Gen. doth not extend to any signe as to the corroborating or confirming signe or Sacrament viz. the Passeover Nor is it our intention to extend it so farre as if we would wind in that Believers Infants might receive the confirming corroborating signe of the Holy-Supper as Mr. Tomles his forming the Argument would seeme to reach The difference is too wide between some signe and all signes for us to conclude that if some signe is due to them to whom is the Covenant that therefore all signes in the New-Testament are due and so to depart from the designe of the Text in hand But Mr. Tâ—mbes not satisfied with the argument as laid down by himself Exercitat p. 3. makes divers exceptions against it although he confesseth that the Gospel-covenant was the same in all ages in respect of the thing promised and the condition of the covenant which we may call saith he the sulâ—stantiall and essentiall part of the covenant to wit Christ faith sanctification remission of sins eternall life Animadv So he and consequently say we he confesseth that this Covenant Gen. 17. is a Gospel-one in the substance and essence The exceptions Mr. Tombes makes are foure That it is not saith Mr. T. apure Gospel-covenant 1 Except Exercitation Sect. 1. p. 2. but mixt For saith he the covenant takes its denomination from the promises but the promises are mixt some Evangelicall belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongs some are domestick or civill promises specially respecting the house of Abraham and politie of Israel ergo So he Answ Denomination is as Mr. T. well knows a parte potiori from that which is principall in a thing And who will not yeeld that the promises that concern grace and salvation are the principall Where doth the Scripture call it a mixt covenant yea doth not the Scripture in the New Testament frequently hold it forth as a pure covenant of grace as pure as any we have Rom. 4. v. 2 3. called a covenant of justification v. 4. A covenant of grace v. 11. A covenant of faith v. 13. Of the righteousnesse of faith And opposeth it not to temporall promises of domestick or politick or civill things but to works v. 2. v. 4. v. 6. To the law of works v. 14 15. Just so Gal. 3. it s called a covenant of righteousnesse by faith v. 6. of justification through faith v. 8. opposed not to civill promises but to the law of works ver 10 11 12. And I say this covenant with Abraham notwithstanding any civill promises of temporall things was as pure a covenant of grace as any we have in the New Testament For where God repeats that in Isaac all the earth should be blessed that is in Christ namely Rom. 8.32 is there not a conjunction of a promise of temporall things If he spared not his own Son how shall be not with him freely give us all things So 1 Cor. 3.22 23. Whether Paul or Apolle or Cephas or the world c. all are yours because ye are Chrisis So Christ himself Matth. 19.29 Every one that hath forsaken houses c. shall receive an hundred fold and inherit everlasting life And for this cause Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 2. when God repeats that which M. T. cals a domestick or civill promise viz. the multiplying Abrahams seed this the Lord refers to the covenant of grace Rom. 4.11 compare v. 17. and makes it the appurtnance of the grand promise Ibid. v. 13.16 17. For appurtenances do not alter the tenure or substance of the hold of a Mannour Amplification 1. Mr. T. to clear this his 1. exception doth thus amplifie saith he that was Evangelicall Gen. 17.5 Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 2. I have made thee a father of many nations And that Gen. 15.5 so shall thy seed be viz. as the stars Compare saith he Rom. 4.17 18. which places say we expresse onely this That he should be the father of many nations through the power of God according to that promise so shall thy seed be And saith Mr. T. a little after this is domestick and civil namely the multiplying of the seed of Abraham Ans Now where is expressed any plain substantiall difference between these two expressions Animad and whereby are we guided as by a sure threed to call this or that expression civill or evangelical I am not satisfied 2 He addes further that the promises of deliverance out of Aegypt Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 2. Animadvers Gen. 15. and the possession of Canaan Gen. 17. were civill Ans Seeing the holy Ghost makes these temporall things by divine institution significative of spirituall things Deliverance out of Egypt Mat. 2. and in the Preface to the first Commandment Canaan Hebr. 4. I see not how especially being mentioned in relation to the covenant of grace these are more civill then Sinai and Jerusalem Gal. 4.24 25 26. or bread and wine in the holy Supper 3 Mr. T. doubt in this amplification upon the first exception Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 2. whether this covenant made with Abraham may be called simply Evangelicall and so pertain to beleevers as beleevers seeing that those promises which were evangelicall according to the more inward sence of the holy Ghost do point at the priviledges of Abrahams house in the outward face of the word Answ Animadvers We see the Apostle mentioning those expressions of fatherhood of many nations of the land of Canaan c. doth apply this covenant as purely evangelicall to beleevers as beleevers Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Hebr. 4. Of which afore And I see no more cause to doubt of this to belong to beleevers as such then of that promise Gen. 3. to belong to beleevers The seed of the woman shall break the serpents head that is we shall conquer Satan through Christ though this were in the face of the words an advancement of the priviledge of Eves family Iosh 1.5 or generation That promise in the outward face of words did point at the priviledge of Joshnahs house that God would not leave him nor forsake him viz. in his warre with the Canaanites yet this the Apostle applies to beleevers as beleevers Hebr. 13.5 4 Mr. T. annexeth this reason to his doubt Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 3. There were saith he annexed to the covenant on mount Sinai sacrifices pointing at the sacrifice of Christ and yet we call not that Covenant simply evangelicall but in some respect Answ Animadvers If any do not if their fact weigh any thing in a dispute sure it is not because of the Gospel types for so Gospel sacramentall types would detract from their absolute Gospel notion but in regard of the legall terrible manner of delivering the ten Commandments which severed from the atonement of the Ceremoniall Law were in a manner turned by the Jews into a covenant of works Therefore the Apostle saith as it were Rom. 9.32 Moses mosissimus saith Luther killeth But
