the reformation of these Churches according to Gods Word unto which wee have both bound our selves by solemne Covenant I have endeavoured not to let passe any thing of weight either in your Sermon or Master Thomas Goodwins which I could well remember or Master Blakes or any other that have published any thing about this matter of late It is an endlesse businesse to make a severall answer to every one I chose to answer yours because you are stiled the antesignanus Ensigne-bearer in print and for other reasons given in the Prologue My motion is that there may be an agreement among those that have appeared in publique in this cause to joyne either in a reply to this examen of your Sermon or in some other worke in which I may see together the whole strength embattailed and not be put to weary out my selfe in reading every Pamphlet of which there are too many indigested ones now adayes printed even with License and for the buying of which as now my estate is I doubt whether my purse will furnish me If I may have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 daily bread for mee and mine in a narrow compasse it will be as much as I may looke for The small stipend I had is likely to be even now subtracted If there be any willingnesse in you to have any conference with mee to consult about a way of brotherly and peaceable ventilating this point I shall be ready upon notice to give you the meeting and I hope it shall appeare that I shall not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stiffe in opinion in case truth shining before me present my errour to my view and I hope the like of you I shall waite a moneth after your receiving this writing to know whether any of these motions take place with you hoping you will not disdaine to let me have advertisement of your minde by some letter or message I would faine have truth and peace and love goe hand in hand if it may be though of these three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is meet to preferre truth as Aristotle said long since It will be no griefe of heart to you at the day of resignation of your spirit that you have done nothing against the truth but for the truth You have now my writing as I have yours one day Jesus Christ shall judge us both Consider what I say and the Lord give you understanding in all things Thus prayeth From the house belonging to the Rectory of Gabriel Fanchurch in London December 7. 1644. Delivered to him Dec. 9. 1644. Your brother and fellow-servant in the worke of Christ JOHN TOMBES Inscribed thus To the reverend and worthy Mr Stephen Marshall B. D. these present As it is now printed it is enlarged in sundry places occasioned by sundry Books published since the first writing of it Colossians 2.11 12. Proves not Infant-Baptisme An Appendix to these Treatises in an Answer to a Paper framing an Argument for Infant-Baptisme from Coloss. 2.11 12. SIR YOUR Paper exhibites an Argument for Infant-Baptisme in this form That may be said to be written without which that which is written cannot be true This I grant But that which is said Colos. 2.11 12. of the compleatnesse with respect to Ordinances in the new Testament could not be true unlesse Baptisme were to Believers children as Circumcision was of old because it cannot be understood of the compleatnesse that Believers have in Christ for salvation for that the Jews had in Christ in the old Testament but yet they had a token of the Covenant to their children Ergo so they must now or else that cannot be true Answ. This Argument supposeth sundry things whereof somewhat is true somewhat false 1. It is true That the believing Jews were compleat in Christ for salvation For so was David Abraham c. who were justified by faith Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Heb. 11. 2. It supposeth that the Apostle Colos. 2.11 12. mentions Baptisme to shew that we are as compleat as the Jews in respect of outward Ordinances whereas the Apostle speaks not vers 10. of compleatnesse by reason of outward ordinances but sayes we are compleat in Christ without outward ordinances and that is his very Argument to disswade them from embracing the Jewish ordinances vers 8. yea it is plain that the Apostle makes the Jews incompleat by reason of their outward ordinances and that it is our compleatnesse that we have all in Christ without outward ordinances vers 17. Nor doth the Apostle mention Baptisme to shew that we are equall to the Jews in outward ordinances for the Apostles assertion is that we are compleat in Christ exhibited without outward ordinances and so the better for want of them but to shew how we put on Christ and so are compleat in him and therefore he mentions Faith as well as Baptisme as in like manner he doth Gal. 3.26 27. Rom. 6.3 c. Besides if that by being baptized we are compleat in outward ordinances then we need no other ordinance and consequently the Lords Supper should be needlesse 3. It is supposed that Circumcision was a token of the Covenant to their children But this is ambiguous in some sense it is true in some sense it is not true It was a token of the Covenant made to Abraham to wit First that God made such a Covenant with Abraham Secondly that God required them to keep the conditions of it But it is not true in these senses First that every person circumcised or to be circumcised of right had a title to the promises of the Covenant Secondly that this title to the promises of the Covenant was the reason why they were circumcised 4. It is supposed that if our children have not a token of the Covenant now as the Jews had that it cannot be true that we are compleat as the Jews But there is not a shadow of proof for it in the Text. And it is grounded on these false assertions First that the Jews children were in the Covenant of Grace because they were Abrahams naturall seed Secondly that a Believers children now are in the Covenant of Grace because they are a Believers children which things are expresly contrary to Rom. 9.6 7 8. 5. It is supposed that the Jews having salvation by Christ had also a compleatnesse by outward ordinances It is true that compared with the Gentiles that served dumb Idols they were compleat by reason of outward ordinancâ—s For their outward ordinances did shadow Christ to come and so did not the Rites of the Gentiles But compared with Christians since Christ manifested in the flesh so they were incompleat in respect of outward ordinances and so the Apostle determines Gal. 4.1 2 3. 6. It is supposed that without a succession of some ordinance in stead of Circumcision we are not compleat in Christ or at least not so compleat as the Jews But this I account to be false and very dangerous 1. False because it is contrary
