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
new heavens and new earth for can any rational man think that the new Temple built at Jerusalem in Cyrus his time was the new heaven and the new earth that the former should be no more remembred When the antient men are said to weep because the glory of the latter Temple was short of the glory of the first Ezra 3. 11. Mr. Tombes 13. Section WHat I said about Dr. Prideaux his use was true and that he would require the respondent afore he answered to read the Text and consider it which is necessary in divinity disputes however Respondents be restrained in other Disputes And for my Explosion at Oxford it is a meer figment and that neither Dr. Savage nor the Doctor of the Chair did avoid my Argument by their Answer is manifest enough from Dr. Savage his own recital of his answer in his printed book and this had been shewed in print ere this but that the Printer failed to print mine Answer in the fit time The frivolous conceit of my fear of Mr. C. gunshot is foolish I do not count Mr. C. Arguments to be of so much force as a Squib Reply THe first words about Dr. Prideaux his use he brings in like a fragment seemingly having no dependance of the foregoing or following discourse concerning which the Reader must be informed that from answering Mr. T. fell to moderating and magisterially determining of the Question that before he would resigne the chaire I was forced to tell him that he violated the rules of dispute and did lasciviously wanton it out into a wilderness of words that the truth might be obscured or lost and like a lapwing carry the hearers far from the mater Then his Apologie was that Dr. Prideaux when a place of Scripture was cited was wont to give a large Exposition To which was then replyed that he was Dr. of the Chaire and Judge of the contâ—oversie and might do that a Respondent may not do whose office is onely to repeat deny distinguish and when a Text is quoted to give a brief Exposition that the Opponent may have some thing to fasten upon Now he asserts that what he said of Dr. Prideaux his use was true that he would require the Respondent before he answered to read the Text and consider it which I do not deny but that de facto it was done de jure it ought to have been done not onely though principally in dâ—vinity Disputes but even in Philosophie and Mathematicks when the Argument depends upon the authority or meaning of Aâ—istotle Plato Euclide or the like But that any mention was made thereof in the Dispute I do not remember for there he spoke of Dr. Prideaux his practise in his own person not what he willed in the person of the Respondent Besides it is one thing to require the Respondent before his answer to read the Text and consider it another thing to suffer the Respondent after he hath spun out his Answer to a long thread to enforce his own sense upon the Chapter and determine the Question And though it may be true it was his use that he required the Respondent before he answered to read the Text yet I am sure it is as true that he would not require the Opponent before the framing of his Syllogism to read more than he drew his Argument from for neglect of which he unjustly accuses me of fallacie What he means by Explosion or a meer figment I know not this I know that when he would not be satisfied with Dr. Savage his Answer nor the Professors determination but fell to repetition exploserunt saltem juniores not once but again at his nâ—â— answering the Drs. challenge Though perhaps Mr. Tombes was so harnessâ—d with confidence that he was not sensible of it Vos ô Patricius sanguis quos vivere fas est Occipiti â—aeco posticae occurrite sannae Pers Satyr 1. And such Explosions are grounded upon equitie because those that will not acquiess in the Vicechancellors or Professerâ— determinations by the University statutes are to be admonished But he unmindfull of this like Chrysogonus whom Tully for the like cause calls nobilem egâ—egium gladiatorem speaks in the language of a Fencer saying that neither Dr. Savage nor the Dr. of the Chaire did avoid his Argument by their Answer is manifest enough from Dr. Savage his own reciâ—al of his Answer in his printed book Sed quo judice Who shall be Uâ—pâ—re in this debate Mr. Tombes himself for he sayes that this had been shewed in print ere this but that the Printer failed to print his Answer in the fit time How much was that Printer to blame that would not expedite that Canon that must regulate the whole Church in opposition to harmonies of confessions Assemblies of Divines determinations of Universities Frange lâ—ves calamos scinde Thalia libellos Si dare c. Mart. But he fâ—lls off â—rom vying with his sword and buckleâ— whereby he avoyded the Drs. Arguments to vaunt his coat of Male as if he had got Vulcan's Panoplâ—e and were shot free for he sayes the frivolous conceit of his fear of my gun-shot is foolish In some sense I confesse its true for he that will not fear the whole Church terrible as an Army with Banners will not tremble at the shot of one private souldier But that in another sense he feared was apparent both from his abrupt breaking off the Dispute and refusing further engagement And for all he counts not my Arguments to be of so much force as a squib his eyes may be opened one day to see his whole Magazine blown up thereby as it is to manifest his patience is already by which he might have possessed his soul one dram whereof is to be preferred before the Vatican Library full of such volumes as his Master Tombes 14. Section AS for his Argument from Mat. 28 19. I answered that all Nations or whole Nations did not include every part all Nations being taken Synecdochically for the Disciples of all Nations As for his Division I gave the genuine reason why Infants are excepted from the precept of baptizing because they are no Disciples Nor was there any defect in Logick when I did not reduce it to one of his members For capable of Baptism and Disciples are not terms subordinate but distinct though without opposition And though to be Disciples made them capable yet there is a difference between the terms I presume Mr. C. thinks baptized persons already Disciples yet not capable of Baptism Reply HAving dispatched the two former branches of mine Argument That God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law I came unto the third That God did actually receive Infants to be Church-members under the Gospel that they might be baptized thus Those whom Christ commanded his Disciples to baptize they may be baptized Christ commanded his Dâ—sciples to baptize Infants Therefore they may be baptized The Minor being denied was proved
most humble and devoted Servant in the Lord Jesus John Cragge To the Reader Courteous Reader TO please my self and perhaps thee I shall displease many First my Friend for making his private token a publick frolick Secondly Mr. Tombs for bringing him in this last Catastrophe wounded in the heel by Troilus and Paris who vaunts that in former Scenes like Achilles so far as he was dipped in the River by his Mother Thetis he hath been unpierced by the Weapons of the stoutest Hectors Thirdly Mr. Cragge and Mr. Vaughan for exposing their Disputes conceived in an hour and an half and the Sermon contrived in a day and a half to long censure Fourthly the Anabaptists as they will deem for too uncourteously galling their soars Fiftly their Adversaries the Paedobaptists for too courteously or as they will fancy partially concealing Mr. Tombs harsh language and his Favourites Incivilities Sixtly the Learned in general for bringing these Nilus-like hatched Births in a moment into the open Amphitheater with those Elephants that have been ten years in conception My Apologie for the whole is as followeth The bulk of this Manual is small some may reach to the price of it that cannot of those larger Volumes may have time to read it that cannot them The method of this is facile the language plain some will understand this that cannot them Besides wee naturally love the transactions of those whose persons we know Some heard them transiently as they were delivered and would be glad deliberately to read them Some heard them not but at the second hand as they were variously reported according to the Judgement and affection of the Relator who would be willing to know the business truly stated If any of the Parties concerned find themselves aggrieved and intend to bend their stile against me I 'le answer them at the Day of Judgement when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed In the mean time if Truth may be advanced Errour discouraged Godliness countenanced Hypocrisie unmasked thou edified God glorified I have mine ends Farewell Yours in the Lord I. T. P. A relation of a Conference had between Mr. John Tombs B. D. and Henry Vaughan M. A. in St. Maries Church in Abergavenny Sept. 5. 