visible covenant And if the hope fullness of our children without the covenant or promise depend onely upon our prayers education example society Their condition even in this also is no better than of Infidels children who if they should live amongst us ought to participate of all these which we ought not to be contented withall seeing God hath enlarged his bounty further but complain of them who deny infants those reall and Scripture-grounded priviledges which would consequently for any thing we know deprive them both of grace and glory We look upon children of believers that die unbaptized through invincible necessity as hopefull despair not wholly of Anabaptists children that through Parents contempt are not baptized It may be he that said Genes 17. 14. The uncircumcised child shall be cut off from his people he hath broken my covenant will not visit the Parents sins upon the children they being federally holy and in covenant their Parents infidelity in that perhaps cannot defeat them though they want the seal And methinks Mr. T. might be ashamed to use this forgery when he had my words before him to say I said The children of Anabaptists are as vile as the children of Turks Tartars and Cannibals when my words were expresly all the Infants of Christians if they were out of covenant would be as vile as the children of Turks Tartars and Cannibals I hope all Christians are not Anabaptists and for the Parents to contemne the seal though commanded is not simply to put the children out of covenant This is not to affright the poore ignorant people as he further traduces me as the Popish priests did of old with a Limbo or Purgatory of Infants but to tell them their danger who detract from or diminish the word and institution of Christ and make the way and entrance into the Church narrower than God hath made it Mr. Tombes 23. Section FOurthly saith he They would be without God without Christ without hope in the World not the children of God but would all be damned for out of the covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation Answ By covenant he means doubtless no other than the outward covenant which is not shewed to be any other than Baptism and indeed we do not otherwise put them out of the covenant than by denying of them baptism which being presupposed Mr. C. speech must needs imply that denying baptism infers all this which cannot be true without conceiving that all that are unbaptized are without God without Christ without hope in the World not the children of God but of the Devill will be all damned have no salvation which is not onely more than what the Epistler makes haynous in me all that would be saved must be baptized after profession though it were understood by me duely of necessity of precept which Mr. C. himself asserts to be imported Mark. 16. 16. but worse than Austin sayes whom Mr. C. himself called the hard father of Infants and sayes went too far worse than Papists themselves speak of the dying unbaptized which shews that he preached this Sermon with a bitter and furious spirit His closing speech out of covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation if understood of the covenant of saving according to election I grant that neither ordinarily nor extraordinarily is there salvation If of the outward covenant as they call it that iâ— ther outward administration of seals it is certain there may be salvation unless profane contempt or wilfull neglect against conscience do hinder salvation The speech Out of the Church is no salvation hath been interpreted by Protestants of the invisible church A person of years that believes though he be joyned to no particular visible Church if there be not prophane contempt or wilfull neglect against conscience may be saved But they that are onely negatively or privatively out of the Church visible meerely for want of age to understand the faith and ability to make profession may ordinarily if it be meant frequently constantly be saved though they be not ordinarily saved are ordinarily notes ordinary means preaching the word and profession of faith Reply THe fourth Absurdity was If Christian Infants were without visible covenant and consequently baptism they would be without God without Christ without hope in the World not the children of God but of the Devill would all be damned for out of the covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is salvation which his answer does not impeach for by covenant I mean outward covenant which is not onely nor properly at all baptism but foederall holyness that as the Directory sayes gives capacity thereto By denying of both of them they put them out of covenant and my speech implyes that denyall of visible covenantship foederall holyness and baptism infers all this which comes far short of that the Epistle relates and the Examiner confesses he delivered in his Sermon for he affirmed there was no hope of salvation to those that were baptized when Infants if they were not baptized again that is that contemned a second baptism as his necessity of precept infers which necessity I onely understand for baptism of Infants and conceive that Austin was called a hard Father of Infants for sometimes holding as well a necessity of means as precept But Anabaptists denye not onely the seal but foederall holyness and visible Church-membership to Infants This I delivered in the Sermon with the spirit of truth and meekeness which for Mr. T. to traduce and aggravate as he does becomes no professed Christian much less a Minister of the Gospell By interpreting my closing speech out of covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation that is out of the covenâ—nt of savâ—ng accordâ—ng to election he makes it a Tautologie and non-sense The word visible added as Epitheâ—e to Church mâ—ght have chalked him out my meaning that out of the outward covenant whâ—ch gâ—ves capacity to the administration of seals is no salvation which seals though we be bound by necessity of precept