inseâ—tatione et perditione digni videantur How unlike is Mr. Vines his speech to the Lord Mâ—jor City of London to these words of Cassander a Papist to the D. of Clevâ—â—â—â—pist â—â—pist And for those in these dayes that deny or question Paedo-baptisme as I know them not or very few of them so I cannot say what they do or hold as being not privy to their tenets or proceedings onely undeâ—standing by one of your assembly that there was a little book puâ— forth intitled the compassionate Samaritane upon perusall I found that that Author who ever he were accounts it a calumny to charge thâ— Anabaptists with opposing Magistracy But concerning this the confession of faith lately put forth in the name of 7 Churches of them Artic. 48 49. will give best information But if you meane not this but some other error depending on the opinion of Antipaedobaptisme when I meete with them in your Sermon I shall in their proper place consider whether they do depend on it or no and for the opinion it selfe I say if it be not truth the spreading of it is unhappy if it be truth the more it spreads the more happy it is for the Kingdome YOu say further And so the worke of reformation without Gods mercy likely to be much hindered by it Sir you now touch upon a very tender point in which it concerned you and it in like mannâ—r concernes me and all that have any love to Iesus Christ or his people to be very considerate in what we say I have entred into Covenant to endeavour a reformation as well as you and though I have not had the happines as indeed wanting ability to be imployed in that eminent manner you have beene in the promoting of it in which I rejoyce yet have I in my affâ—ctions sincerely dâ—sired it in my intentions truely aimed at it in my prayers heaâ—tily sought it in my studies constantly minded it in my indeavours seriously prosecuted it for the promoting of it greatly suffered as having as deepe in interest in it as other men Now bâ—gging this Postulatum or demand that Paedobaptisme is a corruption of Christs institution which upon the reading of my answer and the 12 reasons of my doubts formerly mentioned will appeare not to be a mere Petitio principii begging that which is to be proved I say this being granted I humbly conceive that Paedobaptisme is a Mother-Corruption that hath in her wombe most of those abuses in discipline and manners and some of those errors in doctrine that doe dâ—file the reformed Churches and therefore that the reformation will be so far from being hindred by removing it that indeed it is the only way to further reformation to begin in a regular way at the purging of that ordinance of Iesus Christ to wit Baptisme without which experience shewes how insufficient after-Catechizing Excommunication Confirmation Vnio reformata solemne Covenant Separation the New Church-Covenant invented or used to supply the want of it are to heale the great abuses about the admitting visible professors into the priviledge of the Church from whence spring a great part if not all the abuses in discipline receiving the Lords Supper and manners of Christian people And therefore I earnestly beseech in the bowels of Iesus Christ both you and all others that ingage themselves for God to take this matter into deepe consideration I am sensible how inconsiderable a person I am and how inconsiderable a number there be that are affâ—cted with this motion I do consider how much against the streame of the Râ—formed Churches such a reformation would be Yet when I consider how far fetched the reasons for Paedobaptisme are how cleare the institution of Christ is against it how happily truthes opposed with as much pâ—â—jâ—dice as this have beene in processe of time vindicâ—ted of whaâ— moment the knowledge of this point is to every conscience how exact a râ—formation our solemne Covenant binds us to endeavour I do not despaire but that this truth also may take place upon second thoughts â—here it hath beene rejected at the first nor doe I doubt buâ— in time Gods people will consider what an influence baptisme had of old into the comfort and obligation of conscienâ—es and how litâ—le it hâ—th now And truely Sir though it may be but my weaknes yet I suppose it can doe you no hurt to tell it I feare you want much of that blessing which was hoped for by your Assembly in that you do waste so much time about inconsiderable things comparatively and hastily passe over or exclude from examination this which deserves most to be examined but rather seeke to stop the bringing of it to any tryall But having told you thus much I follow you in your Sermon You say I shall God-willing handle this question more largely then I have done any other in this place and the rather because of three other great mischeifes which go along with it First I see that all that reject the baptizing of Infants do must upon the same grounds reject the religious observation of the Lords day or the Christian Sabbath viz. because there is not say they an expresse institution or command in the New Testament Give me leave to take up the words of him in the Poet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What a word hath gotten out of the hedge of your teeth They doe They must Though I doubt not of your will yet I see you want some skil in pleading for the Lords day that others have the truth is that it is neither so nor so They neither doe nor must reject upon the same ground the Lords day That they doe not I can speake for one and your owne words delivered after with more caution Verily I have hardly either knowne or read or heard intimate that though few yet you cannot say but you have heard or read or knowne of some that have not with baptizing of Infants rejected the Lords day but you have I presume heard or read of whole and those reformed Churches that have upon such a ground rejected the Lords day as not of divine institution who yet are zealous for paedobaptisme Nor must they And to make that good let us consider their ground as you mention it Their ground you say is because there is not an expresse institution or command in the New Testament this then is their principle that what hath not an expresse institution or command in the New Testament is to be rejected But give me leave to tell you that you leave out two explications that are needefull to be taken in First that when they say so they meane it of positive instituted worship consisting in outward rites such as Circumcision Baptisme and the Lords Supper are which have nothing morall or naturall in them but are in whole and in part Ceremoniall For that which is naturall or morall in worship they allow an institution or command in the old Testament as obligatory