1653 touching Infant-Baptism briefly and punctually set down to the sense of both V INfants may lawfully be Baptized for they be admitted into the covenant of grace now by Baptism as they were before and under the Law admitted into the same covenant by Circumcision T. I deny your consequence V. You must deny it either because the covenant of grace made with Abraham and his seed is not the same in substance with that which is now actually in force with beleevers and their Children or Secondly because Baptism succeedeth not in the room of Circumcision T. I could deny your division yet I say to gratifie you for both those reasons V. For the former That the covenant made with Abraham and his seed is the same which is now actually in force with beleevers appears by comparing Genes 17. 2. with Galat. 3. 14. where it is clearly set forth that the promise made to Abraham came unto the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. T. Here he distinguisheth of a towfold seed of Abraham the naturall and spirituall and saith that the covenant was made with Abrahams spirituall seed and not the naturall V. Even all the children of Abraham were Circumcised and consequently admitted into the covenant not one excepted for every Man-child was to be Circumcised Gen 17. 10. It appears by what hapned to Moses for not Circumcising his Child Exod. 4 24. Even Ishmael was circumcised Genes 17. 23. who belonged not to the promise but was of the naturall seed T. Ishmael and the naturall Children of Abraham were admitted to the externall part namely outward priviledges and temporall blessings and not to the internall or spirituall part thereof By the Internall part he must needs mean that part of it expressed Gen. 17. 7. in these words To be a God unto thee and unto thy seed after thee and in the end of v. 8. I will be their God To justifie this his destinction he referred us to Rom. 9. and I think v. 8. where the Children of the promise are contradistinguished from the Children of the flesh or the naturall Children of Abraham So that the covenant was made not to the naturall Children of Abraham but to such of them as were elect and faithfull V. This covenant was made alike in the same extent and latitude promiscuously with all the seed of Abraham and those that lost the promise and the benefit of this covenant which men you call the naturall seed lost it not because they were not at first comprehended in the covenant but because of their own unbeleef Rom. 11. 20. I confesse that the children of Isaac are Rom. 9. called the Children of the promise not in regard of any peremptory election or designation to Faith and Salvation or on the contrary of any absolute reprobation of the seed of Ishmael For if it had been Pauls designe to declare the Children of Ishmael yea the greatest part of the Jewes to have been rejected by a certain absolute decree why should he v. 1. 2. so much lament their incredulitie wish himself accursed for their sakes v. 3. and Rom. 10. v. 1. desire and pray for their conversion since upon such an absolute decree of reprobating them all that happened to them was inevitable But the Children of Isaac are called the Children of promise First because they onely were to inherite the land of Canaan and Secondly because Christ according to the flesh was to descend from the progenie of Isaac not of Ishmael I might have added that if none but the elect and faithfull can be admitted into the covenant there is no subject left for the ordinance of Baptism it being impossible for man to know who are elect spirituall and true believers Neither can you Baptize with right or safety all such grown persons as you Baptize since you cannot be assured that they are elect Spirituall or true believers Revel 2. 17. nor have any light to guide you save that of charitable opinion and conjecture Again it being admitted that none but the Spirituall elect and believing can be Baptized the same charitie that swayes your judgment for grown persons must much rather move you to hope the best of innocent infants guiltie of no actuall sin since it hopes all things and thinks no evill 1. Cor. 13. 2. They may have faith in semine habitu in the seed as they have the habit of principles and reason though they cannot exercise it till ripe years 3. Though they have not actuall faith yet the faith of their parents may and doth put them into a capacitie of being admitted into the covenant nor is it news that the parents faith advantageth the Children Joh. 4. 50. T. I could wish you could prove that Infants of believers might be admitted to
day all of you before the Lord your God your captains of your tribes your elders and your officers with all the men of Israel your little ones T. He said that he should have proved that it should continue to infants to the worlds end for he did not deny but that infants in some sense were in covenant under the Law but not under the Gospell C. Yes under the Gospell If Christ hath obtained a more excellent Ministerie and is a Mediator of a better covenant which is established upon better promises then if infants were in covenant under the Law they are in covenant under the Gospell But Heb. 8. 6. Christ hath obtained a more excellent Ministery was a Mediator of a better covenant which was established upon better promises Therefore if infants were in covenant under the Law they are in covenant under the Gospell T. He denyed the consequence of the Major that though the covenant of the Gospell was a better covenant than that of the Law yet infants were not in covenant as well under the Gospell as under the Law C. Which was thus taken away That which unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation cannot be a better covenant But to deny infants to be in covenant unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation Therefore it cannot be a better covenant T. Without repeating the Syllogism or denying either of the Premisses or formally applying any distinction he said the covenant under the Gospell was made onely with the spirituall seed of Abraham C. Which was thus disproved If the covenant was made in the same manner and extent to the Gentiles as to the Jewes then under the Gospell it was not onely made to the Spirituall seed But it was made in the same manner and extent to the Gentiles as it was to the Jewes Therefore under the Gospell it was not onely made to the Spirituall seed T. He denyed the Minor C. Which was proved by this Enthymema The partition wall is pulled down and Jew and Gentile are all one in Christ Jesus Therefore the covenant is made in the same manner and extent to the Jew and Gentile T. He denyed the consequent that though the partition wall was taken down and both Jew and Gentile are all one in Christ Jesus seeing the Gospell was offered to all nations Yet under the Gospell the covenant was onely with the Elect and believers C. Which was confuted thus That which is made with the whole visible Church is not onely made with the Elect and true beâ—â—evers But the covenant is made with the whole visible Church Therefore not onely with the Elect and true believers T. He denyed the Major C. Which was proved thus That which is made to the kingdom of God upon earth is not onely made to the Elect But that which is made to the whole Church visible is made to the kingdom of God upon Earth Therefore it was not onely made to the Elect. T. He denyed the Major that that which was made to the kingdom of God upon earth is not onely made to the Elect. C. Which was proved thus In the kingdom of God that is in the Church Militant there are not onely Elect but reprobates Saints but hypocrites for all that are outwardly called are of the kingdom of God in this sense and many are called but few chosen The kingdom of God is compared to a field where there are tares as well as wheat a fold where there are goats as well as sheep to a noble mans house where there are vessels of dishonour as well as honour And if the Church in regard of outward administration of ordinances which is the Question were onely the Elect then it would follow that there were no visible Church upon earth the Jews had no more visible Church than the heathens the distinction of the Church visible and invisible were frivolous for no man nor angell knows who are Elect nor any but God To which issue the first branch of the Argument being brought Mr. C. referred the judgement of it to the people And proceeded to the second that God foretold under the Law that infants should be Church-members under the Gospell T. Mr. T. perceiving that the people apprehended that he was brought to an apparent absurdity would have waded into a large discourse to wind himself out C. But Mr. C. told him that it was his office being Respondent to deny or distinguish but not authoritatively to determine the question as if he were the Dr. of the chair And with much ado the Anabaptists crying let him have liberty to speak on brought him to dispute again and to turn to Esay 49. 