illuminations and operations of both experimentally IN MEE So 2 Pet. 1.5 Giving all diligence add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in your faith or through your faith vertue that is that the rest of the graces may come in into faith or through faith into the soul or that vertue may be in faith As it is said Galathians 5 6. faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inwardly effectually working by love That is Faith is effectuall faith when true heart warming love is in it breaking forth in act Jam. 2. Mr Tombes doth know that virtutes connectuntur morall vertues are connexed much more when by a higher principle of the spirit they are made theologicall graces and he doth know that there are generall directive vertues justice and prudence as the eyes to all the rest as master veines to all the lesser And therefore all vertues are said to be knit together in prudence So all graces in faith If the understanding and the will be as some learned will the same faculty really and the soul infused by the concreation of God at once yet in order of working the act of understanding is first in nature So though all the graces bee but one habit infused at first at the same time yet faith in Christ is first as the Apostle setts it first in this 2 Pet. 1.5 in order of acting or of applying Christ for additionall infusion and augmentation of graces which is Peters businesse in hand And so faith adds vertue vertue comes into the soul in and through faith So Act. 4.12 There is no other name under heaven given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in men into men effectually or extant in the midst of men among men So 1 Cor. 7.15 But God hath called us mee and you Corinthiaens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in peace into peace setled us in a state of inward peace So Math. 17.12 Elijah is already come that is John Baptist and you have done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in him whatsoeuer yee would you have have chopped the axe into his neck you have exercised your cruelty upon him So lastly Act. 7.44 The Tabernacle of witnesse was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Congregation or Church of our fathers in the wildernesse As they then are said to be a Church v. 38. 2 We answer to Mr Tombes his assertion upon these instances that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be rendred or better rendred To the wife in the dative case it disadvantageth us nothing in the meaning of this text which before we have asserted But helps us to Mr Tombes his confession to agree with us now contrary to his former struggle in this that the unbeleeving husband is not any how sanctified in himselfe or to himselfe by the beleeving wife but is sanctified onely to her And therefore is not sanctified from any thing common to both But sanctified to her quâ beleever as shee is a beleever and opposite to his condition of unbeliefe and therefore her faith hath the onely stroke under Christ and his Spirit to sanctifie the unbeleeving husband as sanctifying is here meant Thus we have wearyed our selves and perhaps the reader in a long answer to a large argument Yet in some sence Non suns long a quibus nihil est quod demere possis The rest which Mr Tombes speakes to this argument is built upon this as to be granted as he saith that matrimoniall holines must needs be here meant which we cannot grant but can overthrow and we hope have so done though we have not said all that may be said Only one thing Mr T. adds which is not founded upon his imagined supposition Namely whereas Beza saith Mr T. inferrs that if matrimoniall holynesse should be the sence of this place the Apostle should draw an argument from civill lawes to pacifie conscience Mr Tombes answers that the Apostle using his Apostolicall authority resolves the doubt in this chapter and teacheth that according to Gods law and Christs precept the marriage is not dissolved by the infidelity of either yoke-fellow c. To which we reply that the Corinthians could not scruple about not be ignorant of that which for many ages was notoriously divulged throughout the Gentile World by their civill lawes They knew well enough who were adulterers and formicators who not by their politicke lawes But their scruple is whether conjugall companying with an unbeleever did not spiritually pollute the beleever In this the civill or politick lawes of men were silent and could not resolve it And the rules of civill marriage could not satisfie it being matter of faith CHAP. VII THe Argument from Mat. 19.15 Mar. 10.14.16 Luke 18.15 16 17. may be formed in divers manners Exercitat First thus S. 6. The Arguments from Mat. 19.15 for Infant-Baptism examined They are to be buptized whom Christ commands to be brought to him being moved with indignation towards his disciples that repelled them But Christ commands Infants to be brought to him Ergo. That this Argument may be examined it is to be considered 1. Who they were that brought these children 2. What little children they were that were brought 3. Upon what motives 4. To what end 5. What time 6. In what place they brought them 7. For what cause the Apostles did repell them 8. For what cause Christ being angry with the Apostles commanded them to be brought In many of these we have scarce any thing beside conjectures which we may follow neither have I leisure or books to look into all things which Commentators have discoursed concerning these heads As for the 1 it is supposed that the bringers were either parents or other beleevers who at lest wished well to the little children which is probable from the end for which they brought them to wit that he might blesse them and pray for them for this sheweth faith and love As for the second it is probable they were children of Iews because this was done in the coasts of Iudea Mat. 19.1 Mar. 10.1 But whether the parents of the children beleeved in Christ or otherwise is not manifest As for the third concerning the motive there is little certain whether it were upon the sight or hearing of that which Christ did Mat. 18.2 or from a custome among the Iews of seeking the blessing of Prophets and holy men for their little ones as Rebekah for Iacob Ioseph for his sons or from the fame of things done upon the prayers of Christ or an instinct from God that occasion might be given of teaching the things that Christ taught upon this matter or some other motive As for the fourth the end is expressed by Matthew that he might put on hands and pray by Mark and Luke that he might touch them which tends to impart a blessing As for the fifth Matthew points at the time by the particle then and both Mark and Matthew put it after the dissertation with the Pharisees concerning divorce and the answer to the Disciples exception which Mark
