Commission wherein we have First the Act Preach that is proclaime Secondly the object of the Gospel which in the Originall and other languages signifies good news or a good speech from the connexion between the Mission and Commission coming from the same Authour Christ and extended to the same persons the Apostles and their successours observe that none may Preach as Church-Officers but they that are sent in a Gospel-way our adversary in the common cause spoke so home to this that we need not press it further The last thing is the extent of the Commission and that a very large one unto every Creature as here to all Nations as Matthew Now the Quaere will be what is meant by every Creature Some limit it to every rational creature Angels men Devils as Origen and his misericordes Doctores who held the Devils and reprobates should be saved but that cannot be for 2 Pet. 2. 4. They are cast down to hell and reserved to judgement Some more strictly restrain it onely to man and that when he is come to age and understanding excluding Children this is too strict True it is Infants are not capable to be taught of men but they may be taught of God they cannot actually understand the Gospel but they may actually receive the benefit of the Gospel a noble mans Child hath interest in his Fathers â—atent and pardon a sucking Infant though he knows it not may be joined in a lease with the Parents Some extend it and it is conceived more fitly according to the Letter without any Syneedoche or figure to every creature as if he should say Goâ— and proclaim the benefit that comes by Christ to every Creature for as by the first Adam all creatures were accursed so by Christ the second Adam all creatures shall be blessed Rom. 8. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every creature groans desiring to be nelivered into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God answerable to this Preach the Gospl 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every creature telling them that they are now by Christ to be delivered into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God Object But the creature cannot hear nor understand Answ It s true not properly no more could John Baptist in his Mothers Womb and yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Babe sprang for joy Nay the Holy Ghost ascribes a hearing to the creature Hosea 2. 21. And it shall come to pass in that day saith the Lord I will hear the Heavens and they shall hear the Earth and the Earth shall hear the Corn and the Wine and the Oyl and they shall hear Jezreel Hence observe that every creature in a sense is sensible of the benefit they have by Christ but every one in their kind men come to years and discretion are capable of actual understanding actual profession actual faith Infants onely in actu primo are capable of the first seeds of understanding of profession of Faith which will shew it self in the fruits when they come to years The rest of our fellow-creatures as by a natural instinct they groan for the curse so by an other instinct they lift up their heads in expectation of the blessing and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an earnest expectation or a stretched out neck as the word in the originall signifies Rom. 8. 9. Thus we have paraphrased upon the first verse for introduction to the second wherein is First a Consolatory promise he that beleeveth and is Baptized shall be saved Secondly a Comminatorie Curse he that believeth not shall be damned In the former we have first the qualification and that either absolute he that beleeveth or conditional and is Baptized Q. Now the Quaere will be what belief is here meant Sol. First the event tells us that belief that saves us he that believes shall be saved Secondly the opposition its contrary to that unbelief that damns Observe that a saving faith is necessary to salvation without faith it is impossible to please God all they and onely they that have a saving Faith shall be saved so that you see that Faith is a necessary and absolute condition And is Baptized that is upon supposition if Baptism conveniently may be had hence observe that Baptism is not absolutely necessary by necessity of means as they call it as if none could be saved without it but by necessity of Precept if conveniently it may be had The Israelites for forty years in the Wilderness were not Circumcised Bernard that saw not all things could see this that non absentia sed contemptus Sacramenti damnat not the want but the contempt of the Sacrament damns Valentinian the Emperour dyed as he was going to be Baptized in Jordan and Ambrose being asked what he thought of him answered that he was Baptizatus vote voluntate etiam si non reverà aquae laâ—acrâ— Baptized inwardly with wish and will though not outwardly with the laâ—er of water Austin is conceived here to be mistaken who denyed salvation to Infants Un-Baptized hence he is called durus Pater Infantum a hard Father of Infants and many of the Doctors of the Church of Rome who hold that Infants that dye Un-Baptized are kept in limbo Infantum in a Purgatory of Infants where they shall never behold the beatifical vision Object But here is first placed Believing and then Baptized so that from the order of placing the words some would gather that we are first to Beleeve before we be Baptized Answ That will not follow for Mark 1. 4. There is placed first Baptizing and then Preaching and repentance after whence they might as well gather that we must be Baptized before we can hear the word Preached or repent Repentance in Scripture is oft placed before Faith and yet is a fruit and effect of Faith some of the Evangelists place Judas his receiving of the sop before the Sacrament some after it it is a rule in interpreting of holy Writ that Scriptura nescit prius posterius the Scripture does not alwaies observe the precise order in which things were done Q. But I beseech you consider what Faith it is that is here meant Sol. A saving Faith Must then a saving Faith be the rule of our Baptism and must we Baptize none but those we know have a saving Faith then we must Baptize none at all never any Minister upon that ground had ever Commission to Baptize any no not the Apostles for they did not infallibly know that those they Baptized had a saving Faith nay they actually Baptized many that were hypocrites as Simon Magus Alexander Hymeâ—aus Philetus and others hence observe That no rule for Baptizing in general can be gathered out of this Text And to say that none are to be Baptized but they that have a saving Faith which is the Faith that is onely here meant or none but they which make an outward profession of Faith which is not here meant is an untruth not gatherable from this Scripture
