Moses Aaronicus saveth The ten Commandments looked truly upon under a right notion as added to the Ceremoniall Law Moses joyned with Aaron are as absolutely evangelicall as obedientiall love added to faith in the New Testament Cameron Thes 66.67 And therefore it is onely in regard of some modall differences that Cameron cals the covenant at Sinai the covenant subservient to the covenant of grace but not in the sulstance in which it agrees with the covenant of grace in as many particulars as Cameron brancheth them out as in shewing sin leading to Christ restraining from sin pledging in and by a Mediator promising life c. yea there are as Diodat is one that doubt not to call the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai a covenant of meer grace Diodat pref to Exod. Exercit. p. 3. 2 Exception Mr. Tombes makes is That the seed of Abraham is many wayes so called 1 Christ is called the seed of Abraham by way of excellencie Gal. 3.16.2 All the clect Rom. 9.7 All beleevers Rom. 5.11 12 13 16 17 18. that is the spirituall seed 3 There was a naturall seed to whom the inheritance did accrue viz. Isaac Gen. 21.12.4 A naturall seed whether lawfull as the sons of Keturah or base as Ismael to whom the inheritance belonged not Gen. 15.5 But no where do I find that the infants of beleevers of the Gentiles are called Abrahams seed Of the three former kinds of Abrahams seed the promise recited is meant but in a different manner thus That God promiseth he will be a God to Christ imparting in him blessing to all Nations of the earth to the spirituall seed of Abraham in evangelicall benefits to the naturall seed inheriting in domestick and politick benefits Ans Sure the holy Lord in a Covenant would not be thought to equivocate and be uncertain in his meaning Animadvers Though God appoints the outward administration of the covenant to Abraham the beleever his seed indefinitely Gen. 17. yet he gives the efficacie of the covenant but to some viz. that shall be the seed by faith Rom. 4. Yet we must follow the administration according to expresse institution Gen. 17. To whom is derived the covenant effectually to them are derived the promises of blessing in every manner recited by the Exercitator subordinate things are not contrary or in no manner per modum aut vim faederis under the notion of a covenant Unregenerate men have a right to temporall things by an humane right and higher by a divine right of common providence either as dwelling with or receiving them from those in reall covenant with God but not by vertue of any covenant between them and God And for that great quaere made by Mr. T. whether the children of beleeving Gentiles are called Abrahams seed Exercitat p. 3. which is the main thing to the question in hand Ans They are Anius advers by the distinction and quotation of the Exercitator himself by stronger consequence then by which the Exercitator proceeds in most things he alledgeth For first he saith that the naturall seed of Abraham as Isaac c. are called his seed Secondly that all beleevers are Abrahams seed quoting Rom. 4. We infer then that the naturall seed of beleeving Gentiles are as well the seed of Abraham as the naturall seed of Isaac were though Esau were Esau If a Gentile beleever be the seed of Abraham Rom. 4.11 Gal. 3.8 then the children of the Gentile beleever must needs be reckoned for the seed of Abraham being the promise runs as truly in the New Testament The promise is to you and your children Act. 2. or I am the God of thee Gentile beleever and of thy seed as in the old Testament to Abraham I am the God of thee Jewish Abraham and of thy seed 3. Except Exercit. p. 3. That there is not saith Mr. T. the same reason of circumcision of Baptisme in signing the Gospel-covenant The promise of the Gospel saith he or the Gospel-covenant was the same in all ages in respect of the thing promised and condition of the covenant 1. Mr. Tombes his concession which we may call the substantiall and essentiall part of the covenant to wit Christ faith sanctification remission of sins eternall life yet this evangelicall covenant had divers forms in which these things were signified and various sanctions by which it was confirmed To Adam the promise was made under the name of the seed of the woman 2. The distinction of divers forms bruising the serpents head To Enoch and Noah in other forms otherwise to Abraham under the name of his seed in whom all nations should be blessed Otherwise to Moses under the obscure shadows of the Law otherwise to David under the name of a successor in the kingdom otherwise in the new Testament in plain words 2 Cor. 3.6 Hebr. 8.10 It had likewise divers sanctions 3. The variety of sanctions The promise of the Gospel was confirmed to Abraham by the signe of circumcision and by the birth of Isaac To Moses by the Paschal lambe and sprinkling of blood on the book the rain of Mannah and other signes To David by an oath In the New Testament by Christs blood 1 Cor. 11.25 Therefore circumcision signified 4. The conclusion and confirmed the promise of the Gospel according to the form and sanction of the covenant with Abraham Baptisme signifies and confirms the same promise according to the form sanction and accomplishment of the New Testament Now these forms and sanctions differ many wayes 5. The illustration of the conclusion as much as concerns