to accept yet I confess there may be salvation without them unless prophane contempt or some neglect not out of invincible ignorance do hinder the acceptation However that speech of his out of the Church is no salvation hath been interpreted by Protestants it weakens noâ— the truth of mine out of covenant and visible Church ordinarily is no salvation That supposition is vain and implyes a contradiction that a person of yâ—ars should be a believer and be joyned to no particular visible Church congregational Parochial Provincial National c. without prophane contempt or wilfull neglect against conscience for iâ— he receive baptism and other ordinances from any of these he joyns with them if not there is prophane contempt and willfull neglect And indeed is not intelligible how he became a believer without joyning in some measure with some My meaning is out of covenant and visible Church ordinarily is no salvation That is God hath not promised
the root that is the parents the lump the branches that is the Children and posterity And Rom 11. 17. if the Jews were broken off and the Gentiles graffed into their place it will follow that if the Jews were broken off Parents with Children then the Gentiles shall be graffed in Parents with Children But the Jews were broken off Parents with Children Therefore the Gentiles shall be graffed in Parents with Children 9. Arg. If Infants should be out of Covenant under the Gospel many dangerous absurdities would follow First Infants would be losers by the comming of Christ and be put in a worse condition than the Jewish Infants were they with the Parents were admitted to the Seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision and not Children with Parents to Baptism Secondly if Infants should be in Covenant then and not now Grace would be larger under the Law than under the Gospel Thirdly there would be no difference betwixt the Child of a Christian and of a Pagan but all the Infants of Christians would be as vile as the Children of Turks Tartars or Cannibals Fourthly they would be without God without Christ without hope in the world not the Children of God but of the Devil would all be damned for out of Covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation 10. Arg. Lastly that which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success must needs be lawful But Infant-Baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles times Therefore Infant-Baptism is lawful We 'l begin with the first Centurie or hundred years after Christ Dionysius the Areopagite whom the Apostles converted at Athens says Holy men have received a Tradition from the Fathers that is the Apostles to Baptize Infants Clemens who is recorded by some of the antients to succeed Peter in his Ministry at Rome says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptzie your Infants Irenaeus who lived in the second Century says Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est Christ became a little one for little ones sake that little ones might be received into Covenant Origen that lived in the beginning of the third Century says The Church received a Tradition from the Apostles to Baptize Infants and gives a reason because they are born in impurity of sin nay Pelagius a great Scholar who lived in the latter end of this Century though he denyed Original sin yet confessed Infant-Baptism for when they pressed him with this Argument if Infants had not Original sin what need they Baptism he answered that Christ appointed and the Church practised Infant-Baptism not to purge sin by-past but to prevent it for the time to come Cyprian in the fourth Century confirms it in his Epistle to Fidus and gives an account of a Council of sixty six Bishops that decreed that Infants should be Baptized Ambrose says because every age is lyable to sin therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament of Baptism Nazianzene says it is better to Seal Infants with Baptism though they know it not than to leave them unsealed Austin is conceived to go too far who denyed possibility of salvation to them that died un-baptized pressing that place John 3. 5. Except a Man be Born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God The Millevitan Councel in the fifth Century decreed That whosoever should deny that Infants even taken from their Mothers wombs might not be Baptized should be accursed All Churches All ages since agree in this the Harmonies of confessions of all Reformed Churches the Church of England in the Apologie the old Catechism the twenty seventh Article the Directory the greater and lesser Catechism composed by the Assembly of Divines the late Parliament by a further Declaration all confirm it The Canons of our Church did not only in former times declare but the Lawes of our Land did punish Anabaptists as hereticks Mr. Fox in his Acts and Monuments approves of the Albigenses Waldenses Wickliffists Lollards Poor men of Lyons Brownists Barrowists as members of the Reformed Churches but wholly excludes the Anabaptists as erring fundamentally I 'le say no more for confirmation of this polemicall discourse but wind up all with a word of exhortation I beseech you brethren consider what a dangerous errour this is that robbs the Scripture of its truth Infants of their right Parents of their comforts the Church of its members Christ of his merits God of his glory That is the mother of many other errours hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Shakers Levellers they that are above Ordinances Antiscripturians An errour that God hath expressed many signall judgments against as Sleiden and Gastius in Germany and some of our worthies in England have declared As reverend Mr. Cotton tells one of his Apostated flock that had his house burned and his Children in it No wonder that fire seised upon his house and God denyed water to quench it who denyed that water should be brought to Baptize his Infants Secondly consider that much benefit redounds both to Parents and Children by Infant-Baptism First much comfort comes hereby to the Parents when they consider Gods free grace to them and theirs that he is not ashamed to be called their God and the God of their seed after them Hebr. 11. 