and that you know well enough but that in place of solid Satisfaction you must say something to deceive the people The Arguments I raise hence are two the first is this There shall be no more an Infant of dayes that is Infants shall not be uncapable of the seal while their age is measured by dayes as the Jâ—ws Infants that might not be Circumcised till a week had passed over them Therefore Infants new born are capable of the seal The second Argument is this The child shall dye an hundred year old that is as an hundred year old or as well a Church-member as if he were a hundred year old Therefore Children may be Baptized under the Gospell T. Mr. T. found fault with that interpretation shall dye an hundred years old that is as if an hundred years old C. He answered to take it literally would imply a contradiction for it was impossible to be a child and a hundred years old and was better than his and the Anabaptists exposition of 1 Cor. 10. 2 they were Baptized under the Cloud that is say you as if they were Baptized under the cloud when nothing hindred out they were really Baptized under the cloud And Rom. 11. 19. the branches were broken off that is say you as if they were broken off when it was both possible and apparent that they were broken off T. Then Mr. T. said it was not meant of the times of the Gospell C. To which was replyed Mr. T. will still be wiser than the Church of England and read the Contents of the Chapter The calling of the Gentiles v. 1. the Jews rejected 17. the blessed state of the new Jerusalem to the end T. Mr. T. said it was verifyed Zacha. 8. 4 Thus saith the Lord of Hosts there shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem and every man with his staff in his hand for very age and the streets of the Citie shall be full of boyes and girles playing in the streets thereof C. To which was replyed what is this to an Infant of dayes or a child dying a hundred years old when it is apparent both from the Contents and Texts that this of Zachary is meant of the Jews return from Captivity and more apparent that that of Es is meant of the state of Christs kingdome under the Gospell which I prove thus That Interpretation that brings with it absurditie untruth blasphemie is not to be admitted But to â—nterpret it of the Jews return from Captivitie brings with it absurditie untruth blasphemie Therefore it is not to be admitted T. Mr. Tombs denyed the Minor C. Which was proved in order first that it brought with it absurdity To apply the 25. verse to the return from Captivity was absurd that the wolf and the lamb should feed together and the Lion should eat straw with the bullock and dust should be the serpents meat Therefore it brought with it absurdity Secondly that it brought with it untruth But to apply the 19. v. to the return from Captivity brought with it an untruth that the voice of weeping should be no more heard in Jerusalem for it was twice destroyed after once by Antiochus then by Vespatian and Titus Therefore it brought with it an untruth Thirdly that it brought with it blasphemie for to interpret the 17. verse Behold I create new heavens and new earth and the former shall no more be remembred and come into mind of the second temple is blasphemous Therefore it brought with it blasphemie for it crosseth St. Peters interpretation 2 Pet. 3. 13. We according to his promise look for new heavens and a new earth For can any rationall man think that the new temple built at Jerusalem in Cyrus his time was this new heaven and new earth that the former should be no more remembred When the antient men are said to weep because the glory of the latter temple was short of the glory of the first Ezra 3. 12. It was inferiour to Solomons temple first in respect of the building that was lower and meaner secondly in respect of the vessels before of Gold now of Brass thirdly of five things that were lost first the Ark of God secondly the Urim and Thummim thirdly fire from Heaven to consume the Sacrifices fourthly the glory of God between the Cherubims fiftly the gift of prophesie for after the second temple there was no prophet T. Mr. T. fell to his wonted course of impertinent exposition wherein Mr. C. told him he violated the rules of dispute and did lasciviously wanton it out into a wilderness of words that the truth might be obscured or lost and like a lapwing carry the hearers far from the matter Then C. P. an Apothecary began to interpose as he had done once before till a gentleman of authorite told him that it was not fit for a man of his place and calling to speak Yet Master Tombs would not be satisfyed but went on saying that Dr. Prideaux in Oxford when a place of Scripture was cited was wont to give a large exposition C. Mr. C. Replyed that Dr. Prideaux was Doctor of the Chair and Judge of the Controversie and might do that which a Respondent may not do whose office is onely to repeat deny distinguish and when a Text is quoted to give a brief exposition that the Opponent may have something to fasten upon And what Dr. Prideaux did he knew not but what Dr. Collins and Dr. Ward did he could tell him but that it was not to the present purpose And that his judgement in this was but the same with his own University of Oxford as he knew of late by a sad experiment T. Mr. Tombes Asked what that was C. He told him an explosion not for disability for his dispute was plausible inough but that he would neither be satisfied with Dr. Salvage his answer nor the Doctor of the Chairs determination but fell to repetitions and extravagances as now Mr. Tombes launched into a tedious discourse to vindicate himself till he had tyred the Auditors who cryed out this is but to waste time And a learned Gentleman spake aloud this is but to spend the time in parling that he may avoid the gunshot for he is affraid the great thunderbold is behind and so with much adoe he was brought to dispute again where Master C. falling upon the third branch of his Argument That God did actually receive Infants to be Church-members under the Gospell began thus C. Those whom Christ commanded his disciples to Baptize they may be Baptized But Christ commanded his Disciples to Baptize infants Therefore they may be Baptized The Minor being denyed was proved thus He that commanded his Disciples to baptize all Nations commanded them to baptize infants But Christ commanded his Disciples Matth. 28. 19. to baptize all Nations Therefore Christ commanded them to baptize infants T. Mr. T. denyed the Major C. Which was proved by this Enthymema The whole includes every part Infants
words are not going Disciple and baptize but going Disciple baptizing c. And is usual in such manner of speaking for the Participle to declare the manner of or some mediate act unto the thing spoken of in the precedent verbe as if he had said make Disciples by baptizing The Greeks want the Geâ—unds which oftentimes are supplyed by the Participle go build a house laying the foundation the imperative verbeâ—s placed before the Participle laying the foundation yâ—t the house begins but to be builded by laying the foundation Disciple is placed before Baptize yet they begin to be discipled by baptizing This is confirmed by learned Gerard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est propriè Discipulos facere praedicatione verbi apud adultos administratione baptismi apud infâ—ntes it signifies properly to make Disciples by preaching of the word to them that are of ripe years by administring of baptism to Infants with whom agrees Spanhemius Dub. 27. To give some instances Tit. 1. 11. They subvert whole houses teaching things that they ought not that is they subvert by teaching or by teaching they begin to subvert Heb. 12 1. 2. Let us run with patience the race set before us looking unto Jesus Must men run with patience before they look to Christ Or rather is not this looking the way and means to that patient running Mat. 3. 6. The people were baptized of John in Jordan confessing their sins if they were baptized before confession of sins why do they press repentance before baptism If repentance or confession of sins must go before baptism why do thy press the order of words When it is apparent that the order of words is not argumentative Scriptura nescit prius posterius Thirdly it may be doubted whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it should signifie to make actual Disciples or Disciples of actual believers is not put Synecdochically also for the Infants of believers of this judgment is learned whitaker 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pertinet primum ad homines adultos tum ex vifoederis etiam ad illorum liberos make Disciples sayes he pertains first to them of ripe years then by the force of the Covenant to their children also Spanhemius Duh 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est discipulum facere non tantum docere quod suo modo etiam infantibus aptari poterat quando etiam parentes prose familiâ Christo nomen dant tota eorum domus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is to make a Disciple not onely to teach which in its manner also may be fitted to Infants for when the parents do give their name to Christ for themselves and their familie their whole house is or shall be discipled The last of the three Queries remaines which is whether Infants of Believers be Disciples Which is partly proved by the Premises and hath no assault or battery laid against it but this that they are not teachable To which I answer by concession granting that all baptized ones must be taught but not all at the same time such as are capable of teaching let them be taught before Baptism they that are uncapable at present as Infants let them be baptised first and taught after as the Infants of the Jewes were after Circumcision Thus believing with the heart and confessing with the mouth are necessary to Salvation Rom. 10. 10. but it must be in subjecto capaci in persons capable of actual faith and confession not infants he that will not labour must not eat it must be restrained to those that are able not children or decrepid or sick persons The fallacie in this Argument pressed against us by our adversaries is discovered by Danaeus contra Bellarm. est fallacia a dicto secundùm quid ad simpliciter c. What Christ commands sayes he to be done onely in the baptism of those of age they generally would have done in baptizing of all even Infants Spanhemius judiciously determines the Question having granted that their Infants as well as actual believers are Disciples sayes in adultis requirenda institutio antecedens in infantibus subsequens in them of age is requisite instruction before in Infants after baptism If then all nations include every part nations are not taken Synecdochically for the Disciples of all nations Infants of believers are Disciples it still remaines a truth that Infants are not excepted from baptism Which was thus further proved if Infants be excepted from baptism it is either because they are not named in the text or because we find no instance that any were baptized or because they are not capable but for none of these three therefore Infants are not excepted In the conference Mr. Tombes denyed the Major saying that a fourth reason might be given because they were not Disciples whereupon I told him that in this answer he shewed himself no good Logician for it is an Axiom that in no division one member can be affirmed of another because they are opposite Now to be Disciples and capable of Baptism were not opposite but subordinate and to be Disciples if it made them not capable it was no exception at all if it made them capable it was the same with the third To which Dilemma he gave them no direct answer nor does yet save that he sayes for my division he gave the genuine reason why Infants are excepted from the precept of baptizing because they are no Disciples and that there was no defect in his Logâ—ck when he did not reduce it to one of my members That he gave not the genuine reason why Infants were excepted from the precept of baptizing appears by the falsity of his antecedent and consequent too if understood of Disciples actual believers and that there was a palpable defect in his Logick in not reducing it to one of my members is manifest from the lawes of a true division 1. They must be opposite according to Aristotle 1. de part Animal cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The parts were adequate and even with the whole for every thing that may be presumed to hinder from Baptism is either because they are not named in the precept or because there is no instance in Scripture thereof or because they are not capable thereof Incapacity includes all imaginary impediments besides the other two he inartificially addes a fourth which is included in the former for to be Disciples renders capable of baptism in his sense if not capable it can be avouched in no sense To this he sayes capable of Baptism and Disciples are not terms subordinate but distinct without opposition Prodigious not terms subordinate and yet predicated one of another But distinct without opposition so we yield the genus is predicated of his species is formally distinguished from it without opposition But how can this be a distinct member from the rest that is not opposed Membra dividentia debent esse opposita And that capable of baptizing is predicated of Disciples he grants saying though to
