in reference to this promise account for his seed the covenant on Gods part is to be the God of Abraham and his seed which God knows how to extend to Jew and Gentile and limit to beleevers even among Abrahams family But Abraham had laid on him that hee should circumcise but he cannot walke by Gods rules in the estimation of his seed Gen. 17.10 This is my covenant that ye keep between me and you and thy seed after thee every manchilde among you shall be circumcised the former part I will be a God to thee and thy seed might have served Abrahams turn if he had known how to estimate his seed as God did by the beleever but that was past Abrahams skill therefore must Abraham have another rule set him to walke by and lest Abraham insisting on the word seed should debarre many from circumcision of the flesh whom God did intend to circumcise in heart he is charged with his duty in plaine tearmes 12.13 verse Every manchilde in your generations he that is borne in the house or bought with money of any stranger that is not of thy seed And Exod. 12.48 When a stranger shall sojourne with thee and will keep the Passeover to the Lord let all his males be circumcised and then let him come neare and keep the Passeover for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof one law shall be to him that is home-borne and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you so you see how Abraham was to count his seed not only those that were indeed his seed but those that were of his family not so only but the seed of beleeving Gentiles were to be the accounted seed of the promise one law must be to the stranger that sojourneth and to the naturall seed of Abraham the beleeving Gentile that would keep the Passeover must be subject to the same law with Abraham he must circumcise not only himselfe but all his males and the reason is because no uncircumcised person may eat thereof the master of the family might not be accounted a circumcised person unlesse all his males were circumcised because that was the law of circumcision that he that was circumcised himself must circumcise all his males because the blessing of Abraham was a family blessing as Gen. 12.3 In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed and that which is there rendred by families is in 18.18 rendred by Nations All the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him seeing all families and all nations be of the same extent Thus yee see plainly demonstrated that Abraham and beleeving Gentiles were to understand the seed of Abraham in reference to the promise of the seed of beleeving Gentiles which Mr. Tombes doth not finde You see the promise made to Abraham and all families and all nations performed in some families even under the law of circumcision the families of strangers the males that were borne in the house or bought with money were reckoned as Abrahams males but this stranger that would keep the Passeover must circumcise his males not under the name of Abrahams males not as borne in Abrahams house nor bought with money but under the name of the seed of such a stranger that would keep the Passeover they could have no right to circumcision but as the seed of beleeving Gentiles Againe you see this promise is made to all Nations in Abraham which must have a time of performance in that sense also but this was never performed in any nationall capacity before Christs time yet God never maketh a promise but he taketh a time in some sense or other to perform but we see notwithstanding this promise God had not any Nation blessed but the Jewes and therefore doth St. Paul plainly interpret that part of the promise concerning Nations in reference to Nations after Christ Gal. 3.8 the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith preached before the Gospell to Abraham saying In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed see God made his promise to Abraham and all families all nations he began with Abraham and his and some other few Gentiles families and after referreth the performance of the promise as it concerneth all Nations to the times wherein he foresaw that the Nations would beleeve 3. Question whether there be the same reason of Circumcision and Baptisme in signing the Gospell-covenant To this Mr. Tombs saith that the substance of the Gospell-covenant was the same in all ages yet this covenant hath had divers formes and sanctions where after abundance of words to prove diversity of formes and sanctions he endeavoureth to prove a diversity of the forme and sanction of the covenant with Abraham and forme sanction and accomplishment of the new Testament covenant and from thence he inferreth his conclusion in these words Whence I gather that there is not the same reason of circumcision and baptisme in signing the Evangelicall covenant nor may there be an argument drawne from the adminstration of one to the like manner of administration of the other I have heard very much of Mr. Tombs his learning and now I see wherein it lyeth in drawing that out of premises that no man else can draw and making syllogisms with two conclusions toto coelo divers and yet make them arise from the same premises this is the learning so much magnified That which he principally gathereth is that there is not the same reason of circumcision and baptisme in sealing the Gospell-covenant For my part I know but two wayes of signations or sealings one naturall the other ex instituto divino vel humane Now I conceive both circumcision and baptisme doe signe or seale sacramentally and by divine institution and therefore there is the same reason of both their sealings Now the different forme of the covenant maketh no difference in the seale If it be an obligation for money or a lease under large or ample covenants or a conveyance of inheritance wherein one parcell of land of an acre or one free-hold or more one mannor or more maketh no difference in the seale or signature neither doth it vary the reason of the seale which are ex humano instituto obligatori neither doth the difference of the covenant with Abraham and the Evangelicall covenant if differing as Mr. Tombes would have make any difference in the reason of the signing of the Gospell-covenant by circumcision and baptisme for grant that circumcision did seale both Evangelicall and Politicall and baptisme only Evangelicall covenants yet they did both seale Evangelicall promises and for the same reason because God had appointed them to be seals neither doth the mixture of one promise with another alter the operation of the seale seeing the seale doth worke as strongly upon every part of the covenant or every promise in the covenant as if there were but one promise in all or as if every covenant or promise had a single deed and single seale but all this
AN ANSVVER To Mr. Tombes his Scepticall Examination OF INFANTS-BAPTISME Wherein Baptisme is declared to ingraft us into Christ before any preparation And the Covenant of the Gospel to Abraham and the Gentiles is proved to be the same extended to the Gentiles children as well as to Abrahams Together with the Reason why Baptize children is not so plainly set down in the Gospel as Circumcise children in the Law and yet the Gospel more plain then the Law By William Hussey Minister of Chislehurst in Kent HEBREWES 8.5 6. Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the Tabernacle For see saith he that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry by how much also he is the Mediator of a better covenant which was established upon better promises LONDON Printed for Iohn Saywell and are to be sold at his shop at the Sign of the Starre in Little Brittain 1646. TO THE READER Courteous Reader I Having read and seen the Labours of divers learned men that have undertaken the handling of this point and seeing that this Doctrine of Anabaptists doth much spread notwithstanding all the industry that hath been used by men of singular parts and piety I did wonder that such a growing evill should spread and prevail with men that did pretend so much to prety and finding that they cryed up the authority of the Scripture as of men that did plead for baptisme of children had nothing to countenance their doctrine but humane authority and set up mens inventions contrary to the Scriptures when I saw that these Anâ—â—â—ptists did so earnestly plead for the authority of Scriptures and declare themselves so devoted to the rule of Gods Word I had compassion on the affections of these men willingly granting that that was indeed the rule we ought all to be guided by I did as unpartially sift how truly and faithfully they had dealt in the applying themselves to this sacred rule I perceived that they did rather steal away the heats of men with the shew only of pretended respect unto the Scriptures then that they did with dâ—sing aged spirits search into the sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost as men desirous to be lead by the authority of God I heard men cry up Scripture Scripture nothing would prevail with them but Scripture I resolved to concurre with them in this that the Scripture and only Scripture ought to be our ride in these supernaturall things of Gods worship and if I could have found that they had argued rightly out of Scripture I should have most willingly joyned with them but examining the sincerity of their dealing herein I saw them carried on with a spirit of pride imagining that because children had been baptized and that those men which had maintained childrens baptisme had maintained other errors therefore in the disaffection that they bear unto former times they were resolved to wrap up baptisme of children among other things and throw out it also together with those things that were indeed spurious and humane out of the worship of God they could not endure mans inventions in Gods worship and therein their zeal was good if their knowledge had been answerable but here I saw much pride vailed under the cloak of piety men carrying on their opinions with opposition and clamour of multitudes rather then with sobriety and diligent enquiry into the state of the question But whilest I saw this humour wandering in the lower region of the unlearned I did not so much wonder though I were much moved for their sakes because their souls were as pretious to me as other mens yet when I heard that it soared aloft among the learned I thought it then high time to bestir my self to search into the ground and reason why they also with others might be deceived in that point wherein I took some pains to search into the cause and have for the publike good given some small account thereof and here I will turn sceptique with Mr. Tombes and examine whether our books have stated up the question of Anabaptists high enough and have sufficiently cleered those Scriptures that are cited in the controversies For my part I conceive that the main reason that hath so much prevailed with the multitude is because the ceremony of circumcision being put down and that being required of the Iews so as that every circumstance of time qualification of the person is expresse he must be a male in the family of some believer and no such plainnesse is used in the matter of the Sacrameut of baptisme for want whereof ignorant persons have proclaimed the baptisme of Infants will-worship because it is not said in plain terms ye shall baptize children this may be an excuse to men at first sight and consideration but upon neerer enquiry let it be considered whether the different manner of the phrase between the Gospel and the Law hath not put the difference The service of the Law was in shadows and types therefore the externall rise was plain they had not any ground at all from reason no not grounded upon the Word for the use of them the authority of God did fall upon the rise it self immediatly without any other explication but that it was the confirmation and seal of the Covenant made with Abraham and his seed whereby they were made partakers of the blessing in Christ the seed of Abraham Now the Gospel doth declare the promise to Abraham more plainly and our ingrafting into Christ by baptisme more distinctly according to the nature of the sacrament and in a more rationall way entitling us to the promise requiring the Ministers of the Gospel to baptize all nations males and females without any limitation of yeers or sex whereby the proffer of grace is made to all nations the seal of this proffer is baptisme whereby we are ingrafted into Christ the promised seed the promise of the Gospel is plainly declared to be the promise made to Abraham enlarged not in it self but by vertue of more ample dispensation the promise to Abraham was not only to Abraham and his seed but to all nations of the earth though by providence before Christ kept within the nation of the lewes The ignorance or not attendance on this different manner of administration have caused men sorigorously to require such expresse direction in point of administration of the sacrament of baptisme and by this means brought themselves into such difficulty that if they should stand to their principles they could not sinde out any way to administer the sacrament of baptisme at all unto any person whatsoever for want of more plaine and particular direction And thus while they go about to insist upon the Letter and require the regulation of the Ordinance of Christ to their own fancy they make the Gospel more obscure then the Law contrary