be found it cannot be justified without sacriledge His third allegation that the true cause of Anabaptism is shining forth of lâ—ght from the Scriptures and other Authors what other Authors Is not Scripture by Bellarmine's own confession certissima omnium perfectissima regula the most certain and perfectest rule of all Yea the sole and adequate rule of our faith Scripture its true may impart its light to other Authors as the Sun empties his rayes as the Astronomers speak in inferiores crateras into inferiour sublunary vessels If the Scripture have thus emptied it self for the advantage of Anabaptism they might do well to let it appear produce one solâ—d Argument out of Scripture against Infant-Baptism name one Authentick and impartial Author that demonstrates out of one Text of Scripture that Infants ought not de jure to be baptized out of the undoubted Records of one Century that de facto they were not baptized but this they never could do yet never will do Indeed they may fancy to themselves abundance of light out of Scripture like sick persons in some disease when death approaches thinks that store of tapers and torches are lighted about the bed when the candle is out the cause is in the distemper of the brain and eye and if the spiritual eye of the soul be darkened 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how great is the darkness The fourth Allegation is That this light out of Scripture and other Authors was not discerned formerly as now Some of our Anabaptists are of opinion that Christ never locally ascended into heaven but onely vanished out of sight and is yet bodily upon the earth vouchsafing his apparition to the Saints now which he did not in former ages This is either a diabolical fiction or a deluding Phantasm like to this is the pretended light out of Scripture and other Authors for Anabaptism not discerned formerly as now Did Berengarius see more than the primative Fathers and Martyrs The Albigenses of France and the Anonymi more then Berengarius Peter de Bruis more than the Albigenses Baltazzar Hubmir Pacimontanus Muncer and John of Leyden more than Peter de Bruis And Mr. Tombes as a child upon these Giants shoulders sees further into childrens baptism than they all Ring the bells backward and make Horace recant his parentum pejor avis lib. 3. ode 6. That every thing degenerates Ovid and Hesiod were mistaken now is the golden age and not before It seems the promise that Christ made to the never dying corporation of his Apostles and their successors that he was with them alway even to the end of the world was not performed before That the Holy Ghost that was to lead into all truth was not sent till now We have special predictions of these latter dayes but it s such as these 2 Tim. 3. 1 2 6 7. In the last dayes perillous times shall come for men shall be lovers of their own selves covetous boasters proud blasphemers disobedient to parents unthankfull unholy c. Of this sort are they that creep into houses and lead captive silly womâ—n laden with sins led away with divers lusts ever hearing and never able to come to the knowledg of the truth Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses so do these also the truth Jude 18. 19. There should be mockers in the last time who should walk after their own ungodly lusts These be they who separate themselves sensual having not the Spirit And our Saviour himself tells us when he shall come he shall scarce find faith upon earth But that there is shining light out of Scripture and other Authors not formerly discerned about Infant-Baptism otherwise than that by opposition the truth is more cleared I fear is but a bragg like Oromazes in Plutarch who boasted he had an Egge that had included in it the happiness of the world which being broken proved a wind-egg and nothing came forth but corrupted aire I have read of a Mountebanke that bragged of a new receipt that would make dimme eyes see as perfectly as those of Lynceus who could discover the flaggs of ships from the Carthaginian to the Lilibaean shore but being applyed put them out Satan promised Eve that her eyes should be opened and that they should be as Gods knowing good and evill but it was to see their misery as the event declares John of Leyden when he awaked out of his deep sleep pretended strange revelations and new lights which ended in riding upon a blind Asse in the market place where he afterwards for his impostures suffered Male ominatis parcite verbis God grant that the end of our Anabaptists may be to their own comfort and the peace of the Church and that is the worst I wish them In answer to the fourth head of the Epistle why the Anabaptists were permitted and their books printed seing those of Arrius Dr. Pocklingtons Mr. Archers were burned he passes by the reasons there assigned which are these 1. The providence of God 2. The wisdome of the state The providence of God who suffers errours 1. That truth by opposition may more diligently be searched out 2. That the sincerity and constancy of the faithfull may be tryed 3. That impenitent and proud in spirit may be blinded and hardned The wisdome of the State that like wise Chirurgians will not launce a turgid ulcer till it be ripe A skilfull Phisitian that will