is clear as if Bellarmine would not have said it had not the case been clear Whereas it is more likely to be false than true because Bellarmine a Jesuit saith it yea it is manifestly false for the Institution being onely to baptize Disciples prohibits baptizing of infants which are not such but for want of being Disciples uncapable of baptism Reply THe third Argument rising thence hath its unanswerable stability thence which was this Those that were in covenant had the seal of the covenant and were never disfranchized and put out of covenant have title to the Covenant and seal of it still But infants were once in Covenant had the seal of the Covenant and were never disfranchized and put out of Covenant Therefore infants have title to the Covenant and seal of it still To this he gives no direct answer but catches at his own shadow with Ixion begetting Centaurs which to deny is to confute they are Clouds and will vanish for denying of Infant-Baptism is putting out of visible Covenant disfranchizing out of which we have no promise of invisible Circumcising supposed visible Covenant was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace If the Gospel puts Infants out of visible Covenant for any thing we know or is revealed in the word it puts them wholely out of the Covenant of Grace My amplication to the people which he scoffingly calls proofs are significant and sutable The Gospel is so far from expressing of infants that they are put out that it gives them large commendations beyond them of riper years making them the rule of our perfection as new born babes receive the sincere milk of the word unless ye be as little children y◠shall not enter into the Kingdome of God His own Argument as he moulds it concludes against him little children are humble and proposed herein as paterns to us Therefore they are in Covenant for if those that follow them are so qualified The Copy and patern much more especially that humbleness being a fruit of the spirit which he can never prove to be as true of Infidels children as Christians nor the one consequently to be in Covenant as well as the other That these acts or qualities of little children are onely naturall not seminally virtuous is his bold conjecture which if so might give evidence of their being in Covenant God selecting his own federally though not morally holy for presidents There are commendations of litle children 1 Pet. 2. 2. and Math. 18. 3. compared with other places making them more the rule of our perfection than Sheep and Doves Math. 10. 16 for when did our Saviour take Sheep and Doves up in his arms lay his hands upon them and bless them saying the Kingdom of God did belong unto them and unless ye be as Sheep or Doves ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of God Doctor Everard is blamed for saying Swine and Sheep praise the Lord in laying down their life according to Gods will for man as well as Stephen and the Martyrs when they called upon God meaning in their kind not in the same degree Then shall Mr. T. be justified for saying Scripture neither commends nor makes little children the rule of our perfection more than Sheep or Doves excepting no degree or graduall perfection Some may better steal a Horse than others many look over the hedge The Philosopher sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that an Accident hath no Accident But that naturall qualities in rationall creatures should resemble virtuous qualities inhearing in no creatures to be a rule to spiritual creatures is a Prodigie beyond the Mint of Popish Transubstantiation My testimony out of Bellarmine intimates that Bellarmine and the Jesuits that concenters with the Anabaptists in opposing Covenant-holiness and Analogy from circumcision deserts them here as ashamed of the conclusion of Anti-paedobaptism they draw thence If it be more likely to be false because Bellarmine a Jesuit saith it then that there is no such thing as Covenant-holiness and that Arguments drawn from analogie of circumcision are not concluding is also false which will necessarily enforce our Thesis It being also true that Christ instituted baptizing of children with Parents who with their Parents being in visible Covenant are capable of baptism Mr. Tombes 14. Section But Mr. C. in his fourth Argument will prove Infant-baptism commanded Math 28. 19. because Nations are commanded to be baptized To this I answered before in the dispute and my answer is and was Nations are not commanded to be baptized without any other circumscription but Disciples of the Nations Master C. confesseth page 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is ye shall make Disciples and then baptizing is of Disciples His speech infants are not uncapable of baptism because they have not faith and repentance because Christ was baptized without repentance is frivolous for there is not the same end of Christs baptism and ours and therefore though repentance were not required of him yet it is of us and the want of it makes infants uncapable of baptism It is false that God requires no more of persons in Covenant and born of believing Parents to their baptism but a meer objective power or receptibility as he calls it as was in the world at its creation or in the regeneration when he new makes us And it is meerly false that upon any such account as he speaks of many whole families were baptized or that any Infants were included The very Texts which speak of baptizing of the housholds either there or elsewhere speak of their fearing God Acts. 2. 2. That all the houshold be saved by Peters words Acts 11. 14. had repentance and the like gift with the Apostles ver 17. 18. had the word spoken to them Acts 16. 32. believed ver 34. Acts 18. 8. addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints 1 Cor. 16. 15. which shew no infants were meant under the houshold for they did none of these things Reply MY fourth Argument proved Infan-t Baptism commanded Math. 28. 19. because Nations are commanded to be baptized according to Ambrose qui dixit omnes nullos exclusit neque parvulos he that said baptize all excluded none no not little ones I confessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ye shall make Disciples but not that baptizing is onely of actuall Disciples for 1. It can not be proved that the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach includes actually in it the noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples 2. It follows not because it is placed before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing therefore it is simply before it in order of nature and time 3. Though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify make actuall Disciples and in order of nature and time procede it may be put Synecdochically for the greater part actuall believers not excluding their infants My speech Infants are not uncapable of baptism because they have not faith and repentance because Christ was baptized without repentance is unanswerable for it presupposeth his
are a part of Nations Therefore he that commanded to baptize all Nations commanded to baptize infants T. He denyed the consequent though the whole included every part and Nations were the whole and Infants were a part of Nations yet it did not follow that Infants were to be Baptized C. He returned that that saying of Aquinas posito toto generali pars ejus negari non potest a generall whole being granted no part of it can be denyed was an axiome both in Logick Philosophie and Divinity as Psalm 117. 1. Prayse the Lord all yee Nations is interpreted by another Psalm Old men and babes young men and maidens prayse ye the Lord. T. Mr. T. Said it was an Axiome that the whole includes every part where there is no exception but here is an exception C. He replyed Saint Ambrose upon the place sayes there is no exception Qui dixit omnes nullos exclusit neque parvulos c. He that said baptize all Nations excepted none no not infants T. Mr. T. Pished at it sleighting Ambrose his Authority C. Then said Mr. C. whether we shall obey Ambrose Bishop of Millain with Scripture or Mr. Tombes Vicar of Lemster against Scripture judge you But that there is no exception thus I prove If infants be excepted from Baptism it is either because they are not named in the text or because we find no instance that any were Baptized or because they are not capable But for none of these three Therefore infants are not excepted T. Mr. T. Denyed the Major and said that a fourth reason might be given because they were not Disciples C. He told him that in this answer he shewed himself to be no good Logician for it is an Axiome that in no division one member can be affirmed of another because they are opposite now to be Disciples and capable of Baptism were not opposite but subordinate And to be Disciples if it made them not capable it was no exception at all if it made them capable it was the same with the third to which Dilemma when he could receive no answer he demanded where it was required that those that are to be Baptized must be Disciples T. He said out of the Text for that which is translated Teach all Nations is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples of all Nations C. He replyed at Ross you found fault with me for that translation asking me was I wiser than the translators and now when it seems to make for you you urge it Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea modo I confess it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Aorist ye shall make Disciples for it must be interpreted by the future 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing or by baptizing in the present tense as if Discipling were the end and baptizing the means and required no qualification before as learned men with great probability press but I will not insist upon that now But that which you denyed I prove that infants may be Disciples from that place Rom. 15. 10. compared with the 5. verse for so Mr. C. said mistaking it for Acts 15. 