the word Anabaptist used onely as the known term of distinction or at the much quotation of Fathers and Antiquities in an historicall way being necessarily drawn thereunto by Mr. T. or at any quicknesse of expression it being if I know my selfe rather the complexion of my stile then any intention of sharpnesse The Lord I trust hath now made me better to know and to make known a Gospel spirit especially in print and preaching If any notwithstanding that have read Mr. T. will not patiently read over those on the other part they cannot be excused of partiall injustice and of unfaithfulnesse to themselves and to the truth in that they will not heare with both eares Qui parte alterâ inauditâ aliquid statuerit licet aequum statuerit haud aequus est It 's the law of England he that without hearing either party passeth sentence though he determine a just thing yet he is not a just Judge The Lord settle thee and me in the truth of the Lord Jesus is the earnest prayer of thy faithfull friend in the Lord NATHANAEL HOMES ERRATA CAndid Reader since the sheets came to my hands as wrought off the Presse casting mine eye here and there I espied these faults page 104. CHAP. I. for CHAP. XII Pag 110. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 142. l. 31. Of Infants not in danger of death for of Infants in danger of death P. 150. l. 23. Sin merit for sins merit P. 217. l. 9. designe for desire P. 202. l. penult take for takes line 28. thus to be blotted out which makes me feare there may be more of the like nature but if so have not time to find them out and so am forced to leave it to thy charity as a Christian to correct or candidly interpret the faults of human frailty that can doe nothing perfectly ANIMADVERSIONS UPON Mr. TOMBES HIS EXERCITATION ABOVT INF ANT-BAPTIS ME. CHAP. I. THe present Tenent saith Mr. Tombes according to which Infant-Baptisme is practised is Exercitation Section 1. that the Infants born of Beleevers are universally to be baptized This Doctrine and practise conformable is doubtfull to me by these arguments 1 That which hath no testimonie of Scripture for it is doubtfull but this Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme hath no testimonie of Scripture for it ergo it is doubtfull 1 We put in caution that we say not Infants but Infants of beleevers may be baptized 2 We retort Animadvers that institution against which there is no prohibition is doubtfully laid aside But there is no prohibition against the institution of giving the 1. signe or seal to beleevers children whilest children ergo it is doubtfully laid aside as the Anabaptists teach and do The minor saith he is proved by examining the places that are brought for it which are these Gen. 17.7 c. Act. 2.38 39. Exercitat Sect. 1. 1. Cor. 7.14 Mar. 10.14.16 Act. 16.15.32.1 Cor. 1.16 We answer Animad that the confirmation of our minor is proved by examining the Exercitators examinations of those Scriptures that are brought for the baptizing of beleevers children or infants The argument from Gen. 17.7 Exercitat Sect. 1. c. hath so many shapes that I may take up here that speech With what knot shall I hold shape-changing-Proteus We are sorry that Mr. Tombes should compare an endeavour fully to draw forth the marrow of a text of Scripture which every where abounds with sence to a poeticall fable touching Proteus Animadvers If Mr. T. will justifie that we may with more boldship 1 say of Mr. T. himself that had he been an Vlisses he might have constrained Proteus or a Gordius he might have knit a knot upon him whosoever he be that could not be untyed 2 That if the man for baptizing beleevers infants be a shape-changing Proteus what then is the Anabaptist touching the point in hand and in his answers to the text now in question to wit Gen. 17 For sometimes he saith that this Covenant with Abraham is a fleshly Covenant So Mr. B. S. P. c. sometimes a temporall Covenant sometimes a spirituall covenant and if a spirituall sometimes he saith it is a covenant of works sometimes he confesseth it is a covenant of grace in part But then one while he doubts whether seed here doth not onely signifie Christ another while if it doth signifie more whether it be not onely a particular covenant to Abraham To all which seeing Mr. T. hath occasioned us to mention them we desire to speak a little before we come to Mr. Tombes his answers The Apostle makes but two Covenants Answ 1 1. of works and 2. of grace and this of grace twofold in the administration viz. Old and New Hebr. Chap. 8. Chap. 9. where the Apostle makes it his businesse to set down all the main differences between the old and new Testament-administration of the covenant of grace but never mentions this of the Anabaptists that children of beleevers were to be signed with the 1. signe of the old in the old Testament and not with that of the New in the new Testament But to answer 2 more particularly to the severall reasons Obj. 1. P. H. Whether not fleshly because its a signe in the flesh A. So is Baptisme and holy Supper fleshly or carnal in the signe The outward shell of an ordinance may be carnall when the substance is spirituall Hebr. 9.10 See v. 9. yea see in the Apostles exposition of the whole Ceremoniall Law throughout the Epistle to Hebr. Ob. 2. Whether not a temporall covenant i. e. of temporall things As 1 Whether not of giving Canaan onely so Gen. 17. W. S. v. 8. Or 2 Whether not of making Abraham a father of many nations D. P. So Gen. 17. where it is mentioned three times v. 4. v. 5. v. 6. compare Rom. 4.11 Heb. 6.14 A. You see in the Gospel that the body of the Covenant of grace is God is our God in Christ But the appendices of temporals if taken in the shell as Seek first the kingdom of God and all other things shall be added to you Matth. 6.33 And all things shall work together for good to them that love him to them that are called according to his purpose Rom. 8.28 And I will not leave you nor forsake you Hebr. 13.5 do not make two covenants nor doth the latter make void the former And as considered in the kernel they relate to heaven blessed are ye that shall eat and drink in the kingdom of heaven Luk. 22.32 Behold I and the children Hebr. 2.13 If our earthly tabernacle c. 2 Cor. 5.1 and so fit to be joyned as appendices to heaven All our mammon made friends to us towards heaven Luk. 16.9 So in the old Testament Canaan and children Considered in the shell But in the meaning Canaan signifies the Church militant Jerusalem above Gal. 4.26 And triumphant If Jesus had given them rest Hebr.
