and that you know well enough but that in place of solid Satisfaction you must say something to deceive the people The Arguments I raise hence are two the first is this There shall be no more an Infant of dayes that is Infants shall not be uncapable of the seal while their age is measured by dayes as the Jâ—ws Infants that might not be Circumcised till a week had passed over them Therefore Infants new born are capable of the seal The second Argument is this The child shall dye an hundred year old that is as an hundred year old or as well a Church-member as if he were a hundred year old Therefore Children may be Baptized under the Gospell T. Mr. T. found fault with that interpretation shall dye an hundred years old that is as if an hundred years old C. He answered to take it literally would imply a contradiction for it was impossible to be a child and a hundred years old and was better than his and the Anabaptists exposition of 1 Cor. 10. 2 they were Baptized under the Cloud that is say you as if they were Baptized under the cloud when nothing hindred out they were really Baptized under the cloud And Rom. 11. 19. the branches were broken off that is say you as if they were broken off when it was both possible and apparent that they were broken off T. Then Mr. T. said it was not meant of the times of the Gospell C. To which was replyed Mr. T. will still be wiser than the Church of England and read the Contents of the Chapter The calling of the Gentiles v. 1. the Jews rejected 17. the blessed state of the new Jerusalem to the end T. Mr. T. said it was verifyed Zacha. 8. 4 Thus saith the Lord of Hosts there shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem and every man with his staff in his hand for very age and the streets of the Citie shall be full of boyes and girles playing in the streets thereof C. To which was replyed what is this to an Infant of dayes or a child dying a hundred years old when it is apparent both from the Contents and Texts that this of Zachary is meant of the Jews return from Captivity and more apparent that that of Es is meant of the state of Christs kingdome under the Gospell which I prove thus That Interpretation that brings with it absurditie untruth blasphemie is not to be admitted But to â—nterpret it of the Jews return from Captivitie brings with it absurditie untruth blasphemie Therefore it is not to be admitted T. Mr. Tombs denyed the Minor C. Which was proved in order first that it brought with it absurdity To apply the 25. verse to the return from Captivity was absurd that the wolf and the lamb should feed together and the Lion should eat straw with the bullock and dust should be the serpents meat Therefore it brought with it absurdity Secondly that it brought with it untruth But to apply the 19. v. to the return from Captivity brought with it an untruth that the voice of weeping should be no more heard in Jerusalem for it was twice destroyed after once by Antiochus then by Vespatian and Titus Therefore it brought with it an untruth Thirdly that it brought with it blasphemie for to interpret the 17. verse Behold I create new heavens and new earth and the former shall no more be remembred and come into mind of the second temple is blasphemous Therefore it brought with it blasphemie for it crosseth St. Peters interpretation 2 Pet. 3. 13. We according to his promise look for new heavens and a new earth For can any rationall man think that the new temple built at Jerusalem in Cyrus his time was this new heaven and new earth that the former should be no more remembred When the antient men are said to weep because the glory of the latter temple was short of the glory of the first Ezra 3. 12. It was inferiour to Solomons temple first in respect of the building that was lower and meaner secondly in respect of the vessels before of Gold now of Brass thirdly of five things that were lost first the Ark of God secondly the Urim and Thummim thirdly fire from Heaven to consume the Sacrifices fourthly the glory of God between the Cherubims fiftly the gift of prophesie for after the second temple there was no prophet T. Mr. T. fell to his wonted course of impertinent exposition wherein Mr. C. told him he violated the rules of dispute and did lasciviously wanton it out into a wilderness of words that the truth might be obscured or lost and like a lapwing carry the hearers far from the matter Then C. P. an Apothecary began to interpose as he had done once before till a gentleman of authorite told him that it was not fit for a man of his place and calling to speak Yet Master Tombs would not be satisfyed but went on saying that Dr. Prideaux in Oxford when a place of Scripture was cited was wont to give a large exposition C. Mr. C. Replyed that Dr. Prideaux was Doctor of the Chair and Judge of the Controversie and might do that which a Respondent may not do whose office is onely to repeat deny distinguish and when a Text is quoted to give a brief exposition that the Opponent may have something to fasten upon And what Dr. Prideaux did he knew not but what Dr. Collins and Dr. Ward did he could tell him but that it was not to the present purpose And that his judgement in this was but the same with his own University of Oxford as he knew of late by a sad experiment T. Mr. Tombes Asked what that was C. He told him an explosion not for disability for his dispute was plausible inough but that he would neither be satisfied with Dr. Salvage his answer nor the Doctor of the Chairs determination but fell to repetitions and extravagances as now Mr. Tombes launched into a tedious discourse to vindicate himself till he had tyred the Auditors who cryed out this is but to waste time And a learned Gentleman spake aloud this is but to spend the time in parling that he may avoid the gunshot for he is affraid the great thunderbold is behind and so with much adoe he was brought to dispute again where Master C. falling upon the third branch of his Argument That God did actually receive Infants to be Church-members under the Gospell began thus C. Those whom Christ commanded his disciples to Baptize they may be Baptized But Christ commanded his Disciples to Baptize infants Therefore they may be Baptized The Minor being denyed was proved thus He that commanded his Disciples to baptize all Nations commanded them to baptize infants But Christ commanded his Disciples Matth. 28. 19. to baptize all Nations Therefore Christ commanded them to baptize infants T. Mr. T. denyed the Major C. Which was proved by this Enthymema The whole includes every part Infants