22. Whence he framed this Argument He that foretold that he would lift up his hand to the Gentiles and set up a standard to the people and that they should bring their sons in their Armes and their daughters shall be carryed upon their Shoulders foretold that infants should be Church-members under the Gospell But thus saith the Lord God Behold I will lift up my h 〈…〉 to the Gentiles and set up my standard to the people and they shall bring thy sons in their Arms and thy daughters shall be carryed upon their shoulders Therefore God foretold that infants should be Church-members under the Gospell T. He denyed the Major And said the meaning was that the Jewes should bring the Gentiles children C. To which he replyed God sayes I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles and they that is the Gentile shall bring thy sons and Mr. Tombs says the Jews shall bring thy sons Then a Gentleman read the words and said it is the Gentiles shall bring c. T. Then Mr. T. recollecting himself said the meaning was the Gentiles should bring the Jewes children from captivity And that it did not point at the time of the Gospell C. To which was replyed the contents of the Chapter sayes that it points at the time of the Gospell Mr. Tombs says it points at the time of the Jewes captivitie whether shall we believe and repeaâ—ed the contents Christ being sent to the Jewes complaineth of them to the 5. verse he is sent to the Gentiles to the 13. verse Gods love to his Church to the end then the people laughed c. The pâ—th of which was framed into an argument thus That which is the judgement of the Church of England ought to be entertained before the groundles assertion of one private man But that it points at the time of the Gospell is the judgement of the Church of England Therefore it ought to be entertained before the groundles assertion of one private man T. He denyed that it was the judgement of the Church of England C. Which was thus proved If the Church of England causes it to be printed and commands it to be read before the Chapter then it is the judgement of the Church of England But the Church
Angels proclaimed him the wise men offered Gold and Myrrh and Frankincense to him yet we read not that he made any offering himself by profession till he came of riper years increasing in knowledge and stature and favour with God and man The proof of the Minor that God did promise to Abraham that Infants should be in covenant under the Gospel taken from Genes 17. 7. I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee he sayes he had many exceptions against it but I remember none but those here mentioned by him nor all them which how incongruously they are applyed will appear by reciting the Argument in forme which was this He that makes an everlasting covenant to Abraham and his seed after him in their generations promised that Infants should be in covenant under the Gospell God made an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed after him in their generations Therefore God promised that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell His first exception he sayes was That if it be understood of the naturall seed of Abraham the everlastingness of it was but for a time But for a time How does that follow If it had been with a particle of exclusion onely to the naturall seed there might have been some colour of dispute and yet without all controversie the everlastingness of it is extended even to the naturall seed of Abraham for there hath been is and will be a succession of Jewish believerâ— to the end of the world which proves that in his sense it s false that the everlastingness of it was but for a time and that time afore the Gospell But the truth is it is not onely meant of the naturall seed but of the spirituall seed of Abraham both whereof successively and in part if not altogether concomitantly for there were alwaies Pâ—oselytes it is everlasting or to the end of the world Neither is he relieved by the next verse wherein he sayes the possession of Caenaâ—n is promised to be everlasting and yet the Jews are dispossest now of it unless that the same word in adjoyning verses must necessarily signify the same thing Then the Argument would be good Everlasting in the latter verse signifies not continuance to the end of the world without interruption therefore not in the former Upon the same ground an Argument might be drawn against the infiniteness and eternity of the deity from these words God of Gods and Lord of Lords Gods and Lords in the latter signifies creatures Therefore in the former but how inconsequently in both a child may judge But when all this is done what if in his sense the possession of Canaan is not promised to be everlasting the words are these I will give unto thee and unto thy seed after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession wherein you see the gift is the whole land of Canaan The parties to whom Abraham and his seed after him The continuance for an everlasting possession Now Abraham was so far from the possession of the whole land of Canaan that he onely sojourned in it and that but for a while as a stranger Jacob his grand-child with his posterity after their departure into Egypt possessed neither whole nor part till Josuah's time which was almost three hundred years after Josuah's time till the destruction of the Temple by Titus the Jews could never compass the possession of the whole or expell the Jeâ—usites and Canaanites What then must be meaâ—t by Gods promise to Abraham of an everlasting possession of Canaan one of these three either that they had jus ad rem though not in re title to it though not actuall possession of it or that it was a type of the everlasting spirituall Canaan in which senses from Abraham they possessed it or that the plenarie and full possession of the whole begins at the conversion of the Jewes and shall last from thence to the end of the world without interruption None of these will support Mr. T. his declining cause nor will my grant do him any good that the Jews are dispossest of Canaan neither will it follow from thence that I must needs grant that the promise verse 7. though it be termed everlasting yet it is onely to be understood of a limited time for I deny both the Antecedent and the consequent The Antecedent it is not meant of a limited time The consequent that if it were so meant it is no sequel that the former must be so meant also Those pretended parallels taken from Exod. 2. 16. and 12. 24. are heterogeneal and indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another Question which speaks not of everlasting but ever and is to be limited to the subject maâ—ter and service The servant shall serve the Master for ever that is as long as the one is capable to serve and the other to be served And ye shall observe this thing for ever that is ever when ye celebrate the Passeover And whereas he sayes I am not relieved by saying that they shall have Canaan again I must tell him that that Foâ—t needs no relieving that was never beleagerd or beseeged The Question is not of actuall possession of Canaan but of such a possession as God promised and undoubtedly performed to Abraham and his seed after him when Abraham himself possessed scarce any part his posterâ—ty from Jacob till Josuah none at all from Josuah till the destruction of Jerusalem according to the letter not all of Canaan Therefore his inference is inconsequently inferâ—ed that the possession was not everlasting that is at all times particularly not in Gospel-times seeing they were never no not in the time of Babylonish captivity dispossest of Canaan in that sense in which it is said to be everlasting Mr. Tombes 5. Section AS for his proof of the continuance of the Gospel-covenant unto the end of the world to Abraham and his seed the very text he alledgeth Gal. 3. 