10. T. At which Mr. Tombes insulted saying he was a good text-man C. He replyed he was in hast and did not think of this before but that his answer did drive him to it and he in his elaborate books did oftentimes quote one place for another then how much more might he that was extemporall it had been enough to have said as our Saviour to the tempter it s written but to leave these catches and come to the proof They upon whom the Pharisies would have layd the yoak were Disciples verse 10. Why tempt ye God to put a yoak upon the neck of the Disciples But many of them were Infants Therefore Infants are Disciples T. He denyed the Minor that many of them were not Infants C. Which was proved thus The yoak was Circumcision verse 5. the Pharisies saying that it was needfull to Circumcise them But they upon whom the yoak was to be imposed by Circumcision were onely infants amongst the Jews and Infants together with Parents amongst the Gentiles Therefore many of them were infants T. He denyed the Major and said the yoak was not Circumcision C. He replyed it was apparent by comparing the 5. and 10. with the foregoing verses 1. verse Certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren except ye be Circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved where observe that Circumcision is the subject of the Question In the 2. verse they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders about this Question to wit Circumcision In the 5. certain of the Sect of the Pharisees said that it was needfull to circumcise them In the 6 the Apostles came together to consider of the matter that is Circumcision and when there had been much disputing Peter rose up in the 7. and determined the Question in the tenth verse why tempt ye God to put a yoak upon the neck of the Disciples T. Mr. T. Said that Circumcision could not be the yoak that neither they nor their fathers could bear C. He returned that it was a bloody and a heavy yoak therefore the Israelites had a dispensation for 40 years in the wilderness Moses neglected the Circumcision of his child probably for this cause and his wife when the Child was Circumcised called him a bloody husband The Sichemites were slain as unable to defend themselves while they were sore of the wound of Circumcision T. Mr. T. Said that the Doctrine of Moses was the yoak of which Infants were not capable C. He replyed that Circumcision was principally meant and the doctrine of Moses onely as an Appendix of it and children were as capable of the doctrine then as they were in Abraham and Moses his time when all in the moment of Circumcision were tyed to the observation of the doctrine though they of ripe years to use Vossius his distinction were taught the doctrine antecedenter before Circumcision infants of eight days consequenter after Circumcision when age made them capable I know sayes God Abraham will teach his Children So it is apparent all those upon whom Circumcision with the doctrine of Moses was to be imposed were called Disciples But some of these were Infants for onely Infants were Circumcised among the Jews and Infants with the Parents among the Gentiles therefore some infants are Disciples Mr. T. Without any distinct answer would have broke through the pales to rove abroad again C. But he pressed him to keep within the lists urging this Argument They to whom is the promise they may be baptized it s the Apostles own inference Acts 2. 28. Be baptized for the promise is to you But to Infants of believing parents is the promise the promise is to you and your Children therefore Infants may be baptized T. He denyed the Minor that to infants of believing parents
Nations it s a generall command and as Aquinas sayes posito generali mandato pars ejus negari non potest a generall command being given no part of it can be denyed Infants are a part of Nations and included in them Object But here is no mention made of Infants AnsW No nor of them of age we might retort it upon our adversaries there is no mention made of Dippers no nor of them that are to be dipped therefore they ought not to dip nor be dipped Generals include particulars in all Lawes Psalm 117. Praise the Lord all ye Nations Nations includes old men and babes young men and maids all without exception as another Psalm interprets it Now if Infants be excepted contrary to that saying of Saint Ambrose Qui dixit omnes nullum excepit neque parvulos c. He that commanded all to be Baptized excepted none no not little ones If I say they be excepted it s either because they are not named or because we never read in Scripture that any Infants were Baptized or because they are not capable that fourth cavill being the same with the third I 'le take away anon but for none of these three therefore Infants are not excepted from Baptism Not for the first because they are not named for so neither old men nor nobles nor Ministers are named Not because we read not of their Baptism so we neither read of the Baptism of the Apostles nor of the Virgin Mary yet we piously believe that they were Baptized De negatione facti ad jus non valet consequentia such a thing is not mentioned that it was done therefore it was not done or was not done therefore it ought not to have been done is no consequence Christ did and said many things that are not written so did his Apostles Not for the third because they are uncapable which is denyed for if Infants be uncapable it is either because they have not repentance and faith in act which cannot hinder them Christ was Baptized had not repentance for he had no sin to repent of had not faith for faith presupposeth one lost in himself that depends upon another for salvation Christ is that Rock of salvation upon whom all mankind being lost depends Neither because they cannot hear the word preached then they that are born deaf should be excluded from Baptism or because they are not otherwise qualified but that cannot hinder them for God requires no more of them that are in covenant and born of believing parents but a pure capacity and receptability which Divines call Potentiam objectivam as God in the beginning created the World of nothing so in the beginning of the new creature he does regenerate and recreate us of nothing upon this account it is that we read of many whole families Baptized not excluding but rather including Infants Cornelius was Baptized with his houshold Acts 10. 47 48. Lydia and her houshold Acts 16. 15. Crispus and all his house Acts 18. 8. and the hoshould of Stephanus 1 Corinth 1. 16. the Jayler 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that were his Acts 16. 31 32. His Servants his Children for can wee imagine so many families without a child Arg. 5. They that are câ—pable of the Kingdom and the blessing which is the greater are capable of Baptism which is the â—esser But Infants are capable of the Kingdom and the blessing which is the greater Therefore they are capable of Baptism which is the lesser forbid not sayes our Saviour little Children to come unto me for unto such belongs the Kingdom of God for surely if the Kinggom of Heaven receive them the Church may not exclude them for the Church must receive such as glory receives Acts 2. 47. There were daily added to the Church such as should be saved Now for proof of this Argument take these places Mark 10. 13. to 17. Mark 9. 14 36 37. Matth. 18 2 3 4. Matth. 19. 13 14 15. Luke 9. 14 15. Luke 18. 15 16. Which though they be spoken upon severall occasions all prove Infants to be Church-members and capable both of grace and glory we 'l instaâ—ce in two Jesus called a little child unto him the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as Hippocrates in his distinction of ages sayes and Beza seconds him signifies a child under seven years and set him in the middest of them and said Verily I say unto you except ye be converted and become as little children that is endevour to be free from actuall sin as they are ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven The other is that of St. Luke 18. 15 wherein observe First a Precept Suffer little children to come unto me Secondly we have a prohibition and forbid them not Thirdly his displeasure against his Disciples for hindring them from coming to him he looked on this act with indignation and was much displeased at it Fourthly he addes a reason why little ones should be brought to him because to such belongs the Kingdom of God that is the Kingdom of grace here and glory hereafter they are visible members of his Church and Kingdom and therefore none may hinder their access to him Fiftly he confirms this reason a majori from the greater to the less Gods Kingdom doth not onely belong to them but I tell you more whosoever will come into this Kingdom must resemble Infants in Innocency humility simplicity Sixtly he addes his benediction of them he took them up in his arms put his hands upon them and blessed them and tellâ— us that their Angels alwayes see the face of his Father which is in Heaven and the danger of them that offend one of these little ones and all this recorded by three Evangelists Matthew Mark Luke as if it were of purpose to check the sacrilegious insolencie of these latter times that denyes them the seal Christ is not more punctuall by his Spirit in declaring his own Birth Passion Resurrection than he is in this precious Truth so much trampled under foot And if any object these were not young Children the text easily confutes them they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Children under seven years of age 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Children that could scarce speak they did not lead them but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they carried them unto him Christ is said twice in St. Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to take them up in his armes and embrace them Christ was already instructing the people that were able to understand the Apostles were offended for bringing of Children which could not understand Well then doth Christ take Children in his armes and would he have them all put out of his visible Church would he have us receive them in his Name and yet not to receive them into his visible Church nor as his Disciples How can Infants be received in Christs Name if they belong not visibly to him and his Church Nay doth Christ account it a receiving of himself and shall
The fourth untruth is that Infant-baptism was not commanded by Christ which neither Master T. nor any other Antipaedobaptist will ever be able to prove seeing the Commission extends as well to baptism of Infants as other ages Math. 28. 19 20. Thus says Christ all power is given me in Heaven and Earth go ye therefore Disciple ye all the Gentiles or all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost Wherein four things are considerable 1. The ground of the Commission all power is given me in Heaven and in Earth 2. The act Baptize 3. The object all nations 4 The End make Disciples all these agrees as well to Children as them of riper years First the ground of the Commission all power is given me in Heaven and in Earth as if our Saviour had said I that was virtually impowered from the beginning am now actually after my resurrection invested with authority and Lordship as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man over all creatures to order and dispose them as I please but especially mankind to save that lost sheep that was gone astray to lay him upon my shoulders and bring him home unto the fold And my Commission extends as to save some of all ages conditions sexes so to create new Ordinances that may relate unto all even Infants and sucklings as well as the antient seeing they may be also the Lambs of my Flock Secondly here is the Acte baptize that is as the Jews Children and Proselytes were admitted into Covenant by Circumcision oblation and washing which was but their Typicall so those that are Candidati and designati sanctitatis whether those that are willing to receive the Ordinance or their children are to be initiated by baptism or washing which is to be the outward badge or Character of my Covenant Thirdly here is the object all Nations or all the Gentiles that is all degrees all ages all sexes of every Nation as capable not onely of the inward Call but the outward Character Psalm 28. 