appear by the bare repetition of it which is this Those whom God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel those God did appoint Church-members under the Gospell The truth of this proposition hath no dependance upon faith or profession which is but Mr. Tombes his dream but upon a threefold impregnable rock first Gods promise which is founded upon his veracity secondly his prediction which is founded upon his omnisciency and infallibility thirdly from the intrinsecal connexion of the terms which makes it to be aeternae veritatis for actually to receive into covenant under the Gospel and to appoint Church-members under the Gospel are as essentially coincident as to be a man and a reasonable creature To deny the two former branches is no less than blasphemy to question the third would grant a Metaphysical and Logical principle upon which is built the superstructures of all Arts and Sciences What can be more absurd than to affirm that what God hath promised foretold performed is not executed When Orthodox Christians argued that God created the World of nothing because when there was nothing extant besides himself he decreed to create it said before there was any creature fiat Coelum let there be Heaven and Earth and in six dayes framed all things he made the World of nothing but when there was nothing extant besides God he decreed to create the World and before there was any creature said fiat Coelum and in six dayes framed all things Therefore God made all the World of nothing Porphyrie and Libanius those Atheists answered that if by Gods decree fiat and fact was meant that God made all things sine praejacente materiâ without a fiâ—st matter they denyed the Major as if God could not of nothing create all things In imitation of these Mr. Tombes dâ—nies those whom God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel that he did appoint them Church-members under the Gospel if by actuall receiving into Covenant I understand such an actual receiving as is without any act of Faith or profession of the persons received into Covenant as â—f God could not appoint them Church-members even though he had promised foretold and actually received them into Covenant without an act of faith and profession This might have had some colour if applyed to the Minor which he sayes he also denyed implying that in the Dispute he denyed the Major which will throw him upon the horns of this Dilemma if he denyed it then my quicknesse prevented him not if he denyed it not then he tells an utruth and contradicts himself but this is so usual that I am wearied to take notice of them Master Tombes 4. Section IN the next proof he changeth the term of actually receiving into being in Covenant Now there is a manifest difference between them sith a person may be in Covenant that is have a Covenant made to him who is not yet born as Isaac Gen. 17. 21. But he is not actually received into Covenant till he is born and by some Acts of his own engageth himself to be Gods Receiving importeth an offering which is to be done by profession As for his proof from Gen. 17. 7. I had many exceptions against it First that if it be understood of the natural seed of Abraham the everlastingness of it was but for a time and that time afore the Gospel as in the next verse the possession of Canaan is promised to be everlasting and yet the Jewes dispossest now of it Which Mr. C. grantâ— and therefore must needs grant that the promise verse 7. though it be termed everlasting yet it is to be understood onely of a limited time as in other passages Exod. 21. 6. and 12. 24. c. If meant of the natural seed of Abraham Nor is he relieved by saying they shall have Canaan again for however the possession was not everlasting that is at all times particularly not in Gospel-times Reply HE having denyed the Minor that God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law and actually receive Infants into Covenant under the Gospel I proved the branches in order First that God did promise before the Law that Infants should be in Covenant under the Gospel thus That which God did promise to Abraham was before the Law but God did promise to Abraham that Infants should be in Covenant or actually received into Covenant under the Gospel therefore God did promise before the law that Infants should be in Covenant or actually received into covenant under the Gospel Here he sayes I change the terme of actually receiving into being in Covenant whereas if his memory had not failed he might have recollected that in the Dispute I used both if his charity had not been a grain or too too light he might have imputed it to the Relator who for brevity sake omitted the one terme which was used but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to interpret the other thâ—y being Equivalent in sense But he sayes there is a manifest difference between them whaâ— difference He that is actually received into covenant is in Covenant and he that is in Covenant is actually received into Covenant it being impossible to be in Covenant properly so called without being actually received into it To be in the state of grace and glory and to be actually received into the state of grace and glory are Aequipollent terms If Mr. Tombes's soul be in his body it is actually received into his body and if the sword be in the Scaberd it is actually received into the scaberd But he disproves this Instance sith a person may be in Covenant that â—s have a Covenant made to him who is not yet born as Isaak Gen. 17. 