signifying or implying Baptisme So the Scriptures so Irenaeus and the Fathers mean by Born-again new born or regenerated though Mr. T. denies it Scriptures The first Scripture is in Joh. 3.5 Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit Where the Spirit signifies the inward work accompanying or following where God converts the outward signe seal and conveighance of Baptisme as we have before discussed this place where we have given you the generall consent of orthodox Authors and some Reasons that the water of Baptisme is here understood We now adde first the water of baptisme must be here meant because of the order water is put first the Spirit next Now where a metaphoricall epithite or word is put to set forth the nature of the Spirit the Spirit is put first and the metaphoricall terme or word after Matth. 3. Baptized with the holy Ghost and fire that is with the holy Ghost which is like fire Secondly Christ is speaking to Nicodemus one of the Pharisees who did put much in outward legall and ceremonious washings Mark 7.1 2 c. Therefore doubtlesse Christ would apply his speech sutable to the condition of Nicodemus to take him off that washing by propounding to him the Gospel washing of Baptisme already begun by John Baptist on which usually followed an inward effectuall work of washing by the Spirit Both these Reasons are hinted by Beza who by all means would rather have an externall washing here meant beside the inward of the Spirit And prevents an objection that grace is not here tyed to the Sacrament of Baptisme the peculiar Sacrament of regeneration saith he no more then it is to the Lords Supper Ioh. 6.53 Besides saith he there is mention after of the Spirit without water Thirdly regeneration is attributed to the outward and more common means of preaching the Word 1 Pet. 1.23 why not therefore to Baptisme the peculiar Sacrament of regeneration And so Nicodemus hath here for the businesse in hand which is his conversion all three means compleatly represented to him Christs word Baptisme and the holy Spirit We list not to abound in proof of a thing so plain and commonly received If one or two think otherwise it is not of weight to say so without proof Nor do I know any reason why any should dissent unlesse for a dream of tying grace to Sacraments which Beza and others excellently take off or for fear of mens private interests in an argument which is not considerable The second Scripture is Tit. 3.5 According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost Where washing according to divers learned orthodox Authors signifies or implyes Baptisme The reasons that evince our consent is 1. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for washing signifies not so much the act of bare washing as the place where the water is and the action is done For it signifies a Bath or laver of water and therefore cannot be so fitly applyed to the inward washing of the Spirit as to outward baptisme 2 The spirituall working of the Spirit follows in the next clause The making of us new by the Spirit 3 It is usuall with the holy Ghost to call the whole work by the name of the outward signe of baptisme Gal. 3.27 Col. 2.12 even as Circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 17. though but the signe or seal of the Covenant Thus of the Scriptures that by the words born again new born or the like is signified or implyed baptisme sutably to Scriptures Secondly Irenaeus takes his own word Renascuntur that is born again or new born to signifie baptisme Compare that place of Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 18. where speaking of the corruptions by Hereticks touching redemption and Baptisme c. he hath these words in the beginning of the Chapter This kind that is of Sect was sent by Satan for the denying of the Baptisme of regeneration or new birth towards or according to God and for the destruction of the whole faith This place clears the thing and Mr. T. his exceptions which are 1 possibly this might not be Irenaeus his words 2 That Irenaeus is corrupted by the Latin Translation we wanting the Greek copie To which we answer That this quotation out of the first book and 18. Chap. of Irenaeus takes away both objections For Mr. T. his Rivet confesseth That the first 27. Chapters of the first book of Irenaeus are inserted in Epiphanius his Panarium which we have in Greek And so much of Irenaeus entirely is to be had in Greek in Irenaeus his works And accordingly Epiphanius saith that That circumcision continued serving to the time till the greater circumcision came which is the laver of regeneration So Epiphan lib. 2. cap. 28. We have not time to seek more though he speaks often of baptisme sometimes calling it the great circumcision sometimes onely the laver c. But Mr. T. objects Mr. T. EXAMEN Sect. 4. that Voss Thes Theolog. de Paedobapt intimates that the proper acception of renascuntur that is born again or new-born is to signifie sanctification We answer Vossius doth not speak so much for Mr. T. but against him in this point Animadvers as we conceive Whether we conceive aright let the Reader judge Vossius his words are these We can prove by apparent testimonies of them that lived before the Pelagian Heresie that Infants were baptized Such a testimony is Irenaeus lib. 2. cap. 39. Where he saith Christ came to save all by himself all I say who by him are born-again or new-born by him towards God infants and little ones c. where by the word born again or new-birth is set forth Baptisme according to the common form of speech of the Ancients Although if we take the word born-again curiously yet in as much as Irenaeus saith regeneration is in Infants It sufficiently refuteth the opinion of them who indeavour by this Argument to prove that because regeneration as they think may not be in Infants that therefore they may not be signed with the outward signe So Vossius But Mr. T. objects again M. T. EXAM Sect. 4. that Irenaeus his scope is to confute the Gnosticks that hold Christ did not exceed 31. yeers of age against whom Irenaeus alledgeth that Christ lived in every age that by his age and example he might sanctifie every age We answer Animadvers But Irenaeus layes the foundation of his sanctifying all sorts of ages in this that they are new-born by Christ to Godward both Infants and little ones and then follows he was made an Infant to Infants to sanctifie them having before regenerated them whereof what signe is there to us but Gods institution and act that Infants should have the first seal But Mr. T. yet further objects Mr T. EXAM Sect. 4. that Irenaeus speaks not of baptisme because he saith Born again by him that is by Christ We answer Animadvers That Mr.
