Baptism by virtue of their parents faith V. They were admitted into the same covenant by Circumcision into which we are admitted now by Baptism but Circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith Rom. 4. 11. 12. Whence it will follow that either they had the righteousness of faith inherently in themselves or that of their parents imputed to them chuse you whether or else it will follow that Circumcision was a false seal T. It is not said there that Circumcision was the seal of righteousness of the Childrens faith but onely of Abrahams own faith in particular V. But the covenant or promise was the same and alike to Abraham and his seed Rom. 4. 13. Gen. 17. 7. and alike to us believers and to our Children Act. 1. 39. 2. This truth appears yet further from 1. Cor. 7. 14. Where we find that the faith of either of the parents make the Children holy at least in that degree of holyness which is the meanest imaginable to be in capacitie of being admitted into the same covenant with their Parents T. The scope of the Apostle here is to satisfie a scruple of the Corinth viz. whether the believing yoak-fellow might live in the enjoying and use of the unbelieving yoak-fellow he resolves them in the affirmative saying The unbeleeving husband is sanctifyed in as 't is in the Greek or to not for or by the wife c. That is he may lawfully use and enjoy her and she enjoy him and their are Children holy that is legitimate V. But here is certainly some speciall priviledge set forth to the Children of believers accruing to them from the believing Parents Besides it had been no news to tell them they might have the lawfull use of one another and that their Children were legitimate and no bastards For where both husband and wiefe were unbeleevers no man ever doubted but their enjoyment of one another was lawfull and their issue legitimate T. The case is meant where both parties at their entrance into marrriage were unbelievers but afterwards one of them happens to be converted whether then they might cohabit and enjoy the use of one another V. Though this were granted which I shall not contend about yet the Apostles sense can not be of the lawfull use and enjoyment of each other for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifyed never denotes to be lawfull Or if ever you shew me that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is render'd holy signifies lawfull I shall urge no further T. Ther 's that acception of the word 1. Tim. 4. 4 5. Every creature of God is good and not to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving for it is sanctified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word of God and prayer here sanctifyed is for lawfully used as standing in opposition to that which is refused V. The sense is that such use of the creature is pleasing to God as acknowledging him the author and sender for suppose a sinful man eat his meat without invoking God for a blessing hath he not a lawfull use of the creature T. His next instance was 1. Thes 4. 3 4 7. Where sanctification is used for chastitie and might bear that sense in this place 1. Cor. 7. 17. in agitation V. I deny it for sanctification is there used in its full latitude as appears by the context But I will descend to prove the second ground of my consequence at the beginning which you denied viz. That Baptism succeeded in the Room of Circumcision Mr. Tombs had told us that it was impossible for then women should not be Baptized because they were not Circumcised which is Bellarmines Argument To which I answered that indeed the males only were mentioned in the covenant of Circumcision for in the eyes of all laws whatsoever the women are but as ignoble creatures and therefore the usuall stile of laws and covenants is Si Quis and Qui in the masculine except such as particularly respect their sex 2. That they are included in the word Seed and because descended from man did partake of the priviledge and promise annexed to the covenant I thought also to have told him that I well knew that before Christs time Baptism and Circumcision were both practised on the Proselites called Proselitae Justitiae as I coâ—ld have shewed out of severall authors yet that hinder'd not but that Baptism now under the Gospell should be the sole meanâ— to admit us into the same covenant into which the Jews wâ—â—â—dmitted by Circumcision Even as the bread and wine we taken by the Jews at the eating of the Passeover and now that the Jewish Passeover is abrogated the bread and wine were only by Christ retained to commemorate his Passion the true Passeover 1. Cor. 5. 7. And in like manner when Circumcision was abolished yet was Baptism retained to admit the Infants of Christians as Circumcision admitted them of the Jews But the time and his close manner of disputing not permitting this enlarging by recourse to the originall and institution of Baptisme which served more to Illustrate than convince I kept to the tether allowed and came at length to prove that proposition from Col. 2. 11 12. Where 1. the circumcision of Christ is set in opposition to the Jewish circumcision made with hands 2. An explanation of what is meant by the circumcision of Christ in these words being buryed with him in Baptism T. Paul here disswades them from the use of Jewish ceremonies which some would have introduced amongst them and particularly of Circumcision because all those were but shadowes but the body and realitie was of Christ V. T' is confessed the Apostle speaks here against imposers of Jewish and also Pythagorean doctrines and practises But see ye not here a double Circumcision and the Circumcision of Christ described by being buried with him in Baptism The word buried implyeth but the resemblance betwixt Christs death and resurrection with what is done in Baptism where there is an Immersion or plunging in the water to shadow his buriall and Emersion or rising up out of the water to represent his resurrection which resemblance is more fully set forth Rom. c. 6. T. Here Mr. Tombs interrupted me and desired the people to take notice of my ingenuous confession that Baptism was then practised by plunging He read also a passage out of Casaubons annot on the New Test where he sayth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Baptize denoteth a plunging of the whole body c. Had he read out the passage he might have found how that great scholar affirmes this to be a slender Argument against such as only sprinkle at Baptism for saith he the vertue and efficacie of Baptism consistes not in that meaning the manner of washing V. I shall satisfie the Auditours herein anon in the mean time I desire Answer to my Argument the Analogie between Circumcision and Baptism being so evident in this place But receiving none I addressed my self to the people
true light of discovery First that the assignation of the causes of Anabaptism are vain This he affirms yet names not one of them but turns his back as the Souldier did from Augustus Caesar because he could not endure the darting beams of his eys Oppressing Nâ—mrods uses to send witnesses out of the Country that would overthrow their cause so he having suppressed the reasons of the present grouth of Anabaptism calls them vain yet they shall once more appear at the bair against him which we submit to the judgment of intelligent and impartial Christians they are these 1. Times of division wherein the hedge of discipline is broken down liberty in religion is like free conversing without restraint or watch in time of pestilence one house easily infects a whole City 2. Satans malice like a river the further it goes the deeper and fiercer 3. The corruption of mans nature more inclinable to errour than truth 4. The fitness of the engin for devastation and ruinating all former Churches under colour of first baptisms nullity gathering of new ones after their own mould out of the old ruines by rebaptizing 5. The pretence that children are uncapable of Church-membership or communion of Saints as if there were not the same capacity under the Gospel which was under the law 6. False allegation that Infant-Baptism is occasion of loose living as if the native Jewes that were sealed when Infants were more dissolute than the Proselites 7. To limit it to ripe years increases piety as if Jewes and Turks and their rebaptized converts were not more frequently guilty of Apostacie and hipocrisie 8. Not understanding that Infants Church membership in the Old Testament is not repealed but confirmed in the new 9. A carnal estimation that the Covenant made with Abraham was partly carnal of which circumcision is a part as if godlinesse in both Testaments had not the promise of this life and of the life to come 10. That circumcision was the seal of righteousness of faith to Abraham and not his posterity 11. That the Covenant was made with Abraham and his spiritual seed only and not with visible professors 12. That there is no such thing as national Churches though Christ sayes make disciples of all Nations and Isaiah sayes all Nations shall flow in yet they say all Churches must be gathered by actual profession as well in Christian Nations as amongst Turks and Pagans 13. Because we have no particular instance in Terminis that any Infants were baptized and because they are not expresly named in the precept as if generals did not include particulars as well for Infants as old men 14. Denying equivalencies and necessary consequencies from Scripture 15. A vilifying the judgment and persons of all godly and learned men of this present and former ages building up their rotten foundation upon their ruines 16. Temporal interests of the lowest of the people which while they dream it is countenanced by men in power cry Hosanna and perhaps crucifie to morrow 17. A pretending to the Spirit of God Numa Pompilius feigned that he conversed with the goddess Egeria Minos with Jupiter in the Cave Solon with the Delphian Apollo Mahomet with the Angel Gabriel Montanus and the Quakers with the Holy Ghost the white Witches with the spirit in the shape of a dove and all but to palliate their unsound opinions and practises 18. The learning subtilty and industry of some Anabâ—ptists to gain Proselytes Arrius Pelagius Marcion were not wiser in their generation than they to invegle the poor simple people especially women and inferiour tradesmen which in seven years can scarce learn the mystery of the lowest profession thinks half seven years enough gained from their worldly imployments to understand the mistery of Divinity and thereupon meddle with controversies that they have no more capacity to pry into than a bat to look up into the third heaven Thus farr the assignation of the reasons of Anabaptism which he sayes are vain a censure how just let wise men judge who clearly see that the meeting of several beasts at Nilus does not more properly beget new Monsters nor putrefaction ingender several vermins than the fore-assigned reasons occasion the grouth and increase of Anabaptism The second Allegation is that Anabaptism is true Baptism A strange Paradox which either implies that Infant-Baptism is a nullity or that true baptism may be iterated or received more than once The confutation of the former is the scope of this present treatise rectum sui curvi index The latter that true Baptism may be iterated as the notation of the word and their practise interprets it is now to be questioned And that I fight not with the ayre or an adversary of mine own framing may appear from Mr. T. who examen pag. 23. begges an Argument of Mr. Martial to prove reiteration of Baptism to be intrinsecally unlawfull and that in the tone of the Marcionites and Aetians who in several Councells have been whipt for it and have received these and the like reasons for their pasport 1. In the institution of Baptism there is neither expresly nor consequently any mention of reiteration of it as in the Lords Supper Quotiescunque feceritis as often as ye shall do it c. and whatsoever is not of faith is sin whatsoever is not grounded on Scripture is will-worship there is no instance or president in Scripture that any one was baptized twice for those Acts 19. 3. 4. were either first baptized metonymically that is initiated with the doctrine of John and then afterwards baptized with water as some say or adulteratly baptized with false Baptism as Ambrose thinks and then with true Baptism or baptized first with John's Baptism and then with Christs which as Austin conceives are two distinct Baptismes or which is most consonant to the Text first baptized by John with water then by the Apostle with the Holy Ghost and fire that is the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost None of these make for the reiteration of the same baptism besides there is express Scripture against it Ephes 4. 5. one Lord one faith one Baptism 2. Baptism is the Sacrament of regeneration or new birth and as Austin hath it as we are carnally and naturally born but once so we are spiritually and supernaturally new born but once faith though it admit of grandations begins but once Baptâ—sm that matriculates us into Christs Schole is to be performed but once Therefore even Cyprian himself and his followers never baptized any whom they thought were truly baptized before 3. Baptism succeeds Circumcision which was but once administred as appears from that of Joshuah 5. 4. where the Holy Ghost gives this reason why Joshuah circumcised the Israelites in Gilgal Because all the circumcised were dead intimating if they had been circumcised already it should not have been done again And seeing circumcision was tyed to the eight day from the birth till a second eight day besides the first can
the internal and spiritual part may be made intentionally to Infants as the spiritual seed of believers and yet the external part and that of Ordinances to Infants as the natural seed of believers as well under the Gospel as under the Law That under the Law it is apparent by the History of the Old Testament confirmed by that of Pâ—â—â— Galat. 2. 15. We who are Jewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles And Rom. 4. 12. Where Abraham is said to be the Father of circumcision to them that are not of circumcision onely but also walk in the steps of his faith which implies that he was the Father of them who are of circumcision onely and walk not in the steps of his faith The same reason is of the Gospell unless they were two distinct covenants and essentially different and that made with Abraham and his seed carnall as the carnall Anabaptists affirme which absurdity supposes it little better comfort for Abraham and his seed to have such a portion onely sealed to him than Turks and Tarters enjoy who were never in covenant with God True in the covenant there was a promise of Canaan and temporal blessings but yet the covenant was in the main spiritual Rom. 4. â—1 else we should make the Jewes little better than the beasts that perish as some grosse Anabaptists do So Calvine well observes Judaeos adeo carnales nobis depingunt ut pecudum similiores sunt quà m hominum Calvin Instit lib. 1. c. 16. s 10. The covenant of free grace that God made with Abraham in Christ is an everlasting covenant and stands more firme than the pillars of the earth or the poles of the heaven hence God himself calls it an everlasting covenant Gen. 17. 7. and that it is not meant of any limitted time is put out of doubt Isai 54. 8. 10. With everlasting kindnesse will I have mercy on thee saith the Lord thy Redeemer and the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed but my kindness shall not depart from thee neither shall the Covenant of my peace be removed saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee So that the Gospel Covenant for substance is still in force to the natural seed of Beleevers though not as natural but natural of Believers as well as under the Law And though the Jewes had priority in the Covenant yet not sole propriety for the Gentiles becoming visible professers they and their Infants did partake in it whosoever fears the Lord his children were Olive plants as well as theirs Psalm 128. 1. 3. Master Tombes 7. Section ANd for that which he saith This unchurcheth the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation if he mean by Christendome all that are commonly called Christians I grant it if the Infants be the one half of them and their unchurching be in respect of visible Church-membership but count it no absurdity Nor do know what ordinary means of Salvation he conceives they are left without except Baptism which I take not to be an ordinary means of salvation without faith and therefore think it no inconvenience to say that Infants are without ordinary means of salvation which are the preaching the Word c. Yet are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit Reply MAster Tombes denying the consequent of the Major that though the Covenant of the Gospel was a better Covenant than that under the Law yet Infants were not in covenant as well under the Gospel as under the Law which in the Dispute was thus taken away That which unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation cannot be a better Covenant to deny Infants to be in covenant unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation therefore it cannot be a better Covenant Then he gave no direct answer but now sayes if I mean by Christendome all that are commonly called Christians he grants it this is his concession but with two limitations 1. If the Infants be the one half of them 2. If their unchurching be in respect of visible Church-membership but then he counts it no absurdity there is his Epanorthosis or correction Again he sayes that he knowes not what ordinary means of salvation I conceive they are left without except Baptism which he takes not to be an ordinary means of salvation and therefore thinks it no inconvenience to say that Infants are without ordinary means of Salvation c. yet are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and works of his spirit All this being summed together is in his sense to deny the major and interpretatively averrs That which unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of salvation may be a better Covenant I le trace him in his own foot steps First to gratifie him I mean by Christendome all that are commonly called Christians that is them and their children that hold the fundamentals till they deny them by their life or doctrine and then too so far that after repentance they are not to be baptized again or readmitted by iteration of the seal contrary to Cyprian the Novatians and Donatists with the Councell of Carthage 2. I conceive that Infants that is besides those that dye in their mothers wombes they that expire before and after Baptism before years of discretion with the number of those that lives before the dippers will admit them to their water-ordinance are the one half if not the greater of visible members as by examining of Registers hath been observed Thirdly I grant him that their unchurching is in respect of visible Church membership though not onely so but of invisible Church-membership also interpretatively and consequently for they that are not in covenant and members of the Church-visible have no promise no present hope of Salvation Ephes 2. 12. This he seems to overthrow by these positions following 1. That he knowes not what ordinary means of Salvation Infants out of Covenant are left without except baptism 2. That he takes not Baptism to be an ordinary means of Salvation without faith 3. He thinks it no inconvenience to say that Infants are without ordinary means of Salvation 4. That Infants are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit without ordinary means These are his slight works that he intends to entrench himself in but God willing we shall easily levell them First he sayes that he knowes not what ordinary means of Salvation Infants out of Covenant are left without except Baptism And is not that enough An Infant under the Law left without any ordinary means of salvation save onely circumcision was in a sad condition seeing God said Gen. 17. 14. The uncircumcised Manchild whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised that soul shall be cut off from his people for he hath broken my Covenant and shall we not think