16. Secondly much benefit comes to Infants by Baptism which the Devill knowes well when he causes Witches to renounce their Baptism when they enter into Covenant with him for they are thereby addmitted into the bosome of the Church devoted and consecrated unto God his Name is put upon them they wear his Royall badge and by it they are distinguished from Heathens And this is so clear from Scriptures truly and spiritually understood That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Now the God of Peace and Truth by his Spirit lead us into all truth keep us pure and unspotted in this houre of Englands temptation and triall keep us faithfull to the death that so we may receive a crown of life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE Arraignment and Conviction OF ANABAPTISM The first Part. Mr. Tombes 1 Section A Plea for Anti-Paedobaptists against the vanity and falshood of scribled papers Entituled The Anabaptists Anatomiz'd and silenc'd in a publick Dispute at Abergaveny in Monmothshire Sept. 5. 165◠betwixt John Tombes John Cragge and Henry Vaughan touching Infant-Baptism By John Tombes B. D. Job 11. 2 3. Should not the multitude of words be answered And should a man full of talk be justified Should thy lies or devices make men hold their peace And when thou mockest shall no man make thee ashamed To be sold at the signe of Sir John Old-castle in Py-Corner Reply A Plea for Anti-Paedobaptists and why Does Mr Tombes intend to commence a suit against the Universal Church and to overthrow the divine institution of Infant-Baptism with the Antiquity Vniversality and Succession thereof Let him first consider whether his Action will hold Plea and whether there may not be
be concluded a continuance of covenant to Infants a continuance of covenant to wives and servants will be concluded Reply MAster Tombes thinking to gain the shore upon this broken plank that the covenant God made with Abraham was not simply everlasting because the Jews possession of Canaan was not everlasting was further assaulted with an Argument drawn from a Gospel-covenant thus That which is a Gospel-covenant is to continue to the end of the world The covenant that God made with Abraham and his seed to all generations is a Gospel covenant Gal. 3. 8. and the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith preached the Gospel before to Abraham saying in thee shall all nations be blessed Therefore it is to continue to the end of the world In which text three things are observable 1. That the Scripture foretold that God would justify the heathen through faith that is the partition wall should be pulled down and the heathen nations should profess faith as visible members whereof some should be actually justified as members invisible 2. That the same Gospel that was afterwards preached to the heathens was first preached to Abraham 3. That in Abraham that is in him as the root whence sprung the branches or in the covenant made with him or in Christ virtually in him by way of excellencie all nations shall be blessed Now instead of direct answer to this he first injuriously misreports my allegation against the law of equity 2. He shoots at his hostem stramineum imaginary Bugbear of straw against the rules of Logick and veritie 3. Having missed his mark with the Dragon in the Revelation he sends floods of reproach after me against the grounds of religion and piety First he injuriously misreports my allegation that I urged this Argument drawn from Gal. 3. 8. to prove that Abraham's naturall seed were promised to be in covenant under the Gospel as will appear to any one that observes the concatenation of the Mediums which loosed into a Sorites presents themselveâ— thus Infants may be baptized because the Essence of Baptism belongs to them The Essence belongs to them because the definition belongs to them The definition of Baptism belongs to Infants because Christ did institute it for them he did institute Baptism for them because he appointed them visible Church-members under the Gospel he appointed them visible Church-members under the Gospel because he promised to Abraham before the Law that they should be received into covenant under the Gospel he promised to Abraham before the Law that they should be received into covenant under the Gospel because he made an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed that is professors and believers whether carnally descended from him or no he made an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed which was not to expire with the Jewish Paedogogie because it was a Gospel-covenant and that it was a Gospel-covenant it was proved Gal. 3. 8. God preached the Gospel to Abraham Now where did I urge that Abraham's naturall sâ—ed were promised to be in covenant under the Gospell Master T. his conscience tells him no where Let him take heed of these untruths that he thinks are officious and pious frauds least they prove malicious and unexpiable without confession and satisfaction Secondly he shoots at his own Idol against the rules of Logick and veritie for having swallowed and digested this untruth that I urged Abraham's naturall seed were in covenant under the Gospel he attempts to disprove it from the Text alledged Gal. 3. 