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
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 should succeed in after generations which Mr. T. himself elsewhere intimates out of Beza and therefore seems to me to be guilty of contradiction Or thirdly afar off in place not excluding but including the other two and so may comprehend them of the dispersion James 1. 1. I deny also his consequent for whether it was the Gentiles as most probable that were afar off in affection or the succeeding ages of Jews in time or the dispersed Jews in place none of these were yet called and therefore the gracious promise was to be applyed to them for the future according to that note of Camerarius far off must not onely be understood of place but of mind and judgement This Mr. T. seems to assent to loosing his former hold when he sayes if it be meant in the sense that it is used Ephes 2. 15. not Rom. 2. 15. as he unjustly impeaches me yet they are said to be afar off in respect of Gods favours or their affection to him not in respect of time which is a most palpable untruth for even because they are afar off in respect of Gods favour or their affection to him therefore they are afar off in respect of time Gods calling is wrought by means which are not Instantaneous but successive with this agrees de Dieu when he sayes Beza his reason that afar off should signifie future Generations of Jews not Gentiles afar off in place or affection because Peter here speaking knew not the calling of the Gentiles till Acts 10. cannot hold good because an extraordinary inspired Apostle and acquainted with the Prophets that are full of the calling of the Gentiles could not be ignorant of the thing onely he perceived not the time to be so near till Acts 10. and because near therefore future But he hath a third Evasion as voyd of reason as the two former pretended reasons it is frequent sayes he even in speeches like this to put the Indicative Mood Present tense by an Enallage of tense for the Future Therefore the promise is to you and your Children in the present tense must be interpreted by the Future the promise shall be to you and your Children What Paedobaptist so weak that cannot tell him this is to argue from a particular to an Universall and concludes as this it is frequent to put the Indicative Mood Present tense by an Enallage for the Future Therefore to us a son is born in the Present tense must be interpreted by the future to us a son shall be born This arguing would make for the Jews who deny that Christ is come in the flesh and would sooner bring in Judaism by one Medium then a hundred Arguments from Analogies But to prove his Antecedent that in speeches like this the Present tense by an Enallage of tense is frequently put for the future he brings but one instance Math. 5. 10. 12. Blessed are they that are persecuted for righteousness sake for theirs is that is shall be the kingdome of Heaven Who ever interpreted it thus Is not the kingdome of grace which they are possessed of already the kingdom of Heaven which is the same specificall kingdome and differs onely modally and in degrees of perfection from the kingdome of glory Mr. Tombes 19. Section I Added that by Childreen is no necessity to understand Infants yet Mr. C. contrary to the common use as Ephes 6. 4. Colos 3. 20. would have Children restrained to infants 1. Because of the notation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bring forth which I think he saith salsly is given sometimes to children in the womb but if it be then it overthrows his notation for then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bring forth for a child in the womb is not yet brought forth But how doth it appear that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies properly a young Child or that Child is analogum to old and young I had hitherto thought Child and Parent had been Relatives and that child signifies as well an elder as a younger To that of the verb of the present tense answer is before How doth Mr. C. prove that their Children they had were young Children It is vainly supposed that the promise is to them and their Childreen as the Jews Children were in Covenant with their Parents The Text makes it belong neither to Parents nor Children but those that God calls Does Mr. C. think that the unbelieving Jews had the promise and yet they were in Covenant in his sense before even the whole Nation Or doth he think that Christs blood was not avenged on them If it were how was the remedy as large as the disease Reply IT is true that after all this bustle about the Major he granted the Minor that the promise of grace belonged to believers with their Children together with the conclusion that both of them might be baptized But had this evasion by those Children were not meant Infants but grown men now he addes that by Children is no necessity to understand Infants I yeeld unless the context limit it and the subject matter require restraint for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sayes Leigh is a generall term used to set forth all sorts of Children of what age Sex or degree whatsoever so that according to the notation of the word the promise is to Children indefinitly and in respect of the matter is equivalent to an Universall at least including Infants The promise is to Children Infants are Children as well as Elders Therefore the promise is to Infants With this agrees Vossius fit mentio liberorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sine descretione aetatis unde liquet non minus parvulos a Petro comprehendi quam cum Deus diceret Abrahamo Gen. 17. 7. â—ro Deus tuus seminis tui mention is made simply of Children without any distinction of age when it is clear that little ones are no less comprehended of Peter than when God said to Abraham Gen. 17. 7. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Nay it is apparent that it is especially meant of little ones because they are distinguished from the present converts who probably many of them were young men and women now when we distinguish between men and children we suppose the one Adult the other not grown up and it can not rationally be conjectured otherwise because the Apostle doth joyn them with their Parents in the same promise and not leave them to stand by themselves as grown persons must He does not say The promise is to you and your Children your Kinsmen your Parents for likely those present had all these Relations But to your children to express that theirs were covenanted in them else it would have been cold comfort to have said that formerly you and your little ones were in Covenant but now if you be Christians they are excluded till they make profession of themselves To
6. how were it a better covenant if all poore Infants that were in covenant under the Law were out of covenant under the Gospel runs upon these common mistakes That to be circumcised or baptized is all one as to be in covenant all that were in covenant were to be circumcised or baptized all that were not were out of covenant That the reason of circumcising or baptizing a person is his being in covenant which are all false as I have proved Exam. part 3. Sect. 1. letter to Mr. Bayly Sect. 3. part 1. Sect. 5. and shall part 3 in many Sections if God permit And to the Question I answer from the next words Hebr. 8. 6. The new covenant is a better covenâ—nt because it is stablished on better promises though it were imagined never a poore Infant as he childishly speaks which yet I do not conceive were in covenant His next from Tit. 2. 11. supposeth if Infants be not to be baptized The grace of God appears not to them which is of no force unless that Popish conceit obtain that by it and not without it Gods grace appears to all But this is false and not in the Text. Irenaeus words are not that Christ was a little one that little ones might be baptized from his example for then he would have them baptized in infancy where as he was not baptized till about thirty years of age We need not deny Christs redemption of Infants because we deny their baptism there 's no such connexion between them His saying of little ones That they were the first Martyrs that suffered for Christ is false for how were they Martyrs who testyfied nothing concerning Christ That of the collect in the Common prayer-book on Innocents day that they witnessed onely by dying is vain for dying without some other expression doth not witness nor did they suffer for Christ whom they knew not but because of Herods beastly rage This speech of Mr. C. smells ranck of the Common prayer-book superstition in keeping Innocents day which it seems Mr. C. yet retains but is nothing to the proof of his Major nor any thing hitherto alledged Reply CHrist is said Heb. 8. 6. to be a Mediator of a better Covenant which could not be if Infants that were in covenan under the Law were out of covenant under the Gospel-and is grounded upon this impregnable rock which the Anabaptists will never overthrow that to be circumcised or baptized is all one as to be in visible covenant That the reason of baptizing or circumcising a person is their birth-right Tuition self profession whereby they are visibly admitted into covenant That what he hath said examen part 3. Sect. 1. Antipaed part 1. Sect. 5. touches not the true state of the controversie but is a confused Maze intricated with his fallaciâ decumanâ or Master-fallacie of Gods making whereas he should say compleating his covenant onely with the elect or spirituall seed and this as the poysoned string in the Lamprey runs through the whole we have seen his attempts hitherto as fallacious as the hanging of Mahomets tomb in the aire his followers may expect as much satisfaction from the many sections of his third part yet invisible as Mahomets from his second comming Hebr. 8. 6. The new covenant is a better covenant not onely positively because it is established upon better promises in circumstantials but because it is extended to move all Nations negatively would not be better if any sex age degree were excluded Titus 2. 11. The grace of God hath appeared unto all therefore to Infants by Church membership and the visible seal thereof out of the one whereof and without the other if it may be had God hath given no promise of salvation yet this is no popish conceit in tying God to the means as if without them he could not but to obedience without which he will not Irenaeus words are that Christ bâ—came a little one for little ones sake that he might redeeme little ones outwardly as well baptizing them with water as inwardly with the Holy Ghost after his precept not example who was not baptized till thirty years of agâ— because baptism was not instituted till then but circumcised when eight dayes old As dâ—mnatâ—on and contempt so Christs redemption and acceptation of baptism are connexed My saying of little ones that they were the first Martyrs that suffâ—red for Christ is true for they may be Mâ—rtyrs or wâ—tnesses who do suffer or signifie any thing relating to Christ without an express verball testimony This appears by the Hebrew acceptation of the word Genes 31. 48. Laban said this heap is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eedah a witness between me and thee The children might as well be witnesseâ— as a heap of stones Deut. 4. God calls Heaven and Earth to witness The Greeks whence the word Martyr is borrowed applies it to dead things Pindar ode 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the last dayes are wisest witnesses and Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I produce nature for a witness That expression that they witnessed onely by dying I confess is vain which is Mr. Tombes his own not of the collect in the Common prayer-book on Innocents day which calls them witnesses not by speaking but dying dying without other vocall expression by impression may witness They suffered being baptized with the baptism of blood for Christ whom actually they knew not though Herod was the Instrument as Pilate was of Christs suffering for us This suits with the language of Fathers and leading Protestants and infers not the keeping of Innocents day much less the rankness of Common-prayer books superstition which about twenty years ago I opposed in a Bishops House while Mr. T. to ingratiat with Bishops was maintaining of it as credibly reported with tongue and pen All this conduceth to the proof of the Major Mr. Tombes 12 Section THat which he saith last hath most shew of proof That Baptism came in place of circumcision the Apostle clears it Col. 2. 11 12 ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands how is that huryed with him in Baptism but it is not true that he sayth ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands in that ye are buryed with him in Baptism These are predicated of the same persons and so were conjoyned but yet not so as to express how that the former was done by the latter no more than by that which follows that therein they were raised by the faith of the operation of God who raised Christ from the dead yea it had been false so expounded for how could it be true that they were circumcised without hands in that they were buried in Baptism with hands Nor if this were granted were it true that it is cleared by the Apostle that Baptism comes in the roome of circumcision for there is not a word to that end yea the scope is to prove that we have all in Christ without circumcision as v. 10 c. doth shew and