But here is no mention of our Infants graffing in Answ. We must not teach the Lord to speake but with reverence search out his meaning there is no mention made of the casting out of the Jewish Infants neither here nor elsewhere when he speakes of taking away the Kingdome of God from them and giving it to the Gentiles who would bring forth fruit no mention of the Infants of the one or of the other but the one and the other for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their parents as the branches in the root the infants of the godly in their parents according to the tenor of his mercy the infants of the wicked in their parents according to the tenor of his justice There are sundry things in this passage you would have to be marked that deserve indeed to be marked but with an Obeliske not with an Asteriske as 1. That you oppose personall inherent holinesse to derivative as inconsistent The truth is the holinesse the Apostle speaks of is first in respect of Gods Election holinesse personall and inherent in Gods intention He hath chosen us that we should be holy Ephes. 1.4 Secondly it is also holinesse derivative or descending not from any Ancestors but from Abraham not barely as a naturall father but as a spirituall father or Father of the faithfull and so derived from the Covenant of grace which passed in his name to him and his seed And lastly it shall be inherent actually being communicated by the Spirit of God when they shall be actually called But this is such a kinde of holinesse as is more then you mean to wit not only an adherent or relative holinesse which they have by enjoying outward Ordinances but also inherent by faith whereby they aâ—e holy as the root that is Abraham the father of the faithfull 2. Whereas you make it the case of any believers to be a holy root to their posterity especially in the following words when you say The infants both of the Jews and Gentiles for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their parents as the branch in the root the infants of the godly in their parents according to the tenor of his mercy the infants of the wicked in their parents according to the tenor of his justice Master Blake pag. 8. more plainly The branches of Ancestors are roots of posterity being made a holy branch in reference to their issue they now become a holy root This is not true for in the Apostles resemblance Abraham only is a holy root or at most Abraham Isaac and Iacob in whose names the Covenant runs No other man though a believer is the father of the faithfull but Abraham And the body of believers is compared to the Olive and each believer to a branch that partakes of the root and fatness of the Olive tree not in outward dispensations only as you speak but also in saving graces which is mainly here intended I remember Master Thomas Goodwin who hath handled this matter of Paeâ—obaptisme by spinning out similitudes and conjectures fit indeed for the common people that are more taken with resemblances then Syllogismes rather then with close arguments indeavoured to infer a kinde of promise of deriving holinesse from believers to their posterity out of the similitude of an Olive and its branches compared with Psal. 128.3 c. but it is dangerous to strain similitudes beyond that likenesse the Holy Ghost makes It is a tedious thing to Auditors that look for arguments to be deluded with similitudes and conjectures 3. Whereas you alluding to the words of the Apostle v. 28. that the Jews were beloved for their fathers sake carry it as if this were true of any believing parents the Apostle meanes it of those fathers only in whose names the Covenant was made especially Abraham called the friend of God Jam. 2.23 and the father of the faithfull Rom. 4.11 and in reference to the promises made to them they are beloved and therefore it is added ver 29. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance Lastly you say That the infants of the wicked for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their parents according to the tenor of Gods justice I intreat you to consider whether this speech do not symbolize with the tenet of Arminius in his Antiperkins on the fourth Crimination and in the end of his Treatise where he maketh the cause why the posterity of some people have not the Gospel to be their forefathers fault in refusing it Against which you may see what Doctor Twisse opposeth in both places and Moulin in his Anatomy of Arminianisme cap. 9. And thus it may appeare that you have very much darkened this illustrious Scripture by applying that holinesse and insition to outward dispensations only in the visible Church which is meant of saving graces into the invisible by faith and made every believer a like root to his posterity with Abraham to his seed I Am now come to your principall hold you say And yet plainer if plainer may be is the speech of the Apostle in 1. Cor. 7.14 The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband else were your children uncleane but now they are holy By the way Because you acknowledge in the Margin page 24. that signifies to as well as in and you conceive it may be here read in or to as well as by and though our translators following the vulgar read by yet Beza dislikes that reading it might have done well in the citing of this text by you to have given some hint of that varietie But to follow you You say the plain scope and meaning thereof is this The believing Corinthians amongst other cases of Conscience which they had sent to the Apostle for his resolution of had written this for one whether it were lawfull for them who were converted still to retaine their Infidell wives or husbands You doe rightly here expresse the scope of the Apostle but you make another scope page 25. when you say We must attend the Apostles scope which is to shew that the children would be unholy if the faith or believership of one of the parents could not remove the barre which lies in the other being an unbeliever against the producing a holy seed which I shall shew in its place not to be the scope of the place but only this which you first give You then say their doubt seemes to arise from the Law of God which was in force to the Nation of the Jews God had not only forbidden such marriages to his people but in Ezra's time they put away not onely their wives but all the children that were borne of them as not belonging to the Common-wealth of Israel and it was done according to the Law and that Law was not a particular Edict which they did agree upon but according to the standing Law of Moses which that word there used signifieth and in
