THE ARRAIGNMENT, AND CONVICTION OF ANABAPTISM; OR A Reply to Master TOMBS his Plea for Antipaedobaptists. By refutation of his Examen of the Dispute at Aberga●veny, and Sermon on Mark 16. 16. Wherein the Antiquity, Universality, and Succession of Infant-Baptism since the Apostles days, until the Anabaptists sprung up in Germany is maintained, necessity of Dipping refuted. The Arguments for it from the holy Scriptures holden out, and the objections against it assoiled. By John Cragge M. A. and Preacher of the Gospel at Lantilio Pertholy in Monmothshire. The promise is to you, and to your children Acts, 2. 39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athanas. Quaest. 114. ad Antioch. LONDON, Printed by T. W. for H. Twyford, N Brooks. Tho. Dring, J. Place, and are to be Sold at their Shops. 1656. The Anabaptists ANOTAMIZED and SILENCED in a PUBLIC Dispute Engraved frontispiece with four illustrated compartments, showing religious scenes: 1) Anabaptists baptizing adults in a river; 2) the Anabaptist ritual of the laying on of hands; 3) Anabaptists observing the practice of foot-washing; 4) a public disputation, with a preacher speaking to a crowd from the pulpit. The manner of the Anabaptists Dipping Their Laying on of Hands Their Washing of Feet The Disputation T. Cross fec To the Right Honourable Henry Lord Herbert, Thomas Morgan of Machen, John Scudamore of Kent-Church, Henry Herbert of Colbrook, Colonel Thomas hugh's of Matherine, Benjamin Hoskins, George Gwynne, Edmond Jones Esquires, Members of Parliament for their respective Counties. Worthy Patriots, WHom heroic Excellencies have advanced into the Consistory of Gods, and lifted in that Sanhedrim of Angels Tutelar of three Nations,) I present with all humility to your vigilant care, a defence of that cause which is, and aught to be infinitely dearer to you, than any private interests; as whereupon infallibly depends the Peace of Church, and State, which (me thinks) should seem a Paradox to none, who seriously weighs the former sad disasters of Germany compared with our present distractions, both taking their spring, and growth in a great measure from Anabaptism; which reason with experience dictates; for by their principles whole Nations are unchurched, and none received into Communion but by re▪baptizing, all former members esteemed as Publicans, and Heathens; hence Magistracy, and Ministry that dissents, are by them wholly disgusted, if not discarded. Though doubtless a respect ought to be had of tender consciences, in patronage whereof (its known) I have suffered as much as the most of my condition, yet I never judged promiscuous toleration without distinction to be Gospel-proof. The pious watchmen of the Church have been always cautious, least under that notion Schism, and Heresy should creep in; The starved Snake, when she gins to warm, infects the whole house, and puts out the sting to the disturbance of her fosterer. The Church Christ's spouse is but one, a Dove without Gall, harmoniously agreeing in fundamentals, not quarrelling seditiously in superstructures, but submitting with meekness to authority, that the unity of the spirit may be kept in the bond of Peace. The rule by which the keys, and sword are steered, aught to be certain, which is the Scripture, not private men's pretended consciences, which too often are defiled, like Lesbian r●les, bendable any way, differing one from another like Clocks, and all from the Sun Dial of the Word, and Spirit. Magistrates are custodes utriusque tabulae, Guardians as well of the first, as second table, Rom. 13. 4. executing wrath on them that do evil, false teachers are called evil workers, Phil. 3. 3. Error is a sin, especially held with pertinacy, and a high transgression of the Law. Liberty in Religion is like free conversing without restraint, or watch in time of Pestilence, one house easily infects a whole City, and destroys the main end of Magistracy, and Ministry, whose essential work is to preserve peace, and piety: It is destructive to Peace, for the Apostle saith, that when men do not consent to the Doctrine which is according to godliness, but dote about questions, and strifes of words, thence ariseth envy, rail, and evil surmisings, 1 Timoth. 6. 3, 4. Difference in opinion causeth difference in affection, and both these abett difference in practice, hence the Apostle so often exhorts Christians to be of one mind, and judgement. Phil. 2. 2. Heresy is called a fruit of the flesh, Galat. 5. 20. that deprives of the Kingdom of God. The spirit of God commends the Church of Ephesus for not bearing with them that are evil, that is false teachers, Revel. 2. 2. condemns the Church of Thyatira for suffering the woman Jezebel to teach, and seduce Christ's servants, Revel. 2. 20, Reproves the Church of Pergamos for suffering them that taught the doctrine of Balaam, for entertaining them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, Revel. 2. 14, 15. The Apostle prays that such may be cut off, as trouble the Galatians with false doctrines, Gal. 5. 12. we are commanded to buy the truth, not sell it, Prov. 23. 23. to d● nothing against the truth, but for the truth, 2 Cor. 13. 8. to rebuke our brother plainly, and not suffer sin upon him, Levit. 19 17. Hence unsound doctrine is compared to a canker that corrodes the sound flesh, 2 Timoth. 2. 17. The Abetters, and fomenters thereof are resembled to thiefs that spoil, to ravenous Wolves that devour, to deceitful workers that undermine the truth, 2 Cor. 11. 13. Asa, Jehosaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, Nehemiah, were commended for punishing abuses in the worship of God, and setting things aright in matters of Religion. The Canons of ancient Counsels had an eye to this; Those that are termed the Apostles Can. 11. and 45. Clement's constitutionis lib. 6. Cap. 13. The four first general Counsels, next in Gregory's judgement, to the four Evangelists, bended their styles against those grand Heretics Arius, Eunomius, Nestorius, and Eutyches; with them concur the Primitive Fathers: Tertullian says, Heretics must be compelled, not prayed to do their duty, for heresy is not to be persuaded, but to be overcome by rigour, Tert. advers. Gnost. Cap. 2. Athanasius says Arius, Eudoxius, and Patrophilus, when they writ such things (unsound doctrines) how I pray you, are they not worthy of all punishments? Augustine hath golden say to that purpose, thinkest thou; saith he to Vincentius, no man ought to be forced to righteousness: When as thou readest, that the Master said to his servant, compel all that you find to come in? and also that Paul was forced to receive and embrace the truth by the violent compulsion of Christ, except thou judge goods, and lands dearer unto men then their eyes? Epist. 48. Hezekiah served God by destroying the Groves, and temples of Idols, the King of Nineveh enforcing the whole City to please God, Darius by delivering the Idol into the power of Daniel, Nabuchadnezar in restraining all his subjects from blaspheming God, August. Epist. 50. Jerom observes that Arius in Alexandria, was but one little spark, but because he was not presently suppressed, the flame thereof consumed the whole world▪ Cap. 5. ad Galat. Gregory Nazianzene saith, cut off the Arian impiety, cut off the pernicious error of Sabellius, this I say unto the Laymen, this I say unto the Clergy, and this I say unto the Magistrates, my words fight for the holy Trinity shall not have as much efficacy, as the Edict shall, if thou wilt suppress such as are infected with pernicious opinions: Nazian. Homil. in dict. Evang. for this cause John the Evangelist left the bath wherein was Terinthus, Iren. advers. haeres. lib. 3. cap. 3. Polycarpus called Martion Primogenitum diaboli The devils first begotten son, Origen refused to come to prayers with Paulus Samosatenus, Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 3. Placilla the Empress would not suffer Theodosius to confer with Eunomius, Zozom. lib. 7. cap. 7. Constantine prohibited the exercise of all unsound Religions, either in public or private places, commanding their books to be burned, their goods to be sold, their houses to be pulled down, and proscribed them as traitors to his Person, and enemies to the Truth, Euseb. de vit. Constant. lib. 3. cap. 63. whereupon ensued the conversion of many Heretics, and Schismatics, as Eusebius, Zozomenus and Nicephorous testify. Constantine, Constantius, & Constans the sons of Constantine the great, decreed that no Sect should have liberty to exercise, or profess their Heresy, as Aug. recordeth, Epist. 166. Gratian, Valentinian, & Theodosius enacted that all people within their Dominions should embrace one Religion, even the same which the Apostles taught, that Damasus maintained at Rome, & Peter at Alexandria, branding the contrary professors with the odious name of Heretics, Theod. lib. 5. Arcadius, Honorius, and Constantius sons of Theodosius persuaded themselves that their Father got all his victories bccause of his care for the Church, and severity against Heretics, decreeing that all former pains, punishments, and mulcts of their noble Progenitors should be executed against the pertinacious, and obstinate spirit of Heretics, Niceph. lib. 13. cap. 1. justinian amongst other constitutions of the Empire composed matters touching religion, and banished all Sectaries, rejected the suit of Theodoricus King of the Goths soliciting for the Arians, Justinian, Novel. 42. When Theodosius was somewhat indulgent to Arianism, the Authors whereof denies the deity of Christ, Amphilochius Bishop of Iconium having suffered a former repulse, assaulted him with this Stratagem; entering his presence, saluted him with due reverence, but slighted his son Arcadius' compeer in the Empire with him, at which the Father was enraged, till the grave man replied, Art thou offended O Emperor, that I attribute not to thy son equal honour with thyself? and dost thou not think that God is angry at those, that ascribe not equal glory to his son Christ with himself? whereupon he was convinced to act new Laws against the Arians, Zozom. lib. 7. cap. 6. Mixture of religion hath been adjudged dangerous for many reasons, first, it dissolves the bond of obedience, unrivets the sacred tye of love amongst subjects, breeds exacerbation of mind, and exulceration of affections, lays secret trains, and privy mines, for tumults, uproars, seditions, massacres, and civil wars, as in Germany, where the Anabaptist grew so populous, that (as Sleiden records) they could not be vanquished, till almost a hundred thousand of them were slain by the united forces of the Empire, Sleid. lib. 7. Secondly collusion in religion, and immunity of profession hath been the Prodrome, and Harbinger of the confusion, and ruin of the greatest States, and most flourishing Churches: The Sects of the Pharisees, Sadduces, Essenes', and Herodians were a Prognostic Crisis of the Jewish dissolution; The diversity of opinions without restraint in the Emperor Heraclius his time, gave fuel, and fomentation to the Embryo of Mahometan superstition, and the Apostasy of the Eastern Churches. Thirdly it hath been the cause of defection, and ruin of the most famous Churches; for the Pagan, and Apostate Emperors, because they would supplant the true Christian profession, granted liberty, and immunity unto all Sects of Heretics; So julian at the request of Rogatianus, and Ponticus, granted liberty of perdition (so Optatus Milevitanus calls it) unto the Sect of Donatus, thinking by that means to root out the Christian name from off the earth, and envying the unity of the Church, from which he fell, freely permitted all sacrilegious dissension, Optat. cont. Parm. lib. 2. Fourthly, it brings a judgement upon those Princes, who for sinister ends tolerate Heretics, and Idolaters; upon those Kingdoms, or Commonwealths, where Heresy, and Idolatry is exercised: Gregory Nazianzene relates that Constantius falling into an Apoplexy, before his death repent of three things too late. 1. That he had elected Julian to be Caesar. 2. That he had banished Athanasius. 3. That he had granted toleration of religions; julian was wounded to death with an arrow in Persia, as he was advancing his army, throwing out handfuls of blood into the sky, and crying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thou hast overcome O Galilean, Theodor. lib. 3. cap. 20. Valens being put to flight by the Barbarians, was burned in a Village with his Soldiers, Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 28. Constantius calling a Synod at Nicomedia in favour of the Arians, a sudden earthquake overthrew the whole City, Niceph. lib. 9 cap. 39 During the reign of julian the Apostate it was not safe to tarry within doors by reason of earthquakes, nor to walk abroad by reason of great tempests of thunders, lightnings, hail; and the City of Alexandria was overflown, and drowned in the Sea. But why do I press these things? holding out my gloe-worme amongst so many shining tapers? knowing we live under authority that is sufficiently wise to distinguish betwixt truth, and error, conscientiously careful to put a difference between tenderness, and obstinacy; He that searches the heart, bears me record, that I urge them with no further approbation, than may suit with the glory of God, advancement of truth, and Peace of the Nation; Nor would I wish any further influence upon the Anabaptists, than on myself, were I in their condition, which is first, that they may be enlightened, and convinced, or if not so, that they would peaceably keep their Tenets to themselves, & not corrode further, like Gangrenes infecting the sound parts; which is the end of this my writing; Not that I can add any thing to what hath been formerly discussed; or that my weak endeavours may be compared to the learned labours that are gone before; But that divine providence hath so disposed, I was called suddenly to a conflict with the greatest Beauclerk of the faction, and God giving success to the honestness of the intention beyond the means, The relation of the dispute, and Sermon were put in Print, which he in his Plea for Anti Paedobaptists hath endeavoured to overthrow; Hence divers godly persons (some out of scruple of conscience, others for other motives) have importuned me to reply; which I humbly present unto your view desiring that it may be protected under the shadow of your wings; And if I may contribute any thing to the discovery▪ and making plain the truth▪ I have the fruit of my labour, and my wish, who desire to live to no other end, than to do service to God's Church, my Country, and your Honours in the quality of Lantilio Pertholy jan. 1. 1654. Your most humble, and devoted Servant in the Lord Jesus. John Cragge. To the Reader. Courteous Reader, TO please myself, and perhaps thee, I shall displease many; First, my Friend, for making his private token a public frolic. 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 Amphitheatre with those Elephants that have been ten years in conception. My Apology 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, we 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 intent to bend their stile against me, I'll 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, Error discouraged, Godliness countenanced, Hypocrisy 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. Mary's Church in Abergavenny, Sept. 5. 1653, touching Infant-Baptism, briefly and punctually set down to the sense of both. V. Infant's may lawfully be Baptised; 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 believers, and their Children, or Secondly because Baptism succeedeth not in the room of Circumcision. T. I could deny your division: yet I say, to gratify 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 believers, 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 natural, and spiritual, and saith, that the covenant was made with Abraham's spiritual seed, and not the natural. V Even all the children of Abraham were Circumcised, and consequently admitted into the covenant, not one excepted; for every Manchild was to be Circumcised, Gen 17. 10. It appears by what happened 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 natural seed▪ T. Ishmael, and the natural Children of Abraham were admitted to the external part, namely outward privileges, and temporal blessings, and not to the internal, or spiritual part thereof. By the Internal 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 justify this his distinction, 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 natural Children of Abraham; So that the covenant was made not to the natural Children of Abraham, but to such of them as were elect, and faithful. 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 natural seed lost it not,) because they were not at first comprehended in the covenant, but because of their own unbeleef, Rom. 11. 20. I confess 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 Paul's design to declare the Children of Ishmael, yea, the greatest part of the Jews, to have been rejected by a certain absolute decree, why should he v. 1. 2. so much lament their incredulity? 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 only were to inherit the land of Canaan; and Secondly, because Christ according to the flesh was to descend from the progeny of Isaac, not of Ishmael. I might have added, that if none but the elect, and faithful, 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, spiritual, and true believers. Neither can you Baptise with right, or safety, all such grown persons as you Baptise, since you cannot be assured that they are elect, Spiritual 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 Spiritual, elect, and believing, can be Baptised, the same charity that sways your judgement for grown persons, must much rather move you to hope the best of innocent infants, guilty of no actual sin, since it hopes all things, and thinks no evil, 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 actual faith, yet the faith of their parents may, and doth, put them into a capacity 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 Baptism by virtue of their parent's faith. V They were admitted into the same covenant by Circumcision, into which we are admitted now by Baptism, but Circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4. 11. 12. Whence it will follow, that either they had the righteousness of faith inherently in themselves, or that of their parents imputed to them (choose you whether) or else it will follow that Circumcision was a false seal. T. It is not said there that Circumcision was the seal of righteousness of the children's faith, but only of Abraham's own faith in particular. V But the covenant, or promise, was the same and alike to Abraham, and his seed, Rom. 4. 13. Gen. 17. 7. and alike to us believers, and to our Children, Act. 1. 39 2. This truth appears yet further from. 1. Cor. 7. 14. Where we find that the faith of either of the parents make the Children holy, at least in that degree of holiness (which is the meanest imaginable) to be in capacity of being admitted into the same covenant with their Parents. T. The scope of the Apostle here, is to satisfy a scruple of the Corinth. viz. whether the believing yokefellow might live in the enjoying and use of the unbelieving yokefellow? he resolves them in the affirmative, saying, The unbelieving husband is sanctified in (as 'tis in the Greek) or to (not for or by) the wife, etc. That is, he may lawfully use, and enjoy her, and she enjoy him— and their are Children holy, that is, legitimate. V But here is certainly some special privilege set forth to the Children of believers accrueing to them from the believing Parents. Besides, it had been no news to tell them they might have the lawful use of one another, and that their Children were legitimate and no bastards. For where both husband and wife were unbelievers, no man ever doubted but their enjoyment of one another was lawful, and their issue legitimate. T. The case is meant where both parties at their entrance into marriage were unbelievers, but afterwards one of them happens to be converted, whether then they might cohabit, and enjoy the use of one another. V Though this were granted (which I shall not contend about) yet the Apostles sense can not be of the lawful use, and enjoyment of each other, for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctified, never denotes to be lawful. Or if ever you show me that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rendered holy, signifies lawful, I shall urge no further. T. there's that acception of the word 1. Tim. 4. 4, 5. Every creature of God is good, and not to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) by the word of God, and prayer; here sanctified is for lawfully used, as standing in opposition to that which is refused. V The sense is, that such use of the creature is pleasing to God, as acknowledging him the author, and sender; for suppose a sinful man eat his meat without invoking God for a blessing, hath he not a lawful use of the creature? T. His next instance was 1. Thes. 4. 3, 4, 7. Where sanctification is used for chastity, and might bear that sense in this place, 1. Cor. 7. 17. in agitation. V I deny it, for sanctification is there used in its full latitude, as appears by the context. But I will descend to prove the second ground of my consequence, at the beginning, which you denied, viz. That Baptism succeeded in the Room of Circumcision. Mr. Tombs had told us that it was impossible, for then women should not be Baptised, because they were not Circumcised, [which is Bellarmine's Argument] To which I answered, that indeed the males only were mentioned in the covenant of Circumcision, for in the eyes of all laws whatsoever, the women are but as ignoble creatures, and therefore the usual stile of laws, and covenants is Simo Quis and Qui in the masculine [except such as particularly respect their sex]▪ 2. That they are included in the word Seed, and because descended from man, did partake of the privilege, and promise, annexed to the covenant. [I thought also to have told him, that I well knew that before Christ's time Baptism and Circumcision were both practised on the Proselytes called Proselitae Justitiae (as I co●ld have showed out of several authors) yet that hindered not, but that Baptism now under the Gospel should be the sole mean● to admit us into the same covenant, into which the Jews w●●●dmitted by Circumcision. Even as the bread and wine we taken by the Jews at the eating of the Passeover, and now that the Jewish Passeover is abrogated, the bread and wine were only by Christ retained to commemorate his Passion, the true Passeover. 1. Cor. 5. 7. And in like manner when Circumcision was abolished, yet was Baptism retained to admit the Infants of Christians, as Circumcision admitted them of the Jews; But the time, and his close manner of disputing, not permitting this enlarging by recourse to the original, and institution of Baptism, which served more to Illustrate than convince, I kept to the tether allowed, and came at length to prove that proposition] from Col. 2. 11, 12. Where 1. the circumcision of Christ is set in opposition to the Jewish circumcision made with hands. 2. An explanation of what is meant by the circumcision of Christ in these words, being buried with him in Baptism. T. Paul here dissuades them from the use of Jewish ceremonies (which some would have introduced amongst them) and particularly of Circumcision, because all those were but shadows, but the body and reality was of Christ. V 'tis confessed the Apostle speaks here against imposers of Jewish (and also Pythagorean) doctrines and practices. But see ye not here a double Circumcision, and the Circumcision of Christ described by being buried with him in Baptism. The word buried implieth but the resemblance betwixt Christ's death, and resurrection, with what is done in Baptism, where there is an Immersion or plunging in the water, to shadow his burial, and Emersion or rising up out of the water, to represent his resurrection, which resemblance is more fully set forth Rom. c. 6. T. Here Mr. Tombs interrupted me, and desired the people to take notice of my ingenuous confession, that Baptism was then practised by plunging. He read also a passage out of casaubon's annot▪ on the New Test▪ where he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Baptise, denoteth a plunging of the whole body etc. Had he read out the passage, he might have found how that great scholar affirms this to be a slender Argument against such as only sprinkle at Baptism: for, saith he, the virtue and efficacy of Baptism consists not in that, meaning the manner of washing. V I shall satisfy the Auditors herein anon, in the mean time I desire Answer to my Argument, the Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism being so evident in this place; But receiving none, I addressed myself to the people, according to promise, saying, That indeed it seemed to me that for i● me Centuries of years, that Baptism was practised by plunging: For sprinkling was brought first in use by occasion of the Clinics (as Cyprian Epist: a Magnum relates) being men which deferred their Baptism till some extremity of sickness, who then in such case were only sprinkled with water, lest the plunging of their bodies might over-offend them in that feeble desperate condition. T. Here take notice that sprinkling took its rise from a corrupt custom. V Though plunging be confessed the more ancient way, yet is this no ground for that over-uncharitable speech of yours, in your sermon yesterday: That our Baptism, meaning of Infants, and by sprinkling, was but a nullity, and Mockery, which concludes ourselves, and all our Ancestors, even all in the Western Church for 1500. years, under damnation. For the Church hath power upon the sight of any inconvenience, and for order and decencies sake, to alter the circumstantials and externals of any Ordinance. T. What have they to do to alter any thing from the form of Christ's institution? V That they have such a power is confessed by all divines, and he is none that denies it, yea, I believe it is acknowledged by your own practice. T. Wherein? V In the administration of the Lords supper, which was done by Christ in the Evening, and also then by his Apostles after their Lovefeasts: The whole Church of God, (and yourself I suppose) take it in the morning, which custom hath taken place, and obtained every where for very many ages, even from their days who immediately succeeded the Apostles. Thus advising him to be wise to Sobriety, and cease to embroil the Church of God (so infinitely torn already) and to submit to the judgement, and scarce-interrupted practise of the Western Churches even for 1500. years, To which Gods providence could not be so far wanting, as to suffer them to fall into such an Error of admitting and retaining a Baptism (which in his account was none) we broke off. A relation of the dispute had between Mr. John Tombs B. D. respondent, and John Cragge Mr. A. opponent, in St. Mary's Church in Abergavennie, Septemb. 5. 1653. touching Infant-Baptism. Mr. Cragge having briefly expressed that he was forced to undertake this task, on a sudden, and unprovided, against so experienced a champion; desired, first, if he should fail, the cause might not suffer prejudice in men's opinions for his sake. 2. That liberty might be granted of a premeditate, and treatable dispute hereafter, not doubting that if he should but study the Question so many hours as Mr. Tombs hath done days, so many days as he hath done weeks, so many weeks as he months, or so many months as he years, the truth was so evident on his side, he would not fear (Maugre all opposition) to make it clear. In the mean time trusting to God's assistance, (whose cause it was) he would attempt it beginning with this Enthymema. C. Some Infants may not be Baptised, therefore some Infants may be Baptised. T. Having repeated, he denied the consequence. C. Which he proved thus, Subcontrary propositions in a Contingent matter may be both true: But these, viz: (some infants may not be Baptised, some infants may be Baptised) are Subcontrary propositions in a Contingent matter. Therefore they may be both true. T. Having repeated the Syllogism, he said there were four terms in it▪ C. He enquired where? T. He answered in these words (may be both true) in the Premises, and (are both true) in the Conclusion. C. He returned, that was Mr. Tombs Syllogism, none of his, reciting that distich of Martial. Quem recitas meus est O Fidentine, logismus, Sed male dum recitas, incipit esse tuus. T. Repeating it over again after him, said, that he ought to have brought in the conclusions, and both true. C. Which he took thus away; That which proves the thing denied, is sufficient; But that Subcontrary propositions in a Contingent matter may be both true, proves the thing denied, that some infants may not be Baptised, some infants may be Baptised; Therefore it is sufficient. T. He denied the Minor, though it be an Axiom, Subcontrary propositions in a Contingent matter may be both true, yet it was not consequent that these subcontrary contingent propositions (some Infants may not be baptised, some Infants may be baptised) may be both true. C. Which was proved thus. That which is affirmed and predicated of the Species, may, and is affirmed of every Individuum, and particular under that Species: But it is affirmed of the Species, that Subcontrary Propositions in a Contingent matter may be both true, therefore it may be affirmed of these particular Propositions (some Infants may not be baptised, some Infants may be baptised) that they may be both true, T. He said it was a fallacy, he went about to entrap him, in confessing that subcontrary Propositions may be both true, where the subject is capable, but here the subject, (to wit infants) are not capable of Baptism. C Then replies he, they are not Contingent (which is here required) but Necessary Propositions, in materia necessaria, if the subject be not capable, but we speak of Contingent Propositions, the Predicate whereof may be affirmed or denied of the subject without contradiction; which while he was framing into a Syllogism. T. Mr. T. interrupted him, saying, what would the man say if he could speak? C: You love not to hear truth speak, but would strangle it in the birth, like the Egyptian Midwives; but to give you further Satisfaction, I will prove that they are actually both true, especially that some infants may be baptised, for of the other there is no controversy. Which he did thus, To whom belongs the Essence of Baptism, they may be Baptised; But to some infants belongs the Essence of Baptism; therefore some infants may be Baptised. T. He denied the Minor, that the Essence of Baptism did belong to some Infants. C. Which was proved thus; To whom belongs the definition of Baptism, to them belongs the Essence; But to some infants belongs the definition of Baptism; Therefore to some infants belongs the Essence of Baptism. T. He answered first to the Major, (to whom belongs the definition of Baptism, to them belongs the Essence,) it was idem per idem, proving of the same thing by the same. C. To which was replied, why then says Aristotle, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the definition is a manifestation of the Essence, and Logicians describe a definition to be explicatio rei Essentiae, the expression of the Essence of a thing, now that which expresses a thing; and which is expressed, are two distinct things. Then he denied the Minor, which was proved thus. C. The definition of Baptism, as of all other Relations, is made up of the fundament, correlative, and termini. But all these three fundamentum, correlatum, & terminus, belong to Infants; Therefore the definite on of Baptism belongs to Infants. T. He denied the Major, that Baptism was a Relation, or was made up of those ingredients. C. He replied, that seemed strange to him, seeing all the Divines, and Logicians that he had read, affirmed Baptism to be a Realation, and it was evident, it could be put in no other Predicament, (as might be proved by Induction, but that the people understood it not) seeing the whole nature of Baptism is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Relation to another. T. He said he cared not for authorities, but bid him prove it. C. Which he did thus; Every Sacrament is a Relation ● But Baptism is a Sacrament; Therefore Baptism is a Relation. T. He said he might deny both Propositions, first the Major, for any thing he knew, every Sacrament was not a Relation; And the Minor too, that Baptism was a Sacrament, for the word Sacrament was an invention of man, not grounded upon scripture. C. Which both Propositions together were proved thus; That which is an outward, and visible sign, of an inward, and invisible grace, is both a Relation, and a Sacrament; But Baptism is an outward, and visible sign, of an inward, and invisible grace; Therefore it is both a Relation, and a Sacrament. T. He denied the Minor, that Baptism was an outward, and visible sign, of an inward, and invisible grace. C. He told him, it was St. Austin's definition, avouched by learned men in succeeding ages, confirmed, and approved by the Church of England in the old Catechism. T. Mr. Tombs said he looked for Artificial or divine Arguments, not humane Testimonies, at which answer while Mr. C. seemed to be astonished, he took occasion to triumph, contumeliously saying he never heard such an Argument. C. To which he replied, Nor Alexander ever saw such a knot, as the Gordian, which made him cut it, when he could not untie it; you teach me by experience to know that there is no disputing against them that deny all Principles; as where you think the people do not understand, you make no scruple to deny clear truths in Logic, and Divinity; Therefore I see I must go to plain scriptures, that all the people may understand the absurdities. Now that the Definition of Baptism (which was the thing denied) belongs to Infants, I prove thus. If God institute Baptism for infants, Christ merited it for them, and they stand in need of it, then to infants belongs the Definition of Baptism; But God instituted, Christ merited, and infants stand in need of Baptism; Therefore to infants belongs the Definition of Baptism. T. He denied the Minor, that God did not institute Baptism for infants, Christ did not merit it for them, nor Infants stand in need of it. C. Which he promised to prove in order, First that God did institute Baptism for infants. He that appointed infants Church-members under the Gospel, did institute Baptism for them; But God appointed Infants Church-members under the Gospel; Therefore God did institute Baptism for infants. T. He said first the Major might be questioned, because, to be Church-members (whereas he should have said Church-members under the Gospel) and to be Baptised, were not termini convertibiles. C. He confessed it, for infants under the Law were Church-members, and yet not Baptised, but Circumcised, and before the Law Church-members, and yet neither Circumcised, nor Baptised; but under the Gospel they were so convertible, that all that were Baptised, were Church-members, and all that were Church-members were to be Baptised, which is that which he affirmed now, and is a truth so clear, that Master Tombs confesses it all along in his Books, and upon that confessed ground, Mr. Baxter goes in many of his Arguments. T. He would have denied it, till a Gentleman told him, that he heard him affirm the same in his Sermon the day before, Then he denied the minor, that God did institute infants Church-members under the Gospel. C. That I'll confirm (says he) with a threefold cord, which will not easily be broken, before the Law, under the Law, under the Gospel, which he framed into an Argument thus, Those whom God did promise before the Law, foretell under the Law, actually receive into covenant under the Gospel, those God did appoint Church-members under the Gospel; But God did promise before the Law, foretell under the Law, and actually receive Infants into Covenant under the Gospel; Therefore God did appoint Infants Church-members under the Gospel. T. He denied the Minor, That God did not promise before the Law, foretell under the Law, and actually receive infants into covenant under the Gospel. C. Which was proved in order, first that God did promise before the Law that infants should be in covenant under the Gospel, thus. That which God did promise to Abraham, was before the Law; But God did promise to Abraham, that infants should be in covenant under the Gospel; Therefore God did promise before the Law, that infants should be in covenant under the Gospel. The Minor being denied, he proved out of Gen. 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 unto thy seed after thee. Thus framing his Argument; 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 Gospel; but God makes an everlasting Covenant with Abraham, and his seed after him in their generations: Therefore God promised that infants should be in covenant under the Gospel. T. He denied the Major, saying, that everlasting signified only a long time, not that it should be so under the Gospel to the world's end; and was to be interpreted by the verse following, I will give unto thee the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and yet the Jews are now dispossessed of Canaan. C. They are now dispossessed, but shall be possessed of it again at their conversion, and so have an everlasting possession, in the type to the end of the world, in the Antitype for ever, but that the covenant that God made with Abraham is to continue to the end of the World appears, in that it is a gospel-covenant; That which is a gospel-covenant is to continue to the end of the world; But the covenant that God made with Abraham and his seed to all generations, is a Gospel's covenant, Gal. 3. 8. and the scripture foreseeing that God would Justify the Heathen, through faith, preached the Gospel before to Abraham, saying, In thee shall nations be blessed; Therefore it is to continue to the end of the world. T. Without repeating, he confusedly answered thus, that it was an everlasting covenant, and to continue to the end of the world, but not to infants. C. He told him first that it was a denying of the Conclusion, than took away his answer thus; If God command infants to stand before him in covenant, than it is to continue to infants; But God commands infants to stand in covenant before him; Therefore it is to continue to infants. Deut, 29. 10, 11. Ye stand this 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 world's end, for he did not deny but that infants in some sense were in covenant under the Law, but not under the Gospel. C. Yes under the Gospel; If Christ hath obtained a more excellent Ministry, 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 Gospel; But Heb. 8. 6. Christ hath obtained a more excellent Ministry, 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 Gospel. T. He denied the consequence of the Major, that though the covenant of the Gospel was a better covenant than that of the Law, yet infants were not in covenant as well under the Gospel, as under the Law. C. Which was thus taken away; That which unchurches the one half of Christendom, 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 Christendom, 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 Premises, or formally applying any distinction, he said, the covenant under the Gospel was made only with the spiritual 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 Jews, then under the Gospel it was not only made to the Spiritual seed; But it was made in the same manner, and extent to the Gentiles, as it was to the Jews; Therefore under the Gospel it was not only made to the Spiritual seed. T. He denied 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 denied the consequent, that, though the partition wall was taken down, and both Jew and Gentile are all one in Christ Jesus, seeing the Gospel was offered to all nations; Yet under the Gospel the covenant was only with the Elect, and believers. C. Which was confuted thus; That which is made with the whole visible Church, is not only made with the Elect, and true believers; But the covenant is made with the whole visible Church; Therefore not only with the Elect, and true believers. T. He denied the Major. C. Which was proved thus; That which is made to the kingdom of God upon earth, is not only 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 only made to the Elect. T. He denied the Major, that, that which was made to the kingdom of God upon earth, is not only made to the Elect. C. Which was proved thus; In the kingdom of God, that is in the Church Militant, there are not only 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 man's 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 only the Elect, than 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 angel, 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 Gospel. 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 Arms, and their daughters shall be carried upon their Shoulders, foretold that infants should be Church-members under the Gospel; 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 carried upon their shoulders; Therefore God foretold that infants should be Church-members under the Gospel. T. He denied the Major; And said the meaning was, that the Jews should bring the Gentiles children. C. To which he replied, God says, 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, etc. T. Then Mr. T. recollecting himself said, the meaning was, the Gentiles should bring the Jews children from captivity; And that it did not point at the time of the Gospel. C. To which was replied, the contents of the Chapter says that it points at the time of the Gospel; Mr. Tombs says it points at the time of the Jews captivity, whether shall we believe? and repea●ed the contents: Christ being sent to the Jews, complaineth of them to the 5. verse, he is sent to the Gentiles to the 13. verse, God's love to his Church to the end; then the people laughed, etc. The p●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 groundless assertion of one private man; But that it points at the time of the Gospel is the judgement of the Church of England; Therefore it ought to be entertained before the groundless assertion of one private man. T. He denied 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; than it is the judgement of the Church of England; But the Church of England causes it to be printed, and commands it to be read before the Chapter; Therefore it is the judgement of the Church of England. T. Mr. T. said it was not commanded to be printed, and read s● before the Chapter, for he knew not what kind of Bible his was. C. He told him, it was the same with the great Church Bible, which was not only authorised with a Proclamation, but an Act almost fifty years ago, and will Mr. Tombs without giving of a reason condemn a whole nation to have slept in such an error all that while? Then Mr. Abbets preacher resident there, one who hath been dipped, being in pulpit with Mr. Tombs, stood up and said, the words were, They shall bring thy sons in their Arms; To which Mr. C. replied, what then? may they not be God's sons by adoption, and their own by natural generation? Mr. Tombs fell upon expounding the Chapter from verse to verse. Mr. C. told him, that they came not to hear him expound, but dispute, and repeating the last Argument, wished him to answer; at which Abbets stood up again, and said the words of the text were, that they, that is the Gentiles, shall bring thy Children, that is the Jews. To which Master C. replied, that was an addition to the text, for there is no mention of the Jews; But grant it were, must it be therefore meant of the Captivity the 20. and 21▪ verses of this Chapter confutes it, intimating that the Jews after Christ's coming shall lose their own natural, and the Gentiles Children shall be adopted, and engrafted into their place; They, that is the Gentiles converted, shall bring thy sons, thine by a kind of adoption, and spiritual succession, for the Gentiles Children were engrafted into the stock of the Jews Children broke off; And this is so clear from the Context (compared with Rom. 11.) That with reason it could not be denied; But he was to speak to Mr. Tombs who understood the nature of a dispute, and not to him, and if he would take upon him to moderate, it was fit thate he should have another. T. Mr. Tombs asked Mr. C. what he understood by standard, what by Kings, what by nursing Fathers, etc. C. He told him, that it was not his place to dispute Socratically by ask of questions, but to answer ad Appositum. But to give him Satisfaction (which he needed not) by Standart he understood some visible Gospell-ordinance, as Baptism, by King's supreme Magistrates, by nursing Fathers, and nursing Mothers, patrons, and protectors of the Gospel. T. He said that it was a Metaphorical speech, and that nothing could be gathered from it. C. He replied, that he would grant him that it was more than a Metaphorical speech, (for a Metaphor consisted but in one single trope) but it was a continuation of several tropes, and therefore Allegorical; yet it does not follow, that nothing could be gathered from it, for than nothing could be gathered from any Parable in the Gospel; Nay nor any part of the New Testament; for there is scarce a sentence without sums Tropes in it. T. Mr. T. said it was fulfilled in hester's time, which was a nursing Mother to the Jews. C. To which was answered; Hester was a Jew, and a friend to the Jews, what is this to the Gentiles bringing Children upon Shoulders? And though that should be waved, and Hester granted to be a nursing Mother in the type, yet in the Antitype it aims principally at the times of the Gospel, else gross absurdities would follow; for what Kings, or Queens in Hesters-time did bow down to the Jews with their face towards the Earth, and lick up the dust of their feet? verse 23. Isles are summoned in the first verse, which must be meant of the time of the Gospel: Christ is promised to be given for a light for the Gentiles, that he may be their Salvation to the end of the earth. 6. King's shall see, and arise, Princes also shall worship. 7. And the holy Ghost, quotes verbatim, and applies to the time of the Gospel the 8. verse, and that expressly 2 Cor. 6. 2. There is an employed cutting off to the Jews, 20. An engrafting in of the Gentises, the Children of the wild olive in the stock of the natural olive, 21. And a Bringing of Children to visible ordinances, 22. All which he offered to frame into Arguments. T. But Mr. T. prevented it, saying, that though it should be understood of the times of the Gospel, yet by sons in Arms, and daughters upon Shoulders, was meant grown men, for any thing he knew, and men and women of a hundred years of age might be carried upon arms, and upon shoulders. Which indeed is the same answer Mr. T. gives in his sceptical exercitation; (like foxes, and bodgers being beat out of one hole, hath another to fly unto:) Where (as Mr. Hussey quotes him) he uses the same words, that Mr. Abbe●s, and he found fault with in Mr. C. Major proposition, for these are his words, It is foretold that Gentiles should bring their Children in their arms, therefore the Prophet foresaw the Baptism of infants; he might have seen the beam in his own eye, turpe est doctori, etc. But to return to Mr. T. answer. C. Which Mr. C. took thus away; Them that they should bring in their bosoms were Infants; But it was foretold that they should bring them in their bosoms; Therefore they were Infants. T. He enquired where it did appear that they should bring them in their bosoms. C. Out of the text, for the word in the original (which is translated arms) is bosom, and so the Septuagints read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, intimating that they should bring sucking Children hanging upon their breasts. T. Then Mr. Tombs said it was an analogy, and performed when the Gentiles persuaded their Children to embrace Christ. C. Well then, it is their Children, not thy children, oportet esse memorem; But not that neither; for that Scripture which in the letter suits with many other Scriptures, but in the pretended analogy with no other, cannot be the meaning; But to interpret it literally of bringing Children to Christ in the bosom, suits with many scriptures, and to persuade them to come to Christ, with no scriptures; Therefore it can not be the meaning. T. Mr. T. could not name one text of scripture, where to bring in arms, or bosom, was to persuade to come to Christ. C. So Mr. C. referred the judgement of it to the people, and named another text, Es. 65. 20. There shall be no more thence an Infant of days, etc. But the child shall die an hundred year old. T. Mr. Tombs bid him read the rest of the words, and the verse following. C. He said he had read as much as he intended to raise his Argument from. T. Take notice (says he) he will not read that which makes against him. C. Not so; for nothing of it makes against me, but that an Argument must be terminus simplex, and homogeneal, and that you know well enough, but that in place of solid Satisfaction you must say something to deceive the people. The Arguments I raise hence are two, the first is this, There shall be no more an Infant of days, that is, Infants shall not be uncapable of the seal, while their age is measured by days, as the J●ws Infants that might not be Circumcised till a week had passed over them; Therefore Infants new born are capable of the seal; The second Argument is this, The child shall die an hundred year old, that is, as an hundred year old, or as well a Church-member as if he were a hundred year old; Therefore Children may be Baptised under the Gospel. T. Mr. T. found fault with that interpretation, shall die an hundred years old, that is as if an hundred years old. C. He answered, to take it literally would imply a contradiction, for it was impossible to be a child, and a hundred years old, and was better than his, and the Anabaptists exposition of 1 Cor. 10. 2▪ they were Baptised under the Cloud, that is (say you) as if they were Baptised under the cloud, when nothing hindered, out they were really Baptised under the cloud. And Rom. 11. 19 the branches were broken off, that is (say you) as if they were broken off, when it was both possible, and apparent, that they were broken off. T. Then Mr. T. said it was not meant of the times of the Gospel. C. To which was replied; Mr. T. will still be wiser than the Church of England; and read the Contents of the Chapter; The calling of the Gentiles v. 1. the Jews rejected 17. the blessed state of the new Jerusalem to the end. T. Mr. T. said it was verified Zacha. 8. 4 Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, there shall yet old men, and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff in his hand for very age, and the streets of the City shall be full of boys, and girls playing in the streets thereof. C. To which was replied; what is this to an Infant of days, or a child dying a hundred years old? when it is apparent both from the Contents, and Texts that this of Zachary is meant of the Jews return from Captivity, and more apparent that that of Es. is meant of the state of Christ's kingdom under the Gospel, which I prove thus; That Interpretation that brings with it absurdity, untruth, blasphemy, is not to be admitted; But to ●nterpret it of the Jews return from Captivity brings with it absurdity, untruth, blasphemy; Therefore it is not to be admitted. T. Mr. Tombs denied the Minor▪ C. Which was proved in order; first that it brought with it absurdity, To apply the 25. verse to the return from Captivity was absurd, that the wolf and the lamb should feed together, and the Lion should eat straw with the bullock, and dust should be the serpent's meat; Therefore it brought with it absurdity. Secondly that it brought with it untruth; But to apply the 19 v. to the return from Captivity brought with it an untruth, that the voice of weeping should be no more heard in Jerusalem; for it was twice destroyed after, once by Antiochus, then by Vespasian, and Titus; Therefore it brought with it an untruth. Thirdly that it brought with it blasphemy; for to interpret the 17. verse, (Behold I create new heavens, and new earth, and the former shall no more be remembered, and come into mind) of the second temple, is blasphemous; Therefore it brought with it blasphemy, for it crosseth St. Peter's interpretation 2 Pet. 3. 13. We according to his promise look for new heavens, and a new earth; For can any rational man think, that the new temple built at Jerusalem in Cyrus his time, was this new heaven, and new earth, that the former should be no more remembered? When the ancient men are said to weep, because the glory of the latter temple was short of the glory of the first, Ezra 3. 12. [It was inferior to Solomon's temple, first in respect of the building, that was lower, and meaner; secondly, in respect of the vessels, before of Gold, now of Brass; thirdly of five things that were lost, first the Ark of God, secondly, the Urim▪ and Thummim, thirdly, fire from Heaven to consume the Sacrifices, fourthly, the glory of God between the Cherubims, fifthly, the gift of prophecy, for after the second temple there was no prophet.] T. Mr. T. fell to his wont course of impertinent exposition, wherein Mr. C. told him 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 matter. Then C. P. an Apothecary began to interpose, as he had done once before, till a gentleman of authority, told him, that it was not fit for a man of his place, and calling, to speak; Yet Master Tombs would not be satisfied, but went on saying that Dr. Prideaux in Oxford, when a place of Scripture was cited, was wont to give a large exposition. C. Mr. C. Replied; that Dr. Prideaux was Doctor of the Chair, and Judge of the Controversy, and might do that which a Respondent may not do, whose office is only to repeat, deny, distinguish, and when a Text is quoted, to give a brief exposition, that the Opponent may have something to fasten upon; And what Dr. Prideaux did, he knew not; but what Dr. Collins, and Dr. Ward did, he could tell him; but that it was not to the present purpose. And that his judgement in this, was but the same with his own University of Oxford, as he knew of late by a sad experiment. T. Mr. Tombs, Asked what that was? C. He told him an explosion, not for disability (for his dispute was plausible enough) but that he would neither be satisfied with Dr. Savage his answer, nor the Doctor of the Chairs determination; but fell to repetitions, and extravagances, as now. Mr. Tombs launched into a tedious discourse to vindicate himself till he had tired the Auditors, who cried out this is but to waste time; And a learned Gentleman spoke aloud, this is but to spend the time in parling, that he may avoid the gunshot, for he is afraid the great thunderbold is behind: and so with much ado, he was brought to dispute again, where Master C. falling upon the third branch of his Argument, That God did actually receive Infants to be Church-members under the Gospel, began thus. C. Those whom Christ commanded his disciples to Baptise, they may be Baptised; But Christ commanded his Disciples to Baptise infants; Therefore they may be Baptised. The Minor being denied, was proved thus; He that commanded his Disciples to baptise all Nations, commanded them to baptise infants; But Christ commanded his Disciples; Matth. 28. 19 to baptise all Nations; Therefore Christ commanded them to baptise infants. T. Mr. T. denied the Major. C. Which was proved by this Enthymema; The whole includes every part; Infants are a part of Nations; Therefore he that commanded to baptise all Nations, commanded to baptise infants. T. He denied the consequent, though the whole included every part and Nations were the whole, and Infants were a part of Nations, yet it did not follow that Infants were to be Baptised. C. He returned, that, that saying of Aquinas (posito toto generali pars ejus negari non potest, a general whole being granted, no part of it can be denied) was an axiom both in Logic, Philosophy, and Divinity, as Psalm 117. 1. Praise the Lord all ye Nations, is interpreted by another Psalm, Old men, and babes, young men, and maidens, praise ye the Lord. T. Mr. T. Said it was an Axiom that the whole includes every part, where there is no exception, but here is an exception. C. He replied, Saint Ambrose upon the place says there is no exception, Qui dixit omnes, nullos exclusit, neque parvulos, etc. He that said baptise all Nations, excepted none, no not infants. T. Mr. T. Pished at it, slighting Ambrose his Authority. C. Then said Mr. C. whether we shall obey Ambrose Bishop of Milan with Scripture, or Mr. Tombs Vicar of Lemster against Scripture, judge you. But that there is no exception thus I prove, If infants be excepted from Baptism, it is either because they are not named in the text, or because we find no instance that any were Baptised, or because they are not capable; But for none of these three; Therefore infants are not excepted. T. Mr. T. Denied the Major, and said that a fourth reason might be given, because they were not Disciples. C. He told him that in this answer he shown himself to be no good Logician; for it is an Axiom, that in no division, one member can be affirmed of another, because they are opposite, now to be Disciples, and capable of Baptism were not opposite but subordinate; And to be Disciples, if it made them not capable, it was no exception at all, if it made them capable▪ it was the same with the third, to which Dilemma when he could receive no answer, he demanded where it was required that those that are to be Baptised, must be Disciples? T. He said out of the Text, for that which is translated Teach all Nations, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples of all Nations. C. He replied; at Ross you found fault with me for that translation, ask me, was I wiser than the translators? and now when it seems to make for you, you urge it. Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea modo? I confess it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Aorist, ye shall make Disciples, for it must be interpreted by the future 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, baptising, or by baptising in the present tense, as if Discipling were the end, and baptising the means, and required no qualification before (as learned men with great probability press) but I will not insist upon that now, But that which you denied, I prove, that infants may be Disciples, from that place Rom. 15. 10. compared with the 5. verse, for so Mr. C. said, mistaking it for Acts 15. 10. T. At which Mr. Tombs insulted, saying he was a good text-man. C. He replied, he was in haste, and did not think of this before, but that his answer did drive him to it, and he in his elaborate books did oftentimes quote one place for another, then how much more might he, that was extemporal: it had been enough to have said, as our Saviour to the tempter it's written: but to leave these catches, and come to the proof. They upon whom the pharisees would have laid the yoke, were Disciples, verse 10. Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples; But many of them were Infants; Therefore Infants are Disciples. T. He denied the Minor, that many of them were not Infants. C. Which was proved thus; The yoke was Circumcision verse 5. the pharisees saying, that it was needful to Circumcise them; But they upon whom the yoke was to be imposed by Circumcision, were only infants amongst the Jews, and Infants together with Parents amongst the Gentiles; Therefore many of them were infants. T. He denied the Major, and said the yoke was not Circumcision. C. He replied it was apparent, by comparing the 5. and 10. with the foregoing verses. 1. verse Certain men came down from Judea, and taught the brethren, except ye be Circumcised, after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved; where observe that Circumcision is the subject of the Question. In the 2. verse they determined that Paul, and Barnabas, and certain others of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles, and Elders, about this Question, to wit Circumcision. In the 5. certain of the Sect of the Pharisees said, that it was needful to circumcise them. In the 6 the Apostles came together to consider of the matter, that is Circumcision, and when there had been much disputing, Peter risen up in the 7. and determined the Question in the tenth verse, why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples? T. Mr. T. Said, that Circumcision could not be the yoke, that neither they nor their fathers could bear. C. He returned, that it was a bloody, and a heavy yoke, therefore the Israelites had a dispensation for 40▪ years in the wilderness; Moses neglected the Circumcision of his child probably for this cause; and his wife (when the Child was Circumcised) called him a bloody husband. The Sichemites were slain, as unable to defend themselves, while they were sore of the wound of Circumcision. T. Mr. T. Said, that the Doctrine of Moses was the yoke of which Infants were not capable. C. He replied; that Circumcision was principally meant, and the doctrine of Moses only as an Appendix of it, and children were as capable of the doctrine then, as they were in Abraham, and Moses his time, when all in the moment of Circumcision were tied to the observation of the doctrine, though they of ripe years (to use Vossius his distinction) were taught the doctrine antecedenter, before Circumcision, infants of eight days consequenter, after Circumcision, when age made them capable; I know (says God) Abraham will teach his Children; So it is apparent all those upon whom Circumcision with the doctrine of Moses was to be imposed, were called Disciples; But some of these were Infants, for only Infants were Circumcised among the Jews, and Infants with the Parents among the Gentiles; therefore some infants are Disciples. Mr. T. Without any distinct answer would have broke through the pales to rove abroad again. C. But he pressed him to keep within the lists, urging this Argument. They to whom is the promise, they may be baptised, it's the Apostles own inference, Acts 2. 28. Be baptised, for the promise is to you; But to Infants of believing parents is the promise, the promise is to you, and your Children; therefore Infants may be baptised. T. He denied the Minor, that to infants of believing parents is the promise. C. He told him, it was the words of the text, The promise is to you, and your Children. T. Then Mr. T. Said they were not believers yet. C. Mr. C. Replied, they were believers in fieri, though perhaps not in facto. T. That's Latin (says Mr. T.) what do you understand by it? C. He said, I mean this, they were believers by outward assent, and disposition, sufficient to make them members visible; but perhaps not believers by inward assent, and habit to justify them. For I know you will not say that none are to be baptised but they that have a saving faith, wh●ch none but God is able to discern. Ministers must act according to rule, which in adultis, is outward profession, or a willingness to receive the Ordinance, and that they were thus qualified (which is sufficient) it is apparent. T. Mr. T. Denied that they were sufficiently qualified. C. Which was proved thus; They whom the Apostle commanded to be baptised, were sufficiently qualified; But the Apostle commanded them to be baptised; Therefore they were sufficiently qualified. T. Then Mr. T▪ Without repeating the Syllogism, or applying any distinction, inquired where the Apostle commanded them to be Baptised. C. He told him verse 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be baptised every one of you. T. Yes (says Mr. T.) Upon condition of Repentance, repent and he Baptised. C. That is a condition of your own making, and an adding to the Word of God, for where does the Scripture, either expressly, or implyedly say, that Repentance is a condition of Baptism? if it be meant of complete repentance, true it is, ●t was their duty both to repent, and to be baptised, to repent in relation to crucifying of Christ, to be baptised in relation to Judaisme, which they were to put off, and Christianity which they were to put on; But that they must have complete repentance before baptism, it is not so much as hinted at. And if you mean incomplete repentance (which is indeed all that is required) they had that already, for they were pricked in conscience, saying, Men, and brethren what shall we do? T. Mr. T. Said that was not all that was required, nor was it a sufficient qualification for Baptism. C. Against which answer was concluded thus; That upon which the Apostles Baptised three thousand the same day, was a sufficient qualification; But the Apostles upon that baptised ●000. the same day; Therefore it was a sufficient qualification. T. He denied the Minor, and gave his reason from the 40. and 41. verses. And With many other words did he testify, and exhort, saying. Save yourselves from this untoward generation, than they that gladly received the word were Baptised. C. It was replied, that this was but a recapitulation, or reciting of the heads of Peter's Sermon that he preached to them, before they were pricked in conscience, or were exhorted to be baptised, and no new act; which was a thing usual in Scripture, as Gen. 1. God having expressed the creation of Man, and God's blessing of him, and all creatures to him, by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recites the manner of his creation in the second Chapter. But howsoever it made nothing against him, for whether it be taken thetically without any condition, or hypothetically upon condition of repentance, the Children were to be baptised together with the Parents, the promise is to you and your Children, and that was all that he contended for; from whence ariseth this Argument, To whom the promise of Grace belongs, to them baptism belongs also; but the promise of Grace belongs to believers and their Children; Therefore Baptism belongs to both. T. Mr. T. said, the Promise of Grace belonged to Believers, and their Children, when their Children actually believed, and not before. C. He replied, there were two Arguments in the text to overthrow that: The first might be drawn from the Indicative praedication in the present tense, the Promise is you, and your Children, is, for the present, as well to your Children, as to you. The second, from the opposition betwixt you and your Children, and them that are afar off. They, and their Children, which are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 near (as the Greek Scholiast, and the Syrian Interpreter says) are opposed to them that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a far off. The Jews were near, and in Covenant, for to them is the promise in the present tense, but the Gentiles were afar off, Rom. 2. 15. Ye who sometimes were a far off, are made nigh by the Blood of Christ, therefore it is expressed in the future tense, as many as God shall call; So that to the Jews being called, their Children were in Covenant with them; when the Gentiles shall be called, their Children shall be in Covenant with them. T. Mr. T. said, he granted that Children were in Covenant, and might be baptised. C. Well then observe, good People, the Dispute is at an end, he grants that Children are in Covenant, and may be baptised. T. Yes, but by those Children are not meant Infants, but Grown Men. C. He replied, there are many circumstances in the text overthrows that; first, the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to bring forth, given sometimes to Children in the womb, for the most part to them that are newly born, or young. T. Mr. T. said, it was also given to Men of ripe age. C. Yes sometimes, by a figurative speech, (as that of Julius Caesar to Brutus in Plutarch) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and thou my Child. And well might he call him his Child, for he had adopted him in the night before; but properly it signifies a young Child, and so it ought to be taken here, unless some convincing reason can be given to the contrary, according to that rule, Omne analogum per se positum, stat pro famosiore significato. Mr. T. gave no answer, but with a jeering Echo repeated the last words, pro famosiore significato. The second circumstance in the text, is the substantive verb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is, the promise is to you, and your Children, not is to you, and shall be to your Children; now what Children had they at this present, but young Children? unless Master T. will imagine that they were all old Men and Women that were present, and their Younger Men and Women were absent. The third circumstance in the text is the finis cui, the end to whom the promise is, to you, and your Children; the Jews Children under the Law were in Covenant with their Parents, the Charter is confirmed under the Gospel to them and their Children. The Jews when they crucified Christ, called for a Curse upon themselves, and upon their Children, here the Apostle gives them a Remedy as large as the Disease, the promise (that is, of Freedom from the curse) is to you and your Children. T. Mr. T. Still kept his conclasion in despite of the Premises, that it was to their Children when they actually believed, and not before. C. Yes, and before they actually believe, which I prove thus: The blessing is as large as the curse; But the curse extended even to children, before they could actually believe (his blood be upon us and upon our children) Therefore the blessing. T. Master T. answered to the Major thus: If by blessing was meant the inward and spiritual part of the Covenant, it might be true; but that was nothing to the present purpose, seeing it was not known to us: But if the outward, and visible part, he denied that Infants were capable of the blessing, as well as liable to the curse. C. Which distinction was took away thus: They that are holy with a covenant-holiness are capable of the outward and visible part; But Infants of believers are holy with a Covenant-holiness; Therefore they are capable of the outward and visible part. T. Mr. T. denied the Minor, and said that Covenant-holiness was gibberish, which they that spoke did not understand themselves. C. Master C. replied, it was the language of learned men of all ages, amongst whom were Volsius, Bullinger, and Hugo Grotius; and that Children of believing Parents were holy before baptism, and that baptism did not make, but declare them to be Christians. Then cried out a cobbler, [I. E.] that hath been dipped) this is Blasphemy. C. Well, you discover of what spirit you are, and your ignorance; Are not these the words of the learned assembly of Divines in the Directory confirmed by Ordinance of Parliament? That Infants are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they▪ baptised [Pag. 12.] And that Infants of believing Parents are thus holy, with a federal, or Covenant-holiness, I thus prove from, 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unclean, but now they are holy. T. That says Master T. Is meant of Matrimonial holiness, or a lawful use of the Marriagebed, that they are no Bastards. C. That Answer I thus infringe. That which in Scripture is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense, and not so much as once for Matrimonial holiness, 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; Therefore it cannot be so meant here. T. That Argument (says Master T.) I will retort upon you, That which in Scripture is taken six hundred times in a distinct sense, and never once for Covenant▪ holiness cannot be meant here; But it is taken six hundred times in a distinct sense, and never once for Covenant-holiness; Therefore it cannot be meant here. C. To which was replied, this is to invert the order of the dispute, you are to answer, and not to oppose. T. I may oppose by retorting of an Argument, and I will answer anon. C. Well, to satisfy you, I deny your Minor, for it's taken oft in Scripture for Covenant-holiness. T. Where? C. The proof lies upon you, that it is not, yet I'll give you one instance, or two, Rom. 11. 16 if the first fruits be holy, the Lump is also holy, and if the root be holy, so are the branches. T. That is not meant of a Covenant-holyness. C. Yes, it's as clear as the light, and so you yourself interpreted it at Ross, as there are hundreds that will witness, which was upon this occasion. I pressed that if the immediate parents were holy, the children were holy with a Covenant holiness; you denied the inference, and said the meaning of it was, that Abraham the father of the faithful was the first fruits, and root that was holy, and therefore his posterity was holy, and in covenant [And in this exposition, as he agreed with truth, so with Beza. who says that children are holy, that is comprehended in covenant from the womb, and with Bowls who saith, that they are holy with outward holiness, by which they are judged to be in covenant.] But to return from whence, by your retortion, we have digressed. I am to prove that holiness is never taken in Scripture for Matrimonial cleanness in opposition to Illegitimation. Not in that place Ezra 9 2. the holy seed have mingled themselves with the seed of those lands; which is either your only, or principal hold, (as far as I can gather out of your books) therefore in no place. T. He denied the Antecedent. C. Which was proved thus. If it be meant of Matrimonial cleanness, than this must be the meaning of the words; The holy seed, that is the lawfully begotten Jews, have mingled themselves with the seed of those lands, that is the bastards of those lands; But that cannot be the meaning, for happily there were some Bastards among the Jews, and in that sense not holy, and no Bastards among the Nations, but all, or the most Legitimate, and therefore in that sense not unholy; Therefore it is not meant of Matrimonial holiness. T. He denied the Major, affirming that both Jews, and Nations, were holy before their mixture, but then, both they, and their Children became unclean, because God had forbidden them to marry with the Nations. C. To which was answered, they that are Saints are not unholy; But some Saints have been begot by this mixture, or unlawful bed, as Jepthah, who Hebr. 11. is said to be justified by faith; Therefore they are not unholy. T. He denied the Major, saying, they may be unholy by their Natural Generation, and first birth, and yet holy by Regeneration, and new birth. C. This strikes not home; Moses had children by his Ethiopian woman, but they were not illegitimate; therefore those that were begot by mixture with the Nations were not Illegimate. T. Master Tombs said, that was before the Law was given. C. Well, that Answer will do you little service; after the Law was given, Solomon had children by Rahab, who was a Cananitish, and Boaz by Ruth, who was a Moabitish woman; and yet they were not Illegitimate, or unholy, as you would have it. T. They became Proselytes, and received the Religion of the Jews. C. Well then, while they were not of the Jews Religion, though no Bastards, they were unholy, when they embraced the Jews Religion (by your own confession) they became holy; what is this but a Covenant holiness which you have opposed all this while, and now grant it? T. Mr. T. Used many words to clear himself, but with little satisfaction to the greaiest part of the hearers, and still denied that children were holy, and in Covenant. C. Which was further proved thus. They that Christ took up in his arms, blessed, said, the Kingdom of God belonged unto them, pronounced a curse upon those that despised, and would receive, are holy with a Covenant-holyness; But Christ took up little children into his, arms, blessed them, said, the Kingdom of God belonged unto them, pronounced a curse upon those that despised, and would not receive them; Therefore little Children are holy with a Covenant-holiness. T. Mr. Tombs began to be nettled, as if something in this Argument galled him, saying it was a fallacy, and that he went about to entrap him by sophistry. C. What fallacy? T. A heaping of many things together that belong to several matters. C. I confess they were spoken upon several occasions, but they all concentre in my Conclusion, that children are holy, and in Covenant; I am in haste, and named them all together, but if you will have patience, I'll prosecute them severally. T. I am willing to continue till midnight, but I like not this kind of arguing. C. You like it not, because it does jugutum pel●re, cut the throat of your tenet. T. No not so much as touch the skin of it, says he. C. Well I beseech you in the spirit of meekness to answer. T. It is a fallacy of heaping many particulars together. C. I confess there is a fallacy they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. T. Take notice, he confesses it is a fallacy. C. No such thing, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an ask of many Questions, which is your usual fallacy, Socratically to ask, when you should solidly answer, but in my Syllogism there is not so much as one Question. T. It is a Copulative proposition says Mr. Tombs, and if one member of it be false, the whole is false. C. It is not an explicit Copulative proposition (says Master C.) neither is any member of it false (for every branch of it is Scripture,) Instance in any of the particulars that you think makes the least for me, and I'll begin with that; then he mentioned Matth. 18. 2. Which words being read, from thence he raised this Argument. They to whom belongs the Kingdom of Heaven, are holy, and in Covenant; But to little children belongs the Kingdom of Heaven; Therefore little children are holy and in Covenant. T. Those little Children were not Infants. C. They are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because they could scarce speak. T. What are these called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? C. If not here, elsewhere, and of other Evangelists, and here they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the diminutive, which the great Master of the Greek Hypocrates interprets, to signify a Child under seven years of age, and therefore not capable of actual faith, when the Apostles themselves were yet ignorant about fundamentals. T. They were converted verse 3. Except ye be converted, and become as little Children, etc. C. The meaning is not that the little Children are converted, but it hath relation to the Disciples in the first verse, who must be converted from their actual sins, and become as little children which have no actual sin. T. O how unhappy are the people that are seduced with these toys, are you not ashamed? C. I see you have learned of that man in Lucian to cry out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to vilify that Argument you cannot answer, and besides that, I see nothing that is shame-worthy. He hath answered nothing at all (says one under the Pulpit) but shifts and denies all. T. Thou art an impudent, brazenfaced fellow, whosoever thou art, I have answered all, confuted all my adversaries Books, and amongst them one of my greatest Antagonists, I have turned Master Richard Baxter the most of his Arguments against himself. C. Sir, let that worthy man alone who is absent, you are now to answer me. T. Here is nothing to answer, is it not in the sixth verse, Who so shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me? were they not believers? C. Yes, the Disciples were believers, which are here meant, and not the children; which the Grammatical construction will tell you, for it is in the masculine gender, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one of these little ones, meaning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciple, not ●n the Neuter Gender to answer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, little child; so that my Argument remains unanswered. T. I am weary of this pedantry, and looking upon his watch, said, I promised but one hour, and it's above four hours; with that he clapped his Book together. [T. J.] Good Master Tombs (says an Anabaptist) continue a little longer for satisfaction of the people; he gave no answer, but put on his hat. C. Well, Sir, I will not press you any further now, I should have urged John 3. 5. Rom. 11. and other places, to prove Infant's Church membership, and have come to the second and third branches of mine Argument, that Christ merited it for them, and Infants stand in need of baptism; but those I must leave to another opportunity; Therefore I desire that we may have a set day about a Month hence, seeing I was hurried to this extemporal discourse through importunity. T. No, I will have no more dealing with you, unless it be by writing, that what both of us shall set down, may be read in the public Congregation. MARK. 16. 15, 16. 15. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and Preach the Gospel to every Creature. 