never granted grace is not denyed to an excommunicated person who is inhibited the Lords Supper the grace of God is free whether we understand it of the divine affection or the effects of it nor can be made larger or narrower by our act 3. Yet it is not absurd to say that in respect of some priviledges the grace of God is more contracted in the New Testament then in the Old For instance no family hath now the priviledge that was granted to Abrahams family that out of it Christ should be born no man besides Abraham is called The Father of the Faithfull no woman besides one The mother of Christ neverthelesse simply the grace of God is said to be larger in the New Testament by reason of the revelation of the Gospell imparted to all Nations the more abundant communication of the holy Spirit and more plain manifestation of the mystery of the Gospel I would have it weighed whether those phrases of the Apostle Rom. 11.21 as the naturall branches vers 24. The wild Olive by Nature were graffed contrary to Nature These which be naturall branches do not sufficiently imply That the Jews children by their birth had a priviledge beyond the Gentiles children In the frame of this third Argument from Gen. 17. First Animadver these words are very prejudiciously left out in the major or 1 Proposition Then the grace of God * The words unjustly left out in the administration of the first Seal will be more restrained in the New Testament then in the Old 2. The word Grace is disadvantageously put for Priviledge To Master T. his Answer as he hath layd the Argument and first to his first Answer That we give not the Lords Supper to children to whom the Passeover was given We Reply 1. That he speaks not ad idem to the point in hand For this doth not take off the straitning the New Testament above the old in the first seale 2ly Our argument proceeds not of Gods limiting but of mens straitning we dispute not against God but against Anabaptists streitning where God hath not limited 3ly Mr T. in his 1 Section proclaimes the Latitude of the New Testament above the Old divers times but here he evens them again and tells us we have but Quid pro quo if we have got in the first Sacrament we have lost it in the second To his 2. Answer of Gods grace not tyed to Sacraments 1. Here seemes to be an eluding of the true intent of our Argument by the equivocal acception of the word Grace for if any forme it of Gods Grace being restrained it is rather meant of Grace signifying the favour of God manifested to us then of Grace signifying the Graces of Gods Spirit inherent in us 2. Though Mr. T. saith here Grace is not tyed to Sacraments yet the whole designe of his Exercitation is so to tye them together that Sacraments without manifestation of grace are nothing with him 3. Therefore we retort That where the first Sacrament is more inhibited and restrained there the favour of God and the gifts of grace are lesse to be expected And therefore though we cannot straighten Gods grace in it selfe yet we do unwarrantably the comfortable assurance thereof when we refuse the sign that God hath given us of that he hath or will give To his 3. Answer That in some priviledges the grace of God is more contracted in the New Testament than in the Old c. 1. We Reply If we speak of some particular priviledges it is a priviledge of the New Testament not to have them to wit any of the Jewish Ceremonies Or that there should be another family besides Abrahams line of whom Christ should be born 2. We Reply that Mr T. hath matched one great Old Testament priviledge with alike in the New if he had but placed it right among the New and not among the Old Namely that Mary the mother of Christ in the New Testament answers to the promise of him to come of Abraham in the Old But if we speak of the priviledge of the New Testament in generall it must be more large than that of the Old or else God would never have found such fault with the Old as in stead thereof to make a New Heb. 8.6 7 8. Observe in the margent on the 6. verse Covenant is rendred Testament by our translation 3. Upon Mr T. his confession That simply the grace of God is said to be larger in the New Testament by reason first of the Revelation of the Gospell to all Nations secondly of more abundant Communication of the holy Spirit thirdly of more plain Manifestation of the Mystery of the Gospell we retort then sure beleevers in the New Testament have lesse reason to have a meaner opinion of their children to reject them farther off from the 1 Seal then they of the Old there being no precept for that rejection The Parent knows more receives more grace now generally by Mr. T. his intimation why then must all this abundance of revelations and effusion of spirit fall besides our children that none should be sanctified in their tender years as Samuel Iohn Baptist and the little ones Mar. 10. To that Rom. 11.21 24. We say we have considered it and advised with learned Authors yet neither they nor I can see more then this That the Jews of whom the Apostle speaks were naturall children taken in its naturall sence of Abraham to whom immediately was the great priviledge Rom. 3.2 Of the Oracle of God and his promise was immediately vivâ voce by expresse words made and delivered Gen. 17. and so they had the priviledge also to heare sooner of it and it continued a long time in their line in the former ages of the World and so had the 1. conveighance of the 1. Seale to them and their children But Firstnesse in order or time doth not give any more spirituall right to an Ordinance Act. 13.46 Nor is it the naturalnesse see Ismael and his posterity but the spiritualnesse of the father that he be a Believer that gives priviledge to the child And therefore we conclude that faith being the condition of this Covenant Gen. 17. to Abraham as Mr Tombes confest afore § 1. and so thereupon the 1. Seal was given to his naturall borne infants So now a believing Parent by faith being of the seed of Abraham Gal. 3. Rom. 4. the 1. Seal by the same proportion is due to his naturall borne infants And this is all the heft we can find in this place upon weighing of it For Mr Tombes his justice in denying the major or consequence or minor of this argument I leave to the candid Reader to judge from what we have said The summe of the Answer to the Arguments Exercitat §. 3. Conclu drawn from Gen. 17.17 is this The Sacraments are not to be administred according to rules taken from our reasonings but Gods appointment Rightly doth Mr Ball forenamed in the Book
19.4.8 argues from the institution of marriage against Divorce for a light cause and polygamie because it is said two not more shall be one flesh So in like manner it may be here argued Christ said Baptizing them and not others therefore these and not others are to be baptized We answer The cases of the Lords Supper Animadvers and marriage were far different from this of Baptisme 1. That as there were clear precedent fore-going institutions of marriage and the Lords Supper So to those institutions the words of Christ and Paul expresly relate 2. That therefore those repetitions Mr. T. quotes were not the first institutions of those two but an application of the first institutions unto exact practise accordingly to them 3. That the occasion of this repetition of the institution of those two were grosse abuses in both exprest by the Apostle and Christ for which there was no fair pretence but an apparent offending against the first institution As that a man should for every light cause put away his wife which was not onely against the first institution Gen. 2.24 Matth. 5 32.-19.4 5 8. but against Moses his dispensation Deut. 24.1 which was not to put her away unlesse he found some uncleannesse that hindred cohabitation according to the intent of marriage Matth. 