8. doth manifestly express the thing promised to be justification and that of the heathen and that through faith that had not the man a face which could not blush he would have been ashamed to have urged it to prove that Abrahams natural seed were promised to be in covenant under the Gospel And his next allegation is as vain that because Deut. 29. 10. 11. The whole congregation of Israel â—re said to stand before the Lord with their little ones to enter into covenant therefore the covenant Gen. 17. 7. is to continue to infant-natural seed of Abraham to the end of the world whereas the speech is onely of a Transient fact not of a command much less of â— promise of something perpetually future and what is said of the little ones is as well said of wives hewers of wood and drawers of water And therefore if thence
same mystical body whereof he is the head and partakers of spirituall comfort though a remnant of them were but saved and attained the end So the Gentiles are received also into covenant even whole Nations when they profess the partition wall being pulled down for the end that they may be fellow-heirs with the Jews of the same body partakers of the promise in Christ by the Gospel Though all that are called are not chosen for there is a difference betwixt inward and outward calling visible invisible members yet not easily discernable in this life Therfore it is true that the Gospel-covenant is made with the whole visible Church for all receive the seals of the covenant participates of the ordinances gives up their names to Christ engages to fight under his banner Now as a Souldier that is listed cannot be denyed to be a member of an army though he be treacherous or unserviceable till he be discovered and cashiâ—red nor can a Professor be denyed to be Christs Souldier while he is Militant here The Apostles distinguâ—sh all the Churches to whom they write from heathens by the Characteristicall note of Saints yet it is to be feared the greater part of these fields were tares neither is this any whit impeached by that which he subjoyns that the Gospel-covenant is not made with the whole visible Church as it is expressed Heb. 8. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. This is a fallacie a dicto secundum quid ad simplicuer negativè for if it be made with the whole visible Câ—urch in the sense in Question it is sufficient for our purpose though it be not in every sense or that there expressed One and the same covenant is expressed severall wayes differing onely in graduall perfections according to the capacity and receptibility of the Covenanter Sometimes signanter in via as is proposed to them in the way sometimes efficaciter in patria as it is teâ—minated and made effectuall at the end of the way Now the covenant as it is expressed Heb. 8. 7. whether it be meant literally of the Jews when recalled 8. I will make the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will perfect or finish a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah or siguratively of the converted Gentiles offers no violence to my foâ—mer assertion for this covenant ver 10 is made with the house of Israel and Judah which either is or represents the whole visible Church and ver 11. all shall know me sayes God from the least to the greatest therefore not onely the spirituall seed of Abraham which were invisible and none knew who were the greatest or the least but points at signally and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that were faithfull to the end and received a crown of life Now in the dispute the consequent by him denyed was further pâ—oved thus That which is made with the whole visible Church is not onely made with the elect and true believers The covenant is made with the whole visible Church Therefore not onely with the elect and true believers In answer to this he sayes If he denyed the Major as he did pag 29. in the first Argument he confesses he was mistaken through inadvertencie his conditionall if implying his memory may fail His confessed mistake that his Judgement may fail Inadvertencie that there is a ground or principle within him whereby he is inclined to faile In this glass the Anâ—baptists muy see what a broken staâ— they trust unto in opposition to the universal Church But as the Spanish Garrisons could not be taken but by treachery so Master Tombes forsooth could not be mistaken if it were not either through my fast spâ—aking or some humane infirmity or some other occurâ—ence now not remembered but which of these he cannot tell onely this he can tell he was mistaken Here we have that great advanâ—age which Tully sperks of confitentem reum were we but sure to â—ye a knot vpon him for he is somewhat slâ—ppery Quid cum manifesto tenetur Anguilla'st elabitur Plautus in Pseud for now after six months travelling in conception he denies the Minor he granted before but with two limitations 1. If it be understood of the Gospel Covenant Heb 8. 10. 2. If the whole visible Church be taken without any Synecdoche for every Church member Thus we have his collection in words at large and not in figures The former I have cleared before that it is understood of the Gospell Covenant which all those that are baptized and discipled into Christ are entred into As Apprentises as soon as the Indentures are sealded are in covenant with their Masters though peradventure some of them serve not out their time and through miscarriage attain not their freedome Roman Souldiers were all Sacramento militari obstricti bound by an oath to their Commanders though some after fled from their colours All visible professors are in Covenant inchoative and enjoy the means though not consummativè that they may enjoy the end And that Heb. 8. 10. does not enfeeble but enfoâ—ce this for God puts his Law into the minds and wriâ—es them in the hearts of all professors for the seed is sowen and paâ—tly comes up in the whole field some receive it with joy tasts the good word of God the heavenly gift are partakers of the Holy Ghost and yet falls away Heb. 6 6. God is to them a God and they to him a people for he is a Saviour of all men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially of them that believe His second limitation is That the Covenant is not made with the whole visible Church if the whole Church be taken without any Synecdoche for every visible Church-member For cleaâ—ing of this we must call to mind that common distinction of all Divines that as there is an external and internal administration of the Covenant So there is a twofold making with being in covenant of the visible Church first secundum propositum electionis according to the purpose of election in Gods eternal decree so onely the elect are in Covenant some call this intentionally to be in covenant because God principally though not only intends the Covenant for them Others call it spiritually and savingly from the effect and evenâ— in this sense the covenant is not made with the whole visible Church without a Synâ—cdoche or taking part for the whole and this answers Heb. 8. 10. take it in what sense you please Secondly there is a making and so a being in Covenant in facie visibilis ecclesiae according to visible profession participation of Ordinances communion with Saints all outward Characters of Saintship undiscernable Rom. 9. 4. Deut. 29 10 12. John 1. 11. Psalm 50. 5 John 15. 2. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away whence it is appatent that there are branches in Christ in Covenant with Christ that brings forth no fruit yet are visible members while they carry in the vine
