be gathered to be so from the story Mr. Tombes 16. Section FOr sure if infants had been to be baptized Christ would then have appointed them to be baptized and blamed his Apostles for not doing it And therefore Mr. C. questions are answered by Questions 1. Doth Christ take Children in his arms and would he have all put out of his visible Church Answ Doth Christ no more but take them up in his arms lay his hands on them and bless them and shall we presume to do more without any warrant of his even to admit them into his visible Church by Baptism 2. Would he have us receive them in his name and yet not receive them into his visible Church Answ Where doth Christ ever bid us receive little children in age Where did he ever send them That they might be received in his name must we make Christs words to import that which we would in another censure as a spice of madness when he hath told us plainly they are his Apostles and other Preachers he hath sent whom we are to receive in his name Mark 9. 41. Luke 9. 48. though they are as mean and contemptible as a little child How should children be received but by providing nurses would Christ have us provide nurses for little children our Lord Christ expresseth a cup of cold water to drink as some part of the reception in his name Mark 9. 41. Is this a thing fit to entertain an Infant with This is enough to answer Mr. C. frivolous questions And in answer to the words of Master Baxter who is the godly and Reverend Divine he means I say for my part seeing the will of Christ is that I must walk by and his word that I must be judged by and he hath given so full a discovery of his will in this point I will boldly adventure to follow his rule to baptize Disciples professing faith and had rather answer him upon his own incouragement for not admitting by baptism those he never appointed to be baptized than to adventure upon the doing like Uzzah upon mine own head that which doth prâ—sane the Ordinance of baptism and corrupt the Church of Christ Reply MOst surely if Infants had not been baptizable Christ would not have laid his hands upon them and blessed them which presupposeth they were either as most probably baptized before or visible members and capable of Baptism And therefore Mr. T. Questions are answered again by Questions 1. Doth Christ take children in his arms and would he have all put out of the visible Church Answ Christ doth more than take them in his arms for he laid his hands upon them and blessed them and said the kingdom of God was of such and shall not we admit them to baptism an Ordinance which imposition of hands and benediction presupposes 2. Would he have us receive them in his name and yet not receive them into his visible Church Answ Christ bids us Mat. 18. 5. receive little children in age either expresly or à foâ—tiori and Luke 9. 48. which to interpret of Apostles and other preachers sent to be received in his name is a spice of madnesse The words are these Jesus took a child and set him by him and said unto them whosoever shall receive this child not Apostles or Preachers receiveth me and whosoever receiveth me receiveth him that sent me The rest of his expressions relating â—o this second Question are the Paroxysms of a distempered brain and stands in more need of Hellebore to purge than an answer Therefore I say again in the words of Mr. Baxter who is indeed the learned and godly Divine seeing the Will of God is that I must walk by and his word I must be judged by and he hath given me so full a discovery of his will in this point I had rather answer him upon his own encouragement for admitting an hundred Infants into his Church than answer for keeping out one especially after the Anabaptist manner too frequent among us who like Uzzah or the sons of Sheva adventure upon the office of the Ministery without a call or ordination than with Nadab and Abihu offer false fire deliver unsound doctrine than injuriously bereave Infants of baptism and sacrilegiously rebaptize or dip those that were rightly baptized before errour drawes on another Mr. Tombes 17 Section MAster C. sixt Argument is Infants are Disciples Therefore they may be baptized The Antecedent be would prove from Acts 5. 10. in that it was Circumcision which was the yoke which he proves from v. 5. but he confesseth it was not Circumcision onely but the attendants and that it is no shiftâ— but a cleer truth that it is not Circumcision as acted on Infants but as taught imposed on the consciences of believing Gentiles with the rest of Moses his law as necessary to salvation by some Teachers which cannot be said of Infants is so manifest from the Text that I dare boldly say they that assert that by Disciples Acts 15. 10. are meant do but wrangle against clear light and spit against the Sun That the Text Isai 54. 13. is not meant of Infants of believing parents as such but of such as having heard and learned of the father come to Christ is plain from those words of our Saviour John 6. 45. alleadged here by Mr. C. himself as expounding the Prophet Reply MY sixt Argument was All disciples may be baptized But Infants of believing parents are disciples Therefore some Infants may be baptized The Minor I proved from Acts 15. 10. in that it was Circumcision that was the yoke why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples Which I proved v. 5. certain of the Sect of the Pharisees said it was necessary to circumcise them Circumcision with the attendants is the yoke taught to be imposed onely upon the Infants of believing Jewes upon believing parents with Infants among the Gentiles And that it was Circumcision acted appears v. 1. They taught the brethren except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved Moses his manner was Infants of eight dayes old v. 5. they taught it was needfull to circumcise them v. 14. Ye must be circumcised whence it is clear that it is not onely Circumcision taught but acted not acted upon taught brethren onely but their Infants That I dare boldly say they that assert the contrary do but cavill against conscience and with Julian the Apostate throwes the blood of their own self-conviction against the Son of Righteousness That Text Isai 54. 13. is not meant onely of them that having heard and learned of the father come unto Christ but of Infants of believing parents as such which the note of universality intimates all thy children shall be taught of God All but principally Infants which being not capable of the instrumental depend wholly upon the Efficient cause which our Saviours exposition clears for when he applies it to actual hearers he leaves out
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
And in this sense the Gospel-Covenant is made with the whole visible Church being taken without any Synecdoche for every Church-member Otherwise there could be no visible Gospell-Covenant Gospel-Ordinances Gospel-Ministery which must needs take the denomination from the visibilitie of the object and according to this new Tenet would be Utopian and no where Mr. Tombes 9. Section BUt I perceive by Mr. C. words page 30. If the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances which is the Question were onely the elect c. That the terms Church and Covenant were so ambiguously used by him that I knew not how to conceive of his meaning and his fast speaking would not permit me deliberately to consider his words and therefore no marvell I desired liberty to explain my self and to enquire into Mr. C. meaning it being impossible for me otherwise to answer appositely and to make the disputation profitable for finding out truth As for that which Mr. C. saith That it was the Question whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect it doth untruly suggest as if I so conceived who though I hold the Church invisible are the elect onely and that the Gospel Covenant of grace Heb. 8. 10 11 12. is made to them onely yet have still granted that the Church visible consists of others than elect persons and that outward Ordinances may lawfully be administred to them upon their profession of faith in Christ But Mr. C. by confounding those terms To be in Covenant to be subjects of Baptism c. misleads unwary hearers and readers Reply HEre Mr. Tombes like a bad division saltum facit skips over main passages in the dispute that it is needfull to find the end of the thâ—â—ad to guid us in the Meanders of this Labyrinth Then thâ— major proposition by him denyed was thus confiâ—med That which is made to the kâ—â—gdome of God upon earth is not onely made to the elect that which is made to the whole Church visible is made to the kingdome of God upon earth therefore it was not onely made to the elect Here he denyed the former proposition again which was proved thus In the Kingdome oâ— God that is in the Church Militant theâ—e are not onely elect but reprobates Saints but hypocrites for all that are outwardly called are of the kingdom of God in this sense and many are called and few chosen the Kingdome of God is compaâ—ed to a field where there are tares as well as wheat a fold where there are goats as well as sheep To a Noble mans house where there are vessels of dishonour as well as honâ—ur And if the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances which is the Question were onely the Elect then it would follow that there were no visible Church upon earth the Jewes had no more visible Church than the Heathens the distinction of the Church visible and â—nvisible were frivolous for no mo man nor Angell knowâ— who are elect nor any but God All this he passes by and gives no answer to it as if it were a Gordian knot and insoluble onely like Aristotle's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ethic l. 4. c. 1. he catches at circumstances as men when almost drowned do at sticks or weeds for he sayes he perceives by my words pag. 30. If the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect c. that the teâ—ms Church and Covenant were so ambiguously used by me that he knew noâ— how to conceive of my meaning Thus this â—ugler casts a mist before the eyes of the Reader that by the virtue of Hocus Pocus he may seemingly swallow those daggers that he will never be able to dâ—gest But in good earnest were the terms Church and Covenant used ambiguously by me When by Church I expressed my self to mean the whole visible Church as in the major denyed pag. 29. â—nd by Covenant to mean an external covenant made with all vsible Professors in opposition to his Covenant made onely with the spiritual seed of Abraham pag. 14 Whosoever reads the Premises or the relation of the Dispute will find that I spake so clearly distinctly home in these terms that he conceiving my meaning did directly overthrow his gave no answer then nor does yet save this collaterall shift which like the black mud cast over the fish Sepia or Cuttle showes where he was taken But with Reignold he hath more evasions yet for my fast speaking he sayes would not permit him deliberately to consider my words what a sore is this that he layes his finger upon and complaines oâ— almost in every page The truth is I spake no faster than he repeated but faster than he answered That as the Cardinall of Lorrain said at Beza's dispute he wished the people had either been deaf or I dumb But this my fastness would not suffer him deliberately to consider my words If almost three hours time would not suffer him deliberately to consider of that which might have been delivered in one hour yet methinks six months since might But this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Epigram brings forth now as blind whelps as then So that it was a marvell that he desired liberty then to explain himself and to enquire into my meaning which was as transparent as if it had been writ with the Sun-beames but amounts to a prodigie that he should averr so now when he neither did so nor had the least occasion for it Onely when he perceived the people apprehended that he was brought to an apparent absurdity he waded into a large discourse to wind himself out it being impossible for him otherwise seemingly to answer or to make the disputation on his part but sophistically probable but by obscuring the truth But his assertion in the next section is more frontless for thus he charges me As for that which Mr. C. saith it was the Question whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect It doth untruly suggest as if I so conceived whereas the truth is he untruly suggests that which I said not for my proposition was not Categorical as he mis-reports it that it was the Question whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect but hypothetical if the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances which is the Question were only the elect These were my words expresly neither can he drawout by any consequence that I implyed so much for if he rack them upon the Tenters he cannot stretch them to say that the question was whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances was onely the elect but the Question was about the administration of an outward Ordinance to wit Baptism And if I had said that had been the Question as he alledges it I had suggested nothing otherwise than he conceived if we may judge of his conceits by his