19.8 So likewise these were grosse abuses first that men at the communion should not tarry one for another but every faction they of Paul by themselves they of Peter or Cephas by themselves and first come first served as we say should partake of the Lords Supper Secondly that after their holy Supper some that were rich made such large feasts of charitie which Christ instituted not of the collections that they were drunk whiles the poorer coming after were hunger-bit had nothing lest for them Now for the businesse of Baptisme in this 28. of Matt. it is quite otherwise in all the said three particulars For as for the first particular either as we say in circumcision was a full and sufficient foregoing institution of the administration of Baptisme and then Christ needed not say more here but go teach and baptise as referring us to the institution of the first seal circumcision in the old Testament Where after believing Abraham was taught Gen. 12. Gen. 15. and after circumcised Gen. 17. he accordingly circumcised his children and therefore so it should be in the New Testament The parents being taught and baptized their children were to be baptized also Or else as the Anabaptists say there was no preceding or fore-going institution of baptisme before Christs time and that Baptisme differs much from Circumcision But if this be true how doth this place of Matth. 28.19 agree with those quoted places of marriage and the Lords Suppers there being nothing fore-going this as there is afore them to make us punctually understand the meaning of it at least in every main particular especially in matters of main difference from the administration of the first seal of the old Testament And therefore To the second particular we say that if this 28. of Matth. be the institution of baptisme First as it doth not agree with the places of marriage and the Lords Supper to be an application of a former institution of Baptisme to an exact practise so our faithfull Christ must needs have spoken plainer and fuller in an institution to have prevented so grosse an abuse if it had been abuse that men should apply this Sacrament to any infants if to them it should not belong For how should it be prevented but from the institution at least And how from the institution if Christ will not there speak it So for the third and last particular as Baptisme of believers infants hath you will yeeld at least a fair religious pretence for it out of Gen. 17. so the Lord Christ or John Baptist or the Apostles do not in the least intimate any where that the baptizing of beleevers children was an abuse as is intimated about that of marriage and the Lords Supper and therefore we cannot attend to any such intention of Christ in the least in this of Matth. 28. to prevent the baptisme of believers infants Bat Mr. T. in his Argument afore out of Matth. 28. objecteth that if any gather thence that Infants are to be baptized because Christ commands all Nations to be baptized that first he is faultie in casting away that restriction that Christ hath put Secondly in making the priviledge of believers and their children common to all Infidels and their children We answer to the first That first that is the question whether Christ hath here put a restriction against believers children Secondly that we extend not this place further then to the children of taught-or-made disciples understanding it to refer to Gen. 17. where instructed Abraham was to circumcise his children as we said afore Yet it is said I will make thee a Father of many Nations and in thy seed all the Nations shall be blessed So here though it be said Go teach and baptize all Nations yet we extend it not beyond the children of parents taught and baptized But saith Mr. T. However assertors of baptisme of Infants crack of a priviledge of believers and their off-spring yet by their sayings and doings touching baptizing all Infants they go far from Christs institution and their own principles at this day upon which they are now busie to establish Infant-Baptisme For their doings first Mr. T. urgeth their baptizing all Infants offered to them For their sayings he urgeth Augustine and his quotation out of Cyprian Also Mr. S. Rutherford Scot and Mr. Rathband Answ As we did not appoint Cyprian August John Gerard Mr. Rutherford or Mr. Rathband to speak for us all So nor do they undertake it We know as these men have and do confesse they are men humanum est errare man may mistake Mr. T. assumes not to himself infallibilitie If August and Cyprian c. did erre on the right hand in saying all Infants may be baptized yet this doth not inferre that that is no errour in others that say no Infants are to be baptized which erres on the left hand And though we might excuse Cyprian and Augustine c. thus farre and yet be excused of candid men for so doing that there is not no difference between saying Grace is not to be denied to any man and saying All Infants whatsoever are to be baptized let them that can consult the places of Cyprian and Augustine yet we say rather that the Fathers had their severell naevos their blemishes in divers things as Danaeus on Augustine and Tossanus upon all the Fathers note them Augustine was so sensible of this that he wrote his Confessions to acknowledge the errours of his life and his Retractations of his errors in opinion Who knows but that Mr. Tombes and that other H.D. that is sharp with Mr. Marshall for stating the question of baptizing believers children his practise and others
4.8 And children signifie that among them Christ should come Gen. 22. compare Gal. 3. And that many children signifie he shall have many beleevers to his children Rom. 4. And therefore hath faith in uncircumcision that he might be the father of the Gentiles that beleeve Ibid. Rom. 4. and therefore these well suited with the Covenant of grace Therefore to that Gen. 17. touching Abrahams posteritie the Lord speaks in that order 1 To settle Abrahams faith and comfort with many priviledges 2 Descends from temporals in the shell to spirituals in substance 3 In order of nature 1 Abraham must have children then Christ then comes the great part or basis of the Covenant v. 3. In Christ I am thy God It s usually in the Hebr. to name last the main thing to be spoken of 2 To that Rom. 4.11 it s plain to have many children is made a part of the covenant of grace and the reason is shewed that he might be the father of all that beleeve which is a spirituall thing 3 To that Hebr. 6. its clear of an additionall promise by oath made Gen. 22. not of the main Covenant 3 Whether not a covenant of works As a manuscript would have it Ans No so expresly Rom. 4.11 Obj. He saith that there Gen. 17. it is said if they did break his covenant on their part he would be no more their God but curse them v. 14. Ans 1. The covenant of works they brake long afore in paradise Rom. 5. Therefore was this covenant added 2 He doth not cut them off for breaking the Covenant once taken but if they did not enter into it which was to break the command of entring into covenant Ibid. Gen. 17.14 So in the Gospel He that beleeveth not shall be dammed Joh. 3. And except a man be born again of water and the spirit he shall not enter into the kingdom of God ibid Joh. 3. But grant say some it be a covenant of grace yet say they the question is 1 whether by seed is not meant Christ As the Apostle expounds Gal. 3.16 Answ That in Gal. 3.16 relates to Gen. 22.11 of Gods oath to Abraham not of the form or signe or administration of the Covenant Gen. 17. For in Gen. 17. is no such expression But Gen. 22.18 it is expressed according to this of the Apostle Obj. It is said Gen. 17.19.21 My covenant will I stablish with Isaac that is with Christ for an everlalting covenant Ans Where it is said that with Isaac that is Christ the covenant shall be established the holy Ghost speaks of the efficacie of the covenant shewing wherein and whereby the covenant shall be effectuall namely by faith in Christ But where it is said Gen. 17.7.9 I am the God of thee and thy seed thou shalt keep my covenant therefore to circumcise all the males of thy house it is spoken of the outward administration of the signe of the covenant So that in the same chap. where the holy Ghost intimates the efficacie of the covenant to be onely with Isaac in Christ yet doth he command the outward administration of the signe to all the males in Abrahams honse yea to Isinael though to him the covenant should not be established as it is expressed v. 18 19 23 21 22. ☞ The want of the observing this distinction between the efficacie of the covenant and the form and outward administration of the signe of the covenant is that which hath bred much of the dispute between the Anabaptists and us I wish therefore it may be weighed for the Scripture is very clear in it to me touching every ordinance Concerning the word the administration is Go preach to every creature Mark 16. But of the efficacie it is said Heb. 4.2 The word profits not without faith The form of baptisme is Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost Matth. 28.19 But of the efficacie we have other expressions Rom. 6.3 4 5. viz. Baptized into Christ baptized into his death buried with him planted into his death And Mat. 3. baptized with the holy Ghost and with fire So the form of administration of the Lords Supper is Take eat this is my body which was given and broken for you do this in remembrance of me Mat. 26.26 Luk. 22.19.1 Cor. 11.14 But of the efficacie it is said in other words The bread that we break is the communion of the body of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 And ye shew the Lords death till ye come ibid. And ye are all one bread 1 Cor. 10.17 Sutably we have it in Scripture that many partake of the outward administration that partake not of the efficacie Judas partook of the administration of the word and the passâ—over Simon Magus and Ananias of baptisme Ismael of circumcision and some intimated to partake of the outward administration of the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11. all which might not partake of the efficacie So that for the inward efficacie we must leave that as a secret to Goa to work it upon us and in us when and how and how much he pleaseth whether we are baptized whiles infants or when ripe of yeers whether we hear the word as men or children and so in the rest of the ordinances But for the outward administration and participation we must keep close to the expresse institution not straightning or widning it but to take it up as God layes it down They Matth. 3. come to Johns baptisme and are baptized according to the institution v. 6. with water But after they were baptized he tels them that Christ must baptize them with the holy Ghost the spirituall fire v. 11. Obj. If a covenant of grace whether it was not a particular covenant to Abraham and not to be extended further because it is clothed with many circumstances which will suit onely with Abraham and fit him onely Answ This covenant was made with Abraham as a father and exprefly extended to his seed And as he beleeving the covenant runs to him and his naturall seed whiles infants I am the God of thee thy seed Gen. 17 so other Gentiles beleeving being Abrabams seed as the Apostle expounds the intent and meaning of the covenant Rom. 4. Gal. 3. the Covenant runs to them and their naturall seed while infants CHAP. II. NOw we return to Mr. T. his Exercit. where we left But in the issue saith Mr. T. the argument from Gen. 17. 7 c. fals into one of these forms The first thus To whom the Gospel covenant agrees to them the signe of the Gospel covenant agrees also But to the infants of beleevers the Gospel covenant agrees therfore to them the signe of the Gospel covenant agrees and consequently Baptisme 2 Form of argument from Gen. Exercit. Sect. 2. 17.7 c. is thus saith Mr. T. to whom circumcision did agree to them baptisme doth agree But to infants circumcision did agree therefore also baptisme 3 Form saith he is
New Testament as in the Old to them the application of the first signe or Seale of the New Testament may be applyed as well as the first of the Old Testament But this Tenor of the Covenant of grace still in force is as true and doth as truly runne to a believing Gentile I am thy God and the God of thy seed as it did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Ergo the first Seale of the Covenant may be applyed to Believers children now in the New Testament as well as in the Old Testament to Abrahams The Major is plaine because in Gen. 17. the tenor of the Covenant and the application of the first Seale are knit into a dependence one upon another I am the God of thee and thy seed see v. 7 8. Therefore thou shalt circumcise every male v. 9. c. The Minor is unquestioned of any that I know 3 Form of Argum. from Gen. 17. Where there is the same reason of a Precept there may be the same practice But the Promise which is the reason of the Precept runnes in the New Testament as flowing from Gen. 17. to Believers and their children The Promise is to you and your children Act. 2.39 Ergo. That this of Act. 2. flowes from Gen. 17. Observe these particulars 1 A Promise recited musts needs relate to a former ingagement and to them to whom he speaks viz. Jewes 2 And the or that promise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 musts needs relate to some eminent Promise as that to Abraham was 3 Some passages have an intimation of the Covenant with Abraham viz. 1 It is in relation to the Covenant of grace now to be sealed with the first Seale Ergo to that with Abraham Gen. 17. 2 It answers in words It is to you and your children all one with you and your seed And mentions calling as God calling Abraham accepted his seed c. Ergo Infer that the same reason on which the administration of Circumcision was grounded the administration of Baptisme was grounded So that the Apostle doth not only shew how Baptisme comes in the roome of Circumcision but that it comes in the roome and is administred upon the same ground Ergo to the same matter or subject For children now as well as Gen. 17. are alike capable of that ground So the children here are made free of Gods Citie the universall Church by the Fathers Coppy whether the Father be present as the Jew to whom the Apostle spake or farre off either Jewe whether unregenerate and farre off in time or scattered and so farre off in place or Gertile that is farre off in both if any of these are called the Promise is to them and their children If any Gentile believe he is a child of Abraham Rom. 4. Gal. 3. and so the promise and first Seale are to him and his children as the Promise and Circumcision were to Isaac and his children And therefore when Zacheus is converted presently it is said Salvation is come to his house for as much as be also is the sonne of Abraham Luk. 19.9 Quest But is not the Promise here meant of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy-Ghost as to speake with tongues doe Miracles c. Ans 1. How then doth this suit with the Promise to Abraham to which this Text relates as we proved afore 2 The Apostle applies the Promise here meant to his hearers now present for their salvation whiles they cryed out in their unregenerate estate what shall we doe 3 All did not receive these extraordinary gifts But all that are baptized into Christ must receive the saving gifts of the Holy-Ghost Matth. 