not Baptism and no Baptism which will appear by the definition of Analoga They have one common name which principally is attributed to one member afterwards by similitude or proportion to others Thus Baptism is principally Sacramentall less principally Typicall washings whether ordinary the Leviticall or extraordinary this under the Cloud and in the red Sea And Analoga are twofold either of inequalitie so entitie or being is by way of perfection ascribed to God afterwards by participation to the creature Or of attribution when it is given to one member properly as health to a body to another Metonymically when it is given to the Urine as the sign to dyet as the cause of health To the later of these our Typicall Baptism may be reduced the other to neither but is Grotius his figment having not the common name And in Isaiah 65. 20. There is need of such an interpretation for as ver 17. The new heavens and new earth and 18. 19. Creation and Jerusalem were analogicall and not proper so the 20. ver is wholly Tropicall and Mysticall There shall be no more thence an Infant of dayes How can this be understood literally did not Infants after as well as under the Captivity make up their weeks of dayes months of weeks c. It must needs relate to something under the Jewish Paedogogie and nothing so probably as that of theirs that nothing was clean till a Sabboth had gone over it and therefore according to divine institution Circumcision was not till the eighth day Mr. T. might have done well to have imparted us either his own or Master Gatakers descant upon these words but because they could devise nothing that like the ears under the Lions skin would not discover the whole Imposture ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem But though he passed by that as a riddle like Davus not Oedipus yet in the words following says Master Gataker the Syntax is familiar I had thought Syntax had been Grammaticall construction according to rule not literall interpretation or univocall not analogicall praedication And this Syntax he sayes is as clear as the day-light or Sun-shine perhaps to an Owle or Bat And what is this Syntax that is so clear The Child or youth that now is shall dye the son of an hundred years that is shall be an hundred years old when he dyeth The Child or youth there is one addition for the Text mentions not youth which is a distinct age from Childhood That now is there is another the Child was not yet it was a praediction and so both an Addition and an untruth shall dye the son of an hundred years there is a third son of by addition put in old by substraction taken away excellent Arithmetick besides here is a new creation of a new generation son of years who ever heard such a Syntax did the son beget the years or the years the son or whether is elder That is shall be an hundred years old when be dyeth here is an exposition of an exposition and a fourth addition be and when being superadded According to which interpretation the words must carry this sense There shall no more Infants dye when they are young nor an old man till he hath filled his dayes for he that now is a child shall not dye till he be an hundred years old I wonder in what age this was performed that no man dyed till he had completed his Century no mortal diseases nor use of Physicians but every man might certainly know the day of his death All experience and history is contrary to this unless that of China that relates many generations before Adam as well as the contents which are justly entitled to the Church of England seeing besides the rise and spring of them every Parliament and Synod with universal acceptation did interpretatively make them so before so many millions to prefer Mr. Gataker one single man and say he understands the text as well or better than they is not onely a disparagement but praesumption I esteem of Mr. Gataker as a reverend man and a prime light of the Church yet dare not elevate him so high in the Pole with Mr. Tombes as to make him infallible nor depresse him so low as Mr. Lilly calculates him pag. 5. 6. of his Merlini Anglici Ephemeris 1654 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Truth must not be pinned upon Mr. Gataker's no nor upon Mr. Tombes sleeve though he speaks magnificently in the language of Nabucadnezzar this text was rightly made by me answerable to Zach. 8. 4. made by him and not by the Holy Ghost nor declared so by any Interpreter before him He mentions neither This is great Babel Let us hear the words Thus saith the Lord of Hosts there shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem every man with his staffin his hand for very age and the streets of the City shall be full of boyes and girls playing in the streets thereof What is this to an Infant of dayes or a child dying an hundred years old When it is apparent from the contents text and Interpreters that this of Zachary is meant of the Jewes return from captivity and more apparent that that of Isay is meant of the state of Christs Kingdom under the Gospel To interpret it otherwise notwithstanding any thing that hath been said hitherto or Mr. Gatake's notes which for brevity sake he will not transcribe bu◠keeps for a reserve ◠believe even yet includes little less than absurdity untruth Blasphemy 1. To apply the 25. v. to the return from captivity is absurd that the wolf and the lamb should feed togither and the lion should eat straw with the bullock and dust should be the serpents neat The Parallel place to which the marginal notes and Expositer◠refer it can be understood of none but Gospel-times for Isai 11. having expressed Christs lineage natures office he declares the peaceable estate of his kingdome 6. 7. The Wolfe also shall dwell with the Lambe and the Leopard shall ly down with the Kid and the Calf and the young Lyon and the fatling together and a little child shall lead them and the Cow and the Bear shall feed their young ones shall ly down together and the Lyon shall eat straw with the Oxe 2. To apply the 19. v. to the return from captivity is an untruth that the voice of weeping should be no more heard in Jerusalem for it was twice destroyed afterwards once by Antiochus then by Vespatian and Titus never rebuilded nor restored yet So that either it must be understood mystically of the conversion and fulness of the Gentiles or literally of the final calling of the Jewes 3. To apply the 17 v. to the return from captivity is blasphemous Behold I create new heavens and new earth and the former shall no more be remembred and come into mind for it crosseth St. Peters interpretation 2 Pet. 3. 13. We according to his promise look for new heavens and new earth for
