day all of you before the Lord your God your captains of your tribes your elders and your officers with all the men of Israel your little ones T. He said that he should have proved that it should continue to infants to the worlds end for he did not deny but that infants in some sense were in covenant under the Law but not under the Gospell C. Yes under the Gospell If Christ hath obtained a more excellent Ministerie and is a Mediator of a better covenant which is established upon better promises then if infants were in covenant under the Law they are in covenant under the Gospell But Heb. 8. 6. Christ hath obtained a more excellent Ministery was a Mediator of a better covenant which was established upon better promises Therefore if infants were in covenant under the Law they are in covenant under the Gospell T. He denyed the consequence of the Major that though the covenant of the Gospell was a better covenant than that of the Law yet infants were not in covenant as well under the Gospell as under the Law C. Which was thus taken away That which unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation cannot be a better covenant But to deny infants to be in covenant unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation Therefore it cannot be a better covenant T. Without repeating the Syllogism or denying either of the Premisses or formally applying any distinction he said the covenant under the Gospell was made onely with the spirituall seed of Abraham C. Which was thus disproved If the covenant was made in the same manner and extent to the Gentiles as to the Jewes then under the Gospell it was not onely made to the Spirituall seed But it was made in the same manner and extent to the Gentiles as it was to the Jewes Therefore under the Gospell it was not onely made to the Spirituall seed T. He denyed the Minor C. Which was proved by this Enthymema The partition wall is pulled down and Jew and Gentile are all one in Christ Jesus Therefore the covenant is made in the same manner and extent to the Jew and Gentile T. He denyed the consequent that though the partition wall was taken down and both Jew and Gentile are all one in Christ Jesus seeing the Gospell was offered to all nations Yet under the Gospell the covenant was onely with the Elect and believers C. Which was confuted thus That which is made with the whole visible Church is not onely made with the Elect and true beâ—â—evers But the covenant is made with the whole visible Church Therefore not onely with the Elect and true believers T. He denyed the Major C. Which was proved thus That which is made to the kingdom of God upon earth is not onely made to the Elect But that which is made to the whole Church visible is made to the kingdom of God upon Earth Therefore it was not onely made to the Elect. T. He denyed the Major that that which was made to the kingdom of God upon earth is not onely made to the Elect. C. Which was proved thus In the kingdom of God that is in the Church Militant there are not onely Elect but reprobates Saints but hypocrites for all that are outwardly called are of the kingdom of God in this sense and many are called but few chosen The kingdom of God is compared to a field where there are tares as well as wheat a fold where there are goats as well as sheep to a noble mans house where there are vessels of dishonour as well as honour And if the Church in regard of outward administration of ordinances which is the Question were onely the Elect then it would follow that there were no visible Church upon earth the Jews had no more visible Church than the heathens the distinction of the Church visible and invisible were frivolous for no man nor angell knows who are Elect nor any but God To which issue the first branch of the Argument being brought Mr. C. referred the judgement of it to the people And proceeded to the second that God foretold under the Law that infants should be Church-members under the Gospell T. Mr. T. perceiving that the people apprehended that he was brought to an apparent absurdity would have waded into a large discourse to wind himself out C. But Mr. C. told him that it was his office being Respondent to deny or distinguish but not authoritatively to determine the question as if he were the Dr. of the chair And with much ado the Anabaptists crying let him have liberty to speak on brought him to dispute again and to turn to Esay 49. 22. Whence he framed this Argument He that foretold that he would lift up his hand to the Gentiles and set up a standard to the people and that they should bring their sons in their Armes and their daughters shall be carryed upon their Shoulders foretold that infants should be Church-members under the Gospell But thus saith the Lord God Behold I will lift up my h 〈…〉 to the Gentiles and set up my standard to the people and they shall bring thy sons in their Arms and thy daughters shall be carryed upon their shoulders Therefore God foretold that infants should be Church-members under the Gospell T. He denyed the Major And said the meaning was that the Jewes should bring the Gentiles children C. To which he replyed God sayes I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles and they that is the Gentile shall bring thy sons and Mr. Tombs says the Jews shall bring thy sons Then a Gentleman read the words and said it is the Gentiles shall bring c. T. Then Mr. T. recollecting himself said the meaning was the Gentiles should bring the Jewes children from captivity And that it did not point at the time of the Gospell C. To which was replyed the contents of the Chapter sayes that it points at the time of the Gospell Mr. Tombs says it points at the time of the Jewes captivitie whether shall we believe and repeaâ—ed the contents Christ being sent to the Jewes complaineth of them to the 5. verse he is sent to the Gentiles to the 13. verse Gods love to his Church to the end then the people laughed c. The pâ—th of which was framed into an argument thus That which is the judgement of the Church of England ought to be entertained before the groundles assertion of one private man But that it points at the time of the Gospell is the judgement of the Church of England Therefore it ought to be entertained before the groundles assertion of one private man T. He denyed that it was the judgement of the Church of England C. Which was thus proved If the Church of England causes it to be printed and commands it to be read before the Chapter then it is the judgement of the Church of England But the Church
And in this sense the Gospel-Covenant is made with the whole visible Church being taken without any Synecdoche for every Church-member Otherwise there could be no visible Gospell-Covenant Gospel-Ordinances Gospel-Ministery which must needs take the denomination from the visibilitie of the object and according to this new Tenet would be Utopian and no where Mr. Tombes 9. Section BUt I perceive by Mr. C. words page 30. If the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances which is the Question were onely the elect c. That the terms Church and Covenant were so ambiguously used by him that I knew not how to conceive of his meaning and his fast speaking would not permit me deliberately to consider his words and therefore no marvell I desired liberty to explain my self and to enquire into Mr. C. meaning it being impossible for me otherwise to answer appositely and to make the disputation profitable for finding out truth As for that which Mr. C. saith That it was the Question whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect it doth untruly suggest as if I so conceived who though I hold the Church invisible are the elect onely and that the Gospel Covenant of grace Heb. 8. 10 11 12. is made to them onely yet have still granted that the Church visible consists of others than elect persons and that outward Ordinances may lawfully be administred to them upon their profession of faith in Christ But Mr. C. by confounding those terms To be in Covenant to be subjects of Baptism c. misleads unwary hearers and readers Reply HEre Mr. Tombes like a bad division saltum facit skips over main passages in the dispute that it is needfull to find the end of the thâ—â—ad to guid us in the Meanders of this Labyrinth Then thâ— major proposition by him denyed was thus confiâ—med That which is made to the kâ—â—gdome of God upon earth is not onely made to the elect that which is made to the whole Church visible is made to the kingdome of God upon earth therefore it was not onely made to the elect Here he denyed the former proposition again which was proved thus In the Kingdome oâ— God that is in the Church Militant theâ—e are not onely elect but reprobates Saints but hypocrites for all that are outwardly called are of the kingdom of God in this sense and many are called and few chosen the Kingdome of God is compaâ—ed to a field where there are tares as well as wheat a fold where there are goats as well as sheep To a Noble mans house where there are vessels of dishonour as well as honâ—ur And if the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances which is the Question were onely the Elect then it would follow that there were no visible Church upon earth the Jewes had no more visible Church than the Heathens the distinction of the Church visible and â—nvisible were frivolous for no mo man nor Angell knowâ— who are elect nor any but God All this he passes by and gives no answer to it as if it were a Gordian knot and insoluble onely like Aristotle's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ethic l. 4. c. 1. he catches at circumstances as men when almost drowned do at sticks or weeds for he sayes he perceives by my words pag. 30. If the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect c. that the teâ—ms Church and Covenant were so ambiguously used by me that he knew noâ— how to conceive of my meaning Thus this â—ugler casts a mist before the eyes of the Reader that by the virtue of Hocus Pocus he may seemingly swallow those daggers that he will never be able to dâ—gest But in good earnest were the terms Church and Covenant used ambiguously by me When by Church I expressed my self to mean the whole visible Church as in the major denyed pag. 29. â—nd by Covenant to mean an external covenant made with all vsible Professors in opposition to his Covenant made onely with the spiritual seed of Abraham pag. 14 Whosoever reads the Premises or the relation of the Dispute will find that I spake so clearly distinctly home in these terms that he conceiving my meaning did directly overthrow his gave no answer then nor does yet save this collaterall shift which like the black mud cast over the fish Sepia or Cuttle showes where he was taken But with Reignold he hath more evasions yet for my fast speaking he sayes would not permit him deliberately to consider my words what a sore is this that he layes his finger upon and complaines oâ— almost in every