to the constant declaration of the Gospel which proclaimeth it more plain and full more distinct and cleer then the cloudy weak and childish manifestations of the Law The Law saith circumcise a childe at eight dayes old in the family of Abraham or any other believer baptize all nations saith the Gospel circumcise males saith the Law males and females saith the Gospel circumcise this is my Covenant saith the Law most obscurely baptize into Christ by whom we have accesse by faith into grace Rom. 5.2 most plainly saith the Gospel The Law giveth the ceremony therein most obscurely wrapping up the promise of Christ the Gospel promiseth Christ most plainly and most rationally drawing after it the sacrament of baptisme children are in Christ by election of grace before they are born this is plainly set down in the Gospel but obscurely intimated in the Law Now sacramentally men are ingrafted into Christ by baptisme but personally to judge men faithfull and thereby in Christ before they were ingrafted into him were a contradiction in adjecto therefore are men appointed to baptize and preach the Word as being able to administer externalls only The second delusion is in that they interpret the histories of the Acts of the Aposties wherein historically is related that persons baptized did believe not that confession or profession of faith was made to the Apostles and that the persons baptized had their faith approved by the Apostles and that that was the ground upon which they baptized them which is a plain addition to the Scripture But my earnest request to Mr. Thombes and all other Anabaptists is to look on the doctrine of the Gospel in a more spirituall way then to subject it to such a grosse and carnall apprehension and finde out some means in a more satisfactory way to state the promise of the Gospel according to the Word of God then heretofore Yours in the Lord William Hussey July 1. 1646. I Have perused this Answer to Mr. Tombes his Book against Pedobaptisme or the baptizing of children and finding it to be in my judgement solid and judicious I do allow it to be printed and published Iohn Downame SATISFACTION TO Mr. Tombes his scepticall Exercitation Concerning Infants-Baptisme THe Method that I shall take in the handling this Controversie shall be first to state the Doctrine of Baptisme as it was delivered by Christ and understood by the Apostles as may appear by their practice then answer the sophismes and fallcies of Anabaptists and in particular of Mr. Tombs and lastly some arguments to prove the lawfulnesse of childrens baptisme As for the baptisme of John it was of God God sent him to baptize but as the Ministry so the Baptisme of John was personall began and ended in him he was not a Minister of the Gospel he was the greatest of the Prophets but the least in the kingdome of Heaven is greater then he he was precurser the forerunner of Christ of whose baptisme the Scripture is so silent if you consider the form and nature of it that we may quickly affirm more of it then we can be able to prove As for Christ making Disciples and his Disciples baptizing the Scripture likewise speaketh little only that Christ made Disciples and his Disciples baptized them during the time of Christs abode upon earth he did all things well but some things he did which he was not pleased to reveal to us what is written is written for our learning and so much is written as by believing we may have eternall life In things that are liable to no difficultie a greater liberty of words is used as Go preach the Gospel to every creature here men cannot easily mistake because none are capaple of the Gospel but reasonable creatures So in the Commission Christ saith Make Disciples of all nations baptising them in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost Here Christ giveth a Commission to make all nations his schollers baptizing them and teaching them what he commands Here our Saviour is plain in the manner and form of Baptisine that was new and unknown concerning the doctrine they should teach he telleth them he will give speciall command what they should teach and for the subject that being before limited to Jews is now extended to the Gentiles also but what should be the qualification of persons to be baptized is not said neither doth the Apostles any where declare or give any thing in charge to Timothy or Titus to whom St. Paul wrote as unto Ministers of the Gospel to acquaint them with their duty as matter of any difficulty wherein they might easily fail and in 1 Cor. 1. he by occasion speaking of Baptisme speaketh of that as of a thing consisting in form of words and outward rite of washing so as it is ministerially to be performed wherein no such difficulty was or danger of mistake and therefore he had little care thereof men of meaner qualifications might do that yet were the Corinthians baptized before he wrote to them and a Church In all the dogmaticall parts of Scripture not one word concerning any direction to the Minister whom he should baptize whereby it is plain that Christ did not charge his Disciples with any danger of mistake in baptizing they should teach what Christ had or should command for matter of doctrine and Christ doth referre the commission to future direction but in all the Scripture no farther explanation concerning the persons that were to be baptized The Churches were baptized no man knowes by whom To Churches and Saints men received into the Church is all the doctrine of the Apostles directed whereby it appears that they had care to teach all that Christ by his Spirit did command but so little is spoken concerning the persons to be baptized or the manner of administration more then is in the commission that it may plainly appeare no controversies were raised concerning that it was a plain case wherein they walked without dispute or it seemeth suspition of controversie though light enough be given to the truth so that Antipedobaptists without offending against plain Scripture can have no ground to oppose the baptisme of Infants by those inartificiall and groundlesse arguments which they urge against it and certainly it was long ere much was said and the strength of that which is said will appear What is gathered out of the commission Go make Disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost teaching them c. we shall consider Nations is the subject that is so cleer that Mr. Tombs confesseth it though with this limitation nations that are made Disciples which limitation can receive no colour without apparent alteration of the words First make them Disciples and then baptize them saith Mr. Tombes three words are added first and then the words plainly import make Disciples by baptizing them and teaching I have added nothing but the word by and that is implied in the participiall expression
baptised for my part I state not the question so but Infants borne in a Nation that are the Disciples of Christ or have received the Gospell are to bee baptised of Beleevers much more if presented by them and they undertake to instruct them by themselves or others in the precepts of Christ But let us see Mr. Tombes his sophismes That which hath no testimonies of Scripture that is doubtfull Infants baptisme hath no testimony of Scripture ergo doubtfull The minor Mr. Tombes laboureth to prove by an induction but it wanteth forme he should have said sic de ceteris none of all these places might prove this and yet it might have testimony from some other place but I will follow him in his exceptions and see how just they are against the testimonies produced The first testimony which he pretendeth accurately to examin Gen. 17.7 c. I passe by his jingle he raiseth 14 arguments raised out of severall places of Scripture as urged in defence of Paedobaptisme which he answereth whose answers I shall endeavour to examine and see how the arguments are as he urgeth them or as they may be urged from this place of Genesis to whom the Gospell Covenant agrees to them the signe of the Gospell Covenant agrees but to Infants of Beleevers the Gospell Covenant agrees therefore the signe of the Gospell Covenant and consequently Baptisme That Mr. Tombes might prepare for an answer he sheweth a great deale of his accurate skill he examines foure supposita things granted on the part of Pedobaptists and converteth them into questions stateth them apart and so endeavoureth to take away the strength of the argument 1. Whether the Covenant made with Abraham and the Gospell Covenant be the same Mr. Tombes denieth with this difference that the Covenant with Abraham was mixed but with respect to Mr. Tombes his opinion of learning he hath gotten he beginneth at the worng end to prove it for a Gospell Covenant between God and man taketh in all the Covenants that now are or ever were since the fall between God and man God was never in covenant with any man or Nation but in Christ Christ is the adequate subject of the Gospell this Gospell was preached from heaven by the Angels Luke 2.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I preach the Gospell which was in these words Unto you is borne this day in the City of David a Saviour which is Christ the Lord Certainly whatsoever the Saints enjoy upon earth or shall enjoy in heaven they enjoy it in and for Christ Whereas Mr. Tombes distinguisheth the promises made to Abraham into Evangelicall Domesticall and Civill promises what had Abraham some things in Christ and some things out of Christ godlinesse hath the promises of this life and that which is to come Now to deny the promises of this life to belong to Abraham under Evangelicall promise or to distinguish individualls by specificall difference is strange Divinity and stranger Logick is reason of different nature in Peter and Paul or is Pauls reason of another nature then Peters because he useth some particular arguments that Peter doth not Abraham had the blessings of his house and others have the blessings of their families and Gal. 3.9 Paul telleth us that they which beleeve are blessed with faithfull Abraham they are not blessed only as the seed of Abraham but as Abraham they are fountaines of blessing to their seed through faith in Christ and that doth that inference cleerly prove that Abraham was intituled to the blessing by his faith tanquam medio as by the meanes and therefore is faithfull repeated in the argument with Abraham that those that beleeve are blessed not with Abraham but faithfull Abraham and further saith not that the faithfull are blessed with the seed of Abraham but with Abraham they that beleeve have as full a right to the promise as Abraham himselfe the same Covenant the same blessing remaines to us with Abraham as for those particular differences they are but numericall and make no difference in the promise no more then the difference of Peter and Paul doe in mankinde Abraham had his family blessings wee have ours Logica non tractat aut definit particularia if any shall say that his being father of Christ after the flesh putteth a mixture of the Covenant and maketh it of another nature I deny that it doth any more vary the nature of the Covenant then a badge of honor doth the nature of man and this shall appear in that so much of the covenant as was sealed to Abraham by circumcision commeth down to us and if Abraham had any blessing that came not to us that was not sealed to him by circumcision forasmuch as all the benefit that Abraham and his naturall or faithfull seed had of circumcision that the Beleever hath without circumcision For though it be true that circumcision was given to all indefinitly yet the benefit of circumcision came only to the faithfull both before and after Christ came and this is so plainly set downe by Saint Paul that nothing can be more plaine that circumcision was of force to Abraham by faith Rom. 4.9.10 Faith was reckoned to Abraham when he was uncircumcised and that he received circumcision as a seale of the righteousnesse of faith and in verse 12. he saith that Abraham was father of circumcision to them that were uncircumcised where he implied that those that were uncircumcised were circumcised in a sense and this is farther affirmed of them who are in Christ Jesus by faith Col. 2.10 that they are circumcised with circumcision made without hands and this circumcision with hands is specified Eph. 2.11 Yee were uncircumcised with circumcision in the flesh made with hands implied that they were circumcised in the heart what other sense can be rendred of this circumcision of heart but that that cleannesse of heart which was signified to our fathers by circumcision remaineth to us though the seale be altered and this is that usuall setting downe of Evangelicall duties and benefits by ceremoniall expressions We under the Gospel are circumcised in heart without hands Now how could that be unlesse the internall part of circumcision did remaine to us And this Mr. Tombs p. 33. doth confesse that the substance of the Covenant doth remaine but still helpeth himselfe with his mixt covenant which I have formerly denyed and shall presently evince the different manner of administration doth not alter the Covenant God did set forth his promises of Heaven by Canaan was punctuall in the ceremonies but the ceremonies did lead those that beleeved to better then the bare ceremony without which circumcision and all their service was utterly without use or benefit God did in speciall manner blesse those outward duties to his elect because they were his owne Ordinances causing them to see more in those types then they in their owne nature doe seem to manifest And thus Mr. Tombes confesseth that the promises that were Evangelicall in the