19. which amounts to 98 years now could they be 98 years in bringing from captivity that were but 70. years in captivity but I stand not much upon that But that the meaning was not that the Gentiles should bring the Jews Children from Captivitie I urged from the Contents of the Chapter Which though no demonstrative Argument yet far more concluding than his that was but drawn from a single Testimonie The contents are these Christ sent to the Jews complaineth of them to the 5. verse he is sent to the Gentiles with gracious promises 13. Gods love is perpetuall to his Church 18. The powerfull deliverance out of Captivity to the end Which was framed into an Argument thus That which is the judgement of the Church of England ought to be entertained before the groundless assertion of one private man That it points at the times of the Gospel is the judgement of the Church of England Therefore it ought to be entertained before the groundless assertion of one private man Then he denyed the Minor which answer he corâ—oborats now saying that there is not in the Contens of the Chapter which Mr. C. without ground makes the judgement of the Church of England any thing to the contrary but the words which are 18. the ample restauration of the Church 24. the powerfull deliverance cut of Captivity do rather confirme this Wherein he affirms three things which seems to me leavened with much uncertainty if not apparent untruth First that I make without any ground the Contents of the Chapter the judgement of the Church of England It is ground enough that every Bible in the English tongue hath them every Minister almost in the Church of England and many private families publickly read them And grant there had been no Canon to tye no Rubrick to direct it hath been usuall since the Reformation 1. To read the Contents then the Chapter and though it câ—uld not be proved positively such a Parliament Synod Royall assent established them yet it is apparent That every Parliament Synod all authority approved of them in that they permitted the continuance of them And in the latter times when almost all things have been Questioned by some there hath not been for any thing I know so much as a Petition against them by which it is clear that it is not onely the judgement of the supreme Magistracie as Parliaments and Synods which are the Church of England Representatively but of all or the most of the people which is the Church of England essentially and integretly And our strongest Laws in things that are either good in themselves or Adiaphorous are veteres Angliâ— consuetudines If Mr. T. could say as much for his Antipaedobaptism he would conclude contra omnes gentes that as the Donatists said of Africe the true Church had for many years been confined to England I hope then it is not without ground that I said that the Contents of the Chapter are the Judgement of the Church of England which Dr. Willet Dr. Boyse and many others said before me Secondly he affirms that there is in the Contents of the Chapter not any thing to the contrarie but that is was a prophecie that the Gentiles should bring the Jews from captivity from captivity when At their recalling at or near the end of the world to embrace the Gospel That may agree with analogie of faith but neither with the meaning of the place nor his purpose The Contents begin thus Christ being sent to the Jews complaineth of them sent to his own after the Incarnation and they knew him not complaineth of them because his Gospel was a stumbling block to them Now to revolve this back to the reducing from captivity would be a strange Anachronism for the captivity was many hundred years before the Incarnation from the captivity the Persian Monarâ—hie lasted 191 years The Grecian Monarchie 146. The Kingdom of the Maccabees 127. after that Christ was born in the 30. year of the reign of Herod the great verse 5. he is sent to the Gentiles with a gracious promise according to Acts 2. 40. The promise is to you and your Children if you embrace it and to them that are afar off even the Gentiles when God shall call them which Cyprian de duplici Martyrio confirms ecce â Domini redemptoris temporibus anni effluxerunt plus minus 240. jamque hujus vitis palmites latius se sparserunt quam Romanum Imperium It is little more or less saith he then two hundred and fortie yeares since the dayes of Christ the Redeemer and yet in that time the Church hath spread out her branches larger than the Roman Empire quos nulla vis ferri domare potuit emollit sanguis agni candidi and they whom no power of the sword was able to daunt are made peaceable and tame by the blood of the unspotted Lamb. Now to recapitulate this That which makes for the rejection of the Jews after the Incarnation and calling of the Gentiles hath something to the contrary that it was not a prophecie that the Gentiles should bring the Jews Children from Babylonish Captivity There is something in the Contents that makes for the rejection of the Jews after the Incarnation and calling of the Gentiles Therefore the Contents of the Chapter have something to the contrarie that it was not a prophecie that the Gentiles should bring the Jews Children from Captivity His third allegation is that the words 18. the ample restauration of the Church 24. the powerfull deliverance out of captivity do rather confirm that there is something in the Contents of the Chapter that the Gentiles should bring the Jews Children from Captivity We shall see that by framing it into an Argument The ample restauration of the Church the powerfull deliverance out of Captivitie is promised therefore there is something in the Contents that the Gentiles should bring the Jews from Captivity I deny the consequent for that ample restauration of the Church is meant of the Gentiles graffed into the stock of the Jews broken off That powerfull deliverance out of Captivity is that which was effected by preaching of the word in the evidence and demonstration of the spirit and power when the Gentiles were delivered from the Captivity of sin Satan and heathen Idols and this is very clear compared with the former and his consequent so irrationall that the people in the dispute laughed at it in which he says now they shewed their ignorance As I did not then neither do I now approve of their laughing yet I think he cannot prove they shewed their ignorance unless in this practicall Axiome that errours are rather to be pittyed in brethern then laughed at But if he means they shewed their ignorance in not understanding his consequence I must profess my self to be amongst those ignorant and so I believe will the most that hears it in which he will as soon perswade any rationall man as Anaxagoras that the
I grant it For the Aethiopian woman was not forbidden Nor were Rahab though a Canaanitess nor Ruth a Moabitess when they joyned themselves to the God of Israel prohibited or their children illegitimate yet this is not the same with covenant-holiness intituling to Church Ordinances but legitimation intituling to be reckoned in the genealogy and inheritance of Israel Reply MAster Tombes his retorting Argument vanishing like a Comet in smoak and stink 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eurip. I returned from whence by his irregular motion we had digressed and proved that holyness is never taken in Scripture for Matrimonial clearness in opposition to illigitimation not in that place Ezra 9. 2. The holy seed have mingled themselves with the seed of those lands which is either his only or principal hold as far as â—s gatherable out of his books therefore in no place Then he denyed the Antecedent which unsound answer he now paints over thus saying he said Ezra 9. 2. Holy seed is all one with a legitimate seed according to the Law of Moses for this heterodox dictate he brings neither reason nor Testimony no not so much as Phifer Muncer or Knipperdoling but onely his own Sultan-like breath I say so therefore it is so it must be so To which it is sufficient for the present to oppose two which were of greater esteem in the reformed Churches than ever he was or I think will be 1. Peter Martyr Loc. Com. mun class 4. c. 8. Si tantum civilem puritatem prolis inde susceptae adduxeris quid nobis magis tribues quam infideles habeant illorum enim filii si ex matrimonio procreentur legitimi sunt ut justi haeredes admittuntur quare videtur quidem aliud judicasse quod liberis infidelium non sit datum sed quod ad ecclesiam Dei pertineat ad electionem promissionem If thou shalt onely bring in a civil purity from one or both parents being believers what wilt thou afford us more than Infidels have For their children if they be born in marriage are legitimate and are admitted as lawfull heirs therefore the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. and so here Ezra seems to have holden out some other thing that may not be given to the children of Infidels but that appertains to the Church of God and to election and promise 2. Paraeus in locum etiam mere infidelium liberi noscuntur legitimi nihil igitur conjugibus istis tribueret prae mere infidelibus The children even of meer Infidels are born legitimate therefore it would attribute no more to those yokes than to mere Infidels Against his interpretation it was further objected if it be meant of matrimonial cleanness than this must be the meaning of the words 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 that cannot be the meaning for haply there were some bastards among the Jewes and in that sense not holy and no bastards among the heathens but all or the most legitimate and therefore in that sense not unholy therefore it â—s not meant of matrimonial holiness He denyes the consequence which is proved thus If God forbid the holy seed to mingle with none but them that are unholy which he interprets bastards then it will follow 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 God forbids the holy seed to mingle with none but them that are unholy therefore it will follow 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 The consequence is evident If God forbid them to mingle with none but those that are bastards in his sense the meaning is the legitimate of the Jewes have mingled with the bastards of the lands The Minor that God forbids the holy seed to mingle with none but them that are unholy is apparent from the opposition implyed in the Text the holy seed have mingled themselvs with the people which argues the Jewes had that holiness the people had not otherwise the speech would be incongruous and the people might reply we if it be but meant of legitimation are as holy as you and that the Jewes had a particular outward holiness which other Natiâ—ons were not capable of appears by their washing of their garments as thinking themselves prophaned when they touched them but in the market-place which distinction of holy and unholy in this sense remained till Peter's vision Acts 10. Where v. 11. 12 a certain vessel descended unto him as it had been a great sheet wherein were all manner fourfooted beasts of the earth and wild beasts and creeping things and fouls of the aire whereof some were clean some unclean The clean represented the Jewes before Christ the unclean the Gentiles v. 13. There came a voyce to him rise Peter kill and eat v. 14. Peter said not so Lord for I have never eaten of any thing that is common or unclean Common or unclean are in opposition to holy and is the word used 1 Cor. 7. 14. else were your children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unclean 15. That God hath clensed call not thou common that is count not thou the Gentiles unholy whom God intends henceforth to graff into the stock of the natural olive and to esteem them holy holy now all potentially as having a capacity the partitian wall being pulled down actually when they give their names to Christ So that the sense is not as he sayes 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 forbad them to marry but thus the holy seed that is the Israelites that are in Covenant with God have taken to themselves of the daughters of the nations whom God forbad them to marry being not in covenant with him which is plain out of the verses 1 2. So that I confesse the people of the land with whom they mingled themselves are not considered as illegitimate in their birth though that will inevitably follow from the antithesis if his interpretation be admitted but as not allowed to the Israelites who were to marry none but they that were holy and in Covenant Therefore the Nations are not simply excluded as such but as unproselyted And the holy seed is not that seed which by a right generation according to Moses Law was legitimate Then those Apostate Jewes husbands and wives we read of in Buxtorfius and Maymonides being by a right generation according to Mose Law legitimate were a holy seed for all they uncircumcised themselves than which nothing can be more absurd and all the Jews persisting in covenant whether legitimate or illegitimate were a holy seed Hence results this Argument That holy seed is not here meant in which
