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
remove this scruple The Apostle alluding to Gen. 17. 7. sayes the promise is to you and your Children also as accordingly is determined by learned Calvin upon the place Quod patribus filios adjunxit pendet eâ— ver bis promissionis ere Deus tuus seminis tui ubi Deus filiâ—s patribus accenset in adoptionis gratia hic ergo locus abunde refellit Anabaptistas qui infantes ex fidelibus genitos a baptismo arcent quasi non sint â—cclesiae membra Effugium in Allegorico sensu captant ac filios interpretantur qui spiritualiter geniti sunt sed nihil proficiunt tam crass â imprudentiâ Palam est hoc dictum fuisse a Petro quia Deus gentem unam peculariter adoptaverit quod autem jus adoptionis etiam infantibus commune esset testis fuit circumcisio But Mr. T. sayes that contrarie to the common use I would have children restrained to Infants wherein are two untruths for 1. As may appear by the premises I grant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indefinitly may signify off-spring at large more properly young Children or Infants in this place may be extended to posterity in general but more peculiarly at least inclusively points at little ones contradistinguished to Parents and them of age 2. It is not contrary to the common use of the word but the word rather is more commonly used for Infants for when a woman is said to be in pain and bring forth this word is used John 16. 21. Luke 1. 31. Math. 1. 26. Luke 1. 51. his Instances of Ephes 6. 4. Col. 3. 2. pretends but to prove that the word is sometimes used for grown Children which I grant I think the former Ephes 6. 4 makes rather against him for Parents may provoke their Children to wrath when they are but two or three years old and may begin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from their Infancie and in their Infancie to instill some Christian principles long before in their sense they are capable of Baptism When he said Children mentioned Acts 2. 39. were not Infants but grown men I replyed there were many circumstances in the Text overthrew that 1. The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bring forth given sometimes to Children in the womb for the most part to them that are newly born or young This Examiner corrects this by-thought saying he thinks I say falsely that it is given sometimes to Children in the womb sweet language especially if he think amiss he might have considered that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the root signifies not alwaies to bring forth but sometimes to beget Homer Odys 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom Ulysses begot Bacchus in the womb is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jupiters Child or of-spring It s applyed to women in travell before the Child-birth John 16. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a woman when she is in travel hath sorrow because her hour is come some Copies have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 her day is come howsoever she is not yet delivered which the words following insinuates as soon as she is delivered of the Child she remembers no more the anguish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to beget Children as Budaeus and the Epigram renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as well begetting and carrying children in the womb as bringing them forth 1 Tim. 2. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 she shall be saved in Child-bearing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is murthering of Children though it by potions in the womb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to beget Children so Xenephon uses it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accompanying with women we beget Children Herodotus in Terpsicore calls a woman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is fruitfull to conceive Children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence immediatly comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to beget and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to conceive Children as Aristotle distâ—nguishes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not interpreted by Budeus Scapula George Perkins and others foetus proles soboles fruit of-spring issue which is properly so called in the womb as fruit of the womb c. By this I hope it appears that I said not falsely when I said it was sometimes given to Children in the womb which I conceive he was jealous by letting go his former hold with this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but if it be then it overthrows his notation for then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bring forth for a child in the womb is not yet brought forth By that which is already said is manifest that it overthrows not my notation for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comes remotely from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifies not onely to bring forth but to beget conceive and travell withall in the womb as hath been proved out of Scripture and Classick Authours and a child in the womb is brought forth though not à secundinà from the Tunâ—cle it is wrapped in the matrice yet a femore Patris from the Fathers loynes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But what if in this signification it had not suited exactly with the notation had therefore the notation been false Mr. T. might remember that of Aquinas non a quo sed ad quod imponuntur vocabula and of the Philosopher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words signify not by nature but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by imposition wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the most parâ— Derivatives whence I drew mâ—ne Argument suâ—ts with the Primitives yet sometimes they signify 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by hap-hazard sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the contrarie Mr. T. contradicting himself here â—â—ghâ—ly deteâ—mâ—ns this controversie pag. 108. Antipaedobaptist 1 Part. where he sayes vis noâ—ma the rule and measure of words and their sense in use as Horat. de arte Poetica nor is the use alwâ—â—es according to speciall reason but ex placito as it pleased â—he users or beginners Otherwise no reason can be given why from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cadas the same root should come a Noun signifying a Saint and a whore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Barach should signify to bless and to curse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a crime thing polluted and a pious fact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a medicine and a poyson sacer holy and detestable with many more All this is true yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cados more properly signifies a Saint than a whore because the forementioned root signifies to sanctify or make holy and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more properly signifies a holy than execrable thing because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it hath its notation signifies a pure thing without mixture of earth and for the same reason it doth appear that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyes properly a young child because it comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to beget conceive travell or bring