can any rational man think that the new Temple built at Jerusalem in Cyrus his time was the new heaven and the new earth that the former should be no more remembred When the antient men are said to weep because the glory of the latter Temple was short of the glory of the first Ezra 3. 11. Mr. Tombes 13. Section WHat I said about Dr. Prideaux his use was true and that he would require the respondent afore he answered to read the Text and consider it which is necessary in divinity disputes however Respondents be restrained in other Disputes And for my Explosion at Oxford it is a meer figment and that neither Dr. Savage nor the Doctor of the Chair did avoid my Argument by their Answer is manifest enough from Dr. Savage his own recital of his answer in his printed book and this had been shewed in print ere this but that the Printer failed to print mine Answer in the fit time The frivolous conceit of my fear of Mr. C. gunshot is foolish I do not count Mr. C. Arguments to be of so much force as a Squib Reply THe first words about Dr. Prideaux his use he brings in like a fragment seemingly having no dependance of the foregoing or following discourse concerning which the Reader must be informed that from answering Mr. T. fell to moderating and magisterially determining of the Question that before he would resigne the chaire I was forced to tell him that he violated the rules of dispute and did lasciviously wanton it out into a wilderness of words that the truth might be obscured or lost and like a lapwing carry the hearers far from the mater Then his Apologie was that Dr. Prideaux when a place of Scripture was cited was wont to give a large Exposition To which was then replyed that he was Dr. of the Chaire and Judge of the contâ—oversie and might do that a Respondent may not do whose office is onely to repeat deny distinguish and when a Text is quoted to give a brief Exposition that the Opponent may have some thing to fasten upon Now he asserts that what he said of Dr. Prideaux his use was true that he would require the Respondent before he answered to read the Text and consider it which I do not deny but that de facto it was done de jure it ought to have been done not onely though principally in dâ—vinity Disputes but even in Philosophie and Mathematicks when the Argument depends upon the authority or meaning of Aâ—istotle Plato Euclide or the like But that any mention was made thereof in the Dispute I do not remember for there he spoke of Dr. Prideaux his practise in his own person not what he willed in the person of the Respondent Besides it is one thing to require the Respondent before his answer to read the Text and consider it another thing to suffer the Respondent after he hath spun out his Answer to a long thread to enforce his own sense upon the Chapter and determine the Question And though it may be true it was his use that he required the Respondent before he answered to read the Text yet I am sure it is as true that he would not require the Opponent before the framing of his Syllogism to read more than he drew his Argument from for neglect of which he unjustly accuses me of fallacie What he means by Explosion or a meer figment I know not this I know that when he would not be satisfied with Dr. Savage his Answer nor the Professors determination but fell to repetition exploserunt saltem juniores not once but again at his nâ—â— answering the Drs. challenge Though perhaps Mr. Tombes was so harnessâ—d with confidence that he was not sensible of it Vos ô Patricius sanguis quos vivere fas est Occipiti â—aeco posticae occurrite sannae Pers Satyr 1. And such Explosions are grounded upon equitie because those that will not acquiess in the Vicechancellors or Professerâ— determinations by the University statutes are to be admonished But he unmindfull of this like Chrysogonus whom Tully for the like cause calls nobilem egâ—egium gladiatorem speaks in the language of a Fencer saying that neither Dr. Savage nor the Dr. of the Chaire did avoid his Argument by their Answer is manifest enough from Dr. Savage his own reciâ—al of his Answer in his printed book Sed quo judice Who shall be Uâ—pâ—re in this debate Mr. Tombes himself for he sayes that this had been shewed in print ere this but that the Printer failed to print his Answer in the fit time How much was that Printer to blame that would not expedite that Canon that must regulate the whole Church in opposition to harmonies of confessions Assemblies of Divines determinations of Universities Frange lâ—ves calamos scinde Thalia libellos Si dare c. Mart. But he fâ—lls off â—rom vying with his sword and buckleâ— whereby he avoyded the Drs. Arguments to vaunt his coat of Male as if he had got Vulcan's Panoplâ—e and were shot free for he sayes the frivolous conceit of his fear of my gun-shot is foolish In some sense I confesse its true for he that will not fear the whole Church terrible as an Army with Banners will not tremble at the shot of one private souldier But that in another sense he feared was apparent both from his abrupt breaking off the Dispute and refusing further engagement And for all he counts not my Arguments to be of so much force as a squib his eyes may be opened one day to see his whole Magazine blown up thereby as it is to manifest his patience is already by which he might have possessed his soul one dram whereof is to be preferred before the Vatican Library full of such volumes as his Master Tombes 14. Section AS for his Argument from Mat. 28 19. I answered that all Nations or whole Nations did not include every part all Nations being taken Synecdochically for the Disciples of all Nations As for his Division I gave the genuine reason why Infants are excepted from the precept of baptizing because they are no Disciples Nor was there any defect in Logick when I did not reduce it to one of his members For capable of Baptism and Disciples are not terms subordinate but distinct though without opposition And though to be Disciples made them capable yet there is a difference between the terms I presume Mr. C. thinks baptized persons already Disciples yet not capable of Baptism Reply HAving dispatched the two former branches of mine Argument That God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law I came unto the third That God did actually receive Infants to be Church-members under the Gospel that they might be baptized thus Those whom Christ commanded his Disciples to baptize they may be baptized Christ commanded his Dâ—sciples to baptize Infants Therefore they may be baptized The Minor being denied was proved
