obscurely the necessary circumstance of the time would have been as precisely observed and agreed upon to be but one Thus the former proposition is cleared The latter by him denyed is this That Infant-Baptism was not alwayes he cunningly alters the subject of the Question and says that Infant-sprinkling was not held of the whole Church nor do we say so for it was and may be as well by pouring on water or dipping if infants bodâ—es in these cold Climates would endure it the usual way that we practise is either by pouring on water on the face of the Child if it be weak or dipping in part of the head if it be somewhat strong Gods Ordinances are not destructive to Nature who requires mercy and not sacrifice And that Infant Baptism was thus held alwayes is apparent To pass by divine Institution and Apostolical practise of which anon Dionysius the Areopagite and Clemens in the Apostles constitutions both makes for Infant-Baptism if the books be theirs as they have been entituled these many hundred years the cause is ours so farâ— if not theirs they must not expect any proof of men living in the first Century being extant none beside them Justin Martyr who lived Anno 150. in his 56 Question disputes the different condition of those Children which dye baptized and of those children who dyed unbaptized Two things are objected against this Testimony 1. That the reason of Baptizing of Infants was not the Covenant of grace made to believers and their seed but that they might obtain salvation at the resurrection This is so far from overthrowing that it confirmes the reason being in Covenant with the parents for of such speaks the Author whose parents are believers gives the children capacity to be baptized and they are baptized that they may have salvation at the resurrection for we have no promise of the salvation of any out of the pales of the visible Church The second objection is that Perkins Rivet and others questions whether it be Justin Martyrs book or no. To which I answer there is scarce a book in Scripture any Article of the Creed or part of Antiquity but it hath been questioned by some If we should reject all things that are questioned we must turn Academicks Scepticks and Seckers in all things howsoever it gives evidence to matter of fact that Infants were Baptized in that age in which it was written Irenaeus that lived in the same Century says lib. 2. cap. 39 Christ came to save all that are new born by him into God Infants and little ones and boyes c. Who are those that are new-born The Baptized Which suits with the language of the Holy Ghost in Scripture Tit. 3. 5. The Apostle calls Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washing of the new birth which is so clear that Mr. Mead in his Diatriba upon the place thinks that none will deny that by washing of regeneration baptism is meant or pointed at Besides its the dialect of the Greek Fathers near whose time he lived Justin Martyr speaking of those that are brought to be baptized says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are born anew or regenerated after the same manner we are regenerated being washed as it followes in the name of the father and of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost Dioâ—ysius Hierarch cap. 2. calls the materials of Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divine signes of Divine generation Basil and Nazianzene calls Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the regeneration of the soul all this makes it appear that Irenaeus did drive at the regeneration of Infants by Baptism as well as them of years Origen whom Perkins places at the year 230. says upon Rom. 6. lib. 5. The Church received the Tradition of Baptising of Infants from the Apostles affirming the same thing in substance Homily 8th upon Leviticus and Homily 18. in Lucam Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum Little ones are baptized for the remission of sins The exceptions against these are three 1. They are translations Origens Greek in the Original is lost The same may be said of S. Matthews Gospel which he writ in the Hebrew or Syriack now lost the Greek Copy onely extant And of the Septuagints Translation of the Old Testament which our Saviour himself followed more exactly than the Hebrew Original Translations agreeing with the Original Copy being equally Authentick But secondly it is said that the Translation is censured by Erasmus and Perkins as in something contracting adding or altering What is added is ingeniously confessed by Rufinus the Translator himself neither does acute Erasmus nor Judicious Perkins nor any of the Ancients most Critical impeach him in the fore quoted Testimonies Therefore this Exception is blank The third thing objected is that he calls it a Tradition So does the Apostle things contained in Scripture 2 Thes 2. 15. Epiphanius calls Baptism and other divine truthes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditions and yet quotes Scripture for them Bellarmine calls Infant-Baptism a tradition and yet brings ten places of Scripture to prove it Austin affirms lib. 10. cap. 23. de Genes That the custom of our mother the Church in Baptising of little ones is in no wise to be despised nor to be thought superfluous nor at all to be believed unlesse it were an Apostolick Tradition and yet proves the necessity of it from John 3. 5. Vnless one be born again of water and the Spirit c. Gregory Nazianzen who as Dr. usher and Mr. Perkins sayes lived in the year 370 or 380. commands Children to be Baptized and gives a reason Orat. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they not misse of common grace nothing is excepted against this but that he gave his opinion of others to defer their Baptism unlesse they were in danger of death which I shall clear anon To these may be joyned Athanasius who interpret Script Quest 94. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the dipping of the Child quite under the water thrise and raising of it up again doth signifie the death of Christ and the Resurrection the third day In his second Question ad Antioch he enquires how one shall know that he was truly baptized and received the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who when he received Baptism was but an Infant He answers that it may be known by the motions of the Spirit as the woman knowes she hath conceived when she feeles the Child stir in her womb And Question 114. he being asked whether Infants dying go to be punished or to the Kingdome Says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Infants are holy here you see many hundred years before Zuinglius covenant-holiness is acknowledged and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Infants of Believers that are Baptized do as unspotted and faithfull enter into the Kingdome Epiphanius amongst the Greek Fathers brings up the rear avouching that Circumcision had its time untill the great Circumcision came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is
the condition as bad of an Infant under the Gospell left without any ordinary means of salvation save onely Baptism seeing Christ sayes John 3. 5. Except a man bâ— born of water and of the Spirit be cannot see the Kingdome of God But there are ordinary means of salvation beside Baptism thaâ— Infants out of Covenant are left without for clearing of which by ordinary I mean that which God hath revealed in Scripture and hath left us a word of promise to depend upon By means of salvation I understand all that which condâ—ces to the end and is contradistinguished to the end Thus means of salvation either strictly signifies those things that morally are in our power as for the Catechumeni and them of years whether they will be Baptized heare the Word receive the Eucharist Or those things that are not in our power wherein we are Passives yet performed by others as Proxies for us thus under the Law Infants were circumcised washed sanctified by oblations presented in the Temple under the Gospell baptized engaged by their parents or sureties Or those thing that are neither in our power nor others performed neither by our selves nor others yet by Gods free Charter in our selves and others Thus covenant-holiness prerogative of birth Gods promise to Abraham that he would be his God and the God of his seed That of Peter Acts 2. 39. confirmed to Jewes and Gentiles the promise is to you and your children are ordinary means of Salvation Infants out of covenant are left without all these and would be in the same condition with Gentiles Ephes 2. 12. Without Christ Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel strangers from the covonant of promise having no hope and without God in the World Thus negatively what they are deprived of by being out of covenant Let us see positively the benefits of being in covenant by comparing them with Jewes children with whom they hold proportion Rom. 3. 