21. Three untruths couched in one kennil 1. That a person may be in Covenant who is not yet born 2. That to have a Covenant made to him is to be in Covenant 3. That Isaak was in Covenant who was not yet born Gen. 17. 21. First That a person may be in Covenant who is not yet born or conceived as his instance of Isaak implies may be confuted insito Argumento by an Argument inbred in the terms for he implyes and that right that a person must be the subject of being in Covenant but none who is unborn and unconceived as Isaak Gen. 17. 21. is a person for a person must be a substance which excludes all Accidents from Covenant capacity à substantia prima must exist and be cloathed with individual circumstances which excludes universals must be Intelligent which excludes all irrational creatures Incommunicable which excludes the Divine nature No part of another which excludes the soul or body of man after separation to be persons Not supported of another which excludes the humane nature of Christ because it is supported of the Divine Now that which is unborn not conceived or organized in the womb is therefore
Anabaptists out of which he picks two propositions and then plants his Ordinance against them The former is the saying of Augustin That which the whole Church holds was never begun by any Councel but alwayes observed cannot otherwise be believed but that it came from the Apostles The later is The whole Church always held Infant-Baptism both these he denies which are both Austins The former de Bapt. contra Donatist lib. 4. cap. 23. The later Serm. 15. de verb. Apost I le begin with the former 1. Applying to the Test the proposition then examine the sandy ground upon which he denies it The proposition which he calls Austins rule is That which the universal Church holdeth and was not instituted by Councels but hath been ever held was not delivered but by Apostolical Authority This I undertake to make good 1. Distinguishing of Church 2. Of the Object or that which is holden of the Church Church is sometimes taken for the representative of the Church and that according to the extent or restraint provincial National or Oecumenial Sometimes it is taken essentially as some call it or integrally for the body of professors living at the same time and this either for the major part which as in Councels obtaines the denomination of the whole or of the whole made up of integrall parts without any considerable exception Sometime it is taken for all professors of all times whether since the death and expiration of the Apostles or since our Saviours commissioning of them after his resurrection or full qualifying of them upon the day of Pentecost after his ascension while as Egisippus said the Church continued a pure Virgin Secondly we must distinguish of the Tenets or things holden by the Church which is either matter of Doctrine or Discipline Discipline grounded upon Scripture binding and necessary Or Adiaphorous of Ecclesiastical institution and arbitrary These grounds thus laid I raise these propositions First it s confessed A representative Church whether Provincional National or Oecumenial may err hath erred de facto in superstructures or things less fundamental 2. Neither Provincional National nor Oecumenial representative can erre in fundamentals for then it would cease to be a Church 3. The major part of the Church living at the same time may err as in the time of Elias I only am left sayes he that have not bowed my knee to Baal Vnus Athanasius contra cotum mundum 4. The whole Church consisting of all the integral parts cannot erre in matter of Doctrine requisite to be holden I have reserved seven thousand says God that have not bowed their knee to Baal and undoubtedly many besides Athanasius that in his time were not infected with Arrianism 5. The whole Church since the Apostles in all ages collectively considered cannot err either in Doctrine or Discipline then Christ should not make good his promise that the gates of Hell should not prevaile against his Church that he would be with it to the end that he would send them the Comforter that would lead them into all tâ—uth Which promises howsoever the Church of Rome misapplies to themselves whom Dr. Reignolds hath proved neither are the Catholick Church nor any sound member thereof yet it is true of the whole Church 6. It is possible that the whole Church since the Apostles may hold an Adiaphorous or indifferent Discipline or Ceremony which was not Apostolical or of Divine institution 7. That which the whole Church holds hath in all ages holden including the Apostles whether it be Doctrine or Discipline must needs be Authentick and infallible Of thâ—s nature is the present Question as appears by the words of Austin in the fore-quoted place if any aske for Divine authority observe it not humane in this matter Although we most rightly believe that what the Vniversal Church holdeth and was not instituted by Councels but hath been ever held he does not say since the Apostles for that is not ever was not delivered but by Apostolical authority because it is impossible that any thing should generally be holden in the Apostles time that was not by their authority and approbation By this you see the truth of the proposition Now let us examin the ground upon which he denies it for then