16. He that believeth, and is Baptised, shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be damned. THese two verses hold out the rich Charter of the Gospel, which our Saviour delivered to the Apostles after his Resurrection; The parts are two, First a Precept, in the former verse, Go ye into all the world, and Preach the Gospel to every Creature; Secondly a Promise, with a Commination in the latter. He that believeth, and is Baptised, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned. In the Precept, we have two particulars, First a Mission, he sends them, Go ye into all the world; Secondly a Commission, he authorises them, and Preach the Gospel to every Creature. In the latter verse, or promise, we have First the thing promised, laid down affirmatively, shall be saved; Secondly the qualification, and that either absolute, he that believeth, or conditional, and is Baptised; he that believeth, and is Baptised, shall be saved; Or a Commination shall be damned, with a qualification negative, and absolutely without any limitation, he that believeth not shall be damned. We'll only hint at the former verse for introduction to the latter And he said, (that is Christ,) Observe, that it is only God, Christ God and Man, that can give Mission, or Commission to Preach, and ordain Sacraments. Matth. 28. 18. All power is given me in Heaven and Earth, Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations. Go ye into all the world, there is the largeness of their Commission, to all the world, as he, to all Nations as Matthew. Hence observe, the Apostles, and by them the Evangelists had an extraordinary Commission, which extended through the world, but our Commission ordinarily is limited to certain places; True it is, there may be itinerants upon special occasions, (and they also confined within their verges,) But as Doctor Buckeridge observes well when Christ speaks to Apostles, he says, Go ye into all the world, but when to ordinary Pastors, and Teachers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he fixed some to be Pastors, and some Teachers. And Preach the Gospel to every Creature, there is the Commission, wherein we have First the Act Preach, that is proclaim, Secondly the object of the Gospel, which in the Original, and other languages signifies good news, or a good speech; from the connexion between the Mission and Commission coming from the same Author Christ, and extended to the same persons, the Apostles, and their successors, observe, that none may Preach as Church-Officers, but they that are sent in a Gospel-way; our adversary in the common cause spoke so home to this, that we need not press it further. The last thing is the extent of the Commission, and that a very large one, unto every Creature, as here, to all Nations, as Matthew. Now the Quaere will be, what is meant by every Creature? Some limit it to every rational creature, Angels, men, Devils, as Origen, and his misericordes Doctores who held the Devils and reprobates should be saved; but that cannot be; for 2 Pet. 2. 4. They are cast down to hell, and reserved to judgement. Some more strictly restrain it only to man, and that when he is come to age, and understanding, excluding Children; this is too strict, True it is, Infants are not capable to be taught of men, but they may be taught of God; they cannot actually understand the Gospel, but they may actually receive the benefit of the Gospel; a noble man's Child hath interest in his Father's ●atent, and pardon; a sucking Infant (though he knows it not) may be joined in a lease with the Parents. Some extend it, and it is conceived more fitly according to the Letter, without any Syneedoche, or figure, to every creature, as if he should say, Go● and proclaim the benefit that comes by Christ to every Creature; for as by the first Adam all creatures were accursed, so by Christ the second Adam, all creatures shall be blessed, Rom. 8. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every creature groans desiring to be nelivered into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God, answerable to this, Preach the Gospl 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every creature, telling them, that they are now by Christ to be delivered into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God. Object. But the creature cannot hear, nor understand. Answ. It's true not properly, no more could John Baptist in his Mother's Womb, and yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Babe sprang for joy; Nay the Holy Ghost ascribes a hearing to the creature, Hosea 2. 21. And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord, I will hear the Heavens, and they shall hear the Earth, and the Earth shall hear the Corn, and the Wine, and the Oil, and they shall hear Jezreel. Hence observe, that every creature in a sense is sensible of the benefit they have by Christ; but every one in their kind: men come to years, and discretion are capable of actual understanding, actual profession, actual faith; Infants only in actu primo, are capable of the first seeds of understanding, of profession, of Faith, which will show itself in the fruits when they come to years; The rest of our fellow-creatures as by a natural instinct they groan for the curse, so by an other instinct, they lift up their heads in expectation of the blessing, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with an earnest expectation, or a stretched out neck, as the word in the original signifies, Rom. 8. 9 Thus we have paraphrased upon the first verse for introduction to the second, wherein is First, a Consolatory promise, he that believeth, and is Baptised, shall be saved; Secondly a comminatory Curse, he that believeth not, shall be damned. In the former, we have first the qualification, and that either absolute, he that believeth, or conditional, and is Baptised. Q. Now the Quaere will be, what belief is here meant? Sol. First the event tells us, that belief that saves us, he that believes shall be saved. Secondly the opposition, its contrary to that unbelief that damns; Observe that a saving faith is necessary to salvation; without faith it is impossible to please God, all they and only they that have a saving Faith shall be saved; so that you see that Faith is a necessary and absolute condition. And is Baptised, that is upon supposition, if Baptism conveniently may be had; hence observe, that Baptism is not absolutely necessary by necessity of means (as they call it) as if none could be saved without it, but by necessity of Precept, if conveniently it may be had. The Israelites for forty years in the Wilderness were not Circumcised. Bernard, that saw not all things, could see this, that, non absentia sed contemptus Sacramenti damnat, not the want, but the contempt of the Sacrament damns: Valentinian the Emperor died, as he was going to be Baptised in Jordan, and Ambrose being asked what he thought of him, answered, that he was Baptizatus vote, & voluntate, etiam si non reverà aquae lavacre, Baptised inwardly with wish, and will, though not outwardly with the la●er of water; Austin is conceived here to be mistaken, who denied salvation to Infant's Unbaptised, hence he is called durus Pater Infantum, a hard Father of Infants; and many of the Doctors of the Church of Rome, who hold that Infants that die Unbaptised are kept in limbo Infantum, in a Purgatory of Infants, where they shall never behold the beatifical vision. Object. But here is first placed Believing, and then Baptised, so that from the order of placing the words, some would gather that we are first to Believe before we be Baptised. Answ. That will not follow; for Mark 1. 4. There is placed first Baptising, and then Preaching, and repentance after, whence they might as well gather that we must be Baptised, before we can hear the word Preached, or repent; Repentance in Scripture is oft placed before Faith, and yet is a fruit, and effect of Faith; some of the Evangelists place Judas his receiving of the sop before the Sacrament, some after it; it is a rule in interpreting of holy Writ, that Scriptura nescit prius, & posterius, the Scripture does not always observe the precise order in which things were done. Q. But I beseech you consider what Faith it is that is here meant? Sol. A saving Faith; Must then a saving Faith be the rule of our Baptism? and must we Baptise none, but those we know have a saving Faith; then we must Baptise none at all; never any Minister upon that ground had ever Commission to Baptise any, no not the Apostles, for they did not infallibly know that those they Baptised had a saving Faith; nay, they actually Baptised many that were hypocrites, as Simon Magus, Alexander, Hyme●aus, Philetus, and others; hence observe, That no rule for Baptising in general can be gathered out of this Text, And to say that none are to be Baptised, but they that have a saving Faith, which is the Faith that is only here meant, or none but they which make an outward profession of Faith (which is not here meant) is an untruth not gatherable from this Scripture, and an adding to the word of God, against which he hath proclaimed a solemn curse. The Commination, or curse follows in the last words, He that believeth not, shall be damned; he does not say, he that is not Baptised shall be damned For though the contempt of it is dangerous, yet a man may be saved without Baptism; he does not say that h● that ●s not dipped over head is damned, that is a thing indifferent, any washing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is Baptism; he does not say, that he that is not rebaptized, or Baptised again, is damned, for that is the invention of Man, never hea●d of (in that sens●) before John of Leydens' time, who confessed this execution, that he had that, and the rest of his poysone● Doctrine from Satan. Hence observe, That all unbelievers, though Baptised, shall be damned; men believing, though (through invincible necessity) Un Baptised, sh●ll be saved; thus we have given you the lively meaning of the Holy Ghost in the Text. Having laid this foundation, we'll make further inquiry into two things which are in controversy, First what is meant by Baptism, or Baptising, Secondly whether Infants ought to be Baptised or no. First, Baptism in the Original, signifies nothing but a washing, as Pareus upon the Hebrews says, Baptismus Graecis est quaevis ablutio, Baptism is in Greek any washing, whether by dipping, or sprinkling; to Baptise is to dip, or sprinkle says, Ravenel so says the Churches old Catechism, dipped, or sprinkled in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; so the Directory, Baptise the child, by pouring, or sprinkling of the water on the face of the child, without adding any further ceremony. And as many kinds there are of washing, so many there are of Baptising, whereof the Pillars of the Greek Tongue, Hesyehius, Budeus, Stepha●us, Scapula, Arius Montanus, Pasor, mention four; First tingere, to die, or tincture, Secondly mergere, to drown, or plunge, Thirdly madefacere, to wet, or moisten, and lastly abluere, to wash, or cleanse. I confess there are some that distinguish betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to rantise (as they call it) or sprinkle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is to plunge to the bottom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to swim upon the top, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is, as they criticise upon it, to swim betwixt the top, and bottom; these three last are mentioned by Casaubon in his notes upon the third Chapter of St. Matthew, as was quoted by our adversary, but with what fidelity, or advantage to his cause, I leave it to the Godly, and learned to Judge, for he left out the last words, wherein the whole state of the question is determined by Casaubon against him, for thus he concludes, horum sententia jampridem merito est explosa, etc. the judgement of those men is deservedly long since exploded, and trampled down, that would have Baptising to be by dipping, and he gives a reason, quum non in eo posita sit mysteri● hujus vis, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seeing the force, and efficacy of Baptism, this mystery, consists not in that, that is the manner of washing. Which is confirmed by Aquinas, Immersio non est de necessitate Baptismi, dipping is not of the necessity of Baptism, And Dominico Sotus, Ablutio est de essentia Baptismi, washing is of the essence of Baptism, but the manner of washing, whether by dipping, pouring, or sprinkling, is accidental. Many places of Scripture confirm this, 1 Cor. 10. 2. there the Israelites were Baptised in the red Sea, when their feet did but touch the water, not as if they were Baptised, when they were not (as the Anabaptists gloss upon this place) and that the Egyptians were really Baptised, for the Egyptians were not Baptised in their sense, but sunk to the bottom like stones. Exod. 15. 5. Baptised under the Cloud, not that the Egyptians were Baptised, and the Israelites as if they were (as they descant) under the Cloud, for the Egyptians were never under the Cloud, for the Israelites went before the Egyptians; and the Cloud, part of it was over the Israelites, part of it went before them. There is mention made in the Gospel of Baptising, or washing of themselves when they came from Market, of Cups, of Vessels, of Tables, which cannot be meant of plunging▪ in water so often, where that Element was so scarce, but rincing. John's Baptising in Jordan, Philip's going down to the River with the Eunuch proves nothing at all; for what strange consequence would this be, especially from the Anabaptists (that must have express Scripture for all things) John Baptised in Jordan, Philip went down into the water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to the water. with the Eunuch, therefore, they were dipped, seeing it might as well be by pouring, or sprinkling of water upon them, for any thing that appears out of the Text. Object. John Baptised in Enon, because there was much water. Answ. This will seem to be no wonder in those hot Countries, where there are many miles without a Spring of water, especially seeing Geographers, and Travellers tells us, that Enon is a little Brook that one may stride over, scarce Knee deep, and therefore not capable of dipping. Object. But Baptism, say they, must resemble the death of Christ, Rom. 6. 4. We are buried with him by Baptism, which is not by sprinkling, but dipping. Answ. I answer, the scope of the place is to show, that one end of our Baptism is to Seal our Communion with Christ in his death, but to press a necessity of resemblance by descending into the water, and coming out again, we see no ground in Text, and if our abiding under the water must answer Christ's Burial in exact representation, then as Christ lay three days, and three nights in the Grave, so they must lie three days, and three nights under the water, which if it were put in execution, the dispute would quickly be at an end. But should we grant this resemblance, I appeal to any man, whether our pouring on of water in Baptism, does not more resemble our Christian Burial, which is by pouring on of Earth, or Dust, than by plunging over head. Thus you see it proved, that Baptising is any kind of washing, In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; we do not deny with Master Perkins, that if we were to Baptise converted Turks, or Pagans of ripe age, in hot Countries, we might Baptise them by dipping, Provided that their Garments were not first Baptised, or washed, for that is conceived to be no less superstition, than Beptizing of Bells; Baptism (says Vossius) non est immersio vestium, sed humani Corporis, is not a washing of the Garments, but of the Body; we account the Church of Rome Idolaters, for presenting that worship, First to the Image, which is terminated in Christ; the Garments are first washed, or dipped, and the Body but at the most wet, or moistened through them. But to affirm that no Baptism but that which is by dipping is lawful, is a will-worship, much more, that Baptism otherwise is a nullity, and those that are Baptised so, aught to be Baptised again, or rebaptized, which the Senate of Syrick understood well, when they made an Act, that all that did presume to Re-Baptize such as were Baptised before, should be drowned. So we have resolved the former doubt, that Baptising is not dipping, and come to the latter, that Infants may, nay aught to be Baptised. And (Brethren) I beseech you to give me leave a little to speak for Infants, those poor Souls, that cannot speak for themselves. And before we come to the Question, take with you these two Considerations; First, that those truths that were not in controversy in the Primitive times, the Apostles were not so punctual in pressing of them, seeing there was no need; Solon being asked why he made no Law against murderers of Parents, answered, because he conceived none would commit that unnatural Act; If the Apostles had been asked, why they did not put down Infant-Baptism in plainer terms, I suppose they would have answered, that they thought none would have denied it. Secondly observe, that those things that are pressed often in the old Testament, are mentioned more sparingly in the New, as the Sabbath, and Magistracy in the old Testament, line upon line, and precept upon precept, but scarce a Syllable for a Christian Sabbath, or a Christian Magistracy in the new. Nothing is more clear than Infant's Church-Membership in the old Testament, therefore not so clear in the New, and yet clear enough to those that have eyes to see it, as will appear by these reasons following. 1. Arg. First, those that are in Covenant with God, aught to have the Seal of the Covenant, which is Baptism. But Infants of believing Parents are in Covenant with God. Therefore Infants ought to have the Seal of the Covenant, which is Baptism. The former Proposition is firm by Confession of all Divines, even our adversaries, Haec est fundamentalis ratio paedobaptismi (says Daneus) this is the fundamental reason of Baptising of Infants, that they are in Covenant, Esse foederatum sufficit ad accipiendum signum foederis, says Davenant, to be in Covenant is sufficient to receive the sign, and seal of the Covenant, Omnes foederati sunt Baptizandi, says Wendol, all that are in Covenant are to be Baptised, Simo in foedere sunt, impiè agunt, qui eis signum foederis negant, saith Ferus, if they be in Covenant, they do wickedly that deny them the sign of the Covenant; in a Civil contract (says Mr. Perkins) the Father, and the heir make but one person, and the Covenant's for himself and his posterity. The Minor proposition that Infants of believing Parents are in Covenant, is grounded on many Scriptures, Genes. 17. 7. Where God establishes a Covenant, not only with Abraham, but with his seed after him in their generations, for an everlasting Covenant, everlasting, and therefore to last to the end of the World, as Cornelius à Lapide says, absolutè aeternum est in semine spirituali fidelibus, It is absolutely everlasting in the spiritual seed to the faithful. Galat. 3. 8. The Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel to Abraham; therefore if Isaac was in Covenant with his Father when he was but eight days old, and had the seal by virtue of the Lamb to be slain, much more the Children of believing Parents, by virtue of the Lamb that is already slain Deuter. 29. 11. When all the people stood in Covenant before the Lord, their little ones are mentioned amongst the rest, which is further confirmed, Acts 2. 38, 39 Be Baptised every one of you, for the promise is to you, and your Children; to say that they were not yet believers, is but a shift, the Text makes it clear, as soon as they were believers, their Children were in Covenant with them, and to be Baptised. Arg. 2 Such as were Circumcised under the Law, may be Baptised under the Gospel. But Infants of believers were Circumcised under the Law. Therefore they may be baptised under the Gospel. Huic Argumento non omnes Anabaptistae resistent (says learned Whitaker) all the Anabaptists shall not be able to resist this Argument; the Minor, that Infants under the Law were Circumcised, is confessed. The former proposition is only questioned, that Baptism under the Gospel to Infants, does not necessarily follow from Circumcision under the Law; Augustin is clear for it, saying, Mutatis signis manet eadem gratia sine aetatis discrimine, the outward visible signs being changed, the same grace remains without any difference of age, and he gives a reason, because the grace of God is not straighter in the new Testament than in the old; Therefore Christ, Hebr. 8. 6. Is said to be Mediator of a better Covenant, but how were it a better Covenant, if all poor Infants that were in Covenant under the Law, were out of Covenant under the Gospel? Titus 2. 12. The grace of God hath appeared unto all, and therefore surely to Infants; as Irenaeus says, Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est, Christ became a little one, for little ones sake, that he might redeem the little ones. Little ones were the first Martyrs that suffered for Christ, in Rama was a voice heard; and that Baptism came in place of Circumcision, the Apostle clears it, Coloss. 2. 11. 12. Ye are Circumcised with Circumcision made without hands; How is that? Buried with him in Baptism. Hence arises another Argument. Arg. 3. Those that were once in Covenant, had the Seal of the Covenant, and were never disfranchized, and put out of Covenant, have title to the Covenant, and Seal of it still. But Infants were once in Covenant, had the Seal of the Covenant, and were never disfranchized, and put out of Covenant. Therefore Infants have title to the covenant, and seal of it still. Let any man show one syllable, one tittle in Scripture, that ever Infants were put out, and we'll yield the gauntlet; nay, the Gospel is so far from expressing of them that they are put out, that it gives them large commendations beyond them of riper years, making them the rule of our perfection, as new born babes, receive the sincere milk of the Word. Unless you be as little Children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of God; which is a case so clear, that even Bellarmine himself includes, Nullum est impedimentum, etc. there is nothing that hinders, but that Infants may as well be Baptised under the Gospel, as they were Circumcised under the Law; for neither hath God forbidden Ministers to give them the Sacrament, neither are they uncapable to receive it. Arg. 4. That which God hath commanded may lawfully be practised by the Ministers of Jesus Christ. But God hath commanded Infant-Baptism. Therefore it may be lawfully practised by the Ministers of Jesus Christ. That God hath commanded it, appears, Matth. 28. 19 Go Baptise all Nations; it's a general command and (as Aquinas says) posito generali mandato pars ejus negari non potest, a general command being given, no part of it can be denied; Infants are a part of Nations, and included in them. Object. But here is no mention made of Infants. AnsW. No nor of them of age; we might retort it upon our adversaries, there is no mention made of Dippers, no, nor of them that are to be dipped, therefore they ought not to dip, nor be dipped: Generals include particulars in all Laws; Psalm. 117. Praise the Lord all ye Nations, Nations includes old men and babes, young men and maids all without exception, as another Psalm interprets it. Now if Infants be excepted, contrary to that saying of Saint Ambrose, Qui dixit omnes nullum excepit, neque parvulos, etc. He that commanded all to be Baptised, excepted none, no, not little ones. If (I say) they be excepted, it's either because they are not named, or because we never read in Scripture that any Infants were Baptised, or, because they are not capable; (that fourth cavil being the same with the third, I'll take away anon) but for none of these three; therefore Infants are not excepted from Baptism. Not for the first, because they are not named, for so neither old men, nor nobles, nor Ministers are named. Not because we read not of their Baptism, so we neither read of the Baptism of the Apostles, nor of the Virgin Mary, yet we piously believe that they were Baptised; De negatione facti ad jus non valet consequentia, such a thing is not mentioned, that it was done; therefore it was not done, or was not done therefore it ought not to have been done, is no consequence; Christ did, and said many things that are not written; so did his Apostles. Not for the third, because they are uncapable, which is denied; for if Infants be uncapable, it is either because they have not repentance and faith in act, which cannot hinder them; Christ was Baptised, had not repentance, for he had no sin to repent of, had not faith, for faith presupposeth one lost in himself, that depends upon another for salvation; Christ is that Rock of salvation, upon whom all mankind being lost depends; Neither because they cannot hear the word preached; then they that are born deaf should be excluded from Baptism; or because they are not otherwise qualified; but that cannot hinder them, for God requires no more of them that are in covenant, and born, of believing parents, but a pure capacity, and receptability, which Divines call Potentiam objectivam; as God in the beginning created the World of nothing, so in the beginning of the new creature he does regenerate and recreate us of nothing, upon this account it is, that we read of many whole families Baptised not excluding, but rather including▪ Infants, Cornelius was Baptised with his household, Acts 10. 47 48. Lydia, and her household, Acts 16. 15. Crispus, and all his house, Acts 18. 8. and the household of Stephanus, 1 Corinth. 1. 16. the Jailer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all that were his, Acts 16. 31, 32. His Servants, his Children; for can we imagine so many families without a child? Arg. 5. They that are c●pable of the Kingdom, and the blessing which is the greater, are capable of Baptism, which is the ●esser. But Infants are capable of the Kingdom and the blessing which is the greater. Therefore they are capable of Baptism which is the lesser; forbidden not (says our Saviour) little Children to come unto me, for unto such belongs the Kingdom of God; for surely, if the Kinggom of Heaven receive them, the Church may not exclude them; for the Church must receive such as glory receives, Acts 2. 47. There were daily added to the Church such as should be saved. Now for proof of this Argument, take these places Mark. 10. 13. to 17. Mark. 9 14, 36, 37. Matth. 18 2, 3, 4. Matth. 19 13, 14, 15. Luke 9 14, 15. Luke 18. 15, 16. Which though they be spoken upon several occasions, all prove Infants to be Church-members, and capable both of grace, and glory; we'll instance in two, Jesus called a little child unto him, the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which (as Hypocrates in his distinction of ages says, and Beza seconds him,) signifies a child under seven years, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, that is, endeavour to be free from actual sin, as they are, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. The other is that of St. Luke 18. 15▪ wherein observe, First a Precept, Suffer little children to come unto me. Secondly, we have a prohibition, and forbidden them not. Thirdly, his displeasure against his Disciples, for hindering them from coming to him, he looked on this act with indignation, and was much displeased at it. Fourthly, he adds a reason why little ones should be brought to him, because to such belongs the Kingdom of God, that is, the Kingdom of grace here, and glory hereafter; they are visible members of his Church, and Kingdom, and therefore none may hinder their access to him. Fiftly, he confirms this reason, a majori, from the greater to the less, God's Kingdom doth not only belong to them, but I tell you more, whosoever will come into this Kingdom, must resemble Infants in Innocency, humility, simplicity. Sixtly, he adds his benediction of them, he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them; and tell● us that their Angels always see the face of his Father, which is in Heaven; and the danger of them that offend one of these little ones, and all this recorded by three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, as if it were of purpose to check the sacrilegious insolency of these latter times that denies them the seal. Christ is not more punctual by his Spirit, in declaring his own Birth, Passion, Resurrection, than he is in this precious Truth so much trampled under foot. And if any object, these were not young Children, the text easily confutes them, they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Children under seven years of age, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Children that could scarce speak, they did not lead them, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they carried them unto him; Christ is said twice in St. Mark, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to take them up in his arms, and embrace them; Christ was already instructing the people that were able to understand, the Apostles were offended for bringing of Children which could not understand. Well then, doth Christ take Children in his arms, and would he have them all put out of his visible Church? would he have us receive them in his Name, and yet not to receive them into his visible Church, nor as his Disciples? How can Infants be received in Christ's Name, if they belong not visibly to him, and his Church? Nay, doth Christ account it a receiving of himself, and shall we then refuse to receive them, or acknowledge them the subjects of his visible Kingdom? will it not follow then that whosoever refuseth them, refuseth Christ, and him that sent him? For my part (to use the word● of a godly, and learned divine) Seeing the Will of Christ is that I must walk by, and his Word that I must be judged by, and he hath given me so full a discovery of his Will in this point, I will bo●dly adventure to follow his rule, and had rather answer him upon his own encouragement for admitting an hundred Infants into his Church, than answer for keeping out of one. Arg. 6. All Disciples may be Baptised. But Infants of believing parents are Disciples. Therefore some Infants may be Baptised. The Major, or former proposition, is granted by our adversaries, who translate that place, Matth. 28. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, go make Disciples of all Nations, which is in our last translation, Go ●each all Nations, confessing, as soon as they are Disciples they may be Baptised Now for the Minor, that Infants are Disciples, is evident from Acts 15. 10. Why, tempt ye God, and put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples? this yoke was Circumcision, and the attendants of it, as will appear by comparing it with the fift verse, and the context from the beginning of the Chapter. Now among the Jews, children were only to be Circumcised, and amongst the Gentiles, children together with parents when they were converted, and became Proselytes. To say that not only Circumcision, but the Doctrine, and Observation of the whole Law, by the yoke is meant, is but a shift; Circumcision was the Seal, or Ordinance by which the Jews were bound to observe the Doctrine, and the Law, and all those upon whom the yoke was laid by Circumcision are called Disciples; whereof Infants were a great part. And if it be objected, that children are not capable of instruction, as it is nothing to the purpose, so it contradicts Scripture, Esay 54. 13. And all thy Children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of thy Children. And if any one carnally interpret this of the Jews return from captivity, as they do other places of Esa. our Saviour checks them, John 6. 45. And It is written in the Prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Arg. 7. All that have faith may be Baptised. But some Infants have faith. Therefore some Infants may be Baptised. The proposition none will deny, the Minor may be proved by several reasons. First, Christ expressly calls them believers, Matth. 18. He attributes humility to them, and faith; and commands Elders to imitate them; and that you may see they were Infants, Mark 9 36. tells us they were such as Christ ●ook up in his arms. Secondly; they are said to receive the Kingdom of God, Mark 10. that is, the grace of God. Remission of sins, and life eternal; now the Kingdom is not received, but by faith in Christ. Thirdly, they please God, therefore Christ blesseth them; but without faith it is impossible to please God. Fourthly, either faith must be allowed them, or salvation denied them; but the latter is cruel, and impious; therefore the former must be godly, and pious; faith only purifies the heart, but no unclean thing shall enter into Heaven. Fiftly, though Infants cannot make actual profession of faith, yet they may have inward roots of sanctification, and faith. John Baptist and Jeremy were sanctified in their mother's wombs; let carnalists say what they will, that is the principal meaning of that place, Esay 65. 20. There shall be no more a● Infant of days; The Jews thought they were not sanctified, unless a Sabbath went over them; the child shall die an hundred year old, that is, as well in Covenant with God, or a visible Church-member, as if he were a hundred years old. Therefore Paraeus says, Infants Ecclesiae etiam ante Baptismum censentur fideles; Infants of the Church, even before Baptism, are judged faithful. Hommius says, Infants have faith, in semine, in the seed, though not in mess, in the harvest; Beza says, they have faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in power, though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in operation. Faith (says Trelcatius) is twofold; 1. Active which the Elder have by hearing the Word. 2. Passive, and by imputation, which Infants have by virtue of the Covenant, and Divine promise. Pelagius asks Austin where he places Infants Baptised? he answers, in numero credentium, in the number of believers, and adds, nec judicare ullo modo aliter audebis, si non vis esse apertè haereticus, neither may thou presume to judge otherwise, if thou wilt not be a plain Heretic. We'll conclude this with that of Vossius, As in naturals, so in supernaturals we must distinguish these three things, power, habit, and act; there is the power of reasoning in Infants, the habit in men sleeping, but the act, and exercise, in them that are waking; the power answers the seed, the habit the tree, the act, and exercise, the fruit; the seed of Faith may be in Infants, the habit in men of age, but the act, and exercise, in them that work according to the habit. 8. Arg. Those that are Holy, with a Covenant-holiness, may be Baptised. But Infants of believing Parents are Holy with a Covenant-Holiness. Therefore Infants of believing Parents may be Baptised. Eor the former Proposition, foederatis competit signum foederis, (says Vossius) the sign of the Covenant belongs to them that are in Covenant; Holiness is twofold (says Bullinger) either of Faith, or of the Covenant. Ezra. 9 2. Ye have mingled the holy seed, that is them in Covenant, with the Nations, that is them that are out of Covenant. Thus you see, that Covenant-holiness is no gibberish, but grounded upon Scripture, and avouched by learned men: as shall more fully appear. The Minor, that Children of believing Parents are holy with a Covenant-holiness, is clear from 1. Cor. 7. 14. Else your Children were unclean, that is, not in Covenant, but now they are holy that is, in Covenant, thus (besides the ancients) Sharpius, and Peter Martyr interpret it, and Hugo Grotius himself, Non loquitur Apostolus de Sanctitate naturali, etc. The Apostle (says he) speaks not of natural holiness, and inhering to the nature of Children, but of an holiness adhering to them, that is, the holiness of the Covenant, for the Children of believers are comprehended in the Covenant of grace, and therefore accounted holy of God. To interpret it (as the gross Anabaptists do) that they are holy, that is, no Bastards, is a new holiness not heard of in Scripture, and as (Doctor Featly says) a Bastard exposition; and Pareus gives the reason, if the Children of believers be therefore holy, because they are no Bastards, the Children of Pagans are as well holy, for they are also no Bastards. If the first-fruits be holy, the lump is holy, and if the root be holy, so are also the branches. Rom. 11. 16. The first fruits and the root, that is the parents; the lump, the branches, that is the Children, and posterity. And Rom 11. 17. if the Jews were broken off, and the Gentiles graffed into their place, it will follow, that if the Jews were broken off, Parents with Children, than the Gentiles shall be graffed in, Parents with Children. But the Jews were broken off, Parents with Children. Therefore the Gentiles shall be graffed in; Parents with Children. 9 Arg. If Infants should be out of Covenant under the Gospel, many dangerous absurdities would follow. First, Infants would be losers by the coming of Christ, and be put in a worse condition than the Jewish Infants were; they with the Parents were admitted to the Seal of the Covenant, which was Circumcision, and not Children with Parents to Baptism. Secondly, if Infants should be in Covenant then, and not now, Grace would be larger under the Law, than under the Gospel. Thirdly, there would be no difference betwixt the Child of a Christian and of a Pagan, but all the Infants of Christians would be as vile as the Children of Turks, Tartars, or Cannibals. Fourthly, they would be without God, without Christ, without hope in the world; not the Children of God, but of the Devil; would all be damned, for out of Covenant, and visible Church (ordinarily) there is no salvation. 10. Arg. Lastly, that which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success, must needs be lawful. But Infant-Baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles times. Therefore Infant-Baptism is lawful. We'll begin with the first Centurie, or hundred years after Christ. Dionysius the Areopagite, whom the Apostles converted at Athens, says, Holy men have received a Tradition from the Fathers, that is the Apostles, to Baptise Infants. Clemens (who is recorded by some of the ancients to succeed Peter in his Ministry at Rome) says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Baptzie your Infants. Irenaeus (who lived in the second Century) says, Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est, Christ became a little one for little ones sake, that little ones might be received into Covenant. Origen that lived in the beginning of the third Century says, The Church received a Tradition from the Apostles to Baptise Infants, and gives a reason, because they are born in impurity of sin; nay, Pelagius, a great Scholar, who lived in the latter end of this Century, though he denied Original sin, yet confessed Infant-Baptism, for when they pressed him with this Argument, if Infants had not Original sin, what need they Baptism, he answered, that Christ appointed, and the Church practised Infant-Baptism, not to purge sin bypast, but to prevent it for the time to come. Cyprian in the fourth Century confirms it in his Epistle to Fidus, and gives an account of a Council of sixty six Bishops that decreed that Infants should be Baptised. Ambrose says, because every age is liable to sin, therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament of Baptism. Nazianzene says it is better to Seal Infants with Baptism, (though they know it not) than to leave them unsealed. Austin is conceived to go too far, who denied possibility of salvation to them that died unbaptised, pressing that place John 3. 5. Except a Man be Born of water, and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. The Millevitan Council in the fifth Century decreed, That whosoever should deny that Infants, even taken from their Mother's wombs, might not be Baptised, should be accursed. All Churches, All ages since agree in this; the Harmonies of confessions of all Reformed Churches, the Church of England in the Apology, the old Catechism, the twenty seventh Article, the Directory, the greater and lesser Catechism composed by the Assembly of Divines, the late Parliament by a further Declaration, all confirm it; The Canons of our Church did not only in former times declare, but the Laws of our Land did punish Anabaptists as heretics. Mr. Fox in his Acts and Monuments approves of the Albigenses, Waldenses, Wickliffists, Lollards, Poor men of Lions, Brownists, Barrowists, as members of the Reformed Churches, but wholly excludes the Anabaptists, as erring fundamentally. I'll say no more for confirmation of this polemical discourse, but wind up all with a word of exhortation; I beseech you, brethren, consider what a dangerous error this is, that robs the Scripture of its truth, Infants of their right, Parents of their comforts, the Church of its members, Christ of his merits, God of his glory? That is the mother of many other errors; hence sprung the Ranters, Socinians, Antitrinitarians, Shakers', Levellers, they that are above Ordinances, Antiscripturians; An error that God hath expressed many signal judgements against, as Sleiden and Gastius in Germany, and some of our worthies in England have declared. As reverend Mr. Cotton tells one of his Apostated flock, that had his house burned, and his Children in it, No wonder that fire seized upon his house, and God denied water to quench it, who denied that water should be brought to Baptise his Infants. Secondly, consider that much benefit redounds both to Parents, and Children by Infant-Baptism. First, much comfort comes hereby to the Parents, when they consider Gods free grace to them, and theirs, that he is not ashamed to be called their God, and the God of their seed after them. Hebr. 11. 16. Secondly, much benefit comes to Infants by Baptism, (which the Devil knows well, when he causes Witches to renounce their Baptism, when they enter into Covenant with him) for they are thereby addmitted into the bosom of the Church, devoted, and consecrated unto God, his Name is put upon them, they wear his Royal badge, and by it they are distinguished from Heathens. And this is so clear from Scriptures, truly and spiritually understood, That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Now the God of Peace and Truth, by his Spirit, lead us into all truth, keep us pure, and unspotted in this hour of England's temptation, and trial, keep us faithful to the death, that so we may receive a crown of life. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. THE Arraignment and Conviction OF ANABAPTISM. The first Part. Mr. Tombs, 1 Section. A Plea for Antipaedobaptists, against the vanity and falsehood of scribbled papers, Entitled The Anabaptists Anatomised, and silenced in a public Dispute at Abergaveny in Monmothshire, Sept. 5. 165●, betwixt John Tombs, John Cragge, and Henry Vaughan, touching Infant-Baptism. By John Tombs B. D. Job 11. 2, 3. Should not the multitude of words be answered? And should a man full of talk be justified? Should thy lies (or devices) make men hold their peace? And when thou mockest shall no man make thee ashamed? To be sold at the sign of Sir John Oldcastle in Py-Corner. Reply. A Plea for Antipaedobaptists, and why? Does Mr Tombs intent to commence a suit against the Universal Church, and to overthrow the divine institution of Infant-Baptism with the Antiquity, Universality, and Succession thereof? Let him first consider whether his Action will hold Plea, and whether there may not be found a flaw in his title; for the term Antipaedobaptist is a new name, a new thing, and upon farther enquiry will be found a new nothing. But before he make so great an attempt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Giants to contest with Heaven, he might do well Polyphemus like to grapple with Ulysses, and Traverse the Indictment preferred by Mr. Hall's Font-garded, page 74, in these words, Hold up thy hand Anabaptist (or Alias Antipaedobaptist) Thou art here indicted by the name of Anabaptist of the City of Munster in the County of Babel, for that thou contrary to the peace of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour, his Crown and Dignity, hast brought forth disorder, and confusion into the Church of God, together with a bastard brood of Muntzerians, Augustinians, Hofniannians, Georgians, Servetians, Silentiarians, Eucheldians, Swenkfeldians, Hamanarians, or Dungwagons, Euchites, Huttites, Adamites, Gabrielites, Mennonites, Melchiorites, Apostolists, Adiaphorists, Spiritualists, Enthysiasts, Catharists, Separatists, Hemerobaptists Sebaptists, Libertines, etc. Together with a Squadran of Arrians, Arminians, Socinians, Antitrinitarians, Anti-Sabbatarians, Anti-Scripturists, Mortalists, Familists, Perfectists, Origenists, Atheists, Millenaries, etc. And that this might be the better effected let him except against the Jury, which is first the Ancient Fathers, 2. The Reformed Churches, 3. Calvin, 4. Ursin, 5. Apollonius, 6. Mr. Perkins, 7. Mr. Heron, 8. Mr. Pemble, 9 Dr. Usher, 10. Mr. Baxter, 11. Mr. Ward, 12. Mr. Brinsley, 13. Dr. Tho. Goodwin, with many others: And having made good his exceptions, let him reverse the sentence, which is as followeth; Anabaptist thou hast been indicted by the name of Anabaptist, for cruelty and injury to the Lambs of Christ; Thou hast been found guilty, and art condemned both by God, and man, by all reformed Churches, by Scriptures, Fathers, Counsels, by learned and pious Divines, both sorraigne and domestic, both old, and new, by friends and foes: And therefore I adjudge thee to a Recantation, and Abrenunciation of all thy lose licentious tenets, that thou no more disturb this Church and State, lest Justice do Arrest thee. But he unmindful of this, (as if the Anabaptist were the Plaintiff, and not the Reus, or party at the Bar in question) inveighs against the vanity, and falsehood of scribbled papers, Tria Cerberus extulit ora, & tres latratus simul edidit. Ovid Metamor. 5. Three terms of diminution with three breaths. It was Libanius, Porphyry and julian's project to throw dung in the face of Orthodox Writers: So does Mr. Tombs, calling Mr. baxter's learned piece, Plain Scripture-proof for Infant Baptism, A cheat, and Mock-titled book: Mr. Marshals impregnable Defence, Ink and paper, and the relation of the dispute had with him at Abergaveny, vanity and falsehood of scribbled papers. Vanity perhaps, because he thinks it is in vain to attempt the steely resolutions of the fautors, and fomenters of Anabaptism, yet we have found the contrary in some. Falshood, not in respect of the fidelity of relating the Dispute, and Sermon, nor of the Opponents Arguments, which are true in both; But of the position maintained by the Respondent; which is a falsehood, and such an one as may leaven the whole lump. But why of scribbled papers? It may be Mr. Tombs met with it before printed, and not unlikely; because his Answer came out within three weeks after it, which could not be, unless it had been mounted upon Bellerophon's horse, and Pegasus his wings: especially seeing he is known Elephant-like, to be long in conception, and ursino lambere more partum, deliberately to lick into shape, that which he hath conceived. But he goes on saying, they were entitled The Anabaptists Anatomised, and silenced. By whom? Not by the Relator, nor Mr. Vaughan, nor me: I will not say by Mr. Tombs and his party, but I am confident they knew of it long before any of us. But where Anatomised, and silenced? He says in a public Dispute at Abergaveny in Monmothshire, he says; But neither the scribbled papers (to use his Tapinosis) nor printed papers mentions any such thing: Indeed the engraven paper speaks of Anabaptists Anatomised and silenced, but not at Abergaveny, Sept. 5. 1653 The place for any thing I see may be Munster, the time when; when John of Leiden was confuted by the Lantgraves' preachers, so that the last words, are his own pure pute addition, wherein we have found out the vanity, and falsehood before mentioned. And further to bespatter his Antagonists, he closes his frontispiece page with a text out of the book of Job, but very ominously, for they are the words of one unjustly charging Job, as he does us; his name is Zophar, which in the Syriak signifies A Goat, by country a Naamathite, which signifies Set on the left hand, join them together and you know the sentence; And this book thus frontispieced, and embellished, is to be sold at the sign of Sir John Oldcastle, a Traitor who was hanged on a gibbet, and burned in St. Gyles fields. Stow Chr. pag. 599. v●no vendibili digna est hedera, like sign like wine: By the tree we may know the ensuing fruits. Mr. Tombs, 2. Section. There came newly to my hands a pamphlet, wherein the Intitler speaks like a vain Braggadochio, as if the book had ripped up the Anabaptists (as he terms them) and like a Prelate had silenced them, though there was but one, whom with any face it could be pretended that he was Anatomised, or silenced, who yet speaks, and writes for the truth, which these opponents do endeavour to disgrace, and rejoiceth that he lives to find that these men have no other thing to charge him with, than his contending for a reformation of that profane abuse of Infant-sprinkling, and that they have no other encouragement from him to persist in their Paedobaptism, but a fond hope of his returning to that sinful practice. Reply. He says, There came newly to his hands a Pamphlet; And why a Pamphlet, and yet scribbled papers? Unless a Manuscript with a woman's ●oot, and all contradictions ex adjecto may be reconciled: The Intitler (of it he sayas) speaks like a va●n Braggadochio, as if the book had ripped up the Anabaptists; The Intitler he means of the Anabaptists Anatomised and Silenced at Abergaveny. What Intitler? the Man in the moon, or Oberam King of the Fairies? We see none visible but himself, and then judge who is the vain Bragadochio. Besides he altars the state of the question; In the Title page (he says) the Anabaptist anatomised and silenced in a dispute at Abergaveny, and here he speaks of the book Anatomising and silencing the Anabaptists; how do these things suit with the truth? or cohere one with another? There is not such a word in the book as that the Anabaptists were anatomised and silenced at Abergaveny, or if anatomised and silenced in the dispute at Abergaveny, does it follow that the book did rip, and silence them, which was then, and some months after not in being? The Dispute is one thing, the book another, which when Mr. T. writ this, had not so much as seen Abergaveny He adds, to render it more odious, like a Prelate had silenced them; Truly as there is no such thing as a Prelate extant, to silence in the Church, so no such thing as this forementioned Silencing in the book; I wish I could truly say so much of the third; No such thing as an Anabaptist to be silenced; I mean the opinion, their persons I love, their piety, and learning (where it is found) I reverence. But Mr. T. might have found nearer home some more resembling the most Prelatical of Prelates (not excluding the Pope) and that's they that Magisterially prefers their own private opinions before the judgements of learned and godly Assemblies of Divines, Harmonies of Confessions, Determinations of Counsels Oecomenial, censuring all their brethren that dissents of profane abuse and sinful practice, as he does in the words following. In the interim he says, there was but one, whom with any face it could be pretended he was Anatomised or silenced; Perhaps he means, because he was the only Disputant, yet there were two in the Pulpit that interposed with him, some f●w that spoke in the crowd, many that ostentatiously vaunted before the Dispute, that were more modest or silent afterwards. But yet he speaks and writes for the Truth; So said Copp and Collier; I wish he did so, we would be so far from opposing, or disgracing his tenet, that we would endeavour to maintain it with him, and advance it. Truth commonly goes attended with humility, and self-denial, which I fear the words following little relish of, for he rejoiceth that those that descent from him, have no other thing to charge him with, than his contending for a reformation of that profane abuse of Infant-sprinkling: Well, be it so, or the contrary, we had rather with Sem and Japhet cover the nakedness of Fathers in Israel, than with Cam to expose it to open shame: yet we think that the poor Publican that abaseth himself will rather go away justified, than the proud Pharisee that rejoices, or thanks God that he is not as other men, nor as those that are for the profane abuse of Infant-sprinkling; A high charge, and dangerous, if he make it not good, which he will never do by his pretended reformation, otherwise than (to use the homely comparison of a godly man) the devil did, when going to straighten his dams leg, he broke it; In the mean time, the less hope we have of his return, the more is his loss; yet who knows, but he that like Saul reviles this way, which he calls of sinful practice, may with the stray sheep be brought home at length to see his error to the joy of men and Angels. Mr. Tombs. 3 Section. The Libel hath a frontispiece, which pretends to show the manner of the Anabaptists dipping, but most falsely, sigh it represents it to the ey● of the beholders, as if they held persons by the heels when they baptise them, which is otherwise than their practice. The pretended manner of laying on of hands, and washing of feet, is unknown to me; if they do use it, yet they have such likely proofs from Heb. 6. 2. and our Saviour's practice and command, John 13. as might have deterred the Author of this frontispiece from exposing the Ordinance of Baptism, and those other Rites to contempt, had he any reverence to holy things, and regard to Christ's appointment. But the frontispiece of Dr. Featlies' book, and this, with the Epistles, and other passages, do give occasion to intelligent persons to conceive that this sort of men do make but a sport of Christ's Ordinance, and that they have little mind to search for, or receive truth, but to expose them that are for believers Baptism, and against Infant-sprinkling, to the contempt of light, and profane wits, and to the hatred of the ignorant, and superstitious common people. And I conceive that this book is published by men of that spirit, who seek to make odious the endeavoured reformation of ignorance, superstition, profaneness, and ungodliness, which abounds in those parts, and to uphold those either lose, or formal pretended Ministers, who take upon them to teach, but indeed as Elymas the Sorcerer Acts 13. pervert the right way of the Lord. Reply. Still more venom, he calls it a Libel; why? because unlicensed? So is his Plea, and the most of his works, except his Exercitation, and Examen, and they but conditionally, which being violated, renders them more obnoxious. Or because dissonant from the doctrine of the reformed Churches? So this falls under that guilt, and it is cleared. A Libel (as my Lord of St. Alban Etimologized it) hath its name from a , and a Bell; A Lie hatched at home, a Bell to ring it abroad; So Mr. Tombs his Plea for Antipaedobaptists was hatched in private in his study, rung abroad through the Country; A Lie, nay like the man possessed with devils amongst the Tombs, its name is Legion, because they are many. This he saith, hath a Frontispiece, (he should have said an Anti-frontispiece) which pretends to show the manner of Anabaptists dipping, but most falsely, sigh it represents to the eyes of the beholders, as if they held persons by the heels, when they baptise them, which is otherwise then their practice; To which I return in his own language, he relates it most falsely, seeing the representation is otherwise than he says; for if he had not been (I will not say like to Elymas the Sorcerer to whom he compares us) smit with blindness, he might have seen they hold them by the hands and not by the heels; unless their heels be-continued, and immediately joined to their neck, and shoulders, which cannot be imagined, unless like Ulysses companions, when thrown into the water, they are Metamorphized into swine, their arms turned into legs, their hands into heels. And what strange Prodigy, if they had been represented as held by the heels? It's a known thing that some have been thrown in by the hands, but have been pulled out dead by the heels, with this funeral sermon preached over them; (I tremble to utter it) You see that no sooner are they newborn, but God takes them to himself. But this Antipaedobaptist hath another quarrel at the Anti-frontispiece page, which he fastens upon the Paedobaptists, and the frontispiece page; which is, that the pretended manner of laying on of hands, and washing of feet is unknown to him, and yet he seems to call it Christ's appointment, and says that they have likely proofs from Heb. 6. 2. and our Saviour's practice and command John 13. whence we may gather that there are some things of Christ's appointment, and have proof from Scripture and our Saviour's practice, and command, which are unknown to him; It seems he is but yet a Seeker, and though it were true he dissented in nothing from the Church of England, save in the Question of Infant-Baptism; By this principle he is liable to stray as far as the Germane Anabaptists. I will not impeach him with Judaisme, for making a Jewish ceremony a binding command; nor fasten contradictions upon him for applying that here to laying on of hands in Baptism, which in his Examen he interprets to be laying on of hands in Ordination of Ministers; Let those pass; Yet I cannot but take notice, that he is so confident of his present interpretation of those places, that he says they might have deterred the Author of the Frontispiece from exposing the Ordinance of Baptism, and other Rites to contempt, had he any reverence to holy things. To which I reply, who was the Author of the Anti-frontispiece page, I know not, and as little whether it was to Idolise, or to expose to contempt dipping, or rebaptising which he calls the Ordinance; But if it were Christ's Institution, me thinks they should not be afraid to have that exposed to the eye, which they preach to the ear. But he marches on furiously like Jehu with whole Wanes laden with reproaches, inveighing against the Frontispiece of Dr. Featlies' book, and this, with the Epistles, and other passages, which (he says) do give occasion to Intelligent persons to conceive that this sort of men do make but a sport of Christ's Ordinance. As for Dr. featly, he hath given his account already before a higher Bar: some like Kestrils love to be preying over dead carcases, and with Thersites to trample upon the graves of those Achilles', whom they durst not look in the face when living. The Author of the other is unknown to us, Yet let him know thus much, we reverence Christ's Ordinance, and have as great a mind to search out, and receive the Truth, as himself; and are so far from exposing them that are for rebaptising, and against Infant-Baptism, to the contempt of light, and profane wits, and to the hatred of the ignorant, and superstitious common people (as he uncharitably scandalises them,) that we rather pity them; and would not only spend our breath, but our dearest blood to bring them into unity, and unanimity with their brethren. And whatsoever he conceives; The Book was published by men of that spirit, who endeavoured to bring those home to the fold of Christ, who of late had been poisoned in judgement, and embittered in affections against the reformed Churches, and their Ministers, which he further confirms them in, calling them lose, or formal pretended Ministers; Which argues a great deal of rash ignorance in him, seeing, he neither knows Pastor, or people of these parts, saving two or three censorious Anabaptists, upon whose credit he takes this uncharitable prejudice, whereas if he had been willing to have been truly informed, he might have found Ministers as free from looseness, and formalities, and more constant to the principles of truth, and conscionable, than they that vilify them, and labours as much for reformation of ignorance, superstition, profaneness, and ungodliness (which abounds less in these parts, than under his wing) as the Anabaptists does to gain Proselytes by rebaptising; which whosoever in the spirit of meekness opposes, and would keep their flock free from infection, he brands them with the mark of formal pretended Ministers. Who take upon them to teach, but do indeed as Elymas the sorcerer, Acts 13. pervert the right way of the Lord; This censure falls as heavy upon all Ministers of the Reformed Churches, as us, which we spread before the Lord as Ezekiah did Rabsheca's blaspheming letter, and submit to the Judgement of the whole Church, whether Mr. Tombs or we more pervert the way of the Lord, or resemble Elymas the Sorcerer, who (like him) did seek to turn away the Deputy from the Faith, and withstood Barnabas and Paul, as he does all Orthodox Ministers; like Johannes ad oppositum, or Ishmael, his hand is against every man. Mr. Tombs. 4 Section. surely did they seek the truth in love, they would not so insult over tender consciences as they do, encourage the loser sort, and deter the enquiring souls from the ways of Christ. For myself, as I have found from others, so I deprehend in these men the same unrighteous spirit in their reporting my Answers, and publishing them in Print, without my revising of them, though it were proposed, and as I remember yielded, by one, that in a private way, I should have his Arguments sent to me in writing; And for the other after two Copies of his Sermon sent me, yet I wrote to know whether he would own them, nor did publish any thing, though I had sent some Animadversions on the notes I received, of which I was told one copy w●● showed to Mr. Cragge himself, and not disowned by him. And I do account it a shameful practice which these men, and another before have used towards me, that after I have been drawn to a verbal Extemporary dispute, and no common Notary agreed on, yet my Answers are published by them, without ever allowing me the sight of them; that I might either own them, or amend them, before the Printing and publishing them. But I see faction so prevails with them, that like as if they were of the Romists minds, they allow themselves liberty to use any arts, as pious frauds to bear down the truth of Antipaedobaptism. And this they do with so much insolency, as may stir up the inconsiderate to trample upon their Antagonist, and create prejudice against the truth, which hath necessitated me in this haste to write this. Reply. SOme Truths we are impregnably settled in, Scripture is a river (as Gregory said) where a lamb may wade; others are more obscure, where the Elephant may swim, in these we seek the Truth in love; yet not so, as to be wherried about with every wind of new doctrine; But after the Apostles advice. 1 John 4. 1. We believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world: Otherwise the Socinians, and Ranters might impose upon us, who vent their blasphemous notions with as much confidence, as do the Anabaptists. And we are so far from insulting over tender consciences, that wheresover we see any spark of piety, we encourage it, any looseness, we reprove it, yet we think not that it is to deter enquiring souls from the ways of Christ; meekly to dissuade them from questioning one Ordinance after another, till Satan have disputed them out of all; as we know some by woeful experience, who first denied Infant-Baptism, than all Baptism, except spiritual, (as they call it,) then the Lords Supper▪ and so one Ordinance after another, till they were above Ordinances, and at length turned Atheists. What unrighteous spirit he found in others concern not us, though we believe he had fair dealing from Mr. Baxter whom he girds at. And in relation to ourselves, we conceive his Answers are reported with as much faithfulness as our oppositions, and published with no more prejudice to him, than us, though also without his revising, nescit vox dicta reverti, if▪ he and we come upon the public stage, we must not be offended, if our words and actions be made public. What was in private proposed unto, and yielded by Mr. Vaughan is a mystery to me, I doubt not but he will clear himself: But whereas he says he had two copies of my Sermon sent him, and within two lines after calls it notes received, and afterwards imperfect notes, and that he sent some Animadversions of them to Abergaveny, and yet did not publish any thing, seems to me a Chaos of contradictions. Untrue it is, that I did own the Copy that was shown me, otherwise than misshapen rhapsodies, and snatches here, and there, as the Gospel may be owned in the Turks Alcoran, and as tunrue that he writ to know whether I would own them, as may appear by his letter, and my answer, which I subjoin. SIR, I Am informed that you have preached at Abergaveny since my being there, and have pretended to overthrow what I preached against Infant-Baptism, on Mark 16. 16. and to maintain it even from that Text, I request you that I may have a copy of your Sermon, or the substance of your Arguments form by yourself, I being unwilling to put any thing upon you which you will not own. And therefore I have requested this bearer Mr. Price to deliver this letter unto you, and to return me your Answer. As I shall judge meet, so you shall hear from me, who am Your friend usque ad arras, so far as Love and defence of the Truth will permit, John Tombs. Reverend Sir, I Received yours the 21th of this Instant, dated the 18th of November, wherein I find that you have been misinformed as in circumstance, that I preached at Abergaveny since your being there, so in substance that it was with a pretention to overthrow what you preached upon Mark 16. 16. which could not be unless I contested with Chimerae's and shadows, who neither heard you, nor received any notes mediately, or immediately of yours. Only I was entreated by many, whereof some in power, to deliver my sense concerning that Text, which I did on a sudden, letting nothing fall, but what harmoniously agrees with the present authorized doctrine of our Church continued since the reformation ascending through the Saxons, and British Churches, till (besides, Universality) it loses itself into Apostolical Tradition, and claims divine Institution for its first spring: Wherein if any thing casually cross what others have delivered, they must impute it to the novelty, and singularity of their by-path. And whereas you request a Copy of my Sermon, I must tell you, if it be upon rational grounds, there is greater reason I should have one of yours, as being first delivered, and entering in, or near, and imposing upon our charges, whereof one of note told you they found themselves aggrieved. But if your request be out of courtesy▪ I must profess I would be willing to gratify you in a thing incomparably beyond that, if I could find that it either tended to the glory of God, who is dishonoured by our divisions, or to the peace of the Church, which is to much rent, and shivered already by factions. Too many of us there are, that out of an itch of contradiction (like a Tetter, the more it's rubbed the more it spreads) with Nimrod to get us a name, builds up Babel's to the confusion of our common Mother, which causes divisions both of tongues, and hearts. Sir, I should think under correction, that your eminent parts, and mine (such as they are) might be better employed in applying balsams, than receiving the weak in faith to doubtful disputations. A time will come, (I doubt not) when one conscionable Sermon, or godly exhortation to a drooping soul, will render us more peace than a thousand swelling volumes of controversy, I shall be sorry that any notions, or collections of mine shall be made so public, as to be a ball of contention; Yet (if upon prudential ground I find so) rather than the truth shall be disparaged, and God dishonoured by my tergiversation; for all the disadvantages (I will not fear) through his protection, whose cause it is, to enter the lists, and take up the gentlet, professing in the interim▪ while we differ in opinion without breach of Christian charity, or affection, to remain Decemb. 27. 1653. Yours Sir, to serve you in the Lord Jesus, John Cragge. By this I hope you see what truth is in his assertion; of the same leaven it is, that he accuses us of a shameful practice, which justly reflects upon himself, for calling that a verbal, extemporal dispute on his part, touching that Question, in the study whereof he hath spent so many years, preached so many sermons, penned so many books, grappled with so many adversaries, and came harnessed, as being invited by letters, and messengers several months before. So that we see faction so prevails with the Anabaptists, that like as if they were of the Pelagians or Arrians minds, they allow themselves liberty to use any Arts or impious fraud to bear down the Truth of Infant-Baptism; And this our Adversary did at Abergaveny with that impetuousness, as hath actually stirred up the inconsiderate to trample upon us, and create prejudice against Truth, calling Infant-Baptism a nullity, a mockery, that no Baptism but by plunging or dipping was lawful, all that would be saved must be rebaptised, or baptised after profession; And now backed it with terming of us formal pretended Ministers, who take upon us to reach, ●ut do indeed as Elymas the sorcerer, pervert the right way of the Lord: His aim being this, to trample down with disgrace the persons of them, the weight of whose Arguments he cannot elude with wiredrawn distinctions, and evasions, making good the saying of Maxentius Ap. Bign. in Biblioth. To. 4. Mens contentioni indulgens, & non sanari, sed vincere cupiens, aversa ab eis quae rectè dicuntur, tantum intenta est in hoc, ut inveniat quod pro partibus suis loquatur. A contentious mind desirous of victory, and not willing to be reform, but averse from right say, only deviseth how to elude truth, and to speak for his own part, and this is all that necessitates him to write, either against us, or the whole Catholic Church. Mr. Tombs. 5. Section. WHo the J. T. P. or J. W. is, I know not. ● What the first Epistle saith of Augustine's rule, it is neither true, for then the observation of an Easter, and sundry other superstitious Rites should be from the Apostles, nor if it were, is ittrue of Infant-Sprinkling, that the whole Church held it, sprinkling being not used in sundry ages instead of Baptism, and Infant-Baptism, as it is now used, opposed by Tertullian, and Gregory Nazianzen, and only the Popish doctrine (disclaimed by Mr. Cragge) of the necessity of baptising Infants to the inheriting heaven, taught by the writers called Fathers. Reply. WHo the J. T. P. or J. W. is, he knows not, nor shall 〈◊〉 for me: The six heads, to which the former Epistle is reduced, he waves; The first is what is the relaters sense of the Anabaptists, out of which he picks two propositions, and then plants his Ordinance against them: The former is the saying of Augustin, That, which the whole Church holds, was never begun by any Council, but always observed, cannot otherwise be believed, but that it came from the Apostles; The later is, The whole Church always held Infant-Baptism; both these he denies, which are both Augustine's; The former de Bapt. contra Donatist. lib. 4. cap. 23. The later Serm. 15. de verb. Apost. I'll begin with the former; 1. Applying to the Test the proposition, then examine the sandy ground upon which he denies it; The proposition which he calls Augustine's rule is, That which the universal Church holdeth, and was not instituted by Counsels, but hath been ever held, was not delivered but by Apostolical Authority; This I undertake to make good, 1. Distinguishing of Church, 2. Of the Object, or that which is holden of the Church. Church, is sometimes taken for the representative of the Church, and that according to the extent, or restraint, provincial, National, or Oecumenial: Sometimes it is taken essentially (as some call it) or integrally for the body of professors living at the same time, and this either for the major part, which (as in Counsels) obtains the denomination of the whole, or of the whole made up of integral parts, without any considerable exception. Sometime it is taken for all professors of all times, whether since the death, and expiration of the Apostles, or since our Saviour's commissioning of them, after his resurrection, or full qualifying of them upon the day of Pentecost after his ascension, while (as Egisippus said) the Church continued a pure Virgin. Secondly, we must distinguish of the Tenets, or things holden by the Church, which is either matter of Doctrine, or Discipline: Discipline grounded upon Scripture binding, and necessary; Or Adiaphorous of Ecclesiastical institution, and arbitrary. These grounds thus laid, I raise these propositions. First, it's confessed A representative Church, whether Provincional, National, or Oecumenial may err, hath erred the facto in superstructures, or things less fundamental. 2. Neither Provincional, National, nor Oecumenial representative can err in fundamentals, for than it would cease to be a Church. 3. The major part of the Church, living at the same time, may err, as in the time of Elias, I only am left (says he) that have not bowed my knee to Baal. Vnus Athanasius contra cotum mundum. 4. The whole Church consisting of all the integral parts cannot err in matter of Doctrine requisite to be holden, I have reserved seven thousand (says God) that have not bowed their knee to Baal; and undoubtedly many besides Athanasius that in his time were not infected with Arrianism. 5. The whole Church, since the Apostles in all ages collectively considered, cannot err either in Doctrine, or Discipline, than Christ should not make good his promise, that the gates of Hell should not prevail against his Church, that he would be with it to the end, that he would send them the Comforter, that would lead them into all truth; Which promises, howsoever the Church of Rome misapplies to themselves (whom Dr. Reignolds hath proved neither are the Catholic Church, nor any sound member thereof) yet it is true of the whole Church. 6. It is possible that the whole Church since the Apostles may hold an Adiaphorous, or indifferent Discipline, or Ceremony, which was not Apostolical, or of Divine institution. 7. That which the whole Church holds, hath in all ages holden, including the Apostles, whether it be Doctrine or Discipline, must needs be Authentic and infallible: Of th●s nature is the present Question, as appears by the words of Austin in the forequoted place; if any ask for Divine authority (observe it) not humane, in this matter; Although we most rightly believe, that what the Universal Church holdeth, and was not instituted by Counsels, but hath been ever held, he does not say since the Apostles, for that is not ever, was not delivered but by Apostolical authority, because it is impossible that any thing should generally be holden in the Apostles time, that was not by their authority▪ and approbation: By this you see the truth of the proposition; Now let us examine the ground upon which he denies it, for then (saith he) the observation of an Easter, and sundry other superstitious Rites should be from the Apostles. His Argument put in form is this,; Easter and other Rites have been held always, but Easter, and those Rites are not from the Apostles, therefore that which hath been held always, is not from the Apostles. I deny the first proposition that Easter hath been always, for by what Cronologies, and Histories will he prove that Easter was observed in all Centuries, in all Churches, East, West, African, Greek, Latin, in China, Muscovia, India? For so much [always holden] implies; have not our Antiquaries, and Century-writers discovered a known beginning of Lent-fast, and Easter; And after it began somewhat obscurely, like the heads of Nilus; as Eusebius says in his fift book, chapt. 24. it was left free unto all men, which argues it was not always, but an Adiaphorous Rite of Ecclesiastical institution: Therefore Irenaeus treated, and argued the business with Victor Bishop of Rome, when he would have excommunicated the East Church, because it agreed not with the Church of Rome about the keeping of Easter, What (saith he) may we not live at concord, although they use their own Rites, and we ours. The time of keeping of Easter (as Venerable Bede stories it) was one of the three Questions that occasioned the Massacre of eleven hundred Monks at Bangor, the British Bishops pressed the observation of it upon the day of the month of our Saviour's resurrection. Austin the Monk from Gregory's authority, would have it a movable Feast observed after the manner as the Church of England did of late; Both sides hotly pretended Apostolical institution in circumstances so different, which argued neither side had just claim to either. Now whether of these will Mr. Tombs avouch was always? For he speaks indifferently, and indefinitely, calling it the observation of an Easter, he must either both, or neither; If both, his judgement will be l●ke his Holiness of Rome, who when the Parisians in France, and the Inhabitants of Mentz in Germany laid claim to the Relics of St. Dionyse interred many hundred years before, he adjudged that both places had the whole body: I should think a domestic sentence symbolizes better with the present controversy, which was this: When, after the death of Anthony Kitchen alias Dunstan, Bishop of Landaff, there were several suits commenced by several men, all laying claim to the house and lands belonging to the Episcopal See, as sold by him, all of them respectively showing instruments (as they pretended) with his hand, and seal; the Court rejected them all as forged after his death; for it was conceived, if he had truly sold them, it would have been but to one. So if Easter had been always, and had not crept in obscurely, the necessary circumstance of the time would have been as precisely observed, and agreed upon to be but one. Thus the former proposition is cleared. The latter by him denied is this, That Infant-Baptism was not always, he cunningly altars the subject of the Question, and says that Infant-sprinkling was not held of the whole Church, nor do we say so, for it was, and may be as well by pouring on water or dipping (if infants bodies in these cold Climates would endure it) the usual way that we practise, is either by pouring on water on the face of the Child, if it be weak, or dipping in part of the head, if it be somewhat strong▪ Gods Ordinances are not destructive to Nature, who requires mercy and not sacrifice: And that Infant Baptism was thus held always, is apparent: To pass by divine Institution, and Apostolical practice, of which anon; Dionysius the Areopagite, and Clemens in the Apostles constitutions both makes for Infant-Baptism, if the books be theirs (as they have been entitled these many hundred years,) the cause is ours so far●; if not theirs, they must not expect any proof of men living in the first Century, being extant none beside them. Justin Martyr who lived Anno 150. in his 56 Question disputes the different condition of those Children which die baptised, and of those children who died unbaptised. Two things are objected against this Testimony, 1. That the reason of Baptising of Infants, was not the Covenant of grace made to believers, and their seed, but that they might obtain salvation at the resurrection; This is so far from overthrowing, that it confirms the reason, being in Covenant with the parents (for of such speaks the Author whose parents are believers) gives the children capacity to be baptised, and they are baptised, that they may have salvation at the resurrection, for we have no promise of the salvation of any out of the pales of the visible Church. The second objection is, that Perkins, Rivet, and others, questions whether it be Justin Martyrs book or no. To which I answer, there is scarce a book in Scripture, any Article of the Creed, or part of Antiquity but it hath been questioned by some; If we should reject all things that are questioned, we must turn Academics, Sceptics, and Seckers in all things; howsoever it gives evidence to matter of fact, that Infants were Baptised in that age in which it was written. Irenaeus that lived in the same Century says lib. 2. cap. 39 Christ came to save all that are new born by him into God, Infants, and little ones, and boys etc. Who are those that are newborn? The Baptised: Which suits with the language of the Holy Ghost in Scripture, Tit. 3. 