12. What advantage hath the Jew or what profit is there of Circumcision Much every way chiefly because unto them were committed the Oracles of God And Rom. 9 4. Who are Israelites to whom pertaineth the Adoption and the Covenants and the giving of the Law and the service of God and the promises there is the same reason of Infants under the Gospell Secondly he sayes that he takes not Baptism to be any ordinary means of salvation without faith what he takes is not much material so long as he mistakes If it be an ordinary means of salvation any way it is enough to prove that Infants are left without that means And in this his amphibological asseveration are cooped three fallacies 1. Fallacia divisionis for the Question is not whether Baptism be an ordinary means of salvation without faith but whether it be a means or no 2. A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundùm quid for the Question is not whether Baptism be a principle means but whether it be a means 3. Non causae ut causae For it is not enquired whether baptism presupposes faith as a cause or qualification but whether Baptism be the ordinary way God hath appointed for salvation And when the proposal is whether baptism be an ordinary means of Salvation To say it is not without faith is as unsavory as when the demand is whether the lungs are an ordinary Instrument of breathing to say they are not without the heart when the Question is simply whether a Colonel hath any command in an Army It would be ridiculous to answer it by saying he hath none without orders from the General And yet there is not that necessary connexion betwixt faith and Baptism that is betwixt the lungs and the heart for the lungs cannot breath without the heart nor the Colonel issue out any word of command without subordination to his generall But Baptism may be true Baptism even in adultis as Hymenaeus without true faith and many other hypocrites who when they became true Penetentiaries none but those Hereticks the Novations and Donatists durst Baptize again But for the Baptism of Infants actuall faith is not necessarie for the bene esse or perfection of it much less for the esse or being of it And that they have the infused habit of faith or the roots and seeds of it he confesses saying they are saved by the work of Christ's spirit which can be no other but the seeds of faith hope charitie and the new creature Thirdly he thinks it no inconvenience to say that Infants are without ordinary means of salvation he means preaching of the word for so he expresseth himself of that we must distinguish Preaching is either manifesting to the understanding that which is preached so Infants are without the means or presenting objectively the benefit of that which is preached as the new creature gifts of the spirit salvation so Infants are not without the means A will is sealed and published by the Father â—n the presence of all his children Wherein there is contained bequeathments and Legacies to them severally now they of age onely understand it but the Infants and sucklings that understand it not have equall benefit by it their honest overseers and Guardians will look to their Interests and shall we think God to be less carefull of Infants to whom he hath proclaimed belongs the Kingdom of God Lastly he sayes Infants are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit without ordinary means This implyes a contradiction of which his forge is full for if God hath revealed in the Covenant of the Gospell and made a promise thereof that Infants are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit then it is not without ordinary means for this is the way that God hath declared himself ordinarily to operate in whose will is a fixâ— Law and if God hath not revealed it in the Covâ—nant of the Gospell and made a promise thereof how doth he know that Infants are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit Or how dare he avouch it God hath promised no such thing to Infants of Jews Turks Infidels therefore they are out of Covenant and not visible memberâ— if God hath promised such things to Infants of believers they are in Covenant and visible members But perhaps he means Infants are saved without ordinary means that is baptism That if it were true might vindicate a tanto that they are saved without that ordinary means but not a toto that they are saved without an ordinary means But his former grant necessarily infers that they are not saved without Baptism for what can forbid water sayes the Apostle that these may not be baptized seeing they have recieved the Holy Ghost as well as we Now they that have elections redemption of Christ and work of his spirit have received the Holy Ghost which is a thing so clear that Mr. T. himself is forced to confess that if he
Yes and before they actually believe which I prove thus The blessing is as large as the curse But the curse extended even to children before they could actually believe his blood be upon us and upon our children Therefore the blessing T. Master T. answered to the Major thus If by blessing was meant the inward and spiritual part of the Covenant it might be true but that was nothing to the present purpose seeing it was not known to us But if the outward and visible part he denied that Infants were capable of the blessing as well as liable to the curse C. Which distinction was took away thus They that are holy with a Covenant-holinesse are capable of the outward and visible part But Infants of believers are holy with a Covenant-holiness Therefore they are capable of the outward and visible part T. Mr. T. denied the Minor and said that Covenant-holiness was gibberidge which they that spoke did not understand themselves C. Master C. replyed it was the language of learned men of all ages amongst whom were Volsius Bullinger and Hugo Grotius and that Children of believing Parents were holy before baptism and that baptism did not make but declare them to be Christians Then cryed out a cobler I. E. that hath been dipped this is Blasphemy C. Well you discover of what spirit you are and your ignorance Are not these the words of the learned assembly of Divines in the Directory confirmed by Ordinance of Parliament That Infants are Christians and federally holy before baptism and therefore are they baptized Pag. 12. And that Infants of believing Parents are thus holy with a federall or Covenant-holiness I thus prove from 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unclean but now they are holy T. That sayes Master T. Is meant of Matrimoniall holyness or a lawfull use of the Marriage-bed that they are no Bastards C. That Answer I thus infringe That which in Scripture is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not so much as once for Matrimoniall holiness cannot be so meant here But it is taken in Scripture almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for Matrimoniall holynesse Therefore it cannot be so meant here T. That Argument sayes Master T. I will retort upon you That which in Scripture is taken six hundred times in a distinct sense and never once for Covenant holiness cannot be meant here But it is taken six hundred times in a distinct sense and never once for Covenant-holiness Therefore it cannot be meant here C. To which was replyed this is to invert the order of the dispute you are to answer and not to oppose T. I may oppose by retorting of an Argument and I will answer anon C. Well to satisfie you I deny your Minor for it s taken oft in Scripture for Covenant-holiness T. Where C. The proof lyes upon you that it is not yet I le give you one instance or two Rom. 11. 16 if the first fruits be holy the Lump is also holy and if the root be holy so are the branches T. That is not meant of a Covenant-holyness C. Yes it s as cleer as the light and so you your self interpreted it at Ross as there are hundreds that will witness which was upon this occasion I pressed that if the immediat parents were holy the children were holy with a Covenant holiness you denyed the inference and said the meaning of it was that Abraham the father of the faithfull was the first fruits and root that was holy and therefore his posterity was holy and in covenant And in this exposition as he agreed with truth so with Beza who says that children are holy that is comprehended in covenant from the womb and with Bowles who saith that they are holy with outward holiness by which they are judged to be in covenant But to return from whence by your retortion we have digressed I am to prove that holyness is never taken in Scripture for Matrimoniall cleaness in opposition to Illegitimation Not in that place Ezra 9. 