him by sophistrie C. What fallacie T. A heaping of many things together that belong to severall matters C. I confess they were spoken upon several occasions but they all concenter in my Conclusion that children are holy and in Covenant I am in hast and named them all together but if you will have patience I le prosecute them severally T. I am willing to continue till midnight but I like not this kind of arguing C. You like it not because it does jugutum pelâ—re cut the throat of your tenet T. No not so much as touch the skin of it sayes he C. Well I beseech you in the spirit of meekness to answer T. It is a fallacie of heaping many particulars together C. I confess there is a fallacie they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 T. Take notice he confesses it is a fallacie C. No such thing for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an asking of many Questions which is your usuall fallacie Socratically to ask when you should solidly answer but in my Syllogism there is not so much as one Question T. It is a Copulative proposition sayes Mr. Tombes and if one member of it be false the whole is false C. It is not an explicit Copulative proposition sayes Master C. neither is any member of it false for every branch of it is Scripture Instance in any of the particulars that you think makes the least for me and I le begin with that then he mentioned Matth. 18. 2. Which words being read from thence he raised this Argument 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 T. Those little Children were not Infants C. They are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they could scarce speak T. What are these called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 C. If not here elsewhere and of other Evangelists and here they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the diminutive which the great Master of the Greek Hippocrates interprets to signifie a Child under seven years of age and therefore not capable of actuall faith when the Apostles themselves were yet ignorant about fundamentalls T. They were converted verse 3. Except ye be converted and become as little Children c. C. The meaning is not that the little Children are converted 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 T. O how unhappy are the people that are seduced with these toyes are you not ashamed C. I see you have learned of that man in Lucian to cry out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to vilifie that Argument you cannot answer and besides that I see nothing that is shame-worthy He hath answered nothing at all sayes one under the Pulpit but shifts and denyes all T. Thou art an impudent brazen-faced fellow whosoever thou art I have answered all confuted all my adversaries Books and amongst them one of my greatest Antagonists I have turned Master Richard Baxter the most of his Arguments against himself C. Sir let that worthy man alone who is absent you are now to answer me T. Here is nothing to answer is it not in the sixt verse Who so shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me were they not believers C. Yes the Disciples were believers which are here meant and not the children which the Grammaticall construction will tell you for it is in the masculin gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one of these little ones meaning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciple not â—n the Nâ—uter Gender to answer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little child so that my Argument remains unanswered T. I am weary of this Pedantrie and looking upon his watch said I promised but one houre and it s above four hours with that he clapped his Book together T. J. Good Master Tombes says an Anabaptist continue a little longer for satisfaction of the people he gave no answer but put on his hat C. Well Sir I will not press you any further now I should have urged John 3. 5. Rom. 11. and other places to prove Infants Church membership and have come to the second and third branches of mine Argument that Christ merited it for them and Infants stand in need of baptism but those I must leave to another opportunitie Therefore I desire that we may have a set day about a Month hence seeing I was hurryed to this extemporall discourse through importunitie T. No I will have no more dealing with you unless it be by writing that what both of us shall set down may be read in the publick Congregation MARK 16. 15 16. 15. And he said unto them Go ye into all the world and Preach the Gospel to every Creature 16. He that beleeveth and is Baptized shall be saved but he that beleeveth not shall be damned THese two verses hold out the rich Charter of the Gospel which our Saviour delivered to the Apostles after his Resurrection The parts are two First a Precept in the former verse Go ye into all the world and Preach the Gospel to every Creature Secondly a Promise with a Commination in the latter He that beleeveth and is Baptized shall be saved but he that beleeveth not shall be damned In the Precept we have two particulars First a Mission he sends them Go ye into all the world Secondly a Commission he authorizes them and Preach the Gospel to every Creature In the latter verse or promise we have First the thing promised layd down affirmatively shall be saved Secondly the qualification and that either absolute he that beleeveth or conditional and is Baptized he that beleeveth and is Baptized shall be saved Or a Commination shall be damned with a qualification negative and absolutely without any limitation he that beleeveth not shall be damned We 'l only hint at the former verse for introduction to the latter And he said that is Christ Observe that it is only God Christ God and Man that can give Mission or Commission to Preach and ordain Sacraments Matth. 28. 18. All power is given me in Heaven and Earth Go ye therefore and teach all Nations Go ye into all the world there is the largeness of their Commission to all the world as he to all Nations as Matthew Hence observe the Apostles and by them the Evangelists had an extraordinary Commission which extended through the world but our Commission ordinarily is limited to certain places True it is there may be itinerants upon speciall occasions and they also confined within their verges But as Doctor Buckeridge observes well when Christ speaks to Apostles he says Go ye into all the world but when to ordinary Pastors and Teachers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he fixed some to be Pastors and some Teachers And Preach the Gospel to every Creature there is the
Commission wherein we have First the Act Preach that is proclaime Secondly the object of the Gospel which in the Originall and other languages signifies good news or a good speech from the connexion between the Mission and Commission coming from the same Authour Christ and extended to the same persons the Apostles and their successours observe that none may Preach as Church-Officers but they that are sent in a Gospel-way our adversary in the common cause spoke so home to this that we need not press it further The last thing is the extent of the Commission and that a very large one unto every Creature as here to all Nations as Matthew Now the Quaere will be what is meant by every Creature Some limit it to every rational creature Angels men Devils as Origen and his misericordes Doctores who held the Devils and reprobates should be saved but that cannot be for 2 Pet. 2. 4. They are cast down to hell and reserved to judgement Some more strictly restrain it onely to man and that when he is come to age and understanding excluding Children this is too strict True it is Infants are not capable to be taught of men but they may be taught of God they cannot actually understand the Gospel but they may actually receive the benefit of the Gospel a noble mans Child hath interest in his Fathers â—atent and pardon a sucking Infant though he knows it not may be joined in a lease with the Parents Some extend it and it is conceived more fitly according to the Letter without any Syneedoche or figure to every creature as if he should say Goâ— and proclaim the benefit that comes by Christ to every Creature for as by the first Adam all creatures were accursed so by Christ the second Adam all creatures shall be blessed Rom. 8. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every creature groans desiring to be nelivered into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God answerable to this Preach the Gospl 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every creature telling them that they are now by Christ to be delivered into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God Object But the creature cannot hear nor understand Answ It s true not properly no more could John Baptist in his Mothers Womb and yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Babe sprang for joy Nay the Holy Ghost ascribes a hearing to the creature Hosea 2. 21. And it shall come to pass in that day saith the Lord I will hear the Heavens and they shall hear the Earth and the Earth shall hear the Corn and the Wine and the Oyl and they shall hear Jezreel Hence observe that every creature in a sense is sensible of the benefit they have by Christ but every one in their kind men come to years and discretion are capable of actual understanding actual profession actual faith Infants onely in actu primo are capable of the first seeds of understanding of profession of Faith which will shew it self in the fruits when they come to years The rest of our fellow-creatures as by a natural instinct they groan for the curse so by an other instinct they lift up their heads in expectation of the blessing and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an earnest expectation or a stretched out neck as the word in the originall signifies Rom. 8. 9. Thus we have paraphrased upon the first verse for introduction to the second wherein is First a Consolatory promise he that beleeveth and is Baptized shall be saved Secondly a Comminatorie Curse he that believeth not shall be damned In the former we have first the qualification and that either absolute he that beleeveth or conditional and is Baptized Q. Now the Quaere will be what belief is here meant Sol. First the event tells us that belief that saves us he that believes shall be saved Secondly the opposition its contrary to that unbelief that damns Observe that a saving faith is necessary to salvation without faith it is impossible to please God all they and onely they that have a saving Faith shall be saved so that you see that Faith is a necessary and absolute condition And is Baptized that is upon supposition if Baptism conveniently may be had hence observe that Baptism is not absolutely necessary by necessity of means as they call it as if none could be saved without it but by necessity of Precept if conveniently it may be had The Israelites for forty years in the Wilderness were not Circumcised Bernard that saw not all things could see this that non absentia sed contemptus Sacramenti damnat not the want but the contempt of the Sacrament damns Valentinian the Emperour dyed as he was going to be Baptized in Jordan and Ambrose being asked what he thought of him answered that he was Baptizatus vote voluntate etiam si non reverà aquae laâ—acrâ— Baptized inwardly with wish and will though not outwardly with the laâ—er of water Austin is conceived here to be mistaken who denyed salvation to Infants Un-Baptized hence he is called durus Pater Infantum a hard Father of Infants and many of the Doctors of the Church of Rome who hold that Infants that dye Un-Baptized are kept in limbo Infantum in a Purgatory of Infants where they shall never behold the beatifical vision Object But here is first placed Believing and then Baptized so that from the order of placing the words some would gather that we are first to Beleeve before we be Baptized Answ That will not follow for Mark 1. 4. There is placed first Baptizing and then Preaching and repentance after whence they might as well gather that we must be Baptized before we can hear the word Preached or repent Repentance in Scripture is oft placed before Faith and yet is a fruit and effect of Faith some of the Evangelists place Judas his receiving of the sop before the Sacrament some after it it is a rule in interpreting of holy Writ that Scriptura nescit prius posterius the Scripture does not alwaies observe the precise order in which things were done Q. But I beseech you consider what Faith it is that is here meant Sol. A saving Faith Must then a saving Faith be the rule of our Baptism and must we Baptize none but those we know have a saving Faith then we must Baptize none at all never any Minister upon that ground had ever Commission to Baptize any no not the Apostles for they did not infallibly know that those they Baptized had a saving Faith nay they actually Baptized many that were hypocrites as Simon Magus Alexander Hymeâ—aus Philetus and others hence observe That no rule for Baptizing in general can be gathered out of this Text And to say that none are to be Baptized but they that have a saving Faith which is the Faith that is onely here meant or none but they which make an outward profession of Faith which is not here meant is an untruth not gatherable from this Scripture
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.
