be found it cannot be justified without sacriledge His third allegation that the true cause of Anabaptism is shining forth of lâ—ght from the Scriptures and other Authors what other Authors Is not Scripture by Bellarmine's own confession certissima omnium perfectissima regula the most certain and perfectest rule of all Yea the sole and adequate rule of our faith Scripture its true may impart its light to other Authors as the Sun empties his rayes as the Astronomers speak in inferiores crateras into inferiour sublunary vessels If the Scripture have thus emptied it self for the advantage of Anabaptism they might do well to let it appear produce one solâ—d Argument out of Scripture against infant-Infant-Baptism name one Authentick and impartial Author that demonstrates out of one Text of Scripture that Infants ought not de jure to be baptized out of the undoubted Records of one Century that de facto they were not baptized but this they never could do yet never will do Indeed they may fancy to themselves abundance of light out of Scripture like sick persons in some disease when death approaches thinks that store of tapers and torches are lighted about the bed when the candle is out the cause is in the distemper of the brain and eye and if the spiritual eye of the soul be darkened 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how great is the darkness The fourth Allegation is That this light out of Scripture and other Authors was not discerned formerly as now Some of our Anabaptists are of opinion that Christ never locally ascended into heaven but onely vanished out of sight and is yet bodily upon the earth vouchsafing his apparition to the Saints now which he did not in former ages This is either a diabolical fiction or a deluding Phantasm like to this is the pretended light out of Scripture and other Authors for Anabaptism not discerned formerly as now Did Berengarius see more than the primative Fathers and Martyrs The Albigenses of France and the Anonymi more then Berengarius Peter de Bruis more than the Albigenses Baltazzar Hubmir Pacimontanus Muncer and John of Leyden more than Peter de Bruis And Mr. Tombes as a child upon these Giants shoulders sees further into childrens baptism than they all Ring the bells backward and make Horace recant his parentum pejor avis lib. 3. ode 6. That every thing degenerates Ovid and Hesiod were mistaken now is the golden age and not before It seems the promise that Christ made to the never dying corporation of his Apostles and their successors that he was with them alway even to the end of the world was not performed before That the Holy Ghost that was to lead into all truth was not sent till now We have special predictions of these latter dayes but it s such as these 2 Tim. 3. 1 2 6 7. In the last dayes perillous times shall come for men shall be lovers of their own selves covetous boasters proud blasphemers disobedient to parents unthankfull unholy c. Of this sort are they that creep into houses and lead captive silly womâ—n laden with sins led away with divers lusts ever hearing and never able to come to the knowledg of the truth Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses so do these also the truth Jude 18. 19. There should be mockers in the last time who should walk after their own ungodly lusts These be they who separate themselves sensual having not the Spirit And our Saviour himself tells us when he shall come he shall scarce find faith upon earth But that there is shining light out of Scripture and other Authors not formerly discerned about Infant-Baptism otherwise than that by opposition the truth is more cleared I fear is but a bragg like Oromazes in Plutarch who boasted he had an Egge that had included in it the happiness of the world which being broken proved a wind-egg and nothing came forth but corrupted aire I have read of a Mountebanke that bragged of a new receipt that would make dimme eyes see as perfectly as those of Lynceus who could discover the flaggs of ships from the Carthaginian to the Lilibaean shore but being applyed put them out Satan promised Eve that her eyes should be opened and that they should be as Gods knowing good and evill but it was to see their misery as the event declares John of Leyden when he awaked out of his deep sleep pretended strange revelations and new lights which ended in riding upon a blind Asse in the market place where he afterwards for his impostures suffered Male ominatis parcite verbis God grant that the end of our Anabaptists may be to their own comfort and the peace of the Church and that is the worst I wish them In answer to the fourth head of the Epistle why the Anabaptists were permitted and their books printed seing those of Arrius Dr. Pocklingtons Mr. Archers were burned he passes by the reasons there assigned which are these 1. The providence of God 2. The wisdome of the state The providence of God who suffers errours 1. That truth by opposition may more diligently be searched out 2. That the sincerity and constancy of the faithfull may be tryed 3. That impenitent and proud in spirit may be blinded and hardned The wisdome of the State that like wise Chirurgians will not launce a turgid ulcer till it be ripe A skilfull Phisitian that will not purge some floating humors till they be settled These he calls the Epistlers own ignorant surmises when they are not his own but in effect of the whole Church not ignorant surmises but the judgment of most learned men wherein consequently he accuses many former Councells Synods Harmonies of confessions Parliaments Canon Civill Statute laws many former Treatises of learned Divines and the late Assembly of ignorant surmises The true reason sayes he why their books and practise is permitted is because they have at least so much appearance of truth as is sufficient to make wise men to let them alone least they haply should fight against God This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or common allegation that the Quakers Shakers Ranters and all dissenters plead for liberty of conscience wherein are couched two words that discovers an Asses ears under a Lions skin and a poult-foot under a long mantle for he speaks not out and sayes absolutely that there is truth in their books but that there is at least so much appearance of truth not that those that oppose them fight against God but that haply that is casually they may fight against God True it is which the Philosopher saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many things appears and makes fair semblance which are but shadowes and kickshowes Copp put such a gloss and varnish upon upon his blasphemies that a Matron that cryed shame upon him before when she heard his Sophisticated reasons was convinced to be of his judgment Anabaptism is a Magazine of all subtiltie fortified and ammunitioned with all sorts of
charges him but the manner undetermined The scope of the Apostle is to shew that one end of our Baptism is to seal our communion with Christ in his death and concludes as well that the resemblance of Christs burial is to be continued as much in the duration as the thing as well lying three dayes and three nights as under the water at all Therefore all resemblances betwixt our baptism and Christs burial not bottomed upon divine institution and Apostolical practise revealed in Scripture are but humane inventions which they that Idolize as Anabaptists determining baptizing to dipping sins against Christs command as godly learned men and assemblies out of holy writ have discovered Mr. Tombes 6. Section IT is well Mr. C. confesseth That if he were to baptize converted Turks or Pagans of ripe age be might baptize them by dipping It she wes that it is onely for Infants sake that the institution of Christ is altered and so one corruption hath brought in another What he addes provided their garments were not first baptized or washed intimates be would have them naked which Mr. Baxter would conclude to be against the sixt and seventh Command and he may do well to school Mr. C. for it his reason is as foolish though the garments be baptized in water yet are not baptized with that use that the person is but by accident not baptized as Bells to drive away devils Nor is by baptizing the garment any worship done to it as the Church of Rome doth to the Image for then the baptizing of the body should be worshippinâ— it the garments and body are not worshipped at all by baptizing and therefore foolishly it is compared to Romish superstition and Idolatry He that affirms that baptizing without dipping is not lawfull that it is wil-worship that the sprinkling used is a nullity that notwithstanding such pretended Baptism yet Baptism remains a duty speaks but truth Reply I confesse with Mr. Perkins that if we were to baptize converted Turks or Pagans of ripe age in hot Countries which he leaves out we might baptize them by dipping which shewes that it is not onely for infants sake but the coldness of our Clymats we baptize by dipping in part of the body pouring on water or sprinkling which are as well according to Christs institution as â—lunging God will have mercy and not sacrifice The Anabaptists shew that it is for dipping sake which sucklings cannot endure that Christs institution of Infant baptism is altered and so one corruption hath brought in another I add provided their garments were not first baptized or washed which intimates not necessarily I would have them naked for they may have loose garments after the manner of the Jewes which prevents not the washing of the body or if I would have them of ripe age in hot Countries naked I may conclude with Mr. Baxter to dip naked or cloathed in cold Climats to be against the sixt Commandment because it endangers their lives To dip with us naked to be against the seventh Commandments because it endangers chastity not so in Africe and hot Countries where without impeachment of modesty they go naked or slender cloathed Mr. T. may justly be schooled by us both for his unfaithfull dealing in the premises The reason is solid which is not mine but Vossius his who sayes Baptismus non est immersio vestium sed humani corporis Baptism is not a washing of garments but mans body Baptizing of garments may be as well superstitious as of Bells for all they are not baptized with that use the person is but by accident for the Romists have the very same distinctions of worshipping of Images Suarez in 3. Tom. â—isp 54. sect 4. dicendum ergo primò est fieri rectè posse ut prototypon in imagine imago cum prototypo uno actu adoretur atque hoc pacto posse imaginem Christi adorari latriâ posse tamen co-adorari sicut humanitas Christi coadoratur verbo purpura regis adoratur honâ—re regio The garment is washed with the same water the body is as well as the Image is adored with the same worship the Prototype is The purple of the king is as well adored by accident as the garment washed And though garments be not baptized as Bells to drive away devils yet they are conceived to be baptized without divine inâ—â—itution and so from the Devil Baptizing of the body is not worshipping of it but â— performing of Christs Ordinance in relation to it which to perform also to the garmants is wil-worship and therefore fâ—tly coâ—pared to Romish â—uperstition and iâ—olatry He that affâ—rms that baptizing without dipping is not lawfull that it is wil-worship that infant baptism as used is a nullity that notwithstanding such baptism yet rebaptizing remains a duty speaks sacrileiously schismatically heretically Mr. Tombes 7. Section THe Decree of the Senate of Zurick was an unrighteous Decree which what ever state follows it will draw the guilt of murâ—bering innocent persons on it and Mr. C. by citing it with seeming approbation doth make it probable that he is a bloody minded man who would rejoyce to see innocent men whâ— out of tenderness of conscience follow the plain rule of Christ so put to death which its not unlikely to be the aim of his or his complices printing this book against those he calls Anabaptists that he might stir up either Magistrates or furious common people against them Mr. C. saith he hath resolved the former doubt that baptizing is not dipping and yet page 81. the Authors he cites and by citing approves do all make dipping or dying one of the first of its significatiens Now he undertakes to prove that Infants may nay ought to be baptized Anâ— he begins as an Advocate for Infants with this childish preface that those poor souls cannot speak for themselves as if in speaking for their baptism he spoke for them when he doth thereby rather speak for that which is to their hurt and calls them poor souls whom before he called Saints There is more in his pittifull Preface he supposeth if the Apostles had been asked why they did not put down Infant-Baptism in plainer terms they would have answered that they thought none would have denyed it And I suppose they would have answered that they thought none would have affirmed it being quite against Christs appointment and their practice who had then no such custome nor the Churches of God The rest as it is taken from Mr. Baxter so it is answered in the Answer to him now in the Presse Sect. 3. lets view Mr. C. Arguments Reply I Will neither accuse nor excuse the decree of the Senate of Zuriâ—k against those turbulent Anabaptists that disturbed their quiet neither will I prejudge that state that follows them whether draw upon themselves the guilt of murdering innocent persons or wash their hands in innocency from guilt My citing of it was with no further approbation of it as my words
the word children saying they shall be all taught of God Mr. Tombes 5. Section THe seventh Argument is All that have faith may be baptized But some Infants have faith Therefore some Infants may be baptized But 1. The Major is not true of faith onely in seed or act secret and not made known 2. Mr. C. alters the Conclusion which should have been that all Infants of Believers may be baptized But then he durst not avoâ—ch the Minor that they all have faith at least in semine the contrary being manifest from Scripture and experience he proves the Minor 1. from Mat. 18. where he saith Christ expresly calls them believers but Christ calls not little children in age believers v. 6. it had been ridiculous to threaten so heavy a doom to the offending of little children in age who are offended with none so much as Nurses for dressing or chiding them when they cry but the Apostles and other Christian Disciples are there meant 2. They are said to receive the kingdom of God Mark 10. That is the grace of God remission of sins and life eternal now the kingdome is not received but by faith in Christ But onely elect Infants do receive the kingdom either by faith in the seed not in the act or by faith in the act secret onely and yet are not to be baptized till they make profession nor are all or any Children of believers as theirs elect Reply MY seventh Argument was All that have faith may be baptized Some Infants have faith Therefore some Infants may be baptized The major may have a threefold acceptation 1. All that have faith conferred or to be conferred in Baptism though not Physically or morally or ex opere operato yet of divine promise as some hold all believers Infants have because they cannot ponere obicem it will inevitably follow these if such are baptizeable 2. All that have faith of the parents or sureties imputed to them as in the old Cathechism they do perform by their sureties who do promise and vow them both faith and repentance in their names this granted makes Infants baptizable 3. All that have faith in feed secret act or habit may be baptized this he onely insists upon denying it because it is not made known confessing oft if it were known he would baptize them this exception denies not but they are baptizable but that he may not baptize them as if God had given them a right to baptism and no means to attain it and concludes as well against baptism of elders for if he baptize none till their faith be made known he must supersede till this mortal put on immortallity It is false that I alter the conclusion which in the dispute was some Infants may be baptized In the Sermon indefinitly Infants may be baptized sometimes as the mediunm affords I extend it to believers Infants yea unbelievers if under Christian education but the lowest is sufficient to overthrow his Tenet who denies all infant-Infant-baptism It s but his dream that I have any need to avouch all Infants of believers have saith at least in semine and I think it hard for him to manifest the contrary from Scripture and experience All that maintain an impossibility of falling from grace in adultis does not so in seminal graces in Infants but I wave that The Minor I proved from Matth. 18. where Christ expresly calls little children in age as many interpret it believers from the authority of Luke who Chapter 9. 48. sayes Christ sayes that of the little babe he took up in his armes and set in the midst of them he that receiveth this little child in my name receiveth me Mark 9. 36. 37. he that recieveth one of these little children without mention of any other foregoing but the child it self taken into his arms receiveth me However little children were patterns they were to imitate in faith and humility propter quod unumquodque tale illud magis tale It is not ridiculous but rather blasphemous to say it is ridiculous to threaten so heavy a doom to the offending or scandalizing of little children in age whom he childishly and untruly sayes are offended with none so much as nurses for dressing or chiding them when they cry Mr. T. might know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by Budaeus and others offensionis causam afferre vel concitare to bring or procure a cause of offence which nurses do not He that should have said Mr. T. eldest son when an Infant was a bastard I think did scandalize him in defaming him and rendring him uncapable of temporal birthright but they that deny Infants spiritual birthright and church membership scandalize them much more This he grants that Infants are said to receive the Kingdom of God Mark 10. 10. that is the grace of God remission of sins and life eternal now the kingdom is not received but by faith in Christ Elect Infants dying do receive the eternal kingdom either by faith in the seed not in the act or by faith in the act secret only and yet are to be baptized before they make profession upon their birthright priviledge grounded on Gods promise and charâ—â—able hope of seminal or actual faith which is confined to professors and their children as such solis sed non omnibus for out of the visible Church we have neither commission to administer the Ordinance nor promise of Salvation Mr. Tombes 19 Section THirdly saith Mr. C. They please God therefore Christ blesseth them but without faith it is impossible to please God Answ The like Argument is urged by the Remonstrants at the Synod at Dort It is impossible to please God without faith therefore election which supposeth pleasing of God presupposeth saith The Answer is that Heb. 11. 6. the pleasing of God is meant of the works as Enoch pleased God walking with him and so Infants please not God and therefore may be without faith not of the persons in which sense Infants may please God that is be beloved with a love of benevolence though not of delight without faith 4. Faith must be allowed them or not salvation for faith purifieth the heart Acts 15. 9. and no unclean thing shall enter into heaven Answ Faith in the seed is sufficient to make them clean which is not denyed may be in infants though neither Isai 65. 20. sayes any such thing and Austins words expresse nothing but his own conceit according to the language of his time but faith in seed or act unknown doth not entitle to baptism Reply THey please God therefore declaratively not causally Christ blesseth them it being impossible without faith to please God The Argument but far unlike is urged by the Remonstrants at the Synod at Dort to prove foresight of faith in time to be the cause of election before time I speak of Infants that are in being and actually please God and receive his benediction which presupposeth their persons are accepted and they have faith these two
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