2. the holy seed have mingled themselves with the seed of those lands which is either your onely or principall hold as far as I can gather out of your books therefore in no place T. He denyed the Antecedent C. Which was proved thus If it be meant of Matrimoniall cleanness then this must be the meaning of the words The holy seed that is the lawfully begotten Jews have mingled themselves with the seed of those lands that is the bastards of those lands But that cannot be the meaning for happily there were some Bastards among the Jews and in that sense not holy and no Bastards among the Nations but all or the most Legitimate and therefore in that sense not unholy Therefore it is not meant of Matrimoniall holiness T. He denyed the Major affirming that both Jews and Nations were holy before their mixture but then both they and their Children became unclean because God had forbidden them to marry with the Nations C. To which was answered they that are Saints are not unholy But some Saints have been begot by this mixture or unlawfull bed as Jepthah who Hebr. 11. is said to be justified by faith Therefore they are not unholy T. He denyed the Major saying they may be unholy by their Naturall Generation and first birth and yet holy by Regeneration and new birth C. This strikes not home Moses had children by his Ethiopian woman but they were not illegitimate therefore those that were begot by mixture with the Nations were not Illegimate T. Master Tombes said that was before the Law was given C. Well that Answer will do you little service after the Law was given Salomon had children by Rahab who was a Cananitish and Boaz by Ruth who was a Moabitish woman and yet they were not Illegitimate or unholy as you would have it T. They became Proselites and received the Religion of the Jewes C. Well then while they were not of the Jews Religion though no Bastards they were unholy when they embraced the Jews Religion by your own confession they became holy what is this but a Covenant holyness which you have opposed all this while and now grant it T. Mr. T. Vsed many words to clear himself but with little satisfaction to the greaiest part of the hearers and still denyed that children were holy and in Covenant C. Which was further proved thus They that Christ took up in his arms blessed said the Kingdom of God belonged unto them pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would receive are holy with a Covenant-holyness But Christ took up little children into his arms blessed them said the Kingdom of God belonged unto them pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would not receive them Therefore little Children are holy with a Covenant-holiness T. Mr. Tombes began to be netled as if something in this Argument galled him saying it was a fallacie and that he went about to entrap
true light of discovery First that the assignation of the causes of Anabaptism are vain This he affirms yet names not one of them but turns his back as the Souldier did from Augustus Caesar because he could not endure the darting beams of his eys Oppressing Nâ—mrods uses to send witnesses out of the Country that would overthrow their cause so he having suppressed the reasons of the present grouth of Anabaptism calls them vain yet they shall once more appear at the bair against him which we submit to the judgment of intelligent and impartial Christians they are these 1. Times of division wherein the hedge of discipline is broken down liberty in religion is like free conversing without restraint or watch in time of pestilence one house easily infects a whole City 2. Satans malice like a river the further it goes the deeper and fiercer 3. The corruption of mans nature more inclinable to errour than truth 4. The fitness of the engin for devastation and ruinating all former Churches under colour of first baptisms nullity gathering of new ones after their own mould out of the old ruines by rebaptizing 5. The pretence that children are uncapable of Church-membership or communion of Saints as if there were not the same capacity under the Gospel which was under the law 6. False allegation that Infant-Baptism is occasion of loose living as if the native Jewes that were sealed when Infants were more dissolute than the Proselites 7. To limit it to ripe years increases piety as if Jewes and Turks and their rebaptized converts were not more frequently guilty of Apostacie and hipocrisie 8. Not understanding that Infants Church membership in the Old Testament is not repealed but confirmed in the new 9. A carnal estimation that the Covenant made with Abraham was partly carnal of which circumcision is a part as if godlinesse in both Testaments had not the promise of this life and of the life to come 10. That circumcision was the seal of righteousness of faith to Abraham and not his posterity 11. That the Covenant was made with Abraham and his spiritual seed only and not with visible professors 12. That there is no such thing as national Churches though Christ sayes make disciples of all Nations and Isaiah sayes all Nations shall flow in yet they say all Churches must be gathered by actual profession as well in Christian Nations as amongst Turks and Pagans 13. Because we have no particular instance in Terminis that any Infants were baptized and because they are not expresly named in the precept as if generals did not include particulars as well for Infants as old men 14. Denying equivalencies and necessary consequencies from Scripture 15. A vilifying the judgment and persons of all godly and learned men of this present and former ages building up their rotten foundation upon their ruines 16. Temporal interests of the lowest of the people which while they dream it is countenanced by men in power cry Hosanna and perhaps crucifie to morrow 17. A pretending to the Spirit of God Numa Pompilius feigned that he conversed with the goddess Egeria Minos with Jupiter in the Cave Solon with the Delphian Apollo Mahomet with the Angel Gabriel Montanus and the Quakers with the Holy Ghost the white Witches with the spirit in the shape of a dove and all but to palliate their unsound opinions and practises 18. The learning subtilty and industry of some Anabâ—ptists to gain Proselytes Arrius Pelagius Marcion were not wiser in their generation than they to invegle the poor simple people especially women and inferiour tradesmen which in seven years can scarce learn the mystery of the lowest profession thinks half seven years enough gained from their worldly imployments to understand the mistery of Divinity and thereupon meddle with controversies that they have no more capacity to pry into than a bat to look up into the third heaven Thus farr the assignation of the reasons of Anabaptism which he sayes are vain a censure how just let wise men judge who clearly see that the meeting of several beasts at Nilus does not more properly beget new Monsters nor putrefaction ingender several vermins than the fore-assigned reasons occasion the grouth and increase of Anabaptism The second Allegation is that Anabaptism is true Baptism A strange Paradox which either implies that Infant-Baptism is a nullity or that true baptism may be iterated or received more than once The confutation of the former is the scope of this present treatise rectum sui curvi index The latter that true Baptism may be iterated as the notation of the word and their practise interprets it is now to be questioned And that I fight not with the ayre or an adversary of mine own framing may appear from Mr. T. who examen pag. 23. begges an Argument of Mr. Martial to prove reiteration of Baptism to be intrinsecally unlawfull and that in the tone of the Marcionites and Aetians who in several Councells have been whipt for it and have received these and the like reasons for their pasport 1. In the institution of Baptism there is neither expresly nor consequently any mention of reiteration of it as in the Lords Supper Quotiescunque feceritis as often as ye shall do it c. and whatsoever is not of faith is sin whatsoever is not grounded on Scripture is will-worship there is no instance or president in Scripture that any one was baptized twice for those Acts 19. 3. 4. were either first baptized metonymically that is initiated with the doctrine of John and then afterwards baptized with water as some say or adulteratly baptized with false Baptism as Ambrose thinks and then with true Baptism or baptized first with John's Baptism and then with Christs which as Austin conceives are two distinct Baptismes or which is most consonant to the Text first baptized by John with water then by the Apostle with the Holy Ghost and fire that is the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost None of these make for the reiteration of the same baptism besides there is express Scripture against it Ephes 4. 5. one Lord one faith one Baptism 2. Baptism is the Sacrament of regeneration or new birth and as Austin hath it as we are carnally and naturally born but once so we are spiritually and supernaturally new born but once faith though it admit of grandations begins but once Baptâ—sm that matriculates us into Christs Schole is to be performed but once Therefore even Cyprian himself and his followers never baptized any whom they thought were truly baptized before 3. Baptism succeeds Circumcision which was but once administred as appears from that of Joshuah 5. 4. where the Holy Ghost gives this reason why Joshuah circumcised the Israelites in Gilgal Because all the circumcised were dead intimating if they had been circumcised already it should not have been done again And seeing circumcision was tyed to the eight day from the birth till a second eight day besides the first can