8. God hath given all Nations to Christ for hâ—s inheritance Isai 49. 7. his salvation is to the end of the earth Acts 4. 11. no other name is given under Heaven by which they can or may be saved The Extent of the Commission for baptizing is as large among the Gentiles as was among the Jews where it is Luke 3. 21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the people and shall we conceive that Infants were no part of all the people of all the Nations of so many families Fourthly here is the end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples or ye shall make Disciples Now every action is to an end and to make Disciples is the end to enroll them by Baptism and afterwards to teach them is the means Disciple or Scholar is a term of relation the Correlative that Answers it is Christ every Disciple is a Scholar of Christ These are Relata disquiparantiae The fundament or ground of the relation is Gods love to enter into Covenant the formall reason of a Disciple is the union betwixt the Scholar and the Master expressed by some token or badge of admission Thus we are Discipled or admitted Scholars by baptism into Christs School whereof some Actively knowing something of Christ before they be discipled as Peter Andrew James and John called from their nâ—ts and all that are of age ought to be willing to entertain Christ before they be baptized some passively as Children that are put to School by their Parents before they know a Letter thus Infants are matriculated into Christs School without their own express consent or any present capacity to be taught of men but of God who hath promised to take care of them and teach them we shall all be taught of God especially Infants who being not capable of the Instrumentall must wholely depend upon the principall efficient but of this by the way I shall have occasion to search this further hereafter The fifth untruth is that Infant-baptism was not practised by the Apostles which being denyed by the Anti-Paedobaptists the proof lyes upon them which they will performe ad Graecas Calendas A Negative Argument in matter of fact of this nature is of no validity no mention is made â—â— express termes that the Apostles baptized infants therefore they baptized none is inconsequent it might fall out oft de facto that they baptized none but of ripe age as preaching to publick Congregations who had travalled far to hear them might baptize those that were willing and yet have no leisure to go from house to house to baptize their Infants yet it will not follow that de Jurâ— they might not have baptized them or that they did not actually baptize them when there was opportunity When John baptized in Jordan all Judea and Jerusalem Math. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came as the word properly signifies by water of which coming Infants are capable The Apostles had Commission to Disciple all Nations by baptizing of which Infants are a principall part as was fore-prophesied Isai 2. 2. all nations should flow in they baptized many whole families upon the faith and account of the chief of the house Zacheus believed and salvation came to his house They baptized Lydia and her houshold Acts 16. 15. mention is onely made that her heart was opened and that she attended to the things that were spoken not one word of the rest of her familie and yet the text says they were baptized This Argument would be far more concluding no mention is made that any of Lydias houshold attended to the word but she therefore they were baptized without giving attention to the word Then this no mention is made that any Infant was baptized in her houshold therefore none was baptized It will follow as well no mention expresly is made that her sons or daughters or servants or sojourners were baptized therefore they were not baptized Generals includes particulars houshold is a collective term and comprehends all the members and branches of a Familie And seeing the Apostles were commissioned to baptize all Nations and questionlesse did execute accordingly All Judaea and Jerusalem came to be baptized of John Peter and the twelve baptized so many families upon record and doubtlesse thousands besides how dare any incurre that curse of God by diminishing of the word and make that exception God never made that the Apostles baptized all Nations and whole families and yet by an implyed contradiction excluded Infants The sixt untruth is thâ—t there were not any Infants baptized in the first ages which is an asseâ—tion so frontlesse that it needs no other refutation but what hath been formerly delivered Mr. Tombes hath rather shifted than in the least colour answered many learned and godly Divines that have proved the constant practise of Infant-Baptism in the primitive Church by induction of the Authorities of several Fathers to that purpose like the Angels in Jacobs ladder Gen. 28.
thus He that commanded his Disciples to baptize all Nations commanded them to baptize Infants Christ commanded his Disciples Math. 28. 14. To baptize all Nations therefore Christ commanded them to baptize Infants he denyed the Major which was proved by this Enthymema the whole encludes every part Infants are a part of nations therefore he that commanded to baptize all nations commanded to baptize Infants he denyed the consequent which was proved thus from that Axiome in Logick Philosophy and Divinity that a general whole being granted no part of it could be denyed as Psal 117. 1. Praise the Lord all ye Nations is interpreted by another Psalm old men babes young men and mâ—idens praise ye the Lord. His answer was that the Axiom was true where there was no exception but here was an exception Against which I opposed Ambrose his saying upon the place qui dixit omnes nullos exclusit neque parvuloâ— he that said baptize all Nations excepted none no not Infants To which he gave no distinct answer then nor now saving he sayes in gross that all Nations or whole Nations did not include every part all Nations being taken Synecdochically for the Disciples of all Nations Here may be three Queries first how he can make good that all Nations or whole Nations did not include every part Secondly that Nations are taken Synecdochically for the Disciples of all Nations excluding all else Thirdly that Infants are no Disciples otherwise his answer is not satisfactory and appositè ad rem First how he can make good that all Nations does not include every part I do not say actually but potentially as we say of numbers they are infinite because still more may be added So Christ gave his Disciples commission to admit as they could have opportunity all sexes all conditions all ages into covenant excluding none from capacity for whom Christ dyed now Christ dyed as well for Infants as others took â—nfancie upon him visibly as other ages that being visible head of the Church even when an Infant might by his passive obedience sanctifie Infants to be visible members according to that of Bernard qui paâ— vulus natus est parvulos a gratiâ non exclusit he that was born a little one excluded not little ones from grace And if it be objected that God can save Infants by virtue of Christs death without visible membership or seal of the Covenant The Answer is apparent that this is an Argument from Gods power to his will which is inconsequent we are to have recourse to Gods revealed Will which unless he hath declared Infants of believers to be in Covenant we have no more ground to presume of their Salvation than of Turks and Pagans And though Mr. Tombes hath a dexterity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to elude an Argument be it never so solid by â—aying his own grounds and multiplying various interpretations but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he can ever make his Tenet good that whole Nations does not include Infants we think it impossible if he should live Methusalem's dayes Secondly it must be enquired how he can clear that nations are taken Synecdochically for the Disciples of all Nations excluding all else which before it be effected he must remove these three scruples 1. That the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach includes actually in it the noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples 2. Because it is placed before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing therfore it is before it in order of nature and time 3. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it should signifie actual Disciples or Disciples of actual believers is not put Synecdochically also for Infants of believers First it may be justly doubted whether the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach includes actually in it the noune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples Actually I say not potentially for I deny not that virtually it includes all the acts of discipling from the first matriculation or admission of a Scholer till the compleating and perfecting of him and that as it relates to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all Nations it infolds all these is acknowledged for it was the Apostles duty to endevour to bring their Scholars to all perfection but that every act was requisite before baptizing of any or any acts to be precursors of believers Infants baptism save bare acceptation of them without further proof I cannot be perswaded And to argue from the latâ—tude of the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is inconsequently to draw an Aâ—gument à potentiâ ad actum a genere ad specâ—em affirmativè and concludes thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a scholer may signifie one that is endued with all learning therefore every scholar is endued with all learning Object But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach or make Disciples signifies alwaâ—es to teach cum effâ—ctu till we make them proficients and actual Disciples Answ It is boldly affirmed by Mr. Tombes pag 124. of his examen but not proved for his instances Math. 13. 52. Math. 27. 57. concludes that sometimes it is taken so not alwayes and is the former fallacie His third Instance for all Beza's translation seems to make against him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had taught many how knowes he that all were effectually wrought upon that were tâ—ught Or if discipulos multos adjunxissent they had joyned many Disciples how knowes he that Infants were none of these Disciples when whole families so frequently were taken in Infants are as well under the Gospel Christs Disciples as they were under the Law which if they had not been God would not have said of them Genes 17. 14. that they had broken his covenant presupposing a capacity to keep it Those that are admitted into a school before they know a letter are as well Scholars as the greatest Rabbies Aristoph 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Budeus renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was a Scholar of Socrates before he had learned any thing of him in as much as he desired to be his Scholar Therefore the very bringing into the Church and therein subjecting to its nurture and instruction is a discipling as appears by Luke 14. 21. where this commission is spoken of in other terms and for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bring them hither Acts 19. 3. Those that knew not the Holy Ghost are called Disciples Secondly it may be doubted whether because teach or make Disciples is placed before baptize therefore in order of nature and time it must go before it The order of things are not alwaies exactly expressed in Scripture as they were done for there are many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or transpositions placing that afterwards that in order of nature is Antecedent as Maâ—k 1. 15. repentance is put before faith Rom. 10. 9. confession with the mouth is put before believing with the heart So that it is not true that Christ bids them make them Discâ—ples first and then baptize them for the