saith he the observation of an Easter and sundry other superstitious Rites should be from the Apostles His Argument put in form is this Easter and other Rites have been held alwayes but Easter and those Rites are not from the Apostles therefore that which hath been held alwayes is not from the Apostles I deny the first proposition that Easter hath been alwayes for by what Cronologies and Histories will he prove that Easter was observed in all Centuries in all Churches East West African Greek Latine in China Muscovia India For so much alwayes holden implies have not our Antiquaries and Century-writers discovered a known beginning of Lent-fast and Easter And after it began somewhat obscurely like the heads of Nilus as Eusebius says in his fift book chapt 24. it was left free unto all men which argues it was not alwayes but an Adiaphorous Rite of Ecclesiastical institution Therefore Irenaeus treated and argued the businesse with Victor Bishop of Rome when he would have excommunicated the East Church because it agreed not with the Church of Rome about the keeping of Easter What saith he may we not live at concord although they use their own Rites and we ours The time of keeping of Easter as Venerable Bede stories it was one of the three Questions that occasioned the Massacre of eleven hundred Monks at Bangor the British Bishops pressed the observation of it upon the day of the month of our Saviours resurrection Austin the Monk from Gregories authority would have it a movable Feast observed after the manner as the Church of England did of late Both sides hotly pretended Apostolical institution in circumstances so different which argued neither side had just claim to either Now whether of these will Mr. Tombes avouch was alwaies For he speaks indifferently and indefinitly calling it the observation of an Easter he must either both or neither If both his judgment will be lâ—ke his Holinesse of Rome who when the Parisians in France and the Inhabitants of Mentz in Germany laid claime to the Reliques of St. Dionyse enterred many hundred years before he adjudged that both places had the whole body I should think a domestick sentence symbolizes better with the present controversie which was this When after the death of Anthony Kitchin alià s Dunstan Bishop of Landaff there were severall suites commenced by several men all layâ—ng claim to the house and lands belonging to the Episcopal See as sold by him all of them respectively shewing instruments as they pretended with his hand and seal the Court rejected them all as forged after his death for it was conceived if he had truly sold them it would have been but to one So if Easter had been alwayes and had not crept in
my attention and to make some ostentation of himself I replyed not to his vain talk but called for Scripture proof Reply THe Argument drawn from the Essence of Baptism was not a new one as he mistakes but a continuation and confirmation oâ— the former for when after four Syllogisms orderly proposed he had no way of evasion but petere principium to fly back to his first Sanctuary I was forced again to prove the consecution of thâ— propositions that they were both actually true especially that iâ— controversie that some Infants may be baptized which I diâ— thus To whom belongs the Essence of Baptism they may be baptized to some Infants belongs the Essence of Baptism ergo some Infants may be baptized Here he confesses he denyed the Minor where he should have denyed the Major And which is worse though he perceived by my next Syllogism he was mistaken he could not recall himself by reason of my quickness and multiplying words would not permit him pittifull figge leaves Did not he first heare the Argument from me and then repeat it himself what quickness Is not the Syllogism briefly couched that took away his Minor what multiplying of words But now he makes amends and repaires the loss by a distinction of a twofold Essence of Baptism which is a meer Cymera or rather an Ens fictum impossible never heard before for as Ens is unum but one so Essentia una essence is but one who ever read of this new Divinity and Metaphysicks that the essence of Baptism belonging to Infants may have two senses First as he glosses it that the baptism of Infants is true Baptism that is according to transcendental verity such as hath the nature of Baptism And in this sense he grants the proposition is true that the essence of Baptism belongs to Infants The other sense is the essence of Baptism that is that which is of the essence to the right administration of Baptism belongs to Infants in which sense he sayes he denyes that the essence of Baptism belongs to Infants as if the essence were not indivisible that they that had one part had all wanted one part wanted all For as Eustachius hath it Metaphys pag. 21. every created essence consists of parts Physical or Metaphysical eatenus tamen dicuntur indivisibiles quod nulla sit natura quae secundum naturam specificam inaequaliter participetur ab individuis Therefore essences are called indivisible because there is nothing of nature that according to the specifical reason may be unequally participated of Individuals As appears by induction humane nature belongs not more to one man than another so that one man cannot more be said to be a man than another and he gives a reason because nothing that belongs to the essence of a thing can be added or