to the constant declaration of the Gospel which proclaimeth it more plain and full more distinct and cleer then the cloudy weak and childish manifestations of the Law The Law saith circumcise a childe at eight dayes old in the family of Abraham or any other believer baptize all nations saith the Gospel circumcise males saith the Law males and females saith the Gospel circumcise this is my Covenant saith the Law most obscurely baptize into Christ by whom we have accesse by faith into grace Rom. 5.2 most plainly saith the Gospel The Law giveth the ceremony therein most obscurely wrapping up the promise of Christ the Gospel promiseth Christ most plainly and most rationally drawing after it the sacrament of baptisme children are in Christ by election of grace before they are born this is plainly set down in the Gospel but obscurely intimated in the Law Now sacramentally men are ingrafted into Christ by baptisme but personally to judge men faithfull and thereby in Christ before they were ingrafted into him were a contradiction in adjecto therefore are men appointed to baptize and preach the Word as being able to administer externalls only The second delusion is in that they interpret the histories of the Acts of the Aposties wherein historically is related that persons baptized did believe not that confession or profession of faith was made to the Apostles and that the persons baptized had their faith approved by the Apostles and that that was the ground upon which they baptized them which is a plain addition to the Scripture But my earnest request to Mr. Thombes and all other Anabaptists is to look on the doctrine of the Gospel in a more spirituall way then to subject it to such a grosse and carnall apprehension and finde out some means in a more satisfactory way to state the promise of the Gospel according to the Word of God then heretofore Yours in the Lord William Hussey July 1. 1646. I Have perused this Answer to Mr. Tombes his Book against Pedobaptisme or the baptizing of children and finding it to be in my judgement solid and judicious I do allow it to be printed and published Iohn Downame SATISFACTION TO Mr. Tombes his scepticall Exercitation Concerning Infants-Baptisme THe Method that I shall take in the handling this Controversie shall be first to state the Doctrine of Baptisme as it was delivered by Christ and understood by the Apostles as may appear by their practice then answer the sophismes and fallcies of Anabaptists and in particular of Mr. Tombs and lastly some arguments to prove the lawfulnesse of childrens baptisme As for the baptisme of John it was of God God sent him to baptize but as the Ministry so the Baptisme of John was personall began and ended in him he was not a Minister of the Gospel he was the greatest of the Prophets but the least in the kingdome of Heaven is greater then he he was precurser the forerunner of Christ of whose baptisme the Scripture is so silent if you consider the form and nature of it that we may quickly affirm more of it then we can be able to prove As for Christ making Disciples and his Disciples baptizing the Scripture likewise speaketh little only that Christ made Disciples and his Disciples baptized them during the time of Christs abode upon earth he did all things well but some things he did which he was not pleased to reveal to us what is written is written for our learning and so much is written as by believing we may have eternall life In things that are liable to no difficultie a greater liberty of words is used as Go preach the Gospel to every creature here men cannot easily mistake because none are capaple of the Gospel but reasonable creatures So in the Commission Christ saith Make Disciples of all nations baptising them in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost Here Christ giveth a Commission to make all nations his schollers baptizing them and teaching them what he commands Here our Saviour is plain in the manner and form of Baptisine that was new and unknown concerning the doctrine they should teach he telleth them he will give speciall command what they should teach and for the subject that being before limited to Jews is now extended to the Gentiles also but what should be the qualification of persons to be baptized is not said neither doth the Apostles any where declare or give any thing in charge to Timothy or Titus to whom St. Paul wrote as unto Ministers of the Gospel to acquaint them with their duty as matter of any difficulty wherein they might easily fail and in 1 Cor. 1. he by occasion speaking of Baptisme speaketh of that as of a thing consisting in form of words and outward rite of washing so as it is ministerially to be performed wherein no such difficulty was or danger of mistake and therefore he had little care thereof men of meaner qualifications might do that yet were the Corinthians baptized before he wrote to them and a Church In all the dogmaticall parts of Scripture not one word concerning any direction to the Minister whom he should baptize whereby it is plain that Christ did not charge his Disciples with any danger of mistake in baptizing they should teach what Christ had or should command for matter of doctrine and Christ doth referre the commission to future direction but in all the Scripture no farther explanation concerning the persons that were to be baptized The Churches were baptized no man knowes by whom To Churches and Saints men received into the Church is all the doctrine of the Apostles directed whereby it appears that they had care to teach all that Christ by his Spirit did command but so little is spoken concerning the persons to be baptized or the manner of administration more then is in the commission that it may plainly appeare no controversies were raised concerning that it was a plain case wherein they walked without dispute or it seemeth suspition of controversie though light enough be given to the truth so that Antipedobaptists without offending against plain Scripture can have no ground to oppose the baptisme of Infants by those inartificiall and groundlesse arguments which they urge against it and certainly it was long ere much was said and the strength of that which is said will appear What is gathered out of the commission Go make Disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost teaching them c. we shall consider Nations is the subject that is so cleer that Mr. Tombs confesseth it though with this limitation nations that are made Disciples which limitation can receive no colour without apparent alteration of the words First make them Disciples and then baptize them saith Mr. Tombes three words are added first and then the words plainly import make Disciples by baptizing them and teaching I have added nothing but the word by and that is implied in the participiall expression
baptised for my part I state not the question so but Infants borne in a Nation that are the Disciples of Christ or have received the Gospell are to bee baptised of Beleevers much more if presented by them and they undertake to instruct them by themselves or others in the precepts of Christ But let us see Mr. Tombes his sophismes That which hath no testimonies of Scripture that is doubtfull Infants baptisme hath no testimony of Scripture ergo doubtfull The minor Mr. Tombes laboureth to prove by an induction but it wanteth forme he should have said sic de ceteris none of all these places might prove this and yet it might have testimony from some other place but I will follow him in his exceptions and see how just they are against the testimonies produced The first testimony which he pretendeth accurately to examin Gen. 17.7 c. I passe by his jingle he raiseth 14 arguments raised out of severall places of Scripture as urged in defence of Paedobaptisme which he answereth whose answers I shall endeavour to examine and see how the arguments are as he urgeth them or as they may be urged from this place of Genesis to whom the Gospell Covenant agrees to them the signe of the Gospell Covenant agrees but to Infants of Beleevers the Gospell Covenant agrees therefore the signe of the Gospell Covenant and consequently Baptisme That Mr. Tombes might prepare for an answer he sheweth a great deale of his accurate skill he examines foure supposita things granted on the part of Pedobaptists and converteth them into questions stateth them apart and so endeavoureth to take away the strength of the argument 1. Whether the Covenant made with Abraham and the Gospell Covenant be the same Mr. Tombes denieth with this difference that the Covenant with Abraham was mixed but with respect to Mr. Tombes his opinion of learning he hath gotten he beginneth at the worng end to prove it for a Gospell Covenant between God and man taketh in all the Covenants that now are or ever were since the fall between God and man God was never in covenant with any man or Nation but in Christ Christ is the adequate subject of the Gospell this Gospell was preached from heaven by the Angels Luke 2.