page The truth is I spake no faster than he repeated but faster than he answered That as the Cardinall of Lorrain said at Beza's dispute he wished the people had either been deaf or I dumb But this my fastness would not suffer him deliberately to consider my words If almost three hours time would not suffer him deliberately to consider of that which might have been delivered in one hour yet methinks six months since might But this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Epigram brings forth now as blind whelps as then So that it was a marvell that he desired liberty then to explain himself and to enquire into my meaning which was as transparent as if it had been writ with the Sun-beames but amounts to a prodigie that he should averr so now when he neither did so nor had the least occasion for it Onely when he perceived the people apprehended that he was brought to an apparent absurdity he waded into a large discourse to wind himself out it being impossible for him otherwise seemingly to answer or to make the disputation on his part but sophistically probable but by obscuring the truth But his assertion in the next section is more frontless for thus he charges me As for that which Mr. C. saith it was the Question whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect It doth untruly suggest as if I so conceived whereas the truth is he untruly suggests that which I said not for my proposition was not Categorical as he mis-reports it that it was the Question whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect but hypothetical if the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances which is the Question were only the elect These were my words expresly neither can he drawout by any consequence that I implyed so much for if he rack them upon the Tenters he cannot stretch them to say that the question was whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances was onely the elect but the Question was about the administration of an outward Ordinance to wit Baptism And if I had said that had been the Question as he alledges it I had suggested nothing otherwise than he conceived if we may judge of his conceits by his
have as much efficacie as the Edict shall if thou wilt suppress such as are infected with pernicious opinions Nazian Homil. in dict Evang. for this cause John the Evangelist left the bath wherein was Terinthus Iren. advers haeres lib. 3. cap. 3. Polycarpus called Marcion Primogenitum diaboli The devils first begotten son Origen refused to come to prayers with Paulus Samosatenus Euseb lib. 6. cap. 3. Placilla the Empress would not suffer Theodosius to confer with Eunomius Zozom lib. 7. cap. 7. Constantine prohibited the exercise of all unsound Religions either in publick or private places commanding their books to be burned their goods to be sold their houses to be pulled down and proscribed them as traytors to his Person and enemies to the Truth Euseb de vit Constant lib. 3. cap. 63. whereupon ensued the conversion of many Hereticks and Schismaticks as Eusebius Zozomenus and Nicephorous testifie Constantine Constantius Constans the sons of Constantine the great decreed that no Sect should have libertie to exercise or profess their Heresie as Aug. recordeth Epist 166. Gratian Valentinian Theodosius enacted that all people within their Dominions should embrace one Religion even the same which the Apostles taught that Damasus maintained at Rome Peter at Alexandria branding the contrary professours with the odious name of Hereticks Theod. lib. 5. Arcadius Honorius and Constantius sons of Theodosius perswaded themselves that their Father got all his victories bccause of his care for the Church and severitie against Hereticks decreeing that all former pains punishments and mulcts of their noble Progenitors should be executed against the pertinacious and obstinat spirit of Hereticks Niceph. lib. 13. cap. 1. Iustinian amongst other constitutions of the Empire composed matters touching religion and banished all Sectaries rejected the suit of Theodoricus King of the Gothes solliciting for the Arians Justinian Novell 42. When Theodosius was somewhat indulgent to Arianism the Authors whereof denyes the deity of Christ Amphilochius Bishop of Iconium having suffered a former repulse assaulted him with this Stratagem entering his presence saluted him with due reverence but slighted his son Arcadius compeer in the Empire with him at which the Father was enraged till the grave man replyed Art thou offended O Emperour that I attribute not to thy son equall honour with thy self and dost thou not think that God is angry at those that ascribe not equall glory to his son Christ with himself whereupon he was convinced to act new Laws against the Arians Zozom lib. 7. cap. 6. Mixture of religion hath been adjudged dangerous for many reasons first it dissolves the bond of obedience unrivets the sacred tye of love amongst subjects breeds exacerbation of mind and exulceration of affections lays secret trains and privie mines for tumults uproars seditions massacres and civill wars as in Germany where the Anabaptist grew so populous that as Sleiden records they could not be vanquished till almost a hundred thousand of them were slain by the united forces of the Empire Sleid. lib. 7. Secondly collusion in religion and immunity of profession hath been the Prodrome and Harbinger of the confusion and ruin of the greatest States and most flourishing Churches The Sects of the Pharisees Sadduces Essenes and Herodians were a Prognostick Crisis of the Jewish dissolution The diversitie of opinions without restraint in the Emperour Heraclius his time gave fuell and fomentation to the Embrio of Mahometan superstition and the Apostacie of the Eastern Churches Thirdly it hath been the cause of defection and ruin of the most famous Churches for the Pagan and Apostate Emperours because they would supplant the true Christian profession granted liberty and immunity unto all Sects of Hereticks So Iulian at the request of Rogatianus and Ponticus granted liberty of perdition so Optatus Milevitanus calles it unto the Sect of Donatus thinking by that means to root out the Christian name from off the earth and envying the unity of the Church from which he fell freely permitted all sacrilegious dissention Optat. cont Parm. lib. 2. Fourthly it brings a judgement upon those Princes who for sinister ends tolerate Hereticks and Idolaters upon those Kingdoms or Common-wealths where Heresie and Idolatrie is exercised Gregory Nazianzene relates that Constantius falling into an Apoplexie before his death repented of three things too late 1. That he had elected Julian to be Caesar 2. That he had banished Athanasius 3. That he had granted toleration of religions Iulian was wounded to death with an arrow in Persia as he was advancing his army throwing out handfulls of blood into the skie and crying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou hast overcome O Galilean Theodor. lib. 3. cap. 20. Valens being put to flight by the Barbarians was burned in a Village with his Souldiers Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 28. Constantius calling a Synod at Nicomedia in favour of the Arians a suddain earthquake overthrew the whole City Niceph. lib. 9. cap. 39. During the reign of Iulian the Apostate it was not safe to tarry within dores by reason of earthquakes nor to walk abroad by reason of great tempests of thunders lightnings hail and the City of Alexandria was overflown and drowned in the Sea But why do I press these things holding out my gloe-worme amongst so many shining tapers knowing we live under authority that is sufficiently wise to distinguish betwixt truth and errour conscientiously carefull to put a difference between tenderness and obstinacie He that searches the heart bears me record that I urge them with no further approbation than may suit with the glory of God advancement of truth and Peace of the Nation Nor would I wish any further influence upon the Anabaptists than on my self were I in their condition which is first that they may be enlightned and convinced or if not so that they would peaceably keep their Tenets to themselves not corrode further like Gangrenes infecting the sound parts which is the end of this my writing Not that I can adde any thing to what hath been formerly discussed or that my weak endeavours may be compared to the learned labours that are gone before But that divine providence hath so disposed I was called suddainly to a conflict with the greatest Beauclerk of the faction and God giving success to the honestness of the intention beyond the means The relation of the dispute and Sermon were put in Print which he in his Plea for Anti Paedobaptists hath endeavoured to overthrow Hence divers godly persons some out of scruple of conscience others for other motives have importuned me to reply which I humbly present unto your view desiring that it may be protected under the shadow of your wings And if I may contribute any thing to the discovery and making plain the truth I have the fruit of my labour and my wish who desire to live to no other end than to do service to Gods Church my Country and your Honours in the quality of Lantilio Pertholy Ian. 1. 1654. Your
Nations it s a generall command and as Aquinas sayes posito generali mandato pars ejus negari non potest a generall command being given no part of it can be denyed Infants are a part of Nations and included in them Object But here is no mention made of Infants AnsW No nor of them of age we might retort it upon our adversaries there is no mention made of Dippers no nor of them that are to be dipped therefore they ought not to dip nor be dipped Generals include particulars in all Lawes Psalm 117. Praise the Lord all ye Nations Nations includes old men and babes young men and maids all without exception as another Psalm interprets it Now if Infants be excepted contrary to that saying of Saint Ambrose Qui dixit omnes nullum excepit neque parvulos c. He that commanded all to be Baptized excepted none no not little ones If I say they be excepted it s either because they are not named or because we never read in Scripture that any Infants were Baptized or because they are not capable that fourth cavill being the same with the third I 'le take away anon but for none of these three therefore Infants are not excepted from Baptism Not for the first because they are not named for so neither old men nor nobles nor Ministers are named Not because we read not of their Baptism so we neither read of the Baptism of the Apostles nor of the Virgin Mary yet we piously believe that they were Baptized De negatione facti ad jus non valet consequentia such a thing is not mentioned that it was done therefore it was not done or was not done therefore it ought not to have been done is no consequence Christ did and said many things that are not written so did his Apostles Not for the third because they are uncapable which is denyed for if Infants be uncapable it is either because they have not repentance and faith in act which cannot hinder them Christ was Baptized had not repentance for he had no sin to repent of had not faith for faith presupposeth one lost in himself that depends upon another for salvation Christ is that Rock of salvation upon whom all mankind being lost depends Neither because they cannot hear the word preached then they that are born deaf should be excluded from Baptism or because they are not otherwise qualified but that cannot hinder them for God requires no more of them that are in covenant and born of believing parents but a pure capacity and receptability which Divines call Potentiam objectivam as God in the beginning created the World of nothing so in the beginning of the new creature he does regenerate and recreate us of nothing upon this account it is that we read of many whole families Baptized not excluding but rather including Infants Cornelius was Baptized with his houshold Acts 10. 