withdrawn but presently the nature and essence is changed whence Aristotle Metaphys 8. cap. 3. Tom. 10. compares essences to numbers to which if we add or substract but an union the same specifical number is changed hence the result is if the essence of Baptism belongs to Infants then indivisibly and equally to them with those of riper age but Mr. Tombes being Judge the essence of Baptism according to Transcendental verity belongs to Infants therefore Baptism belongs indivisibly and equally to Infants with them of riper years Neither will his parallel instance relieve him that Infants eating bread and drinking wine is true eating and drinking the Lords Supper and have the essence of it which is his groundlesse dictate and hath no truth in it for upon supposition that Infants are excluded the Lords Supper in the divine institution which is the fundament and gives being to the relation they are no more capable of the essence and true eating of the Lords Supper while Infants than degs and mice which how ridiculously the Canonists of the Church of Rome Dispute whether they eat the Lords Supper or no every man of common sense knowes As for the other part of the distinction which he also calls the essence of Baptism it is so farr from being the essence of it as his own terms right administration implies that it is but an accidental perfection superadded to the essence If his distinct on had been of the truth of Baptism it might have had some ground in it though not as applyed to Infants for as the Church of Rome and other Churches that holds the fundamentals according to Bishop Hall and Davenant are true Churches in transcendental verity but in relation to their erronious superstructions they are not true Churches eatenus in moral verity Baptism with water in the Church administred by a Priest in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is true Baptism in Transcenâ—ental verity though in respect of their additions of salt spittle exorcism and other superstitious circumstances morally not true But Baptism of Bells is neither Transcendentally nor morally true much lesse have they thâ— essence of Baptism as wanting the fundament which is the root of the entâ—tie Whereas Mr. Tombes confesses Infants may have the essence of Baptism or that it belongs to them which the Argument from the definâ—tion further proves in forme thus To whom belongs the definition of Baptism to them belongs the essence to some Infants belongs the definition of Baptism therefore to some Infants belongs the essence This is no Identical probation or all one as he sayes as to argue Infant-Baptism is Baptism therefore it is right Baptism it is not Identical for an Argument taken from the definition is a demonstration â priori notiori from the former and better known It is not all one to argue Infant-Baptism is Baptism therefore it is right Baptism but it concludes Infant-Baptism is Baptism therefore Infants may be baptized which is the Question by this inference put out of Question And if we make a deeper Scrutinie into the parts of the definition we shall find that their Baptism is right Baptism and that Infants may rightly be baptized for the entire definition of Baptism comprehends in its wombe these parts 1. The fundament which is the divine Institution infolding Infants in all Nations in several families 2. The principal cause the Holy Ghost of which they are capable what then can forbid water 3. The Instrumental cause the Minister whose commission extends to them go baptize all Nations 4. The matterial cause water of which Christian children are as capable as the Jewish children were of Circumcision 5. The formal cause also into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost 6. Tho correlative Christ of whose Union children are receptive 7. The final cause grace and glory from which they cannot be excluded for to such belongs the Kingdom of God And this is the Argument perticularised by which I proved the definition of Baptism belonged to Infants thus The definition of Baptism as of all other relations is made up of the fundament correlative and Termini but all these three
uncapable of being a person which by his own confession is the subject of being in Covenant Secondly It is a false suggestion that to have a Covenant made to one is to be in Covenant if by having the Covenant made to one for the phrase is somewhat strange he means as he can mean nothing else a promise from God to be and be in Covenant for a promise may be made to or of one long before he have any being not executed or performed till long after his being Then to be elected and to be in Covenant would be both one then Mary Magdalen while possessed with seven Devills and Saul while a persecuter were in covenant nay from eternity to be in covenant would precede outward and inward calling conversion profession and prerogative of birth than which nothing can be more ridiculous Thirdly it is of the same leaven of untruth that Isaak was in covenant when he was not yet born which his own quotation Gen. 17. 