the root that is the parents the lump the branches that is the Children and posterity And Rom 11. 17. if the Jews were broken off and the Gentiles graffed into their place it will follow that if the Jews were broken off Parents with Children then the Gentiles shall be graffed in Parents with Children But the Jews were broken off Parents with Children Therefore the Gentiles shall be graffed in Parents with Children 9. Arg. If Infants should be out of Covenant under the Gospel many dangerous absurdities would follow First Infants would be losers by the comming of Christ and be put in a worse condition than the Jewish Infants were they with the Parents were admitted to the Seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision and not Children with Parents to Baptism Secondly if Infants should be in Covenant then and not now Grace would be larger under the Law than under the Gospel Thirdly there would be no difference betwixt the Child of a Christian and of a Pagan but all the Infants of Christians would be as vile as the Children of Turks Tartars or Cannibals Fourthly they would be without God without Christ without hope in the world not the Children of God but of the Devil would all be damned for out of Covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation 10. Arg. Lastly that which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success must needs be lawful But Infant-Baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles times Therefore Infant-Baptism is lawful We 'l begin with the first Centurie or hundred years after Christ Dionysius the Areopagite whom the Apostles converted at Athens says Holy men have received a Tradition from the Fathers that is the Apostles to Baptize Infants Clemens who is recorded by some of the antients to succeed Peter in his Ministry at Rome says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptzie your Infants Irenaeus who lived in the second Century says Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est Christ became a little one for little ones sake that little ones might be received into Covenant Origen that lived in the beginning of the third Century says The Church received a Tradition from the Apostles to Baptize Infants and gives a reason because they are born in impurity of sin nay Pelagius a great Scholar who lived in the latter end of this Century though he denyed Original sin yet confessed Infant-Baptism for when they pressed him with this Argument if Infants had not Original sin what need they Baptism he answered that Christ appointed and the Church practised Infant-Baptism not to purge sin by-past but to prevent it for the time to come Cyprian in the fourth Century confirms it in his Epistle to Fidus and gives an account of a Council of sixty six Bishops that decreed that Infants should be Baptized Ambrose says because every age is lyable to sin therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament of Baptism Nazianzene says it is better to Seal Infants with Baptism though they know it not than to leave them unsealed Austin is conceived to go too far who denyed possibility of salvation to them that died un-baptized pressing that place John 3. 5. Except a Man be Born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God The Millevitan Councel in the fifth Century decreed That whosoever should deny that Infants even taken from their Mothers wombs might not be Baptized should be accursed All Churches All ages since agree in this the Harmonies of confessions of all Reformed Churches the Church of England in the Apologie the old Catechism the twenty seventh Article the Directory the greater and lesser Catechism composed by the Assembly of Divines the late Parliament by a further Declaration all confirm it The Canons of our Church did not only in former times declare but the Lawes of our Land did punish Anabaptists as hereticks Mr. Fox in his Acts and Monuments approves of the Albigenses Waldenses Wickliffists Lollards Poor men of Lyons Brownists Barrowists as members of the Reformed Churches but wholly excludes the Anabaptists as erring fundamentally I 'le say no more for confirmation of this polemicall discourse but wind up all with a word of exhortation I beseech you brethren consider what a dangerous errour this is that robbs the Scripture of its truth Infants of their right Parents of their comforts the Church of its members Christ of his merits God of his glory That is the mother of many other errours hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Shakers Levellers they that are above Ordinances Antiscripturians An errour that God hath expressed many signall judgments against as Sleiden and Gastius in Germany and some of our worthies in England have declared As reverend Mr. Cotton tells one of his Apostated flock that had his house burned and his Children in it No wonder that fire seised upon his house and God denyed water to quench it who denyed that water should be brought to Baptize his Infants Secondly consider that much benefit redounds both to Parents and Children by Infant-Baptism First much comfort comes hereby to the Parents when they consider Gods free grace to them and theirs that he is not ashamed to be called their God and the God of their seed after them Hebr. 11. 16. Secondly much benefit comes to Infants by Baptism which the Devill knowes well when he causes Witches to renounce their Baptism when they enter into Covenant with him for they are thereby addmitted into the bosome of the Church devoted and consecrated unto God his Name is put upon them they wear his Royall badge and by it they are distinguished from Heathens And this is so clear from Scriptures truly and spiritually understood That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Now the God of Peace and Truth by his Spirit lead us into all truth keep us pure and unspotted in this houre of Englands temptation and triall keep us faithfull to the death that so we may receive a crown of life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE Arraignment and Conviction OF ANABAPTISM The first Part. Mr. Tombes 1 Section A Plea for Anti-Paedobaptists against the vanity and falshood of scribled papers Entituled The Anabaptists Anatomiz'd and silenc'd in a publick Dispute at Abergaveny in Monmothshire Sept. 5. 165◠betwixt John Tombes John Cragge and Henry Vaughan touching Infant-Baptism By John Tombes B. D. Job 11. 2 3. Should not the multitude of words be answered And should a man full of talk be justified Should thy lies or devices make men hold their peace And when thou mockest shall no man make thee ashamed To be sold at the signe of Sir John Old-castle in Py-Corner Reply A Plea for Anti-Paedobaptists and why Does Mr Tombes intend to commence a suit against the Universal Church and to overthrow the divine institution of Infant-Baptism with the Antiquity Vniversality and Succession thereof Let him first consider whether his Action will hold Plea and whether there may not be
much as seen Abergaveny He addes to render it more odious like a Prelate had silenced them Truly as there is no such thing as a Prelate extant to silence in the Church so no such thing as this forementioned Silencing in the book I wish I could truly say so much of the third No such thing as an Anabaptist to be silenced I mean the opinion their persons I love their piety and learning where it is found I reverence But Mr. T. might have found nearer home some more resembling the most Prelatical of Prelates not excluding the Pope and that 's they that Magisterially prefers their own private opinions before the judgments of learned and godly Assemblies of Divines Harmonies of Confessions Determinations of Councells Oecomenial censuring all their brethren that dissents of prophane abuse and sinfull practise as he does in the words following In the interim he sayes there was but one whom with any face it could be pretended he was Anatomized or silenced Perhaps he means because he was the only Disputant yet there were two in the Pulpit that interposed with him some fâ—w that spake in the crowd many that ostentatiously vaunted before the Dispute that were more modest or silent afterwards But yet he speaks and writes for the Truth So said Copp and Collier I wish he did so we would be so far from opposing or disgracing his tenet that we would endeavour to maintain it with him and advance it Truth commonly goes attended with humility and self-denial which I fear the words following little relish of for he rejoyceth that those that dâ—ssent from him have no other thing to charge him with than his contending for a reformation of that prophane abuse of Infant-sprinkling Well be it so or the contrary we had rather with Sem and Japhet cover the nakednesse of Fathers in Israel than with Cam to expose it to open shame yet we think that the poor Publican that abaseth himself will rather go away justified than the proud Pharisie that rejoyces or thanks God that he is not as other men nor as those that are for the prophane abuse of Infant-sprinkling A high charge and dangerous if he make it not good which he will never do by his pretended reformation otherwise than to use the homely comparison of a godly man the devill did when going to streighten his dammes legge he broak it In the mean time the lesse hope we have of his return the more is his losse yet who knowes but he that like Saul reviles this way which he calls of sinfull practise may with the stray sheep be brought home at length to see his errour to the joy of men and Angels Mr. Tombes 3 Section The Libel hath a frontispice which pretends to shew the manner of the Anabaptists dipping but most falsly sith it represents it to the eyâ— of the beholders as if they held persons by the heels when they baptize them which is otherwise than their practise The pretended manner of laying on of hands and washing of feet is unknown to me if they do use it yet they have such likely proofes from Heb. 6. 