is the promise C. He told him it was the words of the text The promise is to you and your Children T. Then Mr. T. Said they were not believers yet C. Mr. C. Replyed they were believers in fieri though perhaps not in facto T. That 's Latine sayes Mr. T. what do you understand by it C. He said I mean this they were believers by outward assent and disposition sufficient to make them members visible but perhaps not believers by inward assent and habit to justify them For I know you will not say that none are to be baptized but they that have a saving faith whâ—ch none but God is able to discern Ministers must act according to rule which in adultis is outward profession or a willingness to receive the Ordinance and that they were thus qualified which is sufficient it is apparent T. Mr. T. Denyed that they were sufficiently qualified C. Which was proved thus They whom the Apostle commanded to be baptized were sufficiently qualified But the Apostle commanded them to be baptized Therefore they were sufficiently qualified T. Then Mr. T Without repeating the Syllogism or applying any distinction inquired where the Apostle commanded them to be Baptized C. He told him verse 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be baptized every one of you T. Yes sayes Mr. T. Upon condition of Repentance repent and he Baptized C. That is a condition of your own making and an adding to the Word of God for where does the Scripture either expresly or implyedly say that Repentance is a condition of Baptism if it be meant of compleat repentance true it is â—t was their duty both to repent and to be baptized to repent in relation to crucifying of Christ to be baptized in relation to Judaism which they were to put off and Christianity which they were to put on But that they must have compleat repentance before baptism it is not so much as hinted at And if you mean incompleat repentance which is indeed all that is required they had that already for they were pricked in conscience saying Men and brethren what shall we do T. Mr. T. Said that was not all that was required nor was it a sufficient qualification for Baptism C. Against which answer was concluded thus That upon which the Apostles Baptized three thousand the same day was a sufficient qualification But the Apostles upon that baptized â—000 the same day Therefore it was a sufficient qualification T. He denyed the Minor and gave his reason from the 40. and 41. verses And With many other words did he testify and exhort saying Save your selves from this untoward generation then they that gladly received the word were Baptized C. It was replyed that this was but a recapitulation or reciting of the heads of Peters Sermon that he preached to them before they were pricked in conscience or were exhorted to be baptized and no new act which was a thing usuall in Scripture as Gen. 1. God having expressed the creation of Man and Gods blessing of him and all creatures to him by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recites the manner of his creation in the second Chapter But howsoever it made nothing against him for whether it be taken thetically without any condition or hypothetically upon condition of repentance the Children were to be baptized together with the Parents the promise is to you and your Children and that was all that he contended for from whence ariseth this Argument To whom the promise of Grace belongs to them baptism belongs also but the promise of Grace belongs to believers and their Children Therefore Baptism belongs to both T. Mr. T. said the Promise of Grace belonged to Believers and ther Children when their Children actually believed and not before C. He replyed there were two Arguments in the text to overthrow that The first might be drawn from the Indicative praedication in the present tense the Promise is you and your Children is for the present as well to your Children as to you The second from the opposition betwixt you and your Children and them that are afar off They and their Children which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 near as the Greek Scholiast and the Syrian Interpreter saies are opposed to them that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a far off The Jews were near and in Covenant for to them is the promise in the present tense but the Gentiles were afar off Rom. 2. 15. Ye who sometimes were a far off are made nigh by the Blood of Christ therefore it is expressed in the future tense as many as God shall call So that to the Jews being called their Children were in Covenant with them when the Gentiles shall be called their Children shall be in Covenant with them T. Mr. T. said he granted that Children were in Covenant and might be baptized C. Well then observe good People the Dispute is at an end he grants that Children are in Covenant and may be baptized T. Yes but by those Children are not meant Infants but Grown Men. C. He replyed there are many circumstances in the text overthrows that first the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bring forth given sometimes to Children in the womb for the most part to them that are newly born or young T. Mr. T. said it was also given to Men of ripe age C. Yes sometimes by a figurative speech as that of Julius Caesar to Brutus in Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and thou my Child And well might he call him his Child for he had adopted him in the night before but properly it signifies a young Child and so it ought to be taken here unless some convincing reason can be given to the contrary according to that rule Omne analogum per se positum stat pro famosiore significato Mr. T. gave no answer but with a jeering Eccho repeated the last words pro famosiore significato The second circumstance in the text is the substantive verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the promise is to you and your Children not is to you and shall be to your Children now what Children had they at this present but young Children unless Master T. will imagine that they were all old Men and Women that were present and their Younger Men and Women were absent The third circumstance in the text is the finis cui the end to whom the promise is to you and your Children the Jews Children under the Law were in Covenant with their Parents the Charter is confirm'd under the Gospel to them and their Children The Jews when they crucified Christ called for a Curse upon themselves and upon their Children here the Apostle gives them a Remedy as large as the Disease the promise that is of Freedome from the curse is to you and your Children T. Mr. T. Still kept his conclasion in despight of the Premisses that it was to their Children when they actually believed and not before C.