as may appeare to all English men that understand their own tongue as in the like phrase make or build houses laying the foundations on the tock and raising the walls and roof of lasting and durable matter do not these participles expresse the manner of doing or may a man gather from hence that the house must be built before the foundation must be laid Again the word nations is a Noune of multitude and the very commission seemeth to point at the nation of the Jewes for the pattern that they should call other nations into covenant with God even after the same manner as the Jews have been by vertue of the same promise and thus it is apparent the Apostles all understood it Paul both to the Romans Rom 4 11. and Gal. 3.17 doth argue that the promise might stand the same to us as was to Abraham though circumcision be taken away for as much as the promise was before circumcision even to Abraham and there might remain the circumcision of the heart though the outward circumcision were taken away and Baptisme put in the place of it and from this promise Acts 2.39 S. Peter argueth to Baptisme the promise belongeth to you therefore be baptized If then Baptisme may be tendered to nations nations may receive baptisme that is it may be nay it must be received by a nationall covenant the nation of the Jews were only in covenant with God before Christ but all nations after Christ hath broken down the partition wall Now principally a nationall covenant doth consist in this that the most principall of the nation do covenant for the rest the more considerable part do receive for the rest and require performance of others their inferiours God laid circumcision upon the Jews under a penalty which is a nationall way of receiving God commandeth all to be circumcised by a Law under a penalty that person that was not circumcised must be cut off Gen. 17.14 that the whole nation might be circumcised If any shall object that the Jews were all to be circumcized under a penalty but the penalty was appointed of God I answer that was an especiall priviledge of the Jewes that they had their civill Lawes from God but what lieth upon a nation as a duty that it may require of all and cut off them that refuse and this is implied in the commission when nations shall covenant to be Disciples which may be done by a part for the whole then are such as are in commission from Christ commanded to baptize and teach the whole nation such as are in authority may covenant in a nationall way for the inferiour sort and justly require all externall performances from them such as Baptisme and submission to be taught are as for faith and internall performance no creature can judge of that or require it of another in a judiciall way If any object that the Apostles did not execute their commission but upon such parties as did believe and would be baptized I answer a commission cannot be executed in full extent untill opportunity be gotten he that hath a commission to hang up all the thieves in the kingdom must execute it as he may he must hang them as he can catch them as soon as they could procure a nationall willingnesse they were ready to baptize them as by the many thousands baptized by them the same day of their conversion may appear taking them in by families which act by a nationall way the master of the family covenanting for his servants and children So Josh 24.15 I and my house will serve the Lord he may not believe for his servant but he may covenant for externall worship for his son under a penalty and for his servant according to his condition under penalty or dismission of service that the whole family or nation might come in And that the Gentiles should in such a manner flow into the Church the Prophets do fully testifie Isai 2.2 All nations shall flow c. See further what light the word Disciple doth give to this sense of the commission Disciple is a relative and is referred to master to him that giveth precepts which have sanctions of reward and punishment annexed and this is the covenant that is between the master and the scholler that he will teach and punish the negligence of the scholler the scholler must be under the covenant of submission or otherwise he can be no scholler Now note that two ways this covenant of a scholler may be put upon any person First it may be put on with the consent of the scholler or secondly without in case of a slave his Lord may impose what covenants he pleaseth without his consent if he will live and enjoy his being the father may and that justly by his interest that he hath over his son by nature put him to school and make a scholler of him even before he be willing to consent he may justly carry him and correct him if he refuse to be put under the power of a Schoolmaster giving his Schoolmaster power to correct him Now to send him to school to Christ and teach him the precepts of Christ and this imposed on the parent of Christ by his Apostles Ephes 6.4 And ye fathers provoke not your children to wrath but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. And what a parent can do over his child in matter of duty that may the parents of the countrey the Magistrates require of the nations God requireth it of them they may put all the nation to school to Christ Now what if some of them be too young to learn yet if they be under the discipline of the Master they are schollers as may appear in many little children that are set to school to keep them safe and from wantonnesse before they be of capacity to learn many have a hornbook given more for a play-game then a book yet are they schollers because under the discipline and correction of the Master is it not therefore great reason that a Christian should dedicate his childe to Christ to be partaker of the blessing and discipline of Christ surely godlinesse hath the promise of this life and that which is to come What is the Infant capable of no good from Christ neither in soul nor body hath Christ nothing to do with him Christ did blesse sucking Infants and as he blesseth cannot he likewise punish at pleasure Why then if he hath power over all nations and de jure they are all under his discipline may not Christian parents put their children under the tuition of Christ seeing though they cannot learn yet he can blesse and hath right and will punish which we by baptizing our Infants do but acknowledge nay certainly he is an Infidell that doth not think that Christ can teach the Infant by his Spirit though we cannot by means that we can use or that he doth not qualifie the souls of the elect Infants with gifts of
seed of Isaac for the promise did not belong to Esau that was the seed of Isaac for that though he were the seed of Isaac yet he was not in Isaac that is he was not inserted into Isaac as a type of Christ by faith and therefore the seed must be so understood that the promise might belong to all the seed Rom. 4.16 not to that which is of the Law only but that which is of the faith of Abraham not to them only which were circumcised according to Law but to believers though not circumcised that is after circumcision was taken away by appointment of God For though circumcision was not so naturall and essentiall to the promise that it was enough at any time to entitle any to the promise without faith yet virtute institutionis divina was not to be omitted untill God took it away for the promise was not to Abraham through the Law therefore not through circumcision which was a legall right but 〈◊〉 the righteousnesse of faith vers 13. to let us know that it was not any 〈◊〉 rite or sacrament that can intitle to the promise it doth but externally 〈◊〉 the vertue of Christs blood and by it the circumcision of the 〈…〉 the sight of God is the only circumcision Rom. 2.29 He is a Jew 〈…〉 and circumcision is of the heart in the Spirit not in the 〈…〉 not of men but of God All this while the Scripture treateth 〈…〉 Abraham in the estimation of God God accounteth none the seed 〈◊〉 Abraham but in Christ none heirs of the promise but in Christ none circumâ—â—â—â—â—◠〈◊〉 them that are in Christ and therefore saith Rom. 2.28 that is not cir 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 in the flesh and this ex regula de nullo Again ex 〈…〉 all that are in Christ Jesus that is believers are the seed of Abraham heirs of the promise circumcised in heart but these have their estimation and praise not of mâ—n but of God and these are equally denied and affirmed to Abrahams sâ—â—d and Gentâ—â—es according as they are believers or not believers 〈◊〉 without any respect aâ— all to Abrahams seed according to the flesh so that Abrahams 〈◊〉 had no right at all to any part of the promise in the estimation of 〈◊〉 they did not 〈◊〉 and therefore Rom. 9.8 they that are the children of the 〈◊〉 that is Abrahams fresh are not the children of God the children of the promise aâ— accounted for the seed and therefore in Gen. 12.3 the Lord did make the promise not to Abraham and his seed only but from Abraham he derived the blessing upon all the families of the earth all the families of the earth were blessed in Abraham Or as Gen. 22.18 all nations are blessed in the seed of Abraham and therefore do Interpreters interpret that former by thee that is in thy seed and all that are in Christ are plainly the heirs of the promise and none but they Abraham in honour and title was called the fountain of the blessing but in deâ—d and truth not Abraham but Christ for Abraham himself was blessed in Christ not in himself as Christ was Christ was only blessed and justified in and for his own holinesse by the works of the Law inherent in himself So that Mr. Tombes his division of Abrahams seed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christs spirituall seed believers naturall seed is most inartificiall many of his naturall seed were spirituall also Abrahams seed must be divded into equivocall and univocall equivocall seed Christ for that he was not like Abraham he was of Abraham but ex parte according to the flesh Rom. 1.3 He was Abrahams Lord as well as