is clear as if Bellarmine would not have said it had not the case been clear Whereas it is more likely to be false than true because Bellarmine a Jesuit saith it yea it is manifestly false for the Institution being onely to baptize Disciples prohibits baptizing of infants which are not such but for want of being Disciples uncapable of baptism Reply THe third Argument rising thence hath its unanswerable stability thence which was this Those that were in covenant had the seal of the covenant and were never disfranchized and put out of covenant have title to the Covenant and seal of it still But infants were once in Covenant had the seal of the Covenant and were never disfranchized and put out of Covenant Therefore infants have title to the Covenant and seal of it still To this he gives no direct answer but catches at his own shadow with Ixion begetting Centaurs which to deny is to confute they are Clouds and will vanish for denying of Infant-Baptism is putting out of visible Covenant disfranchizing out of which we have no promise of invisible Circumcising supposed visible Covenant was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace If the Gospel puts Infants out of visible Covenant for any thing we know or is revealed in the word it puts them wholely out of the Covenant of Grace My amplication to the people which he scoffingly calls proofs are significant and sutable The Gospel is so far from expressing of infants that they are put out that it gives them large commendations beyond them of riper years making them the rule of our perfection as new born babes receive the sincere milk of the word unless ye be as little children y◠shall not enter into the Kingdome of God His own Argument as he moulds it concludes against him little children are humble and proposed herein as paterns to us Therefore they are in Covenant for if those that follow them are so qualified The Copy and patern much more especially that humbleness being a fruit of the spirit which he can never prove to be as true of Infidels children as Christians nor the one consequently to be in Covenant as well as the other That these acts or qualities of little children are onely naturall not seminally virtuous is his bold conjecture which if so might give evidence of their being in Covenant God selecting his own federally though not morally holy for presidents There are commendations of litle children 1 Pet. 2. 2. and Math. 18. 3. compared with other places making them more the rule of our perfection than Sheep and Doves Math. 10. 16 for when did our Saviour take Sheep and Doves up in his arms lay his hands upon them and bless them saying the Kingdom of God did belong unto them and unless ye be as Sheep or Doves ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of God Doctor Everard is blamed for saying Swine and Sheep praise the Lord in laying down their life according to Gods will for man as well as Stephen and the Martyrs when they called upon God meaning in their kind not in the same degree Then shall Mr. T. be justified for saying Scripture neither commends nor makes little children the rule of our perfection more than Sheep or Doves excepting no degree or graduall perfection Some may better steal a Horse than others many look over the hedge The Philosopher sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that an Accident hath no Accident But that naturall qualities in rationall creatures should resemble virtuous qualities inhearing in no creatures to be a rule to spiritual creatures is a Prodigie beyond the Mint of Popish Transubstantiation My testimony out of Bellarmine intimates that Bellarmine and the Jesuits that concenters with the Anabaptists in opposing Covenant-holiness and Analogy from circumcision deserts them here as ashamed of the conclusion of Anti-paedobaptism they draw thence If it be more likely to be false because Bellarmine a Jesuit saith it then that there is no such thing as Covenant-holiness and that Arguments drawn from analogie of circumcision are not concluding is also false which will necessarily enforce our Thesis It being also true that Christ instituted baptizing of children with Parents who with their Parents being in visible Covenant are capable of baptism Mr. Tombes 14. Section But Mr. C. in his fourth Argument will prove Infant-baptism commanded Math 28. 19. because Nations are commanded to be baptized To this I answered before in the dispute and my answer is and was Nations are not commanded to be baptized without any other circumscription but Disciples of the Nations Master C. confesseth page 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is ye shall make Disciples and then baptizing is of Disciples His speech infants are not uncapable of baptism because they have not faith and repentance because Christ was baptized without repentance is frivolous for there is not the same end of Christs baptism and ours and therefore though repentance were not required of him yet it is of us and the want of it makes infants uncapable of baptism It is false that God requires no more of persons in Covenant and born of believing Parents to their baptism but a meer objective power or receptibility as he calls it as was in the world at its creation or in the regeneration when he new makes us And it is meerly false that upon any such account as he speaks of many whole families were baptized or that any Infants were included The very Texts which speak of baptizing of the housholds either there or elsewhere speak of their fearing God Acts. 2. 2. That all the houshold be saved by Peters words Acts 11. 14. had repentance and the like gift with the Apostles ver 17. 18. had the word spoken to them Acts 16. 32. believed ver 34. Acts 18. 8. addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints 1 Cor. 16. 15. which shew no infants were meant under the houshold for they did none of these things Reply MY fourth Argument proved Infan-t Baptism commanded Math. 28. 19. because Nations are commanded to be baptized according to Ambrose qui dixit omnes nullos exclusit neque parvulos he that said baptize all excluded none no not little ones I confessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ye shall make Disciples but not that baptizing is onely of actuall Disciples for 1. It can not be proved that the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach includes actually in it the noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples 2. It follows not because it is placed before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing therefore it is simply before it in order of nature and time 3. Though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify make actuall Disciples and in order of nature and time procede it may be put Synecdochically for the greater part actuall believers not excluding their infants My speech Infants are not uncapable of baptism because they have not faith and repentance because Christ was baptized without repentance is unanswerable for it presupposeth his
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
but that which is by dipping is lawful is a will-worship much more that Baptism otherwise is a nullitie and those that are Baptized so ought to be Baptized again or Re-Baptized which the Senate of Syrick understood well when they made an Act that all that did presume to Re-Baptize such as were Baptized before should be drowned So we have resolved the former doubt that Baptizing is not dipping and come to the latter that Infants may nay ought to be Baptized And Brethren I beseech you to give me leave a little to speak for Infants those poor Souls that cannot speak for themselves And before we come to the Question take with you these two Considerations First that those truths that were not in controversie in the Primitive times the Apostles were not so punctual in pressing of them seeing there was no need Solon being asked why he made no Law against murtherers of Parents answer'd because he conceiv'd none would commit that unnatural Act If the Apostles had been asked why they did not put down Infant-Baptism in plainer terms I suppose they would have answered that they thought none would have denyed it Secondly observe that those things that are pressed often in the old Testament are mentioned more sparingly in the New as the Sabbath and Magistracy in the old Testament line upon line and precept upon precept but scarce a Syllable for a Christian Sabbath or a Christian Magistracie in the new Nothing is more clear then Infants Church-Membership in the old Testament therefore not so clear in the New and yet clear enough to those that have eyes to see it as will appear by these reasons following 1. Arg. First those that are in Covenant with God ought to have the Seal of the Covenant which is Baptism But Infants of beleeving Parents are in Covenant with God Therefore Infants ought to have the Seal of the Covenant which is Baptism The former Proposition is firm by Confession of all Divines even our adversaries Haec est fundamentalis ratio paedobaptismi sayes Daneus this is the fundamentall reason of Baptizing of Infants that they are in Covenant Esse foederatum sufficit ad accipiendum signum foederis sayes Davenant to be in Covenant is sufficient to receive the sign and seal of the Covenant Omnes foederati sunt Baptizandi says Wendel all that are in Covenant are to be Baptized Si in foedere sunt impiè agunt qui eis signum foederis negant saith Ferus if they be in Covenant they do wickedly that deny them the sign of the Covenant in a Civill contract says Mr. Perkins the Father and the heir make but one person and the Covenant's for himself and his posterity The Minor proposition that Infants of believing Parents are in Covenant is grounded on many Scriptures Genes 17. 7. Where God establishes a Covenant not onely with Abraham but with his seed after him in their generations for an everlasting Covenant everlasting and therefore to last to the end of the World as Cornelius à Lapide sayes absolutè aeternum est in semine spirituali fidelibus It is absolutely everlasting in the spirituall seed to the faithfull Galat. 3. 8. The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Heathen through faith preached before the Gospel to Abraham therefore if Isaac was in Covenant with his Father when he was but eight days old and had the seal by vertue of the Lamb to be slain much more the Children of believing Parents by vertue of the Lamb that is already slain Deuter. 29. 11. When all the people stood in Covenant before the Lord their little ones are mentioned amongst the rest which is further confirmed Acts 2. 38 39. Be Baptized every one of you for the promise is to you and your Children to say that they were not yet believers is but a shift the Text makes it cleer as soon as they were believers their Children were in Covenant with them and to be Baptized Arg. 2 Such as were Circumcised vnder the Law may be Baptized under the Gospel But Infants of beleevers were Circumcised under the Law Therefore they may be baptized under the Gospel Huic Argumento non omnes Anabaptistae resistent sayes learned Whitaker all the Anabaptists shall not be able to resist this Argument the Minor that Infants under the Law were Circumcised is confessed The former proposition is onely questioned that Baptism under the Gospel to Infants does not necessarily follow from Circumcision under the Law Augustin is cleer for it saying Mutatis signis manet eadem gratia sine aetatis discrimine the outward visible signes being changed the same grace remaines without any difference of age and he gives a reason because the grace of God is not straiter in the new Testament than in the old Therefore Christ Hebr. 8. 6. Is said to be Mediator of a better Covenant but how were it a better Covenant if all poor Infants that were in Covenant under the Law were out of Covenant under the Gospel Titus 2. 12. The grace of God hath appeared unto all and therefore surely to Infants as Irenaeus sayes Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est Christ became a little one for little ones sake that he might redeem the little ones Little ones were the first Martyrs that suffered for Christ in Rama was a voice heard and that Baptism came in place of Circumcision the Apostle clears it Coloss 2. 11. 12. Ye are Circumcised with Circumcision made without hands How is that Buryed with him in Baptism Hence arises another Argument Arg. 3. Those that were once in Covenant had the Seal of the Covenant and were never disfranchized and put out of Covenant have title to the Covenant and Seal of it still But Infants were once in Covenant had the Seal of the Covenant and were never disfranchized and put out of Covenant Therefore Infants have title to the covenant and seal of it still Let any man shew one sillable one tittle in Scripture that ever Infants were put out and we 'l yield the gantlet nay the Gospell is so far from expressing of them that they are put out that it gives them large commendations beyond them of riper years making them the rule of our perfection as new born babes receive the sincere milk of the Word Unless you be as little Children ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of God which is a case so cleer that even Bellarmine himself includes Nullum est impedimentum c. there is nothing that hinders but that Infants may as well be Baptized under the Gospell as they were Circumcised under the Law for neither hath God forbidden Ministers to give them the Sacrament neither are they uncapable to receive it Arg. 4. That which God hath commanded may lawfully be practised by the Ministers of Jesus Christ But God hath commanded Infant-Baptism Therefore it may be lawfully practised by the Ministers of Jesus Christ That God hath commanded it appears Matth. 28. 19. Go Baptize all