5. The Apostle calls Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the washing of the new birth: which is so clear, that Mr. Mead in his Diatriba upon the place thinks, that none will deny, that by washing of regeneration baptism is meant or pointed at: Besides its the dialect of the Greek Fathers near whose time he lived: Justin Martyr speaking of those that are brought to be baptised, says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They are born anew, or regenerated after the same manner we are regenerated, being washed (as it follows) in the name of the father, and of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Dio●ysius Hierarch. cap. 2. calls the materials of Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Divine signs of Divine generation. Basil and Nazianzene calls Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the regeneration of the soul; all this makes it appear that Irenaeus did drive at the regeneration of Infants by Baptism, as well, as them of years. Origen, whom Perkins places at the year 230. says upon Rom. 6. lib. 5. The Church received the Tradition of Baptising of Infants from the Apostles, affirming the same thing in substance Homily 8th. upon Leviticus, and Homily 18. in Lucam. Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum. Little ones are baptised for the remission of sins. The exceptions against these are three. 1. They are translations, origen's Greek in the Original is lost. The same may be said of S. Matthews Gospel which he writ in the Hebrew, or Syriack, now lost, the Greek Copy only extant; And of the Septuagints Translation of the Old Testament, which our Saviour himself followed more exactly than the Hebrew Original, Translations agreeing with the Original Copy being equally Authentic. But secondly it is said that the Translation is censured by Erasmus, and Perkins as in something contracting, adding, or altering. What is added is ingeniously confessed by Rufinus the Translator himself, neither does acute Erasmus, nor Judicious Perkins, nor any of the Ancients most Critical impeach him in the fore quoted Testimonies; Therefore this Exception is blank. The third thing objected is, that he calls it a Tradition; So does the Apostle things contained in Scripture 2 Thes. 2. 15. Epiphanius calls Baptism, and other divine truths 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, traditions, and yet quotes Scripture for them. Bellarmine calls Infant-Baptism a tradition, and yet brings ten places of Scripture to prove it. Austin affirms lib. 10. cap. 23. de Genes. That the custom of our mother the Church, in Baptising of little ones is in no wise to be despised, nor to be thought superfluous, nor at all to be believed; unless it were an Apostolic Tradition, and yet proves the necessity of it from John 3. 5. Unless one be born again of water and the Spirit, etc. Gregory Nazianzen, (who as Dr. usher, and Mr. Perkins says lived in the year 370, or 380.) commands Children to be Baptised, and gives a reason, Orat. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they not miss of common grace; nothing is excepted against this, but that he gave his opinion of others to defer their Baptism, unless they were in danger of death, which I shall clear anon. To these may be joined Athanasius, who interpret. Script. Quest. 94. saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the dipping of the Child quite under the water thrice, and raising of it up again doth signify the death of Christ, and the Resurrection the third day. In his second Question ad Antioch. he inquires how one shall know that he was truly baptised, and received the Holy Ghost, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who when he received Baptism was but an Infant? He answers that it may be known by the motions of the Spirit, as the woman knows she hath conceived, when she feels the Child stir in her womb. And Question. 114. he being asked whether Infants dying, go to be punished, or to the Kingdom? Says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Infants are holy: here you see many hundred years before Zuinglius, covenant-holiness is acknowledged, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Infants of Believers that are Baptised do as unspotted, and faithful enter into the Kingdom. Epiphanius amongst the Greek Fathers brings up the rear, avouching that Circumcision had its time, until the great Circumcision came, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, the washing of the new birth, or regeneration as is manifest to every one; Now what is this washing of Regeneration, but Baptism? Which could not succeed circumcision, unless children that were circumcised, were in his judgement baptised. These are the Evidences in part of the Greeks concerning Infants interest in Baptism, proving that de facto in their times, and from the beginning of Christianity they were baptised. The Latin Fathers come up with a full body to join with them, whereof Tertullian marches in the front, who (as Helvicus records) wrote his book of Prescriptions about the year 195. Which was about 97 years after the decease of St. John; So that by this calculation he lived about 70. or less years after St. John, in which short tract of time the Apostolical practice of Infant-Baptism could neither be clouded, nor forgotten: Neither would he have commended his private opinion as more profitable, that the Baptism of some Infants for some respects should be deferred but have called it down, as an Innovation, if the practice of it had not been as transparent to every man's apprehension, as if it had been writ with the sunbeams. That Infant-Baptism was in practice in Tertullia's days it appears by this Question libr. de Bapt. cap. 8. Quid sestinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccat●rum? Why does innocent age (meaning children in their infancy) make haste for remission of sins? meaning Baptism; which is a clear case, whatsoever Semi Socinian Grotius say to the contrary. That Tertullian was for Infant Baptism himself, appears, that in his book de Animâ, cap. 39 he presses it, when the child is in danger of death, and gives his reason libr. de Bapt.▪ cap. 12. praescribitur nemini sine Baptisme competere salutem, it is prescribed that salvation is to none without Baptism, That cavil of his advice to defer Baptism in some cases, I shall answer anon. Cyprian succeeds, who flourished (as Trithemius, and others observe) about the year 240. in his 59 Epistle ad Fidum, is not only express for Infant-Baptism himself, but mentions a Council of sixty six Bishops, who had declared the same, and all this to satisfy the said Fidus, who was not against the divine Institution, and Apostolical practice of Infant-Baptism, but conceived that Infants might not be Baptised before the eighth day, because they might not be circumcised. Cyprian tells him that Infants might not only be baptised before the eighth day, but any day: Austin approves of this Epistle, and his judgement, saying Epist. 28. ad Hier. Cyprianus non novum aliquod decretum condens, sed Ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servans. That Cyprian did not devise any new decree, but faithfully observed what the Church had done before him. Augustine, that bright daystar of Af●ick, gives further evidence; Sermon 15. de v●rbis Apost. speaking of Infant-Baptism says, hoc Ecclesia semper habuit, semper tenui●, hoc a majorum fide accepit, hoc usque in finem pers●veranter custodit. The Church always had it, always observed it, received it from the faith of their Ancestors, keeps it with perseverance to the end: Neither do those exceptions against him, any whit impeach the credit of it, much less the fact. First because he calls it an Universal Tradition; Not denying that it is grounded upon Scripture (as before) but with the Oxford Convocation avouching that which in general terms, by consequence, and sub obscurely is delivered in Scripture, is more plainly interpreted by Tradition, as following the River Nilus, the heads that are somewhat obscure, are found out; And that Constantine, Augustine, Alipius, Ad●odatus were not baptised when Infants, was either because their parents were not Christians, or they were not converted till of age, or were tainted with some heresy, or afraid of persecution, as Philip the first Christian Emperor no sooner baptised, ●ut privately made away. The second exception is, that Austin held that Infants dying without Baptism were damned; This Rivet fathers upon him, de patrum authoritate, cap. 9 Augustinus aeternis flammis adjudicat infantes sine Baptismo morientes. Austin adjudges to Eternal flames Infants dying without Baptism. To which I answer he maintained Infant-Baptism upon other grounds, though partly upon this, which afterwards he retracted. Thirdly it's excepted (for that of giving them the Eucharist is impertinent) that he held a certainty of regeneration by Baptism, and he makes no question of the regeneration of Infants. I answer, he does indefinitely of the species, or sort of baptised Infants, seeing God hath promised to be a God of those that are in covenant with him, and their seed, and we have a promise, and consequently faith of none else. But he does not say that every individual baptised Infant without limitation is regenerated, but the contrary, cort●cem sine nucleo, the shell without the kernel, as he avers there are some, quirem Baptismi absque Sacramento Baptismi consequuntur, that have the matter of Baptism, that is, the outward Elements without the Sacrament of Baptism, that is without the inward, and invisible grace. The other Ancients are of the same judgement, as Ambrose ●●stifies of Valentinian, quem in Evangelilio geniturus eram amisi, sed ille non amisit gratiam quam poposcit. I have lost him, whom I was a begetting by the Gospel, but he hath not l●st the grace he desired, but enjoys eternal life, and how? seeing he was not baptised? He gives the reason, he was baptised inwardly in will, though not outwardly with water. The last exception is, that Austin maintained that not only Infants of Believers, but Unbelievers also might be baptised: It's true, if Christians had the Tuition of them, and would engage for them, they might as well be baptised, as the children, Abraham's posterity bough● w●th money, or captives might be circumcised, therefore Tertullian pleads both prerogative of birth, and education, as giving capacity to baptism To these I might add Ambrose that says that every age is liable to sin, therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament of Baptism. Lactantius, Fulgentius, Prosper, Aquatanicus, the Milevitan Council with all the succeeding worthies (enough to swell a Volume) goes in the same Equipage. But (says Mr. Tombs) Infant-Baptism, as it is now used, was opposed by Tertullian, and Gregory Nazianzen▪ Which Argument made into form sounds thus. That which was opposed by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen was not held by the whole Church; but Infant-baptism was opposed by Tertullian, and Gregory Nazianzen. Therefore Infant-Baptism was not held by the whole Church. I deny both propositions, first the Major, for (if it were true) two men's opposing does not weaken an Evidence of fact not interrupted for so many Centuries: Secondly the Minor is most false, for it is formerly proved that Tertullian and Gregory were both for Infant-Baptism; True it is, the one advised to defer it, till the Infants were two or three years old, unless they were in danger of death, as it is conceived, least dipping impair their health, what is this against Infant-Baptism? could they be believers, and Catechumem at that age? The other indeed would have the Baptism of some to be put off, till they were of competent age to answer for themselves, but were they not (as Pamelius, and others prove) children of heathens, which is apparent, because he speaks of the danger Sponsorum of the Sureties, and nothing of the parents; Secondly, the Author in that Chapter speaks of the Baptism of such as were born of Jewish, or Heathenish parents (as S. Paul, and the Eunuch,) and therefore he desires that the Baptism of such Infants may be deferred, till they made confession of sins, and profession of faith, their parents being Infidels, and their Sponsors Mortal, the most of their kindred and neighbours (as it is probable) being Heathens; This doctrine differs nothing from that we hold. But Master Tombs further says, the Popish doctrine of the necessity of Baptising Infants, of their inheriting heaven, was taught by the writers called Fathers. Called Fathers: and were they not so? This is in patrios mingere cineres, to defile the urns of the Ancients. Pinge duos angues pueri sacer est locus, extrà Mejite. Juvenal. Paint here two snakes, it ill becomes Children to piss on father's Tombs. In comparison of whom, (what conceit soever some have of themselves) they are but Imps, and Zanies. But to the matter; two untruths are here by him asserted; First, That the Fathers held the necessity of Baptising to Salvation. Secondly, That it is Popish Doctrine. For the first, they maintained a threefold Baptism; 1. Fluminis, of water, 2. Flaminis of the Spirit, 3. Sanguinis of Blood. Either of the two later might supply the want of the first; So Basil the great discoursing of this point in the Homily of the 40 Martyrs, says of one, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he was baptised not b● another, or by the faith of another, but by his own faith, not in water, but in his own blood. And Austin himself that was conceived to be a hard father of Infants, and of all that died unbaptised, retracted his opinion, and acknowledged that Baptism was not absolutely necessary to Salvation lib. 5. de Baptis. contra Donatistas'. Etiam atque etiam considerans invenio, etc. I, again and again considering (says he) do find, that not only the passion for the name of Christ to be able to supply that which was wanting of Baptism; but also faith, and conversion of heart, if haply by reason of the straight of time they can not be relieved by celebrating the mystery of Baptism. Thus the Fathers are cleared from this aspersion. Neither is it Popish doctrine, or a general Tenet of the Papists that Baptism is necessary for inheriting of heaven. Bernard, that lived in the mists of Popery, and was an Abbot, confesses, that not the want, but the contempt of the Sacrament damns; and discoursing upon this subject in his 77 Epistle avouches out of Ambrose and Augustine that invisible sanctification was sufficient to Salvation, without a participation of the visible Sacrament. Blesensis another Papist, that lived near Bernard's time, saith, sufficiet Spiritus solus, quia ipsius testimonium pondus habet; The Spirit alone, that is, the spiritual, and inward Baptism will be sufficient, because the witness thereof hath weight; intimating that the party might be saved, when outward Baptism through invincible necessity was denied. True it is Baptism does not conserre grace ex opere operato, all are not saved that are baptised, nor all damned that are not baptised, yet under the Gospel we have no promise of any to be saved that are not Candidati, or to use Tertullia's language designati sanctitatis, in covenant visible, and capable of Baptism. Of which I have insisted more largely to give light to that which follows. Master Tombs 6. Section. AS false it is that the Baptising believers (called by these Anabaptism) had its spring, and rise from Nicholas Stork, and others there named, it being commanded by Christ, practised by the Apostles, continued in the first ages without any Infant-Baptism, and when Infants were baptised, it was very rarely, only in case of danger of the nearness of death to the Infant, and when reformation of other Popish abuses was sought, the reformation of this was sought with the first, some hundred of years before Luther. Reply. IN the former Section nine untruths (out-vying the number of the lines) are asserted by Master Tombs. 1. that the Epistle affirms, that the baptising of believers had its rise, and spring from Nicholas Stork. 2. That we call Baptizers of believers Anapaptists. 3. That it is false, (though the Epistle mentions it not) baptising of believers without infants, had it spring and rise from Nicholas Stork. 4. That it was commanded by Christ. 5. Practised by the Apostles. 6. Continued in the first ages. 7. When Infants were baptised, it was very rarely. 8. That it was only in case of danger of the nearness of death to the Infant. 9 That when reformation of Popish abuses was sought, the reformation of this was sought with the first some hundred years before Luther. These are his nine Worthies, (besides which many more deserves censure) that come now to be stripped, that their deformity may be discovered. First the Epistle does not affirm that the Baptising of Believers had its rice, and spring from Nicholas Stork. The words are these, as all errors, so it, (that is Anabaptism) had its beginning after truth, The husbandman first sowed good corn, than the enemy tares; and then mentions the most notorious Heretics that arose in the six first Centuries, at the end of which the Mystery of iniquity began more fully to work, which was first nascent, then crescent, than Regnant, then Triumphant; And no sooner appeared a Reformation in Luther's time, but there were Herod's that sought the life of this Babe, Dragons watching while the woman was travelling, to devour the child, amongst whom the Anabaptists of Germany were most venomous, the Author whereof was one Nicholas Stork, than Phiser, Knipperdoling, Muncer, with their Tailor King John Becold of Leyden. Now by what Chymistery will Master T. extract from hence, that the Epistle affirms, that the baptising of believers had its rise, and spring from Nicholas Stork? This will be strange Logic, the Anabaptists of Germany in Luther's time were the most venomous, or greatest disturbers of Reformation, the first Author whereof was Nicholas Stork, therefore baptising of believers had its rise, and spring from hence: It is as inconsequent as this, The Anabaptists of England have been great disturbers of our late Reformation, the first Author whereof was Master T. Therefore baptising of believers had its spring, and rise from Master T. True it is, it will follow secundum quid, that those Anabaptists of Germany had their spring from Nicholas Stork; These of England from Master T. But that simpliciter all Anabaptists had their spring, and rise from them is a palpable inconsequence; much more that the baptising of believers had its rise from thence. Baptising of believers (we confess) had its spring from Christ, John Baptist, and the Apostles; but not only of actual believers excluding Infants; Though Master T. confesses that Infants may habitually believe, nay, by extraordinary means have actual faith. And here by the way observe two things. 1. He cunningly altars the subject of the Question from Anabaptists (that is deniers of Infant Baptism, and Rebaptizers of Baptised) to Baptizers of believers. Secondly his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calling him Nicholas Stork, or (as others) Pelargus, not Stork, as it is apparent per Antiphrasin by the contrary, for he was so far with the Stork 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 piously to relieve his Mother the Church, that he did rather Viperlike eat through her bowels, as too many of his children do at this day. The second untruth is, That we call the Baptizers of believers Anabaptists: we do (according to the Nottaion of the word) call those Anabaptists that refuse to Baptise Infants of believing Parents, and being baptised by others, rebaptize them, when they come to age, according to Master T. his judgement, and practise, who calls Infant-Baptism a nullity, a mockery, that all that will be saved must be baptised again, when they become actual believers; and this he puts in execution by making as many Proselytes by rebaptising as he can. The third untruth is, that baptising of believers without Infants, or excluding Infants, had not its spring, and rise from Nicholas Stork; The Epistle affirmed Anabaptism, (which is an other thing) had its spring thence; I am content to wave that, and trace him in his own words, and meaning. This is a negative Question concerning matter of fact, and is best confuted by rendering invalid his own Instances alleged against it in his writings. Constantine the Great; Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Adeodatus, etc. Were not baptised when Infants (says he) therefore baptising of believers without infants was before Nicholas Stork. This is a strange consequence, and may be paralleled with this, Abraham ' Ishmael, Naaman, Ebedmolesh, men of forty years old in the wilderness besides many Proselytes were not circumcised, when Infants, therefore circumcising of believers without Infants was ancient, or always. The Question is not whether only Infants were baptised in every Century, for we acknowledge that as Abraham was circumcised, when a hundred years old, Ishmael when thirteen, the Proselytes at what age soever they became Proselytae foederis, or entered into covenant with the Jews; So Jews and Gentiles of what age soever were baptised as soon as they became Christians, not only in the Primitive, but in succeeding ages. But the Quere is, whether before Nicholas Stork, and John of Leydens' time, Infants of believers de facto were excluded from Baptism, which the foregoing instances do not prove, They prove indeed that those parties were not baptised when Infants; but they do not prove that they were Infants of believing Parents: Here the Anabaptists shamefully begs the Question, being not able to prove that the Parents of any one of these were in covenant or believers when they were born, but rather the quite contrary, as those two worthies Master Marshal, and Master Baxter, have cleared beyond exception out of Authentic histories; And that they were not baptised as soon, as converted, as it is impertinent to the present controversy, so it is fallacia non causae ut causae, a Paralogism that would impose upon us, but frontlesly, that denial of Infant Baptism was the reason; The consequence will be strange, Constantine, Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Augustine, etc. deferred their baptism after their conversion, therefore Infant-baptism was not in those days, either de jure, or de facto. It concludes as this, Proselytes of the gate deferred their circumcision after their conversion, therefore Infants than were not circumcised. The true reasons why they superstitiously deferred Baptism were these. 1. An imitation of Christ, who was not baptised till he was thirty years of age. 2. An ambition to be baptised in the same place where Christ was, that is Jordan, thus Constantine, and Valentinian, but fell sho●●, the one was baptised at Nicomedia, where he died, the other expired without Baptism. 3. Some deferred Baptism, till they could receive it from some Bishop of an eminent Sea, which ambition Nazianzen reproves. 4. Some thought Baptism washed away all their sins, therefore they deferred it, as Gregory Nyssen records, sine carne abutar, & turpi libidine fruar, etc. Baptismum tum demum suscipiam, cum à vituns, & iniquitatibus desistam, give me leave to abuse the flesh, and to enjoy my filthy lusts, then at the length I will undertake Baptism, when I can give over my vices, and iniquities. 5. Some thought that Baptised persons might live, and not sin, or if they sinned after baptism, their sin was unpardonable, abusing that place, Heb. 6. 4. Thus the Novations, to one whereof the Emperor Theodosius said well, if it be so that none can be saved that sins after Baptism, fac tibi Acesi scalam, per quam ascendas solus ad Coelum, Acesius, make thyself a ladder, by which thou mayest alone ascend to Heaven. 6. Some put off Baptism, to avoid persecution: by Imperial decrees it was forbidden to buy, sell, eat, drink, or converse with Christians, as Eusebius, and Socrates records, the very name of a Christian was odious, bonus Vir Caius Seius in hoc tantum malus quod Christianus, Caius Seius was a good man (says the story) in this only blame-worthy, that he was a Christian▪ 7. Even Infant-Baptism out of urgent necessity, not scruple of conscience might be deferred, which makes nothing against the present Tenet, as upon these, or the like occasions. 1. When a Christian lived amongst Pagans, and could not easily meet with a Minister. 2. Though they lived amongst Christians, yet Baptism was not a thing feisable, when they pleased, by reason of some violence; this Gregory, Nazianzen hints at Orat. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that though they would, they could not enjoy the grace of Baptism neither for themselves, and questionless the reason is the same, nor for their children. 3. It fell out sometimes, that the Orthodox lived amongst Heretics, who corrupted the faith and grated the foundation, and therefore they would not have their children baptised by them, like Antiochus, who refused to be ordained by Jovinian an Arrian Bishop, which was not simply to refuse ordination, but ad hoc from such profane hands: so they might deny their Infant's baptism, not absolutely, but ad hoc, to be baptised by Heretics according to the judgement of Cyprian, and other Africanes, who held their baptism null. 4. They might out of neglect, or some other humane frailty defer Infant baptism being tied to no day, as Moses did Circumcision of his Infant from the eighth day so precisely commanded, ●nd yet for all this, baptising of believers without Infants (pressed as a duty) had its spring, and rise from Nicholas Stork, and in the sense, as questioned, had no footstep before. The fourth untruth is, that Infant-baptism was not commanded by Christ, which neither Master T. nor any other Antipaedobaptist will ever be able to prove, seeing the Commission extends as well to baptism of Infants, as other ages, Math. 28. 19, 20. Thus says Christ, all power is given me in Heaven, and Earth, go ye therefore Disciple ye all the Gentiles, or all Nations, baptising them, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Wherein four things are considerable. 1. The ground of the Commission, all power is given me in Heaven, and in Earth. 2. The act- Baptise. 3. The object, all nations▪ 4 The End, make Disciples, all these agrees as well to Children, as them of riper years. First the ground of the Commission, all power is given me in Heaven, and in Earth, as if our Saviour had said, I that was virtually impowered from the beginning, am now actually after my resurrection invested with authority and Lordship, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man over all creatures to order and dispose them, as I please, but especially mankind, to save that lost sheep that was gone astray, to lay him upon my shoulders, and bring him home unto the fold; And my Commission extends as to save some of all ages, conditions, sexes, so to create new Ordinances that may relate unto all, even Infants, and sucklings, as well as the ancient, seeing they may be also the Lambs of my Flock. Secondly here is the Act baptise, that is as the Jews Children, and Proselytes were admitted into Covenant by Circumcision, oblation and washing, which was but their Typical, so those that are Candidati, and designati sanctitatis, whether those that are willing to receive the Ordinance, or their children are to be initiated by baptism, or washing, which is to be the outward badge, or Character of my Covenant. Thirdly here is the object, all Nations, or all the Gentiles, that is all degrees, all ages, all sexes of every Nation, as capable, not only of the inward Call, but the outward Character, Psalm, 28. 8. God hath given all Nations to Christ for h●s inheritance, Isai 49. 7. his salvation is to the end of the earth, Acts 4. 11. no other name is given under Heaven by which they can, or may be saved. The Extent of the Commission for baptising is as large among the Gentiles, as was among the Jews, where it is, Luke 3. 21▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the people, and shall we conceive that Infants were no part of all the people, of all the Nations, of so many families? Fourthly here is the end, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples, or ye shall make Disciples; Now every action is to an end, and to make Disciples is the end, to enrol them by Baptism, and afterwards to teach them, is the means: Disciple or Scholar is a term of relation, the Correlative that Answers it, is Christ; every Disciple is a Scholar of Christ: These be Relata disquiparantiae, The fundament, or ground of the relation, is God's love to enter into Covenant, the formal reason of a Disciple is the union betwixt the Scholar, and the Master expressed by some token, or badge of admission; Thus we are Discipled, or admitted Scholars by baptism into Christ's School; whereof some Actively, knowing something of Christ, before they be discipled, as Peter, Andrew, James, and John called from their n●ts, and all that are of age ought to be willing to entertain Christ before they be baptised; some passively (as Children that are put to School by their Parents before they know a Letter) thus Infants are matriculated into Christ's School without their own express consent, or any present capacity to be taught of men, but of God, who hath promised to take care of them, and teach them, we shall all be taught of God, especially Infants, who being not capable of the Instrumental, must wholly depend upon the principal efficient, but of this by the way; I shall have occasion to search this further hereafter. The fifth untruth is, that Infant-baptism was not practised by the Apostles, which being denied by the Antipaedobaptists, the proof lies upon them, which they will perform ad Graecas Calendas. A Negative Argument in matter of fact of this nature is of no validity, no mention is made ●● express terms, that the Apostles baptised infants, therefore they baptised none is inconsequent, it might fall out oft de facto, that they baptised none but of ripe age, as preaching to public Congregations, who had travalled far to hear them; might baptise those that were willing, and yet have no leisure to go from house to house to baptise their Infants, yet it will not follow that de Jur●, they might not have baptised them, or that they did not actually baptise them, when there was opportunity. When John baptised in Jordan all Judea, and Jerusalem, Math. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came (as the word properly signifies) by water, of which coming Infants are capable. The Apostles had Commission to Disciple all Nations by baptising, of which Infants are a principal part, as was fore-prophesied, Isai. 2. 2. all nations should flow in; they baptised many whole families upon the faith, and account of the chief of the house, Zacheus believed and salvation came to his house, They baptised Lydia, and her household Acts 16. 15. mention is only made that her heart was opened, and that she attended to the things that were spoken, not one word of the rest of her family, and yet the text says they were baptised. This Argument would be far more concluding, no mention is made, that any of Lydias household attended to the word, but she, therefore they were baptised without giving attention to the word: Then this, no mention is made that any Infant was baptised in her household, therefore none was baptised. It will follow as well, no mention expressly is made that her sons, or daughters, or servants, or sojourners were baptised, therefore they were not baptised. General's includes particulars, household is a collective term, and comprehends all the members, and branches of a Family; And seeing the Apostles were commissioned to baptise all Nations, and questionless did execute accordingly; All Judaea, and Jerusalem came to be baptised of John; Peter and the twelve baptised so many families upon record, and doubtless thousands besides, how dare any incur that curse of God by diminishing of the word, and make that exception God never made, that the Apostles baptised all Nations, and whole families, and yet by an employed contradiction, excluded Infants. The sixth untruth is, th●t there were not any Infants baptised in the first ages, which is an asse●tion so frontless, that it needs no other refutation, but what hath been formerly delivered: Mr. Tombs hath rather shifted, than in the least colour answered many learned, and godly Divines that have proved the constant practice of Infant-Baptism in the primitive Church, by induction of the Authorities of several Fathers to that purpose, like the Angels in jacob's ladder Gen. 28. 12. some descending, some ascending up the scale of Primitive practice, till they lose it into Apostolical use, and divine institution To pass by Dionysius the Areopagite contemporanian with the Apostles, Clemens the Author of the Questions ad Orthodoxos. Justin Martyr who flourished 150. years after Christ's Nativity, 48 years after St. John. Iren●us that lived in 180. Origen in the year 230. Nizianz●n 280. Cyprian, and a Council of sixty six Bishops 260 Augustine who flourished 405▪ do all harmoniously avouch the Universal practice of Infant-Baptism, of whom Augustine is the mouth, The Church, says he, always had it, always kep● it, received it from the faith of their Ancestors, kept it perseveringly unto the end. To which I will only add that of Pelagius which is unanswerable, a man who lived but 400 years after Christ, a great Scholar of eminent parts, that traveled over Europe, Asia, and Af●ice, whereby he gained great experience, knew the custom of most places; Amongst many other dangerous opinions he maintained, that Infants were conceived, and borne without Original sin, which came unto them when growing in years not from an inward principle of corruption, but from their imitation of outward ill Examples presented unto them; S. Austin confutes this by an Argument drawn from the custom of the Church in all ages to baptise Infants, and that expressly in his 150. Epistle unto Sixtus, in the 18 chapter of his book of Marriage, and Concupiscence, in his four books to Bonifacius, in his books against Julian, one of Pelagius his Scholars, to wave many more instances, that might be produced. The Argument in form is this. Those who according to the custom of the Church have been baptised in all ages, have Original sin, But Infants according to the custom of the Church have been baptised in all ages, therefore Infants have original sin If there had been the least colour, that he could without shameless impudency have denied the Minor, he might have said, I have been a traveller, and have conversed with the most Churches in Christendom, have read over the Annals, Histories, and Antiquities of these four hundred years since Christ (as doubtless he had) and I find the custom hath not been Universal, nor the spring, and rise from Christ, and the Apostles: But he avouches nothing of this, as knowing it was such a notorious untruth, as would render his other Tenets ignominious; But endeavoured to evade Austin's Argument by this device, namely by pleading that Baptism was administered to Infants, not to wash away their Original sin, but to bring them to the kingdom of Heaven. This Master Tombs confesses, (but his fig leaves to cover the shame of it are most pitiful) that the Pelagians did grant the baptising of Infants, because they durst not oppose the custom of the Church that was general; was it general then, and not before? When began it? Durst he not tell them, that it was an innovation, encroachment, and not so from the beginning, if there had been the least colour of plea for a position so advantageous for his interests; when he durst broach errors so pernicious, and destructive, maugre the opposition of Prelates, Counsels, and the whole Church. The seventh untruth is, That when Infants were baptised, it was very rarely; The contradictory whereof hath been sufficiently evidenced; Austin's, hoc ecclesia semper habuit, semper tenuit, may well outvie Mr. Tombes's non habuit, non tenuit. Let our Adversaries show (if they can) that the Baptism of Infants in the primitive times was denied, or deferred, unless it be for the foregoing, or the like reasons. Walfridus Strabo, his say, chapt. 26. de rebus Ecclesiasticis (that in the fi●st times the grace of Baptism was wont to be given to them only, who were come to the integrity of mind, and body, that they could know, and understand what profit was to be gotten in Baptism, what is to be confessed, and believed, what lastly to be observed by them that are to be newborn to Christ) is meant only of them that are converted when of age, being not borne of believing parents, as appears by his instance of Augustine, whose parents, cannot be proved out of any Authentic history to be Christians when he was born, and the words following, backs this Interpretation. Afterwards being Christians, and understanding original sin etc. ne perirent parvuli, si sine remedio regenerationis gratiae defungerentur, statuerunt eos baptizari in remissionem p●ccatorum; lest their little ones should perish, if they died without the remedy of the grace of regeneration, they appointed to baptise them for the remission of sins; Afterward being Christians they understood Original sin, when they were not Christians, they understood it not, and then it was not fit their Infants should be baptised, but being Christians, and understanding it, their Infants were baptised. That saying of Grotius, that many of the Greeks deferred the baptism of little ones till they could themselves make confession of their faith, is a groundless fiction, which he invented, partly to ingratiate with the Socinians; partly with Cardinal Peronius, with both whereof he agreed like Sampson's Foxes in the tail of this Question, though otherwise there were fire brands of dissension between them. Photius a learned Grecian, who knew better the custom of the Greeks, than either Grotius, or the Anabaptists his clients; produces an Imperial constitution, wherein it was decreed, that all baptised Samaritans, and Grecians should be punished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who brought not their wives, and children in their families to holy Baptism, Tit. 1. de fide, cap. 10. Here you see that there was a Law that upon strict penalty required of Grecians that were baptised themselves, that they should bring their children to baptism. He alleges another imperial constitution that the Samaritans should not be admitted to be baptised, till catechised in or after conversion, but their children, though they knew not the doctrine, were to be baptised. The Council in Trullo canon 84. requires that all the Grecians little ones without delay should be baptised. One of the eight Canons in Carthage concluded against Pelagius, affirmed, that whosoever denied Baptism for the remission of sins to a newborn Infant should be Anathematised. Balsamon in his gloss upon the forementioned Canon relates that the Romans buying children taken captive by the Scythians, and Hagarens from a Christian Country, put it to the Question whether they were to be baptised, or no? some pleaded they came from a Country where Christians dwelled, and therefore it was to be presumed they were baptised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in their Infancy, others doubted whether they were baptised or no, all concluded if they were not, they ought to be baptised. All which clearly testifies that Infant-Baptism was generally in use amongst Christians, seeing they presumed where Christians inhabited, Infant-Baptism was in use. Now if such among the Greeks as brought not their children to Baptism were to be punished. If Imperial laws; and Synodical Canon required Infant-Baptism, if there were any Infants of whose Baptism they doubted, they required they should be baptised, why should Master Tombs out of Grotius give this false Echo, That Infants in the Primitive times were baptised very rarely. The eighth untruth is, That Infants in the Primitive times were baptised only in case of danger of nearness of death; the contradictory whereof is so evident, that it need no other refutation but reflection upon the Premises, to which I refer the Reader. None of the Antipaedobaptists have hitherto (which their peremptory assertion requires) given us historical evidence, that either all or the major part, put off their baptism till believers, except as is alleged in case of danger of death; Nay that any dogmatically, and out of scruple of conscience denied, or refused Infant-Baptism. True it is that Tertullian that lived about eighty years after the decease of S. John, and Gregory Nazianzen after him, who lived about 370 years after the incarnation, in some cases, (as hath been formerly alleged) advised to put off Infant-Baptism, which irrefragably proves that Infant-Baptism was generally in practice in their times, that they approve of the lawfulness of it, only advises the conveniency of deferring in some cases forementioned, neither do we find upon record, that either of them prevailed. In case of urgent necessity death approaching, they more vehemently pressed the necessity of Baptism, according to Tertullias own ground. Tertul. de Baptismo. Praescribitur nemini sine baptismo compet●re salutem, none can be saved (says he) without baptism, from that sentence of our great Master, unless one be born of water, he hath not had life, for he hath tied faith to the necessity of Baptism; thus fare he; From whence we may gather, that as Tertullian elsewhere confesses the universal custom of baptising Infants; so here impliedly he approves of the lawfulness, nay the conveniency of it, seeing Infants every moment are liable to death, and of a further necessity, death approaching, which necessity we are not to suppose to be absolute, and Medii of the means, as if God could not save Infants without baptism; but conditional and praecepti, b●cause God hath commanded it; for I cannot find, that God hath promised to save any that walks not in his way, and are not actually; or at the least habitually disposed to be admitted into the Church visible by his own ordinances. God could have cleansed Naaman's leprosy without washing in Jo●dan, but would not if he had stubbornly refused, therefore that was good counsel of his servants, 2 Kings 5. 13. If the Prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldst thou not have done it? How much rather then, when he saith, wash and be clean; So that Tertullian's advice to put off Baptism, was but either as before, till Infants were strengthened to endure the water, or a mistake, as he also adv●s●d young men unmarried, and widows though professing Christ, to delay their baptism, till they were either married, or confirmed in chastity, that is, single life Now as this would be a strange Argument, Tertullian advised young men, and widows to delay their Baptism, till they were either married, or confirmed in chastity, Therefore young men and widows in the Primitive times, when converted from Paganism were not baptised; As strange is this, Tertullian advised to defer the baptism of some Infants, therefore in his time, and the ages before him infants were not baptised, save▪ in the case of danger of death, every one may see the weakness, and this is their main fort, which being taken, they must needs yield up their arms. The ninth untruth is, That when reformation of other Popish abuses was sought, the reformation of Infant-Baptism was sought with the first, some hundred years before Luther. Nunc ad Triarios perventum est. This is the Rearward, which our Adversaries boast much in, as Nestor did of his in Homer; but being examined, it will end like Nebuchadnezar's image in feet of clay; or as Jordan (the Dippers talk so much off) in Sodoms' gulf, or the dead sea. What! was Infant-Baptism instituted by Christ, practised by the Apostles, used in the first Centuries, a custom so sacred in Pelagius his days (by Mr. Tombes' own confession) as he durst not oppose it? And yet a Popish abuse, when Popery had yet no being: Did Augustine aver the Church was always Popish, when he said the Church always held Infant-Baptism? Did Origen say the Apostles practised Popery, when he said de peccatorum meritis Ecclesia traditionem ab Apostolis accepit etiam parvulis dare baptismum, the Church received a Tradition from the Apostles to give Baptism even to little ones? Was it used in Asia, Europe, Greece before the Bishop of Rome was as much as a Provincial Bishop? Nay more frequently (as Master Tombs would have it) in Africe, than Italy, and yet a Popish abuse? This is a strange Prodigy. Indeed there are that under the notion of Popery comprehnds the Trinity, Magistracy, Ministry, Sacraments, all Ordinances, Scriptures, and even the truth of the deity, with the Persons and Office of Christ. The Trinitarians and Anabaptists of Transilvamia, Anno 1568. in their Antitheses of their false, and true Christ at Alba Julia have delivered something like this, which our Seekers, Ranters, and Mortalists have improved of late, impugning all glorious truths under the Notion of Popery. But that Master Tombs would be esteemed a judicious and learned man, much versed in Antiquity, should account Infant-Baptism a Popish abuse, and interpretatively accuse the Magistracy, and Ministry of all the reformed Churches of Popery, is somewhat strange: But when, or in what hundred years was the reformation of Infant-Baptism sought? For he says, it was sought some hundred years before Luther, Sought by whom? At the hands of what Council, Magistracy, Presbytery? He mentions here none, but Pythagoras like, thinks his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sufficient. In his Examen of Mr. Marshal's Sermon he gives four instances for proof of his pretended allegation● 1. Berengarius. 2. The Albigenses. 3. A nameless Sect out of Bernard. 4. The Petro-Busians, which whether any, or all of these sought reformation of Infant-Baptism as a Popish abuse, comes now to the Test. For his first instance of Berengarius, he says that Cassander in his Testimonies of Infant-Baptism, in the Epistle to the Duke of Cleve, tells us that Guitmand Bishop of Averse mentioneth the famous Berengarius, Anno 1030. opposing not only the corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but also the baptism of little ones. For answer, observe it is nor said that Berengarius desired reformation of Infant-Baptism, but opposed it, nay, that Guitmund did but say that he opposed it, and if he seek further he shall find, that Guitmund took it upon the credit of Deoduinus Leodiensis and he took it up as a common fame, how far does this fall short? Besides this fame was a liar, for in so many Synods held against Berengarius, we never find any (saith Bishop Usher) thing of this nature laid to his charge. His second instance is of the Albigenses, called so of a Country of France, and Cathari, or Puritans, of whom he saith in the words of Cassander, high reliquis erroribus, quos a Manichaeis, & Priscillianistis mutuati sunt, etc. These to the rest of the errors which they have borrowed of the Manichees, and Priscilianists moreover have added this, that they say the baptism of little ones is unprofitable. To this I Answer; he took this also upon report of those who mistook their meaning, when they said Baptismum nihil proficere parvulis ad salutem, Baptism profited little ones nothing to Salvation, held no more as Bishop Usher says than that it did not confer grace ex opere operato, which we also say; which is further evidenced positively, in that H●veden recording the confession of the faith of the Albigenses, doth abundantly own their baptising of Infants. Negatively that the Magde●u●gen●es that diligently related their doctrine, nor Reignolds in his Caluinoturcismus, wherein he endeavours to reproach them, lays any such thing to their charge. Aeneas Silvius delivering a large Catalogue of their opinions in his History de Origine Bohemo●um, hath no such thing, pag. 67, 68 These are his words, Hujus p●stifera, ac jam pridem damnatae factionis dogmata sunt, Romanum Praesulem reliquis episcopis parem esse, inter sacerdotes nullum discrimen. Presby●erum non dignitatem, sed vitae meritum, officere potiorem, animas è corporibus excedentes, aut in aeternas e vestigio poenas mergi, aut perpetua consequi gaudia: Purgatorium ignem nullum inveniri; vanum esse ●rare pro mortuis, & avaritiae sacerdotalis inventum: Dei, & sanctorum imagines, delendas, Aquarum, palmarumque benedictiones irridendas. Mendicantium religiones malos daemones invenisse. Sacerdotes pauperes esse debere solâ contentos eleemosynâ. Liberam cujusque praedicationem verbi dei patere. Nullum capitale peccatum, quantumvis majoris vitandi mali gratiâ tolerandum. Qui mortalis culpae reus sit, eum neque seculari, neque ecclesiasticâ dignitate potiri; neque parendum ei: confirmationem, quam Chrismate Pontifices inducant & extremam unctionem inter ecclesiae sacra minimè contineri. Auricularem confessionem nugacem esse. Sufficere sua quemque deo in cubili suo confiteri peccata. Baptisma fluvialis undae nullâ interjectâ sacri olei mixtura recipiendum, coemiteriorum inanom usum, questus causa repertum; quacunque tegantur tellure humana corpora nil distare. Templum dei late patentis ipsum mundum esse, coarctare majestatem ejus, qui ecclesias, monasteria, oratoriaque construunt, tanquam propitior in eyes divina bonitas inveniatur. Sacerdotales vostes, altarium, ornamenta, pallas, corporalia, calices, patinas, vasaque hujusmodi nil habere momenti: Sacerdotem quocunque loco, quocunque tempore sacrum Christi corpus conficere posse, petentibusque ministrare; sufficere si verba sacramentalia tantum dicat, suffragia sanctorum in coelis cum Christo regnantium frustrae impetrari, quae juvare non possunt: in canonicis horis cantandis, dicendisuè frustrà tempus teri. Nulla die ab opere cessandum, nisi quae dominica nunc appellatur; celebritates sanctorum ●ursus rejiciendas; Jejuniis quoque ab ecclesia institutis nihil inesse meriti. His third instance of an Anonymous people out of Bernard in his 66. Sermon upon the Canticles, that called themselves Apostolicos of whom he says (amongst other things) irrident nos quià baptizamns infants, they scoff at us because we baptise Infants. To which I answer, these people were also Albigenses, or Waldenses, who are cleared from this aspersion by the former histories: Bernard also charged them with Manichism, & that the people threw them into the water, as if they were witches, which Mr. T. himself does not believe, why should we then believe the other contrary to so many authentic Authors? His fourth Instance is of Petrus Cluniacensis, who writ an Epistle to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis, and Henricus charging them with this error, that little ones may not be baptised. I answer Cluniacensis a railing Abbot endeavoured to render them odious to the people, because they opposed the Monks idle, and unprofitable life, and casts this aspersion upon them that they deny Infant▪ Baptism, when they only denied the trumpery that went along with baptism in those days, as spittle, salt, exorcism; and that it did confer grace, ex opere operato: None charges them with laughing at Infant-Baptism itself, but they that charge them with Manichism; from both whereof their own confessions clear them, one whereof was published by Baltazzar Lidius, and presented to Vladislaus King of Hungary, Baltaz. Lid.. Tom. 2. pag. 285. In their Apology, and defence of their Doctrine, they have a whole Chapter wherein they assert, and prove Paedobaptism at large. The confession of the Taborites hath not a word sounding against it. The History of the Waldenses, lib. 1. cap. 3. p. 10. mentions amongst the calumnies unjustly cast upon them, that they reject the Baptism of Infants, of which Bernard is cited the Author, Sermon 66. And the same Author in the third part of his History, professedly setting down the doctrine of the Waldenses, and Albigenses, says they present their children to Baptism, which they ought to do, to whom the children are nearest, as Parents etc. By these discoveries it may appear how fare these obscure testimonies taken from Cassander a modern Amphibious Naturalist, and Bernard and Cluniacensis two Popish Abbots comes short of proof, that when reformation of other Popish abuses was sought, the reformation of Infant-Baptism was sought with the first, some hundred years before Luther. Montes parcuriunt, nascetur ridiculu● Must, great boasts, but small roast. Master Tombs 7 Section. AS vain is the assignation of the causes of Anabaptism (which is indeed true Baptism) whereas the true cause is the shining-forth light from the Scriptures, and other Authors not discerned formerly as now. The true reason why our books and practice are permitted is, because they have at least so much appearance of truth as is sufficient to make wise men let them alone, lest they haply should fight against God. The Epistlers reasons are but his own ignorant surmises. Reply. IN the first Paragraph he undertakes to answer to the third head of the Epistle, the reasons of the present growth, and increase of Anabaptism, wherein he forges a Chimaera mounted upon these four wings. 1. That the assignation of the causes of Anabaptism are vain, 2. That Anabaptism, that is repeating of Baptism) is true Baptism. 3. That the true cause of Anabaptism, is the shining forth of light from Scriptures, and other Authors. 4. That this light was not discovered formerly as now. These Icarian engines wings him from his labyrinth of error, but are in danger to betray him to the Sea of gross mistakes, as will appear when they are exposed to the beams of the sun, that is, the true light of discovery. First that the assignation of the causes of Anabaptism are vain; This he affirms, & yet names not one of them, but turns his back (as the Soldier did from Augustus Caesar) because he could not endure the darting beams of his eyes. Oppressing N●mrods uses to send witnesses out of the Country, that would overthrow their cause; so he having suppressed the reasons of the present growth of Anabaptism calls them vain; yet they shall once more appear at the bair against him, which we submit to the judgement of intelligent, and impartial Christians, they are these, 1. Times of division, wherein the hedge of discipline is broken down; liberty in religion, is like free conversing without restraint, or watch in time of pestilence, one house easily infects a whole City. 2. Satan's malice like a river the further it goes the deeper, and fiercer. 3. The corruption of man's nature more inclinable to error than truth. 4. The fitness of the engine for devastation, and ruinating all former Churches, under colour of first baptisms nullity, gathering of new ones (after their own mould) out of the old ruins by rebaptising. 5. The pretence that children are uncapable of Church-membership, or communion of Saints, as if there were not the same capacity under the Gospel, which was under the law. 6. False allegation that Infant-Baptism is occasion of lose living, as if the native Jews, that were sealed, when Infants, were more dissolute than the Proselytes. 7. To limit it to ripe years increases piety; as if Jew's, and Turks, and their rebaptised converts, were not more frequently guilty of Apostasy, and hypocrisy. 8. Not understanding that Infant's Church membership in the Old Testament is not repealed, but confirmed in the new. 9 A carnal estimation that the Covenant made with Abraham was partly carnal, of which circumcision is a part, as if godliness in both Testaments had not the promise of this life, and of the life to come. 10. That circumcision was the seal of righteousness of faith to Abraham, and not his posterity. 11. That the Covenant was made with Abraham, and his spiritual seed only, and not with visible professors. 12. That there is no such thing as national Churches, though Christ says, make disciples of all Nations, and Isaiah says, all Nations shall flow in, yet they say, all Churches must be gathered by actual profession as well in Christian Nations as amongst Turks and Pagans. 13. Because we have no particular instance in Terminis that any Infants were baptised, and because they are not expressly named in the precept, as if generals did not include particulars, as well for Infants as old men. 14. Denying equivalencies, and necessary consequencies from Scripture. 15. A vilifying the judgement and persons of all godly, and learned men of this present, and former ages, building up their rotten foundation upon their ruins. 16. Temporal interests of the lowest of the people, which while they dream it is countenanced by men in power, cry Hosanna, and perhaps crucify to morrow. 17. A pretending to the Spirit of God. Numa Pompilius feigned that he conversed with the goddess Egeria, Minos with Jupiter in the Cave; Solon with the Delphian Apollo, Mahomet with the Angel Gabriel; Montanus, and the Quakers with the Holy Ghost; the white Witches with the spirit in the shape of a dove, and all but to palliate their unsound opinions, and practices. 18. The learning, subtlety, and industry of some Anab●ptists to gain Proselytes; Arrius, Pelagius, Martion were not wiser in their generation than they, to invegle the poor simple people, especially women, and inferior tradesmen; which in seven years can scarce learn the mystery of the lowest profession, thinks half seven years enough (gained from their worldly employments) to understand the mystery of Divinity, and thereupon meddle with controversies, that they have no more capacity to pry into, than a bat to look up into the third heaven. Thus far the assignation of the reasons of Anabaptism which he says are vain; a censure how just, let wise men judge, who clearly see that the meeting of several beasts at Nilus does not more properly beget new Monsters, nor putrefaction engender several vermins, than the fore-assigned reasons occasion the growth, and increase of Anabaptism. The second Allegation is, that Anabaptism is true Baptism, A strange Paradox, which either implies that Infant-Baptism is a nullity, or that true baptism may be iterated, or received more than once; The confutation of the former is the scope of this present treatise rectum & sui, & curvi index. The latter that true Baptism may be iterated (as the notation of the word, and their practice interprets it) is now to be questioned; And that I fight not with the air, or an adversary of mine own framing may appear from Mr. T. who examen pag. 23. begs an Argument of Mr. Martial to prove reiteration of Baptism to be intrinsically unlawful, and that in the tone of the Marcionites and Aetians, who in several Counsels have been whipped for it, and have received these, and the like reasons for their passport. 1. In the institution of Baptism there is neither expressly, nor consequently any mention of reiteration of it, as in the Lord's Supper, Quotiescunque feceritis, as often as ye shall do it, etc. and whatsoever is not of faith is sin, whatsoever is not grounded on Scripture is will-worship, there is no instance, or precedent in Scripture that any one was baptised twice, for those, Acts 19 3. 4. were either first baptised metonymically, that is initiated with the doctrine of John, and then afterwards baptised with water as some say; or adulteratly baptised with false Baptism (as Ambrose thinks) and then with true Baptism; or baptised first with John's Baptism, and then with Christ's, which (as Austin conceives) are two distinct Baptisms; or which is most consonant to the Text, first baptised by John with water, then by the Apostle with the Holy Ghost, and fire, that is the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost; None of these make for the reiteration of the same baptism; besides there is express Scripture against it. Ephes. 4. 5. one Lord, one faith, one Baptism. 2. Baptism is the Sacrament of regeneration, or new birth; and as Austin hath it as we are carnally, and naturally born but once, so we are spiritually, and supernaturally new born but once; faith though it admit of grandations gins but once, Baptism that matriculates us into Christ's School, is to be performed but once; Therefore even Cyprian himself, and his followers never baptised any whom they thought were truly baptised before: 3. Baptism succeeds Circumcision which was but once administered, as appears from that of Joshuah 5. 4. where the Holy Ghost gives this reason why Joshuah circumcised the Israelites in Gilgal? Because all the circumcised were dead, intimating if they had been circumcised already, it should not have been done again. And seeing circumcision was tied to the eight day from the birth, till a second eight day besides the first can be found, it cannot be justified without sacrilege. His third allegation that the true cause of Anabaptism is shining forth of l●ght from the Scriptures, and other Authors; what other Authors? Is not Scripture by Bellarmine's own confession certissima omnium & perfectissima regula, the most certain and perfectest rule of all? Yea the sole and adequate rule of our faith? Scripture (its true) may impart its light to other Authors, as the Sun empties his rays (as the Astronomers speak) in inferiores crateras, into inferior sublunary vessels; If the Scripture have thus emptied itself for the advantage of Anabaptism, they might do well to let it appear, produce one sol●d Argument out of Scripture against Infant-Baptism, name one Authentic, and impartial Author that demonstrates out of one Text of Scripture that Infants▪ aught not the jure to be baptised, out of the undoubted Records of one Century, that de facto they were not baptised, but this they never could do yet, never will do. Indeed they may fancy to themselves abundance of light out of Scripture, like sick persons in some disease, when death approaches thinks, that store of tapers, and torches are lighted about the bed, when the candle is out; the cause is in the distemper of the brain, and eye, and if the spiritual eye of the soul be darkened 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how great is the darkness. The fourth Allegation is, That this light out of Scripture, and other Authors was not discerned formerly as now. Some of our Anabaptists are of opinion that Christ never locally ascended into heaven, but only vanished out of sight and is yet bodily upon the earth, vouchsafing his apparition to the Saints now, which he did not in former ages; This is either a diabolical fiction, or a deluding Phantasm; like to this, is the pretended light out of Scripture, and other Authors for Anabaptism not discerned formerly as now. Did Berengarius see more than the primative Fathers, and Martyrs? The Albigenses of France, and the Anonymi more than Berengarius: Peter de Bruis more than the Albigenses? Baltazzar, Hubmir, Pacimontanus, Muncer, and John of Leyden more than Peter de Bruis? And Mr. Tombs as a child upon these Giants shoulders sees further into children's baptism than they all? Ring the bells backward, and make Horace recant his parentum pejor avis, lib. 3. ode. 6. That every thing degenerates; Ovid and Hesiod were mistaken, now is the golden age, and not before: It seems the promise that Christ made to the never dying corporation of his Apostles, and their successors, that he was with them always, even to the end of the world, was not performed before; That the Holy Ghost that was to lead into all truth was not sent till now. We have special predictions of these latter days, but it's such as these. 2 Tim. 3. 1, 2, 6 7. In the last days perilous times shall come, for men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, etc. Of this sort are they that creep into houses, and lead captive silly wom●n laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever hearing, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth; Now as Jannes, and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also the truth; Judas 18. 19 There should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts; These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. And our Saviour himself tells us, when he shall come, he shall scarce find faith upon earth. But that there is shining light out of Scripture, and other Authors not formerly discerned about Infant-Baptism (otherwise than that by opposition the truth is more cleared) I fear is but a brag like Oromazes in Plutarch, who boasted he had an Egg that had included in it the happiness of the world, which being broken proved a wind-egg, and nothing came forth, but corrupted air. I have read of a Mountebank that bragged of a new receipt that would make dim eyes see as perfectly as those of Lynceus, who could discover the flags of ships from the Carthaginian to the Lilibaean shore, but being applied put them out. Satan promised Eve that her eyes should be opened, and that they should be as Gods, knowing good and evil, but it was to see▪ their misery, as the event declares. John of Leyden when he awaked out of his deep sleep, pretended strange revelations, and new lights, which ended in riding upon a blind Ass in the market place, where he afterwards for his impostures suffered: Male ominatis parcite verbis, God grant that the end of our Anabaptists may be to their own comfort, and the peace of the Church, and that is the worst I wish them. In answer to the fourth head of the Epistle, why the Anabaptists were permitted, and their books printed, seeing those of Arrius, Dr. pocklington's, Mr. Archers were burned, he passes by the reasons there assigned, which are these, 1. The providence of God, 2. The wisdom of the state. The providence of God, who suffers errors, 1. That truth by opposition may more diligently be searched out, 2. That the sincerity, and constancy of the faithful may be tried. 3. That impenitent and proud in spirit may be blinded, and hardened. The wisdom of the State, that like wise Chirurgeons will not lance a turgid ulcer, till it be ripe; A skilful Physician that will not purge some floating humours till they be settled, These he calls the Epistlers own ignorant surmises, when they are not his own, but in effect of the whole Church,; not ignorant surmises, but the judgement of most learned men, wherein consequently he accuses many former Counsels, Synods, Harmonies of confessions, Parliaments, Canon, Civil, Statute laws, many former Treatises of learned Divines, and the late Assembly, of ignorant surmises. The true reason (says he) why their books, and practice is permitted, is because they have at least, so much appearance of truth as is sufficient to make wise men to let them alone, lest they haply should fight against God; This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or common allegation that the Quakers, Shakers', Ranters, and all dissenters plead for liberty of conscience, wherein are couched two words that discovers an Ass' ears under a Lion's skin, and a polt-foot under a long mantle, for he speaks not out, and says absolutely that there is truth in their books; but that there is at least so much appearance of truth; not that those that oppose them, fight against God: but that haply, that is casually, they may fight against God: True it is which the Philosopher says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, many things appears and makes fair semblance, which are but shadows, and kickshowes: Copp put such a gloss, and varnish upon upon his blasphemies, that a Matron that cried shame upon him before, when she heard his Sophisticated reasons, was convinced to be of his judgement. Anabaptism is a Magazine of all subtlety, fortified, and ammunitioned with all sorts of Paralogismes, and Elenches of Sophistry. In which Etnean forge, Mr. T. is the chief Briareus, or Gias, who operates with more than an hundred hands; yet wise, & learned men easily discovers a vein of fallacies running through the whole mine, and by the cynosure, or polestar of the Gospel escapes themselves, and directs others to avoid the Rhegium, or breach they make in the Church, and cuts the channel even betwixt the Scylla or gulf of errors on the one hand; and the Charybdis, or rock of absurdities on the other. Now if any well meaning, though weak Christian, be inveigled with this error, we would not have them fight against God, that is, their own conscience (which haply by accident may be, when they oppose an untruth) but we would have them by sweet insinuations, and Arguments to be won unto the truth. Yet this is no Plea for Bigots of the faction, like fire to turn all things into their own nature, and with the Pharisees to compass Sea, and Land to make Proselytes of their own opinion: Therefore Edward the sixth, when Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury, and Ridley Bishop of London were sent from the Council to entreat him for toleration but in one family of a Religion that was against his conscience; he first opposed it out of Scripture-grounds; secondly backed it with a resolution, that he would spend his life, and all that he had, rather than to agree, and grant to that he knew certainly to be against the truth; And lastly (when they continued their importunity) his tender heart bursting out in bitter weeping, and sobbing, desired them to be content; whereat the Bishops themselves, seeing his zeal, and constancy, wept as fast as he, as convinced with his tears, which like Mary magdalen's tears, may well be proclaimed for a memorial, and Monument of him, and is well worth our imitation, Acts and Monuments, Tom. 2. p. 1295. col. 2. Edit. Anni 1583. Master Tombs. 8. Section. THough Disputes are useful, yet such unworthy artifices, as I find in and after them are a just reason for me to wa●e them, especially with such men as I have met with. What the success hath been of the disputes mentioned is not so proper for me to inquire. The publishing of that at Bewdley in so unbrotherly manner, hath I imagine, diverted many from the truth, who if they had not been willing to be deluded, had never been caught with such a cheat as is the mock-titled book, Plain Scripture-proof for Infant▪ Baptism. The rest of the Disputes have not gained (that I hear) any credit to ●adobaptism, but on the contrary, among the intelligent. It is true I was importuned to visit some friends at Abergaveny, and did preach there, and some of the things the letter mentions, I spoke, and do still avouch, The two mentioned were unknown to me, I slighted neither, though being wearied with preaching, I did forbear to speak much, and was willing to get into a dry house from the rain. I was willing t● hav● conference with Mr. V who seemed modest and intelligent. The other Opponent I found before to be a man of talk, who could not blush. That which the second Epistle writes of my being wounded, and vaunting, is merely fabulous; and I think the like of the short time of conceiving the Dispute, and Sermon. It displeaseth me not that the business should be truly stated, which is the end of this writing, though it displease me that such unworthy tricks are used to deceive people, as those which appear in the publishing this Disputation and Sermon. I intent not to lengthen the business by insisting on the falsity of the reports of my Answer: It is not improbable I might in five hours Dispute, with one who talked so fast, as to give no time to consider of what he said, answer n●t so clearly as I would, had I had the Arguments to view, and examine deliberately. I presume it will be sufficient for clearing Truth, if either I show how my Answers are misreported, or ●ow they are to b● amended. Reply. TO the fifth head of the Epistle (wherein it is enquired, whether it be fit to Dispute, and confer wi●h Anabaptists, seeing their Doctrine eats ●s a Cank●r, for which cause the Empress Placilla would not suffer her husband Theodosius to discourse with the Heretic Eunomius) He answers by concurring in judgement with the resolution there given, granting by an hypothesis, that Disputes are useful; but like Margery-good-cow, wealth owes it presently again with th●s Thesis, that such unworthy artifi●es as he finds in, and after them, are a just reason for him to wave them, especially with such men as he hath met with. What unworth▪ artifices hath Mr. Tombs found i● Disputes? Logic, and Divine Truth, Logic, or refined reason, whereby ●is ●alacies, Divine Truth, whereby h●s errors are discovered. H●w much are they to blame, that set up true Lights to descry false War●s? What Artifices hath he found after Disputes? A publication of them, that what was transacted in private, is transmitted to the public view: O unworthy project! Cannot Bajaset b● taken, but he must be carried about in a Cage to be s●en? Nothing grieved the Monks, and Friars so much, as when the Images of Da●n●l Gathern, the rood of Grace, and Wilfrids' nedde were pulled d●wn, that they were shown at Pauls-Crosse, and elsewhere, that all m●g●t s●e the secret gimmors by which a Priest invisible d●d act the pretended Miracles. And he further aggravates these unworthy Artifices with an Emphasis put upon them, especially with such men as he hath met with. What men hath he met with? Such whose neither Person, nor Arguments he can reconcile to his party: Caligula loves to grapple with the shells of the shore, whence Trophies of victory may be carried away without sweat, or blood; so does the Anabaptists like Salmacida, spolia sine sanguine, & sudore. And therefore because he cannot carry away a dry conquest, he resolves to wave Disputes hereafter; I wish h● had done so hitherto, both by pen, and otherwise; his conscience one day would have found more peace, and the Church more quiet. O that he would imitate Austin hereafter, who nev●r writ so fair a hand, as when he writ backward, his ●erractations. What success the Disputes at Bewdley, Hereford, Ross, and Abergaveny had (he says) is not so proper for him to inquire; whether proper or no, we cannot believe but that he is so careful a husbandman, when he hath planted, and watered, he will look after the increase; or if he inquire not, others will be apt to tell him; (which he confesseth afterward) for Fame hath an hundred feet, an hundred wings, an hundred mouths. That at Bewdley (he implyedly confesses) hath had success for Infant-Baptism, but presently he sends up a swarm of Locusts to dim this light. 1. Affirming that it was published in an unbrotherly manner. 2. That it diverted many from truth. 3. That they were willing to be deluded. 4. That they were caught with a cheat. 5. That the book styled plain Scripture proof for Infant-Baptism, is a Mock▪ titled book. All which calumnies, Master Baxter the Author hath answered with that dexterity, solidity, and satisfaction to the impartial reader, that whosoever shall go about to add athing, may seem to pour water into the Sea, and light a candle to the Sun. The rest of the Disputes (he says) have not gained any credit to Paedobaptism, but with these two limitations, 1. That he hears, 2. Among the Intelligent. What he hears we know not, only this we know, that what he hears at such a distance, is from the Anabaptists, who since by dipping they have took possession of that Element, thinks with Lunatic Thrasilaus at Athens, that every ship that comes to the shore is their own; Every Text of Scripture like the Catadupes of Nilus, sounds nothing but plunging. Now who these Intelligent are, with whom the Disputes have gained no credit, we may easily conjecture, none of them that are for the profane abuse of Infant-Sprinkling: Which amounts to this, that none but the Anabaptists are Intelligent; who, as if they had the sole Monopoly of Intelligencies, aught in his judgement to move the Spheres in these inferior orbs of Church, and Commonweal. With these we confess the Disputes have gained no more credit, than Luther's reformation hath done with the Jesuits; Saint Peter's miracles with the Disciples of Simon Magus, or our Saviour's Disputes with the unconverted Sadduces. Otherwise he shall find that they have gained credit with the Orthodox, and Pious, Else why are the banks of their Jordans left so desolate since, as if to be dipped, were to be thrown into the water in a sack of Leather for a Parricide, or condemned to Tiber from the Scalae Gemoni●? To the sixth Quere of the Epistle, he confesses that he was importuned to visit some friends at Abergaveny, which for seventeen years he had deserted, and though often requested in former times, would not vouchsafe then a visit, till the cause brought him. There (he says) he preached, and that's true; and some things the letter mentions he spoke, and does still avouch; But what he spoke, and does still avouch, he tells us not, that by this Enthymematical reservation he may have a loophole of evasion in all Emergencies. The things the Epistle mentions he spoke were these. That Infant-Baptism was a nullity, a mockery: no Baptism but by dipping, or plunging was lawful, that all that would be saved, must be rebaptised, or baptised after profession; That there was no such thing as Infant-Baptism in the Primitive times, but that came in with other corruptions upon unsound grounds; whether he will avouch all this, or no, many others will, that he delivered them, whose credit, and Testimonies (no disparagement to him) are as Authentic as his. And whereas the Epistle says there were many well learned that heard him, especially two, Mr. Bonner, and Mr. Vaughan, who both for the present kept silence, when out of the pulpit he challenged the whole Congregation to speak, if they had any thing to say, contrary to that he had delivered. Only Master Bonner closed with him in the way to his lodging, and told him he had delivered some thing contrary to that he had read in the Ancients, and other things that grieved his spirit to hear, and desired therefore to confer with him there about the next morning, and that he slighted the grave old Gentleman with as much contempt as Austin the Monk did the British Commissioners at Bang●r. He says he slighted neither, though both were unknown to him, whereas the slighting of one is but laid to his charge: Mr. Vaughan was not known to him (as my information serves me) till the next day: But it was no slighting, but forbearing to speak much, because he was wearied with preaching, as if in the Pulpit he had not only spent his spirits, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his civility, and affability too: Mr. Bonner is not for many words, but delights in Laconisms more than he. But he was willing to get into a dry house from the rain, and was not Mr. Bonner so too? The ubi of this overture (as I hear) was not sub dio, but sub tecto. And here I cannot but tell Mr. T. what one observed when he read these his words, that he was like the Pharisees, lay heavy burdens upon others, but would not touch them with one of his fingers, could press Arguments for two hours, that people must be dipped in rivers over head when himself was impatient for two minutes to be baptised under the cloud. And it was further observed more generally, that that day of his preaching, and the day of h●s departure were more tempestuous than ordinary, as if the Element of water had been enraged, for the sacrilegious abuse of it; But secret things belong to God; the sin we know, the punishment we know not. He says, he was willing to have conference with Mr. V who seemed modest, and intelligent; in which words, is involved a frippery of incongruities; for how could he be willing to have conference with Mr. V before he knew him? And it is apparent he never knew him not till he had conference with him; And how did he find that he was modest, and intelligent, but by the conference? But how these qualifications discovered in the conference could be an occasion of his willingness to admit of the conference, is not intelligible. I shall confess that the Encomium he gives Mr. V. and much more is his due: But I fear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his grants are but lures; Some Stratagem lies couched in this Trojan horse, that he vainly hopes to gain Mr. V to his party, or silence: Otherwise it is observed, the more able his adversaries are, and the more unanswerable their Arguments, the more he vilifies them, witness that Triumvirate of Worthies, Dr. Hamond, Mr. Marshal, and Mr. Baxter, whom he either slights, or bitterly calumniates, as he does me in the words following, who (though conscious of mine own weakness) take those slanders for honours, which fall from the pen of one, that can drop nothing but gall; for thus he belshes out his rancour, saying, he found me before to be a man of talk, who could not blush. Two aspersions which rather for vindication of the Cause, than my person, I shall (God willing) clear, and retort them justly without recrimination. First, he says he found me before to be a man of talk, meaning at Ross, where I had some skirmaging with him upon this occasion; There being a day solemnly agreed upon for a public disputation, I came (as did many hundreds more) to hear it; The Respondent designed, was one Mr. Skinner an Anabaptist: The Opponents Mr. Tirer, Mr. Smith, and other Ministers in the Neigbourhood, whose faces I had never seen before: when the Congregation was gathered, and an Alarm, ready to be beat for the Dispute, Mr. Tombs unexpectedly entered the lists, and and took the Pulpit, and for an hour, and an half together out of Matth. 