ones and boyes These that were new born are the baptized in Scripture-phrase Tit. 3. 5. baptism is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washing of the new birth which to be so meant Master Mead in his Diatriba thinks none will deny Master Tombes 25. Section ORigens speeches are in the Latine books translated by Ruffinus into which many things were foysted by him and these its probable were so as being so express against the Pelagians nor do I find he was ever alleged by Austin who gathered the most antient testimonies he could for originall sin and infant-baptism Therefore saith Vosâ—ius in his Theses of infant baptism we less care for Origen because they are not in Greek Cyprian's testimony is granted to be in the third Century and Ambroses and Austins and the Milevitan Councils and inâ—umerable more but all upon the Popish errours of giving grace and the necessity to save a child from damnation Gregory Nazianzen and Tertullian before him disswade from it except in case of danger of death in appearance near out of which case the antients did not baptize infants and in that case the Communion was given them But otherwise they baptized not infants no not of believing Parents till they came to years and then they were first Catechized in Lent and then solemnly baptized at Easter and Whitsuntide as may be gathered even from the Common Prayer Book in the Rubrick before Baptism Reply ORigen that lived in the beginning of the third Century sayes The Church received a tradition from the Apostles to baptize Infants and gives a reason because they are born in impurity of sin what is added is ingenuously confessed by Ruffinus the Translator himself Erasmus Perkins nor any that plays the Critick upon him impeaches him in the fore quoted place A negative argument from Scripture in matter of fact will not conclude shall Austins non-allegation then of Origen or which is more ridiculous Mr. T. not finding it disparage the authority of Origen Vossius in his Theses of infant baptism less cares for those parts of Origen that are not in the Greek yet does not wholly discard them some testimonies may be more authentick than others yet all creditable 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 Originall 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 This Mr. T. ingenuously passes by as unanswerable and by silence gives consent Cyprian confirms it in his 59. Epistle to Fidus and gives an account of sixtie six Bishops that decreed that Infants should be baptized Ambrose sayes because every age is lyable to sin therefore every age is â—it for the Sacrament of Baptism Nazianzen sayes it is better to Seal Infants with Baptism though they know it not than to leave them unsealed Austin Serm. 15. de verb. Apost speaking of Infant-Baptism sayes The Church alwaies had it alwaies observed it received it from the faith of their Ancestors keeps it with perseverance to the end The Milevitan Councill decreed That whosoever should deny that Infants even taken from the Mothers wombs might be Baptized should be accursed All this he grants yet blasts it as his brethren of Transilvania did the Trinity with this infectious breath that they were all upon the Popish errours of giving grace and the necessity to save a child from damnation when Popery was not yet nor was this the errour of all or any of them finally as Dr. Hâ—mes hath proved or if it were shall the abuse of a thing take away the lawfull use much less the evidence of fact which is the Question How Gregory Nazianzen and Tertullian before him disswades from it except in danger of death is formerly answered It was either Pagans or if believers to consult their bodyly health they did the like to young men unmarryed that were converted and widows neither do we find they prevailed in the least against the generall practice of Infant Baptism which was so inviolable that as the Question is stated I think he cannot shew one instance to the contrary If some gave them the Communion iâ— no more impeaches the lawfulness of their Baptism than the Jesuits joyning spittle Salt exorcism in Baptizing the Indians of years does Mr. T. supposed Baptism of believers That unless in danger of death the antients Baptized not Infants is as loud a lye as any is in the Golden legion Ovidâ— Metamorphosis or Lucians Dialogues The Rubrick of the Common Prayer book before Baptism makes no mention of Catechizing in Lent much less that believers Infants were not Baptized till they came to years but that the Sacrament of Baptism in the old time was not commonly ministred but at Easter and Whitsontide He that thus falsifies an evidence that every Boy or Girle that can but read may check him in Judge what he does with the Greek and Latine Fathers Mr. Tombes 26. Section IT is most false that all ages all Churches agree in infant baptism some Churches never had it Some Churches five hundred years agâ— of the godly and learned that then were did oppose it and practice the baptism of believers onely If Mr. Fox and others did account Anabaptists Hereticks it was for other Tenents than this Master Baxter himself saith no sober divine did ever reckon the Anabaptists as Hereticks meerly for the errour of rebaptizing plain Scripture proof c. part 1. chap. 1. yet Mr. C. bespatters Antipaedobaptism thus it robs 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 Sure he hath learned the art of him in the Comaedian to calumniate boldly imagining something will be believed though there be not a word true But there is more of this venom behind That it is the mother of many other errours Hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Quakers Levellers they that are above ordinances Antiscripturians will any believe that from the Tenet which doth so stifly maintain an ordinance should spring the errour of being above ordinances Or that the errour of Antiscripturians should spring from that Tenet which doth sâ— strictly insiâ—t on the Scripture Let Mr. C. shew any the least connexion between Antipaedobaptism and the errours he names and he saith something else if onely the persons and not the Tenet be guilty of these errours he doth but calumniate He might with like reason say The Christian Religion is the Mother of many other errours hence sprung Ebionites Corinthians Nicholaitans Gnosticks c. such kind of criminations are most stinking and base slanders unworthy a sober minded man much more a Divine in the Pulpit speaking to many people who examine not but take all for true which such Rabbins talk with confidence
Reply IT is most true That all ages all Churches agree in Infant Baptism He cannot name one Church one particular Congregation that never had it I have already proved it a meer fiction that any Church five hundred years ago either opposed it or practised the baptism of believers onely Master Baxter challenges him to name one man that was against or did once question Church-membership of infants from the Creation till two hundred years ago and less which challenge is not yet answered To these I further added the harmonies of confessions of all Reformed Churches the Church of England in the Apology the old Catechism the twentie seventh Article the Directory the confession of faith the greater and lesser Catechism composed by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster and approved by the Generall Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland the late Parliament by a further Declaration all confirming it The Canons of our Church did not onely in former times declare but the Laws of our land did punish Anabaptists as Hereticks Master 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 wholy excludes the Anabaptists as erring fundamentally He passes by all these as Forts impregnable onely parlyes with Master Fox saying If he did account Anabaptists Hereticks it was for other Tenents than this to wit re-baptizing yes for denying Infants Church-membership Covenant-holiness and baptism which are enough But those are not all like Gad it goes with a Troop attending it But he relieves himself from Mr. Baxter crying quarter from an enemy who said no sober Divine did ever reckon the Anabaptists as Hereticks meerly for the errour of rebaptizing This will throw Master Tombes upon the horns of a dangerous Dilemma for if they be not Hereticks Master T. is no sober Divine for calling them Hereticks and a litter of grievous Wolves Treat of Scandals pag. 323. If he be a sober Divine Then they are Hereticks utrum horum let him choose whether he pleases But Mr. Tombs perhaps meant and Mr. Baxter sayes meerly for the errour of rebaptizing It s true There is Infant Church-membership and baptism besides which being denyed with making a party and division Mr. Baxter demonstrates monstrates how dangerous and hereticall it is Therefore I truly said Anabaptism with its attendants was a dangerous errour that robbes 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 whereof every word is true and free from the calumniating art of Machiavell studyed so much by the Anabaptists which he falsly attributes to the Comaedian In what Comaedy Asinaria I further averred at which he disgorges his venom That it is the Mother of many other errours hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Quakers Levellers they that are above Ordinances Antiscripturians for it stands with reason and Gods just judgement that Satan the Serpent having winded in the head by making them deny Infant baptism winds in further by degrees to the denyall of all baptism Communion Ordinances And having rejected plain Scripture-proof for Infants Church-membership and baptism are infatuated by degrees till they deny all Scripture According to Mr. Sidenham Anabaptism hath been alwaies ominous and of a wonderfull strange influence accompanied with the most dangerous retinue of errours since the first Embrio of it was brought forth whether from a judgement of God or from its naturall and secret connexion with other principles of darkness God hath shewed some black Characters on it in every Nation where it prevailed It is voyd of reason to say that the Christian Religion which is the Mother of truth should be the Mother of errour Ex veris nil nisi verum The Ebionites Corinthians Nicholaitans Gnosticks sprung from the corruptious of men transgressing Scripture-rule And it is somewhat blasphemous to compare Anabaptism to Christian Religion the one proceeding from the Holy Ghost the other from an impure Spirit The Helchesaits a kind of Anabaptists as Bullinger sayes adversus Anabaptist Cap. 2. did boast they had a Book sent from Heaven wherein mysteries were contained which whosoever heard read should have pardon of sins Nicholas Stock gave it out as Guy de Bres lib. 1. cont Anabapt That God spake to him by an Angel and revealed to him his will in dreams promising him the place of the Angel Gabriel Muncer told his Souldiers as Sleiden Comment lib. 5. God had revealed unto him that the day should be theirs Tuscoverer as Gastius sayes told the people God had revealed unto him that John of Leyden should have the Empire of the whole world Do not our Quakers Levellers those that are for a spirituall Monarchy which are all Anabaptists affirm the like And if Mr. T. must have a further connexion between Anabaptism and the errours I named it s this to use his own words They are the litter of the same Wolf fruits of the same Spirit which being their own confessions recorded by learned and Godly Authors are no criminations or base slanders but truths beseeming sober minded men and especially Divines in the Pulpit whose charge it is to look to their flock that they be not worryed by that litter of grievous Wolves Mr. Tombes 27. Section THe like I say of the Judgements of God Those in Germany were by war the events that have happened in our days should teach us to be sparing in our Judging Mr. Cottons speech was according to his prejudice Solomon Eccles 9. 1 2. Chr. Luke 13. 1 2 3 4 5. â—eacheth us more sobriety than so easily to pronounce of Gods judgements If we should judge of men and Tenents by outward judgements Job had been condemned justly One man had his house burned that did not sprinkle his child thousands have had their houses burned who did and perhaps upon occasion of that abuse by means of provision for the feast May not we as well say God thereby judged against infant sprinkling Thousands have prospered after their refusing to baptize infants thousands have falln into calamities after they have baptized them May not we this way as well decide for Antipaedobaptists as against them Divines that maintain the Scriptures to be their rule should not thus judge of what is true or false by Gods dealing with mens persons which is often upon secret reasons not discernable by us but by his word which is our rule and wherein he hath revealed his mind The rest of Mr. C. speech is as vain Doth this benefit come to Parents and children by infant baptism that God is not ashamed to be called their God and the God of their seed after them Heb. 11. 16. what a ridiculous conceit is this The text saith that through the faith of the persons it is that God is not ashamed to be called their God not their God and the God of their seed much less a word of infant