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I preach the Gospell which was in these words Unto you is borne this day in the City of David a Saviour which is Christ the Lord Certainly whatsoever the Saints enjoy upon earth or shall enjoy in heaven they enjoy it in and for Christ Whereas Mr. Tombes distinguisheth the promises made to Abraham into Evangelicall Domesticall and Civill promises what had Abraham some things in Christ and some things out of Christ godlinesse hath the promises of this life and that which is to come Now to deny the promises of this life to belong to Abraham under Evangelicall promise or to distinguish individualls by specificall difference is strange Divinity and stranger Logick is reason of different nature in Peter and Paul or is Pauls reason of another nature then Peters because he useth some particular arguments that Peter doth not Abraham had the blessings of his house and others have the blessings of their families and Gal. 3.9 Paul telleth us that they which beleeve are blessed with faithfull Abraham they are not blessed only as the seed of Abraham but as Abraham they are fountaines of blessing to their seed through faith in Christ and that doth that inference cleerly prove that Abraham was intituled to the blessing by his faith tanquam medio as by the meanes and therefore is faithfull repeated in the argument with Abraham that those that beleeve are blessed not with Abraham but faithfull Abraham and further saith not that the faithfull are blessed with the seed of Abraham but with Abraham they that beleeve have as full a right to the promise as Abraham himselfe the same Covenant the same blessing remaines to us with Abraham as for those particular differences they are but numericall and make no difference in the promise no more then the difference of Peter and Paul doe in mankinde Abraham had his family blessings wee have ours Logica non tractat aut definit particularia if any shall say that his being father of Christ after the flesh putteth a mixture of the Covenant and maketh it of another nature I deny that it doth any more vary the nature of the Covenant then a badge of honor doth the nature of man and this shall appear in that so much of the covenant as was sealed to Abraham by circumcision commeth down to us and if Abraham had any blessing that came not to us that was not sealed to him by circumcision forasmuch as all the benefit that Abraham and his naturall or faithfull seed had of circumcision that the Beleever hath without circumcision For though it be true that circumcision was given to all indefinitly yet the benefit of circumcision came only to the faithfull both before and after Christ came and this is so plainly set downe by Saint Paul that nothing can be more plaine that circumcision was of force to Abraham by faith Rom. 4.9.10 Faith was reckoned to Abraham when he was uncircumcised and that he received circumcision as a seale of the righteousnesse of faith and in verse 12. he saith that Abraham was father of circumcision to them that were uncircumcised where he implied that those that were uncircumcised were circumcised in a sense and this is farther affirmed of them who are in Christ Jesus by faith Col. 2.10 that they are circumcised with circumcision made without hands and this circumcision with hands is specified Eph. 2.11 Yee were uncircumcised with circumcision in the flesh made with hands implied that they were circumcised in the heart what other sense can be rendred of this circumcision of heart but that that cleannesse of heart which was signified to our fathers by circumcision remaineth to us though the seale be altered and this is that usuall setting downe of Evangelicall duties and benefits by ceremoniall expressions We under the Gospel are circumcised in heart without hands Now how could that be unlesse the internall part of circumcision did remaine to us And this Mr. Tombs p. 33. doth confesse that the substance of the Covenant doth remaine but still helpeth himselfe with his mixt covenant which I have formerly denyed and shall presently evince the different manner of administration doth not alter the Covenant God did set forth his promises of Heaven by Canaan was punctuall in the ceremonies but the ceremonies did lead those that beleeved to better then the bare ceremony without which circumcision and all their service was utterly without use or benefit God did in speciall manner blesse those outward duties to his elect because they were his owne Ordinances causing them to see more in those types then they in their owne nature doe seem to manifest And thus Mr. Tombes confesseth that the promises that were Evangelicall in the
while what Mr. Tombes hath here assigned as differences in forme and sanction are differences in matter not in forme or sanction promises the things granted in the covenant belong to the matter of the covenant not to either forme or sanction things promised whether Evangelicall or Politicall past present or to come belong only to the matter of the covenant and do not vary the reason of their sealing which maketh the collection of Mr. Tombes seem to me very strange and so much the more because it hath the testimony among other things of a learned collection But lest I might be answered that this was affirmed but barely I shall desire that all learned men would consider what be formall differences of covenants and what maketh the differences of sanctions The formall differences of a covenant may be considered either different iâ— formis verborum that is when the same thing is granted in different formes of words as when Christ is promised under the seed of the woman and the seed of Abraham Secondly covenants are said to differ formally if one covenant be absolute the other conditionall one free the other upon valuable consideration the one upon a condition already performed the other upon a remaining condition of service or rent the one voluntary on both parties the other voluntary on the one part only and on the other imposed These or such like are formall differences in the nature of a covenant as for formality of words difference in them will not make an absolute covenant conditionall or the like And consider I pray you what formall differencee is there in the covenant with Abraham and the Evangelicall covenant in Mr. Tombes his own sense was not the covenant with Abraham and the Evangelicall promise upon the same condition in Christ through faith were not both in Christ upon the same valuable consideration in our selves equally free Do not we all stand bound to faith and obedience under both covenants as you distinguish them Did not God equally impose on us all the means of our salvation Where then is the formall difference in these covenants you talk of unlesse you mean verbis formalibus which make no difference in law or equity Your difference you talk of is but in matter which I have formerly proved to be but imaginarie but grant there had been a formall difference in the covenant what had that been to the difference of the seal that signeth only ex instituto by the command of God conditionall absolute free or imposed under covenant performed or to be performed all sealed with the same seal unlesse the institution put a difference But now let us consider what difference there is in the sanction Sanctions are the ratifications and confirmations of a covenant upon which the verity and bounds of the covenant are established are â—n oath secondly a seal thirdly a reward fourthly punishment fifthly earnest and perhaps some other that my memory and skill will not reach to but for all these they are the same to both covenants for the oath that he swore to Abraham Gen. 22.16 is performed in Christ the substance of the Evangelicall promise in your sense and Zacharias Luke 1.72 73. doth challenge that sanction as â—elonging to him and tellâ—th us plainly that if Christ had not come to deliver us from the hands of our enemies God had not performed his oath to Abraham Now if you look back to that oath ye shall see that God promised in Abraham to blesse all the nations of the earth which was not performed nay not to my one nation besides the Jews not so much as by way of prosser untill Christ came under the notion of a nation but worship was restrained to Jerusalem ordinances to the Jews therefore Christ gave his first commission unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel but after his commission was to all nations and therefore Saint Paul Rom. 2.10 entitles the Jews to honour glory and peace first and also to the Gentiles And in Hâ—â— 6.18 raiseth comfort after Christ from the oath made to Abraham and from thence I can gather however it will sound in Mr. Tombes his cares that the covenant made with Abraham did remain after Christ or else the consolation is but by way of analogie For what comfort can we have from the sanction if the covenant be void unlesse by way of analogie with which kind of argument Mr. Tombes is much troubled when he raiseth them against himself though many of his own arguments be nothing but analogies Besides our Saviour doth use the same sanction to the Gospel-covenant in Mr. Tombes his sense even the covenant which he made with the believers in the new Testament he doth confirm by an oath John 5.24 Verily he that hearth my Word and believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life as likewise John 6.47 So that it is plain this sanction of an oath was the same unto Abraham and under the Gospel Secondly the sanction of the seal is to both the same for the difference of the seal doth not make the difference in the sanction for the confirmation is the same whether the seal be a Lion or a Lamb If a Prince should change his seâ—â— from his portrayture to his arms which he may do if the Law forbid not or by act of Parliament if it do yet the sanction would be the same circumcision and baptisme though different seals not different sanctions Thirdly for the rewards they are the same hell and heaven are the same for that temporall blessing and mixture of covenant I have already spoken to which I refer my Reader But grant that there had been severall sanctions in reference to reward and punishment what had that been to the difference of the reason why circumcision and baptisme should seal the Evangelicall covenant seeing they are both but one sanction namely seals but the change of the seal doth not change that sanction Thus you see how weakly this conclusion will follow from the premises and likewise how false it is in it self they are both seals and the reasen of being such is the same namely divine institution But for the second conclusion he draweth out of the same premises is that baptisme and circumcision are not to be administred after the same manner did any man ever say that baptisme and circumcision should be adminstred after the same manner that were a strange and unpossible thing to imagine His third question whether federate and to be signed are convertible termes and why many were circumcised to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong as Ishmael the same may be said of Esau And why are these the only instances I will grant Mr. Tombes more then he desireth that half they that were circumcised were such unto whom no part of the covenant do belong was Abraham able to know that Ishmael was a reprobate when he circumcised him circumcision was administred by the appointment of God and