our present purpose in these 1 Circumcision confirmed not onely Evangelicall promises 1. Partic. but also politicall And if we may beleeve Mr. Cameron in his Theses of the threefold covenant of God Thes 78. Circumcision did primarily separate the seed of Abraham from other nations seâ—led unto them the earthly promise Secondarily it did saâ—nifie sanctification But Baptisme saith Mr. T. signifies onely Evangelicall benefits 2 Circumcision did confir the promise concerning Christ 2 Partic. to come out of Isaac Baptisme assures Christ to be come alreadie to have been dead and to have risen again 3 Circumcision belonged to the Church constituted in the house of Abraham 3 Partic. Baptisme to the Church gathered out of all Nations Whence I gather saith Mr. T. that there is not the same reason of circumcision and baptisme in signing the Evangelicall Covenant Nor may there be drawn an argument from the administration of the one to the like manner of administring the other Answ 1. From the concession in the third exception Animadv That the Gospel-covenant was the same in all ages in respect of the thing promised to wit Christ remission of sins sanctification eternall life And the condition of the Covenant namely faith We infer that Mr. Tombes grants 1. that Gods covenant with Abraham signed with circumcision was
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
expresse the analogie of circumcision to the thing signified but onely a word added touching the making circumcision effectuall and imports onely that Christ is the effect of all Sacraments he is he that must establish the Covenant in all its promises and seals In him are all the promises yea and amen 2 Cor. 1. He is the seed to whom and in whom promises were made and to be made firm Galat. 3.16 It was not all Isaacs seed that could establish the Covenant but Christ Nor did Christ more establish as Isaacs seed then as Abrahams seed spiritually Gen. 12.3 Gen. 17.7 and Gal. 3.8 Thirdly that whereas afore Mr. T. said p. 4. of his Exercitat that Baptisme assures Christ to be already come to which we answered that no such thing appeared in the analogie of water nor in the form of administration to wit I baptise thee in the Name of the Father c. nor in the use many being baptized afore Christ came 1 Pet. 3.21 1 Cor. 10.1 2 c. many before Christ came to act his mediatorship of doctrine passion resurrection his incarnation onely preparing him Psal 40.6 mine eares hast thou opened or bored Hebr. 10.5 A body hast thou prepared me Now Mr. T. speaks more warily Baptisme points at the incarnation death c. of Christ Well and how doth it point at the incarnation and death of Christ more then circumcision Did not circumcision signifie Christ to be born according to the flesh of one circumcised Did not cutting off of the fore-skin and drawing blood as well point at death as ordinary afflictions are said to kill all the day long Rom. 8 Sure that bloody Sacrament did as much if not more point at Christs passion as a little being under the water and up again did in baptisme But to signifie time to come or time past that was onely implyed in the time of administration if either Sacrament administred afore Christs coming then it pointed at Christ to come If after his coming then Christ come Secondly Exercit. p. 6. saith Mr. T. circumcision was a signe that the Israelites were a people separated from all nations Rom. 3.1 But baptisme signifieth that all are one in Christ Gal. 3.28 Answ And doth not baptisme as much separate all the spirituall seed of Abraham and their children from all the Nations unbaptized as circumcision did Israel and the proselytes out of every Nation from the uncircumcised For that is the difference Matth. 28. Go teach all nations baptizing them If nations do not receive this teaching and baptizing there is the difference that men can put And it is as wide as usually circumcision did put the Israelites generally being evill and very oft idolatrous And it is a question to me wishly looking on that place Rom. 3.1 2 whether their keeping the oracles of God is not put if not as the speciall difference Compare Psal 147. last yet as the equall difference with circumcision the Turks c. circumcise but have not the oracles of God and then what more is conferred on circumcision then on baptisme The Word must go before and along with a Sacrament or else it will appear rather a mixture of heathenish superstition then a distinction And for baptisme it doth indeed signifie that all we Gentiles with the Jews that are baptized are all one in Christ as before circumcision signified that all Jews with the Gentiles proselytes that were circumcised were one in Christ But me thinks the text Gal. 3.28 speaks of Christ as making us all one If of baptisme then of baptisme as made an effectuall means to put into Christ and then effectuall preaching is as well a means and so no speciall thing is put to advance baptisme above doctrine Thirdly saith he circumcision signified that Moses law was to be observed Exercit. p. 6. Gal. 5.3 But baptisme doth signifie that Moses law is made void and the doctrine of Christ to be reteined Act. 10.37 Answ This seemes to import some difference at some time and in the shell but not alwayes not any in the kernell For was not the doctine of Christ the doctrine of Moses in substance Iohn 5.46 47 was not