2 Colos 11.12 The argument he raiseth thus To whom circumcision doth agree to them baptisme doth agree but to Infants circumcision doth agree ergo also baptisme The major proved If baptisme succeed in the room of circumcision then baptisme belongeth to them that circumcision belonged but the antebedâ—â—â—s true ergo the consequent The major of the Prosyllogisme is apparently false for to them that circumcision did belong to them sacramentall baptisme doth belong the contradictory is true but his meaning is that men of such condition in respect of Infants and he denieth and cutteth and divideth the major of the conditionall Syllogisme into such parts that he may find out something that he may deny that it doth succeed baptisme he cannot deny nor readily sinde out a reason why a man of yeers under the Gospel should not be able to bear as much as an Infant under the Law I speak this in reference to the dispensation under the Law of the promises the condition of the Church is called infancy the heir under age now how shouldâ— childe of eight dayes old when the whole Church is under age be able to receive circumcision and now the Church is at age our Infants not able to receive baptisme He telleth us that the argument supposeth baptisme to succeed circumcision it doth not suppose it but proveth it out of Colos 2.11.12 but he prepareth for a deniall so to succed that those persons to be baptized that by Gods appointment were to be circumcised it should be persons of such quality but because he taketh no advantage of that difference let him alone with his own expressions In this sense it is false saith he females were not circumcised nor believers out of Abrahams family as for believers out of Abrahams family if he understand it of such believers out of Abrahams family as lived before Abrahams time or before the Law of circumcision such a plea to prove all believers under the Law were not circumcised were vain for to prove exemption from a positive Law by some persons that lived before the Law was made were exempt but for persons that were out of Abrahams family the promise was made to all families in Abraham and they might be circumcised though neither bought with money nor born in Abrahams family but desirous to eat the Passeover only and so believers they and all their males must be circumcised but for the females circumcision was given in terms that did exempt females baptisme to all nations not males only as circumcision was but females also Besides the Scripture doth tell us that the Apostles did understand all nations male and female and accordingly did baptize Acts 8.12 Now because God hath called in females because they are capable of the signe of baptisme which in circumcision they were not may you without warrant thrust out Infants or doth it any way follow because some persons of some quality are added therefore those that were before capable are now uncapable if God had declared infants uncapable as he hath women capable we must have been satisfied baptisme may succeed circumcision though with such difference as God is pleased to make but because God maketh one difference in reference to the persons man may not take liberty to make another As for Job Lot and Melchisedeck or whom soever else you can name we know if they lived after the Law of circumcision was made they might come and be circumcised the extent of the promise made to Abraham did reach to them and what those persons you name did you cannot tell if they had any particular exemption that is nothing to the question we know none had priviledge to the ordinance but circumcised and in plain terms both in the old and new Testament nouncircumcised person shall eat thereof Exod. 12.48 and Rom. 3.1 2. this is reckoned the profit of circumcision that they had the Oracles of God here is every circumcised person for that it is properly assigned to circumcision as the profit of circumcision there it is no uncircumcised person yet Mr Tombes will tell us all persons in covenant were not circumcised this is the reverence that is given to the Scripture when it crosseth their opinion though they would make the world believe that they were the only men that did respect the Scriptures he should have made his personall difference by believers and not believers by Infants and men of yeers and not by male and female in or out of Abrahams house Two sorts of succession which he denieth of baptisme to circumcision is of time because baptisme began before circumcision ended What if circumcision did overlap a little and baptisme did begin a while before circumcision ended the same Gospel Christ in his person and by his Spirit in his Apostles did put down one and set up another that is all I say to that and surely it is so frivolous I needed not to have said so much In respect of signification here Mr. Tombes is put to his shifts in some signifcations he confesseth but not in others First I will consider the significations he alloweth and observe that wherein they agree cannot hinder their succession they both signifie the righteousnesse of faith saith Mr. Tombes but he must mean it doth sacramentally confirm or seal not demonstratively signifie but how soever he doth agree that baptisme and circumcision have the same respect to the righteousnesse of faith and yet the hinge of all Mr. Tombes his work is on this that Abrahams seed were circumcised whether they believed or no none must be baptized but actuall believers and yet circumcision and baptisme have the same respect to faith Me thinks the bare acknowledgement of this is enough to dash all that any Anabaptist can say the controversie is at an end if there be no difference in respect of faith why should faith be required more to the baptized then the circumcised certainly I would have found out some difference or found some other reason why Infants should not be baptized then want of faith or I would never have opened my mouth in such a case I would never have confessed them both seals of the righteousnesse of faith and yet the whole weight of the busmesse depend on this that one might be given in infancy to them that have not actuall faith the other may not be given in infancy for no other reason but because they want faith What is the reason why circumcision the seal may be given where there is no faith but baptisme the seal of faith may not and that for no other reason but because faith is wanting What may a man make a difference of a common accident or make a genericall form a specificall difference or a specificall form a numericall difference this is all one as if a man should say that a Bear were not a man because he can see or not a Lion because he can hear and yet after confesse that both men and Bears and Lions can both heare
and see just so doth Mr. Tombes baptisme doth not succeed circumcision because baptisme must be given to believers only yet confesseth that both baptisme and circumcision have a like respect to faith it is true he assigneth other differences but none of them will more disable from baptisme then from circumcision The first difference is that circumcision doth signifie Christ to come of Isaac according to the flesh but baptisme doth signifie incarnation death and resurrection of Christs doth this make the difference can children better understand that Christ shall come of Isaac after the flesh then that Christ is incamate dead and risâ—n again Secondly can Infants better understand that the Israelites were people separated from all nations then they can understand that all are one in Christ can they better understand that the Law of Moses must be kept then that it is voyd or the promise of the Land of Canaan then of eternall life The difference that Mr. Tombes putteth between circumcision and baptisme cannot make Infants differ under the Law and under the Gospel and do they differ by that which doth agree to circumcision and baptisme As for the place out of which this argument is drawn Colos 2.11 12. Mr. Tombes saith that the Text doth not say we are circumcised because we are baptized but we are compleat in him because we are circumcised in him and buried with him in baptisme I must needs suspect this mans learning or his honesty else he would never abuse his ignorant Reader thus what Mr. Tombes doth the Text say ye are compleat because circumcised Let men that can examine the Text see and they shall find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our translators have dealt more faithfully with us then so that have translated it in whom also that is we are not only compleat in him but we are also circumcised with the circumcision of the heart we have that mercy sealed unto us though circumcision be taken away and we might seem to be without that confirmation or signe of the purity of heart which our Fathers had Why saith S. Paul Christ was circumcised and that gave an efficacy to the circumcision of our Fathers circumcision ended in Christ and is not descended to us but the effect of circumcision is in the circumcision of Christ part of the body was put off in circumcision but the body of sin was signified now this Christ did in circumcision not only so but by buriall he put off that body that became sin for us of both which ye are partakers being buried with him in baptisme so that baptisme doth entitle us to circumcision of the heart by the circumcision and buriall of Christ as the circumcision of the Jewes was made effectuall by the circumcision of Christ so we have the same grace expressed by cicumcision of the heart in baptisme it could not be plainer expressed if it had been said that the benefit of circumcision by Christ is made yours by baptisme Circumcision was the seal of circumcision of the heart to the Jews circumcision of the heart is sealed by baptisme to you For it saith plainly in whom also ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands in putting off the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ the means of all this conveyed unto you by baptisme no man can deny that circumcision in the flesh did signifie and sacramentally seal the circumcision of the heart which the Apostle here affirmeth of Baptisme After all this incongruous stuffe Mr. Tombes denieth that baptisme doth succeed circumcision and therefore Infants are not as capable of baptisme as of circumcision he hath confessed that faith is as requisite for one as the other in regard they stand both in the same relation to faith and thereby confesseth what he doth deny and yet no more then the Scripture doth affirm Mr. Tombes falleth out with this argument and in a metaphoricall way talketh of an Egge out of which if not restrainedly taken nothing can be gathered but that baptisme and circumcision in some things signifie the same and do so Noahs flood and the red sea yet do we not say that baptisme succeeded into their place much lesse do we inferre any right to be instituted in their steed respecting the same persons I do professe I was troubled to parallel this non-sense with any thing that might equall it if we could get these Anabaptists to speak sense a man might the better deal with them Can any man make any thing of this after Mr. Tombes hath allowed that they both signifie the righeousnesse of faith that both signifie the sanctification of the heart are they again turned into materiam primam that Noahs flood might be parallelled with baptisme as well as circumcision You bid us take heed of such argumentation you might say baptisme and speaking in some things