8. because the thing promised as he expresses it with an Emphasis was justification and that of the heathen and that through faith As if all this might not be and yet some of the naturall seed of Abraham be in covenant under the Gospell who professed were justified and had faith as well as the heathen True it is I averred in the dispute and avouch now that Abraham was the root the naturall seed of Abraham though not as naturall were the naturall branches of this Olive and in visible covenant till Christs incarnation and yet not these alone for Proselytes also of every nation were admitted After Christ the Gentiles or Nations as wild Olives were ingrafted into the place of the naturall Olive which in great part was broken off and yet many of the Jews embraced Christ continued in â—he stock and were both the naturall and spirituall seed of Abraham for if Peter Acts 2. at one Sermon converted three thousand how many thousands may we think were converted with all the Sermons of all the Apostles and Evangelists But I never affirmed that the covenant was to be made and continued to the end onely with the naturall seed of Abraham but the quite contrary seeing also the Gentile professors and believers were the seed of Abraham which is plainly expressed Gal. 3. 7. Know ye therefore that they that are of faith the same are the children of Abraham and ver 9. They that are of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham and if the continuation of Abrahams seed had been onely by this spirituall succession it had been enough to prove that the covenant God made with him was everlasting Thirdly by this accuser of his brethren Revel 12 10. being thus cast down ver 15. Casts out of his mouth a flood â—f water ofter me saying had not the man a face which could not blush he would have been ashamed to urge it to prove that Abrahams naturall seed were promised to be in covenant under the Gospell whereas no man whose conscience is not seared and face starched will say that I affirmed Abrahams naturall seed were promised to be in covenant under the Gospell or that I urged that place to prove it Is it no sin first to slander and then to fasten an Aspersion of so deep a dye upon a groundless slander 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pindar Ode 1. The venenâ—ous waspe by shooting out her stâ—ng may very well loose her bowels And because Master T. speaks so oft of a face that cannot blush let him reflect upon his own which as if born under Saturn who is said â—o have murdered his children livoâ—em loquitur speaks paleness and envy which I had thought had been châ—cked with grace till besides his uncivill language in the dispute without provocation he vents so much rancour deliberately in writing Qualiter eruptis corrupta cadavera Tumbis Inficiunt saetore graves imitata cloacas Lurida cum Stygiis glomer antque aconita venenis As gaping Tombes though painted fair With poysoned breath infects the Air And with a scent out-vyes the Jakes Or dampes that rise from Stygian lakes But he goes on in the same Equipage twisting a cord of untruth and reproach together saying that my next allegation is as vain that because Deut. 29. 11. The whole Congregation of Israel are said to stand before the Lord with their little ones to enter into covenant Therefore the covenant Gen. 17. 7. is to
in generall and Baptism in particular as much as betwixt a man and a living creature whereas a Gnat is a living creature genus dâ—â—â—ert ab omnibus suis speciebus simul sumptis multo magis ab una specie But secondly he sayes the Scripture never calls Baptism Gods standard yes even in this place for I had thought the Genus might have been praedicated of the Species though the Species can not be of the Genius And if in no other place of Scripture for perhaps he hath looked over his Concordance this one is sufficient Baptism in Scripture is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a lover of regeneration but once and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put for a vail or covering but once Thirdly he says if the bringing should be to Baptism then the sense which I think is non-sense should be that supreme Magistrates as Kings and Queens should bring Infants in their Arms and carry them on shoulders to Baptism How doth that follow ver 22. I will set up my Standard to the people and they shall bring thy sons in their Arms 23. Kings shall be thy nursing Fathers what was there no people but Kings that they must necessarily be the people that shall bring them in arms either Canaan was very strait or the Kings were very many that it could not hold them ver 20. Nurses that is the Mothers commonly lyes in while the Children are carryed to be baptized and other nurses are often provided after baptism Fourthly he sayes no story ever mentions it to have been done that Kings and Queens should bring Infants in their Arms and carry them on Shoulders to Baptism Truly neither the Text nor any that I know out of the Text affirms it except his dream And if he will give me leave to Criticize upon his Oneirocriticks I must tell hâ—m that I think he is mistaken in saying that no story ever mentions it to have been done To begin with our own times he cannot but have heard that King James in a conference at Hampton Court affiâ—med that rather than his Child should dye unbaptised he would take it up his Arms and carry it to the brook himself And if he will but ascend a story or two higher he shall find out of venerable Bede and others that Ethelwolf King of Mercia being Baptized himself by the perswasion of King Wulfhere brought others Parents and Children to be baptized of Wilfride Edwine King of the Northumbers while he was attending the baptizing of Children upon Easter day was wounded by an Assasinat named Eomer sent by Guicheline King of West Saxons The same night his Queen was delivered of a daughter which upon Whitsunday next he caused to be baptized by Paulinus the Bishop and named her Eanfleda These stories both mentions that such a thing was done and that Infants were baptized which though it proves not exactly in the Letter that Kings have brought Children upon their Shoulders and in their arms yet it proves more than I affirmed that they should be Pations and Protectours of the Church And that is not too frivolous to be made the matter of that propheciâ— a part whereof Theodosius the Emperour accounted a greater honour than to be ruler of the whole world I granted that the terms nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers in the verse following were Metaphors but that nothing could be gathered from it was Mr. T. collection not mine which now he retracts whereas he further addes that my application which is according to the proper sense of the words is not right he either contradicts himself or delivers a strange inconsequence contradicts himself who confesses I granted it to be a Metaphor and not according to the proper sense of the word A strange inconsequence for if nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers verse 23. be Metaphoricall must therefore Gentiles and people and Armes and Shoulders in the 22. be Metaphors What he means by my application I know not but to gratify him further and satisfie the Reader thus I conceive that it is a Prophecy poynting at the time of the Gospell where Christ is the Generall all visible Church-members are his Souldiers fighting under his banner visible Church-Ordinances are his Standard The people not Kings should bring sons in their Arms and Daughters upon their Shoulders to baptism one of these Ordinances Kings should be nursing Fathers that is maintainers and protectours of Baptism and all other Ordinances of the Gospel which hath been verifyed ever since Constantine and Lucius his time Now if it be objected that Infants are uncapable of spirituall warfare I answer it is their mistake who without ground think they are more uncapable of spirituall warfare than temporall for it is a thing well known that in the low Countries the eldest son of a Commission Captain being born there whilst his Father is in the service of the State is by the courtesie of the Camp enrolled in the Souldlers list on his birth day and by the allowance of the State receiâ—es pay from the time of his Nativity In the Christian warfare though Christ alone be our Captain every common Souldier Male or Female enlisted under him derives this Priviledge to all his Children that from their very births they are thus far entred into the Muster-roll of the Church as to receive pay I mean the right and title to the Sacrament of Baptism as being by their very extraction not unclean but Sacramentally holy Fuller Infant Advocate Pag. 99. But all this he checks saying it was fulfilled in Hesters time Hester was wife to Ahasuerus and had power but in one Kings time before he said it was was fulfilled in Cyrus Artaxerxes Darius Ahasuerus times pergit pugnantia secum frontibus adversis componere Horat. Satyr 1. But how he proves that it was fulfilled in Hesters time by two testimonies 1. His own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I said rightly 2. Of Master Gataker who said so before him and that in his Annotations which are taken for the most incomparably learned viz. by Master T. because in this place perhaps they seem to make for him what thinks he of innumerable places that Master Gataker in this cause Interprets against him They are not so incomparably learned why because they make against him so all is resolved at length into his own Testimony by which he makes Master Gatakers notes so Authentick that he refers the Reader to them and will not trouble himself to examine my dictates as he calls them I suppose because they overthrow his application of it to Hester for thus it was answered Hester was a Jew and a friend to the Jews what is this to the Gentiles bringing children upon shoulders And though that should be waved and Hester granted to be a nursing Mother in the Type yet in the Antitype it ayms principally at the times of the Gospel else gross absurdities would follow for what Kings or Queens in Hesters time did bow down to the Jewes with their face towards the
which was done v. 41. to be consequent on that which was done before v. 40. Reply HE denying that these Jewes Acts 2. 38. were sufficiently qualified for Baptism by outward profession or a willingness to receive the ordinance was assaulted with this Argument They whom the Apostle commanded to be baptizâ—d were sufficiently qualified but the Apostle commanded them to be baptized Therfore they were sufficiently qualified He denyed that the Apostle commanded them to be baptized which was proved verse 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imperatively be baptized every one of you his answer was upon condition of repentance repent and be baptized That I told him was a condition of his own making and an adding to the Word of God for the Scripture no where expresly or implyedly sayes that repentance is a condition of baptism if it be meant of compleat repentance for though it 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 is not so much as hinted at all this he passes by which might have given light to that which followes onely â—atches at this what I say that Acts 2. 38. repentance is not maâ—e a condition of being baptized is in his apprehension manifestly false where he unfaithfully reciâ—es my words leaving out that whith is the hinge of the controversie for I said not but granted that repentance was a condition in adultis of being baptized but denyed that compleat repentance was for then none were to be baptized till they were compleat Christians then the Pharisees and others John Baptized were such Then the Apostle preached to baptâ—zed and brought to that perfection three thousand Jewes in one day then the Goaler and his family were perfected in a part of a night Lydia and her houshold with one sermon whereas Mr. T. hath been preaching writing disputing these twelve years for Antipaedobaptism and yet by report hath scarce dipped a hundred and how many of these had compleat repentance I leave it to him that searches the heart it being pretended that the spirit is poured â—ut more abundantly now than it was in former times and his reason is as feeble as the quotation false for the requiring sayes he repentance as first to be done and then Baptism to be annexed doth make it a condition of Baptism To which I answer first incompleat repentance which consists in acknowledging ones former errour and inclining to accept of Christ is a condition requisite and therefore he idly beats the aire Secondly I deny that he requires compleat repentance first to be done Thirdly that he requires Baptism to be annexed to compleat a repentance 1. He requires not compleat repentance first to be done for first repentance is pressed there as the end Baptism as the means repentance is a continued act all our life long Baptism like regeneration but once repentance is the first in intention and therefore oftentimes first expressed as analytically in all practical methods according to Arist 2. Phys cap. 9 t. 69 Finis est unde principium ducitur non agendi sed cogitandi Finis est principium actionum 1. Metaph. 