3. Therefore this Promise is to be extended beyond the gifts of Miracles or other extraordinary gifts of the Spirit c. For as all agree that these were but the First-fruites of the effusion of the Spirit in that visible manner to signifie the abundant effusion of the saving gifts of the Spirit in an invisible manner in future ages So that this must be a a Promise to all Believers and so to their children or seed indefinitely that they shall receive the Holy-Ghost Quest But are not these words as many as the Lord shall call an explication of Children so that the Promise is to their children with this condition if they shall be called Ans No. For first If so then the Apostle needed not to say to you and your children but only to have said the Promise is to you and to all the Lord shall call But this Promise is applyed to them the Parents afore their calling that it is to them as they are children according to birth of Abraham a Believer to the end to call them and so to be continued to them when called and their children and then it followes And to all that are a farre off when they shall be called and so to their children so it must be supplyed so that Calling is an explication of the sentence to them that are a farre off 2 The Apostle speaks to the Jewes to the end to better rather then to worse their condition But their children by vertue of the outward priviledge and Tenor of the Covenant to and with them the parents had the signe of Circumcision therefore by the Apostles intent their children should also have Baptisme If this had not been the Apostle meaning he had left these Jewes children and all their Infant-posterity in no better condition then the most barbarous Heathens then in the world and this had spoyled these Jewes comfort and crossed the Apostles designe to draw them to Conversion and the new Sacrament of Baptisme for confirmation of that Conversion Now we go on with the place in Gen. 17. Namely 3 Observe that this Covenant is called everlasting which cannot be truly and properly so said of this and other Ceremonies but as relating to Christ Therefore if the Covenant be everlasting to them and their seed indefinitely as Election is propounded in the Scripture to us then the sealing of it outwardly to both them and their seed must be everlasting to the worlds end and to all eternity inwardly to whom it is effectuall And therefore as in the Old-Testament it was sealed by Circumcision so in the New-Testament by Baptisme Now we come to animadvert upon Mr. Tombes his formes of Argument from Gen. 17. as reported by him 1 Argument saith Mr. Tombes Exercitat Sect. 1. or at least the 1. form of Argument To whom the Gospel-Covenant agrees to them the signe of the Gospel-Covenant agrees also But to the Infants of Believers the Gospel-Covenant agrees therefore to them the signe of the Gospel-Covenant agrees And consequently Baptisme The minor is proved Gen. 17.7 Thus Mr. Tombes layes downe the Argument But we ourselves should more cautiously forme it thus Examinat To whom the Gospel-Covenant agrees to them the signe of conveighance of the Gospel-Covenant agrees c. For the Institution in this 17. of
testifies was made in the house Luke puts it after the parable of the Publican and the Pharisce but he is wont to relate things out of their right place But what the holy Spirit doth intimate by noting the time precisely I guesse not unlesse perhaps he would have it noted that an occasion was opportunely ministred of amplifying the argument concerning making a mans self an Eunuch for the Kingdome of heaven though this reason doth not very much like me As for the sixth the place is intimated Mat. 19.1 Mar. 10.1 in the coasts of Iudea beyond Iordan in Mat. By the farther side of Iordan in Mark about which it availeth not to our present purpose to inquire As for the seventh the reason of repelling is not known but by conjecture it is probable this bringing of little children was troublesome to them either because it did interrupt Christs Speech about marriage and fitnesse to the Kingdome of heaven or because they sought rest in the house or because they did think this bringing would be in vain As for the eighth Christ without doubt was angry with the Disciples because they hindred the occasion of doing good to men whereas Christ went about doing good Act. 10.38 And in this businesse the faith of the bringers was to be cherished and the power of blessing in Christ was to be manifested and the excellent doctrine to be delivered concerning little childrens being capable of the Kingdome of heaven of the quality of them who receive the Kingdome of heaven but whether Christ would that this fact should remain as a perpetuall rule for baptizing the Infants of believers is yet a question It seemes scarce probable it should be so 1 Because Baptisme of Infants being meerly positive so obscure and doubtfull an institution is without example and reason 2 Because we find no practise or hint in Scripture which may expound this fact to this sense 3 Because if he had given a command to the Apostles of baptizing Infants he had rather said bring the little children to me then suffer them to be brought to me 4 He had declared whose Infants he would have baptized and not have spoken so indefinitely it is certain before the command Mat. 28.19 20. There is no precept extant concerning baptizing Gentiles much less concerning baptizing the Infants of the Gentils 5 The words suffer forbid not and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these little children as Beza reads shew that Christs words are ment only of those childreÌ„ 6 If this fact pertain to Baptism theÌ„ we must say that Christ baptized the contrary whereof is said Ioh. 4.2 As for that whicâ— is objected that 3 Evangelists rehearse this fact that thence a perpetuall rule may be drawn of bringing Infants to Christ by an outward Ordinance which is not done but by Baptisme it is weak For 1. Three Euangelists rehearse the bringing of the palsie man to Christ the accesse of the leprous person to Christ and many other things from which yet no perpetuall rule is formed 2. If any rule be hence to be formed that is to be perpetually observed this relation will serve more fitly to establish Episcopall confirmation by laying on hands and praying then Presbyteriall baptisme Secondly we must distinguish concerning bringing to Christ there is a bringing to Christ by locall ad motion there is another bringing to Christ by spirituall instruction this bringing to Christ is the cause of Baptisme not the other for many were brought by the command of Christ to Christ as the blind son of Timaeus and others of whose baptisme or conversion we read not for not all that were corporally healed by Christ were also spiritually healed as we are to say of the nine Lepers Malchus and others 3 The Argument supposeth they may be baptized whom Christ commands to be brought but neither is this true of spiritual bringing for not those whom he commands to be brought spiritually are to be baptized but those whom he hath brought As for that which is said that they are repelled from Christ that are repelled from baptisme It is a light thing for baptisme doth not bring men to Christ unlesse the persons be first in Christ Neither is therefore any man repelled from Christ because he is not baptized but when he is kept back being sit for baptisme The Argument therefore is answered by denying the major universally taken Mr. T. here reports divers forms of Arguments out of these places of Scripture quoted by him Animadvers and some of them he represents to us very lamely formed and therefore the easilier put off by him but among all not one so formed as was wont among us where I have been I will urge therefore one form which perhaps will break the edge of most that Mr. T. hath