day all of you before the Lord your God your captains of your tribes your elders and your officers with all the men of Israel your little ones T. He said that he should have proved that it should continue to infants to the worlds end for he did not deny but that infants in some sense were in covenant under the Law but not under the Gospell C. Yes under the Gospell If Christ hath obtained a more excellent Ministerie and is a Mediator of a better covenant which is established upon better promises then if infants were in covenant under the Law they are in covenant under the Gospell But Heb. 8. 6. Christ hath obtained a more excellent Ministery was a Mediator of a better covenant which was established upon better promises Therefore if infants were in covenant under the Law they are in covenant under the Gospell T. He denyed the consequence of the Major that though the covenant of the Gospell was a better covenant than that of the Law yet infants were not in covenant as well under the Gospell as under the Law C. Which was thus taken away That which unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation cannot be a better covenant But to deny infants to be in covenant unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation Therefore it cannot be a better covenant T. Without repeating the Syllogism or denying either of the Premisses or formally applying any distinction he said the covenant under the Gospell was made onely with the spirituall seed of Abraham C. Which was thus disproved If the covenant was made in the same manner and extent to the Gentiles as to the Jewes 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 Jewes Therefore under the Gospell it was not onely made to the Spirituall seed T. He denyed the Minor C. 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 T. He denyed the consequent that though the partition wall was taken down and both Jew and Gentile are all one in Christ Jesus seeing the Gospell was offered to all nations Yet under the Gospell the covenant was onely with the Elect and believers C. Which was confuted thus That which is made with the whole visible Church is not onely made with the Elect and true beâ—â—evers But the covenant is made with the whole visible Church Therefore not onely with the Elect and true believers T. He denyed the Major C. Which was proved thus That which is made to the kingdom of God upon earth is not onely made to the Elect But that which is made to the whole Church visible is made to the kingdom of God upon Earth Therefore it was not onely made to the Elect. T. He denyed the Major that that which was made to the kingdom of God upon earth is not onely made to the Elect. C. Which was proved thus In the kingdom of God that is in the Church Militant there are not onely Elect but reprobates Saints but hypocrites for all that are outwardly called are of the kingdom of God in this sense and many are called but few chosen The kingdom of God is compared to a field where there are tares as well as wheat a fold where there are goats as well as sheep to a noble mans house where there are vessels of dishonour as well as honour And if the Church in regard of outward administration of ordinances which is the Question were onely the Elect then it would follow that there were no visible Church upon earth the Jews had no more visible Church than the heathens the distinction of the Church visible and invisible were frivolous for no man nor angell knows who are Elect nor any but God To which issue the first branch of the Argument being brought Mr. C. referred the judgement of it to the people And proceeded to the second that God foretold under the Law that infants should be Church-members under the Gospell T. Mr. T. perceiving that the people apprehended that he was brought to an apparent absurdity would have waded into a large discourse to wind himself out C. But Mr. C. told him that it was his office being Respondent to deny or distinguish but not authoritatively to determine the question as if he were the Dr. of the chair And with much ado the Anabaptists crying let him have liberty to speak on brought him to dispute again and to turn to Esay 49. 22. Whence he framed this Argument He that foretold that he would lift up his hand to the Gentiles and set up a standard to the people and that they should bring their sons in their Armes and their daughters shall be carryed upon their Shoulders foretold that infants should be Church-members under the Gospell But thus saith the Lord God Behold I will lift up my h 〈…〉 to the Gentiles and set up my standard to the people and they shall bring thy sons in their Arms and thy daughters shall be carryed upon their shoulders Therefore God foretold that infants should be Church-members under the Gospell T. He denyed the Major And said the meaning was that the Jewes should bring the Gentiles children C. To which he replyed God sayes I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles and they that is the Gentile shall bring thy sons and Mr. Tombs says the Jews shall bring thy sons Then a Gentleman read the words and said it is the Gentiles shall bring c. T. Then Mr. T. recollecting himself said the meaning was the Gentiles should bring the Jewes children from captivity And that it did not point at the time of the Gospell C. To which was replyed the contents of the Chapter sayes that it points at the time of the Gospell Mr. Tombs says it points at the time of the Jewes captivitie whether shall we believe and repeaâ—ed the contents Christ being sent to the Jewes complaineth of them to the 5. verse he is sent to the Gentiles to the 13. verse Gods love to his Church to the end then the people laughed c. The pâ—th of which was framed into an argument thus That which is the judgement of the Church of England ought to be entertained before the groundles assertion of one private man But that it points at the time of the Gospell is the judgement of the Church of England Therefore it ought to be entertained before the groundles assertion of one private man T. He denyed that it was the judgement of the Church of England C. Which was thus proved If the Church of England causes it to be printed and commands it to be read before the Chapter then it is the judgement of the Church of England But the Church
we then refuse to receive them or acknowledge them the subjects of his visible Kingdom will it not follow then that whosoever refuseth them refuseth Christ and him that sent him For my part to use the wordâ— of a godly and learned divine Seeing the Will of Christ is that I must walk by and his Word that I must be judged by and he hath given me so full a discovery of his Will in this point I will boâ—dly adventure to follow his rule and had rather answer him upon his own incouragement for admitting an hundred Infants into his Church than answer for keeping out of one Arg. 6. All Disciples may be Baptized But Infants of believing parents are Disciples Therefore some Infants may be Baptized The Major or former proposition is granted by our adversaries who translate that place Matth. 28. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 go make Disciples of all Nations which is in our last translation Go â—each all Nations confessing as soon as they are Disciples they may be Baptized Now for the Minor that Infants are Disciples is evident from Acts 15. 10. Why tempt yee God and put a yoak upon the neck of the Disciples this yoak was Circumcision and the attendants of it as will appear by comparing it with the fift verse and the context from the beginning of the Chapter Now among the Jews children were onely to be Circumcised and amongst the Gentiles children together with parents when they were converted and became Proselites To say that not onely Circumcision but the Doctrine and Observation of the whole Law by the yoak is meant is but a shift Circumcision was the Seal or Ordinance by which the Jews were bound to observe the Doctrine and the Law and all those upon whom the yoak was layd by Circumcision are called Disciples whereof Infants were a great part And if it be objected that children are not capable of instruction as it is nothing to the purpose so it contradicts Scripture Esay 54. 13. And all thy Children shall be taught of the Lord and great shall be the peace of thy Children And if any one carnally interpret this of the Jews return from captivity as they do other places of Esa our Saviour checks them John 6. 45. And It is written in the Prophets And they shall all be taught of God Arg. 7. All that have faith may be Baptized But some Infants have faith Therefore some Infants may be Baptized The proposition none will deny the Minor may be proved by severall reasons First Christ expresly calls them believers Matth. 18. He attributes humility to them and faith and commands Elders to imitate them and that you may see they were Infants Mark 9. 36. tells us they were such as Christ â—ook up in his armes Secondly they are said to receive the Kingdom of God Mark 10. that is the grace of God Remission of sins and life eternall now the Kingdom is not received but by faith in Christ Thirdly they please God therefore Christ blesseth them but without faith it is impossible to please God Fourthly either faith must be allowed them or salvation denyed them but the latter is cruell and impious therefore the former must be godly and pious faith onely purifies the heart but no unclean thing shall enter into Heaven Fiftly though Infants cannot make actuall profession of faith yet they may have inward roots of sanctification and faith John Baptist and Jeremie were sanctified in their mothers wombs let carnalists say what they will that is the principal meaning of that place Esay 65. 20. There shall be no more aâ— Infant of days The Jews thought they were not sanctified unless a Sabboth went over them the child shall dye an hundred year old that is as well in Covenant with God or a visible Church-member as if he were a hundred years old Therefore Paraeus sayes Infantes Ecclesiae etiam ante Baptismum censentur fideles Infants of the Church even before Baptism are judged faithfull Hommius sayes Infants have faith in semine in the seed though not in messe in the harvest Beza sayes they have faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in power though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in operation Faith says Trelcatius is two-fold 1. Active which the Elder have by hearing the Word 2. Passive and by imputation which Infants have by vertue of the Covenant and Divine promise Pelagius asks Austin where he places Infants Baptized he answers in numero credentium in the number of believers and addes nec judicare ullo modo aliter audebis si non vis esse apertè haereticus neither may thou presume to judge otherwise if thou wilt not be a plain Heretick We 'l conclude this with that of Vossius As in naturals so in supernaturals we must distinguish these three things power habit and act there is the power of reasoning in Infants the habit in men sleeping but the act and exercise in them that are waking the power answers the seed the habit the tree the act and exercise the fruit the seed of Faith may be in Infants the habit in men of age but the act and exercise in them that work according to the habit 8. Arg. Those that are Holy with a Covenant-holiness may be Baptized But Infants of beleeving Parents are Holy with a Covenant-Holiness Therefore Infants of beleeving Parents may be Baptized Eor the former Proposition foederatis competit signum foederis says Vossius the sign of the Covenant belongs to them that are in Covenant Holiness is twofold says Bullinger either of Faith or of the Covenant Ezra 9. 