knew Infants were elected he would Baptize them and here he acknowledges of the species or sort of believers Infants that they are not only elected of God but redeemed of Christ and have the work of his spirit And why then they may not be baptized even from his own grounds is past my understanding to apprehend Now to return to the Argument and summe up all That which deprives the one half of Christendom of substantials as the benefit of the word inward and outward baptism visible Church membership Prerogative of birth covenant-holyness Gods promise of grace and glory cannot be a better covenant than that which differed onely in circumstantials and deprived of none of these but to deny Infants to be in covenant deprives the one half of Christendome of substantials as the benefit of the word inward and outward Baptism visible Church membership Prerogative of Birth covenant-holyness Gods promise of grace and glorie Therefore it cannot be a better covenant than that which differed onely in circumstantials and deprived of none of these Mr. Tombes 8. Section WHat I said that the covenant under the Gospell was made onely with the spirituall seed of Abraham was right and determined so Rom. 4. 11 12 16. Rom. 9. 7 8. Gal. 3. 29. John 8. 39. c. Nor is it true because the partiton wall is broken down therefore there is the same covenant nationall to the naturall seed of believers as was to Abraham but that therefore as the Apostle speaks Ephes 3. 6. The Gentiles to wit believing Gentiles Rom. 1 16. should be fellow heirs and of the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel Nor is it true That the Gospel covenant is made with the whole visible Church as the Gospel-covenant is expressed Heb. 8. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. And if I denyed the Major pag. â—9 in the first Argument I confess I was mistaken through inadvertency whether by reason of Master C. fast speaking or some humane infirmity or some other occurrence now not remembred I cannot tell But I deny the Minor understood of the Gospel Covenant Heb. 8. 10 and the whole visible Church being taken without any Synecdoche for every visible Church-member Reply IN the dispute Mr. T. gave no direct answer to the foregoing Syllogism but eluded all saying that the Covenant under the Gospel was made onely with the spirituall seed of Abraham which he peremptorily again asserts here avouching it was right and determined so Rom. 4. 11 12 16. Rom. 9. 7 8 Gal. 3 29 John 8 39. But that it was neither right nor determined so in the sense alledged or if it had been right determined so that it had made nothing against my present allegation comes now to be tryed First the saying was not right that the Covenant under the Gospel was made onely with the spirituall seed of Abraham that is Gal. 2. 15. not with chose that are not Jews by nature or lineally descended from Abraham but onely with sinners of the Gentiles converted and called for though it is true the Covenant under the Gospel was principally or in a greater part made with the believing Gentiles yet that partly also it was made with the Jews it appears in that it was first proposed unto them without success that the Apostles and Evangelists were Jews that Peter was the Apostle of Circumcision that three thousand Jews were converted at one Sermon of his Acts 2. 38. that the Epistle to the Hebrews is directed onely to the Jews the Epistle of James sent onely to the twelve tribes scattered abroad the former Epistle of Peter to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia that Jew and Gentile are all one in Christ Jesus The summe of all which amounts to this That which was proposed and entertained with success by the Jews which were the naturall seed of Abraham was not onely made with the spirituall seed of Abraham But the Covenant under the Gospell was proposed and entertained with success by the Jews which were the naturall seed of Abraham Therefore it was not onely made with the spirituall seed of Abraham 2. it was not determined by those forequoted places that the covenant under the Gospel was onely made with the spirituall seed of Abraham as appears out of the circumstances of those Texts Rom. 4. 11. It is said Abraham received a sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the father of them that believe now there were many of the naturall seed of Abraham that believed under the Gospel which is further confirmed by the next ver 12. He was the father of circumcision to them who are not of circumcision onely which is Equivalent in sense with that we affirm he was a Father to the naturall Jews when they believed and entertained Christ And the 16. ver makes the relations of paternity and son ship equall to Jew and Gâ—ntile believers Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed not to that onely which is of the Law but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham who is the father of us all what câ—n be more apparent by this than that Abraham is a father both to Jew and Gentile professer and believer under the Gospell His quotations Rom. 9. 7 8. make nothing for him but against him for we hold not because they are the seed of Abraham therefore they are children of the Gospel-covenant But that those that are as Abraham was professours and believers they and their children are in covenant for then the posterity of Ishmael when the apostated and the unbelieving Jewâ— to whom the Gospell was a stumbling block would have remained in covenant In Isaak it is said Abraham's seed shall be called for two reasons 1. Because Christ descended of him 2. Because the posterity of Isaak was not guiltie of backsliding and râ—ciduation as the posterity of Ishmael and Ketuâ—ah were otherwise it is apparent that not onely the outward Ordinances and seals of the covenant but even the spirituall part signanter at the least was proposed to all these nay who knows but that many of them attained the end of the covenant Luther is of opinion that even Ishmael was saved and brings reasons out of Scripture to prove it which I conceive are as concluding as any Master T. can bring to the contrary And whereas it is said ver 8. They that aâ—e the children of the flesh these are not the children of God but children of the promise are counted for the seed we must distinguish of children of the flesh children of God and children of promise 1. Children of the flesh are so stiled either because they were never in visible covenant as Pharaoh and the Egyptians or that were in covenant and apostated as the posterity of Ishmael and the Jews that were
most humble and devoted Servant in the Lord Jesus John Cragge To the Reader Courteous Reader TO please my self and perhaps thee I shall displease many First my Friend for making his private token a publick frolick Secondly Mr. Tombs for bringing him in this last Catastrophe wounded in the heel by Troilus and Paris who vaunts that in former Scenes like Achilles so far as he was dipped in the River by his Mother Thetis he hath been unpierced by the Weapons of the stoutest Hectors Thirdly Mr. Cragge and Mr. Vaughan for exposing their Disputes conceived in an hour and an half and the Sermon contrived in a day and a half to long censure Fourthly the Anabaptists as they will deem for too uncourteously galling their soars Fiftly their Adversaries the Paedobaptists for too courteously or as they will fancy partially concealing Mr. Tombs harsh language and his Favourites Incivilities Sixtly the Learned in general for bringing these Nilus-like hatched Births in a moment into the open Amphitheater with those Elephants that have been ten years in conception My Apologie for the whole is as followeth The bulk of this Manual is small some may reach to the price of it that cannot of those larger Volumes may have time to read it that cannot them The method of this is facile the language plain some will understand this that cannot them Besides wee naturally love the transactions of those whose persons we know Some heard them transiently as they were delivered and would be glad deliberately to read them Some heard them not but at the second hand as they were variously reported according to the Judgement and affection of the Relator who would be willing to know the business truly stated If any of the Parties concerned find themselves aggrieved and intend to bend their stile against me I 'le answer them at the Day of Judgement when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed In the mean time if Truth may be advanced Errour discouraged Godliness countenanced Hypocrisie unmasked thou edified God glorified I have mine ends Farewell Yours in the Lord I. T. P. A relation of a Conference had between Mr. John Tombs B. D. and Henry Vaughan M. A. in St. Maries Church in Abergavenny Sept. 5. 1653 touching Infant-Baptism briefly and punctually set down to the sense of both V INfants may lawfully be Baptized for they be admitted into the covenant of grace now by Baptism as they were before and under the Law admitted into the same covenant by Circumcision T. I deny your consequence V. You must deny it either because the covenant of grace made with Abraham and his seed is not the same in substance with that which is now actually in force with beleevers and their Children or Secondly because Baptism succeedeth not in the room of Circumcision T. I could deny your division yet I say to gratifie you for both those reasons V. For the former That the covenant made with Abraham and his seed is the same which is now actually in force with beleevers appears by comparing Genes 17. 2. with Galat. 3. 14. where it is clearly set forth that the promise made to Abraham came unto the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. T. Here he distinguisheth of a towfold seed of Abraham the naturall and spirituall and saith that the covenant was made with Abrahams spirituall seed and not the naturall V. Even all the children of Abraham were Circumcised and consequently admitted into the covenant not one excepted for every Man-child was to be Circumcised Gen 17. 10. It appears by what hapned to Moses for not Circumcising his Child Exod. 4 24. Even Ishmael was circumcised Genes 17. 23. who belonged not to the promise but was of the naturall seed T. Ishmael and the naturall Children of Abraham were admitted to the externall part namely outward priviledges and temporall blessings and not to the internall or spirituall part thereof By the Internall part he must needs mean that part of it expressed Gen. 17. 7. in these words To be a God unto thee and unto thy seed after thee and in the end of v. 8. I will be their God To justifie this his destinction he referred us to Rom. 9. and I think v. 8. where the Children of the promise are contradistinguished from the Children of the flesh or the naturall Children of Abraham So that the covenant was made not to the naturall Children of Abraham but to such of them as were elect and faithfull V. This covenant was made alike in the same extent and latitude promiscuously with all the seed of Abraham and those that lost the promise and the benefit of this covenant which men you call the naturall seed lost it not because they were not at first comprehended in the covenant but because of their own unbeleef Rom. 11. 20. I confesse that the children of Isaac are Rom. 9. called the Children of the promise not in regard of any peremptory election or designation to Faith and Salvation or on the contrary of any absolute reprobation of the seed of Ishmael For if it had been Pauls designe to declare the Children of Ishmael yea the greatest part of the Jewes to have been rejected by a certain absolute decree why should he v. 1. 2. so much lament their incredulitie wish himself accursed for their sakes v. 3. and Rom. 10. v. 1. desire and pray for their conversion since upon such an absolute decree of reprobating them all that happened to them was inevitable But the Children of Isaac are called the Children of promise First because they onely were to inherite the land of Canaan and Secondly because Christ according to the flesh was to descend from the progenie of Isaac not of Ishmael I might have added that if none but the elect and faithfull can be admitted into the covenant there is no subject left for the ordinance of Baptism it being impossible for man to know who are elect spirituall and true believers Neither can you Baptize with right or safety all such grown persons as you Baptize since you cannot be assured that they are elect Spirituall or true believers Revel 2. 17. nor have any light to guide you save that of charitable opinion and conjecture Again it being admitted that none but the Spirituall elect and believing can be Baptized the same charitie that swayes your judgment for grown persons must much rather move you to hope the best of innocent infants guiltie of no actuall sin since it hopes all things and thinks no evill 1. Cor. 13. 2. They may have faith in semine habitu in the seed as they have the habit of principles and reason though they cannot exercise it till ripe years 3. Though they have not actuall faith yet the faith of their parents may and doth put them into a capacitie of being admitted into the covenant nor is it news that the parents faith advantageth the Children Joh. 4. 50. T. I could wish you could prove that Infants of believers might be admitted to
Relation or was made up of those ingredients C. He replyed that seemed strange to him seeing all the Divines and Logicians that he had read affirmed Baptism to be a Realation and it was evident it could be put in no other Predicament as might be proved by Induction but that the people understood it not seeing the whole nature of Baptism is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Relation to another T. He said he cared not for authorities but bid him prove it C. Which he did thus Every Sacrament is a Relation ◠But Baptism is a Sacrament Therefore Baptism is a Relation T. He said he might deny both Propositions first the Major for any thing he knew every Sacrament was not a Relation And the Minor too that Baptism was a Sacrament for the word Sacrament was an invention of man not grounded upon scripture C. Which both Propositions together were proved thus That which is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace is both a Relation and a Sacrament But Baptism is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace Therefore it is both a Relation and a Sacrament T. He denyed the Minor that Baptism was an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace C. He told him it was St. Austens definition avouched by learned men in succeeding ages confirmed and approved by the Church of England in the old Catechism T. Mr. Tombs said he looked for Artificiall or divine Arguments not humane Testimonies at which answer while Mr. C. seemed to be astonished he took occasion to triumph contumeliously saying he never heard such an Argument C. To which he replyed Nor Alexander ever saw such a knot as the Gordian which made him cut it when he could not untie it you teach me by experience to know that there is no disputing against them that deny all Principles as where you think the people do not understand you make no scruple to deny clear truths in Logick and Divinitie Therefore I see I must go to plain scriptures that all the people may understand the absurdities Now that the Definition of Baptism which was the thing denyed belongs to Infants I prove thus If God institute Baptism for infants Christ merited it for them and they stand in need of it then to infants belongs the Definition of Baptism But God instituted Christ merited and infants stand in need of Baptism Therefore to infants belongs the Definition of Baptism T. He denyed the Minor that God did not institute Baptism for infants Christ did not merit it for them nor Infants stand in need of it C. Which he promised to prove in order First that God did institute Baptism for infants He that appointed infants Church-members under the Gospell did institute Baptism for them But God appointed Infants Church-members under the Gospell Therefore God did institute Baptism for infants T. He said first the Major might be questioned because to be Church-members whereas he should have said Church-members under the Gospell and to be Baptized were not termini convertibiles C. He confessed it for infants under the Law were Church-members and yet not Baptized but Circumcised and before the Law Church-members and yet neither Circumcised nor Baptized but under the Gospell they were so convertible that all that were Baptized were Church-members and all that were Church-members were to be Baptized which is that which he affirmed now and is a truth so clear that Master Tombs confesses it all along in his Books and upon that confessed ground Mr. Baxter goes in many of his Arguments T. He would have denyed it till a Gentleman told him that he heard him affirm the same in his Sermon the day before Then he denyed the minor that God did institute infants Church-members under the Gospell C. That I 'l confirm says he with a three-fold cord which will not easily be broken before the Law under the Law under the Gospell which he framed into an Argument thus Those whom God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law actually receive into covenant under the Gospell those God did appoint Church-members under the Gospell But God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law and actually receive Infants into Covenant under the Gospell Therefore God did appoint Infants Church-members under the Gospell T. He denyed the Minor That God did not promise before the Law foretell under the Law and actually receive infants into covenant under the Gospell C. Which was proved in order first that God did promise before the Law that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell thus That which God did promise to Abraham was before the Law But God did promise to Abraham that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell Therefore God did promise before the Law that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell The Minor being denyed he proved out of Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and unto thy seed after thee Thus framing his Argument He that makes an everlasting covenant to Abraham and his seed after him in their generations promised that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell but God makes an everlasting Covenant with Abraham and his seed after him in their generations Therefore God promised that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell T. He denyed the Major saying that everlasting signifyed onely a long time not that it should be so under the Gospell to the worlds end and was to be interpreted by the verse following I will give unto thee the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession and yet the Jews are now dispossessed of Canaan C. They are now dispossest but shall be possessed of it again at their conversion and so have an everlasting possession in the type to the end of the world in the Antitype for ever but that the covenant that God made with Abraham is to continue to the end of the World appears in that it is a gospell-Gospell-covenant That which is a gospell-Gospell-covenant is to continue to the end of the world But the covenant that God made with Abraham and his seed to all generations is a Gospell covenant Gal. 3. 