afford some friendly proofes by consequence of iâ— Fourthly the holinesse of the child externall and visible is from their parents who are or ought to be catechized conâ—â—â—tors pâ—nitenâ— and Protestants in trueth which priviledge only open revolt disables them from therefore I say The seed being holy and belonging to the Covenant the Lord graciously admits them also to the seal of it in baptisme Howbeit here a further quaerie arises And because the Sacrament of Baptisme is here handled by us Question How it is capable 1 Pet. 3.21 not a halfe a Sacrament onely including a washing of the flesh but an entire Sacrament holding out and giving an invisible grace by out-ward meanes By what authority shall wee say an Infant may be presented to that whereof it is not capable To that I answer Answer First it 's not meete that Baptisme being the Sacrament of new birth which can be but once should destroy her owne Analogy by frequent administering therefore if but once the most comprehensive way is to do it in the Infancy when the outward admission of a member is allowed to it Secondly although the child be not capable of the grace of the Sacrament by that way whereby the growne are by hearing conceiving and beleeving yet this followes not that Infants are not capable of Sacramentall grace in and by another way Pittifull are the shifts of them that have no other way to stoppe an Anabaptists mouth save by an errour that an Infant may have faith It 's easie to distinguish between the gift conveyed and the manner of conveying it For if the former be the latter in such case will prove needlesse But if the infant be truly susceptive of the substance of Christ none can deny it the Sacrament Now to understand this marke that Infants borne of beleeving parents are of the number of those that shall be saved though dying in their Infancy none of our reformed Churches will deny It is enough therefore that such before death doe partake the benefit of Election in Christ together with the benefits of Christ in regeneration adoption redemption and glory Now that the Spirit can apply these unto such Infants is not doubted of Though the manner thereof to us be as a hidden and mysticall thing yet so it is the Spirit of Christ can as really unite the soul of an Infant to God imprint upon it the true title of a sonne and daughter by adoption and the image of God by sanctification without faith as with it Now if the grace it selfe of Bapâ—â—sme be thus given it why not Baptisme Nay I add further I see no cause to deny that even in and at and by the act of Baptisme as the necessity of the weake infant may admit the Spirit may imprint these upon the soule of the Infant Thus Master Rogers Where by his quotation of Scriptures and discussâ— of arguments you may see what he meant by Apostâ—licall tradition CHAP. XV. Exercitat Argu. 6. §. 19. The argument against Infant-baptisme from humane inventions occasioned by it confirmed THe sixth Argument followes That which hath occasioned many humane inventions partly by which Infant-baptisme it selfe may be under-propped partly the defect in the policy of the Church which in very deed is to be supplied by the lawfull use of Baptisme Of that it is deservedly doubtfull whether it be not in it selfe weake and insufficient for its proper work But the matter is so in the businesse of Infant-baptisme Ergo. The Minor is proved by instances they are 1. The use of suerties in Baptisme which is an humane invention for a shadowy supplement and I had almost said sporting of that profâ—ssion of faith which at first was made by the baptized in his owne person 2. Episcopall confirmation in which the Bishop layes hands or anoints the Catechized that Baptisme or the Baptized may be confirmed and they made capable of the Lords Supper 3. The reformed union by exâ—mination confession subscriptition of the received doctrine in the Church before the communion of the Eucharist of which Parker of Eccles policie l. 3. c. 16. 4. The Church-covenant as they call it afore the admission of members into Church-fellowship of which the New-England Elders in the little booke in English called Church-Covenant which in very deede are devised to supply the place of Baptisme for by Baptisme according to Christs institution a person is exhibited a member of Christ and the Church 1 Cor. 12.13 Gal. 3.27 Ephes 4.5 THe seventh Argument Arg. 7 § 20. The argument against Infant-baptisme from the Errors occasioned by it confirmed That which hath occasioned many errors that is deservedly doubtfull whether it be right But the practise of Infant-baptisme hath occasioned either the birth or fostering of many errors Ergo. It is proved by instances 1. That Baptisme conferres grace by the worke done 2. That Baptisme is Regeneration 3. That Infants dying are saved by the faith of their Parents faith of Sureties of the Church receiving into her lap which is to be ascribed alone to the grace of God by Christ 4. That some regenerate persons may utterly fall from grace THe eight Argument That which hath caused many abuses and faults in Discipline Arg. 8 §. 22. The argument against Infant-baptisme from many abuses caused by it confirmed and Divine worship and Conversation of men that is deservedly doubtfull But Infant-Baptisme is such Ergo. It is proved by enumeration 1. Private baptisme 2. Baptisme by women 3. Baptisme of Infants not yet brought into light 4. Baptisme of Infants of uncertaine progeny whom we call children of the earth and world 5. They are baptized in the name of the Lord who know not the Lord nor have ever consented or perhaps will consent to the confession of the name of our Lord. 6. It hath brought in the admission of ignorance and profane men into the communion of the Church and to the Lords Supper for who can deny rightly the right of the Church to the baptized 7 It perverts the order of discipline that first a man be baptized and after among the catechized 8 The Sacrament of baptisme is turned into a meer Ceremony yea into a profane meeting to feast together 9 Men forget Baptisme as if they were never baptized so that it hath the force of a carnall rite not of a spirituall Institution 10 It takes away or at least diminisheth zeale and industry in knowing the Gospel THe ninth Argument That is deservedly doubtfull Argum 9 § 22. The argument from unnecessary disputes caused by it against Infant-baptisme confirmed that yeeldeth occasion to many unnecessary disputes fostering only contention and which cannot be determined by any certain rule But the tenet or rite of Infant-baptisme is such Ergo. It is proved by instances 1 Of baptizing the Infants of Excommunicated persons 2 Of baptizing the Infants of Apostates 3 Of baptizing the Infants of such Parents as are not members in a gathered Church 4 Of