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
broak off at Christs coming Or that being in covenant and outward profession performed not sincerely the conditions of the covenant 2. Children of God are either so by outward calling and Judgement of charity or secret election and Judgement of veritie Many are called that is to be sons by profession but few are chosen to be really sons in possession 3. The children of promise are either those to whom outward things and visible characters as Circumcision to the Jews Baptism to Christians are proposed absolutely the spirituall part thereof conditionally or those that attain the end of the promise or thing promised These grounds thus laid These propositions results 1. Those that were never in visible covenant with God are not ordinarily children of promise or children of God in a Gospâ—ll sense 2 Those that were in visible covenant as Ishmael and the Jews till they apostated are children of God by outward calling and judgement of charitie and for any thing we know by election and Judgement of veritie 3. Those that are in vâ—sible covenant till they apostate are children of promise so that outward Orâ—inances belongs to them absolutely the inward and spirituall part is proposed unto them conditionally 4. Those that are visible Covenanters and outward Professers not performing the conditions of the covenant are neither the children of God nor children of promise in respect of Election and obtaining the end promised 5. Those that are in visible covenant and performs the conditions of the covenant have Interest in the outward Ordinances spirituall grace and glory the end In all these respects the Apostle speaks Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Christs then are ye Abraham ' s seed and heirs according to promise If Christs by profession then Abraham's seed and heirs according to promise in Judgement of charitie If Christs sincerely then Abraham's seed and heirs really and in veritie John 8 39. where Jesus said to the Jews If ye were Abraham's children ye would do the works of Abraham he does not deny that they are the children of Abraham both by nature and outward covenant for that he confesses 37 I know that ye are Abraham ' s seed but upbraids them for degenerating from Abraham's faith who desired to see his day nay who knows but some of these children that were disobedient for the present like persecuting Saul were elect and heirs of promise Now whether Mr. T. by spirituall seed of Abraham for he speaks ambiguously understand believing Gentiles as opposed to the Jews or the elect of both Jews and Gentiles as opposed to the carnall professors of both it is untrue that it is determined by the forequoted places that the covenant under the Gospel in the sense controverted was made onely with the spirituall seed of Abraham Thirdly if it had been right and determined so that the covenant under the Gospel was made onely with the spirituall seed of Abraham it had made nothing agaâ—nst my present allegation which was this That which unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of salvation can not be a better covenant than that under the Law for what consequence is in this The covenant under the Gospel is onely made with the spirituall seed of Abraham therefore though it unchurch Infants which are the one half of Christendome it may be a better covenant than that of the Law whereas the excellencie of the covenant whether made with the naturall carnall or spirituall seed consists in the excellencie of the object and thing covenanted and the extent to the parties who now if the one half be cut off from covenant and so from ordinary capacity of salvation the covenant is rendered by half the worse But that the covenant was not onely made with the spirituall seed of Abraham I further disproved thus If the covenant was made in the same extent to the Gentiles as to the Jews then under the Gospell it was not onely made to the spirituall seed but it was made in the same manner and extent to the Gentiles as it was to the Jews Therefore under the Gospell it was not onely made to the spirituall seed Then he denyed the Minor which was proved by this Enthymema The partition wall is pulled down and Jew and Gentile are all one in Christ Jesus Therefore the covenant is made in the same manner and extent to the Jew and Gentile Then he denyed the consequent as he does now with an addition saying it is not true because the partition wall is broken down therefore there is the same covenant Nationall to the naturall seed of believers as was to Abraham Nor is it true I am sure that I said because the partition wall is broken down therefore there is the same covenant nationall to the naturall seed of believers as was to Abraham either expresly or by consequence not expresly for my words that the covenant was made in the same manner and extent to the Jew and Gentile not by consequence in the same manner because by mutuall stipulation in the same extent because Parents with children And that is was nationall to the Jew was Accidentall for it was made with Abraham when he was but a familie dwelt in the middest of other nations and was a part of the Hebrews It was not made to continue to all the posterity of Abraham for the posterity of Ishmael Keturah Esau shortly after fell off not onely with his posterity for the Proselytes and Jebusites did participate they sojourned four hundred years in Egypt But what inconvenience if we allow him to make his best advantage of it and say the Gospel-covenant even extends to nations seeing Isaiah says Isai 2. 2. Nations shall flow in and Revel 12. 5. the man child which the woman brought forth was to rule the nations which hath been effected many wayes either when one familie of Christians like Abraham's hath grown to be a nation or when the supream Magistrate engages for his subjects that they shall be the subjects of Christ and by imperiall decrees proclaimes an uniformity in Religion or when by Gods blessing upon Ministers endeavours whole Nations are convinced to profess Christianity as in this oâ— ours where Church and Common-wealth as both one And to say we have many hypocrites and carnall Professors concludes no more that our Church is not nationall than against the Jews that theirs was not nationall or against the seven Churches of Asia that they were not Churches for there were many hypocrites and carnall professors in these Neither is this my Tenet unravelled by hiâ— next asseveration that the Partition wall is said to be broken down that therefore as the Apostle speaks Ephes 3. 6. The Gentiles to wit believing Gentiles Rom. 1. 16. should be fellow heirs of the same body partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospell for as the Jews even the whole nation of professors were received into covenant that indefinitly they might be fellow heirs with Christ of the