And in this sense the Gospel-Covenant is made with the whole visible Church being taken without any Synecdoche for every Church-member Otherwise there could be no visible Gospell-Covenant Gospel-Ordinances Gospel-Ministery which must needs take the denomination from the visibilitie of the object and according to this new Tenet would be Utopian and no where Mr. Tombes 9. Section BUt I perceive by Mr. C. words page 30. If the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances which is the Question were onely the elect c. That the terms Church and Covenant were so ambiguously used by him that I knew not how to conceive of his meaning and his fast speaking would not permit me deliberately to consider his words and therefore no marvell I desired liberty to explain my self and to enquire into Mr. C. meaning it being impossible for me otherwise to answer appositely and to make the disputation profitable for finding out truth As for that which Mr. C. saith That it was the Question whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect it doth untruly suggest as if I so conceived who though I hold the Church invisible are the elect onely and that the Gospel Covenant of grace Heb. 8. 10 11 12. is made to them onely yet have still granted that the Church visible consists of others than elect persons and that outward Ordinances may lawfully be administred to them upon their profession of faith in Christ But Mr. C. by confounding those terms To be in Covenant to be subjects of Baptism c. misleads unwary hearers and readers Reply HEre Mr. Tombes like a bad division saltum facit skips over main passages in the dispute that it is needfull to find the end of the thâ—â—ad to guid us in the Meanders of this Labyrinth Then thâ— major proposition by him denyed was thus confiâ—med That which is made to the kâ—â—gdome of God upon earth is not onely made to the elect that which is made to the whole Church visible is made to the kingdome of God upon earth therefore it was not onely made to the elect Here he denyed the former proposition again which was proved thus In the Kingdome oâ— God that is in the Church Militant theâ—e are not onely elect but reprobates Saints but hypocrites for all that are outwardly called are of the kingdom of God in this sense and many are called and few chosen the Kingdome of God is compaâ—ed to a field where there are tares as well as wheat a fold where there are goats as well as sheep To a Noble mans house where there are vessels of dishonour as well as honâ—ur And if the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances which is the Question were onely the Elect then it would follow that there were no visible Church upon earth the Jewes had no more visible Church than the Heathens the distinction of the Church visible and â—nvisible were frivolous for no mo man nor Angell knowâ— who are elect nor any but God All this he passes by and gives no answer to it as if it were a Gordian knot and insoluble onely like Aristotle's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ethic l. 4. c. 1. he catches at circumstances as men when almost drowned do at sticks or weeds for he sayes he perceives by my words pag. 30. If the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect c. that the teâ—ms Church and Covenant were so ambiguously used by me that he knew noâ— how to conceive of my meaning Thus this â—ugler casts a mist before the eyes of the Reader that by the virtue of Hocus Pocus he may seemingly swallow those daggers that he will never be able to dâ—gest But in good earnest were the terms Church and Covenant used ambiguously by me When by Church I expressed my self to mean the whole visible Church as in the major denyed pag. 29. â—nd by Covenant to mean an external covenant made with all vsible Professors in opposition to his Covenant made onely with the spiritual seed of Abraham pag. 14 Whosoever reads the Premises or the relation of the Dispute will find that I spake so clearly distinctly home in these terms that he conceiving my meaning did directly overthrow his gave no answer then nor does yet save this collaterall shift which like the black mud cast over the fish Sepia or Cuttle showes where he was taken But with Reignold he hath more evasions yet for my fast speaking he sayes would not permit him deliberately to consider my words what a sore is this that he layes his finger upon and complaines oâ— almost in every page The truth is I spake no faster than he repeated but faster than he answered That as the Cardinall of Lorrain said at Beza's dispute he wished the people had either been deaf or I dumb But this my fastness would not suffer him deliberately to consider my words If almost three hours time would not suffer him deliberately to consider of that which might have been delivered in one hour yet methinks six months since might But this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Epigram brings forth now as blind whelps as then So that it was a marvell that he desired liberty then to explain himself and to enquire into my meaning which was as transparent as if it had been writ with the Sun-beames but amounts to a prodigie that he should averr so now when he neither did so nor had the least occasion for it Onely when he perceived the people apprehended that he was brought to an apparent absurdity he waded into a large discourse to wind himself out it being impossible for him otherwise seemingly to answer or to make the disputation on his part but sophistically probable but by obscuring the truth But his assertion in the next section is more frontless for thus he charges me As for that which Mr. C. saith it was the Question whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect It doth untruly suggest as if I so conceived whereas the truth is he untruly suggests that which I said not for my proposition was not Categorical as he mis-reports it that it was the Question whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect but hypothetical if the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances which is the Question were only the elect These were my words expresly neither can he drawout by any consequence that I implyed so much for if he rack them upon the Tenters he cannot stretch them to say that the question was whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances was onely the elect but the Question was about the administration of an outward Ordinance to wit Baptism And if I had said that had been the Question as he alledges it I had suggested nothing otherwise than he conceived if we may judge of his conceits by his
snow is black But he hath also a snatch at me saying that I shewed my heedlesness when I said it was an Addition to the Text that the Gentiles should bring the Jews well let that be examined An addition may be two wayes either in words so it is apparent for the Text says not that the Gentiles shall bring the Jews Or in sense and so it is not said the Gentiles shall bring thy Children by naturall generation which I conceive is the Question but their own But he sayes the very distinction of thy Children from the Gentiles shews it meant of the Jews otherwise it should have been their Children in the third person not thine in the second here is vindice cuneo nodus dignissimus a knot that one may unty with his gloves on They the Gentiless shall bring thy sons that is Sons of the Church and yet the Gentiles Children But who ever interpreted it thus A great writer 1. Tombs B. D. in his Plea for Antidaedobaptists pag. 14. for these are his words The Church is spoken to observe not the Jews and the Children were both the Gentiles Children and yet thy Children that is the Churches Now who shewed his heedlesness But in the same blindfold posture he goes on saying it can not be meant of Gods Children as his for then it should be mine in the first person for God speaks those words Here is an Excellent Grammar-lecture of the distinction of persons for which the Author merits to be Terrae filius the next year But let us look back It cannot be meant of Gods Children â—ayes he as his for then it should be mine in the first person for God speaks those words well God sayes to Moses thy Children which thou hast brought out of Egypt it can not be meant of Gods Children for God speaks the words This is a fallacie a dicto seeundum quid ad simpliciter All this may be easily reconciled They are the Churches Children by spirituall succession the Gentiles by naturall generation Gods by adoption But we might have spared our labour all this while for he denyes not but the words may be