not purge some floating humors till they be settled These he calls the Epistlers own ignorant surmises when they are not his own but in effect of the whole Church not ignorant surmises but the judgment of most learned men wherein consequently he accuses many former Councells Synods Harmonies of confessions Parliaments Canon Civill Statute laws many former Treatises of learned Divines and the late Assembly of ignorant surmises The true reason sayes he why their books and practise is permitted is because they have at least so much appearance of truth as is sufficient to make wise men to let them alone least they haply should fight against God This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or common allegation that the Quakers Shakers Ranters and all dissenters plead for liberty of conscience wherein are couched two words that discovers an Asses ears under a Lions skin and a poult-foot under a long mantle for he speaks not out and sayes absolutely that there is truth in their books but that there is at least so much appearance of truth not that those that oppose them fight against God but that haply that is casually they may fight against God True it is which the Philosopher saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many things appears and makes fair semblance which are but shadowes and kickshowes Copp put such a gloss and varnish upon upon his blasphemies that a Matron that cryed shame upon him before when she heard his Sophisticated reasons was convinced to be of his judgment Anabaptism is a Magazine of all subtiltie fortified and ammunitioned with all sorts of
but that which is by dipping is lawful is a will-worship much more that Baptism otherwise is a nullitie and those that are Baptized so ought to be Baptized again or Re-Baptized which the Senate of Syrick understood well when they made an Act that all that did presume to Re-Baptize such as were Baptized before should be drowned So we have resolved the former doubt that Baptizing is not dipping and come to the latter that Infants may nay ought to be Baptized And Brethren I beseech you to give me leave a little to speak for Infants those poor Souls that cannot speak for themselves And before we come to the Question take with you these two Considerations First that those truths that were not in controversie in the Primitive times the Apostles were not so punctual in pressing of them seeing there was no need Solon being asked why he made no Law against murtherers of Parents answer'd because he conceiv'd none would commit that unnatural Act If the Apostles had been asked why they did not put down Infant-Baptism in plainer terms I suppose they would have answered that they thought none would have denyed it Secondly observe that those things that are pressed often in the old Testament are mentioned more sparingly in the New as the Sabbath and Magistracy in the old Testament line upon line and precept upon precept but scarce a Syllable for a Christian Sabbath or a Christian Magistracie in the new Nothing is more clear then Infants Church-Membership in the old Testament therefore not so clear in the New and yet clear enough to those that have eyes to see it as will appear by these reasons following 1. Arg. First those that are in Covenant with God ought to have the Seal of the Covenant which is Baptism But Infants of beleeving Parents are in Covenant with God Therefore Infants ought to have the Seal of the Covenant which is Baptism The former Proposition is firm by Confession of all Divines even our adversaries Haec est fundamentalis ratio paedobaptismi sayes Daneus this is the fundamentall reason of Baptizing of Infants that they are in Covenant Esse foederatum sufficit ad accipiendum signum foederis sayes Davenant to be in Covenant is sufficient to receive the sign and seal of the Covenant Omnes foederati sunt Baptizandi says Wendel all that are in Covenant are to be Baptized Si in foedere sunt impiè agunt qui eis signum foederis negant saith Ferus if they be in Covenant they do wickedly that deny them the sign of the Covenant in a Civill contract says Mr. Perkins the Father and the heir make but one person and the Covenant's for himself and his posterity The Minor proposition that Infants of believing Parents are in Covenant is grounded on many Scriptures Genes 17. 7. Where God establishes a Covenant not onely with Abraham but with his seed after him in their generations for an everlasting Covenant everlasting and therefore to last to the end of the World as Cornelius à Lapide sayes absolutè aeternum est in semine spirituali fidelibus It is absolutely everlasting in the spirituall seed to the faithfull Galat. 3. 8. The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Heathen through faith preached before the Gospel to Abraham therefore if Isaac was in Covenant with his Father when he was but eight days old and had the seal by vertue of the Lamb to be slain much more the Children of believing Parents by vertue of the Lamb that is already slain Deuter. 29. 11. When all the people stood in Covenant before the Lord their little ones are mentioned amongst the rest which is further confirmed Acts 2. 38 39. Be Baptized every one of you for the promise is to you and your Children to say that they were not yet believers is but a shift the Text makes it cleer as soon as they were believers their Children were in Covenant with them and to be Baptized Arg. 2 Such as were Circumcised vnder the Law may be Baptized under the Gospel But Infants of beleevers were Circumcised under the Law Therefore they may be baptized under the Gospel Huic Argumento non omnes Anabaptistae resistent sayes learned Whitaker all the Anabaptists shall not be able to resist this Argument the Minor that Infants under the Law were Circumcised is confessed The former proposition is onely questioned that Baptism under the Gospel to Infants does not necessarily follow from Circumcision under the Law Augustin is cleer for it saying Mutatis signis manet eadem gratia sine aetatis discrimine the outward visible signes being changed the same grace remaines without any difference of age and he gives a reason because the grace of God is not straiter in the new Testament than in the old Therefore Christ Hebr. 8. 