back the Jewes not onely Infants but others from captivity What his meaning was we know not but that his expressions were otherwise the most that were there even they of his own party knowes But let that pass as matter of fact and impertinent to the present controversie which is not whether he or the whole congregation be to be believed That he said so afterwards we acknowledge but how he will make it good we know not or if he make that interpretation good how it will make for him unless exclusively he can prove that it is onely meant of the Gentiles bringing the Jewes from captivity which he undertakes not but the contrary saying afterwards that he denyes not but the words may be accommodated to the times of the Gospel But how proves he that it is a prophesie that the Gentilds should bring back the Jewes not onely Infants but others from captivity Two wayes First by Testimony of Scripture Secondly of Mr. Gataker which like Linsie-woolsie he weaves together First Scripture for he sayes the words before v. 19. 20 21. after 24 25. do plainly evince let us see v. 19. how plainly these are the words for thy wast and desolate places and the land of thy destruction shall even now be too narrow by reason of thy inhabitants and they that swallowed thee up shall be far away Let him mould this into a Syllogism and see how it will conclude May it not in an allegory be understood of the conversion of the Gentiles expressed in borrowed speeches from the Jewes This is usual in Scripture and the next verse 20 rather confirms than confutes The children which thou shall have that is of the called Gentiles after thou hast lost the other that is of the natural seed of Abraham shall say again in thine ears the place is to strait for me that is the land of Canaan is to narrow to contain the whole Church give place to me that I may dwell that is in the Islands and Provinces of the Gentiles according to verse 6. 21. Then shalt thou say in thy heart who hath begotten me those to wit of the Gentiles by adoption And have lost my children by natural generation and an desolate and a captive and removing to and fro that is after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus when they were scattered in all Nations as Josephus stories it for we never find iâ— literally verifyed that the land of Canaan was too streight during the time of captivity as the words point to contain the Jewes And this interpretation in part Mr. Tombes approves saying pag. 14. the Church is spoken to and the children were both the Gentiles children and yet thy children that is the Churches Now let us see whâ—ther the verses following relieve him any thing 24. Shall the prey be taken from the mighty or the lawfull captive delivered This Interrogation is equivalent to a Negation The prey shall not that is easily be taken from the mighty or the lawfull captive is not usually deliverd one Democritus would not be enough to laugh at nor three Anticyra's suffice to purge that head that would attempt from hence to draw an Argument to prove the fâ—regoing conclusion But perhaps he means it joyntly with the following verse I am willing to joyne issue the words are these Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away from whom Fâ—om Cyrus Artaxerxes Darius Ahasuerus That would imply a contradiction for he confesses that these were nursing fathers that did bring back the Jewes from captivity the prey of the terrible shall be delivered children are not preyes to their nurses neither are nurses terrible to their children unless it be the Indian women who swiming over great rivers with children in their arms in danger the drowning of them as sometimes do the dippers But the truth is The great red Dragon Rev. 12. 13. having seven heads and ten horns that is as Mr. Mead Comments Apocatyp pag. 164. interprets it The Roman Pagan Empire seated upon seven hills and armed with ten persecuting Kings or dynasts was terrible to the woman travelling that is to the Church bringing forth Christians yet the woman prevailed against this dragon and brought forth a man child which was taken up unto God and his throne that is power and authority in the Church And this is more likely the meaning of it for the places seem to be symbolicall and Concentrick Then indeed Kings became nursing fathers Constantine in the Empire Lucius in Britain Donald in Scotland Secondly he proves it from Mr. Gatakers authority who gives this as the meaning by the new Annotations made by him new I believe and so new that I think scarce any before him went in that way for I doubt not if Mr. T. could but have light of one Commentator Antient or Modern of so many scores that he had made for him he would no more have concealed his name then he does Mr. Gatakers a man yet living His Argument in form sounds thus The meaning of Mr. Gataker is true it is the meaning of Mr. Gataker in his annotations upon Isai 49 22. That the Gentiles should bring the Jews not onely Infants but others from captivity Therefore that the Gentiles should bring the Jews not onely Infants but others from captivity is true I thus retort it The meaning of Mr. Gataker is true But it is the meaning of Mr. Gataker that many Texts in Scripture concludes for Infant-Baptism Therefore that many Texts in Scripture concludes for Infant-Baptism is true By this I suppose Mr. T. will spare the labour of denying the Major But how shall I know that that meaning is given by Gataker who never saw his Annotations except I credit my Adversaries bare word which how Authentick his saying that Casaubon upon Matth. 3. made for dipping hath taught me yet I rather believe him that it is Mr. Gatakers meaning then the conclusion he infers from it and that it is his meaning he seems to prove because he doth on verse 23. say it was fulfilled in those Persian Potentates Cyrus Artaxerxes Darius Ahasuerus did all these four bring back the Jews not onely Infants but others from captivity I will not question their history for making Artaxerxes and Ahasuerus two severall men which Philo and Esdras makes but one Nor their Chronologie in making the Captivity to last about seventy years for the Captivity began in Nabukkadnezars time who lived some years after his successor was Evilmerodach his son after him was Balthasar from whom Cyrus took Babylon and conferred the Empire upon the Persians this Cyrus according to the Greeks raigned 29 years his successors in order reckoned by them were Cambyses that raigned five years seven months Darius the son of Histâ—spis 36. years Xerxes 20. Artaxerxes Longimanus 40. which besides the three Babylonish Kings amounts to 131 years odde months According to Philo and Esdras Cyrus â—ules 22 years Artaxerxes 20. Darius Artaxerxes Longimanus 27. Darius Nothus