47 48. Lydia and her houshold Acts 16. 15. Crispus and all his house Acts 18. 8. and the hoshould of Stephanus 1 Corinth 1. 16. the Jayler 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that were his Acts 16. 31 32. His Servants his Children for can wee imagine so many families without a child Arg. 5. They that are câ—pable of the Kingdom and the blessing which is the greater are capable of Baptism which is the â—esser But Infants are capable of the Kingdom and the blessing which is the greater Therefore they are capable of Baptism which is the lesser forbid not sayes our Saviour little Children to come unto me for unto such belongs the Kingdom of God for surely if the Kinggom of Heaven receive them the Church may not exclude them for the Church must receive such as glory receives Acts 2. 47. There were daily added to the Church such as should be saved Now for proof of this Argument take these places Mark 10. 13. to 17. Mark 9. 14 36 37. Matth. 18 2 3 4. Matth. 19. 13 14 15. Luke 9. 14 15. Luke 18. 15 16. Which though they be spoken upon severall occasions all prove Infants to be Church-members and capable both of grace and glory we 'l instaâ—ce in two Jesus called a little child unto him the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as Hippocrates in his distinction of ages sayes and Beza seconds him signifies a child under seven years and set him in the middest of them and said Verily I say unto you except ye be converted and become as little children that is endevour to be free from actuall sin as they are ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven The other is that of St. Luke 18. 15 wherein observe First a Precept Suffer little children to come unto me Secondly we have a prohibition and forbid them not Thirdly his displeasure against his Disciples for hindring them from coming to him he looked on this act with indignation and was much displeased at it Fourthly he addes a reason why little ones should be brought to him because to such belongs the Kingdom of God that is the Kingdom of grace here and glory hereafter they are visible members of his Church and Kingdom and therefore none may hinder their access to him Fiftly he confirms this reason a majori from the greater to the less Gods Kingdom doth not onely belong to them but I tell you more whosoever will come into this Kingdom must resemble Infants in Innocency humility simplicity Sixtly he addes his benediction of them he took them up in his arms put his hands upon them and blessed them and tellâ— us that their Angels alwayes see the face of his Father which is in Heaven and the danger of them that offend one of these little ones and all this recorded by three Evangelists Matthew Mark Luke as if it were of purpose to check the sacrilegious insolencie of these latter times that denyes them the seal Christ is not more punctuall by his Spirit in declaring his own Birth Passion Resurrection than he is in this precious Truth so much trampled under foot And if any object these were not young Children the text easily confutes them they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Children under seven years of age 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Children that could scarce speak they did not lead them but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they carried them unto him Christ is said twice in St. Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to take them up in his armes and embrace them Christ was already instructing the people that were able to understand the Apostles were offended for bringing of Children which could not understand Well then doth Christ take Children in his armes and would he have them all put out of his visible Church would he have us receive them in his Name and yet not to receive them into his visible Church nor as his Disciples How can Infants be received in Christs Name if they belong not visibly to him and his Church Nay doth Christ account it a receiving of himself and shall
we then refuse to receive them or acknowledge them the subjects of his visible Kingdom will it not follow then that whosoever refuseth them refuseth Christ and him that sent him For my part to use the wordâ— of a godly and learned divine Seeing the Will of Christ is that I must walk by and his Word that I must be judged by and he hath given me so full a discovery of his Will in this point I will boâ—dly adventure to follow his rule and had rather answer him upon his own incouragement for admitting an hundred Infants into his Church than answer for keeping out of one Arg. 6. All Disciples may be Baptized But Infants of believing parents are Disciples Therefore some Infants may be Baptized The Major or former proposition is granted by our adversaries who translate that place Matth. 28. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 go make Disciples of all Nations which is in our last translation Go â—each all Nations confessing as soon as they are Disciples they may be Baptized Now for the Minor that Infants are Disciples is evident from Acts 15. 10. Why tempt yee God and put a yoak upon the neck of the Disciples this yoak was Circumcision and the attendants of it as will appear by comparing it with the fift verse and the context from the beginning of the Chapter Now among the Jews children were onely to be Circumcised and amongst the Gentiles children together with parents when they were converted and became Proselites To say that not onely Circumcision but the Doctrine and Observation of the whole Law by the yoak is meant is but a shift Circumcision was the Seal or Ordinance by which the Jews were bound to observe the Doctrine and the Law and all those upon whom the yoak was layd by Circumcision are called Disciples whereof Infants were a great part And if it be objected that children are not capable of instruction as it is nothing to the purpose so it contradicts Scripture Esay 54. 13. And all thy Children shall be taught of the Lord and great shall be the peace of thy Children And if any one carnally interpret this of the Jews return from captivity as they do other places of Esa our Saviour checks them John 6. 45. And It is written in the Prophets And they shall all be taught of God Arg. 7. All that have faith may be Baptized But some Infants have faith Therefore some Infants may be Baptized The proposition none will deny the Minor may be proved by severall reasons First Christ expresly calls them believers Matth. 18. He attributes humility to them and faith and commands Elders to imitate them and that you may see they were Infants Mark 9. 36. tells us they were such as Christ â—ook up in his armes Secondly they are said to receive the Kingdom of God Mark 10. that is the grace of God Remission of sins and life eternall now the Kingdom is not received but by faith in Christ Thirdly they please God therefore Christ blesseth them but without faith it is impossible to please God Fourthly either faith must be allowed them or salvation denyed them but the latter is cruell and impious therefore the former must be godly and pious faith onely purifies the heart but no unclean thing shall enter into Heaven Fiftly though Infants cannot make actuall profession of faith yet they may have inward roots of sanctification and faith John Baptist and Jeremie were sanctified in their mothers wombs let carnalists say what they will that is the principal meaning of that place Esay 65. 20. There shall be no more aâ— Infant of days The Jews thought they were not sanctified unless a Sabboth went over them the child shall dye an hundred year old that is as well in Covenant with God or a visible Church-member as if he were a hundred years old Therefore Paraeus sayes Infantes Ecclesiae etiam ante Baptismum censentur fideles Infants of the Church even before Baptism are judged faithfull Hommius sayes Infants have faith in semine in the seed though not in messe in the harvest Beza sayes they have faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in power though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in operation Faith says Trelcatius is two-fold 1. Active which the Elder have by hearing the Word 2. Passive and by imputation which Infants have by vertue of the Covenant and Divine promise Pelagius asks Austin where he places Infants Baptized he answers in numero credentium in the number of believers and addes nec judicare ullo modo aliter audebis si non vis esse apertè haereticus neither may thou presume to judge otherwise if thou wilt not be a plain Heretick We 'l conclude this with that of Vossius As in naturals so in supernaturals we must distinguish these three things power habit and act there is the power of reasoning in Infants the habit in men sleeping but the act and exercise in them that are waking the power answers the seed the habit the tree the act and exercise the fruit the seed of Faith may be in Infants the habit in men of age but the act and exercise in them that work according to the habit 8. Arg. Those that are Holy with a Covenant-holiness may be Baptized But Infants of beleeving Parents are Holy with a Covenant-Holiness Therefore Infants of beleeving Parents may be Baptized Eor the former Proposition foederatis competit signum foederis says Vossius the sign of the Covenant belongs to them that are in Covenant Holiness is twofold says Bullinger either of Faith or of the Covenant Ezra 9. 2. Ye have mingled the holy seed that is them in Covenant with the Nations that is them that are out of Covenant Thus you see that Covenant-holiness is no gibberidge but grounded upon Scripture and avouched by learned men as shall more fully appear The Minor that Children of beleeving Parents are holy with a Covenant-holiness is clear from 1. Cor. 7. 14. Else your Children were unclean that is not in Covenant but now they are holy that is in Covenant thus besides the ancients Sharpius and Peter Martyr interpret it and Hugo Grotius himself Non loquitur Apostolus de Sanctitate naturali c. The Apostle says he speaks not of natural holiness and inhering to the nature of Children but of an holiness adhering to them that is the holiness of the Covenant for the Children of beleevers are comprehended in the Covenant of grace and therefore accounted holy of God To interpret it as the gross Anabaptists do that they are holy that is no Bastards is a new holiness not heard of in Scripture and as Doctor Featly says a Bastard exposition and Pareus gives the reason if the Children of beleevers be therefore holy because they are no Bastards the Children of Pagans are as well holy for they are also no Bastards If the first-fruits be holy the lump is holy and if the root be holy so are also the branches Rom. 11. 16. The first fruits and