Relation or was made up of those ingredients C. He replyed that seemed strange to him seeing all the Divines and Logicians that he had read affirmed Baptism to be a Realation and it was evident it could be put in no other Predicament as might be proved by Induction but that the people understood it not seeing the whole nature of Baptism is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Relation to another T. He said he cared not for authorities but bid him prove it C. Which he did thus Every Sacrament is a Relation ◠But Baptism is a Sacrament Therefore Baptism is a Relation T. He said he might deny both Propositions first the Major for any thing he knew every Sacrament was not a Relation And the Minor too that Baptism was a Sacrament for the word Sacrament was an invention of man not grounded upon scripture C. Which both Propositions together were proved thus That which is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace is both a Relation and a Sacrament But Baptism is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace Therefore it is both a Relation and a Sacrament T. He denyed the Minor that Baptism was an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace C. He told him it was St. Austens definition avouched by learned men in succeeding ages confirmed and approved by the Church of England in the old Catechism T. Mr. Tombs said he looked for Artificiall or divine Arguments not humane Testimonies at which answer while Mr. C. seemed to be astonished he took occasion to triumph contumeliously saying he never heard such an Argument C. To which he replyed Nor Alexander ever saw such a knot as the Gordian which made him cut it when he could not untie it you teach me by experience to know that there is no disputing against them that deny all Principles as where you think the people do not understand you make no scruple to deny clear truths in Logick and Divinitie Therefore I see I must go to plain scriptures that all the people may understand the absurdities Now that the Definition of Baptism which was the thing denyed belongs to Infants I prove thus If God institute Baptism for infants Christ merited it for them and they stand in need of it then to infants belongs the Definition of Baptism But God instituted Christ merited and infants stand in need of Baptism Therefore to infants belongs the Definition of Baptism T. He denyed the Minor that God did not institute Baptism for infants Christ did not merit it for them nor Infants stand in need of it C. Which he promised to prove in order First that God did institute Baptism for infants He that appointed infants Church-members under the Gospell did institute Baptism for them But God appointed Infants Church-members under the Gospell Therefore God did institute Baptism for infants T. He said first the Major might be questioned because to be Church-members whereas he should have said Church-members under the Gospell and to be Baptized were not termini convertibiles C. He confessed it for infants under the Law were Church-members and yet not Baptized but Circumcised and before the Law Church-members and yet neither Circumcised nor Baptized but under the Gospell they were so convertible that all that were Baptized were Church-members and all that were Church-members were to be Baptized which is that which he affirmed now and is a truth so clear that Master Tombs confesses it all along in his Books and upon that confessed ground Mr. Baxter goes in many of his Arguments T. He would have denyed it till a Gentleman told him that he heard him affirm the same in his Sermon the day before Then he denyed the minor that God did institute infants Church-members under the Gospell C. That I 'l confirm says he with a three-fold cord which will not easily be broken before the Law under the Law under the Gospell which he framed into an Argument thus Those whom God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law actually receive into covenant under the Gospell those God did appoint Church-members under the Gospell But God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law and actually receive Infants into Covenant under the Gospell Therefore God did appoint Infants Church-members under the Gospell T. He denyed the Minor That God did not promise before the Law foretell under the Law and actually receive infants into covenant under the Gospell C. Which was proved in order first that God did promise before the Law that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell thus That which God did promise to Abraham was before the Law But God did promise to Abraham that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell Therefore God did promise before the Law that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell The Minor being denyed he proved out of Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and unto thy seed after thee Thus framing his Argument He that makes an everlasting covenant to Abraham and his seed after him in their generations promised that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell but God makes an everlasting Covenant with Abraham and his seed after him in their generations Therefore God promised that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell T. He denyed the Major saying that everlasting signifyed onely a long time not that it should be so under the Gospell to the worlds end and was to be interpreted by the verse following I will give unto thee the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession and yet the Jews are now dispossessed of Canaan C. They are now dispossest but shall be possessed of it again at their conversion and so have an everlasting possession in the type to the end of the world in the Antitype for ever but that the covenant that God made with Abraham is to continue to the end of the World appears in that it is a Gospell-covenant That which is a Gospell-covenant is to continue to the end of the world But the covenant that God made with Abraham and his seed to all generations is a Gospell covenant Gal. 3. 8. and the scripture foreseeing that God would Justifie the Heathen through faith preached the Gospell before to Abraham saying In thee shall nations be blessed Therefore it is to continue to the end of the world T. Without repeating he confusedly answer'd thus that it was an everlasting covenant and to continue to the end of the world but not to infants C. He told him first that it was a denying of the Conclusion then took away his answer thus If God command infants to stand before him in covenant then it is to continue to infants But God commands infants to stand in covenant before him Therefore it is to continue to infants Deut 29. 10 11. Ye stand this
but that which is by dipping is lawful is a will-worship much more that Baptism otherwise is a nullitie and those that are Baptized so ought to be Baptized again or Re-Baptized which the Senate of Syrick understood well when they made an Act that all that did presume to Re-Baptize such as were Baptized before should be drowned So we have resolved the former doubt that Baptizing is not dipping and come to the latter that Infants may nay ought to be Baptized And Brethren I beseech you to give me leave a little to speak for Infants those poor Souls that cannot speak for themselves And before we come to the Question take with you these two Considerations First that those truths that were not in controversie in the Primitive times the Apostles were not so punctual in pressing of them seeing there was no need Solon being asked why he made no Law against murtherers of Parents answer'd because he conceiv'd none would commit that unnatural Act If the Apostles had been asked why they did not put down Infant-Baptism in plainer terms I suppose they would have answered that they thought none would have denyed it Secondly observe that those things that are pressed often in the old Testament are mentioned more sparingly in the New as the Sabbath and Magistracy in the old Testament line upon line and precept upon precept but scarce a Syllable for a Christian Sabbath or a Christian Magistracie in the new Nothing is more clear then Infants Church-Membership in the old Testament therefore not so clear in the New and yet clear enough to those that have eyes to see it as will appear by these reasons following 1. Arg. First those that are in Covenant with God ought to have the Seal of the Covenant which is Baptism But Infants of beleeving Parents are in Covenant with God Therefore Infants ought to have the Seal of the Covenant which is Baptism The former Proposition is firm by Confession of all Divines even our adversaries Haec est fundamentalis ratio paedobaptismi sayes Daneus this is the fundamentall reason of Baptizing of Infants that they are in Covenant Esse foederatum sufficit ad accipiendum signum foederis sayes Davenant to be in Covenant is sufficient to receive the sign and seal of the Covenant Omnes foederati sunt Baptizandi says Wendel all that are in Covenant are to be Baptized Si in foedere sunt impiè agunt qui eis signum foederis negant saith Ferus if they be in Covenant they do wickedly that deny them the sign of the Covenant in a Civill contract says Mr. Perkins the Father and the heir make but one person and the Covenant's for himself and his posterity The Minor proposition that Infants of believing Parents are in Covenant is grounded on many Scriptures Genes 17. 7. Where God establishes a Covenant not onely with Abraham but with his seed after him in their generations for an everlasting Covenant everlasting and therefore to last to the end of the World as Cornelius à Lapide sayes absolutè aeternum est in semine spirituali fidelibus It is absolutely everlasting in the spirituall seed to the faithfull Galat. 3. 8. The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Heathen through faith preached before the Gospel to Abraham therefore if Isaac was in Covenant with his Father when he was but eight days old and had the seal by vertue of the Lamb to be slain much more the Children of believing Parents by vertue of the Lamb that is already slain Deuter. 29. 11. When all the people stood in Covenant before the Lord their little ones are mentioned amongst the rest which is further confirmed Acts 2. 38 39. Be Baptized every one of you for the promise is to you and your Children to say that they were not yet believers is but a shift the Text makes it cleer as soon as they were believers their Children were in Covenant with them and to be Baptized Arg. 2 Such as were Circumcised vnder the Law may be Baptized under the Gospel But Infants of beleevers were Circumcised under the Law Therefore they may be baptized under the Gospel Huic Argumento non omnes Anabaptistae resistent sayes learned Whitaker all the Anabaptists shall not be able to resist this Argument the Minor that Infants under the Law were Circumcised is confessed The former proposition is onely questioned that Baptism under the Gospel to Infants does not necessarily follow from Circumcision under the Law Augustin is cleer for it saying Mutatis signis manet eadem gratia sine aetatis discrimine the outward visible signes being changed the same grace remaines without any difference of age and he gives a reason because the grace of God is not straiter in the new Testament than in the old Therefore Christ Hebr. 8. 6. Is said to be Mediator of a better Covenant but how were it a better Covenant if all poor Infants that were in Covenant under the Law were out of Covenant under the Gospel Titus 2. 