2. Ye have mingled the holy seed that is them in Covenant with the Nations that is them that are out of Covenant Thus you see that Covenant-holiness is no gibberidge but grounded upon Scripture and avouched by learned men as shall more fully appear The Minor that Children of beleeving Parents are holy with a Covenant-holiness is clear from 1. Cor. 7. 14. Else your Children were unclean that is not in Covenant but now they are holy that is in Covenant thus besides the ancients Sharpius and Peter Martyr interpret it and Hugo Grotius himself Non loquitur Apostolus de Sanctitate naturali c. The Apostle says he speaks not of natural holiness and inhering to the nature of Children but of an holiness adhering to them that is the holiness of the Covenant for the Children of beleevers are comprehended in the Covenant of grace and therefore accounted holy of God To interpret it as the gross Anabaptists do that they are holy that is no Bastards is a new holiness not heard of in Scripture and as Doctor Featly says a Bastard exposition and Pareus gives the reason if the Children of beleevers be therefore holy because they are no Bastards the Children of Pagans are as well holy for they are also no Bastards If the first-fruits be holy the lump is holy and if the root be holy so are also the branches Rom. 11. 16. The first fruits and
Anabaptists out of which he picks two propositions and then plants his Ordinance against them The former is the saying of Augustin That which the whole Church holds was never begun by any Councel but alwayes observed cannot otherwise be believed but that it came from the Apostles The later is The whole Church always held Infant-Baptism both these he denies which are both Austins The former de Bapt. contra Donatist lib. 4. cap. 23. The later Serm. 15. de verb. Apost I le begin with the former 1. Applying to the Test the proposition then examine the sandy ground upon which he denies it The proposition which he calls Austins rule is That which the universal Church holdeth and was not instituted by Councels but hath been ever held was not delivered but by Apostolical Authority This I undertake to make good 1. Distinguishing of Church 2. Of the Object or that which is holden of the Church Church is sometimes taken for the representative of the Church and that according to the extent or restraint provincial National or Oecumenial Sometimes it is taken essentially as some call it or integrally for the body of professors living at the same time and this either for the major part which as in Councels obtaines the denomination of the whole or of the whole made up of integrall parts without any considerable exception Sometime it is taken for all professors of all times whether since the death and expiration of the Apostles or since our Saviours commissioning of them after his resurrection or full qualifying of them upon the day of Pentecost after his ascension while as Egisippus said the Church continued a pure Virgin Secondly we must distinguish of the Tenets or things holden by the Church which is either matter of Doctrine or Discipline Discipline grounded upon Scripture binding and necessary Or Adiaphorous of Ecclesiastical institution and arbitrary These grounds thus laid I raise these propositions First it s confessed A representative Church whether Provincional National or Oecumenial may err hath erred de facto in superstructures or things less fundamental 2. Neither Provincional National nor Oecumenial representative can erre in fundamentals for then it would cease to be a Church 3. The major part of the Church living at the same time may err as in the time of Elias I only am left sayes he that have not bowed my knee to Baal Vnus Athanasius contra cotum mundum 4. The whole Church consisting of all the integral parts cannot erre in matter of Doctrine requisite to be holden I have reserved seven thousand says God that have not bowed their knee to Baal and undoubtedly many besides Athanasius that in his time were not infected with Arrianism 5. The whole Church since the Apostles in all ages collectively considered cannot err either in Doctrine or Discipline then Christ should not make good his promise that the gates of Hell should not prevaile against his Church that he would be with it to the end that he would send them the Comforter that would lead them into all tâ—uth Which promises howsoever the Church of Rome misapplies to themselves whom Dr. Reignolds hath proved neither are the Catholick Church nor any sound member thereof yet it is true of the whole Church 6. It is possible that the whole Church since the Apostles may hold an Adiaphorous or indifferent Discipline or Ceremony which was not Apostolical or of Divine institution 7. That which the whole Church holds hath in all ages holden including the Apostles whether it be Doctrine or Discipline must needs be Authentick and infallible Of thâ—s nature is the present Question as appears by the words of Austin in the fore-quoted place if any aske for Divine authority observe it not humane in this matter Although we most rightly believe that what the Vniversal Church holdeth and was not instituted by Councels but hath been ever held he does not say since the Apostles for that is not ever was not delivered but by Apostolical authority because it is impossible that any thing should generally be holden in the Apostles time that was not by their authority and approbation By this you see the truth of the proposition Now let us examin the ground upon which he denies it for then saith he the observation of an Easter and sundry other superstitious Rites should be from the Apostles His Argument put in form is this Easter and other Rites have been held alwayes but Easter and those Rites are not from the Apostles therefore that which hath been held alwayes is not from the Apostles I deny the first proposition that Easter hath been alwayes for by what Cronologies and Histories will he prove that Easter was observed in all Centuries in all Churches East West African Greek Latine in China Muscovia India For so much alwayes holden implies have not our Antiquaries and Century-writers discovered a known beginning of Lent-fast and Easter And after it began somewhat obscurely like the heads of Nilus as Eusebius says in his fift book chapt 24. it was left free unto all men which argues it was not alwayes but an Adiaphorous Rite of Ecclesiastical institution Therefore Irenaeus treated and argued the businesse with Victor Bishop of Rome when he would have excommunicated the East Church because it agreed not with the Church of Rome about the keeping of Easter What saith he may we not live at concord although they use their own Rites and we ours The time of keeping of Easter as Venerable Bede stories it was one of the three Questions that occasioned the Massacre of eleven hundred Monks at Bangor the British Bishops pressed the observation of it upon the day of the month of our Saviours resurrection Austin the Monk from Gregories authority would have it a movable Feast observed after the manner as the Church of England did of late Both sides hotly pretended Apostolical institution in circumstances so different which argued neither side had just claim to either Now whether of these will Mr. Tombes avouch was alwaies For he speaks indifferently and indefinitly calling it the observation of an Easter he must either both or neither If both his judgment will be lâ—ke his Holinesse of Rome who when the Parisians in France and the Inhabitants of Mentz in Germany laid claime to the Reliques of St. Dionyse enterred many hundred years before he adjudged that both places had the whole body I should think a domestick sentence symbolizes better with the present controversie which was this When after the death of Anthony Kitchin alià s Dunstan Bishop of Landaff there were severall suites commenced by several men all layâ—ng claim to the house and lands belonging to the Episcopal See as sold by him all of them respectively shewing instruments as they pretended with his hand and seal the Court rejected them all as forged after his death for it was conceived if he had truly sold them it would have been but to one So if Easter had been alwayes and had not crept in
obscurely the necessary circumstance of the time would have been as precisely observed and agreed upon to be but one Thus the former proposition is cleared The latter by him denyed is this That Infant-Baptism was not alwayes he cunningly alters the subject of the Question and says that Infant-sprinkling was not held of the whole Church nor do we say so for it was and may be as well by pouring on water or dipping if infants bodâ—es in these cold Climates would endure it the usual way that we practise is either by pouring on water on the face of the Child if it be weak or dipping in part of the head if it be somewhat strong Gods Ordinances are not destructive to Nature who requires mercy and not sacrifice And that Infant Baptism was thus held alwayes is apparent To pass by divine Institution and Apostolical practise of which anon Dionysius the Areopagite and Clemens in the Apostles constitutions both makes for Infant-Baptism if the books be theirs as they have been entituled these many hundred years the cause is ours so farâ— if not theirs they must not expect any proof of men living in the first Century being extant none beside them Justin Martyr who lived Anno 150. in his 56 Question disputes the different condition of those Children which dye baptized and of those children who dyed unbaptized Two things are objected against this Testimony 1. That the reason of Baptizing of Infants was not the Covenant of grace made to believers and their seed but that they might obtain salvation at the resurrection This is so far from overthrowing that it confirmes the reason being in Covenant with the parents for of such speaks the Author whose parents are believers gives the children capacity to be baptized and they are baptized that they may have salvation at the resurrection for we have no promise of the salvation of any out of the pales of the visible Church The second objection is that Perkins Rivet and others questions whether it be Justin Martyrs book or no. To which I answer there is scarce a book in Scripture any Article of the Creed or part of Antiquity but it hath been questioned by some If we should reject all things that are questioned we must turn Academicks Scepticks and Seckers in all things howsoever it gives evidence to matter of fact that Infants were Baptized in that age in which it was written Irenaeus that lived in the same Century says lib. 2. cap. 39 Christ came to save all that are new born by him into God Infants and little ones and boyes c. Who are those that are new-born The Baptized Which suits with the language of the Holy Ghost in Scripture Tit. 3. 