be found it cannot be justified without sacriledge His third allegation that the true cause of Anabaptism is shining forth of lâ—ght from the Scriptures and other Authors what other Authors Is not Scripture by Bellarmine's own confession certissima omnium perfectissima regula the most certain and perfectest rule of all Yea the sole and adequate rule of our faith Scripture its true may impart its light to other Authors as the Sun empties his rayes as the Astronomers speak in inferiores crateras into inferiour sublunary vessels If the Scripture have thus emptied it self for the advantage of Anabaptism they might do well to let it appear produce one solâ—d Argument out of Scripture against Infant-Baptism name one Authentick and impartial Author that demonstrates out of one Text of Scripture that Infants ought not de jure to be baptized out of the undoubted Records of one Century that de facto they were not baptized but this they never could do yet never will do Indeed they may fancy to themselves abundance of light out of Scripture like sick persons in some disease when death approaches thinks that store of tapers and torches are lighted about the bed when the candle is out the cause is in the distemper of the brain and eye and if the spiritual eye of the soul be darkened 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how great is the darkness The fourth Allegation is That this light out of Scripture and other Authors was not discerned formerly as now Some of our Anabaptists are of opinion that Christ never locally ascended into heaven but onely vanished out of sight and is yet bodily upon the earth vouchsafing his apparition to the Saints now which he did not in former ages This is either a diabolical fiction or a deluding Phantasm like to this is the pretended light out of Scripture and other Authors for Anabaptism not discerned formerly as now Did Berengarius see more than the primative Fathers and Martyrs The Albigenses of France and the Anonymi more then Berengarius Peter de Bruis more than the Albigenses Baltazzar Hubmir Pacimontanus Muncer and John of Leyden more than Peter de Bruis And Mr. Tombes as a child upon these Giants shoulders sees further into childrens baptism than they all Ring the bells backward and make Horace recant his parentum pejor avis lib. 3. ode 6. That every thing degenerates Ovid and Hesiod were mistaken now is the golden age and not before It seems the promise that Christ made to the never dying corporation of his Apostles and their successors that he was with them alway even to the end of the world was not performed before That the Holy Ghost that was to lead into all truth was not sent till now We have special predictions of these latter dayes but it s such as these 2 Tim. 3. 1 2 6 7. In the last dayes perillous times shall come for men shall be lovers of their own selves covetous boasters proud blasphemers disobedient to parents unthankfull unholy c. Of this sort are they that creep into houses and lead captive silly womâ—n laden with sins led away with divers lusts ever hearing and never able to come to the knowledg of the truth Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses so do these also the truth Jude 18. 19. There should be mockers in the last time who should walk after their own ungodly lusts These be they who separate themselves sensual having not the Spirit And our Saviour himself tells us when he shall come he shall scarce find faith upon earth But that there is shining light out of Scripture and other Authors not formerly discerned about Infant-Baptism otherwise than that by opposition the truth is more cleared I fear is but a bragg like Oromazes in Plutarch who boasted he had an Egge that had included in it the happiness of the world which being broken proved a wind-egg and nothing came forth but corrupted aire I have read of a Mountebanke that bragged of a new receipt that would make dimme eyes see as perfectly as those of Lynceus who could discover the flaggs of ships from the Carthaginian to the Lilibaean shore but being applyed put them out Satan promised Eve that her eyes should be opened and that they should be as Gods knowing good and evill but it was to see their misery as the event declares John of Leyden when he awaked out of his deep sleep pretended strange revelations and new lights which ended in riding upon a blind Asse in the market place where he afterwards for his impostures suffered Male ominatis parcite verbis God grant that the end of our Anabaptists may be to their own comfort and the peace of the Church and that is the worst I wish them In answer to the fourth head of the Epistle why the Anabaptists were permitted and their books printed seing those of Arrius Dr. Pocklingtons Mr. Archers were burned he passes by the reasons there assigned which are these 1. The providence of God 2. The wisdome of the state The providence of God who suffers errours 1. That truth by opposition may more diligently be searched out 2. That the sincerity and constancy of the faithfull may be tryed 3. That impenitent and proud in spirit may be blinded and hardned The wisdome of the State that like wise Chirurgians will not launce a turgid ulcer till it be ripe A skilfull Phisitian that will not purge some floating humors till they be settled These he calls the Epistlers own ignorant surmises when they are not his own but in effect of the whole Church not ignorant surmises but the judgment of most learned men wherein consequently he accuses many former Councells Synods Harmonies of confessions Parliaments Canon Civill Statute laws many former Treatises of learned Divines and the late Assembly of ignorant surmises The true reason sayes he why their books and practise is permitted is because they have at least so much appearance of truth as is sufficient to make wise men to let them alone least they haply should fight against God This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or common allegation that the Quakers Shakers Ranters and all dissenters plead for liberty of conscience wherein are couched two words that discovers an Asses ears under a Lions skin and a poult-foot under a long mantle for he speaks not out and sayes absolutely that there is truth in their books but that there is at least so much appearance of truth not that those that oppose them fight against God but that haply that is casually they may fight against God True it is which the Philosopher saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many things appears and makes fair semblance which are but shadowes and kickshowes Copp put such a gloss and varnish upon upon his blasphemies that a Matron that cryed shame upon him before when she heard his Sophisticated reasons was convinced to be of his judgment Anabaptism is a Magazine of all subtiltie fortified and ammunitioned with all sorts of