28. 19 stated the Question, answered the Paedobaptists objections, laid the grounds of his own Arguments, and so prepossessed the affections of the Auditory: Which Prologue being ended, Skinner takes place, and goes on with the Protasis, mustering the occasions of the Dispute into Rank, and F●le. Which done, Mr. Tirer enters the Stage, relating the grievances that intervened, whereupon he was interrupted, here began the Epitasis; No D●spute was like to be, unless Mr. Tombs would departed, or keep silence, which he refused, alleging he came to maintain the Truth; hereupon (after some debate) he was challenged to take up the gauntlet, which he did, making choice of Mr. Skinner to be his Moderator, or Second; so the Opponents did of me, which that things might proceed in an orderly way, I undertook, though unprepared. No sooner were they launched into any depth of the Dispute, but I found that which I had heard of Master Tombs, that he was more for the extravagants, than the digests, and like as they define the Air, would easily entrench o● others bounds, but would hardly be kept within his own; whereupon I pressed him to Laconism, minding him of his Respondents office, which was to repeat, deny, distinguish, discover the fallacy, give a curt exposition of a Text alleged, and not like a Lapwing to carry fare from the matter with a wilden●sse, and luxurianc●e of words. Which h● n●w ●ccuses me of, as Chrysogonus d●d Sextus Rossius, and Tub●ro Liga●ius of the crimes they we●e guilty of themselves; In this mi●ating Skogen, who when the day of payment came arrested his Cred to●; Never is malice more indiscreet than when it chargeth others with imputation of that to which it is more liable itself. This the Poet cannot endure, Quis tulerit Gracch●s de seditione querente, Verrem de furto? It's one of our Saviour's first lessons to cast the beam out of our own eye, before we see the mote in another's. For the second calumny, that I could not blush, whether he take it naturally, or morally, it will easily reflect upon himself: If naturally, I appeal to any Physiognomer, whether Master Tombs countenance, or mine are deeplier died in grain (I speak not this to upbraid any Dyers son) that it cannot change its hue. A Subtilist in Nature, being asked what he thought of Tiberius the Emperor, said he saw in h●s complexion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dirt mingled with blood, that is, baseness with cruelty. Cardanus saw a man at Milan that washed h●s face with scalding lead, as carelessly as a man washeth himself with ordinary water. I will not make application; only this I say, he must needs have a stayed countenance that can confront ●he whole Catholic Church without blushing. If he mean Morally, let him show where I was guilty of one absurdity, that deserved a blush, though I deny not, but I might oftentimes change countenance, as troubled with his uncivil expressions, and carriage; whereas, if need were, I could muster up a decade of his, and some so gross, that a great Commander said, that if he had committed such an absurdity, as one was, when he was a schoolboy reading Godwin's Antiquities, his Master would have whipped him. Said me repimam. I had rather be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suffer by too much stupidity, than being reviled, in imitation of mine adversary over do it, by being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as he) little less than scurrilous. In answer to the second Epistle (where the Relator gives the reasons of his publication of the Dispute and Sermon) he says two things are merely fabulous, his being wounded, and vaunting; And he thinks the like of a third, the short time of conceiving the Dispute, and Sermon. For the first, as I am not bound to vindicate every circumstance of fact, the Epistle asserts, so it is not so proper for ●e to speak of wounding; only what he confesses himself▪ I may with modesty relate; he implies, he answered not so clearly, as he would, if he had had the Arguments to view, and examine deliberately, and that his Answers are to be amended pag. 5. That he denied the Minor, in which he imagined that fallacy, which he does not now upon sight deprehend. Pag. 22. In denying the Major in the first Argument, he confesses he was mistaken through inadvertency, or some humane infirmity pag. 14. with many more, which I forbear. Besides me thinks, a little friction might rub up his memory to be sensible that Mr. V whom he commends for suffering him to play with the bait of his Argument to the end of the line, dismissed him not without several pricks in the gills. For the second, his Vaunting (besides his Sermon at Ross, his own confession of his words at Abergaveny relating to Mr. Baxter p. 24. his saying that neither Dr. Savage, nor the Dr. of the Chair did avoid his Argument at Oxford p. 15.) is a thing as visibly to be seen in all his writings, as Owls at Athens. For the third, that he thinks the short time asserted in the Epistle for the conceiving of the Dispute and Sermon, is also fabulous; I return, that what he groundlessly thinks, I value not, as long as I certainly know, that the Dispute on my part (and I believe the same of Mr. V) was so far wanting to have an hour and an half for the conception; that I had not so much as a conceived thought to Dispute when I entered the place. Only I came to hear Mr. Bonner, when that failed, fear of offence, and the people's Apostasy drew me to it. For the Sermon, though it was the glean of two, it had not the entire retiredness of one day, as those that knew my other employments, will easily believe. For the words following I concur with him, that it displeaseth not me, that the business should be truly stated, which is the end also of this my writing; Though it displease me that he should first give the assault, and then raise the hubbub. For surely his Sermon and Dispute were a snare to deceive the people; whereas the publication of the other was intended as a preservative to undeceive them. He intends not to lengthen the business by insisting upon the falsity of the reports of his Answer, and he hath good reason for it, for there are none. His next expressions presages some good hope, that he that here gins to write his Confessions, may hereafter with Austin writ his retractions; for he grants it is not improbable that he might in five hours Dispute with one who talked so fast, as to give no time to consider of what he said, answered not so clearly as he would, had he had the Arguments to view, and examine deliberately. In the womb of which Monster, three untruths are couched; First, that he disputed five hours with me, when the whole was short of that, and almost two thereof spent with Mr. V. Secondly, that I talked so fast, as to give him no time to consider of what he said, whereas I did not only speak treatibly, but was often forced to repeat the Syllogism twice, or thrice. Indeed I would not suffer him to build his Tabernacle upon every groundless fancy, and brood upon his Cockatrice eggs till he had hatched them. Thirdly that he could not answer so clearly as he would, had he had the Arguments to view, and examine deliberately, whereas now after six months' time, he brings them forth in print, but as mere unlicked Bears whelps, and misshapen Moon-calves as formerly; for all he pretends he will either show how his Answers were misreported which was not at all; or how they are to be amended, which (as shall appear) is not yet. The Dispute Examined. The second Part. 1. Section. Mr. Tombs. COnceiving I have answered Master V sufficiently, I take my leave of him, and ●ass on to Master C. concerning whom the Reader is to be premonished, that by reason of his fast speaking, and many words, I was often uncertain what to apply an Answer to at the Dispute. As for his Preface I let it pass. His first Enthymene, page 16. Some Infants may not be baptised, therefore some Infants may be baptised is so frivolous, that I neither did then, nor do now think it worth any thing but contempt. For if the reasoning were good, it must ●e resolved into this Syllogism, All that may not be baptised, may be baptised; some Infants may not be baptised, Ergo, some Infants may be baptised: There being no other way according to Logick-Rules to make it good. Any man of common sense might see the foolery of that Argument. For if it be good, he might in like manner say, some Infants may not have the Lords Supper, Therefore some infants may; Some Boys are not to be Ordained Bishops, Therefore some are, I denied the consequence, and Mr. C. not sensible of his folly prints a Syllogism, which shows he proved not what was to be proved, which when I would have rectified by showing what he should have concluded, he ran on so fast in his vain prattle, that the reader may easily perceive I had reason to say, what would the man say? Reply. HOw sufficiently he hath answered Mr. V and upon what terms he takes his leave of him, will be further (I hope) manifested one day; he is of age, and able, let him answer for himself, I will not meddle with his replication; But look to mine own guard, for he passes on to me with flying colours, and before his de●ence, he raises this Sconce, that the Reader is to be premonished that by reason of my fast speaking, and many words, he was often uncertain what to apply an Answer to at the Dispute; Where he violates both art, and truth; 1. Art, where according to the Areopagites rule he should handle controversies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without passion, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without Preambles. 2. Truth, for though his conclusion be true that he was often uncertain what to apply an Answer to at the Dispute, yet his premises are notoriously false, for neither were my expressions so voluble, but an ordinary capacity might go in Equipage with them, nor my Syllogisms so long, but they were easily repeatable; for I speak nothing but the Sceleton, or nerves of Arguments; unless when forced to reclaim him from Extravagancies, or vagaries; or to give an answer to his Socratical Interrogations, or Queris. The true reasons of his uncertainty to apply an Answer, was partly in the object, a truth so clear, that it was unanswerable; partly in himself, who like Antaeus taken off his own ground, and beaten path, is often far to seek. And would one think, that he that makes so light of most Divines in the world in this point, should make so feeble, and frontless Apology, to palliate his uncertain, and Camelian-like answers from the shock of an extemporal Dispute, which he is not willing to hear of, and therefore passes by the Preface, wherein I first requested that the Cause might not suffer prejudice for mine unpreparation. 2. That liberty might be granted of a permeditated, and treatable Dispute hereafter, That I might but study the Question so many hours as Mr. Tombs had done days, days as he had done months, months as he years. But without any grain of allowance for this; This Achilles, who was said in the latter Epistle to be wounded in the heel falls upon the first Enthymene (as he calls it) with that overflowing of gall, that his whole paper is tinctured with the Jaundeis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom. Ilid. a. And why Enthymene? unless because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it sticks in his stomach; that he kevisses like a Dear wounded with a dart, that he needs some ditanie to draw it out; He should have called it Enthymeme, so the Relator calls it, not I, in the Dispute, and they are both mistaken; for Mr. Tombs might have remembered so much out of Logic, that there is a species, or kind of Argumentation distinct from Ethimema, which by K●ckerman Systematis, Log. pag. 45. is styled consecutio sententiarum, and thus by him defined, sine medii dispositione sententia sive propositio ad propositionem sequens, one sentence or proposition following another, without disposition of the medium, as appears (besides many other ways) in all conversions both simplex, per Accidens, and per contra positionem, where the Argument is good, and yet neither three propositions, nor an entire Syllogism can be immediately made, and for this he quotes Javel, who says non statim est Enthymema, cum audiuntur duae positiones, quarum una sequitur ex alterâ, siquidem omne Ethymema compleri potest, & ad tres propositiones reduci, consecutio autem haec propositionum compleri non potest, & ad tres propositiones revocari. Now this mistaken Enthymema, but indeed consecutio sententiarum was this, Some Infants may not be baptised, therefore some Infants may be baptised, This he says is so frivolous, that he neither did then, nor does yet think it worth any thing but contempt; which uncharitable censure arises from ignorance, or inadvertency, that betrays him to a double mistake; 1. that there was no way of Arguing consecutive, by two propositions, but Ethymematically, so that they were immediately reducible to a Syllogism complete in mood, and figure. 2. If an Ethymema, and reducible, that it must be necessarily resolved into his Syllogism as he calls it. All that may not be baptised, may be baptised, some Infants may not be baptised, Ergo some Infants may be baptised. Truly this is so frivolous, and deserves so much contempt, that a freshman would laugh at it. I find in Master Marshal's Just Censure of Master Tombs, that he makes himself merry, by turning the Orations, Epistles, an Allusion of Fathers into Syllogisms; That his main faculty lies in framing specious answers to Arguments brought to prove any thing; That he hath a dexterity in forming Arguments into several shapes, and then eluding them; Master Hussie says, Master Tombs can discover conclusions arising from premises, that no man else can see, But that he was not able to make a Syllogism, or reduce that to a Syllogism, which was reducible, I would not have believed, Therefore surely it is the Printers fault, both for name and thing; 1. For calling it an Enthymene, 2. For misforming it being miscalled. I would gladly know to what mood of the first figure, (for it hath sub. pra.) his monstrous Syllogism belongs consisting in the Premises of two negatives, in the conclusion of an affirmative, whereby (as every Puny knows) two maxims are violated. 1. That of pure negatives, nothing is concluded. 2. That the conclusion should follow the unworthier part; whereas he extracts an affirmative conclusion from negative premises. Might it not more likely, (I will not say truly) have been completed in Darii, thus; All besides them that are excluded Baptism, may be baptised; There are some Infants besides them that are excluded Baptism, therefore some Infants may be baptised. Howsoever the force of the Argument lies in the Immediateness of the Propositions, that what belongs not to the one of them, must needs belong to the other. It is the eighth place (as Cracanthorpe says) Logic. pag. 350. Whence Arguments may be drawn, a dissentaneis, that what one member receives not, the other admits; As for instance, from the immediate division of a living creature, into reasonable, and unreasonable, it will follow, some living creatures are unreasonable, therefore some are reasonable. Elements are divided into heavy and light; hence it will follow, some Elements are light, therefore some Elements are heavy, or not light. Christ says Matth. 24. 41. Two women shall be grinding at the Mill, the one shall be taken, and the other left; hence it follows from his Testimony, one shall be taken, therefore one shall be left; From the like Testimony, chapped. 25. Some shall be set on the left hand, therefore some shall be s●t on the right; Now what could be more ridicuthen to resolve it into this form, All those that shall not be set on the right hand, shall be set on the right hand, but some men shall not be set on the right hand, Therefore some shall be set on the right hand. Master Tombs by this (I hope) sees that there is another way according to Logic to make it good, besides his; the foolery of which (to use his own words) any one that hath common sense may see; as also his Inference, for he says, if it be good, one might in like manner say, Some Infants may not have the Lords Supper, therefore some Infants may. To which I answer, if the subject be capable of the Lords Supper, (as Austin, and some of the Ancients thought) it will follow; If not capable (for I speak of such) his Parallel is impertinent, and will not follow; as also his other, Some Boys are not to be Ordained Bishops, therefore some are; here I would know what Mr. Tombs means by Ordained? What by Bishop? If by Ordained he mean a solemn setting apart by imposition or hands after Election▪ and Examination, If by Bishop, he mean a superior dignity, and Office of the Ministry; I say that in sensu Composito while Boys, they are not capable; But if by Ordained Bishop, he m●an one permitted, and approved to exercise, and preach, it will follow from his own principles, for he holds that all that are gifted may preach, provided that it be not in the Pulpits of able men; But some boys are gifted, how much have we heard of the gifted Boy at Stafford, and elsewhere? Now the scruple here will be, whether Infants are capable of Baptism, or no; if capable, it will inevitably follow, and that they are capable, Mr. Tombs consequently grants, for he yields that Infants may be elected, that they may have the habit, nay, the act of faith, which if he knew, he would baptise; now his ignorance cannot hinder their capacity. And this was involved in the consequent, which he denied, and was proved by a concatenation of Syllogisms fairly propounded, and deliberately by him repeated, till his Answer insinuated, th●se were necessary propositions, which he had granted before to be contingent; which contradiction, when he could not reconcile, h● endeavoured with his Sarcasm to dash me out of countenance, which he now aggravates, calling the whole, a vain prattle, that as the Auditors then discovered weakness in his Logic, and rationals, so the reader may do now in his Ethics, and Morals, his main drift being to render my person, and cause od●ous, and contemptible to the people, like Monops a beast in Peonia, which (as Aelianus writes) brought to an unavoidable strait, ven●s an infectious order against the pursuer; and this wa● all the reason had without reason to say etc. Master Tombs 2. Section. THE next Argument is concerning the Essence of Baptism, which he saith belongeth to Infants; Therefore they may be baptised, and then Insinuates me to have been driven to absurdities in denying that Baptism is a relation, and Augustine's definition of a Sacrament. To which I answer, 1. This proposition the essence of Baptism belongs to Infants, may have two senses. 1. That the Baptism of Infants is true Baptism, that is, is according to Transcendental verity, such as hath the true nature of Baptism, and in this sense I grant the Proposition is true, and so it is true that an Infants eating bread, and drinking wine, is true eating and drinking the Lords Supper, it hath the Essence of it; But this I did not imagine he meant, and therefore denied his Minor, till his next Syllegism shown he meant it, and then I perceived I should have denied the Major; but his quickness, and multiplying words would not permit me to recall myself. 2. The other sense is this, The Essence of Baptism, that is, that which is of the Essence to right administration of Baptism belongs to Infants, in which sense I denied it. Nor doth his Argument from the definition prove it, for it is all one as to argue, Infant-Baptism is Baptism, therefore it is right Baptism; As for the absurdities he imputes to me, I deny them to be absurdities. For I take Baptism to be either an Action, or Passion, though Christian Baptism have a relation super added, and so in the use is a sign, and the Genus of it, which is of the Essence, I should make an Action. As for the other absurdity, I do confess, that the term Sacrament, being but a term invented by Latin Fathers may be laid aside, nor is there any common nature of Sacraments expressed in Scripture. And I confess I take Augustine's definition, if it be his, that a Sacrament is a visible sign of invisible grace, to be but imperfect, sigh it may be applied to the descent of the Holy Ghost as a dove, Christ washing of his Disciples feet, a persons kneeling, and holding up his hands to pray, the kissing of the Bible, and many other actions which are not Sacraments. I confess I was weary of these Quirks, and imagined that be used them only t● weary me, and blunt my attention, and to make some ostentation of himself, I replied 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 o● 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 th● propositions, that they were both actually true, especially that i● controversy, that some Infants may be baptised, which I di● thus: To whom belongs the Essence of Baptism, they may be baptised, to some Infants belongs the Essence of Baptism, ergo some Infants may be baptised. Here he confesses he denied the Minor, where he should have denied 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; pitiful fig leaves; Did not he first hear 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 repairs the loss by a distinction of a twofold Essence of Baptism, which is a mere 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 Metaphysics, 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 says) he denies, 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 subtract 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. Tombs 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 groundless 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 knows; As for the other part of the distinction, which he also calls the essence of Baptism, it is so far 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 applied 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 erroneous superstructions, they are not true Churches, eatenus in moral verity. Baptism with water in the Church, administered by a Priest in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is true Baptism in Transcendental 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 less have they th● essence of Baptism, as wanting the fundament, which is the root of the entity. Whereas Mr. Tombs confesses Infants may have the essence of Baptism, or that it belongs to them, which the Argument from the definition further proves, in form 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 says) 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 baptised, which is the Question by this inference put out of Question. And if we make a deeper Scrutiny into the parts of the definition, we shall find that their Baptism is right Baptism, and that Infants may rightly be baptised, for the entire definition of Baptism comprehends in its womb 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 baptise 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, Fundamentum, Correlatum, and Terminus belongs to Infants, therefore the definition of Baptism belongs to Infants. Here he denied Baptism was a Relation, wherein (he says) I insinuate that he was driven to an absurdity, and how justly let learned men judge; Keckerman places Baptism, amongst concrete Relatives, called of the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Log. Syst. pag. 15. Melanch●on says, Baptism is a Relation, and that terminus baptismi est obsignatio, & confirmatio absolutionis peccatorum per sanguinem Christi, The term of Baptism is the sealing and confirmation of pardon of sins by the blood of Christ-Peter Martyr Com. places part. 4. pag. 112. defines Baptism, a sign of regeneration into Christ, into his death, and resurrection etc. and that by sign, he means Metonymically a Relation betwixt the sign, and thing signed, and signified is apparent by the words following; A Sign is a word common to Baptism, and other Sacraments is proved hereby (says he) because Paul in the Epistle to the Romans 4. 11. taught that Abraham, after he was justified did receive circumcision being a seal of righteousness of faith already obtained; and that Baptism sealeth is sufficiently expressed, seeing it is called a sign of regeneration, for Christ manifestly taught Nicodemus, John 3. 3. that they that will be saved must be born again, thus far he. Zanchie, Calvin, Vrsine, Bucane, Bishop Jewel described Baptism by Relation, or Relative terms; so among the Ancients, Dionys. cap. 2. calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the garment of incorruption; and Austin, a Sacrament of remission of sins. Now Mr. Tombs in opposition to these, and many more which might be alleged, denies it to be a relation, and lest it should be nothing (as many would have it) he say●●e takes Baptism to be either an action or passion, but he tells us not whether, leaving it hanging between two Predicaments like Mahomet's Tomb at Mecha: He might have remembered that nothing formally can be placed in two Categories, and as in words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to signify one thing distinctly, is to signify nothing, so not to be placed in one Category, is to be placed in none. But perhaps he thinks with Janus, it puts on a double face, and as it respects the Minister baptising, is an action, as it looks at the party baptised, it's a passion; And why may not as well Marriage be said to be in both, seeing in it there is both action and passion? It's confessed that in Baptism is included baptization which is both action and passion, the party baptising, and the party baptised with the water, which are corporal substances, the pronouncing of the words of Baptism, which may relate to quantity, divine graces of regeneration, which are infused qualities, divine institution of it, union with Christ, and the whole Trinity, which are Transcendents; These are the materials; but the ratio formalis, the essence, and form of Baptism consists in Relation, which is duorum unio, the union betwixt the outward sign of water, and inward grace signified by it: This Master Tombed grants in part, when he saith Christian Baptism hath a relation superadded; if he had said in casu recto, it was a relation he had stroke home, which his next words intimates, confessing that in the use, it was a sign, which predication is but Metonimical, the true genus of Baptism must be the union between the sign, and the thing signed, or signified, which is a relation, and n●t as he would make it an action, which would carry in the bowels of it this absurdity, that then Baptism would be inherent in the baptised, that the party baptised could not say mine, but the Minister's Baptism; Actio est agentis. Now the Argument whereby in the Dispute I proved Baptism to be a relation, was this, Every Sacrament is a relation, Baptism is a Sacrament, therefore Baptism is a Relation. Then he denied both the premises, but now minces it, saying that he confesses that the term Sacrament, being but a term invented by Latin Fathers, may he laid aside: What Latin Fathers? The duodecim Tabulae? For they mention it; There was among the Ancient Heathen Romans Sacramentum militare, a Soldier's Sacrament, whereby Plaintiff, and defendant put in gauges to abide the trial, this Tully alludes too pro Milone Sacramentis alienos fundos petunt, They sue for other men's grounds with Sacraments, or gauges of money. Therefore the Term Sacrament was not invented by the Christian Latin Fathers, but was long before them: Perhaps he means the term Sacrament to speak properly, was not invented but applied to Baptism, and the Lords Supper by the Latin Christian Fathers, & therefore may be laid aside, because a heathen word; So the terms Episcopus, Presbyter, Diaconus, should be laid aside, for the Areopagites, and other Grecians had them, I'll instance in one, Episcopus, Plutarch in Pericle says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Phidias was his Bishop, or ovescer in all things. Or it may be he means there is no one Scripture word in the Original that can properly be translated Sacrament; Then the word Trinity, Unity, Humanity, and (which they cant so much withal) Antipaedobaptist, must be laid aside: Besides is there not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mystery in the Original, which to express in our language, and the Latin no fit words according to common use can be then Sacrament; And though Mystery, and Sacrament are of a larger extent & signification than to be convertible with Baptism, and the Lords Supper, yet they are the Mysteries and Sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by way of eminence. And that Baptism was both a Sacrament, and a relation was further proved. That which is an outward and visible sign, of an inward and invisible grace, is both a Relation, and a Sacrament; Baptism is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace, Therefore it is both a Relation, and a Sacrament. Then he denied the Minor; now he speaks not quite out, but clou●s the Truth of it with two false assertions, 1. That there is no common nature of a Sacrament expressed in Scripture. 2. That Augustine's definition thereof is imperfect. For the former, that there is no common nature of a Sacrament expressed in Scripture is untrue, both in the sequel, and in itself; In the sequel, for what consequence? there is no common nature of a Sacrament expressed in Scripture, therefore Baptism is not a Sacrament more than in this? There is no common nature of infused grace expressed in Scripture, therefore faith is not an infused grace. Untrue in itself, for though not in one place, there may be in many places of Scripture compared together (like garlands of flowers gathered out of the same garden) a common nature of a Sacrament expressed, as well as of predestination, election, adoption, regeneration, hope, with many more, which Scripture in no one place, undertakes completely to define, but the common nature thereof, (if he mean the Genus, and the special nature, the differentia) may be gathered by comparing of Scriptures: And is there not the common nature of a Sacrament expressed in one Scripture, Rom. 4. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a seal of the righteousness of faith? This is the judgement of the Ancients, and the most of the Divines of reformed Churches, amongst which expressly Bucanus Loc. commu. pag. 557. says, est igitur Paulo finitore Sacramentum sigillum justitiae fidei. Therefore a Sacrament, as Paul defines it, is a seal of the righteousness of faith; And Peter Martyr, once Dr. of the chair in Oxford, says in the fore quoted place, pag. 102. L. C. A Sacrament is called a Sign, which word that it is common to Baptism, and the Lords Supper it is proved hereby, because Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, taught that Abraham after that he was justified, received Circumcision, being a seal of the righteousness already obtained. To these we might add Ursine Catech. pag. 414. with many more. His second groundless assertion is, That Augustine's definition, or that which go●s in his name (for he scruples it) of a Sacrament is impertinent, and his reason is as groundless, sigh (saith he) it may be applied to the descent of the Holy Ghost as a dove, Christ's washing of his Disciples feet, a persons kneeling and holding up his hands to pray, the kissing of the Bible, and many other actions which are not Sacraments. Here is couched a Miscelene of absurdities; was not the descent of the Holy Ghost, as a Dove, a seal, or sign of Christ's Office of the Mediatorship, and not of his righteousness of faith? What sign of invisible Grace was Christ's washing of his Disciples feet, but a pattern to teach them humility, the service itself being necessary, and no ceremony in those hot Countries? Kneeling, and holding up of hands to pray, is a moral duty, seeing Christ hath redeemed us both body an soul, therefore we ought to worship him in body, and soul, come let us worship, and fall down, and kneel before the Lord our Maker, pray every where lifting up pure hands without wrath. Kissing of the Bible is but either an expression of our reverence to God's Word, or a civil ceremony in deposing before the Magistrate, common to us, with Turks who also kiss their Alcoran. But grant that all these were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, positive signs of Divine Institution (which is the Genus of a Sacrament) as habit is of saving graces; will it more follow▪ these are signs of divine Institution, therefore Sacraments; than this, Logic is a habit, therefore a saving grace? But let him lay aside his double fallacy, which he tw●sts together, 1. Arguing affirmatively à Genere ad speciem; 2. His fallacia divi ionis, and take the whole definition (for I only made use of so much as sufficed for a Medium to prove Baptism was a Sacrament) and he shall see the feebleness of his assertion, and instances, it's this as every child knows; An outward and visible sign, of an inward and spiritual Grace given to us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof: Every word of it severally may be proved out of Scripture; Now that this cannot be applied to the descent of the Holy Ghost as a dove, Christ's washing of his Disciples feet, a persons kneeling, and holding up his hands to pray, the kissing of the Bible, I dare appeal to Mr. Tombs himself, or any one that hath not lost his intellectuals; And whereas he further says, it may be applied to many other actions, which are not Sacraments, let him show that one action can properly be capable of this definition. In the mean time let the Reader judge whether he was driven to absurdities or no, in denying that Baptism was a Relation, and Augustine's definition of a Sacrament. But howsoever th●se he says were but Quirks that he imagines I used only to weary him, and blunt his attention, and make some ostentation of myself, and that he was weary of them; I shall think till he give more satisfactory Answers, that they were concluding Arguments, and that his weariness and bluntness of attention did arise from the difficulty of untying the knot, which was not tied by me for ostentation of myself, but for trial of him, and discovery of truth; to which he replied not, not because the talk was vain, but because he thought it was in vain to talk, and therefore not his importunity, but my present necessity called for plain Scripture-proof, that the people might understand, how both my Argument, and person were abused. Mr. Tombs 3. Section. AS for that which he saith, 1 denied all that were Church-members were to be baptised, and yet affirmed it in my Sermon, in both I said ●ue, the former being understood of invisible, the later of visible Church-members. In the Argument, pag. 24. Those whom God did promise before ●e Law, foretell under the Law, actually receive into Covenant un●r the Gospel, those God did appoint Church-members under the Go●ell, But etc. Ergo, had not Mr. C. quickness hindered me, I had ●ewed the vanity of the Major, as well as denied the Minor, for if he ●ean by Church-members, visible Church-members, and by actually ●ceiving into Cov●nant understand such an Actual receiving as is without any act of faith, or profession of the persons received into Cove●nt, as I conceive he doth, I deny the Major. But I also denied the ●nor. Reply. THat the definition in the right administration thereof (which was the thing denied) belongs to Infants, I prove thus; If God did institute baptism for Infants, Christ merited it for them, and ●hey stand in need of it, then to Infants belongs the definition of baptism; But God instituted, Christ merited, and Infants stand in ●eed of it, therefore to Infants belongs the definition of Baptism, He denied the Minor, every branch whereof I promised to prove in order, and would have endeavoured (God willing) if the time, & his patience would have permitted. Beginning with the first, That God did institute Baptism for Infants, which was concluded thus, He that appointed Infants Church-members under the Gospel, did institute Baptism for them, God appointed Infants Church-members under the Gospel, Therefore God did institute Baptism for Infants. To this he answered, first the Major might be questioned, because to be Church-members (whereas he should have said Church-members under the Gospel) and to be baptised, were not termini convertibiles; This I granted, for Infants under the Law were Church-members, and yet not baptised, but circumcised, and before the Law, Church-members, and yet neither circumcised, nor baptised, but under the Gospel they were so convertible, that all that were baptised were Church-members, and all that were Church-members were to be baptised, which was that I affirmed now in the Major, and as I avouched was a truth so clear, that Mr. T. confesses it all along in his books, and that upon that confessed Ground, Mr. Baxter goes in many of his Arguments. This he denied till a Gentleman told him that he heard him affirm the same in his Sermon the day before, this he then let pass, but now cements it thus, with this untempered mortar; in the first words of his former Paragraph thus, As for that which he saith I denied all that were Church members were to be baptised, and yet affirmed in my Sermon, that they were to be baptised, in both I said true, the former being understood of invisible, the later of visible Church-members, hence he would imply that all-invisible Church-members may not be baptised, all visible Church-members may be baptised: This is his Cardinal distinction upon the hinge whereon hangs the whole Fabric of his Anti Paedobaptistical Babel, and like the string in the Lamprey, runs with a poisonous and fallacious vein through the whole body of his discourse, whereby he eludes all Arguments, as the Sophister did with his Archipodialiter, and reflexive. Let him give me leave to parley with him a little; and first tell him that his distinction (if true) is not fitly applied to this place. 2. That it is untrue. Not fitly applied to this place, for the proposition by him denied, points only at the visible Church-membership of Infants, adjudging it an absurd thing to draw an Argument to prove a visible Ordinance taken from the qualification of a subject invisible; So that if he please he may frame the Proposition thus. He that appointed infants visible Church-members under the Gospel, did institute Baptism for them, and then he might have spared his visible, and invisible distinction. 2. It is not true, for neither are all visible members of the Church to be baptised, then all baptised before (they being visible members) were to be baptised again, and so toties, quoties, that all should turn Hemerobaptists, be baptised every day; and if Mr. T. say this is a fallacy, it is but paying him in his own coin, for these are his counterfeit pieces pag. 16. [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 betwixt the terms, I presume Mr. C. thinks baptised persons already disciples, yet not capable of baptism] thus far he. Now to be members of the Church, and Disciples, are Synynoma 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the same thing differing only in terms. Thus for visible Church-members, then for invisible. It's worth the enquiry, whether he rightly denied that all of them were to be baptised; for he insinuates that all invisible Church-members are not in capacity of Baptism; for the discussion whereof, we are to remember that in right stating the Question according to Art, the members of the distinction must be ad idem, to the same subject which is the Church militant, not Triumphant; Hence the Quaere is not whether the Saints in Heaven may be baptised, for they are above Ordinances, nor whether the Elect before conception be baptizable, for they are only in God's decree and potentiâ objectiuâ, and are short of Ordinances; Nor whether Infants unborn in the mother's womb, though sanctified with John Baptist, may be baptised; for though they be in potentiâ proximâ, yet they have not attained the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or full groat of Ordinances, it being more impossible to baptise them, than to Circumcise females; Nor whether the Elect amongst Jews, Turks, and Pagans before they be called, be to be baptised; for they are not yet members of the Church Militant: But the true state of the Question is, whether all that are in visible being, and members of the Church Militant may be baptised, or no? For to be in visible being, and members of the Church invisible, implies no more contradiction, than for the good, and bad fishes to be both visible in the net, and yet not discernible whether good, or bad, till they came to shore. Neither are those that attain the end of Ordinances, and Salvation called invisible members, because they are not also (ordinarily) visible, but because it is a thing invisible, and indiscernible whether they be true Saints, or hypocrites, So that invisible, and visible members differs as Genus, and Species, all invisible members are visible, but not all visible members invisible, the invisible being extracted out of the visible, as Joshua and Caleb were out of the Spies the second time to enter Canaan, or as gideon's soldiers that lapped w●re●, out of his numerous Army to enter battle. Now i● all invisible members be also visible, it will inevitably follow that they may be baptised, whether visible by profession, as them of ripe years, or visible by prerogative of birth, and promise of parents, or sureties, as Infants; which shall be further cleared hereafter, only this by the way, to discover the misapplication, and untruth of this Utopian distinction. Mr. Tombs insisting upon the denial of the Minor, which was that God did institute infants Church-members under the Gospel, I undertook to prove it with a threefold co●d, before the Law, under the Law, under the Gospel, which was framed into an Argument thus; Those whom God did promise before the Law, foretell under the Law, actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel, those God did appoint Church-members under the Gospel; But God did promise before the Law, foretell under the Law, actually receive Infants into covenant under the Gospel, Therefore God did appoint Infants Church-members under the Gospel. In answer to which he says, had not Mr. C. quickness hindered him, he had showed the vanity of the Major, as well as denied the Minor; He might have set the saddle upon the right—, and said his own dulness, for as Themistocles told Seriphius, if he had not lost the Castle, he could not have won it; So I may tell him, if his slowness had not hindered, my pretended quickness (who gave him leave to Iterate, and reiterate the Syllogism) could not have prevented his mature, and deliberate answer. But why had he shown the vanity of the Major? He gives a reason (such as it is) if I mean by [Church-members] visible Church-members, and by [actually receiving into Covenant] understand such an actual receiving, as is without any act of Faith, or profession of the persons received into Covenant (as he conceives I do) he denies the Major. He conceives I mean by Church-members; visible Church-members, It's true I do so; Why did not he conceive I meant so in the former Syllogism, and spared his distinction of visible, and invisible Church-members; which it seems by his own confession is but a false conception, or Mooncalfe, for if he conceived I meant visible Church-members, why talks he vainly of invisible? If he had a conceit I meant invisible, why says he, that he conceives I meant visible? but that any poor shift will fit to elude an Argument. But the main ground upon which he denies the proposition, is because there can be no actual receiving into Covenant without an act of faith, or profession of the persons received; How impertinent, and senseless this is, will appear by the bare repetition of it, which is this. Those whom God did promise before the Law, foretell under the Law, actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel, those God did appoint Church-members under the Gospel; The truth of this proposition hath no dependence upon faith, or profession, which is but Mr. Tombs his dream, but upon a threefold impregnable rock, first Gods promise which is founded upon his veracity, secondly his prediction which is founded upon his omnisciency, and infallibility, thirdly, from the connexion of the terms, which makes it to be aeternae veritatis; for actually to receive into covenant under the Gospel, and to appoint Church-members under the Gospel, are as essentially coincident as to be a man, and a reasonable creature; To deny the two former branches is no less than blasphemy; to question the third, would grant a Metaphysical, and Logical principle, upon which is built the superstructures of all Arts, and Sciences. What can be more absurd than to affirm, that what God hath promised, foretold, performed, is not executed? When Orthodox Christians argued that God created the World of nothing, because when there was nothing extant besides himself, he decreed to create it, said before there was any creature, fiat Coelum, let there be Heaven, and Earth, and in six days framed all things, he made the World of nothing; but when there was nothing extant besides God, he decreed to create the World, and before there was any creature; said fiat Coelum, and in six days framed all things: Therefore God made all the World of nothing. Porphyry, and Libanius those Atheists, answered, that if by God's decree, fiat, and fact was meant that God made all things sine praejacente materiâ, without a fi●st matter, they denied the Major; as if God could not of nothing create all things. In imitation of these Mr. Tombs denies those whom God did promise before the Law, foretell under the Law, actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel, that he did appoint them Church-members under the Gospel, if by actual receiving into Covenant, I understand such an actual receiving as is without any act of Faith, or profession of the persons received into Covenant; as ●f God could not appoint them Church-members, even though he had promised, foretold, and actually received them into Covenant, without an act of faith, and profession. This might have had some colour, if applied to the Minor, which he says he also denied, implying that in the Dispute he denied the Major, which will throw him upon the horns of this Dilemma, if he denied it, than my quickness prevented him not; if he denied it not, than he tells an utruth, and contradicts himself, but this is so usual that I am wearied to take notice of them. Master Tombs 4. Section. IN the next proof he changeth the term of actually receiving, into being in Covenant. Now there is a manifest difference between them, sigh a person may be in Covenant, that is, have a Covenant made to him, who is not yet born, as Isaac, Gen. 17. 21. But he is not actually received into Covenant till he is born, and by some Acts of his own engageth himself to be Gods: Receiving importeth an offering, which is to be done by profession. As for his proof from Gen. 17. 7. I had many exceptions against it; First, that if it be understood of the natural seed of Abraham, the everlastingness of it was but for a time, and that time afore the Gospel, as in the next verse the possession of Canaan is promised to be everlasting, and yet the Jews dispossessed now of it. Which Mr. C. grant●, and therefore must needs grant that the promise verse 7. though it be termed everlasting, yet it is to be understood only of a limited time, as in other passages, Exod. 21. 6. and 12. 24. etc. If meant of the natural seed of Abraham. Nor is he relieved by saying they shall have Canaan again, for however the possession was not everlasting, that is, at all times, particularly not in Gospel-times. Reply. HE having denied the Minor, that God did promise before the Law, foretell under the Law, and actually receive Infants into Covenant under the Gospel; I proved the branches in order. First, that God did promise before the Law, that Infants should be in Covenant under the Gospel, thus. That which God did promise to Abraham was before the Law, but God did promise to Abraham that Infants should be in Covenant, or actually received into Covenant under the Gospel, therefore God did promise before the law that Infants should be in Covenant, or actually received into covenant under the Gospel. Here he says I change the term of actually receiving into being in Covenant; whereas if his memory had not failed, he might have recollected that in the Dispute I used both, if his charity had not been a grain, or too too light, he might have imputed it to the Relator, who for brevity sake omitted the one term, which was used but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to interpret the other, th●y being Equivalent in sense. But he says there is a manifest difference between them, wha● difference? He that is actually received into covenant is in Covenant, and he that is in Covenant, is actually received into Covenant, it being impossible to be in Covenant (properly so called) without being actually received into it. To be in the state of grace, and glory, and to be actually received into the state of grace and glory, are Aequipollent terms; If Mr. Tombes' soul be in his body, it is actually received into his body, and if the sword be in the Scabbard, it is actually received into the scabbard; But he disproves this Instance, sigh a person may be in Covenant that ●s, have a Covenant made to him, who is not yet born as Isaak, Gen. 17. 21. Three untruths couched in one kennil. 1. That a person may be in Covenant who is not yet born. 2. That to have a Covenant made to him, is to be in Covenant. 3. That Isaak was in Covenant, who was not yet born, Gen. 17. 21. First, That a person may be in Covenant, who is not yet born or conceived, as his instance of Isaak implies, may be confuted insito Argumento, by an Argument inbred in the terms, for he implies, and that right, that a person must be the subject of being in Covenant, but none who is unborn, and unconceived as Isaak, Gen. 17. 21. is a person; for a person must be a substance, which excludes all Accidents from Covenant capacity; à substantia prima, must exist, and be clothed with individual circumstances, which excludes universals, must be Intelligent, which excludes all irrational creatures, Incommunicable, which excludes the Divine nature; No part of another, which excludes the soul or body of man, after separation to be persons; Not supported of another, which excludes the humane nature of Christ, because it is supported of the Divine. Now that which is unborn, not conceived, or organised in the womb, is therefore uncapable of being a person, which by his own confession is the subject of being in Covenant. Secondly, It is a false suggestion, that to have a Covenant made to one, is to be in Covenant, if by having the Covenant made to one (for the phrase is somewhat strange) he means (as he can mean nothing else) a promise from God to be, and be in Covenant, for a promise may be made to, or of one long before he have any being, not executed, or performed till long after his being; Then to be elected, and to be in Covenant would be both one; then Mary Magdalen, while possessed with seven Devils, and Saul, while a persecuter were in covenant, nay, from eternity, to be in covenant would precede outward, and inward calling, conversion, profession, and prerogative of birth, than which nothing can be more ridiculous. Thirdly it is of the same leaven of untruth, that Isaak was in covenant, when he was not yet born, which his own quotation, Gen. 17. 21. proves against him: The words are these, But my covenant will I establish with Isaak, which Sara shall bear into thee, at this set time in the next year, where observe. 1. God promises that Sara shall bear Isaak unto Abraham, therefore he was not yet born. 2. That she should bear him at that set time of the next year, therefore not conceived yet. 3. That he will establish a covenant with Isaak in the future, not that he does establish a covenant in the present. 4 He will establish his covenant with Isaak, not that Isaak is in covenant; to be in covenant, and to establish a covenant with one are distinct terms, what child cannot discover this inconsequence, God promises that he will establish his covenant with Isaak, before he was born, therefore Isaak was in covenant before he was born: Master T. might as truly conclude thus, God promised Gen. 49. 10. That the Sceptre shall not departed from Judah till Shilo come, Therefore the Sceptre was in Judah before David, or any governor of that tribe was born. I confess that God loved the elect from eternity with the love of intention, but not till converted with the love of execution, at which time they begin to be internally in covenant with God, and members invisible, and externally in covenant, and members visible, as soon as they are born, if infants of believing Parents, as soon they profess, Jews, or Pagans. But he goes on with the other branch of his new distinction, affirming that a Person is not actually received into covenant till he be born, which is true of the external, and outward receiving, but not of the internal, and spiritual receiving, for who can deny with reason that John Baptist, and Jeremy that were sanctified in the womb, and elect children that dies in the womb are not spiritually, and invisibly in covenant with God, seeing they are qualifyed with graces suitable to their present condition, that God is well pleased with them. But whereas he adds, that one is not actually received into covenant till by some acts of his own, he engageth himself to be Gods; This erroneous superstructure is founded upon the Basis of this mistake, that every covenant must be expressly, and actually mutual betwixt both parties that are covenanters, and is an Arguments sophistically (though sillily) drawn à negatione unius speciei ad totum genus, and in forth sounds thus: Some covenants must be expressly, and actually mutual between the covenante●s, therefore all, even that between God, and Infants, must be actually, and expressly mutual, or which is more, Infants by some Acts of their own, must engage themselves to be Gods: Whereas covenanters are twofold, 1. Actually mutual, when both parties correspondently indents, and stipulates; 2 Or not mutual, and reciprocal, when one party imposes something upon the other, as Conquerors upon captives; as 1 Sam. 11. 2. And Naah the Ammonite answered them, on this condition will I make a covenant with you, that I may thrust out all your right ●yes, and lay it for a reproach on all Israel; This was upon supposition of his conquest, to enforce them whether they would or no; and is an Act of Justice, sometimes an act of mercy, as Ezek. 36. 26. Where God engages without any mutual stipulation, That a a new heart he would give them, and a new spirit he would put within them, and he would take away the stony heart out of their flesh, and that he would give them a heart of flesh, and that he would put his spirit within them, and cause them to walk in his Statutes, and keep his Commandments. In this case one party maketh the Covenant without mentioning the other, but as patiented, therefore Gen. 15. 8. God is said to make a Covenant, with Abraham, and 17. 9 God calleth the covenant his covenant, God made the promise, & conditions, not Abraham: The former kind of covenant which is mutual, wherein both parties in a sense indent, and stipulate, is twofold, first when personally for themselves, both act, or interpretativ●ly consent, so Gen. 21. 27. When Abraham, and Abimelech did covenant, the Text saith, they both made a ●vonant, Abraham his conditions, and Abimelech his. And Gen. 17. 10. God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my Covenant, therefore thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations, this is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me, and you, every manchild among you shall be circumcised. Secondly, representatively by others who are their Proxies and engages for them, they being but mere passives, and are received into covenant without any voluntary act of their own; Thus Infants in all generations from Abraham became covenanters by circumcision, when they were but eight days old, which Christ himself confirmed by his own example pro parvulis parv●l●s factus, became a little one for little ones, was Mediator, and head of the Church in both natures, circumcised when a little one, that little ones by Circumcision might be admitted into covenant. By this you see it smells rank of heresy, if not of blasphemy, to affirm that a person cannot actually be received into covenant, till by some acts of his own he engageth himself to be Gods: for then all Infants from Adam till Abraham; Isaak and all circumcised Infants from Abraham till Christ, from Christ till the end of the world, nay, Christ himself, while an Infant (who as he was the first begotten of the dead, was the first in covenant) would be excluded the Covenant: We find in the Gospel, that sick persons, that were carried by others, were cured upon account of their Faith; and Infants brought to Christ by others, were actually themselves blessed by him: Therefore vain is that he asserts, that actual receiving into covenant imports an offering which is to be done by profession; as if more were to be required for admission of visible members into covenant, than was for admission, or actual receiving of Christ as God-man, and Mediator to be visible head of the Church; for though we read that the Star, and 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 says he had many exceptions against it, but I remember none, but those here mentioned by him, nor all them, which how incongruously they are applied, will appear by reciting the Argument in form 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 Gospel; 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 Gospel, His first exception he says was, That if it be understood of the natural 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, only to the natural seed, there might have been some colour of dispute, and yet without all controversy, the everlastingness of it is extended even to the natural seed of Abraham; for there hath been, is, and will be a succession of Jewish believers 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 Gospel: But the truth is, it is not only meant, of the natural seed, but of the spiritual seed of Abraham, both whereof successively, and in part, if not altogether concomitantly (for there were always Proselytes) it is everlasting, or to the end of the world; Neither is he relieved by the next verse wherein he says the possession of Caena●n is promised to be everlasting, and yet the Jews are dispossessed now of it, unless that the same word in adjoining 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 only sojourned in it, and that but for a while as a stranger; Jacob his grandchild 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 expel the Jebusites, and Canaanites. What then must be mea●t by God's 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 actual possession of it, or that it was a type of the everlasting spiritual Canaan, in which senses from Abraham they possessed it; or that the plenary, and full possession of the whole gins at the conversion of the Jews, 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 dispossessed 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 only 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 ma●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 says I am not relieved by saying that they shall have Canaan again, I must tell him that, that Fo●t needs no relieving that was never beleagerd, or besieged. The Question is not of actual 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 posterity 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 inferred, 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 dispossessed of Canaan in that sense, in which it is said to be everlasting. Mr. Tombs. 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 allegeth, 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 Abraham's 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 ●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 only of a Transient fact, not of a command, much less of ● 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 be concluded a continuance of covenant to Infants, a continuance of covenant to wives, and servants will be concluded. Reply. MAster Tombs thinking to gain the shore upon this broken plank, that the covenant God made with Abraham was not simply everlasting, because the Jews possession of Canaan was not everlasting, was further assaulted with an Argument drawn from a Gospel-covenant thus; That which is a Gospel-covenant is to continue to the end of the world, The covenant that God made with Abraham, and his seed to all generations is a Gospel▪ covenant, Gal. 3. 8. and the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached the Gospel before to Abraham, saying, in thee shall all nations be blessed, Therefore it is to continue to the end of the world. In which text three things are observable. 1. That the Scripture foretold that God would justify the heathen through faith, that is the partition wall should be pulled down, and the heathen nations should profess faith as visible members, whereof some should be actually justified as members invisible. 2. That the same Gospel that was afterwards preached to the heathens, was first preached to Abraham. 3. That in Abraham, that is in him, as the root whence sprung the branches, or in the covenant made with him, or in Christ virtually in him by way of excellency, all nations shall be blessed. Now instead of direct answer to this, he first injuriously misreports my allegation against the law of equity. 2. He shoots at his hostem stramineum imaginary Bugbear of straw against the rules of Logic and verity. 3. Having miss his mark with the Dragon in the Revelation, he sends floods of reproach after me against the grounds of religion, and piety. First he injuriously misreports my allegation, that I urged this Argument drawn from Gal. 3. 8. to prove that Abraham's natural seed were promised to be in covenant under the Gospel, as will appear to any one that observes the concatenation of the Mediums, which loosed into a Sorites presents themselves thus: Infants may be baptised, because the Essence of Baptism belongs to them, The Essence belongs to them, because the definition belongs to them, The definition of Baptism belongs to Infants, because Christ did institute it for them, he did institute Baptism for them, because he appointed them visible Church-members under the Gospel; he appointed them visible Church-members under the Gospel, because he promised to Abraham before the Law, that they should be received into covenant under the Gospel; he promised to Abraham before the Law, that they should be received into covenant under the Gospel, because he made an everlasting covenant with Abraham, and his seed, that is professors, and believers, whether carnally descended from him, or no; he made an everlasting covenant with Abraham, and his seed which was not to expire with the Jewish Paedogogie, because it was a Gospel-covenant, and that it was a Gospel-covenant it was proved, Gal. 3. 8. God preached the Gospel to Abraham. Now where did I urge that Abraham's natural s●ed were promised to be in covenant under the Gospel? Master T. his conscience tells him, no where; Let him take heed of these untruths that he thinks are officious, and pious frauds, lest they prove malicious, and unexpiable without confession and satisfaction. Secondly he shoots at his own Idol against the rules of Logic, and verity, for having swallowed, and digested this untruth, that I urged Abraham's natural seed were in covenant under the Gospel, he attempts to disprove it from the Text alleged, Gal. 3. 8. because the thing promised (as he expresses it with an Emphasis) was justification, and that of the heathen, and that through faith. As if all this might not be, and yet some of the natural seed of Abraham be in covenant under the Gospel, who professed, were justified, and had faith as well as the heathen. True it is I averred in the dispute, and avouch now, that Abraham was the root; the natural seed of Abraham, (though not as natural,) were the natural branches of this Olive, and in visible covenant till Christ's incarnation; and yet not these alone, for Proselytes also of every nation were admitted; After Christ, the Gentiles, or Nations, as wild Olives were engrafted into the place of the natural Olive, which in great part was broken off; and yet many of the Jews embraced Christ, continued in ●he stock, and were both the natural, and spiritual seed of Abraham; for if Peter, Acts 2. at one Sermon converted three thousand, how many thousands may we think were converted with all the Sermons of all the Apostles, and Evangelists? But I never affirmed that the covenant was to be made, and continued, to the end only with the natural seed of Abraham, but the quite contrary, seeing also the Gentile professors, and believers were the seed of Abraham, which is plainly expressed, Gal. 3. 7. Know ye therefore that they that are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham, and ver. 9 They that are of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham; and if the continuation of Abraham's seed had been only by this spiritual succession, it had been enough to prove, that the covenant God made with him was everlasting. Thirdly by this accuser of his brethren, Revel. 12 10. being thus cast down, ver. 15. Casts out of his mouth a flood ●f water ofter me, saying, had not the man a face which could not blush, he would have been ashamed to urge it, to prove that Abraham's natural seed were promised to be in covenant under the Gospel; whereas no man whose conscience is not seared, and face starched will say, that I affirmed Abraham's natural seed were promised to be in covenant under the Gospel, or that I urged that place to prove it? Is it no sin first to slander, and then to fasten an Aspersion of so deep a dye upon a groundless slander? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pindar. Ode. 1. The venen●ous wasp by shooting out her st●ng, may very well lose her bowels. And because Master T. speaks so oft of a face that cannot blush, let him reflect upon his own, which (as if born under Saturn, who is said ●o have murdered his children) livo●em loquitur, speaks paleness, and envy, which I had thought had been ch●cked with grace, till besides his uncivil language in the dispute without provocation, he vents so much rancour deliberately in writing. Qualiter eruptis corrupta cadavera Tumbis Inficiunt, saetore graves imitata cloacas; Lurida cum Stygiis glomer antque aconita venenis. As gaping Tombs though painted fair, With poisoned breath infects the Air, And with a scent out-vyes the Jakes, Or damps that rise from Stygian lakes▪ But he goes on in the same Equipage twisting a cord of untruth, and reproach together, saying that my next allegation is as vain, that because, Deut. 29. 11. The whole Congregation of Israel are 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-naturall seed of Abraham to the end of the world. Here is Triplex Geryon, a Monster composed of a threefold untruth. 1. It is a fiction that I ever affirmed, that the covenant Gen. 17. 7. was to continue to Infant-naturall seed of Abraham to the end of the world. 2. Much more that I had any occasion, or went to prove it. 3. Most of all, that I proved it from that Text Deut. 29. 10. 11. Because the whole Congregation of Israel are said to stand before the Lord with their little ones. The reader must be advertised, that the true occasion of my producing that Text was this; when I had proved the covenant God made with Abraham was to continue to the end of the world, because it was a gospel-covenant. Gal. 3. 8. Master T. confusedly without repeating answered thus, That it was an everlasting covenant, and to continue to the end of the world, but not to Infants; I first told him that it was a denying of the conclusion, than took away h●s answer thus. If God commands Infants to stand in covenant before him, than it is to continue to Infants, but God commands Infants to stand in covenant before him, Therefore it is to continue to Infants, Deut▪ 29. 10. 11. Ye stand this 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, etc. To this he now upon second thoughts answers, impliedly confessing, that Infants were then in covenant, but from thence could not be concluded a continuance of covenant to Infants; His exceptions against it are four. First, that the speech is only of a transient fact. Secondly, not of a command. Thi●dly, much less of a promise of something perpetually future. Fourthly, what is said of the little ones, is as well said of wives, hewers of wood, and drawers of water, which shall be examined in o●der. His first exception, that the speech is only of a transient fact, is confuted by many Arguments rivitted in the text: I'll insist in one or two, ver. 10. 11. little ones are said to stand before the Lord, to enter into covenant with him, what covenant was this? ver. 25. That which he made with them, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt; This covenant was perpetual to all, and binding all, even children, and to put this out of all controversy, he adds in the 29. that those things that are revealed (meaning concerning this covenant) belongs unto us, and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this Law; That which is for ever is no Transient fact. His second excepion is, That it is not of a command. No? does not the Chapter begin thus? These are the words of the Covenant, which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab. 29. Those things revealed unto them, and their children, that they may do all the words of this Law. Now a law is a command, or a precept of doing, or avoiding some thing v. 23. God threatens that for breach of this Covenant, the whole land shall be brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it shall not be sown, nor any grass grow therein, like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorah, Admah, and Zeboim which the Lord overthrew in his anger: Now every punishment presupposeth the breach of a law, and every law a command, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And if any say this reacheth not children, let him look back at the command, and curse, Circumcise the foreskin of every male-child, for he that is not circumcised, shall be cut off, for he hath broke my Covenant. His third exception, that it is not a promise of something perpetually future is overthrown, in that it is said, 29. that it is revealed to them, and their children for ever; and 13. that the end of the Covenant is, that God may establish them a people unto himself, and that he may be a God unto them; but God is no less a God to Infants under the Gospel, than under the Law. And to affirm that Infants stood once in Covenant before the Lord, and shall not do so still, is but a begging of the Question; for they cannot show a line in Scripture where the privilege is revoked, or repealed; the contrary may be proved by unanswerable arguments. His fourth exception is, that what is said of the little ones, is as well said of wives, hewers of wood, drawers of water, and therefore if thence be concluded a continuance of Covenant to Infants, a continuance of covenant to wives, and servants will be concluded; what Inconvenience? As hewers of wood, drawers of water, wives, servants, if professors, or proselytes were in Covenant under the law, even so believing wives, and servants under the Gospel are in Covenant: Hence we may retort, If wives, and servants are in covenant under the Gospel, as well as under the Law; then by his own concession it may be concluded, that Infants are in covenant under the Gospel, but wives, and servants are in covenant as well under the Gospel, as under the Law, Therefore Infants are in Covenant under the Gospel; and to this fair issue the matter is come. Mr. Tombs 6. Section▪ HIs allegation of Heb. 8. 6. is as vain, for he brings it to prove that if Infants were in covenant under the Law, they are in covenant under the Gospel, whereas the meliority of the covenant is not placed in the extent to the sort of persons, for than it should be extended to more sorts than the covenant of the Law was, but to the meliority of the promises, which were of better things, or better terms, than the promises of the Law, but not to any other than elect, and true believers, and so not to Infants as the natural seed of believers. Reply. THough Mr. Tombs could not make his retreat good, nor man his fort consisting of a fourfold exception; yet like as Thucydides said of Pericles, when he was asked by Archidamus King of the Spartans', whether he, or his adversary wrestled better? A man (saith he) cannot tell, for when I cast him down, he by saying he hath no fall, persuadeth the beholders, and so overcometh: So he being beat out of his holds, peremptorily held his conclusion, maugre the premises, that the covenant was not perpetual, and as well to Infants under the Gospel, as under the Law: Against which was concluded thus. If Christ hath obtained a more excellent Ministry, and is a Mediator of a better covenant, which is established upon better promises, than if Infants were in covenant under the Law, they are in covenant under the Gospel; But Heb. 7. 22. 8. 6. Christ hath obtained a more excellent Ministry, 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 Gospel. This he says is a vain allegation, implyedly denying the consequence of the Major, and gives his reasons; 1. negatively, that the meliority of the covenant is not placed in the extent to the sort of persons, for than it should be extended to more sorts than the covenant of the Law was; 2. affirmatively, But to the meliority of the promises, which were of better things, or better terms than the promises of the Law: Thence he infers, that not to any other but the elect, and true believers, and so not to Infants as the natural seed of believers. These are either wild assertions, or inconsequent deductions which now comes to the touchstone: First he affirms that the meliority of the covenant is not placed sin the extent to the sort of persons, what then? will it follow if ● covenant was made no more than before, therefore not to all that were before? A Prince may grant a better Charter to a Corporation then formerly, and yet to none but them that were free Denizens before, their children. A noble man's patent may be enlarged with greater privileges, of a Baron be made a Duke, and yet in the same latitude to posterity: Gospel-p●erogatives may be greater than of the Law, and yet equally to professors, and their children. We argue not affirmatively, it is a better covenant, because it is made to more than before; but negatively, it were not a better covenant, at lest eatenus if it were not made to all it was before. But as his inference, so his proposition is false, for the Meliority (to use his barbarism) of the covenant is also placed in the extent to the sort of persons; for whereas before it was confined only to the Jews, now all Nations, Jews, Gentiles, Grecians, Barbarians, bond, free flows in Isa. 2. 2. as we have a praeludium of it Acts 2. 9 Parchians, and Medes, Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and the parts of Lybia, about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Cretes, and Arabians, the wonderful works of God. By this you see his reason is turned point blank against himself, and the contradictory of his propositions are true; The Meliority of the covenant is placed in the extent to the sort of persons, because it is extended to more sorts, than the covenant of the Law was: And this in answer to his negative proofs. The affirmative follow, which are these. 1. That the Meliority of the covenant is placed in the Meliority of the promises. 2. That Gospel-promises are of better things, or better terms than the promises of the Law. 3. That the promises of the Gospel are not to any other, than elect, and true believers, and therefore not to Infants as the natural seed of believers; for the first, that the Meliority of the covenant is placed in the Meliority of the promises is both impertinent, and untrue. Impertinent, for if it were confessed that the Meliority of the covenant is placed in the Meliority of the promises, it will not follow that Infants are not in covenant as well under the Gospel, as under the Law; nor will it avoid my Argument, unless it were with a term of exclusion, that the betterness of the Covenant is only placed in the Meliority of of the promises, which he asserts not, for it may be also placed in other things, as in a larger extent to persons in particular, besides the forementioned, even to Infants before eight days old: Neither will the pre-eminence of circumstances (wherein the dignity of the Covenant under the Gospel, and under the Law is distinguished) countervail the holding out of one soul out of Covenant, and so ordinary capacity of salvation, much more, so many millions of Infants that die before they be actual professors. It is also untrue that the meliority of the Covenant is placed in the meliority of the promises; as if better things in substance were promised under the Gospel, than under the Law; or as if the promises under the Gospel, and under the Law were not in effect the same, differing only in Oeconomies, and several manners of administration; the contrary of which is Anti-nomianism. His second Thesis is, that Gospell-promises are of better things than the promises of the Law, which would imply that there were salvation in some other name, than in the name of Jesus, and that Jesus Christ were not the same to day, yesterday, and for ever. True it is Christ was not at all times revealed alike clearly, obscurely to Adam in the seed of the woman that should bruise the Serpent's head; to Abraham more fully, that in his seed all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed; To Moses in Typesshadowes, sacrifices; really in the flesh of the virgin; spiritually by the Holy Ghost after the ascension: But before the Law, under the Law, and under the Gospel, Christ was the meritorious cause, grace was the means, glory was the end of our salvation, the Identity of which, makes the Identity of the thing promised. His third Paradox is, that the promises of the Gospel are not to any others than the elect, and true believers; here we must distinguish, The promises of the Gospel are twofold, either internal, and spiritual, or external, and of Ordinances: Internal again, are either hypothetical, and conditional, or categoricaland absolute: Hence arises these three propositions. 1. That the external promises of the Gospel, which are of ordinances, are made to all visible members. 2. That the internal, and spiritual promises of the Gospel are made, or propounded conditionally to all visible members; hence arose those distinctions of Damascen and others, Signi, and bene placiti; sufficienter, and efficienter, catagoricè and hypotheticè; voluntate antecedenti, & consequent. 3. That the internal, and spiritual promises of the Gospel are made absolutely, and terminated or performed only to the Elect, and invisible members ● Here it is apparent that his allegation is only true in the third sense, in the two former manifestly false; in which sense only it concerns our present controversy of visible Church membership: And how his assertion makes for him, nay, not directly against him, I cannot see; for the meliority of the covenant consists principally in outward Ordinances, manner of administration, and dispensation; extent and amplitude of the proposal; not of grace and glory, of which there was always the same reason; Enoch, Abraham, Eliah and Moses, were as well justified by faith, and had a respect to the recompense of reward, Heb. 11. as well as Peter and the rest of the Apostles. His last assertion is, That because the promises of the Gospel are not to any other than the Elect, and true believers, therefore they are not to Infants, as the natural seed of believers: The Antecedent is proved to be false, for though the spiritual part of Gospel-promises is absolutely performed, and terminated to the Elect, yet they are conditionally proposed to all professors; and the external part which consists in administration of Ordinances is equally belonging unto all visible members. His consequent is also unsound, for the internal and spiritual part may be made intentionally to Infants, as the spiritual seed of believers, and yet the external part, and that of Ordinances to Infants as the natural seed of believers, as well under the Gospel, as under the Law: That under the Law it is apparent by the History of the Old Testament, confirmed by that of P●●●, Galat. 2. 