8. and the scripture foreseeing that God would Justifie the Heathen through faith preached the Gospell before to Abraham saying In thee shall nations be blessed Therefore it is to continue to the end of the world T. Without repeating he confusedly answer'd thus that it was an everlasting covenant and to continue to the end of the world but not to infants C. He told him first that it was a denying of the Conclusion then took away his answer thus If God command infants to stand before him in covenant then it is to continue to infants But God commands infants to stand in covenant before him Therefore it is to continue to infants Deut 29. 10 11. Ye stand this
we then refuse to receive them or acknowledge them the subjects of his visible Kingdom will it not follow then that whosoever refuseth them refuseth Christ and him that sent him For my part to use the wordâ— of a godly and learned divine Seeing the Will of Christ is that I must walk by and his Word that I must be judged by and he hath given me so full a discovery of his Will in this point I will boâ—dly adventure to follow his rule and had rather answer him upon his own incouragement for admitting an hundred Infants into his Church than answer for keeping out of one Arg. 6. All Disciples may be Baptized But Infants of believing parents are Disciples Therefore some Infants may be Baptized The Major or former proposition is granted by our adversaries who translate that place Matth. 28. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 go make Disciples of all Nations which is in our last translation Go â—each all Nations confessing as soon as they are Disciples they may be Baptized Now for the Minor that Infants are Disciples is evident from Acts 15. 10. Why tempt yee God and put a yoak upon the neck of the Disciples this yoak was Circumcision and the attendants of it as will appear by comparing it with the fift verse and the context from the beginning of the Chapter Now among the Jews children were onely to be Circumcised and amongst the Gentiles children together with parents when they were converted and became Proselites To say that not onely Circumcision but the Doctrine and Observation of the whole Law by the yoak is meant is but a shift Circumcision was the Seal or Ordinance by which the Jews were bound to observe the Doctrine and the Law and all those upon whom the yoak was layd by Circumcision are called Disciples whereof Infants were a great part And if it be objected that children are not capable of instruction as it is nothing to the purpose so it contradicts Scripture Esay 54. 13. And all thy Children shall be taught of the Lord and great shall be the peace of thy Children And if any one carnally interpret this of the Jews return from captivity as they do other places of Esa our Saviour checks them John 6. 45. And It is written in the Prophets And they shall all be taught of God Arg. 7. All that have faith may be Baptized But some Infants have faith Therefore some Infants may be Baptized The proposition none will deny the Minor may be proved by severall reasons First Christ expresly calls them believers Matth. 18. He attributes humility to them and faith and commands Elders to imitate them and that you may see they were Infants Mark 9. 36. tells us they were such as Christ â—ook up in his armes Secondly they are said to receive the Kingdom of God Mark 10. that is the grace of God Remission of sins and life eternall now the Kingdom is not received but by faith in Christ Thirdly they please God therefore Christ blesseth them but without faith it is impossible to please God Fourthly either faith must be allowed them or salvation denyed them but the latter is cruell and impious therefore the former must be godly and pious faith onely purifies the heart but no unclean thing shall enter into Heaven Fiftly though Infants cannot make actuall profession of faith yet they may have inward roots of sanctification and faith John Baptist and Jeremie were sanctified in their mothers wombs let carnalists say what they will that is the principal meaning of that place Esay 65. 20. There shall be no more aâ— Infant of days The Jews thought they were not sanctified unless a Sabboth went over them the child shall dye an hundred year old that is as well in Covenant with God or a visible Church-member as if he were a hundred years old Therefore Paraeus sayes Infantes Ecclesiae etiam ante Baptismum censentur fideles Infants of the Church even before Baptism are judged faithfull Hommius sayes Infants have faith in semine in the seed though not in messe in the harvest Beza sayes they have faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in power though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in operation Faith says Trelcatius is two-fold 1. Active which the Elder have by hearing the Word 2. Passive and by imputation which Infants have by vertue of the Covenant and Divine promise Pelagius asks Austin where he places Infants Baptized he answers in numero credentium in the number of believers and addes nec judicare ullo modo aliter audebis si non vis esse apertè haereticus neither may thou presume to judge otherwise if thou wilt not be a plain Heretick We 'l conclude this with that of Vossius As in naturals so in supernaturals we must distinguish these three things power habit and act there is the power of reasoning in Infants the habit in men sleeping but the act and exercise in them that are waking the power answers the seed the habit the tree the act and exercise the fruit the seed of Faith may be in Infants the habit in men of age but the act and exercise in them that work according to the habit 8. Arg. Those that are Holy with a Covenant-holiness may be Baptized But Infants of beleeving Parents are Holy with a Covenant-Holiness Therefore Infants of beleeving Parents may be Baptized Eor the former Proposition foederatis competit signum foederis says Vossius the sign of the Covenant belongs to them that are in Covenant Holiness is twofold says Bullinger either of Faith or of the Covenant Ezra 9. 2. Ye have mingled the holy seed that is them in Covenant with the Nations that is them that are out of Covenant Thus you see that Covenant-holiness is no gibberidge but grounded upon Scripture and avouched by learned men as shall more fully appear The Minor that Children of beleeving Parents are holy with a Covenant-holiness is clear from 1. Cor. 7. 14. Else your Children were unclean that is not in Covenant but now they are holy that is in Covenant thus besides the ancients Sharpius and Peter Martyr interpret it and Hugo Grotius himself Non loquitur Apostolus de Sanctitate naturali c. The Apostle says he speaks not of natural holiness and inhering to the nature of Children but of an holiness adhering to them that is the holiness of the Covenant for the Children of beleevers are comprehended in the Covenant of grace and therefore accounted holy of God To interpret it as the gross Anabaptists do that they are holy that is no Bastards is a new holiness not heard of in Scripture and as Doctor Featly says a Bastard exposition and Pareus gives the reason if the Children of beleevers be therefore holy because they are no Bastards the Children of Pagans are as well holy for they are also no Bastards If the first-fruits be holy the lump is holy and if the root be holy so are also the branches Rom. 11. 16. The first fruits and
the washing of the new birth or regeneration as is manifest to every one Now what is this washing of Regeneration but Baptism Which could not succeed circumcision unlesse children that were circumcised were in his judgment baptized These are the Evidences in part of the Greeks concerning Infants interest in Baptism proving that de facto in their times and from the beginning of Christianity they were baptized The Latine Fathers come up with a full body to joyn with them whereof Tertullian marches in the front who as Helvicus records wrote his book of Prescriptions about the year 195. Which was about 97 years after the decease of St. John So that by this calculation he lived about 70. or lesse years after St. John in which short tract of time the Apostolical practise of Infant-Baptism could neither be clouded nor forgotten Neither would he have commended his private opinion as more profitable that the Baptism of some Infants for some respects should be deferred but have called it down as an Innovation if the practise of it had not been as transparent to every mans apprehension as if it had been writ with the sun-beams That Infant-Baptism was in practise in Tertullians dayes it appears by this Question libr. de Bapt. cap. 8. Quid sestinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatâ—rum Why does innocent age meaning children in their infancie make hast for remission of sins meaning Baptism which is a clear case whatsoever Semi Socinian Grotius say to the contrary That Tertullian was for Infant Baptism himself appears that in his book de Animâ cap. 39 he presses it when the child is in danger of death and gives his reason libr. de Bapt. cap. 12. praescribitur nemini sine Baptisme competere salutem it is prescribed that salvation is to none without Baptism That cavill of his advice to deferr Baptism in some cases I shall answer anon Cyprian succeeds who flourished as Trithemius and others observe about the year 240. in his 59 Epistle ad Fidum is not onely expresse for Infant-Baptism himself but mentions a Councell of sixty six Bishops who had declared the same and all this to satisfie the said Fidus who was not aginst the divine Institution and Apostolical practise of Infant-Baptism but conceived that Infants might not be Baptized before the eighth day because they might not be circumcised Cyprian tells him that Infants might not onely be baptized before the eighth day but any day Austin approves of this Epistle and his judgment saying Epist 28. ad Hier. Cyprianus non novum aliquod decretum condens sed Ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servaÌ„s That Cyprian did not devise any new decree but faithfully observed what the Church had done before him Augustine that bright day-star of Afâ—ick gives further evidence Sermon 15. de vâ—rbis Apost speaking of Infant-Baptism says hoc Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuiâ— hoc a majorum fide accepit hoc usque in finem persâ—veranter custodit The Church always had it always observed it received it from the faith of their Ancestors keeps it with perseverance to the end Neither do those exceptions against him any whit impeach the credit of it much lesse the fact First because he calls it an Universal Tradition Not denying that it is grounded upon Scripture as before but with the Oxford Convocation avouching that which in general terms by consequence and sub obscurely is delivered in Scripture is more plainly interpreted by Tradition as following the River Nilus the heads that are somewhat obscure are found out And that Constantine Augustine Alipius Adâ—odatus were not baptized when Infants was either because their parents were not Christians or they were not converted till of age or were tainted with some heresie or afraid of persecution as Philip the first Christian Emperour no sooner baptized â—ut privately made away The second exception is that Austin held that Infants dying without Baptism were damned This Rivet fathers upon him de patrum authoritate cap. 9 Augustinus aeternis flammis adjudicat infantes sine Baptismo morientes Austin adjudges to Eternal flames Infants dying without Baptism To which I answer he maintained Infant-Baptism upon other grounds though partly upon this which afterwards he retracted Thirdly it s excepted for that of giving them the Eucharist is impertinent that he held a certaintie of regeneration by Baptism and he makes no question of the regeneration of Infants I answer he does indefinitly of the species or sort of baptized Infants seeing God hath promised to be a God of those that are in covenant with him and their seed and we have a promise and consequently faith of none else But he does not say that every individual baptized Infant without limitation is regenerated but the contrary cortâ—cem sine nucleo the shell without the kernell as he averres there are some quirem Baptismi absque Sacramento Baptismi consequuntur that have the matter of Baptism that is the outward Elements without the Sacrament of Baptism that is without the inward and invisible grace The other Antients are of the same judgment as Ambrose â—â—stifies of Valentinian quem in Evangelilio geniturus eram amisi sed ille non amisit gratiam quam poposcit I have lost him whom I was a begetting by the Gospel but he hath not lâ—st the grace he desired but enjoyes eternal life and how seeing he was not baptized He gives the reason he was baptized inwardly in will though not outwardly with water The last exception is that Austin maintained that not onely Infants of Beleevers but Unbelievers also might be baptized It s true if Christians had the Tuition of them and would engage for them they might as well be baptized as the children Abraham's posteriâ—y boughâ— wâ—th mony or captives might be circumcised therefore Tertullian pleads both prerogative of birth and education as giving capacity to baptism To these I might add Ambrose that sayes that every age is liable to sin therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament of Baptism Lactantius Fulgentius Prosper Aquatanicus the Milevitan Councel with all the succeeding worthies enough to swell a Volume goes in the same Equipage But says Mr. Tombes Infant-Baptism as it is now used was opposed by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen Which Argument made into form sounds thus That which was opposed by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen was not held by the whole Church but Infant-baptism was opposed by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen Therefore Infant-Baptism was not held by the whole Church I deny both propositions first the Major for if it were true two mens opposing does not weaken an Evidence of fact not interrupted for so many Centuries Secondly the Minor is most false for it is formerly proved that Tertullian and Gregory were both for Infant-Baptism True it is the one advised to deferre it till the Infants were two or three years old unless they were in danger of death as it is conceived least dipping impair their health what is this against