New Testament as in the Old to them the application of the first signe or Seale of the New Testament may be applyed as well as the first of the Old Testament But this Tenor of the Covenant of grace still in force is as true and doth as truly runne to a believing Gentile I am thy God and the God of thy seed as it did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Ergo the first Seale of the Covenant may be applyed to Believers children now in the New Testament as well as in the Old Testament to Abrahams The Major is plaine because in Gen. 17. the tenor of the Covenant and the application of the first Seale are knit into a dependence one upon another I am the God of thee and thy seed see v. 7 8. Therefore thou shalt circumcise every male v. 9. c. The Minor is unquestioned of any that I know 3 Form of Argum. from Gen. 17. Where there is the same reason of a Precept there may be the same practice But the Promise which is the reason of the Precept runnes in the New Testament as flowing from Gen. 17. to Believers and their children The Promise is to you and your children Act. 2.39 Ergo. That this of Act. 2. flowes from Gen. 17. Observe these particulars 1 A Promise recited musts needs relate to a former ingagement and to them to whom he speaks viz. Jewes 2 And the or that promise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 musts needs relate to some eminent Promise as that to Abraham was 3 Some passages have an intimation of the Covenant with Abraham viz. 1 It is in relation to the Covenant of grace now to be sealed with the first Seale Ergo to that with Abraham Gen. 17. 2 It answers in words It is to you and your children all one with you and your seed And mentions calling as God calling Abraham accepted his seed c. Ergo Infer that the same reason on which the administration of Circumcision was grounded the administration of Baptisme was grounded So that the Apostle doth not only shew how Baptisme comes in the roome of Circumcision but that it comes in the roome and is administred upon the same ground Ergo to the same matter or subject For children now as well as Gen. 17. are alike capable of that ground So the children here are made free of Gods Citie the universall Church by the Fathers Coppy whether the Father be present as the Jew to whom the Apostle spake or farre off either Jewe whether unregenerate and farre off in time or scattered and so farre off in place or Gertile that is farre off in both if any of these are called the Promise is to them and their children If any Gentile believe he is a child of Abraham Rom. 4. Gal. 3. and so the promise and first Seale are to him and his children as the Promise and Circumcision were to Isaac and his children And therefore when Zacheus is converted presently it is said Salvation is come to his house for as much as be also is the sonne of Abraham Luk. 19.9 Quest But is not the Promise here meant of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy-Ghost as to speake with tongues doe Miracles c. Ans 1. How then doth this suit with the Promise to Abraham to which this Text relates as we proved afore 2 The Apostle applies the Promise here meant to his hearers now present for their salvation whiles they cryed out in their unregenerate estate what shall we doe 3 All did not receive these extraordinary gifts But all that are baptized into Christ must receive the saving gifts of the Holy-Ghost Matth. 3. Therefore this Promise is to be extended beyond the gifts of Miracles or other extraordinary gifts of the Spirit c. For as all agree that these were but the First-fruites of the effusion of the Spirit in that visible manner to signifie the abundant effusion of the saving gifts of the Spirit in an invisible manner in future ages So that this must be a a Promise to all Believers and so to their children or seed indefinitely that they shall receive the Holy-Ghost Quest But are not these words as many as the Lord shall call an explication of Children so that the Promise is to their children with this condition if they shall be called Ans No. For first If so then the Apostle needed not to say to you and your children but only to have said the Promise is to you and to all the Lord shall call But this Promise is applyed to them the Parents afore their calling that it is to them as they are children according to birth of Abraham a Believer to the end to call them and so to be continued to them when called and their children and then it followes And to all that are a farre off when they shall be called and so to their children so it must be supplyed so that Calling is an explication of the sentence to them that are a farre off 2 The Apostle speaks to the Jewes to the end to better rather then to worse their condition But their children by vertue of the outward priviledge and Tenor of the Covenant to and with them the parents had the signe of Circumcision therefore by the Apostles intent their children should also have Baptisme If this had not been the Apostle meaning he had left these Jewes children and all their Infant-posterity in no better condition then the most barbarous Heathens then in the world and this had spoyled these Jewes comfort and crossed the Apostles designe to draw them to Conversion and the new Sacrament of Baptisme for confirmation of that Conversion Now we go on with the place in Gen. 17. Namely 3 Observe that this Covenant is called everlasting which cannot be truly and properly so said of this and other Ceremonies but as relating to Christ Therefore if the Covenant be everlasting to them and their seed indefinitely as Election is propounded in the Scripture to us then the sealing of it outwardly to both them and their seed must be everlasting to the worlds end and to all eternity inwardly to whom it is effectuall And therefore as in the Old-Testament it was sealed by Circumcision so in the New-Testament by Baptisme Now we come to animadvert upon Mr. Tombes his formes of Argument from Gen. 17. as reported by him 1 Argument saith Mr. Tombes Exercitat Sect. 1. or at least the 1. form of Argument To whom the Gospel-Covenant agrees to them the signe of the Gospel-Covenant agrees also But to the Infants of Believers the Gospel-Covenant agrees therefore to them the signe of the Gospel-Covenant agrees And consequently Baptisme The minor is proved Gen. 17.7 Thus Mr. Tombes layes downe the Argument But we ourselves should more cautiously forme it thus Examinat To whom the Gospel-Covenant agrees to them the signe of conveighance of the Gospel-Covenant agrees c. For the Institution in this 17. of