the root that is the parents the lump the branches that is the Children and posterity And Rom 11. 17. if the Jews were broken off and the Gentiles graffed into their place it will follow that if the Jews were broken off Parents with Children then the Gentiles shall be graffed in Parents with Children But the Jews were broken off Parents with Children Therefore the Gentiles shall be graffed in Parents with Children 9. Arg. If Infants should be out of Covenant under the Gospel many dangerous absurdities would follow First Infants would be losers by the comming of Christ and be put in a worse condition than the Jewish Infants were they with the Parents were admitted to the Seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision and not Children with Parents to Baptism Secondly if Infants should be in Covenant then and not now Grace would be larger under the Law than under the Gospel Thirdly there would be no difference betwixt the Child of a Christian and of a Pagan but all the Infants of Christians would be as vile as the Children of Turks Tartars or Cannibals Fourthly they would be without God without Christ without hope in the world not the Children of God but of the Devil would all be damned for out of Covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation 10. Arg. Lastly that which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success must needs be lawful But Infant-Baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles times Therefore Infant-Baptism is lawful We 'l begin with the first Centurie or hundred years after Christ Dionysius the Areopagite whom the Apostles converted at Athens says Holy men have received a Tradition from the Fathers that is the Apostles to Baptize Infants Clemens who is recorded by some of the antients to succeed Peter in his Ministry at Rome says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptzie your Infants Irenaeus who lived in the second Century says Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est Christ became a little one for little ones sake that little ones might be received into Covenant Origen that lived in the beginning of the third Century says The Church received a Tradition from the Apostles to Baptize Infants and gives a reason because they are born in impurity of sin nay Pelagius a great Scholar who lived in the latter end of this Century though he denyed Original sin yet confessed Infant-Baptism for when they pressed him with this Argument if Infants had not Original sin what need they Baptism he answered that Christ appointed and the Church practised Infant-Baptism not to purge sin by-past but to prevent it for the time to come Cyprian in the fourth Century confirms it in his Epistle to Fidus and gives an account of a Council of sixty six Bishops that decreed that Infants should be Baptized Ambrose says because every age is lyable to sin therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament of Baptism Nazianzene says it is better to Seal Infants with Baptism though they know it not than to leave them unsealed Austin is conceived to go too far who denyed possibility of salvation to them that died un-baptized pressing that place John 3. 5. Except a Man be Born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God The Millevitan Councel in the fifth Century decreed That whosoever should deny that Infants even taken from their Mothers wombs might not be Baptized should be accursed All Churches All ages since agree in this the Harmonies of confessions of all Reformed Churches the Church of England in the Apologie the old Catechism the twenty seventh Article the Directory the greater and lesser Catechism composed by the Assembly of Divines the late Parliament by a further Declaration all confirm it The Canons of our Church did not only in former times declare but the Lawes of our Land did punish Anabaptists as hereticks Mr. Fox in his Acts and Monuments approves of the Albigenses Waldenses Wickliffists Lollards Poor men of Lyons Brownists Barrowists as members of the Reformed Churches but wholly excludes the Anabaptists as erring fundamentally I 'le say no more for confirmation of this polemicall discourse but wind up all with a word of exhortation I beseech you brethren consider what a dangerous errour this is that robbs the Scripture of its truth Infants of their right Parents of their comforts the Church of its members Christ of his merits God of his glory That is the mother of many other errours hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Shakers Levellers they that are above Ordinances Antiscripturians An errour that God hath expressed many signall judgments against as Sleiden and Gastius in Germany and some of our worthies in England have declared As reverend Mr. Cotton tells one of his Apostated flock that had his house burned and his Children in it No wonder that fire seised upon his house and God denyed water to quench it who denyed that water should be brought to Baptize his Infants Secondly consider that much benefit redounds both to Parents and Children by Infant-Baptism First much comfort comes hereby to the Parents when they consider Gods free grace to them and theirs that he is not ashamed to be called their God and the God of their seed after them Hebr. 11. 16. Secondly much benefit comes to Infants by Baptism which the Devill knowes well when he causes Witches to renounce their Baptism when they enter into Covenant with him for they are thereby addmitted into the bosome of the Church devoted and consecrated unto God his Name is put upon them they wear his Royall badge and by it they are distinguished from Heathens And this is so clear from Scriptures truly and spiritually understood That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Now the God of Peace and Truth by his Spirit lead us into all truth keep us pure and unspotted in this houre of Englands temptation and triall keep us faithfull to the death that so we may receive a crown of life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE Arraignment and Conviction OF ANABAPTISM The first Part. Mr. Tombes 1 Section A Plea for Anti-Paedobaptists against the vanity and falshood of scribled papers Entituled The Anabaptists Anatomiz'd and silenc'd in a publick Dispute at Abergaveny in Monmothshire Sept. 5. 165◠betwixt John Tombes John Cragge and Henry Vaughan touching Infant-Baptism By John Tombes B. D. Job 11. 2 3. Should not the multitude of words be answered And should a man full of talk be justified Should thy lies or devices make men hold their peace And when thou mockest shall no man make thee ashamed To be sold at the signe of Sir John Old-castle in Py-Corner Reply A Plea for Anti-Paedobaptists and why Does Mr Tombes intend to commence a suit against the Universal Church and to overthrow the divine institution of Infant-Baptism with the Antiquity Vniversality and Succession thereof Let him first consider whether his Action will hold Plea and whether there may not be
obscurely the necessary circumstance of the time would have been as precisely observed and agreed upon to be but one Thus the former proposition is cleared The latter by him denyed is this That Infant-Baptism was not alwayes he cunningly alters the subject of the Question and says that Infant-sprinkling was not held of the whole Church nor do we say so for it was and may be as well by pouring on water or dipping if infants bodâ—es in these cold Climates would endure it the usual way that we practise is either by pouring on water on the face of the Child if it be weak or dipping in part of the head if it be somewhat strong Gods Ordinances are not destructive to Nature who requires mercy and not sacrifice And that Infant Baptism was thus held alwayes is apparent To pass by divine Institution and Apostolical practise of which anon Dionysius the Areopagite and Clemens in the Apostles constitutions both makes for Infant-Baptism if the books be theirs as they have been entituled these many hundred years the cause is ours so farâ— if not theirs they must not expect any proof of men living in the first Century being extant none beside them Justin Martyr who lived Anno 150. in his 56 Question disputes the different condition of those Children which dye baptized and of those children who dyed unbaptized Two things are objected against this Testimony 1. That the reason of Baptizing of Infants was not the Covenant of grace made to believers and their seed but that they might obtain salvation at the resurrection This is so far from overthrowing that it confirmes the reason being in Covenant with the parents for of such speaks the Author whose parents are believers gives the children capacity to be baptized and they are baptized that they may have salvation at the resurrection for we have no promise of the salvation of any out of the pales of the visible Church The second objection is that Perkins Rivet and others questions whether it be Justin Martyrs book or no. To which I answer there is scarce a book in Scripture any Article of the Creed or part of Antiquity but it hath been questioned by some If we should reject all things that are questioned we must turn Academicks Scepticks and Seckers in all things howsoever it gives evidence to matter of fact that Infants were Baptized in that age in which it was written Irenaeus that lived in the same Century says lib. 2. cap. 39 Christ came to save all that are new born by him into God Infants and little ones and boyes c. Who are those that are new-born The Baptized Which suits with the language of the Holy Ghost in Scripture Tit. 3. 5. The Apostle calls Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washing of the new birth which is so clear that Mr. Mead in his Diatriba upon the place thinks that none will deny that by washing of regeneration baptism is meant or pointed at Besides its the dialect of the Greek Fathers near whose time he lived Justin Martyr speaking of those that are brought to be baptized says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are born anew or regenerated after the same manner we are regenerated being washed as it followes in the name of the father and of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost Dioâ—ysius Hierarch cap. 2. calls the materials of Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divine signes of Divine generation Basil and Nazianzene calls Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the regeneration of the soul all this makes it appear that Irenaeus did drive at the regeneration of Infants by Baptism as well as them of years Origen whom Perkins places at the year 230. says upon Rom. 6. lib. 5. The Church received the Tradition of Baptising of Infants from the Apostles affirming the same thing in substance Homily 8th upon Leviticus and Homily 18. in Lucam Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum Little ones are baptized for the remission of sins The exceptions against these are three 1. They are translations Origens Greek in the Original is lost The same may be said of S. Matthews Gospel which he writ in the Hebrew or Syriack now lost the Greek Copy onely extant And of the Septuagints Translation of the Old Testament which our Saviour himself followed more exactly than the Hebrew Original Translations agreeing with the Original Copy being equally Authentick But secondly it is said that the Translation is censured by Erasmus and Perkins as in something contracting adding or altering What is added is ingeniously confessed by Rufinus the Translator himself neither does acute Erasmus nor Judicious Perkins nor any of the Ancients most Critical impeach him in the fore quoted Testimonies Therefore this Exception is blank The third thing objected is that he calls it a Tradition So does the Apostle things contained in Scripture 2 Thes 2. 15. Epiphanius calls Baptism and other divine truthes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditions and yet quotes Scripture for them Bellarmine calls infant-Infant-Baptism a tradition and yet brings ten places of Scripture to prove it Austin affirms lib. 10. cap. 23. de Genes That the custom of our mother the Church in Baptising of little ones is in no wise to be despised nor to be thought superfluous nor at all to be believed unlesse it were an Apostolick Tradition and yet proves the necessity of it from John 3. 5. Vnless one be born again of water and the Spirit c. Gregory Nazianzen who as Dr. usher and Mr. Perkins sayes lived in the year 370 or 380. commands Children to be Baptized and gives a reason Orat. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they not misse of common grace nothing is excepted against this but that he gave his opinion of others to defer their Baptism unlesse they were in danger of death which I shall clear anon To these may be joyned Athanasius who interpret Script Quest 94. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the dipping of the Child quite under the water thrise and raising of it up again doth signifie the death of Christ and the Resurrection the third day In his second Question ad Antioch he enquires how one shall know that he was truly baptized and received the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who when he received Baptism was but an Infant He answers that it may be known by the motions of the Spirit as the woman knowes she hath conceived when she feeles the Child stir in her womb And Question 114. he being asked whether Infants dying go to be punished or to the Kingdome Says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Infants are holy here you see many hundred years before Zuinglius covenant-holiness is acknowledged and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Infants of Believers that are Baptized do as unspotted and faithfull enter into the Kingdome Epiphanius amongst the Greek Fathers brings up the rear avouching that Circumcision had its time untill the great Circumcision came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is
the washing of the new birth or regeneration as is manifest to every one Now what is this washing of Regeneration but Baptism Which could not succeed circumcision unlesse children that were circumcised were in his judgment baptized These are the Evidences in part of the Greeks concerning Infants interest in Baptism proving that de facto in their times and from the beginning of Christianity they were baptized The Latine Fathers come up with a full body to joyn with them whereof Tertullian marches in the front who as Helvicus records wrote his book of Prescriptions about the year 195. Which was about 97 years after the decease of St. John So that by this calculation he lived about 70. or lesse years after St. John in which short tract of time the Apostolical practise of Infant-Baptism could neither be clouded nor forgotten Neither would he have commended his private opinion as more profitable that the Baptism of some Infants for some respects should be deferred but have called it down as an Innovation if the practise of it had not been as transparent to every mans apprehension as if it had been writ with the sun-beams That Infant-Baptism was in practise in Tertullians dayes it appears by this Question libr. de Bapt. cap. 8. Quid sestinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatâ—rum Why does innocent age meaning children in their infancie make hast for remission of sins meaning Baptism which is a clear case whatsoever Semi Socinian Grotius say to the contrary That Tertullian was for Infant Baptism himself appears that in his book de Animâ cap. 39 he presses it when the child is in danger of death and gives his reason libr. de Bapt. cap. 12. praescribitur nemini sine Baptisme competere salutem it is prescribed that salvation is to none without Baptism That cavill of his advice to deferr Baptism in some cases I shall answer anon Cyprian succeeds who flourished as Trithemius and others observe about the year 240. in his 59 Epistle ad Fidum is not onely expresse for Infant-Baptism himself but mentions a Councell of sixty six Bishops who had declared the same and all this to satisfie the said Fidus who was not aginst the divine Institution and Apostolical practise of Infant-Baptism but conceived that Infants might not be Baptized before the eighth day because they might not be circumcised Cyprian tells him that Infants might not onely be baptized before the eighth day but any day Austin approves of this Epistle and his judgment saying Epist 28. ad Hier. Cyprianus non novum aliquod decretum condens sed Ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servaÌ„s That Cyprian did not devise any new decree but faithfully observed what the Church had done before him Augustine that bright day-star of Afâ—ick gives further evidence Sermon 15. de vâ—rbis Apost speaking of Infant-Baptism says hoc Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuiâ— hoc a majorum fide accepit hoc usque in finem persâ—veranter custodit The Church always had it always observed it received it from the faith of their Ancestors keeps it with perseverance to the end Neither do those exceptions against him any whit impeach the credit of it much lesse the fact First because he calls it an Universal Tradition Not denying that it is grounded upon Scripture as before but with the Oxford Convocation avouching that which in general terms by consequence and sub obscurely is delivered in Scripture is more plainly interpreted by Tradition as following the River Nilus the heads that are somewhat obscure are found out And that Constantine Augustine Alipius Adâ—odatus were not baptized when Infants was either because their parents were not Christians or they were not converted till of age or were tainted with some heresie or afraid of persecution as Philip the first Christian Emperour no sooner baptized â—ut privately made away The second exception is that Austin held that Infants dying without Baptism were damned This Rivet fathers upon him de patrum authoritate cap. 9 Augustinus aeternis flammis adjudicat infantes sine Baptismo morientes Austin adjudges to Eternal flames Infants dying without Baptism To which I answer he maintained Infant-Baptism upon other grounds though partly upon this which afterwards he retracted Thirdly it s excepted for that of giving them the Eucharist is impertinent that he held a certaintie of regeneration by Baptism and he makes no question of the regeneration of Infants I answer he does indefinitly of the species or sort of baptized Infants seeing God hath promised to be a God of those that are in covenant with him and their seed and we have a promise and consequently faith of none else But he does not say that every individual baptized Infant without limitation is regenerated but the contrary cortâ—cem sine nucleo the shell without the kernell as he averres there are some quirem Baptismi absque Sacramento Baptismi consequuntur that have the matter of Baptism that is the outward Elements without the Sacrament of Baptism that is without the inward and invisible grace The other Antients are of the same judgment as Ambrose â—â—stifies of Valentinian quem in Evangelilio geniturus eram amisi sed ille non amisit gratiam quam poposcit I have lost him whom I was a begetting by the Gospel but he hath not lâ—st the grace he desired but enjoyes eternal life and how seeing he was not baptized He gives the reason he was baptized inwardly in will though not outwardly with water The last exception is that Austin maintained that not onely Infants of Beleevers but Unbelievers also might be baptized It s true if Christians had the Tuition of them and would engage for them they might as well be baptized as the children Abraham's posteriâ—y boughâ— wâ—th mony or captives might be circumcised therefore Tertullian pleads both prerogative of birth and education as giving capacity to baptism To these I might add Ambrose that sayes that every age is liable to sin therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament of Baptism Lactantius Fulgentius Prosper Aquatanicus the Milevitan Councel with all the succeeding worthies enough to swell a Volume goes in the same Equipage But says Mr. Tombes Infant-Baptism as it is now used was opposed by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen Which Argument made into form sounds thus That which was opposed by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen was not held by the whole Church but Infant-baptism was opposed by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen Therefore Infant-Baptism was not held by the whole Church I deny both propositions first the Major for if it were true two mens opposing does not weaken an Evidence of fact not interrupted for so many Centuries Secondly the Minor is most false for it is formerly proved that Tertullian and Gregory were both for Infant-Baptism True it is the one advised to deferre it till the Infants were two or three years old unless they were in danger of death as it is conceived least dipping impair their health what is this against
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