the condition as bad of an Infant under the Gospell left without any ordinary means of salvation save onely Baptism seeing Christ sayes John 3. 5. Except a man bâ— born of water and of the Spirit be cannot see the Kingdome of God But there are ordinary means of salvation beside Baptism thaâ— Infants out of Covenant are left without for clearing of which by ordinary I mean that which God hath revealed in Scripture and hath left us a word of promise to depend upon By means of salvation I understand all that which condâ—ces to the end and is contradistinguished to the end Thus means of salvation either strictly signifies those things that morally are in our power as for the Catechumeni and them of years whether they will be Baptized heare the Word receive the Eucharist Or those things that are not in our power wherein we are Passives yet performed by others as Proxies for us thus under the Law Infants were circumcised washed sanctified by oblations presented in the Temple under the Gospell baptized engaged by their parents or sureties Or those thing that are neither in our power nor others performed neither by our selves nor others yet by Gods free Charter in our selves and others Thus covenant-holiness prerogative of birth Gods promise to Abraham that he would be his God and the God of his seed That of Peter Acts 2. 39. confirmed to Jewes and Gentiles the promise is to you and your children are ordinary means of Salvation Infants out of covenant are left without all these and would be in the same condition with Gentiles Ephes 2. 12. Without Christ Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel strangers from the covonant of promise having no hope and without God in the World Thus negatively what they are deprived of by being out of covenant Let us see positively the benefits of being in covenant by comparing them with Jewes children with whom they hold proportion Rom. 3. 12. What advantage hath the Jew or what profit is there of Circumcision Much every way chiefly because unto them were committed the Oracles of God And Rom. 9 4. Who are Israelites to whom pertaineth the Adoption and the Covenants and the giving of the Law and the service of God and the promises there is the same reason of Infants under the Gospell Secondly he sayes that he takes not Baptism to be any ordinary means of salvation without faith what he takes is not much material so long as he mistakes If it be an ordinary means of salvation any way it is enough to prove that Infants are left without that means And in this his amphibological asseveration are cooped three fallacies 1. Fallacia divisionis for the Question is not whether Baptism be an ordinary means of salvation without faith but whether it be a means or no 2. A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundùm quid for the Question is not whether Baptism be a principle means but whether it be a means 3. Non causae ut causae For it is not enquired whether baptism presupposes faith as a cause or qualification but whether Baptism be the ordinary way God hath appointed for salvation And when the proposal is whether baptism be an ordinary means of Salvation To say it is not without faith is as unsavory as when the demand is whether the lungs are an ordinary Instrument of breathing to say they are not without the heart when the Question is simply whether a Colonel hath any command in an Army It would be ridiculous to answer it by saying he hath none without orders from the General And yet there is not that necessary connexion betwixt faith and Baptism that is betwixt the lungs and the heart for the lungs cannot breath without the heart nor the Colonel issue out any word of command without subordination to his generall But Baptism may be true Baptism even in adultis as Hymenaeus without true faith and many other hypocrites who when they became true Penetentiaries none but those Hereticks the Novations and Donatists durst Baptize again But for the Baptism of Infants actuall faith is not necessarie for the bene esse or perfection of it much less for the esse or being of it And that they have the infused habit of faith or the roots and seeds of it he confesses saying they are saved by the work of Christ's spirit which can be no other but the seeds of faith hope charitie and the new creature Thirdly he thinks it no inconvenience to say that Infants are without ordinary means of salvation he means preaching of the word for so he expresseth himself of that we must distinguish Preaching is either manifesting to the understanding that which is preached so Infants are without the means or presenting objectively the benefit of that which is preached as the new creature gifts of the spirit salvation so Infants are not without the means A will is sealed and published by the Father â—n the presence of all his children Wherein there is contained bequeathments and Legacies to them severally now they of age onely understand it but the Infants and sucklings that understand it not have equall benefit by it their honest overseers and Guardians will look to their Interests and shall we think God to be less carefull of Infants to whom he hath proclaimed belongs the Kingdom of God Lastly he sayes Infants are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit without ordinary means This implyes a contradiction of which his forge is full for if God hath revealed in the Covenant of the Gospell and made a promise thereof that Infants are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit then it is not without ordinary means for this is the way that God hath declared himself ordinarily to operate in whose will is a fixâ— Law and if God hath not revealed it in the Covâ—nant of the Gospell and made a promise thereof how doth he know that Infants are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit Or how dare he avouch it God hath promised no such thing to Infants of Jews Turks Infidels therefore they are out of Covenant and not visible memberâ— if God hath promised such things to Infants of believers they are in Covenant and visible members But perhaps he means Infants are saved without ordinary means that is baptism That if it were true might vindicate a tanto that they are saved without that ordinary means but not a toto that they are saved without an ordinary means But his former grant necessarily infers that they are not saved without Baptism for what can forbid water sayes the Apostle that these may not be baptized seeing they have recieved the Holy Ghost as well as we Now they that have elections redemption of Christ and work of his spirit have received the Holy Ghost which is a thing so clear that Mr. T. himself is forced to confess that if he
person in that which he calls the outward visible part of the blessing by which he means title to Baptis But I denyed the Minor understanding it of the outward Covenant holiness as they call it which I truly said is gibberish and however Vossius Bullinger for Grotius I think means otherwise conceive of it or the Assembly yet it is a meâ—r mystake and that holyness of Children which is mentioned 1 Cor. 7. 14. is truly said by me to be onely Matrimonial holyness or legitimation And his Argument out of Mr. Baxter I justly retorted that in six hundred times in which holy is used in Scripture in none of them it is found for outward Covenant holiness intiluling to Baptism which is a right way of answering though it be called indirect by the Logicians And as for that he replyes that Rom. 11. 16. I confessed at Ross Covenant holiness is meant I grant it but not outward Covenant holiness intiluling to Baptism but that reall saving holiness which is according to the election of grace according to which Jews elected shall hereafter be graffed in again Reply THat the promise belonged to Infant Children was thus further â—videnced The blessing is as large as the curse but the curse was extended even to Children before they could actually believe his blood be upon us and upon our children Therefore the blessing To this he accommodates now no answer but instead thereof bolts out this Question doth he think that Christs blood was not avenged on thâ—m if it were how was the remedy as large as the disease how satisfactorily let any intelligent man Judge Christs blood was avenged upon the murdering Jews and their Infant children therefore does he think it was not extendable to the believing Jews and their Infant-children Reason dictates the contrarie His evasion in the conference was more colourable thus If by blessing was meant the Inward and spirituall part of the covenant it might be true but that was not to the present purpose seeing it is not known to us but if the outward and visible part he denyed that Infants were capable of the blessing as well as liable to the curse which distinction was thus taken away They that are holy with a Covenant holiness are capable of the outward visible part of the blessing But Infants of believers are holy with a Covenant holiness Therefore they are capable of the outward and visible part Of this Syllogism he sayes he might have denyed the Major It s strange a man should be more absurd upon deliberation than on a sudden as is evident he is by his reason for sayes he there is a Covenant holiness according to election which doth not alwaies instate the person in that which I call the outward part of the blessing by which I mean title to Baptism what he means by this Centaur of Covenant-holiness by election is hard to conjecture whether of elect Infants before they be born or of elect Infidels before they be called or of believers or unbelievers sanctified Infants before profession If he mean it of elect Infants before they be born it is ridiculous seeing the subject of the Question is Infants of believers they that are actually in being not a subject in posse without an Accident an Accident in posse without a subject at the best but ens fictum possibile If he mean elect Infidels before they be called how are they holy that have nothing in them but the old Adam It seems holy Saul while he was a persecutor holy Dionysius while a Heathen Philosopher holy 3000. Jews while they were crucifying Christ If he mean of unbelievers or believers sanctified Infants first let me enquire of him what groudn he hath from Scripture or any divine Revelation that Infants of unbelievers are sanctified that there is salvation out of the visible Church that any such aâ—â— promised to be so qualified till professors Every act of Faith hath for its object Gods promise or Revelation and whatsoever is not of Faith even in this sense is sin Secondly for the sanctified holiness of believers Infants according to election if he mean that they are elected to for the future and have not yet that cannot denominate them holy if he mean that holiness of election they enjoy for the present Master T. confesses that holyness makes them capable of the outward visible part of the blessing and intitles them to baptism and that if he knew they were so qualified he would baptize them The Question is not whom he according to his light may baptize but who are baptizable But he knew that my proposition pointed at none of these and therefore idely beat the air as his next words discovers for he sayes he denyed the Minor understanding it and so did I of outward Covenant holiness upon which he bestows two taunts 1. As they call it 2. That he truly said that it was gibberish yet confesses that Vossius Bullinger and the late assembly did so conceive of it To these he might have joyned all the Harmonies of confessions of Reformed Churches Tertullian de anima Cap. 39. Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait tam ex seminis praerogativa quam ex institutionis disciplina caeterum inquit immundi nascerentur quasi designatos tamen sanctitatis per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios ut bujus spei pignora matrimoniis quae retinenda censuerat patrocinarentur The Apostle sayes he avers they may be procreated holy of either sex being sanctified as well of the Prerogative of the seed as the Discipline of education otherwise he sayes they would be born unclean willing the children of the faithfull to be understood as designed to holiness and consequently salvation that he might maintain the pledges of this hope to marriages which he judged to be retained Junius upon these words quasi designatos glosses thus alludit ad priscum Rom. morem qui ante annum ferm◠〈◊〉 Praetores alios designabant quam inirent Magistratum c. he al 〈…〉 es â—â—yes he to the antient Roman custome who designed alm 〈…〉 ear before they entred their Office Consuls Praetors and other Magistrates So that the sense is the children of the faithfull to be as it were designed to holiness and consequently salvation even as Magistrates were wont to be designed here in the Church they are designed by a common call there in heaven they enter glory by a singular call and benefit Athanasius in his 114. Question being asked whether Infants dying go to be punished or to the Kingdom says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your children are holy and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infants of believers that are baptized enter into Heaven Hugo Grotius Mr. T. his great friend for all he vainly thinks he means otherwise here forsakes him saying non loquitur Apostolus de sanctitate naturali c. The Apostle sayes he speaks not of naturall holiness and inhering to the nature of
the contrary thereof even bastards are comprehended but bastards are comprehended under holy seed therefore legitimation is not here meant The Minor is apparent because it is spoken to the whole Congregation whereof some were Bastards and bastard Israelites mingling with the Nations had joyned an unholy seed with a holy and fell under this reproof What Mr. Tombes talks of Jepthe makes him guilty of that he accuses others of running like Ahimaaz without his errand and fighting like the Antabatae with his eyes shut for he never eyes the Question which was not of Jephthe's saintship according to election but covenant-holiness for all he was illegitimate in his birth which gave him capacity to circumcision and other peculiar ordinances of Gods people whereby as the means he attained to be a Saint and justified by faith Hebr. 11. To this Argument Moses had children by the Aethiopian woman but they were not illegitimate Therefore those that were begot by mixture with the Nations were not illegitimate he grants the premises and implyedly the conclusion which is contradictory to his for all he sayes that the Aethiopian woman was not forbidden Not forbidden he means when he marryed her by that positive Law Deut. 7. 3. but long before her death why by virtue of that might not she and her children be put away as well as those in Ezra's and Nehemiah's time But were there not other lawes before that to keep their tribes entire without prophane mixture Nay visible remainders in the Law of nature for breach of which God with indignation expresses Gen. 6. 2. And the Sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were faire and they took them wives of all they chose It was according to this light that Gen. 27. 46. Rebeckah said to Isaak I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth if Isaak take a wife of the daughters of Heth what good shall my life do me And Gen. 28. 8. Esau saw the daughters of Canaan pleased not his father Isaak This I think is sufficient to prove the Aethiopian woman was forbidden Howsoever after that law was given Salmon had children by Rahab who was a Canaanitess and Boaz by Ruth who was a Mobitess and yet they were not illegitimate or unholy in hâ—s canting language To which he answers Rahab though a Canaanitess Ruth a Moabitess when they joyned themselves to the God of Israel were not prohibited nor their children illegitimate which is true and enforceth this conclusion contradictory to his therefore this is the same with Covenant-holiness entituling to Church Ordinances not legitimation unless by consequence intituling to be reckoned in the Genealogy and inheritance of Israel for by being Proselytes they had equal interest to circumcision and all other Ordinances with the native Jewes And though it was an Appendix thereof to be capable of inheritance among the Jewes this can no more be called legitimation than the manumission of a servant that was not free before or the naturalizing of an Alien who was no Dennizen before can be so stiled Mr. Tombes 22. Section THe last Argument Mr. C. used was this They that Christ took up in his arms blessed and said the Kingdom of God belongeth unto them pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would not receive them are holy with a Covenant-holiness But Christ took up little children into his arms blessed them said the Kingdom of God belonged unto them pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would not receive them Therefore little children are holy with a Covenant holiness In this Argument I denyed the Minor after some debate about the way of forming of it in which I magined that fallacy I do not now upon sight deprehend and particularly I denyed that Christ pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would not receive them Then he alledged Matth. 18. 2. Whence he argued They to whom belongs the Kingdom of Heaven are holy and in Covenant But to little children belongs the Kingdom of Heaven Therefore little children are holy and in Covenant In which Argument any Reader may perceive he proved not that I denyed That Christ pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would not receive little children or Infants and yet that Text he alledged did not say of little cildren that to them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven but those that were not to be offended v. 6. despised v. 10. were to be received in Christs name v. 5. were not little children in age but little ones in spirit which appeared in that they are said to be Believers v. 6. and to be converted and become as little children To which as the Relator himself sets it down Mr. C. said the meaning is not that the little children are converted which is a grant of what I alledged that the little ones not to be offended despised but received were not little children in age but affection of humility Mr. C. added But it hath relation to the disciples in the first verse who must be converted from their actuall sins and become as little children which have no actuall sin At which words it is true I said and that justly o how unhappy are the people that are seduced with these toyes are you not ashamed To which he replyed and it seems is not ashamed that it is printed I see nothing worthy of shame whereas if this speech of his were true then this is a truth except men be converted from their actuall sins and become as little children which have no actual sin they shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven for this is the meaning of Christs words Matth. 18. 3. according to Mr. C. interpretation which whosoever believes must of necessity despair of Heaven sith as James saith chap. 3. 2. in many things we offend all and John 1. Epist chap. 1. ver 8. If we say we have no sin we deceive our selves and the Truth is not in us Reply IT was further evidenced which he calls the last Argument that Infants were holy with a Covenant-holiness thus they that Christ took up in his armes blessed said the Kingdom of God belonged unto them pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would not receive them are holy with a Covenant-holiness But Christ took up little children into his armes blessed them said the Kingdom of God belongeth unto them pronounceth a curse upon those that despiseth and would not receive them Therefore little children are holy with a covenant holiness In this Argument he sayes he denyed the Minor and after some debate about the way of forming of it he imagined that fallacy he does not now upon sight deprehend It is well he acknowledges he hath not the spirit of infallibility he that sees his mistake in this one proposition may have his eyes further opened to discover his errour in the whole controversie His mistakes were two 1. In saying it was a fallacie of heaping many particulars together 2 a copulative proposition