to prove it Rom. 3.1 2 3. Rom. 9.4 And the truth is priviledges are so arbitrary and various that God gives them as he thinkes good oft times without assigning any special reason so that no argument can be drawne thus God gave such a priviledge to the Jewes Ergo we must have such a priviledge too except we can prove it is Gods will it should be so And therefore this Argument is of no force but rather an argument of arrogant presumption without an institution to attempt to prove that because the Jewes had a priviledge to circumcise infants therefore we must have a priviledge to baptize infants nor doe any of the many Scriptures you have alledged prove that Baptisme of infants is a priviledge granted by God in lieu of Circumcision But you take upon you to answer this objection You say but these things have no weight we are inquiring for priviledges which are branches of the Covenant of Grace which every man who is in Covenant with God may expect from God by vertue of the Covenant were he a Jew or a proselyte not for any particular or peculiar favour to a particular man or woman or family or tribe All these forementioned things and many other of the like kind as the ministery of the Tabernacle Temple to belong to one Tribe the Kingly office to one family such and such men never to lacke a man of their house to stand and before God proceeded indeed from free grace but were no parts of the Covenant of Grace which God made to Abraham and all his seed For could every man in Covenant challenge these things at Gods hand and that by vertue of the Covenant Could every one of them promise that Christ should be borne of his flesh or every one of their women that shee should be the mother of Christ Could every one whom God owned to be in Covenant with him promise by vertue of the Covenant that their Children if cast off by unbeliefe should after many hundred yeares be againe called in We speak onely of such priviledges as were universall and common to all who were in Covenant for which by vertue of the Covenant they might relie upon God Though you say the things objected have no weight yet it may seeme they are so heavy presse your conclusion so hard as that you cannot well ease it of them The things objected you deny not but you answer that they are impertinent you tell us why because you enquire for priviledges which are branches of the Covenant of Grace common to all in Covenant which they may challenge at Gods hand by vertue of the Covenant and such are not these It is not materiall what you inquire after men may sectari Aquilam in nubibus follow after an Eagle in the Clouds But sure I am the Scriptures you bring prove not that believers now have more priviledges belonging to the Covenant of grace which all may challenge at Gods hands then the Jewes had Yea your second conclusion contradicts your fifth understood in this sense Beside Circumcision was not a priviledge common to all in the Covenant of Grace For besides all the faithfull before Abraham and those of his time Melchisedeck and Lot and their households and Job after his time there was a sort of proselytes called strangers or of the gate who were not circumcised yet the Scripture reckons them among the worshippers of God Such is Cornelius conceived to be by Mede in his discourse on Acts 17.4 by Selden lib. 2. de jure nat Gent. c. 4. who is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a godly or devout man and one that feared God with all his house which gave much almes to the people and prayed to God alwayes Act. 10.2 and therefore within the Covenant of Grace Besides the priviledges alledged in the objection doe some of them at least belong to the Covenant of Grace as well as Circumcision as to be Father of the faithfull to be the Mother of Christ and the last belongs much more to the Covenant of Grace then circumcision And those Rom. 9.4 are priviledges which you alledge as belonging to the Covenant of Grace to which I may joyne that Rom. 3.2 that to them were committed the Oracles of God which yet were prerogatives of the Jewes as Mr Rutherford rightly and according to truth Lastly the phrases Rom. 11.21 of the naturall branches ver 24. of the wild Olive by nature thou wast graffed in besides nature these according to nature doe seeme to me to import not that the Jewes were in the Covenant of Grace by nature but that they had this priviledge to be reckoned in the outward administration as branches of the olive by their birth by vertue of Gods appointment which the Gentiles have not But you goe on Let any mâ—n shew out of the Scripture where our priviledges under the Gospel are cut short in any of these things and be saith somewhat and in particular for the case in hand concerning our infants right to the Covenant of Grace and the seale of it Once we are sure the infant children of all Covenanters were within the Covenant and the seale also belonged to them and by vertue of the Covenant which is still the same we plead their interest in it Let any man shew when and where this was taken away when the infant children of believers were expunged out of the Covenant of grace It is unreasonable to require men to shew what they doe not avouch it were equall to exact this taske at the hands of those who doe expunge the infant children of believers out of the Covenant of Grace we neither write in nor expunge out but leave that to God onely from whom we learne Esau have I hated Jacob have I loved Though you thinke your selfe sure that all the infants of Covenanters were within the Covenant of Grace yet I see no cause to believe you for as much as I thinke God never shewed you the booke of life that you may see who are written in who expunged out of the Covenant of Grace and St Paul who was as well read in that booke as you saith Rom. 9.8 They which are the children of the flesh are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed which how to spell I have shewed above But you adde Certainly who ever will goe about to deprive them of it to cut off such a great part of the comfort of believing parents must produce cleare testimonies before they can perswade believers to part with either of them either right to the Covenant or to the seale of the Covenant And you adde two reasons of it You are now on your advantage ground in a veine of Oratory and on a subject of all others aptest to move affections to wit parents tendernesse to their children But wee must not sacrifice truth to either of these You insinuate that Antipaedobaptists goe about to deprive infant-children