do agree in prolatione verborum and washing pots in some thing in washing in action with whatsoever we can do Your argument to Noahs Ark is fallacia consequentiae à genere ad speciem affiâ—mativè thus Noahs Ark agreeth with baptisme in something therefore in sacramentall nature as if a man should say est animal ergo equâ—s it is a living creature ergo an horse The collection that nothing can be gathered in a restrained sense but that baptisme in some things signifie the same yes more then that they agree in some things we may gather in what they agree they agree in the nature of a sacrament in divine institution in the â—eal of faith they must be administred to all to whom the tender of grace is made not only to all that are partakers of grace The first in respect of providence limited to a narrow compasse and by the ordinance bounded within the nation of Jews though not to the persons of the Jews all nations might come in and be circumcised and offer sacrifice and eat the Passâ—over but they might sacrifice no where but at Ierusalem but now the ordinances are tendered to all nations and baptisme must be administred to all nations no assignation of persons by the commission surely the commission was not invented by man Christ commandeth his Disciples to baptize all nations here is not men women nor children we must baptize some body it must then be examined who they are that must be baptized it is no wil-worship to baptize it is no will-worship to baptize all nations to baptize whom we please and refuse others without ground out of Scripture that is will-worship Now these persons must be found à subjecto capaci from the capacity of the subject or from the judgement of the persons in commission to baptize Your part requireth that you prove Infants are unfits subjects and I will prove in due time that Ministers are unfit judges For arguments drawn from analogies I willingly grant to be invalid if you mind analogies of proportion to invent any part of Gods worship by as if we had invented baptisme by rules of proportion
a prophane meeting to feast together Ninthly men forget baptisme so that it hath the force of a carnall right and not a spirituall institution Tenthly it taketh away or at least diminisheth the zeal and industry of knowing the Gospell But be all these faults and are all of these flowing from Infants baptisme First I shall shew that many of these have no affinity at all with Infants baptisme First private baptisme hath nothing to do with Infants baptisme for that Infants may be baptized publikely nay Lawes may be made requiring their publike baptisme though Infants nay the Directory is at this time so penned and in all times publike baptisme was principally aimed at and desired and for the most part so performed what he meaneth by private baptisme I do not know baptisme in an house among so many as make a congregation I cannot discerne how that can well be accounted any such fault I am sure he hath not proved it 2. He telleth us that baptizing of Infants hath brought in the baptizing by women as though Ministers may not baptize children as well as women 3. The baptizing of Infants hath brought in the baptizing of children not brought to light for my part I can say nothing but wonder at such an inference 4. As for baptizing of children of uncertaine progenie I know nothing of it but that if any man that is a Christian himselfe will undertake to bring him up a Disciple of Christs such a childe may be baptized 5. They are baptized in the name of the Lord that know not the Lord what inconvenience from that It is true St. Paul saith No man can call upon him of whom he hath not heard It would indeed put on the forme of some probablity if it were referred unto the person that did call on the name of the Lord that it were something absurd but doth it follow because no man can call on him of whom he hath not heard therefore he cannot call on the name of God in the behalfe of any but such as have heard of God none can pray but those that have faith but may not a faithfull man pray for an Infidell may not a Christian parent pray for his childe because the childe doth not know the Lord this were very strange as for the childs consent I say so farre as concernes the Covenant between God and man which is sealed in Baptisme consent is not required on our part to the obligation we are bound to obedience and are under the sanction of condemnation if we consent not and this is the very reason why circumcision which had as great a respect to the circumcision of the heart as baptisme was as vaine and nothing without faith as baptisme was yet stamped on the infants of the Jewes wherein the Scripture is not silent therefore this argument is not of any force that baptisme is not to be administred to Infants because they doe not consent unlesse the consent of the party to be baptized were required to the obligation if the childe were free from those duties unto which he is tyed by his baptisme untill he had consented thereunto it were a great wrong to baptize him and thereby lay a yoke upon him without his consent from which he were otherwise free but whether he consent or not the obligation of obedience and faith lyeth on him and the sanction of wrath and condemnation attendeth on the Infidell and disobedient whether they consent or not whether they are baptized or not so that consent both to obedience and faith and baptisme whether baptisme be represented to them as already done or to be done is required of him that is adultus or of yeares as a duty not as liberty 〈◊〉 â—â—fusing to consent is a sinne and punishable both by God and man though these consist much in internalls of which only God can judge and punish faith and obedience of the heart but as for the externalls of Gods worship such as are the externall rite of baptisme that is to be performed in the sight of men and men may require him that is of yeares to consent to his baptisme laying the neglect on him as a sinne and punishing him for it as for adultery fornication or any other publike offence leaving the matter of faith which is private to the judgement of God so likewise may the Nations receive baptisme for the whole as all other externalls requiring parents to bring their children as before I have thought good to speake something to this point because it seemeth to carry some shew of reason with it that no man should be tyed to a Covenant unto which hee never gave any consent which in free covenants is true though in publike covenants we are tyed by the covenants of our Ancestors and are bound by those lawes wee are borne under made by the consent of our parents but in the case between God and us he made us and giveth lawes to us under which we must live or dye I take Lawes here in a generall sense to signifie direction for faith and repentance as well as any other rules of life not by vertue of our owne consent but Gods absolute right and authority 6. Mr. Tombs telleth us that baptizing of Infants hath brought the admission of ignorant and prophane persons unto the communion of the Church and to the Lords Supper for who can deny rightly the rite of the Church to the baptized so he To this I answer that the engagement of the parent to instruct his childe which is but his duty will certainly be a great meanes to set men upon the performance of their duty therein when men shall solemnly in the presence of God before a congregation be charged with the bringing up of their children in the feare of God that they must looke to their owne conversation that it be exemplary to their children if this be not performed by the parents yet the charging it upon them out of Gods word cannot but be a meanes rather to keep out ignorance and prophanenesse then to bring them in can any means be used by man more available then to instruct children in their tender years in the knowledge of God Certainly God hath informed us that this is the most lasting knowledge that wee learned in tender yeares and our experience doth abundantly confirme this Now what greater care can bee had by the Church then in such a solemne and sacramentall manner for a man to bee charged with the education of his childe as a Scholler of Christ as soon as he is able to learne any thing if this be a way to introduce prophanenesse and ignorance I know not what can keep it out but he implyeth as a great sinne that ignorant persons should be admitted into communion of the Church and the Lords Supper for this admittance into the communion of the Church if any thing may be argued from thence touching the unlawfulnesse of Infants baptisme a just and due tract ought to
but being commanded to baptize all Nations and told that it should stand us in the same stead that circumcision in reference to such principles as concerne us most and did equally concerne the Iewes in the same respects and telling us now the particular priviledge of the Iewes should cease and the ordinances should freely be communicated to all Nations never speaketh one word of the particular qualification of the person of them that are to be baptized he leaveth that to be understood ex natura rei under the Gospell God dealeth with the Church as fathers with their children when they come of years tell them the ground and reason of things leaving circumstances which necessity will drive them upon unto their own discretion whereas when they are children the father directeth them to the sensitive part not acquainting them with the reason but supplieth the defect of the infant with the particular direction of the fact to be done having a care that he take not more upon him then he is able to beare but when he becommeth a man if he should still continue in such simplicity as insist upon the same rule and take no notice of any reasonable instruction nor by comparing his strength with infancie judge nothing of his owne power but still looke for the same direction as he had when he was a childe when the father chooseth rather to instruct him by reason then by sense he could not escape the just censure of a foole God our Father telleth us that baptisme doth circumcise the heart sealeth faith as circumcision did Go baptize all Nations this is enough for a man when he is told the nature of baptisme by comparison with circumcision and shewed the difference in case of women and appropriation to the Jewes to direct them by a rationall proportion with what God did direct his Church in infancie ye shall circumcise no more but ye shall baptize that shall have the same operation upon the heart and you shall not restraine my worship to Jerusalem as of old but goe to all Nations If any shall further object But what say you to Infants I say nothing but that baptisme in respect of my worship and the operation it hath upon the heart is the same with circumcision and you know what direction I gave to my Church when shee was in infancie concerning circumcision you are capable of as much purity of heart as they were then that is all I say you are now of yeares whilst you were children I taught your sense now I teach your understanding as for argument from analogie though it doth come farre short of an argument from precept yet it is equall with an argument from example for indeed all that can be drawne from an example is by analogie and among analogies those are more certain that are drawne from a precept then those that are drawne barely from an example without any shadow of a precept when the analogie is made by God and we are led to the thing signified by Gods-owne direction and told that circumcision of the heart is the same under baptisme as under circumcision of the flesh how dare we say that infancie maketh men uncapable of circumcision of the heart when God sometime did declare that that should be no obstacle to the administration of the signe seeing we are trusted with administration of the signe not with the judgement of the heart but as for that rabblement of analogies which he talketh of out of Durands Irrationale they are things of no analogie with this I further say that it is not the proportion of the signe with the thing signified that maketh a Sacrament but institution I hope no man will affirme that baptisme wanteth institution and as for the person if you will have him adultus I make no question you shall runne upon a greater necessity of will-worship then by administring of it to Infants as I hope upon further occasion to make appeare Your third argument is out of the verge of your owne method as not being drawne from any place of Scripture and therefore I omit that and come to your fourth Argument from the