baptisme as wee shewed afore instituted and administred Mat. 3. c. whiles Circumcision was not of right to end till Christ's death three yeares and a halfe after So that though in Acts. 10. Christ being ascended the administration of baptisme by help of that time might imply Moses law in the shell was to be done away yet at other times afore Christ's death it could not signifie that Moses law is made voyde signanter precisely as Mr. T. speakes To that Gal. 5.3 we say that as Circumcision did signifie that Moses his law was to be kept so the Passeover and any other ceremonies a paribus from the like reason that a beleiving Galathian would observe one Ceremony out of conscience ought likewise observe the rest So that the Apostle mentions Circumcision only as being to the question then in hand And for Acts 10.37 of baptisme wee say that whiles it might any way hint that Moseâ— law in the shell was to be done away it tyed to the observation of it in the substance of gospel meaning So in that Acts. 10.37 compare with Iohn 5. two last Mat. 28. v. 20. when teaching them to observe all that Christ commanded followed baptisme Fourthly saith Mr. T. Circumcision did signe Canaan Exercit. p. 6. Baptisme eternall life This we have answered to afore Animadver That Circumcision did sign Canaan as it was a type of heaven Heb. 4. As baptisme and the holy Supper under materiall elements signifie and give us things spirituall and eternall All this while I cannot see such a materiall difference between Circumcision and Baptisme in the least to deface the analogie and semblance between the administration of the one and the other to beleivers and their Infants or to interrupt that consequence from the one to the other What ever may be urged against the incapacity of children to be Baptized may as well be argued against Circumcision By this that hath been answered candid men may see what reason Mr. T. hath to deny major or consequence or minor If this argument be not restrainedly understood an egge is layd Exercit. p. 6. out of which manifest Iudaisme may be hatched No feare if we argue as the Apostle argues Animadver who Collofians 2 11. 12. as wee have cleered wee hope puts Baptisme in the roome of Circumcision If wee doe not put those things in the place one of another which God puts in though but by practice and example without looking for a new institution or command there being a difference onely of circumstances I am bold to say an egge is laid out of which may be hatched Antisabbatarianisme a nulling of the Lords day as is frequent upon this very consequence among the Anabaptists and Exemption of women from the holy Supper with many the like
use as Mr Tombes his Melancthon intimates in his own quotations For Melancthon and Musculus they come not to hand in my study nor is it of so much or have I so much time as to go to them For our own authours if Mr T. had but well weighed one onely Pareus I wonder how he should have so mistaken this Text. The meaning of which to me and others plainly and candidly is this You Corinthians in your Letter to me 1 Cor. 7.1 scruple about spirituall pollution by a believers continuing in the use of marriage and conjugal injoyment since conversion with a yoake-fellow that is not yet converted through his or her infidelity v. 13. But you need not feare it for the unbelieving husband hath been already sanctified so in the Greek in the believing wife that is since converted since marriage I say in the beleeving wife so is the meaning plain by the Antithesis and so it is in some Greek Copies And on the contrary the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the believing husband so the Greek and the Antithesis and the Explanation of some Greek Copies That is the unbeliever is sanctified in the believer to the believers use That though marriage as all things are spiritually impure and unclean to them that are defiled how by unbeliefe yet unto the pure that is by faith as the Antithesis guides it all things are pure marriage meats all Tit. 1.15 Being sanctified by the Word allowing them and promising a blessing to the believer and by prayer of faith asking a blessing 1 Tim. 4.4 5. And this I prove saith St. Paul by a greater argument Because your children though but one of you Parents be a believer are holy I say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are holy not onely as before of the unbelieving parent that he or shee is sanctified and ad hoc to a particular use of the other beleeving parent but are holy which cannot possibly signifie lesse then the Federall or Covenant holinesse reckoned generally among the Churches of Corinth to be within the Covenant with the believing parent though but one of them be a beleever But how doth Saint Paul prove this last proposition upon which all depends Answ He layes this leaves this on a common knowne practise of the Churches everywhere that if but one of the parents were a beleever the children of him or her were brought to Baptisme as to the sealing that the children were in Covenant of which more in the XIII CHAP. of our Animadversions Mean while observe that if the Apostle doth not speak here of the holinesse of children by being reckoned in Covenant and signed with Baptisme being born of one believing parent at least as of a known opinion custome and practise in the Churches the Apostle