That it was a sleight conjecture if any infants were here that they were baptized If they were in this house as sure they were baptized as that they were the Goalers Sixthly to that ver 34. He rejoyced believing God â—â—â—h all his houshold which is one of Mr. Tombes his evincing arguments we say that the Greek must be accuratly heeded that we may speak just so as the Spirit spake For first that which divers render confidently with all his house is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Adverbe which signifies neither with nor his nor house but throughout or over all the house or family 2 That the pointing and placing of the words in the English doth not answer so well to the best Greek copies as it may For the Greek copies that Arius Pagn old lat which followeth an ancient Greek and therefore very considerable in its various readings of words and points saith learned Vsher put away the point at rejoyced so that no more can be evinced but that which is in the words which is this HE joyed with exultation or triumph over towards or throughout all his house or family HE having believed God So just according to the true idiom and proprietie and order of words in all Greek copies and according to the pointing in the best reason assenting for why did he exult or skip as in a dance of a Galliar as the Greek imports with triumph but because he beleeved He believing rejoyced triumphantly He rejoycing with triumph his families joyes were raised and lightned even children smile when the parents rejoyce Let them therefore look to this that mash the Text and un pronounce unperson and unnumber the words and dispoint the sentences as if it were to be read the Goaler rejoyced because all his family actually believed 7 That though Mr. T. answers to Crispus yet nothing to Gaius * Coâ—sult 3. ep of Joh. v. 1. And the new Notes on the Bible upon it for sure he had a family as well as Crispus nor to the family of Stephanas Is any Anabaptist sure there were no infants in these families Or that they were not baptized why then do they put it upon us as an infallibilitie that no infants were baptized in these families or any else For that of Crispus Mr. T. and I must leave it as we find it It appears not evidently in the Grammar of the words that Crispus was baptized CHAP. IX SOme other Arguments occur Exercitat which make a number without strength Why then doth Mr Tombes reckon upon ciphers Animadver 〈◊〉 Exercitat § 5. The Argument from generall promises for Infant-baptisme examined it is argued from generall promises made to the godly and their seed Exod. 20.6 Psal 112.2 c. Whence it is gathered That God makes a difference between the children of the godly and the wicked that he promiseth blessing to those not to these therefore the children of the godly are to be baptized not the other Answ The promises recited are first generall and indefinite secondly for the most part concerning corporall good things thirdly with the exception of free Election fourthly to be understood with the imployed condition of faith and repentance and so they serve not to this purpose We Reply to the first If generall and indefinite from God Animadver therefore not to be restrained by men from all those God mentions To the second If for the most-part concerning corporalls yet Mr T. dares not say altogether If some spirituals meant it is to the purpose secondly In Exod. 20.6 The judgements there on sinne must needs signsfie those that are spirituall therefore by the Antithesis spirituall mercies must be understood Thirdly In that 112. Psal v. 2. To expound that The seed of the upright shall be blessed that is with outward things were to say they should have no more then what multitudes if not most of wicked mens children have which in Gospell-English were to say they are cursed Their table may be made a snare Psal 69.22 And these are the ungodly that prosper in the world Psal 73.12 To the third That the promises to men of ripe years also are with the exception of Free Election So Rom. 9.18 Speaking of them that stood in opposition over against rebellious Pharaoh To the fourth we say first That promises must be considerable in the eyes of men so as to come waite under the pressing them or else they will not be comfortable meanes to work actuall faith and repentance in them Secondly That Mr T. cannot say that Infants are uncapable of faith For if Iohn Baptist whiles a child was full of the holy Ghost sure he had that fruit of it faith in the habit And those little ones Ghrist blessed could not be blessed without union with Christ which is by the spirit of faith Secondly Exercistat § 9. The Argument from Isa 49.22 for Infant-baptisme examined from Isai 49.22 it is foretold that Gentiles should therefore the Prophet foresaw in Spirit the baptisme of the little ones of the Gentiles Answ First little ones might be brought for other ends then baptisme as Mat. 19.15 Secondly I will use the words of Francis Iunius in his Annotations on the place All these things are said Allegorically of the spirituall amplification of the Kingdome of Christ as the Prophets are wont they are fulfilled in the perswasions in which the Gentiles exhorted their children to imbrace Christ We Reply Animadver To the first That Infants in that place Mat. 19.15 were brought for an higher thing then Baptisme as we shewed and Mr T. confessed afore on that Text therefore might be brought to a lower viz. Baptisme Secondly sure they should bring their children to the congregations of the Churches to which Kings and Princes shall submit spiritually as Constantine c. did and this the Gentile parents should do for their children in bringing them upon the lifting up of Gods hand and Standard that is the preaching of the Gospell as Mr T. his Iunius note son that place And therefore must bring their children whom they were fain to carry in their Armes and on their shoulders for somewhat these children might have from the Gospell or else as good they had been left at home in the cradle or bed And there is no former or lower Ordinance for children then the first Seal as in the Old Testament so in the New To the second The words of Iunius We Reply first So the Gentiles might exhort their children but it must be long after they ceased to carry them in their armes and on their shoulders when they could more then go of themselvs 2. Take Calvins words into the ballance with Iunius The Prophet pronounceth That the children of the Gentiles should be given to the Church But how if not in and by the first Ordinance if not the least Baptisme Exercitat § 20. The Argument from 1 Cor. 10.2 â—isme examined Thirdly from 1 Cor.