snow is black But he hath also a snatch at me saying that I shewed my heedlesness when I said it was an Addition to the Text that the Gentiles should bring the Jews well let that be examined An addition may be two wayes either in words so it is apparent for the Text says not that the Gentiles shall bring the Jews Or in sense and so it is not said the Gentiles shall bring thy Children by naturall generation which I conceive is the Question but their own But he sayes the very distinction of thy Children from the Gentiles shews it meant of the Jews otherwise it should have been their Children in the third person not thine in the second here is vindice cuneo nodus dignissimus a knot that one may unty with his gloves on They the Gentiless shall bring thy sons that is Sons of the Church and yet the Gentiles Children But who ever interpreted it thus A great writer 1. Tombs B. D. in his Plea for Antidaedobaptists pag. 14. for these are his words The Church is spoken to observe not the Jews and the Children were both the Gentiles Children and yet thy Children that is the Churches Now who shewed his heedlesness But in the same blindfold posture he goes on saying it can not be meant of Gods Children as his for then it should be mine in the first person for God speaks those words Here is an Excellent Grammar-lecture of the distinction of persons for which the Author merits to be Terrae filius the next year But let us look back It cannot be meant of Gods Children â—ayes he as his for then it should be mine in the first person for God speaks those words well God sayes to Moses thy Children which thou hast brought out of Egypt it can not be meant of Gods Children for God speaks the words This is a fallacie a dicto seeundum quid ad simpliciter All this may be easily reconciled They are the Churches Children by spirituall succession the Gentiles by naturall generation Gods by adoption But we might have spared our labour all this while for he denyes not but the words may be accommodated to the times of the Gospel This is something that he is contented with the Adulterous woman that the Child shall be divided and we shall have part but the true Mother will either have all or none How accommodated to the times of the Gospel If â—lterally then not to any historicall thing under the Law If Mystically then it was a Prophesie of a prophesie But without further enquirie this grant is enough for my purpose though not of bringing Infants to Baptism which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another Question yet to prove the Proposition in Question that God foretold that Infants should be Church-members under the Gospel whence Infant-baptism will follow and this hath so much colour from the Text That Master T. for all his experience can put no other colour upon it for if by his own confession it be a prophecie that the Gentiles should bring back the Jews not onely Infants but others from captivity in the letter and type It will follow the Gentiles shall bring back not onely children but others from spirituall captivity in the Mystery and Antitype which his words unawares of him seems to carry when he stiles them the Gentiles Children that is the Churches And this will further appear by considering my answers to his Questions put out Socratically to entangle me and cunningly to darken the Text. Mr. Tombes 11. Section FOr 1. If by standard be meant baptism which the Scripture never calls Gods standard and the bringing should be to Baptism then the sense should be that supreme Magistrates as Kings and Queens should bring Infants in their Arms and carry them on shoulders to Baptism which no story ever mentions to have been done and is too frivolous to be made the matter of that Prophecy 2. The terms nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers shew it to be a Metaphor which Mr. C. granting though it follow not that nothing could be gathered from it yet it follows that Mr. C. application which is according to the proper sense of the words is not right What I said that it was fulfilled in Hesters time I said rightly and Mr. Gataker before me in those annotations of his which are taken for the most incomparably learned and Hâ—ster as a Queen among the Gentiles might well be stiled a nursing Mother to the Jews I will not trouble my self to examine Mr. C. dictates but refer the Reader to the notes of Master Gataker As for that I said that though it should be understood of the times of the Gospel yet it might be meant of growen men perswaded by the preaching of the Gospell as Jun us in his Annot. was true Nor doth the bringing in the bosome being a Metaphor proves they were Infants And if so the Church is spoken to and the Children were both the Gentiles Children and yet â—hy children that is the Churches And so there is no interfering in my words Reply AS it is a Stratagem in War when an Army is brought into a strait and finds it self over-matched with Quintus Fabiâ—â— to parly till they have found an advantage and then suddainly to fall upon the enemy So it is the Trick of a Sophister when he is at a loss in dispute to aske Questions to ensâ—are the aâ—versarie and then with Crocodile â—leights supprise him Mr. T. is very dexterous in this art which he exercised in the dispute asking what I understood by Standard what by Kings what by nursing Fathers I told him that it was not his place to dispute Socratically by asking of Questions but to answer ad oppositum But to give him satisfaction which I needed not by Standard I understood visible holding out of Gospel-Ordinances as Baptism c. By Kings supreme Magistrates By nursing Fathers and Nursing Mothers Patrons and Protectors of the Gospel Now to put a gloss upon his counterfâ—t wares he sayes these Questions were put out needfully to clear the Text that it had no colour for bringing Infants to Baptism whereas he should have said to be visible Church members under the Gospel For 1. sayes he if by Standard be meant Baptism which the Scripture never dalls Standard and the bringing should be to Baptism then the sense should be that supreme Magistrates as Kings and Queens should bring Infanâ—s in their Arms and carry them on shoulders to Baptism which no story ever mentions to have been done and is too frivolous to be made the matter of that prophecie In which word there is neither verity nor consequence if sense Fiâ—st he sayes if by Standard be meant Baptism who makes a Thesis oâ— his Hypothesis or affirms that by Standard is meant Baptism My answer was that by Standard was meant some visible Gospel-Ordinance as Baptism c. to wit preaching praying with many more Now who knows not that there is a difference betwixt Gospel-Ordinances