was not so intrinsecall to the covenant that it must be Proprium quartâ— modâ— proprium tertio modâ— omni sâ—li non semper will serve the time before Abraham not liable to any seal it had been sin to use a seal before God gave it and as for Job Lot and such as lived in and after Abrahams time and were acquainted with this covenant with Abraham they lost the benefit of the blessing if they refused to be circumcised and what they did is not plain the Scripture is silent After God had given the seal of circumcision all that were in Abrahams house and all believing Gentiles and their seed ought to be circumcised in Abrahams house those that were not circumcised were to be cut off from among Gods people and those strangers were not to be accounted believers nor suffered to eat the Passeover if they and all their males were not circumcised formerly proved out of Exod. 12. Then all that were in the covenant must be circumcised as for the persons that were not eight dayes old they were not to be circumcised actually nor yet women and yet were not uncircumcised Privatio non dicitur de subjecto habili ante tempus statutum as catulus non dicitur caecus ante nonum diem uec infans edentulus if he die before the eighth day it is all one as if he were circumcised being in disposition to circumcision and the female she was likewise circumcised as a member of Abrahams house in that she was the seed of Abraham partaker of the blessing of Abraham admitted to the services offering of sacrifices eating the Passeover though in her person she was not yet in her parent in her husband in her male issue she was which priviledges no woman that was not the seed of Abraham or the seed of a circumcised person might enjoy Now see I pray you how this woman came in to help Mr. Tombes in his argument that all that were in the covenant were not circumcised the blessing to the family were to all the family but some assigned persons were to be signed but the whole blessed if ye come neerer to all the persons of Abrahams family that were males must be circumcised but what of that not every member of the males but their foreskins yet every member of their bodies were partakers of the benefit so were the females partakers of the blessing of the family the first fruits sanctifieth the whole lumpe the redemption of the firstborne Exod. 13.13 did redeem the whole issue why may not the circumcision of the male serve for the female that which commeth within our consideration is only this whether any were refused because unbeleevers not because women or such as God exempted But Mr. Tombes for all his abandoning of arguments from analogie bringeth an argument from the like and perhaps a greater reason children are baptized in their parents But perhaps not so great a reason perhaps no proportion perhaps no reason at all perhaps such a reason as Mr. Tombes upon second thoughts would not insist on what when God shall accept of the women to services sacrifices Passeover include her in the blessing nor young nor old never require circumcision of her appoint the males ordaine it in such a manner as without further explanation could not be executed upon her how can Mr. Tombes think of proportionable reason from hence that maysuit with the baptising Infans in their parents which must afterwards be baptized in their persons that are capable of Baptisme in their persons by no colour of reason exempt I pray Sir let your next analogie have better proportion Mr. Tombes proceedeth But it is manifest saith he that the Jewes comprehended in the Covenant made with Abraham and circumoised were neverthelesse not admitted to baptisme by John Baptist and Christs disciples till they prefessed repentance and faith Hence I gather that right to Evangelicall promises was not the adequate reason of circumcision but Gods precept gratis affirmat he proveth nothing only he saith that John Baptist did not baptise circumcised persons before they professed repentance and faith in Christ notwithstanding Mr. Tombs hath not proved neither can he nor any of his opinion ever prove that John did require that they should professe repentance and faith before they were baptized it will not serve turne to prove that John required profession of repentance to prove he required repentance repentance and profession of repentance be two things neither will an historicall narration that this or that person did beleeve prove he professed his faith But we shall scan this further when we shall come to answer Mr. Tombes his other arguments Hence that is from a thing not proved to a consequence that will not follow if granted grant John Baptist would not baptize circumcised persons untill they professed they did beleeve that God did take away circumcision in Christ and appointed baptisme in the stead doth it therefore follow that circumcision while it stood in force was not dependent on the right to the Covenant as the adequate reason why this or that person might be circumcised I shall put Mr. Tombes in minde of this collection upon such an occasion as he will not desire to heare But let us see what associate cause he will assigne to shew that right to Evangelicall promises was not the adequate cause Gods precept and mans right bee associate reasons causes subordinate in secundis causes be not associate much lesse any cause or reason immediately flowing from the first cause is associate with any second cause cause principalis etiâ—â—â— in secundis causas non associatur for then it could not be principall minus principalis â—â—ntum associatur Mans right is included in Gods precept or otherwise there can be no adequate reason taken from topick place which is finite nor any demonstrative medium to prove them not associates seeing they are all joyned with the operation of God secunda canse 〈◊〉 moventur nisi â—otis primis an adequate reason doth not exclude the subordinanon of causes but only parity of society mans right to the Covenant doth not exclude the Covenant it selfe God commands that all that have right to the Covenant and none but they shall be circumcised is not here right to the Covenant in suâ— geâ—ere the adequate reason when they and none but they must be circumcised the materialls of Gods commands are Covenants and therefore in many places of Scripture are the commandements of God called Covenants And Deut. 29.1 These are the covenants which the Lord commanded Moses From these grounds such as they are Mr. Tombes denieth the major if universally taken his meaning ought to be if the proposition be universall according to the limitation of the tearmes in the proposition the signe of the Gospell-Covenant must agree to every person to whom the Covenant doth agree not every signe of the Gospell-covenant but some signe it is sufficient that notion signe in its aniversall nature be attributed â—â—â—â—i
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
the Iewes in reference to the promise it is plaine that the promise in reference to Baptisme is the same that it was in reference to circumcision now it is true he further teacheth the inner power and effect of the Covenant which was the turning men away from their iniquity this is the doctrine both of circumcision and baptisme that neither circumcision which is outward in the flesh is circumcision Rom. 2.28 neither is that baptisme which is outward but that is circumcision which is of the heart whose praise is not of men but of God Thus baptisme must be taught it must be taught as from God it must bee administred as by men therefore saith Mr. Tombes the promise is not made but on conditions of calling and faith which may be confirmed abundantly Rom. 4.13 14 16. let the proofe be examined St. Paul doth handle the promise made to Abraham in reference to the fruit and effect of it and so to entitle the Gentiles to the comfort and fruit of the promise forasmuch as the promise did alwayes beare that sense that never any of Abrahams posterity had any benefit from the promise unlesse they were beleevers and that benefit the Gentiles alwayes had if proselites and now in a more free way and this was ground to the Romans to seeke for justification by faith because that was alwayes the sence and meaning of the Covenant made with Abraham but this was the use that the faithfull ought to make of the Covenant Abraham was justified by faith as we are Abraham was not justified by circumcision nor we by baptisme circumcision was administred in facie Ecclesiae according to the appointment of God men had nothing to doe to examin faith the praise of that was not of men but of God it is confessed that Abraham did circumcise without any judgement of faith yet had as much need of faith for benefit by the Covenant as we his justification and salvation the same with ours by faith in Christ Gal. 3.9 They which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham ye see Abraham himselfe had his blessing by faith God preached the Gospell to Abraham the seed of Abraham had the benefit of the covenant by faith whereby it plainly appears that circumcision was not given by the estimation of faith though it had its effect by faith but every male of Abraham must be circumcised and that because of the promise the conditions of faith and repentance were not new conditions put on us which Abraham and his posterity had not though they are more plainly preached to us then to Abraham God was the judge of faith in Abrahams time and is so now but the promise of the land of Canaan stood upon conditions of obedience the effect of faith notwithstanding circumcision but saith Mr. Tombes the promise was not belonging to them simply as Jews but as called the promise did belong to all men quatenus called but it belonged to Jews