accommodated to the times of the Gospel This is something that he is contented with the Adulterous woman that the Child shall be divided and we shall have part but the true Mother will either have all or none How accommodated to the times of the Gospel If â—lterally then not to any historicall thing under the Law If Mystically then it was a Prophesie of a prophesie But without further enquirie this grant is enough for my purpose though not of bringing Infants to Baptism which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another Question yet to prove the Proposition in Question that God foretold that Infants should be Church-members under the Gospel whence Infant-baptism will follow and this hath so much colour from the Text That Master T. for all his experience can put no other colour upon it for if by his own confession it be a prophecie that the Gentiles should bring back the Jews not onely Infants but others from captivity in the letter and type It will follow the Gentiles shall bring back not onely children but others from spirituall captivity in the Mystery and Antitype which his words unawares of him seems to carry when he stiles them the Gentiles Children that is the Churches And this will further appear by considering my answers to his Questions put out Socratically to entangle me and cunningly to darken the Text. Mr. Tombes 11. Section FOr 1. If by standard be meant baptism which the Scripture never calls Gods standard and the bringing should be to Baptism then the sense should be that supreme Magistrates as Kings and Queens should bring Infants in their Arms and carry them on shoulders to Baptism which no story ever mentions to have been done and is too frivolous to be made the matter of that Prophecy 2. The terms nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers shew it to be a Metaphor which Mr. C. granting though it follow not that nothing could be gathered from it yet it follows that Mr. C. application which is according to the proper sense of the words is not right What I said that it was fulfilled in Hesters time I said rightly and Mr. Gataker before me in those annotations of his which are taken for the most incomparably learned and Hâ—ster as a Queen among the Gentiles might well be stiled a nursing Mother to the Jews I will not trouble my self to examine Mr. C. dictates but refer the Reader to the notes of Master Gataker As for that I said that though it should be understood of the times of the Gospel yet it might be meant of growen men perswaded by the preaching of the Gospell as Jun us in his Annot. was true Nor doth the bringing in the bosome being a Metaphor proves they were Infants And if so the Church is spoken to and the Children were both the Gentiles Children and yet â—hy children that is the Churches And so there is no interfering in my words Reply AS it is a Stratagem in War when an Army is brought into a strait and finds it self over-matched with Quintus Fabiâ—â— to parly till they have found an advantage and then suddainly to fall upon the enemy So it is the Trick of a Sophister when he is at a loss in dispute to aske Questions to ensâ—are the aâ—versarie and then with Crocodile â—leights supprise him Mr. T. is very dexterous in this art which he exercised in the dispute asking what I understood by Standard what by Kings what by nursing Fathers I told him that it was not his place to dispute Socratically by asking of Questions but to answer ad oppositum But to give him satisfaction which I needed not by Standard I understood visible holding out of Gospel-Ordinances as Baptism c. By Kings supreme Magistrates By nursing Fathers and Nursing Mothers Patrons and Protectors of the Gospel Now to put a gloss upon his counterfâ—t wares he sayes these Questions were put out needfully to clear the Text that it had no colour for bringing Infants to Baptism whereas he should have said to be visible Church members under the Gospel For 1. sayes he if by Standard be meant Baptism which the Scripture never dalls Standard and the bringing should be to Baptism then the sense should be that supreme Magistrates as Kings and Queens should bring Infanâ—s in their Arms and carry them on shoulders to Baptism which no story ever mentions to have been done and is too frivolous to be made the matter of that prophecie In which word there is neither verity nor consequence if sense Fiâ—st he sayes if by Standard be meant Baptism who makes a Thesis oâ— his Hypothesis or affirms that by Standard is meant Baptism My answer was that by Standard was meant some visible Gospel-Ordinance as Baptism c. to wit preaching praying with many more Now who knows not that there is a difference betwixt Gospel-Ordinances
person in that which he calls the outward visible part of the blessing by which he means title to Baptis But I denyed the Minor understanding it of the outward Covenant holiness as they call it which I truly said is gibberish and however Vossius Bullinger for Grotius I think means otherwise conceive of it or the Assembly yet it is a meâ—r mystake and that holyness of Children which is mentioned 1 Cor. 7. 14. is truly said by me to be onely Matrimonial holyness or legitimation And his Argument out of Mr. Baxter I justly retorted that in six hundred times in which holy is used in Scripture in none of them it is found for outward Covenant holiness intiluling to Baptism which is a right way of answering though it be called indirect by the Logicians And as for that he replyes that Rom. 11. 16. I confessed at Ross Covenant holiness is meant I grant it but not outward Covenant holiness intiluling to Baptism but that reall saving holiness which is according to the election of grace according to which Jews elected shall hereafter be graffed in again Reply THat the promise belonged to Infant Children was thus further â—videnced The blessing is as large as the curse but the curse was extended even to Children before they could actually believe his blood be upon us and upon our children Therefore the blessing To this he accommodates now no answer but instead thereof bolts out this Question doth he think that Christs blood was not avenged on thâ—m if it were how was the remedy as large as the disease how satisfactorily let any intelligent man Judge Christs blood was avenged upon the murdering Jews and their Infant children therefore does he think it was not extendable to the believing Jews and their Infant-children Reason dictates the contrarie His evasion in the conference was more colourable thus If by blessing was meant the Inward and spirituall part of the covenant it might be true but that was not to the present purpose seeing it is not known to us but if the outward and visible part he denyed that Infants were capable of the blessing as well as liable to the curse which distinction was thus taken away They that are holy with a Covenant holiness are capable of the outward visible part of the blessing But Infants of believers are holy with a Covenant holiness Therefore they are capable of the outward and visible part Of this Syllogism he sayes he might have denyed the Major It s strange a man should be more absurd upon deliberation than on a sudden as is evident he is by his reason for sayes he there is a Covenant holiness according to election which doth not alwaies instate the person in that which I call the outward part of the blessing by which I mean title to Baptism what he means by this Centaur of Covenant-holiness by election is hard to conjecture whether of elect Infants before they be born or of elect Infidels before they be called or of believers or unbelievers sanctified Infants before profession If he mean it of elect Infants before they be born it is ridiculous seeing the subject of the Question is Infants of believers they that are actually in being not a subject in posse without an Accident an Accident in posse without a subject at the best but ens fictum possibile If he mean elect Infidels before they be called how are they holy that have nothing in them but the old Adam It seems holy Saul while he was a persecutor holy Dionysius while a Heathen Philosopher holy 3000. Jews while they were crucifying Christ If he mean of unbelievers or believers sanctified Infants first let me enquire of him what groudn he hath from Scripture or any divine Revelation that Infants of unbelievers are sanctified that there is salvation out of the visible Church that any such aâ—â— promised to be so qualified till professors Every act of Faith hath for its object Gods promise or Revelation and whatsoever is not of Faith even in this sense is sin Secondly for the sanctified holiness of believers Infants according to election if he mean that they are elected to for the future and have not yet that cannot denominate them holy if he mean that holiness of election they enjoy for the present Master T. confesses that holyness makes them capable of the outward visible part of the blessing and intitles them to baptism and that if he knew they were so qualified he would baptize them The Question is not whom he according to his light may baptize but who are baptizable But he knew that my proposition pointed at none of these and therefore idely beat the air as his next words discovers for he sayes he denyed the Minor understanding it and so did I of outward Covenant holiness upon which he bestows two taunts 1. As they call it 2. That he truly said that it was gibberish yet confesses that Vossius Bullinger and the late assembly did so conceive of it To these he might have joyned all the Harmonies of confessions of Reformed Churches Tertullian de anima Cap. 39. Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait tam ex seminis praerogativa quam ex institutionis disciplina caeterum inquit immundi nascerentur quasi designatos tamen sanctitatis per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios ut bujus spei pignora matrimoniis quae retinenda censuerat patrocinarentur The Apostle sayes he avers they may be procreated holy of either sex being sanctified as well of the Prerogative of the seed as the Discipline of education otherwise he sayes they would be born unclean willing the children of the faithfull to be understood as designed to holiness and consequently salvation that he might maintain the pledges of this hope to marriages which he judged to be retained Junius upon these words quasi designatos glosses thus alludit ad priscum Rom. morem qui ante annum ferm◠〈◊〉 Praetores alios designabant quam inirent Magistratum c. he al 〈…〉 es â—â—yes he to the antient Roman custome who designed alm 〈…〉 ear before they entred their Office Consuls Praetors and other Magistrates So that the sense is the children of the faithfull to be as it were designed to holiness and consequently salvation even as Magistrates were wont to be designed here in the Church they are designed by a common call there in heaven they enter glory by a singular call and benefit Athanasius in his 114. Question being asked whether Infants dying go to be punished or to the Kingdom says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your children are holy and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infants of believers that are baptized enter into Heaven Hugo Grotius Mr. T. his great friend for all he vainly thinks he means otherwise here forsakes him saying non loquitur Apostolus de sanctitate naturali c. The Apostle sayes he speaks not of naturall holiness and inhering to the nature of
children but of holiness adhering to them outwardly that is of the holiness of the Covenant for the children of believers are comprehended in the Covenant of grace and so far forth are judged holy of God Well said Hugo What now says Master T. to his beloved Pamphilus being defeated of his Philomena but in the language of Charinus nullane in re cuiquam hominum esse fidem Terent. Andr. The Assemby of Divines consisting of a hundred and fiftie Reverend and learned Ministers indeed the Representative of the Church of England crosses him in this First in the Directory pag. 21. Infants are Christians and federally holy before Baptism and therefore are they Baptized and this confirmed by Ordinance of Parliament Larger Catechism pag. 138 Infants descending from Parents either both or but one of them professing Faith in Christ and obedience to him are in that respect within the Covenant and to be baptized Lesser Catechism pag. 176. Infants of such as are Members of the visible Church are to be baptized in both places quoting 1 Cor. 7. 14. else were your children unclean but now they are holy All these he sayes with Vossius Bullinger the Parliament with hundâ—eds more of the greatest lights the world hath had are meerâ— mistaken and that holiness of Children which is menti 〈…〉 1 Cor. 7. 14. is truly said by him to be onely matrimoniall s 〈…〉 iness or legitimation O infallible Oracle Credite me folium vobis recitare Sibylles we have found another Socrates but with this difference 1. The former was judged the wisest man by the Oracle of Apollo this by his own Oracle and opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I truly said The former was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissembling he knew nothing This other is plain-dealing professing in Mysteries the whole Church was ignorant of before he knowes all things I will not loose time nor blur paper about his Triviall criticism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it be the unbelieving husband is or hath been sanctified in or to or for the wife or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believing wife as Beza's Copies hath it Nor will I take advantage of his grant that it is easie for us to bring ten for one who interpret this Text as we do if we understand it of those who are called Calvinists though he thinks scarce so many of the Papists and Lutherans His impertinent quotation of Augustine Tom. 7. de peccat merito remission c. 26. who rejects not the Covenant-holiness but original holiness I will pass by his Acyrology or Catachresis that in impropriety or abuse of speech the sense might be as he conceived it most likely to be thus understood The unbelieving husband though an unbeliever is sanctified that is all one to his wife in respect of the lawfull enjoyment of him as her husband as â—f he were indeed sanctified to God because forsooth Piscator interprets some thing in the fore going verse so Neither will I take notice of the feebleness of his Argument taken from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies chastitie or to be chast therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie so and because it may signifie therefore it does signifie so because they all come from the same root which I believe is untrue for whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy come from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to worship as Jansenius would have it or from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aretius in his Problems or from the Hebrew word signifying a feast as Pasor from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Beda and the best Grammarians it hath no affinity with the forementioned words These with a miscellanious â—ubbidg of much more I supersede whereby like the Limner that could not draw the picture to the life he casts a veil over the face of truth and with that General that durst not face his enimy raises a thick mist that he may march away in the dark But to his answer That 1 Cor. 7. 14. is meant only of matrimonial holiness or legitimation it was thus replyed That which in Scripture is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for matrimonial holiness or legitimation cannot be so meant here but it is taken in Scripture almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for matrimonial holiness or legitimation therefore it cannot be so meant here In stead of answering he goes about 1. To disgrace this Argument and his Opponent saying it is out of Mr. Baxter What then May not I as well entertain truth from him as Mr. Tombes errour from Grotius the German Anabaptists and them of Alba-Julia Whose Monument he does not only prodigiously erect as Artimesia did of her husband Mausolus but with her drinks drown their very ashes Valer. Max. 171. That in England Ireland Scotland his Trophies are erected Barbara Pyramidum sileat miracula Memphis Secondly he sayes That in six hundred times in which holy is used in Scripture in none of them it is found for outward Covenant holyness entituling to Baptism Entitling to Baptism Is there any such thing in my Syllogism Look you never so strictly to that Gamester he will slir a die Etsi non aliquo nocùisset mortuus esset Let us see how he makes that good anon In the mean time observe how