snow is black But he hath also a snatch at me saying that I shewed my heedlesness when I said it was an Addition to the Text that the Gentiles should bring the Jews well let that be examined An addition may be two wayes either in words so it is apparent for the Text says not that the Gentiles shall bring the Jews Or in sense and so it is not said the Gentiles shall bring thy Children by naturall generation which I conceive is the Question but their own But he sayes the very distinction of thy Children from the Gentiles shews it meant of the Jews otherwise it should have been their Children in the third person not thine in the second here is vindice cuneo nodus dignissimus a knot that one may unty with his gloves on They the Gentiless shall bring thy sons that is Sons of the Church and yet the Gentiles Children But who ever interpreted it thus A great writer 1. Tombs B. D. in his Plea for Antidaedobaptists pag. 14. for these are his words The Church is spoken to observe not the Jews and the Children were both the Gentiles Children and yet thy Children that is the Churches Now who shewed his heedlesness But in the same blindfold posture he goes on saying it can not be meant of Gods Children as his for then it should be mine in the first person for God speaks those words Here is an Excellent Grammar-lecture of the distinction of persons for which the Author merits to be Terrae filius the next year But let us look back It cannot be meant of Gods Children â—ayes he as his for then it should be mine in the first person for God speaks those words well God sayes to Moses thy Children which thou hast brought out of Egypt it can not be meant of Gods Children for God speaks the words This is a fallacie a dicto seeundum quid ad simpliciter All this may be easily reconciled They are the Churches Children by spirituall succession the Gentiles by naturall generation Gods by adoption But we might have spared our labour all this while for he denyes not but the words may be accommodated to the times of the Gospel This is something that he is contented with the Adulterous woman that the Child shall be divided and we shall have part but the true Mother will either have all or none How accommodated to the times of the Gospel If â—lterally then not to any historicall thing under the Law If Mystically then it was a Prophesie of a prophesie But without further enquirie this grant is enough for my purpose though not of bringing Infants to Baptism which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another Question yet to prove the Proposition in Question that God foretold that Infants should be Church-members under the Gospel whence Infant-baptism will follow and this hath so much colour from the Text That Master T. for all his experience can put no other colour upon it for if by his own confession it be a prophecie that the Gentiles should bring back the Jews not onely Infants but others from captivity in the letter and type It will follow the Gentiles shall bring back not onely children but others from spirituall captivity in the Mystery and Antitype which his words unawares of him seems to carry when he stiles them the Gentiles Children that is the Churches And this will further appear by considering my answers to his Questions put out Socratically to entangle me and cunningly to darken the Text. Mr. Tombes 11. Section FOr 1. If by standard be meant baptism which the Scripture never calls Gods standard and the bringing should be to Baptism then the sense should be that supreme Magistrates as Kings and Queens should bring Infants in their Arms and carry them on shoulders to Baptism which no story ever mentions to have been done and is too frivolous to be made the matter of that Prophecy 2. The terms nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers shew it to be a Metaphor which Mr. C. granting though it follow not that nothing could be gathered from it yet it follows that Mr. C. application which is according to the proper sense of the words is not right What I said that it was fulfilled in Hesters time I said rightly and Mr. Gataker before me in those annotations of his which are taken for the most incomparably learned and Hâ—ster as a Queen among the Gentiles might well be stiled a nursing Mother to the Jews I will not trouble my self to examine Mr. C. dictates but refer the Reader to the notes of Master Gataker As for that I said that though it should be understood of the times of the Gospel yet it might be meant of growen men perswaded by the preaching of the Gospell as Jun us in his Annot. was true Nor doth the bringing in the bosome being a Metaphor proves they were Infants And if so the Church is spoken to and the Children were both the Gentiles Children and yet â—hy children that is the Churches And so there is no interfering in my words Reply AS it is a Stratagem in War when an Army is brought into a strait and finds it self over-matched with Quintus Fabiâ—â— to parly till they have found an advantage and then suddainly to fall upon the enemy So it is the Trick of a Sophister when he is at a loss in dispute to aske Questions to ensâ—are the aâ—versarie and then with Crocodile â—leights supprise him Mr. T. is very dexterous in this art which he exercised in the dispute asking what I understood by Standard what by Kings what by nursing Fathers I told him that it was not his place to dispute Socratically by asking of Questions but to answer ad oppositum But to give him satisfaction which I needed not by Standard I understood visible holding out of Gospel-Ordinances as Baptism c. By Kings supreme Magistrates By nursing Fathers and Nursing Mothers Patrons and Protectors of the Gospel Now to put a gloss upon his counterfâ—t wares he sayes these Questions were put out needfully to clear the Text that it had no colour for bringing Infants to Baptism whereas he should have said to be visible Church members under the Gospel For 1. sayes he if by Standard be meant Baptism which the Scripture never dalls Standard and the bringing should be to Baptism then the sense should be that supreme Magistrates as Kings and Queens should bring Infanâ—s in their Arms and carry them on shoulders to Baptism which no story ever mentions to have been done and is too frivolous to be made the matter of that prophecie In which word there is neither verity nor consequence if sense Fiâ—st he sayes if by Standard be meant Baptism who makes a Thesis oâ— his Hypothesis or affirms that by Standard is meant Baptism My answer was that by Standard was meant some visible Gospel-Ordinance as Baptism c. to wit preaching praying with many more Now who knows not that there is a difference betwixt Gospel-Ordinances
purport but that they knew well those that were baptized before were not to be baptized again And it is neither a Logicall nor Thelogicall conclusion in Mr. T. as proceeding neither from reason nor charity to say from thence its probable that I am a bloudy minded man who would rejoyce to see innocent men put to death when it is well known that even in Abergaveny when the most eminent dipper in these parts was sentenced to death by a councell of war and the Engine for execution prepared I laboured with others what I could to reverse it when that could not be to defer it to procure some liberty from close imprisonment and consequently his escape Methinks if Mr. Tombes out of tenderness of conscience should follow that which he thinks though mistakingly the plain rule of Christ he should be more meeke than causlesly judge it not unlikely to be my aim or my complices in printing the brief relation of a dispute and sermon which suits both with the Laws and Religion of our Land to stir up Magistrates or furious common people against them when he hath printed many Volumes disputing with both whereby both Church and State are disquieted and as the wolf in the fable did the lamb accuses us of that which never entred into our thoughts which he hath effected in part and is to be feared with his complices is further projecting against us The Authors I cite and by citing approve that do make dying the first dipping the second of the significations of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not cross my resolution of the former doubt that baptizing is not dipping but prove it for if there be four manners of Baptizing whereof dipping is but one then baptizing is not onely dipping Species non praedicatur de genere nec cum eo reciprocatur I undertake to prove that Infants may nay ought to be baptized whose Advocate Christ was commanding them to be brought to him that could not come themselves spoke in the behalf of them that could not speak for themselves In subordination to whose will I speak for them in speaking for their Baptism it tending to their good as thereby being made visible members of the Church more compleatly out of which ordinarily there is no salvation Poore they are in regard they are self-helpless Saints or holy in regard of birth-privilege or election of grace whch none but Satan and his complices denyes them The preface which the pittiless Herodian Infanticides oppugne recommends two considerations first that those truthes that were not in controversie in the primitive times the Apostles were not so punctuall in pressing of them seeing there was no need Solon being asked why he made no Law against murderers of Parents answered because he conceived none would commit that unnaturall act If the Apostles had been asked why they did not put down Infant-Baptism in plainer terms they would have answered that none would have denyed it as being so firmly founded in Christs appointment and their practise that the gates of Hell and the Locusts swarming thence in succeeding ages should not prevail against it The second consideration which is not so much taken from Mr. Baxter as Mr. T. his whole fabrick from the German Anabaptists Grâ—tius and the Jesuits is that those things that are pressed oft in the Old Testament are mentioned more sparingly in the New as the Sabbath and Magistracy which he sayes is answered in his answer to Mr. Baxter but so weakly that whosoever reads and understands cannot but be further confirmed against him but I follow him to the view of mine Arguments Mr. Tombes 8. Section HIs first is Those that are in covenant with God ought to have the seal of the covenant which is Baptism But Infants of believing Parents are in covenant with God Ergo. He sayth the former proposition is firm by the confession of all Divines even our adversaries and cites five but not where they say it nor is any one his adversary in this point It is true Ferus was a Popish frier though more ingenuous than the most of them But doth Mr. C. think that we must take that for true which Protestants and Papists do avow without any proof from Scripture If so then let us lay aside the Scripture and read their books But he might know and t is likely did know that I though I will not take on â—e the name of a divine yet have denyed yea and proved his former proposition to be false Exam. part 3. Sect. 1. letter to Mr. Bayly Sect. 3. Antipaedobap or full Review 1. part Sect. 5. Which shall be fully vindicated God assiâ—ting in the Third part yea were his Argument good it would prove Infants were wronged because they had not the communion for I can as well from his own Medium prove that they are to have it as he Baptism Reply THe first Argument is Those meaning under the Gospell that are in Covenant with God meaning outward and visible ought to have the seal of the Covenant which is Baptism But Infants of believing parents are in Covenant with God therefore they ought to have the seal of the Covenant which is Baptism The former proposition I truely sayd is firm by the confession of all Divines even our adversaries meaning Mr. T. himself whose Plea for Antipaed page 12. confesses he affirmed in his sermon that visible Church-members were to be baptized visible Church-members and visible Covenanters are Synonima And that those that were actually received into Covenant might be Baptized to be visibly in covenant and actually received into covenant are both one I cited five more four eminent Protestants Danaeus Davenant Wendel and Perkings One a Papist Ferus who he sayes is more ingenuous than them that are fore-mentioned see his affection and if you please Ferus his ingenuity who upon Matth. 19. sayth juste ac vere ex spiritu Christi ecclesiae etiam pueros baptizat non igitur Christianum sed plane Herodianum vel si mavis Egyptiacum est parvulos populi Dei necare Justly and truely from the spirit of God the Church even baptizeth children therefore it is not a Christan act but plainly like Herod or rather like the Egyptians to murder the little ones of Gods people by denying them Baptism I think we must take that for true which is instituted by Christ practised by the Apostles and all succeeding ages adhere to Scriptures not the writings of a few novel Anabaptists whose dictats poysons the Church I knew that Mr. T. who will not take upon him the name of a Divine yet thinks himself wiser than all the Divines in the World hath denyed and attempted to prove Exam. part 3. Sect. 1. letter to Mr. Bayly Sect. 3. Antipaed 1. part Sect. 5. That those that were in covenant with God had no seal before Abrahams time from Abraham till Christ women were in covenant and not circumcised since Christ the elect are in covenant invisibly before they be members visible
and not Baptizable All this makes nothing against my Thesis That those that are now visibly in covenant with God ought to have the seal of the covenant which is Baptism what wonders his Third part may do like a Tertius Cato is not yet discovered My arguing is good and proves Infants are wronged that have not Baptism the initiating seal but not so if they have not the Communion because they cannot examine themselves Neither can he from my Medium or any other prove it unless he contradict Scripture and himself who often sayes he would Baptize an Infant if he knew him to be regenerat yet I think he durst not give him the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper Mr. Tombes 9. Section THe Minor he takes on him to prove from Genesis 17. 7. But there is not a word of Infants of believing Parents But to prove it he cites Cornelius a Lapide a Jesuit for him and yet had he not falsely translated his words the words would have appeared to be against him for whereas he renders them in The Sprituall seed to the faithfull which mars his sense it is in the spirituall seed the faithfull So likewise Gal. 3. 8. Though there be not the teâ—m Abrahams seed yet it is directly against him for it asserts justification to the believing Gentiles onely from Abrahams promise not a promise to them and their seed I deny not but that Isack was in covenant with God that is a child of the promise not onely when he was but eight dayes old but also before the seventh yea afore he was borne but when he sayth he had the seal meaning circumcision by virtue of the lamb to be slain it is strange Divinity to me who never heard or read that any person was circumcised by virtue of Christs death but by reason of Gods command And that which he sayth much more the children of believing Parents by virtue of the lamb that is already slain which seems to intimate that circumcision is due to them much more and that by virtue of Christs death is a foppery like to the Authors ingeny He sayth Deut. 29. 11. when all the people stood in covenant before the Lord their litle ones are mentioned amongst the rest And are not their Wives and Servants Hewers of Wood an Drawers of Water Are all these in Covenant with God how doth he prove they were believers Infants The words v. 4. seem to make to the contrary It is no shift but a manifest truth that those Acts 2. 38 39 to whom Peter said The promise is to you and your children were not the believers in Christ when the words were spoken to them for first The Apostle exhorts to Repentance therefore they had not yet repented and so were not Believers Mr. C. himself pag. 78. in this Sermon saith Repentance is a fruit and effect of Faith therefore according to him not before it And in the dispute pag. 52 he made them Believers in fieri with aâ— incompleat repentance though perhaps not believers in facto 2. v. 40. He exhorted them with more words and then v. 41. some of them gladly recieved the word and were believors Yet Peter said to them before they were Believers the promise is to you and your Children nor is there a word in the Text that makes it clear that as soon as they were Believers their Children were in Covenant with them and to be baptized Reply THE Minor I prove from Genesis 17. 7. where the Infants of believing Parents are implyed it being a covenant not onely established with Abraham but with his seed after him in their generations for an everlasting covenant by virtue of which Isack and all succeeding Male-Infants were circumcised I cited Cornelius a Lapide which he does often though a Jesuit not to prove the point but the harmony of learned men against the new fangle Anabaptist the translation of whose words though mistaken in a sillable by the Relator or Printer makes for me for both the words and Context proves prerogative of birth to believers Infants to the end of the World In Gal. 3. 8. There is implyed Abrahams seed in that it was a Gospell-covenant and that in him all Nations shall be blessed and is directly for me for it asserts the covenant and in that justification to the believing Gentiles not onely from Abrahams promise but also a promise to them and their seed I confess Isaak was in covenant with God internally that is as he interprets a child of promise not onely when he was but eight dayes old but before the seventh but we speak of a visible covenant which he at least compleatly entered not till by circumcision the eight day which outward seal I say meaning circumcision as well as the inward circumcision of the heart he had by the virtue or in the virtue of the lamb to be slain And is no strange Divinity to them who acknowledge Christ the Angel and Mediator of the covenant both to hear and read that every person was circumcised by virtue of Christs death as the Meritorius as well as by reason of Gods command the efficient cause To looke at any circumstance of the covenant of grace out of Christ or not receiving virtue from Christ is too looke in a glasse wherein we may see our own damnation I rightly inferred if Isack had the sâ—al circumcision by virtue of the lamb to be slain much more the children of believing Parents now may have the seal baptism by virtue of the lamb already slain But too intimate from thence that the old seal of circumcision is much more due now to Infants of believing Christians is a note beyond Ela and a misshapen crotchet like the Composers Phantasie I said Deut. 29. 11. when all the people stood in covenant before the Lord their little ones are mentioned amongst the rest as are indeed their wives and servants hewers of wood and drawers of water who were either Jewes or circumcised Proselytes which all were in covenant with God had the seal therefore their Infants were believers that is Professors Infants as the words in the first verse and consequently in the 4. verse prove For God expostulates there not with Aliens out of covenant but with his own who had been careless many of them of the conditions of the covenant It is a shift and a maniâ—est untruth that those Acts 2. 38 39 To whom Peter said the promise is to you and your children were not accepters or entertainers of Christ when the words were spoken to them for 1. The Apostle exhorts them to compleat repentance which was initiated or begun in them they were pricked in heart therefore also faith that is profession of faith Men and Bretheren what shall we do I said in the sermon compleat repentance is an effect and fruit of saving faith as in order of nature after it Yet there is an incompleat repentance and profession of faith antecedent to both In the dispute accordingly I