12. The grace of God hath appeared unto all and therefore surely to Infants as Irenaeus sayes Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est Christ became a little one for little ones sake that he might redeem the little ones Little ones were the first Martyrs that suffered for Christ in Rama was a voice heard and that Baptism came in place of Circumcision the Apostle clears it Coloss 2. 11. 12. Ye are Circumcised with Circumcision made without hands How is that Buryed with him in Baptism Hence arises another Argument Arg. 3. Those that were once in Covenant had the Seal of the Covenant and were never disfranchized and put out of Covenant have title to the Covenant and Seal of it still But Infants were once in Covenant had the Seal of the Covenant and were never disfranchized and put out of Covenant Therefore Infants have title to the covenant and seal of it still Let any man shew one sillable one tittle in Scripture that ever Infants were put out and we 'l yield the gantlet nay the Gospell is so far from expressing of them that they are put out that it gives them large commendations beyond them of riper years making them the rule of our perfection as new born babes receive the sincere milk of the Word Unless you be as little Children ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of God which is a case so cleer that even Bellarmine himself includes Nullum est impedimentum c. there is nothing that hinders but that Infants may as well be Baptized under the Gospell as they were Circumcised under the Law for neither hath God forbidden Ministers to give them the Sacrament neither are they uncapable to receive it Arg. 4. That which God hath commanded may lawfully be practised by the Ministers of Jesus Christ But God hath commanded Infant-Baptism Therefore it may be lawfully practised by the Ministers of Jesus Christ That God hath commanded it appears Matth. 28. 19. Go Baptize all
we then refuse to receive them or acknowledge them the subjects of his visible Kingdom will it not follow then that whosoever refuseth them refuseth Christ and him that sent him For my part to use the wordâ— of a godly and learned divine Seeing the Will of Christ is that I must walk by and his Word that I must be judged by and he hath given me so full a discovery of his Will in this point I will boâ—dly adventure to follow his rule and had rather answer him upon his own incouragement for admitting an hundred Infants into his Church than answer for keeping out of one Arg. 6. All Disciples may be Baptized But Infants of believing parents are Disciples Therefore some Infants may be Baptized The Major or former proposition is granted by our adversaries who translate that place Matth. 28. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 go make Disciples of all Nations which is in our last translation Go â—each all Nations confessing as soon as they are Disciples they may be Baptized Now for the Minor that Infants are Disciples is evident from Acts 15. 10. Why tempt yee God and put a yoak upon the neck of the Disciples this yoak was Circumcision and the attendants of it as will appear by comparing it with the fift verse and the context from the beginning of the Chapter Now among the Jews children were onely to be Circumcised and amongst the Gentiles children together with parents when they were converted and became Proselites To say that not onely Circumcision but the Doctrine and Observation of the whole Law by the yoak is meant is but a shift Circumcision was the Seal or Ordinance by which the Jews were bound to observe the Doctrine and the Law and all those upon whom the yoak was layd by Circumcision are called Disciples whereof Infants were a great part And if it be objected that children are not capable of instruction as it is nothing to the purpose so it contradicts Scripture Esay 54. 13. And all thy Children shall be taught of the Lord and great shall be the peace of thy Children And if any one carnally interpret this of the Jews return from captivity as they do other places of Esa our Saviour checks them John 6. 45. And It is written in the Prophets And they shall all be taught of God Arg. 7. All that have faith may be Baptized But some Infants have faith Therefore some Infants may be Baptized The proposition none will deny the Minor may be proved by severall reasons First Christ expresly calls them believers Matth. 18. He attributes humility to them and faith and commands Elders to imitate them and that you may see they were Infants Mark 9. 36. tells us they were such as Christ â—ook up in his armes Secondly they are said to receive the Kingdom of God Mark 10. that is the grace of God Remission of sins and life eternall now the Kingdom is not received but by faith in Christ Thirdly they please God therefore Christ blesseth them but without faith it is impossible to please God Fourthly either faith must be allowed them or salvation denyed them but the latter is cruell and impious therefore the former must be godly and pious faith onely purifies the heart but no unclean thing shall enter into Heaven Fiftly though Infants cannot make actuall profession of faith yet they may have inward roots of sanctification and faith John Baptist and Jeremie were sanctified in their mothers wombs let carnalists say what they will that is the principal meaning of that place Esay 65. 20. There shall be no more aâ— Infant of days The Jews thought they were not sanctified unless a Sabboth went over them the child shall dye an hundred year old that is as well in Covenant with God or a visible Church-member as if he were a hundred years old Therefore Paraeus sayes Infantes Ecclesiae etiam ante Baptismum censentur fideles Infants of the Church even before Baptism are judged faithfull Hommius sayes Infants have faith in semine in the seed though not in messe in the harvest Beza sayes they have faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in power though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in operation Faith says Trelcatius is two-fold 1. Active which the Elder have by hearing the Word 2. Passive and by imputation which Infants have by vertue of the Covenant and Divine promise Pelagius asks Austin where he places Infants Baptized he answers in numero credentium in the number of believers and addes nec judicare ullo modo aliter audebis si non vis esse apertè haereticus neither may thou presume to judge otherwise if thou wilt not be a plain Heretick We 'l conclude this with that of Vossius As in naturals so in supernaturals we must distinguish these three things power habit and act there is the power of reasoning in Infants the habit in men sleeping but the act and exercise in them that are waking the power answers the seed the habit the tree the act and exercise the fruit the seed of Faith may be in Infants the habit in men of age but the act and exercise in them that work according to the habit 8. Arg. Those that are Holy with a Covenant-holiness may be Baptized But Infants of beleeving Parents are Holy with a Covenant-Holiness Therefore Infants of beleeving Parents may be Baptized Eor the former Proposition foederatis competit signum foederis says Vossius the sign of the Covenant belongs to them that are in Covenant Holiness is twofold says Bullinger either of Faith or of the Covenant Ezra 9. 2. Ye have mingled the holy seed that is them in Covenant with the Nations that is them that are out of Covenant Thus you see that Covenant-holiness is no gibberidge but grounded upon Scripture and avouched by learned men as shall more fully appear The Minor that Children of beleeving Parents are holy with a Covenant-holiness is clear from 1. Cor. 7. 14. Else your Children were unclean that is not in Covenant but now they are holy that is in Covenant thus besides the ancients Sharpius and Peter Martyr interpret it and Hugo Grotius himself Non loquitur Apostolus de Sanctitate naturali c. The Apostle says he speaks not of natural holiness and inhering to the nature of Children but of an holiness adhering to them that is the holiness of the Covenant for the Children of beleevers are comprehended in the Covenant of grace and therefore accounted holy of God To interpret it as the gross Anabaptists do that they are holy that is no Bastards is a new holiness not heard of in Scripture and as Doctor Featly says a Bastard exposition and Pareus gives the reason if the Children of beleevers be therefore holy because they are no Bastards the Children of Pagans are as well holy for they are also no Bastards If the first-fruits be holy the lump is holy and if the root be holy so are also the branches Rom. 11. 16. The first fruits and
true light of discovery First that the assignation of the causes of Anabaptism are vain This he affirms yet names not one of them but turns his back as the Souldier did from Augustus Caesar because he could not endure the darting beams of his eys Oppressing Nâ—mrods uses to send witnesses out of the Country that would overthrow their cause so he having suppressed the reasons of the present grouth of Anabaptism calls them vain yet they shall once more appear at the bair against him which we submit to the judgment of intelligent and impartial Christians they are these 1. Times of division wherein the hedge of discipline is broken down liberty in religion is like free conversing without restraint or watch in time of pestilence one house easily infects a whole City 2. Satans malice like a river the further it goes the deeper and fiercer 3. The corruption of mans nature more inclinable to errour than truth 4. The fitness of the engin for devastation and ruinating all former Churches under colour of first baptisms nullity gathering of new ones after their own mould out of the old ruines by rebaptizing 5. The pretence that children are uncapable of Church-membership or communion of Saints as if there were not the same capacity under the Gospel which was under the law 6. False allegation that Infant-Baptism is occasion of loose living as if the native Jewes that were sealed when Infants were more dissolute than the Proselites 7. To limit it to ripe years increases piety as if Jewes and Turks and their rebaptized converts were not more frequently guilty of Apostacie and hipocrisie 8. Not understanding that Infants Church membership in the Old Testament is not repealed but confirmed in the new 9. A carnal estimation that the Covenant made with Abraham was partly carnal of which circumcision is a part as if godlinesse in both Testaments had not the promise of this life and of the life to come 10. That circumcision was the seal of righteousness of faith to Abraham and not his posterity 11. That the Covenant was made with Abraham and his spiritual seed only and not with visible professors 12. That there is no such thing as national Churches though Christ sayes make disciples of all Nations and Isaiah sayes all Nations shall flow in yet they say all Churches must be gathered by actual profession as well in Christian Nations as amongst Turks and Pagans 13. Because we have no particular instance in Terminis that any Infants were baptized and because they are not expresly named in the precept as if generals did not include particulars as well for Infants as old men 14. Denying equivalencies and necessary consequencies from Scripture 15. A vilifying the judgment and persons of all godly and learned men of this present and former ages building up their rotten foundation upon their ruines 16. Temporal interests of the lowest of the people which while they dream it is countenanced by men in power cry Hosanna and perhaps crucifie to morrow 17. A pretending to the Spirit of God Numa Pompilius feigned that he conversed with the goddess Egeria Minos with Jupiter in the Cave Solon with the Delphian Apollo Mahomet with the Angel Gabriel Montanus and the Quakers with the Holy Ghost the white Witches with the spirit in the shape of a dove and all but to palliate their unsound opinions