appear by the bare repetition of it which is this Those whom God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel those God did appoint Church-members under the Gospell The truth of this proposition hath no dependance upon faith or profession which is but Mr. Tombes his dream but upon a threefold impregnable rock first Gods promise which is founded upon his veracity secondly his prediction which is founded upon his omnisciency and infallibility thirdly from the intrinsecal connexion of the terms which makes it to be aeternae veritatis for actually to receive into covenant under the Gospel and to appoint Church-members under the Gospel are as essentially coincident as to be a man and a reasonable creature To deny the two former branches is no less than blasphemy to question the third would grant a Metaphysical and Logical principle upon which is built the superstructures of all Arts and Sciences What can be more absurd than to affirm that what God hath promised foretold performed is not executed When Orthodox Christians argued that God created the World of nothing because when there was nothing extant besides himself he decreed to create it said before there was any creature fiat Coelum let there be Heaven and Earth and in six dayes framed all things he made the World of nothing but when there was nothing extant besides God he decreed to create the World and before there was any creature said fiat Coelum and in six dayes framed all things Therefore God made all the World of nothing Porphyrie and Libanius those Atheists answered that if by Gods decree fiat and fact was meant that God made all things sine praejacente materiâ without a fiâ—st matter they denyed the Major as if God could not of nothing create all things In imitation of these Mr. Tombes dâ—nies those whom God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel that he did appoint them Church-members under the Gospel if by actuall receiving into Covenant I understand such an actual receiving as is without any act of Faith or profession of the persons received into Covenant as â—f God could not appoint them Church-members even though he had promised foretold and actually received them into Covenant without an act of faith and profession This might have had some colour if applyed to the Minor which he sayes he also denyed implying that in the Dispute he denyed the Major which will throw him upon the horns of this Dilemma if he denyed it then my quicknesse prevented him not if he denyed it not then he tells an utruth and contradicts himself but this is so usual that I am wearied to take notice of them Master Tombes 4. Section IN the next proof he changeth the term of actually receiving into being in Covenant Now there is a manifest difference between them sith a person may be in Covenant that is have a Covenant made to him who is not yet born as Isaac Gen. 17. 21. But he is not actually received into Covenant till he is born and by some Acts of his own engageth himself to be Gods Receiving importeth an offering which is to be done by profession As for his proof from Gen. 17. 7. I had many exceptions against it First that if it be understood of the natural seed of Abraham the everlastingness of it was but for a time and that time afore the Gospel as in the next verse the possession of Canaan is promised to be everlasting and yet the Jewes dispossest now of it Which Mr. C. grantâ— and therefore must needs grant that the promise verse 7. though it be termed everlasting yet it is to be understood onely of a limited time as in other passages Exod. 21. 6. and 12. 24. c. If meant of the natural seed of Abraham Nor is he relieved by saying they shall have Canaan again for however the possession was not everlasting that is at all times particularly not in Gospel-times Reply HE having denyed the Minor that God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law and actually receive Infants into Covenant under the Gospel I proved the branches in order First that God did promise before the Law that Infants should be in Covenant under the Gospel thus That which God did promise to Abraham was before the Law but God did promise to Abraham that Infants should be in Covenant or actually received into Covenant under the Gospel therefore God did promise before the law that Infants should be in Covenant or actually received into covenant under the Gospel Here he sayes I change the terme of actually receiving into being in Covenant whereas if his memory had not failed he might have recollected that in the Dispute I used both if his charity had not been a grain or too too light he might have imputed it to the Relator who for brevity sake omitted the one terme which was used but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to interpret the other thâ—y being Equivalent in sense But he sayes there is a manifest difference between them whaâ— difference He that is actually received into covenant is in Covenant and he that is in Covenant is actually received into Covenant it being impossible to be in Covenant properly so called without being actually received into it To be in the state of grace and glory and to be actually received into the state of grace and glory are Aequipollent terms If Mr. Tombes's soul be in his body it is actually received into his body and if the sword be in the Scaberd it is actually received into the scaberd But he disproves this Instance sith a person may be in Covenant that â—s have a Covenant made to him who is not yet born as Isaak Gen. 17. 21. Three untruths couched in one kennil 1. That a person may be in Covenant who is not yet born 2. That to have a Covenant made to him is to be in Covenant 3. That Isaak was in Covenant who was not yet born Gen. 17. 21. First That a person may be in Covenant who is not yet born or conceived as his instance of Isaak implies may be confuted insito Argumento by an Argument inbred in the terms for he implyes and that right that a person must be the subject of being in Covenant but none who is unborn and unconceived as Isaak Gen. 17. 21. is a person for a person must be a substance which excludes all Accidents from Covenant capacity à substantia prima must exist and be cloathed with individual circumstances which excludes universals must be Intelligent which excludes all irrational creatures Incommunicable which excludes the Divine nature No part of another which excludes the soul or body of man after separation to be persons Not supported of another which excludes the humane nature of Christ because it is supported of the Divine Now that which is unborn not conceived or organized in the womb is therefore