Fundamentum Correlatum and Terminus belongs to Infants therefore the definition of Baptism belongs to Infants Here he denyed Baptism was a Relation wherein he sayes I insinuate that he was driven to an absurdity and how justly let learned men judge Keckerman places Baptism amongst concrete Relatives called of the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Log. Syst pag. 15. Melanchâ—on sayes Baptism is a Relation and that terminus baptismi est obsignatio confirmatio absolutionis peccatorum per sanguinem Christi The terme of Baptism is the sealing and confirmation of pardon of sins by the blood of Christ-Peter Martyr Com. places part 4. pag. 112. defines Baptism a signe of regeneration into Christ into his death and resurrection c. and that by signe he means Metonymâ—cally a Relation betwixt the signe and thing signed and signified is apparent by the words following A Signe is a word common to Baptism and other Sacraments is proved hereby sayes he because Paul in the Epistle to the Romans 4. 11. taught that Abraham after he was justified did receive circumcision being a seal of righteousness of faith already obtained and that Baptism sealeth is sufficiently expressed seeing it is called a signe of regeneration for Christ manifestly taught Nicodemus John 3. 3. that they that will be saved must be born again thus far he Zanchie Calvin Vrsine Bucane Bishop Jewell described Baptism by Relation or Relative terms so among the Antients Dionys cap. 2. calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the garment of incorruption and Austin a Sacrament of remission of sins Now Mr. Tombes in opposition to these and many more which might be alledged denies it to be a relation and least it should be nothing as many would have it he sayâ—â—e takes Baptism to be either an action or passion but he tells us not whether leaving it hanging between two Predicaments like Mahomet's Tombe at Mecha He might have remembred that nothing formally can be placed in two Categories and as in words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to signifie one thing distinctly is to signifie nothing so not to be placed in one Category is to be placed in none But perhaps he thinks with Janus it puts on a double face and as it respects the Minister baptizing is an action as it looks at the party baptized it s a passion And why may not as well Marriage be said to be in both seeing in it there is both action and passion It s confessed that in Baptism is included baptization which is both action and passion the party baptizing and the party baptized with the water which are corporal substances the pronouncing of the words of Baptism which may relate to quantity divine graces of regeneration which are infused qualities divine institution of it union with Christ and the whole Trinity which are Transcendents These are the materials but the ratio formalis the essence and form of Baptism consists in Relation which is duorum unio the union betwixt the outward signe of water and inward grace signified by it This Master Tombeâ— grants in part when he saith Christian Baptism hath a relation superadded if he had said in casu recto it was a relation he had stroke home which his next words intimates confessing that in the use it was a signe which predication is but Metonimical the true genus of Baptism must be the union between the signe and the thing signed or signifiâ—d which is a relation and nâ—t as he would make it an action which would carry in the bowels of it this absurdity that then Baptism would be inherent in the baptized that the party baptized could not say mine but the Ministers Baptism Actio est agentis Now the Argument whereby in the Dispute I proved Baptism to be a relation was this Every Sacrament is a relation Baptism is a Sacrament therefore Baptism is a Relation Then he denyed both the premisses but now minces it saying that he confesses that the terme Sacrament being but a term invented by Latine Fathers may he layd aside What Latine Fathers The duodecim Tabulae For they mention it There was among the Ancient Heathen Romans Sacramentum militare a Souldiers Sacrament whereby Plantiff and defendant put in gages to abide the tryal this Tully alludes too pro Milone Sacramentis alienos fundos petunt They sue for other mens grounds with Sacraments or gages of mony Therefore the Terme Sacrament was not invented by the Christian Latine Fathers but was long before them Perhaps he means the terme Sacrament to speake properly was not invented but applyed to Baptism and the Lords Supper by the Latine Christian Fathers therefore may be laid aside because a heathen word So the terms Episcopus Presbyter Diaconus should be laid aside for the Areopagites and other Grecians had them I le instance in one Episcopus Plutarch in Pericle sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phidias was his Bishop or ovescer in all things Or it may be he means there is no one Scripture word in the Original that can properly be translated Sacrament Then the word Trinity Vnity Humanity and which they cant so much withall Anti-Paedobaptist must be laid aside Besides is there not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mystery in the Original which to express in our language and the Latine no fitter words according to common use can be then Sacrament And though Mystery and Sacrament are of a larger extent signification than to be convertible with Baptism and the Lords Supper yet they are the Mysteries and Sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of eminence And that Baptism was both a Sacrament and a relation was further proved That which is an outward and visible signe of an inward and invisible grace is both a Relation and a Sacrament Baptism is an outward and visible signe of an inward and invisible grace Therefore it is both a Relation and a Sacrament Then he denied the Minor now he speaks not quite out but clouâ—s the Truth of it with two false assertions 1. That there is no common nature of a Sacrament expressed in Scripture 2. That Austins definition thereof is imperfect For the former that there is no common nature of a Sacrament expressed in Scripture is untrue both in the sequel and in it self In the sequel for what consequence there is no common nature of a Sacrament expressed in Scripture therefore Baptism is not a Sacrament more than in this There is no common nature of infused grace expressed in Scripture therefore faith is not an infused grace Untrue in it self for though not in one place there may be in many places of Scripture compared together like garlands of flowers gathered out of the same garden a common nature of a Sacrament expressed as well as of predestination election adoption regeneration hope with many more which Scripture in no one place undertakes completely to define but the common nature thereof if he mean the Genus and the special nature the differentia may be gathered
told him that he heard him affirm the same in his Sermon the day before this he then let passe but now cements it thus with this untempered morter in the first words of his former Paragraph thus As for that which he saith I denyed all that were Church members were to be baptized and yet affirmed in my Sermon that they were to be baptized in both I said true the former being understood of invisible the later of visible Church-members hence he would imply that all-invisible Church-members may not be baptized all visible Church-members may be baptized This is his Cardinal distinction upon the hinge whereon hangs the whole Fabrick of his Anti Paedobaptistical Babel and like the string in the Lamprey runs with a poysonous and fallacious vein through the whole body of his discourse whereby he eludes all Arguments as the Sophister did with his Archipodialiter and reflexive Let him give me leave to parley with him a little and first tell him that his distinction if true is not fitly applyed to this place 2. That it is untrue Not fitly applyed to this place for the proposition by him denyed points only at the visible Church-membership of Infants adjudging it an absurd thing to draw an Argument to prove a visible Ordinance taken from the qualification of a subject invisible So that if he please he may frame the Proposition thus He that appointed infants visible Church-members under the Gospel did institute Baptism for them and then he might have spared his visible and invisible distinction 2. It is not true for neither are all visible members of the Church to be baptized then all baptized before they being visible members were to be baptized again and so toties quoties that all should turn Hemerobaptists be baptized every day and if Mr. T. say this is a fallacie it is but paying him in his own coyne for these are his counterfeit pieces pag. 16. Capable of Baptism and disciples are not terms subordinate but distinct though without opposition and though to be Disciples made them capable yet there is a difference betwixt the terms I presume Mr. C. thinks baptized persons already disciples yet not capable of baptism thus far he Now to be members of the Church and Disciples are Synynoma 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same thing differing only in terms Thus for visible Church-members then for invisible It s worth the enquiry whether he rightly denyed that all of them were to be baptized for he insinuates that all invisible Church-members are not in capacity of Baptism for the discussion whereof we are to remember that in right stating the Question according to Art the members of the distinction must be ad idem to the same subject which is the Church militant not Triumphant Heâ—ce the Quaere is not whether the Saints in Heaven may be baptized for they are above Ordinances nor whether the Elect before conception be baptizable for they are onely in Gods decree and potentiâ objectivâ and are short of Ordinances Nor whether Infants unborn in the mothers wombe though sanctified with John Baptist may be baptized for though they be in potentiâ proximâ yet they have not attained the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or full groath of Ordinances it being more impossible to baptize them than to Circumcise females Nor whether the Elect amongst Jewes Turks and Pagans before they be called be to be baptized for they are not yet members of the Church Militant But the true state of the Question is whether all that are in visible being and members of the Church Militant may be baptized or no For to be in visible being and members of the Church invisible implyes no more contradiction than for the good and bad fishes to be both visible in the net and yet not discernable whether good or bad till they came to shore Neither are those that attain the end of Ordinances and Salvation called invisible members because they are not also ordinarily visible but because it is a thing invisible and indiscernable whether they be true Saints or hypocrites So that invisible and visible members differs as Genus and Species all invisible members are visible but not all visible members invisible the invisible being extracted out of the visible as Joshua and Caleb were out of the Spyes the second time to enter Canaan or as Gideons souldiers that lapped wâ—reâ— out of his numerous Army to enter battell Now iâ— all invisible members be also visible it will inevitably follow that they may be baptized whether visible by profession as them of ripe years or visible by prerogative of birth and promise of parents or sureties as Infants which shall be further cleared hereafter onely this by the way to discover the misapplication and untruth of this Utopian distinction Mr. Tombes insisting upon the denyal of the Minor which was that God did institute infants Church-members under the Gospel I undertooke to prove it with a threefold coâ—d before the Law under the Law under the Gospel which was framed into an Argument thus Those whom God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law actually receive into Covenant under the Gospell those God did appoint Church-members under the Gospel But God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law actually receive Infants into covenant under the Gospell Therefore God did appoint Infants Church-members under the Gospell In answer to which he sayes had not Mr. C. quickness hindred him he had shewed the vanity of the Major as well as denyed the Minor He might have set the saddle upon the right and said his own dulness for as Themistocles told Seriphius if he had not lost the Castle he could not have won it So I may tell him if his slowness had not hindred my pretended quickness who gave him leave to Iterate and reiterate the Syllogism could not have prevented his mature and deliberate answer But why had he shewed the vanity of the Major He gives a reason such as it is if I mean by Church-members visible Church-members and by actually receiving into Covenant understand such an actual receiving as is without any act of Faith or profession of the persons received into Covenant as he conceives I do he denies the Major He conceives I mean by Church-members visible Church-members It s true I doe so Why did not he conceive I meant so in the former Syllogism and spared his distinction of visible and invisible Church-members which it seems by his own confession is but a false conception or Mooncalfe for if he conceived I meant visible Church-members why talks he vainly of invisible If he had a conceit I meant invisible why sayes he that he conceives I meant visible but that any poor shift will fit to elude an Argument But the main ground upon which he denies the proposition is because there can be no actual receiving into Covenant without an act of faith or profession of the persons received How impertinent and sensless this is will
appear by the bare repetition of it which is this Those whom God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel those God did appoint Church-members under the Gospell The truth of this proposition hath no dependance upon faith or profession which is but Mr. Tombes his dream but upon a threefold impregnable rock first Gods promise which is founded upon his veracity secondly his prediction which is founded upon his omnisciency and infallibility thirdly from the intrinsecal connexion of the terms which makes it to be aeternae veritatis for actually to receive into covenant under the Gospel and to appoint Church-members under the Gospel are as essentially coincident as to be a man and a reasonable creature To deny the two former branches is no less than blasphemy to question the third would grant a Metaphysical and Logical principle upon which is built the superstructures of all Arts and Sciences What can be more absurd than to affirm that what God hath promised foretold performed is not executed When Orthodox Christians argued that God created the World of nothing because when there was nothing extant besides himself he decreed to create it said before there was any creature fiat Coelum let there be Heaven and Earth and in six dayes framed all things he made the World of nothing but when there was nothing extant besides God he decreed to create the World and before there was any creature said fiat Coelum and in six dayes framed all things Therefore God made all the World of nothing Porphyrie and Libanius those Atheists answered that if by Gods decree fiat and fact was meant that God made all things sine praejacente materiâ without a fiâ—st matter they denyed the Major as if God could not of nothing create all things In imitation of these Mr. Tombes dâ—nies those whom God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel that he did appoint them Church-members under the Gospel if by actuall receiving into Covenant I understand such an actual receiving as is without any act of Faith or profession of the persons received into Covenant as â—f God could not appoint them Church-members even though he had promised foretold and actually received them into Covenant without an act of faith and profession This might have had some colour if applyed to the Minor which he sayes he also denyed implying that in the Dispute he denyed the Major which will throw him upon the horns of this Dilemma if he denyed it then my quicknesse prevented him not if he denyed it not then he tells an utruth and contradicts himself but this is so usual that I am wearied to take notice of them Master Tombes 4. Section IN the next proof he changeth the term of actually receiving into being in Covenant Now there is a manifest difference between them sith a person may be in Covenant that is have a Covenant made to him who is not yet born as Isaac Gen. 17. 21. But he is not actually received into Covenant till he is born and by some Acts of his own engageth himself to be Gods Receiving importeth an offering which is to be done by profession As for his proof from Gen. 17. 7. I had many exceptions against it First that if it be understood of the natural seed of Abraham the everlastingness of it was but for a time and that time afore the Gospel as in the next verse the possession of Canaan is promised to be everlasting and yet the Jewes dispossest now of it Which Mr. C. grantâ— and therefore must needs grant that the promise verse 7. though it be termed everlasting yet it is to be understood onely of a limited time as in other passages Exod. 21. 6. and 12. 24. c. If meant of the natural seed of Abraham Nor is he relieved by saying they shall have Canaan again for however the possession was not everlasting that is at all times particularly not in Gospel-times Reply HE having denyed the Minor that God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law and actually receive Infants into Covenant under the Gospel I proved the branches in order First that God did promise before the Law that Infants should be in Covenant under the Gospel thus That which God did promise to Abraham was before the Law but God did promise to Abraham that Infants should be in Covenant or actually received into Covenant under the Gospel therefore God did promise before the law that Infants should be in Covenant or actually received into covenant under the Gospel Here he sayes I change the terme of actually receiving into being in Covenant whereas if his memory had not failed he might have recollected that in the Dispute I used both if his charity had not been a grain or too too light he might have imputed it to the Relator who for brevity sake omitted the one terme which was used but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to interpret the other thâ—y being Equivalent in sense But he sayes there is a manifest difference between them whaâ— difference He that is actually received into covenant is in Covenant and he that is in Covenant is actually received into Covenant it being impossible to be in Covenant properly so called without being actually received into it To be in the state of grace and glory and to be actually received into the state of grace and glory are Aequipollent terms If Mr. Tombes's soul be in his body it is actually received into his body and if the sword be in the Scaberd it is actually received into the scaberd But he disproves this Instance sith a person may be in Covenant that â—s have a Covenant made to him who is not yet born as Isaak Gen. 17. 21. Three untruths couched in one kennil 1. That a person may be in Covenant who is not yet born 2. That to have a Covenant made to him is to be in Covenant 3. That Isaak was in Covenant who was not yet born Gen. 17. 21. First That a person may be in Covenant who is not yet born or conceived as his instance of Isaak implies may be confuted insito Argumento by an Argument inbred in the terms for he implyes and that right that a person must be the subject of being in Covenant but none who is unborn and unconceived as Isaak Gen. 17. 21. is a person for a person must be a substance which excludes all Accidents from Covenant capacity à substantia prima must exist and be cloathed with individual circumstances which excludes universals must be Intelligent which excludes all irrational creatures Incommunicable which excludes the Divine nature No part of another which excludes the soul or body of man after separation to be persons Not supported of another which excludes the humane nature of Christ because it is supported of the Divine Now that which is unborn not conceived or organized in the womb is therefore