ones and boyes These that were new born are the baptized in Scripture-phrase Tit. 3. 5. baptism is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washing of the new birth which to be so meant Master Mead in his Diatriba thinks none will deny Master Tombes 25. Section ORigens speeches are in the Latine books translated by Ruffinus into which many things were foysted by him and these its probable were so as being so express against the Pelagians nor do I find he was ever alleged by Austin who gathered the most antient testimonies he could for originall sin and infant-baptism Therefore saith Vosâ—ius in his Theses of infant baptism we less care for Origen because they are not in Greek Cyprian's testimony is granted to be in the third Century and Ambroses and Austins and the Milevitan Councils and inâ—umerable more but all upon the Popish errours of giving grace and the necessity to save a child from damnation Gregory Nazianzen and Tertullian before him disswade from it except in case of danger of death in appearance near out of which case the antients did not baptize infants and in that case the Communion was given them But otherwise they baptized not infants no not of believing Parents till they came to years and then they were first Catechized in Lent and then solemnly baptized at Easter and Whitsuntide as may be gathered even from the Common Prayer Book in the Rubrick before Baptism Reply ORigen that lived in the beginning of the third Century sayes The Church received a tradition from the Apostles to baptize Infants and gives a reason because they are born in impurity of sin what is added is ingenuously confessed by Ruffinus the Translator himself Erasmus Perkins nor any that plays the Critick upon him impeaches him in the fore quoted place A negative argument from Scripture in matter of fact will not conclude shall Austins non-allegation then of Origen or which is more ridiculous Mr. T. not finding it disparage the authority of Origen Vossius in his Theses of infant baptism less cares for those parts of Origen that are not in the Greek yet does not wholly discard them some testimonies may be more authentick than others yet all creditable Pelagius a great Scholar who lived in the latter end of this Century Though he denyed Original sin yet confessed Infant-baptism for when they pressed him with this Argument If Infants had not Originall sin what need they baptism He answered that Christ appointed and the Church practised Infant-baptism not to purge sin by past but to prevent it for the time to come This Mr. T. ingenuously passes by as unanswerable and by silence gives consent Cyprian confirms it in his 59. Epistle to Fidus and gives an account of sixtie six Bishops that decreed that Infants should be baptized Ambrose sayes because every age is lyable to sin therefore every age is â—it for the Sacrament of Baptism Nazianzen sayes it is better to Seal Infants with Baptism though they know it not than to leave them unsealed Austin Serm. 15. de verb. Apost speaking of Infant-Baptism sayes The Church alwaies had it alwaies observed it received it from the faith of their Ancestors keeps it with perseverance to the end The Milevitan Councill decreed That whosoever should deny that Infants even taken from the Mothers wombs might be Baptized should be accursed All this he grants yet blasts it as his brethren of Transilvania did the Trinity with this infectious breath that they were all upon the Popish errours of giving grace and the necessity to save a child from damnation when Popery was not yet nor was this the errour of all or any of them finally as Dr. Hâ—mes hath proved or if it were shall the abuse of a thing take away the lawfull use much less the evidence of fact which is the Question How Gregory Nazianzen and Tertullian before him disswades from it except in danger of death is formerly answered It was either Pagans or if believers to consult their bodyly health they did the like to young men unmarryed that were converted and widows neither do we find they prevailed in the least against the generall practice of Infant Baptism which was so inviolable that as the Question is stated I think he cannot shew one instance to the contrary If some gave them the Communion iâ— no more impeaches the lawfulness of their Baptism than the Jesuits joyning spittle Salt exorcism in Baptizing the Indians of years does Mr. T. supposed Baptism of believers That unless in danger of death the antients Baptized not Infants is as loud a lye as any is in the Golden legion Ovidâ— Metamorphosis or Lucians Dialogues The Rubrick of the Common Prayer book before Baptism makes no mention of Catechizing in Lent much less that believers Infants were not Baptized till they came to years but that the Sacrament of Baptism in the old time was not commonly ministred but at Easter and Whitsontide He that thus falsifies an evidence that every Boy or Girle that can but read may check him in Judge what he does with the Greek and Latine Fathers Mr. Tombes 26. Section IT is most false that all ages all Churches agree in infant baptism some Churches never had it Some Churches five hundred years agâ— of the godly and learned that then were did oppose it and practice the baptism of believers onely If Mr. Fox and others did account Anabaptists Hereticks it was for other Tenents than this Master Baxter himself saith no sober divine did ever reckon the Anabaptists as Hereticks meerly for the errour of rebaptizing plain Scripture proof c. part 1. chap. 1. yet Mr. C. bespatters Antipaedobaptism thus it robs the Scripture of its truth infants of their right Parents of their comforts the Church of its members Christ of his merits God of his glory Sure he hath learned the art of him in the Comaedian to calumniate boldly imagining something will be believed though there be not a word true But there is more of this venom behind That it is the mother of many other errours Hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Quakers Levellers they that are above ordinances Antiscripturians will any believe that from the Tenet which doth so stifly maintain an ordinance should spring the errour of being above ordinances Or that the errour of Antiscripturians should spring from that Tenet which doth sâ— strictly insiâ—t on the Scripture Let Mr. C. shew any the least connexion between Antipaedobaptism and the errours he names and he saith something else if onely the persons and not the Tenet be guilty of these errours he doth but calumniate He might with like reason say The Christian Religion is the Mother of many other errours hence sprung Ebionites Corinthians Nicholaitans Gnosticks c. such kind of criminations are most stinking and base slanders unworthy a sober minded man much more a Divine in the Pulpit speaking to many people who examine not but take all for true which such Rabbins talk with confidence
Reply IT is most true That all ages all Churches agree in Infant Baptism He cannot name one Church one particular Congregation that never had it I have already proved it a meer fiction that any Church five hundred years ago either opposed it or practised the baptism of believers onely Master Baxter challenges him to name one man that was against or did once question Church-membership of infants from the Creation till two hundred years ago and less which challenge is not yet answered To these I further added the harmonies of confessions of all Reformed Churches the Church of England in the Apology the old Catechism the twentie seventh Article the Directory the confession of faith the greater and lesser Catechism composed by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster and approved by the Generall Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland the late Parliament by a further Declaration all confirming it The Canons of our Church did not onely in former times declare but the Laws of our land did punish Anabaptists as Hereticks Master Fox in his Acts and Monuments approves of the Albigenses Waldenses Wickliffists Lollards poor men of Lyons Brownists Barrowists as members of the Reformed Churches but wholy excludes the Anabaptists as erring fundamentally He passes by all these as Forts impregnable onely parlyes with Master Fox saying If he did account Anabaptists Hereticks it was for other Tenents than this to wit re-baptizing yes for denying Infants Church-membership Covenant-holiness and baptism which are enough But those are not all like Gad it goes with a Troop attending it But he relieves himself from Mr. Baxter crying quarter from an enemy who said no sober Divine did ever reckon the Anabaptists as Hereticks meerly for the errour of rebaptizing This will throw Master Tombes upon the horns of a dangerous Dilemma for if they be not Hereticks Master T. is no sober Divine for calling them Hereticks and a litter of grievous Wolves Treat of Scandals pag. 323. If he be a sober Divine Then they are Hereticks utrum horum let him choose whether he pleases But Mr. Tombs perhaps meant and Mr. Baxter sayes meerly for the errour of rebaptizing It s true There is Infant Church-membership and baptism besides which being denyed with making a party and division Mr. Baxter demonstrates monstrates how dangerous and hereticall it is Therefore I truly said Anabaptism with its attendants was a dangerous errour that robbes the Scripture of its truth infants of their right Parents of their comforts the Church of its members Christ of his merits God of his glory whereof every word is true and free from the calumniating art of Machiavell studyed so much by the Anabaptists which he falsly attributes to the Comaedian In what Comaedy Asinaria I further averred at which he disgorges his venom That it is the Mother of many other errours hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Quakers Levellers they that are above Ordinances Antiscripturians for it stands with reason and Gods just judgement that Satan the Serpent having winded in the head by making them deny Infant baptism winds in further by degrees to the denyall of all baptism Communion Ordinances And having rejected plain Scripture-proof for Infants Church-membership and baptism are infatuated by degrees till they deny all Scripture According to Mr. Sidenham Anabaptism hath been alwaies ominous and of a wonderfull strange influence accompanied with the most dangerous retinue of errours since the first Embrio of it was brought forth whether from a judgement of God or from its naturall and secret connexion with other principles of darkness God hath shewed some black Characters on it in every Nation where it prevailed It is voyd of reason to say that the Christian Religion which is the Mother of truth should be the Mother of errour Ex veris nil nisi verum The Ebionites Corinthians Nicholaitans Gnosticks sprung from the corruptious of men transgressing Scripture-rule And it is somewhat blasphemous to compare Anabaptism to Christian Religion the one proceeding from the Holy Ghost the other from an impure Spirit The Helchesaits a kind of Anabaptists as Bullinger sayes adversus Anabaptist Cap. 2. did boast they had a Book sent from Heaven wherein mysteries were contained which whosoever heard read should have pardon of sins Nicholas Stock gave it out as Guy de Bres lib. 1. cont Anabapt That God spake to him by an Angel and revealed to him his will in dreams promising him the place of the Angel Gabriel Muncer told his Souldiers as Sleiden Comment lib. 5. God had revealed unto him that the day should be theirs Tuscoverer as Gastius sayes told the people God had revealed unto him that John of Leyden should have the Empire of the whole world Do not our Quakers Levellers those that are for a spirituall Monarchy which are all Anabaptists affirm the like And if Mr. T. must have a further connexion between Anabaptism and the errours I named it s this to use his own words They are the litter of the same Wolf fruits of the same Spirit which being their own confessions recorded by learned and Godly Authors are no criminations or base slanders but truths beseeming sober minded men and especially Divines in the Pulpit whose charge it is to look to their flock that they be not worryed by that litter of grievous Wolves Mr. Tombes 27. Section THe like I say of the Judgements of God Those in Germany were by war the events that have happened in our days should teach us to be sparing in our Judging Mr. Cottons speech was according to his prejudice Solomon Eccles 9. 1 2. Chr. Luke 13. 1 2 3 4 5. â—eacheth us more sobriety than so easily to pronounce of Gods judgements If we should judge of men and Tenents by outward judgements Job had been condemned justly One man had his house burned that did not sprinkle his child thousands have had their houses burned who did and perhaps upon occasion of that abuse by means of provision for the feast May not we as well say God thereby judged against infant sprinkling Thousands have prospered after their refusing to baptize infants thousands have falln into calamities after they have baptized them May not we this way as well decide for Antipaedobaptists as against them Divines that maintain the Scriptures to be their rule should not thus judge of what is true or false by Gods dealing with mens persons which is often upon secret reasons not discernable by us but by his word which is our rule and wherein he hath revealed his mind The rest of Mr. C. speech is as vain Doth this benefit come to Parents and children by infant baptism that God is not ashamed to be called their God and the God of their seed after them Heb. 11. 16. what a ridiculous conceit is this The text saith that through the faith of the persons it is that God is not ashamed to be called their God not their God and the God of their seed much less a word of infant
baptism as if such a benefit came by it All the benefit he talks of that comes to infants is either a meer empty title or else it comes to infants as well without baptism as with it The Devils dealing if it be as Mr. C. saith makes it appear the faith is good into which the pretended baptism is but not that the baptism is right Reply THe Signall judgments god expressed against them in Germany and the sad effects it hath wrought since these late wars with us may awake us to take heed of the sin lest we partake of the punishment Read Calvin Bullinger Sâ—elden Gastius Guy-debrees Mr. Cotton understood himself when he told one of his Apostated flock that had his house burned and his children in it no wonder that fire seized upon his house and God denyed water to quench it who denyed that water should be brought to baptize his Infants Eccles 9 1 2 one event falls out to the righteous and to the wicked and Luke 13 1 2 3 4 5 Those whose blood Pilat mingled with the sacrifice and they upon whom fell the Tower of Siloam were not greater sinners than others yet we may with sobriety pronounce of Gods judgements against the Sodomites Baalites Eâ—ymas the Sorcerer Symon Magus and such we judge not of men and Tenents by outward judgements but of outward judgements by men and their Tenents so Job was justifiable One may have his house burned that baptizes not his child perhaps another baptizes these abstractly concludes nothing But when Herod is smitten with an Angel while vaunting on his throne Ananias and Saphyra while lying Elymas the Sorcerer while seducing there is something remarkable in it especially if it fall out allwayes or often as it is observed disturbance of Peace and divine Vengance hath attended the Anabaptists in all Countries hitherto It may be some I doubt not thousands have prospered outwardly for a while after their refusing to baptize Infants Thousands it may be have fallen into calamities after they have baptized them yet neither of them for that cause and yet the one a virtuous action the other a sin deserving punishment which coming slowly will recompence the delay with a heavy stroke at last we judge of Gods dealing with persons by his word precepts prohibitions threats If God say the child that is not circumcised shall be cut off from his people for he hath broken my covenant we conceive it is just that God meets Moses and for neglect of circumcision threatens to slay him The rest of Mr T. his speech is invective As privatively the contempt of Infant-baptism is dangerous so positively it is beneficiall both to Parents and children first much comfort comes thereby to Parents when they consider Gods free grace to them and theirs that he is not ashamed to be called their God and the God of their seed after them Heb. 11. Genes 17 7 And this comfort springs from Gods promise founded in Christs merits conveyed by covenant-holiness or birth-priviledge sealed by baptism layd hold on by faith of Parents sometimes faith in the seed or secret act of Infants which to enjoy and be disobedient to the precept and practice of Infant-Baptism is a ridiculous conceit for Infant-Baptism brings not with it a meer empty title but obedience which is better than sacrifice and the benefit comes no more without Baptism than clensing of Naamans leprosie without washing in Jordan Secondly much benefit comes to Infants by Baptism which the Devil knows well when he causes Witches to renounce their Baptism when they enter into Covenant with him for they are thereby admitted into the bosome of the Church devoted consecrated unto God his name is put upon them they wear his royall badge and by it they are distinguished from Heathens and this so clearly from Scriptures truly and spiritually understood that the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it This he passes by saving one gird at Witches saying the Devils dealing makes it appear the faith is good into which the pretended Baptism is but not that the Baptism is right Nay rather if Infant Baptism as he says be a nullity mockery will-worship They should stick to it for therein the Devill delights he might as well say The Devill causes Popish Conjurers when they enter into Covenant with him to renounce Baptizing of Bells worshipping of Images because driving away Devils the end of the one and adoring the prototype the design of the other is good Mr. Tombes 28. Section ENough of this frothy uncocted Sermon calculated for the ignorant and superstitious common people and the profane loose Gentry who mind not Godliness in earnest and for the blind Teachers of those parts who know not the Gospel but mind their own profits more than the understanding of the truth from whom the Lord deliver the dark parts of this land and provide Teachers for the people after his own heart that it be not as now it is in too many parts The blind lead the blind and both fall into the ditch Reply HIs Epilogue or Peroration is wholly invective and beyond the bounds of the most scurrilous Satyr Calumniatory Bespattering 1. The Sermon 2. The Commonalty 3. The Gentry 4. The Ministery of our parts concluding with John of Leydens Liturgie which he sung in procession upon his blind ass after his three nights dream from Luther Melancthon and the rest of the blind guides of the Gospel Good Lord deliver us 1. For the Sermon neither my Auditory re 〈…〉 red nor I affected curiosity nor could it be expected from 〈◊〉 exercising again that afternoon having preached a Funerall 〈…〉 mon that week and taught children every day yet I am con 〈…〉 ent it is truth in a homely drâ—ss and free from that censure a learned man passed on his at Rosse That he never heard a speech â—or truth more questionable for Method more disordered for language more discomposed than it 2. For our common people as he calls them defaming the Rock out of which he was â—hewed They are neither ignorant nor superstitious but well Catechized and grounded saving a few Anabaptists and some others whom they have scandalized by their opinions practice and divisions making Religion odious 3. For our Gentry whom this Lycophrons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls profane and loose Their judicious piety and discreet sobriety is so well known that neither Shimeis rayling nor Doegs defamation can impeach them and they mind godliness so far in earnest that he can not obtrude his errours upon them hence his gall overflows 4. For the Teachers of our parts whom he calls blind They have all eyes â—nough to see his palpable mistakes Some knows the Gospel as well as himself attending their flock with far more fidelity and constancy not deserting them upon every triviall occasion as he and contented with less than half his means with patience undergoes a double pains This in answer Now to gratify him To much of this Examination like raging waves of the Sea foming out his own shame Jude v. 13. Calculated exactly for the new Gospel Horizon discovered by Baltazzar Hubmir Nicholas Stock John of Leyden Barnard Rotman John Tuscoverer and the rest of the Garrison of Munster and may serve without any remarkable mistake for the Midnight Meridian of our English Anabaptists Ranters Quakers Levellers from whom the Lord deliver the enlightned parts of this Land and confirm Teachers for his people after his own heart that it be not as now it is in too many places the lowest of the rabble with Jeroboams Priests fill their hands and then advance their own Calves destroying souls like Pestilence in the darkness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