Acts 2.38 39. He frameth the Argument well if the Proposition wanted not forme it should be they to whom the promise belongeth are to be baptized but Infants of beleevers are they to whom the promise belongeth therefore Infants of beleevers are to be baptized Mr. Tombes before he can make any answer to the argument hee must fit his answer that is he must misquote and misapply two or three places of Scripture to the intent his Reader may conceive that the promise that was there meant was not the promise made to Abraham but the promise of sending Jesus Christ others say sending the Holy Ghost all is one if Christ had not been sent the Holy Ghost had not beene sent and the sending Christ was the promise made to Abraham as I have proved before out of Luke 1.73 But Mr. Tombes quoteth some places of Scriptures as if a man in them should finde so plaine a difference from the promise made to Abraham and there spoken of by St. Peter as must needs give full satisfaction to all that doubt of that but let us view those places Acts 3.25 Yee are the children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers saying unto Abraham And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth bee blessed that is plaine enough of the promise to Abraham Act. 13.32 33. And we declare unto you glad tydings how that the promise that was made unto the Fathers God hath fulfilled the same unto us Rom. 15.8 9. Now I say that Jesus Christ was the Minister of circumcision for the truth of God to confirme the promises made unto the Fathers read and judge and judge what Mr. Tombes hath gotten by these places to prove any difference from this promise here spoken of and the promise made to Abraham But said Mr. Tombes the promise was made to them he spoke to and their children to them that are afar off whether they be Gentiles who are said to be afarre off Eph. 2.17 or Iews in future ages as Beza is doubtfull indeed Beza doth argue that Peter did not then know the call of the Gentiles or if he had it is not likely that he would have told the Iewes of it it might be Peter did not at that time know the Nationall calling of the Gentiles that was afterward made knowne to him for then he could not properly have said of them that they were afarre off in respect of the Iewes but Peter was not ignorant that as many of the Gentiles as the Lord should call had right to the promise and this was in no age offensive to the Iewes they alwayes knew that one law was to the homeborne and the stranger that sojourneth among them Exod. 12 48 that is when and after they were called they were put into the same condition with
were vainly reported and taken up to countenance severall errors as delivered from the Apostles if some have disclaimed the proof of Scripture for childrens baptisme and held it notwithstanding lawfull from weaker grounds that doth not any way weaken the authority of Scripture and strength of reason taken from thence If any one hath proved baptisme lawfull from Apostolicall tradition that doth not hinder me or any other from proving it lawfull by Scripture neither doth the mixing it with errors in the same person make the baptisme of Infants erroneous if so all truths would quickly be turned into errors seeing few men have been without their slips which yet have not only held but defended and propagated with admiration many pretious truths Mr. Tombes would be loth if his Anabaptisme be convicted erroneous that all that he hath or shall hereafter speak should be therefore reputed erroneous by the same reason all the truths that were taught among Papists are eo nomine erroneous because they taught them and so not only the doctrine of the Trinity but the incarnation of Christ thâ—◠〈◊〉 of the dead were therefore erroneous because those that held 〈…〉 held likewise many other heresies and so his tenth argument 〈…〉 â—â—â—wered His 6 7 8 and 9. 〈…〉 neer alike and all to little purpose that I had thought wholly to 〈…〉 them but that men would have given some other construction then 〈…〉 were weak and therefore omitted I shall therefore say something of 〈◊〉 leâ—t men willing to be deceived should place strength where indeed there is none He telleth us in his sixth argument that Infants baptisme hath caused many inventions to support it and hath occasioned defect in Church policy but proveth none of that which he saith he only affirmeth that Infants-baptisime was supported by sureties and Episcopall confirmation and that it brought in Church-covenant as a preparation to the Lords Supper for abuses that may creep in with any duty they do not take away the goodnesse or lawfulnesse of the duty it self His seventh argument accuseth baptisme of Infants with four errors First that baptisme conferreth grace by the work done The second is regeneration The third Infants dying are saved by the faith done The fourth regenerate persons may fall from grace To these two arguments I plainly say that none of all these things are occasioned by Infants baptisme or if so men may not doubt of the goodnesse of all such things as wicked men may or will take occasion to be offended at for then Christ and the Gospel should be principally questioned the great stumbling stone and rock of offence so that occasion of offence is an argument rather of goodnesse then of fault Satan being most ready to entice us to corrupt our best actions What doth baptizing Infants imply the conferring of grace by the work done nay we say of Baptisme as Saint Paul of circumcision that is not baptisme that is outward in the ceremony but that which is of the heart but the praise of that is not of man but of God we cannot praise men for baptisme of the heart God baptizeth seeth judgeth the heart we baptise the body but leave the residue to God only in steed of Christ we teach those children that by their parents are brought to be enrolled the disciples of Christ the things that Christ hath commmanded us and tell the baptized when they come to be catechised that they must have the effect of their baptisme by faith in Christ and not by the work done What Mr. Tombes are all Pedobaptists Papists these are strange calumnies and why must Infants baptisme necessarily imply that the regenerate may fall away from grace can none of your baptized persons that are baptized being of full yeers fall away from the effect and benefit of their baptisme if that be not an heresie that such men as are judged believers by your Ministers and so adjudged fit for baptisme and baptized cannot ever after fall away from grace I know not what is I hope Religion and knowledge of God is not brought to that outward formality that all should consist in your humane judicature it seems Mr. Tombes when he baptizeth any he will promise the parties he baptizeth that they shall never fall from grace I have heard many ignorant people use this argument but that Mr. Tombes a man cried up for learning should use such an argument is admirable and strange to me and certainly by this Mr. Tombes doth plainly confute himself guilty of that opinion that baptisme doth conferre grace by the work done For he inferreth that if children may be baptized in Infancy then men may fall away from grace because many not withstanding their baptisme become wicked afterward doth not this imply that if they were baptized they were gracious if baptisme do not conferre grace by the work done how can it be inferred that such men as after baptisme turn wicked do fall away from grace Saint Paul speaking of false teachers 1 Joh. 2.19 saith of them they went from us because they were not of us not that they fell away from grace but they deserted the profession because they were not gracious but saith Mr. Tombes if baptisme be administred to Infants and they walk not according to their profession they fall from grace no such matter unlesse Mr. Tombes will say baptisme cannot be administred but to the gracious they fall from baptisme and so will many that Mr. Tombes or any the most discerning of them all notwithstanding all the caution that can be taken or else it were a most happy case to come under their hands which cannot be imagined unlesse it flow from the operâ—tion of the work done some of them that passe their examination will undoubtedly be unfaithull or at least may be such for ought they can do to prevent it so that if they do deceive them and obtain baptisme then baptisme must conferre the grace or they may remain ungracious still and so notwithstanding their baptisme they cannot be said to fall away from grace which they never had though they should renounce their baptisme muchlesse by not walking answerable to the profession into which they are baptized or not behaving themselves as Disciples ought to do The eighth Argument is taken from this That baptisme of Infants hath caused many faults and abuses in discipline worship and conversation this is likewise only said nothing proved in it he reckoneth ten of these First private baptisme Secondly baptisme by women Thirdly of unborn Infants Fourthly Baptizing Infants of uncertain progeny Fifthly they that are baptized in the the name of the Lord know not the Lord Sixthly it hath brought in the admission of ignorant and prophane persons into the Church and unto the Lords Supper for who can deny rightly the right of the Church to the baptized Seventhly it pâ—rverteth the order of discipline that first a man be baptized and after among the catechised Eighthly the sacrament of baptisme is turned into
most weakly of any thing we can please our selves better in the opinion of our works then of faith but when we come to deal with man we are sure we treat of colours before blind men there we can boldly talk we may speak as freely as travellers we cannot be disproved whereby it cometh to passe often times that heart that is least upright is most bold faith is indeed in time of need very heroick in her exploits in that she acteth by the power of God but ascribeth little of her best actions to her self she is alwayes conversant with God and therefore cannot but be conscious of much weaknesse and infirmity faith is so always loaden with difficulties that she hath very little to say of her self there must be great preparation on Gods part before there can be any sense or feeling in man of the things of faith there must be the mighty operation of the Word and Spirit and God is pleased to adde baptism too for faith to work upon these things are of mighty operation and so they had need considering the sloth of heart that is in us to believe it is well if after the Word and sacrament of baptisme faith do come God layeth it as a ground and foundation for faith to work upon and accordingly all the arguments of Scripture are to raise us to walk worthy of amendment of life and to rise with Christ Rom. 6. as if it should be said God hath offered you grace in baptisme therefore accept of it ye are born anew in baptisme let it appear in your conversation Argum. 