2. and our Saviours practise and command John 13. as might have deterred the Author of this frontispiece from exposing the Ordinance of Baptism and those other Rites to contempt had he any reverence to holy things and regard to Christs appointment But the frontispiece of Dr. Featlies book and this with the Epistles and other passages do give occasion to intelligent persons to conceive that this sort of men do make but a sport of Christs Ordinance and that they have little mind to search for or receive truth but to expose them that are for believers Baptism and against Infant-sprinkling to the contempt of light and prophane wits and to the hatred of the ignorant and supersticious common people And I conceive that this book is published by men of that spirit who seeke to make odious the endeavoured reformation of ignorance superstition prophaneness and ungodlinesse which abounds in those parts and to uphold those either loose or formal pretended Ministers who take upon them to teach but indeed as Elymas the Sorcerer Acts 13. pervert the right way of the Lord. Reply Still more venome he calls it a Libell why because unlicensed So is his Plea and the most of his works except his Exercitation and Examen and they but conditionally which being violated renders them more obnoxious Or because dissonant from the doctrine of the reformed Churches So this falls under that guilt and it is cleared A Libell as my Lord of St. Albans Etimologized it hath its name from a Ly and a Bell A Ly hatched at home a Bell to ring it abroad So Mr. Tombes his Plea for Anti-Paedobaptists was hatched in private in his study rung abroad through the Country A Lye nay like the man possessed with devils amongst the Tombes its name is Legion because they are many This he saith hath a Frontispiece he should have said an Anti-frontispiece which pretends to shew the manner of Anabaptists dipping but most falsly sith it represents to the eyes of the beholders as if they held persons by the heels when they baptize them which is otherwise then their practise To which I return in his own language he relates it most falsly seing the representation is otherwise than he says for if he had not been I will not say like to Elymas the Sorcerer to whom he compares us smit with blindnesse he might have seen they hold them by the hands and not by the heels unlesse their heels be-continued and immediately joyned to their neck and shoulders which cannot be imagined unlesse like Ulisses companions when thrown into the water they are Metamorphized into swine their armes turned into leggs their hands into heeles And what strange Prodigie if they had been represented as held by the heels It s a known thing that some have been thrown in by the hands but have been pulled out dead by the heels with this funeral sermon preached over them I tremble to utter it You see that no sooner are they new-born but God takes them to himself But this Anti-Paedobaptist hath another quarrel at the Anti-frontispiece page which he fastens upon the Paedobaptists and the frontispiece page which is that the pretended manner of laying on of hands and washing of feet is unknown to him and yet he seems to call it Christs appointment and says that they have likely proofs from Heb. 6. 2. and our Saviours practise and command John 13. whence we may gather that there are some things of Christs appointment and have proof from Scripture and our Saviours practise and command which are unknown to him It seems he is but yet a Seeker and though it were true he dissented in nothing from the Church of England save in the Question of Infant-Baptism By this principle he is lyable to stray as far as the German Anabaptists I will not impeach him with Judaism for making
a Jewish ceremony a binding command nor fasten contradictions upon him for applying that here to laying on of hands in Baptism which in his Examen he interprets to be laying on of hands in Ordination of Ministers Let those passe Yet I cannot but take notice that he is so confident of his present interpretation of those places that he says they might have deterred the Author of the Frontispiece from exposing the Ordinance of Baptisme and other Rites to contempt had he any reverence to holy things To which I reply who was the Author of the Anti-frontispiece page I know not and as little whether it was to Idolize or to expose to contempt dipping or rebaptizing which he calls the Ordinance But if it were Christs Institution me thinks they should not be afraid to have that exposed to the eye which they preach to the ear But he marches on furiously like Jehu with whole Waynes laden with reproaches inveighing against the Frontispiece of Dr. Featlies book and this with the Epistles and other passages which he sayes do give occasion to Intelligent persons to conceive that this sort of men do make but a sport of Christs Ordinance As for Dr. Featlie he hath given his account already before a higher Bar some like Kestrils love to be preying over dead carcases and with Thersites to trample upon the graves of those Achilles's whom they durst not look in the face when living The Author of the other is unknown to us Yet let him know thus much we reverence Christs Ordinance and have as great a mind to search out and receive the Truth as himself and are so far from exposing them that are for re-baptizing and against Infant-Baptism to the contempt of light and profane wits and to the hatred of the ignorant and superstitious common people as he uncharitably scandalizes them that we rather pity them and would not only spend our breath but our dearest blood to bring them into unity and unanimity with their brethren And whatsoever he conceives The Book was published by men of that spirit who endeavoured to bring those home to the fold of Christ who of late had been poysoned in judgment and imbittered in affections against the reformed Churches and their Ministers which he further confirmes them in calling them loose or formal pretended Ministers Which argues a great deale of rash ignorance in him seeing he neither knowes Pastor or people of these parts saving two or three censorious Anabaptists upon whose credit he takes this uncharitable prejudice whereas if he had been willing to have been truly informed he might have found Ministers as free from loosenesse and formalities and more constant to the principles of truth and conscionable than they that vilifie them and labours as much for reformation of ignorance superstition profanenesse and ungodlinesse which abounds lesse in these parts than under his wing as the Anabaptists does to gain Proselytes by re-baptizing which whosoever in the spirit of meekness opposes and would keep their flock free from infection he brands them with the mark of formall pretented Ministers Who take upon them to teach but do indeed as Elymas the sorcerer Acts 13. pervert the right way of the Lord This censure falls as heavy upon all Ministers of the Reformed Churches as us which we spread before the Lord as Ezekiah did Rabsheca's blaspheming letter and submit to the Judgment of the whole Church whether Mr. Tombes or we more pervert the way of the Lord or resemble Elymas the Sorcerer who like him did seek to turn away the Deputy from the Faith and withstood Barnabas and Paul as he does all Orthodox Ministers like Johannes ad oppositum or Ishmael his hand is against every man Mr. Tombes 4 Section SVrely did they seek the truth in love they would not so insult over tender consciences as they do encourage the looser sort and deter the enquiring souls from the waies of Christ For my self as I have found from others so I deprehend in these men the same unrighteous spirit in their reporting my Answers and publishing them in Print without my revising of them though it were proposed and as I remember yielded by one that in a private way I should have his Arguments sent to me in writing And for the other after two Copies of his Sermon sent me yet I wrote to know whether he would own them nor did publish any thing though I had sent some Anâ—madversions on the notes I received of which I was told one copy wâ—â— shewed to Mr. Cragge himself and not disowned by him And I do account it a shamefull practise which these men and another before have used towards me that after I have been drawn to a verball Extemporary dispute and no common Notary agreed on yet my Answers are published by them without ever allowing me the sight of them that I might either own them or amend them before the Printing and publishing them But I see faction so prevailes with them that like as if they were of the Romists minds they allow themselves liberty to use any arts as pious frauds to bear down the truth of Anti-Paedobaptism And this they do with so much insolency as may stir up the inconsiderate to trample upon their Antagonist and create prejudice against the truth which hath necessitated me in this hast to write this Reply SOme Truths we are impregnably setled in Scripture is a river as Gregory said where a lamb may wade others are more obscure where the Elephant may swim in these we seek the Truth in love yet not so as to be wherried about with every wind of new doctrine But after the Apostles advice 1 John 4. 1. We believe not every spirit but trye the spirits whether they be of God because many false prophets are gone out into the world Otherwise the Socinians and Ranters might impose upon us who vent their blasphemous notions with as much confidence as doe the Anabaptists And we are so far from insulting over tender consciences that wheresover we see any spark of piety we encourage it any looseness we reprove it yet we think not that it is to deter enquiring souls from the wayes of Christ meekly to disswade them from questioning one Ordinance after another till Satan have disputed them out of all as we know some by wofull experience who first denyed infant-Infant-Baptism then all Baptism except spirituall as they call it then the Lords Supper and so one Ordinance after another till they were above Ordinances and at length turned Atheists What unrighteous spirit he found in others concerne not us though we believe he had faire dealing from Mr. Baxter whom he girds at And in relation to our selves we conceive his Answers are reported with as much faithfulness as our oppositions and published with no more prejudice to him than us though also without his revising nescit vox dicta reverti if he and we come upon the publick stage we must not be offended if our words