2. Hence arises this philosophical Canon omnis Intellectus operativus incipit a fine every practical act of the understanding begins at the end Therefore 2 he requires not Baptism to be annexed to compleat repentance but presupposes it before it therefore the Catechumeni or converted Pagans in the infancie of the Church and the baptized in latter times in full constituted Churches did promise by themselves or sureties to forsake the Devil the World and the Flesh and to keep all the Commandements So that Baptism does not necessarily pâ—esuppose but is a tye for the future obliging to complete repentance therefore John Baptist sayes Matth. 3. 11. 1 Baptize 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to repentance and they were baptized v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confessing their sins first baptising is expressed then repentance and confessing of sins So that from the order of the words if there be any force in such an Argument we might as well conclude requiring baptism first to be done and then repentance and confession of sins to be annexed doth make baptism a condition of repentance And his Instance is as weak and impertinent believe and thou shalt be saved believe is made a condition of salvation what then Repent and be baptized for it is not repent and thou shalt be baptized therefore complete repentance is made a condition of Baptism a strange consequence and hath couchant two fallacies in it first a secundum quid ad simpliciter for if some thing that is first placed in order be a condition of another as faith of salvation it doth not follow from a particular to an universal that alwayes that which is placed first is made a condition of the latter 2. It is fallacia accidentis but a contingent thing that the former in order is a condition of the latter Me thinks Mr. T. that will allow no Argument from Analogies in positives without a precept should not enforce an Argument from placing oâ— words without a precept But to his Instance believe and thou shalt be saved believe is made a condition of salvation what belief actual For so it s meant Mark 16. 16. What then will become of all Infants unless God work a miracle upon them to use his own parallel as he did upon Baalam's Asse Exam. pag. 134 But as actual belief is pâ—t before salvation so before Baptism that from his ground it will follow none but actual believers are to be baptized which without extraordinary revelation is impossible for the Baptist to know and would be an unanswerable Argument for the Socinians But as believing is placed before Baptism is not Baptism placed before Salvation He that is baptized shall be saved by his Logick it will follow that Baptism is a necessary condition of Salvation why does he then insult so much upon Austin and some of the ancients for holding the necessity of baptism to salvation and against the Doctors of the Church of Rome for maintaining a Limbum Infantum when he furnishes them with a medium to inforce their conclusions If this his assertion hath any truth iâ— it as indeed it hath none Having unfaithfully as you see recited my proposition by concealing the word compleat after it had wrought a while upon his stomack he was forced to vomit it up and with it some gall faying my talk about incompleat repentance because they were pricked in their hearts as a sufficient qualification for baptism doth make the Apostles speech idle which requires that which they had already if I say true Soft and faire let him take patience along with him and look before he leape I say again incompleat repentance not onely because they were pricked
children but of holiness adhering to them outwardly that is of the holiness of the Covenant for the children of believers are comprehended in the Covenant of grace and so far forth are judged holy of God Well said Hugo What now says Master T. to his beloved Pamphilus being defeated of his Philomena but in the language of Charinus nullane in re cuiquam hominum esse fidem Terent. Andr. The Assemby of Divines consisting of a hundred and fiftie Reverend and learned Ministers indeed the Representative of the Church of England crosses him in this First in the Directory pag. 21. Infants are Christians and federally holy before Baptism and therefore are they Baptized and this confirmed by Ordinance of Parliament Larger Catechism pag. 138 Infants descending from Parents either both or but one of them professing Faith in Christ and obedience to him are in that respect within the Covenant and to be baptized Lesser Catechism pag. 176. Infants of such as are Members of the visible Church are to be baptized in both places quoting 1 Cor. 7. 14. else were your children unclean but now they are holy All these he sayes with Vossius Bullinger the Parliament with hundâ—eds more of the greatest lights the world hath had are meerâ— mistaken and that holiness of Children which is menti 〈…〉 1 Cor. 7. 