he manages his Bactrian like fight tergiversando shooting over his shoulders which he calls retorting and a right way of answering though it be called indirect by the Logicians What Logicians call it a right way of answering Seton in his Officio Respondentis sayes non est fas ut responsor ulla disputanti objiciat aut questiones proponat suum agat negotium id est objecta repetat repellat solvat It is not lawfull for the Râ—…pondent to object any thing to the Opponent or propound Questions let him tend his own business that is let him repeat the Objections repell unty them with him agrees Crakenthorp Burgersdicius and others Neither do I find any thing that makes for him in his sense its true Keckerman System Log. pag. 444. speaks of an indirect Syllogism which concludes by that which is indirect or absurd which by Aristotle lib. priorum cap. 2. is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Syllogism bringing to that which is impossible And 2. priorum cap 15. is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Syllogism of contraries but this is in the Opponent not unmannerly snatching from him by the Respondent howsoever not to be used to invert the order of the Dispute when there is another way of answering But to return to his retorting Syllogism That which in Scripture is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for Covenant-holiness cannot be meant here but it is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for covenant-holyness Therefore it cannot be meant here I might deny his Major which may be false and mine in a contingent
differ toto coelo Hebr. 11. 6. Enoch pleased God by faith manifesting it self by works in walking with him which Infants cannot do at least in that degree and manner yet are not therefore without faith God loved them as elect from eternity with a love of intention but not before they were in being and had faith with a love of execution which he expressed by blessing of them I said from Scripture-grounds that faith must be allowed them or salvation denyed them but the latter was cruell and impious therefore the former must be godly and pious faith onely purifieth the heart Acts 15. 9. and no unclean thing shall enter into Heaven This he grants saying faith in the seed is sufficient to make them clean which is not denyed may be in Infants But denies that Isai 65. 20. sayes any such thing the contrary whereof hath been formerly proved He takes no notice of the Testimonies of Paraeus Hommius Beza Trelcatius and Vossius but girds at Austin who to Pelagius asking him where he places Infants baptized answers in numero credentium in the number of believers and addes nec judicare aliter ullo modo audebis si non vis esse apertè haereticus neither may thou presume to judge otherwise if thou wilt not be a plain heretick to shake of this load that is laid in the right saddle he sayes Austins words expresses nothing but his own conceit according to the language of the time when as indeed it is the language of Scripture and all ages saving John of Leyden's when he was backed with the German Boars and this present when by reason of our late distractions the hedge of discipline was broken down Mr. Tombes to get him a name with Erostratus took liberty to advance also his Idol thought Antipaedobaptism most plausible whereas according to all antiquity faith in seed or act unknown with Covenant-holiness doth intitle to baptism Mr. Tombes 18 Section THe eight Argument was answered before by denying the Major and Minor and his calling those that expound 1 Cor. 7. 14. of legitimation grosse Anabaptists doth but involve Melanchton Camerarius Musculus c. in the same censure and that it is no bastard as Dr. Featly called it but a genuine exposition is demonstrated at large in my Antipaedobaptism first part and 't is granted that Pagans children are holy in the Apostles sense if lawfully begotten for the sanctifiedness of the yoke fellow and holinesse of the children is not ascribed to the faith of the one parent but to the conjugal relation between them Rom. 11. 16. The first fruits and root are Abraham not every believier the lump and branches are Abraham ' s children by election and faith not every believers nor all Abraham ' s natural children and the holinesse is meant of saving holinesse not meer outward visible holinesse The breaking off and graffing in Rom. 11. 17. are meant of the invisible Church in which sense parents and children are not broken off or graffed in together See my Antipaedobap first part Reply THe eighth Argument was those that are holy with a Covenant-holinesse may be baptized Infants of believing parents are holy with a Covenant-holinesse Therefore they may be baptized The Major and the Minor which he sayes he denyed were proved before to which in the Sermon I further added the Testimonies of Vossius Bullinger Sharpius and his friend Hugo Grotius who all with the Assembly in the confession of faith greater lesser Catechism interpret 1. Cor. 7. 14. of Covenant-holyness nor legitimation as he sayes Melanchton Camerarius and Musculus do which are but three he can name amongst Protestants granting we have ten to one to the contrary he might have said ten times ten and have kept within compasse Dr. Featly called it rightly a bastard exposition which to prove genuine Antipâ—dobap first part he hath spent many words in vain rudis indigestaque moles Nec quicquam nisi pondus iners congestaque eodem Non bene junctarum discordia semina rerum It is absurd to say Pagans children are holy in the Apostles sense when the Apostle speaks there of special priviledges of Christians and the sanctifiednesse of the yoke-fellow and holiness of the children is ascribed to the faith of one parent not to the conjugal relation between them which they had before they were Christians The first fruits and root Rom. 11. 16. are Abraham as remote every believer more immediatly relating to their next posterity The lump and branches are Abraham's children not onely by election and faith but visible Church-membership which involves professors children and the holiness is meant as well of meer outward visible holiness as of saving holiness Thus Grotius loquitur Apostolus de sanctitate foederis credentium liberi foedere gratiae comprehensi sunt eatenùs sancti a Deo censentur The Apostle speaks of Covenant-holiness for the children of believers are comprehended in the Covenant of Grace and therefore are judged holy of God The breaking off and graffing in Rom. 11 17. are meant of the visible Church in which sense parents with children are broken off and graffed in together not of the invisible which would imply Popery Pelagianism and Arminianism if the invisible members the elect could be broken off See Mr. Blake Serm. pag. 7 8. his Answ to Mr. T. page 29. Geree Vindication pag. 23. Mr. Marshals Defence page 134. Cotton pag. 77. to 110. Cobbet pag. 151. to 168. Mr. Baxter pag. 44. to 50. Mr. Tombes 21 Section NInth Argument tells us of dangerous absurdities if Infants should be out of Covenant under the Gospel But this is not all one as to be baptized we may grant them to be in Covenant of grace and yet not to be baptized and to be baptized and yet not in the Covenant of grace But let us view the absurdites First Infants saith he would be loosers by Christs coming and in worse condition than the Jewish Infants were they with the parents were admitted to the seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision not parents with Children to Baptism Answ I ratheâ— think that by being not admitted to Circumcision the condition of parents children is the better by Christs Coming sith as Mr. C. teacheth here page 100. Circumcision is the yoke Acts 15. 10. Of which the Apoâ—â—le â—aith neither we nor our fathers were able to bear it and is so far from being the seal of the Covenant of grace that they are Mr. C. own words Circumcision was the seal or ordinance by which the Jewes were bound to observe the Doctrine and the Law meaning of Moses 2. Were it imagined a pure Evangelical priviledge yet sure it is not such a priviledge but parents and children did well without it before Abrahams time and all the femals from Abrahams dayes till Christs I suppose what ever priviledge it were it was abundantly recompensed by Christs coming without Infant baptism except a meer empty title of visible Church membeâ—ship which yet