uncapable of being a person which by his own confession is the subject of being in Covenant Secondly It is a false suggestion that to have a Covenant made to one is to be in Covenant if by having the Covenant made to one for the phrase is somewhat strange he means as he can mean nothing else a promise from God to be and be in Covenant for a promise may be made to or of one long before he have any being not executed or performed till long after his being Then to be elected and to be in Covenant would be both one then Mary Magdalen while possessed with seven Devills and Saul while a persecuter were in covenant nay from eternity to be in covenant would precede outward and inward calling conversion profession and prerogative of birth than which nothing can be more ridiculous Thirdly it is of the same leaven of untruth that Isaak was in covenant when he was not yet born which his own quotation Gen. 17. 21. proves against him The words are these But my covenant will I establish with Isaak which Sara shall bear iâ—to thee at this set time in the next year where observe 1. God promises that Sara shall bear Isaak unto Abraham therefore he was not yet born 2. That she should bear him at that set time of the next year therefore not conceived yet 3. That he will establish a covenant with Isaak in the future not that he does establish a covenant in the present 4 He will establish his covenant with Isaak not that Isaak is in covenant to be in covenant and to establish a covenant with one are distinct terms what child cannot discover this inconsequence God promises that he will establish his covenant with Isaak before he was born therefore Isaak was in covenant before he was born Master T. might as truly conclude thus God promised Gen. 49. 10. That the Scepter shall not depart from Judah till Shilo come Therefore the Scepter was in Judah before David or any governour of that tribe was born I confess that God loved the elect from eternity with the love of intention but not till câ—nverted with the love of execution at which time they begin to be internally in covenant with God and members invisible and externally in covenant and members visible as soon as they are born if infants of believing Parents as soon they profess Jews or Pagans But he goes on with the other branch of his new distinction affirming that a Person is not actually received into covenant till he be born which is true of the externall and outward receiving but not of the internall and spirituall receiving for who can deny with reason that John Baptist and Jeremy that were sanctified in the wombe and elect children that dyes in the wombe are not spiritually and invisibly in covenant with God seeing they are qualifyed with graces sutable to their present condition that God is well pleased with them But whereas he addes that one is not actually received into covenant till by some acts of his own he engageth himself to be Gods This erronious superstructure is founded upon the Basis of this mistake that every covenant must be expresly and actually mutuall betwixt both parties that are covenanters and is an Arguments sophistically though sillily drawn à negatione unius speciei ad totum genus and in forth sounds thus Some covenants must be expresly and actually mutuall between the covenanteâ—s therefore all even that between God and Infants must be actually and expresly mutual or which is more Infants by some Acts of their own must engage themselves to be Gods Whereas covenanters are twofold 1. Actually mutual when both parties correspondently indents and stipulates 2 Or not mutual and reciprocal when one party imposes something upon the other as Conquerors upon captives as 1 Sam. 11. 2. And Naah the Ammonite answered them on this condition will I make a covenant with you that I may thrust out all your right â—yes and lay it for a reproach on all Israel This was upon supposition of his conquest to enforce them whether they would or no and is an Act of Justice sometimes an act of mercy as Ezek. 36. 26. Where God engages without any mutual stipulation That a a new heart he would give them and a new spirit he would put within them and he would take away the stony heart out of their flesh and that he would give them a heart of flesh and that he would put his spirit within them and cause them to walk in his Statutes and keep his Commandements In this case one party maketh the Covenant without mentioning the other but as patient therefore Gen. 15. 8. God is said to make a Covenant with Abraham and 17. 9. God calleth the covenant his covenant God made the promise conditions not Abraham The former kind of covenant which is mutual wherein both parties in a sense indent and stipulate is twofoâ—d first when personally for themselves both act or interpretativâ—ly consent so Gen. 21. 27. When Abraham and Abimelech did covenant the Text saith they both made a â—vonant Abraham his conditions and Abimelech his And Gen. 17. 10. God said unto Abraham thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations this is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you every manchild among you shall be circumâ—ised Secondly representatively by others who are their Proxies and engages for them they being but meer passives and are received into covenant without any voluntary act of their own Thus Infants in all generations from Abraham became covenanters by circumcision when they were but eight dayes old which Christ himself confirmed by his own example pro parvulis parvâ—lâ—s factus became a little one for little ones was Mediator and head of the Church in both natures circumcised when a little one that little ones by Circumcision might be admitted into covenant By this you see it smels rank of heresie if not of blasphemie to affirm that a person cannot actually be received into covenant till by some acts of his own he engageth himself to be Gods for then all Infants from Adam till Abraham Isaak and all circumcised Infants from Abraham till Christ from Christ till the end of the world nay Christ himself while an Infant who as he was the first begotten of the dead was the first in covenant would be excluded the Covenant We finde in the Gospel that sick persons that were carried by others were cured upon account of their Faith and Infants brought to Christ by others were actually themselves blessed by him Therefore vain is that he asserts that actuall receiving into covenant imports an offering which is to be done by profession as if more were to be required for admission of visible members into covenant than was for admission or actuall receiving of Christ as God-man and Mediator to be visible head of the Church for though we read that the Star and
Angels proclaimed him the wise men offered Gold and Myrrh and Frankincense to him yet we read not that he made any offering himself by profession till he came of riper years increasing in knowledge and stature and favour with God and man The proof of the Minor that God did promise to Abraham that Infants should be in covenant under the Gospel taken from Genes 17. 7. I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee he sayes he had many exceptions against it but I remember none but those here mentioned by him nor all them which how incongruously they are applyed will appear by reciting the Argument in forme which was this He that makes an everlasting covenant to Abraham and his seed after him in their generations promised that Infants should be in covenant under the Gospell God made an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed after him in their generations Therefore God promised that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell His first exception he sayes was That if it be understood of the naturall seed of Abraham the everlastingness of it was but for a time But for a time How does that follow If it had been with a particle of exclusion onely to the naturall seed there might have been some colour of dispute and yet without all controversie the everlastingness of it is extended even to the naturall seed of Abraham for there hath been is and will be a succession of Jewish believerâ— to the end of the world which proves that in his sense it s false that the everlastingness of it was but for a time and that time afore the Gospell But the truth is it is not onely meant of the naturall seed but of the spirituall seed of Abraham both whereof successively and in part if not altogether concomitantly for there were alwaies Pâ—oselytes it is everlasting or to the end of the world Neither is he relieved by the next verse wherein he sayes the possession of Caenaâ—n is promised to be everlasting and yet the Jews are dispossest now of it unless that the same word in adjoyning verses must necessarily signify the same thing Then the Argument would be good Everlasting in the latter verse signifies not continuance to the end of the world without interruption therefore not in the former Upon the same ground an Argument might be drawn against the infiniteness and eternity of the deity from these words God of Gods and Lord of Lords Gods and Lords in the latter signifies creatures Therefore in the former but how inconsequently in both a child may judge But when all this is done what if in his sense the possession of Canaan is not promised to be everlasting the words are these I will give unto thee and unto thy seed after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession wherein you see the gift is the whole land of Canaan The parties to whom Abraham and his seed after him The continuance for an everlasting possession Now Abraham was so far from the possession of the whole land of Canaan that he onely sojourned in it and that but for a while as a stranger Jacob his grand-child with his posterity after their departure into Egypt possessed neither whole nor part till Josuah's time which was almost three hundred years after Josuah's time till the destruction of the Temple by Titus the Jews could never compass the possession of the whole or expell the Jeâ—usites and Canaanites What then must be meaâ—t by Gods promise to Abraham of an everlasting possession of Canaan one of these three either that they had jus ad rem though not in re title to it though not actuall possession of it or that it was a type of the everlasting spirituall Canaan in which senses from Abraham they possessed it or that the plenarie and full possession of the whole begins at the conversion of the Jewes and shall last from thence to the end of the world without interruption None of these will support Mr. T. his declining cause nor will my grant do him any good that the Jews are dispossest of Canaan neither will it follow from thence that I must needs grant that the promise verse 7. though it be termed everlasting yet it is onely to be understood of a limited time for I deny both the Antecedent and the consequent The Antecedent it is not meant of a limited time The consequent that if it were so meant it is no sequel that the former must be so meant also Those pretended parallels taken from Exod. 2. 16. and 12. 24. are heterogeneal and indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another Question which speaks not of everlasting but ever and is to be limited to the subject maâ—ter and service The servant shall serve the Master for ever that is as long as the one is capable to serve and the other to be served And ye shall observe this thing for ever that is ever when ye celebrate the Passeover And whereas he sayes I am not relieved by saying that they shall have Canaan again I must tell him that that Foâ—t needs no relieving that was never beleagerd or beseeged The Question is not of actuall possession of Canaan but of such a possession as God promised and undoubtedly performed to Abraham and his seed after him when Abraham himself possessed scarce any part his posterâ—ty from Jacob till Josuah none at all from Josuah till the destruction of Jerusalem according to the letter not all of Canaan Therefore his inference is inconsequently inferâ—ed that the possession was not everlasting that is at all times particularly not in Gospel-times seeing they were never no not in the time of Babylonish captivity dispossest of Canaan in that sense in which it is said to be everlasting Mr. Tombes 5. Section AS for his proof of the continuance of the gospel-Gospel-covenant unto the end of the world to Abraham and his seed the very text he alledgeth Gal. 3. 8. doth manifestly express the thing promised to be justification and that of the heathen and that through faith that had not the man a face which could not blush he would have been ashamed to have urged it to prove that Abrahams natural seed were promised to be in covenant under the Gospel And his next allegation is as vain that because Deut. 29. 10. 11. The whole congregation of Israel â—re said to stand before the Lord with their little ones to enter into covenant therefore the covenant Gen. 17. 7. is to continue to infant-natural seed of Abraham to the end of the world whereas the speech is onely of a Transient fact not of a command much less of â— promise of something perpetually future and what is said of the little ones is as well said of wives hewers of wood and drawers of water And therefore if thence
be concluded a continuance of covenant to Infants a continuance of covenant to wives and servants will be concluded Reply MAster Tombes thinking to gain the shore upon this broken plank that the covenant God made with Abraham was not simply everlasting because the Jews possession of Canaan was not everlasting was further assaulted with an Argument drawn from a gospel-Gospel-covenant thus That which is a gospel-Gospel-covenant is to continue to the end of the world The covenant that God made with Abraham and his seed to all generations is a Gospel covenant Gal. 3. 8. and the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith preached the Gospel before to Abraham saying in thee shall all nations be blessed Therefore it is to continue to the end of the world In which text three things are observable 1. That the Scripture foretold that God would justify the heathen through faith that is the partition wall should be pulled down and the heathen nations should profess faith as visible members whereof some should be actually justified as members invisible 2. That the same Gospel that was afterwards preached to the heathens was first preached to Abraham 3. That in Abraham that is in him as the root whence sprung the branches or in the covenant made with him or in Christ virtually in him by way of excellencie all nations shall be blessed Now instead of direct answer to this he first injuriously misreports my allegation against the law of equity 2. He shoots at his hostem stramineum imaginary Bugbear of straw against the rules of Logick and veritie 3. Having missed his mark with the Dragon in the Revelation he sends floods of reproach after me against the grounds of religion and piety First he injuriously misreports my allegation that I urged this Argument drawn from Gal. 3. 8. to prove that Abraham's naturall seed were promised to be in covenant under the Gospel as will appear to any one that observes the concatenation of the Mediums which loosed into a Sorites presents themselveâ— thus Infants may be baptized because the Essence of Baptism belongs to them The Essence belongs to them because the definition belongs to them The definition of Baptism belongs to Infants because Christ did institute it for them he did institute Baptism for them because he appointed them visible Church-members under the Gospel he appointed them visible Church-members under the Gospel because he promised to Abraham before the Law that they should be received into covenant under the Gospel he promised to Abraham before the Law that they should be received into covenant under the Gospel because he made an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed that is professors and believers whether carnally descended from him or no he made an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed which was not to expire with the Jewish Paedogogie because it was a Gospel-covenant and that it was a Gospel-covenant it was proved Gal. 3. 8. God preached the Gospel to Abraham Now where did I urge that Abraham's naturall sâ—ed were promised to be in covenant under the Gospell Master T. his conscience tells him no where Let him take heed of these untruths that he thinks are officious and pious frauds least they prove malicious and unexpiable without confession and satisfaction Secondly he shoots at his own Idol against the rules of Logick and veritie for having swallowed and digested this untruth that I urged Abraham's naturall seed were in covenant under the Gospel he attempts to disprove it from the Text alledged Gal. 3. 8. because the thing promised as he expresses it with an Emphasis was justification and that of the heathen and that through faith As if all this might not be and yet some of the naturall seed of Abraham be in covenant under the Gospell who professed were justified and had faith as well as the heathen True it is I averred in the dispute and avouch now that Abraham was the root the naturall seed of Abraham though not as naturall were the naturall branches of this Olive and in visible covenant till Christs incarnation and yet not these alone for Proselytes also of every nation were admitted After Christ the Gentiles or Nations as wild Olives were ingrafted into the place of the naturall Olive which in great part was broken off and yet many of the Jews embraced Christ continued in â—he stock and were both the naturall and spirituall seed of Abraham for if Peter Acts 2. at one Sermon converted three thousand how many thousands may we think were converted with all the Sermons of all the Apostles and Evangelists But I never affirmed that the covenant was to be made and continued to the end onely with the naturall seed of Abraham but the quite contrary seeing also the Gentile professors and believers were the seed of Abraham which is plainly expressed Gal. 3. 7. Know ye therefore that they that are of faith the same are the children of Abraham and ver 9. They that are of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham and if the continuation of Abrahams seed had been onely by this spirituall succession it had been enough to prove that the covenant God made with him was everlasting Thirdly by this accuser of his brethren Revel 12 10. being thus cast down ver 15. Casts out of his mouth a flood â—f water ofter me saying had not the man a face which could not blush he would have been ashamed to urge it to prove that Abrahams naturall seed were promised to be in covenant under the Gospell whereas no man whose conscience is not seared and face starched will say that I affirmed Abrahams naturall seed were promised to be in covenant under the Gospell or that I urged that place to prove it Is it no sin first to slander and then to fasten an Aspersion of so deep a dye upon a groundless slander 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pindar Ode 1. The venenâ—ous waspe by shooting out her stâ—ng may very well loose her bowels And because Master T. speaks so oft of a face that cannot blush let him reflect upon his own which as if born under Saturn who is said â—o have murdered his children livoâ—em loquitur speaks paleness and envy which I had thought had been châ—cked with grace till besides his uncivill language in the dispute without provocation he vents so much rancour deliberately in writing Qualiter eruptis corrupta cadavera Tumbis Inficiunt saetore graves imitata cloacas Lurida cum Stygiis glomer antque aconita venenis As gaping Tombes though painted fair With poysoned breath infects the Air And with a scent out-vyes the Jakes Or dampes that rise from Stygian lakes But he goes on in the same Equipage twisting a cord of untruth and reproach together saying that my next allegation is as vain that because Deut. 29. 11. The whole Congregation of Israel are said to stand before the Lord with their little ones to enter into covenant Therefore the covenant Gen. 17. 7. is to