answered here and then I will consider what more is considerable in his answers to the forms he hath set down Our Argument is this To whom indefinitely as such heaven and the blessing of and for heaven belongs to them as such the seal of conveighance or confirmation of heaven and that blessing belongs For if the land be mine the deeds and seals of conveighance are mine But heaven and the blessing of and for heaven belongs indefinitely to such little children more whiles little children so the texts here expresly To them belong or which is all one of such is the kingdom of heaven and he took them in his arms and blessed them Therefore to little children indefinitely belongs the seal of conveighance or confirmation of heaven and the blessing of heaven which in the New Testament according to the time Christ spake is Baptisme Obj. Say the Anabaptists S.D. though it be thus said of these little children yet not of all Answ Therefore we said to little children indefinitely and so to be applyed to all such as these are as it is said in these texts of such is the kingdom of heaven c. even as election and the promises of the Gospel were indefinitely so and so propounded in the Primitive times but to those then yet by the same reason as propounded to them just so to be applyed to us Now doubtlesse THE or THAT same seed of Abraham to wit Christ means such little children as agreed with the tenor of the Covenant to his father Abraham namely little children whose parents were reputed beleevers And therefore these things spoken by our Saviour belong indefinitely to the like little children As Mr. T. confesseth after that Mr. Beza renders it of these and the like infants Obj. But S.D. say the Anabaptists here is no mention of Baptisme Answ But our argument infers Baptisme 2 Here is mention of and doing of an after-higher thing then baptisme namely confirmation of them by prayer and imposition of hands * This Mr. T. confesseth in expresse words after in his answer to the 2 form of argument from these texts p. 19. of his Exâ—rcit Now if Christ speaks of and doth
Churches it is Endoctrinez teach ye Of the High Dutch Lebret teach ye of the Low-Dutch Leert teach And likewise in Hutter his N. Testament set forth in 12. Languages in so many of them as I can guesse at it is rendred onely teach ye His Syr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach ye Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach ye Lat. Deâ—â—te teach ye Ital. Insegnate teach ye Of German Dutch French we heard afore Mark the Euangelist also renders it Mark 16.15 onely by preach Secondly it is evident the word in the Greek is taken divers wayes and here is no note of circumstance in Matth. 28.19 to prove that it must signifie to make-disciples Thirdly the command is for the Apostle to preach to all Nations though they should not disciple or discipulate all If it s objected that if the word in Matth. 28.19 according to Mar. 16.15 signifies but to teach or preach yet mention of baptizing immediately follows teaching or preaching We answer So is baptizing expressed to follow believing saying He that beleeveth and is haptized shall be saved But in converting the Proposition that is in turning it negatively it is not said He that is not baptized shall be damned because Infants as Mr. T. confessed afore though of a day old unbaptized may have the sanctifying Spirit Therefore may be baptized Act. 10.47 Our Answer then is that Teaching and baptizing doth not run evenly together Secondly we now observe that the Lord having said go preach to all Nations he addes baptizing them indefinitely not expressing all or some for them doth not in the Greek agree Grammatically with Nations and so must needs leave us to compare this Text with other Texts afore-written As with Gen. 17. where though Noah 1 Pet. 3.19.2.2 Pet. 2.5 and Enoch Jude v. 14. had preached to all the old world yet so contrary to teaching were they that but eight persons were left alive by the Flood and of these that remained alive even to or quite to the time of Abraham but few were taught-men as Noah that dyed the yeer before Abrahams birth Shem alias Melchisedech and Abrahams father Terah and Lot few more about this time Job was long after about Moses his time were taught persons Now among the these taught men God would to Abraham communicate the first signe or seal and he being signed he should signe his children also Or with John Baptists practise who as it is said expresly baptized the parents confessing their sins but doth not exclude by any expression their children So then we must needs conclude that here is no determinating word in Matth. 28.19 to exclude believers Infants And that this Text doth but give in the two main parts of the Apostles commission but not expresly all the parts as the Administration of the Communion nor all the main circumstances of those two as touching childrens baptisme Secondly we answer to the comparison of that place of 1 Cor. 11.28 with Matt. 28.19 Let a man examine himself that the 1 Cor. 11.28 relates as the Apostle there expresseth v. 23. I have received of the Lord that which I delivered I say relates to an expresse institution wherein Christ gave the communion to his Disciples that were of ripe yeers and not to children But that place of Matth. 28.19 relates to no such expresse institution of the first seal excluding Infants but rather refers to such places as do include them as we shewed afore Secondly to that collation or parallel comparing Matth. 26.26 27. with Matth. 28.19 first we reply that 1 Cor. 11.28 declares that Matth. 26.26 27. is intended for an exclusion of unbelievers from the Communion but there is no place to declare to us that the meaning of Matth. 28.19 is to exclude believers children from the first seal Baptisme Obj. But Mr. T. saith he will make it appear in the next Argument that there are places to declare that Matth. 28.19 did intend the exclusion of believers Infants from Baptisme Ans We shall by Gods leave shew that there are none to make any such declaration when by and by we come to answer that Argument Mean while we say secondly that there is no other place to shew that apparent unbeleevers whiles such were admitted to the 2. Sacrament and therefore that institution Matt. 26.26 27. is sufficient to exclude from the Lords Supper But we have largely shewed that there are no places of Scripture to exclude Infants of believers from the first seal but many for including them as belonging to it and therefore we cannot take that generall expression go teach and baptize Matth. 28.19 to intend to exclude them from Baptisme CHAP. I. MR. Tombes his third Argument against Infant-Baptisme Exercit. Argum. 3. Sect. 16. From John Baptist and the Apostles practise is from the Apostles and John Baptist which saith he is the best interpreter of our Lords institution from whence this Argument is formed That tenet and practise which being put Baptisme cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles did administer it agrees not with the practise of John Baptist and the Apostles But the tenet and practise of Infant-Baptisme being put baptisme cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles administred it Ergo. 1. We answer Animadvers This Argument doth not in terms conclude the thing in question For make the supposition that John Baptist and the Apostles the best interpreters of our Lords institution had never any opportunitie or occasion offered to baptize any believers Infants would it therefore follow that the institution did not allow it when it doth not forbid it but leaves it to be referred to the institution of the first seal in the old Testament Moses the best interpreter of the Ceremoniall Law and so of the institution of Circumcision given by God had not any occasion that we read of to our remembrance of circumcising any Jews of ripe yeers would it follow therefore that he might not have done it according to the institution 2. We answer That when Mr. T. is to answer our Argument that the Apostles baptizing whole families likely baptized some Infants he makes it doubtfull whether they baptized any Infants and now Mr. T. puts it out of doubt that they baptized none Or else he would prove one doubt by another But let us come particularly to the Argument The minor namely the tenet and practise of Infant-baptisme being put Baptisme cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles administred is denyed For it doth not appear that they baptized no children But Mr. T. will prove the minor thus Before the baptisme of John even the Jews did confesse their sins the Apostles afore baptisme did require shews of faith and repentance Matth. 3.6 Luk. 3.10 Act. 2.38 Act. 8.12 13 37. Act. 9.18 Act. 20.47 Act. 11. 17 18. Act. 16.15.31 32 33. Act. 18.8 Act. 19.5 Act. 22.16 But this cannot be done in the baptisme of Infants Ergo. We answer by limiting the major That