14. is truly said by him to be onely matrimoniall s 〈…〉 iness or legitimation O infallible Oracle Credite me folium vobis recitare Sibylles we have found another Socrates but with this difference 1. The former was judged the wisest man by the Oracle of Apollo this by his own Oracle and opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I truly said The former was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissembling he knew nothing This other is plain-dealing professing in Mysteries the whole Church was ignorant of before he knowes all things I will not loose time nor blur paper about his Triviall criticism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it be the unbelieving husband is or hath been sanctified in or to or for the wife or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believing wife as Beza's Copies hath it Nor will I take advantage of his grant that it is easie for us to bring ten for one who interpret this Text as we do if we understand it of those who are called Calvinists though he thinks scarce so many of the Papists and Lutherans His impertinent quotation of Augustine Tom. 7. de peccat merito remission c. 26. who rejects not the Covenant-holiness but original holiness I will pass by his Acyrology or Catachresis that in impropriety or abuse of speech the sense might be as he conceived it most likely to be thus understood The unbelieving husband though an unbeliever is sanctified that is all one to his wife in respect of the lawfull enjoyment of him as her husband as â—f he were indeed sanctified to God because forsooth Piscator interprets some thing in the fore going verse so Neither will I take notice of the feebleness of his Argument taken from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies chastitie or to be chast therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie so and because it may signifie therefore it does signifie so because they all come from the same root which I believe is untrue for whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy come from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to worship as Jansenius would have it or from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aretius in his Problems or from the Hebrew word signifying a feast as Pasor from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Beda and the best Grammarians it hath no affinity with the forementioned words These with a miscellanious â—ubbidg of much more I supersede whereby like the Limner that could not draw the picture to the life he casts a veil over the face of truth and with that General that durst not face his enimy raises a thick mist that he may march away in the dark But to his answer That 1 Cor. 7. 14. is meant only of matrimonial holiness or legitimation it was thus replyed That which in Scripture is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for matrimonial holiness or legitimation cannot be so meant here but it is taken in Scripture almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for matrimonial holiness or legitimation therefore it cannot be so meant here In stead of answering he goes about 1. To disgrace this Argument and his Opponent saying it is out of Mr. Baxter What then May not I as well entertain truth from him as Mr. Tombes errour from Grotius the German Anabaptists and them of Alba-Julia Whose Monument he does not only prodigiously erect as Artimesia did of her husband Mausolus but with her drinks drown their very ashes Valer. Max. 171. That in England Ireland Scotland his Trophies are erected Barbara Pyramidum sileat miracula Memphis Secondly he sayes That in six hundred times in which holy is used in Scripture in none of them it is found for outward Covenant holyness entituling to Baptism Entitling to Baptism Is there any such thing in my Syllogism Look you never so strictly to that Gamester he will slir a die Etsi non aliquo nocùisset mortuus esset Let us see how he makes that good anon In the mean time observe how he manages his Bactrian like fight tergiversando shooting over his shoulders which he calls retorting and a right way of answering though it be called indirect by the Logicians What Logicians call it a right way of answering Seton in his Officio Respondentis sayes non est fas ut responsor ulla disputanti objiciat aut questiones proponat suum agat negotium id est objecta repetat repellat solvat It is not lawfull for the Râ—…pondent to object any thing to the Opponent or propound Questions let him tend his own business that is let him repeat the Objections repell unty them with him agrees Crakenthorp Burgersdicius and others Neither do I find any thing that makes for him in his sense its true Keckerman System Log. pag. 444. speaks of an indirect Syllogism which concludes by that which is indirect or absurd which by Aristotle lib. priorum cap. 2. is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Syllogism bringing to that which is impossible And 2. priorum cap 15. is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Syllogism of contraries but this is in the Opponent not unmannerly snatching from him by the Respondent howsoever not to be used to invert the order of the Dispute when there is another way of answering But to return to his retorting Syllogism That which in Scripture is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for Covenant-holiness cannot be meant here but it is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for covenant-holyness Therefore it cannot be meant here I might deny his Major which may be false and mine in a contingent