forth which I think fully answers his Question as also that upon the same ground child is analogum to old and young nomen eisi sit commune ratio tamen ejus est prius perfectius in uno membro analogato quam in alio young children are nearer their birth and more properly called children than they that are stricken in years and remoter from it I imagine Mr. T. when he hears the word child without addition will not thereby understand an old man And whereas he sayes he had hitherto thought that child and parent had been Relatives and that child signifies as well an elder as a younger he may think so still and put all in his eye he gains thereby and see no worse for Relata ad pater filius not pater partus the child who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or partus may possibly be without a Father as our Saviour in respect of his humane nature or the Father may be dead before the child be brought forth yet the child nevertheless is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where is the Correlative that ought mutuo ponere and be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 convertible but he cunningly sayes that he had thought that child and Parent meaning the Mother had been Relatives It seems then these three thousand the Apostle converted and baptized were women but he calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men of Judah ver 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men of Israel 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men and brethren 29. To that he sayes to the verb of the present tense answer is before I say also the reply is before I am sumus ergo pares so I think we are quits To his Question how do I prove their children they had were young children I return how doth he prove 3000. men of Judea and Israel gathered together out of severall Provinces had not at the least some young children The houshold of Lydia Stephanas and the Jaylor may possibly be thought not probably conjectured to be without Infants But that three thousand should be without Infants no man will say but he that is resolved upon contradictions be the evidence never so clear Mr. T. hath been in thâ— army where single men and unmarried men are designed for the service on purpose yet I am confident he could not find out in a body three thousand no nor three hundred scarce sixty together that were without young Children and then shall we think this of the Jews a fruitfull nation that had the further advantage of Polygamie or many wives It would be hard to prove demonstratively that any of the three thousand had Parents Brethren Sisters Masters Servants yet a gross absurdity deserving Sardonick laughter to deny it To my third circumstance in the Text the Finis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the end to whom the promise is to you and your children The Jews children under the Law were in Covenant with their Parents the Charter is confirmed under the Gospel to them and their Children he answers saying it vainly supposed that the promise is to them and their Children as the Jews Children were in Covenant with their Parents I reply the word as may relate either to circumstantials or substantials if his meaning be that the promise is not to them and their Children as the Jews Children were in Covenant in respect of circumstantials I yield it but this is nothing to the purpose But if he mean that the promise in regard of substantials is not to them and their Children as the Jews Children were in Covenant it is so far from being vaâ—n that in that vein hath run the issue of the whole Church fâ—om the Apostles till the German Anabaptists who I know not by what unhappy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corroding burst out oâ— the Channell have begot so dangerous an imposthume or Pleuresie that I pray God it may be cured by Lenitives without Phlebotomie To which dictate of Mr. T. I think it sufficient for the present to oppose the Orthodox judgements of two with neither of which he is to be compared First Whitaker contra Duraeum pag. 685. Circumcisi olim Infantes sunt propter foedus nunc propter candem causam baptizandi sunt id enim ex analogia utriusque Sacramenti necessario consequitur Infants formerly were Circumcised by reason of the Covenant for the same cause they are now to be baptized for that follows necessarily from the Analogie of both Sacraments The other is Doctor Sibbs Phil. 3. 3. pag. 32. who faith The Sacraments before and after Christ were in substance all one as the Church was one and the same they may be said to be baptized as we and we Circumcised as they the difference was onely in the outward Ceremonie and shew which the Church then being young had need of His saying is true therefore let us set Thressâ—m notam a white mark upon it for the rarity as the Jews a Statue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the good Publican Sueton in Flav. Vesp c. 1. that the Text makes it belong neither to Parents nor Children but those that God calls yet his Interrogative point spoyls all which surely I may rather impute to him then he the misquotation Rom. 2. 15. to me But he might have assumed God had called these three thousand Jews Parents and Children Ergo the promise was to them both for though I believe not that the unbelieving Jews had the promise yet I believe these believing Jews that were pricked in heart said men and brethren what shall we do received the word gladly had the promise The Jews before Christs Incarnation had the promise because they believed credenda things to be believed at and after the Incarnation they had the promise continued that entertained Christ they were defeated of the promise that rejected him It is false that I think that the unbelieving Jews sensu composito while unbelieving had the promise and that they were in Covenant in that sense before even the whole Nation They that were in Covenant and visible believers till Christ was revealed not entertaining that further Revelation being a fundamental through invincible obstinacie became Apostates and branches broken off And to his last Question I think Christs blood was avenged upon the unbelieving Jews Parents with Children I think all his blood was expiatory and satisfactory for the believing Jews Parents with Children generibus singulorum to all sexes conditions ages and therefore the remedy as large as the disease So his Questions for all have a whole gross of them are answered Master Tombes 20. Section NExt Mr. C. argues thus They that are holy with a Covenant-holiness are capable of the outward visible part of blessing but Infants of believers are holy with a Covenant-holiness Therefore they are capable of the outward and visible part Of which Syllogism I might have denyed the Major there being a Covenant-holiness according to election which doth not alwaies instate the