5. The Apostle calls Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washing of the new birth which is so clear that Mr. Mead in his Diatriba upon the place thinks that none will deny that by washing of regeneration baptism is meant or pointed at Besides its the dialect of the Greek Fathers near whose time he lived Justin Martyr speaking of those that are brought to be baptized says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are born anew or regenerated after the same manner we are regenerated being washed as it followes in the name of the father and of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost Dioâ—ysius Hierarch cap. 2. calls the materials of Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divine signes of Divine generation Basil and Nazianzene calls Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the regeneration of the soul all this makes it appear that Irenaeus did drive at the regeneration of Infants by Baptism as well as them of years Origen whom Perkins places at the year 230. says upon Rom. 6. lib. 5. The Church received the Tradition of Baptising of Infants from the Apostles affirming the same thing in substance Homily 8th upon Leviticus and Homily 18. in Lucam Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum Little ones are baptized for the remission of sins The exceptions against these are three 1. They are translations Origens Greek in the Original is lost The same may be said of S. Matthews Gospel which he writ in the Hebrew or Syriack now lost the Greek Copy onely extant And of the Septuagints Translation of the Old Testament which our Saviour himself followed more exactly than the Hebrew Original Translations agreeing with the Original Copy being equally Authentick But secondly it is said that the Translation is censured by Erasmus and Perkins as in something contracting adding or altering What is added is ingeniously confessed by Rufinus the Translator himself neither does acute Erasmus nor Judicious Perkins nor any of the Ancients most Critical impeach him in the fore quoted Testimonies Therefore this Exception is blank The third thing objected is that he calls it a Tradition So does the Apostle things contained in Scripture 2 Thes 2. 15. Epiphanius calls Baptism and other divine truthes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditions and yet quotes Scripture for them Bellarmine calls Infant-Baptism a tradition and yet brings ten places of Scripture to prove it Austin affirms lib. 10. cap. 23. de Genes That the custom of our mother the Church in Baptising of little ones is in no wise to be despised nor to be thought superfluous nor at all to be believed unlesse it were an Apostolick Tradition and yet proves the necessity of it from John 3. 5. Vnless one be born again of water and the Spirit c. Gregory Nazianzen who as Dr. usher and Mr. Perkins sayes lived in the year 370 or 380. commands Children to be Baptized and gives a reason Orat. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they not misse of common grace nothing is excepted against this but that he gave his opinion of others to defer their Baptism unlesse they were in danger of death which I shall clear anon To these may be joyned Athanasius who interpret Script Quest 94. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the dipping of the Child quite under the water thrise and raising of it up again doth signifie the death of Christ and the Resurrection the third day In his second Question ad Antioch he enquires how one shall know that he was truly baptized and received the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who when he received Baptism was but an Infant He answers that it may be known by the motions of the Spirit as the woman knowes she hath conceived when she feeles the Child stir in her womb And Question 114. he being asked whether Infants dying go to be punished or to the Kingdome Says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Infants are holy here you see many hundred years before Zuinglius covenant-holiness is acknowledged and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Infants of Believers that are Baptized do as unspotted and faithfull enter into the Kingdome Epiphanius amongst the Greek Fathers brings up the rear avouching that Circumcision had its time untill the great Circumcision came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is
the washing of the new birth or regeneration as is manifest to every one Now what is this washing of Regeneration but Baptism Which could not succeed circumcision unlesse children that were circumcised were in his judgment baptized These are the Evidences in part of the Greeks concerning Infants interest in Baptism proving that de facto in their times and from the beginning of Christianity they were baptized The Latine Fathers come up with a full body to joyn with them whereof Tertullian marches in the front who as Helvicus records wrote his book of Prescriptions about the year 195. Which was about 97 years after the decease of St. John So that by this calculation he lived about 70. or lesse years after St. John in which short tract of time the Apostolical practise of Infant-Baptism could neither be clouded nor forgotten Neither would he have commended his private opinion as more profitable that the Baptism of some Infants for some respects should be deferred but have called it down as an Innovation if the practise of it had not been as transparent to every mans apprehension as if it had been writ with the sun-beams That Infant-Baptism was in practise in Tertullians dayes it appears by this Question libr. de Bapt. cap. 8. Quid sestinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatâ—rum Why does innocent age meaning children in their infancie make hast for remission of sins meaning Baptism which is a clear case whatsoever Semi Socinian Grotius say to the contrary That Tertullian was for Infant Baptism himself appears that in his book de Animâ cap. 39 he presses it when the child is in danger of death and gives his reason libr. de Bapt. cap. 12. praescribitur nemini sine Baptisme competere salutem it is prescribed that salvation is to none without Baptism That cavill of his advice to deferr Baptism in some cases I shall answer anon Cyprian succeeds who flourished as Trithemius and others observe about the year 240. in his 59 Epistle ad Fidum is not onely expresse for Infant-Baptism himself but mentions a Councell of sixty six Bishops who had declared the same and all this to satisfie the said Fidus who was not aginst the divine Institution and Apostolical practise of Infant-Baptism but conceived that Infants might not be Baptized before the eighth day because they might not be circumcised Cyprian tells him that Infants might not onely be baptized before the eighth day but any day Austin approves of this Epistle and his judgment saying Epist 28. ad Hier. Cyprianus non novum aliquod decretum condens sed Ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servaÌ„s That Cyprian did not devise any new decree but faithfully observed what the Church had done before him Augustine that bright day-star of Afâ—ick gives further evidence Sermon 15. de vâ—rbis Apost speaking of Infant-Baptism says hoc Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuiâ— hoc a majorum fide accepit hoc usque in finem persâ—veranter custodit The Church always had it always observed it received it from the faith of their Ancestors keeps it with perseverance to the end Neither do those exceptions against him any whit impeach the credit of it much lesse the fact First because he calls it an Universal Tradition Not denying that it is grounded upon Scripture as before but with the Oxford Convocation avouching that which in general terms by consequence and sub obscurely is delivered in Scripture is more plainly interpreted by Tradition as following the River Nilus the heads that are somewhat obscure are found out And that Constantine Augustine Alipius Adâ—odatus were not baptized when Infants was either because their parents were not Christians or they were not converted till of age or were tainted with some heresie or afraid of persecution as Philip the first Christian Emperour no sooner baptized â—ut privately made away The second exception is that Austin held that Infants dying without Baptism were damned This Rivet fathers upon him de patrum authoritate cap. 9 Augustinus aeternis flammis adjudicat infantes sine Baptismo morientes Austin adjudges to Eternal flames Infants dying without Baptism To which I answer he maintained Infant-Baptism upon other grounds though partly upon this which afterwards he retracted Thirdly it s excepted for that of giving them the Eucharist is impertinent that he held a certaintie of regeneration by Baptism and he makes no question of the regeneration of Infants I answer he does indefinitly of the species or sort of baptized Infants seeing God hath promised to be a God of those that are in covenant with him and their seed and we have a promise and consequently faith of none else But he does not say that every individual baptized Infant without limitation is regenerated but the contrary cortâ—cem sine nucleo the shell without the kernell as he averres there are some quirem Baptismi absque Sacramento Baptismi consequuntur that have the matter of Baptism that is the outward Elements without the Sacrament of Baptism that is without the inward and invisible grace The other Antients are of the same judgment as Ambrose â—â—stifies of Valentinian quem in Evangelilio geniturus eram amisi sed ille non amisit gratiam quam poposcit I have lost him whom I was a begetting by the Gospel but he hath not lâ—st the grace he desired but enjoyes eternal life and how seeing he was not baptized He gives the reason he was baptized inwardly in will though not outwardly with water The last exception is that Austin maintained that not onely Infants of Beleevers but Unbelievers also might be baptized It s true if Christians had the Tuition of them and would engage for them they might as well be baptized as the children Abraham's posteriâ—y boughâ— wâ—th mony or captives might be circumcised therefore Tertullian pleads both prerogative of birth and education as giving capacity to baptism To these I might add Ambrose that sayes that every age is liable to sin therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament of Baptism Lactantius Fulgentius Prosper Aquatanicus the Milevitan Councel with all the succeeding worthies enough to swell a Volume goes in the same Equipage But says Mr. Tombes Infant-Baptism as it is now used was opposed by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen Which Argument made into form sounds thus That which was opposed by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen was not held by the whole Church but Infant-baptism was opposed by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen Therefore Infant-Baptism was not held by the whole Church I deny both propositions first the Major for if it were true two mens opposing does not weaken an Evidence of fact not interrupted for so many Centuries Secondly the Minor is most false for it is formerly proved that Tertullian and Gregory were both for Infant-Baptism True it is the one advised to deferre it till the Infants were two or three years old unless they were in danger of death as it is conceived least dipping impair their health what is this against
The fourth untruth is that Infant-baptism was not commanded by Christ which neither Master T. nor any other Antipaedobaptist will ever be able to prove seeing the Commission extends as well to baptism of Infants as other ages Math. 28. 19 20. Thus says Christ all power is given me in Heaven and Earth go ye therefore Disciple ye all the Gentiles or all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost Wherein four things are considerable 1. The ground of the Commission all power is given me in Heaven and in Earth 2. The act Baptize 3. The object all nations 4 The End make Disciples all these agrees as well to Children as them of riper years First the ground of the Commission all power is given me in Heaven and in Earth as if our Saviour had said I that was virtually impowered from the beginning am now actually after my resurrection invested with authority and Lordship as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man over all creatures to order and dispose them as I please but especially mankind to save that lost sheep that was gone astray to lay him upon my shoulders and bring him home unto the fold And my Commission extends as to save some of all ages conditions sexes so to create new Ordinances that may relate unto all even Infants and sucklings as well as the antient seeing they may be also the Lambs of my Flock Secondly here is the Acte baptize that is as the Jews Children and Proselytes were admitted into Covenant by Circumcision oblation and washing which was but their Typicall so those that are Candidati and designati sanctitatis whether those that are willing to receive the Ordinance or their children are to be initiated by baptism or washing which is to be the outward badge or Character of my Covenant Thirdly here is the object all Nations or all the Gentiles that is all degrees all ages all sexes of every Nation as capable not onely of the inward Call but the outward Character Psalm 28. 8. God hath given all Nations to Christ for hâ—s inheritance Isai 49. 7. his salvation is to the end of the earth Acts 4. 