had gone about to resolve a lesser doubt by making a greater Pretences against this sence of the place shal be ventilated and confuted by and by after we have confirmed this to be the sence of this place thus This case of the Corinthians must needes be a case not of law but of conscience not of civil polity but of religion grounded upon some such case as Ezra 10.3 where the Israelites having taken wives not of the same religion with them make a Covenant with Humiliations to put away those wives and their children For the religious Corinthians men of great parts 1 Cor. 14. Of a famous City and of a most ancient Common-wealth could not be ignorant of the Law of Nations That two single persons Legally married according to the custome or rules of the State could not be counted adulterers or fornicators or their children bastards for any difference of Religion between them And therefore it being a case of Conscience about spirituall pollution satisfies them by shewing the priviledge of faith under the New Testament that all wives infants c. are sanctified or sanctified to the beleever notwithstanding different opinions To which Beza speakes excellently Some saith he refer this to civill politie what marriages that makes and accompts as ratified so as the children are reckoned Legitimate But surely Paul disputes not of civill politie but of matter of conscience And what Argument I pray you at last would it be to pacifie conscience that is taken from the civill Lawes of Nations For in these Laws it is well known how many things are tolerated which a Christians conscience cannot bear For neither the Law of divorce permitted to the Jews by Moses for the hardnesse of their hearts could excuse a conscience from the fault of Adultery As for M. T. and his abettors by him quoted in reasoning for matrimonial holinesse and against federall holinesse they do not to me in any considerable degree hit the nayl on the head and therfore is easily pluckt out with ones fingers Musc his quotation of Deut. 23.2 doth not shew us a place wher a bastard is called unclean or kept out from any Office in the Congregation as he expounds the place for any Ceremoniall uncleannesse but rather for a kind of civill maimednesse as those of naturall maimednesse ver 1. Nor is Musculus his reason that if conjugall holinesse be not here 1 Cor. 7. meant it will bring forth a troublesome dispute how an unbeleeving husband is sanctified of any weight For it is not meant or said That he is sanctified in himself but sanctified in the beleeving wife to her use As according to Musculus his instance of meat we say with the Apostle Tit. 1.15 They are unclean to the unbeleever pure to the beleever So is an unbeleeving yoak-fellow unclean to the unbeleever clean to the beleever For the assertions of Hierom and Ambrose quoted by Musculus as Musculus is quoted by Master T. That the sanctification of the unbeleeving Parent be not attributed to the faith of the beleeving Parent but to Gods appointment that marriage should be holy We say we well know that the Fathers oft too much smell of the corruptions of the times in which they lived in opinions of this nature Surely the holinesse of marriage was never appointed to be holy to any but to the first and in the second innocent Adam And therefore so to us onely through faith Of the other opinion of things holy by meer appointment from God are divers dangerous consequences one instance is Some affirm that faith as a quality justifies because it is holy for that use by Gods appointment thereunto To Mr. T. his proofe That holy and legitimate are the same Because saith he holinesse is pu◠for chastity 1 Thess 4.3 4 7. And 1 Tim. 4 5. is sanctified signifies is lawfully used We Answer That the Apostle calls chastity holinesse when it is wrought by the principle of holinesse namely the Spirit and the graces thereof for he speakes to Saints But sure enough the Apostle would never call a meer abstinence from fornication or adultery holinesse For he saith without faith All is impure Tit. 1.15 And that 1 Tim. 4.5
T. that if it were so manifest as you speak you should find nothing in Eusebius for Infant-baptisme nor in Ignatius nor in Clemen Alexandrinus nor in Athanasius nor in Epiphanius Animadvers We answer 1. Mr. T. brings but one place out of one Origen to prove as he pretends that Infant-baptisme is but a tradition We bring foure for the contrary Justin Martyr Irenaeus Origen and Nazianzen and yet these are not sufficient with him unlesse we hear Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus c. say so too 2 A non dicto and non factum not valet consequentia Many things have been done in the Church which those Authors may not mention 3 They may speak of Infant-baptisme in some of their works which long since were lost 4 Mr. T. saith that YOV should find nothing in Eusebius Ignatius c. for Infant-baptisme And we say it is wonder Mr. T. did find nothing in them to the contrary in his 7 or 8 moneths time to write his EXAMEN which we not having much above 8 weeks for our Answer and so have not time to ransack every book But fiftly CLEM. ALEXAN li. 3. Strâ—m p. 461. He flourished about the yeer of Christ 193. Buchol Helvic this we cast our eye upon in Clem. Alexand which makes me think somewhat might be found in him towards Infant-baptism if we had time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Neither doth Gods divine providence now likewise command 〈◊〉 of old that he that hath risen from the conjugall bed should be washed For the Lord doth not necessarily take off from procreation of children those that are believers whom he hath by one Baptisme washed in all respects according to his wont who by one baptisme comprehends all the Baptismes of Moses Therefore the Law of God by carnall generation foretelling our regeneration did for the seminall facultie of generation hold forth baptisme Vide Graecum textum not loathing humane generation Thus Clem. Alex. with much more which for haste we cannot stand to translate Give us leave to adde a note or two 1. Let me observe with Hervet Aurelianus that this place relates to Levit. 