they are grown men nor any example where ever that was done will any man therefore say that Christian women are not to be partakers of the Lords Supper I think none will be so absurd as to affirm it If it be said though these things be not expresly and in terminis in the new Testament yet they are there virtually and by undeniable consequence I confesse it is true You do in this perioch give two instances of practice warranted by command or example gathered by consequence in the new Testament in the positive worship of the Sacraments to wit womens receiving the Lords Supper and the baptizing of children of Believers when grown persons which you grant are virtually and by undeniable consequence in the new Testament though not expresly and in terminis in terms Now this thing you need not have proved I readily grant it that what ever in positive worship is commanded in the new Testament though it be not in formall terms commanded yet if it may be gathered by virtuall consequence ought to be done Neverthelesse I observe First that you do well expresse the institution of Christ Matth. 28.19 when you say expresse command there is that they should teach the Heathen and the Jews and make them Disciples and then baptize them of which I may make further use afterwards Secondly that when you say there is no expresse command no example in all the new Testament where women received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper you imply there is for males Now herein you Mr. Vines and Mr. Blake and generally others follow Zwinglius whose conceit this was if he were not the first inventor And Mr. Blake expresseth himself thus pag. 22. No particular president more then for this of Infant-baptisme But I pray you tell me is not that 1 Cor. 11.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup an expresse command in formall terms And doth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprehend both Sexes When the Apostle sayes vers 23. I delivered unto you that which I received from the Lord was not that a command and that to the whole Church women as well as men when he saith 1 Cor. 10.17 We being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread and are not women as well of the body as men And if so here is an expresse example in formall terms for womens receiving the Lords Supper The like may be said of 1 Cor. 12.13 Acts 20.7 unlesse you will say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself all Disciples comprehend not women because they are of the Masculine Gender which from you that have learned that Logica non curat sexum Logick regards not sex and that hundreds of places there be where the Masculine Gender is put the matter so requiring it for both Sexes I do not suspect And for your other instance as I do not remember any brings it but your self so it is as little to the purpose as the other For that which you say that there is no expresse command that the children of Believers should be baptized when they are grown men It is true except they professe the faith but there is an expresse command as your self grant to baptize Disciples and so to baptize the childe of a Believer that professeth the faith not otherwise so that these your instances are brought to prove that which is not denied and yet the instances are impertinent to prove it You say further So have we virtually and by undenyable consequence sufficient evidence for the baptizing of children both commands and examples This assertion is full if you mean by children Infant-children of Believers prove this and you need prove no more But your fetching such a compasse about makes me imagine your attempt will prove but a Parturiunt montes the mountains bring forth especially when your proof is but from Analogy concerning which the rule holds as Mr. Bowles in his Sermon on Joh. 2.17 Allegorica Theologia unlesse the Lord himself make the application non est argumentativa Allegoricall Divinity is not argumentative but it is fit you should be heard You say For first you have Gods command to Abraham as he was the father of all covenanters that he should seal his children with the seal of the covenant I grant we have Gods command to Abraham who is indeed called the Father of the faithfull no where that I know the father of all covenanters to circumcise his males of eight dayes old and I deny not but that this was a seal that is a confirming signe of the covenant God made with Abraham whence Gods covenant was said to be in their flesh Gen. 17.13 and 't is called the covenant of circumcision Act. 7.8 But you have need of the Philosophers stone to turn this into a command to baptize Infants of Believers which you thus attempt You tell us Now this truth all our Divines defend against the Papists that all Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews binde us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant and were not accidentall unto them This is your foundation for your undeniable consequence it had need then be very undeniable and so you conceive it because it is a truâ—h all our Divines defend against the Papists But this is no undeniable Axiome that what all the Protestant Divines defend against the Papists must be truth undeniable I do not think all the Divines in the Assembly will subscribe to it I for my part do disclaim it I give that honour only to the Holy Scripture and have learned from Art 21. of the Church of England that Generall Councels have erred and may erre and consequently all the Divines in the world And one Paphnutius is to be heard against a whole Oecumenicall Councel sometimes And for this which you call a truth all our Divines defend against the Papists I marvell how you can averre it unlesse you had read them all which I think neither you nor any one else hath and for this Maxime I question whether any one leading Author have delivered that which you charge all our Divines with because you direct not where they deliver it it is in vain for me to make search it were to seek a needle in a bottle of hay but I will examine whether it be truth or no. You suppose that there are commâ—nds of God about the Sacraments of the Jews which is granted But then let me tell you I do not assent to this that Circumcision and the Passeover are all the ordinary Sacraments of the Jews I do approve of the words of R. C. that is as I learn from Mr. Selden de anno civili veter Judae c. 2. Mr. Ralph Cudworth of Cambridge whom he there commends in that book of his which is of the true notion of the Lords Supper chap.