his son his Saviour as well as his seed he was the promised seed not the seed unto â—â—â—â—om the promise did belong as the seed of Abraham but that seed that was the fountain of blessing to Abraham and all other his seed and therefore Christ was the blessing it self the promise that was made to Abraham and his seed was through the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.13 but the blessing came not on Christ through the righteousnesse of faith seeing the righteousnesse of faith is derivative from Christ to Abraham Christs righteousnesse was primitive in himselfe and that very righteousnesse that became Abrahams by faith and therefore is Christ the inheritance of Abraham and all the faithfull seed Esay 42.6 he is called the Covenant of the people and a light to the Gentiles Secondly Abrahams univocall seed were like unto himselfe in relation to the promise the word seed in the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is only the faithfull nothing belonging to the seed of Abrahams flesh but so as they are faithfull nor excluding any Nation or family or person in the earth so as faithfull as for Abrahams seed according to the flesh if not faithfull non est nostri instituti it is not belonging to the doctrine of the Promise to consider of them at all Rom. 2.29 they were not to be reckoned among the circumcised by God Now for the particular application of this promise to this Nation or that in one age to the family of Abraham according to the flesh in another age to the Gentiles in one age under the seale of circumcision in another of Baptisme sometimes to give a Nation the means of Grace Word and Sacraments sometimes to lead them away into captivity these things were ordered according to the particular determination and purpose of God though God did in a more peculiar manner blesse the seed of Abraham then other Nations with the enjoyment of Word and Sacraments and other blessings yet they had them together with the land of Canaan and the place of Gods worship only on conditions of faith and obedience as in Deut. 28. and 29. chapters and by the many threatnings of removall of them by the Prophets and their actuall captivities may appear so that these graces of faith and obedience come on this or that Nation or person according to the purpose of Gods will as likewise effectuall operation of the Word and the particular effect of the Sacrament under the means of Word and Sacraments wholly depend on the mercy of God according to the election of grace Men are to administer the outward rite and sacrament according to the ordination of God God by his Spirit bestoweth his grace and with-holdeth it from whom he pleaseth The Jewes were tyed to the eight day to signe the flesh with circumcision but it was God that circumcised the heart without which the circumcision of the flesh was no circumcision in the estimation of God as Rom. 2.28 which man cannot nor ought to take notice of it is the way of God no man knoweth it it is God that giveth the new name that no man knoweth but he that hath it Those that have this inward grace of circumcision are called and accounted by God for the seed of Abraham but whom must Abraham for his part
Text nor signifie what is there said Amendment of life hath not relation to baptisme but to that sin they stood guilty of and that they were convict that they had crucified the Lord of glory the immediate argument that he useth to perswade them to baptisme is that the promise belongeth to them it is no argument at all why they should be baptized because the promise belonged to their children nor because the promise belonged to them that are afarre off but because it belonged to them that only was ground why the Apostle should perswade to be baptized what is further added is to note the amplitude of the promise to raise up their faith to lay hold on the promise of so bountifull a God that extendeth his promises so largely not to them only but to their children nor stayeth his bounty there but reacheth it out also to them that are not called to wit such of them as he shall call you and your children sensu determinate them them that are afarre off sensu indeterminate but if all had been limited by as many as the Lord shall call S. Peter had drawn an universall conclusion out of particular premises For if that part of the verse alledged out of which the Apostle doth inferre this conclusion or inference be limited then the proposition is particular as thus If the sense of the words be the promise belongeth to as many of you as the Lord shall call then it is no more but the promise belongeth to some of you a few of you therefore be baptized every one had been a very irrationall argument nay if you restrain promise to its strict sense for promise with effect to the effectually called then it can belong to a very few of them therefore every one of you be baptized were very strange The promise therefore must be understood in such a sense as it was when applied to Abrahams seed according to the flesh as the faith of God in his promise is not of none effect though some do not believe the promise must be understood by us as left for all though all attain not to it and this not in reference to universall grace but universall dispensation of means by us men and herein God did go before us by his owne direction in the infancy of his Church leaving us to walk by the same rule when we have a more ample dispensation of the means of grace committed to us God did command all Abrahams seed to be circumcised and all circumcised to eat the Passeover though they were taught alwayes they should not possesse the land of Canaan unlesse they obeyed the voice of the Lord Deut. 28. and 29. Chapters and all along Moses and the Prophets preach the blessing to the beleever and though under the forme of works not the covenant of works it was faith that God looked as in Heb. 11. all the workes of the Patriachs are ascribed to faith and Abrahams obedience is commended by his faith and he and they justified by faith and not by workes faith grounded on the same truth of God and the same Christ God useth the same liberty of his will Rom. 9.15 in the dispensation of his grace 13. An instance out of the old Testament in Esau and Jacob will serve as well as in Peter and Judas the grace of God did no more nor lesse depend on Sacraments then now God did not account any man circumcised but a beleever no more doth he now baptized Moses and the Prophets did teach faith and obedience so do the Apostles and that notwithstanding the promise yet the unbeleever and murmurer shall not enter into the land of Canaan thus went the doctrine thus the estimation of God in all ages the dispensation of Word and Sacraments to the Iewes and them that were afarre off as many as the Lord shall call under the Law but now to all Nations all are now called God doth command all men every where to repent in the sence of these words all the world have an outward calling St. Peter doth argue with the Jewes to perswade them to Baptisme à notioribus they knew right well the bounds and extent of the promise it was no new thing to them that the Gentiles called should be accounted among these to whom the promise did belong nor that baptisme did legally wash away sinne nor that sinners must repent but that the promise should be sealed by baptisme that only was new as for that Peter did teach repentance with baptisme both together as saith Mr. Tombs that is not the question repentance and faith ought to be taught at all times as being such things as God doth only look on most seasonably at all times to all men Luke 13.3 Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish but out of this place it doth no way follow that repentance must goe before or is required as a preparation to baptisme verse 38. is an answer to this question what shall we doe we that have crucified the Lord of glory if to this generall question what shall we doe Peter had failed to instruct them to repent he had been wanting to his duty but presently to argue from the promise to move them to baptisme and baptise them presently will scarce stand with any Anabaptisticall discipline you would hardly have any great company of Catechumen's if you follow the example of the Apostle which you so much stand upon nay the keeping men of years many yeares under the discipline of Catechumen's directly contrary to the Apostles example But of preparation to baptisme we shall have further occasion to consider in other arguments Mr. Tombes telleth us that the promise doth not belong to all Infants of beleevers which is the minor universally taken he hath formerly told us of women and believers before Abraham I have formerly given satisfaction to those exceptions but the promise is to be understood three wayes as before may appear Either first in estimation of God or secondly in dispensation of the inward grace of the Sacraments and effectuall operation of the means or thirdly in the outward dispensation of the means of grace The two former are distributed according to the election of grace to the believer only but the last under the Law to Abraham and his seed and in Abrahams seed which is Christ to all the families of the earth But now in a more explicit and plain way to all the nations of the earth and that not only in pâ—tentia but by particular dispensation and providence unto many nations in actu exercito actually many nations have the Word and Sacraments and God grant more may have But it seemeth he granteth the promise doth belong to some of the Infants of believers but which they are he cannot tell and therefore will baptize none The way of God was to Abraham that because he could not distinguish he should circumcise all God commandeth baptisme to be administred to all nations it will not serve our
that point but if he will sell the interest of his child to a Christian I doe not know but that Christian might bring that childe to be baptized as his upon that promise that he will bring him up in the feare of God I am certaine notwithstanding the promise was made to Abraham and his seed yet hee that was bought with money might be circumcised all children therefore that are brought may be baptized so as they be brought by persons that have interest in them and in any charitable construction may be credited that they will bring them up Christians it is sufficient for us if they be such as unto whom the Kingdome of heaven doth belong though the Kingdome of God belong not to them neither can that any way belong to this argument that Christ doth teach men that are of yeares humility from the emblem of a childe yet one childe cannot be distinguished from another as more or lesse fit to come to Christ by their humility for that Mr. Tombes saith Baptisme doth not bring to Christ I say it doth as Christ sitteth in the visible Church into which presence the Ministers of the Gospell have commission from Christ to admit all Nations baptize all Nations as for the kingdome of grace or glory Ministers certainly have no power or authority to keepe any out of them or hinder any from comming to Christ by faith The seventh argument is from Acts 15 32 33. Acts 18.8 1 Cor. 1.16 If the Apostles baptized whole housholds then Infants c. but c. ergo This argument saith Mr. Tombes rests on a sleight conjecture that there were Infants in those houses and that these Infants were baptized but saith he the words plainly prove under the name of the whole house are understood those only that heard the Word and believed Hence he denieth the consequence implying that many whole houses may be baptized yet no Infants because it is possible they may be without children And he further affirmeth either these were without children or else the children