6. Is said to be Mediator of a better Covenant but how were it a better Covenant if all poor Infants that were in Covenant under the Law were out of Covenant under the Gospel Titus 2. 12. The grace of God hath appeared unto all and therefore surely to Infants as Irenaeus sayes Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est Christ became a little one for little ones sake that he might redeem the little ones Little ones were the first Martyrs that suffered for Christ in Rama was a voice heard and that Baptism came in place of Circumcision the Apostle clears it Coloss 2. 11. 12. Ye are Circumcised with Circumcision made without hands How is that Buryed with him in Baptism Hence arises another Argument Arg. 3. Those that were once in Covenant had the Seal of the Covenant and were never disfranchized and put out of Covenant have title to the Covenant and Seal of it still But Infants were once in Covenant had the Seal of the Covenant and were never disfranchized and put out of Covenant Therefore Infants have title to the covenant and seal of it still Let any man shew one sillable one tittle in Scripture that ever Infants were put out and we 'l yield the gantlet nay the Gospell is so far from expressing of them that they are put out that it gives them large commendations beyond them of riper years making them the rule of our perfection as new born babes receive the sincere milk of the Word Unless you be as little Children ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of God which is a case so cleer that even Bellarmine himself includes Nullum est impedimentum c. there is nothing that hinders but that Infants may as well be Baptized under the Gospell as they were Circumcised under the Law for neither hath God forbidden Ministers to give them the Sacrament neither are they uncapable to receive it Arg. 4. That which God hath commanded may lawfully be practised by the Ministers of Jesus Christ But God hath commanded Infant-Baptism Therefore it may be lawfully practised by the Ministers of Jesus Christ That God hath commanded it appears Matth. 28. 19. Go Baptize all
made them believers in fieri with an incompleat repentance though perhaps not in facto what then verse 40. he exhorted them with more words than are in Lukes abbreviation but not than were in the sermon upon hearing of which sermon some of them gladly received the word and were believers by acceptation to entertain Christ but by justification to be implanted into him is more than he knows Peter said not unto them before they were believers that is accepters the promise is to you and your children every circumstance in the Text makes it clear that as soon as they were believers their children were in covenant with them and to be baptized be baptized every one of you for the covenant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is for the present to you and your children and to them that are afar off to wit the Gentiles aliens in affection when God shall call them Parents with children for the future Mr. Tombes 10. Sect. HIs second Argument is such as were circumcised under the Law may be baptized under the Gospel But infants of believers were circumcised under the Law Therefore they may be baptized under the Gospel He cites Whitaker saying all the Anabaptists shall not be able to resist this Argument I answer notwithstanding so learned a mans conceit it hath not the force of a feather so as to need resistance To it I answer 1. Indirectly by retortion Such as were circumcised under the Law may be baptized under the Gospel But infants of unbelievers as the males bought with Abraham ' s money of the stranger not of his seed Gen. 17. 12 13 23. 27. persons out of covenant as Ishmael Gen. 17. 19. 21. 25. were circumcised under the Law Ergo if the one be irresistible so is the other 2. Directly by denying the Major if it be universall if not the Syllogism is nought concluding from particulars His proofâ— are vain That from Austin is of no force unless it be supposed 1. That by circumcising under the Law and baptizing under the Gospel the grace of God is conferred which is a Popish conceit Circumcision did bind to the keeping of the Law but never that I find is the grace of God said to be either physically or morally conferred by the circumcision of each person rightly circumcised 2. It supposeth if infants be not baptized the grace of God is straiter in the new Testament than in the old But that is false for the grace of God is as much without Sacraments as with it Above two thousand years before Abraham was circumcised there was neither circumcision nor baptism of infants nor any other Sacrament instead thereof shall we say that Gods grace was straiter before Abraham ' s time than since As bad as the Schoolmen were who gave too much to Sacraments yet they held That the grace of God is not tyed to Sacraments Reply MY second Argument was such as were circumcised under the Law may be baptized under the Gospel But Infants of believers were circumcised under the Law therefore they may be baptized under the Gospel for this I cited learned Whitaker saying huic Argumento non omnes Anabaptistae resistent All the Anabaptists shall not be able to resist this Argument This Antagonist flights him calling it his conceit that hath not the force of a feather so as to need resistance as mine before not of a squib high towring words Proijcit ampullas sesquipedalia verba Reverend Bishop Hall sayes of him who ever saw him without reverence or heard him without admiration Learned and pious Doctor Arrowsmith gave him this Enconium the last Commencement at Cambridge Egregie Whitakerus ut in omnibus yet this fore-house in the Anabaptists tearm as Mr. Carpenter calls him as if he had the Monopoly of plumes allows not his Arguments that astonished Cardinals the force of a feather To it he sayes he answers 1. Indirectly by retortion but indeed proves directly for me Such as were circumcised under the Law may be baptized under the Gospel But Infants of unbelievers as the Males bought with Abrahams money of the stranger not of his seed Gen. 17. 