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 root that is the parents the lump the branches that is the Children and posterity And Rom 11. 17. if the Jews were broken off and the Gentiles graffed into their place it will follow that if the Jews were broken off Parents with Children then the Gentiles shall be graffed in Parents with Children But the Jews were broken off Parents with Children Therefore the Gentiles shall be graffed in Parents with Children 9. Arg. If Infants should be out of Covenant under the Gospel many dangerous absurdities would follow First Infants would be losers by the comming of Christ and be put in a worse condition than the Jewish Infants were they with the Parents were admitted to the Seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision and not Children with Parents to Baptism Secondly if Infants should be in Covenant then and not now Grace would be larger under the Law than under the Gospel Thirdly there would be no difference betwixt the Child of a Christian and of a Pagan but all the Infants of Christians would be as vile as the Children of Turks Tartars or Cannibals Fourthly they would be without God without Christ without hope in the world not the Children of God but of the Devil would all be damned for out of Covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation 10. Arg. Lastly 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 times Therefore Infant-Baptism is lawful We 'l begin with the first Centurie or hundred years after Christ Dionysius the Areopagite whom the Apostles converted at Athens says Holy men have received a Tradition from the Fathers that is the Apostles to Baptize Infants Clemens who is recorded by some of the antients to succeed Peter in his Ministry at Rome says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptzie your Infants Irenaeus who lived in the second Century says Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est Christ became a little one for little ones sake that little ones might be received into Covenant Origen that lived in the beginning of the third Century says The Church received a Tradition from the Apostles to Baptize Infants and gives a reason because they are born in impurity of sin nay Pelagius a great Scholar who lived in the latter end of this Century though he denyed Original sin yet confessed Infant-Baptism for when they pressed him with this Argument if Infants had not Original sin what need they Baptism he answered that Christ appointed and the Church practised Infant-Baptism not to purge sin by-past but to prevent it for the time to come Cyprian in the fourth Century confirms it in his Epistle to Fidus and gives an account of a Council of sixty six Bishops that decreed that Infants should be Baptized Ambrose says because every age is lyable to sin therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament of Baptism Nazianzene says it is better to Seal Infants with Baptism though they know it not than to leave them unsealed Austin is conceived to go too far who denyed possibility of salvation to them that died un-baptized pressing that place John 3. 5. Except a Man be Born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God The Millevitan Councel in the fifth Century decreed That whosoever should deny that Infants even taken from their Mothers wombs might not be Baptized should be accursed All Churches All ages since agree in this the Harmonies of confessions of all Reformed Churches the Church of England in the Apologie the old Catechism the twenty seventh Article the Directory the greater and lesser Catechism composed by the Assembly of Divines the late Parliament by a further Declaration all confirm it The Canons of our Church did not only in former times declare but the Lawes of our Land did punish Anabaptists as hereticks Mr. Fox in his Acts and Monuments approves of the Albigenses Waldenses Wickliffists Lollards Poor men of Lyons Brownists Barrowists as members of the Reformed Churches but wholly excludes the Anabaptists as erring fundamentally I 'le say no more for confirmation of this polemicall discourse but wind up all with a word of exhortation I beseech you brethren consider what a dangerous errour this is that robbs the Scripture of its truth Infants of their right Parents of their comforts the Church of its members Christ of his merits God of his glory That is the mother of many other errours hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Shakers Levellers they that are above Ordinances Antiscripturians An errour that God hath expressed many signall judgments against as Sleiden and Gastius in Germany and some of our worthies in England have declared As reverend Mr. Cotton tells one of his Apostated flock that had his house burned and his Children in it No wonder that fire seised upon his house and God denyed water to quench it who denyed that water should be brought to Baptize his Infants Secondly consider that much benefit redounds both to Parents and Children by Infant-Baptism First much comfort comes hereby to the Parents when they consider Gods free grace to them and theirs that he is not ashamed to be called their God and the God of their seed after them Hebr. 11. 16. Secondly much benefit comes to Infants by Baptism which the Devill knowes well when he causes Witches to renounce their Baptism when they enter into Covenant with him for they are thereby addmitted into the bosome of the Church devoted and consecrated unto God his Name is put upon them they wear his Royall badge and by it they are distinguished from Heathens And this is so clear from Scriptures truly and spiritually understood That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Now the God of Peace and Truth by his Spirit lead us into all truth keep us pure and unspotted in this houre of Englands temptation and triall keep us faithfull to the death that so we may receive a crown of life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE Arraignment and Conviction OF ANABAPTISM The first Part. Mr. Tombes 1 Section A Plea for Anti-Paedobaptists against the vanity and falshood of scribled papers Entituled The Anabaptists Anatomiz'd and silenc'd in a publick Dispute at Abergaveny in Monmothshire Sept. 5. 165◠betwixt John Tombes John Cragge and Henry Vaughan touching Infant-Baptism By John Tombes B. D. Job 11. 2 3. Should not the multitude of words be answered And should a man full of talk be justified Should thy lies or devices make men hold their peace And when thou mockest shall no man make thee ashamed To be sold at the signe of Sir John Old-castle in Py-Corner Reply A Plea for Anti-Paedobaptists and why Does Mr Tombes intend to commence a suit against the Universal Church and to overthrow the divine institution of Infant-Baptism with the Antiquity Vniversality and Succession thereof Let him first consider whether his Action will hold Plea and whether there may not be
obscurely the necessary circumstance of the time would have been as precisely observed and agreed upon to be but one Thus the former proposition is cleared The latter by him denyed is this That Infant-Baptism was not alwayes he cunningly alters the subject of the Question and says that Infant-sprinkling was not held of the whole Church nor do we say so for it was and may be as well by pouring on water or dipping if infants bodâ—es in these cold Climates would endure it the usual way that we practise is either by pouring on water on the face of the Child if it be weak or dipping in part of the head if it be somewhat strong Gods Ordinances are not destructive to Nature who requires mercy and not sacrifice And that Infant Baptism was thus held alwayes is apparent To pass by divine Institution and Apostolical practise of which anon Dionysius the Areopagite and Clemens in the Apostles constitutions both makes for Infant-Baptism if the books be theirs as they have been entituled these many hundred years the cause is ours so farâ— if not theirs they must not expect any proof of men living in the first Century being extant none beside them Justin Martyr who lived Anno 150. in his 56 Question disputes the different condition of those Children which dye baptized and of those children who dyed unbaptized Two things are objected against this Testimony 1. That the reason of Baptizing of Infants was not the Covenant of grace made to believers and their seed but that they might obtain salvation at the resurrection This is so far from overthrowing that it confirmes the reason being in Covenant with the parents for of such speaks the Author whose parents are believers gives the children capacity to be baptized and they are baptized that they may have salvation at the resurrection for we have no promise of the salvation of any out of the pales of the visible Church The second objection is that Perkins Rivet and others questions whether it be Justin Martyrs book or no. To which I answer there is scarce a book in Scripture any Article of the Creed or part of Antiquity but it hath been questioned by some If we should reject all things that are questioned we must turn Academicks Scepticks and Seckers in all things howsoever it gives evidence to matter of fact that Infants were Baptized in that age in which it was written Irenaeus that lived in the same Century says lib. 2. cap. 39 Christ came to save all that are new born by him into God Infants and little ones and boyes c. Who are those that are new-born The Baptized Which suits with the language of the Holy Ghost in Scripture Tit. 3. 5. The Apostle calls Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washing of the new birth which is so clear that Mr. Mead in his Diatriba upon the place thinks that none will deny that by washing of regeneration baptism is meant or pointed at Besides its the dialect of the Greek Fathers near whose time he lived Justin Martyr speaking of those that are brought to be baptized says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are born anew or regenerated after the same manner we are regenerated being washed as it followes in the name of the father and of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost Dioâ—ysius Hierarch cap. 2. calls the materials of Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divine signes of Divine generation Basil and Nazianzene calls Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the regeneration of the soul all this makes it appear that Irenaeus did drive at the regeneration of Infants by Baptism as well as them of years Origen whom Perkins places at the year 230. says upon Rom. 6. lib. 5. The Church received the Tradition of Baptising of Infants from the Apostles affirming the same thing in substance Homily 8th upon Leviticus and Homily 18. in Lucam Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum Little ones are baptized for the remission of sins The exceptions against these are three 1. They are translations Origens Greek in the Original is lost The same may be said of S. Matthews Gospel which he writ in the Hebrew or Syriack now lost the Greek Copy onely extant And of the Septuagints Translation of the Old Testament which our Saviour himself followed more exactly than the Hebrew Original Translations agreeing with the Original Copy being equally Authentick But secondly it is said that the Translation is censured by Erasmus and Perkins as in something contracting adding or altering What is added is ingeniously confessed by Rufinus the Translator himself neither does acute Erasmus nor Judicious Perkins nor any of the Ancients most Critical impeach him in the fore quoted Testimonies Therefore this Exception is blank The third thing objected is that he calls it a Tradition So does the Apostle things contained in Scripture 2 Thes 2. 