THE ARRAIGNMENT AND CONVICTION OF ANABAPTISM OR A Reply to Master TOMBES his Plea for Anti-Paedobaptists By refutation of his Examen of the Dispute at Abergaâ—veny and Sermon on Mark 16. 16. Wherein the Antiquitie Universalitie and Succession of infant-Infant-Baptism since the Apostles dayes untill the Anabaptists sprung up in Germany is maintained necessity of Dipping refuted The Arguments for it from the holy Scriptures holden out and the objections against it assoiled By John Cragge M. A. and Preacher of the Gospell at Lantilio Pertholy in Monmothshire The promise is to you and to your children Acts 2. 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas Quaest 114. ad Antioch LONDON Printed by T. W. for H. Twyford N Brooks Tho. Dring J. Place and are to be Sold at their Shops 1656. The Anabaptists ANOTAMIZED and SILENCED in a PUBLIQUE Dispute The manÌ„er of the Anabaptists Dipping Their Laying on of Hands Their Washing of Feete The Disputation T. Cross fec To the Right Honourable Henry Lord Herbert Thomas Morgan of Machen John Scudamore of Kent-Church Henry Herbert of Colbrook Collonel Thomas Hughs of Matherine Benjamin Hoskins George Gwynne Edmond Jones Esquires Members of Parliament for their respective Counties Worthy Patriots WHom heroick Excellencies have advanced into the Consistory of Gods and lifted in that Sanhedrim of Angels Tutelar of three Nations I present with all humilitie to your vigilant care a defence of that cause which is and ought to be infinitly dearer to you than any private interests as whereupon infallibly depends the Peace of Church and State which me thinks should seem a Paradox to none who seriously weighs the former sad disasters of Germany compared with our present distractions both taking their spring and growth in a great measure from Anabaptism which reason with experience dictates for by their principles whole Nations are unchurched and none received into Communion but by re baptizing all former members esteemed as Publicans and Heathens hence Magistracie and Ministry that dissents are by them wholly disgusted if not discarded Though doubtless a respect ought to be had of tender consciences in patronage whereof its known I have suffered as much as the most of my condition yet I never judged promiscuous toleration without distinction to be Gospel-proof The pious watchmen of the Church have been alwaies cautious least under that notion Schism and Heresie should creep in The starved Snake when she begins to warm infects the whole house and puts out the sting to the disturbance of her fosterer The Church Christs spouse is but one a Dove without Gall harmoniously agreeing in fundamentals not quarrelling seditiously in superstructures but submitting with meekness to authority that the unity of the spirit may be kept in the bond of Peace The rule by which the keys and sword are steared ought to be certain which is the Scripture not private mens pretended consciences which too often are defiled like Lesbian râ—les bendable any way differing one from another like Clocks and all from the Sun Diall of the Word and Spirit Magistrates are custodes utriusque tabulae Guardians as well of the first as second table Rom. 13. 4. executing wrath on them that do evill false teachers are called evill workers Phil. 3. 3. Errour is a sin especially held with pertinacie and a high transgression of the Law Libertie in Religion is like free conversing without restraint or watch in time of Pestilence one house easily infects a whole City and destroys the main end of Magistracie and Ministry whose essentiall work is to preserve peace and piety It is destructive to Peace for the Apostle saith that when men do not consent to the Doctrine which is according to godliness but dote about questions and strifes of words thence ariseth envy railings and evill surmisings 1 Timoth. 6. 3 4. Difference in opinion causeth difference in affection and both these abett difference in practice hence the Apostle so often exhorts Christians to be of one mind and judgement Phil. 2. 2. Heresie is called a fruit of the flesh Galat. 5. 20. that deprives of the Kingdom of God The spirit of God commends the Church of Ephesus for not bearing with them that are evill that is false teachers Revel 2. 2. condemns the Church of Thyatira for suffering the woman Jezebel to teach and seduce Christs servants Revel 2. 20 Reproves the Church of Pergamos for suffering them that taught the doctrine of Balaam for entertaining them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans Revel 2. 14 15. The Apostle prayes that such may be cut off as trouble the Galatians with false doctrines Gal. 5. 12. we are commanded to buy the truth not sell it Prov. 23. 23. to dâ— nothing against the truth but for the truth 2 Cor. 13. 8. to rebuke our brother plainly and not suffer sin upon him Levit. 19. 17. Hence unsound doctrine is compared to a canker that corrodes the sound flesh 2 Timoth. 2. 17. The Abetters and fomenters thereof are resembled to thieves that spoyl to ravenous Wolves that devoure to deceitfull workers that undermine the truth 2 Cor. 11. 13. Asa Jehosaphat Hezekiah Josiah Nehemiah were commended for punishing abuses in the worship of God and setting things aright in matters of Religion The Canons of antient Councels had an eye to this Those that are termed the Apostles Can. 11. and 45. Clements constitutionis lib. 6. Cap. 13. The four first generall Councels next in Gregories judgement to the four Evangelists bended their stiles against those grand Hereticks Arius Eunomius Nestorius and Eutyches with them concur the Primitive Fathers Tertullian says Hereticks must be compelled not prayed to do their duty for heresie is not to be perswaded but to be overcome by rigour Tert. advers Gnost Cap. 2. Athanasius sayes Arius Eudoxius and Patrophilus when they write such things unsound doctrines how I pray you are they not worthy of all punishments Augustine hath golden sayings to that purpose thinkest thou saith he to Vincentius no man ought to be forced to righteousness When as thou readest that the Master said to his servant compell all that you find to come in and also that Paul was forced to receive and embrace the truth by the violent compulsion of Christ except thou judge goods and lands dearer unto men then their eyes Epist 48. Hezekiah served God by destroying the Groves and temples of Idols the King of Nineveh inforcing the whole City to please God Darius by delivering the Idol into the power of Daniel Nabuchadnezar in restraining all his subjects from blaspheming God August Epist 50. Jerom observes that Arius in Alexandria was but one little spark but because he was not presently suppressed the flame thereof consumed the whole world Cap. 5. ad Galat. Gregory Nazianzene saith cut off the Arian impiety cut off the pernicious errour of Sabellius this I say unto the Laymen this I say unto the Clergie and this I say unto the Magistrates my words fighting for the holy Trinity shall not
of England causes it to be printed and commands it to be read before the Chapter Therefore it is the judgement of the Church of England T. Mr. T. said it was not commanded to be printed and read sâ— before the Chapter for he knew not what kind of Bible his was C. He told him it was the same with the great Church Bible which was not onely authorised with a Proclamation but an Act almost fifty years agoe and will Mr. Tombs without giving of a reason condemn a whole nation to have slept in such an errour all that while Then Mr. Abbets preacher resident there one who hath been dipped being in pulpit with Mr. Tombs stood up and said the words were They shall bring thy sons in their Arms To which Mr. C. replyed what then may they not be Gods sons by adoption and their own by naturall generation Mr. Tombs fell upon expounding the Chapter from verse to verse Mr. C. told him that they came not to hear him expound but dispute and repeating the last Argument wished him to answer at which Abbets stood up again and said the words of the text were that they that is the Gentiles shall bring thy Children that is the Jewes To which Master C. replyed that was an addition to the text for there is no mention of the Jewes But grant it were must it be therefore meant of the Captivitie the 20. and 21 verses of this Chapter confutes it intimating that the Jewes after Christs coming shall lose their own naturall and the Gentiles Children shall be adopted and engrafted into their place They that is the Gentiles converted shall bring thy sons thine by a kind of adoption and spirituall succession for the Gentiles Children were ingrafted into the stock of the Jewes Children broke off And this is so clear from the Context compared with Rom. 11. That with reason it could not be denyed But he was to speak to Mr. Tombs who understood the nature of a dispute and not to him and if he would take upon him to moderat it was fit thate he should have another T. Mr. Tombs asked Mr. C. what he understood by standart what by Kings what by nursing Fathers c. C. He told him that it was not his place to dispute Socratically by asking of questions but to answer ad Appositum But to give him Satisfaction which he needed not by Standart he understood some visible Gospell-ordinance as Baptism by Kings supream Magistrates by nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers patrons and protectours of the Gospell T. He said that it was a Metaphoricall speech and that nothing could be gathered from it C. He replyed that he would grant him that it was more than a Metaphoricall speech for a Metaphor consisted but in one single trope but it was a continuation of severall tropes and therefore Allegoricall yet it does not follow that nothing could be gathered from it for then nothing could be gathered from any Parable in the Gospell Nay nor any part of the New Testament for there is scarce a sentence without somes Tropes in it T. Mr. T. said it was fulfilled in Hesters time which was a nursing Mother to the Jews C. To which was answered Hester was a Jew and a friend to the Jews what is this to the Gentiles bringing Children upon Shoulders And though that should be waved and Hester granted to be a nursing Mother in the type yet in the Antitype it ayms principally at the times of the Gospell else gross absurdities would follow for what Kings or Queens in Hesters-time did bow down to the Jews with their face towards the Earth and lick up the dust of their feet verse 23. Isles are summoned in the first verse which must be meant of the time of the Gospell Christ is promised to be given for a light for the Gentiles that he may be their Salvation to the end of the earth 6. Kings shall see and arise Princes also shall worship 7. And the holy Ghost quotes verbatim and applyes to the time of the Gospell the 8. verse and that expressely 2 Cor. 6. 2. There is an implyed cutting off to the Jews 20. An ingrafting in of the Gentises the Children of the wild olive in the stock of the naturall olive 21. And a Bringing of Children to visible ordinances 22. All which he offered to frame into Arguments T. But Mr. T. prevented it saying that though it should be understood of the times of the Gospell yet by sons in Armes and daughters upon Shoulders was meant grown men for any thing he knew and men and women of a hundred years of age might be carryed upon armes and upon shoulders Which indeed is the same answer Mr. T. gives in his scepticall exercitation like foxes and bodgers being beat out of one hole hath another to fly unto Where as Mr. Hussey quotes him he uses the same words that Mr. Abbeâ—s and he found fault with in Mr. C. Major proposition for these are his words It is foretold that Gentiles should bring their Children in their armes therefore the Prophet foresaw the Baptism of infants he might have seen the beam in his own eye turpe est doctori c. But to return to Mr. T. answer C. Which Mr. C. took thus away Them that they should bring in their bosomes were Infants But it was foretold that they should bring them in their bosoms Therefore they were Infants T. He enquired where it did appear that they should bring them in their bosomes C. Out of the text for the word in the originall which is translated armes is bosome and so the Septuagints read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intimating that they should bring sucking Children hanging upon their breasts T. Then Mr. Tombs said it was an analogie and performed when the Gentiles perswaded their Children to embrace Christ C. Well then it is their Children not thy children oportet esse memorem But not that neither for that Scripture which in the letter suits with many other Scriptures but in the pretended analogie with no other cannot be the meaning But to interpret it literally of bringing Children to Christ in the bosome suits with many scriptures and to perswade them to come to Christ with no scriptures Therefore it can not be the meaning T. Mr. T. could not name one text of scripture where to bring in armes or bosome was to perswade to come to Christ C. So Mr. C. referred the judgement of it to the people and named another text Es 65. 20. There shall be no more thence an Infant of dayes c. But the child shall die an hundred year old T. Mr. Tombs bid him read the rest of the words and the verse following C. He said he had read as much as he intended to raise his Argument from T. Take notice sayes he he will not read that which makes against him C. Not so for nothing of it makes against me but that an Argument must be terminus simplex and homogeneal
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
and an adding to the word of God against which he hath proclamed a solemn curse The Commination or curse follows in the last words He that beleeveth not shall be damned he does not say he that is not Baptized shall be damned For though the contempt of it is dangerous yet a man may be saved without Baptism he does not say that hâ— that â—s not dipped over head is damned that is a thing indifferent any washâ—â—g in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is Baptism he does not say that he that is not Re-baptized or Baptized again is damned for that is the invention of Man never heaâ—d of in that sensâ— before John of Leydens time who confessed this execution that he had that and the rest of his poysoneâ— Doctrine from Satan Hence observe That all unbelievers though Baptised shall be damned men beleeving though through iâ—vincible necessity Un Baptizâ—d shâ—ll be saved thus we have given you the lively meaning of the Holy Ghost in the Text. Having layd this foundation we 'l make further inquirie into two things which are in controversie First what is meant by Baptism or Baptizing Secondly whether Infants ought to be Baptized or no. First Baptism in the Original signifies nothing but a washing as Pareus upon the Hebrews says Baptismus Graecis est quaevis ablutio Baptism is in Greek any washing whether by dipping or sprinkling to Baptize is to dip or sprinkle says Ravenel so says the Churches old Catechism dipped or sprinkled in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost so the Directory Baptize the child by pouring or sprinkling of the water on the face of the child without adding any further ceremony And as many kinds there are of washing so many there are of Baptizing whereof the Pillars of the Greek Tongue Hesyehius Budeus Stephaâ—us Scapula Arius Montanus Pasor mention four First tingere to die or tincture Secondly mergere to drown or plunge Thirdly madefacere to wet or moysten and lastly abluere to wash or cleanse I confess there are some that distinguish betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to rantise as they call it or sprinkle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to plunge to the bottom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to swim upon the top and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is as they criticise upon it to swim betwixt the top and bottom these three last are mentioned by Casaubon in his notes upon the third Chapter of St. Mathew as was quoted by our adversary but with what fidelitie or advantage to his cause I leave it to the Godly and learned to Judge for he left out the last words wherein the whole state of the question is determined by Casaubon against him for thus he concludes horum sententia jampridem merito est explosa c. the judgement of those men is deservedly long since exploded and trampled down that would have Baptizing to be by dipping and he gives a reason quum non in eo posita sit mysteriâ— hujus vis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing the force and efficacy of Baptism this mysterie consists not in that that is the manner of washing Which is confirmed by Aquinas Immersio non est de necessitate Baptismi dipping is not of the necessity of Baptism And Dominico Sotus Ablutio est de essentia Baptismi washing is of the essence of Baptism but the manner of washing whether by dipping pouring or sprinkling is accidental Many places of Scripture confirm this 1 Cor. 10. 2. there the Israelites were Baptized in the red Sea when their feet did but touch the water not as if they were Baptized when they were not as the Ana-baptists gloss upon this place and that the Egyptians were really Baptized for the Egyptians were not Baptized in their sense but sunk to the bottom like stones Exod. 15. 5. Baptized under the Cloud not that the Egyptians were Baptized and the Israelites as if they were as they descant under the Cloud for the Egyptians were never under the Cloud for the Israelites went before the Egyptians and the Cloud part of it was over the Israelites part of it went before them There is mention made in the Gospel of Baptizing or washing of themselves when they came from Market of Cups of Vessels of Tables which cannot be meant of plunging in water so often where that Element was so scarce but rincing John's Baptizing in Jordan Philip's going down to the River with the Eunuch proves nothing at all for what strange consequence would this be especially from the Anabaptists that must have express Scripture for all things John Baptized in Jordan Philip went down into the water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to the water with the Eunuch therefore they were dipped seeing it might as well be by pouring or sprinkling of water upon them for any thing that appears out of the Text. Object John Baptized in Enon because there was much water Answ This will seem to be no wonder in those hot Countries where there are many miles without a Spring of water especially seeing Geographers and Travellers tells us that Enon is a little Brook that one may stride over scarce Knee deep and therefore not capable of dipping Object But Baptism say they must resemble the death of Christ Rom. 6. 4. We are buryed with him by Baptism which is not by sprinkling but dipping Answ I answer the scope of the place is to shew that one end of our Baptism is to Seal our Communion with Christ in his death but to press a necessity of resemblance by descending into the water and coming out again we see no ground in Text and if our abiding under the water must answer Christs Burial in exact representation then as Christ lay three days and three nights in the Grave so they must lye three days and three nights under the water which if it were put in execution the dispute would quickly be at an end But should we grant this resemblance I appeal to any man whether our pouring on of water in Baptism does not more resemble our Christian Burial which is by pouring on of Earth or Dust than by plunging over head Thus you see it proved that Baptizing is any kind of washing In the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost we do not deny with Master Perkins that if we were to Baptize converted Turks or Pagans of ripe age in hot Countries we might Baptize them by dipping Provided that their Garments were not first Baptized or washed for that is conceived to be no less superstition than Beptizing of Bells Baptism says Vossius non est immersio vestium sed humani Corporis is not a washing of the Garments but of the Body we account the Church of Rome Idolaters for presenting that worship First to the Image which is terminated in Christ the Garments are first washed or dipped and the Body but at the most wet or moystned through them But to affirm that no Baptism
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
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
his chaâ—ge His second instance is of the Albigenses called so of a Country of France and Cathari or Puritans of whom he saith in the words of Cassander hi reliquis erroribus quos a Manichaeis Priscillianistis mutuati sunt c. These to the rest of the errours which they have borrowed of the Manichees and Priscilianists moreover have added this that they say the baptism of little ones is unprofitable To this I Answer he took this also upon report of those who mistook their meaning when they said Baptismum nihil proficere parvulis ad salutem Baptism profited little ones nothing to Salvation held no more as Bishop Vsher sayes than that it did not conferr grace ex opere operato which we also say which is further evidenced positively in that Hâ—veden recording the confession of the faith of the Albigâ—nses doth abundantly own their baptizing of Infants Nâ—gatively that the Magdeâ—uâ—genâ—es that diligently related their doctrine nor Reignolds in his Caluinoturcismus wherein he endevours to reproach them layes any such thing to their charge Aeneas Silvius delivering a large Catalâ—gâ—e of their opinions in his History de Origine Bohemoâ—um hath no such thing pag. 67 68. These are his words Hujus pâ—stifera ac jam pridem damnatae factionis dogmata sunt Romanum Praesulem reliquis episcopis parem esse inter sacerdotes nullum discrimen Presbyâ—erum non dignitatem sed vitae meritum officere potiorem animas è corporibus excedentes aut in aeternas e vestigio poenas mergi aut perpetua consequi gaudia Purgatorium ignem nullum inveniri vanum esse â—rare pro mortuis avaritiae sacerdotalis inventum Dei sanctorum imagines delendas Aquarum palmarumque benedictiones irridendas Mendicantium religiones malos daemones invenisse Sacerdotes pauperes esse debere solâ contentos eleemosynâ Liberam cujusque praedicationem verbi dei patere Nullum capitale peccatum quantumvis majoris vitandi mali gratiâ tolerandum Qui mortalis culpae reus sit eum neque seculari neque ecclesiasticâ dignitate potiri neque parendum ei confirmationem quam Chrismate Pontifices inducant extremam unctionem inter ecclesiae sacra minimè contineri Auricularem confessionem nugacem esse Sufficere sua quemque deo in cubili suo confiteri peccata Baptisma fluvialis undae nullâ interjectâ sacri olei mixtura recipiendum coemiteriorum inanom usum questus causa repertum quacunque tegantur tellure humana corpora nil distare Templum dei late patentis ipsum mundum esse coarctare majestatem ejus qui ecclesias monasteria oratoriaque construunt tanquam propitior in eis divina bonitas inveniatur Sacerdotales vostes altarium ornamenta pallas corporalia calices patinas vasaque hujusmodi nil habere momenti Sacerdotem quocunque loco quocunque tempore sacrum Christi corpus conficere posse petentibusque ministrare sufficere si verba sacramentalia tantum dicat suffragia sanctorum in coelis cum Christo regnantium frustrae impetrari quae juvare non possunt in canonicis horis cantandis dicendisuè frustrà tempus teri Nulla die ab opere cessandum nisi quae dominica nunc appellatur celebritates sanctorum â—ursus rejiciendas Jejuniis quoque ab ecclesia institutis nihil inesse meriti His third instance of an Anonymous people out of Bernard in his 66. Sermon upon the Canticles that called themselves Apostolicos of whom he sayes amongst other things irrident nos quià baptizamns infantes they scoff at us because