15. We who are Jew's by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles; And Rom. 4. 12. Where Abraham is said to be the Father of circumcision to them that are not of circumcision only, but also walk in the steps of his faith; which implies that he was the Father of them, who are of circumcision only, and walk not in the steps of his faith: The same reason is of the Gospel, unless they were two distinct covenants, and essentially different, and that made with Abraham, and his seed carnal, as the carnal Anabaptists affirm; which absurdity supposes it little better comfort, for Abraham and his seed to have such a portion only sealed to him, than Turks, and Tarters enjoy, who were never in covenant with God. True, in the covenant there was a promise of Canaan, and temporal blessings, but yet the covenant was in the main spiritual, Rom. 4. ●1. else we should make the Jews little better than the beasts that perish; as some gross Anabaptists do; So Calvine well observes Judaeos adeo carnales nobis depingunt, ut pecudum similiores sunt quàm hominum: Calvin Instit. lib. 1. c. 16. s. 10. The covenant of free grace that God made with Abraham in Christ, is an everlasting covenant, and stands more firm than the pillars of the earth, or the poles of the heaven; hence God himself calls it an everlasting covenant, Gen. 17. 7. and that it is not meant of any limited time is put out of doubt, Isai. 54. 8. 10. With everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee saith the Lord thy Redeemer, and the mountains shall departed, and the hills be removed, but my kindness shall not departed from thee, neither shall the Covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee. So that the Gospel Covenant for substance is still in force to the natural seed of Believers (though not as natural, but natural of Believers) as well as under the Law. And though the Jews had priority in the Covenant, yet not sole propriety, for the Gentiles becoming visible professers, they and their Infants did partake in it; whosoever fears the Lord, his children were Olive plants as well as theirs, Psalm. 128. 1. 3. Master Tombs 7. Section. ANd for that which he saith, This unchurcheth the one half of Christendom, and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation, if he mean by Christendom all that are commonly called Christians, I grant it, if the Infants be the one half of them, and their unchurching be in respect of visible Church-membership, but count it no absurdity. Nor do know what ordinary means of Salvation he conceives they are left without, except Baptism, which I take not to be an ordinary means of salvation without faith, and therefore think it no inconvenience to say that Infants are without ordinary means of salvation, which are the preaching the Word, etc. Yet are saved by the election of God, redemption of Christ, and work of his spirit. Reply. MAster Tombs denying the consequent of the Major, that though the Covenant of the Gospel was a better Covenant than that under the Law, yet Infants were not in covenant as well under the Gospel, as under the Law, which in the Dispute was thus taken away; That which unchurches the one half of Christendom, and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation, cannot be a better Covenant; to deny Infants to be in covenant, unchurches the one half of Christendom, and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation, therefore it cannot be a better Covenant. Then he gave no direct answer, but now says, if I mean by Christendom all that are commonly called Christians, he grants it, this is his concession, but with two limitations, 1. If the Infants be the one half of them, 2. If their unchurching be in respect of visible Church-membership, but then he counts it no absurdity, there is his Epanorthosis, or correction. Again he says that he knows not what ordinary means of salvation, I conceive they are left without, except Baptism, which he takes not to be an ordinary means of salvation, and therefore thinks it no inconvenience to say that Infants are without ordinary means of Salvation, etc. yet are saved by the election of God, redemption of Christ, and works of his spirit, All this being summed together is in his sense to deny the major, and interpretatively averrs, That which unchurches the one half of Christendom, and leaves them no ordinary means of salvation, may be a better Covenant; I'll trace him in his own foot steps. First to gratify him, I mean by Christendom all that are commonly called Christians; that is them, and their children that hold the fundamentals, till they deny them by their life, or doctrine, and then too, so far, that after repentance they are not to be baptised again, or readmitted by iteration of the seal, contrary to Cyprian, the Novatians, and Donatists, with the Council of Carthage. 2. I conceive that Infants, that is (besides those that die in their mother's wombs) they that expire before, and after Baptism before years of discretion, with the number of those that lives before the dippers will admit them to their water-ordinance, are the one half, if not the greater of visible members, as by examining of Registers hath been observed. Thirdly I grant him that their unchurching is in respect of visible Church membership, though not only so, but of invisible Church-membership, also interpretatively, and consequently▪ for they that are not in covenant, and members of the Church-visible, have no promise, no present hope of Salvation Ephes. 2. 12. This he seems to overthrow by these positions following▪ 1. That he knows not what ordinary means of Salvation Infants out of Covenant are left without except baptism; 2. That he takes not Baptism to be an ordinary means of Salvation without faith. 3. He thinks it no inconvenience to say that Infants are without ordinary means of Salvation. 4. That Infants are saved by the election of God, redemption of Christ, and work of his spirit, without ordinary means; These are his slight works, that he intends to entrench himself in, but (God willing) we shall easily level them. First he says, that he knows not what ordinary means of Salvation Infants out of Covenant are left without, except Baptism; And is not that enough? An Infant under the Law, left without any ordinary means of salvation, save only circumcision was in a sad condition, seeing God said Gen. 17. 14. The uncircumcised Manchild, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people, for he hath broken my Covenant; and shall we not think the condition as bad of an Infant under the Gospel, left without any ordinary means of salvation, save only Baptism, seeing Christ says, John 3. 5. Except a man b● born of water, and of the Spirit be cannot see the Kingdom of God. But there are ordinary means of salvation, beside Baptism, tha● Infants out of Covenant, are left without: for clearing of which, by ordinary, I mean that which God hath revealed in Scripture, and hath left us a word of promise to depend upon: By means of salvation I understand all that which cond●ces to the end, and is contradistinguished to the end; Thus means of salvation, either strictly signifies those things that morally are in our power, as for the Catechumeni, and them of years, whether they will be Baptised, hear the Word, receive the Eucharist; Or those things that are not in our power, wherein we are Passives, yet performed by others, as Proxies for us, thus under the Law, Infants were circumcised, washed, sanctified by oblations, presented in the Temple; under the Gospel baptised, engaged by their parents, or sureties. Or those thing, that are neither in our power, nor others, performed neither by ourselves, nor others, yet by God's free Charter in ourselves, and others; Thus covenant-holiness, prerogative of birth, God's promise to Abraham, that he would be his God, and the God of his seed; That of Peter, Acts 2. 39 confirmed to Jews and Gentiles, the promise is to you and your children are ordinary means of Salvation; Infants out of covenant are left without all these, and would be in the same condition with Gentiles, Ephes. 2. 12. Without Christ, Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, strangers from the covonant of promise, having no hope, and without God in the World; Thus negatively what they are deprived of by being out of covenant. Let us see positively the benefits of being in covenant by comparing them with Jew's children with whom they hold proportion, Rom. 3. 12. What advantage hath the Jew, or what profit is there of Circumcision? Much every way; chief because unto them were committed the Oracles of God. And Rom. 9 4. Who are Israelites, to whom pertaineth the Adoption, and the Covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises; there is the same reason of Infants under the Gospel. Secondly he says, that he takes not Baptism to be any ordinary means of salvation without faith; what he takes is not much material, so long as he mistakes: If it be an ordinary means of salvation any way, it is enough to prove that Infants are left without that means; And in this his amphibological asseveration are cooped three fallacies, 1. Fallacia divisionis, for the Question is not whether Baptism be an ordinary means of salvation without faith, but whether it be a means or no; 2. A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundùm quid, for the Question is not whether Baptism be a principle means, but whether it be a means, 3. Non causae ut causae. For it is not enquired whether baptism presupposes faith as a cause or qualification, but whether Baptism be the ordinary way God hath appointed for salvation: And when the proposal is whether baptism be an ordinary means of Salvation? To say it is not without faith, is as unsavoury, as when the demand is, whether the lungs are an ordinary Instrument of breathing, to say they are not without the heart; when the Question is simply whether a Colonel hath any command in an Army? It would be ridiculous to answer it by saying he hath none without orders from the General; And yet there is not that necessary connexion betwixt faith, and Baptism, that is betwixt the lungs, and the heart; for the lungs cannot breathe without the heart, nor the Colonel issue out any word of command without subordination to his general: But Baptism may be true Baptism even in adultis, as Hymenaeus, without true faith, and many other hypocrites who when they became true penitentiaries, none but those Heretics, the Novations, and Donatists, durst Baptise again, But for the Baptism of Infants, actual faith is not necessary for the bene esse, or perfection of it, much less for the esse or being of it: And that they have the infused habit of faith, or the roots, and seeds of it, he confesses saying, they are saved by the work of Christ's spirit, which can be no other, but the seeds of faith, hope, charity, and the new creature. Thirdly, he thinks it no inconvenience to say that Infants are without ordinary means of salvation: he means preaching of the word, for so he expresseth himself: of that we must distinguish, Preaching is either, manifesting to the understanding that which is preached, so Infants are without the means; or presenting objectively the benefit of that which is preached, as the new creature, gifts of the spirit, salvation, so Infants are not without the means: A will is sealed, and published by the Father ●n the presence of all his children, Wherein there is contained bequeathments, and Legacies to them severally, now they of age only understand it, but the Infants, and sucklings that understand it not, have equal benefit by it, their honest overseers, and Guardians will look to their Interests, and shall we think God to be less careful of Infants, to whom he hath proclaimed belongs the Kingdom of God? Lastly he says Infants are saved by the election of God, redemption of Christ, and work of his spirit without ordinary means; This implies a contradiction, of which his forge is full; for if God hath revealed in the Covenant of the Gospel, and made a promise thereof, that Infants are saved by the election of God, redemption of Christ, and work of his spirit, than it is not without ordinary means, for this is the way that God hath declared himself ordinarily to operate in, whose will is a fix● Law; and if God hath not revealed it in the Cov●nant of the Gospel, and made a promise thereof, how doth he know that Infants are saved by the election of God, redemption of Christ, and work of his spirit? Or how dare he avouch it? God hath promised no such thing to Infants of Jews, Turks, Infidels, therefore they are out of Covenant, and not visible members: if God hath promised such things to Infants of believers, they are in Covenant, and visible members. But perhaps he means Infants are saved without ordinary means, that is baptism: That if it were true, might vindicate a tanto, that they are saved without that ordinary means, but not a toto, that they are saved without an ordinary means. But his former grant necessarily infers that they are not saved without Baptism, for what can forbid water (says the Apostle) that these may not be baptised, seeing they have received the Holy Ghost as well as we: Now they that have elections redemption of Christ, and work of his spirit, have received the Holy Ghost; which is a thing so clear that Mr. T. himself is forced to confess, that if he knew Infants were elected, he would Baptise them; and here he acknowledges of the species, or sort of believers Infants, that they are not only elected of God, but redeemed of Christ, and have the work of his spirit; And why then they may not be baptised, even from his own grounds, is past my understanding to apprehend. Now to return to the Argument, and sum up all, That which deprives the one half of Christendom of substantials, as the benefit of the word, inward, and outward baptism, visible Church membership, Prerogative of birth, covenant-holyness, God's promise of grace, and glory, cannot be a better covenant than that which differed only in circumstantials, and deprived of none of these, but to deny Infants to be in covenant, deprives the one half of Christendom of substantials, as the benefit of the word, inward and outward Baptism, visible Church membership, Prerogative of Birth, covenant-holyness, God's promise of grace, and glory; Therefore it cannot be a better covenant than that which differed only in circumstantials, and deprived of none of these. Mr. Tombs. 8. Section. WHat I said, that the covenant under the Gospel was made only with the spiritual seed of Abraham was right, and determined so Rom. 4. 11, 12, 16. Rom. 9 7, 8. Gal. 3. 29. John 8. 39 etc. Nor is it true because the partiton wall is broken down, therefore there is the same covenant national to the natural seed of believers as was to Abraham, but that therefore as the Apostle speaks Ephes 3. 6. The Gentiles (to wit believing Gentiles, Rom. 1 16.) should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel. Nor is it true, That the Gospel covenant is made with the whole visible Church, as the Gospel-covenant is expressed, Heb. 8. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. And if I denied the Major pag. ●9. in the first Argument, I confess I was mistaken through inadvertency, whether by reason of Master C. fast speaking, or some humane infirmity, or some other occurrence now not remembered, I cannot tell. But I deny the Minor, understood of the Gospel Covenant Heb. 8. 10 and the whole visible Church being taken without any Synecdoche for every visible Church-member. Reply. IN the dispute Mr. T. gave no direct answer to the foregoing Syllogism, but eluded all, saying that the Covenant under the Gospel was made only with the spiritual seed of Abraham, which he peremptorily again asserts here, avouching it was right, and determined so Rom. 4. 11, 12, 16. Rom. 9 7, 8 Gal. 3 29 John 8 39 But that it was neither right, nor determined so in the sense alleged, or if it had been right, & determined so, that it had made nothing against my present allegation, comes now to be tried. First the saying was not right, that the Covenant under the Gospel was made only with the spiritual seed of Abraham, that is, Gal. 2. 15. not with chose that are not Jews by nature, or lineally descended from Abraham, but only with sinners of the Gentiles, converted, and called, for though it is true the Covenant under the Gospel was principally, or in a greater part made with the believing Gentiles, yet that partly also it was made with the Jews, it appears in that it was first proposed unto them without success, that the Apostles, and Evangelists were Jews; that Peter was the Apostle of Circumcision, that three thousand Jews were converted at one Sermon of his Acts, 2. 38. that the Epistle to the Hebrews is directed only to the Jews, the Epistle of James sent only to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, the former Epistle of Peter to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia, that Jew, and Gentile are all one in Christ Jesus: The sum of all which amounts to this, That which was proposed and entertained with success by the Jews, which were the natural seed of Abraham, was not only made with the spiritual seed of Abraham; But the Covenant under the Gospel was proposed, and entertained with success by the Jews which were the natural seed of Abraham, Therefore it was not only made with the spiritual seed of Abraham. 2. it was not determined by those forequoted places, that the covenant under the Gospel was only made with the spiritual seed of Abraham, as appears out of the circumstances of those Texts, Rom. 4. 11. It is said, Abraham received a sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised, that he might be the father of them that believe; now there were many of the natural seed of Abraham, that believed under the Gospel, which is further confirmed by the next ver. 12. He was the father of circumcision to them who are not of circumcision only, which is Equivalent in sense with that we affirm, he was a Father to the natural Jews, when they believed, and entertained Christ. And the 16. ver. makes the relations of paternity and son ship equal to Jew, and Gentle believers, Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed, not to that only which is of the Law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all; what c●n be more apparent by this, than that Abraham is a father both to Jew, and Gentile, professer, and believer under the Gospel: His quotations Rom. 9 7, 8. make nothing for him, but against him, for we hold not because they are the seed of Abraham, therefore they are children of the Gospel-covenant; But that those that are as Abraham was, professors, and believers, they, and their children are in covenant; for then the posterity of Ishmael, when the apostated and the unbelieving Jews, to whom the Gospel was a stumbling block, would have remained in covenant. In Isaak it is said Abraham's seed shall be called for two reasons. 1. Because Christ descended of him. 2. Because the posterity of Isaak was not guilty of backsliding, and r●ciduation, as the posterity of Ishmael, and Ketu●ah were; otherwise it is apparent, that not only the outward Ordinances, and seals of the covenant, but even the spiritual part signanter at the least was proposed to all these, nay, who knows but that many of them attained the end of the covenant? Luther is of opinion that even Ishmael was saved, and brings reasons out of Scripture to prove it, which I conceive are as concluding as any Master T. can bring to the contrary: And whereas it is said ver▪ 8. They that a●e the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but children of the promise are counted for the seed: we must distinguish of children of the flesh, children of God, and children of promise. 1. Children of the flesh are so styled, either because they were never in visible covenant, as Pharaoh, and the Egyptians; or that were in covenant, and apostated, as the posterity of Ishmael, and the Jews that were broke off at Christ's coming; Or that being in covenant, and outward profession performed not sincerely the conditions of the covenant. 2. Children of God are either so by outward calling, and Judgement of charity, or secret election and Judgement of verity; Many are called, that is to be sons by profession, but few are chosen, to be really sons in possession. 3. The children of promise are either those to whom outward things, and visible characters, as Circumcision to the Jews, Baptism to Christians are proposed absolutely, the spiritual part thereof conditionally; or those that attain the end of the promise, or thing promised. These grounds thus laid, These propositions results. 1. Those that were never in visible covenant with God, are not (ordinarily) children of promise, or children of God in a Gospel's sense. 2 Those that were in visible covenant, as Ishmael, and the Jews till they apostated, are children of God by outward calling, and judgement of charity, and for any thing we know, by election, and Judgement of verity. 3. Those that are in visible covenant, till they apostate, are children of promise, so that outward Ordinances belongs to them absolutely, the inward, and spiritual part is proposed unto them conditionally. 4. Those that are visible Covenanters, and outward Professers, not performing the conditions of the covenant, are neither the children of God, nor children of promise in respect of Election, and obtaining the end promised. 5. Those that are in visible covenant, and performs the conditions of the covenant, have Interest in the outward Ordinances, spiritual grace, and glory the end; In all these respects the Apostle speaks, Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham ' s seed, and heirs according to promise. If Christ's by profession, than Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise in Judgement of charity; If Christ's sincerely, than Abraham's seed, and heirs really, and in verity John 8 39 where Jesus said to the Jews, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham; he does not deny that they are the children of Abraham both by nature, and outward covenant, for that he confesses 37▪ I know that ye are Abraham ' s seed, but upbraids them for degenerating from Abraham's faith, who desired to see his day: nay who knows but some of these children that were disobedient for the present (like persecuting Saul) were elect, and heirs of promise. Now whether Mr. T. by spiritual seed of Abraham (for he speaks ambiguously) understand believing Gentiles, as opposed to the Jews; or the elect of both Jews, and Gentiles, as opposed to the carnal professors of both, it is untrue that it is determined by the forequoted places, that the covenant under the Gospel, in the sense controverted was made only with the spiritual seed of Abraham. Thirdly if it had been right, and determined so, that the covenant under the Gospel, was made only with the spiritual seed of Abraham, it had made nothing against my present allegation, which was this, That which unchurches the one half of Christendom, and leaves them no ordinary means of salvation, can not be a better covenant than that under the Law; for what consequence is in this? The covenant under the Gospel is only made with the spiritual seed of Abraham, therefore though it unchurch Infants, which are the one half of Christendom, it may be a better covenant than that of the Law; whereas the excellency of the covenant, whether made with the natural, carnal, or spiritual seed consists in the excellency of the object, and thing covenanted, and the extent to the parties who; now if the one half be cut off from covenant, and so from ordinary capacity of salvation, the covenant is rendered by half the worse. But that the covenant was not only made with the spiritual seed of Abraham I further disproved thus; If the covenant was made in the same extent to the Gentiles as to the Jews, then under the Gospel it was not only made to the spiritual seed, but it was made in the same manner, and extent to the Gentiles as it was to the Jews, Therefore under the Gospel it was not only made to the spiritual seed. Then he denied the Minor, 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. Then he denied the consequent, as he does now with an addition, saying it is not true, because the partition wall is broken down, therefore there is the same covenant Nationall to the natural seed of believers, as was to Abraham: Nor is it true, I am sure, that I said, because the partition wall is broken down, therefore there is the same covenant national to the natural seed of believers as was to Abraham, either expressly, or by consequence not expressly, for my words, that the covenant was made in the same manner, and extent to the Jew, and Gentile, not by consequence; in the same manner, because by mutual stipulation, in the same extent▪ because Parents with children; And that is was national to the Jew, was Accidental, for it was made with Abraham when he was but a family, dwelled in the midst of other nations, and was a part of the Hebrews: It was not made to continue to all the posterity of Abraham, for the posterity of Ishmael, Keturah, Esau shortly after fell off; not only with his posterity, for the Proselytes, and Jebusites did participate, they sojourned four hundred years in Egypt. But, what inconvenience, if we allow him to make his best advantage of it, and say the Gospel-covenant even extends to nations, seeing, Isaiah says Isai. 2. 2. Nations shall flow in, and Revel. 12. 5. the man▪ child which the woman brought forth was to rule the nations, which hath been effected many ways; either when one family of Christians, like Abraham's, hath grown to be a nation; or when the supreme Magistrate engages for his subjects, that they shall be the subjects of Christ, and by imperial decrees proclaims an uniformity in Religion; or when by God's blessing upon Ministers endeavours, whole Nations are convinced to profess Christianity, as in this o● ours, where Church, and Commonwealth as both one; And to say we have many hypocrites, and carnal Professors, concludes no more that our Church is not national, than against the Jews, that theirs was not national; or against the seven Churches of Asia, that they were not Churches, for there were many hypocrites and carnal professors in these. Neither is this my Tenet unravelled by hi● next asseveration, that the Partition wall is said to be broken down, that therefore as the Apostle speaks Ephes. 3. 6. The Gentiles, to wit believing Gentiles, Rom. 1. 16. should be fellow heirs, & of the same body, & partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel: for as the Jews, even the whole nation of professors were received into covenant, that indefinitely they might be fellow heirs with Christ, of the same mystical body, whereof he is the head, and partakers of spiritual 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 discernible in this life. Therefore 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 Soldier that is listed, cannot be denied to be a member of an army, though he be treacherous, or unserviceable, till he be discovered and cashiered, nor can a Professor be denied to be Christ's Soldier while he is Militant here. The Apostles distinguish all the Churches to whom they writ from heathens by the Characteristical 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 subjoins, 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 fallacy a dicto secundum quid, ad simplicuer negatiuè, for if it be made with the whole visible Church 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 several ways, differing only in gradual 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 terminated, and made effectual 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 fo●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 (says God) from the least to the greatest; therefore not only the spiritual seed of Abraham, which were invisible, and none knew who were the greatest, or the least, but points at signally, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that were faithful to the end, and received a crown of life. Now in the dispute the consequent by him denied was further proved thus; That which is made with the whole visible Church is not only made with the elect, and true believers; The covenant is made with the whole visible Church, Therefore not only with the elect, and true believers. In answer to this he says, If he denied the Major (as he did pag 29. in the first Argument) he confesses he was mistaken through inadvertency, his conditional [if] implying his memory may fail, His confessed [mistake] that his Judgement may fail; [inadvertency] that there is a ground, or principle within him, whereby he is inclined to fail: In this glass the An●baptists muy see what a broken sta● they trust unto, in opposition to the universal Church. But as the Spanish Garrisons could not be taken but by treachery; so Master Tombs forsooth could not be mistaken, if it were not either through my fast speaking, or some humane infirmity, or some other occurrence now not remembered; but which of these he cannot tell, only this he can tell, he was mistaken. Here we have that great advantage which Tully speaks of, confitentem reum; were we but sure to ●ye a knot upon him, for he is somewhat slippery. 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 Gospel's Covenant, which all those that are baptised, and discipled into Christ, are entered into; As Apprentices, 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 freedom, Roman Soldiers 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 consummatiuè, that they may enjoy the end. And that Heb. 8. 10. does not enfeeble, but enfo●ce this; for God puts his Law into the minds, and writes them in the hearts of all professors; for the seed is sown, and partly comes up in the whole field, some receive it with joy, tastes 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 clea●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 only 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 even●, in this sense the covenant is not made with the whole visible Church without a Synecdoche, 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 fancy visibilis ecclesiae according to visible profession, participation of Ordinances, communion with Saints, all outward Characters of Saintship undiscernible, 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 gospel-covenant, Gospel-Ordinances, Gospel-Ministery, which must needs take the denomination from the visibility of the object, and according to this new Tenet would be Utopian, and no where. Mr. Tombs 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 only the elect, etc. 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 marvel I desired liberty to explain myself, and to inquire 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 only the elect, it doth untruly suggest, as if I so conceived, who though I hold the Church invisible are the elect only, and that the Gospel Covenant of grace, Heb. 8. 10, 11, 12. is made to them only, yet have still granted, that the Church visible consists of others than elect persons, and that outward Ordinances may lawfully be administered 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, etc. misleads unwary hearers, and readers. Reply. HEre Mr. Tombs (like a bad division) saltum facit, skips over main passages in the dispute, that it is needful to find the end of the thread, to guide us in the Meanders of this Labyrinth: Then th● major proposition by him denied was thus confirmed: That which is made to the k●●gdome of God upon earth is not only made to the elect, that which is made to the whole Church visible is made to the kingdom of God upon earth, therefore it was not only made to the elect. Here he denied the former proposition again, which was proved thus: In the Kingdom o● God, that is, in the Church Militant, the●e are not only 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 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 man's 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 only the Elect, than 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 ●nvisible were frivolous, for no more man nor Angel know● 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; only like Aristotle's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ethic l. 4. c. 1. he catches at circumstances, as men, when almost drowned, do at sticks, or weeds; for he says he perceives by my words, pag. 30. If the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were only the elect, etc. that the te●ms Church and Covenant were so ambiguously used by me that he knew no● how to conceive of my meaning; Thus this ●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 d●gest. But in good earnest were the terms Church and Covenant used ambiguously by me? When by Church I expressed myself to mean the whole visible Church, as in the major denied, pag. 29. ●nd by Covenant to mean an external covenant made with all usible Professors in opposition to his Covenant made only with the spiritual seed of Abraham, pag. 14 Whosoever reads the Premises, or the relation of the Dispute will find that I spoke 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 collateral shift, which like the black mud cast over the fish Sepia, or Cuttle, shows where he was taken; But with Reignold he hath more evasions yet, for my fast speaking, he says, would not permit him deliberately to consider my words; what a sore is this, that he lays his finger upon, and complains o● almost in every page? The truth is, I spoke no faster than he repeated, but faster than he answered, That as the Cardinal of Lorraine 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 marvel that he desired liberty then to explain himself, and to inquire into my meaning, which was as transparent, as if it had been writ with the Sunbeams; but amounts to a prodigy that he should aver so now, when he neither did so, nor had the least occasion for it; Only 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 only 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 misreports it) that it was the Question, whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were only 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 expressly, neither can he drawout by any consequence that I employed 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 only 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 alleges it) I had suggested nothing otherwise than he conceived, if we may judge of his conceits by his expressions, as appears by denying the Major, pag. 29. of the relation, viz. That which is made to the whole visible Church, is net only made with the elect: For if the whole visible Church, and the elect be all one, and termini convertibiles, as his denial necessarily infers, it will inevitably follow, whether it be the Question or no, that he conceives, that the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances is only the elect; And though he retract it in his answer, confessing that he was mistaken either through inadvertency, or some humane frailty, or by some other occurrence by him not remembered; how could I divine this in the dispute, or the Relator after me? Seeing it was several months before he sung this palinody, to which me thinks he might do well, ingeniously to add a further retractation, by confessing he wronged me, when he said that I untruly suggested, as if he conceived that the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances was only the elect. But he further confirmed his recantation by saying he holds the Church invisible are the elect only, to let u● see that he concurs not in all opinions with the grosser Anabaptists, Papists, Lutherans, and Remonstrants; who maintain that there are some members of the Church invisible, and in the state of salvation for a while, who fall from the state of grace totally, and finally, being never elected; and in this he does well, if he do not Polypize, and change colours; for who knows but that hereafter he will say, he was mistaken, as he is in the words following, that the Gospel Covenant of Grace, Hebr. 8. 10, 11, 12. is made only to the elect, as hath been formerly proved▪ unless by the Covenant he mean the end, event, and success thereof; for those that are not crowned, Indentes, and stipulates, receiving outward ordinances, the badges of the covenant, have the tender of the inward part, and participates of common graces peculiar yet to them that are in Gospel Covenant, that by virtue thereof the formal hypocrite with the foolish virgins may not only deceive others, but themselves. And whereas he says he still granted, that the Church visible consists of others than elect persons, he should have put in this caution, saving when he was mistaken through inadvertency, or some humane frailty, which like an Epilepsy, or Morbus facer, so often surprises him, that his Tenets are like the Island Delos always floating, and never settled; Therefore I shall put him in mind of his next grant, that outward Ordinances may lawfully be administered to others than elect persons, upon their profession of faith in Christ, when I shall have occasion hereafter to prove that outward ordinances may lawfully be administered to none but them in Covenant; And that there is the same reason of professors children under the Gospel, that was under the Law; and that many sick persons were cured of their bodily maladies by v●●ue of the faith of them that brought them; surely the parent's faith and pro●ession may have so much influence upon their children, that they may receive the outward Ordinance of Baptism in reference to the cu●e of their spiritual maladies But like the Serpent Amphisbene, that hath a st●ng at both ends; as he began, so he ends with poison, saying that by confounding these term▪ [to be in Covenant, to be subjects of Baptism] I misled unwary hearers, and readers, whereas I clearly affirm withal the reformed Church●s, that all ●n visible covenant are subjects of Baptism, and all subjects of Baptism are in visible covenant,— hic murus aheneus esto. Mr. Tombs 10. Section. THe next Text Mr. C. brought was Isaiah 49. 22. whence he would prove that Infants should be Church-members under the Gospel. To which my answer was at first (though it was otherwise taken) that it is a prophecy that the Gentiles should bring back the Jews, not only Infants, but others from captivity, which the words before, 19, 20, 21. and ●fter, v 24, 25. Do plainly evince; And this is given, as the meaning by the new annotations made by Mr. Gataker, doth on verse 23. say it was fulfilled in those Persian Potentates, Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Darius, Ahasuerus. Nor is there in the contents of the chapter (which Mr. C. without grounds, makes the judgement of the Church of England) any thing to the contrary, but the words which are, [18 The ample restauration of the Church; 24. The powerful deliverance out of captivity] do rather confirm this. If any people laughed at this, they shown their ignorance, and Mr. C. shown his heedlessness when he said, That it was an addition to the Text, that the Gentiles should bring the Jews, when the very distinction of [thy children from [the Gentiles] shows it meant of the Jews, otherwise it should have been [their children] in the third person, not [then] in the second; nor can it be meant of God's children as his, for than it should be [mine] in the first person, for God speaks those words. Though I deny not but the words may be accommodated to the times of the Gospel, but not to Mr. C. purpose of bringing Infants to Baptism, which hath no colour from the Text. Which appears ●● considering Mr. C. Answer to my Questions put forth needfully to clear the Text. Reply. HAving dispatched the first branch of the first Argument, that God did promise before the Law, that Infants should be actually received into Covenant under the Gospel, Mr. T. forgetting the office of a respondent, went about authoritatively to determine the Question, till with much importunity he was persuaded to attend the proof of the second branch, to wit, that God foretold under the Law, that Infants should be actually received into Covenant, or be Church-members under the Gospel, which was done by this medium. 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 arms, and their daughters should be carried upon their shoulders, foretold that Infants should be Church-members under the Gospel; But thus saith the Lord God, Isai, 49 22. Behold I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people, they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders; Therefore God foretold that Infants should be Church-members under the Gospel. Then he denied the major, saying the meaning was that the Jews should bring the Gentiles children, to which was replied, God says I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and they that is the Gentiles shall bring thy sons, and Mr. T. says the Jews shall bring thy sons, whereupon the words were read, so that he recollecting himself, said the meaning was, the Gentiles should bring the Jews children from captivity, and that it d●d not point at the time of the Gospel; Now he says his answer was at first (though it was otherwise taken) that it is a prophecy, that the Gentiles should bring back the Jew's not only Infants but others from captivity: What his meaning was we know not, but that his expressions were otherwise, the most that were there, even they of his own party knows; But let that pass as matter of fact, and impertinent to the present controversy, which is not whether he or the whole congregation be to be believed; That he said so afterwards we acknowledge, but how he will make it good we know not, or if he make that interpretation good, how it will make for him, unless (exclusively) he can prove, that it is only meant of the Gentiles bringing the Jews from captivity, which he undertakes not, but the contrary, saying afterwards that he denies not, but the words may be accommodated to the times of the Gospel. But how proves he that it is a prophecy, that the Gentilds' should bring back the Jews, not only Infants, but others from captivity? Two ways, First by Testimony of Scripture. Secondly of Mr. Gataker, which like Linsey-wolsey he weaves together. First Scripture, for he says the words before v. 19 20, 21. & after 24, 25. do plainly evince; let us see v. 19 how plainly these are the words, for thy waist, and desolate places, and the land of thy destruction shall even now be too narrow by reason of thy inhabitants, and they that swallowed thee up shall be far away; Let him mould this into a Syllogism, and see how it will conclude. May it not in an allegory, be understood of the conversion of the Gentiles expressed in borrowed speeches from the Jews? This is usual in Scripture; and the next, verse 20▪ rather confirms than confutes; The children which thou shall have, that is, of the called Gentiles, after thou hast lost the other, that is of the natural seed of Abraham, shall say again in thine ears, the place is to straight for me, that is, the land of Canaan is to narrow to contain the whole Church, give place to me that I may dwell, that is, in the Islands and Provinces of the Gentiles, according to verse 6. 21. Then shalt thou say in thy heart, who hath begotten me those, to wit of the Gentiles by adoption? And have lost my children by natural generation, and an desolate, and a captive, and removing to, and fro, that is, after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, when they were scattered in all Nations (as Josephus stories it) for we never find i● literally verified, that the land of Canaan was too straight during the time of captivity (as the words point) to contain the Jews: And this interpretation in part Mr. Tombs approves, saying pag. 14. the Church is spoken to, and the children were both the Gentiles children, and yet (thy children) that is the Churches. Now let us see wh●ther the verses following relieve him any thing, 24. Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, or the lawful captive delivered? This Interrogation is equivalent to a Negation, The prey shall not (that is easily) be taken from the mighty, or the lawful captive is not usually delivered; one Democritus would not be enough to laugh at, nor three Anticyra's suffice to purge that head, that would attempt from hence to draw an Argument to prove the foregoing conclusion: But perhaps he means it jointly with the following verse, I am willing to join issue; the words are these; Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away; from whom? F●om Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Darius, Ahasuerus? That would imply a contradiction, for he confesses that these were nursing fathers that did bring back the Jews from captivity; the prey of the terrible shall be delivered children are not preys to their nurses, neither are nurses terrible to their children, unless it be the Indian women, who swimming over great rivers with children in their arms, in danger the drowning of them, as sometimes do the dippers: But the truth is The great red Dragon Rev. 12. 13. having seven heads and ten horns, that is as Mr. Mead Comments Apocatyp. pag. 164. interprets it, The Roman Pagan Empire seated upon seven hills, and armed▪ with ten persecuting Kings, or dynasts was terrible to the woman travelling, that is to the Church bringing forth Christians, yet the woman prevailed against this dragon, and brought forth a man child, which was taken up unto God, and his throne, that is power, and authority in the Church. And this is more likely the meaning of it, for the places seem to be symbolical, and Concentric; Then indeed Kings became nursing fathers, Constantine in the Empire, Lucius in Britain, Donald in Scotland. Secondly he proves it from Mr. Gatakers authority, who gives this as the meaning by the new Annotations made by him; new I believe, and so new, that I think scarce any before him went in that way; for I doubt not, if Mr. T. could but have light of one Commentator Ancient, or Modern (of so many scores) that he had made for him, he would no more have concealed his name then he does Mr. Gatakers, a man yet living. His Argument in form sounds thus; The meaning of Mr. Gataker is true, it is the meaning of Mr. Gataker in his annotations upon Isai. 49 22. That the Gentiles should bring the Jews not only Infants, but others from captivity: Therefore that the Gentiles should bring the Jews not only▪ Infants, but others from captivity, is true. I thus retort▪ it. The meaning of Mr. Gataker is true, But it is the meaning of Mr. Gataker that many Texts in Scripture concludes for Infant-Baptism, Therefore that many Texts in Scripture concludes for Infant-Baptism, is true. By this I suppose Mr. T. will spare the labour of denying the Major, But how shall I know that that meaning is given by Gataker, who never saw his Annotations? except I credit my Adversaries bare word, which how Authentic his saying, that Casaubon upon Matth. 3. made for dipping hath taught me: yet I rather believe him, that it is Mr. Gatakers meaning, than the conclusion he infers from it, and that it is his meaning he seems to prove; because he doth on verse 23. say, it was fulfilled in those Persian Potentates Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Darius, Ahasuerus; did all these four bring back the Jews, not only Infants but others from captivity? I will not question their history for making Artaxerxes, and Ahasuerus two several men, which Philo, and Esdras makes but one, Nor their Chronologie in making the Captivity to last about seventy years: for the Captivity began in Nabukkadnezars' time, who lived some years after, his successor was Evilmerodach, his son, after him was Balthasar, from whom Cyrus took Babylon, and conferred the Empire upon the Persians, this Cyrus according to the Greeks reigned 29 years, his successors in order reckoned by them were Cambyses that reigned five years seven months, Darius the son of Hist●spis 36. years, Xerxes' 20. Artaxerxes Longimanus, 40. which besides the three Babylonish Kings amounts to 131 years, odd months. According to Philo, and Esdras, Cyrus ●ules 22 years; Artaxerxes 20. Darius, Artaxerxes, Longimanus 27. Darius' Nothus 19 which amounts to 98 years; now could they be 98 years, in bringing from captivity that were but 70. years in captivity? but I stand not much upon that? But that the meaning was not that the Gentiles should bring the Jews Children from Captivity, I urged from the Contents of the Chapter, Which though no demonstrative Argument, yet far more concluding than his, that was but drawn from a single Testimony, The contents are these, Christ sent to the Jews, complaineth of them to the 5. verse, he is sent to the Gentiles with gracious promises. 13. God's love is perpetual to his Church. 18. The powerful deliverance out of Captivity to the end. Which was framed into an Argument, thus. That which is the judgement of the Church of England ought to be entertained before the groundless assertion of one private man, That it points at the times of the Gospel, is the judgement of the Church of England, Therefore it ought to be entertained before the groundless assertion of one private man▪ Then he denied the Minor, which answer he cor●oborats now, saying that there is not in the Contens of the Chapter (which Mr. C. without ground makes the judgement of the Church of England) any thing to the contrary, but the words, which are [18. the ample restauration of the Church; 24. the powerful deliverance cut of Captivity] do rather confirm this. Wherein he affirms three things, which seems to me leavened with much uncertainty, if not apparent untruth. First that I make without any ground the Contents of the Chapter the judgement of the Church of England, It is ground enough, that every Bible in the English tongue hath them, every Minister almost in the Church of England (and many private families) publicly read them; And grant there had been no Canon to tie, no Rubric to direct, it hath been usual since the Reformation, 1. To read the Contents, than the Chapter, and though it c●uld not be proved positively such a Parliament, Synod, Royal assent established them, yet it is apparent, That every Parliament, Synod, all authority approved of them, in that they permitted the continuance of them. And in the latter times when almost all things have been Questioned by some; there hath not been (for any thing I know) so much as a Petition against them; by which it is clear, that it is not only the judgement of the supreme Magistracy, as Parliaments, and Synods, which are the Church of England Representatively, but of all, or the most of the people, which is the Church of England essentially, and integretly; And our strongest Laws in things, that are either good in themselves, or Adiaphorous, are veteres Angli● consuetudines. If Mr. T. could say as much for his Antipaedobaptism, he would conclude contra omnes gentes (that as the Donatists said of Africe) the true Church had for many years been confined to England; I hope than it is not without ground that I said: that the Contents of the Chapter are the Judgement of the Church of England; which Dr. Willet, Dr. Boyse, and many others said before me. Secondly he affirms that there is in the Contents of the Chapter not any thing to the contrary, but that is was a prophecy that the Gentiles should bring the Jews from captivity: from captivity? when? At their recalling at, or near the end of the world to embrace the Gospel? That may agree with analogy of faith, but neither with the meaning of the place, nor his purpose; The Contents begin thus: Christ being sent to the Jews complaineth of them, sent to his own after the Incarnation, and they knew him not, complaineth of them, because his Gospel was a stumbling block to them: Now to revolve this back to the reducing from captivity would be a strange Anachronism, for the captivity was many hundred years before the Incarnation; from the captivity the Persian Monarchy lasted 191 years. The Grecian Monarchy 146. The Kingdom of the Maccabees 127. after that Christ was born in the 30. year of the reign of Herod the great, verse 5. he is sent to the Gentiles with a gracious promise according to Acts 2. 40. The promise is to you, and your Children, if you embrace it, and to them that are afar off, even the Gentiles, when God shall call them: which Cyprian de duplici Martyrio confirms, ecce â Domini redemptoris temporibus anni effluxerunt plus minus 240. jamque hujus vitis palmites latius se sparserunt, quam Romanum Imperium, It is little more or less (saith he) then two hundred and forty years since the days of Christ, the Redeemer, and yet in that time the Church hath spread out her branches larger than the Roman Empire; & quos nulla vis ferri domare potuit, emollit sanguis agni candidi, and they whom no power of the sword was able to daunt, are made peaceable, and tame by the blood of the unspotted Lamb. Now to recapitulate this; That which makes for the rejection of the Jews after the Incarnation and calling of the Gentiles, hath something to the contrary, that it was not a prophecy that the Gentiles should bring the Jews Children from Babylonish Captivity; There is something in the Contents that makes for the rejection of the Jews after the Incarnation and calling of the Gentiles; Therefore the Contents of the Chapter have something to the contrary, that it was not a prophecy that the Gentiles should bring the Jews Children from Captivity. His third allegation is, that the words [18. the ample restauration of the Church, 24. the powerful deliverance out of captivity] do rather confirm that there is something in the Contents of the Chapter, that the Gentiles should bring the Jews Children from Captivity; We shall see that by framing it▪ into an Argument. The ample restauration of the Church, the powerful deliverance out of Captivity is promised, therefore there is something in the Contents that the Gentiles should bring the Jews from Captivity. I deny the consequent, for that ample restauration of the Church is meant of the Gentiles graffed into the stock of the Jews broken off; That powerful deliverance out of Captivity, is that which was effected by preaching of the word in the evidence, and demonstration of the spirit, and power, when the Gentiles were delivered from the Captivity of sin, Satan, and heathen Idols; and this is very clear compared with the former, and his consequent so irrational, that the people in the dispute laughed at it, in which he says now they shown their ignorance. As I did not then, neither do I now approve of their laughing, yet I think he cannot prove they shown their ignorance, unless in this practical Axiom, that errors are rather to be pitied in brothers then laughed at. But if he means they shown their ignorance in not understanding his consequence, I must profess myself to be amongst those ignorant, and so I believe will the most that hears it, in which he will as soon persuade any rational man, as Anaxagoras that the snow is black. But he hath also a snatch at me, saying that I shown my heedlessness 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 ways, 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 natural generation (which I conceive is the Question) but their own; But he says the very distinction of [thy Children] from [the Gentiles] shows 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 untie 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 shown his heedlessness? But in the same blindfold posture he goes on, saying it can not be meant of God's Children as his, for than 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 God's Children (●ayes he) as his, for than it should be [mine] in the first person, for God speaks those words; well, God says to Moses thy Children which thou hast brought out of Egypt, it can not be meant of God's Children, for God speaks the words; This is a fallacy a dicto seeundum quid ad simpliciter; All this may be easily reconciled; They are the Church's Children by spiritual succession, the Gentiles by natural generation, Gods by adoption. But we might have spared our labour all this while; for he denies 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 ●lterally, than not to any historical thing under the Law, If Mystically, than it was a Prophecy of a prophecy. But without further enquiry 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 prophecy, that the Gentiles should bring back the Jews not only Infants, but others from captivity in the letter, and type; It will follow, the Gentiles shall bring back not only children, but others from spiritual captivity, in the Mystery, and Antitype, which his words unawares of him seems to carry, when he styles 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. Tombs 11. Section. FOr 1. If by standard be meant baptism, which the Scripture never calls God's standard, and the bringing should be to Baptism, than 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 show 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 hester's time, I said rightly, and Mr. Gataker before me in those annotations of his, which are taken for the most incomparably learned, and H●ster as a Queen among the Gentiles might well be styled a nursing Mother to the Jews, I will not trouble myself 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 grown men persuaded by the preaching of the Gospel, as Jun us in his Annot. was true. Nor doth the bringing in the bosom, 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 ●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 straight, and finds itself over-matched, with Quintus Fabi●● to parley, till they have found an advantage, and then suddenly to fall upon the enemy; So it is the Trick of a Sophister, when he is at a loss in dispute, to ask Questions to ensnare the adversary, and then with Crocodile ●leights surprise him; Mr. T. is very dexterous in this art, which he exercised in the dispute, ask 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 ask 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, etc. By King's supreme Magistrates, By nursing Fathers, and Nursing Mothers Patrons, and Protectors of the Gospel. Now to put a gloss upon his counterfeit wares he says 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. says he, if by Standard be meant Baptism, which the Scripture never dalls Standard, and the bringing should be to Baptism, than the sense should be, that supreme Magistrates as Kings and Queens should bring Infan●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 prophecy, In which word there is neither verity, nor consequence, if sense. Fi●st he says if by Standard be meant Baptism, who makes a Thesis' o● his Hypothesis? or affirms that by Standard is meant Baptism? My answer was that by Standard was meant some visible Gospel-Ordinance, as Baptism, etc. to wit preaching praying with many more: Now who knows not that there is a difference betwixt Gospel-Ordinances in general, and Baptism in particular? as much as betwixt a man and a living creature, whereas a Gnat is a living creature, genus d●●●ert ab omnibus suis speciebus simul sumptis, multo magis ab una specie. But secondly he says the Scripture never calls Baptism God's standard, yes, even in this place, for I had thought the Genus might have been praedicate of the Species, though the Species can not be of the Genius; And if in no other place of Scripture, (for perhaps he hath looked over his Concordance) this one is sufficient, Baptism in Scripture is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a lover of regeneration but once, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put for a vail or covering but once. Thirdly he says, if the bringing should be to Baptism, than the sense (which I think is nonsense) should be that supreme Magistrates, as Kings and Queens should bring Infants in their Arms, and carry them on shoulders to Baptism; How doth that follow? ver. 22. I will set up my Standard to the people, and they shall bring thy sons in their Arms; 23. King's shall be thy nursing Fathers; what was there no people but Kings, that they must necessarily be the people, that shall bring them in arms? either Canaan was very straight, or the Kings were very many that it could not hold them, ver. 20. Nurses, that is the Mothers commonly lies in, while the Children are carried to be baptised, and other nurses are often provided after baptism. Fourthly he says no story ever mentions it to have been done that Kings and Queens should bring Infants in their Arms, and carry them on Shoulders to Baptism, Truly neither the Text, nor any that I know out of the Text affirms it except his dream; And if he will give me leave to Criticise upon his Oneirocriticks, I must tell h●m that I think he is mistaken in saying that no story ever mentions it to have been done; To begin with our own times, he cannot but have heard that King James in a conference at Hampton Court affirmed, that rather than his Child should die unbaptised, he would take it up his Arms, and carry it to the brook himself; And if he will but ascend a story, or two higher, he shall find out of venerable Bede, and others that Ethelwolf King of Mercia being Baptised himself by the persuasion of King Wulfhere brought others Parents, and Children to be baptised of Wilfride. Edwine King of the Northumber's while he was attending the baptising of Children upon Easter day was wounded by an Assasinat named Eomer, sent by Guicheline King of West Saxons; The same night his Queen was delivered of a daughter, which upon Whitsunday next he caused to be baptised by Paulinus the Bishop, and named her Eanfleda. These stories both mentions that such a thing was done, and that Infants were baptised; which though it proves not exactly in the Letter that Kings have brought Children upon their Shoulders, and in their arms, yet it proves more than I affirmed, that they should be Pations, and Protectors of the Church; And that is not too frivolous to be made the matter of that prophesy, a part whereof Theodosius the Emperor accounted a greater honour, than to be ruler of the whole world. I granted that the terms nursing Fathers, and nursing Mothers in the verse following were Metaphors, but that nothing could be gathered from it, was Mr. T. collection not mine, which now he retracts; whereas he further adds, that my application which is according to the proper sense of the words is not right, he either contradicts himself, or delivers a strange inconsequence, contradicts himself, who confesses I granted it to be a Metaphor, and not according to the proper sense of the word: A strange inconsequence, for if nursing Fathers, and nursing Mother's verse 23. be Metaphorical, must therefore Gentiles, and people, and Arms, and Shoulders, in the 22. be Metaphors? What he means by my application I know not, but to gratify him further, and satisfy the Reader, thus I conceive, that it is a Prophecy pointing at the time of the Gospel, where Christ is the General, all visible Church-members are his Soldiers fight under his banner, visible Church-Ordinances are his Standard; The people (not Kings) should bring sons in their Arms, and Daughters upon their Shoulders to baptism one of these Ordinances, Kings should be nursing Fathers, that is maintainers, and protectors of Baptism, and all other Ordinances of the Gospel; which hath been verified ever since Constantine, and Lucius his time. Now if it be objected that Infants are uncapable of spiritual warfare; I answer it is their mistake, who without ground think they are more uncapable of spiritual warfare, than temporal, for it is a thing well known that in the low Countries the eldest son of a Commission Captain being born there whilst his Father is in the service of the State, is by the courtesy of the Camp enroled in the Souldlers list on his birth day, and by the allowance of the State receives pay from the time of his Nativity: In the Christian warfare, though Christ alone be our Captain, every common Soldier Male, or Female enlisted under him derives this Privilege to all his Children, that from their very births they are thus far entered into the Muster-roll of the Church, as to receive pay, I mean the right, and title to the Sacrament of Baptism, as being by their very extraction not unclean, but Sacramentally holy. Fuller Infant Advocate Pag. 99 But all this he checks, saying, it was fulfilled in hester's time. Hester was wife to Ahasuerus, and had power but in one King's time, before he said it was was fulfilled in Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Darius, Ahasuerus times: pergit pugnantia secum frontibus adversis componere Horat. satire. 1. But how he proves that it was fulfilled in hester's time by two testimonies, 1. His own, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I said rightly. 2. Of Master Gataker, who said so before him, and that in his Annotations which are taken for the most incomparably learned, viz. by Master T. because in this place perhaps they seem to make for him, what thinks he of innumerable places that Master Gataker in this cause Interprets against him? They are not so incomparably learned, why? because they make against him, so all is resolved at length into his own Testimony, by which he makes Master Gatakers notes so Authentic, that he refers the Reader to them, and will not trouble himself to examine my dictates (as he calls them,) I suppose because they overthrew his application of it to Hester, for thus it was answered; Hester was a Jew, and a friend to the Jews, what is this to the Gentiles bringing children upon shoulders? And though that should be waved, and Hester granted to be a nursing Mother in the Type, yet in the Antitype it aims principally at the times of the Gospel, else gross absurdities would follow; for what Kings, or Queens in hester's time did bow down to the Jews with their face towards the earth? and lick up the dust of their feet. 23. Isles are summoned in the first verse, which must be meant of the time of the Gospel; Christ is promised to be given for a light for the Gentiles, that he may be their salvation to the end of the earth. 6. King's shall see, and arise, Princes also shall worship. 7. And the Holy Ghost quotes verbatim, and applies to the times of the Gospel the 8. verse; and that expressly ● Corint. 6. 2. There is an employed cutting off of the Jews. 20. And engrafting in of the Gentiles, the children of the w●ld Olive into the stock of the natural Olive. 21. A bringing of Children to visible Ordinances 22. In the dispute by d●nt of Argument, and push of Syllogistical Pike, being forced to surrender up his former hold, Mr. T. endeavoured to make good this retreat, that if it should be understood of the times of the Gospel, yet by sons in arms, and daughters upon shoulders was meant grown men, for any thing he knew, men, and women of an hundred years of age might be carried in arms, and upon Shoulders; Now he says, though it should be understood of the times of the Gospel, yet it might be understood of grown men persuaded by the Preaching of the Gospel, as Jnius in his Annotations: The force of the Argument is this, Junius says so, therefore it is so; I deny both the Antecedent, and the Consequent; The Antecedent, for Junius says not so, his words are theses cum vexillo Evangelii, quod est Dei potentia ad salutem, haec omnia allegoricè dicuntur de amplitudine regni Christi spiritualis, with the Standard of the Gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation, all these things are spoken Allegorically of the amplitude of Christ's Kingdom, but he doth not say that the bringing of children in arms should be understood of grown Children capable of instruction, when it may be literally understood: And if Junius had said so, his Judgement is not infallible, which is the Consequent: Mr. T. might have found more than Junius to interpret it of the Gospel, which though some extend it further than Children, yet none exclude Children, Cornelius à Lapide in his Commentary upon the place, says, erigam manu, & pocentia mea signum, etc. I will advance by my hand, and power a sign, that is a Standard of the Cross of Christ, and to that, and the tents of my Church I will call all Gentiles; God speaks as a General of holy war, with him agrees Hierom, Cyril, and Haymo; They shall bring thy sons in arms (saith Cyril) and thy daughters upon shoulders, that is the Apostles, and the propagators of the faith shall not impose the grievous yoke of Moses Law upon the faithful, but shall nurse them as Infants with the sweet milk of the Gospel, and shall carry them in arms, and upon shoulders, that is (saith he,) shall bring them with all motherly care to the Church, idem facient parentes fidelium the Parents of the faithful shall do the same; verse 23. erunt reges Nutrici tui Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omenim, Kings shall be thy nursing Fathers, that is thy Stewards, and Guardians, as if he should say (O Church) Kings shall nurse thee, and enrich thee with their goods, as a Father, and Mother do nourish their Infants; Aliqui haec accipiunt de Cyro, & Dario (says a Lapide) some, understand these of Cyrus, and Darius, but it is apparent by the word, that they are to be restrained to the Gospel; Hence we may gather that according to the Judgement of these men Hierom, Cyril, Haymo, and Cornelius a Lapide. 1. That it concerns Gospel-times. 2. That it may be extended to grown men. 3. That it excludes not, but includes Infants, for all these were for their visible Church-membership, and Baptism; By this it appears that bringing in the bosom, if it should be a metaphor, proves they were Infants, though not only Infants, for mine intention was only to prove that Infants were visible Church-members, and baptizable, but not only they excluding all others? And this to be the true meaning (methinks) he seems to be conscious, when he says, if so the Church is spoken to, and the children were both the Gentiles children, and yet [thy children] that is the Churches, and so there is no interfering in my words. This is like all the rest, for if it be the Gentiles converted Christians, not Persian potentates Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Darius, Ahasuerus, that shall bring by virtue of a gospel-covenant, not by civil favours, from Paganism, not Babylonish captivity to Gospel-ordinances, not to repair Jerusalem; Thy sons, that is the Churches by a spiritual succession, not the Jews by natural generation, than it must needs clash with his former, that it was a prophecy that the Gentiles should bring back the Jews not only Infants, but others from captivity. Mr. Tombs 12. Section. THe next Text was Isaiah 65. 20. in reading which Mr. C. left out those words, nor an old man that hath not filled his days, nor would read them nor the words following ver. 21. 22. I perceived he meant nothing but fallacy, and yet he adds impudence to it, in accusing me as urging it to deceive the peoples when his own course in concealing what should have cleared the Text had a manifest show of deceit, and mine of plain dealing. As for his interpretation, There shall be no more an Infant of days, that is Infants shall not be uncapable of the seal, it hath no proof, but his dictate, and it is Without all show of probability, there being not a word of any such thing as outward ordinances, but of peace, increase, possession, and long life, as the verses before, and after show. The like is to be said of his interpretation of the other part of the verse, The child shall die an hundred years old, that is as an hundred years old, or as well a Church-member as if he were a hundred years old, when the Term [as] is added to the Text. To which he replied that I do put in [as] 1. Cor. 10. 2. and Rom. 11. ●19 But this latter is false. I grant I do so interpret it [Baptised 1. Cor. 10. 2.] Because otherwise the proposition were not true, and the sense is plain according to his sense, were Baptised, that is their passage through the sea, and under the cloud, was to them, as if they had been Baptised, and so did Grotius expound it, which is the same with that which others mean when they say, they were Analogically Baptised. But in Isaiah 65. 20. There is no need of such an interpretation, and that I may use the words of Mr. Gataker's Annot. on Isaiah 65. 20: The Syntax is familiar, and as clear as the daylight, or sunshine: The child or youth, that now is, shall die the son of an hundred years; that is shall be an hundred years old when he dyeth. Nor is it contrary to the Contents, which though they be entitled to the Church of England, yet there is no Canon, or act of any Synod, which did ever make them so, and who ever framed them? yet I think it no disparagement to say that Mr. Gataker understood the Text as well, or better than he: And this Text was rightly made by me answerable to Zacha. 8. 4. Nor is their either absurdity, or untruth, or Blasphemy in my interpretation: which might be showed by transcribing Mr. Gatakers forementioned notes on Isaiah 65. 17. 19 25. were it not I am forced to be brief. Reply. THe next Text (its true) I produced that Infants under the Law were promised to be in visible covenant, or Church-members under the Gospel, was Isaiah 65. 20. there shall be no more thence an infant of days, etc. but the child shall die an hundred years old. Before I could have time to frame mine Argument, he pressed me to read the words interposed, and following; I told him, I had read as much as I intended to raise mine Arguments from, not passing by the other words, because they contained any thing that makes against me, but that an Argument (as he well knew) must be Terminus simplex, uniform, and homogeneal, and if any thing was advantageous for him, he had liberty to urge it in his answer, otherwise (as every disputant knows) his design was but to prepossess The people with prejudice, and in stead of solid satisfaction to say something to deceive them; This he retorts now by recrimination, saying, he perceived I meant nothing but fallacy; what fallacy could he perceive before he heard mine Argument? I had thought that every fallacy had been either in single words, or in the composure of the whole Sillogism, as Aristotle says cap. 4. lib. 1. Sophist. Elench. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now how could he discover this before he heard the Syllogism? That's not all, he doubles his files, and charges me further to add impudence to it, in accusing him as urging it to deceive the people. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom. Ili. a. What not one word of the spirit of meekeness out of his mouth? He may enter our charges, and pres● Anabaptism against our Municipal, & Ecclesiastical laws, provoke us indirectly to a dispute, & obstruct the orderly progress of it against the rules of Logic, & not be told of it, without the brand of impudence; His holiness of Rome in Pontificalibus, è cathedra could not have fulminated his Censures with more imperiousness, Bone Deus in quae tempora nos reservasti! Let him tell me in good earnest, where ever he found it the office or practice of any Opponent to urge any more than his Medium, to enforce his conclusion, with the contrary, whereof to possess the people (who are ignorant of the School-way) before the Argument had a manifest show of deceit, and not of plain dealing; which afterwards when there is a just cause, may be applied by the Respondent for clearing the Text. The Arguments I raised from thence were two; The first was this, There shall be no more an Infant of days, that is Infants shall not be uncapable of the seal while their age is measured by days, as the Jews infants, that might not be circumcised, till a week had passed over them, Therefore Infants new born are capable of the seal. The second was this, The child shall die an hundred years old, that is as an hundred years old, or as well a Church-member as if he were an hundred years old, Therefore children may be Baptised under the Gospel. To the former, to wit, There shall be no more an Infant of days, that is, Infants shall not be uncapable of the seal; he answers now implyedly, by denying the consequence, saying it hath no proof but my dictate; To which it were sufficient reply to say it hath no disproof but his dictate, which is without all show of probability, there being not a word of any such thing as outward peace, increase, possession, and long life to the Jews, unless in the Type, and that scarce probable, but of the Glorious estate of the times of the Gospel held out in outward ordinances, as shall appear. The like may truly be said of mine interpretation of the other part, whence I drew the second Argument, The child shall die an hundred years old, that is as an hundred years old, or as well a Church-member as if he were an hundred years old; he denied the consequent which I made good first ab impossibi●●, because to take it literally would imply a contradiction. For it is impossible being a child to die an hundred years old, Child is the subject of the Question, which is to be taken properly without enallogie; shall die an hundred years old, the Predicate that cannot otherwise be affirmed of it, but analogically resembling in some capacity, and qualification them that dies an hundred years old. 2. By taking away his exception, that the term [as] is added to the Text, which is necessary in all analogies, and is better than his, and the Anabaptists interpretation of this, and other places; This place, where to avoid once [as] he is forced to imply four times [was] he that was a child, was a stripling, was a young man, was a grown man shall die an hundred years old. Other places, for it is his exposition of 1. Cor. 10. 2. they were Baptezed under the Cloud, that is (says he) as if they were baptised under the Cloud, when nothing hindered, but they were really Baptised under the Cloud. And Rom. 11. 19 The branches were broken off, that is, say they, as if they were broken off, when it was both possible, and apparent, they were broken off: he grants, he so interprets. [Baptised 1. Cor. 10. 2. and assigns his reason, because the proposition otherwise were untrue, when indeed the proposition thereby is rendered untrue, for if they were actually Baptised, or washed under the cloud, it raining upon them, and in the red Sea, the water touching their feet at the least, after the dividing of the waves in such a sudden passage, and blowing upon them with the sprinkling thereof, than they were not as Baptised, or washed, for nothing that is like, is the same. And the sense is plain according to this sense, [were Baptised] that is in the passage through the Sea, and under the Cloud, were actually washed, so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signyfies, the history of the 13. and 14. chapped. of Exodus all interpreters ancient, and Modern expound it, save Grotius, who to engratiate with the Semi-Pelagians, and Socinians humours them by racking this Text, & is an excellent Argument wherein he may confide: Grotius says so, therefore it is so: Indeed more likely not to be so; and is differing as far as white from black from that which others mean, when they say they were analogically Baptised, for they understand positively a real, though Typical Baptism, resembling Sacramental Baptism the Antitype, not negatively no baptism, or washing but as washing. For Typical Baptism, and Sacramental are Analoga, not Baptism, and no Baptism, which will appear by the definition of Analoga. They have one common name, which principally is attributed to one member, afterwards by similitude, or proportion to others: Thus Baptism is principally Sacramental, less principally Typical washings, whether ordinary the levitical, or extraordinary this under the Cloud, and in the red Sea; And Analoga are twofold, either of inequality, so entity, or being is by way of perfection ascribed to God, afterwards by participation to the creature, Or of attribution, when it is given to one member properly, as health to a body, to another Metonymically, when it is given to the Urine as the sign, to diet as the cause of health; To the later of these our Typical Baptism may be reduced, the other to neither, but is Grotius his figment, having not the common name. And in Isaiah 65. 20. There is need of such an interpretation, for as ver. 17. The new heavens, and new earth, and 18. 