15. Epiphanius calls Baptism and other divine truthes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditions and yet quotes Scripture for them Bellarmine calls Infant-Baptism a tradition and yet brings ten places of Scripture to prove it Austin affirms lib. 10. cap. 23. de Genes That the custom of our mother the Church in Baptising of little ones is in no wise to be despised nor to be thought superfluous nor at all to be believed unlesse it were an Apostolick Tradition and yet proves the necessity of it from John 3. 5. Vnless one be born again of water and the Spirit c. Gregory Nazianzen who as Dr. usher and Mr. Perkins sayes lived in the year 370 or 380. commands Children to be Baptized and gives a reason Orat. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they not misse of common grace nothing is excepted against this but that he gave his opinion of others to defer their Baptism unlesse they were in danger of death which I shall clear anon To these may be joyned Athanasius who interpret Script Quest 94. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the dipping of the Child quite under the water thrise and raising of it up again doth signifie the death of Christ and the Resurrection the third day In his second Question ad Antioch he enquires how one shall know that he was truly baptized and received the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who when he received Baptism was but an Infant He answers that it may be known by the motions of the Spirit as the woman knowes she hath conceived when she feeles the Child stir in her womb And Question 114. he being asked whether Infants dying go to be punished or to the Kingdome Says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Infants are holy here you see many hundred years before Zuinglius covenant-holiness is acknowledged and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Infants of Believers that are Baptized do as unspotted and faithfull enter into the Kingdome Epiphanius amongst the Greek Fathers brings up the rear avouching that Circumcision had its time untill the great Circumcision came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is
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
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 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
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
thus He that commanded his Disciples to baptize all Nations commanded them to baptize Infants Christ commanded his Disciples Math. 28. 14. To baptize all Nations therefore Christ commanded them to baptize Infants he denyed the Major which was proved by this Enthymema the whole encludes every part Infants are a part of nations therefore he that commanded to baptize all nations commanded to baptize Infants he denyed the consequent which was proved thus from that Axiome in Logick Philosophy and Divinity that a general whole being granted no part of it could be denyed as Psal 117. 1. Praise the Lord all ye Nations is interpreted by another Psalm old men babes young men and mâ—idens praise ye the Lord. His answer was that the Axiom was true where there was no exception but here was an exception Against which I opposed Ambrose his saying upon the place qui dixit omnes nullos exclusit neque parvuloâ— he that said baptize all Nations excepted none no not Infants To which he gave no distinct answer then nor now saving he sayes in gross that all Nations or whole Nations did not include every part all Nations being taken Synecdochically for the Disciples of all Nations Here may be three Queries first how he can make good that all Nations or whole Nations did not include every part Secondly that Nations are taken Synecdochically for the Disciples of all Nations excluding all else Thirdly that Infants are no Disciples otherwise his answer is not satisfactory and appositè ad rem First how he can make good that all Nations does not include every part I do not say actually but potentially as we say of numbers they are infinite because still more may be added So Christ gave his Disciples commission to admit as they could have opportunity all sexes all conditions all ages into covenant excluding none from capacity for whom Christ dyed now Christ dyed as well for Infants as others took â—nfancie upon him visibly as other ages that being visible head of the Church even when an Infant might by his passive obedience sanctifie Infants to be visible members according to that of Bernard qui paâ— vulus natus est parvulos a gratiâ non exclusit he that was born a little one excluded not little ones from grace And if it be objected that God can save Infants by virtue of Christs death without visible membership or seal of the Covenant The Answer is apparent that this is an Argument from Gods power to his will which is inconsequent we are to have recourse to Gods revealed Will which unless he hath declared Infants of believers to be in Covenant we have no more ground to presume of their Salvation than of Turks and Pagans And though Mr. Tombes hath a dexterity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to elude an Argument be it never so solid by â—aying his own grounds and multiplying various interpretations but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he can ever make his Tenet good that whole Nations does not include Infants we think it impossible if he should live Methusalem's dayes Secondly it must be enquired how he can clear that nations are taken Synecdochically for the Disciples of all Nations excluding all else which before it be effected he must remove these three scruples 1. That the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach includes actually in it the noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples 2. Because it is placed before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing therfore it is before it in order of nature and time 3. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it should signifie actual Disciples or Disciples of actual believers is not put Synecdochically also for Infants of believers First it may be justly doubted whether the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach includes actually in it the noune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples Actually I say not potentially for I deny not that virtually it includes all the acts of discipling from the first matriculation or admission of a Scholer till the compleating and perfecting of him and that as it relates to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all Nations it infolds all these is acknowledged for it was the Apostles duty to endevour to bring their Scholars to all perfection but that every act was requisite before baptizing of any or any acts to be precursors of believers Infants baptism save bare acceptation of them without further proof I cannot be perswaded And to argue from the latâ—tude of the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is inconsequently to draw an Aâ—gument à potentiâ ad actum a genere ad specâ—em affirmativè and concludes thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a scholer may signifie one that is endued with all learning therefore every scholar is endued with all learning Object But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach or make Disciples signifies alwaâ—es to teach cum effâ—ctu till we make them proficients and actual Disciples Answ It is boldly affirmed by Mr. Tombes pag 124. of his examen but not proved for his instances Math. 13. 52. Math. 27. 57. concludes that sometimes it is taken so not alwayes and is the former fallacie His third Instance for all Beza's translation seems to make against him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had taught many how knowes he that all were effectually wrought upon that were tâ—ught Or if discipulos multos adjunxissent they had joyned many Disciples how knowes he that Infants were none of these Disciples when whole families so frequently were taken in Infants are as well under the Gospel Christs Disciples as they were under the Law which if they had not been God would not have said of them Genes 17. 14. that they had broken his covenant presupposing a capacity to keep it Those that are admitted into a school before they know a letter are as well Scholars as the greatest Rabbies Aristoph 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Budeus renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was a Scholar of Socrates before he had learned any thing of him in as much as he desired to be his Scholar Therefore the very bringing into the Church and therein subjecting to its nurture and instruction is a discipling as appears by Luke 14. 21. where this commission is spoken of in other terms and for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bring them hither Acts 19. 3. Those that knew not the Holy Ghost are called Disciples Secondly it may be doubted whether because teach or make Disciples is placed before baptize therefore in order of nature and time it must go before it The order of things are not alwaies exactly expressed in Scripture as they were done for there are many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or transpositions placing that afterwards that in order of nature is Antecedent as Maâ—k 1. 15. repentance is put before faith Rom. 10. 9. confession with the mouth is put before believing with the heart So that it is not true that Christ bids them make them Discâ—ples first and then baptize them for the
in speeches like this to put the Indicative Mood present tense by an Enallage of Tense for the future as Math. 5. 10. 12. Reply TO the Argument To whom the promise of grace belonged to them baptism belongs also but the promise of grace belongs to believers and their Children Ergo he sayes he answered implyedly denying the Major out of the Text when they are called or are believers not before which answer is absurd seeing there is no mention in the Text of calling as appliable to these Jews nor of believers at all or if so they cannot be debarred for want of that qualification they had already First there is no mention in the Text of calling as applyable to these Jews for the words in their genuine sense sound thus The promise is made to you Jews near and present and your Children you now have and to them that are afar off distant in place or affection Jews or Gentiles whosoever they be that the Lord shall call To or unto him and unto their Children for afar off and present or near are here opposed as saith Ludovicm de Dieu Secondly there is no mention in the Text of believers at all for the words are not believe and be baptized but repent and be baptized for the promise is to you and your Children The former is a corrupting and this latter is an adding to the Text Thirdly if there had been mention of believing and calling applyable to these Jews it had been no debar for want of that qualification they had already for they were already believers in the same sense they were Penitentiaries by outward assent and previous dispositions at least as is formerly declared and consequently called at least with an outward call Before Christs Incarnation the Jews had a call that assented to all things that were revealed after his incarnation and resurrection they continued their call that entertained further Revelations as it is apparent these three thousand dâ—d as far as one Sermon possibly could render them capable for the intent of the place is that the promise runs to the believing Jews and their Children as it did to believing Abraham and his Children in the outward promuâ—gation administration and signing Hence I may safely conclude if there be no mention in the Text of believers at all of calling as appliable to these Jews or if there had it could be no debar seeing they were already called then his answer was not right to the Major proposition when they are called or are believers not before But there is no mention in the Text of believers at all of calling as appliable to these Jews or if there had it could be no debar seeing they were already called Ergo. Therefore my reply was congruous when I said there were two Arguments in the Text to overthrow his descant The first drawn from the Indicative predication in the Present tense The promise is to you and your Children is for the present as well to your Children as to you The second from the opposition betwixt you and your Children and them that are afar off They and their Children which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 near as the Greek Scholiast and the Syrian Interpreter says are opposed to them that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 afar off The Jews were near and in Covenant for to them is the promise in the present tense but the Gentiles were afar off Ephes 2. 