and practises 18. The learning subtilty and industry of some Anabâ—ptists to gain Proselytes Arrius Pelagius Marcion were not wiser in their generation than they to invegle the poor simple people especially women and inferiour tradesmen which in seven years can scarce learn the mystery of the lowest profession thinks half seven years enough gained from their worldly imployments to understand the mistery of Divinity and thereupon meddle with controversies that they have no more capacity to pry into than a bat to look up into the third heaven Thus farr the assignation of the reasons of Anabaptism which he sayes are vain a censure how just let wise men judge who clearly see that the meeting of several beasts at Nilus does not more properly beget new Monsters nor putrefaction ingender several vermins than the fore-assigned reasons occasion the grouth and increase of Anabaptism The second Allegation is that Anabaptism is true Baptism A strange Paradox which either implies that Infant-Baptism is a nullity or that true baptism may be iterated or received more than once The confutation of the former is the scope of this present treatise rectum sui curvi index The latter that true Baptism may be iterated as the notation of the word and their practise interprets it is now to be questioned And that I fight not with the ayre or an adversary of mine own framing may appear from Mr. T. who examen pag. 23. begges an Argument of Mr. Martial to prove reiteration of Baptism to be intrinsecally unlawfull and that in the tone of the Marcionites and Aetians who in several Councells have been whipt for it and have received these and the like reasons for their pasport 1. In the institution of Baptism there is neither expresly nor consequently any mention of reiteration of it as in the Lords Supper Quotiescunque feceritis as often as ye shall do it c. and whatsoever is not of faith is sin whatsoever is not grounded on Scripture is will-worship there is no instance or president in Scripture that any one was baptized twice for those Acts 19. 3. 4. were either first baptized metonymically that is initiated with the doctrine of John and then afterwards baptized with water as some say or adulteratly baptized with false Baptism as Ambrose thinks and then with true Baptism or baptized first with John's Baptism and then with Christs which as Austin conceives are two distinct Baptismes or which is most consonant to the Text first baptized by John with water then by the Apostle with the Holy Ghost and fire that is the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost None of these make for the reiteration of the same baptism besides there is express Scripture against it Ephes 4. 5. one Lord one faith one Baptism 2. Baptism is the Sacrament of regeneration or new birth and as Austin hath it as we are carnally and naturally born but once so we are spiritually and supernaturally new born but once faith though it admit of grandations begins but once Baptâ—sm that matriculates us into Christs Schole is to be performed but once Therefore even Cyprian himself and his followers never baptized any whom they thought were truly baptized before 3. Baptism succeeds Circumcision which was but once administred as appears from that of Joshuah 5. 4. where the Holy Ghost gives this reason why Joshuah circumcised the Israelites in Gilgal Because all the circumcised were dead intimating if they had been circumcised already it should not have been done again And seeing circumcision was tyed to the eight day from the birth till a second eight day besides the first can
new heavens and new earth for can any rational man think that the new Temple built at Jerusalem in Cyrus his time was the new heaven and the new earth that the former should be no more remembred When the antient men are said to weep because the glory of the latter Temple was short of the glory of the first Ezra 3. 11. Mr. Tombes 13. Section WHat I said about Dr. Prideaux his use was true and that he would require the respondent afore he answered to read the Text and consider it which is necessary in divinity disputes however Respondents be restrained in other Disputes And for my Explosion at Oxford it is a meer figment and that neither Dr. Savage nor the Doctor of the Chair did avoid my Argument by their Answer is manifest enough from Dr. Savage his own recital of his answer in his printed book and this had been shewed in print ere this but that the Printer failed to print mine Answer in the fit time The frivolous conceit of my fear of Mr. C. gunshot is foolish I do not count Mr. C. Arguments to be of so much force as a Squib Reply THe first words about Dr. Prideaux his use he brings in like a fragment seemingly having no dependance of the foregoing or following discourse concerning which the Reader must be informed that from answering Mr. T. fell to moderating and magisterially determining of the Question that before he would resigne the chaire I was forced to tell him that he violated the rules of dispute and did lasciviously wanton it out into a wilderness of words that the truth might be obscured or lost and like a lapwing carry the hearers far from the mater Then his Apologie was that Dr. Prideaux when a place of Scripture was cited was wont to give a large Exposition To which was then replyed that he was Dr. of the Chaire and Judge of the contâ—oversie and might do that a Respondent may not do whose office is onely to repeat deny distinguish and when a Text is quoted to give a brief Exposition that the Opponent may have some thing to fasten upon Now he asserts that what he said of Dr. Prideaux his use was true that he would require the Respondent before he answered to read the Text and consider it which I do not deny but that de facto it was done de jure it ought to have been done not onely though principally in dâ—vinity Disputes but even in Philosophie and Mathematicks when the Argument depends upon the authority or meaning of Aâ—istotle Plato Euclide or the like But that any mention was made thereof in the Dispute I do not remember for there he spoke of Dr. Prideaux his practise in his own person not what he willed in the person of the Respondent Besides it is one thing to require the Respondent before his answer to read the Text and consider it another thing to suffer the Respondent after he hath spun out his Answer to a long thread to enforce his own sense upon the Chapter and determine the Question And though it may be true it was his use that he required the Respondent before he answered to read the Text yet I am sure it is as true that he would not require the Opponent before the framing of his Syllogism to read more than he drew his Argument from for neglect of which he unjustly accuses me of fallacie What he means by Explosion or a meer figment I know not this I know that when he would not be satisfied with Dr. Savage his Answer nor the Professors determination but fell to repetition exploserunt saltem juniores not once but again at his nâ—â— answering the Drs. challenge Though perhaps Mr. Tombes was so harnessâ—d with confidence that he was not sensible of it Vos ô Patricius sanguis quos vivere fas est Occipiti â—aeco posticae occurrite sannae Pers Satyr 1. And such Explosions are grounded upon equitie because those that will not acquiess in the Vicechancellors or Professerâ— determinations by the University statutes are to be admonished But he unmindfull of this like Chrysogonus whom Tully for the like cause calls nobilem egâ—egium gladiatorem speaks in the language of a Fencer saying that neither Dr. Savage nor the Dr. of the Chaire did avoid his Argument by their Answer is manifest enough from Dr. Savage his own reciâ—al of his Answer in his printed book Sed quo judice Who shall be Uâ—pâ—re in this debate Mr. Tombes himself for he sayes that this had been shewed in print ere this but that the Printer failed to print his Answer in the fit time How much was that Printer to blame that would not expedite that Canon that must regulate the whole Church in opposition to harmonies of confessions Assemblies of Divines determinations of Universities Frange lâ—ves calamos scinde Thalia libellos Si dare c. Mart. But he fâ—lls off â—rom vying with his sword and buckleâ— whereby he avoyded the Drs. Arguments to vaunt his coat of Male as if he had got Vulcan's Panoplâ—e and were shot free for he sayes the frivolous conceit of his fear of my gun-shot is foolish In some sense I confesse its true for he that will not fear the whole Church terrible as an Army with Banners will not tremble at the shot of one private souldier But that in another sense he feared was apparent both from his abrupt breaking off the Dispute and refusing further engagement And for all he counts not my Arguments to be of so much force as a squib his eyes may be opened one day to see his whole Magazine blown up thereby as it is to manifest his patience is already by which he might have possessed his soul one dram whereof is to be preferred before the Vatican Library full of such volumes as his Master Tombes 14. Section AS for his Argument from Mat. 28 19. I answered that all Nations or whole Nations did not include every part all Nations being taken Synecdochically for the Disciples of all Nations As for his Division I gave the genuine reason why Infants are excepted from the precept of baptizing because they are no Disciples Nor was there any defect in Logick when I did not reduce it to one of his members For capable of Baptism and Disciples are not terms subordinate but distinct though without opposition And though to be Disciples made them capable yet there is a difference between the terms I presume Mr. C. thinks baptized persons already Disciples yet not capable of Baptism Reply HAving dispatched the two former branches of mine Argument That God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law I came unto the third That God did actually receive Infants to be Church-members under the Gospel that they might be baptized thus Those whom Christ commanded his Disciples to baptize they may be baptized Christ commanded his Dâ—sciples to baptize Infants Therefore they may be baptized The Minor being denied was proved