namely Vnction and to prove that neither Vnction or imposition of hands were Sacraments which though he proves by this argument that they were only appendices of Sacraments yet he doth not assert as from himselfe or from Antiquity that imposition of hands was to be conjoyned with Baptisme but rather tels us the contrary partly from himselfe partly from those authors he quotes As that the rule of the Roman Church was that they gave in command that men should be reconciled by imposition of hands Sect. 53. That reciliation is proper to repentance Sect. 54. That though confirmation belongs to the solemnities of Baptisme yet after a while after Baptisme To Mr T. his Quotation of HIERONIMVS Tom. 2. In his Diolog Adv. Lucif 1. We reply that if Hieronimus doth confesse imposition of hands on them that had been baptized though he doth not alleadge all Scriptures for it and so not that Heb. 6.2 the antiquity holds good that Imposition of hands was used to bee after applyed to them that have been baptized 2. That Hieronimus in that place quotes other places then the Acts of the Apostles and speakes to our purpose thus Orth. Neither can it be that he that is holy in Baptisme can be a sinner c. Luc. I receive a Lay penitent person by Imposition of hands and invocation of the Holy Spirit Knowing that the Holy Spirit is not conferred by Hereticks Orth. Seeing that hee that is baptized in the name of the father sonne and holy spirit is made the Temple of God c. it appeares that Baptisme is not without the holy spirit And to prove that that place Acts 19.2 did suppose they had received the saving gifts of the Spirit in Baptisme he brings Math. 3. That Johns Baptisme was a Baptisme of Repentancè into remission of sinnes And a little after if John did not baptize in the Spirit then not into remission of sinnes For no mans sinnes are remitted without the spirit So Hieronimus Wherefore he supposes Imposition of hands may be on them that had the spirit in Baptisme afore So Hieronimus with much more which we omit to avoyde tediousnesse Thus far of Mr Tombes his first Argument against Infant-Baptisme CHAP. XI THe second Argument followeth Exercitat That which agreeth not with the Lords institution of Baptisme Argu. 2 § 15. The Argument from the institution of Christ Mat. 28.19 against Infant-baptisme confirmed that is deservedly doubtfull But the rite of Infant-Baptisme agrees not with the Lords institution of Baptisme Ergo. The Major is proved because Institution is the rule of exhibiting worship to God The Minor is proved from the words of Institution Mat. 28.19 Going therefore disciple ye all nations baptizing them Whence I gather thus That rite agrees not with the Lords Institution of Baptisme according to which they are baptized whom the Lord appointed not to be baptized But after the rite of Infant-Baptisme they are baptized whom the Lord appointed not to be baptized Ergo. The Major is manifest of it selfe The Minor is proved The Lord appointed not Infants to be baptized Ergo. The Antecedent is proved Those and no other the Lord appointed to be baptized who have been made Disciples But this cannot be said of Infants Ergo. The Argument is confirmed from Iohn 4.2 where it is said that Iesus made more disciples then that he baptized first it is said that be made disciples then baptized Some one perhaps will say that Baptisme of Infants is elsewhere instituted although not here To which is answered Let he that can bring forth that institution and the doubt will be loosed But Infants may be disciples for they may be sanctified by the Spirit Answ It is true Infants may be sanctified by the Spirit of God purged by the blood of Christ saved by the grace of God my minde abhors from the doctrine of them that assert That Infants not baptized necessarily perish or are deprived of the Kingdome of God nor do I doubt but that the Elect Infants dying in Infancy are sanctified yea if it should be made known to us that they are sanctified I should not doubt that they are to be baptized remembring the saying of Peter Act. 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have receined the holy Ghost as we Then you will say make disciples in that place may be so expounded as that it may include Infants Answ It follows not but this onely follows that in case extraordinary we may depart from the ordinary rule But the ordinary rule is make disciples that is by preaching the Gospell make disciples as appears from Mark 16.15 and baptize them to wit whom you have made disciples and in the ordinary course of Ministery we must follow the ordinary rule Perhaps some one will except that Christ teacheth that such disciples should be baptized but that the speech is not exclusive Refut But it is meet he remember who shall thus except if institution be the rule of worship it is necessary that he that shall administer the worship binde himself to the rule otherwise he will devise will-worship and arrogate the Lords authority to himself Surely the Apostle in the businesse of the Lords Supper insinuates this when being about to correct the aberrations of the Corinthians concerning the Lords Supper he brings forth these words 1 Cor. 11.23 For I have received of the Lord that which I also have delivered unto you Besides as Christ Mat. 19.4.8 argues from the institution of Marriage against Divorce for a light cause and Polygamy because it is said Two not more then two shall be one flesh so in like manner it may be here argued Christ said Baptizing them and not others therefore these and not others are to be baptized But as for him who gathers from this place Infants are to be baptized because Christ Commands all Nations to be baptized verily he is faulty 1. In casting away that restriction that Christ hath put 2. By determining that all men whatsoever are to be baptized so that this is not a priviledge of beleevers and their children but common with them to all Infidels and their children And in very deed however assertors of Infant-baptisme crack of a priviledge of beleevers and their off-spring not onely the usuall practise of baptising any little children offered but also Sayings prove that men have gone far not onely from Christs institution but also from the principles upon which men at this day are busie to establish Infant-baptisme I shall prove this by some instances In the 59 Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus from which Augustine is wont in his disputations-against the Pelagians to take his proof for Infant-baptisme and to which Writers attribute much although that I may say no worse without cause this reason is put why it was not assented to Biship Fidus who thought that an Infant was not to be baptized afore the eighth day according to the Law of ancient Circumcision We