21. proves against him The words are these But my covenant will I establish with Isaak which Sara shall bear iâ—to thee at this set time in the next year where observe 1. God promises that Sara shall bear Isaak unto Abraham therefore he was not yet born 2. That she should bear him at that set time of the next year therefore not conceived yet 3. That he will establish a covenant with Isaak in the future not that he does establish a covenant in the present 4 He will establish his covenant with Isaak not that Isaak is in covenant to be in covenant and to establish a covenant with one are distinct terms what child cannot discover this inconsequence God promises that he will establish his covenant with Isaak before he was born therefore Isaak was in covenant before he was born Master T. might as truly conclude thus God promised Gen. 49. 10. That the Scepter shall not depart from Judah till Shilo come Therefore the Scepter was in Judah before David or any governour of that tribe was born I confess that God loved the elect from eternity with the love of intention but not till câ—nverted with the love of execution at which time they begin to be internally in covenant with God and members invisible and externally in covenant and members visible as soon as they are born if infants of believing Parents as soon they profess Jews or Pagans But he goes on with the other branch of his new distinction affirming that a Person is not actually received into covenant till he be born which is true of the externall and outward receiving but not of the internall and spirituall receiving for who can deny with reason that John Baptist and Jeremy that were sanctified in the wombe and elect children that dyes in the wombe are not spiritually and invisibly in covenant with God seeing they are qualifyed with graces sutable to their present condition that God is well pleased with them But whereas he addes that one is not actually received into covenant till by some acts of his own he engageth himself to be Gods This erronious superstructure is founded upon the Basis of this mistake that every covenant must be expresly and actually mutuall betwixt both parties that are covenanters and is an Arguments sophistically though sillily drawn à negatione unius speciei ad totum genus and in forth sounds thus Some covenants must be expresly and actually mutuall between the covenanteâ—s therefore all even that between God and Infants must be actually and expresly mutual or which is more Infants by some Acts of their own must engage themselves to be Gods Whereas covenanters are twofold 1. Actually mutual when both parties correspondently indents and stipulates 2 Or not mutual and reciprocal when one party imposes something upon the other as Conquerors upon captives as 1 Sam. 11. 2. And Naah the Ammonite answered them on this condition will I make a covenant with you that I may thrust out all your right â—yes and lay it for a reproach on all Israel This was upon supposition of his conquest to enforce them whether they would or no and is an Act of Justice sometimes an act of mercy as Ezek. 36. 26. Where God engages without any mutual stipulation That a a new heart he would give them and a new spirit he would put within them and he would take away the stony heart out of their flesh and that he would give them a heart of flesh and that he would put his spirit within them and cause them to walk in his Statutes and keep his Commandements In this case one party maketh the Covenant without mentioning the other but as patient therefore Gen. 15. 8. God is said to make a Covenant with Abraham and 17. 9. God calleth the covenant his covenant God made the promise conditions not Abraham The former kind of covenant which is mutual wherein both parties in a sense indent and stipulate is twofoâ—d first when personally for themselves both act or interpretativâ—ly consent so Gen. 21. 27. When Abraham and Abimelech did covenant the Text saith they both made a â—vonant Abraham his conditions and Abimelech his And Gen. 17. 10. God said unto Abraham thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations this is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you every manchild among you shall be circumâ—ised Secondly representatively by others who are their Proxies and engages for them they being but meer passives and are received into covenant without any voluntary act of their own Thus Infants in all generations from Abraham became covenanters by circumcision when they were but eight dayes old which Christ himself confirmed by his own example pro parvulis parvâ—lâ—s factus became a little one for little ones was Mediator and head of the Church in both natures circumcised when a little one that little ones by Circumcision might be admitted into covenant By this you see it smels rank of heresie if not of blasphemie to affirm that a person cannot actually be received into covenant till by some acts of his own he engageth himself to be Gods for then all Infants from Adam till Abraham Isaak and all circumcised Infants from Abraham till Christ from Christ till the end of the world nay Christ himself while an Infant who as he was the first begotten of the dead was the first in covenant would be excluded the Covenant We finde in the Gospel that sick persons that were carried by others were cured upon account of their Faith and Infants brought to Christ by others were actually themselves blessed by him Therefore vain is that he asserts that actuall receiving into covenant imports an offering which is to be done by profession as if more were to be required for admission of visible members into covenant than was for admission or actuall receiving of Christ as God-man and Mediator to be visible head of the Church for though we read that the Star and