4. That which maketh the admission into the Church meerly arbitrary that is a false doctrine but the doctrine of Anabaptists maketh admission into the Church meerly arbitrary Ergo the major is plain for that nothing is more directly contrary to the service of God then will-worship but denying any that are tendred according to the mind of Christ in the Word and requiring such disposition in the party to be baptized as the Minister pleaseth without any rule from Gods Word is to make the publike service of God or at least a great part of it wholly arbytrary and this doth appear to flow from their doctrine not yet any man durst affirm what was the measure of faith to be required how much he must believe that must be baptized by means whereof the whole matter dependeth on the will of the Baptizer a thing most contrary to the nature of Religion it cannot be imagined that the Holy Ghost would have been so silent in giving rules for the Ministers to walk by in the triall of the faith of the person to be baptized if any such charge had lain upon his office He must baptize believers only saith Mr. Tombes and the Anabaptists but no Scripture directeth what or how much he must believe must it be as much as the Minister shall think fit then some Ministers will baptize with very small triall others will be very hardly satisfied some will baptize as soon as the childe can be taught to say he believeth in Christ others not till ten or twelve others twenty yeers of age wherein no man can either satisfie his own conscience or any reasonable man for that he walketh without rules neither doth this difficulty from this doctrine come from accidental misconstructions or phansies but inevitable necessity from the doctrine it self that the Minister must baptize none but believers yet cannot tell how much or what he must believe before he be fit for baptisme unlesse he walk by rules of mans making without any intimation from Scripture 5. That doctrine that giveth man that power which is divine that doctrine is blasphemous and false but the doctrine of the Anabaptists giveth man that power which is divine therefore the doctrine of Anabaptists is blasphemous and false That doctrine that giveth man power to judge of faith in another that doctrine giveth man that power that is divine but the Anabaptist giveth men power to judge of faith in another therefore the Anabaptist that power that is divine Faith is in the heart with the heart man beleeveth to righteousnesse and with the mouth he confesseth to salvation Rom. 10.10 He therefore that judgeth of faith must judge the heart which is proper to God I the Lord try the heart Jer. 17.10 Neither will it serve his turne to say that he judgeth by rules of charity if this charge lay upon his office to judge charitably it is one thing another to judge ex officio for the judgement of charity can never pronounce the person so judged to be such as he is judged by charity to be judgements of charity are not alwaies true if it be possible we have warrant enough to judge it so by charity if children may possibly be such as the Kingdome of heaven doe belong too wee may in charity judge them such but if we are tyed by our office to baptize none but beleevers it will not serve turne to say we judge them such by charity to prove that we must baptize none but such as are beleevers seeing we may by charity judge many beleevers which yet are not beleevers againe judgement of faith is denied to belong to the Apostles themselves not that we have dominion of your faith 2 Cor. 1.24 If God had appointed Ministers to have judged of mens faith before they had baptized them he would have given them some rules by which they should have been able to walke which he hath not done he hath annexed baptisme to the Ministers calling to let men know that the grace of baptisme commeth immediatly from Christ therefore he sent the seale of it by that calling that came immediately from him but hath promised those officers of his no speciall qualifications whereby they shall have abilities to discern the faith of men more then other men have the judgement of charity is not a Ministeriall qualification that belongeth to every man and is no Ministeriall qualification 6. That doctrine that denieth the interpretation of the promise made to Abraham which S. Paul maketh that is a false doctrine but the doctrine of Anabaptists denieth the interpretation of the promise made to Abraham wch St. Paul maketh therfore the doctrine of the Anabaptists is false Those that deny the blessing of Abraham and in him of all the Nations of the earth to be the Gospel preached to Abraham in reference to the Gentiles after their call deny the interpretation that S. Paul maketh of the promise made to Abraham but the Anabaptists deny the blessing of Abraham and in him of all the Nations of the earth to be the Gospell preached to Abraham in reference to the Gentiles after their call therefore the Anabaptists deny the interpretation made to Abraham which S. Paul maketh the words of S. Paul are plain Gal. 3.8 the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying In thee shall all Nations be
blessed where ye see plainly S. Paul affirmeth the promise to Abraham to be the Gospel and the Nations to be converted Gentiles and that in the promise made to Abraham there was a Prophesie of the conversion of the Gentiles and the Gentiles under the Gospell had Abrahams blessing that is a blessing to them and their seed as Abraham had to him and his seed so that it is apparent that those which deny the blessing to the seed of the Gentiles the blessing of the promise deny Abrahams blessing to the Gentiles which is directly to deny the interpretation of St. Paul concerning Abrahams blessing and to deny that the blessing to Abraham was the Gospell or that the promise was a Prophesie of the conversion of the Gentiles under the Gospell all which things are plainly affirmed by St. Paul 7. That doctrine that denieth the benefit or grace of circumcision to be offered in baptisme that doctrine is false but the doctrine of Anabaptists is a doctrine that denieth the benefit and grace of circumcision to be offered in baptisme therefore the doctrine of the Anabaptists is false That doctrine which denieth what St. Paul affirmeth is a false doctrine but that doctrine that denieth the benefit or grace of circumcision to be offered in baptisme that doctrine denieth what St. Paul affirmeth therefore that doctrine denieth the benefit and grace of circumcision to be offered in baptisme is a false doctrine The place wherein St. Paul doth affirme that we have the benefit of circumcision by baptisme is Colloss 2.11 12. Let the argument be weighed I have spoken to it in my answer to Mr. Tombes In the which verse St. Paul affirmeth they were circumcised that was not literally true therefore he affirmeth in a figurative or metonymicall sense signi pro signato the thing signified by circumcision and he further sheweth how the benefit they were partakers of had resemblance with circumcision circumcision did cut off the body by a synecdoche part for the whole but they put off the whole body but it was the body of sin Now this is done by the circumcision of Christ it was this circumcision of Christ that made the circumcision of our fathers of any vertue this had been as true of the Patriarches that they were circumcised in putting off the body of the sinnes of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ whereof their legall circumcision was but a type and Christs circumcision did put an end to that circumcision yet the Collossians were circumcised in Christ how could that be the text plainly saith they put off the body of the sinnes of the flesh and that was their circumcision in the circumcision of Christ it was the benefit of circumcision to the Jewes which they had though they wanted the ceremony Now all this benefit commeth unto you by being in Christ get but into Christ and all is done to put off the body is to dye Christ dyed if ye be in him all that he did you did he was circumcised ye are circumcised he died ye die if in him thus were your fathers in Christ by circumcision so are ye in Christ by baptisme buried with him in baptisme nothing can be plainer then the grace and benefit of circumcision was offered to the Colossians in baptisme That doctrine that refuseth to hear and obey the rationall and manly phrase of the doctrine of the Gospell and reduce all to the sensitive and childish delivery of the Law that is an unfaithfull and disobedient doctrine but the doctrine of Anabaptists refuseth to heare and obey the rationall and manly phrase of the doctrine of the Gospell and reduce all to the sensitive and childish delivery of the Law therefore the doctrine of the Anabaptists is an unfaithfull and disobedient doctrine God was pleased to deliver the service which consisted in ceremonies and outward performances in such manner that every externall was directed to them the length heighth of their Temple and of every thing that was contained therein to shew that God would be the author of all things in his worship The colour length of the curtains of their altars and every carved thing were directed immediatly by God the place where the Temple should stand If we should rigorously look for particular rules in this kinde as those Anabaptists do in point of baptisme look for the like direction for administration of baptisme as of circumcision and for want thereof to neglect what the Holy Ghost hath said concerning the nature of baptisme and giving direction to have it administred to all nations thereby leaving the precept or duty of baptisme without any lawfull use for want of such sensitive and particular direction as they had under the Law we might be condemned for will-worship for building Churches without a pattern and direction from God how high or how long they should be together with many things of the like nature refuse to pray publikely or meet to serve God because he had appointed no place the truth is what they say against baptizing of Infants doth conclude against any baptizing at all For if the particular assignation of the persons to be baptized must be dinstiguished by any qualification for want of any such direction we shall be enforced to leave all unbaptized Baptize all nations saith Christ and Acts 2.41 three thousand souls were added Act. 8.12 men and women these may comprehend all male and female without necessary inference that they were grown men and women Now if we leave this sensitive and childish way and walk by the reasonable sense of Scripture how cleerly doth the Scripture give satisfaction in this point I pray you observe First Christ doth command to baptize all nations Secondly he telleth that the promise belonging to any doth entitle him to baptisme Acts 2.39 Thirdly that the promise is the same to Abraham and the Gospel preached to the Gentiles Gal. 3.8 that the promise was to Abraham and his seed that baptisme doth circumcise us by ingrafting us into Christ Col. 2.11 12. By what rational excuses can we excuse our selves for disobediences to the commands of Christ commanding us to baptize all nations if we refuse any that by a nationall covenant are brought unto us 8. That doctrine which under pretence of walking by Scripture support all their doctrine by falacies and false arguments that doctrine is erroneous and false but the doctrine of Anabaptists is such I do challenge all the Anabaptists and in particular Mr. Tombes to produce any argument against Infants baptisme from Scripture or sound reason that shall reasonably conclude from the words without any addition or substraction or may agree with the sense and argument of the words produced then I shall account Mr. Tombes his sceptiques more tolerable in the mean time I wish he might receive satisfaction and spend his time in confirmation of his weaker brethern FINIS
AN ANSVVER To Mr. Tombes his Scepticall Examination OF INFANTS-BAPTISME Wherein Baptisme is declared to ingraft us into Christ before any preparation And the Covenant of the Gospel to Abraham and the Gentiles is proved to be the same extended to the Gentiles children as well as to Abrahams Together with the Reason why Baptize children is not so plainly set down in the Gospel as Circumcise children in the Law and yet the Gospel more plain then the Law By William Hussey Minister of Chislehurst in Kent HEBREWES 8.5 6. Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the Tabernacle For see saith he that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry by how much also he is the Mediator of a better covenant which was established upon better promises LONDON Printed for Iohn Saywell and are to be sold at his shop at the Sign of the Starre in Little Brittain 1646. TO THE READER Courteous Reader I Having read and seen the Labours of divers learned men that have undertaken the handling of this point and seeing that this Doctrine of Anabaptists doth much spread notwithstanding all the industry that hath been used by men of singular parts and piety I did wonder that such a growing evill should spread and prevail with men that did pretend so much to prety and finding that they cryed up the authority of the Scripture as of men that did plead for baptisme of children had nothing to countenance their doctrine but humane authority and set up mens inventions contrary to the Scriptures when I saw that these Anâ—â—â—ptists did so earnestly plead for the authority of Scriptures and declare themselves so devoted to the rule of Gods Word I had compassion on the affections of these men willingly granting that that was indeed the rule we ought all to be guided by I did as unpartially sift how truly and faithfully they had dealt in the applying themselves to this sacred rule I perceived that they did rather steal away the heats of men with the shew only of pretended respect unto the Scriptures then that they did with dâ—sing aged spirits search into the sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost as men desirous to be lead by the authority of God I heard men cry up Scripture Scripture nothing would prevail with them but Scripture I resolved to concurre with them in this that the Scripture and only Scripture ought to be our ride in these supernaturall things of Gods worship and if I could have found that they had argued rightly out of Scripture I should have most willingly joyned with them but examining the sincerity of their dealing herein I saw them carried on with a spirit of pride imagining that because children had been baptized and that those men which had maintained childrens baptisme had maintained other errors therefore in the disaffection that they bear unto former times they were resolved to wrap up baptisme of children among other things and throw out it also together with those things that were indeed spurious and humane out of the worship of God they could not endure mans inventions in Gods worship and therein their zeal was good if their knowledge had been answerable but here I saw much pride vailed under the cloak of piety men carrying on their opinions with opposition and clamour of multitudes rather then with sobriety and diligent enquiry into the state of the question But whilest I saw this humour wandering in the lower region of the unlearned I did not so much wonder though I were much moved for their sakes because their souls were as pretious to me as other mens yet when I heard that it soared aloft among the learned I thought it then high time to bestir my self to search into the ground and reason why they also with others might be deceived in that point wherein I took some pains to search into the cause and have for the publike good given some small account thereof and here I will turn sceptique with Mr. Tombes and examine whether our books have stated up the question of Anabaptists high enough and have sufficiently cleered those Scriptures that are cited in the controversies For my part I conceive that the main reason that hath so much prevailed with the multitude is because the ceremony of circumcision being put down and that being required of the Iews so as that every circumstance of time qualification of the person is expresse he must be a male in the family of some believer and no such plainnesse is used in the matter of the Sacrameut of baptisme for want whereof ignorant persons have proclaimed the baptisme of Infants will-worship because it is not said in plain terms ye shall baptize children this may be an excuse to men at first sight and consideration but upon neerer enquiry let it be considered whether the different manner of the phrase between the Gospel and the Law hath not put the difference The service of the Law was in shadows and types therefore the externall rise was plain they had not any ground at all from reason no not grounded upon the Word for the use of them the authority of God did fall upon the rise it self immediatly without any other explication but that it was the confirmation and seal of the Covenant made with Abraham and his seed whereby they were made partakers of the blessing in Christ the seed of Abraham Now the Gospel doth declare the promise to Abraham more plainly and our ingrafting into Christ by baptisme more distinctly according to the nature of the sacrament and in a more rationall way entitling us to the promise requiring the Ministers of the Gospel to baptize all nations males and females without any limitation of yeers or sex whereby the proffer of grace is made to all nations the seal of this proffer is baptisme whereby we are ingrafted into Christ the promised seed the promise of the Gospel is plainly declared to be the promise made to Abraham enlarged not in it self but by vertue of more ample dispensation the promise to Abraham was not only to Abraham and his seed but to all nations of the earth though by providence before Christ kept within the nation of the lewes The ignorance or not attendance on this different manner of administration have caused men sorigorously to require such expresse direction in point of administration of the sacrament of baptisme and by this means brought themselves into such difficulty that if they should stand to their principles they could not sinde out any way to administer the sacrament of baptisme at all unto any person whatsoever for want of more plaine and particular direction And thus while they go about to insist upon the Letter and require the regulation of the Ordinance of Christ to their own fancy they make the Gospel more obscure then the Law contrary
said Be baptized and wash away thy sinne but wash thy sinne first and then be baptized Act. 15.9 St. Peter sheweth that faith doth purifie the heart Now it is true faith doth receive the Word and Sacraments and maketh one and the other effectuall but both Word and Sacrament doe propose Christ the Word to the eare Sacrament to other senses Baptisme doth represent the bloud of Christ washing and sense doth looke on the washing of water and faith on the promise annexed Now as the word is proposed to the eare so water is tendred and the body washed with water whence faith doth collect the purgation of the soul from the testimony of God water is no more the immediate object of faith then the word it is the authority of God in the word that is the object of faith as likewise the bloud of Christ in baptisme they that beleeve and they that beleeve not heare the word and it is no prophanation of the word to preach it to an Infidell neither is it any prophanation of baptisme to baptize an Infidell yet it is hard to make him heare patiently that in no measure doth beleeve unlesse miracles or in defect of them some assistance of the Civill Magistrate doe concurre so that baptisme is but an offering of the purgation by the bloud of Christ to the eye and the body as the word doth to the eare and may be tendered as the word to all Nations the power of the one and the other is by faith in Christ conveyed unto us in the sacrament of baptisme or the word baptisme cannot worke as baptisme till after administration whatsoever is said of it before is but the operation of the word the washing of water doth sacramentally strengthen our faith no duty of preparation charged on any no man ever reprehended for receiving baptisme unworthily though the Minister hath baptisme charged on him as part of his duty yet never any caution given to Ministers in generall or to Titus or Timothy to take heed that they baptize no unworthy persons nor any sinne or punishment charged on any Minister for baptizing any rashly or without due examination no precept concerning any difference but baptize and teach all Nations to the end that they may become the Disciples of Christ Now where no Law is there is no transgression where God doth not charge sinne how dare any mortall man say this or that is sinfull if any preparation be required let the Scripture bee shewed where that was taught where baptisme was deferred till any competent preparation were manifest what Scripture is directed to the catechumeni nay what one sentence of Scripture is applicable to them that is not applicable to Christians at all times as well after as before baptisme Baptisme is a religious rite which men are easily perswaded out of principles of nature to embrace as may be seen in all Idolatrous worships they have their religious rites which they are perswaded come from the appointment of their gods upon which ground they receive them Now that God did appoint baptisme is no abuse and so we must tender it to Nations by the appointment of Christ which though they receive but as an Infidell doth the word yet when faith commeth they make use of it Therefore the Apostles argue to move newnesse of life from baptisme already received So Romans 6.3.4 5. St. Paul argueth what use wee should make of our baptisme namely that wee should rise with Christ but though the most noble way of arguing be from causes and therefore in the Sacrament of the Lords supper where the worthy receiving of that doth depend on an antecedent cause there faith is said to obtaine the whole vertue of the worke Joh. 6.35 I am the bread he that commeth to me shall never hunger and he that beleeveth on me shall never thirst v. 47. He that beleeveth hath everlasting life 51. Hee that eateth of this bread shall live for ever Whereby he plainly saith That he that beleeveth eateth my flesh this bread which is my flesh sacramentally and made such to me by faith Never any such doctrine as this he that beleeveth is baptized because no doctrine is extant precedent to baptisme in reference to the Gentiles See all the Epistles to the Rom. Corinthians and the residue all are written to Churches already baptized Paul declared the whole counsell of God and yet not one word what should be the carriage of the Catechumeni or the Ministers towards them as if he should suppose none under the right of the Gospell that will not first bee baptized and received by the commandement of Christ so he that will teach any thing in St. Pauls Epistles they must teach them to the baptized to whom they are directed as for the Catechumeni nothing is written or directed either to them or concerning them As for those histories of the Acts the greater part were Jews in Covenant with God already unto whom Peter did indeed preach repentance in reference to that bloud that they were guilty of in killing the Lord of glory not as preparation to baptisme but repentance and baptisme are both exhorted unto as precedent to the gift of the Holy Ghost whereas if such preparation had been needfull to baptisme Peter should have stayed for the gift of the Holy Ghost to manifest their fitnesse or at least given them some directions by which they might manifest their fitnesse or shew their repentance and faith which he never did St. Luke doth indeed say They that gladly received the word were baptized but that they manifested it any way but by receiving baptisme gladly doth not appeare and this was ground enough for an Historian to say they gladly received the word wherein they were exhorted to be baptized when they were gladly baptized As for that story of Cornelius that was indeed a pure Gentile Though Peter had commission enough to have gone to him by the command of Christ Mat. 28.19 and to have baptized him and taught him the commands of Christ yet it is plaine Peter did not understand the Commission therefore God for Peters owne satisfaction and the satisfaction of them of the circumcision was pleased in all that story to goe before Peter in a miraculous way Peter was so farre from baptizing of Cornelius that he was hardly perswaded to goe to him or preach to him but as God did go before him by miracles which when they of the circumcision saw the text saith they were astonished And of this very story St. Peter Act. 15. and other places maketh use of to satisfie the Jewes touching the calling of the Gentiles but this was the mercy of God during the infancie of the Church to use such extraordinary meanes for the drawing off the Jewes from that ceremoniall distinction that God himselfe had put between Jewes and Gentiles but in the orderly administration God sent the Holy Ghost though by extraordinary manifestations yet in a seasonable time when first he had