Churches it is Endoctrinez teach ye Of the High Dutch Lebret teach ye of the Low-Dutch Leert teach And likewise in Hutter his N. Testament set forth in 12. Languages in so many of them as I can guesse at it is rendred onely teach ye His Syr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach ye Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach ye Lat. Deâ—â—te teach ye Ital. Insegnate teach ye Of German Dutch French we heard afore Mark the Euangelist also renders it Mark 16.15 onely by preach Secondly it is evident the word in the Greek is taken divers wayes and here is no note of circumstance in Matth. 28.19 to prove that it must signifie to make-disciples Thirdly the command is for the Apostle to preach to all Nations though they should not disciple or discipulate all If it s objected that if the word in Matth. 28.19 according to Mar. 16.15 signifies but to teach or preach yet mention of baptizing immediately follows teaching or preaching We answer So is baptizing expressed to follow believing saying He that beleeveth and is haptized shall be saved But in converting the Proposition that is in turning it negatively it is not said He that is not baptized shall be damned because Infants as Mr. T. confessed afore though of a day old unbaptized may have the sanctifying Spirit Therefore may be baptized Act. 10.47 Our Answer then is that Teaching and baptizing doth not run evenly together Secondly we now observe that the Lord having said go preach to all Nations he addes baptizing them indefinitely not expressing all or some for them doth not in the Greek agree Grammatically with Nations and so must needs leave us to compare this Text with other Texts afore-written As with Gen. 17. where though Noah 1 Pet. 3.19.2.2 Pet. 2.5 and Enoch Jude v. 14. had preached to all the old world yet so contrary to teaching were they that but eight persons were left alive by the Flood and of these that remained alive even to or quite to the time of Abraham but few were taught-men as Noah that dyed the yeer before Abrahams birth Shem alias Melchisedech and Abrahams father Terah and Lot few more about this time Job was long after about Moses his time were taught persons Now among the these taught men God would to Abraham communicate the first signe or seal and he being signed he should signe his children also Or with John Baptists practise who as it is said expresly baptized the parents confessing their sins but doth not exclude by any expression their children So then we must needs conclude that here is no determinating word in Matth. 28.19 to exclude believers Infants And that this Text doth but give in the two main parts of the Apostles commission but not expresly all the parts as the Administration of the Communion nor all the main circumstances of those two as touching childrens baptisme Secondly we answer to the comparison of that place of 1 Cor. 11.28 with Matt. 28.19 Let a man examine himself that the 1 Cor. 11.28 relates as the Apostle there expresseth v. 23. I have received of the Lord that which I delivered I say relates to an expresse institution wherein Christ gave the communion to his Disciples that were of ripe yeers and not to children But that place of Matth. 28.19 relates to no such expresse institution of the first seal excluding Infants but rather refers to such places as do include them as we shewed afore Secondly to that collation or parallel comparing Matth. 26.26 27. with Matth. 28.19 first we reply that 1 Cor. 11.28 declares that Matth. 26.26 27. is intended for an exclusion of unbelievers from the Communion but there is no place to declare to us that the meaning of Matth. 28.19 is to exclude believers children from the first seal Baptisme Obj. But Mr. T. saith he will make it appear in the next Argument that there are places to declare that Matth. 28.19 did intend the exclusion of believers Infants from Baptisme Ans We shall by Gods leave shew that there are none to make any such declaration when by and by we come to answer that Argument Mean while we say secondly that there is no other place to shew that apparent unbeleevers whiles such were admitted to the 2. Sacrament and therefore that institution Matt. 26.26 27. is sufficient to exclude from the Lords Supper But we have largely shewed that there are no places of Scripture to exclude Infants of believers from the first seal but many for including them as belonging to it and therefore we cannot take that generall expression go teach and baptize Matth. 28.19 to intend to exclude them from Baptisme CHAP. I. MR. Tombes his third Argument against Infant-Baptisme Exercit. Argum. 3. Sect. 16. From John Baptist and the Apostles practise is from the Apostles and John Baptist which saith he is the best interpreter of our Lords institution from whence this Argument is formed That tenet and practise which being put Baptisme cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles did administer it agrees not with the practise of John Baptist and the Apostles But the tenet and practise of Infant-Baptisme being put baptisme cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles administred it Ergo. 1. We answer Animadvers This Argument doth not in terms conclude the thing in question For make the supposition that John Baptist and the Apostles the best interpreters of our Lords institution had never any opportunitie or occasion offered to baptize any believers Infants would it therefore follow that the institution did not allow it when it doth not forbid it but leaves it to be referred to the institution of the first seal in the old Testament Moses the best interpreter of the Ceremoniall Law and so of the institution of Circumcision given by God had not any occasion that we read of to our remembrance of circumcising any Jews of ripe yeers would it follow therefore that he might not have done it according to the institution 2. We answer That when Mr. T. is to answer our Argument that the Apostles baptizing whole families likely baptized some Infants he makes it doubtfull whether they baptized any Infants and now Mr. T. puts it out of doubt that they baptized none Or else he would prove one doubt by another But let us come particularly to the Argument The minor namely the tenet and practise of Infant-baptisme being put Baptisme cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles administred is denyed For it doth not appear that they baptized no children But Mr. T. will prove the minor thus Before the baptisme of John even the Jews did confesse their sins the Apostles afore baptisme did require shews of faith and repentance Matth. 3.6 Luk. 3.10 Act. 2.38 Act. 8.12 13 37. Act. 9.18 Act. 20.47 Act. 11. 17 18. Act. 16.15.31 32 33. Act. 18.8 Act. 19.5 Act. 22.16 But this cannot be done in the baptisme of Infants Ergo. We answer by limiting the major That