purport but that they knew well those that were baptized before were not to be baptized again And it is neither a Logicall nor Thelogicall conclusion in Mr. T. as proceeding neither from reason nor charity to say from thence its probable that I am a bloudy minded man who would rejoyce to see innocent men put to death when it is well known that even in Abergaveny when the most eminent dipper in these parts was sentenced to death by a councell of war and the Engine for execution prepared I laboured with others what I could to reverse it when that could not be to defer it to procure some liberty from close imprisonment and consequently his escape Methinks if Mr. Tombes out of tenderness of conscience should follow that which he thinks though mistakingly the plain rule of Christ he should be more meeke than causlesly judge it not unlikely to be my aim or my complices in printing the brief relation of a dispute and sermon which suits both with the Laws and Religion of our Land to stir up Magistrates or furious common people against them when he hath printed many Volumes disputing with both whereby both Church and State are disquieted and as the wolf in the fable did the lamb accuses us of that which never entred into our thoughts which he hath effected in part and is to be feared with his complices is further projecting against us The Authors I cite and by citing approve that do make dying the first dipping the second of the significations of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not cross my resolution of the former doubt that baptizing is not dipping but prove it for if there be four manners of Baptizing whereof dipping is but one then baptizing is not onely dipping Species non praedicatur de genere nec cum eo reciprocatur I undertake to prove that Infants may nay ought to be baptized whose Advocate Christ was commanding them to be brought to him that could not come themselves spoke in the behalf of them that could not speak for themselves In subordination to whose will I speak for them in speaking for their Baptism it tending to their good as thereby being made visible members of the Church more compleatly out of which ordinarily there is no salvation Poore they are in regard they are self-helpless Saints or holy in regard of birth-privilege or election of grace whch none but Satan and his complices denyes them The preface which the pittiless Herodian Infanticides oppugne recommends two considerations first that those truthes that were not in controversie in the primitive times the Apostles were not so punctuall in pressing of them seeing there was no need Solon being asked why he made no Law against murderers of Parents answered because he conceived none would commit that unnaturall act If the Apostles had been asked why they did not put down Infant-Baptism in plainer terms they would have answered that none would have denyed it as being so firmly founded in Christs appointment and their practise that the gates of Hell and the Locusts swarming thence in succeeding ages should not prevail against it The second consideration which is not so much taken from Mr. Baxter as Mr. T. his whole fabrick from the German Anabaptists Grâ—tius and the Jesuits is that those things that are pressed oft in the Old Testament are mentioned more sparingly in the New as the Sabbath and Magistracy which he sayes is answered in his answer to Mr. Baxter but so weakly that whosoever reads and understands cannot but be further confirmed against him but I follow him to the view of mine Arguments Mr. Tombes 8. Section HIs first is Those that are in covenant with God ought to have the seal of the covenant which is Baptism But Infants of believing Parents are in covenant with God Ergo. He sayth the former proposition is firm by the confession of all Divines even our adversaries and cites five but not where they say it nor is any one his adversary in this point It is true Ferus was a Popish frier though more ingenuous than the most of them But doth Mr. C. think that we must take that for true which Protestants and Papists do avow without any proof from Scripture If so then let us lay aside the Scripture and read their books But he might know and t is likely did know that I though I will not take on â—e the name of a divine yet have denyed yea and proved his former proposition to be false Exam. part 3. Sect. 1. letter to Mr. Bayly Sect. 3. Antipaedobap or full Review 1. part Sect. 5. Which shall be fully vindicated God assiâ—ting in the Third part yea were his Argument good it would prove Infants were wronged because they had not the communion for I can as well from his own Medium prove that they are to have it as he Baptism Reply THe first Argument is Those meaning under the Gospell that are in Covenant with God meaning outward and visible ought to have the seal of the Covenant which is Baptism But Infants of believing parents are in Covenant with God therefore they ought to have the seal of the Covenant which is Baptism The former proposition I truely sayd is firm by the confession of all Divines even our adversaries meaning Mr. T. himself whose Plea for Antipaed page 12. confesses he affirmed in his sermon that visible Church-members were to be baptized visible Church-members and visible Covenanters are Synonima And that those that were actually received into Covenant might be Baptized to be visibly in covenant and actually received into covenant are both one I cited five more four eminent Protestants Danaeus Davenant Wendel and Perkings One a Papist Ferus who he sayes is more ingenuous than them that are fore-mentioned see his affection and if you please Ferus his ingenuity who upon Matth. 19. sayth juste ac vere ex spiritu Christi ecclesiae etiam pueros baptizat non igitur Christianum sed plane Herodianum vel si mavis Egyptiacum est parvulos populi Dei necare Justly and truely from the spirit of God the Church even baptizeth children therefore it is not a Christan act but plainly like Herod or rather like the Egyptians to murder the little ones of Gods people by denying them Baptism I think we must take that for true which is instituted by Christ practised by the Apostles and all succeeding ages adhere to Scriptures not the writings of a few novel Anabaptists whose dictats poysons the Church I knew that Mr. T. who will not take upon him the name of a Divine yet thinks himself wiser than all the Divines in the World hath denyed and attempted to prove Exam. part 3. Sect. 1. letter to Mr. Bayly Sect. 3. Antipaed 1. part Sect. 5. That those that were in covenant with God had no seal before Abrahams time from Abraham till Christ women were in covenant and not circumcised since Christ the elect are in covenant invisibly before they be members visible