matter true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is oft taken in a distinct signification from a veil and not once for a veile therefore not in that place 1 Cor. 11. will not include But his Minor is apparently false as appeared by instance Rom. 11. 16. If the first fruit be holy the lump is also holy and if the root be holy so is also the branches To this he answers saying he confessed at Ross Covenant-holiness was meant by it which are the words of the Argument but not outward holinâ—ss intitling to Baptism which are his own addition but that real saving holiness which is according to the election of grace according to which Jewes elected shall be graff dâ—n again This novel interpretation crosseth Beza who saith children are holy and comprehended in the Covenant from the wombe Bowles who saith they are holy by outward holiness by which they are adjudged to be in Covenant Ravenel who saith sancti id est in foedore Dei comprehensi segregati à prophanis ut non habeantur pro prophanis sed pro Christianis holy that is comprehended in the Covenant of God and separated from prophane that they not be accounted prophane but Christians Diodate who saith the wild branches are the Gentiles inserted into the body of the Church and admitted into the Covenant made with Abraham Wendel who saith vocantur sancti quia foederati they are called holy because in Covenant and that no man may doubt of what holiness he means he sayes est sanctitas externa foederalis an outward and Covenant holiness lib. 1. c. 10. Thes 8. with many more able to swell a volume whose authorities are more authentick than his Mine intended brevity will not suffer me to give reasons of this genuine interpretation onely thus much by the way that holiness is here meant from which the Jewes were fallen and the natural branches were broken off but it was outward covenant holiness from whence these Jewes were fallen and the natural branches were broken off Therefore outward Covenant holiness is here meant The Major is clear in it self and may be further evidenced from the connexion betwixt the 16. and 17. verses The Minor is thus confirmed The Jewes were fallen from that holiness and the natural branches broken off which they were capable to loose but it was outward Covenant holiness from whence the Jewes were fallen and they were capable to loose therefore it was outward Covenant holiness from whence the Jewes were fallen and the natural branches broken off The Minor again is thus proved either they were liable to loose outward Covenant holyness or inward holiness according to election but not inward holiness according to election therefore outward Covenant-holiness Not inward holyness according to election then the immortal seed would dye the gifts and graces of God were not without repentance those whom God justifies them he would not glorifie Rom. 8. 30 Which is to comply with the Papists Pelagians and Remonstrants Secondly that holiness is here meant according to which the branches of the wild olive were graffed in but it was covenant-holiness according to which the branches of the wild olive were graffed in therefore outward Covenant-holines is here meant That it was outward Covenant-holiness according to which the branches of the wild olive were graffed in appears in that it was visible which that according to election is not the branches were visibly broken off they were visibly graffed in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as Beza and the Syriak translates it pro ipsis for them that is in ramorum defractorum locum into the room or stead of the branches broken off Thirdly that holiness is here meant for which the Apostles gives the Gentiles a caveat least they be broken off Rom. 11. 20. Be not high minded but fear but it was outward Covenant-holiness for which the Apostle gives them a caveat least they should be broken off not inward holiness according to election for from that he had assured them they could not be broken off Rom. 8. 1. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus verse the last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am perswaded c. Therefore outward covenant holyness is here meant Fourthly that holiness is here meant according to which the body of the Jewes shall be graffed in again but it is covenant-holiness according to which the body of the Jewes shall be graffed in again therefore covenant-holiness is here meant The Minor is thus made good the body of the Jewes shall be graffed in according to that they are natural branches v. 24. but it is covenant-holiness according to which they are natural branches otherwise all the elect Proselytes and Gentiles though not of the stock of Abraham Job in Syria Abedmelesh in Aethiopia were natural branches therefore it is covenant holiness according to which the body of the Jewes shall be graffed in again Fiftly holiness is meant here in that sense in which it is used 1 Pet. 2. 9. ye are a holy nation but there it is used for Covenant-holiness therefore it is meant here in that sense for the Apostle writ to them as holy according to profession not holy according to election in which sense he was ignorant of their condition and tells some of them 1 Pet. 4. 17. What will be the end of them that obey not the Gospel of God And if the righteous scarcely be saved where shall the ungodly and sinners appear Lastly that holiness is here meant that is in every Epistle stilâ—ng them to whom the Apostle writes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saints or holy but that was a covenant-holiness according to profession not inward holiness according to election which is a mystery as secret as the last judgment which neither Apostle nor Angel nor any save God himself knowes Therefore it is covenant-holiness Mr. Tombes 21 Section I said Ezra 9. 2. holy seed is all one with a legitimate seed according to the Law of Moses Against this it is objected that then the meaning should be The holy seed that is the lawfully begotten Jewes have mingled themselves with the seed of those Lands that is the Bastards of those lands But I deny this consequence The sense is this the holy seed that is those who were descended by lawfull generation of allowed women these have taken to themselves of the daughters of the nations whom God forbade them to marry which is plain out of the verse 1 2. So that the people of the Land with whom they mingled themselves are not considered as illegitimate in their birth but as not allowed to the Israelites and yet the holy seed is that seed which by a right generation according to Moses Law was legitimate As for what he saith that Jepthe was a Saint and yet a Bastard it is true he was holy in one respect as born from above yet unholy by natural birth And whereas he saith Moses had children by an Aethiopian woman and yet not unholy