though not quatenus ipsum yet it doth belong to Jews to be foederati 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every Jew had an interest to the promise though not quatenus a Jew because Gentiles also had this right per accidens as called but it was accidentall to the Gentiles some were called and some were not all Iews before Christ were called but note that called is to be distinguished into outward calling and inward or effectuall calling by an outward calling All the Iews were called by an effectuall only the elect were called whether Iew or Gentile both these callings had their severall respects unto the promise and the seal of the promise The outward call had a right to the Oracles Rom. 3.1 the means of faith and accordingly many had faith by that means though some did not believe that doth not make the faith of God of none effect the promise of God signified by the word faith in that place is effectuall though some do not believe though it be without effect to them that believe not yet it is effectuall to them that believe and though he doth not believe yet the Holy Ghost maketh circumcision an inseparable accident to a Iew shewing that the advantage of the Iew and the profit of circumcision were the same and the chief priviledge is that unto them were committed the Oracles of God Now this outward call had the promise of God being their God and the God of their seed and accordingly had the seal given to them and their seed this is plain in case of the Iews they had circumcision and the Oracles and the promise but all these are ineffectuall without faith Heb. 4.1 2. Let us therefore fear lest a promise being left us of entring into his rest any one of us come short of it For unto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them but the Word preached did not profit them not being mixed with faith in them that heard it You see many have the promise left them that may come short of it they may have the Word without profit the promise of God circumcision without effect all for want of faith all these externall have an externall dependance one upon another those that were born in a believing family had an externall promise left them had cirumcision had the word though they might come short of the effect of all for want of faith yet the externall administration must go by this outward rule the promise in this place is understood in this sense of outward promise that belongeth to you and your children you are called already and that is implied in the opposition to these words afar off such as are afar off is opposed to them that are nigh Now they that are nigh need no calling but they that are afarre off them we call so that it is plain calling is in reference to them that are afar off and then the sense of the words is as plain the promise belongeth to you and your children therefore be baptized and the promise likewise belongeth to them that are afarre off not yet called as many of them as the Lord shall call and this appears in that the Apostle speaks unto these Iews exhorts them to amend their lives and be baptized for the promise belongeth to them so that the Proposition is immediatly true they shall be baptized because the promise did belong to them calling of them that are afarre off is not at all immediately referred to baptisme but to the promise and therefore cannot by any means be a limitation of such persons unto whom the promise did belong to make fit for baptisme as if there were some persons unto whom the promise did belong that were not called and some called those that are called might be baptized but unto whom the promise doth belong and are not called they may not be baptized but this is to alter the form and sense of the Apostles words though they might have a truth in them yet they are not the words of the
Text nor signifie what is there said Amendment of life hath not relation to baptisme but to that sin they stood guilty of and that they were convict that they had crucified the Lord of glory the immediate argument that he useth to perswade them to baptisme is that the promise belongeth to them it is no argument at all why they should be baptized because the promise belonged to their children nor because the promise belonged to them that are afarre off but because it belonged to them that only was ground why the Apostle should perswade to be baptized what is further added is to note the amplitude of the promise to raise up their faith to lay hold on the promise of so bountifull a God that extendeth his promises so largely not to them only but to their children nor stayeth his bounty there but reacheth it out also to them that are not called to wit such of them as he shall call you and your children sensu determinate them them that are afarre off sensu indeterminate but if all had been limited by as many as the Lord shall call S. Peter had drawn an universall conclusion out of particular premises For if that part of the verse alledged out of which the Apostle doth inferre this conclusion or inference be limited then the proposition is particular as thus If the sense of the words be the promise belongeth to as many of you as the Lord shall call then it is no more but the promise belongeth to some of you a few of you therefore be baptized every one had been a very irrationall argument nay if you restrain promise to its strict sense for promise with effect to the effectually called then it can belong to a very few of them therefore every one of you be baptized were very strange The promise therefore must be understood in such a sense as it was when applied to Abrahams seed according to the flesh as the faith of God in his promise is not of none effect though some do not believe the promise must be understood by us as left for all though all attain not to it and this not in reference to universall grace but universall dispensation of means by us men and herein God did go before us by his owne direction in the infancy of his Church leaving us to walk by the same rule when we have a more ample dispensation of the means of grace committed to us God did command all Abrahams seed to be circumcised and all circumcised to eat the Passeover though they were taught alwayes they should not possesse the land of Canaan unlesse they obeyed the voice of the Lord Deut. 28. and 29. Chapters and all along Moses and the Prophets preach the blessing to the beleever and though under the forme of works not the covenant of works it was faith that God looked as in Heb. 11. all the workes of the Patriachs are ascribed to faith and Abrahams obedience is commended by his faith and he and they justified by faith and not by workes faith grounded on the same truth of God and the same Christ God useth the same liberty of his will Rom. 9.15 in the dispensation of his grace 13. An instance out of the old Testament in Esau and Jacob will serve as well as in Peter and Judas the grace of God did no more nor lesse depend on Sacraments then now God did not account any man circumcised but a beleever no more doth he now baptized Moses and the Prophets did teach faith and obedience so do the Apostles and that notwithstanding the promise yet the unbeleever and murmurer shall not enter into the land of Canaan thus went the doctrine thus the estimation of God in all ages the dispensation of Word and Sacraments to the Iewes and them that were afarre off as many as the Lord shall call under the Law but now to all Nations all are now called God doth command all men every where to repent in the sence of these words all the world have an outward calling St. Peter doth argue with the Jewes to perswade them to Baptisme à notioribus they knew right well the bounds and extent of the promise it was no new thing to them that the Gentiles called should be accounted among these to whom the promise did belong nor that baptisme did legally wash away sinne nor that sinners must repent but that the promise should be sealed by baptisme that only was new as for that Peter did teach repentance with baptisme both together as saith Mr. Tombs that is not the question repentance and faith ought to be taught at all times as being such things as God doth only look on most seasonably at all times to all men Luke 13.3 Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish but out of this place it doth no way follow that repentance must goe before or is required as a preparation to baptisme verse 38. is an answer to this question what shall we doe we that have crucified the Lord of glory if to this generall question what shall we doe Peter had failed to instruct them to repent he had been wanting to his duty but presently to argue from the promise to move them to baptisme and baptise them presently will scarce stand with any Anabaptisticall discipline you would hardly have any great company of Catechumen's if you follow the example of the Apostle which you so much stand upon nay the keeping men of years many yeares under the discipline of Catechumen's directly contrary to the Apostles example But of preparation to baptisme we shall have further occasion to consider in other arguments Mr. Tombes telleth us that the promise doth not belong to all Infants of beleevers which is the minor universally taken he hath formerly told us of women and believers before Abraham I have formerly given satisfaction to those exceptions but the promise is to be understood three wayes as before may appear Either first in estimation of God or secondly in dispensation of the inward grace of the Sacraments and effectuall operation of the means or thirdly in the outward dispensation of the means of grace The two former are distributed according to the election of grace to the believer only but the last under the Law to Abraham and his seed and in Abrahams seed which is Christ to all the families of the earth But now in a more explicit and plain way to all the nations of the earth and that not only in pâ—tentia but by particular dispensation and providence unto many nations in actu exercito actually many nations have the Word and Sacraments and God grant more may have But it seemeth he granteth the promise doth belong to some of the Infants of believers but which they are he cannot tell and therefore will baptize none The way of God was to Abraham that because he could not distinguish he should circumcise all God commandeth baptisme to be administred to all nations it will not serve our