to that which the Apostle asserts that we are compleat in Christ alone because in him is the fulnesse of all that was shadowed in the ordinances of the Jews 2. It is very dangerous because the same reason that will conclude that we are not compleat without a succession of some ordinance in stead of Circumcision will conclude we are not compleat without a succession of something in stead of sacrifices Temple Priest Altar c. and so after the Popish manner all Jewish Rites may be reduced under new names which would overthrow Christianitie As for our compleatnesse in Christ without outward ordinances like to the Jewes I distinguish of a twofold compleatnesse First in all the will of God Colos. 4.12 And thus we are compleat without such ordinances we may do all the will of God believing in Christ without observing any of those ordinances Secondly of means in ordine ad finem in order to the end that is to the knowledge of God and obtaining salvation And so we are more compleat then the Jews without those outward ordinances or any answerable to them First because they had Christ only promised and assured we have â—hrist exhibited and fulfilling all things And surely they that have a promise accomplished are compleater then they that have it only assured let it be assured never so firmly Secondly because they had Christ under shadows we the body Colos. 2.17 he is the true Shecinah or Divine Majesty in whom the fulnesse of the glory of God dwelt Col. 2.9 he was circumcision sacrifices all And the woman is more compleat that enjoyes her husband in person then in a picture messenger c. that represent him The Jews were compleat in Christ as we quoad rem in respect of the thing but not quoad modum mensuram rei in respect of the manner and measure thereof So that in the Argument these Propositions are to be denied 1. That Colos. 2.11 12. speaks of compleatnesse with respect to Ordinances in the new Testament 2. That it could not be true unlesse Baptisme were to Believers children as Circumcision was of old 3. That Colos. 2.11 12. cannot be understood of the compleatnesse that Believers have in Christ for salvation 4. In some sense it is to be denied that the Jews had a token of the Covenant to their children 5. In what sense it is to be granted that the Jews had a token of the Covenant to their children in that sense the consequence is to be denied that we must have a token of the Covenant of Grace for our children now FINIS Latin passages Enâ—lished in the second Treatise PArt 1. pag. 2. Achilles the champion of the Greeks proverbially put for the strongest argument Pag. 5. Christ came to save by himself all all I say who by him are born again unto God infants and little ones and boyes Pag. 6. That Baptisme is undeâ—stood under the name of new-birth in our Lords and the Apostles phrase openly confirming the Apostolique tradition of the baptisme of little infants against Anabaptisticall impiety Onely I would have the younger who shall light on the works of Irenaeusâ—dmonished â—dmonished that they beware of those editions which that most impudent Monke Feuardentius a man of large boldnesse and of no faith hath foully corrupted in many things and bespattered with impious and lying annotations Are born again Therefore being a master he had also the age of a master not rejecting nor going beyond a man nor loosing the law of humane kind in himself but sanctifying every age by that likenesse which was to him For he came to save all men by himself all men I say who by him are new born unto Gâ—d infants and little ones and boyes and young men and elder men Therefore he went through every age and was made an infant sanctifying infants among little ones a little one sanctifying them that have this age being also made an example to them of piety and justice and subjection Among young men being made an example to young men and sanctifying them to the Lord so also an elder to the elder that he might be a perfect mâ—ster not onely according to the exposition of the truth but also according to age sanctifying also the elder being made also an example to them And then he went even unto death that he might be the first-bâ—rn from the dead holding the primacy in all things the Prince of life before all and preceding all Pag. 7. But we shall the lesse trouble our selves concerning Origen because the things we cited are not extant in Greek In the margin If therefore any man before Pelagius was born or before Arius arose be shaâ—p and vehement against the errours of Pelagians and vexing them professedly although the name of the heretiques be suppressed it is not probable that such a writing is the Authors whose name it 〈…〉 Pag. 8. For this also the Church hath received a tradition from the Apâ—stles and according to the observance of the Church The seal to them that enter into a course of life In the margin Notwithstanding the custome of our mother the Church in baptizing little ones is not to be despised nor by any means to be accounted superfluous nor at all to be beleeved unlesse it had been an Apostolicall tradition Pag. 11. That infants are presently to be baptized that they perish not because mercy is not to be denyed them Pag. 13. Lest little ones should perish if they should die without the remedie of the grace of regeneration they determined that they were to be baptized for the remission of sins Which also St. Augustine shews in his book of the baptisme of little ones and the African Councels witnesse and many documents of other Fathers But the father or mother ought not to stand for their own childe at the Font that there may be a difference between spirituall begetting and carnall But if it happen by chance they shall have after that no fellâ—wship of carnall copulation who have undertaken the spirituall bond of co-fatherhood in a common son What say you to these things Lo I have not brought out of Augustine but out of the Gospel which sith ye say ye chiefly beleeve either yeeld ye at length that by the faith of others others may be saved or deny if ye can those things which I have laid down to be of the Gospel Pag. 14. in the margin And I was signed with the signe of his crosse and I was seasoned with his salt from the wombe of my mother who much hoped in thee Pag. 15. in the margin Augustine adjudgeth to eternall flames the Infants that die without baptisme Likewise whosoever shall say that even the little ones shall be made alive in Christ who go out of this life without the participation of his Sacrament he truly goeth both against the Apostles preaching and condemns the whole Churcb The most strong and founded faith in which the Church of Christ beleeves that no not