15. Ye who sometimes were afar off are made â—igh by the blood of Christ Therefore it is expressed in the Future tense as many as God shall call So that the Jews being called their Cildten were in Covenant with them when the Gentiles shall be called their Children shall be in Covenant with them All this he thinks to blast with one word which is his Cuckcow-spit frivolous and may be very well hung out as a sign before his answer For 1. The verb says he is in the Indicative Mood when it is said the promise is to those that are afar off as well as when it is said the promise is to you and your Children It s true when it is said so But when or where it is said the promise is to those that are afar off The verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but expressed once and that immediatly in construction before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you not again before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to all those that are afar off Therefore as learned Camerarius says upon the place sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haec This is a curt Laconick expression where something is left out to be supplied by the Reader The promise is to you and your Children and supply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall be to all that are afar off c. Mr. T. I hope hath not â—orgot his Grammar which tells him that Zeugma est unius verbi vel adjectivi viciniori respondentis ad diversa supposita reductio ad unum quidem expressè ad alterum vero per supplementum This will further appear by considering that in this verse we have an exact distribution of the world into Jew and Gentile according to the usuall distribution in other Scriptures The Gentiles being usually called those afar off and the promises equally distributed onely he addes as many as the Lord shall call to those that are afar as most proper in that place But it can in no sense be referred to the former part of the verse either to Parents or Children for he changes the Tense of the Verb in both parts In the first part to the Jews he speaks de praesenti of the present application of the promise Repent ye and be Baptized for the promise is to you and your Children even now the promise is offered to you for they were under the call of God But when he speaks of the Gentiles because they were yet afar off and not at all called he speaks de futuro as many as God shall call There shall be an application of the promises to them when they shall be under the call not before His second reason is as frivolous ferè valens obulum of no weight for says he their being afar off is not in respect of time but of place or dwelling what then is not the promise to the one for the present who are already called to the other for the future I deny both his Antecedent and consequent Antecedent for their being afar off is in respect of time whither we understand their distance in state and condition as the Gentiles who are said to be a far off therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a far off sayes Cornelius à Lapide is Periphrasis Gentium a description of the Gentiles I do not unwillingly assent sayes de Dieu to the great learned men who refer the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those afar off to the Gentiles remote from the Covenant of grace Or if it be meant of the Jews who were afar off in time and were as yet unborn
person in that which he calls the outward visible part of the blessing by which he means title to Baptis But I denyed the Minor understanding it of the outward Covenant holiness as they call it which I truly said is gibberish and however Vossius Bullinger for Grotius I think means otherwise conceive of it or the Assembly yet it is a meâ—r mystake and that holyness of Children which is mentioned 1 Cor. 7. 14. is truly said by me to be onely Matrimonial holyness or legitimation And his Argument out of Mr. Baxter I justly retorted that in six hundred times in which holy is used in Scripture in none of them it is found for outward Covenant holiness intiluling to Baptism which is a right way of answering though it be called indirect by the Logicians And as for that he replyes that Rom. 11. 16. I confessed at Ross Covenant holiness is meant I grant it but not outward Covenant holiness intiluling to Baptism but that reall saving holiness which is according to the election of grace according to which Jews elected shall hereafter be graffed in again Reply THat the promise belonged to Infant Children was thus further â—videnced The blessing is as large as the curse but the curse was extended even to Children before they could actually believe his blood be upon us and upon our children Therefore the blessing To this he accommodates now no answer but instead thereof bolts out this Question doth he think that Christs blood was not avenged on thâ—m if it were how was the remedy as large as the disease how satisfactorily let any intelligent man Judge Christs blood was avenged upon the murdering Jews and their Infant children therefore does he think it was not extendable to the believing Jews and their Infant-children Reason dictates the contrarie His evasion in the conference was more colourable thus If by blessing was meant the Inward and spirituall part of the covenant it might be true but that was not to the present purpose seeing it is not known to us but if the outward and visible part he denyed that Infants were capable of the blessing as well as liable to the curse which distinction was thus taken away They that are holy with a Covenant holiness are capable of the outward visible part of the blessing But Infants of believers are holy with a Covenant holiness Therefore they are capable of the outward and visible part Of this Syllogism he sayes he might have denyed the Major It s strange a man should be more absurd upon deliberation than on a sudden as is evident he is by his reason for sayes he there is a Covenant holiness according to election which doth not alwaies instate the person in that which I call the outward part of the blessing by which I mean title to Baptism what he means by this Centaur of Covenant-holiness by election is hard to conjecture whether of elect Infants before they be born or of elect Infidels before they be called or of believers or unbelievers sanctified Infants before profession If he mean it of elect Infants before they be born it is ridiculous seeing the subject of the Question is Infants of believers they that are actually in being not a subject in posse without an Accident an Accident in posse without a subject at the best but ens fictum possibile If he mean elect Infidels before they be called how are they holy that have nothing in them but the old Adam It seems holy Saul while he was a persecutor holy Dionysius while a Heathen Philosopher holy 3000. Jews while they were crucifying Christ If he mean of unbelievers or believers sanctified Infants first let me enquire of him what groudn he hath from Scripture or any divine Revelation that Infants of unbelievers are sanctified that there is salvation out of the visible Church that any such aâ—â— promised to be so qualified till professors Every act of Faith hath for its object Gods promise or Revelation and whatsoever is not of Faith even in this sense is sin Secondly for the sanctified holiness of believers Infants according to election if he mean that they are elected to for the future and have not yet that cannot denominate them holy if he mean that holiness of election they enjoy for the present Master T. confesses that holyness makes them capable of the outward visible part of the blessing and intitles them to baptism and that if he knew they were so qualified he would baptize them The Question is not whom he according to his light may baptize but who are baptizable But he knew that my proposition pointed at none of these and therefore idely beat the air as his next words discovers for he sayes he denyed the Minor understanding it and so did I of outward Covenant holiness upon which he bestows two taunts 1. As they call it 2. That he truly said that it was gibberish yet confesses that Vossius Bullinger and the late assembly did so conceive of it To these he might have joyned all the Harmonies of confessions of Reformed Churches Tertullian de anima Cap. 39. Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait tam ex seminis praerogativa quam ex institutionis disciplina caeterum inquit immundi nascerentur quasi designatos tamen sanctitatis per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios ut bujus spei pignora matrimoniis quae retinenda censuerat patrocinarentur The Apostle sayes he avers they may be procreated holy of either sex being sanctified as well of the Prerogative of the seed as the Discipline of education otherwise he sayes they would be born unclean willing the children of the faithfull to be understood as designed to holiness and consequently salvation that he might maintain the pledges of this hope to marriages which he judged to be retained Junius upon these words quasi designatos glosses thus alludit ad priscum Rom. morem qui ante annum ferm◠〈◊〉 Praetores alios designabant quam inirent Magistratum c. he al 〈…〉 es â—â—yes he to the antient Roman custome who designed alm 〈…〉 ear before they entred their Office Consuls Praetors and other Magistrates So that the sense is the children of the faithfull to be as it were designed to holiness and consequently salvation even as Magistrates were wont to be designed here in the Church they are designed by a common call there in heaven they enter glory by a singular call and benefit Athanasius in his 114. Question being asked whether Infants dying go to be punished or to the Kingdom says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your children are holy and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infants of believers that are baptized enter into Heaven Hugo Grotius Mr. T. his great friend for all he vainly thinks he means otherwise here forsakes him saying non loquitur Apostolus de sanctitate naturali c. The Apostle sayes he speaks not of naturall holiness and inhering to the nature of
children but of holiness adhering to them outwardly that is of the holiness of the Covenant for the children of believers are comprehended in the Covenant of grace and so far forth are judged holy of God Well said Hugo What now says Master T. to his beloved Pamphilus being defeated of his Philomena but in the language of Charinus nullane in re cuiquam hominum esse fidem Terent. Andr. The Assemby of Divines consisting of a hundred and fiftie Reverend and learned Ministers indeed the Representative of the Church of England crosses him in this First in the Directory pag. 21. Infants are Christians and federally holy before Baptism and therefore are they Baptized and this confirmed by Ordinance of Parliament Larger Catechism pag. 138 Infants descending from Parents either both or but one of them professing Faith in Christ and obedience to him are in that respect within the Covenant and to be baptized Lesser Catechism pag. 176. Infants of such as are Members of the visible Church are to be baptized in both places quoting 1 Cor. 7. 14. else were your children unclean but now they are holy All these he sayes with Vossius Bullinger the Parliament with hundâ—eds more of the greatest lights the world hath had are meerâ— mistaken and that holiness of Children which is menti 〈…〉 1 Cor. 7. 