most weakly of any thing we can please our selves better in the opinion of our works then of faith but when we come to deal with man we are sure we treat of colours before blind men there we can boldly talk we may speak as freely as travellers we cannot be disproved whereby it cometh to passe often times that heart that is least upright is most bold faith is indeed in time of need very heroick in her exploits in that she acteth by the power of God but ascribeth little of her best actions to her self she is alwayes conversant with God and therefore cannot but be conscious of much weaknesse and infirmity faith is so always loaden with difficulties that she hath very little to say of her self there must be great preparation on Gods part before there can be any sense or feeling in man of the things of faith there must be the mighty operation of the Word and Spirit and God is pleased to adde baptism too for faith to work upon these things are of mighty operation and so they had need considering the sloth of heart that is in us to believe it is well if after the Word and sacrament of baptisme faith do come God layeth it as a ground and foundation for faith to work upon and accordingly all the arguments of Scripture are to raise us to walk worthy of amendment of life and to rise with Christ Rom. 6. as if it should be said God hath offered you grace in baptisme therefore accept of it ye are born anew in baptisme let it appear in your conversation Argum. 4. That which maketh the admission into the Church meerly arbitrary that is a false doctrine but the doctrine of Anabaptists maketh admission into the Church meerly arbitrary Ergo the major is plain for that nothing is more directly contrary to the service of God then will-worship but denying any that are tendred according to the mind of Christ in the Word and requiring such disposition in the party to be baptized as the Minister pleaseth without any rule from Gods Word is to make the publike service of God or at least a great part of it wholly arbytrary and this doth appear to flow from their doctrine not yet any man durst affirm what was the measure of faith to be required how much he must believe that must be baptized by means whereof the whole matter dependeth on the will of the Baptizer a thing most contrary to the nature of Religion it cannot be imagined that the Holy Ghost would have been so silent in giving rules for the Ministers to walk by in the triall of the faith of the person to be baptized if any such charge had lain upon his office He must baptize believers only saith Mr. Tombes and the Anabaptists but no Scripture directeth what or how much he must believe must it be as much as the Minister shall think fit then some Ministers will baptize with very small triall others will be very hardly satisfied some will baptize as soon as the childe can be taught to say he believeth in Christ others not till ten or twelve others twenty yeers of age wherein no man can either satisfie his own conscience or any reasonable man for that he walketh without rules neither doth this difficulty from this doctrine come from accidental misconstructions or phansies but inevitable necessity from the doctrine it self that the Minister must baptize none but believers yet cannot tell how much or what he must believe before he be fit for baptisme unlesse he walk by rules of mans making without any intimation from Scripture 5. That doctrine that giveth man that power which is divine that doctrine is blasphemous and false but the doctrine of the Anabaptists giveth man that power which is divine therefore the doctrine of Anabaptists is blasphemous and false That doctrine that giveth man power to judge of faith in another that doctrine giveth man that power that is divine but the Anabaptist giveth men power to judge of faith in another therefore the Anabaptist that power that is divine Faith is in the heart with the heart man beleeveth to righteousnesse and with the mouth he confesseth to salvation Rom. 10.10 He therefore that judgeth of faith must judge the heart which is proper to God I the Lord try the heart Jer. 17.10 Neither will it serve his turne to say that he judgeth by rules of charity if this charge lay upon his office to judge charitably it is one thing another to judge ex officio for the judgement of charity can never pronounce the person so judged to be such as he is judged by charity to be judgements of charity are not alwaies true if it be possible we have warrant enough to judge it so by charity if children may possibly be such as the Kingdome of heaven doe belong too wee may in charity judge them such but if we are tyed by our office to baptize none but beleevers it will not serve turne to say we judge them such by charity to prove that we must baptize none but such as are beleevers seeing we may by charity judge many beleevers which yet are not beleevers againe judgement of faith is denied to belong to the Apostles themselves not that we have dominion of your faith 2 Cor. 1.24 If God had appointed Ministers to have judged of mens faith before they had baptized them he would have given them some rules by which they should have been able to walke which he hath not done he hath annexed baptisme to the Ministers calling to let men know that the grace of baptisme commeth immediatly from Christ therefore he sent the seale of it by that calling that came immediately from him but hath promised those officers of his no speciall qualifications whereby they shall have abilities to discern the faith of men more then other men have the judgement of charity is not a Ministeriall qualification that belongeth to every man and is no Ministeriall qualification 6. That doctrine that denieth the interpretation of the promise made to Abraham which S. Paul maketh that is a false doctrine but the doctrine of Anabaptists denieth the interpretation of the promise made to Abraham wch St. Paul maketh therfore the doctrine of the Anabaptists is false Those that deny the blessing of Abraham and in him of all the Nations of the earth to be the Gospel preached to Abraham in reference to the Gentiles after their call deny the interpretation that S. Paul maketh of the promise made to Abraham but the Anabaptists deny the blessing of Abraham and in him of all the Nations of the earth to be the Gospell preached to Abraham in reference to the Gentiles after their call therefore the Anabaptists deny the interpretation made to Abraham which S. Paul maketh the words of S. Paul are plain Gal. 3.8 the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying In thee shall all Nations be
more inner sense of the Holy Ghost doe point at the priviledges of Abrahams house in the outward face of the words so that it may bee doubted whether this Covenant made with Abraham may be called simply Evangelicall and this doubt is made the more just because Mr. Tombes and some of his company doe not call the Covenant on Mount Sinai simply Evangelicall what have you distinguished between mixed and pure Gospell Covenants on purpose to make the Covenant with Abraham mixt and is it now doubtfull and therefore doubtfull because Master Tombes and others doe call the Covenant on Mount Sinai mixt What if they miscall it What ground then of the doubt away with such groundlesse doubts for wee call that Covenant and all the Covenants that God made with man since the fall purely Evangelicall without any mixture at all and let Mr. Tombes or any of his company prove the contrary in the mean time let me intreat Mr. Tombes and all other that meddle with controversies to make no more distinctions nor limitations then lawes of division and limitation will allow For though at first they may win applause for their novelty yet after ages will see their vainity if any of them be taken up in a tract yet times will come that will find them out But all this while Mr. Tombs doth not tell us what part of the covenant was sealed by circumcision or whether circumcision did respect principally the domesticall part or civill or Evangelicall part or equally all nor shew any reason why the Gospel covenant will not admit any such mixture as he supposeth but I do not love to insult over a weak argument or strike an adversary when he is dead Secondly Mr. Tombes cometh to distinguish the seed of Abraham I will not trouble my self to repeat or take notice of what Mr. Tombes saith well but of such passages as he layeth down upon which he purposeth to raise something against childrens baptisme He indeavoureth to prove that the seed of believing Gentiles were not the seed of Abraham the reason is because Mr. Tombes doth not finde them so called a man may not heare himself or his neighbour called a man in many yeers nay suppose they were never so called were they therefore no men But it is most plain that the seed of believing Gentiles were the seed of Abraham for that is the knot of the question and God himself doth decide it All that were by Gods appointment to be circumcised were in some sense or other the seed of Abraham or otherwise there had been no need at all of calling the faithfull the seed of Abraham But because they are partakers of the benefit of the promise made to the seed of Abraham And this is made plain in the doctrine of S. Paul he handleth this promise to Abraham and his seed not as the words do import but as they carry the blessing of Abraham without reference to circumcision or uncircumcision shewing that circumcision was annexed to the promise but for a time was but accidentall to the promise and might be taken away the promise remaining This the Apostle doth most artificially prove according to rules of art For Rom. 4.10 his purpose was to prove that now they