were not comprehended under the whole house which he laboureth to prove out of the severall circumstances of the severall Texts which I shall endeavour to examine along with Mr. Tombes not only as he mentioneth them here in this pag. 20. of his Exercitation but as in his Exâ—men of Mr. Marshals Sermon from p. 137. to 142. Mr. Marshall saith that the Gospel took place as the old administration by taking in those families together This Mr. Tombes strongly endeavoureth to oppose and endeavours to set up an assertion opposite to that for true saith he the administration is quite opposite to that of circumcision the opposition which he fancieth he feigneth to consist in severall differences First that Abrahams family was singled out the males only whether in the covenant of grace or not children or servants elder or younger at eight dayes old in the house by the Master or others in his stead For his first difference was Abrahams family only singled out for circumcision that is boldly affirmed it is plain the promise in the seed of Abraham was to all the families of the earth Gen. 12.3 which is rendered by nations 18.18.22.18 there promise is made in the seed of Abraham which in the 3. of Galat. is applied to Christ so that Abrahams family is not singled out for the blessing it is true Abrahams family is singled out to be the line of Christ according to the flesh many families could not have that priviledge but the priviledge of circumcision was not restrained to Abrahams family but extended to all the nations of the earth and was actually afforded to so many families as would dwell among them or desired to eat the Passeover as I have formerly proved it it is plain as many as would be or were partakers of the blessing must be circumcised but the blessing was promised in actu signato to all the nations of the earth though before Christ it was in actu exercito performed to no nation but the Jewes yet many other families besides Abraham were circumcised therefore that difference is not between baptisme and circumcision that circumcision did belong to Abrahams family alone For his second diffence that males only were circumcised I have already spoken to that and the third wherein all the knot of the question doth consist what is here affirmed by Mr. Tombes is but petitio principii as circumcision was to be administred in all the families that would eat the Passeover whether persons that were circumcised did belong to the covenant of grace or not so is baptisme there being no man on earth that can judge of any but himself whether he belong to the covenant of grace or no As for the circumcision of children servants elder younger I know not baptisme doth make any more difference then circumcision doth for that in the house and by the Master of the family or some in his stead I say that in Abrahams time all the publike offices of King and Priest were in Abrahams person Levi was in the loines of Abraham what hand the Priest or the Judge had in the act of circumcision the Scripture is silent but certainly whether it were to be administred privately or publikely there must be a publike account given of it for as much as the person that was not circumcised must be cut off which could not be done but by a publike act neither do I know a more publike dispensation under the Gospel should inforce a more particular administration but the agreement in the last circumstance is that whereon the argument doth rest that is that whole families were brought to baptisme under the Gospel To which Mr. Tombes saith that it was but contingent to families that they were baptized no precept no prophesie for it contingent it is I confesse in respect of any causes that any nation family or person in the world should be baptized but that nations should be baptized is not without either precept or prophesie the Apostles are commanded to baptize all nations the blessing is promised to all nations in Abraham and all nations are prophesied to flow to the mountain of Gods Church Isai 2. but we find not infants baptized nor families baptized in conformity to circumcision Mr. Tombes saith that the conformity is not intimated I say that families were baptized the conformity ariseth of it self But Mr. Tombes desireth to elude this argument by shewing that actuall faith was first required in every person before he were baptized and therefore the Apostles did not baptize any but such as actually did believe and make profession of their faith so that they did not baptize any family unlesse upon particular cognizance of every particular mans faith this you shall see how fairly he will prove as for the examples from John and before the commission I know they walked by speciall light but what we cannot tell after they had their commission certainly they walked by it The first
most weakly of any thing we can please our selves better in the opinion of our works then of faith but when we come to deal with man we are sure we treat of colours before blind men there we can boldly talk we may speak as freely as travellers we cannot be disproved whereby it cometh to passe often times that heart that is least upright is most bold faith is indeed in time of need very heroick in her exploits in that she acteth by the power of God but ascribeth little of her best actions to her self she is alwayes conversant with God and therefore cannot but be conscious of much weaknesse and infirmity faith is so always loaden with difficulties that she hath very little to say of her self there must be great preparation on Gods part before there can be any sense or feeling in man of the things of faith there must be the mighty operation of the Word and Spirit and God is pleased to adde baptism too for faith to work upon these things are of mighty operation and so they had need considering the sloth of heart that is in us to believe it is well if after the Word and sacrament of baptisme faith do come God layeth it as a ground and foundation for faith to work upon and accordingly all the arguments of Scripture are to raise us to walk worthy of amendment of life and to rise with Christ Rom. 6. as if it should be said God hath offered you grace in baptisme therefore accept of it ye are born anew in baptisme let it appear in your conversation Argum. 4. That which maketh the admission into the Church meerly arbitrary that is a false doctrine but the doctrine of Anabaptists maketh admission into the Church meerly arbitrary Ergo the major is plain for that nothing is more directly contrary to the service of God then will-worship but denying any that are tendred according to the mind of Christ in the Word and requiring such disposition in the party to be baptized as the Minister pleaseth without any rule from Gods Word is to make the publike service of God or at least a great part of it wholly arbytrary and this doth appear to flow from their doctrine not yet any man durst affirm what was the measure of faith to be required how much he must believe that must be baptized by means whereof the whole matter dependeth on the will of the Baptizer a thing most contrary to the nature of Religion it cannot be imagined that the Holy Ghost would have been so silent in giving rules for the Ministers to walk by in the triall of the faith of the person to be baptized if any such charge had lain upon his office He must baptize believers only saith Mr. Tombes and the Anabaptists but no Scripture directeth what or how much he must believe must it be as much as the Minister shall think fit then some Ministers will baptize with very small triall others will be very hardly satisfied some will baptize as soon as the childe can be taught to say he believeth in Christ others not till ten or twelve others twenty yeers of age wherein no man can either satisfie his own conscience or any reasonable man for that he walketh without rules neither doth this difficulty from this doctrine come from accidental misconstructions or phansies but inevitable necessity from the doctrine it self that the Minister must baptize none but believers yet cannot tell how much or what he must believe before he be fit for baptisme unlesse he walk by rules of mans making without any intimation from Scripture 5. That doctrine that giveth man that power which is divine that doctrine is blasphemous and false but the doctrine of the Anabaptists giveth man that power which is divine therefore the doctrine of Anabaptists is blasphemous and false That doctrine that giveth man power to judge of faith in another that doctrine giveth man that power that is divine but the Anabaptist giveth men power to judge of faith in another therefore the Anabaptist that power that is divine Faith is in the heart with the heart man beleeveth to righteousnesse and with the mouth he confesseth to salvation Rom. 10.10 He therefore that judgeth of faith must judge the heart which is proper to God I the Lord try the heart Jer. 17.10 Neither will it serve his turne to say that he judgeth by rules of charity if this charge lay upon his office to judge charitably it is one thing another to judge ex officio for the judgement of charity can never pronounce the person so judged to be such as he is judged by charity to be judgements of charity are not alwaies true if it be possible we have warrant enough to judge it so by charity if children may possibly be such as the Kingdome of heaven doe belong too wee may in charity judge them such but if we are tyed by our office to baptize none but beleevers it will not serve turne to say we judge them such by charity to prove that we must baptize none but such as are beleevers seeing we may by charity judge many beleevers which yet are not beleevers againe judgement of faith is denied to belong to the Apostles themselves not that we have dominion of your faith 2 Cor. 1.24 If God had appointed Ministers to have judged of mens faith before they had baptized them he would have given them some rules by which they should have been able to walke which he hath not done he hath annexed baptisme to the Ministers calling to let men know that the grace of baptisme commeth immediatly from Christ therefore he sent the seale of it by that calling that came immediately from him but hath promised those officers of his no speciall qualifications whereby they shall have abilities to discern the faith of men more then other men have the judgement of charity is not a Ministeriall qualification that belongeth to every man and is no Ministeriall qualification 6. That doctrine that denieth the interpretation of the promise made to Abraham which S. Paul maketh that is a false doctrine but the doctrine of Anabaptists denieth the interpretation of the promise made to Abraham wch St. Paul maketh therfore the doctrine of the Anabaptists is false Those that deny the blessing of Abraham and in him of all the Nations of the earth to be the Gospel preached to Abraham in reference to the Gentiles after their call deny the interpretation that S. Paul maketh of the promise made to Abraham but the Anabaptists deny the blessing of Abraham and in him of all the Nations of the earth to be the Gospell preached to Abraham in reference to the Gentiles after their call therefore the Anabaptists deny the interpretation made to Abraham which S. Paul maketh the words of S. Paul are plain Gal. 3.8 the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying In thee shall all Nations be