14. is truly said by him to be onely matrimoniall s 〈…〉 iness or legitimation O infallible Oracle Credite me folium vobis recitare Sibylles we have found another Socrates but with this difference 1. The former was judged the wisest man by the Oracle of Apollo this by his own Oracle and opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I truly said The former was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissembling he knew nothing This other is plain-dealing professing in Mysteries the whole Church was ignorant of before he knowes all things I will not loose time nor blur paper about his Triviall criticism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it be the unbelieving husband is or hath been sanctified in or to or for the wife or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believing wife as Beza's Copies hath it Nor will I take advantage of his grant that it is easie for us to bring ten for one who interpret this Text as we do if we understand it of those who are called Calvinists though he thinks scarce so many of the Papists and Lutherans His impertinent quotation of Augustine Tom. 7. de peccat merito remission c. 26. who rejects not the Covenant-holiness but original holiness I will pass by his Acyrology or Catachresis that in impropriety or abuse of speech the sense might be as he conceived it most likely to be thus understood The unbelieving husband though an unbeliever is sanctified that is all one to his wife in respect of the lawfull enjoyment of him as her husband as â—f he were indeed sanctified to God because forsooth Piscator interprets some thing in the fore going verse so Neither will I take notice of the feebleness of his Argument taken from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies chastitie or to be chast therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie so and because it may signifie therefore it does signifie so because they all come from the same root which I believe is untrue for whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy come from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to worship as Jansenius would have it or from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aretius in his Problems or from the Hebrew word signifying a feast as Pasor from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Beda and the best Grammarians it hath no affinity with the forementioned words These with a miscellanious â—ubbidg of much more I supersede whereby like the Limner that could not draw the picture to the life he casts a veil over the face of truth and with that General that durst not face his enimy raises a thick mist that he may march away in the dark But to his answer That 1 Cor. 7. 14. is meant only of matrimonial holiness or legitimation it was thus replyed That which in Scripture is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for matrimonial holiness or legitimation cannot be so meant here but it is taken in Scripture almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for matrimonial holiness or legitimation therefore it cannot be so meant here In stead of answering he goes about 1. To disgrace this Argument and his Opponent saying it is out of Mr. Baxter What then May not I as well entertain truth from him as Mr. Tombes errour from Grotius the German Anabaptists and them of Alba-Julia Whose Monument he does not only prodigiously erect as Artimesia did of her husband Mausolus but with her drinks drown their very ashes Valer. Max. 171. That in England Ireland Scotland his Trophies are erected Barbara Pyramidum sileat miracula Memphis Secondly he sayes That in six hundred times in which holy is used in Scripture in none of them it is found for outward Covenant holyness entituling to Baptism Entitling to Baptism Is there any such thing in my Syllogism Look you never so strictly to that Gamester he will slir a die Etsi non aliquo nocùisset mortuus esset Let us see how he makes that good anon In the mean time observe how he manages his Bactrian like fight tergiversando shooting over his shoulders which he calls retorting and a right way of answering though it be called indirect by the Logicians What Logicians call it a right way of answering Seton in his Officio Respondentis sayes non est fas ut responsor ulla disputanti objiciat aut questiones proponat suum agat negotium id est objecta repetat repellat solvat It is not lawfull for the Râ—…pondent to object any thing to the Opponent or propound Questions let him tend his own business that is let him repeat the Objections repell unty them with him agrees Crakenthorp Burgersdicius and others Neither do I find any thing that makes for him in his sense its true Keckerman System Log. pag. 444. speaks of an indirect Syllogism which concludes by that which is indirect or absurd which by Aristotle lib. priorum cap. 2. is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Syllogism bringing to that which is impossible And 2. priorum cap 15. is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Syllogism of contraries but this is in the Opponent not unmannerly snatching from him by the Respondent howsoever not to be used to invert the order of the Dispute when there is another way of answering But to return to his retorting Syllogism That which in Scripture is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for Covenant-holiness cannot be meant here but it is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for covenant-holyness Therefore it cannot be meant here I might deny his Major which may be false and mine in a contingent
matter true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is oft taken in a distinct signification from a veil and not once for a veile therefore not in that place 1 Cor. 11. will not include But his Minor is apparently false as appeared by instance Rom. 11. 16. If the first fruit be holy the lump is also holy and if the root be holy so is also the branches To this he answers saying he confessed at Ross Covenant-holiness was meant by it which are the words of the Argument but not outward holinâ—ss intitling to Baptism which are his own addition but that real saving holiness which is according to the election of grace according to which Jewes elected shall be graff dâ—n again This novel interpretation crosseth Beza who saith children are holy and comprehended in the Covenant from the wombe Bowles who saith they are holy by outward holiness by which they are adjudged to be in Covenant Ravenel who saith sancti id est in foedore Dei comprehensi segregati à prophanis ut non habeantur pro prophanis sed pro Christianis holy that is comprehended in the Covenant of God and separated from prophane that they not be accounted prophane but Christians Diodate who saith the wild branches are the Gentiles inserted into the body of the Church and admitted into the Covenant made with Abraham Wendel who saith vocantur sancti quia foederati they are called holy because in Covenant and that no man may doubt of what holiness he means he sayes est sanctitas externa foederalis an outward and Covenant holiness lib. 1. c. 10. Thes 8. with many more able to swell a volume whose authorities are more authentick than his Mine intended brevity will not suffer me to give reasons of this genuine interpretation onely thus much by the way that holiness is here meant from which the Jewes were fallen and the natural branches were broken off but it was outward covenant holiness from whence these Jewes were fallen and the natural branches were broken off Therefore outward Covenant holiness is here meant The Major is clear in it self and may be further evidenced from the connexion betwixt the 16. and 17. verses The Minor is thus confirmed The Jewes were fallen from that holiness and the natural branches broken off which they were capable to loose but it was outward Covenant holiness from whence the Jewes were fallen and they were capable to loose therefore it was outward Covenant holiness from whence the Jewes were fallen and the natural branches broken off The Minor again is thus proved either they were liable to loose outward Covenant holyness or inward holiness according to election but not inward holiness according to election therefore outward Covenant-holiness Not inward holyness according to election then the immortal seed would dye the gifts and graces of God were not without repentance those whom God justifies them he would not glorifie Rom. 8. 30 Which is to comply with the Papists Pelagians and Remonstrants Secondly that holiness is here meant according to which the branches of the wild olive were graffed in but it was covenant-holiness according to which the branches of the wild olive were graffed in therefore outward Covenant-holines is here meant That it was outward Covenant-holiness according to which the branches of the wild olive were graffed in appears in that it was visible which that according to election is not the branches were visibly broken off they were visibly graffed in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as Beza and the Syriak translates it pro ipsis for them that is in ramorum defractorum locum into the room or stead of the branches broken off Thirdly that holiness is here meant for which the Apostles gives the Gentiles a caveat least they be broken off Rom. 11. 20. Be not high minded but fear but it was outward Covenant-holiness for which the Apostle gives them a caveat least they should be broken off not inward holiness according to election for from that he had assured them they could not be broken off Rom. 8. 1. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus verse the last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am perswaded c. Therefore outward covenant holyness is here meant Fourthly that holiness is here meant according to which the body of the Jewes shall be graffed in again but it is covenant-holiness according to which the body of the Jewes shall be graffed in again therefore covenant-holiness is here meant The Minor is thus made good the body of the Jewes shall be graffed in according to that they are natural branches v. 24. but it is covenant-holiness according to which they are natural branches otherwise all the elect Proselytes and Gentiles though not of the stock of Abraham Job in Syria Abedmelesh in Aethiopia were natural branches therefore it is covenant holiness according to which the body of the Jewes shall be graffed in again Fiftly holiness is meant here in that sense in which it is used 1 Pet. 2. 9. ye are a holy nation but there it is used for Covenant-holiness therefore it is meant here in that sense for the Apostle writ to them as holy according to profession not holy according to election in which sense he was ignorant of their condition and tells some of them 1 Pet. 4. 17. What will be the end of them that obey not the Gospel of God And if the righteous scarcely be saved where shall the ungodly and sinners appear Lastly that holiness is here meant that is in every Epistle stilâ—ng them to whom the Apostle writes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saints or holy but that was a covenant-holiness according to profession not inward holiness according to election which is a mystery as secret as the last judgment which neither Apostle nor Angel nor any save God himself knowes Therefore it is covenant-holiness Mr. Tombes 21 Section I said Ezra 9. 2. holy seed is all one with a legitimate seed according to the Law of Moses Against this it is objected that then the meaning should be The holy seed that is the lawfully begotten Jewes have mingled themselves with the seed of those Lands that is the Bastards of those lands But I deny this consequence The sense is this the holy seed that is those who were descended by lawfull generation of allowed women these have taken to themselves of the daughters of the nations whom God forbade them to marry which is plain out of the verse 1 2. So that the people of the Land with whom they mingled themselves are not considered as illegitimate in their birth but as not allowed to the Israelites and yet the holy seed is that seed which by a right generation according to Moses Law was legitimate As for what he saith that Jepthe was a Saint and yet a Bastard it is true he was holy in one respect as born from above yet unholy by natural birth And whereas he saith Moses had children by an Aethiopian woman and yet not unholy