Infant-Baptism could they be believers and Catechumem at that age The other indeed would have the Baptism of some to be put off till they were of competent age to answer for themselves but were they not as Pamelius and others prove children of heathens which is apparent because he speaks of the danger Sponsorum of the Sureties and nothing of the parents Secondly the Author in that Chapter speaks of the Baptism of such as were born of Jewish or Heathenish parents as S. Paul and the Eunuch and therefore he desires that the Baptism of such Infants may be deferred till they made confession of sins and profession of faith their parents being Infidels and their Sponsors Mortal the most of their kindred and neighbours as it is probable being Heathens This doctrine differs nothing from that we hold But Master Tombes further sayes the Popish doctrine of the necessity of Baptizing Infants of their inheriting heaven was taught by the writers called Fathers Called Fathers and were they not so This is in patrios mingere cineres to defile the urns of the Antients Pinge duos angues pueri sacer est locus extrà Mejite Juvenal Paint here two snakes it ill becomes Children to pisse on fathers Tombes In comparison of whom what conceit soever some have of themselves they are but Imps and Zanies But to the matter two untruths are here by him asserted First That the Fathers held the necessity of Baptizing to Salvation Secondly That it is Popish Doctrin For the first they maintained a threefold Baptism 1. Fluminis of water 2. Flaminis of the Spirit 3. Sanguinis of Blood Either of the two later might supply the want of the first So Basil the great discoursing of this point in the Homilie of the 40 Martyrs says of one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was baptized not b◠another or by the faith of another but by his own faith not in water but in his own blood And Austin himself that was conceived to be a hard father of Infants and of all that dyed unbaptized retracted his opinion and acknowledged that Baptism was not absolutely necessary to Salvation lib. 5. de Baptis contra Donatistas Etiam atque etiam considerans invenio c. I again and again considering saies he do find that not onely the passion for the name of Christ to be able to supply that which was wanting of Baptism but also faith and conversion of heart if haply by reason of the strait of time they can not be relieved by celebrating the mystery of Baptism Thus the Fathers are cleared from this aspersion Neither is it Popish doctrine or a general Tenet of the Papists that Baptism is necessary for inheriting of heaven Bernard that lived in the mists of Popery and was an Abbot confesses that not the want but the contempt of the Sacrament damnes and discoursing upon this subject in his 77 Epistle avouches out of Ambrose and Augustine that invisible sanctification was sufficient to Salvation without a participation of the visible Sacrament Blesensis another Papist that lived near Bernards time saith sufficiet Spiritus solus quia ipsius testimonium pondus habet The Spirit alone that is the spiritual and inward Baptism will be sufficient because the witness thereof hath weight intimating that the party might be saved when outward Baptism through invincible necessity was denyed True it is Baptism does not conserre grace ex opere operato all are not saved that are baptized nor all damned that are not baptized yet under the Gospel we have no promise of any to be saved that are not Candidati or to use Tertullians language designati sanctitatis in covenant visible and capable of Baptism Of which I have insisted more largely to give light to that which followes Master Tombes 6. Section AS false it is that the Baptizing believers called by these Anabaptism had its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork and others there named it being commanded by Christ practised by the Apostles continued in the first ages without any Infant-Baptism and when Infants were baptized it was very rarely onely in case of danger of the nearness of death to the Infant and when reformation of other Popish abuses was sought the reformation of this was sought with the first some hundred of years before Luther Reply IN the former Section nine untruths out-vying the number of the lines are asserted by Master Tombes 1. that the Epistle affirms that the baptizing of believers had its rise and spring from Nicholas Stork 2. That we call Baptizers of believers Anapaptists 3. That it is false though the Epistle mentions it not baptizing of believers without infants had it spring and rise from Nicholas Stork 4. That it was commanded by Christ 5. Practised by the Apostles 6. Continued in the first ages 7. When Infants were baptized it was very rarely 8. That it was onely in case of danger of the neerness of death to the Infant 9. That when reformation of Popish abuses was sought the reformation of this was sought with the first some hundred years before Luther These are his nine Worthies besides which many more deserves censure that come now to be stripped that their deformity may be discovered First the Epistle does not affirm that the Baptizing of Believers had its rice and spring from Nicholas Stork The words are these as all errours so it that is Anabaptism had its beginning after truth The husbandman first sowed good corn then the enemy tares and then mentions the most notorious Hereticks that arose in the six first Centuries at the end of which the Mystery of iniquity began more fully to work which was first nascent then crescent then Regnant then Triumphant And no sooner appeared a Reformation in Luthers time but there were Herods that sought the life of this Babe Dragons watching while the woman was travelling to devour the child amongst whom the Anabaptists of Germany were most venomous the Author whereof was one Nicholas Stork then Phiser Knipperdoling Muncer with their Tayler King John Becold of Leyden Now by what Chymistery will Master T. extract from hence that the Epistle affirms that the baptizing of believers had its rise and spring from Nicholas Stork This will be strange Logick the Anabaptists of Germany in Luthers time were the most venomous or greatest disturbers of Reformation the first Author whereof was Nicholas Stork therefore baptizing of believers had its rise and spring from hence It is as inconsequent as this The Anabaptists of England have been great disturbers of our late Reformation the first Author whereof was Master T. Therefore baptizing of believers had its spring and rise from Master T. True it is it will follow secundum quid that those Anabaptists of Germany had their spring from Nicholas Stork These of England from Master T. But that simpliciter all Anabaptists had their spring and rise from them is a palpable inconsequence much more that the baptizing of believers had its rise from thence
the internal and spiritual part may be made intentionally to Infants as the spiritual seed of believers and yet the external part and that of Ordinances to Infants as the natural seed of believers as well under the Gospel as under the Law That under the Law it is apparent by the History of the Old Testament confirmed by that of Pâ—â—â— Galat. 2. 15. We who are Jewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles And Rom. 4. 12. Where Abraham is said to be the Father of circumcision to them that are not of circumcision onely but also walk in the steps of his faith which implies that he was the Father of them who are of circumcision onely and walk not in the steps of his faith The same reason is of the Gospell unless they were two distinct covenants and essentially different and that made with Abraham and his seed carnall as the carnall Anabaptists affirme which absurdity supposes it little better comfort for Abraham and his seed to have such a portion onely sealed to him than Turks and Tarters enjoy who were never in covenant with God True in the covenant there was a promise of Canaan and temporal blessings but yet the covenant was in the main spiritual Rom. 4. â—1 else we should make the Jewes little better than the beasts that perish as some grosse Anabaptists do So Calvine well observes Judaeos adeo carnales nobis depingunt ut pecudum similiores sunt quà m hominum Calvin Instit lib. 1. c. 16. s 10. The covenant of free grace that God made with Abraham in Christ is an everlasting covenant and stands more firme than the pillars of the earth or the poles of the heaven hence God himself calls it an everlasting covenant Gen. 17. 7. and that it is not meant of any limitted time is put out of doubt Isai 54. 