11. no other name is given under Heaven by which they can or may be saved The Extent of the Commission for baptizing is as large among the Gentiles as was among the Jews where it is Luke 3. 21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the people and shall we conceive that Infants were no part of all the people of all the Nations of so many families Fourthly here is the end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples or ye shall make Disciples Now every action is to an end and to make Disciples is the end to enroll them by Baptism and afterwards to teach them is the means Disciple or Scholar is a term of relation the Correlative that Answers it is Christ every Disciple is a Scholar of Christ These are Relata disquiparantiae The fundament or ground of the relation is Gods love to enter into Covenant the formall reason of a Disciple is the union betwixt the Scholar and the Master expressed by some token or badge of admission Thus we are Discipled or admitted Scholars by baptism into Christs School whereof some Actively knowing something of Christ before they be discipled as Peter Andrew James and John called from their nâ—ts and all that are of age ought to be willing to entertain Christ before they be baptized some passively as Children that are put to School by their Parents before they know a Letter thus Infants are matriculated into Christs School without their own express consent or any present capacity to be taught of men but of God who hath promised to take care of them and teach them we shall all be taught of God especially Infants who being not capable of the Instrumentall must wholely depend upon the principall efficient but of this by the way I shall have occasion to search this further hereafter The fifth untruth is that Infant-baptism was not practised by the Apostles which being denyed by the Anti-Paedobaptists the proof lyes upon them which they will performe ad Graecas Calendas A Negative Argument in matter of fact of this nature is of no validity no mention is made â—â— express termes that the Apostles baptized infants therefore they baptized none is inconsequent it might fall out oft de facto that they baptized none but of ripe age as preaching to publick Congregations who had travalled far to hear them might baptize those that were willing and yet have no leisure to go from house to house to baptize their Infants yet it will not follow that de Jurâ— they might not have baptized them or that they did not actually baptize them when there was opportunity When John baptized in Jordan all Judea and Jerusalem Math. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came as the word properly signifies by water of which coming Infants are capable The Apostles had Commission to Disciple all Nations by baptizing of which Infants are a principall part as was fore-prophesied Isai 2. 2. all nations should flow in they baptized many whole families upon the faith and account of the chief of the house Zacheus believed and salvation came to his house They baptized Lydia and her houshold Acts 16. 15. mention is onely made that her heart was opened and that she attended to the things that were spoken not one word of the rest of her familie and yet the text says they were baptized This Argument would be far more concluding no mention is made that any of Lydias houshold attended to the word but she therefore they were baptized without giving attention to the word Then this no mention is made that any Infant was baptized in her houshold therefore none was baptized It will follow as well no mention expresly is made that her sons or daughters or servants or sojourners were baptized therefore they were not baptized Generals includes particulars houshold is a collective term and comprehends all the members and branches of a Familie And seeing the Apostles were commissioned to baptize all Nations and questionlesse did execute accordingly All Judaea and Jerusalem came to be baptized of John Peter and the twelve baptized so many families upon record and doubtlesse thousands besides how dare any incurre that curse of God by diminishing of the word and make that exception God never made that the Apostles baptized all Nations and whole families and yet by an implyed contradiction excluded Infants The sixt untruth is thâ—t there were not any Infants baptized in the first ages which is an asseâ—tion so frontlesse that it needs no other refutation but what hath been formerly delivered Mr. Tombes hath rather shifted than in the least colour answered many learned and godly Divines that have proved the constant practise of Infant-Baptism in the primitive Church by induction of the Authorities of several Fathers to that purpose like the Angels in Jacobs ladder Gen. 28.
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
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
brought it s in Luke 18. That he might touch them but in Matth. that he might lay his hands on them and pray now the laying on of hands especially when joyned with prayer is an Ordinance of institution in the Church of God named after the doctrine of Baptism Heb. 6. 1 2. and therefore if there be any strength in his way of arguing that from placing of words of institution one after another as baptizing after discipling or believing would prove that discipling and believing is to be first found in persons before they must be baptized Then the same Argument would prove that these Infants were formerly baptized because they â—ame for imposition of hands a right usually following mens baptism too in the practise of the Apostles as in Acts 8. 17. and 19. 5 6. Nor can Mr. Tombes give us any certain proof oâ— demonstration or ought besides his own presumtion they were not This he passes by now without salute as a fort impregnable and levels his shot against a place wherein he vainly conceives is a breach already Thrasâ—-like sounding a triumph before the victory for these are his words Bombardi-gladio-fun-hasti-flammi-loquentes that which Mr. C. added that the Disciples are believers which are meant Matth. 18. 6. and not the children and yet saith his Argument remains unanswered hath more of impudence in it To which I reply 1. That many understand even the sixt verse of little Children in age and then it will not so much as colourably make for him in any sense 2. Be it so as the Relator hath it that the Disciples were believers which are meant in the sixt verse and not children which the Grammatical construction seems to intimate because it is in the Masculine Gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one of these little ones answering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciple not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the neuâ—er gender agreeing with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little child yet my Argument remains unanswered which was this to little children belongs the Kingdom of heaven therefore they are holy and in covenant Now it would be a strange inconsequence to say The little oneâ— v. 6 are Disciples not Infants in age therefore they are truly so v. 2. 3. to whom belongs the kingdom of heaven are not holy and in Covenant If such a fallacious non causa ut causa could stand he might infer quidlibet ex quolibet v. 2. Christ set a little child in the middest of them and said v. 3. except ye be converted and become as little children ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven they that were converted as little children to them belonged the kingdom of heaven therefore surely to little children their patterns as before especially seeing Christ in other Evangelists applies those words to little children themselves forbid them not to come unto me for of such is the kingdome of God But now I perceive his erroneous mistake for he sayes my Argument being that Christ pronounced a curse on them that received little ones in age and yet confessing that this was not meant of little ones in age but disciples believers in him it is the height of impudencie to say mine Argument was not answered when mine own confession answered it By this I see one errour begets many for 1. my Argument was not that Christ pronounced a curse on them that despised and received not little ones in age as hath been manifested that was indeed the last member of the proposition he excepted against which I promised to prove in its order But 2. grant it had been so my Argument for any thing appears yet remained unanswered for it would have followed â— minori ad majus from the lesse to the greater If Christ pronounced a curse upon those that despised he imitators of little children much more upon the despisers of little Children themselves Therefore Mark 10. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was moved with indignation against the Disciples for the little Childrens sake because they would have hindred them to come to him for a benediction By this it appears upon whom this height of impudency reflects The Areopagites at Athens had two stones erected in the Market place the one of impudencie the other of contumely Mr. Tombes hath a propriety in both these which he frequently ascends like that Timon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he may bestow his aâ—read-bare liveries upon those that discent from him in judgement of which he is liberal in the words following for sayeâ— he justly here after five hours time Skogan spewes crowes â—e should have said almost five hours or four and an half having promised but one and therefore a work of Supererrogation else to what purpose mentions he it Did he break off well it seems this adders head is crushed but capite eliso caudaminatur he waggs stil his taile and in the end thrusts out his sting to wound their reputation who had any dealing with him In this Argument beginning with me sayes he had experience of my meer cavelling at Rosse and Abergaveny At Rosse its true it fell out incidently that my place was to moderate but if we had been as many as there were Ephori at Sparta it had been impossible to bound him within the virge of a lawfull Dispute As for the Dispute at Abergaveny the relation thereof with his answer and my reply let others judge whether is the meer caveller But he dwelt many miles from that Town so did the Pharisees from sea and lands they compassed to make Proselytes perhaps he means that distance was disaduantagious unto him like Aâ—â—aeus whose strength was confined to his mother earth or the Samnites who were advised by the Oracle not to fight unless like snailes with their houses upon their backs But as Marcion said of the Orthodox and Catholick Fathers he finds nothing â—â— me and those other Paedobaptists he hath answered meaning Dr. Hamond Master Marshall Master Baxter Dr. Homes Dr. Featly Master Blake Master Cobbet Master Cotton with many more of the flour of our Nation but a spirit of wrangling when they have discovered by many infallible Symptoms this to be his very disease which he contumeliously imputes to others like the mad man in Bedlam that called all that passed by franticks Austin speaks of such an adversary of his Sermon 164. ego volo te esse sanum quare furis in me sicut insanuâ— Thus he goes on with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declamatory defamatory oration excusing himself for not answering my challenge for a deliberate Dispute than for any Dispute for the time to come accusing us that he was now sufficiently taught by experience what dealing he was like to have whereas the truth is he never yeilded to any Dispute for the time past but where he had the advantage resolved he would not for the future because he experimentally found with Paulus Samosatenus that he and his party lost by such engagements He hath found it to