and not Baptizable All this makes nothing against my Thesis That those that are now visibly in covenant with God ought to have the seal of the covenant which is Baptism what wonders his Third part may do like a Tertius Cato is not yet discovered My arguing is good and proves Infants are wronged that have not Baptism the initiating seal but not so if they have not the Communion because they cannot examine themselves Neither can he from my Medium or any other prove it unless he contradict Scripture and himself who often sayes he would Baptize an Infant if he knew him to be regenerat yet I think he durst not give him the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper Mr. Tombes 9. Section THe Minor he takes on him to prove from Genesis 17. 7. But there is not a word of Infants of believing Parents But to prove it he cites Cornelius a Lapide a Jesuit for him and yet had he not falsely translated his words the words would have appeared to be against him for whereas he renders them in The Sprituall seed to the faithfull which mars his sense it is in the spirituall seed the faithfull So likewise Gal. 3. 8. Though there be not the teâ—m Abrahams seed yet it is directly against him for it asserts justification to the believing Gentiles onely from Abrahams promise not a promise to them and their seed I deny not but that Isack was in covenant with God that is a child of the promise not onely when he was but eight dayes old but also before the seventh yea afore he was borne but when he sayth he had the seal meaning circumcision by virtue of the lamb to be slain it is strange Divinity to me who never heard or read that any person was circumcised by virtue of Christs death but by reason of Gods command And that which he sayth much more the children of believing Parents by virtue of the lamb that is already slain which seems to intimate that circumcision is due to them much more and that by virtue of Christs death is a foppery like to the Authors ingeny He sayth Deut. 29. 11. when all the people stood in covenant before the Lord their litle ones are mentioned amongst the rest And are not their Wives and Servants Hewers of Wood an Drawers of Water Are all these in Covenant with God how doth he prove they were believers Infants The words v. 4. seem to make to the contrary It is no shift but a manifest truth that those Acts 2. 38 39 to whom Peter said The promise is to you and your children were not the believers in Christ when the words were spoken to them for first The Apostle exhorts to Repentance therefore they had not yet repented and so were not Believers Mr. C. himself pag. 78. in this Sermon saith Repentance is a fruit and effect of Faith therefore according to him not before it And in the dispute pag. 52 he made them Believers in fieri with aâ— incompleat repentance though perhaps not believers in facto 2. v. 40. He exhorted them with more words and then v. 41. some of them gladly recieved the word and were believors Yet Peter said to them before they were Believers the promise is to you and your Children nor is there a word in the Text that makes it clear that as soon as they were Believers their Children were in Covenant with them and to be baptized Reply THE Minor I prove from Genesis 17. 7. where the Infants of believing Parents are implyed it being a covenant not onely established with Abraham but with his seed after him in their generations for an everlasting covenant by virtue of which Isack and all succeeding Male-Infants were circumcised I cited Cornelius a Lapide which he does often though a Jesuit not to prove the point but the harmony of learned men against the new fangle Anabaptist the translation of whose words though mistaken in a sillable by the Relator or Printer makes for me for both the words and Context proves prerogative of birth to believers Infants to the end of the World In Gal. 3. 8. There is implyed Abrahams seed in that it was a Gospell-covenant and that in him all Nations shall be blessed and is directly for me for it asserts the covenant and in that justification to the believing Gentiles not onely from Abrahams promise but also a promise to them and their seed I confess Isaak was in covenant with God internally that is as he interprets a child of promise not onely when he was but eight dayes old but before the seventh but we speak of a visible covenant which he at least compleatly entered not till by circumcision the eight day which outward seal I say meaning circumcision as well as the inward circumcision of the heart he had by the virtue or in the virtue of the lamb to be slain And is no strange Divinity to them who acknowledge Christ the Angel and Mediator of the covenant both to hear and read that every person was circumcised by virtue of Christs death as the Meritorius as well as by reason of Gods command the efficient cause To looke at any circumstance of the covenant of grace out of Christ or not receiving virtue from Christ is too looke in a glasse wherein we may see our own damnation I rightly inferred if Isack had the sâ—al circumcision by virtue of the lamb to be slain much more the children of believing Parents now may have the seal baptism by virtue of the lamb already slain But too intimate from thence that the old seal of circumcision is much more due now to Infants of believing Christians is a note beyond Ela and a misshapen crotchet like the Composers Phantasie I said Deut. 29. 11. when all the people stood in covenant before the Lord their little ones are mentioned amongst the rest as are indeed their wives and servants hewers of wood and drawers of water who were either Jewes or circumcised Proselytes which all were in covenant with God had the seal therefore their Infants were believers that is Professors Infants as the words in the first verse and consequently in the 4. verse prove For God expostulates there not with Aliens out of covenant but with his own who had been careless many of them of the conditions of the covenant It is a shift and a maniâ—est untruth that those Acts 2. 38 39 To whom Peter said the promise is to you and your children were not accepters or entertainers of Christ when the words were spoken to them for 1. The Apostle exhorts them to compleat repentance which was initiated or begun in them they were pricked in heart therefore also faith that is profession of faith Men and Bretheren what shall we do I said in the sermon compleat repentance is an effect and fruit of saving faith as in order of nature after it Yet there is an incompleat repentance and profession of faith antecedent to both In the dispute accordingly I
that Christ came in the place of circumcision and the rest of the Jewish ceremonies as v. 17. is expressed And therefore the Apostle asserts the contrary that no rite but Christ came in the roome of circumcision If any ask why is v. 12. added I have answered formerly and the answer is not gainsaid by Mr. Marshall that it is to shew how persons come to be in Christ and so to be compleat in him which he usually ascribeth to faith and baptism Gal. 3. 26 27 Rom. 6. 3 4 5. and they are put together Col. 2. 12 So that if baptism be conceived thence to succeed circumcision faith also is said to succeed it which is more agreeable to the expressions Gâ—l 3. 23 25. I adde the circumcision mentioned Col. 2. 11. is either circumcision made without hands or Christs personall circumcision Therefore if the placing of baptism after v. 12. prove its succession to circumcision it proves onely its succcession to that made without hands which was not the ceremony commanded Gen. 17. or to Christs circumcision not to the common circumcision of others yet were a succession granted this proves not it must be in baptism as in circumcision without a like command as I prove Antipaed part 2. Sect. 2 3. No more than because the Ministers of the Gospel succeed the Priests of the Law doth it follow the Ministers children must be Ministers anointed c. as it was in the Law So that Mr. C. irresistible Argument is as easily blown away as a feather And I hardly imagine any Anabaptist so called to be so weak but that he is able to answer it by telling Mr. C. that his first proposition is false unless there were the like command to baptize Infants as there was to circumcise them Reply HE confesses there is that behind which hath most shew of proof where I say that baptism came in the place of circumcision the Apostle clears it Colos 2. 11 12 ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands how is that buryed with him in baptism It is true that I say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Aorist of the verb ye are or have been circumcised with the circumcision made without hands c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Aorist of the Participle being buryed or by having been buryed with him in baptism These are predicated of the same persons and so conjoyned as to express how the former was done by the latter not so in that which followes They one subject were raised passively by the faith of the operation of God vvho raised actively Christ from the dead another subject and being so expounded its true for they vvere circumcised vvithout hands by baptism secundum quid relating to the manner of legall circumcision vvithout hands sâ—mpliciter relating to the invvard baptism signed by the outvvard vvhich being granted it is consequently cleared by the Apostle that baptism comes in the roome of circumcision vvhich is the scope of the place v. 10. That vve are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 compleated or filled in Christ by baptism vvithout circumcision and that Christ vvho is yesterday to day and for ever the same substituted baptism into the place of circumcision vvhich vvith other Jevvish ceremonies v. 17. vanished at his passion And therefore the Apostle asserts that Christ in the flesh vvith baptism and the rites under the Gospell came in the place of Christ promised vvith circumcision and other rites under the Lavv. Mr. Marshall had reason to grant that persons came to be in Christ and compleated in him by baptism signally or significatively as by faith really as Gal. 3 26 27 Rom. 3 4 5 so that baptism is evinced thence to succeed circumcision so faith in Christ already come succeeds faith in Christ that vvas to come vvhich is agreeable to the expressions Gal. 3 23 25. Circumcision mentioned Coloss 2. 11. is baptism succeeding legall Circumcision to which it alludes receiving virtue from Christs personall Circumcision which was a part of his Passive obedience Therefore the placing Baptism after ver 12. proves the Identity or sameness of the thing signified The diversity of the Seals to wit baptism which succeeded in the place of Circumcision the Ceremonies commanded Gen. 17. This granted it proves it must be in Baptism as it was in Circumcision having the like command both expressed and often interpretatively implyed against which he proves nothing Antipaed part 2. Sect. 2 3. but beggs the Question Ministers children under the Gospel succeeds not as the Priests children did under the Law because God in no place sayes to those that are in competition to be Pastors and Teachers be ordained every one of you for the promise is to you and your children as he does to Converts be baptized every one of you for the promise is to you and your children Neither is it said according to Gospell-promise to any and their seed ye are consecrated with unction made without hands being ordained by imposition of hands as it is said here ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands buryed with him in Baptism So that the Argument that Mr. T. presumptiously says he hath blown away like a feather may prove as the Fly did to Pope Adrian a feather to choke his confidence And though I confess the most of the Anabaptists truly so called have so much brass as to answer this proposition as the Anti-scripturians does the whole Scripture by denying it yet I cannot imagine they can with any probable evasion elude it when their great Goliah falls before it and perishes with his own sword Mr. Tombes 13 Section IF the third Argument arise thence it hath its answer thence that it is a frivolous talk in Mr. C. to speak as if denying Infant baptism were putting out of the Covenant disfranchizing and circumcizing supposed being in Covenant was a seal of the Covenant of grace His proof That the Gospel puts not infants out of covenant is true of the elect infants and the covenant of grace expressed in the Gospel And yet his proofs are silly New born babes desire milk little children are humble and are proposed herein as paterns to us therefore they are in covenant whereas this is as true of Infidel Children as of Christians and therefore proves the one in covenant as well as the other and both these acts of little Children are onely naturall not virtuous and so give not evidence of their being in covenant nor doth the Gospel give them large commendations beyond them of riper years making them the rule of our perfection for there is neither commendation of them 1 Pet. 2. 2. nor Math. 18. 3. nor making them the rule of our perfection any more than Sheep and Doves Math. 10. 16. But onely those virtuous qualities which are resembled by their naturall qualities are propounded to us as our rule His testimony out of Bellarmine intimates that Bellarmine said there is no impediment to infants baptism because the case