12 13. 23. 27. persons out of covenant as Ishmael Gen. 17. 19. 21. 25. were circumcised under the Law Ergo if the one be irresistible so is the other I yield all the premises being truly understood for children of unbelievers if under Christians tuition are capable of baptism we plead education as well as birth-right Those that are out that is that have not the covenant established to posterity with Ishmael may be baptized Ishmael was not out of the outward and visible covenant which is the Question nor as Luher thinks out of the invisible though his posterity apostated and Christ came not out of his loyns which if he deny one branch of his Copulative Minor is false and according to his own rule renders the whole untrue and his conclusion not deducible 2. He says he answers directly by denying the Major if universall whereas his own former instance have demonstrated it universally true My proofs are convincing That from Austin is of force Mutatis signis manet eadem gratia sine aetatis discrimine the outward visible signs being changed the same grace remains without difference of age and is vainly supposed by him that therefore 1. by circumcising under the Law and baptizing under the Gospell the grace of God is conferred otherwise than sacramentally and signally according to divine institution which is no Popish conceit Circumcision did no more bind to the keeping of the Morall Law than doth Baptism both beings seals of the righteousness of faith nor do we nor did Austin upon more mature thoughts find that the grace of God was either Physically or Morally conferred by the circumcision of each person rightly circumcised nor do the Papists by baptisâ— for some may ponere obicem we say further it s conferred on none either Physically or Morally and yet conferred sacramentally according to the nature of the union of the sign and thing signed or signified 2. It justly supposeth if Infants be not baptized the grace of God is straiter in the new Testament than in the old which is true for the grace of God according to the Oeconomie or dispensation under the Gospell is not ordinarily conferred without sacraments Gods administration of the Church before Abrahams time without Scripture and sacraments is no president to us who must follow the present rule and concludes as well for Antiscripturians as Antipaedobaptists God dispâ—nsed grace before Abraham without sacraments because it was his pleasure not so since at least to the contemners of sacraments for the same reason Schoolmen gave not so much to the right use of the sacraments it seems as Mr. T. does to the sacrilegious abuse who confesses he asserted in his Sermon all that would be saved must be baptized after profession that is baptized again though they were baptized when Infants Mr. Tombes 11. Section THat Question from Hebr. 8.
is clear as if Bellarmine would not have said it had not the case been clear Whereas it is more likely to be false than true because Bellarmine a Jesuit saith it yea it is manifestly false for the Institution being onely to baptize Disciples prohibits baptizing of infants which are not such but for want of being Disciples uncapable of baptism Reply THe third Argument rising thence hath its unanswerable stability thence which was this Those that were in covenant had the seal of the covenant and were never disfranchized and put out of covenant have title to the Covenant and seal of it still But infants were once in Covenant had the seal of the Covenant and were never disfranchized and put out of Covenant Therefore infants have title to the Covenant and seal of it still To this he gives no direct answer but catches at his own shadow with Ixion begetting Centaurs which to deny is to confute they are Clouds and will vanish for denying of Infant-Baptism is putting out of visible Covenant disfranchizing out of which we have no promise of invisible Circumcising supposed visible Covenant was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace If the Gospel puts Infants out of visible Covenant for any thing we know or is revealed in the word it puts them wholely out of the Covenant of Grace My amplication to the people which he scoffingly calls proofs are significant and sutable The Gospel is so far from expressing of infants that they are put out that it gives them large commendations beyond them of riper years making them the rule of our perfection as new born babes receive the sincere milk of the word unless ye be as little children y◠shall not enter into the Kingdome of God His own Argument as he moulds it concludes against him little children are humble and proposed herein as paterns to us Therefore they are in Covenant for if those that follow them are so qualified The Copy and patern much more especially that humbleness being a fruit of the spirit which he can never prove to be as true of Infidels children as Christians nor the one consequently to be in Covenant as well as the other That these acts or qualities of little children are onely naturall not seminally virtuous is his bold conjecture which if so might give evidence of their being in Covenant God selecting his own federally though not morally holy for presidents There are commendations of litle children 1 Pet. 2. 2. and Math. 18. 3. compared with other places making them more the rule of our perfection than Sheep and Doves Math. 10. 