gives his reasons 1. negatively that the meliority of the covenant is not placed in the extent to the sort of persons for then it should be extended to more sorts than the covenant of the Law was 2. affirmatively But to the meliority of the promises which were of better things or better terms than the promises of the Law Thence he infers that not to any other but the elect and true believers and so not to Infants as the naturall seed of believers These are either wild assertions or inconsequent deductions which now comes to the touch-stone First he affirms that the meliority of the covenant is not placed sin the extent to the sort of persons what then will it follow if â— covenant was made no more than before therefore not to all that were before A Prince may grant a better Charter to a Corporation then formerly and yet to none but them that were free Denisons before their children A noble mans patent may be enlarged with greater priviledges of a Baron be made a Duke and yet in the same latitude to posterity Gospel-pâ—erogatives may be greater than of the Law and yet equally to professors and their children We argue not affirmatively it is a better covenant because it is made to more than before but negatively it were not a better covenant at least eatenus if it were not made to all it was before But as his inference so his proposition is false for the Meliority to use his barbarism of the covenant is also placed in the extent to the sort of persons for whereas before it was confined onely to the Jews now all Nations Jews Gentiles Grecians Barbarians bond free flows in Isa 2. 2. as we have a praeludium of it Acts 2. 9. Parchians and Medes Elamites and the dwellers in Mesopotamia and in Judea and Cappadocia in Pontus and Asia Phrygia and Pamphylia in Egypt and the parts of Lybia about Cyrene and strangers of Rome Cretes and Arabians the wonderfull works of God By this you see his reason is turned point blank against himself and the contradictory of his propositions are true The Meliority of the covenant is placed in the extent to the sort of persons because it is extended to more sorts than the covenant of the Law was And this in answer to his negative proofs The affirmative follow which are these 1. That the Meliority of the covenant is placed in the Meliority of the promises 2. That Gospel-promises are of better things or better terms than the promises of the Law 3. That the promises of the Gospel are not to any other than elect and true believers and therefore not to Infants as the naturall seed of believers for the first that the Meliority of the covenant is placed in the Meliority of the promises is both impertinent and untrue Impertinent for if it were confessed that the Meliority of the covenant is placed in the Meliority of the promises it will not follow that Infants are not in covenant as well under the Gospell as under the Law nor will it avoid my Argument unlesse it were with a term of exclusion that the betterness of the Covenant is only placed in the Meliority of of the promises which he asserts not for it may be also placed in other things as in a larger extent to persons in particular besides the forementioned even to Infants before eight days old Neither will the preheminence of circumstances wherein the dignity of the Covenant under the Gospell and under the Law is distinguished countervaile the holding out of one soul out of Covenant and so ordinary capacity of salvation much more so many millions of Infants that dy before they be actual professors It is also untrue that the meliority of the Covenant is placed in the meliority of the promises as if better things in substance were promised under the Gospell than under the Law or as if the promises under the Gospell and under the Law were not in effect the same differing onely in Oeconomies and several manners of administration the contrary of which is Anti-nomianism His second Thesis is that Gospell-promises are of better things than the promises of the Law which would imply that there were salvation in some other name than in the name of Jesus and that Jesus Christ were not the same to day yesterday and for ever True it is Christ was not at all times revealed alike clearly obscurely to Adam in the seed of the woman that should bruise the Serpents head to Abraham more fully that in his seed all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed To Moses in Typesshadowes sacrifices really in the flesh of the virgin spiritually by the Holy Ghost after the assention But before the Law under the Law and under the Gospell Christ was the meritorious cause grace was the means glory was the end of our salvation the Identity of which makes the Identity of the thing promised His third Paradox is that the promises of the Gospel are not to any others than the elect and true believers here we must distinguish The promises of the Gospel are twofold either internall and spiritual or external and of Ordinances Internaâ— again are either hypothetical and conditional or categoricaland absolute Hence arises these three propositions 1. That the external promises of the Gospell which are of ordinances are made to all visible members 2. That the internal and spiritual promises of the Gospel are made or propounded conditionally to all visible members hence arose those distinctions of Damascen and others Signi and bene placiti sufficienter and efficienter catagoricè and hypotheticè voluntate antecedenti consequente 3. That the internal and spiritual promises of the Gospel are made absolutely and terminated or performed onely to the Elect and invisible members â— Here it is apparent that his allegation is onely true in the third sense in the two former manifestly false in which sense onely it concerns our present controversie of visible Church membership And how his assertion makes for him nay not directly against him I cannot see for the meliority of the covenant consists principally in outward Ordinances manner of administration and dispensation extent and amplitude of the proposal not of grace and glory of which there was alwayes the same reason Enoch Abraham Eliah and Moses were as well justified by faith and had a respect to the recompence of reward Heb. 11. as well as Peter and the rest of the Apostles His last assertion is That because the promises of the Gospell are not to any other than the Elect and true believers therefore they are not to Infants as the natural seed of believers The Antecedent is proved to be false for though the spiritual part of Gospel-promises is absolutely performed and terminated to the Elect yet they are conditionally proposed to all professors and the externall part which consists in administration of Ordinances is equally belonging unto all visible members His consequent is also unsound for
the condition as bad of an Infant under the Gospell left without any ordinary means of salvation save onely Baptism seeing Christ sayes John 3. 5. Except a man bâ— born of water and of the Spirit be cannot see the Kingdome of God But there are ordinary means of salvation beside Baptism thaâ— Infants out of Covenant are left without for clearing of which by ordinary I mean that which God hath revealed in Scripture and hath left us a word of promise to depend upon By means of salvation I understand all that which condâ—ces to the end and is contradistinguished to the end Thus means of salvation either strictly signifies those things that morally are in our power as for the Catechumeni and them of years whether they will be Baptized heare the Word receive the Eucharist Or those things that are not in our power wherein we are Passives yet performed by others as Proxies for us thus under the Law Infants were circumcised washed sanctified by oblations presented in the Temple under the Gospell baptized engaged by their parents or sureties Or those thing that are neither in our power nor others performed neither by our selves nor others yet by Gods free Charter in our selves and others Thus covenant-holiness prerogative of birth Gods promise to Abraham that he would be his God and the God of his seed That of Peter Acts 2. 39. confirmed to Jewes and Gentiles the promise is to you and your children are ordinary means of Salvation Infants out of covenant are left without all these and would be in the same condition with Gentiles Ephes 2. 12. Without Christ Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel strangers from the covonant of promise having no hope and without God in the World Thus negatively what they are deprived of by being out of covenant Let us see positively the benefits of being in covenant by comparing them with Jewes children with whom they hold proportion Rom. 3. 12. What advantage hath the Jew or what profit is there of Circumcision Much every way chiefly because unto them were committed the Oracles of God And Rom. 9 4. Who are Israelites to whom pertaineth the Adoption and the Covenants and the giving of the Law and the service of God and the promises there is the same reason of Infants under the Gospell Secondly he sayes that he takes not Baptism to be any ordinary means of salvation without faith what he takes is not much material so long as he mistakes If it be an ordinary means of salvation any way it is enough to prove that Infants are left without that means And in this his amphibological asseveration are cooped three fallacies 1. Fallacia divisionis for the Question is not whether Baptism be an ordinary means of salvation without faith but whether it be a means or no 2. A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundùm quid for the Question is not whether Baptism be a principle means but whether it be a means 3. Non causae ut causae For it is not enquired whether baptism presupposes faith as a cause or qualification but whether Baptism be the ordinary way God hath appointed for salvation And when the proposal is whether baptism be an ordinary means of Salvation To say it is not without faith is as unsavory as when the demand is whether the lungs are an ordinary Instrument of breathing to say they are not without the heart when the Question is simply whether a Colonel hath any command in an Army It would be ridiculous to answer it by saying he hath none without orders from the General And yet there is not that necessary connexion betwixt faith and Baptism that is betwixt the lungs and the heart for the lungs cannot breath without the heart nor the Colonel issue out any word of command without subordination to his generall But Baptism may be true Baptism even in adultis as Hymenaeus without true faith and many other hypocrites who when they became true Penetentiaries none but those Hereticks the Novations and Donatists durst Baptize again But for the Baptism of Infants actuall faith is not necessarie for the bene esse or perfection of it much less for the esse or being of it And that they have the infused habit of faith or the roots and seeds of it he confesses saying they are saved by the work of Christ's spirit which can be no other but the seeds of faith hope charitie and the new creature Thirdly he thinks it no inconvenience to say that Infants are without ordinary means of salvation he means preaching of the word for so he expresseth himself of that we must distinguish Preaching is either manifesting to the understanding that which is preached so Infants are without the means or presenting objectively the benefit of that which is preached as the new creature gifts of the spirit salvation so Infants are not without the means A will is sealed and published by the Father â—n the presence of all his children Wherein there is contained bequeathments and Legacies to them severally now they of age onely understand it but the Infants and sucklings that understand it not have equall benefit by it their honest overseers and Guardians will look to their Interests and shall we think God to be less carefull of Infants to whom he hath proclaimed belongs the Kingdom of God Lastly he sayes Infants are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit without ordinary means This implyes a contradiction of which his forge is full for if God hath revealed in the Covenant of the Gospell and made a promise thereof that Infants are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit then it is not without ordinary means for this is the way that God hath declared himself ordinarily to operate in whose will is a fixâ— Law and if God hath not revealed it in the Covâ—nant of the Gospell and made a promise thereof how doth he know that Infants are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit Or how dare he avouch it God hath promised no such thing to Infants of Jews Turks Infidels therefore they are out of Covenant and not visible memberâ— if God hath promised such things to Infants of believers they are in Covenant and visible members But perhaps he means Infants are saved without ordinary means that is baptism That if it were true might vindicate a tanto that they are saved without that ordinary means but not a toto that they are saved without an ordinary means But his former grant necessarily infers that they are not saved without Baptism for what can forbid water sayes the Apostle that these may not be baptized seeing they have recieved the Holy Ghost as well as we Now they that have elections redemption of Christ and work of his spirit have received the Holy Ghost which is a thing so clear that Mr. T. himself is forced to confess that if he
broak off at Christs coming Or that being in covenant and outward profession performed not sincerely the conditions of the covenant 2. Children of God are either so by outward calling and Judgement of charity or secret election and Judgement of veritie Many are called that is to be sons by profession but few are chosen to be really sons in possession 3. The children of promise are either those to whom outward things and visible characters as Circumcision to the Jews Baptism to Christians are proposed absolutely the spirituall part thereof conditionally or those that attain the end of the promise or thing promised These grounds thus laid These propositions results 1. Those that were never in visible covenant with God are not ordinarily children of promise or children of God in a Gospâ—ll sense 2 Those that were in visible covenant as Ishmael and the Jews till they apostated are children of God by outward calling and judgement of charitie and for any thing we know by election and Judgement of veritie 3. Those that are in vâ—sible covenant till they apostate are children of promise so that outward Orâ—inances belongs to them absolutely the inward and spirituall part is proposed unto them conditionally 4. Those that are visible Covenanters and outward Professers not performing the conditions of the covenant are neither the children of God nor children of promise in respect of Election and obtaining the end promised 5. Those that are in visible covenant and performs the conditions of the covenant have Interest in the outward Ordinances spirituall grace and glory the end In all these respects the Apostle speaks Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Christs then are ye Abraham ' s seed and heirs according to promise If Christs by profession then Abraham's seed and heirs according to promise in Judgement of charitie If Christs sincerely then Abraham's seed and heirs really and in veritie John 8 39. where Jesus said to the Jews If ye were Abraham's children ye would do the works of Abraham he does not deny that they are the children of Abraham both by nature and outward covenant for that he confesses 37 I know that ye are Abraham ' s seed but upbraids them for degenerating from Abraham's faith who desired to see his day nay who knows but some of these children that were disobedient for the present like persecuting Saul were elect and heirs of promise Now whether Mr. T. by spirituall seed of Abraham for he speaks ambiguously understand believing Gentiles as opposed to the Jews or the elect of both Jews and Gentiles as opposed to the carnall professors of both it is untrue that it is determined by the forequoted places that the covenant under the Gospel in the sense controverted was made onely with the spirituall seed of Abraham Thirdly if it had been right and determined so that the covenant under the Gospel was made onely with the spirituall seed of Abraham it had made nothing agaâ—nst my present allegation which was this That which unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of salvation can not be a better covenant than that under the Law for what consequence is in this The covenant under the Gospel is onely made with the spirituall seed of Abraham therefore though it unchurch Infants which are the one half of Christendome it may be a better covenant than that of the Law whereas the excellencie of the covenant whether made with the naturall carnall or spirituall seed consists in the excellencie of the object and thing covenanted and the extent to the parties who now if the one half be cut off from covenant and so from ordinary capacity of salvation the covenant is rendered by half the worse But that the covenant was not onely made with the spirituall seed of Abraham I further disproved thus If the covenant was made in the same extent to the Gentiles as to the Jews then under the Gospell it was not onely made to the spirituall seed but it was made in the same manner and extent to the Gentiles as it was to the Jews Therefore under the Gospell it was not onely made to the spirituall seed Then he denyed the Minor which was proved by this Enthymema The partition wall is pulled down and Jew and Gentile are all one in Christ Jesus Therefore the covenant is made in the same manner and extent to the Jew and Gentile Then he denyed the consequent as he does now with an addition saying it is not true because the partition wall is broken down therefore there is the same covenant Nationall to the naturall seed of believers as was to Abraham Nor is it true I am sure that I said because the partition wall is broken down therefore there is the same covenant nationall to the naturall seed of believers as was to Abraham either expresly or by consequence not expresly for my words that the covenant was made in the same manner and extent to the Jew and Gentile not by consequence in the same manner because by mutuall stipulation in the same extent because Parents with children And that is was nationall to the Jew was Accidentall for it was made with Abraham when he was but a familie dwelt in the middest of other nations and was a part of the Hebrews It was not made to continue to all the posterity of Abraham for the posterity of Ishmael Keturah Esau shortly after fell off not onely with his posterity for the Proselytes and Jebusites did participate they sojourned four hundred years in Egypt But what inconvenience if we allow him to make his best advantage of it and say the Gospel-covenant even extends to nations seeing Isaiah says Isai 2. 