blessed where ye see plainly S. Paul affirmeth the promise to Abraham to be the Gospel and the Nations to be converted Gentiles and that in the promise made to Abraham there was a Prophesie of the conversion of the Gentiles and the Gentiles under the Gospell had Abrahams blessing that is a blessing to them and their seed as Abraham had to him and his seed so that it is apparent that those which deny the blessing to the seed of the Gentiles the blessing of the promise deny Abrahams blessing to the Gentiles which is directly to deny the interpretation of St. Paul concerning Abrahams blessing and to deny that the blessing to Abraham was the Gospell or that the promise was a Prophesie of the conversion of the Gentiles under the Gospell all which things are plainly affirmed by St. Paul 7. That doctrine that denieth the benefit or grace of circumcision to be offered in baptisme that doctrine is false but the doctrine of Anabaptists is a doctrine that denieth the benefit and grace of circumcision to be offered in baptisme therefore the doctrine of the Anabaptists is false That doctrine which denieth what St. Paul affirmeth is a false doctrine but that doctrine that denieth the benefit or grace of circumcision to be offered in baptisme that doctrine denieth what St. Paul affirmeth therefore that doctrine denieth the benefit and grace of circumcision to be offered in baptisme is a false doctrine The place wherein St. Paul doth affirme that we have the benefit of circumcision by baptisme is Colloss 2.11 12. Let the argument be weighed I have spoken to it in my answer to Mr. Tombes In the which verse St. Paul affirmeth they were circumcised that was not literally true therefore he affirmeth in a figurative or metonymicall sense signi pro signato the thing signified by circumcision and he further sheweth how the benefit they were partakers of had resemblance with circumcision circumcision did cut off the body by a synecdoche part for the whole but they put off the whole body but it was the body of sin Now this is done by the circumcision of Christ it was this circumcision of Christ that made the circumcision of our fathers of any vertue this had been as true of the Patriarches that they were circumcised in putting off the body of the sinnes of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ whereof their legall circumcision was but a type and Christs circumcision did put an end to that circumcision yet the Collossians were circumcised in Christ how could that be the text plainly saith they put off the body of the sinnes of the flesh and that was their circumcision in the circumcision of Christ it was the benefit of circumcision to the Jewes which they had though they wanted the ceremony Now all this benefit commeth unto you by being in Christ get but into Christ and all is done to put off the body is to dye Christ dyed if ye be in him all that he did you did he was circumcised ye are circumcised he died ye die if in him thus were your fathers in Christ by circumcision so are ye in Christ by baptisme buried with him in baptisme nothing can be plainer then the grace and benefit of circumcision was offered to the Colossians in baptisme That doctrine that refuseth to hear and obey the rationall and manly phrase of the doctrine of the Gospell and reduce all to the sensitive and childish delivery of the Law that is an unfaithfull and disobedient doctrine but the doctrine of Anabaptists refuseth to heare and obey the rationall and manly phrase of the doctrine of the Gospell and reduce all to the sensitive and childish delivery of the Law therefore the doctrine of the Anabaptists is an unfaithfull and disobedient doctrine God was pleased to deliver the service which consisted in ceremonies and outward performances in such manner that every externall was directed to them the length heighth of their Temple and of every thing that was contained therein to shew that God would be the author of all things in his worship The colour length of the curtains of their altars and every carved thing were directed immediatly by God the place where the Temple should stand If we should rigorously look for particular rules in this kinde as those Anabaptists do in point of baptisme look for the like direction for administration of baptisme as of circumcision and for want thereof to neglect what the Holy Ghost hath said concerning the nature of baptisme and giving direction to have it administred to all nations thereby leaving the precept or duty of baptisme without any lawfull use for want of such sensitive and particular direction as they had under the Law we might be condemned for will-worship for building Churches without a pattern and direction from God how high or how long they should be together with many things of the like nature refuse to pray publikely or meet to serve God because he had appointed no place the truth is what they say against baptizing of Infants doth conclude against any baptizing at all For if the particular assignation of the persons to be baptized must be dinstiguished by any qualification for want of any such direction we shall be enforced to leave all unbaptized Baptize all nations saith Christ and Acts 2.41 three thousand souls were added Act. 8.12 men and women these may comprehend all male and female without necessary inference that they were grown men and women Now if we leave this sensitive and childish way and walk by the reasonable sense of Scripture how cleerly doth the Scripture give satisfaction in this point I pray you observe First Christ doth command to baptize all nations Secondly he telleth that the promise belonging to any doth entitle him to baptisme Acts 2.39 Thirdly that the promise is the same to Abraham and the Gospel preached to the Gentiles Gal. 3.8 that the promise was to Abraham and his seed that baptisme doth circumcise us by ingrafting us into Christ Col. 2.11 12. By what rational excuses can we excuse our selves for disobediences to the commands of Christ commanding us to baptize all nations if we refuse any that by a nationall covenant are brought unto us 8. That doctrine which under pretence of walking by Scripture support all their doctrine by falacies and false arguments that doctrine is erroneous and false but the doctrine of Anabaptists is such I do challenge all the Anabaptists and in particular Mr. Tombes to produce any argument against Infants baptisme from Scripture or sound reason that shall reasonably conclude from the words without any addition or substraction or may agree with the sense and argument of the words produced then I shall account Mr. Tombes his sceptiques more tolerable in the mean time I wish he might receive satisfaction and spend his time in confirmation of his weaker brethern FINIS
to the constant declaration of the Gospel which proclaimeth it more plain and full more distinct and cleer then the cloudy weak and childish manifestations of the Law The Law saith circumcise a childe at eight dayes old in the family of Abraham or any other believer baptize all nations saith the Gospel circumcise males saith the Law males and females saith the Gospel circumcise this is my Covenant saith the Law most obscurely baptize into Christ by whom we have accesse by faith into grace Rom. 5.2 most plainly saith the Gospel The Law giveth the ceremony therein most obscurely wrapping up the promise of Christ the Gospel promiseth Christ most plainly and most rationally drawing after it the sacrament of baptisme children are in Christ by election of grace before they are born this is plainly set down in the Gospel but obscurely intimated in the Law Now sacramentally men are ingrafted into Christ by baptisme but personally to judge men faithfull and thereby in Christ before they were ingrafted into him were a contradiction in adjecto therefore are men appointed to baptize and preach the Word as being able to administer externalls only The second delusion is in that they interpret the histories of the Acts of the Aposties wherein historically is related that persons baptized did believe not that confession or profession of faith was made to the Apostles and that the persons baptized had their faith approved by the Apostles and that that was the ground upon which they baptized them which is a plain addition to the Scripture But my earnest request to Mr. Thombes and all other Anabaptists is to look on the doctrine of the Gospel in a more spirituall way then to subject it to such a grosse and carnall apprehension and finde out some means in a more satisfactory way to state the promise of the Gospel according to the Word of God then heretofore Yours in the Lord William Hussey July 1. 1646. I Have perused this Answer to Mr. Tombes his Book against Pedobaptisme or the baptizing of children and finding it to be in my judgement solid and judicious I do allow it to be printed and published Iohn Downame SATISFACTION TO Mr. Tombes his scepticall Exercitation Concerning Infants-Baptisme THe Method that I shall take in the handling this Controversie shall be first to state the Doctrine of Baptisme as it was delivered by Christ and understood by the Apostles as may appear by their practice then answer the sophismes and fallcies of Anabaptists and in particular of Mr. Tombs and lastly some arguments to prove the lawfulnesse of childrens baptisme As for the baptisme of John it was of God God sent him to baptize but as the Ministry so the Baptisme of John was personall began and ended in him he was not a Minister of the Gospel he was the greatest of the Prophets but the least in the kingdome of Heaven is greater then he he was precurser the forerunner of Christ of whose baptisme the Scripture is so silent if you consider the form and nature of it that we may quickly affirm more of it then we can be able to prove As for Christ making Disciples and his Disciples baptizing the Scripture likewise speaketh little only that Christ made Disciples and his Disciples baptized them during the time of Christs abode upon earth he did all things well but some things he did which he was not pleased to reveal to us what is written is written for our learning and so much is written as by believing we may have eternall life In things that are liable to no difficultie a greater liberty of words is used as Go preach the Gospel to every creature here men cannot easily mistake because none are capaple of the Gospel but reasonable creatures So in the Commission Christ saith Make Disciples of all nations baptising them in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost Here Christ giveth a Commission to make all nations his schollers baptizing them and teaching them what he commands Here our Saviour is plain in the manner and form of Baptisine that was new and unknown concerning the doctrine they should teach he telleth them he will give speciall command what they should teach and for the subject that being before limited to Jews is now extended to the Gentiles also but what should be the qualification of persons to be baptized is not said neither doth the Apostles any where declare or give any thing in charge to Timothy or Titus to whom St. Paul wrote as unto Ministers of the Gospel to acquaint them with their duty as matter of any difficulty wherein they might easily fail and in 1 Cor. 1. he by occasion speaking of Baptisme speaketh of that as of a thing consisting in form of words and outward rite of washing so as it is ministerially to be performed wherein no such difficulty was or danger of mistake and therefore he had little care thereof men of meaner qualifications might do that yet were the Corinthians baptized before he wrote to them and a Church In all the dogmaticall parts of Scripture not one word concerning any direction to the Minister whom he should baptize whereby it is plain that Christ did not charge his Disciples with any danger of mistake in baptizing they should teach what Christ had or should command for matter of doctrine and Christ doth referre the commission to future direction but in all the Scripture no farther explanation concerning the persons that were to be baptized The Churches were baptized no man knowes by whom To Churches and Saints men received into the Church is all the doctrine of the Apostles directed whereby it appears that they had care to teach all that Christ by his Spirit did command but so little is spoken concerning the persons to be baptized or the manner of administration more then is in the commission that it may plainly appeare no controversies were raised concerning that it was a plain case wherein they walked without dispute or it seemeth suspition of controversie though light enough be given to the truth so that Antipedobaptists without offending against plain Scripture can have no ground to oppose the baptisme of Infants by those inartificiall and groundlesse arguments which they urge against it and certainly it was long ere much was said and the strength of that which is said will appear What is gathered out of the commission Go make Disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost teaching them c. we shall consider Nations is the subject that is so cleer that Mr. Tombs confesseth it though with this limitation nations that are made Disciples which limitation can receive no colour without apparent alteration of the words First make them Disciples and then baptize them saith Mr. Tombes three words are added first and then the words plainly import make Disciples by baptizing them and teaching I have added nothing but the word by and that is implied in the participiall expression