to be baptized who is not washed in the Baptisme wherewith sinnes are washed away Thus was the Tenet of De Bruis as it is in Mr T. his Cluniacensis Whence observe 1. That De Bruis did hold That no Infants while Infants can have any faith Contrary to that That Iohn the Baptist was filled with the holy Ghost from his mothers womb which filling or in being in a sanctifying manner is by the fruits of the Spirit Love joy faith Gal. 5. As it is said Rom. 5. The love of God that is as part of the meaning the apprehension of the love of God is shed into our hearts BY HIS SPIRIT The little children Mar. 10. had grace because Christ confirmes their grace And all graces go together 2. De Bruis did hold That all whether beleevers Infants or beleevers of ripe yeares dying unbaptized are damned And so condemnes many of the Martyrs to hell 3. By this opinion of De Bruis he falsifies the Text he quotes For though it be sayd in the affirmative joyntly He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved yet it is not said joyntly in the negative that unlesse One de both beleeve and also be Baptized he shall be damned but onely singlely he that beleeveth not shall be damned 4. De Bruis holds that God the principall agent cannot work or doth not work he wants power or will to worke the work of mans Salvation without the Instrument Baptisme So that God is stript of his Prerogative and tyed to meanes 5. That if a man be baptized at ripe years and that by De Bruis or his companion Heinricus they conceiving him to be a beleever yet if it prove after he was not a beleever at that baptisme he is not to be said to have been baptized So that if after indeed that he beleeves he be baptized that is no re-baptizing because his former baptism was nothing By this the Intelligent Reader may see 1. That ill might Mr T. alleadge De Bruis for the Antipaedobaptisme he contends for 2. That well might De Bruis refuse not onely the Fathers but all Orthodox Writers for this is such an Opinion as he knew he must stand alone without company And therefore his best course was to professe it as a singularity 2. M. T. tells us that Cluniacensis saith of De Bruis that he did reject the authority of the Latin Doctors being himselfe a Latine ignorant of the Greek To this I Answer That I have run over with mine eye De Bruis his proposition of Antipaedobaptisme and Cluniacensis his answer and proof but finde not that sentence nor sence that De Bruis was a Latin ignorant of the Greek This I finde that Cluniacensis confesseth of himselfe he was a Latine and not skilled in Greek as we shall shew by and by See ☞ in the Margin a little after in our translation of Cluniacensis and at our third particular in our answer to Mr T. his fourth particular viz. his Observation 3. Mr T. saith that Cluniacensis saying of De Bruis that he did run to the Scriptures Cluniacensis alleadgeth against De Bruis the examples in the New Testament of Christs curing of persons at the request of others to prove Infant baptisme by To this we Answer that the naked truth is this 1. That one of Cluniacensis his businesses was to prove That children were counted neerer to Salvation by the faith of the Parents and so a fortiori urgeth as from the non parentall-kin to the beleeving Parent from the curing of the body to the curing of the soul that Christ cured the bodies of some upon the faith of them that were no Parents that brought them 2. Another of Cluniacensis his businesses was to prove That infants might be saved while Infants and accordingly alleadgeth 1. That as in the first Adam children whiles children dyed spiritually so children whiles childrend might be made alive spiritually in the second Adam Christ 3. That there was not an absolute necessity of a joynt concurrence of baptisme with faith in all that should be saved or else no Salvation For if Cluniacensis had not spoken to this he had for saken the termes and state of the question And therefore urgeth some of the Martyrs and that saying of Christ He that confesseth me before men him will I confesse before my Father in heaven and many other things that some are saved without baptisme that Martyrdome goes for baptisme His fourth businesse was to prove that children might be baptized and for that urgeth Mat. 19. Mar. 10. Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not c. 4. Mr T. makes an observation upon the former passages as he himselfe hath represented them From these passages faith Mr T. I gather that as Petrus Cluniacensis urged for Paedobaptisme the authority of Augustine and the Latine Doctors so Peter de Bruis and Heinricus appealed to the Scriptures and the Greek Church We answer Here Mr T. makes a great treble intimation 1. That Cluniacensis urged Latin Doctors 2. That therefore Augustines Authority was then in the great esteem to carry the question of Infant Baptism 3. That De Bruis did appeal to the Greek Church as if that were for him against Infant Baptisme But I can finde neither of these in Cluniacensis This onely I finde which I suppose is that Mr T. alludes to that Cluniacensis speaks to De Bruis and Heinricus the Apostle as he is called and De Bruis too thus Ad Vestram c. * Ad vestram brutamhaeresin refellendam innumera mihi doctorum Ecclesiasticorumtestimonia suffragantur Sed vestra authoritas sapientia tanta est ut cos coram producere non praesumam maxime cum didicerim Hilarium Ambrosium Augustinum Hieronymum Leonem Gregorium c. judicio majestatis vestrae esse damnatos Cumque Latinos omnes a regno caelorum excluscritis nescio si Gracis vel alterius linguae hominibus peperceritis Quod si forte vel illi sobrietate vestri examinis peremptoriam sententiam evadere potuerunt Mihi quid quantum ad praesens negotium spectat aut parum aut nihil prodest Cum homo tantum Latinus peregrinae linguae quam ignoro testimoniis quibus vos aut convertere possim aut convincere uti non valeam Quia sanctis Ecclesiae Doctoribus fidem praebere dedignamini ad puritlimum rivulorum omnium fontem mihi reverteudum est de Evangelicis Apostolicis seu propheticis dictis testimonia si tamen vel illa suscipitis sunt proferenda That is to refell your brutish heresie innumerable testimonies of the Ecclesiasticall learned Drs give me their Votes But your Authority and wisdome is so great that I may not presume to produce them especially seeing I have understood that you have cast off or excluded Hilary Ambrose Augustine Hierom Leo Gregory c. from the chair of the learned Doctors and from the kingdome of heaven I know not whether you will