19 Creation, and Jerusalem were analogical, and not proper, so the 20. ver. is wholly Tropical, and Mystical. There shall be no more thence an Infant of days; How can this be understood literally? did not Infants after, as well, as under the Captivity make up their weeks of days, months of weeks? etc. It must needs relate to something under the Jewish Paedogogie, and nothing so probably as that of theirs, that nothing was clean till a Sabbath had gone over it, and therefore according to divine institution, Circumcision was not till the eighth day; Mr. T. might have done well, to have imparted us either his own, or Master Gatakers descant upon these words, but because they could devise nothing that like the ears under the Lion's skin would not discover the whole Imposture ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem. But though he passed by that as a riddle, like Davus not Oedipus, yet in the words following says Master Gataker the Syntax is familiar; I had thought Syntax had been Grammatical construction according to rule, not literal interpretation, or univocal, not analogical praedication; And this Syntax he says, is as clear as the daylight, or Sunshine, perhaps to an Owl, or Bat: And what is this Syntax that is so clear? The Child, or youth that now is, shall die the son of an hundred years, that is shall be an hundred years old when he dyeth: The Child, or youth, there is one addition, for the Text mentions not youth, which is a distinct age from Childhood; That now is, there is another, the Child was not yet, it was a predication, and so both an Addition, and an untruth; shall die the son of an hundred years, there is a third, [son of] by addition put in, old by substraction taken away, excellent Arithmetic; besides here is a new creation of a new generation [son of years,] who ever heard such a Syntax? did the son beget the years, or the years the son? or whether is elder? That is, shall be an hundred years old when be dyeth, here is an exposition of an exposition, and a fourth addition [be and when] being superadded. According to which interpretation the words must carry this sense, There shall no more Infants die when they are young, nor an old man till he hath filled his days, for he that now is a child shall not die till he be an hundred years old; I wonder in what age this was performed, that no man died till he had completed his Century, no mortal diseases, nor use of Physicians, but every man might certainly know the day of his death? All experience, and history is contrary to this, (unless that of China that relates many generations before Adam) as well as the contents, which are justly entitled to the Church of England, seeing besides the rise, and spring of them, every Parliament, and Synod with universal acceptation did interpretatively make them so; before so many millions to prefer Mr. Gataker one single man, and say he understands the text as well, or better than they, is not only a disparagement, but presumption: I esteem of Mr. Gataker as a reverend man, and a prime light of the Church, yet dare not elevate him so high in the Pole with Mr. Tombs as to make him infallible; nor depress him so low, as Mr. Lilly calculates him, pag. 5. 6. of his Merlini Anglici Ephemeris 1654. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Truth must not be pinned upon Mr. Gataker's, no nor upon Mr. Tombs sleeve, though he speaks magnificently in the language of Nabucadnezzar; this text was rightly made by me, answerable to Zach. 8. 4. made by him, and not by the Holy Ghost, nor declared so by any Interpreter before him? He mentions neither; This is great Babel. Let us hear the words; Thus saith the Lord of Hosts; there shall yet old men, and old women, dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, & every man with his staffin his hand for very age, and the streets of the City shall be full of boys, and girls playing in the streets thereof: What is this to an Infant of days, or a child dying an hundred years old? When it is apparent from the contents, text, and Interpreters that this of Zachary is meant of the Jews return from captivity; and more apparent that, that of Isay, is meant of the state of Christ's Kingdom under the Gospel. To interpret it otherwise (notwithstanding any thing that hath been said hitherto, or Mr. Gatake's notes which for brevity sake he will not transcribe, bu● keeps for a reserve) ● believe even yet, includes little less than absurdity, untruth, Blasphemy. 1. To apply the 25. v. to the return from captivity is absurd, that the wolf, and the lamb should feed together, and the lion should eat straw with the bullock, and dust should be the serpent's neat; The Parallel place to which the marginal notes, and Expositors refer it, can be understood of none but Gospel-times, for Isai 11. having expressed Christ's lineage, natures, office, he declares the peaceable estate of his kingdom, 6. 7. The Wolf also shall dwell with the Lamb, and the Leopard shall lie down with the Kid, and the Calf, and the young Lion, and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them, and the Cow, and the Bear shall feed, their young ones shall lie down together, and the Lion shall eat straw with the Ox. 2. To apply the 19 v. to the return from captivity, is an untruth, that the voice of weeping should be no more heard in Jerusalem, for it was twice destroyed afterwards, once by Antiochus, then by Vespasian and Titus, never rebuilded, nor restored yet; So that either it must be understood mystically of the conversion, and fullness of the Gentiles, or literally of the final calling of the Jews. 3. To apply the 17 v. to the return from captivity is blasphemous; Behold I create new heavens, and new earth, and the former shall no more be remembered, and come into mind, for it crosseth St. Peter's interpretation, 2 Pet. 3. 13. We according to his promise, look for 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 remembered? When the ancient men are said to weep, because the glory of the latter Temple was short of the glory of the first, Ezra, 3. 11. Mr. Tombs, 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 mere 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 showed 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 dependence 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 resign the chair, 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 Apology was, that Dr. Prideaux, when a place of Scripture was cited, was wont to give a large Exposition; To which was then replied, that he was Dr. of the Chair, and Judge of the controversy, and might do that a Respondent may not do, whose office is only 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 aught to have been done, not only (though principally) in divinity Disputes, but even in Philosophy, and Mathematics, when the Argument depends upon the authority, or meaning of A●istotle, Plato, Euclid, 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 practice 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 fallacy. What he means by Explosion, or a mere 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 n●● answering the Drs. challenge. Though perhaps Mr. Tombs was so harnessed with confidence, that he was not sensible of it, Vos o Patricius sanguis quos vivere fas est, Occipiti ●aeco posticae occurrite sannae. Pers. satire▪ 1. And such Explosions are grounded upon equity, because those that will not acquiess in the Vicechancellors, or Professer● determinations, by the University statutes, are to be admonished. But he unmindful of this, like Chrysogonus, whom Tully for the like cause, calls nobilem, & eg●egium gladiatorem, speaks in the language of a Fencer, saying that neither Dr. Savage, nor the Dr. of the Chair did avoid his Argument, by their Answer is manifest enough from Dr. Savage his own recital of his Answer in his printed book. Sed quo judice? Who shall be U●p●re in this debate? Mr. Tombs himself, for he says that this had been showed 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 l●ves calamos, & scind Thalia libellos, Si dare etc. Mart. But he f●lls off ●rom vying with his sword and buckle●, whereby he avoided the Drs. Arguments, to vaunt his coat of Male, as if he had got Vulcan's Panopl●e, and were shot free; for he says the frivolous conceit of his fear of my gunshot, is foolish; In some sense, I confess, 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 soldier; 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 Tombs 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 baptising, because they are no Disciples. Nor was there any defect in Logic 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 baptised 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 baptised thus▪ Those whom Christ commanded his Disciples to baptise, they may be baptised, Christ commanded his Disciples to baptise Infants, Therefore they may be baptised. The Minor being denied was proved thus, He that commanded his Disciples to baptise all Nations, commanded them to baptise Infants, Christ commanded his Disciples, Math. 28. 14. To baptise all Nations, therefore Christ commanded them to baptise Infants; he denied the Major, which was proved by this Enthymema, the whole encludes every part, Infants are a part of nations, therefore he that commanded to baptise all nations, commanded to baptise Infants; he denied the consequent, which was proved thus, from that Axiom in Logic, Philosophy, and Divinity, that a general whole being granted, no part of it could be denied, as Psal. 117. 1. Praise the Lord all ye Nations, is interpreted by another Psalm, old men, & babes, young men, and maiden's praise ye the Lord. His answer was, that the Axiom was true, where there was no exception, but here was an exception; Against which I opposed Ambrose his saying upon the place, qui dixit omnes, nullos exclusit, neque parvulo●, he that said baptise all Nations, excepted none, no not Infants; To which he gave no distinct answer then, nor now, saving he says in gross, that all Nations, or whole Nations did not include every part, all Nations being taken Synecdochically for the Disciples of all Nations. Here may be three Queries, first how he can make good that all Nations, or whole Nations did not include every part; Secondly, that Nations are taken Synecdochically, for the Disciples of all Nations, excluding all else. Thirdly, that Infants are no Disciples; otherwise his answer is not satisfactory, and appositè ad rem. First how he can make good that all Nations does not include every part? I do not say actually, but potentially, as we say of numbers, they are infinite, because still more may be added; So Christ gave his Disciples commission to admit (as they could have opportunity) all sexes, all conditions, all ages into covenant, excluding none from capacity, for whom Christ died, now Christ died as well for Infants as others, took infancy upon him visibly as other ages, that being visible head of the Church, even when an Infant, might by his passive obedience sanctify Infants to be visible members, according to that of Bernard, qui pa● vulus natus est, parvulos a gratiâ non exclusit, he that was born a little one excluded not little ones from grace. And if it be objected, that God can save Infants by virtue of Christ's death, without visible membership, or seal of the Covenant; The Answer is apparent, that this is an Argument from God's power to his will, which is inconsequent, we are to have recourse to Gods revealed Will, which unless he hath declared Infants of believers to be in Covenant, we have no more ground to presume of their Salvation, than of Turks, and Pagans. And though Mr. Tombs hath a dexterity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to elude an Argument be it never so solid, by ●aying his own grounds, and multiplying various interpretations; but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he can ever make his Tenet good, that whole Nations does not include Infants, we think it impossible, if he should live Methusalem's days. Secondly, it must be enquired how he can clear that nations are taken Synecdochically for the Disciples of all Nations, excluding all else; which before it be effected, he must remove these three scruples. 1. That the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach, includes actually in it the noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples, 2. Because it is placed before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptising, therefore it is before it in order of nature and time; 3. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if it should signify actual Disciples, or Disciples of actual believers, is not put Synecdochically also for Infants of believers. First it may be justly doubted whether the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach includes actually in it the noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples? Actually I say, not potentially, for I deny not that virtually it includes all the acts of discipling from the first matriculation, or admission of a Scholar, till the completing, and perfecting of him, and that as it relates to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all Nations, it infolds all these, is acknowledged; for it was the Apostles duty to endeavour to bring their Scholars to all perfection; but that every act was requisite before baptising of any, or any acts to be precursors of believers Infant's baptism, save bare acceptation of them, without further proof I cannot be persuaded: And to argue from the latitude of the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is inconsequently to draw an Argument à potentiâ ad actum, a genere ad spec●em affirmatiuè, and concludes thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a scholar may signify one that is endued with all learning, therefore every scholar is endued with all learning. Object. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach, or make Disciples signifies alwa●es to teach cum eff●ctu, till we make them proficients, and actual Disciples. Answ. It is boldly affirmed by Mr. Tombs, pag▪ 124. of his examen, but not proved, for his instances Math. 13. 52. Math. 27. 57 concludes that sometimes it is taken so, not always, and is the former fallacy. His third Instance for all Beza's translation seems to make against him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had taught many, how knows he that all were effectually wrought upon, that were t●ught? Or if discipulos multos adjunxissent, they had joined many Disciples, how knows he that Infants were none of these Disciples, when whole families so frequently were taken in? Infants are as well under the Gospel, Christ's Disciples, as they were under the Law, which if they had not been, God would not have said of them, Genes. 17. 14. that they had broken his covenant, presupposing a capacity to keep it: Those that are admitted into a school, before they know a letter, are as well Scholars, as the greatest Rabbis, Aristoph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Budeus renders it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he was a Scholar of Socrates, before he had learned any thing of him, in as much as he desired to be his Scholar: Therefore the very bringing into the Church, and therein subjecting to its nurture, and instruction is a discipling, as appears by Luke 14. 21. where this commission is spoken of in other terms, and for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here, there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, bring them hither; Acts 19 3. Those that knew not the Holy Ghost are called Disciples. Secondly, it may be doubted, whether because [teach, or make Disciples] is placed before [baptise] therefore in order of nature and time it must go before it? The order of things are not always exactly expressed in Scripture, as they were done; for there are many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or transpositions, placing that afterwards, that in order of nature is Antecedent, as Ma●k. 1. 15. repentance is put before faith. Rom. 10. 9 confession with the mouth, is put before believing with the heart: So that it is not true that Christ bids them make them Disciples first, and then baptise them, for the words are not, going, Disciple and baptise, but going, Disciple baptising, etc. And is usual in such manner of speaking for the Participle to declare the manner of, or some mediate act unto the thing spoken of in the precedent verb, as if he had said make Disciples by baptising; The Greeks want the Gerunds, which oftentimes are supplied by the Participle, go build a house laying the foundation; the imperative verbe●s placed before the Participle laying the foundation, y●t the house gins but to be builded by laying the foundation: Disciple is placed before Baptise, yet they begin to be discipled by baptising: This is confirmed by learned Gerard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est propriè Discipulos facere praedicatione verbi apud adultos, & administratione baptismi apud infants, it signifies properly to make Disciples by preaching of the word to them that are of ripe years, by administering of baptism to Infants, with whom agrees Spanhemius, Dub. 27. To give some instances, Tit. 1. 11. They subvert whole houses, teaching things that they ought not, that is they subvert by teaching, or by teaching they begin to subvert. Heb. 12 1. 2. Let us run with patience the race set before us, looking unto Jesus; Must men run with patience before they look to Christ? Or rather is not this looking the way, and means to that patiented running? Mat. 3. 6. The people were baptised of John in Jordan, confessing their sins, if they were baptised before confession of sins, why do they press repentance before baptism? If repentance, or confession of sins must go before baptism, why do thy press the order of words? When it is apparent that the order of words is not argumentative; Scriptura nescit prius, & posterius. Thirdly, it may be doubted, whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (if it should signify to make actual Disciples, or Disciples of actual believers) is not put Synecdochically also for the Infants of believers; of this judgement is learned whitaker, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pertinet primum ad homines adultos, tum ex vifoederis etiam ad illorum liberos, make Disciples (says he) pertains first to them of ripe years, then by the force of the Covenant to their children also. Spanhemius, Duh. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est discipulum facere, non tantum docere quod suo modo etiam infantibus aptari poterat, quando etiam parents prose, & familiâ Christo nomen daunt, tota eorum domus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; it is to make a Disciple, not only to teach, which in its manner also may be fitted to Infants, for when the parents do give their name to Christ for themselves and their family, their whole house is (or shall be) discipled. The last of the three Queries remains, which is, whether Infants of Believers be Disciples? Which is partly proved by the Premises, and hath no assault, or battery laid against it, but this that they are not teachable; To which I answer by concession, granting that all baptised one's must be taught, but not all at the same time, such as are capable of teaching, let them be taught before Baptism, they that are uncapable at present, as Infants, let them be baptised first, and taught after, as the Infants of the Jews were after Circumcision. Thus believing with the heart, and confessing with the mouth are necessary to Salvation, Rom. 10. 10. but it must be in subjecto capaci, in persons capable of actual faith, and confession, not infants; he that will not labour, must not eat, it must be restrained to those that are able, not children, or decrepit or sick persons. The fallacy in this Argument pressed against us by our adversaries is discovered by Danaeus contra Bellarm. est fallacia a dicto secundùm quid ad simpliciter etc. What Christ commands (says he) to be done only in the baptism of those of age, they generally would have done in baptising of all, even Infants: Spanhemius judiciously determines the Question, having granted that their Infants as well as actual believers are Disciples, says, in adultis requirenda institutio antecedens, in infantibus subsequens, in them of age is requisite instruction before, in Infants after baptism. If then all nations include every part, nations are not taken Synecdochically for the Disciples of all nations, Infants of believers are Disciples, it still remains a truth, that Infants are not excepted from baptism; Which was thus further proved, if Infants be excepted from baptism, it is either because they are not named in the text, or because we find no instance that any were baptised, or because they are not capable, but for none of these three, therefore Infants are not excepted. In the conference Mr. Tombs denied the Major, saying that a fourth reason might be given, because they were not Disciples, whereupon I told him that in this answer he shown himself no good Logician, for it is an Axiom, that in no division, one member can be affirmed of another, because they are opposite; Now to be Disciples, and capable of Baptism were not opposite, but subordinate; and to be Disciples, if it made them not capable it was no exception at all; if it made them capable, it was the same with the third; To which Dilemma he gave them no direct answer, nor does yet, save that he says, for my division he gave the genuine reason why Infants are excepted from the precept of baptising, because they are no Disciples, and that there was no defect in his Logic, when he did not reduce it to one of my members. That he gave not the genuine reason why Infants were excepted from the precept of baptising appears by the falsity of his antecedent, and consequent too, if understood of Disciples actual believers; and that there was a palpable defect in his Logic, in not reducing it to one of my members, is manifest from the laws of a true division, 1. They must be opposite according to Aristotle. 1. de part. Animal. cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2. The parts were adequate, and even with the whole, for every thing that may be presumed to hinder from Baptism, is either because they are not named in the precept, or because there is no instance in Scripture thereof, or because they are not capable thereof, Incapacity includes all imaginary impediments besides the other two; he inartificially adds a fourth, which is included in the former, for to be Disciples renders capable of baptism in his sense, if not capable, it can be avouched in no sense; To this he says capable of Baptism and Disciples are not terms subordinate, but distinct without opposition; Prodigious: not terms subordinate, and yet predicated one of another? But distinct without opposition, so we yield; the genus is predicated of his species is formally distinguished from it, without opposition, But how can this be a distinct member from the rest, that is not opposed? Membra dividentia debent esse opposita: And that capable of baptising is predicated of Disciples he grants, saying, though to be Disciples made them capable; but thinks to relieve himself by saying there is a difference between the terms; if by difference he mean distinctio formalis I grant it, but that overthrows his position, that they are subordinate; if by difference he means they are disparata then one cannot be predicated of the other, which he allows. But he concludes from a supposed concession of mine, saying he presumes I think baptised persons already Disciples, yet not capable of baptism; It is but his presumption, for though I think baptised persons already Disciples, yet capable of Baptism not in his sense that they may be rebaptised or toties quoties dipped, for that is per accidens, because Baptism is a Sacrament that is not reiterable, but because they are qualified for baptism in specie indeterminately, and the contrary to his assertion is true; As a man that is regenerate, is therefore capable of regeneration, as being elected, and otherwise qualified for it, which remains after regeneration; So Disciples baptised are therefore still capable of baptism, because they have the qualification, or fundament of the sacred relation still adhaering, or inhaering ● and he could not but know that it was both fallacia equivocations, & accidentis, and could make nothing for his purpose, seeing Infants, of whom we discourse, are not baptised persons already, and therefore for his non causa ut causa can not be rendered uncapable. Mr. Tombs, 15. Section. WHat he saith of me, that I found fault with him at Rosse, for translating of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples of all Nations, I am as sure is his fiction, as that I spoke any thing there to him; Nor will I think, any man will believe I should do so, except he sound me now crazed in my brain, that hath either read my Examen, part. 3. s. 12. or 13. or shall read that part of my review now in Press, in which I often assert that translation, and largely answer objections to the contrary in the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth etc. of that book. In which book I shall at large answer all that Mr. Baxter hath said to prove Infants Disciples from Acts 15. 10. As for what Mr. C. says here, it is frivolous. For though v. 1. 5. there is mention of circumcision, yet not of circumcision as acted on Infants, but as taught brethren, and when the Apostles, v. 6. did consider of the matter, they did not consider of circumcision as acted, but as taught, and not only of circumcision, but also imposing the whole Law of Moses as necessary, which was the putting the yoke, v. 10. and it is ridicul●m to conceive that those teachers mentioned v. 1. did attempt to do any thing to Infants, and therefore it is a mere wrangling to contend that the Disciples on whom they would have put the yoke, v 10. were Infants, contrary to the constant use of the Term throughout all the New Testament some hundreds of time. Reply. WHen I demanded of him, where it was required, that those that are to be baptised must be Disciples? He said out of the Text, for that which is translated, teach all Nations, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, make Disciples; I first denied the Consequent, then for his Antecedent I told him, that he fou●d fault with me at Rosse for that Translation, ask me was I w●ser than the Translators? and now when it seems to make for him, he urges it, Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo? To this he says now that he is as sure it is my fiction as that he spoke any thing there to me; Perhaps he hath forgot the whole, as Mesalla Corvinus did his own name, otherwise I am as sure of it, as that I spoke any thing to him, of many of the particulars whereof I could give account; and there are besides myself not a few, that will testify, same of his own party, who returning to Abergaveny had nothing to boast of, but, 1 That he asked me if I was wiser than the Translators for giving the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not teach, but make Disciples. 2. That he corrected me, when I rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples by baptising, showing a place in the same Chapter where the Participle is not expressed by the Gerund; whereas I held it not universally, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, indefinitely; And for my part, if I had not heard him, I could believe he might do so, and not find him crazed in his brain, for all I had read his Examen, part. 3 l. 12, or 13. or the other part of his review (than in the Presle) as well as his revocation of Antipaedobaptism, part. 1. pag. 2. l. 14. H●s writing so many books in defence of Anabaptists, whom in his Treatise of Scandals page 323. He calls Heretics, and a l●tter of grievous Wolves: His denying before a great Congregation that ever he accused Master Baxter of Apostasy, of which he was convicted by several witnesses. His opposition of Episcopacy, and the Book of Common Prayer, when formerly he had been a zealous Surrogate under the one, and a maintainer of the other; The forced rendering to Mr. Wigmore the pieces he gave him for a former Book, because he asserted the contradictory in a latter; Many more Instances might be given of his self-oppositions, though I believe he did it not then upon that account, but magisterially to control me, and to advantage his cause, and credit, by making me contemptible to the people, with whom he hunts after popular applause. Therefore in the words following to anticipate all prejudice, he says by way of Prolepsis or Presumption, that in his forementioned Book, he hath answered at large, all that Mr. Baxter hath said to prove Infants Disciples from Acts 15. 10. Ole quid ad me? what is that to me? It may be a large pretended answer, and little satisfactory, as those that have read it, judgeth; But his answer to me he contracts, like the man that confuted Bellarmine in one word, saying that what I say here of, Acts 15. 10. is fr●v●lous; which Epithet whether his say or mine deserves more, I submit to the censure of the Readers; for my Argument to prove that Infants were Disciples was this, They upon whom the Pharisees would have laid the yoke were Disciples ver. 10. why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples? but many of them were Infants, Therefore Infants are Disciples: The Minor was proved thus, the yoke was Circumcision, ver. 5. The Pharisees saying, that it was needful to Circumcise them, but they upon whom the yoke was to be imposed by Circumcision were only Infants among the Jews, and Infants together with Parents amongst the Gentiles, Therefore many of them were Infants. The Major was proved that the yoke was Circision by comparing the 5. and 10. with the foregoing verses. 1. verse, Certain men came down from Jerusalem, and taught the brethren, except ye be Circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved; where observe that Circumcision is the subject of the Question, In the second verse they determined that Paul, and Barnabas, and certain others of them should go to Jerusalem unto the Apostles, and Elders about this Question, to wit, Circumcision. In the 5. ver. Certain of the sect of the Pharisees said that it was needful to Circumcise them; In the 6. The Apostles came together to consider of the matter, that is Circumcision; And when there had been much disputing Peter arose up in the 7. and determined the Question in the tenth verse, Why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples? Mr. T. his answer to all this is, that it is frivolous; of which contumelious censure, I am sure his pretended reason is guilty, for says he, though ver. 1. 5. there is mention of Circumcision, yet not of Circumcision as acted on Infants, but taught brethren: Here are two questions, The first is negative, that there is not mention of Circumcision as acted on Infants; The second affirmative, That it is Circumcision as acted only on brethren: I'll invert the order, and begin with the latter. That which is pressed as a Transient act, and not permanent to posterity, is not mentioned here: But Circumcision acted only on taught brethren is pressed only as a Translent act, not permanent to posterity, Therefore Circumcision acted only on taught brethren is not mentioned here. The Major is apparent, because they that came from Judea did not press a duty that should determine presently, but to continue always to posterity, of which nature in their Judgement was circumcision, and obligation to Moses his law: Therefore the determination of the Council against them v. 28. was not a Transient, but a permanent decree binding negatively from circumcision all Infants for the time to come. The Minor is as clear, That circumcision acted on taught brothers, not Infants, had been a Transient act, would have expired with that generation, and not concerned their Infants to posterity, and according to his ground the Council had determined nothing against Infant-circumcision which nevertheless would have been still in force, provided they abstained from circumcising of taught brothers, which is a most gross, and heretical absurdity. His second evasion is that there is no mention of Circumcision as acted on Infants, The falsity of which appears by this Argument; If it were Infants also whom the false teachers would have had to be Circumcised as necessary, and as engaging to Moses Law, than mention is made of Circumcision, as acted, (or to be acted) on Infants, But it was Infants also whom the false teachers would have had to be Circumcised as necessary, and as engaging unto Moses Law, Therefore mention is made of Circumcision as acted (or to be acted) on Infants. The Antecedent (to wit) it was Infants also they would have Circumcised, is cleared ver. 1. Except ye be Circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved, if they would have had them Circumcised after the manner of Moses, than they would have Infants also Circumcised, But they would hav● them Circumcised after the manner of Moses, Therefore they would have Infants also Circumcised; for nothing is more manifest, than that after the manner of Moses, all the Proselytes Children should be Circumcised as well as the Jews, and ever after all their posterity at eight days old. But it will be expected I should make good the Consequence, which in the words following he interpretatively denies, saying when the Apostles ver. 6. did consider of the matter, they did not consider of the circumcision as acted, but taught, and not only of Circumcision, but also imposing the law of Moses as necessary, which was the putting the yeake ver. 10. To which saying of Mr. T. I will oppose Mr. T. his own words Exam. pag. 101. Now I pray you (says he) what is this yoke Acts. 15. 10. but circumcision? as if he should say with an Emphasis, it is nothing else; and here he says it is not circumcision as acted, but the doctrine, and the law of Moses, The satire will be afraid of conversing with him, that can blow hot, and cold, contradictories out of the same mouth. But that it was Circumcision as acted I shall (God willing) clear out of the Text, where it is in plain terms thrice set down, ver. 1. They taught the Brethren except ye be Circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved; he does not say, except ye be taught Circumcision, and so have the Theory sceptically without the practice, but passively except ye be Circumcised, and have the seal cut in your flesh, and that after the manner of Moses, who did usually Circumcise Males at eight days old, and for neglecting but one, the Lord would have slain him. And ver. 5. They taught it was needful to Circumcise them, not needful to teach them the Law of Circumcision, but to act it upon them, and in them, And ver. 24. Ye must be Circumcised, not taught Circumcision; And though from this yoke, (taking it aggregatiuè) we neither exclude teaching, nor the Law of Moses, yet to say that they did not consider Circumcision as acted is a gross absurdity, and a giving the Holy Ghost the lie, as appears in the three former Texts, teaching was the means by which the false brethren pressed actual Circumcision as a seal obligatory to the necessary observation of the Law of Moses. These three are linked together which he fallaciously divides; Therefore it is a most ridiculous saying of his to say it is ridiculous to conceive that those teachers mentioned ver. 1. did attempt to do any thing to Infants, when the attempt is said thrice to be actual Circumcision, and it is most certain that these men coming from Judea did act it only upon their own Children at home, pressed it according to the Law of Moses (for it is called his Law, because he both penned it, as the whole Pentateuch, and practised it) upon the Gentiles converted Parents with Children, and upon the Children of posterity only; And therefore it is a mere wrangling without any colour of ingenuous sophistry, to contend that none of these Disciples upon whom they would have put the yoke ver. 10. were Infants; contrary to the precept, nature, and use of Circumcision, which was applied either to Infants only, or Infants together with parents, as may be confirmed by many Clouds of witnesses, both out of the old, and new Testament. And whereas he concludes that to contend, that the Disciples on whom they would have put the yoke were Infants is contrary to the use of the term throughout all the new Testament; I would gladly know what he means by contrary? If he say divers, as he can mean nothing else; That by his own confession is short of opposite, and opposite short of contrary; To which Catachresis he joins this Hyperbole [some hundreds of times which if true comes short of [holy] which he acknowledges to be taken six hundred times in Scripture in a distinct sense from chastity, and but two places pretended for it; why may not these two (if there were no more) serve our turn to prove Infants Disciples? which is already manifested. Mr. Tombs 16. Section. AS for Mr. C. Argument from Acts 2. 38. 39 it is false that the Apostles inference is as Mr. C. insinuated, unless his Argument have four Terms, that they may be baptised to whom is the promise; for the Apostle expresseth a duty in the Imperative Mood, not a right in the Indicative, or Potential, it is [be baptised] not [may be baptised] as in Mr. C. his conclusion. I excepted that those parents were not then believers, which Mr. C. confessed in saying, They were believers in fieri, though not perhaps in facto, which is all one as to say they were not yet believers, but in the way to it. A● for his saying, They were believers by outward assent, and disposition, though perhaps not by inward assent, and habit. I reply 1. If they were by disposition, how were they not by inward assent? 2. How doth he know they were believers by outward assent, and not by inward? doth he know they were Hypocrites. 3. What act did they show which expressed outward assent to the acknowledgement of Christ as their Lord? what Mr. C. saith he knows of me, and tells of a Ministers rule, is a fault he chargeth me with as not pertaining to the dispute. Reply. TO prove further that Infants of Believers were Disciples, and might be baptised, in the conference I urged; They to whom is the promise, may be baptised, it is the Apostles own inference, Acts. 2. 28. be baptised, for the promise is to you; But to Infants of believers is the promise, the promise is to you and your children, therefore Infants may be baptised. Then he denied the Minor, now he seems to deny the conclusion by an indirect evasion glozing thus; as for Mr. C. Argument from Acts 2. 38, 39 it is false that the Apostles inference is as he insinuated, unless his Argument hath four terms, that they may be baptised to whom is the promise; By four Terms I imagine he fallaciously means a fallacy, for if his answer had been distinct to clear the truth, he would have discovered the particular Paralogism (if there had been any) and not insisted upon generals, like an Advocate that accused the Defendant of a plea of debt, but neither knew how much, nor had evidence to prove any; In this discovering himself a true Sophister, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1. Sophst. Elench. 1. 6. Captious to lay hold of any thing, that he may seem to say something: This his pretended reason following discovers; for (saith he) the Apostle expresseth a duty in the Inperative mood, not a right in the Indicative, or Potential, It is be baptised, not may be baptised as in his conclusion: To which I reply, Granting that every proposition, even the conclusion in a Syllogism, must be Oratio indicativa, a speech in the Indicative Mood, so that Imperatives, and Potentials are formally excluded from the predicate of any Enunciation; But that by the rule of Equipollence Indicative propositions cannot be inferred from Imperatives, would be a Tenet of that consequence that it would destroy all deductions from Scriptures, and municipal laws, whose commands are in the Imperative mood, Mr. Tombs infers himself from Math. 28. 19 make Disciples in the Imperative Mood, that he may disciple in the Potential; Therefore I conceive this Argument is good; Those whom Christ commands his Apostles to disciple, may be discipled: Christ commands his Apostles to disciple all Nations; Therefore they may be discipled. Otherwise those that are above Ordinances might be furnished with an answer, it is make ye Disciples, not ye may make Disciples, and so destroy the ordinance of the Ministry; It is said in the institution of the Lords Supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do this, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let a man examine, let him eat, all in the Imperative, not in the Indicative, or Potential, this would be a sufficient buckler for the Socinians against the Eucharist. The Antinomians might shake off the yoke of the moral Law, for every Commandment is Imperative; the Ranters conjugality, for it is crescite, & Multiplicamini, increase and multiply; and to avoid fornication. 1 Cor. 7. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let every one have his own wife. The Anabaptists might cast off magistracy, because it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let every soul be subject, and all this in the Imperative, not in the Indicative, or Potential mood. But he saith the Apostle expresseth a duty in the one mood, not a right in the other; this is a strange distinction; I should think the contrary, because a duty, therefore a right. Therefore we have a right to the undertaking of any action, or achievement, because God commands it as a duty; Gods command makes a thing lawful, nay, necessary to be done, and that in the present tense, as directed in that mood that wants the future, and for that cause by Quintilian, Priscian, and other Grammarians it is called modus permissivus, the permissive mood; accordingly be baptised is Equipollent to may be baptised. We cannot without blasphemy imagine divine precepts otherwise than lawful, the transgression of them a sin, the observatiof them a virtuous duty, contrariorum est contraria consequentia commands (which all Imperative injunctions implies) and duties are Relatives, mutuò se ponunt, & tollunt, and it can be no duty, if no right; If no right to Baptism, to accept it is a sin, if a duty (as he confesses) not to accept it, is a sin, that howsoever they were necessitated to sin, contrary to that Tenet of School men necessario non cogimur peccare, this is a two-edged sword that cuts both ways. Having no better success in denying the conclusion, he quarrels with the premises, yet so, as he neither impeaches the major, which is, they to whom is the promise may be baptised; Nor the Minor, To Infants of believing parents is the promise; But as the Elephant in the Amphitheatre passing by the Rhinoceros, and Leopard fastened upon a Cur: So he waves them both, and frames a third proposition which he thinks he can master, which is, that those parents were not yet believers, which though impertinent furnishes me with a further Argument à Min●r● ad Majus. If those that are not yet believers may be baptised, parents with children▪ than parents with children may be baptised, but they that are not yet believers parents with children may be baptised, Ergo parents believing with children may be baptised. The consequence is evident, and the minor proved out of the Text. And that they were not yet believers he says I confessed, in saying, They were believers in fieri, though not perhaps in facto; Nay I confessed they were believers, in that I said they were believers in fieri, and denied not, but that they might be also in facto. But because it could not so evidently be gathered out of the text, nor otherwise, save by circumstances, I said perhaps they were not believers in facto, especially a major part, as all such speeches are to be understood; Therefore that which he further adds is vain, and inconsequent, when he avers it is all one as to say they were not yet believers, but in the way to it; whereas I avouch they were already believers yet in a way to further gradual perfections; whether the Clymax be from outward profession (which is the adequate formal object of our Baptism in adultis) to inward sincerity; or from a weak to strong faith: To which purpose I explained myself, when he enquired what I meant by that school distinction, saying they were believers by outward assent, and disposition, though perhaps not by inward assent, and habit: To this he replies with a threefold Quere: 1. If they were by disposition, how were they not by inward assent? I answer as the body by organization is disposed before to receive the form, so possibly they had previous dispositions forerunners of actual faith, This all of them at the least had, and probably many of them had more; therefore I say perhaps not by outward assent, and habit, not denying but that perhaps also by inward assent, and habit; for indefinite propositions in a contingent matter, and particulars in divers Subjects, though seeming opposite, may be both true: Some of these to whom the Apostles spoke, might be believers only by outward assent, and disposition, others by inward assent, and habit. The second Quere is, how I know they were believers by outward assent, and not by inward? I answer by many circumstances in the Text, which evidently clears that thus far at the least, they were predisposed for actual faith; but that they had not actual faith with inward assent, I dare not take upon me, with him to know, who peremptorily says they were not yet believers, and that my words, if he had faithfully recited them, had discovered, for I said perhaps they were not believers by outward assent, The word [perhaps] left out would have answered the Question; and his Subquere in the close is as irrational, where he demands, do I know they were hypocrites? Which cannot be presumed of me, who knows nothing to the contrary, but that some of them, at the least, had true faith, and if they had not, it doth not follow they were hypocrites, much less that I should know them so; for they might have previous dispositions to justification, and the new creature without justifying faith, and yet no hypocrites He might have learned so much from Aristotle, lib. Categ. cap 10. Tunc dicimus singula, quae habitum recipere possunt, privata esse, cum non inest, quando naturâ inesse debet. Then we say all things that are capable of a hab●●, to be deprived, when that is not, which by nature ought to be. No convert is capable of sincerity of faith, before the infusion of that supernatural grace, to the reception whereof, there are many preparations, during which motion till the form might he introduced, no man properly can be said to be an hypocrite. The third Quere is, what act did they show, which expressed outward assent to the acknowledgement of Christ as their Lord? Which Question I answer with another Question; what act did the rest of the household of Lydia show, which expressed outward assent to the acknowledgement of Christ as their Lord before they were baptised? I know Mr. T.. will not say none, for that crosseth both his principles and ours, who both acknowledge in them of years, there must be some outward assent, but he knows Scripture is silent of any Acts, 16. 15. and why might it not as well be silent also? But if he here must have acts expressing outward assent to the acknowledgement of Christ as their Lord, what can be more signal than these? After they heard Peter's Sermon concerning Christ's birth, death, resurrection, exaltation, sending of the Holy Ghost, and that he whom they crucified, was both Lord and Christ, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, Men and Brethren what shall we do? 37. They gladly received the word, 41. Some we find baptised of whom nothing in this nature is said, many of whom less is said, few of whom more; And this in answer to this Questionist, who further says, what I knew of him; and tell of Ministers rule, is a fault I charge him with, as not pertaining to the Dispute; which words like an ambiguous Proteus may carry a double sense; If he means that it pertains not to, because not uttered in the Dispute, he hath tasted of Lethe, and his memory is not as good as Julius Caesar's, that could forget nothing but injuries; If he mean it was impertinently applied, let the reader observe the occasion, and judge, which was this, when I had affirmed that these Jews Acts 2. 38. were believers by outward assent, and disposition sufficient to make them members visible, but perhaps not believers by inward assent, and habit to justify them, I further asserted, that I knew Mr. T. would not say that none are to be baptised, but they that have a saving faith, which none but God is able to discern; Ministers must act according to rule, which in adultis is outward profession, or willingness to receive the ordinance, and that they were thus qualified (which is sufficient) ●t was apparent. Mr. Tombs. 17 Section. WHat he saith, that Acts 2. 38. Repentance is not made a condition of being baptised, is in my apprehension, manifestly false. For the requiring repentance as first to be done, and then Baptism to be annexed doth make ●t a condition of Baptism, as when it is said, believe, and thou shalt be saved, believe is made a condition of salvation. His talk about incomplete repentance, because they were pricked in their hearts, as a sufficient qualification for baptism, doth make the Apostles speech as idle, which requires that which they had already, if Mr. C. say true. But who will believe Mr. C. that the Apostle required no more to Baptism, but an incomplete repentance, or pricking the heart, v. 38. Which it is said, they had before? Or that he took that as a sufficient qualification for baptism, and yet required more as previous to it? Or who will believe him that the 3000. Jew's were baptised upon an incomplete repentance, when the Text expressly saith, than they that gladly received the word were baptised? Or that there was no new act of Peter, but a recapitulation of the heads of his Sermon that he preached to them before they were pricked in conscience, or were exhorted to be baptised, when the Text saith, with many other words he testified, and exhorted: Or that there was any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, putting that as done after, which was done before, when the Text doth so expersly note the order of time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which our Translatours render [then] and if it be rendered [therefore] it proves that which was done, v. 41. to be consequent on that which was done before, v. 40. Reply. HE denying that these Jews, Acts 2. 38. were sufficiently qualified for Baptism by outward profession, or a willingness to receive the ordinance, was assaulted with this Argument. They whom the Apostle commanded to be baptised, were sufficiently qualified, but the Apostle commanded them to be baptised, Therefore they were sufficiently qualified. He denied that the Apostle commanded them to be baptised, which was proved, verse, 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, imperatively be baptised every one of you; his answer was, upon condition of repentance, repent, and be baptised: That I told him, was a condition of his own making, and an adding to the Word of God, for the Scripture no where expressly, or implyedly says that repentance is a condition of baptism, if it be meant of complete repentance; for though it was their duty, both to repent, and to be baptised, to repent in relation to crucifying of Christ, to be Baptised in relation to Judaisme, which they were to put off, and Christianity, which they were to put on; but that they must have complete repentance before baptism, is not so much as hinted at; all this he passes by, which might have given light to that which follows, only ●atches at this, what I say that Acts 2. 38. repentance is not ma●e a condition of being baptised is in his apprehension manifestly false; where he unfaithfully recipes my words, leaving out that, is the hinge of the controversy, for I said not, but granted, that repentance was a condition in adultis of being baptised, but denied that complete repentance was; for than none were to be baptised, till they were complete Christians, than the Pharisees, and others John Baptised were such, Then the Apostle preached to, baptised, and brought to that perfection three thousand Jews in one day, than the Gaoler and his family were perfected in a part of a night: Lydia, and her household with one sermon; whereas Mr. T. hath been preaching, writing, disputing these twelve years for Antipaedobaptism, and yet by report hath scarce dipped a hundred, and how many of these had complete repentance, I leave it to him that searches the heart, it being pretended that the spirit is poured ●ut more abundantly now, than it was in former times, and his reason is as feeble, as the quotation false, for the requiring, says he, repentance, as first to be done, and then Baptism to be annexed, doth make it a condition of Baptism; To which I answer; first incomplete repentance which consists in acknowledging one's former error, and inclining to accept of Christ, is a condition requisite, and therefore he idly beats the air; Secondly I deny that he requires complete repentance first to be done; Thirdly that he requires Baptism to be annexed to complete a repentance 1. He requires not complete repentance first to be done, for first repentance is pressed there as the end, Baptism as the means, repentance is a continued act all our life long, Baptism like regeneration, but once; repentance is the first in intention, and therefore oftentimes first expressed as analytically in all practical methods, according to Arist. 2. Phys. cap. 9 t. 69▪ Finis est unde principium ducitur, non agendi, sed cogitandi. Finis est principium actionum. 1. Metaph. 2. Hence arises this philosophical Canon, omnis Intellectus operativus incipit a fine, every practical act of the understanding gins at the end. Therefore, 2▪ he requires not Baptism to be annexed to complete repentance, but presupposes it before it, therefore the Catechumeni, or converted Pagans in the infancy of the Church, and the baptised in latter times in full constituted Churches did promise by themselves, or sureties, to forsake the Devil, the World, and the Flesh, and to keep all the Commandments; So that Baptism does not necessarily presuppose, but is a tye for the future obliging to complete repentance, therefore John Baptist says Matth. 3. 11. 1 Baptise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to repentance, and they were baptised, v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, confessing their sins; first baptising is expressed, than repentance, and confessing of sins; So that from the order of the words (if there be any force in such an Argument) we might as well conclude, requiring baptism first to be done and then repentance, and confession of sins to be annexed doth make baptism a condition of repentance. And his Instance is as weak and impertinent, believe, and thou shalt be saved, believe is made a condition of salvation, what then? Repent, and be baptised (for it is not repent, and thou shalt be baptised) therefore complete repentance is made a condition of Baptism, a strange consequence, and hath couchant two fallacies in it, first, a secundum quid ad simpliciter, for if some thing that is first placed in order be a condition of another, as faith of salvation, it doth not follow from a particular to an universal, that always that which is placed first is made a condition of the latter. 2. It is fallacia accidentis, but a contingent thing, that the former in order is a condition of the latter; Me thinks Mr. T. that will allow no Argument from Analogies in positives without a precept, should not enforce an Argument from placing o● words without a precept. But to his Instance, believe, and thou shalt be saved, believe is made a condition of salvation, what belief, actual? For so it's meant Mark 16. 16. What then will become of all Infants, unless God work a miracle upon them (to use his own parallel) as he did upon Baalam's Ass, Exam. pag. 134? But as actual belief is p●t before salvation, so before Baptism, that from his ground it will follow, none but actual believers are to be baptised, which without extraordinary revelation is impossible for the Baptist to know, and would be an unanswerable Argument for the Socinians. But as believing is placed before Baptism, is not Baptism placed before Salvation? He that is baptised shall be saved; by his Logic it will follow that Baptism is a necessary condition of Salvation, why does he then insult so much upon Austin, and some of the ancients for holding the necessity of baptism to salvation; and against the Doctors of the Church of Rome for maintaining a Limbum Infantum, when he furnishes them with a medium to enforce their conclusions? If this his assertion hath any truth i● it, as indeed it hath none. Having unfaithfully (as you see) recited my proposition, by concealing the word complete after it had wrought a while upon his stomach, he was forced to vomit it up, and with it some gall, saying my talk about incomplete repentance, because they were pricked in their hearts, as a sufficient qualification for baptism, doth make the Apostles speech idle, which requires that which they had already, if I say true. Soft, and fair, let him take patience along with him, and look before he leap; I say again, incomplete repentance, not only because they were pricked in their hearts, but also for other reasons, as a sufficient qualification doth make the Apostles speech congruous, and not idle, which requires not that which they had already, and yet I say true, for the Apostle requires not previous dispositions, to sincere faith, and complete repentance, which dispositions they had at least already, but the gradual perfections of complete repentance, which is not to determine in one transient act, or a part of a day (as the case stood with them before Baptism) but to continue to their lives end; That they were sorry for their former Judgement, and practice in Judaisme is apparent from their being pricked in their hearts, there is their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having accepted of Christ in a general way, they address themselves to the Apostles for further directions, men and brothers what shall we do? there is their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Therefore he directs them to a putting on, and a further being builded up in Christ, repent and be Baptised: And seeing Quod est primum in uno quoque genere est mensura reliquorum, why this may not be interpreted by that of John Matth. 3. be Baptised unto repentance, no solid reason can be given. But he proceeds saying, who will believe Mr. C. that the Apostle required no more to Baptism but an incomplete repentance or a pricking in their hearts vers. 38. which is said they had before? or that he took that as a sufficient qualification for Baptism, and yet required more as previous to it? To which Interrogation I think it is sufficient to answer by another Quaere: who will believe Mr. T. that the Apostle required any more to Baptism but an incomplete repentance expressed by pricking in their hearts, and other tokens, which it is confessed they had before? or that he took not that as a sufficient qualification for Baptism, and required no more as previous to it? But this Questionest further says, who will believe him, that the 3000. Jews were Baptised upon an incomplete repentance, when the Text expressly saith that they that gladly received the word were Baptised; To which I retort this cross Interrogatory, who will believe him that the 3000. Jews might not be Baptised upon an incomplete repentance? for all the Text expressly saith that they gladly received the word, seeing Christ saith Luke 8. 13. They received the word with joy, and have no root, and in time of temptation fall away, I think receiving, the word gladly, and receiving it with joy, are synonoma, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but the truth is I said no such thing, that these Jews had but an incomplete repentance, the thing I said was this, they had an incomplete repentance at least, and that was sufficient for Baptism. But I am grappling with Hydra, one head cut off, more arises, for he hath a third Question, who will believe him that there was no new act of Peter, but a recapitulation of the heads of his sermon, that he preached to them before they were pricked in heart, or were exhorted to be Baptised, when the Text saith with many other words he testified, and exhorted,? I return, who will believe him that there was any new act of Peter, but a recapitulation of the heads of his sermon, that he preached to them before they were pricked in conscience, or were exhorted to be baptised, when the Text saith not with many other words (besides his sermon) he testified, and exhorted, but (as more probably) with many other words, besides the abbreviation collected by Luke, for I suppose to preach once, and baptise afterwards 3000. in one day, especially by dipping, Mr. T. will find it a hard task, if he had Stentors sides, Atlas' strength, and Bryareus his hands: But this Examiner hath not vented all his Questions yet, there is one behind, who will believe there was any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, putting that as done after, which was done before, when the Text doth so expressly note the order of time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Translators render [then] and if it be rendered [therefore] it proves that which was done vers. 41. to be consequent on that which was done before, vers. 40.? To which I reply it is credible there was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, putting that after which was done before, for all he saith the Text doth so expressly note the order of time which he critically gathers from the Adverb of time (as he insinuates) which our Translators renders [then] or if it be rendered illatively [therefore] as more fitly, it proves not that which was done v. 41. to be consequent on that which was done before v. 40 But v. 41. Then when Peter said be Baptised, they that gladly received the word were Baptised, Therefore because Peter said be Baptised, they were Baptised; And such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are usual in Scripture Genes. 1. God having expressed the creation of man, and God's blessing of him and all creatures to him, recites afterwards the manner of the creation, by adding a more distinct relation of that which was delivered more generally in the second chapter. But howsoever I told him in the dispute this made nothing against my design, for whether it be taken Thetically, without any condition, or hypothetically upon condition of repentance in manner as formerly is declared, the children were to be Baptised together with the parents, the promise is to you, and your children, and that was all I contended for, whence issued this Argument, To whom the promise of grace belongs, to them, Baptism belongs also, but the promise of grace belongs to believers, and their children, Therefore Baptism belongs to both. Mr. Tombs 18. Section. TO the Argument, To whom the promise of grace belonged, to them baptism belongs also, but the promise of grace belongs to believers and their Children, Ergo. To this I answered out of the Text, when they are called, or are believers, not before, it neither belongs to Fathers nor Children without calling. To this Mr. C. replied, 1. That the verb is in the Indicative Present tense, which implies, it is to them for the present, as well to your Children as to you. 2. The opposition is between them, and their Children as near, to distinguish them as to whom the promise was at present, from them to whom it was afar off, that is in the future, But all this is frivolous. For 1. The Verb is in the Indicative Mood when it is said, The promise is to those that are afar off. as well as when it is said, The promise is to you, and your Children. 2. Their being afar off is not in respect of time, but of place, or dwelling, and the meaning is, they that are in the dispersion, as it is called, James 1. 1. Or if it were meant in the sense that it is used, Ephes. 2. 15. (not Romans 2. 15. as Mr. C. miscites) yet they are said to be afar off in respect of God's favour, or their affection to him, not in respect of time. Lastly it is frequent even in speeches like this, to put the Indicative Mood present tense, by an Enallage of Tense for the future, as Math. 5. 10. 12. Reply. TO the Argument, To whom the promise of grace belonged, to them baptism belongs also, but the promise of grace belongs to believers, and their Children. Ergo, he says he answered, (implyedly denying the Major) out of the Text, when they are called, or are believers, not before; which answer is absurd, seeing there is no mention in the Text of calling as appliable to these Jews, nor of believers at all; or if so, they cannot be debarred for want of that qualification they had already. First there is no mention in the Text of calling as appliable to these Jews, for the words in their genuine sense sound thus, The promise is [made] to you [Jew's] near, and present, and your Children you now have,] and to them that are afar off, [distant in place, or affection, Jews, or Gentiles] whosoever they be that the Lord shall call [To, or unto him, and unto their Children;] for afar off, and present, or near, are here opposed as saith Ludovicm de Dieu. Secondly there is no mention in the Text of believers at all; for the words are not believe, and be baptised, but repent, and be baptised, for the promise is to you, and your Children; The former is a corrupting, and this latter is an adding to the Text; Thirdly if there had been mention of believing, and calling appliable to these Jews, it had been not debar for want of that qualification they had already; for they were already believers in the same sense they were Penitentiaries, by outward assent, and previous dispositions at least, as is formerly declared, and consequently called at least with an outward call: Before Christ's Incarnation the Jews had a call that assented to all things that were revealed; after his incarnation, and resurrection, they continued their call that entertained further Revelations, as it is apparent these three thousand d●d, as far as one Sermon possibly could render them capable: for the intent of the place is, that the promise runs to the believing Jews, and their Children, as it did to believing Abraham, and his Children in the outward promulgation, administration, and signing; Hence I may safely conclude, if there be no mention in the Text of believers at all, of calling as appliable to these Jews, or if there had, it could be no debar, seeing they were already called, than his answer was not right to the Major proposition [when they are called, or are believers not before,] But there is no mention in the Text of believers at all, of calling as appliable to these Jews, or if there had, it could be no debar, seeing they were already called, Ergo. Therefore my reply was congruous, when I said there were two Arguments in the Text to overthrow his descant; The first drawn from the Indicative predication in the Present tense, The promise is to you, and your Children, is, for the present as well to your Children as to you. The second from the opposition betwixt you, and your Children▪ and them that are afar off. They and their Children which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 near (as the Greek Scholiast, and the Syrian Interpreter says) are opposed to them that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 afar off. The Jews were near, and in Covenant, for to them is the promise in the present tense, but the Gentiles were afar off. Ephes. 2. 15. Ye who sometimes were afar off, are made ●igh by the blood of Christ, Therefore it is expressed in the Future tense, as many as God shall call; So that the Jews being called, their Cildten were in Covenant with them, when the Gentiles shall be called, their Children shall be in Covenant with them. All this he thinks to blast with one word, which is his Cuckcow-spit [frivolous] and may be very well hung out as a sign before his answer. For 1. The verb (says he) is in the Indicative Mood, when it is said the promise is to those that are afar off, as well as when it is said the promise is to you, and your Children: It's true, when it is said so; But when, or where it is said, the promise is to those that are afar off? The verb [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is but expressed once, and that immediately in construction before [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you] not again before [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to all those that are afar off,] Therefore as learned Camerarius says upon the place, sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haec, This is a curt Laconic expression, where something is left out, to be supplied by the Reader; The promise is to you, and your Children, and supply [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shall be] to all that are afar off, etc. Mr. T. I hope hath not forgot his Grammar, which tells him that Zeugma est unius verbi, vel adjectivi viciniori respondentis ad diversa supposita reductio, ad unum quidem expressè, ad alterum vero per supplementum. This will further appear by considering that in this verse we have an exact distribution of the world into Jew, and Gentile, according to the usual distribution in other Scriptures, The Gentiles being usually called those afar off, and the promises equally distributed, only he adds (as many as the Lord shall call) to those that are afar, as most proper in that place; But it can in no sense be referred to the former part of the verse, either to Parents, or Children, for he changes the Tense of the Verb in both parts, In the first part, to the Jews he speaks de praesenti, of the present application of the promise, Repent ye, and be Baptised, for the promise is to you, and your Children, even now the promise is offered to you, for they were under the call of God: But when he speaks of the Gentiles, because they were yet afar off, and not at all called, he speaks de futuro, as many as God shall call; There shall be an application of the promises to them, when they shall be under the call, not before. His second reason is as frivolous, ferè valens obulum, of no weight, for (says he) their being afar off is not in respect of time, but of place, or dwelling, what then? is not the promise to the one for the present, who are already called, to the other for the future? I deny both his Antecedent, and consequent, Antecedent, for their being afar off is in respect of time, whither we understand their distance in state, and condition, as the Gentiles, who are said to be a far off, therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a far off says Cornelius à Lapide is Periphrasis Gentium, a description of the Gentiles; I do not unwillingly assent (says de Dieu) to the great learned men, who refer the words [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those afar off] to the Gentiles remote from the Covenant of grace; Or if it be meant of the Jews, who were afar off in time, and were as yet unborn, and should succeed in after generations, which Mr. T. himself elsewhere intimates out of Beza, and therefore seems to me to be guilty of contradiction; Or thirdly afar off in place, (not excluding, but including the other two) and so may comprehend them of the dispersion James 1. 1. I deny also his consequent, for whether it was the Gentiles (as most probable) that were afar off in affection, or the succeeding ages of Jews in time, or the dispersed Jews in place, none of these were yet called, and therefore the gracious promise was to be applied to them for the future, according to that note of Camerarius, far off, must not only be understood of place, but of mind, and judgement; This Mr. T. seems to assent to, losing his former hold, when he says, if it be meant in the sense, that it is used, Ephes. 2. 15. (not Rom. 2. 15. as he unjustly impeaches me) yet they are said to be afar off in respect of God's favours or their affection to him, not in respect of time; which is a most palpable untruth; for even because they are afar off in respect of God's favour, or their affection to him, therefore they are afar off in respect of time; Gods calling is wrought by means, which are not Instantaneous, but successive; with this agrees de Dieu, when he says Beza his reason, that afar off should signify future Generations of Jews, not Gentiles afar off in place, or affection, because Peter here speaking knew not the calling of the Gentiles till Acts 10. cannot hold good, because an extraordinary inspired Apostle, and acquainted with the Prophets, that are full of the calling of the Gentiles, could not be ignorant of the thing; only he perceived not the time to be so near till Acts 10. and because near, therefore future. But he hath a third Evasion as void of reason, as the two former pretended reasons; it is frequent (says he) even in speeches like this to put the Indicative Mood, Present tense, by an Enallage of tense for the Future; Therefore the promise is to you, and your Children, in the present tense, must be interpreted by the Future, the promise shall be to you, and your Children; What Paedobaptist so weak that cannot tell him, this is to argue from a particular to an Universal, and concludes as this, it is frequent to put the Indicative Mood Present tense by an Enallage for the Future, Therefore to us a son is born, in the Present tense must be interpreted by the future, to us a son shall be born; This arguing would make for the Jews, who deny that Christ is come in the flesh, and would sooner bring in Judaisme by one Medium, than a hundred Arguments from Analogies. But to prove his Antecedent, that in speeches like this, the Present tense by an Enallage of tense is frequently put for the future, he brings but one instance, Math. 5. 10. 12. Blessed are they that are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is, that is, shall be the kingdom of Heaven; Who ever interpreted it thus? Is not the kingdom of grace, which they are possessed of already, the kingdom of Heaven, which is the same specifical kingdom, and differs only modally, and in degrees of perfection, from the kingdom of glory. Mr. Tombs. 19 Section. I Added, that by [Childreen] is no necessity to understand Infants, yet Mr. C. contrary to the common use, as Ephes. 6. 4. Colos. 3. 20. would have [Children] restrained to infants. 1. Because of the notation of the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bring forth, which I think he saith salsly is given sometimes to children in the womb, but if it be, than it overthrows his notation, for then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bring forth, for a child in the womb is not yet brought forth. But how doth it appear that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies properly a young Child? or that Child is analogum to old and young? I had hitherto thought, Child, and Parent had been Relatives, and that child signifies as well an elder, as a younger. To that of the verb of the present tense answer is before. How doth Mr. C. prove that their Children they had were young Children? It is vainly supposed, that the promise is to them, and their Childreen, as the Jews Children were in Covenant with their Parents. The Text makes it belong neither to Parents, nor Children, but those that God calls. Does Mr. C. think that the unbelieving Jews had the promise? and yet they were in Covenant in his sense before, even the whole Nation; Or doth he think that Christ's blood was not avenged on them? If it were, how was the remedy as large as the disease? Reply. IT is true that after all this bustle about the Major, he granted the Minor, that the promise of grace belonged to believers with their Children, together with the conclusion that both of them might be baptised; But had this evasion, by those Children were not meant Infants, but grown men, now he adds that by [Children] is no necessity to understand Infants, I yield, unless the context limit it, and the subject matter require restraint, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (says Leigh) is a general term used to set forth all sorts of Children, of what age, Sex, or degree whatsoever, so that according to the notation of the word, the promise is to Children indefinitely, and in respect of the matter is equivalent to an Universal, at least including Infants. The promise is to Children, Infants are Children as well as Elders, Therefore the promise is to Infants. With this agrees Vossius, fit mentio liberorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sine descretione aetatis, unde liquet non minus parvulos a Petro comprehendi, quam cum Deus diceret Abrahamo, Gen. 17. 7. ●ro Deus tuus, & seminis tui, mention is made simply of Children without any distinction of age, when it is clear that little ones are no less comprehended of Peter, than when God said to Abraham, Gen. 17. 7. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. Nay it is apparent, that it is especially meant of little ones, because they are distinguished from the present converts, who probably many of them were young men, and women; now when we distinguish between men and children, we suppose the one Adult, the other not grown up, and it can not rationally be conjectured otherwise, because the Apostle doth join them with their Parents in the same promise, and not leave them to stand by themselves, as grown persons must. He does not say, The promise is to you, and your Children, your Kinsmen, your Parents, for likely those present had all these Relations; But to your children, to express that theirs were covenanted in them; else it would have been cold comfort, to have said, that formerly you, and your little ones were in Covenant, but now if you be Christians, they are excluded, till they make profession of themselves; To remove this scruple, The Apostle alluding to Gen. 17. 7. says the promise is to you, and your Children also, as accordingly is determined by learned Calvin upon the place, Quod patribus filios adjunxit, pendet e● ver bis promissionis, ere Deus tuus, & seminis tui, ubi Deus fili●s patribus accenset in adoptionis gratia; hic ergo locus abunde refellit Anabaptistas', qui infantes ex fidelibus genitos a baptismo arcent, quasi non sint ●cclesiae membra; Effugium in Allegorico sensu captant, ac filios interpretantur, qui spiritualiter geniti sunt, sed nihil proficiunt tam crass â imprudentiâ: Palam est, hoc dictum fuisse a Petro, quia Deus gentem unam peculariter adoptaverit, quod autem jus adoptionis etiam infantibus commune esset, testis fuit circumcisio. But Mr. T. says that contrary to the common use, I would have children restrained to Infants, wherein are two untruths; for 1. As may appear by the premises, I grant [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] indefinitely may signify offspring at large, more properly young Children, or Infants, in this place may be extended to posterity in general, but more peculiarly, at least inclusively points at little ones contradistinguished to Parents, and them of age. 2. It is not contrary to the common use of the word; but the word rather is more commonly used for Infants, for when a woman is said to be in pain, and bring forth, this word is used John 16. 21. Luke 1. 31. Math. 1. 26. Luke 1. 51. his Instances of Ephes. 6. 4. Col. 3. 2. pretends but to prove that the word is sometimes used for grown Children, which I grant, I think the former Ephes. 6. 4 makes rather against him, for Parents may provoke their Children to wrath, when they are but two, or three years old, and may begin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from their Infancy, and in their Infancy to instill some Christian principles, long before in their sense, they are capable of Baptism. When he said Children mentioned, Acts 2. 39 were not Infants but grown men, I replied there were many circumstances in the Text overthrew that, 1. The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bring forth, given sometimes to Children in the womb, for the most part to them that are newly born, or young This Examiner corrects this by-thought, saying, he thinks I say falsely that it is given sometimes to Children in the womb; sweet language, especially if he think amiss; he might have considered that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the root signifies not always to bring forth, but sometimes to beget, Homer. Odies. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whom Ulysses begot, Bacchus in the womb is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Jupiter's Child, or offspring. It's applied to women in travel, before the Childbirth, John 16. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a woman when she is in travel hath sorrow, because her hour is come, some Copies have it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 her day is come, howsoever she is not yet delivered, which the words following insinuates, as soon as she is delivered of the Child, she remembers no more the anguish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to beget Children, as Budaeus, and the Epigram renders it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is as well begetting, and carrying children in the womb, as bringing them forth, 1 Tim. 2. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 she shall be saved in Childbearing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is murdering of Children, though it by potions in the womb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to beget Children, so Xenephon uses it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accompanying with women we beget Children; Herodotus in Terpsichore calls a woman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is fruitful to conceive Children, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (whence immediately comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) signifies to beget, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to conceive Children, as Aristotle dist●nguishes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not interpreted by Budeus, Scapula, George Perkins, and others foetus, proles, soboles, fruit, offspring issue, which is properly so called in the womb, as fruit of the womb, etc. By this I hope it appears that I said not falsely, when I said it was sometimes given to Children in the womb, which I conceive he was jealous, by letting go his former hold, with this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but if it be, than it overthrows his notation, for then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bring forth, for a child in the womb is not yet brought forth. By that which is already said, is manifest, that it overthrows not my notation, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comes remotely from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifies not only to bring forth, but to beget, conceive, and travel withal in the womb, as hath been proved out of Scripture and Classic Authors, and a child in the womb is brought forth though not à secundinà from the Tunicle it is wrapped in the matrice, yet a femore Patris, from the Father's loins, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But what if in this signification, it had not suited exactly with the notation, had therefore the notation been false? Mr. T. might remember that of Aquinas, non a quo, sed ad quod imponuntur vocabula, and of the Philosopher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, words signify not by nature, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by imposition, wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the most par● Derivatives (whence I drew m●ne Argument) suits with the Primitives; yet sometimes they signify 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by haphazard, sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the contrary. Mr. T. contradicting himself here, ●●gh●ly dete●m●ns this controversy pag. 108. Antipaedobaptist. 1 Part. where he says, vis & no●ma, the rule and measure of words, and their sense in use, as Horat. de arte Poetica, nor is the use alw●●es according to special reason, but ex placito, as it pleased ●he users or beginners. Otherwise no reason can be given why from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cadas, the same root should come a Noun signifying a Saint, and a whore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Barach should signify to bless, and to curse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a crime, thing polluted, and a pious fact, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a medicine, and a poison; sacer holy, and detestable, with many more. All this is true, yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cados more properly signifies a Saint than a whore, because the forementioned root signifies to sanctify, or make holy, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more properly signifies a holy than execrable thing, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it hath its notation, signifies a pure thing without mixture of earth, and for the same reason it doth appear that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify properly a young child, because it comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to beget, conceive, travel, or bring forth, which I think fully answers his Question, as also that (upon the same ground) child is analogum to old, and young? nomen eisi sit commune, ratio tamen ejus est prius, & perfectius in uno membro analogato, quam in alio, young children are nearer their birth, and more properly called children than they that are stricken in years, and remoter from it: I imagine Mr. T. when he hears the word child without addition, will not thereby understand an old man; And whereas he says he had hitherto thought that child, and parent had been Relatives, and that child signifies as well an elder, as a younger, he may think so still, and put all in his eye he gains thereby, and see no worse; for Relata ad pater & filius, not pater, & partus; the child, who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or partus may possibly be without a Father, as our Saviour in respect of his humane nature, or the Father may be dead before the child be brought forth; yet the child nevertheless is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; where is the Correlative that ought mutuo ponere, and be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 convertible; but he cunningly says that he had thought that child, and Parent, meaning the Mother, had been Relatives; It seems then these three thousand the Apostle converted, and baptised were women, but he calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men of Judah ver. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men of Israel 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; men and brethren 29. To that he says to the verb of the present tense answer is before, I say also the reply is before, I am sumus ergo pares, so I think we are quits. To his Question how do I prove their children they had were young children? I return, how doth he prove 3000. men of Judea, and Israel gathered together out of several Provinces had not at the least some young children? The household of Lydia, Stephanas, and the Jailor, may possibly be thought, not probably conjectured to be without Infants; But that three thousand should be without Infants, no man will say but he that is resolved upon contradictions, be the evidence never so clear. Mr. T. hath been in th● army, where single men, and unmarried men are designed for the service on purpose, yet I am confident he could not find out in a body three thousand, no nor three hundred, scarce sixty together, that were without young Children, and then shall we think this of the Jews a fruitful nation, that had the further advantage of Polygamy, or many wives? It would be hard to prove demonstratively that any of the three thousand had Parents, Brethren, Sisters, Masters, Servants, yet a gross absurdity deserving Sardonick laughter to deny it. To my third circumstance in the Text, the Finis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the end to whom the promise is, to you, and your children; The Jews children under the Law, were in Covenant with their Parents, the Charter is confirmed under the Gospel to them, and their Children; he answers, saying, it vainly supposed that the promise is to them, and their Children, as the Jews Children were in Covenant with their Parents; I reply the word [as] may relate either to circumstantials, or substantials, if his meaning be, that the promise is not to them, and their Children, as the Jews Children were in Covenant in respect of circumstantials, I yield it, but this is nothing to the purpose; But if he mean that the promise in regard of substantials is not to them, and their Children, as the Jews Children were in Covenant, it is so far from being va●n, that in that vein hath run the issue of the whole Church f●om the Apostles till the Germane Anabaptists, who I know not by what unhappy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corroding, burst out o● the Channel, have begot so dangerous an imposthume, or pleurisy, that I pray God it may be cured by Lenitives, without Phlebotomy. To which dictate of Mr. T. I think it sufficient for the present to oppose the Orthodox judgements of two, with neither of which he is to be compared. First Whitaker contra Duraeum pag. 685. Circumcisi olim Infantes sunt propter foedus, nunc propter candem causam baptizandi sunt, id enim ex analogia utriusque Sacramenti necessario consequitur, Infants formerly were Circumcised by reason of the Covenant, for the same cause they are now to be baptised, for that follows necessarily from the Analogy of both Sacraments. The other is Doctor Sibbs Phil. 3. 3. pag. 32. who faith, The Sacraments before and after Christ, were in substance all one, as the Church was one, and the same, they may be said to be baptised as we, and we Circumcised as they, the difference was only in the outward Ceremony, and show, which the Church then being young had need of. His saying is true, (therefore let us set Thress●m notam a white mark upon it for the rarity, as the Jews a Statue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the good Publican Sueton, in Flau. Vesp. c. 1.) that the Text makes it belong neither to Parents, nor Children, but those that God calls? yet his Interrogative point spoils all, which surely I may rather impute to him, than he the misquotation Rom. 2. 15.) to me; But he might have assumed, God had called these three thousand Jews, Parents, and Children, Ergo the promise was to them both; for though I believe not that the unbelieving Jews had the promise, yet I believe these believing Jews (that were pricked in heart, said men, and brethren what shall we do? received the word gladly) had the promise: The Jews before Christ's Incarnation had the promise, because they believed credenda, things to be believed▪ at, and after the Incarnation, they had the promise continued, that entertained Christ, they were defeated of the promise that rejected him. It is false, that I think, that the unbelieving Jews sensu composito, while unbelieving, had the promise, and that they were in Covenant in that sense before, even the whole Nation; They that were in Covenant, and visible believers till Christ was revealed, not entertaining that further Revelation (being a fundamental) through invincible obstinacy became Apostates, and branches broken off. And to his last Question; I think Christ's blood was avenged upon the unbelieving Jews, Parents with Children; I think all his blood was expiatory, and satisfactory for the believing Jews Parents with Children, generibus singulorum, to all sexes, conditions, ages; and therefore the remedy as large as the disease; So his Questions (for all have a whole gross of them) are answered. Master Tombs 20. Section. NExt Mr. C. argues thus, They that are holy with a Covenant-holiness, are capable of the outward visible part of blessing: but Infants of believers are holy with a Covenant-holiness, Therefore they are capable of the outward, and visible part. Of which Syllogism I might have denied the Major, there being a Covenant-holiness according to election, which doth not always instate the person in that which he calls the outward visible part of the blessing, by which he means title to Baptis. But I denied 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 me●r mistake, and that holiness of Children, which is mentioned 1 Cor. 7. 14. is truly said by me to be only Matrimonial holiness, 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 replies, 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 real 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 evidenced, 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 Christ's blood was not avenged on th●m? if it were, how was the remedy as large as the disease? how satisfactorily let any intelligent man Judge; Christ's 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-childrens? Reason dictates the contrary. His evasion in the conference, was more colourable, thus. If by blessing was meant the Inward, and spiritual 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 denied 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 says, he might have denied 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 (says he) there is a Covenant holiness according to election, which doth not always 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 inquire 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 a●● promised to be so qualified, till professors: Every act of Faith hath for its object God's 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 holiness makes them capable of the outward visible part of the blessing, and entitles them to baptism, and that if he knew they were so qualified, he would baptise them; The Question is not whom he according to his light may baptise, but who are baptizable; But he knew that my proposition pointed at none of these, and therefore idly beat the air, as his next words discovers, for he says, he denied 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 joined 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 says 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 says they would be born unclean, willing the children of the faithful 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, etc. he all 〈…〉 es ●●yes he to the ancient Roman custom, who designed alm 〈…〉 ear before they entered their Office, Consuls, Praetors, and other Magistrates. So that the sense is, the children of the faithful, 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 baptised 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, etc. The Apostle says he, speaks not of natural 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 fifty 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 Baptised, 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 baptised. Lesser Catechism, pag. 176. Infants of such as are Members of the visible Church are to be baptised, in both places quoting 1 Cor. 7. 14. else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. All these he says with Vossius, Bullinger, the Parliament, with hund●eds more of the greatest lights the world hath had, are meers mistaken, and that holiness of Children, which is menti 〈…〉 1 Cor. 7. 14. is truly said by him, to be only matrimonial s 〈…〉 iness, or legitimation; O infallible Oracle, Credit 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 knows all things. I will not lose time, nor blur paper, about his Trivial 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 easy 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 lawful enjoyment of him as her husband, as ●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 chastity, or to be chaste, therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signify so; and because it may signify, therefore it does signify 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 rubbish 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 enemy, 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 replied; 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. Tombs error from Grotius, the Germane 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 says, That in six hundred times, in which holy is used in Scripture, in none of them it is found for outward Covenant holiness, 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 says, non est fas ut responsor ulla disputanti objiciat, aut questiones proponat, suum agat negotium, id est objecta repetat, repellat, solvat. It is not lawful for the R●…pondent to object any thing to the Opponent, or propound Questions, let him tend his own business, that is, let him repeat the Objections, repel, untie 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 matter true; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is oft taken in a distinct signification from a veil, and not once for a veil, therefore not in that place, 1 Cor. 11. will not include. But his Minor is apparently false, as appeared by instance, Rom. 11. 16. If the first fruit be holy, the lump is also holy, and if the root be holy, so is also the branches; To this he answers saying, he confessed at Ross, Covenant-holiness was meant by it (which are the words of the Argument) but not outward holiness intitling to Baptism (which are his own addition) but that real saving holiness, which is according to the election of grace, according to which Jew's elected, shall be graft d●n again; This novel interpretation crosseth Beza, who saith children are holy, and comprehended in the Covenant from the womb; Bowls, who saith they are holy by outward holiness, by which they are adjudged to be in Covenant: Ravenel, who saith, sancti, id est, in foedore Dei comprehensi, & segregati à prophanis, ut non habeantur pro prophanis, sed pro Christianis; holy, that is comprehended in the Covenant of God, and separated from profane, that they not be accounted profane but Christians; Diodate, who saith, the wild branches are the Gentiles inserted into the body of the Church, and admitted into the Covenant made with Abraham; Wendol, who saith, vocantur sancti, quia foederati, they are called holy, because in Covenant, and that no man may doubt of what holiness he means, he says, est sanctitas externa, & foederalis, an outward, and Covenant holiness, lib. 1. c. 10. Thes 8. with many more, able to swell a volume, whose authorities are more authentic than his. Mine intended brevity will not suffer me to give reasons of this genuine interpretation, only thus much by the way, that holiness is here meant, from which the Jews were fallen, and the natural branches were broken off, but it was outward covenant holiness from whence these Jews were fallen, and the natural branches were broken off, Therefore outward Covenant holiness is here meant; The Major is clear in itself, and may be further evidenced from the connexion betwixt the 16. and 17. verses. The Minor is thus confirmed, The Jews were fallen from that holiness, and the natural branches broken off, which they were capable to lose; but it was outward Covenant holiness, from whence the Jews were fallen, and they were capable to lose, therefore it was outward Covenant holiness, from whence the Jews were fallen, and the natural branches broken off. The Minor again is thus proved, either they were liable to lose outward Covenant holiness, or inward holiness according to election, but not inward holiness according to election, therefore outward Covenant-holiness. Not inward holiness according to election, than the immortal seed would die, the gifts, and graces of God were not without repentance, those whom God justifies, them he would not glorify, Rom. 8. 30 Which is to comply with the Papists, Pelagians, and Remonstrants. Secondly that holiness is here meant according to which the branches of the wild olive were graffed in, but it was covenant-holiness according to which the branches of the wild olive were graffed in, therefore outward Covenant-holines is here meant. That it was outward Covenant-holiness according to which the branches of the wild olive were graffed in, appears in that it was visible (which that according to election is not) the branches were visibly broken off, they were visibly graffed in, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is as Beza, and the Syriak translates it, pro ipsis for them, that is in ramorum defractorum locum, into the room, or stead of the branches broken off. Thirdly, that holiness is here meant, for which the Apostles gives the Gentiles a caveat, lest they be broken off▪ Rom. 11. 20. Be not high minded but fear, but it was outward Covenant-holiness for which the Apostle gives them a caveat lest they should be broken off, not inward holiness according to election, for from that he had assured them they could not be broken off, Rom. 8. 1. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus; verse the last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am persuaded etc. Therefore outward covenant holiness is here meant. Fourthly that holiness is here meant, according to which the body of the Jews shall be graffed in again, but it is covenant-holiness according to which the body of the Jews shall be graffed in again, therefore covenant-holiness is here meant. The Minor is thus made good, the body of the Jews shall be graffed in according to that they are natural branches, v. 24. but it is covenant-holiness according to which they are natural branches, otherwise all the elect Proselytes, and Gentiles, though not of the stock of Abraham, Job in Syria, Abedmelesh in Aethiopia were natural branches, therefore it is covenant holiness according to which the body of the Jews shall be graffed in again. Fiftly holiness is meant here in that sense, in which it is used 1 Pet. 2. 9 ye are a holy nation, but there it is used for Covenant-holiness, therefore it is meant here in that sense, for the Apostle writ to them as holy according to profession, not holy according to election, in which sense he was ignorant of their condition, and tells some of them, 1 Pet. 4. 17. What will be the end of them that obey not the Gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly, and sinners appear? Lastly that holiness is here meant, that is in every Epistle, styling them to whom the Apostle writes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saints, or holy, but that was a covenant-holiness according to profession, not inward holiness according to election, which is a mystery as secret as the last judgement, which neither Apostle, nor Angel, nor any save God himself knows; Therefore it is covenant-holiness. Mr. Tombs. 21 Section. I said, Ezra 9 2. holy seed is all one with a legitimate seed according to the Law of Moses; Against this it is objected, that then the meaning should be, The holy seed, that is the lawfully begotten Jew's have mingled themselves with the seed of those Lands, that is the Bastards of those lands. But I deny this consequence. The sense is this, the holy seed, that is, those who were descended by lawful generation of allowed women, these have taken to themselves of the daughters of the nations, whom God forbade them to marry, which is plain out of the verse 1, 2. So that the people of the Land with whom they mingled themselves, are not considered as illegitimate in their birth, but as not allowed to the Israelites, and yet the holy seed is that seed, which by a right generation according to Moses Law was legitimate. As for what he saith, that Jepthe was a Saint, and yet a Bastard, it is true, he was holy in one respect, as born from above, yet unholy by natural birth. And whereas he saith, Moses had children by an Aethiopian woman, and yet not unholy, I grant it: For the Aethiopian woman was not forbidden: Nor were Rahab, though a Canaanitess, nor Ruth a Moabitess when they joined themselves to the God of Israel, prohibited, or their children illegitimate: yet this is not the same with covenant-holiness, intituling to Church Ordinances, but legitimation intituling to be reckoned in the genealogy, and inheritance of Israel. Reply. MAster Tombs his retorting Argument vanishing like a Comet in smoke, and stink, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eurip. I returned from whence by his irregular motion, we had digressed, and proved that holiness is never taken in Scripture for Matrimonial clearness in opposition to illigitimation, not in that place, Ezra 9 2. The holy seed have mingled themselves with the seed of those lands, which is either his only, or principal hold, (as far as ●s gatherable out of his books) therefore in no place; Then he denied the Antecedent, which unsound answer he now paints over thus, saying he said, Ezra 9 2. Holy seed is all one with a legitimate seed according to the Law of Moses; for this heterodox dictate he brings neither reason, nor Testimony, no not so much as Phifer, Muncer, or Knipperdoling, but only his own Sultan-like breath, I say so, therefore it is so, it must be so; To which it is sufficient for the present to oppose two, which were of greater esteem in the reformed Churches, than ever he was, or I think, will be, 1. Peter Martyr Loc. Com. mun. class. 4. c. 8. Si tantum civilem puritatem prolis inde susceptae adduxeris, quid nobis magis tribues, quam infideles habeant, illorum enim filii, si ex matrimonio procreentur, legitimi sunt, & ut justi haeredes admittuntur, quare videtur quidem aliud judicasse quod liberis infidelium non sit datum, sed quod ad ecclesiam Dei pertineat, & ad electionem, & promissionem; If thou shalt only bring in a civil purity from one, or both parents being believers, what wilt thou afford us more than Infidels have? For their children, if they be born in marriage are legitimate, and are admitted as lawful heirs, therefore the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. (and so here Ezra) seems to have holden out some other thing, that may not be given to the children of Infidels, but that appertains to the Church of God, and to election, and promise. 2. Paraeus in locum, etiam mere infidelium liberi noscuntur legitimi, nihil igitur conjugibus istis tribueret prae mere infidelibus, The children even of mere Infidels are born legitimate, therefore it would attribute no more to those yokes than to mere Infidels. Against his interpretation it was further objected, if it be meant of matrimonial cleanness, than this must be the meaning of the words, the holy seed, that is the lawfully begotten Jew's have mingled themselves with the seed of those lands, that is, the bastards of those lands, but that cannot be the meaning, for haply there were some bastards among the Jews, and in that sense not holy, and no bastards among the heathens, but all, or the most legitimate, and therefore in that sense not unholy, therefore it ●s not meant of matrimonial holiness. He denies the consequence, which is proved thus, If God forbidden the holy seed to mingle with none but them that are unholy (which he interprets bastards) than it will follow, the holy seed, that is, the lawfully begotten Jew's have mingled themselves with the seed of those lands, that is, the bastards of those lands, but God forbids the holy seed to mingle with none but them that are unholy, therefore it will follow the holy seed, that is the lawfully begotten Jew's have mingled themselves with the seed of those lands, that is the bastards of those lands: The consequence is evident, If God forbidden them to mingle with none but those that are bastards in his sense, the meaning is, the legitimate of the Jews have mingled with the bastards of the lands. The Minor, that God forbids the holy seed to mingle with none but them that are unholy is apparent from the opposition employed in the Text, the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people, which argues the Jews had that holiness the people had not, otherwise the speech would be incongruous, and the people might reply; we, if it be but meant of legitimation, are as holy as you; and that the Jews had a particular outward holiness, which other Nati●ons were not capable of, appears by their washing of their garments, as thinking themselves profaned, when they touched them but in the marketplace; which distinction of holy, and unholy in this sense remained till Peter's vision Acts 10. Where v. 11. 12 a certain vessel descended unto him, as it had been a great sheet, wherein were all manner fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fouls of the air, whereof some were clean, some unclean; The clean represented the Jews before Christ, the unclean the Gentiles, v. 13. There came a voice to him, rise Peter, kill, and eat. v. 14. Peter said, not so Lord, for I have never eaten of any thing that is common or unclean; Common or unclean are in opposition to holy, and is the word used. 1 Cor. 7. 14. else were your children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unclean; 15. That God hath cleansed call not thou common, that is count not thou the Gentiles unholy, whom God intends henceforth to graft into the stock of the natural olive, and to esteem them holy; holy now all potentially, as having a capacity (the partitian wall being pulled down) actually when they give their names to Christ: So that the sense is not (as he says) the holy seed, that is, those who were descended by lawful generation of allowed women, these have taken to themselves of the daughters of the Nations whom God forbade them to marry; but thus, the holy seed, that is, the Israelites that are in Covenant with God have taken to themselves of the daughters of the nations whom God forbade them to marry, being not in covenant with him, which is plain out of the verses 1, 2. So that I confess the people of the land, with whom they mingled themselves, are not considered as illegitimate in their birth, though that will inevitably follow from the antithesis, (if his interpretation be admitted) but as not allowed to the Israelites, who were to marry none, but they that were holy, and in Covenant; Therefore the Nations are not simply excluded as such, but as unproselyted. And the holy seed is not that seed which by a right generation according to Moses Law was legitimate; Then those Apostate Jews, husbands and wives we read of in Buxtorfius and Maymonides being by a right generation, according to Mose Law legitimate, were a holy seed, for all they uncircumcised themselves, than which nothing can be more absurd, and all the Jews persisting in covenant, whether legitimate or illegitimate were a holy seed. Hence results this Argument. That holy seed is not here meant in which the contrary thereof even bastards are comprehended, but bastards are comprehended under holy seed, therefore legitimation is not here meant: The Minor is apparent, because it is spoken to the whole Congregation, whereof some were Bastards, and bastard Israelites mingling with the Nations, had joined an unholy seed with a holy, and fell under this reproof. What Mr. Tombs talks of Jepthe makes him guilty of that he accuses others, of running like Ahimaaz without his errand, and fight like the Antabatae with his eyes shut, for he never eyes the Question, which was not of Jephthe's saintship according to election, but covenant-holiness, for all he was illegitimate in his birth, which gave him capacity to circumcision, and other peculiar ordinances of God's people, whereby (as the means) he attained to be a Saint, and justified by faith, Hebr. 11. To this Argument, Moses had children by the Aethiopian woman, but they were not illegitimate, Therefore those that were begot by mixture with the Nations, were not illegitimate, he grants the premises, and implyedly the conclusion, which is contradictory to his, for all he says that the Aethiopian woman was not forbidden; Not forbidden, he means when he married her by that positive Law, Deut. 7. 3. but long before her death, why by virtue of that might not she, and her children be put away, as well as those in Ezra's, and Nehemiah's time? But were there not other laws before that to keep their tribes entire without profane mixture? Nay visible remainders in the Law of nature, for breach of which God with indignation expresses Gen. 6. 2. And the Sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them wives of all they chose. It was according to this light that Gen. 27. 46. Rebeckah said to Isaak, I am weary of my life, because of the daughters of Heth, if Isaak take a wife of the daughters of Heth, what good shall my life do me? And Gen. 28. 8. Esau saw the daughters of Canaan pleased not his father Isaak: This I think is sufficient to prove the Aethiopian woman was forbidden; Howsoever after that law was given, Salmon had children by Rahab, who was a Canaanitess, and Boaz by Ruth, who was a Mobitess, and yet they were not illegitimate, or unholy in h●s canting language; To which he answers, Rahab though a Canaanitess, Ruth a Moabitess, when they joined themselves to the God of Israel, were not prohibited, nor their children illegitimate; which is true, and enforceth this conclusion contradictory to his, therefore this is the same with Covenant-holiness entituling to Church Ordinances, not legitimation (unless by consequence) intituling to be reckoned in the Genealogy, and inheritance of Israel: for by being Proselytes they had equal interest to circumcision, and all other Ordinances with the native Jews; And though it was an Appendix thereof to be capable of inheritance among the Jews, this can no more be called legitimation, than the manumission of a servant that was not free before, or the naturalising of an Alien, who was no Dennizen before, can be so styled. Mr. Tombs 22. Section. THe last Argument Mr. C. used was this; They that Christ took up in his arms, blessed, and said the Kingdom of God belongeth unto them, pronounced a curse upon those that despised, and would not receive them, are holy with a Covenant-holiness; But Christ took up little children into his arms, blessed them, said, the Kingdom of God belonged unto them, pronounced a curse upon those that despised, and would not receive them: Therefore little children are holy with a Covenant holiness, In this Argument I denied the Minor, after some debate about the way of forming of it, in which I magined that fallacy, I do not now upon sight deprehend, and particularly I denied that Christ pronounced a curse upon those that despised, and would not receive them. Then he alleged Matth. 18. 2. Whence he argued, They to whom belongs the Kingdom of Heaven are holy, and in Covenant. But to little children belongs the Kingdom of Heaven; Therefore little children are holy, and in Covenant. In which Argument any Reader may perceive he proved not that I denied, That Christ pronounced a curse upon those that despised, and would not receive little children, or Infants, and yet that Text he alleged did not say of little cildrens, that to them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven, but those that were not to be offended v. 6. despised v. 10. were to be received in Christ's name, v. 5. were not little children in age, but little ones in spirit, which appeared in that they are said to be Believers v. 6. and to be converted and become as little children. To which as the Relator himself sets it down, Mr. C. said, the meaning is not, that the little children are converted, which is a grant of what I alleged, that the little ones not to be offended, despised, but received, were not little children in age, but affection of humility. Mr. C. added, But it hath relation to the disciples in the first verse, who must be converted from their actual sins, and become as little children, which have no actual sin. At which words it is true I said, and that justly, o how unhappy are the people that are seduced with these toys, are you not ashamed? To which he replied, and it seems is not ashamed that it is printed, [I see nothing worthy of shame] whereas if this speech of his were true, than this is a truth, except men be converted from their actual sins, and become as little children, which have no actual sin, they shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven: for this is the meaning of Christ's words, Matth. 18. 3. according to Mr. C. interpretation, which whosoever believes must of necessity despair of Heaven, sigh as James saith chap. 3. 2. in many things we offend all, and John 1. Epist. chap. 1. ver. 8. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the Truth is not in us. Reply. IT was further evidenced, (which he calls the last Argument) that Infants were holy with a Covenant-holiness thus, they that Christ took up in his arms, blessed, said the Kingdom of God belonged unto them, pronounced a curse upon those that despised, and would not receive them are holy with a Covenant-holiness: But Christ took up little children into his arms, blessed them, said the Kingdom of God belongeth unto them, pronounceth a curse upon those that despiseth and would not receive them; Therefore little children are holy with a covenant holiness. In this Argument (he says) he denied the Minor, and after some debate about the way of forming of it, he imagined that fallacy, he does not now upon sight deprehend; It is well he acknowledges he hath not the spirit of infallibility, he that sees his mistake in this one proposition, may have his eyes further opened, to discover his error in the whole controversy: His mistakes were two, 1. In saying it was a fallacy of heaping many particulars together, 2 a copulative proposition, that if one member of it was false, the whole was false, but for these, his retractation makes amends, if he had not linked two untruths unto it, First that he particularly denied that Christ pronounced a curse upon those that despised little children, and that, that was to be proved, Secondly, that I alleged Matth. 18. 2. for clearing of which, the Reader is to be advertized, that I having told him, it was not an explicit copulative proposition, neither was any member of it false, seeing every branch of it was Scripture, I further pressed him to instance in any of the particulars, that he thought made the least for me, and I would begin with that; whereupon he (not I) mentioned, Mat. 18. 2. whence I drew this Argument; They to whom belongs the Kingdom of Heaven are holy, and in Covenant, but to little children belongs the kingdom of Heaven, therefore little Children are holy, and in covenant. By this any reader may perceive I proved that which was to be proved; And for that other part of the proposition, that Christ pronounced a curse upon those that despised, and would not receive little children, or Infants, I promised to prove that also in it order, and would have endeavoured by God's assistance, if the time, and his patience would have permitted, which will fall in anon; for the present he implies a denial of my Minor, saying the Text I alleged, did not say of little children, that to them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven, but those that were not to be offended vers. 6. despised v. 10. were to be received in Christ's name v. 5. were not little children in age, but little ones in spirit, which appeared in that they are said to be believers, v. 6. and to be converted, and become as little children. To which I reply, first, in general, that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, verses is without all controversy meant a little child in age, only of that in the sixth verse. [he that shall offend one of these littte ones] some makes a scruple (because the gender is altered) whether it be meant of infants; yet many are of opinion that Christ speaks even that of little ones in age, and thinks Christ reckons them believers in him, because they have no other hope, or confidence, exercise, no self-care, self-trust, or distrust full thoughts of God, but are cast upon him, and take submissively what he order to them, according to that Psal. 71. 5, 6. Thou hast been my hope, O Lord, thou hast been my trust from my youth, upon thee have I been cast from my mother's womb. So Psalm 22. 9 Thou didst make me hope, when I was upon my mother's breasts, I was cast upon thee from the womb, and as they are numbered Psal. 115. 13. Revel. 19 5. with the fearers of God, Ye that fear the Lord both small, and great, and the scandalising such is the harming of them, which those that denies them Church-membership, and Baptism are conceived to be guilty of according to that of Calvin. Harm. in locum, Sacrilega est audacia abigere procul ab ovili Christi, quos ipse in sinu suo fovet, & quasi extraneos a clausâ januâ rejicere, quos prohiberi non vult. It is Sacrilegious boldness to drive those far from the fold of Christ, which he cherishes in his bosom, and to reject them as strangers by shutting the gate against them, which he will not have to be kept out; And this appears to be more than probable, because the next foregoing speech doth certainly include little children, when he says he that shall receive one such little one in my name receiveth me. Beza its true is singular, conceiving that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant one that humbles himself as a little child, and that he speaks not properly there of children; But the Evangelist Luke who is of better authority says expressly chap. 9 48. That Christ said that of that little babe too that he took in his arms, and set in the midst of them, he that receiveth this little child in my name receiveth me: And so in Mark. 9 36, 37. expressly, he that shall receive one of such little children, (without mention of any other foregoing, but the child itself taken into his arms) receiveth me. Therefore his allegation is false, that the Text I alleged, did not say of little children, that to them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven; for as Christ expressly saith Mark 10. 14. suffer little children to come unto me, and forbidden them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God; so he says here by necessary consequence v. 3. except ye be converted and become as little children ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. v. 4. whosoever shall humble himself, as this little child, the same is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven; for if they by conformity with this little child were rendered capable of the Kingdom of Heaven, the little child, who was their pattern, and precedent, was much more, there being not a bare analogical Identity, as in doves and lambs, but a specifical sameness betwixt the qualifications of little children, and those required in believers, which our Saviour puts out of doubt, when he says of such is the Kingdom of God; and if it should be granted, that those that were not to be offended v. 6. despised v. 10. were not little children in age, but little ones in spirit, because they are said to be believers v. 6. and to be converted and become as little children, yet it is out of doubt, that the little child mentioned in the 2, 3, 4, 5, verses whose imitation Christ commends, was a little infant, and if to those that imitated him, belonged the Kingdom of Heaven, to the child much more, if a curse was pronounced against the despisers of the imitators, much more against them that despised the pattern, and Prototype. Therefore I think it is beyond any man's apprehension to conceive what advantage he can gather from the Relators setting it down, that the meaning is not, that the little children are converted, though it should be a grant in part of what he alleged, that the little ones not to be offended, despised (according to Beza) were not little children in age, but affection of humility, seeing that he says about a little child v. 5. is a mistake, for it is meant of little children in age 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one of these little ones, such as he set in the midst of them v. 2. That which (he says) I added that it hath relation to disciples in the first verse, who must be converted from their actual sins, & become as little children, which have no actual sins, is Orthodox, & agreeable to the Analogy of faith: for in true repentance there is an aversion from the creature, & a conversion to the Creator. Therefore it was a Lucian like scoff proceeding from the spirit of malignity in him to say unjustly upon this occasion, how unhappy are the people that are seduced with these toys, are you not ashamed? Whereas he seduces the people with toys, whom we endeavour to undeceive with solid truth, and the light of the Gospel, of which we are not ashamed; Therefore I replied then, that he had learned of the man in Lucian to cry out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O cursed, and to vilify that Argument he cannot answer, besides which I saw nothing shame-worthy, nor do I yet, saving that to his verbal contumel●es, he adds a surplusage in print; That if others of his judgement were like him, they would not fall much short of that fell from the mouth of one as learned, and godly, but far more meek-spir●ted than himself, Master Robert Bolton; Frantic bedlam Anabaptists (saith he) who are fit to be out of the number of men, and driven out of the bounds of humane nature, than to be disputed with, Assize Sermon, pag. 13. which censure he may seem in part to merit by his uncharitable vociferation, and exclamation against that speech of mine which is true; and it is a truth, except men be converted from their actual sins, non ut non sint (as Austin) sed ut non imputentur, not that they be not, but that they be not imputed; and become as little children in innocence, and humility, which have no actual sins negatively, because they are tabula rasae subjects not yet capable, whereas true penitents are without actual sins privatively, not in regard of the stain, and being, but of the guilt and curse, their sins being made Christ's, and his righteousness theirs; ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven, that is, be capable of glory, 1 Cor. 6. 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God, be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thiefs, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall enter into the kingdom of God, the same in effect is repeated, Rev. 21. 8. And this is the meaning of Christ's words, Math. 18. 3. not only according to mine interpretation, but of ancient and modern Divines, famous in their generations, which would have been astonished to hear any one so irrational, as to say whosoever believes it, must of necessity despair of heaven; as if they could not be sinners by commission of sins; as, or resembling little children, which have no actual sins, by pardon, or remission of sins; for if Saint James says chap. 3. 2. In many things we offend all; yet Saint John says, 1 John 2, 1, 2. If any man sin, we have an advocate with the father, Christ Jesus the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins: And as John says, 1 Epist. chap. 1. 8. If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, this is in regard of inherence and st●in; so the same Apostle says, 1 John 3. 6. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not, and vers. 9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, that is with an intention before the commission, delight in the commission, an acquiescing in it after the commission of sin. And this he knew to be my meaning, but that with the Donatists he must ca●ell even with the clearness of the sunbeam, resembling the rest of the litter of grievous wolves, as Mr. Tombs himself styles them, of which Master Bolton speaks, Assize S●rmon 2. pag. 82. The furious Anabaptists of our time, are as like the Donatists, as if they had spit them out of their mouths. Mr. Tom●e●, 23 Section. THat which Master Cragge added, that the Disciples were believers which are meant, Math 18. 6. and not the children, and yet saith his Argument remains unanswered, hath more of impudence in it; for his Argument being that Christ pronounced a curse on them that despised, and received not little ones in age, and yet confessing that this was meant not of little ones in age, but disciples, believers in him, it is the height of impudency to say his Argument is unanswered, when his own confession answered it. Justly here after five hours' time, having promised but one, did I break off, and having had experience of Mr. C. his mere cavilling at Rosse, and Ab●rgaveny, dwelling many miles from that Town, and finding nothing in him, and those other Paedobaptists I have answered, but a spirit of wrangling, I yielded not to any other dispute, nor shall for time to come, being now sufficiently taught by experience what dealing I am like to have to yield to such Disputes. As for that which Mr. C. saith he was hurried to that extemporal discourse through importunity, I do not believe it, being advertised before, that if I came to Abergaveny he would oppose me. That the speech of him that said I answered nothing, was the speech of an impudent brazenfaced fellow, I think any will judge who reads this my writing. For Mr. Baxter, whatever his worth be, yet how justly I might say (though the words set down were not used as the relat●r expresseth them) that I have answered all he saith against me, will appear in the review of the Dispute between him and me, and others, of which part of it is printed, part in the Press, and the rest (if the Lord permit) shall not be slackened. Mr. C. Arguments from John 3. 5. Rom. 11. and other places, if they be not in his Sermon (to the examining of which, I now hasten) yet are they in other books answered by me; I shall take some view of his Sermon, on which I had made some animadversions before, according to the imperfect Copy I had then, and sent them to Abergaveny, but have them not now by me in London, yet however in this strait of time I think is necessary to write thus much. Reply. HIs first exception against my Argument was, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 2, 3, 4, 5. verses was not an Infant in age, to which I opposed Hypocrates his interpretation, who makes it to signify a child under seven years of age, and Beza, who says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de primo vitae septennio dicitur, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de secundo, and therefore not capable of actual faith, when the Apostles themselves were yet ignorant about fundamentals, besides in the second and third verses, Jesus set a little child in the midst of them, and said, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven: Will any one understand this of grown Children, as if they had more actual faith than the Disciples, and were to be their patterns? Math 19 13, 14. It is said our Saviour having in the former part of the Chapter answered the Pharisees about divorce, there were certain little children, or Infants (in Luke 18 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sucking Infants, and it is considerable for what end they were brought; it's in Luke 18. That he might touch them, but in Matth. that he might lay his hands on them, and pray; now the laying on of hands, especially when joined with prayer is an Ordinance of institution in the Church of God, named after the doctrine of Baptism, Heb. 6. 1, 2. and therefore if there be any strength in his way of arguing, that from placing of words of institution one after another, as baptising after discipling, or believing would prove that discipling, and believing is to be first found in persons, before they must be baptised; Then the same Argument would prove that these Infants were formerly baptised, because they ●ame for imposition of hands, a right usually following men's baptism too, in the practice of the Apostles; as in Acts 8. 17. and 19 5, 6. Nor can Mr. Tombs give us any certain proof, o● demonstration, or aught besides his own presumption, they were not. This he passes by now without salute, as a fort impregnable, and levels his shot against a place wherein he vainly conceives is a breach already, Thras●-like sounding a triumph before the victory, for these are his words Bombardi-gladio-fun-hasti-flammi-loquentes, that which Mr. C. added, that the Disciples are believers which are meant, Matth. 18. 6. and not the children, and yet saith his Argument remains unanswered, hath more of impudence in it; To which I reply, 1. That many understand even the sixth verse of little Children in age, and then it will not so much as colourably make for him in any sense. 2. Be it so as the Relator hath it, that the Disciples were believers which are meant in the sixth verse, and not children, which the Grammatical construction seems to intimate, because it is in the Masculine Gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one of these little ones, answering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciple, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the neu●er gender agreeing with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little child, yet my Argument remains unanswered; which was this, to little children belongs the Kingdom of heaven, therefore they are holy, and in covenant. Now it would be a strange inconsequence to say, The little one● v. 6 are Disciples not Infants in age; therefore they are truly so, v. 2. 3. to whom belongs the kingdom of heaven, are not holy, and in Covenant; If such a fallacious non causa, ut causa, could stand, he might infer quidlibet ex quolibet. v. 2. Christ set a little child in the midst of them, and said, v. 3. except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven; they that were converted as little children to them belonged the kingdom of heaven, therefore surely to little children their patterns (as before) especially seeing Christ in other Evangelists applies those words to little children themselves, forbidden them not to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of God. But now I perceive his erroneous mistake, for he says my Argument being that Christ pronounced a curse on them that received little ones in age, and yet confessing that this was not meant of little ones in age, but disciples, believers in him; it is the height of impudency to say mine Argument was not answered, when mine own confession answered it: By this I see one error begets many, for 1. my Argument was not that Christ pronounced a curse on them that despised, and received not little ones in age (as hath been manifested) that was indeed the last member of the proposition, he excepted against, which I promised to prove in its order. But 2. grant it had been so, my Argument for any thing appears yet, remained unanswered, for it would have followed ● minori ad majus from the less to the greater, If Christ pronounced a curse upon those that despised he imitators of little children, much more upon the despisers of little Children themselves; Therefore Mark 10. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was moved with indignation against the Disciples, for the little children's sake, because they would have hindered them to come to him for a benediction. By this it appears upon whom this height of impudence reflects; The Areopagites at Athens had two stones erected in the Market place, the one of impudency, the other of contumely; Mr. Tombs hath a propriety in both these, which he frequently ascends, like that Timon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he may bestow his a●read-bare liveries upon those that descent from him in judgement, of which he is liberal in the words following, for (saye● he) justly hear after five hours' time, (Skogan spews crows) ●e should have said almost five hours, or four and an half; having promised but one, and therefore a work of Supererrogation, else to what purpose mentions he it? Did he break off: well, it seems this adders head is crushed; but capite eliso caudaminatur, he wags still his tail, and in the end thrusts out his sting, to wound their reputation, who had any dealing with him. In this Argument; beginning with me says he had experience of my mere cavilling at Rosse, and Abergaveny; At Rosse (its true) it fell out incidently, that my place was to moderate, but if we had been as many as there were Ephori at Sparta, it had been impossible to bond him within the virge of a lawful Dispute; As for the Dispute at Abergaveny, the relation thereof, with his answer, and my reply, let others judge whether is the mere caveller: But he dwelled many miles from that Town; so did the Pharisees from sea, and lands, they compassed to make Proselytes; perhaps he means that distance was disaduantagious unto him, like A●●aeus whose strength was confined to his mother earth, or the Samnites, who were advised by the Oracle not to fight unless like snails with their houses upon their backs. But as Martion said of the Orthodox, and Catholic Fathers, he finds nothing ●● me, and those other Paedobaptists he hath answered (meaning Dr. Hamond, Master Martial, Master Baxter, Dr. Homes, Dr. Featly, Master Blake, Master Cobbet, Master Cotton, with many more of the flour of our Nation) but a spirit of wrangling; when they have discovered by many infallible Symptoms, this to be his very disease, which he contumeliously imputes to others, like the mad man in Bedlam, that called all that passed by, frantics; Austin speaks of such an adversary of his, Sermon 164. ego volo te esse sanum, quare furis in me sicut insanu●? Thus he goes on with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declamatory, defamatory oration, excusing himself for not answering my challenge for a deliberate Dispute, than, for any Dispute for the time to come; accusing us, that he was now sufficiently taught by experience what dealing he was like to have; whereas the truth is, he never yielded to any Dispute for the time past, but where he had the advantage; resolved he would not for the future, because he experimentally found with Paulus Samosatenus that he and his party lost by such engagements. He hath found it to be his only thriving way to se● out Emissaries privily, like the pestilence in darkness to info the ignorant, and fill all corners of three Nations with his bo● (as Arrius did the Empire with his) which are so subtly, a● laborately contrived, that he hath gained a repute by the consent of all, to be accounted with Caius Curio, ing●nios●ssime quam. The reason why I desired a further, and that a treatable, a● deliberate engagement with him, was, because I was hurried t● that extemporal discourse through importunity, which is not▪ whit the less true, because he believes it not; Some of the people were so far wrought upon with his impostures, and delusions, that they were disposed for dipping, others told us, we were not faithful Pastors, if we would not resist the entrance of such wolves: But in very deed, the provocation to that sudden debate was through a stratagem of his partakers; who triumphed and insulted upon our hearers, vaunting (as Martion and his followers did) that their Champions durst not show their faces whilst Mr. Tombs was in town, whereupon I was assaulted with one messenger after another, who rather enforced, then persuaded me to be present at Mr. Bonner's debatement, and his: My first salute was, when I entered the Town (from a friend of his scent as he said to know) whether I would dispute with Mr. Tombs: I returned, I was not then provided, but if he gave the challenge, and withal a competent time, I would (Good willing) enter the lists. And for his being advertised before, that if he came to bergaveny I would oppose him; I know not whether it be tru● no; however I am sure it had no ground from me, who neither knew, nor thought of his coming thither, nor had any time to countermine such contingencies, as groaning under two burdens able to break a back of steel: Nor is it likely I would have begun with him, who have not given the least affront to other Anabaptists, and Dippers, who for these several years preach publicly there at least once a month, and have a private chamber where they meet for breaking of bread once a week, though I have received abuses causelessly from the sharp razor of some of their tongues, beyond barbarity. As for the speech of him, who said Mr. Tombs had answered nothing; I also say, the relation of the Dispute, with his Answer and my Reply, will discover the true Crisis; yet me thinks railing speeches are a bad Omen, and presages ill; A man of his 〈…〉 retended gravity, and wisdom, might have spared those Epi 〈…〉 s of impudent, and brasen-faced, knowing that of Austin a 〈…〉 st Petilian to be true; nec malam conscientiam sanat praeconium 〈…〉 antis, nec bonam vulnerat conviciantis opprobrium, neither doth 〈…〉 commendation of the praiser heal an evil conscience, nor 〈◊〉 reproach of a reviler wound a good. ●r. Baxter his worth is too great to be impeached (which was 〈…〉 cause of my vindication) behind his back, especially by one, 〈…〉 o had been found tripping in that kind before. And I believe 〈◊〉 may justly say; and not before, that he hath answered all Mr. ●●xter hath against him; when Porphyry and Julian shall justly say, they have ansvered Cyril; Arrius Athanasius; The Jesuits Luther, and others of the reformed Churches: And admit the review of the dispute between him and others (of which part is printed, part in the press, and the rest expected, like the monster in the mountain that was to bring forth) should swell to the bulk of origen's books (who is said to have writ more than most men have read) That one pearl of Mr. Baxter's Plain Scripture proof would outweigh his whole Sandy Colosse, as much as little Persius does great Marsus, of whom Mermullius, Saepius in libro memoratur Persius uno, Quam levis in toto Marsus Amazoinde. If he had not thus abruptly cut this Gordian knot, which he ●hould have untied, my purposed method was to proceed to 〈…〉 h. 19 13, 14, 15. Mark 10. 13. to 17. Mark 9 36, 37. ● 9 4, 5. Luke 18. 15, 16. John 3. 5. Rom. 11. thereby further to prove Infant-Church-membership; whose answers to other men's Arguments drawn from thence, if satisfactory, which I suspect, is no prejudice to mine, before he hear them; The two other branches I should have followed, first that Christ merited Baptism for Infants, secondly that Infants stand in need of Baptism. These he waves, and hastens to take a view of m● Sermon, whose animadversions sent to Abergaveny I have not seen, It is his visible Examen I must take notice of, which being sufficiently sentenced, and condemned by others, must expect to be anatomised by me, for I intent only a brief Scheme or Skeleton of it for the present. The Sermon Examined. The third Part. 1. Section. Mr. Tombs. FIrst he saith [and is baptised] pag. 72. to be a conditional qualification, and yet in the dispute, he denied that repentance is a condition of baptism Acts 2. 38. His observation out of Dr. Buckeridge pag. 73. is frivolous, for the Apostles, 1 Cor. 12. 28. saith as well of Apostles, as ordinary Pastors, and Teachers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he set them, or if he will, fixed them; But it seems Mr. C. hath a special tooth at Itinerants, though his Relator claw Mr. Cr. and Mr. W. But what he saith that it is too strict an interpretation to expound Mark 16 15. of men of age, and understanding, excluding children, shows he little considers what he saith; for if it be so, then Christ commandeth the Apostles to preach the Gospel to Infants, and Sith Mr. C. is bound to do so, he showeth that he sins against his own light, if he do not so. But how foolish it would be for him to attempt it, his own words show, when he saith, Infants are not capable to be taught of men. And when he saith, that Infants only i● actu primo are capable of the first seeds of understanding of profession of faith, I would know in what sense they are sensible of the benefit they have by Christ. And whereas he grants, That baptism is necessary by necessity of precept, if conveniently it may be had, it is all ● asserted in my Sermon, when I said all that would be saved, must be baptised after profession. I● Austin were a hard Father to Infants, for holding they must be baptised, or not see the Kingdom of God, then Mr. C. cannot gather from John 3. 5. Infant's baptism; from Mark 16. 16. is rightly gathered that believing is to be before baptism, and yet from Mark 1. 4. it is not rightly gathered, that we must be baptised before we can hear the word preached, or repent; for the Text doth not express, that John baptised afore he preached, but recites those two as connexed, yet the latter is put first, not because first done, but because he was to set down more amply what he preached. Reply. THis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self willed Hydra infects the waters of Baptism, and by his self-pleasing principles turns all to poison, trutinaque examen in ista castigat, nec se quaesiverit extra. Pers. An antidote I aim at for the present, reserving a further re-examination of this Examiner for the future. I said [and is baptised] pag. 72. to be a conditional qualification of salvation, which he confesses pag. 25. he asserted of professors Baptism in his Sermon; In the Dispute I denied not incomplete, but complete repentance to be a condition of Baptism, Acts 2. 38. in them of age, none in Infants. Mine observation out of Dr. Buckeridge is weighty, not as he frivously misforges it from 1 Cor. 12. 28. where Paul speaks as well of extraordinary Apostles, and Prophets, as ordinary Pastors, und Teachers in relation to the whole Church; But from Acts 20. 28. where the Apostle says, take heed to all the ●●ock over which the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath set, or fixed you overseers; and Titus 1. 5. I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and ordain, or rather settle Elders in every City, Mr. T. di●ingenuously hath a genuine tooth at me, not I at Itinerants who, yield them as much as either Scripture, Reason, or the Laws require: neither I, nor my Relator (who is also his Claws Master Cr. and Mr. W. whose worthies are so well known, that they need not our Panegyrics. I seriously considered what I said, when I neither would extend [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mark 16 16.] to every rational creature, as Devils, nor restrain it to men of age, and understanding, excluding children; Neither does it ●ol●● that Christ commanded the Apostles to Preach the Gospel to Infants, that they should for the present be endoctrinated, but benefitted, as the Infant is by the publication of his Father's will, which he understands not; and he, and I, being bound so to do, sin against our own light, if we do not publish that Church-membership, and Baptism, with the attendants, and sequels are endue to Infants; And it is so far from being foolish, that it proceeds from the wisdom of him, who is wisdom itself, to attempt it; which my words show, when I say, Infants are not capable to be taught of men but God, who hath commanded them to be sealed by men; when I distinguish of the creatures, who by a natural instinct, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 earnest expectation, of men of years, who by actual understanding, and profession of Faith; of Infants, who besides a natural instinct, by the first seed of understanding, and grace are sensible of their estate; I express in what sense they are sensible of benefit they have by Christ, to wit passively, seminally, virtually, and objectively. When I granted that Baptism is necessary by necessity of precept (if conveniently it may be had) is not all he asserted in his Sermon, when he said all that would be saved, must be Baptised after profession; for there is a large difference between the lawfulness and nullity of Infant-baptism, the sufficiency of the one, and the sacrilegious repetition of the other, the conditional necessity of baptising, and rebaptising, which according to his Tenet, involves millions that are departed, thousands of Magistrates, Ministers, and people yet living in damnation, Austin might be a hard Father to Infants, if he held absolutely that they must be baptised, or not see the Kingdom of God, and yet ● may gather from John 3. 5. conditionally, Infant's Baptism; All are not damned that are not baptised, if there be no contempt, yet the contempt of Infant Baptism is damnable, from Mark 16. 16 is no more rightly gathered, that believing is necessarily to be before Baptism, than Baptism necessarily before salvation, which would infer limbum Infantum; for as belief is before Baptism there, so Baptism before saved. It is rightly gathered from Mark 1. 4. (if any thing be gatherable from order of words) that we must be baptised before we can hear the word Preached, or repent for all his frivolous reason that the Text does not express that John baptised afore he Preached; It's true, no more does, Math. 28. 19 that they must make Disciples, or Preach before they baptise; but ●e says, Mark recites these two as connexed, yet the latter is put first, not because first done, but because he was to set down more amply what he preached: [the Baptism of repentance for remission of sins;] As well it may be said, or better Matthew Chap. 28. 19 recites these two [Preach and baptise] as connexed, yet the latter is put first, not because the first to be done, but because he was to set down more amply the manner of Baptism, [baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Mr. Tombs. 2. Section. THough we cannot know that the person to be Baptised hath a saving Faith, yet a saving Faith is the rule of Baptism to the person baptised, he should not undertake that Ordinance without a saving Faith, and in respect of the baptizer, so far as he can discern, ●e should require a saving Faith of those he baptizeth. Dipping overhead, or baptising overhead after profession of Faith, is no invention of man, but the command of Christ, practise of the Apostles, and their successors for many ages, and Infant-baptism was opposed many ages before John of Leyden, who though he were otherwise not to be justified, yet I do not remember that any hath written he ever confessed that he had that doctrine from Satan. But Mr. C. saith, baptising is in Greek any washing, whether by dipping, or sprinkling, And he citys Ravanel, who hath made a Dictionary according to the present use of terms. But he shows not out of any of the pillars, as he calls them, of the Greek tongue, that baptising in Greek ever signifies to sprinkle. Reply. AS we cannot know the person to be Baptised hath a saving Faith, so neither can we gather f●om this Text that a saving Faith is the rule of Baptism, either to the Baptizer to whom this is spoken, or to the Baptised, to whom it is not spoken; neither is there ground from any other Scripture, that the party to be baptised should not undertake that Ordinance without a saving Faith; nor the baptizer should stay so far (as is discernible) till he discovers a saving Faith in the person to be baptised; All that is necessarily required in them of age, is a willingness to receive Christ, and his Ordinance, which was performed by the Jailor, Lydia, and their families on a sudden, with those three thousand Acts 2. 39 who could not possibly in one day hear the word, be baptised, and express their willingness to entertain Christ, otherwise then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by lifting up their hands, or some other sign, as in great elections, which is far short of expression of their saving Faith. The necessity whether by precept, or means of dipping overhead, or baptising over head before or after profession of Faith is an invention of man, not the command of Christ, nor practise of the Apostles, and their successors for many ages, nor in any age, unless accidentally, dipping itself being Adiapherous, or indifferent. Infant-Baptism was not opposed before John of Leydens' time, as is formerly proved, who was not only not to be justified, as he minces it, but guilty of all blasphemies, and unheard of wickedness, which together with the Author Satan he confessed at his execution, of which there are authentic Authors, Germane, and English, that he might have known, and remembered, if he would have impartially read, and judged. I said truly, Baptising in Greek is any washing whether dipping whole, or part, pouring or sprinkling (though I may say with Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Blake I never saw child sprinkled yet) And for this I cite not only Ravenel, who made a Dictionary according to the true, and Scripture-use of terms, but Paraeus, the old Catechism, the Directory, to which I add the greater, and lesser Catechism of the assembly. I shown out of Hesychius, Budaeus, Stephanus, Scapula, Arius Montanus, Pasor, that it signifies first tingere to die, or tincture; Secondly mergere to drown, or plunge, Thirdly madefacere to wet, or moisten, and lastly abluere to wash or cleanse. To sprinkle is included under the third branch, to which it is Synonimous, or at least formally the same. Mr. Tombs. 3. Section. HE confesses that Casaubon in his notes on Math. 3. 6. distinguisheth between baptising, and rantizing, or sprinkling, but saith the whole state of the Question is determined against me, because he adds, that their judgement is deservedly long since exploded, and trampled down, that would have baptising to be by dipping; seeing the force, and efficacy of this Mystery consists not in that. But 1. by Mr. C. leave, the Question is plainly determined for me by Casaubon, when he distinguished between baptising, and sprinkling, for ●at is the Question, not wherein the efficacy, and force of the Mystery ●●sists. 2. Though Casaubon were a learned man, yet this speech of his is not right: for we are to observe what Christ appoints, though the efficacy and force of the mystery, or Sacrament consist not in it, as we are to break bread, not take a wafter ●ake down whole, drink wine in the Lord's supper, because of the Institution, though the force, and efficacy of the mystery consists not in it. Mr. C. speeches out of Aquinas and Dominicus a Soto, are of no weight with them who know who those Doctors were, to wit Papists, and very unskilful in the Greek language. Reply. HE gins with a notorious untruth; for I confess not that Casaubon in his notes on Math. 3. 6. distinguisheth between baptising, and rantizing, or spinkling: I said there were some that distinguished between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to rantize, or sprinkle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to plunge to the bottom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to swim upon the top, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which (as some criticise upon it) is to swim between the top and the bottom; But I was so far from saying that Casaubon, distinguisheth between baptising, and rantizing, that I said the three last were only mentioned by Casaubon, not rantizing or sprinkling, once named. Therefore by Mr. T. leave, the whole state of the Question is determined against him by Casaubon, where he says their judgement is deservedly long since exploded, and trampled down, that would have baptising to be dipping, seeing the force, and efficacy consists not in that, that is the manner of washing, and his first reason to the contrary, is idle; seeing Casaubon, distinguishes not between baptising and rantizing, for if that be the Question, the Question on his side falls to the ground: Secondly as Casaubon was a learned man, so his speech right, who observed what Christ appointed, by whom Baptism was not determined to any specifical kind of washing, as those wil-worshippers press, who think the force, and efficacy of the Sacrament consists in the quantity of water; we break bread, take not a wafer cake down, drink wine in the Lord's supper (it's confessed) because of the institution, we dare not determine, and confine baptism to dipping, because there is no such thing in the institution. If my speeches out of Aquinas, and Dominicus a Soto be not of weight with him, because Popish Doctors, though unprejudiced in this controversy; his speeches out of Bernard and Cl●niacensis two Popish Abbots biased with prejudice against the Albigenses shall justly be of less weight with us, to prove opposition of Infant-baptism before Baltazar Hubmies' time; Besides they had skill enough in the language with other helps to discover baptism to be any kind of washing▪ but I might bring ● cloud of witnesses besides. Mr. Tombs 4. Section. IT is as vain which Mr. C. saith, the Israelites were baptised, when their feet did but touch the water, for the Text, saith Exod. 14. 29. They walked upon dry land in the midst of the Sea, and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left, and therefore their feet did not so much as touch the water, much less were they sprinkled with it. And if the Israelites were baptised in the cloud, and yet no water upon them, than the Text, 1 Cor. 10. 2. doth not prove baptising to be by sprinkling, but proves plainly, that a● ●ugo Gro●ius said they were baptised, that is, they were as if they had been baptised, or as others, they were analogically baptised, that is in proportion, or likeness, not formally, that is according to what is meant by the Term. It is without proof, yea false which Mr. C. saith, where is mention in the Gospel of washing of themselves, of cups, of vessels, of tables, that cannot be meant of plunging in water so often, but rinsing. For water was not so scarce but that they might do it by dipping as well as sprinkling. He might have seen Ainsworth on Levit. 11. 32. who out of the Hebrew Canons tells us, all that are unclean, whether men, or vessels, are not cleansed but by dipping (or baptising) in water: and wheresoever the Law speaketh of washing a man's flesh, or washing of for uncleanness, it is not but by dipping the whole body therein. Reply. IT is of weight, and preponderats his novel fiction, which I say, the Israelites were baptised, when their feet did but touch the water, or watery sand, for all the Text says, Exod. 14. 29. That they walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; That is spoken hyperbolically, or comparatively to what it was before the miracle; and though the waters were a wall unto them, on their right hand, and on their left, it will not follow, that their feet did not touch the water, and that they were not sprinkled with it, till he can wipe out of the Canon of Scripture, 1 Cor. 10. 2. and they were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; If then the Israelites were baptised in the cloud, with the water sprinkling, or falling upon them, than the Text, 1 Cor. 10. 2. doth prove baptising to be by sprinkling, or pouring on; Hugo Grotius interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by madefacere, lavare, abl●●re to moisten, wash, purge, not necessarily to dip; If his authority be of weight, the controversy is at an end; if not, why quotes he his descant, that they were baptised, that is, as if they were baptised; which he quite overthrows, to be taken in his sense, when he says, it is the same with that of others, to be analogically baptised, who meant that they were truly washed, or baptised, as were those typical of the Law, materially the same, differing formally, because representing some analogy, or similitude with the sacramental baptism of the Gospel. It's true and demonstrable which I say, where is mention made in the Gospel, of baptising or washing themselves when they came from market, of cups, of vessels, of tables, this cannot be meant of plunging in water so often, but rinsing; not only because water was so scarce, but for other reasons riveted in the Text, Luke 11. 38. The Pharisees wondered at Jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he was not baptised, or washed before dinner, not doused or plunged his whole body. Heb. 9 10. the ceremonial sprinklings are called baptisms. Luke 16. 24. The glutton begs that Lazarus might be sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might baptise, or dip the top of his finger (not the whole body) in water. 1 Sam. 14 27. Jonathan (as the Septuagints read it) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dipped the end, not the whole of his rod in the honey comb. So Sophocles uses it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thou hast tinctured (not dipped) thy whole weapon in the Grecian army. Mr. Tombs interprets that literally, Mat. 3. 11. as verified on the day of Pentecost, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, will baptise with the Holy Ghost, and fire, the fire did not encompass the whole bodies, but sat in the shape of cloven tongues upon part of their garments. This acceptation the Athenian Oracle puts out of question, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptise, or wash him, but do not plunge him. I have not seen Ainsworth on Levit. 11. 32 therefore am jealous he may use him as he does Casaubon; however neither his, nor the Hebrew canons, are Canon of Scripture; Ainsworth (as he quotes him) speaks only of men and vessels rendered unclean by the dead carcases of unclean beasts, who (haply) in that case were not cleansed but by dipping in the whole; This is fallacia a secundum quid ad simpliciter, makes nothing for the Typical, much less all baptism to beby dipping. Mr. Tombs, 5. Section. ME thinks Mr. C. should allow Anabaptists to make consequences, though they allowed not his. And that John Baptist' s, and Philip ' s going down into the water, proves something me thinks▪ Mr. C. should mot deny, sigh it cannot reasonably be imagined they should go down, no● to the water, as Mr. C. would have it, but into the water, whereas for baptising a person, a man might easily have fetched, or taken water out of any spring to baptise with, if it had been so to be done by sprinkling, and not by dipping: But if he please to see a book entitled Of Baptism, written by an eminent man in the state, he might See many of the prime writers, even leading Protestants, gathering dipping thence, as used then in baptising. The like they do from John 3. 