were not to retain circumcision Christ being come and baptisme being set in the place and room of it and that notwithstanding the promise made to Abraham did remain now that he might prove that he sheweth that circumcision was not a proper passion to Abraham and his seed flowing from the promise as the cause and therefore may be separated from the promise circumcision belonging rather to the ceremoniall administration then the essence of the promise rather to the externall part of the worship then the efficacy and vertue of the promise and this he proveth First because the promise was of force to Abraham through faith before circumcision and therefore prior tempore before in time to circumcision which it could not have been if it had flowed from the promise as the cause For though the immediate cause be before its effect in nature yet not in time man is not rationalis before risibilis and therefore as the promise was before circumcision so it may continue after Object But the promise was made to Abrahams seed which we are not To this I answer the promise was made to one seed not many which is Christ as Calvin and Beza explain it not of the person of Christ but believers in Christ implying that though there were a distinction between Jews and Gentiles yet by faith in Christ they were all one and the argument in Gal. 3.28 doth cleerly shew this neither Jew nor Greek bond nor free all one in Christ Jesus Abraham had but one blessed seed to whom the promise was made which is Christ saith the Text vers 16. But I have proved the promise was not made to Christ in person as the seed of Abraham but the seed of Abraham is reckoned in Christ and the word Christ is taken for the mysticall body of Christ his Church of the elect which in reference to the promise are but one seed whether Jew or Gentile so are the blessings and sufferings of the Church reckoned the sufferings of Christ So that this seed of Abraham in reference to the promise was never understood of Abrahams seed according to the flesh but by faith And here note that this is not an univocall division as if the members did not coincidere or that some were the seed of Abraham according to the flesh and none of them his seed by faith and others by faith his seed that were none of them his seed in the flesh nay but this distinction is in reference to the promise as distinct from circumcision all those were not of the seed according to promise that were the seed of Abraham according to the flesh no not of Isaac but the believers these are the seed of Abraham according to promise Gal. 3.29 If ye be Christs them are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to promise else not And this is not to distinguish Jews from Gentiles but believing Jews from infidels and to draw the whole vertue of the promise on Believers so the promise is belonging to Abraham through faith and the seed of Abraham as the word seed is understood in the promise and in the estimation of God is the Believer only so that the seed of Abraham by faith and the seed unto whom the promise of God to Abraham did belong are the same the seed of Abraham and the Believer whether Jew or Gentile whether before or after Christ are all one in the estimation of God So that the seed of Abraham that were blessed were believers only not all the seed of Abraham nay nor all the seed of Isaac but in Isaac that is in Christ that was the seed of Isaac all that were in Isaac that is in Christ of whom Isaac was a type that is believers only not all the
seed of Isaac for the promise did not belong to Esau that was the seed of Isaac for that though he were the seed of Isaac yet he was not in Isaac that is he was not inserted into Isaac as a type of Christ by faith and therefore the seed must be so understood that the promise might belong to all the seed Rom. 4.16 not to that which is of the Law only but that which is of the faith of Abraham not to them only which were circumcised according to Law but to believers though not circumcised that is after circumcision was taken away by appointment of God For though circumcision was not so naturall and essentiall to the promise that it was enough at any time to entitle any to the promise without faith yet virtute institutionis divina was not to be omitted untill God took it away for the promise was not to Abraham through the Law therefore not through circumcision which was a legall right but 〈◊〉 the righteousnesse of faith vers 13. to let us know that it was not any 〈◊〉 rite or sacrament that can intitle to the promise it doth but externally 〈◊〉 the vertue of Christs blood and by it the circumcision of the 〈…〉 the sight of God is the only circumcision Rom. 2.29 He is a Jew 〈…〉 and circumcision is of the heart in the Spirit not in the 〈…〉 not of men but of God All this while the Scripture treateth 〈…〉 Abraham in the estimation of God God accounteth none the seed 〈◊〉 Abraham but in Christ none heirs of the promise but in Christ none circumâ—â—â—â—â—◠〈◊〉 them that are in Christ and therefore saith Rom. 2.28 that is not cir 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 in the flesh and this ex regula de nullo Again ex 〈…〉 all that are in Christ Jesus that is believers are the seed of Abraham heirs of the promise circumcised in heart but these have their estimation and praise not of mâ—n but of God and these are equally denied and affirmed to Abrahams sâ—â—d and Gentâ—â—es according as they are believers or not believers 〈◊〉 without any respect aâ— all to Abrahams seed according to the flesh so that Abrahams 〈◊〉 had no right at all to any part of the promise in the estimation of 〈◊〉 they did not 〈◊〉 and therefore Rom. 9.8 they that are the children of the 〈◊〉 that is Abrahams fresh are not the children of God the children of the promise aâ— accounted for the seed and therefore in Gen. 12.3 the Lord did make the promise not to Abraham and his seed only but from Abraham he derived the blessing upon all the families of the earth all the families of the earth were blessed in Abraham Or as Gen. 22.18 all nations are blessed in the seed of Abraham and therefore do Interpreters interpret that former by thee that is in thy seed and all that are in Christ are plainly the heirs of the promise and none but they Abraham in honour and title was called the fountain of the blessing but in deâ—d and truth not Abraham but Christ for Abraham himself was blessed in Christ not in himself as Christ was Christ was only blessed and justified in and for his own holinesse by the works of the Law inherent in himself So that Mr. Tombes his division of Abrahams seed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christs spirituall seed believers naturall seed is most inartificiall many of his naturall seed were spirituall also Abrahams seed must be divded into equivocall and univocall equivocall seed Christ for that he was not like Abraham he was of Abraham but ex parte according to the flesh Rom. 1.3 He was Abrahams Lord as well as his son his Saviour as well as his seed he was the promised seed not the seed unto â—â—â—â—om the promise did belong as the seed of Abraham but that seed that was the fountain of blessing to Abraham and all other his seed and therefore Christ was the blessing it self the promise that was made to Abraham and his seed was through the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.13 but the blessing came not on Christ through the righteousnesse of faith seeing the righteousnesse of faith is derivative from Christ to Abraham Christs righteousnesse was primitive in himselfe and that very righteousnesse that became Abrahams by faith and therefore is Christ the inheritance of Abraham and all the faithfull seed Esay 42.6 he is called the Covenant of the people and a light to the Gentiles Secondly Abrahams univocall seed were like unto himselfe in relation to the promise the word seed in the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is only the faithfull nothing belonging to the seed of Abrahams flesh but so as they are faithfull nor excluding any Nation or family or person in the earth so as faithfull as for Abrahams seed according to the flesh if not faithfull non est nostri instituti it is not belonging to the doctrine of the Promise to consider of them at all Rom. 2.29 they were not to be reckoned among the circumcised by God Now for the particular application of this promise to this Nation or that in one age to the family of Abraham according to the flesh in another age to the Gentiles in one age under the seale of circumcision in another of Baptisme sometimes to give a Nation the means of Grace Word and Sacraments sometimes to lead them away into captivity these things were ordered according to the particular determination and purpose of God though God did in a more peculiar manner blesse the seed of Abraham then other Nations with the enjoyment of Word and Sacraments and other blessings yet they had them together with the land of Canaan and the place of Gods worship only on conditions of faith and obedience as in Deut. 28. and 29. chapters and by the many threatnings of removall of them by the Prophets and their actuall captivities may appear so that these graces of faith and obedience come on this or that Nation or person according to the purpose of Gods will as likewise effectuall operation of the Word and the particular effect of the Sacrament under the means of Word and Sacraments wholly depend on the mercy of God according to the election of grace Men are to administer the outward rite and sacrament according to the ordination of God God by his Spirit bestoweth his grace and with-holdeth it from whom he pleaseth The Jewes were tyed to the eight day to signe the flesh with circumcision but it was God that circumcised the heart without which the circumcision of the flesh was no circumcision in the estimation of God as Rom. 2.28 which man cannot nor ought to take notice of it is the way of God no man knoweth it it is God that giveth the new name that no man knoweth but he that hath it Those that have this inward grace of circumcision are called and accounted by God for the seed of Abraham but whom must Abraham for his part