6. how were it a better covenant if all poore Infants that were in covenant under the Law were out of covenant under the Gospel runs upon these common mistakes That to be circumcised or baptized is all one as to be in covenant all that were in covenant were to be circumcised or baptized all that were not were out of covenant That the reason of circumcising or baptizing a person is his being in covenant which are all false as I have proved Exam. part 3. Sect. 1. letter to Mr. Bayly Sect. 3. part 1. Sect. 5. and shall part 3 in many Sections if God permit And to the Question I answer from the next words Hebr. 8. 6. The new covenant is a better covenâ—nt because it is stablished on better promises though it were imagined never a poore Infant as he childishly speaks which yet I do not conceive were in covenant His next from Tit. 2. 11. supposeth if Infants be not to be baptized The grace of God appears not to them which is of no force unless that Popish conceit obtain that by it and not without it Gods grace appears to all But this is false and not in the Text. Irenaeus words are not that Christ was a little one that little ones might be baptized from his example for then he would have them baptized in infancy where as he was not baptized till about thirty years of age We need not deny Christs redemption of Infants because we deny their baptism there 's no such connexion between them His saying of little ones That they were the first Martyrs that suffered for Christ is false for how were they Martyrs who testyfied nothing concerning Christ That of the collect in the Common prayer-book on Innocents day that they witnessed onely by dying is vain for dying without some other expression doth not witness nor did they suffer for Christ whom they knew not but because of Herods beastly rage This speech of Mr. C. smells ranck of the Common prayer-book superstition in keeping Innocents day which it seems Mr. C. yet retains but is nothing to the proof of his Major nor any thing hitherto alledged Reply CHrist is said Heb. 8. 6. to be a Mediator of a better Covenant which could not be if Infants that were in covenan under the Law were out of covenant under the Gospel-and is grounded upon this impregnable rock which the Anabaptists will never overthrow that to be circumcised or baptized is all one as to be in visible covenant That the reason of baptizing or circumcising a person is their birth-right Tuition self profession whereby they are visibly admitted into covenant That what he hath said examen part 3. Sect. 1. Antipaed part 1. Sect. 5. touches not the true state of the controversie but is a confused Maze intricated with his fallaciâ decumanâ or Master-fallacie of Gods making whereas he should say compleating his covenant onely with the elect or spirituall seed and this as the poysoned string in the Lamprey runs through the whole we have seen his attempts hitherto as fallacious as the hanging of Mahomets tomb in the aire his followers may expect as much satisfaction from the many sections of his third part yet invisible as Mahomets from his second comming Hebr. 8. 6. The new covenant is a better covenant not onely positively because it is established upon better promises in circumstantials but because it is extended to move all Nations negatively would not be better if any sex age degree were excluded Titus 2. 11. The grace of God hath appeared unto all therefore to Infants by Church membership and the visible seal thereof out of the one whereof and without the other if it may be had God hath given no promise of salvation yet this is no popish conceit in tying God to the means as if without them he could not but to obedience without which he will not Irenaeus words are that Christ bâ—came a little one for little ones sake that he might redeeme little ones outwardly as well baptizing them with water as inwardly with the Holy Ghost after his precept not example who was not baptized till thirty years of agâ— because baptism was not instituted till then but circumcised when eight dayes old As dâ—mnatâ—on and contempt so Christs redemption and acceptation of baptism are connexed My saying of little ones that they were the first Martyrs that suffâ—red for Christ is true for they may be Mâ—rtyrs or wâ—tnesses who do suffer or signifie any thing relating to Christ without an express verball testimony This appears by the Hebrew acceptation of the word Genes 31. 48. Laban said this heap is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eedah a witness between me and thee The children might as well be witnesseâ— as a heap of stones Deut. 4. God calls Heaven and Earth to witness The Greeks whence the word Martyr is borrowed applies it to dead things Pindar ode 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the last dayes are wisest witnesses and Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I produce nature for a witness That expression that they witnessed onely by dying I confess is vain which is Mr. Tombes his own not of the collect in the Common prayer-book on Innocents day which calls them witnesses not by speaking but dying dying without other vocall expression by impression may witness They suffered being baptized with the baptism of blood for Christ whom actually they knew not though Herod was the Instrument as Pilate was of Christs suffering for us This suits with the language of Fathers and leading Protestants and infers not the keeping of Innocents day much less the rankness of Common-prayer books superstition which about twenty years ago I opposed in a Bishops House while Mr. T. to ingratiat with Bishops was maintaining of it as credibly reported with tongue and pen All this conduceth to the proof of the Major Mr. Tombes 12 Section THat which he saith last hath most shew of proof That Baptism came in place of circumcision the Apostle clears it Col. 2. 11 12 ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands how is that huryed with him in Baptism but it is not true that he sayth ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands in that ye are buryed with him in Baptism These are predicated of the same persons and so were conjoyned but yet not so as to express how that the former was done by the latter no more than by that which follows that therein they were raised by the faith of the operation of God who raised Christ from the dead yea it had been false so expounded for how could it be true that they were circumcised without hands in that they were buried in Baptism with hands Nor if this were granted were it true that it is cleared by the Apostle that Baptism comes in the roome of circumcision for there is not a word to that end yea the scope is to prove that we have all in Christ without circumcision as v. 10 c. doth shew and
will not stand them so much in stead as to admit them to the Lords Supper be such an inestimable treasure as is not recompensed with the glory of the Gospel now exhibited to spiritual persons in spiritual benefits by the spirit in stead of the carnal promises ordinances and Church state of the Law Reply THe ninth Argument is drawn from many dangerous absurdities that would follow if children should be ouâ— of visible Covenant under the Gospel it being all one to be baptizable or baptized and to be in vâ—sible Covenant none are in visible Covenant but are or may be baptized all that are baptized are in visible covenant The absurdities are these Infants would be loosers by Christs coming and in worse condition than the Jewish Infants were they with the parents were admitted to the seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision and not parents with children to baptism Mr. T. his Answer is frivolous and impertinent saying he rather thinks that by being not admitted to circumcision the condition of parents and children is the better by Christs coming which I grant but it is nothing to the purpose our condition under the Gospel is better than theirs under the Law theirs under the law infinitly better than the heathens which had not circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith Christians Infants if they had not baptism were worse than Jewes Infants no better than Pagans Circumcision was the yoke Acts 15. 10. of which the Apostle said neither we nor our fathers were able to bear it that seale or ordinance by which the Jewes were bound to observe the ceremonial Law of Moses and yet a rite that under that troublesome Oconomy sealed the righteousnesse of faith in Christ to come baptism under an easier yoke seals Christ that is come Secondly it s acknowledged though Baptism and other Sacraments be pure Evangelical priviledges yet they are not such priviledges but parents and children did well without them as well as without Scriptures before Abraham's time all the femals from Abraham's time till Christ that were without actualâ— but not virtual circumcision What then May we therefore cast away Scriptures with the Anti Scripturians cast off baptism with them above ordinances Tempora distingâ—â—e tutus eris There was first a time without ordinances then a time of legal now a time of Gospel-ordinances And those priviledges of the Law what ever they were are abundantly recompensed by Christs coming and the Gospel-ordinances he instituted whereof Infant-baptism is one which though it will not stand them in so much stead as to admit them to the Lords Supper for the seals ought not to be confounded yet it brings more with it than an empty title of visible Church-membership for its the dore and the only ordinary way we know God hath appointed us to enter into the invisible communion and fellowship with Christ and administers an entrance to that inestimable treasure of the glory of the Gospel now exhibited to spiritual persons in spiritual benefits by the spirit instead of Levitical rites and ceremonial Church estate wherein there were also spiritual blessings of the Jewes Mr. Tombes 22 Section THe second is answered already though Infants be not baptized grace is larger under the Gospel being extended to believers in all Nations than under the Law to the Israelites and some few Prosâ—lites The third is a speech that hath neither truth nor sobriety of expression nor proof it is but a bug-hear to affright the ignorant people to make use of such as he is and to make odious them that wil not baptize Infants as counting them as vile as the children of Turks Tartars or Cannibals even as they make them odious that will not bury their dead as not affording them Christian burial though they are buried as Christ was without â— Priest but burying as dogs But we know how to put a difference between Believers and Pagans children in regard of the love God bears to us some promises he hath made to us concerning them the hopefulness of them by reason of prayers education example society confirmed by many experiences that are comfortable all which things we should be contented with and not complain for want of an imaginary priviledge which is indeed no priviledge but a dammage to our children I for my part look upon the children of believers unsprinkled as pretious and rather more hopefull than those that are and I think Mr. C. as hard a conceipt as he hath of the Anabaptists and their children yet would be ashamed to say as he doth here of them That they are as vile as the children of Turks Tartars or Canniballs But that which he closeth with sheweth he was minded to affright the poor ignorant people as the popish Priests did of old Reply THe second absurdity was If Infants should be in covenant then and not now grace would be larger under the Law than under the Gospel which his Answer does not reach for the Question is not of extending means of salvation to Gentiles not proselired but independent of the Jewes which by degrees were multiplyed as was before from Abraham's sole family to a great nation surpassing in number the sands of the sea But whether all sexes ages degrees be in covenant which were before from which if Infants were excluded till actual professors the one half of Christendom would be excommunicated whereas Bucer saith on Mat. 19. that no age affordeth heaven so many Citizens as infancy The third for all his stormy blustering speaks with a great deal of evidence the words of sobriety and truth and is used as a motive to bring home the ignorant but well meaning people whom such as he hath seduced to make use of godly and Orthodox Ministers to baptize their Infants as they and all their progenitors were and to convince not to make odious those that will not whom we pitty for making their own children as much as in them lies as vile as the children of Turks Tartars and Canniballs yet hope God will not punish the innocent babâ—â— for their sins It is a malitious slander that we make them odious that will not bury that is officiate at the burial of the dead in which some of us may challenge precedency of Master Tombes who turned not with and it s to be feared for the times as he but prevented them yet we cannot be perswaded Christs burial ought to be a more necessary president than his death for ours till he can prove the Jewish burial rites and amongst them those that dyed as Malefactors to be our directory for then he must bury his friends out of Towns Churches or Church-yard in the fields in rocks or caves and not cover them with Earth we know not from Scripture to put any difference between believers and Pagans children unless the one be in visible covenant and may have the seal whereas the others are without them God hath made no promise to any that are out of