16 for when did our Saviour take Sheep and Doves up in his arms lay his hands upon them and bless them saying the Kingdom of God did belong unto them and unless ye be as Sheep or Doves ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of God Doctor Everard is blamed for saying Swine and Sheep praise the Lord in laying down their life according to Gods will for man as well as Stephen and the Martyrs when they called upon God meaning in their kind not in the same degree Then shall Mr. T. be justified for saying Scripture neither commends nor makes little children the rule of our perfection more than Sheep or Doves excepting no degree or graduall perfection Some may better steal a Horse than others many look over the hedge The Philosopher sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that an Accident hath no Accident But that naturall qualities in rationall creatures should resemble virtuous qualities inhearing in no creatures to be a rule to spiritual creatures is a Prodigie beyond the Mint of Popish Transubstantiation My testimony out of Bellarmine intimates that Bellarmine and the Jesuits that concenters with the Anabaptists in opposing Covenant-holiness and Analogy from circumcision deserts them here as ashamed of the conclusion of Anti-paedobaptism they draw thence If it be more likely to be false because Bellarmine a Jesuit saith it then that there is no such thing as Covenant-holiness and that Arguments drawn from analogie of circumcision are not concluding is also false which will necessarily enforce our Thesis It being also true that Christ instituted baptizing of children with Parents who with their Parents being in visible Covenant are capable of baptism Mr. Tombes 14. Section But Mr. C. in his fourth Argument will prove Infant-baptism commanded Math 28. 19. because Nations are commanded to be baptized To this I answered before in the dispute and my answer is and was Nations are not commanded to be baptized without any other circumscription but Disciples of the Nations Master C. confesseth page 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is ye shall make Disciples and then baptizing is of Disciples His speech infants are not uncapable of baptism because they have not faith and repentance because Christ was baptized without repentance is frivolous for there is not the same end of Christs baptism and ours and therefore though repentance were not required of him yet it is of us and the want of it makes infants uncapable of baptism It is false that God requires no more of persons in Covenant and born of believing Parents to their baptism but a meer objective power or receptibility as he calls it as was in the world at its creation or in the regeneration when he new makes us And it is meerly false that upon any such account as he speaks of many whole families were baptized or that any Infants were included The very Texts which speak of baptizing of the housholds either there or elsewhere speak of their fearing God Acts. 2. 2. That all the houshold be saved by Peters words Acts 11. 14. had repentance and the like gift with the Apostles ver 17. 18. had the word spoken to them Acts 16. 32. believed ver 34. Acts 18. 8. addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints 1 Cor. 16. 15. which shew no infants were meant under the houshold for they did none of these things Reply MY fourth Argument proved Infan-t Baptism commanded Math. 28. 19. because Nations are commanded to be baptized according to Ambrose qui dixit omnes nullos exclusit neque parvulos he that said baptize all excluded none no not little ones I confessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ye shall make Disciples but not that baptizing is onely of actuall Disciples for 1. It can not be proved that the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach includes actually in it the noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples 2. It follows not because it is placed before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing therefore it is simply before it in order of nature and time 3. Though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify make actuall Disciples and in order of nature and time procede it may be put Synecdochically for the greater part actuall believers not excluding their infants My speech Infants are not uncapable of baptism because they have not faith and repentance because Christ was baptized without repentance is unanswerable for it presupposeth his
ones and boyes These that were new born are the baptized in Scripture-phrase Tit. 3. 5. baptism is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washing of the new birth which to be so meant Master Mead in his Diatriba thinks none will deny Master Tombes 25. Section ORigens speeches are in the Latine books translated by Ruffinus into which many things were foysted by him and these its probable were so as being so express against the Pelagians nor do I find he was ever alleged by Austin who gathered the most antient testimonies he could for originall sin and infant-baptism Therefore saith Vosâ—ius in his Theses of infant baptism we less care for Origen because they are not in Greek Cyprian's testimony is granted to be in the third Century and Ambroses and Austins and the Milevitan Councils and inâ—umerable more but all upon the Popish errours of giving grace and the necessity to save a child from damnation Gregory Nazianzen and Tertullian before him disswade from it except in case of danger of death in appearance near out of which case the antients did not baptize infants and in that case the Communion was given them But otherwise they baptized not infants no not of believing Parents till they came to years and then they were first Catechized in Lent and then solemnly baptized at Easter and Whitsuntide as may be gathered even from the Common Prayer Book in the Rubrick before Baptism Reply ORigen that lived in the beginning of the third Century sayes The Church received a tradition from the Apostles to baptize Infants and gives a reason because they are born in impurity of sin what is added is ingenuously confessed by Ruffinus the Translator himself Erasmus Perkins nor any that plays the Critick upon him impeaches him in the fore quoted place A negative argument from