that are seduced with these toyes are you not ashamed Whereas he seduces the people with toyes whom we endeavour to undeceive with solid truth and the light of the Gospel of which we are not ashamed Therefore I replyed then that he had learned of the man in Lucian to cry out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O cursed and to vilifie that Argument he cannot answer besides which I saw nothing shame-worthy nor do I yet saving that to his verbal contumelâ—es he addes a surplusage in print That if others of his judgment were like him they would not fall much short of that fell from the mouth of one as learned and godly but far more meek-spirâ—ted than himself Master Robert Bolton Frantick bedlam Anabaptists saith he who are fitter to be out of the number of men and driven out of the bounds of humane nature than to be disputed with Assise Sermon pag. 13. which censure he may seem in part to merit by his uncharitable vocifeâ—ation and exclamation against that speech of mine which is true and it is a truth except men be converted from their actual sins non ut non sint as Austin sed ut non imputentur not that they be not but that they be not imputed and become as little children in innocencie and humility which have no actual sins negatively because they are tabula rasae subjects not yet capable whereas true penitents are without actual sins privatively not in regard of the stain and being but of the guilt and curse their sins being made Christs and his righteousness theirs ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven that is be capable of glory 1 Cor. 6. 9. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God be not deceived neither fornicators nor adulterers nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind nor thieves nor coveteous nor drunkards nor revilers nor extortioners shall enter into the kingdom of God the same in effect is repeated Rev. 21. 8. And this is the meaning of Christs words Math. 18. 3. not only according to mine interpretation but of antient and modern Divines famous in their generations which would have been astonished to hear any one so irrational as to say whosoever believes it must of necessity despaire of heaven as if they could not be sinners by commission of sins as or resembling little children which have no actual sins by pardon or remission of sins for if Saint James sayes chap. 3. 2. In many things we offend all yet Saint John sayes 1 John 2 1 2. If any man sin we have an advocate with the father Christ Jesus the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sins And as John sayes 1 Epist. chap. 1. 8. If we say we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us this is in regard of inherence and stâ—in so the same Apostle sayes 1 John 3. 6. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not and vers 9. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin for his seed remaineth in him and he cannot sin that is with an intention before the commission delight in the commission an acquâ—escing in it after the commission of sin And this he knew to be my meaning but that with the Donatists he must caâ—ell even with the clearness of the sun-beame resembling the rest of the litter of grievous wolves as Mr. Tombes himself stiles them of which Master Bolton speaks Assise Sâ—rmon 2. pag. 82. The furious Anabaptists of our time are as like the Donatists as if they had spit them out of their mouthes Mr. Tomâ—eâ— 23 Section THat which Master Cragge added that the Disciples were believers which are meant Math 18. 6. and not the children and yet saith his Argument remains unanswered hath more of impudence in it for his Argument being that Christ pronounced a curse on them that despised and received not little ones in age and yet confessing that this was meant not of little ones in age but disciples believers in him it is the height of impudencie to say his Argument is unanswered when his own confession answered it Justly here after five hours time having promised but one did I break off and having had experience of Mr. C. his meer cavelling at Rosse and Abâ—rgaveny dwelling many miles from that Town and finding nothing in him and those other Paedobaptists I have answered but a spirit of wrangling I yeilded not to any other dispute nor shall for time to come being now sufficiently taught by experience what dealing I am like to have to yield to such Disputes As for that which Mr. C. saith he was hurried to that extemporal discourse through importunity I do not believe it being advertised before that if I came to Abergaveny he would oppose me That the speech of him that said I answered nothing was the speech of an impudent brazen-faced fellow I think any will judge who reads this my writing For Mr. Baxter whatever his worth be yet how justly I might say though the words set down were not used as the relatâ—r expresseth them that I have answered all he saith against me will appear in the review of the Dispute between him and me and others of which part of it is printed part in the Presse and the rest if the Lord permit shall not be slackened Mr. C. Arguments from John 3. 5. Rom. 11. and other places if they be not in his Sermon to the examining of which I now hasten yet are they in other books answered by me I shall take some view of his Sermon on which I had made some animadversions before according to the imperfect Copy I had then and sent them to Abergaveny but have them not now by me in London yet however in this straight of time I think is necessary to write thus much Reply HIs first exception against my Argument was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 2 3 4 5. verses was not an Infant in age to which I opposed Hippocrates his interpretation who makes it to signifie a child under seven years of age and Beza who sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de primo vitae septennio dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de secundo and therefore not capable of actual faith when the Apostles themselves were yet ignorant about fundamentals besides in the second and third verses Jesus set a little child in the midst of them and said except ye be converted and become as little children ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven Will any one understand this of grown Children as if they had more actual faith than the Disciples and were to be their patterns Math 19 13 14. It is said our Saviour having in the former part of the Chapter answered the Pharisees about divorce there were certain little children or Infants in Luke 18 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sucking Infants and it is considerable for what end they were
brought it s in Luke 18. That he might touch them but in Matth. that he might lay his hands on them and pray now the laying on of hands especially when joyned with prayer is an Ordinance of institution in the Church of God named after the doctrine of Baptism Heb. 6. 1 2. and therefore if there be any strength in his way of arguing that from placing of words of institution one after another as baptizing after discipling or believing would prove that discipling and believing is to be first found in persons before they must be baptized Then the same Argument would prove that these Infants were formerly baptized because they â—ame for imposition of hands a right usually following mens baptism too in the practise of the Apostles as in Acts 8. 17. and 19. 5 6. Nor can Mr. Tombes give us any certain proof oâ— demonstration or ought besides his own presumtion they were not This he passes by now without salute as a fort impregnable and levels his shot against a place wherein he vainly conceives is a breach already Thrasâ—-like sounding a triumph before the victory for these are his words Bombardi-gladio-fun-hasti-flammi-loquentes that which Mr. C. added that the Disciples are believers which are meant Matth. 18. 6. and not the children and yet saith his Argument remains unanswered hath more of impudence in it To which I reply 1. That many understand even the sixt verse of little Children in age and then it will not so much as colourably make for him in any sense 2. Be it so as the Relator hath it that the Disciples were believers which are meant in the sixt verse and not children which the Grammatical construction seems to intimate because it is in the Masculine Gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one of these little ones answering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciple not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the neuâ—er gender agreeing with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little child yet my Argument remains unanswered which was this to little children belongs the Kingdom of heaven therefore they are holy and in covenant Now it would be a strange inconsequence to say The little oneâ— v. 6 are Disciples not Infants in age therefore they are truly so v. 2. 3. to whom belongs the kingdom of heaven are not holy and in Covenant If such a fallacious non causa ut causa could stand he might infer quidlibet ex quolibet v. 2. Christ set a little child in the middest of them and said v. 3. except ye be converted and become as little children ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven they that were converted as little children to them belonged the kingdom of heaven therefore surely to little children their patterns as before especially seeing Christ in other Evangelists applies those words to little children themselves forbid them not to come unto me for of such is the kingdome of God But now I perceive his erroneous mistake for he sayes my Argument being that Christ pronounced a curse on them that received little ones in age and yet confessing that this was not meant of little ones in age but disciples believers in him it is the height of impudencie to say mine Argument was not answered when mine own confession answered it By this I see one errour begets many for 1. my Argument was not that Christ pronounced a curse on them that despised and received not little ones in age as hath been manifested that was indeed the last member of the proposition he excepted against which I promised to prove in its order But 2. grant it had been so my Argument for any thing appears yet remained unanswered for it would have followed â— minori ad majus from the lesse to the greater If Christ pronounced a curse upon those that despised he imitators of little children much more upon the despisers of little Children themselves Therefore Mark 10. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was moved with indignation against the Disciples for the little Childrens sake because they would have hindred them to come to him for a benediction By this it appears upon whom this height of impudency reflects The Areopagites at Athens had two stones erected in the Market place the one of impudencie the other of contumely Mr. Tombes hath a propriety in both these which he frequently ascends like that Timon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he may bestow his aâ—read-bare liveries upon those that discent from him in judgement of which he is liberal in the words following for sayeâ— he justly here after five hours time Skogan spewes crowes â—e should have said almost five hours or four and an half having promised but one and therefore a work of Supererrogation else to what purpose mentions he it Did he break off well it seems this adders head is crushed but capite eliso caudaminatur he waggs stil his taile and in the end thrusts out his sting to wound their reputation who had any dealing with him In this Argument beginning with me sayes he had experience of my meer cavelling at Rosse and Abergaveny At Rosse its true it fell out incidently that my place was to moderate but if we had been as many as there were Ephori at Sparta it had been impossible to bound him within the virge of a lawfull Dispute As for the Dispute at Abergaveny the relation thereof with his answer and my reply let others judge whether is the meer caveller But he dwelt many miles from that Town so did the Pharisees from sea and lands they compassed to make Proselytes perhaps he means that distance was disaduantagious unto him like Aâ—â—aeus whose strength was confined to his mother earth or the Samnites who were advised by the Oracle not to fight unless like snailes with their houses upon their backs But as Marcion said of the Orthodox and Catholick Fathers he finds nothing â—â— me and those other Paedobaptists he hath answered meaning Dr. Hamond Master Marshall Master Baxter Dr. Homes Dr. Featly Master Blake Master Cobbet Master Cotton with many more of the flour of our Nation but a spirit of wrangling when they have discovered by many infallible Symptoms this to be his very disease which he contumeliously imputes to others like the mad man in Bedlam that called all that passed by franticks Austin speaks of such an adversary of his Sermon 164. ego volo te esse sanum quare furis in me sicut insanuâ— Thus he goes on with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declamatory defamatory oration excusing himself for not answering my challenge for a deliberate Dispute than for any Dispute for the time to come accusing us that he was now sufficiently taught by experience what dealing he was like to have whereas the truth is he never yeilded to any Dispute for the time past but where he had the advantage resolved he would not for the future because he experimentally found with Paulus Samosatenus that he and his party lost by such engagements He hath found it to
proposition drawn from make Disciples not to be universall and so irregularly to conclude from particulars for if there be not the same end of Christs baptism and ours there may be different ends of infants Baptism and those of age Christ was circumcised for one end Isaak and Ogdemerans for another Abraham and aged Proselytes for another Christ was baptized absolutely without repentance Infants to repentance for the future but of them of age it was required that they should be penitentiaries at least in fieri for the present It is true that God requires no more of Infants in Covenant and born of believing Parents to their baptism but a meer objective power or receptibility as the world in its Creation was of nothing so infants regeneration or new creature is of nothing It is also a divine truth that upon the account I spake of many whole families accepting Christ were baptized and their infants with them which the Texts I alledged in the Sermon proves Acts 10. 47. Those were baptized that received the Holy Ghost of which infants are capable as Mr. T. often confesses Jeremy and John Baptist were sanctified in their Mothers womb Acts 16. 15. mention is made onely of Lydia attending to the things that were spoken by Paul yet upon that account her whole houshold was baptized with her 1 Cor. 1. 16. Paul baptized the houshold of Stephanas making no mention of faith and repentance Acts 16. 30 31. The jaylers family is baptized in reference to his faith believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and thy house whereupon he was baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that were his The Texts that speak of fearing of God repentance belief hearing the word addicting themselves to the Ministry of Saints is to be applyed to the subject matter capable of those duties and proves affirmatively such so qualified were baptized but nothing negatively they that were not so qualified were not baptized The contrary whereof the Holy Ghost put out of Question naming whole families wherein infants are included that were baptized without exception Mr. Tombes 15. Section MAster C. goes on Argument 5. They that are capable of the Kingdom and the blessing which is the greater are capable of baptism which is the lesser But infants are capable of the Kingdom and the blessing which is the greater Therefore they â—re capable of baptism which is the lesser To which I answer The Major is false if it were true it would follow Infants are capable of the Kingdom and the blessing which is the greater Therefore they are capable of the Lords Supper Ordination to the Ministry Church-Discipline which are the less Though into the Kingdom of Heaven Infants are admitted by God who knows who are his without any visible expression yet into the visible Church persons are not admitted without visible Testimony of their faith of which sort were all added to the Church Acts 2. 47. not one of those Texts Mark 10. 13. to 17. Mark 9. 14. 36. 37. Math. 18. 2. 3. 4. Math. 19. 13. 14 15. Luk. 9. 14. 15. Luk. 18. 15 16. severally nor all joyntly prove infants visible Church-members The Kingdom of God Mark 10. 14. is not the visible Church for into it such as are not humble as liitle children may enter which our Saviour denyes ver 15. but the same with the Kingdom ver 23 24 25. into which it is so hard and impossible for a rich man or one that trusts in riches to enter which is called ver 17 30. eternall life It is false that Christ saith The Angels of little ones in age see the face of his Father which is in Heaven But of little ones in spirit who are converted and believe in Christ Math. 18. 3 6 10. for whose sake they are sent Heb. 1. 14. They are but Paedobaptists dreams that the three Evangelists recorded Christs blessing little ones to check Antipaedobaptists or to declare that which Mr. C. calls a precious truth though it be a very lye and may be gathered to be so even from the story Reply MY first Argument was They that are capable of the Kingdom and blessing which is the greater are capable of baptism which is the lesser But infants of believers are capable of the Kingdom and blessing which is the greater Therefore they are capable of baptism which is the lesser The Major is true being understood Relatively as he knew it ought to be of the inward spirituall grace signified by outward washing They that are capable of inward baptism which is the greater are capable of outward baptism the less This he confesses often and that if he knew he would baptize them what can hinder water that these may be baptized seeing they have received the Holy Ghost But it does not follow that because they are capable of the Kingdom and blessing which is the greater Therefore they are capable of the Lords Supper Ordination to the Ministery Church Discipline which are the lesser for these are heterogeneal and not by any divine institution appointed to signify or Seal the other We receive the Lords Supper not as capable of the Kingdom and to be matriculated but as proficients in the Kingdom in a further graduall perfection Ordination of Ministers Church Discipline relates not strictly to the Kingdom and blessing as Kingdom but accidentally in outward separable respects and circumstances I confess according to Gods secret will it is possible that infants of unbelievers may be admitted by God into the Kingdom of Heaven without any visible expression but we are to depend upon Gods revealed will who hath given no promise but to Covenanters believers and their seed who are admitted into the Church without any visible Testimony of their actuall faith Those Texts Mark 10. 13. to 17. Mark 9. 14. 36. 37. Math. 18. 2. 3. 4. Math. 19. 13 14. 15. Luke 18. 15. 16. Severally and joyntly prove Infants visible Church-members The Kingdom of God Maâ—k 10. 14. is also inclusively the visible Church as well as invisible Such as are not humble seemingly as little Children for the Apostles were often deceived shall not enter into the visible Church such as are not really humble shall not enter into the invisible which is the same with the Kingdom v. 23 24 25. into which it is so hard and impossible for a rich man or one that trusts in his riches to enter which is called ver 17. 30. eternall life It is true that Christ said not onely of little ones in Spirit who are converted and believe in him but of little ones in age their Samplers and paterns that their angels see the face of his Father which is in Heaven Math. 18. 3 6 10. It is an unanswerable observation of the learned of former and latter ages that the three Evangelists recorded Christs blessing of little ones to check as it falls out the novell Anabaptists and to declare that which I call a precious truth which maugre all opposition may
be gathered to be so from the story Mr. Tombes 16. Section FOr sure if infants had been to be baptized Christ would then have appointed them to be baptized and blamed his Apostles for not doing it And therefore Mr. C. questions are answered by Questions 1. Doth Christ take Children in his arms and would he have all put out of his visible Church Answ Doth Christ no more but take them up in his arms lay his hands on them and bless them and shall we presume to do more without any warrant of his even to admit them into his visible Church by Baptism 2. Would he have us receive them in his name and yet not receive them into his visible Church Answ Where doth Christ ever bid us receive little children in age Where did he ever send them That they might be received in his name must we make Christs words to import that which we would in another censure as a spice of madness when he hath told us plainly they are his Apostles and other Preachers he hath sent whom we are to receive in his name Mark 9. 41. Luke 9. 48. though they are as mean and contemptible as a little child How should children be received but by providing nurses would Christ have us provide nurses for little children our Lord Christ expresseth a cup of cold water to drink as some part of the reception in his name Mark 9. 41. Is this a thing fit to entertain an Infant with This is enough to answer Mr. C. frivolous questions And in answer to the words of Master Baxter who is the godly and Reverend Divine he means I say for my part seeing the will of Christ is that I must walk by and his word that I must be judged by and he hath given so full a discovery of his will in this point I will boldly adventure to follow his rule to baptize Disciples professing faith and had rather answer him upon his own incouragement for not admitting by baptism those he never appointed to be baptized than to adventure upon the doing like Uzzah upon mine own head that which doth prâ—sane the Ordinance of baptism and corrupt the Church of Christ Reply MOst surely if Infants had not been baptizable Christ would not have laid his hands upon them and blessed them which presupposeth they were either as most probably baptized before or visible members and capable of Baptism And therefore Mr. T. Questions are answered again by Questions 1. Doth Christ take children in his arms and would he have all put out of the visible Church Answ Christ doth more than take them in his arms for he laid his hands upon them and blessed them and said the kingdom of God was of such and shall not we admit them to baptism an Ordinance which imposition of hands and benediction presupposes 2. Would he have us receive them in his name and yet not receive them into his visible Church Answ Christ bids us Mat. 18. 