grace not given to reprobates if they die in infancy which though he can and will without baptisme yet this is sufficient incouragement for a Christian parent to put his son to school to Christ if Christ can teach him this were a vain thing to think for any ignorant parent to refuse to put his son to school because he understandeth not Latine or Greek himself it is sufficient that the Master understandeth and knoweth how to teach And certainly words could not have been invented that could have required the Ministers to baptize all the world Infants and all willing or unwilling so that any would see they might be taught and submit to the precepts and discipline of Christ then to expresse it by the word Nation and Disciple and this was plain to them that understood what it was for a nation to be in covenant with God whereof there was but one pattern at that time and so it doth appear the Apostles did understand it as a plain thing in that though often they took occasion to speak of baptisme yet never did explain this point concerning childrens baptisme as thinking it plain enough in the pattern what might justly raise a scruple concerning the baptizing of women seeing they were not circumcised that is declared in plain terms both men and women were baptized Baptisme is in room of circumcision as in answering Mr. Tombes his arguments I hope to make appear For the further understanding of this word Disciple I shall endeavour to set forth the full latitude of the word the formall reason of a Disciple is in relatione ad Preceptorem the foundation of which relation is a covenant between the Master and the scholler whereby the Master is ingaged to deliver precepts and the scholler is bound to hear and undergo the penalties of his errors and contempts Now this covenant is either imposed as in case of a slave when a Lord doth lay any covenants upon his slave here the benefits of the covenant be mercies the punishments if lesse then the greatest or under any conditions avoidable are favors so Naash 1 Sam. 11.2 tendered a covenant to put out every one of the Israelites right eyes which if he had been able to have destroyed as he conceived he was had been a favour in this case one party maketh the covenant without mentioning the other but as patient therefore Gen. 15.18 God is said to make a covenant with Abraham and 17.9 God calleth the covenant his covenant God made the promise and conditions not Abraham but in Gen. 21.27 there when Abraham and Abimeleck did covenant the Text saith they both made a covenant Abraham his conditions and Abimeleck his If the word Disciple be taken in this sense then it is no more but tell all nations that I am that Prophet that was promised by Moses ' Deut. 18.18 19. and thus Peter Acts 3. and Stephen Acts 7. did make disciples repeating those words of Moses A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise to you like unto me him shall you heare and he that will not hear the voice of that Prophet shall dye the death and then these words make disciples doe signifie no more then tell all Nations that I am sent of my Father to teach them and they that will not heare shall dye the death Christ without any more adoe doth give Precepts and threaten death to all the world that refuse and so make disciples is no more but tell them they are disciples and under the Precepts of Christ but if any acceptance be required of the disciple the naturall father or father of the Country may covenant for their children as before Secondly a Disciple may be understood in reference to the end and that either actively for a man that is active or diligent to get learning he is said to be a Scholer or passively a man is said to be a Disciple or Scholer that is learned and this inchoativè vel ad certum aut designatum gradum vel perfectivè if this man that is to be baptised must be taught inchoativè it will serve turne to have learned one lesson in reference to that one lesson he is learned though he hath learned but an A the first letter of his Alphabet In the second sense men are assigned a certaine measure of learning as sufficient for one calling another measure for another calling what degree of knowledge men must attaine to before they be baptised no man yet hath declared and in so great a silence of Scripture were an arrogancie inexcusable for want whereof all that is said concerning a Disciple to bee made before baptized is without any regularity and certainty if it bee understood perfectivè then a man must never be baptised if not before he be made perfectly learned whereby it appeareth that we cannot be said to be made learned in disposition to Baptisme but as before made Schollers in relation to Christ our Master by Baptisme in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost being taught the precepts of Christ Mr. Tombes 127. p. falleth upon this as urged by some obscure person but saith it is so foolish that no man will say so but he that is out of his wit but hee in the meane time answereth it no better then by saying if this were true the Apostles needed to have done nothing else then to baptise them I thinke if ever a man were out of his wit it was here Christ saith make Disciples by baptising them and teaching them if he meane so need they only baptise them and not teach them or if they were made Schollers must they not be taught when they are schollers in what sense doth this man take scholler surely in such a sense that he need be taught no more if he must be a Disciple in such a sense before he bee baptised it were a bold adventure for any Minister to baptise any man or if hee did the party baptised must be taught no more if baptising would make Disciples the Apostles need doe no more this were a good excuse for not preaching Priests It is plaine Christ commands to baptise and teach what if a man do performe part of his duty is he discharged of the other part the command is in conjunctive tearms both must be performed But Mr. Tombes fell on that obiter and I have vindicated it for the true sense of the words which he so scornfully rejected but I further prove it What doe not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being active participles expresse the action of their verbes and is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the end is not every action to an end yes certainly and to make Disciples is the end inrolling them by Baptisme and after teaching them the meanes I desire that men may not be outfaced from principles and rules But I hasten to try the strength of Mr. Tombes his arguments He confuteth this practice that Infants borne of Beleevers are universally to be
while what Mr. Tombes hath here assigned as differences in forme and sanction are differences in matter not in forme or sanction promises the things granted in the covenant belong to the matter of the covenant not to either forme or sanction things promised whether Evangelicall or Politicall past present or to come belong only to the matter of the covenant and do not vary the reason of their sealing which maketh the collection of Mr. Tombes seem to me very strange and so much the more because it hath the testimony among other things of a learned collection But lest I might be answered that this was affirmed but barely I shall desire that all learned men would consider what be formall differences of covenants and what maketh the differences of sanctions The formall differences of a covenant may be considered either different iâ— formis verborum that is when the same thing is granted in different formes of words as when Christ is promised under the seed of the woman and the seed of Abraham Secondly covenants are said to differ formally if one covenant be absolute the other conditionall one free the other upon valuable consideration the one upon a condition already performed the other upon a remaining condition of service or rent the one voluntary on both parties the other voluntary on the one part only and on the other imposed These or such like are formall differences in the nature of a covenant as for formality of words difference in them will not make an absolute covenant conditionall or the like And consider I pray you what formall differencee is there in the covenant with Abraham and the Evangelicall covenant in Mr. Tombes his own sense was not the covenant with Abraham and the Evangelicall promise upon the same condition in Christ through faith were not both in Christ upon the same valuable consideration in our selves equally free Do not we all stand bound to faith and obedience under both covenants as you distinguish them Did not God equally impose on us all the means of our salvation Where then is the formall difference in these covenants you talk of unlesse you mean verbis formalibus which make no difference in law or equity Your difference you talk of is but in matter which I have formerly proved to be but imaginarie but grant there had been a formall difference in the covenant what had that been to the difference of the seal that signeth only ex instituto by the command of God conditionall absolute free or imposed under covenant performed or to be performed all sealed with the same seal unlesse the institution put a difference But now let us consider what difference there is in the sanction Sanctions are the ratifications and confirmations of a covenant upon which the verity and bounds of the covenant are established are â—n oath secondly a seal thirdly a reward fourthly punishment fifthly earnest and perhaps some other that my memory and skill will not reach to but for all these they are the same to both covenants for the oath that he swore to Abraham Gen. 22.16 is performed in Christ the substance of the Evangelicall promise in your sense and Zacharias Luke 1.72 73. doth challenge that sanction as â—elonging to him and tellâ—th us plainly that if Christ had not come to deliver us from the hands of our enemies God had not performed his oath to Abraham Now if you look back to that oath ye shall see that God promised in Abraham to blesse all the nations of the earth which was not performed nay not to my one nation besides the Jews not so much as by way of prosser untill Christ came under the notion of a nation but worship was restrained to