passe their examination will undoubtedly be unfaithull or at least may be such for ought they can do to prevent it so that if they do deceive them and obtain baptisme then baptisme must conferre the grace or they may remain ungracious still and so notwithstanding their baptisme they cannot be said to fall away from grace which they never had though they should renounce their baptisme muchlesse by not walking answerable to the profession into which they are baptized or not behaving themselves as Disciples ought to do The eighth Argument is taken from this That baptisme of Infants hath caused many faults and abuses in discipline worship and conversation this is likewise only said nothing proved in it he reckoneth ten of these First private baptisme Secondly baptisme by women Thirdly of unborn Infants Fourthly Baptizing Infants of uncertain progeny Fifthly they that are baptized in the the name of the Lord know not the Lord Sixthly it hath brought in the admission of ignorant and prophane persons into the Church and unto the Lords Supper for who can deny rightly the right of the Church to the baptized Seventhly it pâ—rverteth the order of discipline that first a man be baptized and after among the catechised Eighthly the sacrament of baptisme is turned into
a prophane meeting to feast together Ninthly men forget baptisme so that it hath the force of a carnall right and not a spirituall institution Tenthly it taketh away or at least diminisheth the zeal and industry of knowing the Gospell But be all these faults and are all of these flowing from Infants baptisme First I shall shew that many of these have no affinity at all with Infants baptisme First private baptisme hath nothing to do with Infants baptisme for that Infants may be baptized publikely nay Lawes may be made requiring their publike baptisme though Infants nay the Directory is at this time so penned and in all times publike baptisme was principally aimed at and desired and for the most part so performed what he meaneth by private baptisme I do not know baptisme in an house among so many as make a congregation I cannot discerne how that can well be accounted any such fault I am sure he hath not proved it 2. He telleth us that baptizing of Infants hath brought in the baptizing by women as though Ministers may not baptize children as well as women 3. The baptizing of Infants hath brought in the baptizing of children not brought to light for my part I can say nothing but wonder at such an inference 4. As for baptizing of children of uncertaine progenie I know nothing of it but that if any man that is a Christian himselfe will undertake to bring him up a Disciple of Christs such a childe may be baptized 5. They are baptized in the name of the Lord that know not the Lord what inconvenience from that It is true St. Paul saith No man can call upon him of whom he hath not heard It would indeed put on the forme of some probablity if it were referred unto the person that did call on the name of the Lord that it were something absurd but doth it follow because no man can call on him of whom he hath not heard therefore he cannot call on the name of God in the behalfe of any but such as have heard of God none can pray but those that have faith but may not a faithfull man pray for an Infidell may not a Christian parent pray for his childe because the childe doth not know the Lord this were very strange as for the childs consent I say so farre as concernes the Covenant between God and man which is sealed in Baptisme consent is not required on our part to the obligation we are bound to obedience and are under the sanction of condemnation if we consent not and this is the very reason why circumcision which had as great a respect to the circumcision of the heart as baptisme was as vaine and nothing without faith as baptisme was yet stamped on the infants of the Jewes wherein the Scripture is not silent therefore this argument is not of any force that baptisme is not to be administred to Infants because they doe not consent unlesse the consent of the party to be baptized were required to the obligation if the childe were free from those duties unto which he is tyed by his baptisme untill he had consented thereunto it were a great wrong to baptize him and thereby lay a yoke upon him without his consent from which he were otherwise free but whether he consent or not the obligation of obedience and faith lyeth on him and the sanction of wrath and condemnation attendeth on the Infidell and disobedient whether they consent or not whether they are baptized or not so that consent both to obedience and faith and baptisme whether baptisme be represented to them as already done or to be done is required of him that is adultus or of yeares as a duty not as liberty 〈◊〉 â—â—fusing to consent is a sinne and punishable both by God and man though these consist much in internalls of which only God can judge and punish faith and obedience of the heart but as for the externalls of Gods worship such as are the externall rite of baptisme that is to be performed in the sight of men and men may require him that is of yeares to consent to his baptisme laying the neglect on him as a sinne and punishing him for it as for adultery fornication or any other publike offence leaving the matter of faith which is private to the judgement of God so likewise may the Nations receive baptisme for the whole as all other externalls requiring parents to bring their children as before I have thought good to speake something to this point because it seemeth to carry some shew of reason with it that no man should be tyed to a Covenant unto which hee never gave any consent which in free covenants is true though in publike covenants we are tyed by the covenants of our Ancestors and are bound by those lawes wee are borne under made by the consent of our parents but in the case between God and us he made us and giveth lawes to us under which we must live or dye I take Lawes here in a generall sense to signifie direction for faith and repentance as well as any other rules of life not by vertue of our owne consent but Gods absolute right and authority 6. Mr. Tombs telleth us that baptizing of Infants hath brought the admission of ignorant and prophane persons unto the communion of the Church and to the Lords Supper for who can deny rightly the rite of the Church to the baptized so he To this I answer that the engagement of the parent to instruct his childe which is but his duty will certainly be a great meanes to set men upon the performance of their duty therein when men shall solemnly in the presence of God before a congregation be charged with the bringing up of their children in the feare of God that they must looke to their owne conversation that it be exemplary to their children if this be not performed by the parents yet the charging it upon them out of Gods word cannot but be a meanes rather to keep out ignorance and prophanenesse then to bring them in can any means be used by man more available then to instruct children in their tender years in the knowledge of God Certainly God hath informed us that this is the most lasting knowledge that wee learned in tender yeares and our experience doth abundantly confirme this Now what greater care can bee had by the Church then in such a solemne and sacramentall manner for a man to bee charged with the education of his childe as a Scholler of Christ as soon as he is able to learne any thing if this be a way to introduce prophanenesse and ignorance I know not what can keep it out but he implyeth as a great sinne that ignorant persons should be admitted into communion of the Church and the Lords Supper for this admittance into the communion of the Church if any thing may be argued from thence touching the unlawfulnesse of Infants baptisme a just and due tract ought to