the contrary thereof even bastards are comprehended but bastards are comprehended under holy seed therefore legitimation is not here meant The Minor is apparent because it is spoken to the whole Congregation whereof some were Bastards and bastard Israelites mingling with the Nations had joyned an unholy seed with a holy and fell under this reproof What Mr. Tombes talks of Jepthe makes him guilty of that he accuses others of running like Ahimaaz without his errand and fighting like the Antabatae with his eyes shut for he never eyes the Question which was not of Jephthe's saintship according to election but covenant-holiness for all he was illegitimate in his birth which gave him capacity to circumcision and other peculiar ordinances of Gods people whereby as the means he attained to be a Saint and justified by faith Hebr. 11. To this Argument Moses had children by the Aethiopian woman but they were not illegitimate Therefore those that were begot by mixture with the Nations were not illegitimate he grants the premises and implyedly the conclusion which is contradictory to his for all he sayes that the Aethiopian woman was not forbidden Not forbidden he means when he marryed her by that positive Law Deut. 7. 3. but long before her death why by virtue of that might not she and her children be put away as well as those in Ezra's and Nehemiah's time But were there not other lawes before that to keep their tribes entire without prophane mixture Nay visible remainders in the Law of nature for breach of which God with indignation expresses Gen. 6. 2. And the Sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were faire and they took them wives of all they chose It was according to this light that Gen. 27. 46. Rebeckah said to Isaak I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth if Isaak take a wife of the daughters of Heth what good shall my life do me And Gen. 28. 8. Esau saw the daughters of Canaan pleased not his father Isaak This I think is sufficient to prove the Aethiopian woman was forbidden Howsoever after that law was given Salmon had children by Rahab who was a Canaanitess and Boaz by Ruth who was a Mobitess and yet they were not illegitimate or unholy in hâ—s canting language To which he answers Rahab though a Canaanitess Ruth a Moabitess when they joyned themselves to the God of Israel were not prohibited nor their children illegitimate which is true and enforceth this conclusion contradictory to his therefore this is the same with Covenant-holiness entituling to Church Ordinances not legitimation unless by consequence intituling to be reckoned in the Genealogy and inheritance of Israel for by being Proselytes they had equal interest to circumcision and all other Ordinances with the native Jewes And though it was an Appendix thereof to be capable of inheritance among the Jewes this can no more be called legitimation than the manumission of a servant that was not free before or the naturalizing of an Alien who was no Dennizen before can be so stiled Mr. Tombes 22. Section THe last Argument Mr. C. used was this They that Christ took up in his arms blessed and said the Kingdom of God belongeth unto them pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would not receive them are holy with a Covenant-holiness 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 In this Argument I denyed the Minor after some debate about the way of forming of it in which I magined that fallacy I do not now upon sight deprehend and particularly I denyed that Christ pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would not receive them Then he alledged Matth. 18. 2. Whence he argued They to whom belongs the Kingdom of Heaven are holy and in Covenant But to little children belongs the Kingdom of Heaven Therefore little children are holy and in Covenant In which Argument any Reader may perceive he proved not that I denyed That Christ pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would not receive little children or Infants and yet that Text he alledged did not say of little cildren that to them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven but those that were not to be offended v. 6. despised v. 10. were to be received in Christs name v. 5. were not little children in age but little ones in spirit which appeared in that they are said to be Believers v. 6. and to be converted and become as little children To which as the Relator himself sets it down Mr. C. said the meaning is not that the little children are converted which is a grant of what I alledged that the little ones not to be offended despised but received were not little children in age but affection of humility Mr. C. added But it hath relation to the disciples in the first verse who must be converted from their actuall sins and become as little children which have no actuall sin At which words it is true I said and that justly o how unhappy are the people that are seduced with these toyes are you not ashamed To which he replyed and it seems is not ashamed that it is printed I see nothing worthy of shame whereas if this speech of his were true then this is a truth except men be converted from their actuall sins and become as little children which have no actual sin they shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven for this is the meaning of Christs words Matth. 18. 3. according to Mr. C. interpretation which whosoever believes must of necessity despair of Heaven sith as James saith chap. 3. 2. in many things we offend all and John 1. Epist chap. 1. ver 8. If we say we have no sin we deceive our selves and the Truth is not in us Reply IT was further evidenced which he calls the last Argument that Infants were holy with a Covenant-holiness thus they that Christ took up in his armes blessed said the Kingdom of God belonged unto them pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would not receive them are holy with a Covenant-holiness But Christ took up little children into his armes blessed them said the Kingdom of God belongeth unto them pronounceth a curse upon those that despiseth and would not receive them Therefore little children are holy with a covenant holiness In this Argument he sayes he denyed the Minor and after some debate about the way of forming of it he imagined that fallacy he does not now upon sight deprehend It is well he acknowledges he hath not the spirit of infallibility he that sees his mistake in this one proposition may have his eyes further opened to discover his errour in the whole controversie His mistakes were two 1. In saying it was a fallacie of heaping many particulars together 2 a copulative proposition