Jerusalem ordinances to the Jews therefore Christ gave his first commission unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel but after his commission was to all nations and therefore Saint Paul Rom. 2.10 entitles the Jews to honour glory and peace first and also to the Gentiles And in Hâ—â— 6.18 raiseth comfort after Christ from the oath made to Abraham and from thence I can gather however it will sound in Mr. Tombes his cares that the covenant made with Abraham did remain after Christ or else the consolation is but by way of analogie For what comfort can we have from the sanction if the covenant be void unlesse by way of analogie with which kind of argument Mr. Tombes is much troubled when he raiseth them against himself though many of his own arguments be nothing but analogies Besides our Saviour doth use the same sanction to the Gospel-covenant in Mr. Tombes his sense even the covenant which he made with the believers in the new Testament he doth confirm by an oath John 5.24 Verily he that hearth my Word and believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life as likewise John 6.47 So that it is plain this sanction of an oath was the same unto Abraham and under the Gospel Secondly the sanction of the seal is to both the same for the difference of the seal doth not make the difference in the sanction for the confirmation is the same whether the seal be a Lion or a Lamb If a Prince should change his seâ—â— from his portrayture to his arms which he may do if the Law forbid not or by act of Parliament if it do yet the sanction would be the same circumcision and baptisme though different seals not different sanctions Thirdly for the rewards they are the same hell and heaven are the same for that temporall blessing and mixture of covenant I have already spoken to which I refer my Reader But grant that there had been severall sanctions in reference to reward and punishment what had that been to the difference of the reason why circumcision and baptisme should seal the Evangelicall covenant seeing they are both but one sanction namely seals but the change of the seal doth not change that sanction Thus you see how weakly this conclusion will follow from the premises and likewise how false it is in it self they are both seals and the reasen of being such is the same namely divine institution But for the second conclusion he draweth out of the same premises is that baptisme and circumcision are not to be administred after the same manner did any man ever say that baptisme and circumcision should be adminstred after the same manner that were a strange and unpossible thing to imagine His third question whether federate and to be signed are convertible termes and why many were circumcised to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong as Ishmael the same may be said of Esau And why are these the only instances I will grant Mr. Tombes more then he desireth that half they that were circumcised were such unto whom no part of the covenant do belong was Abraham able to know that Ishmael was a reprobate when he circumcised him circumcision was administred by the appointment of God and
2 Colos 11.12 The argument he raiseth thus To whom circumcision doth agree to them baptisme doth agree but to Infants circumcision doth agree ergo also baptisme The major proved If baptisme succeed in the room of circumcision then baptisme belongeth to them that circumcision belonged but the antebedâ—â—â—s true ergo the consequent The major of the Prosyllogisme is apparently false for to them that circumcision did belong to them sacramentall baptisme doth belong the contradictory is true but his meaning is that men of such condition in respect of Infants and he denieth and cutteth and divideth the major of the conditionall Syllogisme into such parts that he may find out something that he may deny that it doth succeed baptisme he cannot deny nor readily sinde out a reason why a man of yeers under the Gospel should not be able to bear as much as an Infant under the Law I speak this in reference to the dispensation under the Law of the promises the condition of the Church is called infancy the heir under age now how shouldâ— childe of eight dayes old when the whole Church is under age be able to receive circumcision and now the Church is at age our Infants not able to receive baptisme He telleth us that the argument supposeth baptisme to succeed circumcision it doth not suppose it but proveth it out of Colos 2.11.12 but he prepareth for a deniall so to succed that those persons to be baptized that by Gods appointment were to be circumcised it should be persons of such quality but because he taketh no advantage of that difference let him alone with his own expressions In this sense it is false saith he females were not circumcised nor believers out of Abrahams family as for believers out of Abrahams family if he understand it of such believers out of Abrahams family as lived before Abrahams time or before the Law of circumcision such a plea to prove all believers under the Law were not circumcised were vain for to prove exemption from a positive Law by some persons that lived before the Law was made were exempt but for persons that were out of Abrahams family the promise was made to all families in Abraham and they might be circumcised though neither bought with money nor born in Abrahams family but desirous to eat the Passeover only and so believers they and all their males must be circumcised but for the females circumcision was given in terms that did exempt females baptisme to all nations not males only as circumcision was but females also Besides the Scripture doth tell us that the Apostles did understand all nations male and female and accordingly did baptize Acts 8.12 Now because God hath called in females because they are capable of the signe of baptisme which in circumcision they were not may you without warrant thrust out Infants or doth it any way follow because some persons of some quality are added therefore those that were before capable are now uncapable if God had declared infants uncapable as he hath women capable we must have been satisfied baptisme may succeed circumcision though with such difference as God is pleased to make but because God maketh one difference in reference to the persons man may not take liberty to make another As for Job Lot and Melchisedeck or whom soever else you can name we know if they lived after the Law of circumcision was made they might come and be circumcised the extent of the promise made to Abraham did reach to them and what those persons you name did you cannot tell if they had any particular exemption that is nothing to the question we know none had priviledge to the ordinance but circumcised and in plain terms both in the old and new Testament nouncircumcised person shall eat thereof Exod. 12.48 and Rom. 3.1 2. this is reckoned the profit of circumcision that they had the Oracles of God here is every circumcised person for that it is properly assigned to circumcision as the profit of circumcision there it is no uncircumcised person yet Mr Tombes will tell us all persons in covenant were not circumcised this is the reverence that is given to the Scripture when it crosseth their opinion though they would make the world believe that they were the only men that did respect the Scriptures he should have made his personall difference by believers and not believers by Infants and men of yeers and not by male and female in or out of Abrahams house Two sorts of succession which he denieth of baptisme to circumcision is of time because baptisme began before circumcision ended What if circumcision did overlap a little and baptisme did begin a while before circumcision ended the same Gospel Christ in his person and by his Spirit in his Apostles did put down one and set up another that is all I say to that and surely it is so frivolous I needed not to have said so much In respect of signification here Mr. Tombes is put to his shifts in some signifcations he confesseth but not in others First I will consider the significations he alloweth and observe that wherein they agree cannot hinder their succession they both signifie the righteousnesse of faith saith Mr. Tombes but he must mean it doth sacramentally confirm or seal not demonstratively signifie but how soever he doth agree that baptisme and circumcision have the same respect to the righteousnesse of faith and yet the hinge of all Mr. Tombes his work is on this that Abrahams seed were circumcised whether they believed or no none must be baptized but actuall believers and yet circumcision and baptisme have the same respect to faith Me thinks the bare acknowledgement of this is enough to dash all that any Anabaptist can say the controversie is at an end if there be no difference in respect of faith why should faith be required more to the baptized then the circumcised certainly I would have found out some difference or found some other reason why Infants should not be baptized then want of faith or I would never have opened my mouth in such a case I would never have confessed them both seals of the righteousnesse of faith and yet the whole weight of the busmesse depend on this that one might be given in infancy to them that have not actuall faith the other may not be given in infancy for no other reason but because they want faith What is the reason why circumcision the seal may be given where there is no faith but baptisme the seal of faith may not and that for no other reason but because faith is wanting What may a man make a difference of a common accident or make a genericall form a specificall difference or a specificall form a numericall difference this is all one as if a man should say that a Bear were not a man because he can see or not a Lion because he can hear and yet after confesse that both men and Bears and Lions can both heare
and see just so doth Mr. Tombes baptisme doth not succeed circumcision because baptisme must be given to believers only yet confesseth that both baptisme and circumcision have a like respect to faith it is true he assigneth other differences but none of them will more disable from baptisme then from circumcision The first difference is that circumcision doth signifie Christ to come of Isaac according to the flesh but baptisme doth signifie incarnation death and resurrection of Christs doth this make the difference can children better understand that Christ shall come of Isaac after the flesh then that Christ is incamate dead and risâ—n again Secondly can Infants better understand that the Israelites were people separated from all nations then they can understand that all are one in Christ can they better understand that the Law of Moses must be kept then that it is voyd or the promise of the Land of Canaan then of eternall life The difference that Mr. Tombes putteth between circumcision and baptisme cannot make Infants differ under the Law and under the Gospel and do they differ by that which doth agree to circumcision and baptisme As for the place out of which this argument is drawn Colos 2.11 12. Mr. Tombes saith that the Text doth not say we are circumcised because we are baptized but we are compleat in him because we are circumcised in him and buried with him in baptisme I must needs suspect this mans learning or his honesty else he would never abuse his ignorant Reader thus what Mr. Tombes doth the Text say ye are compleat because circumcised Let men that can examine the Text see and they shall find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our translators have dealt more faithfully with us then so that have translated it in whom also that is we are not only compleat in him but we are also circumcised with