2. Nations shall flow in and Revel 12. 5. the man child which the woman brought forth was to rule the nations which hath been effected many wayes either when one familie of Christians like Abraham's hath grown to be a nation or when the supream Magistrate engages for his subjects that they shall be the subjects of Christ and by imperiall decrees proclaimes an uniformity in Religion or when by Gods blessing upon Ministers endeavours whole Nations are convinced to profess Christianity as in this oâ— ours where Church and Common-wealth as both one And to say we have many hypocrites and carnall Professors concludes no more that our Church is not nationall than against the Jews that theirs was not nationall or against the seven Churches of Asia that they were not Churches for there were many hypocrites and carnall professors in these Neither is this my Tenet unravelled by hiâ— next asseveration that the Partition wall is said to be broken down that therefore as the Apostle speaks Ephes 3. 6. The Gentiles to wit believing Gentiles Rom. 1. 16. should be fellow heirs of the same body partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospell for as the Jews even the whole nation of professors were received into covenant that indefinitly they might be fellow heirs with Christ of the
And in this sense the Gospel-Covenant is made with the whole visible Church being taken without any Synecdoche for every Church-member Otherwise there could be no visible Gospell-Covenant Gospel-Ordinances Gospel-Ministery which must needs take the denomination from the visibilitie of the object and according to this new Tenet would be Utopian and no where Mr. Tombes 9. Section BUt I perceive by Mr. C. words page 30. If the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances which is the Question were onely the elect c. That the terms Church and Covenant were so ambiguously used by him that I knew not how to conceive of his meaning and his fast speaking would not permit me deliberately to consider his words and therefore no marvell I desired liberty to explain my self and to enquire into Mr. C. meaning it being impossible for me otherwise to answer appositely and to make the disputation profitable for finding out truth As for that which Mr. C. saith That it was the Question whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect it doth untruly suggest as if I so conceived who though I hold the Church invisible are the elect onely and that the Gospel Covenant of grace Heb. 8. 10 11 12. is made to them onely yet have still granted that the Church visible consists of others than elect persons and that outward Ordinances may lawfully be administred to them upon their profession of faith in Christ But Mr. C. by confounding those terms To be in Covenant to be subjects of Baptism c. misleads unwary hearers and readers Reply HEre Mr. Tombes like a bad division saltum facit skips over main passages in the dispute that it is needfull to find the end of the thâ—â—ad to guid us in the Meanders of this Labyrinth Then thâ— major proposition by him denyed was thus confiâ—med That which is made to the kâ—â—gdome of God upon earth is not onely made to the elect that which is made to the whole Church visible is made to the kingdome of God upon earth therefore it was not onely made to the elect Here he denyed the former proposition again which was proved thus In the Kingdome oâ— God that is in the Church Militant theâ—e are not onely elect but reprobates Saints but hypocrites for all that are outwardly called are of the kingdom of God in this sense and many are called and few chosen the Kingdome of God is compaâ—ed to a field where there are tares as well as wheat a fold where there are goats as well as sheep To a Noble mans house where there are vessels of dishonour as well as honâ—ur And if the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances which is the Question were onely the Elect then it would follow that there were no visible Church upon earth the Jewes had no more visible Church than the Heathens the distinction of the Church visible and â—nvisible were frivolous for no mo man nor Angell knowâ— who are elect nor any but God All this he passes by and gives no answer to it as if it were a Gordian knot and insoluble onely like Aristotle's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ethic l. 4. c. 1. he catches at circumstances as men when almost drowned do at sticks or weeds for he sayes he perceives by my words pag. 30. If the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect c. that the teâ—ms Church and Covenant were so ambiguously used by me that he knew noâ— how to conceive of my meaning Thus this â—ugler casts a mist before the eyes of the Reader that by the virtue of Hocus Pocus he may seemingly swallow those daggers that he will never be able to dâ—gest But in good earnest were the terms Church and Covenant used ambiguously by me When by Church I expressed my self to mean the whole visible Church as in the major denyed pag. 29. â—nd by Covenant to mean an external covenant made with all vsible Professors in opposition to his Covenant made onely with the spiritual seed of Abraham pag. 14 Whosoever reads the Premises or the relation of the Dispute will find that I spake so clearly distinctly home in these terms that he conceiving my meaning did directly overthrow his gave no answer then nor does yet save this collaterall shift which like the black mud cast over the fish Sepia or Cuttle showes where he was taken But with Reignold he hath more evasions yet for my fast speaking he sayes would not permit him deliberately to consider my words what a sore is this that he layes his finger upon and complaines oâ— almost in every page The truth is I spake no faster than he repeated but faster than he answered That as the Cardinall of Lorrain said at Beza's dispute he wished the people had either been deaf or I dumb But this my fastness would not suffer him deliberately to consider my words If almost three hours time would not suffer him deliberately to consider of that which might have been delivered in one hour yet methinks six months since might But this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Epigram brings forth now as blind whelps as then So that it was a marvell that he desired liberty then to explain himself and to enquire into my meaning which was as transparent as if it had been writ with the Sun-beames but amounts to a prodigie that he should averr so now when he neither did so nor had the least occasion for it Onely when he perceived the people apprehended that he was brought to an apparent absurdity he waded into a large discourse to wind himself out it being impossible for him otherwise seemingly to answer or to make the disputation on his part but sophistically probable but by obscuring the truth But his assertion in the next section is more frontless for thus he charges me As for that which Mr. C. saith it was the Question whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect It doth untruly suggest as if I so conceived whereas the truth is he untruly suggests that which I said not for my proposition was not Categorical as he mis-reports it that it was the Question whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect but hypothetical if the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances which is the Question were only the elect These were my words expresly neither can he drawout by any consequence that I implyed so much for if he rack them upon the Tenters he cannot stretch them to say that the question was whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances was onely the elect but the Question was about the administration of an outward Ordinance to wit Baptism And if I had said that had been the Question as he alledges it I had suggested nothing otherwise than he conceived if we may judge of his conceits by his
expressions as appears by denying the Major pag. 29. of the relation viz. That which is made to the whole visible Church is net onely made with the elect For if the whole visible Church and the elect be all one and termini convertibiles as his denyal necessarily inferrs it will inevitably follow whether it be the Question or no that he conceives that the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances is onely the elect And though he retract it in his answer confessing that he was mistaken either through inadvertencie or some humane frailty or by some other occurrence by him not remembred how could I divine this in the dispute or the Relator after me Seeing it was severall months before he sung this Palinodie to which me thinks he might do well ingeniously to add a further retractation by confessing he wronged me when he said that I untruly suggested as if he conceived that the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances was onely the elect But he further confirmed his recantation by saying he holds the Church invisible are the elect onely to let uâ— see that he concurrs not in all opinions with the grosser Anabaptists Papists Lutherans and Remonstrants who maintain that there are some members of the Church invisible and in the state of salvation for a while who fall from the state of grace totally and finally being never elected and in this he does well if he do not Polypize and change colours for who knowes but that hereafter he will say he was mistaken as he is in the words following that the Gospel Covenant of Grace Hebr. 8. 10 11 12. is made onely to the elect as hath been formerly proved unless by the Covenant he mean the end event and success thereof for those that are not crowned Indentes and stipulates receiving outward ordinances the badges of the covenant have the tender of the inward part and participates of common graces peculiar yet to them that are in Gospel Covenant that by vertue thereof the formal hypocrite with the foolish virgins may not onely deceive others but themselves And whereas he sayes he still granted that the Church visible consists of others than elect persons he should have put in this caution saving when he was mistaken through inadvertency or some humane frailty which like an Epilepsie or Morbus facer so often surprises him that his Tenets are like the Island Delos alwayes floating and never setled Therefore I shall put him in mind of his next grant that outward Ordinances may lawfully be administred to others than elect persons upon their profession of faith in Christ when I shall have occasion hereafter to prove that outward ordâ—nances may lawfully be administred to none but them in Covenant And that there is the same reason of professors chiâ—dren under the Gospel that was under the Law and that many sick persons were cured of their bodily maladies by vâ—â—ue of the faith of them that brought them surely the parents faith and proâ—ession may have so much influence upon their children that they may receive the outwaâ—d Ordinance of Baptism in referrencâ— to the cuâ—e of their spiritual maladyes But like the Seâ—pent Amphisbene that hath a stâ—ng at both ends as he began so he ends with poyson saying that by confounding these term to be in Câ—venant to be subjects of Baptism I mislead unwary heaâ—ers and readers wheâ—eas I clearly affiâ—m withall the reformed Churchâ—s that all â—n visible covenant are subjects of Baptism and all subjects of Baptism are in visible covenant hic murus aheneus esto Mr. Tombes 10. Section THe next Text Mr. C. brought was Isaiah 49. 22. whence he would prove that Infants should be Church-members under the Gospel To which my answer was at first though it was otherwise taken that it is a prophecie that the Gentiles should bring back the Jewes not onely Infants but others from captivity which the words before 19 20 21. and â—fter v 24 25. Do plainly evince And this is given as the meaning by the new annotations made by Mr. Gataker doth on verse 23. say it was fulfilled in those Persian Potentates Cyrus Artaxerxes Darius Ahasuerus Nor is there in the contents of the chapter which Mr. C. without grounds makes the judgment of the Church of England any thing to the contrary but the words which are 18 The ample restauration of the Church 24. The powerfull deliverance out of captivity do rather confirm this If any people laughed at this they shewed their ignorance and Mr. C. shewed his heedlesness when he said That it was an addition to the Text that the Gentiles should bring the Jewes when the very distinction of thy children from the Gentiles shewes it meant of the Jewes otherwise it should have been their children in the third person not then in the second nor can it be meant of Gods children as his for then it should be mine in the first person for God speaks those words Though I deny not but the words may be accommodated to the times of the Gospell but not to Mr. C. purpose of bringing Infants to Baptism which hath no colour from the Text. Which appears â—â— considering Mr. C. Answer to my Questions put forth needfully to clear the Text. Reply HAving dispatched the first branch of the first Argument that God did promise before the Law that Infants should be actually received into Covenant under the Gospel Mr. T. forgetting the office of a respondent went about authoritatively to determine the Question till with much importunity he was perswaded to attend the proof of the second branch to wit that God foretold under the Law that Infants should be actually received into Covenant or be Church-members under the Gospel which was done by this medium He that foretold that he would lift up his hand to the Gentiles and set up a standard to the people and that they should bring their sons in their arms and their daughters should be carried upon their shoulders foretold that Infants should be Church-members under the Gospel But thus saith the Lord God Isai 49 22. Behold I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles and set up my standard to the people they shall bring thy sons in their arms and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders Therefore God foretold that Infants should be Church-members under the Gospel Then he denyed the major saying the meaning was that the Jews should bring the Gentiles children to which was replyed God sayes I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles and they that is the Gentiles shall bring thy sons and Mr. T. sayes the Jewes shall bring thy sons whereupon the words were read so that he recollecting himself said the meaning was the Gentiles should bring the Jews children from captivity and that it dâ—d not point at the time of the Gospel Now he sayes his answer was at first though it was otherwise taken that it is a prophesie that the Gentiles should bring