little ones most lately born can be freed from damnation unlesse by the grace of the name of Christ which he hath commended in his Sacraments Pag. 16. Neither let that move thee that some do not bring little ones to receive baptisme with that faith that they may be regenerated by spirituall grace unto life eternall but because they think that by this remedy they keep or receive temporall health For not therefore are they not regenerate because they are not offered by them with this intention For necessarie ministeries are celebrated by them It is answered he doth beleeve by reason of the Sacrament of faith Pag. 18. in the margin Lastly who seeth not that this was the manner of that time when scarce the thousandth person was baptized afore he was of grown age and diligently exercised among the catechized Part. 2. Pag. 21. These to the rest of the errours which they borrowed from the Manichees and Priscillianists added this over and above that they said that the baptisme of little ones was unprofitable inasmuch as it could profit none who could not both himself beleeve and by himself ask the Sacrament of baptisme of which kind we read not that the Manichees and Priscillianists taught any thing They mock us because we baptize infants because we pray for the dead because we ask the suffrages of the Saints They beleeve not that Purgatory fire remains after death but that the soul loosed from the body doth presently passe either to rest or to damnation But now they who acknowledge not the Church it is no marvell if they detract from the orders of the Church if they receive not their appointments if they despise Sacraments if they obey not commands Because he took away Festivals Sacraments Temples Priests because the life of Christ is shut up from the little ones of Christians while the grace of baptisme is denied nor are they suffered to draw neer to salvation Pag. 23. We perceive in the man dexterity and a study of mediocrity But in that man I desire to be deceived I have seemed to my self to have found nothing but immoderate thirst of wealth and glory A fanatique man and grosse Anabaptist Pag. 24. They would seem studious of truth Pag. 25. The word of the Lord. From the staffe to the corner A proverbiall speech in Schools when one thing is inferred from another which have no connexion They who all along these places of Belgick and lower Germany are found bordering on this Anabaptisticall heresie are almost all followers of this Mennon whom I have named to whom now this Theodorick hath succeeded In whom for a great part you may perceive tokens of a certain godly mind who being incited by a certain unskilfull zeal out of errour rather then malice of mind have departed from the true sense of Divine Scriptures and the agreeing consent of the whole Church which may be perceived by this that they alwayes resisted the rage of Munster and Batenburgick that followed after stirred up by John Batenburg after the taking of Munster who plotted a certain new restitution of the kingdom of Christ which should be placed in the destruction of the wicked by outward force And they tauâ—ht thâ—t the instauration and propagation of the kingdom of Christ consists in the crosse alone whereby it happens that they which are such mâ—y seem rather worthy of pity and amendment then persecution and perdition Pag. 28. What part of time Pag. 48. Hâ—w it may be that Israel may be rejected but that together the Covenant of God established with Abraham and his seed should seem to be made void In the margin The credit of that promise Gen. 17.7 8. doth presently appear to be brought into danger by the rejecting of the Jews and the exclusion of them out of the Covenant of God sith they are born of Abraham according to the flâ—sh so saith he it appeares to them that look upon the first fâ—ce of things The Apostle shews thâ—t theâ—efâ—re the word of the Covenant and divine promises made to Israel failed not or was made void aâ—though a great part of the Jews were unbelieving because those promises of the Câ—venant are of God not to them properly who were to come from the seed of Abraham according to the flesh but to those who were to be ingraffed into the family of Abraham by vertue of divine promise Pag. 49. The argument of the Apostle to prove the Covenant of God entred into with Abraham doth not comprehend all the posterity of Abraham in its skirt we think should be thus simply framed Esau and Jacob were of the pâ—sterity of Abraham but God did not comprehend both of these in his Covenant with Abraham Therefore not all the posterity of Abraham It is proved that God did not comprehend both in the Covenant of grace because he did not comprehend Esau the elder but Jacob the younger Pag. 50. There are many of the seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise doth not belong as Ismael and Ismaelites But if so there be many of the seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise doth not belong then the rejâ—ction of many Jews who are of the seed of Abraham doth not make void the word of promise In the margin Calvin gathers hence in that any is the seed of Abraham the promise made to Abraham belongs to him but the answer is manifest that promise understood of spirituall blessing pertaines not to the carnall seed of Abraham but to the spirituall as the Apostle himselfe hath interpreted it Rom. 4. 9. For if you understand the carnall seed now that promise will belong to none of the Gentiles but to those alone who are begotten of Abraham and Isaac according to the flesh He teacheth also that the promises of God are not tied to the carnall birth but to belong onely to the believing and spirituall posterity For they are not the sons of Abraham who are of Abraham according to the flesh but who are according to the spirit Pag. 51. In the Margin The inculcation also of the seed sheweth that onely the elect and effectually called are noted the Apostle so interpreting this place Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.16 4.28 Pag. 52. That baptisme doth not certainly seale in all the children of believers the grace of God sith among them some are absolutely reprobated even by an antecedent decree of God from eternity and therefore believers are to doubt of the truth of Gods Covenant I am thy God and the God of thy seed after thee Pag. 58. To be a son of Abraham doth declare nothing else but to be freely elected Rom. 9.8 and to tread in the steps of the faith of Abraham Rom. 4.12 and to doe the workes of Abraham Joh. 8.39 From which is rightly gathered certain expectation of salvation to come Rom. 8.29 Pag. 69. In the Margin Infants in their parents grandfathers great grandfathers grandfathers grandfathers have refused the grace of the Gospel by which act