Scripture in matter of fact will not conclude shall Austins non-allegation then of Origen or which is more ridiculous Mr. T. not finding it disparage the authority of Origen Vossius in his Theses of infant baptism less cares for those parts of Origen that are not in the Greek yet does not wholly discard them some testimonies may be more authentick than others yet all creditable Pelagius a great Scholar who lived in the latter end of this Century Though he denyed Original sin yet confessed Infant-baptism for when they pressed him with this Argument If Infants had not Originall sin what need they baptism He answered that Christ appointed and the Church practised Infant-baptism not to purge sin by past but to prevent it for the time to come This Mr. T. ingenuously passes by as unanswerable and by silence gives consent Cyprian confirms it in his 59. Epistle to Fidus and gives an account of sixtie six Bishops that decreed that Infants should be baptized Ambrose sayes because every age is lyable to sin therefore every age is â—it for the Sacrament of Baptism Nazianzen sayes it is better to Seal Infants with Baptism though they know it not than to leave them unsealed Austin Serm. 15. de verb. Apost speaking of Infant-Baptism sayes The Church alwaies had it alwaies observed it received it from the faith of their Ancestors keeps it with perseverance to the end The Milevitan Councill decreed That whosoever should deny that Infants even taken from the Mothers wombs might be Baptized should be accursed All this he grants yet blasts it as his brethren of Transilvania did the Trinity with this infectious breath that they were all upon the Popish errours of giving grace and the necessity to save a child from damnation when Popery was not yet nor was this the errour of all or any of them finally as Dr. Hâ—mes hath proved or if it were shall the abuse of a thing take away the lawfull use much less the evidence of fact which is the Question How Gregory Nazianzen and Tertullian before him disswades from it except in danger of death is formerly answered It was either Pagans or if believers to consult their bodyly health they did the like to young men unmarryed that were converted and widows neither do we find they prevailed in the least against the generall practice of Infant Baptism which was so inviolable that as the Question is stated I think he cannot shew one instance to the contrary If some gave them the Communion iâ— no more impeaches the lawfulness of their Baptism than the Jesuits joyning spittle Salt exorcism in Baptizing the Indians of years does Mr. T. supposed Baptism of believers That unless in danger of death the antients Baptized not Infants is as loud a lye as any is in the Golden legion Ovidâ— Metamorphosis or Lucians Dialogues The Rubrick of the Common Prayer book before Baptism makes no mention of Catechizing in Lent much less that believers Infants were not Baptized till they came to years but that the Sacrament of Baptism in the old time was not commonly ministred but at Easter and Whitsontide He that thus falsifies an evidence that every Boy or Girle that can but read may check him in Judge what he does with the Greek and Latine Fathers Mr. Tombes 26. Section IT is most false that all ages all Churches agree in infant baptism some Churches never had it Some Churches five hundred years agâ— of the godly and learned that then were did oppose it and practice the baptism of believers onely If Mr. Fox and others did account Anabaptists Hereticks it was for other Tenents than this Master Baxter himself saith no sober divine did ever reckon the Anabaptists as Hereticks meerly for the errour of rebaptizing plain Scripture proof c. part 1. chap. 1. yet Mr. C. bespatters Antipaedobaptism thus it robs the Scripture of its truth infants of their right Parents of their comforts the Church of its members Christ of his merits God of his glory Sure he hath learned the art of him in the Comaedian to calumniate boldly imagining something will be believed though there be not a word true But there is more of this venom behind That it is the mother of many other errours Hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Quakers Levellers they that are above ordinances Antiscripturians will any believe that from the Tenet which doth so stifly maintain an ordinance should spring the errour of being above ordinances Or that the errour of Antiscripturians should spring from that Tenet which doth sâ— strictly insiâ—t on the Scripture Let Mr. C. shew any the least connexion between Antipaedobaptism and the errours he names and he saith something else if onely the persons and not the Tenet be guilty of these errours he doth but calumniate He might with like reason say The Christian Religion is the Mother of many other errours hence sprung Ebionites Corinthians Nicholaitans Gnosticks c. such kind of criminations are most stinking and base slanders unworthy a sober minded man much more a Divine in the Pulpit speaking to many people who examine not but take all for true which such Rabbins talk with confidence
Reply IT is most true That all ages all Churches agree in Infant Baptism He cannot name one Church one particular Congregation that never had it I have already proved it a meer fiction that any Church five hundred years ago either opposed it or practised the baptism of believers onely Master Baxter challenges him to name one man that was against or did once question Church-membership of infants from the Creation till two hundred years ago and less which challenge is not yet answered To these I further added the harmonies of confessions of all Reformed Churches the Church of England in the Apology the old Catechism the twentie seventh Article the Directory the confession of faith the greater and lesser Catechism composed by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster and approved by the Generall Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland the late Parliament by a further Declaration