we baptize Infants To which I answer these people were also Albigenses or Waldenses who are cleared from this aspersion by the former histories Bernard also charged them with Manichism that the people threw them into the water as if they were witches which Mr. T. himself does not believe why should we then believe the other contrary to so many authentick Authors His fourth Instance is of Petrus Cluniacensis who writ an Epistle to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis and Henricus charging them with this errour that little ones may not be baptised I answer Cluniacensis a railing Abbot endevoured to render them odious to the people because they opposed the Monkes idle and unprofitable life and casts this aspersion upon them that they deny Infant Baptism when they onely denyed the trumpery that went along with baptism in those days as spittle salt exorcism and that it did conferr grace ex opere operato None charges them with laughing at Infant-Baptism it self but they that charge them with Manichism from both whereof their own confessions clear them one whereof was published by Baltazzar Lidius and presented to Vladislaus King of Hungary Baltaz. Lid. Tom. 2. pag. 285. In their Apology and defence of their Doctrine they have a whole Chapter wherein they assert and prove Paedobaptism at large The confession of the Taborites hath not a word sounding against it The History of the Waldenses lib. 1. cap. 3. p. 10. mentions amongst the calumnies unjustly cast upon them that they reject the Baptism of Infants of which Bernard is cited the Author Sermon 66. And the same Author in the third part of his History professedly setting down the doctrine of the Waldenses and Albigenses sayes they present their children to Baptism which they ought to do to whom the children are nearest as Parents c. By these discoveries it may appear how farre these obscure testimonies taken from Cassander a modern Amphibious Naturalist and Bernard and Cluniacensis two Popish Abbots comes short of proof that when reformation of other Popish abuses was sought the reformation of Infant-Baptism was sought with the first some hundred years before Luther Montes parcuriunt nascetur ridiculuâ— Mus great boasts but small roast Master Tombes 7 Section AS vain is the assignation of the causes of Anabaptism which is indeed true Baptism whereas the true cause is the shining-forth light from the Scriptures and other Authors not discerned formerly as now The true reason why our books and practise are permitted is because they have at least so much appearance of truth as is sufficient to make wise men let them alone least they haply should fight against God The Epistlers reasons are but his own ignorant surmises Reply IN the first Paragraph he undertakes to answer to the third head of the Epistle the reasons of the present grouth and increase of Anabaptism wherein he forges a Chimera mounted upon these four wings 1. That the assignation of the causes of Anabaptism are vain 2. That Anabaptism that is repeating of Baptism is true Baptism 3. That the true cause of Anabaptism is the shining forth of light from Scriptures and other Authors 4. That this light was not discovered formerly as now These Icarian engines wings him from his labyrinth of error but are in danger to betray him to the Sea of grosse mistakes as will appear when they are exposed to the beams of the sun that is the
Fundamentum Correlatum and Terminus belongs to Infants therefore the definition of Baptism belongs to Infants Here he denyed Baptism was a Relation wherein he sayes I insinuate that he was driven to an absurdity and how justly let learned men judge Keckerman places Baptism amongst concrete Relatives called of the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Log. Syst pag. 15. Melanchâ—on sayes Baptism is a Relation and that terminus baptismi est obsignatio confirmatio absolutionis peccatorum per sanguinem Christi The terme of Baptism is the sealing and confirmation of pardon of sins by the blood of Christ-Peter Martyr Com. places part 4. pag. 112. defines Baptism a signe of regeneration into Christ into his death and resurrection c. and that by signe he means Metonymâ—cally a Relation betwixt the signe and thing signed and signified is apparent by the words following A Signe is a word common to Baptism and other Sacraments is proved hereby sayes he because Paul in the Epistle to the Romans 4. 11. taught that Abraham after he was justified did receive circumcision being a seal of righteousness of faith already obtained and that Baptism sealeth is sufficiently expressed seeing it is called a signe of regeneration for Christ manifestly taught Nicodemus John 3. 3. that they that will be saved must be born again thus far he Zanchie Calvin Vrsine Bucane Bishop Jewell described Baptism by Relation or Relative terms so among the Antients Dionys cap. 2. calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the garment of incorruption and Austin a Sacrament of remission of sins Now Mr. Tombes in opposition to these and many more which might be alledged denies it to be a relation and least it should be nothing as many would have it he sayâ—â—e takes Baptism to be either an action or passion but he tells us not whether leaving it hanging between two Predicaments like Mahomet's Tombe at Mecha He might have remembred that nothing formally can be placed in two Categories and as in words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to signifie one thing distinctly is to signifie nothing so not to be placed in one Category is to be placed in none But perhaps he thinks with Janus it puts on a double face and as it respects the Minister baptizing is an action as it looks at the party baptized it s a passion And why may not as well Marriage be said to be in both seeing in it there is both action and passion It s confessed that in Baptism is included baptization which is both action and passion the party baptizing and the party baptized with the water which are corporal substances the pronouncing of the words of Baptism which may relate to quantity divine graces of regeneration which are infused qualities divine institution of it union with Christ and the whole Trinity which are Transcendents These are the materials but the ratio formalis the essence and form of Baptism consists in Relation which is duorum unio the union betwixt the outward signe of water and inward grace signified by it This Master Tombeâ— grants in part when he saith Christian Baptism hath a relation superadded if he had said in casu recto it was a relation he had stroke home which his next words intimates confessing that in the use it was a signe which predication is but Metonimical the true genus of Baptism must be the union between the signe and the thing signed or signifiâ—d which is a relation and nâ—t as he would make it an action which would carry in the bowels of it this absurdity that then Baptism would be inherent in the baptized that the party baptized could not say mine but the Ministers Baptism Actio est agentis Now the Argument whereby in the Dispute I proved Baptism to be a relation was this Every Sacrament is a relation Baptism is a Sacrament therefore Baptism is a Relation Then he denyed both the premisses but now minces it saying that he confesses that the terme Sacrament being but a term invented by Latine Fathers may he layd aside What Latine Fathers The duodecim Tabulae For they mention it There was among the Ancient Heathen Romans Sacramentum militare a Souldiers Sacrament whereby Plantiff and defendant put in gages to abide the tryal this Tully alludes too pro Milone Sacramentis alienos fundos petunt They sue for other mens grounds with Sacraments or gages of mony Therefore the Terme Sacrament was not invented by the Christian Latine Fathers but was long before them Perhaps he means the terme Sacrament to speake properly was not invented but applyed to Baptism and the Lords Supper by the Latine Christian Fathers therefore may be laid aside because a heathen word So the terms Episcopus Presbyter Diaconus should be laid aside for the Areopagites and other Grecians had them I le instance in one Episcopus Plutarch in Pericle sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phidias was his Bishop or ovescer in all things Or it may be he means there is no one Scripture word in the Original that can properly be translated Sacrament Then the word Trinity Vnity Humanity and which they cant so much withall Anti-Paedobaptist must be laid aside Besides is there not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mystery in the Original which to express in our language and the Latine no fitter words according to common use can be then Sacrament And though Mystery and Sacrament are of a larger extent signification than to be convertible with Baptism and the Lords Supper yet they are the Mysteries and Sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of eminence And that Baptism was both a Sacrament and a relation was further proved That which is an outward and visible signe of an inward and invisible grace is both a Relation and a Sacrament Baptism is an outward and visible signe of an inward and invisible grace Therefore it is both a Relation and a Sacrament Then he denied the Minor now he speaks not quite out but clouâ—s the Truth of it with two false assertions 1. That there is no common nature of a Sacrament expressed in Scripture 2. That Austins definition thereof is imperfect For the former that there is no common nature of a Sacrament expressed in Scripture is untrue both in the sequel and in it self In the sequel for what consequence there is no common nature of a Sacrament expressed in Scripture therefore Baptism is not a Sacrament more than in this There is no common nature of infused grace expressed in Scripture therefore faith is not an infused grace Untrue in it self for though not in one place there may be in many places of Scripture compared together like garlands of flowers gathered out of the same garden a common nature of a Sacrament expressed as well as of predestination election adoption regeneration hope with many more which Scripture in no one place undertakes completely to define but the common nature thereof if he mean the Genus and the special nature the differentia may be gathered
continue to Infant-naturall seed of Abraham to the end of the world Here is Triplex Geryon a Monster composed of a threefold untruth 1. It is a fiction that I ever affiâ—med that the covenant Gen. 17. 7. was to continue to Infant-naturall seed of Abraham to the end of the world 2. Much more that I had any occasion or went to prove it 3. Most of all that I proved it from that Text Deut. 29. 10. 11. Because the whole Congregation of Israel are said to stand before the Lord with their little ones The reader must be advertised that the true occasion of my producing that Text was this when I had proved the covenant God made with Abraham was to continue to the end of the world because it was a Gospell-covenant Gal. 3. 8. Master T. confusedly without repeating answered thus That it was an everlasting covenant and to continue to the end of the world but not to Infants I first told him that it was a denying of the conclusion then took away hâ—s answer thus If God commands Infants to stand in covenant before him 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 day all of you before the Lord your God your Captains of your tribes your Elders and your Officers with all the men of Israel your little ones c. To this he now upon second thoughts answers impliedly confessing that Infants were then in covenant but from thence could not be concluded a continuance of covenant to Infants His exceptions against it are four First that the speech is onely of a transient fact Secondly not of a command Thiâ—dly much less of a promise of something perpetually future Fourthly what is said of the little ones is as well said of wives hewers of wood and drawers of water which shall be examined in oâ—der His first exception that the speech is onely of a transient fact is confuted by many Arguments rivitted in the text I le insist in one or two ver 10. 11. little ones are said to stand before the Lord to enter into covenant with him what covenant was this ver 25. That which he made with them when he brought them out of the land of Egypt This covenant was perpetuall to all and binding all even children and to put this out of all controversie he addes in the 29. that those things that are revealed meaning concerning this covenant belongs unto us and to our children for ever that we may do all the words of this Law That which is for ever is no Transient fact His second excepion is That it is not of a command No does not the Chapter begin thus These are the words of the Covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab 29. Those things revealed unto them and their children that they may do all the words of this Law Now a law is a command or a precept of doing or avoiding some thing v. 23. God threatens that for breach of this Covenant the whole land shall be brimstone and salt and burning that it shall not be sowen nor any grasse grow therein like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorah Admah and Zeboim which the Lord overthrew in his anger Now every punishment presupposeth the breach of a law and every law a command 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if any say this reacheth not children let him look back at the command and curse Circumcise the foreskin of every male-child for he that is not circumcised shall be cut off for he hath broke my Covenant His third exception that it is not a promise of something perpetually future is overthrown in that it is said 29. that it is revealed to them and their children for ever and 13. that the end of the Covenant is that God may establish them a people unto himself and that he may be a God unto them but God is no lesse a God to Infants under the Gospel than under the Law And to affirm that Infants stood once in Covenant before the Lord and shall not do so still is but a begging of the Question for they cannot shew a line in Scripture where the priviledge is revoked or repealed the contrary may be proved by unanswerable arguments His fourth exception is that what is said of the little ones is as well said of wives hewers of wood drawers of water and therefore if thence be concluded a continuance of Covenant to Infants a continuance of covenant to wives and servants will be concluded what Inconvenience As hewers of wood drawers of water wives servants if professors or proselytes were in Covenant under the law even so believing wives and servants under the Gospel are in Covenant Hence we may retort If wives and servants are in covenant under the Gospell as well as under the Law then by his own concession it may be concluded that Infants are in covenant under the Gospell but wives and servants are in covenant as well under the Gospell as under the Law Therefore Infants are in Covenant under the Gospell and to this fair issue the matter is come Mr. Tombes 6. Section HIs allegation of Heb. 8. 6. is as vain for he brings it to prove that if Infants were in covenant under the Law they are in covenant under the Gospel whereas the meliority of the covenant is not placed in the extent to the sort of persons for then it should be extended to more sorts than the covenant of the Law was but to the meliority of the promises which were of better things or better terms than the promises of the Law but not to any other than elect and true believers and so not to Infants as the natural seed of believers Reply THough Mr. Tombes could not make his retreat good nor man his fort consisting of a fourfold exception yet like as Thucidides said of Pericles when he was asked by Archidamus King of the Spartans whether he or his adversary wrastled better A man saith he cannot tell for when I cast him down he by saying he hath no fall perswadeth the beholders and so overcometh So he being beat out of his holds peremptorily held his conclusion maugre the premisses that the covenant was not perpetual and as well to Infants under the Gospell as under the Law Against which was concluded thus If Christ hath obtained a more excellent Ministery and is a Mediator of a better covenant which is established upon better promises than if Infants were in covenant under the Law they are in covenant under the Gospel But Heb. 7. 22. 8. 6. Christ hath obtained a more excellent Ministery was a Mediator of a better Covenant which was established upon better promises Therefore if Infants were in Covenant under the Law they are in covenant under the Gospell This he sayes is a vain allegation implyedly denying the consequence of the Major and
the condition as bad of an Infant under the Gospell left without any ordinary means of salvation save onely Baptism seeing Christ sayes John 3. 5. Except a man bâ— born of water and of the Spirit be cannot see the Kingdome of God But there are ordinary means of salvation beside Baptism thaâ— Infants out of Covenant are left without for clearing of which by ordinary I mean that which God hath revealed in Scripture and hath left us a word of promise to depend upon By means of salvation I understand all that which condâ—ces to the end and is contradistinguished to the end Thus means of salvation either strictly signifies those things that morally are in our power as for the Catechumeni and them of years whether they will be Baptized heare the Word receive the Eucharist Or those things that are not in our power wherein we are Passives yet performed by others as Proxies for us thus under the Law Infants were circumcised washed sanctified by oblations presented in the Temple under the Gospell baptized engaged by their parents or sureties Or those thing that are neither in our power nor others performed neither by our selves nor others yet by Gods free Charter in our selves and others Thus covenant-holiness prerogative of birth Gods promise to Abraham that he would be his God and the God of his seed That of Peter Acts 2. 39. confirmed to Jewes and Gentiles the promise is to you and your children are ordinary means of Salvation Infants out of covenant are left without all these and would be in the same condition with Gentiles Ephes 2. 12. Without Christ Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel strangers from the covonant of promise having no hope and without God in the World Thus negatively what they are deprived of by being out of covenant Let us see positively the benefits of being in covenant by comparing them with Jewes children with whom they hold proportion Rom. 3. 12. What advantage hath the Jew or what profit is there of Circumcision Much every way chiefly because unto them were committed the Oracles of God And Rom. 9 4. Who are Israelites to whom pertaineth the Adoption and the Covenants and the giving of the Law and the service of God and the promises there is the same reason of Infants under the Gospell Secondly he sayes that he takes not Baptism to be any ordinary means of salvation without faith what he takes is not much material so long as he mistakes If it be an ordinary means of salvation any way it is enough to prove that Infants are left without that means And in this his amphibological asseveration are cooped three fallacies 1. Fallacia divisionis for the Question is not whether Baptism be an ordinary means of salvation without faith but whether it be a means or no 2. A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundùm quid for the Question is not whether Baptism be a principle means but whether it be a means 3. Non causae ut causae For it is not enquired whether baptism presupposes faith as a cause or qualification but whether Baptism be the ordinary way God hath appointed for salvation And when the proposal is whether baptism be an ordinary means of Salvation To say it is not without faith is as unsavory as when the demand is whether the lungs are an ordinary Instrument of breathing to say they are not without the heart when the Question is simply whether a Colonel hath any command in an Army It would be ridiculous to answer it by saying he hath none without orders from the General And yet there is not that necessary connexion betwixt faith and Baptism that is betwixt the lungs and the heart for the lungs cannot breath without the heart nor the Colonel issue out any word of command without subordination to his generall But Baptism may be true Baptism even in adultis as Hymenaeus without true faith and many other hypocrites who when they became true Penetentiaries none but those Hereticks the Novations and Donatists durst Baptize again But for the Baptism of Infants actuall faith is not necessarie for the bene esse or perfection of it much less for the esse or being of it And that they have the infused habit of faith or the roots and seeds of it he confesses saying they are saved by the work of Christ's spirit which can be no other but the seeds of faith hope charitie and the new creature Thirdly he thinks it no inconvenience to say that Infants are without ordinary means of salvation he means preaching of the word for so he expresseth himself of that we must distinguish Preaching is either manifesting to the understanding that which is preached so Infants are without the means or presenting objectively the benefit of that which is preached as the new creature gifts of the spirit salvation so Infants are not without the means A will is sealed and published by the Father â—n the presence of all his children Wherein there is contained bequeathments and Legacies to them severally now they of age onely understand it but the Infants and sucklings that understand it not have equall benefit by it their honest overseers and Guardians will look to their Interests and shall we think God to be less carefull of Infants to whom he hath proclaimed belongs the Kingdom of God Lastly he sayes Infants are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit without ordinary means This implyes a contradiction of which his forge is full for if God hath revealed in the Covenant of the Gospell and made a promise thereof that Infants are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit then it is not without ordinary means for this is the way that God hath declared himself ordinarily to operate in whose will is a fixâ— Law and if God hath not revealed it in the Covâ—nant of the Gospell and made a promise thereof how doth he know that Infants are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit Or how dare he avouch it God hath promised no such thing to Infants of Jews Turks Infidels therefore they are out of Covenant and not visible memberâ— if God hath promised such things to Infants of believers they are in Covenant and visible members But perhaps he means Infants are saved without ordinary means that is baptism That if it were true might vindicate a tanto that they are saved without that ordinary means but not a toto that they are saved without an ordinary means But his former grant necessarily infers that they are not saved without Baptism for what can forbid water sayes the Apostle that these may not be baptized seeing they have recieved the Holy Ghost as well as we Now they that have elections redemption of Christ and work of his spirit have received the Holy Ghost which is a thing so clear that Mr. T. himself is forced to confess that if he