differ toto coelo Hebr. 11. 6. Enoch pleased God by faith manifesting it self by works in walking with him which Infants cannot do at least in that degree and manner yet are not therefore without faith God loved them as elect from eternity with a love of intention but not before they were in being and had faith with a love of execution which he expressed by blessing of them I said from Scripture-grounds that faith must be allowed them or salvation denyed them but the latter was cruell and impious therefore the former must be godly and pious faith onely purifieth the heart Acts 15. 9. and no unclean thing shall enter into Heaven This he grants saying faith in the seed is sufficient to make them clean which is not denyed may be in Infants But denies that Isai 65. 20. sayes any such thing the contrary whereof hath been formerly proved He takes no notice of the Testimonies of Paraeus Hommius Beza Trelcatius and Vossius but girds at Austin who to Pelagius asking him where he places Infants baptized answers in numero credentium in the number of believers and addes nec judicare aliter ullo modo audebis si non vis esse apertè haereticus neither may thou presume to judge otherwise if thou wilt not be a plain heretick to shake of this load that is laid in the right saddle he sayes Austins words expresses nothing but his own conceit according to the language of the time when as indeed it is the language of Scripture and all ages saving John of Leyden's when he was backed with the German Boars and this present when by reason of our late distractions the hedge of discipline was broken down Mr. Tombes to get him a name with Erostratus took liberty to advance also his Idol thought Antipaedobaptism most plausible whereas according to all antiquity faith in seed or act unknown with Covenant-holiness doth intitle to baptism Mr. Tombes 18 Section THe eight Argument was answered before by denying the Major and Minor and his calling those that expound 1 Cor. 7. 14. of legitimation grosse Anabaptists doth but involve Melanchton Camerarius Musculus c. in the same censure and that it is no bastard as Dr. Featly called it but a genuine exposition is demonstrated at large in my Antipaedobaptism first part and 't is granted that Pagans children are holy in the Apostles sense if lawfully begotten for the sanctifiedness of the yoke fellow and holinesse of the children is not ascribed to the faith of the one parent but to the conjugal relation between them Rom. 11. 16. The first fruits and root are Abraham not every believier the lump and branches are Abraham ' s children by election and faith not every believers nor all Abraham ' s natural children and the holinesse is meant of saving holinesse not meer outward visible holinesse The breaking off and graffing in Rom. 11. 17. are meant of the invisible Church in which sense parents and children are not broken off or graffed in together See my Antipaedobap first part Reply THe eighth Argument was those that are holy with a Covenant-holinesse may be baptized Infants of believing parents are holy with a Covenant-holinesse Therefore they may be baptized The Major and the Minor which he sayes he denyed were proved before to which in the Sermon I further added the Testimonies of Vossius Bullinger Sharpius and his friend Hugo Grotius who all with the Assembly in the confession of faith greater lesser Catechism interpret 1. Cor. 7. 14. of Covenant-holyness nor legitimation as he sayes Melanchton Camerarius and Musculus do which are but three he can name amongst Protestants granting we have ten to one to the contrary he might have said ten times ten and have kept within compasse Dr. Featly called it rightly a bastard exposition which to prove genuine Antipâ—dobap first part he hath spent many words in vain rudis indigestaque moles Nec quicquam nisi pondus iners congestaque eodem Non bene junctarum discordia semina rerum It is absurd to say Pagans children are holy in the Apostles sense when the Apostle speaks there of special priviledges of Christians and the sanctifiednesse of the yoke-fellow and holiness of the children is ascribed to the faith of one parent not to the conjugal relation between them which they had before they were Christians The first fruits and root Rom. 11. 16. are Abraham as remote every believer more immediatly relating to their next posterity The lump and branches are Abraham's children not onely by election and faith but visible Church-membership which involves professors children and the holiness is meant as well of meer outward visible holiness as of saving holiness Thus Grotius loquitur Apostolus de sanctitate foederis credentium liberi foedere gratiae comprehensi sunt eatenùs sancti a Deo censentur The Apostle speaks of Covenant-holiness for the children of believers are comprehended in the Covenant of Grace and therefore are judged holy of God The breaking off and graffing in Rom. 11 17. are meant of the visible Church in which sense parents with children are broken off and graffed in together not of the invisible which would imply Popery Pelagianism and Arminianism if the invisible members the elect could be broken off See Mr. Blake Serm. pag. 7 8. his Answ to Mr. T. page 29. Geree Vindication pag. 23. Mr. Marshals Defence page 134. Cotton pag. 77. to 110. Cobbet pag. 151. to 168. Mr. Baxter pag. 44. to 50. Mr. Tombes 21 Section NInth Argument tells us of dangerous absurdities if Infants should be out of Covenant under the Gospel But this is not all one as to be baptized we may grant them to be in Covenant of grace and yet not to be baptized and to be baptized and yet not in the Covenant of grace But let us view the absurdites First Infants saith he 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 not parents with Children to Baptism Answ I ratheâ— think that by being not admitted to Circumcision the condition of parents children is the better by Christs Coming sith as Mr. C. teacheth here page 100. Circumcision is the yoke Acts 15. 10. Of which the Apoâ—â—le â—aith neither we nor our fathers were able to bear it and is so far from being the seal of the Covenant of grace that they are Mr. C. own words Circumcision was the seal or ordinance by which the Jewes were bound to observe the Doctrine and the Law meaning of Moses 2. Were it imagined a pure Evangelical priviledge yet sure it is not such a priviledge but parents and children did well without it before Abrahams time and all the femals from Abrahams dayes till Christs I suppose what ever priviledge it were it was abundantly recompensed by Christs coming without Infant baptism except a meer empty title of visible Church membeâ—ship which yet
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
baptism as if such a benefit came by it All the benefit he talks of that comes to infants is either a meer empty title or else it comes to infants as well without baptism as with it The Devils dealing if it be as Mr. C. saith makes it appear the faith is good into which the pretended baptism is but not that the baptism is right Reply THe Signall judgments god expressed against them in Germany and the sad effects it hath wrought since these late wars with us may awake us to take heed of the sin lest we partake of the punishment Read Calvin Bullinger Sâ—elden Gastius Guy-debrees Mr. Cotton understood himself when he told one of his Apostated flock that had his house burned and his children in it no wonder that fire seized upon his house and God denyed water to quench it who denyed that water should be brought to baptize his Infants Eccles 9 1 2 one event falls out to the righteous and to the wicked and Luke 13 1 2 3 4 5 Those whose blood Pilat mingled with the sacrifice and they upon whom fell the Tower of Siloam were not greater sinners than others yet we may with sobriety pronounce of Gods judgements against the Sodomites Baalites Eâ—ymas the Sorcerer Symon Magus and such we judge not of men and Tenents by outward judgements but of outward judgements by men and their Tenents so Job was justifiable One may have his house burned that baptizes not his child perhaps another baptizes these abstractly concludes nothing But when Herod is smitten with an Angel while vaunting on his throne Ananias and Saphyra while lying Elymas the Sorcerer while seducing there is something remarkable in it especially if it fall out allwayes or often as it is observed disturbance of Peace and divine Vengance hath attended the Anabaptists in all Countries hitherto It may be some I doubt not thousands have prospered outwardly for a while after their refusing to baptize Infants Thousands it may be have fallen into calamities after they have baptized them yet neither of them for that cause and yet the one a virtuous action the other a sin deserving punishment which coming slowly will recompence the delay with a heavy stroke at last we judge of Gods dealing with persons by his word precepts prohibitions threats If God say the child that is not circumcised shall be cut off from his people for he hath broken my covenant we conceive it is just that God meets Moses and for neglect of circumcision threatens to slay him The rest of Mr T. his speech is invective As privatively the contempt of Infant-baptism is dangerous so positively it is beneficiall both to Parents and children first much comfort comes thereby to Parents when they consider Gods free grace to them and theirs that he is not ashamed to be called their God and the God of their seed after them Heb. 11. Genes 17 7 And this comfort springs from Gods promise founded in Christs merits conveyed by covenant-holiness or birth-priviledge sealed by baptism layd hold on by faith of Parents sometimes faith in the seed or secret act of Infants which to enjoy and be disobedient to the precept and practice of Infant-Baptism is a ridiculous conceit for Infant-Baptism brings not with it a meer empty title but obedience which is better than sacrifice and the benefit comes no more without Baptism than clensing of Naamans leprosie without washing in Jordan Secondly much benefit comes to Infants by Baptism which the Devil knows well when he causes Witches to renounce their Baptism when they enter into Covenant with him for they are thereby admitted into the bosome of the Church devoted consecrated unto God his name is put upon them they wear his royall badge and by it they are distinguished from Heathens and this so clearly from Scriptures truly and spiritually understood that the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it This he passes by saving one gird at Witches saying the Devils dealing makes it appear the faith is good into which the pretended Baptism is but not that the Baptism is right Nay rather if Infant Baptism as he says be a nullity mockery will-worship They should stick to it for therein the Devill delights he might as well say The Devill causes Popish Conjurers when they enter into Covenant with him to renounce Baptizing of Bells worshipping of Images because driving away Devils the end of the one and adoring the prototype the design of the other is good Mr. Tombes 28. Section ENough of this frothy uncocted Sermon calculated for the ignorant and superstitious common people and the profane loose Gentry who mind not Godliness in earnest and for the blind Teachers of those parts who know not the Gospel but mind their own profits more than the understanding of the truth from whom the Lord deliver the dark parts of this land and provide Teachers for the people after his own heart that it be not as now it is in too many parts The blind lead the blind and both fall into the ditch Reply HIs Epilogue or Peroration is wholly invective and beyond the bounds of the most scurrilous Satyr Calumniatory Bespattering 1. The Sermon 2. The Commonalty 3. The Gentry 4. The Ministery of our parts concluding with John of Leydens Liturgie which he sung in procession upon his blind ass after his three nights dream from Luther Melancthon and the rest of the blind guides of the Gospel Good Lord deliver us 1. For the Sermon neither my Auditory re 〈…〉 red nor I affected curiosity nor could it be expected from 〈◊〉 exercising again that afternoon having preached a Funerall 〈…〉 mon that week and taught children every day yet I am con 〈…〉 ent it is truth in a homely drâ—ss and free from that censure a learned man passed on his at Rosse That he never heard a speech â—or truth more questionable for Method more disordered for language more discomposed than it 2. For our common people as he calls them defaming the Rock out of which he was â—hewed They are neither ignorant nor superstitious but well Catechized and grounded saving a few Anabaptists and some others whom they have scandalized by their opinions practice and divisions making Religion odious 3. For our Gentry whom this Lycophrons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls profane and loose Their judicious piety and discreet sobriety is so well known that neither Shimeis rayling nor Doegs defamation can impeach them and they mind godliness so far in earnest that he can not obtrude his errours upon them hence his gall overflows 4. For the Teachers of our parts whom he calls blind They have all eyes â—nough to see his palpable mistakes Some knows the Gospel as well as himself attending their flock with far more fidelity and constancy not deserting them upon every triviall occasion as he and contented with less than half his means with patience undergoes a double pains This in answer Now to gratify him To much of this Examination like raging waves of the Sea foming out his own shame Jude v. 13. Calculated exactly for the new Gospel Horizon discovered by Baltazzar Hubmir Nicholas Stock John of Leyden Barnard Rotman John Tuscoverer and the rest of the Garrison of Munster and may serve without any remarkable mistake for the Midnight Meridian of our English Anabaptists Ranters Quakers Levellers from whom the Lord deliver the enlightned parts of this Land and confirm Teachers for his people after his own heart that it be not as now it is in too many places the lowest of the rabble with Jeroboams Priests fill their hands and then advance their own Calves destroying souls like Pestilence in the darkness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