tendered the meanes of grace As for the falling of the Holy Chost upon the Apostles in cloven tongues Act. 2. that came seasonably upon them when they had occasion to use them and after had been baptized but the Holy Ghost promised in v. 28. is promised after Peter had preached repentance and baptisme nay on many after they were baptized Repent and be baptized and ye shall receive the holy Ghost shewing that preaching and baptizing are but the tenders of grace neither the one nor the other of any force unlesse the Holy Ghost come Now though the manner of the giving the Holy Ghost be different yet the season is according to the way of Gods dispensation God will have outward means first tendered and after he will blesse it where he pleaseth among which outward meanes these are chiefe if not all can or ought to be used by way of tender baptisme and teaching which is all that is tendred in the commission whatsoever is is babbled to the contrary baptising is set before teaching the commands of Christ as I have formerly manifested and indeed it were a strange thing for the sacrament of baptisme to be tendered to men that were already clean and approved declared and manifested to be clean it is true it may be tendered to men that professe their faith because man cannot judge them faithfull notwithstanding any profession and therefore baptise them but if they could know and judge them faithfull they might give them the Lords supper in which all Christ is communicated and baptisme should not be needfull baptisme is the seal of the tender of Christ and of the purging power of his blood not of our communion or partaking of Christ that is sealed in the other sacrament Now to come to the signification it is preparative to all other graces it signifieth regeneration and therefore it is called regeneration John 3.5 Except ye be regenerate by water and the Spirit ye cannot enter into the kingdome of heaven Now certainly the Holy Ghost would not set forth the grace of baptisme by regeneration or newbirth if any grace had been preparative to it it is not possible that any life or motion should be imagined before regeneration It is true in John 3.5 Except ye be born by water and the Spirit unlesse ye be by water and the Spirit that which we translate born is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be and Tit. 3.5 Baptisme is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the laver of regeneration Lest men may vulgarly imagine that men are spiritually begotten by the Word and were to remain some time in their mothers belly the church before they were brought forth by baptisme during which time they were to be catechumens and made fit to be received into the Church that word which is translated born John 3. in 1 Cor. 4.15 is translated begotten I have begotten you through the Gospel For there it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and indeed there can be no imagination of life before there is a being before begetting it is true adultus must have faith such as it is naturall humane before he can be baptized he must be willing by some inclination or other it were barbarous to baptize a grown man against his will which could not be gotten but by some kinde of credence though it might be just with man to punish him with death that should refuse as it is with God to punish with eternall death such as despise baptisme yet that Ministers should refuse to baptise any man that shall desire baptisme untill he hath saving faith is to require actions of life and reason from a man before he were begotten or cleannesse and purity before he were washed Again that sacrament that was administred unto all the churches of the Gentiles in the Scripture mentioned without any mention in the Scripture of any preparative grace that must it self be the symbol of the first grace and preparative of all other graces But baptisme is such therefore baptism is preparative to all other graces Let all the Epistles of the Apostles be searched and ye shall finde they were all written to baptized persons that they are full of exhortations to faith and sometimes arguments drawn from baptisme past to move them to repentance and newnesse of life Rom. 6.4 St. Paul doth indeed tell them that they were buried by baptism with Christ but what doth he collect out of that therefore repent and believe but doth he at any time speaking of faith and repentance argue from thence to baptisme and tell any of them if they would believe and repent they should be baptized which the right method of handling the doctrine of the Gospel would have required if faith and repentance had been preparatives but I am confident if any man shall take on him to teach faith and repentance as preparatives to baptisme he must either make his Text or draw that out of it that will not come he that will teach any doctrine other then so much as may make them willing to be baptized and repute them disciples and teach them as disciples of Christ unbaptized must follow no Apostolicall Precept or Example That which is drawn out of the commission is without ground that teaching must go before baptizing because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is set first For first the phrase of the words is changed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas had there been a methodicall enumeration of things that ought to have been performed in order one before another the stile ought not to have been altered it should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Go teach and baptize and therefore those that would gather any thing out of the order of the words must be enforced to read them so which the Text will not permit Again the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is aâ—â—â—rist in the Imperative mood which standeth for a Future whereas the words baptizing and teaching what I command are both Present Again this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye shall make disciples is the end and ought to be the first set down and declared to those that shall be imployed about the means as I have formerly proved and so the stile doth clearely manifest ye shall make all the world disciples baptizing them and teaching them whatsoever I command which is as much as by so doing ye shall make them disciples as if a man should say sowing in season and making good choice of your seed and land ye shall have a good crop here is plainly intended that these Participiall expressions this sowing and making good choice shall be taken up for the mean and the crop is to be expected after as the successe and event of them as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to learn and therefore some collect that it doth imply a learning with profit that is nothing to the preparation if there be any thing in that it is in the successe and it hath the vertue of a promise and
is estimated by God limited and extended according to the good pleasure of God Isai 48.17 I am the Lord thy God that teacheth thee to profit Paul plants Apollo watereth it is God that giveth the successe and if it should stand in that sense as a preparation to baptisme in the commission it must contain a manifest falshood or prove undeniably universall grace if they shall teach with profit all nations and baptize them or at least an universall nationall acceptation of the Gospell teaching with profit can admit of no milder sense then that and if every person must be taught with profit before he be baptized then none ought to be baptized but the elect of God and it were a sin for any Minister to baptize any other but such as received profit by the word the word worketh to the hurt of the reprobate whatsoever shew of profit it may seem to have 3. Reason That doctrine that taketh away the distinction of the two Sacraments that is a false doctrine but Anabaptisme doth take away the distinction of the two Sacraments ergo the doctrine of the Anabaptists is a false doctrine That doctrine that requireth preparation to both Sacraments taketh away the difference of the Sacraments but Anabaptists require preparation to both Sacraments therefore Anabaptists take away the difference of the Sacraments The difference doth consist in this that the Sacrament of baptisme is preparative to the Lords Supper sacramentally giving that to us which we stand in need of to make us fit for the Lords Supper I say sacramentally not that God cannot or doth not take his owne time of calling sometime before we are partaker of either Sacrament sometimes after we have both Sacraments yea and after we have sinfully prophaned the Lords Supper but Sacraments have their proper use and signification and are as all other duties lyable to abuse Wee must behave our selves as men under the meanes we have our duties charged upon us of God whereof some are officiall some personall belonging to every mans person about the performance of all which we may sinne either by omission or misuse but all the good that we receive by word or sacraments is of God what we doe by way of office that lyeth charged on us by the rule that we receive from God which is to baptize all Nations and teach them the successe is of God and the account of faith must be given to God we can take some account of some workes to wit those that are externall but of faith and of such workes as are imminent the thoughts of the heart we can say nothing to them Now the communion that is between Christ and us is set downe in Scripture by Christs being or dwelling in us and we in him we must first be in Christ before he can be in us we were in Christ by election before the foundation of the world and therefore may bee received into Christ before we can have faith nay we are said to be baptized into Christ Rom. 6.3 so many of you are baptized into Christ Jesus and the grace of baptisme is said to be wrought by the Spirit by the Spirit ye are baptized into one body 1 Cor. 12.13 and Gal. 3.27 As many as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ Christ is never said to be conveyed into us by baptisme but by faith Ephes 3.17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith what is instrumentally ours by faith is sacramentally ours by the Lords supper he therefore that eateh Christ in the Lords supper Christ is in him Iohn 6.56 Hee that eateth my flesh dwelleth in me and I in him but Christ is never laid to be in us by baptisme but we are baptised into Christ he is not baptized into us but he is communicated into us in the Lords supper for which faith is required as a preparation and the habitation of Christ in us is ascribed to faith as a meanes as before that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith but our birth in Christ or regeneraion is not at all ascribed to faith but to the Spirit and water John 3.5 Except a man be born by water and the Spirit and to the Word 1 Cor. 4.15 I have begotten you through the Word but never are we said either to be born or begotten by faith the acts of faith are growth life and fruits of sanctification Joh. 6.35 Those that believe and come to Christ are said to eat and drink Christ For he that cometh unto Christ is promised he shall never hunger and he that believeth in him shall never thirst And this vertue is ascribed to the body and blood of Christ from whence Divines do justly gather that he that believeth doth eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ but no intimation in Scripture from whence any man can collect that he that believeth is baptized unlesse it be à posteriori For he that doth believe must first be baptized by the Spirit before he can believe and thus are the graces offered in the sacraments kept distinct which otherwise would be the same that the grace of baptisme is initiall that of the Lords supper is perfective which may further be manisted thus our calling hath two parts the proffer of grace and the acceptance of grace proffered The first is by the Word the Spirit and Baptisme the other is by the Word Spirit Faith and the Lords supper I have here added faith because the Scripture doth so making faith an instrument by which we receive Christ but Christ must be proffered to us by his Spirit and Word before we can receive him which is expressed in the word calling as distinct from justification and goeth before justification in which we have the first act of faith Rom. 8.30 Whom he predestinateth them he also called whom he called them he also justified we are not called by faith but we are justified by faith Rom. 2.28 and 5.1 Baptisme is the seal and sacrament of Gods work in us which had need to be most cleerly manifested and confirmed unto us as having most of God and least of us that we might submit to it wherunto we are most averse therefore what hath most of us in it that pleaseth us best as works better then faith and faith as we look on it in our selves as a qualification is more delightfull to us then as it is in its own nature working humiliation teaching us to deny our selves and rest on God men do use to magnifie faith but too many under a false apprehension even of secrecie and liberty before 〈◊〉 faith is not a boasting quality nor to be pleaded before men but God and this 〈◊〉 cap. 2. doth handle at large shewing that men are very inclinable to 〈◊〉 â—â—oâ—st of faith before men and rely on works before God and herein the deceitfulnesse of our hearts is very great when we conceive we deal with an 〈◊〉 power then we finde the things of faith apprehended