back the Jewes not onely Infants but others from captivity What his meaning was we know not but that his expressions were otherwise the most that were there even they of his own party knowes But let that pass as matter of fact and impertinent to the present controversie which is not whether he or the whole congregation be to be believed That he said so afterwards we acknowledge but how he will make it good we know not or if he make that interpretation good how it will make for him unless exclusively he can prove that it is onely meant of the Gentiles bringing the Jewes from captivity which he undertakes not but the contrary saying afterwards that he denyes not but the words may be accommodated to the times of the Gospel But how proves he that it is a prophesie that the Gentilds should bring back the Jewes not onely Infants but others from captivity Two wayes First by Testimony of Scripture Secondly of Mr. Gataker which like Linsie-woolsie he weaves together First Scripture for he sayes the words before v. 19. 20 21. after 24 25. do plainly evince let us see v. 19. how plainly these are the words for thy wast and desolate places and the land of thy destruction shall even now be too narrow by reason of thy inhabitants and they that swallowed thee up shall be far away Let him mould this into a Syllogism and see how it will conclude May it not in an allegory be understood of the conversion of the Gentiles expressed in borrowed speeches from the Jewes This is usual in Scripture and the next verse 20 rather confirms than confutes The children which thou shall have that is of the called Gentiles after thou hast lost the other that is of the natural seed of Abraham shall say again in thine ears the place is to strait for me that is the land of Canaan is to narrow to contain the whole Church give place to me that I may dwell that is in the Islands and Provinces of the Gentiles according to verse 6. 21. Then shalt thou say in thy heart who hath begotten me those to wit of the Gentiles by adoption And have lost my children by natural generation and an desolate and a captive and removing to and fro that is after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus when they were scattered in all Nations as Josephus stories it for we never find iâ— literally verifyed that the land of Canaan was too streight during the time of captivity as the words point to contain the Jewes And this interpretation in part Mr. Tombes approves saying pag. 14. the Church is spoken to and the children were both the Gentiles children and yet thy children that is the Churches Now let us see whâ—ther the verses following relieve him any thing 24. Shall the prey be taken from the mighty or the lawfull captive delivered This Interrogation is equivalent to a Negation The prey shall not that is easily be taken from the mighty or the lawfull captive is not usually deliverd one Democritus would not be enough to laugh at nor three Anticyra's suffice to purge that head that would attempt from hence to draw an Argument to prove the fâ—regoing conclusion But perhaps he means it joyntly with the following verse I am willing to joyne issue the words are these Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away from whom Fâ—om Cyrus Artaxerxes Darius Ahasuerus That would imply a contradiction for he confesses that these were nursing fathers that did bring back the Jewes from captivity the prey of the terrible shall be delivered children are not preyes to their nurses neither are nurses terrible to their children unless it be the Indian women who swiming over great rivers with children in their arms in danger the drowning of them as sometimes do the dippers But the truth is The great red Dragon Rev. 12. 13. having seven heads and ten horns that is as Mr. Mead Comments Apocatyp pag. 164. interprets it The Roman Pagan Empire seated upon seven hills and armed with ten persecuting Kings or dynasts was terrible to the woman travelling that is to the Church bringing forth Christians yet the woman prevailed against this dragon and brought forth a man child which was taken up unto God and his throne that is power and authority in the Church And this is more likely the meaning of it for the places seem to be symbolicall and Concentrick Then indeed Kings became nursing fathers Constantine in the Empire Lucius in Britain Donald in Scotland Secondly he proves it from Mr. Gatakers authority who gives this as the meaning by the new Annotations made by him new I believe and so new that I think scarce any before him went in that way for I doubt not if Mr. T. could but have light of one Commentator Antient or Modern of so many scores that he had made for him he would no more have concealed his name then he does Mr. Gatakers a man yet living His Argument in form sounds thus The meaning of Mr. Gataker is true it is the meaning of Mr. Gataker in his annotations upon Isai 49 22. That the Gentiles should bring the Jews not onely Infants but others from captivity Therefore that the Gentiles should bring the Jews not onely Infants but others from captivity is true I thus retort it The meaning of Mr. Gataker is true But it is the meaning of Mr. Gataker that many Texts in Scripture concludes for infant-Infant-Baptism Therefore that many Texts in Scripture concludes for Infant-Baptism is true By this I suppose Mr. T. will spare the labour of denying the Major But how shall I know that that meaning is given by Gataker who never saw his Annotations except I credit my Adversaries bare word which how Authentick his saying that Casaubon upon Matth. 3. made for dipping hath taught me yet I rather believe him that it is Mr. Gatakers meaning then the conclusion he infers from it and that it is his meaning he seems to prove because he doth on verse 23. say it was fulfilled in those Persian Potentates Cyrus Artaxerxes Darius Ahasuerus did all these four bring back the Jews not onely Infants but others from captivity I will not question their history for making Artaxerxes and Ahasuerus two severall men which Philo and Esdras makes but one Nor their Chronologie in making the Captivity to last about seventy years for the Captivity began in Nabukkadnezars time who lived some years after his successor was Evilmerodach his son after him was Balthasar from whom Cyrus took Babylon and conferred the Empire upon the Persians this Cyrus according to the Greeks raigned 29 years his successors in order reckoned by them were Cambyses that raigned five years seven months Darius the son of Histâ—spis 36. years Xerxes 20. Artaxerxes Longimanus 40. which besides the three Babylonish Kings amounts to 131 years odde months According to Philo and Esdras Cyrus â—ules 22 years Artaxerxes 20. Darius Artaxerxes Longimanus 27. Darius Nothus
in generall and Baptism in particular as much as betwixt a man and a living creature whereas a Gnat is a living creature genus dâ—â—â—ert ab omnibus suis speciebus simul sumptis multo magis ab una specie But secondly he sayes the Scripture never calls Baptism Gods standard yes even in this place for I had thought the Genus might have been praedicated of the Species though the Species can not be of the Genius And if in no other place of Scripture for perhaps he hath looked over his Concordance this one is sufficient Baptism in Scripture is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a lover of regeneration but once and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put for a vail or covering but once Thirdly he says if the bringing should be to Baptism then the sense which I think is non-sense should be that supreme Magistrates as Kings and Queens should bring Infants in their Arms and carry them on shoulders to Baptism How doth that follow ver 22. I will set up my Standard to the people and they shall bring thy sons in their Arms 23. Kings shall be thy nursing Fathers what was there no people but Kings that they must necessarily be the people that shall bring them in arms either Canaan was very strait or the Kings were very many that it could not hold them ver 20. Nurses that is the Mothers commonly lyes in while the Children are carryed to be baptized and other nurses are often provided after baptism Fourthly he sayes no story ever mentions it to have been done that Kings and Queens should bring Infants in their Arms and carry them on Shoulders to Baptism Truly neither the Text nor any that I know out of the Text affirms it except his dream And if he will give me leave to Criticize upon his Oneirocriticks I must tell hâ—m that I think he is mistaken in saying that no story ever mentions it to have been done To begin with our own times he cannot but have heard that King James in a conference at Hampton Court affiâ—med that rather than his Child should dye unbaptised he would take it up his Arms and carry it to the brook himself And if he will but ascend a story or two higher he shall find out of venerable Bede and others that Ethelwolf King of Mercia being Baptized himself by the perswasion of King Wulfhere brought others Parents and Children to be baptized of Wilfride Edwine King of the Northumbers while he was attending the baptizing of Children upon Easter day was wounded by an Assasinat named Eomer sent by Guicheline King of West Saxons The same night his Queen was delivered of a daughter which upon Whitsunday next he caused to be baptized by Paulinus the Bishop and named her Eanfleda These stories both mentions that such a thing was done and that Infants were baptized which though it proves not exactly in the Letter that Kings have brought Children upon their Shoulders and in their arms yet it proves more than I affirmed that they should be Pations and Protectours of the Church And that is not too frivolous to be made the matter of that propheciâ— a part whereof Theodosius the Emperour accounted a greater honour than to be ruler of the whole world I granted that the terms nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers in the verse following were Metaphors but that nothing could be gathered from it was Mr. T. collection not mine which now he retracts whereas he further addes that my application which is according to the proper sense of the words is not right he either contradicts himself or delivers a strange inconsequence contradicts himself who confesses I granted it to be a Metaphor and not according to the proper sense of the word A strange inconsequence for if nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers verse 23. be Metaphoricall must therefore Gentiles and people and Armes and Shoulders in the 22. be Metaphors What he means by my application I know not but to gratify him further and satisfie the Reader thus I conceive that it is a Prophecy poynting at the time of the Gospell where Christ is the Generall all visible Church-members are his Souldiers fighting under his banner visible Church-Ordinances are his Standard The people not Kings should bring sons in their Arms and Daughters upon their Shoulders to baptism one of these Ordinances Kings should be nursing Fathers that is maintainers and protectours of Baptism and all other Ordinances of the Gospel which hath been verifyed ever since Constantine and Lucius his time Now if it be objected that Infants are uncapable of spirituall warfare I answer it is their mistake who without ground think they are more uncapable of spirituall warfare than temporall for it is a thing well known that in the low Countries the eldest son of a Commission Captain being born there whilst his Father is in the service of the State is by the courtesie of the Camp enrolled in the Souldlers list on his birth day and by the allowance of the State receiâ—es pay from the time of his Nativity In the Christian warfare though Christ alone be our Captain every common Souldier Male or Female enlisted under him derives this Priviledge to all his Children that from their very births they are thus far entred into the Muster-roll of the Church as to receive pay I mean the right and title to the Sacrament of Baptism as being by their very extraction not unclean but Sacramentally holy Fuller Infant Advocate Pag. 99. But all this he checks saying it was fulfilled in Hesters time Hester was wife to Ahasuerus and had power but in one Kings time before he said it was was fulfilled in Cyrus Artaxerxes Darius Ahasuerus times pergit pugnantia secum frontibus adversis componere Horat. Satyr 1. But how he proves that it was fulfilled in Hesters time by two testimonies 1. His own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I said rightly 2. Of Master Gataker who said so before him and that in his Annotations which are taken for the most incomparably learned viz. by Master T. because in this place perhaps they seem to make for him what thinks he of innumerable places that Master Gataker in this cause Interprets against him They are not so incomparably learned why because they make against him so all is resolved at length into his own Testimony by which he makes Master Gatakers notes so Authentick that he refers the Reader to them and will not trouble himself to examine my dictates as he calls them I suppose because they overthrow his application of it to Hester for thus it was answered Hester was a Jew and a friend to the Jews what is this to the Gentiles bringing children upon shoulders And though that should be waved and Hester granted to be a nursing Mother in the Type yet in the Antitype it ayms principally at the times of the Gospel else gross absurdities would follow for what Kings or Queens in Hesters time did bow down to the Jewes with their face towards the
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
person in that which he calls the outward visible part of the blessing by which he means title to Baptis But I denyed the Minor understanding it of the outward Covenant holiness as they call it which I truly said is gibberish and however Vossius Bullinger for Grotius I think means otherwise conceive of it or the Assembly yet it is a meâ—r mystake and that holyness of Children which is mentioned 1 Cor. 7. 14. is truly said by me to be onely Matrimonial holyness or legitimation And his Argument out of Mr. Baxter I justly retorted that in six hundred times in which holy is used in Scripture in none of them it is found for outward Covenant holiness intiluling to Baptism which is a right way of answering though it be called indirect by the Logicians And as for that he replyes that Rom. 11. 16. I confessed at Ross Covenant holiness is meant I grant it but not outward Covenant holiness intiluling to Baptism but that reall saving holiness which is according to the election of grace according to which Jews elected shall hereafter be graffed in again Reply THat the promise belonged to Infant Children was thus further â—videnced The blessing is as large as the curse but the curse was extended even to Children before they could actually believe his blood be upon us and upon our children Therefore the blessing To this he accommodates now no answer but instead thereof bolts out this Question doth he think that Christs blood was not avenged on thâ—m if it were how was the remedy as large as the disease how satisfactorily let any intelligent man Judge Christs blood was avenged upon the murdering Jews and their Infant children therefore does he think it was not extendable to the believing Jews and their Infant-children Reason dictates the contrarie His evasion in the conference was more colourable thus If by blessing was meant the Inward and spirituall part of the covenant it might be true but that was not to the present purpose seeing it is not known to us but if the outward and visible part he denyed that Infants were capable of the blessing as well as liable to the curse which distinction was thus taken away They that are holy with a Covenant holiness are capable of the outward visible part of the blessing But Infants of believers are holy with a Covenant holiness Therefore they are capable of the outward and visible part Of this Syllogism he sayes he might have denyed the Major It s strange a man should be more absurd upon deliberation than on a sudden as is evident he is by his reason for sayes he there is a Covenant holiness according to election which doth not alwaies instate the person in that which I call the outward part of the blessing by which I mean title to Baptism what he means by this Centaur of Covenant-holiness by election is hard to conjecture whether of elect Infants before they be born or of elect Infidels before they be called or of believers or unbelievers sanctified Infants before profession If he mean it of elect Infants before they be born it is ridiculous seeing the subject of the Question is Infants of believers they that are actually in being not a subject in posse without an Accident an Accident in posse without a subject at the best but ens fictum possibile If he mean elect Infidels before they be called how are they holy that have nothing in them but the old Adam It seems holy Saul while he was a persecutor holy Dionysius while a Heathen Philosopher holy 3000. Jews while they were crucifying Christ If he mean of unbelievers or believers sanctified Infants first let me enquire of him what groudn he hath from Scripture or any divine Revelation that Infants of unbelievers are sanctified that there is salvation out of the visible Church that any such aâ—â— promised to be so qualified till professors Every act of Faith hath for its object Gods promise or Revelation and whatsoever is not of Faith even in this sense is sin Secondly for the sanctified holiness of believers Infants according to election if he mean that they are elected to for the future and have not yet that cannot denominate them holy if he mean that holiness of election they enjoy for the present Master T. confesses that holyness makes them capable of the outward visible part of the blessing and intitles them to baptism and that if he knew they were so qualified he would baptize them The Question is not whom he according to his light may baptize but who are baptizable But he knew that my proposition pointed at none of these and therefore idely beat the air as his next words discovers for he sayes he denyed the Minor understanding it and so did I of outward Covenant holiness upon which he bestows two taunts 1. As they call it 2. That he truly said that it was gibberish yet confesses that Vossius Bullinger and the late assembly did so conceive of it To these he might have joyned all the Harmonies of confessions of Reformed Churches Tertullian de anima Cap. 39. Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait tam ex seminis praerogativa quam ex institutionis disciplina caeterum inquit immundi nascerentur quasi designatos tamen sanctitatis per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios ut bujus spei pignora matrimoniis quae retinenda censuerat patrocinarentur The Apostle sayes he avers they may be procreated holy of either sex being sanctified as well of the Prerogative of the seed as the Discipline of education otherwise he sayes they would be born unclean willing the children of the faithfull to be understood as designed to holiness and consequently salvation that he might maintain the pledges of this hope to marriages which he judged to be retained Junius upon these words quasi designatos glosses thus alludit ad priscum Rom. morem qui ante annum ferm◠〈◊〉 Praetores alios designabant quam inirent Magistratum c. he al 〈…〉 es â—â—yes he to the antient Roman custome who designed alm 〈…〉 ear before they entred their Office Consuls Praetors and other Magistrates So that the sense is the children of the faithfull to be as it were designed to holiness and consequently salvation even as Magistrates were wont to be designed here in the Church they are designed by a common call there in heaven they enter glory by a singular call and benefit Athanasius in his 114. Question being asked whether Infants dying go to be punished or to the Kingdom says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your children are holy and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infants of believers that are baptized enter into Heaven Hugo Grotius Mr. T. his great friend for all he vainly thinks he means otherwise here forsakes him saying non loquitur Apostolus de sanctitate naturali c. The Apostle sayes he speaks not of naturall holiness and inhering to the nature of