subjectâ— limitato so â—s it is limited in the proposition No man can deny this to be an universall proposition though living creature must be in a limited sense that every man is a living creature though there be but some living creatures that be men yet this is universally true every man is a living creature what should a man talke of convertibility no such things found in directa serie where are many universall propositions If Mr. Tombes should deny it he knew how easily it might be proved and therefore is all this sinffe before which I have cleared what chaffe it is prefixed and you shall see what goodly limitations follow but see first the proofe of this if denyed Those relatives that are conserved in the same subject they are both or none in the same subject but the Covenant and the seal of the Covenant are relatives conserved in the same subject ergo the Covenant and the seale of the Covenant are both or none in the same subject or thus That subject which is capable of two such accidents as are alwayes in the same subject that subject is capable of both or none but that subject which is capable of the Covenant and the seale of the Covenant is capable of two such accidents as are alwayes in the same subject ergâ— that subject as is capable of the Covenant and the feale of the covenant is capable of both or none I have not concluded the major which Mr. Tombes hath denyed if universally ralten because it is not a proposition the termes are not in reâ—tâ— nor is est the 〈◊〉 by means whereof a sylogisme cannot be made to make that the conclusion but from these conclusions or any one of them an Entheneme will rise whose consequence is not deniable Thus the covenant and seal of the covenant are in the same subject therefore to whom the Gospel-covenant agreeth to them the signe of the Gospel-covenant agrees also which is the very same in terms which he calleth the Major The argument is the Pedobaptists but I conceive the form is Mr. Tousbes his but why should this be particularly true and universally false I cannot understand why one should be capable of the figne of the covenant because he is capable of the covenant and not another Now for the manifestation of the proof that they are alwayes in the same subject the same instrument if a covenant be written in one parchment a seal appendant upon another parchment will not seal that covenant neither is that a covenant formally ratified without a seal Again the truth of a signe doth depend on the connexion with the thing signified so that if the bush hang at one house and the wine sold at another that is no signe because false ens verâ—â—◠〈◊〉 be convertible and if it be any mans duty to set up or any wayes give demonstrative signes they must be set where the thing signified is as neer as he can or otherwise they be not signes and this were a foolish thing in any mans apprehension to say the land and the deed for the land did belong to such a man but the seal of that deed did not belong to him that was appendant on some other deed and belonged to another person But let us see upon what limitation he will grant the major as he calleth it â—e telleth it is true of that signe of the covenant which agrees universally in respect of form and sinction to 〈◊〉 that receive the Gospel but it is not true of such 〈◊〉 are of particular form and sanction This is strange logick what can a Proposition be universally crue in respect of some particular Again Mr. Tombes limiteth the wrong term what over man did deny a Proposition to be universall by limitation of the predicate the subject it self doth limit the predicate as if I should deny this Proposition toâ—â— universall every man is a living creature with this limitation that it is true of such living creatures as are 〈◊〉 but of Lions and Bears it is not true but see further into this limitation he saith it is not true of circumcision it is not affirmed of circumcision it is affirmed only of the generall nature of a signe and consequently baptisme circumcision is not a signe of the covenant it was and then it might be applied to them that were in the covenant but now baptisme A man taketh down an old sign and 〈◊〉 up a new the old is no more a signe it is carried into sound back place of the house or perhaps 〈◊〉 it possesseth not the place noâ— office of a signe as for those juggling terms of form and sanction I referre my Readed to what hath been said of them But the minor he denieth universally taken and here is all the lenâ—t of the question what labour is spent about the major is lost but that Mr. Tombes is not willing 〈◊〉 any thing true that is alled god by Pedobaptists all the children of believing Gentiles are not such as to whom the right of the covenant doth belong only such as were his spirituall seed the ground of this distinction is an opinion that the covenant did belong to all that in any sense were the seed of Abraham but the Gentiles cannot be accounted the seed of Abraham after the flesh and therefore all the claim they have to the seed of Abraham is as Mr. Tombes stateth the matter according to the election of grace by faith and therefore Abtaham might circumcise all his seed because the promise did belong to his seed Now the seed of Abraham is to be esteemed either by nature or by grace they that have any way had right to be Abrahams seed have right to the promise but the seed of believing Gentiles have no right at all the believers themselves have a spirituall right I have formerly shewed the falshood of this distribution and that the seed of believing Gentiles under the Law were esteemed as Abrahams seed in right to circumcision now he telleth us they have right by election but saith he which is unknown to us but by profession or revelation implying that those that baptize must know the election of them they do baptize and that they can do by profession these fancies I leave to their just occasion to be confuted In the mean time I briefly say if no children were under the covenant of grace we might baptize none for as much as some are we may we must baptize all seeing the distinct knowledge of them that are from them that are not belongeth to God and not to man and this was the rule that Abraham walked by and that we must all walk by as shall I hope appear But I come to the second argument I have the longer insisted upon the defence of this first because I conceive in answering what he hath said against that I have answered all The second argument that Mr. Tombes urgeth as from the Pedobaptists from testimony of Scripture is from
tendered the meanes of grace As for the falling of the Holy Chost upon the Apostles in cloven tongues Act. 2. that came seasonably upon them when they had occasion to use them and after had been baptized but the Holy Ghost promised in v. 28. is promised after Peter had preached repentance and baptisme nay on many after they were baptized Repent and be baptized and ye shall receive the holy Ghost shewing that preaching and baptizing are but the tenders of grace neither the one nor the other of any force unlesse the Holy Ghost come Now though the manner of the giving the Holy Ghost be different yet the season is according to the way of Gods dispensation God will have outward means first tendered and after he will blesse it where he pleaseth among which outward meanes these are chiefe if not all can or ought to be used by way of tender baptisme and teaching which is all that is tendred in the commission whatsoever is is babbled to the contrary baptising is set before teaching the commands of Christ as I have formerly manifested and indeed it were a strange thing for the sacrament of baptisme to be tendered to men that were already clean and approved declared and manifested to be clean it is true it may be tendered to men that professe their faith because man cannot judge them faithfull notwithstanding any profession and therefore baptise them but if they could know and judge them faithfull they might give them the Lords supper in which all Christ is communicated and baptisme should not be needfull baptisme is the seal of the tender of Christ and of the purging power of his blood not of our communion or partaking of Christ that is sealed in the other sacrament Now to come to the signification it is preparative to all other graces it signifieth regeneration and therefore it is called regeneration John 3.5 Except ye be regenerate by water and the Spirit ye cannot enter into the kingdome of heaven Now certainly the Holy Ghost would not set forth the grace of baptisme by regeneration or newbirth if any grace had been preparative to it it is not possible that any life or motion should be imagined before regeneration It is true in John 3.5 Except ye be born by water and the Spirit unlesse ye be by water and the Spirit that which we translate born is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be and Tit. 3.5 Baptisme is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the laver of regeneration Lest men may vulgarly imagine that men are spiritually begotten by the Word and were to remain some time in their mothers belly the church before they were brought forth by baptisme during which time they were to be catechumens and made fit to be received into the Church that word which is translated born John 3. in 1 Cor. 4.15 is translated begotten I have begotten you through the Gospel For there it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and indeed there can be no imagination of life before there is a being before begetting it is true adultus must have faith such as it is naturall humane before he can be baptized he must be willing by some inclination or other it were barbarous to baptize a grown man against his will which could not be gotten but by some kinde of credence though it might be just with man to punish him with death that should refuse as it is with God to punish with eternall death such as despise baptisme yet that