subjectâ— limitato so â—s it is limited in the proposition No man can deny this to be an universall proposition though living creature must be in a limited sense that every man is a living creature though there be but some living creatures that be men yet this is universally true every man is a living creature what should a man talke of convertibility no such things found in directa serie where are many universall propositions If Mr. Tombes should deny it he knew how easily it might be proved and therefore is all this sinffe before which I have cleared what chaffe it is prefixed and you shall see what goodly limitations follow but see first the proofe of this if denyed Those relatives that are conserved in the same subject they are both or none in the same subject but the Covenant and the seal of the Covenant are relatives conserved in the same subject ergo the Covenant and the seale of the Covenant are both or none in the same subject or thus That subject which is capable of two such accidents as are alwayes in the same subject that subject is capable of both or none but that subject which is capable of the Covenant and the seale of the Covenant is capable of two such accidents as are alwayes in the same subject ergâ— that subject as is capable of the Covenant and the feale of the covenant is capable of both or none I have not concluded the major which Mr. Tombes hath denyed if universally ralten because it is not a proposition the termes are not in reâ—tâ— nor is est the 〈◊〉 by means whereof a sylogisme cannot be made to make that the conclusion but from these conclusions or any one of them an Entheneme will rise whose consequence is not deniable Thus the covenant and seal of the covenant are in the same subject therefore to whom the Gospel-covenant agreeth to them the signe of the Gospel-covenant agrees also which is the very same in terms which he calleth the Major The argument is the Pedobaptists but I conceive the form is Mr. Tousbes his but why should this be particularly true and universally false I cannot understand why one should be capable of the figne of the covenant because he is capable of the covenant and not another Now for the manifestation of the proof that they are alwayes in the same subject the same instrument if a covenant be written in one parchment a seal appendant upon another parchment will not seal that covenant neither is that a covenant formally ratified without a seal Again the truth of a signe doth depend on the connexion with the thing signified so that if the bush hang at one house and the wine sold at another that is no signe because false ens verâ—â—◠〈◊〉 be convertible and if it be any mans duty to set up or any wayes give demonstrative signes they must be set where the thing signified is as neer as he can or otherwise they be not signes and this were a foolish thing in any mans apprehension to say the land and the deed for the land did belong to such a man but the seal of that deed did not belong to him that was appendant on some other deed and belonged to another person But let us see upon what limitation he will grant the major as he calleth it â—e telleth it is true of that signe of the covenant which agrees universally in respect of form and sinction to 〈◊〉 that receive the Gospel but it is not true of such 〈◊〉 are of particular form and sanction This is strange logick what can a Proposition be universally crue in respect of some particular Again Mr. Tombes limiteth the wrong term what over man did deny a Proposition to be universall by limitation of the predicate the subject it self doth limit the predicate as if I should deny this Proposition toâ—â— universall every man is a living creature with this limitation that it is true of such living creatures as are 〈◊〉 but of Lions and Bears it is not true but see further into this limitation he saith it is not true of circumcision it is not affirmed of circumcision it is affirmed only of the generall nature of a signe and consequently baptisme circumcision is not a signe of the covenant it was and then it might be applied to them that were in the covenant but now baptisme A man taketh down an old sign and 〈◊〉 up a new the old is no more a signe it is carried into sound back place of the house or perhaps 〈◊〉 it possesseth not the place noâ— office of a signe as for those juggling terms of form and sanction I referre my Readed to what hath been said of them But the minor he denieth universally taken and here is all the lenâ—t of the question what labour is spent about the major is lost but that Mr. Tombes is not willing 〈◊〉 any thing true that is alled god by Pedobaptists all the children of believing Gentiles are not such as to whom the right of the covenant doth belong only such as were his spirituall seed the ground of this distinction is an opinion that the covenant did belong to all that in any sense were the seed of Abraham but the Gentiles cannot be accounted the seed of Abraham after the flesh and therefore all the claim they have to the seed of Abraham is as Mr. Tombes stateth the matter according to the election of grace by faith and therefore Abtaham might circumcise all his seed because the promise did belong to his seed Now the seed of Abraham is to be esteemed either by nature or by grace they that have any way had right to be Abrahams seed have right to the promise but the seed of believing Gentiles have no right at all the believers themselves have a spirituall right I have formerly shewed the falshood of this distribution and that the seed of believing Gentiles under the Law were esteemed as Abrahams seed in right to circumcision now he telleth us they have right by election but saith he which is unknown to us but by profession or revelation implying that those that baptize must know the election of them they do baptize and that they can do by profession these fancies I leave to their just occasion to be confuted In the mean time I briefly say if no children were under the covenant of grace we might baptize none for as much as some are we may we must baptize all seeing the distinct knowledge of them that are from them that are not belongeth to God and not to man and this was the rule that Abraham walked by and that we must all walk by as shall I hope appear But I come to the second argument I have the longer insisted upon the defence of this first because I conceive in answering what he hath said against that I have answered all The second argument that Mr. Tombes urgeth as from the Pedobaptists from testimony of Scripture is from
baptized him he may be able to prove these things by humane testimony and therefore they are of humane cognizance but who hath faith and who not no man breathing can give any testimony thereto and therefore man cannot judge But some man will say the foot doth not see because not capable for want of organs but every man is capable of faith that is not the question whether all are capable of faith I mean men of all conditions but whether faith be of humane cognizance neither is that argument of any force that faith is necessary to make Baptisme of any efficacie therefore untill the Ministers are acquainted that the persons to be baptized have faith they may not baptize them by the same rule because no humane action can be well done without faith no humane action can be required of any man by the Civill Magistrate so at one blow al humane society is destroied but man must require all duties of men that they can judge of leaving the inner part of it to the judgement of God who only can judge the heart for as the neglect of a duty is sinful so no sin so great as to enter upon the Prerogatives of God who only can judge the heart so that whatsoever is pretended from any speech of beleeving before Baptisme yet no one place where the profession of faith is required of the person to be baptized The third argument is taken from the practice of the Apostles and John the Baptist which saith he are the best Expositors of the Institution but I deny it the exposition cannot goe before the text John the Baptist that never lived to see the institution could not expound the words he never heard of but he affirmeth that baptisme cannot be administred to Infants after the same manner as the Apostles and John the Baptist did administer it for confirmation whereof he affirmeth that the Jewes did confesse their sinnes before Baptisme and the Apostles before Baptisme did require shews of faith and repentance First that they did confesse sins before Baptisme he proveth out of Mat. 3.6 they were baptized of John in Jordan confessing their sins but doth this prove that every particular person did confesse his sinnes to John the Baptist and that this confession was before Baptisme or that it was an orall confession none of all these things are necessarily drawne out of the words the words are Jerusalem and all Judea and the region round about Jordan were baptized confessing their sinnes Now I have formerly shewed that a Nation or Country or City may be said to doe a thing though the organicall part principall men only doe it Again the text saith that they were baptized confessing their sinnes implying that the act of Baptisme was a confession of sinne as a man that washeth doth by washing confesse though he say nothing that he was defiled but if an orall confession which the words do not yeeld yet whether they made their confession before or after baptisme is not said nor can be proved out of the Text neither can a precept be drawn from an historicall narration that these men did confesse their sins it is as much as it can prove that it is lawfull for those that can confesse their sins so to do but all that may be baptized must confesse their sins will no way follow For the second place Luke 3.10 that is some mistaken place He further affirmeth that the Apostles did require before baptisme shewes of faith and repentance and citeth many places out of the Acts whereas not one place that he citeth proveth any such thing that the Apostles did require any man to make any shew of his faith or repentance before baptisme it is true they teach men to believe and repent but not take any account or require them or any person to give any account to any Minister before they were baptized let that be proved and the businesse is ended to use his phrase but to give a full answer to all that can be alledged of that kinde from Scripture I say that the Apostles did indeed preach faith repentance and baptisme altogether but whatsoever was said of faith and repentance in reference to baptisme was either doctrinall or historicall what was doctrinall was without any implication of account of it what is historically related of faith and repentance cannot imply any confession or manifestation otherwise then in the very act of baptisme it self seeing it was impossible for the Apostles to baptize nations and countries and cities if no credence had been given to the doctrine of baptisme so that their declaration that they believed and were baptized might well be related by the Historian though nothing were intended but that that they were baptized For when Historians relate any fact done they take liberty to observe the necessary motives and circumstances of the fact without any other implication then that the fact was done nay had not the Holy Ghost mentioned any beleeving at all but only said that they were baptized we might have inferred from the fact without rashnesse that if Peter or Paul or any of the Apostles did baptize them that Judea Jerusalem that is the prevailing party did beleeve that there was some kinde of credit given to their doctrine that they did believe there was some kinde of good or benefit that was like to come of baptisme or otherwise they would not have endured one or two men to have baptized them but that a proâ—â—ssion of faith in a catecheticall way whereof the Apostles did and of duty ought to take account that is not said I hope to make appear on just occasion was not done The fourth argument is taken from the next age immediately succeding the Apostles what is said concerning that point is not argumentative it dependeth only upon humane testimony and men that give testimony thereto are partially related where their testimony is agreed upon that they did say so as they are reported yet their credit is questioned by him that disliketh their saying sometimes that part of the work out of which any thing is alledged is proclaimed spurious and that very author that we are content to alledge with honour when he speaketh for us him we bespatter and vilifie when against us so that what can be said of this kind savoreth rather of affection ostentation of reading then of argument and yeeldeth matter of concertation rather then satisfaction and therefore I leave the Reader that desireth to know more of this matter to Dr. Holmes and others that may wrestle with Mr. Tombes in this point my resolution being only to deal with him in such things as may carry shews of argument out of Scripture and so I come to the next argument The first argument is of the same nature with this that the ages that did use baptisme took it upon wrong principles as a tradition and imitation of Jewish circumcision without universall practice mixed with other errors Among Apostolicall traditions many