all confirming it The Canons of our Church did not onely in former times declare but the Laws of our land did punish Anabaptists as Hereticks Master Fox in his Acts and Monuments approves of the Albigenses Waldenses Wickliffists Lollards poor men of Lyons Brownists Barrowists as members of the Reformed Churches but wholy excludes the Anabaptists as erring fundamentally He passes by all these as Forts impregnable onely parlyes with Master Fox saying If he did account Anabaptists Hereticks it was for other Tenents than this to wit re-baptizing yes for denying Infants Church-membership Covenant-holiness and baptism which are enough But those are not all like Gad it goes with a Troop attending it But he relieves himself from Mr. Baxter crying quarter from an enemy who said no sober Divine did ever reckon the Anabaptists as Hereticks meerly for the errour of rebaptizing This will throw Master Tombes upon the horns of a dangerous Dilemma for if they be not Hereticks Master T. is no sober Divine for calling them Hereticks and a litter of grievous Wolves Treat of Scandals pag. 323. If he be a sober Divine Then they are Hereticks utrum horum let him choose whether he pleases But Mr. Tombs perhaps meant and Mr. Baxter sayes meerly for the errour of rebaptizing It s true There is Infant Church-membership and baptism besides which being denyed with making a party and division Mr. Baxter demonstrates monstrates how dangerous and hereticall it is Therefore I truly said Anabaptism with its attendants was a dangerous errour that robbes the Scripture of its truth infants of their right Parents of their comforts the Church of its members Christ of his merits God of his glory whereof every word is true and free from the calumniating art of Machiavell studyed so much by the Anabaptists which he falsly attributes to the Comaedian In what Comaedy Asinaria I further averred at which he disgorges his venom That it is the Mother of many other errours hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Quakers Levellers they that are above Ordinances Antiscripturians for it stands with reason and Gods just judgement that Satan the Serpent having winded in the head by making them deny Infant baptism winds in further by degrees to the denyall of all baptism Communion Ordinances And having rejected plain Scripture-proof for Infants Church-membership and baptism are infatuated by degrees till they deny all Scripture According to Mr. Sidenham Anabaptism hath been alwaies ominous and of a wonderfull strange influence accompanied with the most dangerous retinue of errours since the first Embrio of it was brought forth whether from a judgement of God or from its naturall and secret connexion with other principles of darkness God hath shewed some black Characters on it in every Nation where it prevailed It is voyd of reason to say that the Christian Religion which is the Mother of truth should be the Mother of errour Ex veris nil nisi verum The Ebionites Corinthians Nicholaitans Gnosticks sprung from the corruptious of men transgressing Scripture-rule And it is somewhat blasphemous to compare Anabaptism to Christian Religion the one proceeding from the Holy Ghost the other from an impure Spirit The Helchesaits a kind of Anabaptists as Bullinger sayes adversus Anabaptist Cap. 2. did boast they had a Book sent from Heaven wherein mysteries were contained which whosoever heard read should have pardon of sins Nicholas Stock gave it out as Guy de Bres lib. 1. cont Anabapt That God spake to him by an Angel and revealed to him his will in dreams promising him the place of the Angel Gabriel Muncer told his Souldiers as Sleiden Comment lib. 5. God had revealed unto him that the day should be theirs Tuscoverer as Gastius sayes told the people God had revealed unto him that John of Leyden should have the Empire of the whole world Do not our Quakers Levellers those that are for a spirituall Monarchy which are all Anabaptists affirm the like And if Mr. T. must have a further connexion between Anabaptism and the errours I named it s this to use his own words They are the litter of the same Wolf fruits of the same Spirit which being their own confessions recorded by learned and Godly Authors are no criminations or base slanders but truths beseeming sober minded men and especially Divines in the Pulpit whose charge it is to look to their flock that they be not worryed by that litter of grievous Wolves Mr. Tombes 27. Section THe like I say of the Judgements of God Those in Germany were by war the events that have happened in our days should teach us to be sparing in our Judging Mr. Cottons speech was according to his prejudice Solomon Eccles 9. 1 2. Chr. Luke 13. 1 2 3 4 5. â—eacheth us more sobriety than so easily to pronounce of Gods judgements If we should judge of men and Tenents by outward judgements Job had been condemned justly One man had his house burned that did not sprinkle his child thousands have had their houses burned who did and perhaps upon occasion of that abuse by means of provision for the feast May not we as well say God thereby judged against infant sprinkling Thousands have prospered after their refusing to baptize infants thousands have falln into calamities after they have baptized them May not we this way as well decide for Antipaedobaptists as against them Divines that maintain the Scriptures to be their rule should not thus judge of what is true or false by Gods dealing with mens persons which is often upon secret reasons not discernable by us but by his word which is our rule and wherein he hath revealed his mind The rest of Mr. C. speech is as vain Doth this benefit come to Parents and children by infant baptism that God is not ashamed to be called their God and the God of their seed after them Heb. 11. 16. what a ridiculous conceit is this The text saith that through the faith of the persons it is that God is not ashamed to be called their God not their God and the God of their seed much less a word of infant