Ministers should refuse to baptise any man that shall desire baptisme untill he hath saving faith is to require actions of life and reason from a man before he were begotten or cleannesse and purity before he were washed Again that sacrament that was administred unto all the churches of the Gentiles in the Scripture mentioned without any mention in the Scripture of any preparative grace that must it self be the symbol of the first grace and preparative of all other graces But baptisme is such therefore baptism is preparative to all other graces Let all the Epistles of the Apostles be searched and ye shall finde they were all written to baptized persons that they are full of exhortations to faith and sometimes arguments drawn from baptisme past to move them to repentance and newnesse of life Rom. 6.4 St. Paul doth indeed tell them that they were buried by baptism with Christ but what doth he collect out of that therefore repent and believe but doth he at any time speaking of faith and repentance argue from thence to baptisme and tell any of them if they would believe and repent they should be baptized which the right method of handling the doctrine of the Gospel would have required if faith and repentance had been preparatives but I am confident if any man shall take on him to teach faith and repentance as preparatives to baptisme he must either make his Text or draw that out of it that will not come he that will teach any doctrine other then so much as may make them willing to be baptized and repute them disciples and teach them as disciples of Christ unbaptized must follow no Apostolicall Precept or Example That which is drawn out of the commission is without ground that teaching must go before baptizing because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is set first For first the phrase of the words is changed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas had there been a methodicall enumeration of things that ought to have been performed in order one before another the stile ought not to have been altered it should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Go teach and baptize and therefore those that would gather any thing out of the order of the words must be enforced to read them so which the Text will not permit Again the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is aâ—â—â—rist in the Imperative mood which standeth for a Future whereas the words baptizing and teaching what I command are both Present Again this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye shall make disciples is the end and ought to be the first set down and declared to those that shall be imployed about the means as I have formerly proved and so the stile doth clearely manifest ye shall make all the world disciples baptizing them and teaching them whatsoever I command which is as much as by so doing ye shall make them disciples as if a man should say sowing in season and making good choice of your seed and land ye shall have a good crop here is plainly intended that these Participiall expressions this sowing and making good choice shall be taken up for the mean and the crop is to be expected after as the successe and event of them as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to learn and therefore some collect that it doth imply a learning with profit that is nothing to the preparation if there be any thing in that it is in the successe and it hath the vertue of a promise and
is estimated by God limited and extended according to the good pleasure of God Isai 48.17 I am the Lord thy God that teacheth thee to profit Paul plants Apollo watereth it is God that giveth the successe and if it should stand in that sense as a preparation to baptisme in the commission it must contain a manifest falshood or prove undeniably universall grace if they shall teach with profit all nations and baptize them or at least an universall nationall acceptation of the Gospell teaching with profit can admit of no milder sense then that and if every person must be taught with profit before he be baptized then none ought to be baptized but the elect of God and it were a sin for any Minister to baptize any other but such as received profit by the word the word worketh to the hurt of the reprobate whatsoever shew of profit it may seem to have 3. Reason That doctrine that taketh away the distinction of the two Sacraments that is a false doctrine but Anabaptisme doth take away the distinction of the two Sacraments ergo the doctrine of the Anabaptists is a false doctrine That doctrine that requireth preparation to both Sacraments taketh away the difference of the Sacraments but Anabaptists require preparation to both Sacraments therefore Anabaptists take away the difference of the Sacraments The difference doth consist in this that the Sacrament of baptisme is preparative to the Lords Supper sacramentally giving that to us which we stand in need of to make us fit for the Lords Supper I say sacramentally not that God cannot or doth not take his owne time of calling sometime before we are partaker of either Sacrament sometimes after we have both Sacraments yea and after we have sinfully prophaned the Lords Supper but Sacraments have their proper use and signification and are as all other duties lyable to abuse Wee must behave our selves as men under the meanes we have our duties charged upon us of God whereof some are officiall some personall belonging to every mans person about the performance of all which we may sinne either by omission or misuse but all the good that we receive by word or sacraments is of God what we doe by way of office that lyeth charged on us by the rule that we receive from God which is to baptize all Nations and teach them the successe is of God and the account of faith must be given to God we can take some account of some workes to wit those that are externall but of faith and of such workes as are imminent the thoughts of the heart we can say nothing to them Now the communion that is between Christ and us is set downe in Scripture by Christs being or dwelling in us and we in him we must first be in Christ before he can be in us we were in Christ by election before the foundation of the world and therefore may bee received into Christ before we can have faith nay we are said to be baptized into Christ Rom. 6.3 so many of you are baptized into Christ Jesus and the grace of baptisme is said to be wrought by the Spirit by the Spirit ye are baptized into one body 1 Cor. 12.13 and Gal. 3.27 As many as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ Christ is never said to be conveyed into us by baptisme but by faith Ephes 3.17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith what is instrumentally ours by faith is sacramentally ours by the Lords supper he therefore that eateh Christ in the Lords supper Christ is in him Iohn 6.56 Hee that eateth my flesh dwelleth in me and I in him but Christ is never laid to be in us by baptisme but we are baptised into Christ he is not baptized into us but he is communicated into us in the Lords supper for which faith is required as a preparation and the habitation of Christ in us is ascribed to faith as a meanes as before that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith but our birth in Christ or regeneraion is not at all ascribed to faith but to the Spirit and water John 3.5 Except a man be born by water and the Spirit and to the Word 1 Cor. 4.15 I have begotten you through the Word but never are we said either to be born or begotten by faith the acts of faith are growth life and fruits of sanctification Joh. 6.35 Those that believe and come to Christ are said to eat and drink Christ For he that cometh unto Christ is promised he shall never hunger and he that believeth in him shall never thirst And this vertue is ascribed to the body and blood of Christ from whence Divines do justly gather that he that believeth doth eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ but no intimation in Scripture from whence any man can collect that he that believeth is baptized unlesse it be à posteriori For he that doth believe must first be baptized by the Spirit before he can believe and thus are the graces offered in the sacraments kept distinct which otherwise would be the same that the grace of baptisme is initiall that of the Lords supper is perfective which may further be manisted thus our calling hath two parts the proffer of grace and the acceptance of grace proffered The first is by the Word the Spirit and Baptisme the other is by the Word Spirit Faith and the Lords supper I have here added faith because the Scripture doth so making faith an instrument by which we receive Christ but Christ must be proffered to us by his Spirit and Word before we can receive him which is expressed in the word calling as distinct from justification and goeth before justification in which we have the first act of faith Rom. 8.30 Whom he predestinateth them he also called whom he called them he also justified we are not called by faith but we are justified by faith Rom. 2.28 and 5.1 Baptisme is the seal and sacrament of Gods work in us which had need to be most cleerly manifested and confirmed unto us as having most of God and least of us that we might submit to it wherunto we are most averse therefore what hath most of us in it that pleaseth us best as works better then faith and faith as we look on it in our selves as a qualification is more delightfull to us then as it is in its own nature working humiliation teaching us to deny our selves and rest on God men do use to magnifie faith but too many under a false apprehension even of secrecie and liberty before 〈◊〉 faith is not a boasting quality nor to be pleaded before men but God and this 〈◊〉 cap. 2. doth handle at large shewing that men are very inclinable to 〈◊〉 â—â—oâ—st of faith before men and rely on works before God and herein the deceitfulnesse of our hearts is very great when we conceive we deal with an 〈◊〉 power then we finde the things of faith apprehended