8. 10. With everlasting kindnesse will I have mercy on thee saith the Lord thy Redeemer and the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed but my kindness shall not depart from thee neither shall the Covenant of my peace be removed saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee So that the Gospel Covenant for substance is still in force to the natural seed of Beleevers though not as natural but natural of Believers as well as under the Law And though the Jewes had priority in the Covenant yet not sole propriety for the Gentiles becoming visible professers they and their Infants did partake in it whosoever fears the Lord his children were Olive plants as well as theirs Psalm 128. 1. 3. Master Tombes 7. Section ANd for that which he saith This unchurcheth the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation if he mean by Christendome all that are commonly called Christians I grant it if the Infants be the one half of them and their unchurching be in respect of visible Church-membership but count it no absurdity Nor do know what ordinary means of Salvation he conceives they are left without except Baptism which I take not to be an ordinary means of salvation without faith and therefore think it no inconvenience to say that Infants are without ordinary means of salvation which are the preaching the Word c. Yet are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit Reply MAster Tombes denying the consequent of the Major that though the Covenant of the Gospel was a better Covenant than that under the Law yet Infants were not in covenant as well under the Gospel as under the Law which in the Dispute was thus taken away That which unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation cannot be a better Covenant to deny Infants to be in covenant unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation therefore it cannot be a better Covenant Then he gave no direct answer but now sayes if I mean by Christendome all that are commonly called Christians he grants it this is his concession but with two limitations 1. If the Infants be the one half of them 2. If their unchurching be in respect of visible Church-membership but then he counts it no absurdity there is his Epanorthosis or correction Again he sayes that he knowes not what ordinary means of salvation I conceive they are left without except Baptism which he takes not to be an ordinary means of salvation and therefore thinks it no inconvenience to say that Infants are without ordinary means of Salvation c. yet are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and works of his spirit All this being summed together is in his sense to deny the major and interpretatively averrs That which unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of salvation may be a better Covenant I le trace him in his own foot steps First to gratifie him I mean by Christendome all that are commonly called Christians that is them and their children that hold the fundamentals till they deny them by their life or doctrine and then too so far that after repentance they are not to be baptized again or readmitted by iteration of the seal contrary to Cyprian the Novatians and Donatists with the Councell of Carthage 2. I conceive that Infants that is besides those that dye in their mothers wombes they that expire before and after Baptism before years of discretion with the number of those that lives before the dippers will admit them to their water-ordinance are the one half if not the greater of visible members as by examining of Registers hath been observed Thirdly I grant him that their unchurching is in respect of visible Church membership though not onely so but of invisible Church-membership also interpretatively and consequently for they that are not in covenant and members of the Church-visible have no promise no present hope of Salvation Ephes 2. 12. This he seems to overthrow by these positions following 1. That he knowes not what ordinary means of Salvation Infants out of Covenant are left without except baptism 2. That he takes not Baptism to be an ordinary means of Salvation without faith 3. He thinks it no inconvenience to say that Infants are without ordinary means of Salvation 4. That Infants are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit without ordinary means These are his slight works that he intends to entrench himself in but God willing we shall easily levell them First he sayes that he knowes not what ordinary means of Salvation Infants out of Covenant are left without except Baptism And is not that enough An Infant under the Law left without any ordinary means of salvation save onely circumcision was in a sad condition seeing God said Gen. 17. 14. The uncircumcised Manchild whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised that soul shall be cut off from his people for he hath broken my Covenant and shall we not think
visible covenant And if the hope fullness of our children without the covenant or promise depend onely upon our prayers education example society Their condition even in this also is no better than of Infidels children who if they should live amongst us ought to participate of all these which we ought not to be contented withall seeing God hath enlarged his bounty further but complain of them who deny infants those reall and Scripture-grounded priviledges which would consequently for any thing we know deprive them both of grace and glory We look upon children of believers that die unbaptized through invincible necessity as hopefull despair not wholly of Anabaptists children that through Parents contempt are not baptized It may be he that said Genes 17. 14. The uncircumcised child shall be cut off from his people he hath broken my covenant will not visit the Parents sins upon the children they being federally holy and in covenant their Parents infidelity in that perhaps cannot defeat them though they want the seal And methinks Mr. T. might be ashamed to use this forgery when he had my words before him to say I said The children of Anabaptists are as vile as the children of Turks Tartars and Cannibals when my words were expresly all the Infants of Christians if they were out of covenant would be as vile as the children of Turks Tartars and Cannibals I hope all Christians are not Anabaptists and for the Parents to contemne the seal though commanded is not simply to put the children out of covenant This is not to affright the poore ignorant people as he further traduces me as the Popish priests did of old with a Limbo or Purgatory of Infants but to tell them their danger who detract from or diminish the word and institution of Christ and make the way and entrance into the Church narrower than God hath made it Mr. Tombes 23. Section FOurthly saith he They would be without God without Christ without hope in the World not the children of God but would all be damned for out of the covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation Answ By covenant he means doubtless no other than the outward covenant which is not shewed to be any other than Baptism and indeed we do not otherwise put them out of the covenant than by denying of them baptism which being presupposed Mr. C. speech must needs imply that denying baptism infers all this which cannot be true without conceiving that all that are unbaptized are without God without Christ without hope in the World not the children of God but of the Devill will be all damned have no salvation which is not onely more than what the Epistler makes haynous in me all that would be saved must be baptized after profession though it were understood by me duely of necessity of precept which Mr. C. himself asserts to be imported Mark. 16. 16. but worse than Austin sayes whom Mr. C. himself called the hard father of Infants and sayes went too far worse than Papists themselves speak of the dying unbaptized which shews that he preached this Sermon with a bitter and furious spirit His closing speech out of covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation if understood of the covenant of saving according to election I grant that neither ordinarily nor extraordinarily is there salvation If of the outward covenant as they call it that iâ— ther outward administration of seals it is certain there may be salvation unless profane contempt or wilfull neglect against conscience do hinder salvation The speech Out of the Church is no salvation hath been interpreted by Protestants of the invisible church A person of years that believes though he be joyned to no particular visible Church if there be not prophane contempt or wilfull neglect against conscience may be saved But they that are onely negatively or privatively out of the Church visible meerely for want of age to understand the faith and ability to make profession may ordinarily if it be meant frequently constantly be saved though they be not ordinarily saved are ordinarily notes ordinary means preaching the word and profession of faith Reply THe fourth Absurdity was If Christian Infants were without visible covenant and consequently baptism they would be without God without Christ without hope in the World not the children of God but of the Devill would all be damned for out of the covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is salvation which his answer does