5. receive little children in age either expresly or à foâ—tiori and Luke 9. 48. which to interpret of Apostles and other preachers sent to be received in his name is a spice of madnesse The words are these Jesus took a child and set him by him and said unto them whosoever shall receive this child not Apostles or Preachers receiveth me and whosoever receiveth me receiveth him that sent me The rest of his expressions relating â—o this second Question are the Paroxysms of a distempered brain and stands in more need of Hellebore to purge than an answer Therefore I say again in the words of Mr. Baxter who is indeed the learned and godly Divine seeing the Will of God is that I must walk by and his word I must be judged by and he hath given me so full a discovery of his will in this point I had rather answer him upon his own encouragement for admitting an hundred Infants into his Church than answer for keeping out one especially after the Anabaptist manner too frequent among us who like Uzzah or the sons of Sheva adventure upon the office of the Ministery without a call or ordination than with Nadab and Abihu offer false fire deliver unsound doctrine than injuriously bereave Infants of baptism and sacrilegiously rebaptize or dip those that were rightly baptized before errour drawes on another Mr. Tombes 17 Section MAster C. sixt Argument is Infants are Disciples Therefore they may be baptized The Antecedent be would prove from Acts 5. 10. in that it was Circumcision which was the yoke which he proves from v. 5. but he confesseth it was not Circumcision onely but the attendants and that it is no shiftâ— but a cleer truth that it is not Circumcision as acted on Infants but as taught imposed on the consciences of believing Gentiles with the rest of Moses his law as necessary to salvation by some Teachers which cannot be said of Infants is so manifest from the Text that I dare boldly say they that assert that by Disciples Acts 15. 10. are meant do but wrangle against clear light and spit against the Sun That the Text Isai 54. 13. is not meant of Infants of believing parents as such but of such as having heard and learned of the father come to Christ is plain from those words of our Saviour John 6. 45. alleadged here by Mr. C. himself as expounding the Prophet Reply MY sixt Argument was All disciples may be baptized But Infants of believing parents are disciples Therefore some Infants may be baptized The Minor I proved from Acts 15. 10. in that it was Circumcision that was the yoke why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples Which I proved v. 5. certain of the Sect of the Pharisees said it was necessary to circumcise them Circumcision with the attendants is the yoke taught to be imposed onely upon the Infants of believing Jewes upon believing parents with Infants among the Gentiles And that it was Circumcision acted appears v. 1. They taught the brethren except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved Moses his manner was Infants of eight dayes old v. 5. they taught it was needfull to circumcise them v. 14. Ye must be circumcised whence it is clear that it is not onely Circumcision taught but acted not acted upon taught brethren onely but their Infants That I dare boldly say they that assert the contrary do but cavill against conscience and with Julian the Apostate throwes the blood of their own self-conviction against the Son of Righteousness That Text Isai 54. 13. is not meant onely of them that having heard and learned of the father come unto Christ but of Infants of believing parents as such which the note of universality intimates all thy children shall be taught of God All but principally Infants which being not capable of the instrumental depend wholly upon the Efficient cause which our Saviours exposition clears for when he applies it to actual hearers he leaves out
the word children saying they shall be all taught of God Mr. Tombes 5. Section THe seventh Argument is All that have faith may be baptized But some Infants have faith Therefore some Infants may be baptized But 1. The Major is not true of faith onely in seed or act secret and not made known 2. Mr. C. alters the Conclusion which should have been that all Infants of Believers may be baptized But then he durst not avoâ—ch the Minor that they all have faith at least in semine the contrary being manifest from Scripture and experience he proves the Minor 1. from Mat. 18. where he saith Christ expresly calls them believers but Christ calls not little children in age believers v. 6. it had been ridiculous to threaten so heavy a doom to the offending of little children in age who are offended with none so much as Nurses for dressing or chiding them when they cry but the Apostles and other Christian Disciples are there meant 2. They are said to receive the kingdom of God Mark 10. That is the grace of God remission of sins and life eternal now the kingdome is not received but by faith in Christ But onely elect Infants do receive the kingdom either by faith in the seed not in the act or by faith in the act secret onely and yet are not to be baptized till they make profession nor are all or any Children of believers as theirs elect Reply MY seventh Argument was All that have faith may be baptized Some Infants have faith Therefore some Infants may be baptized The major may have a threefold acceptation 1. All that have faith conferred or to be conferred in Baptism though not Physically or morally or ex opere operato yet of divine promise as some hold all believers Infants have because they cannot ponere obicem it will inevitably follow these if such are baptizeable 2. All that have faith of the parents or sureties imputed to them as in the old Cathechism they do perform by their sureties who do promise and vow them both faith and repentance in their names this granted makes Infants baptizable 3. All that have faith in feed secret act or habit may be baptized this he onely insists upon denying it because it is not made known confessing oft if it were known he would baptize them this exception denies not but they are baptizable but that he may not baptize them as if God had given them a right to baptism and no means to attain it and concludes as well against baptism of elders for if he baptize none till their faith be made known he must supersede till this mortal put on immortallity It is false that I alter the conclusion which in the dispute was some Infants may be baptized In the Sermon indefinitly Infants may be baptized sometimes as the mediunm affords I extend it to believers Infants yea unbelievers if under Christian education but the lowest is sufficient to overthrow his Tenet who denies all Infant-baptism It s but his dream that I have any need to avouch all Infants of believers have saith at least in semine and I think it hard for him to manifest the contrary from Scripture and experience All that maintain an impossibility of falling from grace in adultis does not so in seminal graces in Infants but I wave that The Minor I proved from Matth. 18. where Christ expresly calls little children in age as many interpret it believers from the authority of Luke who Chapter 9. 48. sayes Christ sayes that of the little babe he took up in his armes and set in the midst of them he that receiveth this little child in my name receiveth me Mark 9. 36. 37. he that recieveth one of these little children without mention of any other foregoing but the child it self taken into his arms receiveth me However little children were patterns they were to imitate in faith and humility propter quod unumquodque tale illud magis tale It is not ridiculous but rather blasphemous to say it is ridiculous to threaten so heavy a doom to the offending or scandalizing of little children in age whom he childishly and untruly sayes are offended with none so much as nurses for dressing or chiding them when they cry Mr. T. might know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by Budaeus and others offensionis causam afferre vel concitare to bring or procure a cause of offence which nurses do not He that should have said Mr. T. eldest son when an Infant was a bastard I think did scandalize him in defaming him and rendring him uncapable of temporal birthright but they that deny Infants spiritual birthright and church membership scandalize them much more This he grants that Infants are said to receive the Kingdom of God Mark 10. 10. that is the grace of God remission of sins and life eternal now the kingdom is not received but by faith in Christ Elect Infants dying do receive the eternal kingdom either by faith in the seed not in the act or by faith in the act secret only and yet are to be baptized before they make profession upon their birthright priviledge grounded on Gods promise and charâ—â—able hope of seminal or actual faith which is confined to professors and their children as such solis sed non omnibus for out of the visible Church we have neither commission to administer the Ordinance nor promise of Salvation Mr. Tombes 19 Section THirdly saith Mr. C. They please God therefore Christ blesseth them but without faith it is impossible to please God Answ The like Argument is urged by the Remonstrants at the Synod at Dort It is impossible to please God without faith therefore election which supposeth pleasing of God presupposeth saith The Answer is that Heb. 11. 6. the pleasing of God is meant of the works as Enoch pleased God walking with him and so Infants please not God and therefore may be without faith not of the persons in which sense Infants may please God that is be beloved with a love of benevolence though not of delight without faith 4. Faith must be allowed them or not salvation for faith purifieth the heart Acts 15. 9. and no unclean thing shall enter into heaven Answ Faith in the seed is sufficient to make them clean which is not denyed may be in infants though neither Isai 65. 20. sayes any such thing and Austins words expresse nothing but his own conceit according to the language of his time but faith in seed or act unknown doth not entitle to baptism Reply THey please God therefore declaratively not causally Christ blesseth them it being impossible without faith to please God The Argument but far unlike is urged by the Remonstrants at the Synod at Dort to prove foresight of faith in time to be the cause of election before time I speak of Infants that are in being and actually please God and receive his benediction which presupposeth their persons are accepted and they have faith these two