way of reply 1 To Cyprian c. They hold not universality of grace but the indefinit offer of grace How they held in point of baptisme and upon howmany Scripture grounds we have before shewed cap. 13 14. 2 To Augustine we reply that M. T. before fiercely charged Augustine for holding Infant-baptisme upon Cyprian grounds Nor doe I remember in all M. T. his quotations out of Augustine any such thing as he here mentions of him 3 To Bernard we reply Thst M. T. tells us neither what nor where he sayth it It he did say so any where we know he lived in late corrupted times and far more worthy to be slighted in this then Cyprian Augustine c. whom M.T. hath so slighted 4 To the English Liturgie Tolerabiles ineptiae Calvin seeing M.T. aleadgeth that English-masse those tolerable fooleries as Calvin calls them Covenanted against by us all put down by Parliament and no more to be urged against us then against M. Tombes himselfe and the Preachers of his judgement We reply give the Devill his due the English Liturgie urgeth for infant baptisme the 10 of Mar. And the Catechisme therein sayth Faith is necessary to Baptisme what ever other unnecessary expressions be added 5 To the Lutherans opinion seeing we must take it upon M. T. his bare word we say onely this That M.T. confessed that infants may when infants have regeneration saving grace c. 6 To that of the faith of a holy Nation we have answered afore upon M.T. his reply to 1 Pet 29. And add so far as a Nation is holy and believing so far all parents are such too and so this sixth particular is all one with the fifth of believing parents which we have maintained all along as a sufficient ground of giving their children the first seal 8 To that of parensa in Covenant in a gathered Church we have answered a little afore a See afore in Chap. 13. Infaults in Disciplne we add that those that so practise looke in baptisme to the saith of parents more then to that their Covenant CHAP. XXII THe last and that a weighty reason of doubting is because Infant baptisme seems to take away one Exercit. perhaps the primary end of Baptism Argu. 12 § 25. for many things argue that it was one end of Baptism that it should be a signe that the baptized shews himself a disciple and confesseth the faith in which he hath been instructed The Argument against Infant-Baptisme from its voyding the chief end of Baptisme confirmed 1 The requiring of confession by John Baptist and the Apostles was wont to be before Baptism Luk. 3.10 Act. 8.35 Act. 16.31 2 The frequent manner of speaking in the new Testament which puts Baptism for Doctrine Act. 10.37 Act. 19.3 shews this Beza in his A not on Act. 19.3 The answer is most apposite in which they signifie that they professed in Baptism the Doctrine propounded by John and confirmed by use of Baptism with which they had been baptized whereby they had acknowledged Christ but very slenderly 3 The form of Christs institution Mat 28.19 compared with the phrase as it is used 1 Cor. 1.13 Or were you baptized into the name of Paul implies the same On which place Beza The third reason is taken from the form and end of Baptisme in which we give our name to Christ being called upon with the Father and Holy Spirit 4 That which is said John 4 2. He made and baptized more disciples And Mat. 28.19 Going make Disciples in all nations baptizing them Intimate this And if as some affirme Baptisme was in use with the Jews in the initiating of proselytes into the profession of Judaisme this opinion is the more confirmed But in Infant-Baptisme the matter is so carried that Baptism serves to confirm a benefit not to signifie a profession made and so one perhaps the chief end of Baptism is voyded And here I think it is to be minded that the usuall description of a Sacrament and such as are like to it That it is a visible signe of invisible grace hath occasioned the misunderstanding of both Sacraments as if they signed a divine benefit not our duty to which in the first place the Iustitution had respect In seems to some that Infant-baptism should be good because the devil requires witches to renounce it which reason if ought worth might as well prove Baptism of any Infants Baptism by a midwife good because these the devill requires them to renounce as well that which is of the Infants of believers by a lawfull Minister But the true reason why he requires the Baptisme of witches to be renounced by them is not because the baptisme is good in respect of the administration of it but because the Faith mentioned in the form of baptisme is good they that renounce not their baptisme do shew their adherence to that faith in some sort which cannot stand with an explicite Covenant with the Devill Nor is the assuming of baptism in ripe years by those who were washed in infancie a renounceing of baptisme as some in their grosse ignorance conceit but indeed a firmer avouching of baptisme according to Christs minde This more likely might be inferred from the Devils practice in requiring witches to renounce their baptisme That the profession of Faith is the main businesse in Baptisme which should be before Baptisme if it were rightly administred after the first pattern We answer Animad 1. In generall That as circumcising of infants did not in se in regard of itself intrinsecally considered take away one end of it to wit that signing of duty and obligement unto profession so nor doth the baptisme of infants 2 That signing of profession is not the primary that is either the first or chiefe end of baptisme but the signing of Gods favour to us and his giving grace into us whereby we should afterwards walke dutifully towards him For the seal confirmes the Covenant and so runs the Covenant of Grace 3 We before proved by two Scriptures b Iohn 9.28 Acts 15.10 that the children of those parents that are reputed members of the visible Church were accounted and called Disciples in both Testaments 4 That children signed with the 1 signe or seal are ingaged to be active Disciples when they come to be of years as in the Old Testament so in the New as we have before shewed For Circumcision see Gal. 5.3 and for Baptisme see Mat. 28.19 20. ver 19. Goe teach and Baptize c. ver 20. Teaching them effectually so the word signifies to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded 5 That the Anabaptists generally affirme with M.T. that they must be first made Disciples and known to be made such before they are baptized and yet M. T. asserts a little afore that baptisme exhibits him â—â—member of the Church and here that baptisme is a signe that manifests him to be a Disciple Now if they have not