the circumcision of the heart we have that mercy sealed unto us though circumcision be taken away and we might seem to be without that confirmation or signe of the purity of heart which our Fathers had Why saith S. Paul Christ was circumcised and that gave an efficacy to the circumcision of our Fathers circumcision ended in Christ and is not descended to us but the effect of circumcision is in the circumcision of Christ part of the body was put off in circumcision but the body of sin was signified now this Christ did in circumcision not only so but by buriall he put off that body that became sin for us of both which ye are partakers being buried with him in baptisme so that baptisme doth entitle us to circumcision of the heart by the circumcision and buriall of Christ as the circumcision of the Jewes was made effectuall by the circumcision of Christ so we have the same grace expressed by cicumcision of the heart in baptisme it could not be plainer expressed if it had been said that the benefit of circumcision by Christ is made yours by baptisme Circumcision was the seal of circumcision of the heart to the Jews circumcision of the heart is sealed by baptisme to you For it saith plainly in whom also ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands in putting off the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ the means of all this conveyed unto you by baptisme no man can deny that circumcision in the flesh did signifie and sacramentally seal the circumcision of the heart which the Apostle here affirmeth of Baptisme After all this incongruous stuffe Mr. Tombes denieth that baptisme doth succeed circumcision and therefore Infants are not as capable of baptisme as of circumcision he hath confessed that faith is as requisite for one as the other in regard they stand both in the same relation to faith and thereby confesseth what he doth deny and yet no more then the Scripture doth affirm Mr. Tombes falleth out with this argument and in a metaphoricall way talketh of an Egge out of which if not restrainedly taken nothing can be gathered but that baptisme and circumcision in some things signifie the same and do so Noahs flood and the red sea yet do we not say that baptisme succeeded into their place much lesse do we inferre any right to be instituted in their steed respecting the same persons I do professe I was troubled to parallel this non-sense with any thing that might equall it if we could get these Anabaptists to speak sense a man might the better deal with them Can any man make any thing of this after Mr. Tombes hath allowed that they both signifie the righeousnesse of faith that both signifie the sanctification of the heart are they again turned into materiam primam that Noahs flood might be parallelled with baptisme as well as circumcision You bid us take heed of such argumentation you might say baptisme and speaking in some things do agree in prolatione verborum and washing pots in some thing in washing in action with whatsoever we can do Your argument to Noahs Ark is fallacia consequentiae à genere ad speciem affiâ—mativè thus Noahs Ark agreeth with baptisme in something therefore in sacramentall nature as if a man should say est animal ergo equâ—s it is a living creature ergo an horse The collection that nothing can be gathered in a restrained sense but that baptisme in some things signifie the same yes more then that they agree in some things we may gather in what they agree they agree in the nature of a sacrament in divine institution in the â—eal of faith they must be administred to all to whom the tender of grace is made not only to all that are partakers of grace The first in respect of providence limited to a narrow compasse and by the ordinance bounded within the nation of Jews though not to the persons of the Jews all nations might come in and be circumcised and offer sacrifice and eat the Passâ—over but they might sacrifice no where but at Ierusalem but now the ordinances are tendered to all nations and baptisme must be administred to all nations no assignation of persons by the commission surely the commission was not invented by man Christ commandeth his Disciples to baptize all nations here is not men women nor children we must baptize some body it must then be examined who they are that must be baptized it is no wil-worship to baptize it is no will-worship to baptize all nations to baptize whom we please and refuse others without ground out of Scripture that is will-worship Now these persons must be found à subjecto capaci from the capacity of the subject or from the judgement of the persons in commission to baptize Your part requireth that you prove Infants are unfits subjects and I will prove in due time that Ministers are unfit judges For arguments drawn from analogies I willingly grant to be invalid if you mind analogies of proportion to invent any part of Gods worship by as if we had invented baptisme by rules of proportion
turns in the day of the Lord to say we did not know who did believe and who did not it may and will be answered again who made thee a judge of faith thou art a Minister of baptisme not a judge of faith that is flatly denied thee he that is a judge is a Lord over them whom they judge which thou art not it were indeed great impiety to administer baptisme to any whom we knew God had destinated to everlasting damnation but to take upon us to passe that sentence on any person were most high presumption much more on any Infant we have commission to baptize all nations but without consent we cannot baptize any nation and this is a good excuse he saith the Text speaketh not of Infants but children indefinitely but it speaketh of children in reference to the promise made to Abraham which was extended not to Abrahams children only but the Infants of beliving Gentiles as before thus of the Argument from Acts 2. As for the first argument taken from 1 Cor. 7.14 that the Infants of a believer are holy I have already proved that Infants of a believer though not of the seed of Abraham are federally holy and that in the words of the promise made to Abraham doth appear As for that the words in 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your children unholy I say it may well be an allusion to that federall holinesse as I conceive though the argument be not so cleer that among others more plain I shall insist upon yet not so improbable that much may not be said for the present thing I affirm that the children of believing Gentiles are federally holy for the argument I neither assert it nor disclame it but refer my Reader to that that hath been spoken of that matter by other men whose learning and judgements I honour and come to the sixth argument The sixt argument is taken from Mat. 19.14 which is repeated in Mark and Luke suffer little children to come to me for of such is the kingdome of God The argument is that those of whom the kingdome of heaven is are to be baptized but Infants are such of whom the kingdome of heaven is therefore Infants are to be baptized For that of coming to Christ though the reason doth plainly convince that in this place more is meant then a corporall coming seeing many come to Christ corporally of whom nothing is affirmed concerning the kingdome of God as for his eight circumstances he hath gathered nothing for or against the argument they serve for nothing but to make a noise of Mr. Tombes his learning that he can observe eight circumstances of which he rejected divers as not pertaining to the argument the other he maketh nothing of but that Christ did not baptize these children which no man that I know ever affirmed but doth it follow because they were not baptized therefore children may not be baptized after Christ had given direction to his Apostles and Ministers unto the end of the world to baptize all nations and now telleth his Disciples that to such belongeth the kingdome of heaven which kingdome of heaven in other places is understood of the state of the Church after the publication of the Gospel which began after that Christ rose from the dead into which kingdome Iohn the Baptist never entred Now these little children Luke 18.16 were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recens nati young ones Secondly they were such unto whom the kingdome of God did belong Thirdly they were such in their visible condition they were in and these things do all plainly appear 1. that they were little ones by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the derivation doth signifie or shew it but Mr. Tombes saith words are not be expounded by their derivation but by their use But how can he know how a word is used but by its signification Suppose a man should call a man that is grown a babe for some childish condition that he perceiveth in him doth it follow that a babâ—e doth signifie a man of twenty or thirty yeers old I conceive Authors do use liberty of words but where infirmity cannot be laid upon the Auhour nor penury of words upon the language much must be ascribed to the choyce of words with consideration of their derivation but see what confutation that they were not Infants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Mr. Tombes signifies no more but embrace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth so much the Proposition 〈◊〉 may adde something more then to embrace but why must it signifie to embrace a grown person because Mar. 9.36 he places them in the midst as though a child that can stand alone might not be taken up in arms yea but he warneth not to scandalize them as though a childe might not be taken up in arms that may be taught to swear and lie and by many evill examples led out of the way of God or cause to stumble but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he signifieth a childe capable of teaching it is apparent that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie an Infant in his mothers belly Luke 1.44 Now how long it doth continue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the question Mr. Tombes saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a childe capable of teaching but see how he proveth it from the 2 Tim. 3.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence hee gathereth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie a childe capable of teaching Mr. Tombes will put no difference between from his childhood and in his childhood from intimateth that whilst he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then he knew not but when he ceased to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then he knew that is saith he ever since he was a boy then not when hee was a boy but when doth a man â—ease to be an infant and begin to become a boy For my part I understand not by what rules he walketh seeing they were infants in Christs armes for ought Mr. Tombs hath or can say to the contrary But saith he they were capable of teaching such they might be though in armes but how doth or can hee prove these children were such he will say the proofe lyeth on our part that they were not capable of instruction true it doth if we will have any benefit by the argument a demonstration that they were not I cannot give but probably I can and far before any you can give to the contrary First those that brought them brought them not to that end that they should bee instructed but that he should touch them and biesse them neither doth our Saviour at all teach them or say any thing to the children certainly if they had been capable of instruction he would not have omitted to have given them some small directions such as they were capable of and not have blessed them and taught them nothing for that derivation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