and by his self-pleasing principles turns all to poyson trutinaque examen in ista castigat nec se quaesiverit extra Pers An antidote I aym at for the present reâ—erving a further re-examination of this Examiner for the future I said and is baptized pag. 72. to be a conditional qualification of salvation which he confesses pag. 25. he asserted of professors Baptism in his Sermon In the Dispute I denyed not incompleat but compleat repentance to be a condition of Baptism Acts 2. 38. in them of age none in Infants Mine observation out of Dr. Buckeridge is weighty not as he frivously misforges it from 1 Cor. 12. 28. where Paul speaks as well of extraordinary Apostles and Prophets as ordinary Pastors und Teachers in relation to the whole Church But from Acts 20. 28. where the Apostle sayes take heed to all the â—â—ock over which the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath set or fixed you â—verseers and Titus 1. 5. I left thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ordain or rather setle Elders in every Citie Mr. T. diâ—ingenuously hath a genuine tooth at me not I at Itinerants who yield them as much as either Scripture Reason or the Laws require neither I nor my Relator who is also his Claws Master Cr. and Mr. W. whose worthies are so well known that they need not our Panegyricks I seriously considered what I said when I neither would extend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 16 16. to every rationall creature as Divels nor reâ—train it to men of age and understanding excluding children Neither does it â—olâ—â— that Christ commanded the Apostles to Preach the Gospel to Infants that they should for the present be endoctrinated but benefitted as the Infant is by the publication of his Fathers will which he understands not and he and I being bound so to do sin against our own light if we do not publish that Church-membership and Baptism with the attendants and sequels are due to Infants And it is so far from being foolish that it proceeds from the wisdome of him who is wisdom it self to attempt it which my words shew when I say Infants are not capable to be taught of men but God who hath commanded them to be sealed by men when I distinguish of the creatures who by a naturall instinct and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 earnest expectation of men of years who by actuall understanding and profession of Faith of Infants who besides a naturall instinct by the first seed of understanding and grace are sensible of their estate I express in what sense they are sensible of benefit they have by Christ to wit passively seminally virtually and objectively When I granted that Baptism is necessary by necessity of precept if conveniently it may be had is not all he asserted in his Sermon when he said all that would be saved must be Baptized after profession for there is a large difference between the lawfulness and nullity of Infant-baptism the sufficiency of the one and the sacrilegious repetition of the other the conditionall necessity of baptizing and re-baptizing which according to his Tenet involves millions that are departed thousands of Magistrates Ministers and people yet living in damnation Austin might be a hard Father to Infants if he held absolutely that they must be baptized or not see the Kingdom of God and yet â— may gather from John 3. 5. conditionally Infants Baptism All are not damned that are not baptized if there be no contempt yet the contempt of Infant Baptism is damnable from Mark 16. 16 is no more rightly gathered that believing is necessarily to be before Baptism than Baptism necessarily before salvation which would infer limbum Infantum for as belief is before Baptism there so Baptism before saved It is rightly gathered from Mark 1. 4. if any thing be gatherable from order of words that we must be baptized before we can hear the word Preached or repent for all his frivolous reason that the Text does not express that John baptized afore he Preached It s true no more does Math. 28. 19. that they must make Disciples or Preach before they baptize but â—e sayes Mark recites these two as connexed yet the latter is put first not because first done but because he was to set down more amply what he preached the Baptism of repentance for remission of sins As well it may be said or better Mathew Chap. 28. 19. recites these two Preach and baptize as connexed yet the latter is put first not because the first to be done but because he was to set down more amply the manner of Baptism baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Mr. Tombes 2. Section THough we cannot know that the person to be Baptized hath a saving Faith yet a saving Faith is the rule of Baptism to the person baptized he should not undertake that Ordinance without a saving Faith and in respect of the baptizer so far as he can discern â—e should require a saving Faith of those he baptizeth Dipping over-head or baptizing over-head after profession of Faith is no invention of man but the command of Christ practise of the Apostles and their successors for many ages and Infant-baptism was opposed many ages before John of Leyden who though he were otherwise not to be justified yet I do not remember that any hath written he ever conâ—essed that he had that doctrine from Satan But Mr. C. saith baptizing is in Greek any washing whether by dipping or sprinkling And he cites Ravanel who hath made a Dictionary according to the present use of terms But he shews not out of any of the pillars as he calls them of the Greek tongue that baptizing in Greek ever signifies to sprinkle Reply AS we cannot know the person to be Baptized hath a saving Faith so neither can we gather fâ—om this Text that a saving Faith is the rule of Baptism either to the Baptizer to whom this is spoken or to the Baptized to whom it is not spoken neither is there ground from any other Scripture that the party to be baptized should not undertake that Ordinance without a saving Faith nor the baptizer should stay so far as is discernable till he discovers a saving Faith in the person to be baptized All that is necessarily required in them of age is a willingness to receive Christ and his Ordinance which was performed by the Jaylor Lydia and their families on a sudden with those three thousand Acts 2. 39. who could not possibly in one day hear the word be baptized and express their willingness to entertain Christ otherwise then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by lifting up their hands or some other sign as in great elections which is far short of expression of their saving Faith The necessity whether by precept or means of dipping over-head or baptizing over head before or after profession of
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
be saved where observe that Circumcision is the subject of the Question In the second verse they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders about this Question to wit Circumcision In the 5. ver 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 arose up in the 7. and determined the Question in the tenth verse Why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples Mr. T. his answer to all this is that it is frivolous of which contumelious censure I am sure his pretended reason is guilty for sayes he though ver 1. 5. there is mention of Circumcision yet not of Circumcision as acted on Infants but taught brethren Here are two questions The first is negative that there is not mention of Circumcision as acted on Infants The second affirmative That it is Circumcision as acted onely on brethren I le invert the order and begin with the latter That which is pressed as a Transient act and not permanent to posterity is not mentioned here But Circumcision acted onely on taught brethren is pressed onely as a Translent act not permanent to posterity Therefore Circumcision acted onely on taught brethren is not mentioned here The Major is apparent because they that came from Judea did not press a duty that should determine presently but to continue alwaies to posterity of which nature in their Judgement was circumcision and obligation to Moses his law Therefore the determination of the Councell against them v. 28. was not a Transient but a permanent decree binding negatively from circumcision all Infants for the time to come The Minor is as clear That circumcision acted on taught bretheren not Infants had been a Transient act would have expired with that generation and not concerned their Infants to posterity and according to his ground the Councell had determined nothing against Infant-circumcision which neverthelesse would have been still in force provided they â—bstained from circumcising of taught bretheren which is a most grosse and hereticall absurdity His second evasion is that there is no mention of Circumcision as acted on Infants The falsity of which appears by this Argument If it were Infants also whom the false teachers would have had to be Circumcised as necessary and as engaging to Moses Law then mention is made of Circumcision as acted or to be acted on Infants But it was Infants also whom the false teachers would have had to be Circumcised as necessary and as engaging unto Moses Law Therefore mention is made of Circumcision as acted or to be acted on Infants The Antecedent to wit it was Infants also they would have Circumcised is cleared ver 1. Except ye be Circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved if they would have had them Circumcised after the manner of Moses then they would have Infants also Circumcised But they would havâ— them Circumcised after the manner of Moses Therefore they would have Infants also Circumcised for nothing is more manifest than that after the manner of Moses all the Proselytes Children should be Circumcised as well as the Jews and ever after all their posterity at eight days old But it will be expected I should make good the Consequence which in the words following he interpretatively denyes saying when the Apostles ver 6. did consider of the matter they did not consider of the circumcision as acted but taught and not onely of Circumcision but also imposing the law of Moses as necessary which was the putting the yeake ver 10. To which saying of Mr. T. I will oppose Mr. T. his own words Exam. pag. 101. Now I pray you sayes he what is this yoke Acts. 15. 10. but circumcision as if he should say with an Emphasis it is nothing else and here he says it is not circumcision as acted but the doctrin and the law of Moses The Satyr will be affraid of conversing with him that can blow hot and cold contradictories out of the same mouth But that it was Circumcision as acted I shall God willing cleer out of the Text where it is in plain terms thrice set down ver 1. They taught the Brethren except ye be Circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved he does not say except ye be taught Circumcision and so have the Theory sceptically without the practice but passively except ye be Circumcised and have the seal cut in your flesh and that after the manner of Moses who did usually Circumcise Males at eight days old and for neglecting but one the Lord would have slain him And ver 5. They taught it was needfull to Circumcise them not needfull to teach them the Law of Circumcision but to act it upon them and in them And ver 24. Ye must be Circumcised not taught Circumcision And though from this yoke taking it aggregativè we neither exclude teaching nor the Law of Moses yet to say that they did not consider Circumcision as acted is a gross absurdity and a giving the Holy Ghost the lye as appears in the three former Texts teaching was the means by which the false brethren pressed actuall Circumcision as a seal obligatory to the necessary observation of the Law of Moses These three are linked together which he fallaciously divides Therefore it is a most ridiculous saying of his to say it is ridiculous to conceive that those teachers mentioned ver 1. did attempt to do any thing to Infants when the attempt is said thrice to be actuall Circumcision and it is most certain that these men coming from Judea did act it onely upon their own Children at home pressed it according to the Law of Moses for it is called his Law because he both penned it as the whole Pentateuch and practised it upon the Gentiles converted Parents with Children and upon the Children of posterity onely And therefore it is a meer wrangling without any colour of ingenuous sophistry to contend that none of these Disciples upon whom they would have put the yoke ver 10. were Infants conâ—rarie to the precept nature and use of Circumcision which was applyed either to Infants onely or Infants together with parents as may be confirmed by many Clouds of witnesses both out of the old and new Testament And whereas he concludes that to contend that the Disciples on whom they would have put the yoke were Infants is contrary to the use of the term throughout all the new Testament I would gladly know what he means by contrary If he say divers as he can mean nothing else That by his own confession is short of opposite and opposite short of contrary To which Catachresis he joyns this Hyperbole some hundreds of times which if true comes short of holy which he acknowledges to be taken six hundred times in Scripture in
a distinct sense from chastitie and but two places pretended for it why may not these two if there were no more serve our turn to prove Infants Disciples which is already manifested Mr. Tombes 16. Section AS for Mr. C. Argument from Acts 2. 38. 39. it is false that the Apostles inference is as Mr. C. insinuated unless his Argument have four Terms that they may be baptized to whom is the promise for the Apostle expresseth a duty in the Imperative Mood not a right in the Indicative or Potentiall it is be baptized not may be baptized as in Mr. C. his conclusion I excepted that those parents were not then believers which Mr. C. confessed in saying They were believers in fieri though not perhaps in facto which is all one as to say they were not yet believers but in the way to it Aâ— for his saying They were believers by outward assent and disposition though perhaps not by inward assent and habit I reply 1. If they were by disposition how were they not by inward assent 2. How doth he know they were believers by outward assent and not by inward doth he know they were Hypocrites 3. What act did they shew which expressed outward assent to the acknowledgement of Christ as their Lord what Mr. C. saith he knows of me and tells of a Ministers rule is a fault he chargeth me with as not pertaining to the dispute Reply TO prove further that Infants of Believers were Disciples and might be baptized in the conference I urged They to whom is the promise may be baptized it is the Apostles own inference Acts. 2. 28. be baptized for the promise is to you But to Infants of believers is the promise the promise is to you and your children therefore Infants may be baptized Then he denyed the Minor now he seems to deny the conclusion by an indirect evasion glossing thus as for Mr. C. Argument from Acts 2. 38 39. it is false that the Apostles inference is as he infinuated unless his Argument hath four terms that they may be baptized to whom is the promise By four Terms I imagine he fallaciously means a fallacie for if his answer had been distinct to cleâ—r the truth he would have discovered the particular Paralogism if there had been any and not insisted upon generals like an Advocate that accused the Defendant of a plea of debt but neither knew how much nor had evidence to prove any In this discovering himself a true Sophister 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Sophst Elench 1. 6. Captious to lay hold of any thing that he may seem to say something This his pretended reason following discovers for saith he the Apostle expresseth a duty in the Inperative mood not a right in the Indicative or Potential It is be baptized not may be baptized as in his conclusion To which I reply Granting that every proposition even the conclusion in a Syllogism must be Oratio indicativa a speech in the Indicative Mood so that Imperatives and Potentials are formally excluded from the predicate of any Enunciation But that by the rule of Equipollence Indicative propositions cannot be inferred from Imperatives would be a Tenet of that consequence that it would destroy all deductions from Scriptures and municipal lawes whose commands are in the Imperative mood Mr. Tombes infers himself from Math. 28. 19. make Disciples in the Imperative Mood that he may disciple in the Potential Therefore I conceive this Argument is good Those whom Christ commands his Apostles to disciple may be discipled Christ commands his Apostles to disciple all Nations Therefore they may be discipled Otherwise those that are above Ordinances might be furnished with an answer it is make ye Disciples not ye may make Disciples and so destroy the ordinance of the Ministry It is said in the institution of the Lords Supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do this and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let a man examine let him eat all in the Imperative not in the Indicative or Potentiall this would be a sufficient buckler for the Socinians against the Eucharist The Antinomians might shake off the yoak of the moral Law for every Commandment is Imperative the Ranters conjugality for it is crescite Multiplicamini increase and multiply and to avoid fornication 1 Cor. 7. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let every one have his own wife The Anabaptists might cast off magistracy because it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let every soul be subject and all this in the Imperative not in the Indicative or Potential mood But he saith the Apostle expresseth a duty in the one mood not a right in the other this is a strange distinction I should think the contrary because a duty therefore a right Therefore we have a right to the undertaking of any action or atchievement because God commands it as a duty Gods command makes a thing lawfull nay necessary to be done and that in the present tense as directed in that mood that wants the future and for that cause by Quintilian Priscian and other Grammarians it is called modus permissivus the permissive mood accordingly be baptized is Equipollent to may be baptized We cannot without blasphemy imagine divine precepts otherwise than lawfull the transgression of them a sin the observatiof them a virtuous duty contrariorum est contraria consequentia commands which all Imperative injunctions implyes and duties are Relatives mutuò se ponunt tollunt and it can be no duty if no right If no right to Baptism to accept it is a sin if a duty as he confesses not to accept it is a sin that howsoever they were necessitated to sin contrary to that Tenet of School men necessario non cogimur peccare this is a two-edged sword that cuts both wayes Having no better success in denying the conclusion he quarrels with the premisses yet so as he neither impeaches the major which is they to whom is the promise may be baptized Nor the Minor To Infants of believing parents is the promise But as the Elephant in the Amphitheater passing by the Rhinoceros and Leopard fastned upon a Curr So he waves them both and frames a third proposition which he thinks he can master which is that those parents were not yet believers which though impertinent furnishes me with a further Argument à Minâ—râ— ad Majus If those that are not yet believers may be baptized parents with children then parents with children may be baptized but they that are not yet believers parents with children may be baptized Ergo parents believing with children may be baptized The consequence is evident and the minor proved out of the Text. And that they were not yet believers he sayes I confessed in saying They were believers in fieri though not perhaps in facto Nay I confessed they were believers in that I said they were believers in fieri and denyed not but that they might be also in facto But because it could not so evidently be gathered out of