with some difference Baptisme properly seales the entrance into it the Lords Supper properly the growth nourishment and augmentation of it Baptisme for our birth the Lords Supper for our food Now infants may be borne againe while they are infants have their originall sin pardoned be united to Christ have his image stampt upon them but concerning the exercise of these graces and the augmentation of them in infants while they are infants the Scripture is altogether silent You spake somewhat to like purpose before which I examined part 3. sect 15. To me it is yet as a paradoxe that Baptisme seales properly the entrance into the Covenant and the Lords Supper the growth nourishment and augmentation of it If you make the entrance at remission of sins justification or mortification the Lords Supper that seales Christs death seales the entrance into the Covenant Mat. 26.28 And for Baptisme it seales dying with Christ and rising with Christ Rom. 6.3 4 5. Gal. 3.27 Col. 2.12 1 Pet. 3.21 and therefore not onely the first worke of conversion but also after-growth and exercise of holinesse And the Lords Supper signifies the same receiving the Spirit which Baptisme doth 1 Cor. 12.13 And according â—o the doctrine of Protestants Baptisme seales as well the pardon of other sins as of originall sin And so Peter Acts 2.38 and Ananias Act. 22.16 And therefore this difference you put is a difference which the Scripture makes not that I say nothing of your strange phraseology of the growth nourishment and augmentation of the Covenant But you say And what is said concerning the infants of the Jewes eating the Passeover to which our Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth succeed there is no such thing mentioned in the Book of God It is said indeed that the severall families were to eate their Lambe if the houshold were not too little for it and that when their children should aske them what that service meant they should instruct them about the meaning of it but no word injoyning nor any example witnessing thaâ— their little children did eate of it The Commands were that all the males should thrice a yeare appeare before the Lord one of which was the Passeover Exod. 23.17 Exod. 34.23 Deut. 16.16 And at that time there was no other food to be eaten but the unleavened bread and the paschall Supper Therefore those males that could eate though not come to yeares of discretion fit to receive the Lords Supper yet were to eate the Passeover Ainsworth notes on Exod. 12.26 So both the outward rite and the meaning of it was to be taught to their children Touching whom the Jewes hold from the Law in Exod. 23.14.17 Deut. 16.14.16 that every child that could hold his Father by the hand and goe up from Jerusalem gates to the mountaine of the Temple his Father was bound to cause him to goe up and appeare before God with him to the end he might catechize him in the Commandements And who sow as bound to appeare was bound to keep the feast Maimâ—ny in Hagigah Chap. 2. sect 3 4. Also they say A childe that is able to eate a marsell of bread they catechize him in the Commandements and give him to eate so much as an Olive of the unleavened bread Maimony Treatise of leaven and unleavened bread c. 6. sect 10. But you say If they say as some of them doe that those little ones who were able to enquire concerning the meaning of that service and capable to receive instruction about it did eate of the Passeover with their parents I answer although the Scripture speaks nothing of their eating yet if that be granted it is no prejudice to us because the Gospel prohibites not such young ones from the Lords Supper who are able to examine themselves and discerne the Lords body True but children that were to appeare at the Passeover and to partake of it were many of them such as might be instructed concerning the meaning of that service and yet too young to examine themselves or to discerne the Lords body so that if the Lords Supper succeed the Passeover and a rule may be drawne from the Passeover to the Lords Supper children unable to examine themselves may be admitted to the Lords Supper THe rest of your Sermon is application which being not argumentative I shall let it passe Onely whereas you charge Anabaptists with a rash and bloudy sentence condemning infants as out of the state of grace condemning all the infants of the whole Church of Christ as having nothing to doe with the Covenant of grace and then tragically aggravate this thing as parallel or rather exceeding the cruelty of Herod and Hazael in slaying and dashing the infants of Israel against the wall till you produce some testimonies of those you call Anabaptists so determining I shall take it to be but a false accusation and a fruit of passion not of holy zeale For the thing it selfe I have shewed part 2. sect 10. that it doth not follow on the doctrine of Antipaedobaptisme and I conceive that if to be in the Covenant of grace be rightly explained to wit so as to signifie the having of the promise of justification and salvation by Christ Jesus besides which I know not any other Evangelicall Covenant of grace your selfe will be found to exclude them from the covenant of grace as much as they As they dare not say that this or that particular infant of a believer is in the covenant of grace that is certainly elected justified and to be saved so neither dare you Your owne words are pag. 48. Charitie being not tyed to conclude certainly of any of them because they ought to know that all are not Israel who are of Israel and that many are called but few are chosen If you should you would gainsay the Apostle Rom. 9.6 7 8. And on the other side as you will not say they are damned so neither will they I am perswaded but suspending any sentence concerning this or that in particular leave them to God who is the soveraigne Lord both of them and us THus have I at last in the middest of many wants distractions discouragements and temptations with the assistence of God who hath never failed me to him be the praise examined your Sermon and thereby shewed that it doth not satisfie and how little reason you had to say in your Epistle I am assured that it is Gods truth which I have preached and which he will blesse Notwithstanding which confidence I presume you will see cause to consider more exactly of this matter upon the reading of this answer I dare not thinke any otherwise of you then as of one who loves and seekes the truth Nor doe I know any reason why you should conceive that I have taken this paines for any ends crosse to the finding of truth My reall intention in this worke is to discover truth and to doe what is meete for mee in my calling towards