6. how were it a better covenant if all poore Infants that were in covenant under the Law were out of covenant under the Gospel runs upon these common mistakes That to be circumcised or baptized is all one as to be in covenant all that were in covenant were to be circumcised or baptized all that were not were out of covenant That the reason of circumcising or baptizing a person is his being in covenant which are all false as I have proved Exam. part 3. Sect. 1. letter to Mr. Bayly Sect. 3. part 1. Sect. 5. and shall part 3 in many Sections if God permit And to the Question I answer from the next words Hebr. 8. 6. The new covenant is a better covenâ—nt because it is stablished on better promises though it were imagined never a poore Infant as he childishly speaks which yet I do not conceive were in covenant His next from Tit. 2. 11. supposeth if Infants be not to be baptized The grace of God appears not to them which is of no force unless that Popish conceit obtain that by it and not without it Gods grace appears to all But this is false and not in the Text. Irenaeus words are not that Christ was a little one that little ones might be baptized from his example for then he would have them baptized in infancy where as he was not baptized till about thirty years of age We need not deny Christs redemption of Infants because we deny their baptism there 's no such connexion between them His saying of little ones That they were the first Martyrs that suffered for Christ is false for how were they Martyrs who testyfied nothing concerning Christ That of the collect in the Common prayer-book on Innocents day that they witnessed onely by dying is vain for dying without some other expression doth not witness nor did they suffer for Christ whom they knew not but because of Herods beastly rage This speech of Mr. C. smells ranck of the Common prayer-book superstition in keeping Innocents day which it seems Mr. C. yet retains but is nothing to the proof of his Major nor any thing hitherto alledged Reply CHrist is said Heb. 8. 6. to be a Mediator of a better Covenant which could not be if Infants that were in covenan under the Law were out of covenant under the Gospel-and is grounded upon this impregnable rock which the Anabaptists will never overthrow that to be circumcised or baptized is all one as to be in visible covenant That the reason of baptizing or circumcising a person is their birth-right Tuition self profession whereby they are visibly admitted into covenant That what he hath said examen part 3. Sect. 1. Antipaed part 1. Sect. 5. touches not the true state of the controversie but is a confused Maze intricated with his fallaciâ decumanâ or Master-fallacie of Gods making whereas he should say compleating his covenant onely with the elect or spirituall seed and this as the poysoned string in the Lamprey runs through the whole we have seen his attempts hitherto as fallacious as the hanging of Mahomets tomb in the aire his followers may expect as much satisfaction from the many sections of his third part yet invisible as Mahomets from his second comming Hebr. 8. 6. The new covenant is a better covenant not onely positively because it is established upon better promises in circumstantials but because it is extended to move all Nations negatively would not be better if any sex age degree were excluded Titus 2. 11. The grace of God hath appeared unto all therefore to Infants by Church membership and the visible seal thereof out of the one whereof and without the other if it may be had God hath given no promise of salvation yet this is no popish conceit in tying God to the means as if without them he could not but to obedience without which he will not Irenaeus words are that Christ bâ—came a little one for little ones sake that he might redeeme little ones outwardly as well baptizing them with water as inwardly with the Holy Ghost after his precept not example who was not baptized till thirty years of agâ— because baptism was not instituted till then but circumcised when eight dayes old As dâ—mnatâ—on and contempt so Christs redemption and acceptation of baptism are connexed My saying of little ones that they were the first Martyrs that suffâ—red for Christ is true for they may be Mâ—rtyrs or wâ—tnesses who do suffer or signifie any thing relating to Christ without an express verball testimony This appears by the Hebrew acceptation of the word Genes 31. 48. Laban said this heap is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eedah a witness between me and thee The children might as well be witnesseâ— as a heap of stones Deut. 4. God calls Heaven and Earth to witness The Greeks whence the word Martyr is borrowed applies it to dead things Pindar ode 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the last dayes are wisest witnesses and Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I produce nature for a witness That expression that they witnessed onely by dying I confess is vain which is Mr. Tombes his own not of the collect in the Common prayer-book on Innocents day which calls them witnesses not by speaking but dying dying without other vocall expression by impression may witness They suffered being baptized with the baptism of blood for Christ whom actually they knew not though Herod was the Instrument as Pilate was of Christs suffering for us This suits with the language of Fathers and leading Protestants and infers not the keeping of Innocents day much less the rankness of Common-prayer books superstition which about twenty years ago I opposed in a Bishops House while Mr. T. to ingratiat with Bishops was maintaining of it as credibly reported with tongue and pen All this conduceth to the proof of the Major Mr. Tombes 12 Section THat which he saith last hath most shew of proof That Baptism came in place of circumcision the Apostle clears it Col. 2. 11 12 ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands how is that huryed with him in Baptism but it is not true that he sayth ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands in that ye are buryed with him in Baptism These are predicated of the same persons and so were conjoyned but yet not so as to express how that the former was done by the latter no more than by that which follows that therein they were raised by the faith of the operation of God who raised Christ from the dead yea it had been false so expounded for how could it be true that they were circumcised without hands in that they were buried in Baptism with hands Nor if this were granted were it true that it is cleared by the Apostle that Baptism comes in the roome of circumcision for there is not a word to that end yea the scope is to prove that we have all in Christ without circumcision as v. 10 c. doth shew and