forth which I think fully answers his Question as also that upon the same ground child is analogum to old and young nomen eisi sit commune ratio tamen ejus est prius perfectius in uno membro analogato quam in alio young children are nearer their birth and more properly called children than they that are stricken in years and remoter from it I imagine Mr. T. when he hears the word child without addition will not thereby understand an old man And whereas he sayes he had hitherto thought that child and parent had been Relatives and that child signifies as well an elder as a younger he may think so still and put all in his eye he gains thereby and see no worse for Relata ad pater filius not pater partus the child who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or partus may possibly be without a Father as our Saviour in respect of his humane nature or the Father may be dead before the child be brought forth yet the child nevertheless is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where is the Correlative that ought mutuo ponere and be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 convertible but he cunningly sayes that he had thought that child and Parent meaning the Mother had been Relatives It seems then these three thousand the Apostle converted and baptized were women but he calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men of Judah ver 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men of Israel 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men and brethren 29. To that he sayes to the verb of the present tense answer is before I say also the reply is before I am sumus ergo pares so I think we are quits To his Question how do I prove their children they had were young children I return how doth he prove 3000. men of Judea and Israel gathered together out of severall Provinces had not at the least some young children The houshold of Lydia Stephanas and the Jaylor may possibly be thought not probably conjectured to be without Infants But that three thousand should be without Infants no man will say but he that is resolved upon contradictions be the evidence never so clear Mr. T. hath been in thâ— army where single men and unmarried men are designed for the service on purpose yet I am confident he could not find out in a body three thousand no nor three hundred scarce sixty together that were without young Children and then shall we think this of the Jews a fruitfull nation that had the further advantage of Polygamie or many wives It would be hard to prove demonstratively that any of the three thousand had Parents Brethren Sisters Masters Servants yet a gross absurdity deserving Sardonick laughter to deny it To my third circumstance in the Text the Finis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the end to whom the promise is to you and your children The Jews children under the Law were in Covenant with their Parents the Charter is confirmed under the Gospel to them and their Children he answers saying it vainly supposed that the promise is to them and their Children as the Jews Children were in Covenant with their Parents I reply the word as may relate either to circumstantials or substantials if his meaning be that the promise is not to them and their Children as the Jews Children were in Covenant in respect of circumstantials I yield it but this is nothing to the purpose But if he mean that the promise in regard of substantials is not to them and their Children as the Jews Children were in Covenant it is so far from being vaâ—n that in that vein hath run the issue of the whole Church fâ—om the Apostles till the German Anabaptists who I know not by what unhappy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corroding burst out oâ— the Channell have begot so dangerous an imposthume or Pleuresie that I pray God it may be cured by Lenitives without Phlebotomie To which dictate of Mr. T. I think it sufficient for the present to oppose the Orthodox judgements of two with neither of which he is to be compared First Whitaker contra Duraeum pag. 685. Circumcisi olim Infantes sunt propter foedus nunc propter candem causam baptizandi sunt id enim ex analogia utriusque Sacramenti necessario consequitur Infants formerly were Circumcised by reason of the Covenant for the same cause they are now to be baptized for that follows necessarily from the Analogie of both Sacraments The other is Doctor Sibbs Phil. 3. 3. pag. 32. who faith The Sacraments before and after Christ were in substance all one as the Church was one and the same they may be said to be baptized as we and we Circumcised as they the difference was onely in the outward Ceremonie and shew which the Church then being young had need of His saying is true therefore let us set Thressâ—m notam a white mark upon it for the rarity as the Jews a Statue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the good Publican Sueton in Flav. Vesp c. 1. that the Text makes it belong neither to Parents nor Children but those that God calls yet his Interrogative point spoyls all which surely I may rather impute to him then he the misquotation Rom. 2. 15. to me But he might have assumed God had called these three thousand Jews Parents and Children Ergo the promise was to them both for though I believe not that the unbelieving Jews had the promise yet I believe these believing Jews that were pricked in heart said men and brethren what shall we do received the word gladly had the promise The Jews before Christs Incarnation had the promise because they believed credenda things to be believed at and after the Incarnation they had the promise continued that entertained Christ they were defeated of the promise that rejected him It is false that I think that the unbelieving Jews sensu composito while unbelieving had the promise and that they were in Covenant in that sense before even the whole Nation They that were in Covenant and visible believers till Christ was revealed not entertaining that further Revelation being a fundamental through invincible obstinacie became Apostates and branches broken off And to his last Question I think Christs blood was avenged upon the unbelieving Jews Parents with Children I think all his blood was expiatory and satisfactory for the believing Jews Parents with Children generibus singulorum to all sexes conditions ages and therefore the remedy as large as the disease So his Questions for all have a whole gross of them are answered Master Tombes 20. Section NExt Mr. C. argues thus They that are holy with a Covenant-holiness are capable of the outward visible part of blessing but Infants of believers are holy with a Covenant-holiness Therefore they are capable of the outward and visible part Of which Syllogism I might have denyed the Major there being a Covenant-holiness according to election which doth not alwaies instate the
will not stand them so much in stead as to admit them to the Lords Supper be such an inestimable treasure as is not recompensed with the glory of the Gospel now exhibited to spiritual persons in spiritual benefits by the spirit in stead of the carnal promises ordinances and Church state of the Law Reply THe ninth Argument is drawn from many dangerous absurdities that would follow if children should be ouâ— of visible Covenant under the Gospel it being all one to be baptizable or baptized and to be in vâ—sible Covenant none are in visible Covenant but are or may be baptized all that are baptized are in visible covenant The absurdities are these Infants would be loosers by Christs coming and in worse condition than the Jewish Infants were they with the parents were admitted to the seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision and not parents with children to baptism Mr. T. his Answer is frivolous and impertinent saying he rather thinks that by being not admitted to circumcision the condition of parents and children is the better by Christs coming which I grant but it is nothing to the purpose our condition under the Gospel is better than theirs under the Law theirs under the law infinitly better than the heathens which had not circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith Christians Infants if they had not baptism were worse than Jewes Infants no better than Pagans Circumcision was the yoke Acts 15. 10. of which the Apostle said neither we nor our fathers were able to bear it that seale or ordinance by which the Jewes were bound to observe the ceremonial Law of Moses and yet a rite that under that troublesome Oconomy sealed the righteousnesse of faith in Christ to come baptism under an easier yoke seals Christ that is come Secondly it s acknowledged though Baptism and other Sacraments be pure Evangelical priviledges yet they are not such priviledges but parents and children did well without them as well as without Scriptures before Abraham's time all the femals from Abraham's time till Christ that were without actualâ— but not virtual circumcision What then May we therefore cast away Scriptures with the Anti Scripturians cast off baptism with them above ordinances Tempora distingâ—â—e tutus eris There was first a time without ordinances then a time of legal now a time of Gospel-ordinances And those priviledges of the Law what ever they were are abundantly recompensed by Christs coming and the Gospel-ordinances he instituted whereof Infant-baptism is one which though it will not stand them in so much stead as to admit them to the Lords Supper for the seals ought not to be confounded yet it brings more with it than an empty title of visible Church-membership for its the dore and the only ordinary way we know God hath appointed us to enter into the invisible communion and fellowship with Christ and administers an entrance to that inestimable treasure of the glory of the Gospel now exhibited to spiritual persons in spiritual benefits by the spirit instead of Levitical rites and ceremonial Church estate wherein there were also spiritual blessings of the Jewes Mr. Tombes 22 Section THe second is answered already though Infants be not baptized grace is larger under the Gospel being extended to believers in all Nations than under the Law to the Israelites and some few Prosâ—lites The third is a speech that hath neither truth nor sobriety of expression nor proof it is but a bug-hear to affright the ignorant people to make use of such as he is and to make odious them that wil not baptize Infants as counting them as vile as the children of Turks Tartars or Cannibals even as they make them odious that will not bury their dead as not affording them Christian burial though they are buried as Christ was without â— Priest but burying as dogs But we know how to put a difference between Believers and Pagans children in regard of the love God bears to us some promises he hath made to us concerning them the hopefulness of them by reason of prayers education example society confirmed by many experiences that are comfortable all which things we should be contented with and not complain for want of an imaginary priviledge which is indeed no priviledge but a dammage to our children I for my part look upon the children of believers unsprinkled as pretious and rather more hopefull than those that are and I think Mr. C. as hard a conceipt as he hath of the Anabaptists and their children yet would be ashamed to say as he doth here of them That they are as vile as the children of Turks Tartars or Canniballs But that which he closeth with sheweth he was minded to affright the poor ignorant people as the popish Priests did of old Reply THe second absurdity was If Infants should be in covenant then and not now grace would be larger under the Law than under the Gospel which his Answer does not reach for the Question is not of extending means of salvation to Gentiles not proselired but independent of the Jewes which by degrees were multiplyed as was before from Abraham's sole family to a great nation surpassing in number the sands of the sea But whether all sexes ages degrees be in covenant which were before from which if Infants were excluded till actual professors the one half of Christendom would be excommunicated whereas Bucer saith on Mat. 19. that no age affordeth heaven so many Citizens as infancy The third for all his stormy blustering speaks with a great deal of evidence the words of sobriety and truth and is used as a motive to bring home the ignorant but well meaning people whom such as he hath seduced to make use of godly and Orthodox Ministers to baptize their Infants as they and all their progenitors were and to convince not to make odious those that will not whom we pitty for making their own children as much as in them lies as vile as the children of Turks Tartars and Canniballs yet hope God will not punish the innocent babâ—â— for their sins It is a malitious slander that we make them odious that will not bury that is officiate at the burial of the dead in which some of us may challenge precedency of Master Tombes who turned not with and it s to be feared for the times as he but prevented them yet we cannot be perswaded Christs burial ought to be a more necessary president than his death for ours till he can prove the Jewish burial rites and amongst them those that dyed as Malefactors to be our directory for then he must bury his friends out of Towns Churches or Church-yard in the fields in rocks or caves and not cover them with Earth we know not from Scripture to put any difference between believers and Pagans children unless the one be in visible covenant and may have the seal whereas the others are without them God hath made no promise to any that are out of
neither have we ground to believe or hope the salvation of any but of them that are in covenant and members of the Church visible Though I deny not but God can by his absolute power and secret will save otherwise extraordinarily Infants of believers are neither negatively nor privatively out of the Church visible for neither want of age to understand the faith nor ability to make profession excludes them more now than it did the Jewes children under the Law who were ordinarily that is according to Gods promise annexed to the covenant saved If any Gentiles children unproselyted were saved it was extraordinarily that is without promise or visible covenant And Anabaptists giving us no more ground of Christians Infants salvation than of these are miserable comforters Mr. Tombes 24 Section HIs last Argument is That which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success must needs be lawfull But Infant-baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles times Ergo The Minor is denyed The blessed success he proves not In my exercitation I shew many errours and corruptions which have come from it not by accident in respect of some persons that embraced it onely but even from the tendency of the practice it self I may truely say that Paedobaptism hath been as cursed a roote of corrupting the Churches and loosing the gifts of the spirit conferred at first commonly at baptism by laying on of hands as I think except some few any other corruption in the rites of Christian Religion But Mr. C. thinks to draw it down from the Apostles dayes He begins with words of Dionysius Arcopagita â— Holy men have received a tradition of the Fathers which very words shew it was not Dionysius Areopagita mentioned Acts 17. he would doubtless have said I have received it from blessed Paul not have told what other holy men have received from the Fathers whom Mr. C. vainly conceives to be meant of the Apostles But the books that go under his name have been so often by so many learned men Papists and Protestants proved to be meere counterfeits that either it is much ignorance or much impudence that this is produced as his Salmatius sundry times speaketh of them as certain that the Author of them was not till the fift age The Apostolicall constitutions appear by many observations of Sculteâ—us and others not to have been witten by Clement but of much later time Irenaeus his words make nothing for Mr. C. as he cites them nor as they stand in his own works Reply THe last Argument was That which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success must needs be lawful But Infant-baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles Therfore it must needs be lawfull He denyes the Minor saying in his exercitation he shewed many errours and corruptions which have come from it not by accident in respect of some persons that embraced it onely but even from the tendency of the practice it self whereas Dr. Homes Mr. Marshall Mr. Hussey proves the contrary and makes his own accusations recoyle as dung into his face yet like the dragon in the Revelation he casts out a venemous flood to poyson the Churches of all ages saying that Paedobaptism hath been as cursed a roote of corrupting the Churches as he thinks excepting some few any other corruptions in the rites of Christian Religion I make no doubt but the Antiscripturians will say as much of the Bible and the Ranters of marriage But what are his corruptions Infant-baptism hath brought in 1. Private baptism Answ as if we might not as well baptize Infants in houses As the Apostle did the Jayler or two or three of them steal to a river side to duck or cuck a Proselyte 2. Baptism by women Answ Protestant Churches allowes no such thing since Luther but closes with the Councell of Carthage Can. 10. Mulier baptizare non praesumat let not a woman presume to baptize Bold Zippora circumcising must be no president 3. Baptizing of Infants not yet brought into light Answ If he mean the mother with child Councells are against it If he mean the child we know no such approbation or practice 4. Baptism of children of uncertain progeny Answ we approve and know of none if the Parents be not believers and Christians engage for them 5. They are baptized in the name of the Lord that know not the Lord. Answ As well as Jewish Infants circumcised with the seal of righteousness of faith in Christ who knew not Christ 6. It admits the ignorant and prophane to the Lords supper because the sacraments are concommitants Answ The Antecedent and consequent are both Scriptureless and false the one is the Sacrament of initiation the other of perfection to which the former is a preparative 7 It. perverts the order of discipline by baptizing before Catechizing Answ In Infants it does as in Isaack and the Jewes males but not in adultis and what inconvenience 8. It s turned to a feast and men forget baptism Answ There was a feast at the weaning of Isaac and feasts of charity at the Lords Supper without prophaness we can minde at ripe years what was bequeathed us by Legacy when we were Infants may we not as well our solemn vow which we are put in minde of dayly Thus his vainly pretended errours and corruptions vanish without impeaching the blessed success of Infant-baptism since the Apostles which briefly here I drew down from the Apostles times more largely before beginning with the words of Dionysius the Areopagite whom the Apostles converted at Athens who said Holy men have received a Tradition from the Fathers that is the Apostles to baptize Infants instancing not in one Apostle as Paul but all former authority whom the converts called fathers as they them children which is no vain but a Scripture grounded conceit vos genui per Evangelium Though I am not ignorant some Papist and Protestants have questioned the authority which censure the most books in Scripture have undergone But that either Councell Synod or University have declared them counterfeit is more than I have heard And to produce them as his whose namâ— they have born in all Libraries in all Countries for many Centuries is modest verity which for one Grammatian Salmatius and one quondam Surrogate M. T. to oppose relishes rather of insolency Clemens who is recorded by some of the Antients to succeed Peter in his Ministery at Rome says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptize your Infants does Master T. think that we will admit of the conjecturall observations of one poore yesterdayes Palatinat Minister Scultetus to overthrow the Apostolicall constitutions when he himself denyes the authority of all Protestants joyntly as convâ—ncing Irenaeus who lived in the second Century says Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est Christ became a little one for little ones sake and lib. 2. cap. 39. Christ came to save all that are new born by him into God Infants and little