15 16 17 18. If any mans seed of copulation shall go out from him then he shall wash all his flesh in water and be unclean untill the evening And every garment and every skin whereon is the seed of copulation shall be washed with water and be unclean untill the Even The woman also with whom the man shall lye with seed of copulation they shall both bathe themselves in water and be unclean untill the even This is the LAW and these are the BAPTISMES of MOSES of which Clem. Alexandrinus speaks here HESYCHIVS 2. Take the note of ancient and learned Hesychius * He flourished about 402d yeer after Christ Helvic on this place which is this The Lord himself saith he sheweth that mankinde must have the necessary regeneration of baptisme saying Vnlesse a man be born again of water and the holy Spirit he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven Joh. 3. The untowardnasse of which filth in us was transfused from Adam Whence David saith he was born in iniquity and conceived in sin Psal 51. not accusing his mother but intimating his sinfulnesse which ran down from his progenitors And now the Law-maker commanded him out of whom proceedeth the seed of copulation that is â—e that hath effused his seed for procreation of children yea also the woman that hath received it to wash the body because she hath received it by which is described this whole temple of ours that is the whole man consisting of soul and body In that Adam was made filthy by disobedience he made his seed to be filthy and so necessarily the body to be filthy which is of the seed in which he is unclean untill the Even that is the end of the time wherein Christ coming shews the water whereby our generation should be cleansed And that till then we remained unclean is proved from thence that they also that had not yet sinned actually that is were in their tender age have necessarily the seal of baptisme lest by death preventing they dye unclean c. Thus Hesychius with much more Thirdly If it pleaseth Mr. T. he may read Gentinus Hervetâ—â— Aurelianus his note on the place of Clem. Alexandrinus who is carefull to set forth the sence of Clemens though we heed not all his owne excursions Therefore Clem. Alexandrinus saith Gent. Hervet Anrel intimateth that many were the Baptismes of Moses anciently which were figures of our regeneration by Baptisme by which originall sin is washed which one onely Baptisme indeed is necessary for by it it is that the seed is no more uncleane though after to be further cleansed So Gent. Herv with much more Thus you have a touch out of one of Mr. T. his five Gr. Authors which he saith have nothing of Infant-Baptisme Wee will give you another touch out of another of his silent Authors as Mr. T. intimates and so dismisse the rest as not having all the Authors nor time to go looke after them EPIPHANIVS contra Haeres 30. p. 52. Epiphanius in his second Booke 2. Tom. contr Haeres speaking before of the Circumcision of Christ that he was circumcised to dissolve or abrogate that Circumcision to bring in a greater And that the Circumcision injoyned Abraham was not perfect but a signe of grace given and for the instruction of them in future times and thence wisheth Ebion not to imitate Christ in Circumcision of himself or others at last he speaks in these very words For the Lord saith Epiphanius hath removed the time of this Circumcision For he came and fulfilled it having given the perfect Circumcision of his mysteries and that not in one member onely but in the whole body sealed and circumcised from sinnes and saving not one onely part of the people that is men only but also all the people of Christians indeed signing or sealing men and women and liberally for the inheritance of the Kingdome of Heaven and not in exhibiting the seale defectively to one ranck or state virorum of men in the time of their imbecility but to all the people c. Thus far Epiphanius writes there of Infant-Baptisme and I am confident more might bee found in other places touching it had we time to seek though Epiphanius sayes nothing of it as Mr. T. weakly objects in lib. 2. Haeres 46. vel 47. in his disputation for Infants inheriting Heaven against the Hieracites We are not to teach other learned men what to speake nor when to speak nor to say they speake not at all of such a point if they do not speak where and when we expect 2. Mr. T. objects against the Greek Fathers alleadged by us EXAMEN Sect. 6. and in them against the custome of the Greek Churches touching Infant-Baptisme thus But besides the continuance of the questions to baptized persons and answered