not impeach for by covenant I mean outward covenant which is not onely nor properly at all baptism but foederall holyness that as the Directory sayes gives capacity thereto By denying of both of them they put them out of covenant and my speech implyes that denyall of visible covenantship foederall holyness and baptism infers all this which comes far short of that the Epistle relates and the Examiner confesses he delivered in his Sermon for he affirmed there was no hope of salvation to those that were baptized when Infants if they were not baptized again that is that contemned a second baptism as his necessity of precept infers which necessity I onely understand for baptism of Infants and conceive that Austin was called a hard Father of Infants for sometimes holding as well a necessity of means as precept But Anabaptists denye not onely the seal but foederall holyness and visible Church-membership to Infants This I delivered in the Sermon with the spirit of truth and meekeness which for Mr. T. to traduce and aggravate as he does becomes no professed Christian much less a Minister of the Gospell By interpreting my closing speech out of covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation that is out of the covenâ—nt of savâ—ng accordâ—ng to election he makes it a Tautologie and non-sense The word visible added as Epitheâ—e to Church mâ—ght have chalked him out my meaning that out of the outward covenant whâ—ch gâ—ves capacity to the administration of seals is no salvation which seals though we be bound by necessity of precept to accept yet I confess there may be salvation without them unless prophane contempt or some neglect not out of invincible ignorance do hinder the acceptation However that speech of his out of the Church is no salvation hath been interpreted by Protestants it weakens noâ— the truth of mine out of covenant and visible Church ordinarily is no salvation That supposition is vain and implyes a contradiction that a person of yâ—ars should be a believer and be joyned to no particular visible Church congregational Parochial Provincial National c. without prophane contempt or wilfull neglect against conscience for iâ— he receive baptism and other ordinances from any of these he joyns with them if not there is prophane contempt and willfull neglect And indeed is not intelligible how he became a believer without joyning in some measure with some My meaning is out of covenant and visible Church ordinarily is no salvation That is God hath not promised
neither have we ground to believe or hope the salvation of any but of them that are in covenant and members of the Church visible Though I deny not but God can by his absolute power and secret will save otherwise extraordinarily Infants of believers are neither negatively nor privatively out of the Church visible for neither want of age to understand the faith nor ability to make profession excludes them more now than it did the Jewes children under the Law who were ordinarily that is according to Gods promise annexed to the covenant saved If any Gentiles children unproselyted were saved it was extraordinarily that is without promise or visible covenant And Anabaptists giving us no more ground of Christians Infants salvation than of these are miserable comforters Mr. Tombes 24 Section HIs last Argument is That which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success must needs be lawfull But Infant-baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles times Ergo The Minor is denyed The blessed success he proves not In my exercitation I shew many errours and corruptions which have come from it not by accident in respect of some persons that embraced it onely but even from the tendency of the practice it self I may truely say that Paedobaptism hath been as cursed a roote of corrupting the Churches and loosing the gifts of the spirit conferred at first commonly at baptism by laying on of hands as I think except some few any other corruption in the rites of Christian Religion But Mr. C. thinks to draw it down from the Apostles dayes He begins with words of Dionysius Arcopagita â— Holy men have received a tradition of the Fathers which very words shew it was not Dionysius Areopagita mentioned Acts 17. he would doubtless have said I have received it from blessed Paul not have told what other holy men have received from the Fathers whom Mr. C. vainly conceives to be meant of the Apostles But the books that go under his name have been so often by so many learned men Papists and Protestants proved to be meere counterfeits that either it is much ignorance or much impudence that this is produced as his Salmatius sundry times speaketh of them as certain that the Author of them was not till the fift age The Apostolicall constitutions appear by many observations of Sculteâ—us and others not to have been witten by Clement but of much later time Irenaeus his words make nothing for Mr. C. as he cites them nor as they stand in his own works Reply THe last Argument was That which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success must needs be lawful But Infant-baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles Therfore it must needs be lawfull He denyes the Minor saying in his exercitation he shewed many errours and corruptions which have come from it not by accident in respect of some persons that embraced it onely but even from the tendency of the practice it self whereas Dr. Homes Mr. Marshall Mr. Hussey proves the contrary and makes his own accusations recoyle as dung into his face yet like the dragon in the Revelation he casts out a venemous flood to poyson the Churches of all ages saying that Paedobaptism hath been as cursed a roote of corrupting the Churches as he thinks excepting some few any other corruptions in the rites of Christian Religion I make no doubt but the Antiscripturians will say as much of the Bible and the Ranters of marriage But what are his corruptions Infant-baptism hath brought in 1. Private baptism Answ as if we might not as well baptize Infants in houses As the Apostle did the Jayler or two or three of them steal to a river side to duck or cuck a Proselyte 2. Baptism by women Answ Protestant Churches allowes no such thing since Luther but closes with the Councell of Carthage Can. 10. Mulier baptizare non praesumat let not a woman presume to baptize Bold Zippora circumcising must be no president 3. Baptizing of Infants not yet brought into light Answ If he mean the mother with child Councells are against it If he mean the child we know no such approbation or practice 4. Baptism of children of uncertain progeny Answ we approve and know of none if the Parents be not believers and Christians engage for them 5. They are baptized in the name of the Lord that know not the Lord. Answ As well as Jewish Infants circumcised with the seal of righteousness of faith in Christ who knew not Christ 6. It admits the ignorant and prophane to the Lords supper because the sacraments are concommitants Answ The Antecedent and consequent are both Scriptureless and false the one is the Sacrament of initiation the other of perfection to which the former is a preparative 7 It. perverts the order of discipline by baptizing before Catechizing Answ In Infants it does as in Isaack and the Jewes males but not in adultis and what inconvenience 8. It s turned to a feast and men forget baptism Answ There was a feast at the weaning of Isaac and feasts of charity at the Lords Supper without prophaness we can minde at ripe years what was bequeathed us by Legacy when we were Infants may we not as well our solemn vow which we are put in minde of dayly Thus his vainly pretended errours and corruptions vanish without impeaching the blessed success of Infant-baptism since the Apostles which briefly here I drew down from the Apostles times more largely before beginning with the words of Dionysius the Areopagite whom the Apostles converted at Athens who said Holy men have received a Tradition from the Fathers that is the Apostles to baptize Infants instancing not in one Apostle as Paul but all former authority whom the converts called fathers as they them children which is no vain but a Scripture grounded conceit vos genui per Evangelium Though I am not ignorant some Papist and Protestants have questioned the authority which censure the most books in Scripture have undergone But that either Councell Synod or University have declared them counterfeit is more than I have heard And to produce them as his whose namâ— they have born in all Libraries in all Countries for many Centuries is modest verity which for one Grammatian Salmatius and one quondam Surrogate M. T. to oppose relishes rather of insolency Clemens who is recorded by some of the Antients to succeed Peter in his Ministery at Rome says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptize your Infants does Master T. think that we will admit of the conjecturall observations of one poore yesterdayes Palatinat Minister Scultetus to overthrow the Apostolicall constitutions when he himself denyes the authority of all Protestants joyntly as convâ—ncing Irenaeus who lived in the second Century says Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est Christ became a little one for little ones sake and lib. 2. cap. 39. Christ came to save all that are new born by him into God Infants and little