be his only thriving way to seâ— out Emissaries privily like the pestilence in darkness to infâ— the ignorant and fill all corners of three Nations with his boâ— as Arrius did the Empire with his which are so subtilly aâ— laborately contrived that he hath gained a repute by the câ—â—sent of all to be accounted with Caius Curio ingâ—niosâ—ssime quam The reason why I desired a further and that a treatable aâ— deliberate engagement with him was because I was hurried tâ— that extemporal discourse through importunity which is not whit the lesse true because he believes it not Some of the people were so far wrought upon with his impostures and delusions that they were disposed for dipping others told us we were not faithfull Pastors if we would not resist the entrance of such wolves But in very deed the provocation to that sudden debate was through a stratagem of his partakers who triumphed and insulted upon our hearers vaunting as Marcion and his followers did that their Champians durst not shew their faces whilest Mr. Tombes was in town whereupon I was assaulted with one messenger after another who rather enforced then perswaded me to be present at Mr. Bonner's debatement and his My first salute was when I entred the Town from a friend of his sent as he said to know whether I would dispute with Mr. Tombes I returned I was not then provided but if he gave the challenge and withal a competent time I would God willing enter the lists And for his being advertised before that if he came to bergaveny I would oppose him I know not whether it be truâ— no however I am sure it had no ground from me who neither knew nor thought of his coming thither nor had any time to countermine such contingencies as groaning under two burdens able to break a back of steele Nor is it likely I would have begun with him who have not given the least affront to other Anabaptists and Dippers who for these several years preach publickly there at least once a month and have a private chamber where they meet for breaking of bread once a week though I have received abuses causelesly from the sharp rasor of some of their tongues beyond barbarity As for the speech of him who said Mr. Tombes had answered nothing I also say the relation of the Dispute with his Answer and my Reply will discover the true Crisis yet me thinks rayling speeches are a bad Omen and presages ill A man of his 〈…〉 retended gravity and wisedome might have spared those Epi 〈…〉 s of impudent and brasen-faced knowing that of Austin a 〈…〉 st Petilian to be true nec malam conscientiam sanat praeconium 〈…〉 antis nec bonam vulnerat conviciantis opprobrium neither doth 〈…〉 commendation of the praiser heale an evill conscience nor 〈◊〉 reproach of a reviler wound a good â—r Baxter his worth is too great to be impeached which was 〈…〉 cause of my vindication behind his back especially by one 〈…〉 o had been found tripping in that kind before And I believe 〈◊〉 may justly say and not before that he hath answered all Mr. â—â—xter hath against him when Porphyry and Julian shall justly say they have ansvered Cyril Arrius Athanasius The Jesuites Luther and others of the reformed Churches And admit the review of the dispute between him and others of which part is printed part in the press and the rest expected like the monster in the mountain that was to bring forth should swell to the bulk of Origens books who is said to have writ more than most men have read That one pearl of Mr. Baxter's Plain Scripture proof would outweigh his whole Sandy Colosse as much as little Persius does great Marsus of whom Mermullius Saepius in libro memoratur Persius uno Quam levis in toto Marsus Amazoinde If he had not thus abruptly cut this Gordian knot which he â—hould have untyed my purposed methode was to proceed to 〈…〉 h. 19. 13 14 15. Mark 10. 13. to 17. Mark 9. 36 37. â— 9. 4 5. Luke 18. 15 16. John 3. 5. Rom. 11. thereby further to prove Infant-Church-membership whose answers to other mens Arguments drawn from thence if satisfactory which I suspect is no prejudice to mine before he hear them The two other branches I should have followed first that Christ merited Baptism for Infants secondly that Infants stand in need of Baptism These he waves and hastens to take a view of mâ— Sermon whose animadversions sent to Abergaveny I have not seen It is his visible Examen I must take notice of which being sufficiently sentenced and condemned by others must expect to be anatomized by me for I intend onely a brief Scheme or Skeleton of it for the present The Sermon Examined The third Part. 1. Section Mr. Tombes FIrst he saith and is baptized pag. 72. to be a conditional qualification and yet in the dispute he denyed that repentance is a condition of baptism Acts 2. 38. His observation out of Dr. Buckeridge pag. 73. is frivolous for the Apostles 1 Cor. 12. 28. saith as well of Apostles as ordinary Pastors and Teachers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he set them or if he will fixed them But it seems Mr. C. hath a speciall toth at Itinerants though his Relator claw Mr. Cr. and Mr. W. But what he saith that it is too strict an interpretation to expound Mark 16 15. of men of age and understanding excluding children shews he little considers what he saith for if it be so then Christ commandeth the Apostles to preach the Gospell to Infants and Sith Mr. C. is bound to do so he sheweth that he sins against his own light if he do not so But how foolish it would be for him to attempt it his own words shew when he saith Infants are not capable to be taught of men And when he saith that Infants onely iâ— actu primo are capable of the first seeds of understanding of profession of faith I would know in what sense they are sensible of the benefit they have by Christ And whereas he grants That baptism is necessary by necessity of precept if conveniently it may be had it is all â— asserted in my Sermon when I said all that would be saved must be baptized after profession Iâ— Austin were a hard Father to Infants for holding they must be baptized or not see the Kingdom of God then Mr. C. cannot gather from John 3. 5. Infants baptism from Mark 16. 16. is rightly gathered that believing is to be before baptism and yet from Mark 1. 4. it is not rightly gathered that we must be baptized before we can hear the word preached or repent for the Text doth not express that John baptized afore he preached but recites those two as connexed yet the latter is put first not because first done but because he was to set down more amply what he preaâ—hed Reply THis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self willed Hydra infects the waters of Baptism
charges him but the manner undetermined The scope of the Apostle is to shew that one end of our Baptism is to seal our communion with Christ in his death and concludes as well that the resemblance of Christs burial is to be continued as much in the duration as the thing as well lying three dayes and three nights as under the water at all Therefore all resemblances betwixt our baptism and Christs burial not bottomed upon divine institution and Apostolical practise revealed in Scripture are but humane inventions which they that Idolize as Anabaptists determining baptizing to dipping sins against Christs command as godly learned men and assemblies out of holy writ have discovered Mr. Tombes 6. Section IT is well Mr. C. confesseth That if he were to baptize converted Turks or Pagans of ripe age be might baptize them by dipping It she wes that it is onely for Infants sake that the institution of Christ is altered and so one corruption hath brought in another What he addes provided their garments were not first baptized or washed intimates be would have them naked which Mr. Baxter would conclude to be against the sixt and seventh Command and he may do well to school Mr. C. for it his reason is as foolish though the garments be baptized in water yet are not baptized with that use that the person is but by accident not baptized as Bells to drive away devils Nor is by baptizing the garment any worship done to it as the Church of Rome doth to the Image for then the baptizing of the body should be worshippinâ— it the garments and body are not worshipped at all by baptizing and therefore foolishly it is compared to Romish superstition and Idolatry He that affirms that baptizing without dipping is not lawfull that it is wil-worship that the sprinkling used is a nullity that notwithstanding such pretended Baptism yet Baptism remains a duty speaks but truth Reply I confesse with Mr. Perkins that if we were to baptize converted Turks or Pagans of ripe age in hot Countries which he leaves out we might baptize them by dipping which shewes that it is not onely for infants sake but the coldness of our Clymats we baptize by dipping in part of the body pouring on water or sprinkling which are as well according to Christs institution as â—lunging God will have mercy and not sacrifice The Anabaptists shew that it is for dipping sake which sucklings cannot endure that Christs institution of Infant baptism is altered and so one corruption hath brought in another I add provided their garments were not first baptized or washed which intimates not necessarily I would have them naked for they may have loose garments after the manner of the Jewes which prevents not the washing of the body or if I would have them of ripe age in hot Countries naked I may conclude with Mr. Baxter to dip naked or cloathed in cold Climats to be against the sixt Commandment because it endangers their lives To dip with us naked to be against the seventh Commandments because it endangers chastity not so in Africe and hot Countries where without impeachment of modesty they go naked or slender cloathed Mr. T. may justly be schooled by us both for his unfaithfull dealing in the premises The reason is solid which is not mine but Vossius his who sayes Baptismus non est immersio vestium sed humani corporis Baptism is not a washing of garments but mans body Baptizing of garments may be as well superstitious as of Bells for all they are not baptized with that use the person is but by accident for the Romists have the very same distinctions of worshipping of Images Suarez in 3. Tom. â—isp 54. sect 4. dicendum ergo primò est fieri rectè posse ut prototypon in imagine imago cum prototypo uno actu adoretur atque hoc pacto posse imaginem Christi adorari latriâ posse tamen co-adorari sicut humanitas Christi coadoratur verbo purpura regis adoratur honâ—re regio The garment is washed with the same water the body is as well as the Image is adored with the same worship the Prototype is The purple of the king is as well adored by accident as the garment washed And though garments be not baptized as Bells to drive away devils yet they are conceived to be baptized without divine inâ—â—itution and so from the Devil Baptizing of the body is not worshipping of it but â— performing of Christs Ordinance in relation to it which to perform also to the garmants is wil-worship and therefore fâ—tly coâ—pared to Romish â—uperstition and iâ—olatry He that affâ—rms that baptizing without dipping is not lawfull that it is wil-worship that infant baptism as used is a nullity that notwithstanding such baptism yet rebaptizing remains a duty speaks sacrileiously schismatically heretically Mr. Tombes 7. Section THe Decree of the Senate of Zurick was an unrighteous Decree which what ever state follows it will draw the guilt of murâ—bering innocent persons on it and Mr. C. by citing it with seeming approbation doth make it probable that he is a bloody minded man who would rejoyce to see innocent men whâ— out of tenderness of conscience follow the plain rule of Christ so put to death which its not unlikely to be the aim of his or his complices printing this book against those he calls Anabaptists that he might stir up either Magistrates or furious common people against them Mr. C. saith he hath resolved the former doubt that baptizing is not dipping and yet page 81. the Authors he cites and by citing approves do all make dipping or dying one of the first of its significatiens Now he undertakes to prove that Infants may nay ought to be baptized Anâ— he begins as an Advocate for Infants with this childish preface that those poor souls cannot speak for themselves as if in speaking for their baptism he spoke for them when he doth thereby rather speak for that which is to their hurt and calls them poor souls whom before he called Saints There is more in his pittifull Preface he supposeth if the Apostles had been asked why they did not put down Infant-Baptism in plainer terms they would have answered that they thought none would have denyed it And I suppose they would have answered that they thought none would have affirmed it being quite against Christs appointment and their practice who had then no such custome nor the Churches of God The rest as it is taken from Mr. Baxter so it is answered in the Answer to him now in the Presse Sect. 3. lets view Mr. C. Arguments Reply I Will neither accuse nor excuse the decree of the Senate of Zuriâ—k against those turbulent Anabaptists that disturbed their quiet neither will I prejudge that state that follows them whether draw upon themselves the guilt of murdering innocent persons or wash their hands in innocency from guilt My citing of it was with no further approbation of it as my words
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