23. of which whatever Geographer, or Traveller saith, Enon (where John baptised) was a little brook that one may stride over, scarce knee deep, and therefore not capable of dipping (which doth not follow) deserves not to be believed in this. Out of Rom. 6 4. we do not press a necessity of dipping, because of the resemblance, but from the resembled and alluded, to show the use then, ingeniously confessed by Mr. Vaughan, and therefore should be the use still. Nor doth it follow, we must lie three days, and nights in water, the resemblance of Christ's burial is to be continued though not the duration. What ever other resemblance there may be of our burial with Christ, yet we are to follow the institution, and practice set down in Scripture, from which he that swerves (as sprinklers do) do sin against Christ's command, what ever any Divines, or assemblies of men say to the contrary. Reply. I cannot allow of this consequence of the Anabaptists, John baptised in Jordan, Philip went down to the water with the Eunuch, Acts 8. 36. therefore they were dipped, seeing it might as well be by pouring, or sprinkling of water upon them, for any thing appears; And may be reasonably imagined, they descended to the water (as is more congruous to the original) not into the water, for all it is possible water might have been fetched out of the spring to baptise them, if he can prove the Eunuch had a vessel in his Chariot; or John Baptist a fit Font than Jordan to baptise all Judea, and Jerusalem in. But admit it be, they went down into the water, as Psal. 107. They go down into the sea, it will no more prove the one was under the water than the other; The baptised might stand in to the knees, have his head dipped in, or water poured upon him; Their going down into the water was either dipping itself, or a distinct act from it; if a distinct act from it, how proves it dipping? If it was dipping itself, than Philip, and John Baptist, were dipped as well, as the Eunuch, and all Judea, and Jerusalem. Whosoever that eminent man in the State is, that hath written a book entitled of Baptism, he cannot produce many of the prime writers, even leading Protestants gathering the necessity of dipping thence, as to be used only in baptising; nay nor scarce the frequent practice then; Eusebius de locis Hebraicis, and Jerom his Interpreter, from the smallness of the spring intimates the contrary, Est hodie Bethsoron (inquit) vicus euntibus nobis ab Aeliâ Chebron in vicessimo lapide, juxta quem fons ad rad ces montis ebulliens ab ●adem gignitur, sorbetur humo, & Apostolorum acta referunt Eunuchum Candac●s reginae in hoc esse baptizatum a Philippo; Fuller Misc. pag. 205. It cannot so much as de facto from John 3. 23. be proved, that those that were baptised in Enon were dipped, because Geographers and Travellers of credit tells us that Enon is a little brook that one may stride over, scarce knee deep, and therefore not capable of dipping, which they interpret swimming between the top and the bottom, and touch neither. They cannot out of Rom. 6. 4. press a necessity of dipping, either from the resemblance, or the resemblance alluded to without a divine institution, or determined practice of the Apostles, which was not confessed by Mr. Vaughan, but the frequency of it in succeeding Centuries, which being a thing Ad●apherous, the Church had their liberty of indifferency, not to alter Christ's institution (as he disingenuously charges him) but the manner undetermined. The scope of the Apostle is to show, that one end of our Baptism is to seal our communion with Christ in his death; and concludes as well, that the resemblance of Christ's burial is to be continued as much in the duration, as the thing; as well lying three days, and three nights, as under the water at all. Therefore all resemblances betwixt our baptism, and Christ's burial, not bottomed upon divine institution and Apostolical practice revealed in Scripture are but humane inventions, which they that Idolise, as Anabaptists determining baptising to dipping, sins against Christ's command, as godly learned men, and assemblies out of holy writ have discovered. Mr. Tombs 6. Section. IT is well Mr. C. confesseth, That if he were to baptise converted Turks, or Pagans of ripe age be might baptise them by dipping: It shewes that it is only for Infant's sake that the institution of Christ is altered, and so one corruption hath brought in another. What he adds provided their garments were not first baptised, or washed, intimates be would have them naked, which Mr. Baxter would conclude to be against the sixth and seventh Command, and he may do well to school Mr. C. for it: his reason is as foolish, though the garments be baptised in water, yet are not baptised with that use, that the person is, but by accident, not baptised as Bells to drive away devils. Nor is by baptising the garment any worship done to it, as the Church of Rome doth to the Image: for then the baptising of the body, should be▪ worshipping it; the garments, and body are not worshipped at all by baptising, and therefore foolishly it is compared to Romish superstition, and Idolatry. He that affirms that baptising without dipping is not lawful, that it is will-worship, that the sprinkling used is a nullity, that notwithstanding such pretended Baptism, yet Baptism remains a duty, speaks but truth. Reply. I confess with Mr. Perkins, that if we were to baptise converted Turks, or Pagans of ripe age, in hot Countries (which he leaves out) we might baptise them by dipping; which shows that it is not only for infant's sake, but the coldness of our Climates, we baptise by dipping in part of the body, pouring on water, or sprinkling, which are as well according to Christ's institution, as ●lunging, God will have mercy, and not sacrifice: The Anabaptists show that it is for dipping sake, which sucklings cannot endure, that Christ's institution of Infant baptism is altered, and so one corruption hath brought in another. I add, provided their garments were not first baptised, or washed; which intimates not necessarily I would have them naked, for they may have lose garments after the manner of the Jews, which prevents not the washing of the body; or if I would have them of ripe age in hot Countries naked, I may conclude with Mr. Baxter to dip naked, or clothed in cold Climates to be against the sixth Commandment, because it endangers their lives: To dip with us naked to be against the seventh Commandments, because it endangers chastity; not so in Africe, and hot Country's where (without impeachment of modesty) they go naked, or slender clothed; Mr. T. may justly be schooled by us both, for his unfaithful dealing in the premises. The reason is solid, which is not mine, but Vossius his; who says Baptismus non est immersio vestium, sed humani corporis, Baptism is not a washing of garments, but man's body: Baptising of garments may be as well superstitious, as of Bells, for all they are not baptised with that use the person is, but by accident, for the Romists have the very same distinctions of worshipping of Images, Suarez. in 3. Tom. ●isp. 54. sect. 4. dicendum ergo primò est fieri rectè posse, ut prototypon in imagine, & imago cum prototypo uno actu adoretur, atque hoc pacto posse imaginem Christi adorari latriâ, posse tamen co-adorari, sicut humanitas Christi coadoratur verbo, purpura regis adoratur hon●re regio. The garment is washed with the same water the body is, as well as the Image is adored with the same worship the Prototype is; The purple of the king is as well adored by accident, as the garment washed; And though garments be not baptised as Bells, to drive away devils, yet they are conceived to be baptised without divine institution, and so from the Devil; Baptising of the body is not worshipping of it, but ● performing of Christ's Ordinance in relation to it, which to perform also to the garmants is will-worship and therefore f●tly compared to Romish superstition, and idolatry. He that affirms that baptising without dipping is not lawful, that it is will-worship, that infant▪ baptism as used is a nullity, that notwithstanding such baptism, yet rebaptising remains a duty, speaks sacrileiously, schismatically, heretically. Mr. Tombs, 7. Section. THe Decree of the Senate of Zurick was an unrighteous Decree, which what ever state follows, it will draw the guilt of mur●bering innocent persons on it, and Mr. C. by citing it with seeming approbation, doth make it probable that he is a bloody minded man, who would rejoice to see innocent men, wh● out of tenderness of conscience follow the plain rule of Christ, so put to death: which its not unlikely to be the aim of his, or his complices printing this book against those he calls Anabaptists, that he might stir up either Magistrates, or furious common people against them. Mr. C. saith, he hath resolved the former doubt, that baptising is not dipping, and yet page 81. the Authors he citys, and by citing approves, do all make dipping, or dying one of the first of its significatiens. Now he undertakes to prove, that Infants may, nay aught to be baptised. An● he gins as an Advocate for Infants with this childish preface, that those poor souls cannot speak for themselves, as if in speaking for their baptism, he spoke for them, when he doth thereby rather speak for that which is to their hurt, and calls them poor souls, whom before he called Saints. There is more in his pitiful Preface, he supposeth, if the Apostles had been asked why they did not put down Infant-Baptism in plainer terms, they would have answered, that they thought none would have denied it. And I suppose they would have answered, that they thought none would have affirmed it, being quite against Christ's appointment, and their practice, who had then no such custom, nor the Churches of God. The rest as it is taken from Mr. Baxter, so it is answered in the Answer to him, now in the Press, Sect. 3. lets view Mr. C. Arguments. Reply. I Will neither accuse nor excuse the decree of the Senate of Zuri●k against those turbulent Anabaptists that disturbed their quiet, neither will I prejudge that state that follows them, whether draw upon themselves the guilt of murdering innocent persons, or wash their hands in innocency from guilt: My citing of it, was with no further approbation of it, as my words purport, but that they knew well, those that were baptised before were not to be baptised again. And it is neither a Logical, nor Thelogicall conclusion in Mr. T. as proceeding neither from reason, nor charity to say from thence its probable that I am a bloody minded man, who would rejoice to see innocent men put to death; when it is well known, that even in Abergaveny, when the most eminent dipper in these parts was sentenced to death by a council of war, and the Engine for execution prepared, I laboured with others, what I could to reverse it, when that could not be, to defer it to procure some liberty from close imprisonment, and consequently his escape. Methinks if Mr. Tombs out of tenderness of conscience should follow that which he thinks (though mistakingly) the plain rule of Christ, he should be more meek, than causelessly judge it not unlikely to be my aim, or my complices, in printing the brief relation of a dispute, and sermon (which suits both with the Laws, and Religion of our Land) to stir up Magistrates, or furious common people against them, when he hath printed many Volumes disputing with both, whereby both Church, and State are disquieted, and as the wolf in the fable did the lamb, accuses us of that (which never entered into our thoughts) which he hath effected in part, and is to be feared, with his complices is further projecting against us. The Authors I cite, and by citing approve, that do make dying the first, dipping the second of the significations of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do not cross my resolution of the former doubt, that baptising is not dipping, but prove it for if there be four manners of Baptising, whereof dipping is but one, then baptising is not only dipping; Species non praedicatur de genere, nec cum eo reciprocatur. I undertake to prove that Infants may, nay aught to be baptised, whose Advocate Christ was, commanding them to be brought to him, that could not come themselves, spoke in the behalf of them that could not speak for themselves, In subordination to whose will, I speak for them in speaking for their Baptism, it tending to their good, as thereby being made visible members of the Church more completely, out of which ordinarily there is no salvation: Poor they are, in regard they are self-helpless; Saints or holy, in regard of birth-privilege, or election of grace, which none but Satan, and his complices denies them. The preface, (which the pitiless Herodian Infanticides oppugn) recommends two considerations, first, that those truths that were not in controversy in the primitive times, the Apostles were not so punctual in pressing of them, seeing there was no need: Solon being asked why he made no Law against murderers of Parents, answered, because he conceived none would commit that unnatural act; If the Apostles had been asked why they did not put down Infant-Baptism in plainer terms, they would have answered that none would have denied it, as being so firmly founded in Christ's appointment, and their practice, that the gates of Hell, and the Locusts swarming thence in succeeding ages should not prevail against it. The second consideration, which is not so much taken from Mr. Baxter, as Mr. T. his whole fabric from the Germane Anabaptists, Gr●tius and the Jesuits, is, that those things that are pressed oft in the Old Testament, are mentioned more sparingly in the New, as the Sabbath, and Magistracy; which he says, is answered in his answer to Mr. Baxter, but so weakly, that whosoever reads, and understands, cannot, but be further confirmed against him; but I follow him to the view of mine Arguments. Mr. Tombs 8. Section. HIs first is, Those that are in covenant with God, aught to have the seal of the covenant, which is Baptism; But Infants of believing Parents are in covenant with God; Ergo. He saith, the former proposition is firm by the confession of all Divines, even our adversaries, and citys five, but not where they say it, nor is any one his adversary in this point. It is true, Ferus was a Popish friar, though more ingenuous than the most of them. But doth Mr. C. think that we must take that for true, which Protestants and Papists do avow without any proof from Scripture? If so, then let us lay aside the Scripture, and read their books. But he might know, and 'tis likely did know, that I (though I will not take on ●e the name of a divine) yet have denied, yea, and proved his former proposition to be false; Exam. part 3. Sect. 1. letter to Mr. Bayly Sect. 3. Antipaedobap. or full Review 1. part. Sect. 5. Which shall be fully vindicated (God assisting) in the Third part. yea were his Argument good, it would prove Infants were wronged, because they had not the communion. for I can as well from his own Medium, prove that they are to have it, as he Baptism. Reply. THe first Argument is, Those (meaning under the Gospel) that are in Covenant with God, (meaning outward, and visible,) ought to have the seal of the Covenant which is Baptism; But Infants of believing parents are in Covenant with God, therefore they ought to have the seal of the Covenant which is Baptism. The former proposition I truly said is firm by the confession of all Divines, even our adversaries, meaning Mr. T. himself, whose, Plea for Antipaed. page 12. confesses he affirmed in his sermon that visible Church-members were to be baptised, visible Church-members, and visible Covenanters are Synonimons; And that those that were actually received into Covenant might be Baptised; to be visibly in covenant, and actually received into covenant, are both one. I cited five more, four eminent Protestants Danaeus Davenant, Wendol, and Perkings; One a Papist, Ferus, who he says, is more ingenuous than them that are , see his affection; and (if you please) Ferus his ingenuity, who upon Matth. 19 saith, just, ac vere ex spiritu Christi ecclesiae etiam pueros baptizat, non igitur Christianum, sed plane Herodianum, vel si mavis, Egyptiacum est parvulos populi Dei necare, Justly and truly from the spirit of God, the Church even baptizeth children; therefore it is not a Christian act, but plainly like Herod, or rather like the Egyptians to murder the little ones of God's people by denying them Baptism. I think we must take that for true, which is instituted by Christ, practised by the Apostles, and all succeeding ages, adhere to Scriptures, not the writings of a few novel Anabaptists, whose dictates poisons the Church. I knew that Mr. T. who will not take upon him the name of a Divine, yet thinks himself wiser than all the Divines in the World, hath denied and attempted to prove Exam. part 3. Sect. 1. letter to Mr. Bayly Sect. 3. Antipaed. 1. part Sect. 5. That those that were in covenant with God, had no seal before Abraham's time, from Abraham till Christ, women were in covenant, and not circumcised, since Christ the elect are in covenant invisibly, before they be members visible, and not Baptizable: All this makes nothing against my Thesis, That those that are now visibly in covenant with God, aught to have the seal of the covenant, which is Baptism: what wonders his Third part may do, like a Tertius Cato, is not yet discovered. My arguing is good, and proves Infants are wronged, that have not Baptism the initiating seal, but not so, if they have not the Communion, because they cannot examine themselves? Neither can he from my Medium, or any other prove it, unless he contradict Scripture, and himself, who often says, he would Baptise an Infant if he knew him to be regenerate, yet I think, he durst not give him the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Mr. Tombs 9 Section. THe Minor he takes on him to prove from Genesis 17. 7. But there is not a word of Infants of believing Parents. But to prove it, he citys Cornelius a Lapide, a Jesuit, for him, and yet had he not falsely translated his words, the words would have appeared to be against him, for whereas he renders them in, The Spiritual seed to the faithful (which mars his sense) it is, in the spiritual seed the faithful So likewise Gal. 3. 8. Though there be not the te●m Abraham's seed, yet it is directly against him, for it asserts justification to the believing Gentiles only from Abraham's promise, not a promise to them, and their seed. I deny not, but that Isaac was in covenant with God, that is a child of the promise, not only when he was but eight days old, but also before the seventh, yea afore he was borne, but when he saith he had the seal (meaning circumcision) by virtue of the lamb to be slain, it is strange Divinity to me, who never heard, or read, that any person was circumcised by virtue of Christ's death, but by reason of God's command. And that which he saith, much more the children of believing Parents, by virtue of the lamb that is already slain, which seems to intimate, that circumcision is due to them much more, and that by virtue of Christ's death, is a foppery like to the Author's ingeny. He saith Deut. 29. 11. when all the people stood in covenant before the Lord, their little ones are mentioned amongst the rest. And are not their Wives and Servants Hewers of Wood an Drawers of Water? Are all these in Covenant with God? how doth he prove they were believers Infants? The words v. 4. seem to make to the contrary. It is no shift, but a manifest truth, that those Acts 2. 38, 39 to whom Peter said; The promise is to you, and your children, were not the believers in Christ, when the words were spoken to them▪ for first The Apostle exhorts to Repentance, therefore they had not yet repent, and so were not Believers. Mr. C. himself, pag. 78. in this Sermon saith, Repentance is a fruit and effect of Faith, therefore according to him, not before it. And in the dispute pag. 52 he made them Believers in fieri, with a● incomplete repentance, though perhaps not believers in facto 2. v. 40. He exhorted them with more words, and then v. 41. some of them gladly received the word, and were believors. Yet Peter said to them before they were Believers, the promise is to you and your Children, nor is there a word in the Text that makes it clear, that as soon as they were Believers, their Children were in Covenant with them, and to be baptised. Reply. THE Minor I prove from Genesis 17. 7. where the Infants of believing Parents are employed, it being a covenant not only established with Abraham, but with his seed after him in their generations for an everlasting covenant, by virtue of which Isaac, and all succeeding Male-Infants were circumcised. I cited Cornelius a Lapide (which he does often) though a Jesuit, not to prove the point, but the harmony of learned men against the new fangle Anabaptist; the translation of whose words, though mistaken in a syllable by the Relator, or Printer, makes for me, for both the words, and Context proves prerogative of birth to believers Infants to the end of the World. In Gal. 3. 8. There is employed Abraham's seed, in that it was a gospel-covenant, and that in him all Nations shall be blessed, and is directly for me, for it asserts the covenant, and in that justification to the believing Gentiles, not only from Abraham's promise, but also a promise to them, and their seed. I confess Isaak was in covenant with God internally, that is as he interprets, a child of promise, not only when he was but eight days old, but before the seventh; but we speak of a visible covenant, which he at least completely entered not till by circumcision the eight day; which outward seal, I say meaning circumcision, as well as the inward circumcision of the heart, he had by the virtue, or in the virtue of the lamb to be slain; And is no strange Divinity to them, who acknowledge Christ the Angel, and Mediator of the covenant, both to hear and read, that every person was circumcised by virtue of Christ's death, as the Meritorius, as well as by reason of Gods command the efficient cause; To look at any circumstance of the covenant of grace out of Christ, or not receiving virtue from Christ, is too look in a glass wherein we may see our own damnation. I rightly inferred, if Isaac had the seal (circumcision) by virtue of the lamb to be slain, much more the children of believing Parents now may have the seal (baptism) by virtue of the lamb already slain; But too intimate from thence that the old seal of circumcision is much more due now to Infants of believing Christians, is a note beyond Ela, and a misshapen crotchet like the Composers Fantasy. I said Deut. 29. 11. when all the people stood in covenant before the Lord, their little ones are mentioned amongst the rest, as are indeed their wives, and servants, hewers of wood, and drawers of water, who were either Jews or circumcised Proselytes, which all were in covenant with God, had the seal, therefore their Infants were believers, that is Professors Infants, as the words in the first verse, and consequently in the 4. verse prove; For God expostulates there not with Aliens out of covenant, but with his own, who had been careless, many of them, of the conditions of the covenant. It is a shift, and a manifest untruth, that those Acts 2. 38, 39, To whom Peter said the promise is to you, and your children, were not accepters, or entertainers of Christ, when the words were spoken to them: for 1. The Apostle exhorts them to complete repentance, which was initiated, or begun in them, they were pricked in heart, therefore also faith, that is profession of faith, Men and Brothers what shall we do? I said in the sermon, complete repentance is an effect, and fruit of saving faith, as in order of nature after it; Yet there is an incomplete repentance, and profession of faith antecedent to both; In the dispute accordingly, I made them believers in fieri, with an incomplete repentance, though perhaps not in facto; what then? verse 40. he exhorted them with more words than are in Luke's abbreviation, but not than were in the sermon, upon hearing of which sermon, some of them gladly received the word, and were believers by acceptation to entertain Christ; but by justification to be implanted into him, is more than he knows. Peter said not unto them before they were believers, that is accepters, the promise is to you, and your children, every circumstance in the Text makes it clear, that as soon as they were believers, their children were in covenant with them, and to be baptised, be baptised every one of you, for the covenant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is for the present to you, and your children; and to them that are afar off, to wit the Gentiles aliens in affection, when God shall call them, Parents with children for the future. Mr. Tombs. 10. Sect. HIs second Argument is, such as were circumcised under the Law, may be baptised under the Gospel; But infants of believers were circumcised under the Law; Therefore they may be baptised under the Gospel. He citys Whitaker saying, all the Anabaptists shall not be able to resist this Argument. I answer notwithstanding so learned a man's conceit, it hath not the force of a feather, so as to need resistance. To it I answer. 1. Indirectly by retortion. Such as were circumcised under the Law, may be baptised under the Gospel; But infants of unbelievers, as the males bought with Abraham ' s money of the stranger, not of his seed, Gen. 17. 12, 13, 23. 27. persons out of covenant, as Ishmael, Gen. 17. 19 21. 25. were circumcised under the Law: Ergo, if the one be irresistible, so is the other. 2. Directly, by denying the Major, if it be universal; if not the Syllogism is nought concluding from particulars. His proofs are vain; That from Austin is of no force, unless it be supposed. 1. That by circumcising under the Law, and baptising under the Gospel, the grace of God is conferred, which is a Popish conceit. Circumcision did bind to the keeping of the Law, but never that I find is the grace of God said to be either physically, or morally conferred by the circumcision of each person rightly circumcised. 2. It supposeth, if infants be not baptised, the grace of God is straighter in the new Testament, than in the old. But that is false; for the grace of God is as much without Sacraments, as with it. Above two thousand years before Abraham was circumcised, there was neither circumcision, nor baptism of infants, nor any other Sacrament instead thereof; shall we say that God's grace was straighter before Abraham ' s time than since? As bad as the Schoolmen were, who gave too much to Sacraments, yet they held, That the grace of God is not tied to Sacraments. Reply. MY second Argument was, such as were circumcised under the Law, may be baptised under the Gospel; But Infants of believers were circumcised under the Law; therefore they may be baptised under the Gospel; for this I cited learned Whitaker, saying, huic Argumento non omnes Anabaptistae resistent. All the Anabaptists shall not be able to resist this Argument; This Antagonist flights him, calling it his conceit, that hath not the force of a feather, so as to need resistance as mine before not of a squib; high towering words, Proijcit ampullas, & sesquipedalia verba; Reverend Bishop Hall says of him, who ever saw him without reverence, or heard him without admiration? Learned, and pious Doctor Arrowsmith gave him this Encomium the last Commencement at Cambridge, Egregie Whitakerus ut in omnibus; yet this fore-house in the Anabaptists term (as Mr. Carpenter calls him) as if he had the Monopoly of plumes, allows not his Arguments (that astonished Cardinals) the force of a feather. To it, he says, he answers. 1. Indirectly by retortion, but indeed proves directly for me. Such as were circumcised under the Law, may be baptised under the Gospel; But Infants of unbelievers, as the Males bought with Abraham's money, of the stranger not of his seed, Gen. 17. 12, 13. 23. 27. persons out of covenant, as Ishmael Gen. 17. 19 21. 25. were circumcised under the Law; Ergo, if the one be irresistible, so is the other. I yield all, the premises being truly understood; for children of unbelievers, if under Christians tuition, are capable of baptism; we plead education, as well as birthright; Those that are out, that is that have not the covenant established to posterity, with Ishmael may be baptised: Ishmael was not out of the outward, and visible covenant, which is the Question, nor as Luher thinks out of the invisible, though his posterity apostated, and Christ came not out of his loins; which if he deny, one branch of his Copulative Minor is false, and according to his own rule, renders the whole untrue, and his conclusion not deducible. 2. He says, he answers directly, by denying the Major, if universal, whereas his own former instance▪ have demonstrated it universally true. My proofs are convincing; That from Austin is of force, Mutatis signis manet eadem gratia sine aetatis discrimine, the outward visible signs being changed, the same grace remains without difference of age, and is vainly supposed by him, that therefore, 1. by circumcising under the Law, and baptising under the Gospel, the grace of God is conferred, otherwise than sacramentally, and signally according to divine institution, which is no Popish conceit, Circumcision did no more bind to the keeping of the Moral Law, than doth Baptism, both being's seals of the righteousness of faith; nor do we, nor did Austin upon more mature thoughts, find that the grace of God was either Physically, or Morally conferred by the circumcision of each person rightly circumcised, nor do the Papists by baptis● for some may ponere obicem: we say further it's conferred on none either Physically, or Morally, and yet conferred sacramentally, according to the nature of the union of the sign, and thing signed, or signified. 2. It justly supposeth, if Infants be not baptised, the grace of God is straighter in the new Testament than in the old, which is true; for the grace of God according to the Oeconomie, or dispensation under the Gospel, is not ordinarily conferred without sacraments; Gods administration of the Church before Abraham's time without Scripture, and sacraments, is no precedent to us, who must follow the present rule, and concludes as well for Antiscripturians, as Antipaedobaptists: God dispensed grace before Abraham without sacraments, because it was his pleasure, not so since, at least, to the contemners of sacraments, for the same reason. Schoolmen gave not so much to the right use of the sacraments (it seems; as Mr. T. does to the sacrilegious abuse, who confesses he asserted in his Sermon, all that would be saved must be baptised after profession, that is, baptised again, though they were baptised when Infants. Mr. Tombs. 11. Section. THat Question from Hebr. 8. 6. how were it a better covenant, if all poor Infants that were in covenant under the Law, were out of covenant under the Gospel, runs upon these common mistakes, That to be circumcised or baptised is all one as to be in covenant, all that were in covenant were to be circumcised, or baptised; all that were not, were out of covenant; That the reason of circumcising, or baptising a person is his being in covenant, which are all false, as I have proved Exam. part 3. Sect. 1. letter to Mr. Bayly Sect. 3. part 1. Sect. 5. and shall, part 3 in many Sections, if God permit. And to the Question, I answer from the next words Hebr. 8. 6. The new covenant is a better covenant, because it is established on better promises, though it were imagined never a poor Infant (as he childishly speaks) which yet I do not conceive, were in covenant. His next from Tit. 2. 11. supposeth, if Infants be not to be baptised, The grace of God appears not to them, which is of no force, unless that Popish conceit obtain that by it and not without it, God's grace appears to all; But this is false, and not in the Text. Irenaeus words are not that Christ was a little one, that little ones might be baptised from his example, for than he would have them baptised in infancy, where as he was not baptised till about thirty years of age. We need not deny Christ's redemption of Infants, because we deny their baptism, there's no such connexion between them. His saying of little ones, That they were the first Martyrs that suffered for Christ, is false; for how were they Martyrs, who testyfied nothing concerning Christ? That of the collect in the Common prayer-book on Innocents' day, that they witnessed only by dying is vain; for dying without some other expression doth not witness: nor did they suffer for Christ, whom they knew not, but because of Herod's beastly rage. This speech of Mr. C. smells rank of the Common prayer-book superstition, in keeping Innocent's day, which it seems Mr. C. yet retains, but is nothing to the proof of his Major, nor any thing hitherto alleged. Reply. CHrist is said Heb. 8. 6. to be a Mediator of a better Covenant, which could not be, if Infants, that were in covenan, under the Law, were out of covenant under the Gospel-and is grounded upon this impregnable rock, which the Anabaptists will never overthrow, that to be circumcised, or baptised is all one as to be in visible covenant; That the reason of baptising, or circumcising a person, is their birthright, Tuition, self profession, whereby they are visibly admitted into covenant That what he hath said examen part. 3. Sect. 1. Antipaed. part. 1. Sect. 5. touches not the true state of the controversy, but is a confused Maze intricated with his fallaciâ decumanâ, or Master-fallacie of Gods making, whereas he should say, completing his covenant only with the elect, or spiritual seed, and this as the poisoned string in the Lamprey, runs through the whole: we have seen: his attempts hitherto, as fallacious, as the hanging of Mahomet's tomb in the air, his followers may expect as much satisfaction from the many sections of his third part yet invisible, as Mahomet's from his second coming: Hebr. 8. 6. The new covenant is a better covenant, not only positively, because it is established upon better promises in circumstantials, but because it is extended to move all Nations; negatively would not be better, if any sex, age, degree were excluded Titus 2. 11. The grace of God hath appeared unto all, therefore to Infants by Church membership, and the visible seal thereof, out of the one whereof, and without the other, if it may be had, God hath given no promise of salvation; yet this is no popish conceit in tying God to the means, as if without them he could not, but to obedience without which he will not. Irenaeus words are that Christ become a little one for little ones sake, that he might redeem little ones, outwardly as well baptising them with water, as inwardly with the Holy Ghost, after his precept not example, who was not baptised till thirty years of ag●, because baptism was not instituted till then, but circumcised, when eight days old As damnation; and contempt, so Christ's redemption, and acceptation of baptism, are connexed. My saying of little ones, that they were the first Martyrs that suffered for Christ, is true; for they may be Martyr's, or witness, who do suffer, or signify any thing relating to Christ, without an express verbal testimony; This appears by the Hebrew acceptation of the word, Genes. 31. 48. Laban said this heap is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eedah, a witness between me, and thee, The children, might as well be witnesse● as a heap of stones; Deut. 4. God calls Heaven, and Earth to witness, The Greeks, whence the word Martyr is borrowed applies it to dead things, Pindar. ode. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the last days are wisest witnesses, and Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I produce nature for a witness. That expression that they witnessed only by dying (I confess) is vain, which is Mr. Tombs his own, not of the collect in the Common prayer-book on Innocents' day, which calls them witnesses, not by speaking, but dying; dying without other vocal expression, by impression may witness. They suffered being baptised with the baptism of blood for Christ, whom actually they knew not, though Herod was the Instrument, as Pilate was of Christ's suffering for us. This suits with the language of Fathers, and leading Protestants, and infers not the keeping of Innocent's day much less the rankness of Common-prayer books superstition, which about twenty years ago I opposed in a Bishop's House, while Mr. T. to ingratiat with Bishops, was maintaining of it (as credibly reported) with tongue and pen: All this conduceth to the proof of the Major. Mr. Tombs, 12 Section. THat which he saith last, hath most show of proof, That Baptism came in place of circumcision, the Apostle clears it, Col. 2. 11, 12, ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands, how is that? huryed with him in Baptism: but it is not true, that he saith, ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands, in that ye are buried with him in Baptism: These are predicated of the same persons, and so were conjoined, but yet not so, as to express how that the former was done by the latter, no more than by that which follows, that therein they were raised by the faith of the operation of God, who raised, Christ from the dead; yea, it had been false so expounded: for how could it be true that they were circumcised without hands, in that they, were buried in Baptism with hands? Nor if this were granted, were it true, that it is cleared by the Apostle, that Baptism comes in the room of circumcision: for there is not a word to that end, yea, the scope is to prove that we have all in Christ without circumcision, as v. 10 etc. doth show, and that Christ came in the place of circumcision, and the rest of the Jewish ceremonies, as v. 17. is expressed. And therefore the Apostle asserts the contrary, that no rite but Christ, came in the room of circumcision. If any ask, why is v. 12. added, I have answered formerly, and the answer is not gainsaid by Mr. Martial, that it is to show how persons come to be in Christ, and so to be complete in him, which he usually ascribeth to faith and baptism, Gal. 3. 26, 27, Rom. 6. 3, 4, 5. and they are put together, Col. 2. 12, So that if baptism be conceived thence to succeed circumcision, faith also is said to succeed it: which is more agreeable to the expressions, G●l. 3. 23, 25. I add the circumcision mentioned Col. 2. 11. is either circumcision made without hands, or Christ's personal circumcision, Therefore if the placing of baptism after v. 12. prove its succession to circumcision, it proves only its succession to that made without hands, which was not the ceremony commanded, Gen. 17. or to Christ's circumcision, not to the common circumcision of others: yet were a succession granted, this proves not, it must be in baptism, as in circumcision without a like command, as I prove, Antipaed. part. 2. Sect. 2, 3. No more than because the Ministers of the Gospel succeed the Priests of the Law, doth it follow, the Ministers children must be Ministers, anointed, etc. as it was in the Law. So that Mr. C. irresistible Argument is as easily blown away as a feather. And I hardly imagine any Anabaptist, so called, to be so weak, but that he is able to answer it, by telling Mr. C. that his first proposition is false, unless there were the like command to baptise Infants, as there was to circumcise them. Reply. HE confesses, there is that behind, which hath most show of proof.? where I say that baptism came in the place of circumcision, the Apostle clears it, Colos. 2. 11, 12, ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands, how is that? buried with him in baptism. It is true that I say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Aorist of the verb, ye are, or have been circumcised with the circumcision made without hands etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Aorist of the Participle, being buried, or by having been buried with him in baptism: These are predicated of the same persons, and so conjoined, as to express how the former was done by the latter; not so in that which follows, They (one subject) were raised (passively) by the faith of the operation of God, who raised (actively) Christ from the dead (another subject) and being so expounded, its true, for they were circumcised without hands by baptism secundum quid, relating to the manner of legal circumcision, without hands s●mpliciter relating to the inward baptism signed by the outward, which being granted, it is consequently cleared by the Apostle, that baptism comes in the room of circumcision, which is the scope of the place v. 10. That we are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 completed, or filled in Christ, by baptism without circumcision, and that Christ, who is yesterday, to day, and for ever the same, substituted baptism into the place of circumcision, which with other Jewish ceremonies v. 17. vanished at his passion. And therefore the Apostle asserts, that Christ in the flesh with baptism, and the rites under the Gospel, came in the place of Christ promised with circumcision, and other rites under the Law. Mr. Martial had reason to grant that persons came to be in Christ, and completed in him by baptism signally, or significatively, as by faith really, as Gal. 3 26, 27, Rom. 3, 4, 5, so that baptism is evinced thence to succeed circumcision, so faith in Christ already come, succeeds faith in Christ that was to come, which is agreeable to the expressions Gal. 3, 23, 25. Circumcision mentioned, Coloss. 2. 11. is baptism succeeding legal Circumcision to which it alludes, receiving virtue from Christ's personal Circumcision, which was a part of his Passive obedience; Therefore the placing Baptism after ver. 12. proves the Identity, or sameness of the thing signified; The diversity of the Seals, to wit, baptism, which succeeded in the place of Circumcision the Ceremonies commanded, Gen. 17. This granted, it proves it must be in Baptism, as it was in Circumcision, having the like command both expressed, and often interpretatively employed, against which he proves nothing, Antipaed. part. 2. Sect. 2, 3. but begs the Question. Minister's children under the Gospel succeeds not, as the Priests children did under the Law, because God in no place says to those that are in competition to be Pastors, and Teachers, be ordained every one of you, for the promise is to you, and your children, as he does to Converts, be baptised every one of you, for the promise is to you, and your children; Neither is it said according to Gospell-promise, to any and their seed; ye are consecrated with unction made without hands, being ordained by imposition of hands, as it is said here, ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands, buried with him in Baptism. So that the Argument, that Mr. T. presumptuously says, he hath blown away like a feather, may prove (as the Fly did to Pope Adrian) a feather to choke his confidence: And though I confess, the most of the Anabaptists truly so called, have so much brass, as to answer this proposition (as the Antiscripturians does the whole Scripture) by denying it; yet I cannot imagine they can with any probable evasion elude it, when their great Goliath falls before it, and perishes with his own sword. Mr. Tombs. 13 Section. IF the third Argument arise thence, it hath its answer thence, that it is a frivolous talk in Mr. C. to speak as if denying Infant baptism, were putting out of the Covenant, disfranchizing, and circumcizing, supposed being in Covenant, was a seal of the Covenant of grace. His proof, That the Gospel puts not infants out of covenant, is true of the elect infants, and the covenant of grace expressed in the Gospel. And yet his proofs are silly. New born babes desire milk, little children are humble, and are proposed herein as patterns to us, therefore they are in covenant, whereas this is as true of Infidel▪ Children as of Christians, and therefore proves the one in covenant as well as the other, and both these acts of little Children are only natural, not virtuous, and so give not evidence of their being in covenant; nor doth the Gospel give them large commendations beyond them of riper years, making them the rule of our perfection: for there is neither commendation of them, 1 Pet. 2. 2. nor Math. 18. 3. nor making them the rule of our perfection, any more than Sheep, and Doves, Math. 10. 16. But only those virtuous qualities, which are resembled by their natural qualities, are propounded to us as our rule. His testimony out of Bellarmine intimates that Bellarmine said, there is no impediment to infant's baptism, because the case is clear, as if Bellarmine would not have said it, had not the case been clear. Whereas it is more likely to be false than true, because Bellarmine a Jesuit saith it; yea, it is manifestly false; for the Institution being only to baptise Disciples, prohibits baptising of infants, which are not such, but for want of being Disciples uncapable of baptism. Reply. THe third Argument rising thence, hath its unanswerable stability thence; which was this; Those that were in covenant, had the seal of the covenant, and were never disfranchized, and put out of covenant, have title to the Covenant, and seal of it still; But infants were once in Covenant, had the seal of the Covenant, and were never disfranchized, and put out of Covenant, Therefore infants have title to the Covenant, and seal of it still. To this he gives no direct answer, but catches at his own shadow, with Ixion begetting Centaurs, which to deny is to confute, they are Clouds, and will vanish; for denying of Infant-Baptism, is putting out of visible Covenant, disfranchizing, out of which we have no promise of invisible. Circumcising supposed visible Covenant, was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace; If the Gospel puts Infants out of visible Covenant, for any thing we know, or is revealed in the word, it puts them wholly out of the Covenant of Grace▪ My amplication to the people, which he scoffingly calls proofs; are significant, and suitable. The Gospel is so far from expressing of infants, that they are put out, that it gives them large commendations beyond them of riper years, making them the rule of our perfection; as new born babes receive the sincere milk of the word, unless ye be as little children, y● shall not enter into the Kingdom of God. His own Argument, as he moulds it, concludes against him; little children are humble, and proposed herein as patterns to us, Therefore they are in Covenant; for if those that follow them are so qualified, The Copy, and pattern much more, especially that humbleness being a fruit of the spirit, which he can never prove to be as true of Infidels children, as Christians, nor the one consequently to be in Covenant as well, as the other; That these acts, or qualities of little children are only natural, not seminally virtuous, is his bold conjecture, which if so, might give evidence of their being in Covenant, God selecting his own federally, though not morally holy, for precedents: There are commendations of little children, 1 Pet. 2. 2. and Math. 18. 3. compared with other places, making them more the rule of our perfection than Sheep and Doves, Math. 10. 16 for when did our Saviour take Sheep, and Doves up in his arms, lay his hands upon them, and bless them, saying the Kingdom of God did belong unto them? and unless ye be as Sheep, or Doves, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of God? Doctor Everard is blamed for saying Swine, and Sheep praise the Lord in laying down their life, according to Gods will, for man, as well as Stephen, and the Martyrs, when they called upon God; meaning in their kind, not in the same degree; Then shall Mr. T. be justified for saying Scripture neither commends, nor makes little children the rule of our perfection, more than Sheep, or Doves, excepting no degree, or gradual perfection? Some may better steal a Horse, than others many look over the hedge. The Philosopher says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that an Accident hath no Accident; But that natural qualities in rational creatures should resemble virtuous qualities inhearing in no creatures to be a rule to spiritual creatures, is a Prodigy beyond the Mint of Popish Transubstantiation. My testimony out of Bellarmine intimates that Bellarmine, and the Jesuits that concenters with the Anabaptists in opposing Covenant-holiness, and Analogy from circumcision, deserts them here, as ashamed of the conclusion of Antipaedobaptism they draw thence: If it be more likely to be false, because Bellarmine a Jesuit saith it, then that there is no such thing as Covenant-holiness, and that Arguments drawn from analogy of circumcision are not concluding, is also false, which will necessarily enforce our Thesis; It being also true that Christ instituted baptising of children with Parents, who with their Parents being in visible Covenant, are capable of baptism. Mr. Tombs. 14. Section But Mr. C. in his fourth Argument will prove Infant-baptism commanded, Math 28. 19 because Nations are commanded to be baptised; To this I answered before in the dispute, and my answer is, and was, Nations are not commanded to be baptised without any other circumscription, but Disciples of the Nations Master C. confesseth page 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is, ye shall make Disciples, and then baptising is of Disciples. His speech, infants are not uncapable of baptism, because they have not faith, and repentance, because Christ was baptised without repentance, is frivolous, for there is not the same end of Christ's baptism, and ours, and therefore though repentance were not required of him, yet it is of us, and the want of it, makes infants uncapable of baptism. It is false that God requires no more of persons in Covenant, and born of believing Parents, to their baptism, but a mere objective power, or receptibility, as he calls it, as was in the world at its creation, or in the regeneration, when he new makes us. And it is merely false, that upon any such account, as he speaks of, many whole families were baptised, or that any Infants were included. The very Texts, which speak of baptising of the households, either there or elsewhere speak of their fearing God, Acts. 2. 2. That all the household be saved by Peter's words, Acts 11. 14. had repentance, and the like gift with the Apostles, ver. 17. 18. had the word spoken to them, Acts 16. 32. believed for. 34. Acts 18. 8. addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints, 1 Cor. 16. 15. which show no infants were meant under the household, for they did none of these things. Reply. MY fourth Argument proved Infan-t Baptism commanded Math. 28. 19 because Nations are commanded to be baptised: according to Ambrose, qui dixit omnes, nullos exclusit, neque parvulos, he that said baptise all, excluded none, no not little ones. I confessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is, ye shall make Disciples, but not that baptising is only of actual Disciples; for 1. It can not be proved, that the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach, includes actually in it the noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples. 2. It follows not, because it is placed before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptising, therefore it is simply before it in order of nature, and time. 3. Though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify, make actual Disciples, and in order of nature and time proceed, it may be put Synecdochically for the greater part, actual believers, not excluding their infants. My speech, Infants are not uncapable of baptism, because they have not faith, and repentance, because Christ was baptised without repentance is unanswerable; for it presupposeth his proposition drawn from [make Disciples] not to be universal, and so irregularly to conclude from particulars; for if there be not the same end of Christ's baptism, and ours, there may be different ends of infant's Baptism, and those of age: Christ was circumcised for one end, Isaak, and Ogdemerans for another, Abraham, and aged Proselytes for another: Christ was baptised absolutely without repentance, Infants to repentance for the future, but of them of age it was required, that they should be penitentiaries at least in fieri, for the present. It is true, that God requires no more of Infants in Covenant, and born of believing Parents, to their baptism, but a mere objective power, or receptibility, as the world in its Creation was of nothing, so infant's regeneration, or new creature is of nothing. It is also a divine truth, that upon the account I spoke of, many whole families accepting Christ were baptised, and their infants with them, which the Texts I alleged in the Sermon, proves, Acts 10. 47. Those were baptised that received the Holy Ghost, of which infants are capable, as Mr. T. often confesses; Jeremy, and John Baptist were sanctified in their Mother's womb, Acts 16. 15. mention is made only of Lydia attending to the things that were spoken by Paul, yet upon that account her whole household was baptised with her 1 Cor. 1. 16. Paul baptised the household of Stephanas, making no mention of faith, and repentance, Acts 16. 30, 31. The jaylers' family is baptised in reference to his faith, believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house, whereupon he was baptised, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all that were his. The Texts, that speak of fearing of God, repentance, belief, hearing the word, addicting themselves to the Ministry of Saints, is to be applied to the subject matter capable of those duties, and proves affirmatively, such so qualified, were baptised, but nothing negatively, they that were not so qualified, were not baptised; The contrary whereof the Holy Ghost put out of Question, naming whole families, wherein infants are included, that were baptised without exception. Mr. Tombs. 15. Section. MAster C. goes on, Argument 5. They that are capable of the Kingdom, and the blessing, which is the greater, are capable of baptism, which is the lesser, But infants are capable of the Kingdom, and the blessing which is the greater; Therefore they ●re capable of baptism, which is the lesser. To which I answer, The Major is false: if it were true, it would follow, Infants are capable of the Kingdom, and the blessing, which is the greater, Therefore they are capable of the Lords Supper, Ordination to the Ministry, Church-Discipline, which are the less. Though into the Kingdom of Heaven Infants are admitted by God, who knows who are his without any visible expression, yet into the visible Church persons are not admitted without visible Testimony of their faith, of which sort were all added to the Church, Acts 2. 47. not one of those Texts. Mark 10. 13. to 17. Mark. 9 14. 36. 37. Math. 18. 2. 3. 4. Math. 19 13. 14, 15. Luk. 9 14. 15. Luk. 18. 15, 16. severally, nor all jointly prove, infants visible Church-members. The Kingdom of God, Mark 10. 14. is not the visible Church, for into it such as are not humble, as liitle children may enter, which our Saviour denies ver. 15. but the same with the Kingdom ver. 23, 24, 25. into which it is so hard, and impossible for a rich man, or one that trusts in riches, to enter, which is called ver. 17, 30. eternal life. It is false, that Christ saith, The Angels of little ones in age see the face of his Father, which is in Heaven; But of little ones in spirit, who are converted, and believe in Christ, Math. 18. 3, 6, 10. for whose sake they are sent, Heb. 1. 14. They are but Paedobaptists dreams, that the three Evangelists recorded Christ's blessing little ones to check Antipaedobaptists, or to declare that which Mr. C. calls a precious truth, though it be a very lie, and may be gathered to be so even from the story. Reply. MY first Argument was, They that are capable of the Kingdom and blessing which is the greater, are capable of baptism which is the lesser; But infants of believers are capable of the Kingdom, and blessing which is the greater; Therefore they are capable of baptism, which is the lesser. The Major is true being understood Relatively (as he knew it ought to be) of the inward spiritual grace signified by outward washing, They that are capable of inward baptism which is the greater, are capable of outward baptism the less. This he confesses often, and that if he knew, he would baptise them, what can hinder water that these may be baptised, seeing they have received the Holy Ghost? But it does not follow, that because they are capable of the Kingdom, and blessing which is the greater, Therefore they are capable of the Lords Supper, Ordination to the Ministry, Church Discipline, which are the lesser; for these are heterogeneal, and not by any divine institution appointed to signify, or Seal the other. We receive the Lords Supper, not as capable of the Kingdom, and to be matriculated, but as proficients in the Kingdom in a further gradual perfection. Ordination of Ministers, Church Discipline relates not strictly to the Kingdom, and blessing, as Kingdom, but accidentally in outward separable respects, and circumstances. I confess according to God's secret will it is possible, that infants of unbelievers may be admitted by God into the Kingdom of Heaven without any visible expression, but we are to depend upon Gods revealed will, who hath given no promise but to Covenanters, believers, and their seed, who are admitted into the Church without any visible Testimony of their actual faith. Those Texts, Mark 10. 13. to 17. Mark 9 14. 36. 37. Math. 18. 2. 3. 4. Math. 19 13, 14. 15. Luke 18. 15. 16. Severally, and jointly prove Infants visible Church-members. The Kingdom of God, Ma●k. 10. 14. is also inclusively the visible Church, as well as invisible, Such as are not humble, seemingly as little Children (for the Apostles were often deceived) shall not enter into the visible Church; such as are not really humble shall not enter into the invisible, which is the same with the Kingdom, v. 23, 24, 25. into which, it is so hard, and impossible for a rich man, or one that trusts in his riches, to enter, which is called ver. 17. 30. eternal life. It is true that Christ said, not only of little ones in Spirit, who are converted, and believe in him, but of little ones in age, their Samplers, and patterns, that their angels see the face of his Father which is in Heaven, Math. 18. 3, 6, 10. It is an unanswerable observation of the learned of former, and latter ages, that the three Evangelists recorded Christ's blessing of little ones, to check (as it falls out) the novel Anabaptists, and to declare that which I call a precious truth, which maugre all opposition, may be gathered to be so from the story. Mr. Tombs. 16. Section. FOr sure if infants had been to be baptised, Christ would then have appointed them to be baptised, and blamed his Apostles for not doing it. And therefore Mr. C. questions are answered by Questions. 1. Doth Christ take Children in his arms, and would he have all put out of his visible Church? Answ. Doth Christ no more but take them up in his arms, lay his hands on them, and bless them? and shall we presume to do more without any warrant of his, even to admit them into his visible Church by Baptism? 2. Would he have us receive them in his name, and yet not receive them into his visible Church? Answ. Where doth Christ ever bid us receive little children in age? Where did he ever send them, That they might be received in his name? must we make Christ's words to import that, which we would in another censure as a spice of madness, when he hath told us plainly they are his Apostles, and other Preachers he hath sent, whom we are to receive in his name, Mark 9 41. Luke 9 48. though they are as mean, and contemptible as a little child? How should children be received, but by providing nurses? would Christ have us provide nurses for little children? our Lord Christ expresseth a cup of cold water to drink, as some part of the reception in his name, Mark 9 41. Is this a thing fit to entertain an Infant with? This is enough to answer Mr. C. frivolous questions. And in answer to the words of Master Baxter, who is the godly, and Reverend Divine he means, I say for my part, seeing the will of Christ is that I must walk by, and his word that I must be judged by, and he hath given so full a discovery of his will in this point, I will boldly adventure to follow his rule to baptise Disciples professing faith, and had rather answer him upon his own encouragement for not admitting by baptism those he never appointed to be baptised, than to adventure upon the doing like Uzzah upon mine own head, that which doth pr●sane the Ordinance of baptism, and corrupt the Church of Christ. Reply. MOst surely, if Infants had not been baptizable, Christ would not have laid his hands upon them, and blessed them, which presupposeth they were either (as most probably) baptised before; or visible members, and capable of Baptism. And therefore Mr. T. Questions are answered again by Questions. 1. Doth Christ take children in his arms, and would he have all put out of the visible Church? Answ. Christ doth more than take them in his arms, for he laid his hands upon them, and blessed them, and said the kingdom of God was of such; and shall not we admit them to baptism, an Ordinance which imposition of hands, and benediction presupposes? 2. Would he have us receive them in his name, and yet not receive them into his visible Church? Answ. Christ bids us, Mat. 18. 5. receive little children in age, either expressly, or à fo●tiori, and Luke 9 48. which to interpret of Apostles, and other preachers sent to be received in his name is a spice of madness; The words are these, Jesus took a child, and set him by him, and said unto them, whosoever shall receive this child (not Apostles, or Preachers) receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. The rest of his expressions relating ●o this second Question, are the Paroxysms of a distempered brain, and stands in more need of Hellebore to purge, than an answer. Therefore I say again in the words of Mr. Baxter; who is indeed the learned, and godly Divine, seeing the Will of God is that I must walk by, and his word I must be judged by, and he hath given me so full a discovery of his will in this point, I had rather answer him upon his own encouragement for admitting an hundred Infants into his Church, than answer for keeping out one; especially after the Anabaptist manner, too frequent among us, who like Uzzah, or the sons of Sheva, adventure upon the office of the Ministry without a call, or ordination, than with Nadab, and Abihu, offer false fire, deliver unsound doctrine, than injuriously bereave Infants of baptism, and sacrilegiously rebaptize, or dip those that were rightly baptised before: error draws on another. Mr. Tombs 17 Section. MAster C. sixth Argument is, Infants are Disciples, Therefore they may be baptised. The Antecedent be would prove from Acts 5. 10. in that it was Circumcision, which was the yoke▪ which he proves from v. 5. but he confesseth it was not Circumcision only, but the attendants, and that it is no shift●, but a clear truth, that it is not Circumcision as acted on Infants, but as taught, imposed on the consciences of believing Gentiles, with the rest of Moses his law, as necessary to salvation by some Teachers (which cannot be said of Infants) is so manifest from the Text, that I dare boldly say, they that assert, that by Disciples, Acts 15. 10. are meant, do but wrangle against clear light, and spit against the Sun. That the Text, Isai. 54. 13. is not meant of Infants of believing parents, as such, but of such, as having heard, and learned of the father, come to Christ, is plain from those words of our Saviour, John 6. 45. alleged here by Mr. C. himself, as expounding the Prophet. Reply. MY sixth Argument was, All disciples may be baptised; But Infants of believing parents are disciples; Therefore some Infants may be baptised. The Minor I proved from Acts 15. 10. in that it was Circumcision that was the yoke, why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples? Which I proved v. 5. certain of the Sect of the Pharisees said, it was necessary to circumcise them, Circumcision with the attendants is the yoke, taught to be imposed only upon the Infants of believing Jews, upon believing parents with Infants among the Gentiles. And that it was Circumcision acted appears v. 1. They taught the brethren, except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. Moses his manner was Infants of eight days old. v. 5. they taught it was needful to circumcise them. v. 14. Ye must be circumcised; whence it is clear, that it is not only Circumcision taught, but acted, not acted upon taught brethren only, but their Infants; That I dare boldly say, they that assert the contrary, do but cavil against conscience, and with Julian the Apostate throws the blood of their own self-conviction against the Son of Righteousness. That Text Isai. 54. 13. is not meant only of them, that having heard, and learned of the father, come unto Christ, but of Infants of believing parents, as such, which the note of universality intimates, all thy children shall be taught of God; All, but principally Infants which being not capable of the instrumental, depend wholly upon the Efficient cause; which our Saviour's exposition clears, for when he applies it to actual hearers, he leaves out the word [children] saying they shall be all taught of God. Mr. Tombs, 5. Section. THe seventh Argument is, All that have faith, may be baptised: But some Infants have faith; Therefore some Infants may be baptised. But 1. The Major is not true of faith only in seed, or act secret, and not made known. 2. Mr. C. altars the Conclusion, which should have been, that all Infants of Believers may be baptised; But than he durst not avouch the Minor, that they all have faith, at least in semine, the contrary being manifest from Scripture, and experience, he proves the Minor, 1. from Mat. 18. where he saith, Christ expressly calls them believers, but Christ calls not little children in age believers, v. 6. it had been ridiculous to threaten so heavy a doom to the offending of little children in age, who are offended with none so much as Nurses for dressing, or chiding them, when they cry: but the Apostles, and other Christian Disciples are there meant. 2. They are said to receive the kingdom of God, Mark. 10. That is the grace of God, remission of sins, and life eternal; now the kingdom is not received, but by faith in Christ. But only elect Infants do receive the kingdom, either by faith in the seed, not in the act, or by faith in the act secret only, and yet are not to be baptised till they make profession, nor are all, or any Children of believers, as theirs, elect. Reply. MY seventh Argument was, All that have faith may be baptised; Some Infants have faith; Therefore some Infants may be baptised. The major may have a threefold acceptation, 1. All that have faith conferred, or to be conferred in Baptism, though not Physically, or morally, or ex opere operato, yet of divine promise, as some hold, all believers Infants have, because they cannot ponere obicem; it will inevitably follow, these (if such) are baptizeable. 2. All that have faith of the parents, or sureties imputed to them, as in the old Cathechism, they do perform by their sureties, who do promise and vow them both (faith and repentance) in their names, this granted makes Infants baptizable. 3. All that have faith in feed, secret act, or habit, may be baptised; this he only insists upon, denying it, because it is not made known, confessing oft, if it were known, he would baptise them; this exception denies not, but they are baptizable, but that he may not baptise them, as if God had given them a right to baptism, and no means to attain it, and concludes as well against baptism of elders; for if he baptise none, till their faith be made known, he must supersede till this mortal put on immortality: It is false that I altar the conclusion, which in the dispute was, some Infants may be baptised: In the Sermon indefinitely, Infants may be baptised, sometimes, as the mediunm affords, I extend it to believers Infants, yea unbelievers, if under Christian education, but the lowest is sufficient to overthrow his Tenet, who denies all Infant-baptism. It's but his dream, that I have any need to avouch all Infants of believers have saith at least, in semine, and I think it hard for him to manifest the contrary from Scripture, and experience; All that maintain an impossibility of falling from grace in adultis, does not so in seminal graces in Infants, but I wave that. The Minor I proved from Matth. 18. where Christ expressly calls little children in age (as many interpret it) believers, from the authority of Luke, who Chapter 9 48. says; Christ says that of the little babe he took up in his arms, and set in the midst of them, he that receiveth this little child in my name, receiveth me, Mark 9 36. 37. he that recieveth one of these little children, without mention of any other foregoing, but the child itself taken into his arms, receiveth me; However little children were patterns, they were to imitate in faith and humility, propter quod unumquodque tale, illud magis tale. It is not ridiculous, but rather blasphemous to say it is ridiculous to threaten so heavy a doom to the offending, or scandalising of little children in age, whom he childishly, and untruly says are offended with none so much as nurses for dressing or chiding them, when they cry: Mr. T. might know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered by Budaeus, and others, offensionis causam afferre, vel concitare, to bring or procure a cause of offence, which nurses do not; He that should have said Mr. T. eldest son when an Infant, was a bastard, I think did scandalise him, in defaming him, and rendering him uncapable of temporal birthright; but they that deny Infants spiritual birthright and church membership, scandalise them much more. This he grants, that Infants are said to receive the Kingdom of God, Mark 10. 10. that is, the grace of God, remission of sins, and life eternal, now the kingdom is not received but by faith in Christ, Elect Infants dying do receive the eternal kingdom either by faith in the seed, not in the act, or by faith in the act secret only, and yet are to be baptised, before they make profession, upon their birthright privilege grounded on God's promise, and char●●able hope of seminal, or actual faith, which is confined to professors, and their children, as such, solis, sed non omnibus; for out of the visible Church, we have neither commission to administer the Ordinance, nor promise of Salvation. Mr. Tombs, 19 Section. THirdly saith Mr. C. They please God, therefore Christ blesseth them; but without faith it is impossible to please God. Answ. The like Argument is urged by the Remonstrants at the Synod at Dort, It is impossible to please God without faith, therefore election which supposeth pleasing of God, presupposeth saith; The Answer is, that Heb. 11. 6. the pleasing of God is meant of the works, as Enoch pleased God walking with him, and so Infants please not God, and therefore may be without faith, not of the persons, in which sense Infants may please God, that is be beloved with a love of benevolence, though not of delight without faith. 4. Faith must be allowed them, or not salvation, for faith purifieth the heart, Acts 15. 9 and no unclean thing shall enter into heaven. Answ. Faith in the seed is sufficient to make them clean, which is not denied, may be in infants, though neither Isai. 65. 20. says any such thing, and Augustine's words express nothing but his own conceit according to the language of his time, but faith in seed, or act unknown doth not entitle to baptism. Reply. THey please God, therefore declaratively (not causally) Christ blesseth them, it being impossible without faith to please God. The Argument (but far unlike) is urged by the Remonstrants at the Synod at Dort, to prove foresight of faith in time to be the cause of election before time; I speak of Infants that are in being, and actually please God, and receive his benediction, which presupposeth their persons are accepted, and they have faith, these two differ toto coelo. Hebr. 11. 6. Enoch pleased God by faith, manifesting itself 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 denied them, but the latter was cruel, and impious, therefore the former must be godly and pious, faith only 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 denied, may be in Infants; But denies that Isai. 65. 20. says 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 ask him, where he places Infants baptised, answers in numero credentium, in the number of believers, and adds, 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 heretic; to shake of this load that is laid in the right saddle, he says Augustine's 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 Germane Boars, and this present, when by reason of our late distractions, the hedge of discipline was broken down; Mr. Tombs 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 entitle to baptism. Mr. Tombs 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 gross Anabaptists, doth but involve Melanchton, Camerarius, Musculus, etc. 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 'tis granted, that Pagan's children are holy in the Apostles sense, if lawfully begotten; for the sanctifiedness of the yoke▪ fellow, and holiness 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 holiness, is meant of saving holiness, not mere outward visible holiness. 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-holiness may be baptised; Infants of believing parents are holy with a covenant-holiness; Therefore they may be baptised. The Major, and the Minor, which he says, he denied, 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 says 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 compass. Dr. Featly called it rightly a bastard exposition, which to prove genuine Antip●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 Pagan's children are holy in the Apostles sense, when the Apostle speaks there of special privileges 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 immediately relating to their next posterity; The lump, and branches are Abraham's children, not only by election and faith, but visible Church-membership, which involves professors children, and the holiness is meant as well of mere 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. Marshal's Defence, page 134. Cotton pag. 77. to 110. Cobbet, pag. 151. to 168. Mr. Baxter, pag. 44. to 50. Mr. Tombs 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 baptised, we may grant them to be in Covenant of grace, and yet not to be baptised, and to be baptised, and yet not in the Covenant of grace. But let us view the absurdites. First, Infants (saith he) would be loser's by Christ's 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 rathe● think that by being not admitted to Circumcision the condition of parents, & children is the better by Christ's Coming, sigh as Mr. C. teacheth here, page, 100 Circumcision is the yoke, Acts 15. 10. Of which the Apostle ●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 Jews were bound to observe the Doctrine, and the Law, meaning of Moses. 2. Were it imagined a pure Evangelical privilege, yet sure it is not such a privilege, but parents, and children did well without it before Abraham's time, and all the females from Abraham's days till Christ's. I suppose what ever privilege it were, it was abundantly recompensed by Christ's coming without Infant baptism, except a mere empty title of visible Church membership, which yet will not stand them so much in stead, as to admit them to the Lords Supper, be such an inestimable treasure as is not recompensed with the glory of the Gospel now exhibited to spiritual persons in spiritual benefits by the spirit, in stead of the carnal promises, ordinances, and Church state of the Law. Reply. THe ninth Argument is drawn from many dangerous absurdities that would follow, if children should be ou● of visible Covenant under the Gospel; it being all one to be baptizable, or baptised, and to be in visible Covenant; none are in visible Covenant, but are or may be baptised, all that are baptised, are in visible covenant. The absurdities are these, Infants would be loser's by Christ's 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, and not parents with children to baptism. Mr. T. his Answer is frivolous, and impertinent, saying, he rather thinks that by being not admitted to circumcision the condition of parents, and children is the better by Christ's coming; which I grant, but it is nothing to the purpose; our condition under the Gospel is better than theirs under the Law, theirs under the law infinitely better than the heathens, which had not circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith; Christians Infants, if they had not baptism, were worse than Jew's Infants, no better than Pagans. Circumcision was the yoke Acts 15. 10. of which the Apostle said, neither we nor our fathers were able to bear it, that seal, or ordinance by which the Jews were bound to observe the ceremonial Law of Moses, and yet a rite that under that troublesome Oconomy sealed the righteousness of faith in Christ to come, baptism under an easier yoke seals Christ that is come. Secondly, it's acknowledged; though Baptism, and other Sacraments be pure Evangelical privileges, yet they are not such privileges, but parents, and children did well without them, as well as without Scriptures before Abraham's time, & all the females from Abraham's time, till Christ, that were without actual, but not virtual circumcision. What then? May we therefore cast away Scriptures with the Anti Scripturians, cast off baptism with them above ordinances? Tempora disting●●e, & tutus eris. There was first a time without ordinances, than a time of legal, now a time of Gospel-ordinances. And those privileges of the Law, what ever they were, are abundantly recompensed by Christ's coming, and the Gospel-ordinances he instituted, whereof Infant-baptism is one; which though it will not stand them in so much stead, as to admit them to the Lords Supper, (for the seals ought not to be confounded) yet it brings more with it, than an empty title of visible Church-membership; for its the door, and the only ordinary way, we know God hath appointed us to enter into the invisible communion, and fellowship with Christ, and administers an entrance to that inestimable treasure of the glory of the Gospel now exhibited to spiritual persons in spiritual benefits by the spirit, instead of Levitical rites, and ceremonial Church estate (wherein there were also spiritual blessings) of the Jews. Mr. Tombs 22 Section. THe second is answered already, though Infants be not baptised, grace is larger under the Gospel being extended to believers in all Nations, than under the Law to the Israelites, and some few Proselytes: The third is a speech that hath neither truth, nor sobriety of expression, nor proof, it is but a bughear to affright the ignorant people to make use of such as he is, and to make odious them that will not baptise Infants, as counting them as vile as the children of Turks, Tartars, or Cannibals, even as they make them odious, that will not bury their dead, as not affording them Christian burial (though they are buried as Christ was, without ● Priest) but burying as dogs. But we know how to put a difference between Believers, and Pagan's children in regard of the love God bears to us, some promises he hath made to us concerning them, the hopefulness of them by reason of prayers, education, example, society, confirmed by many experiences that are comfortable, all which things we should be contented with, and not complain for want of an imaginary privilege, which is indeed no privilege, but a damage to our children. I for my part look upon the children of believers unsprinkled, as precious, and rather more hopeful than those that are, and I think Mr. C. as hard a conceit as he hath of the Anabaptists and their children, yet would be ashamed to say as he doth here of them. That they are as vile as the children of Turks, Tartars or Cannibals. But that which he closeth with, sheweth he was minded to affright the poor ignorant people, as the popish Priests did of old. Reply. THe second absurdity was, If Infants should be in covenant then and not now, grace would be larger under the Law, than under the Gospel, which his Answer does not reach; for the Question is not of extending means of salvation to Gentiles, not proselired, but independent of the Jews, which by degrees were multiplied, as was before from Abraham's sole family to a great nation surpassing in number the sands of the sea; But whether all sexes, ages, degrees be in covenant, which were before, from which if Infant's were excluded till actual professors, the one half of Christendom would be excommunicated, whereas Bucer saith on Mat. 19 that no age affordeth heaven so many Citizens as infancy. The third for all his stormy blustering, speaks with a great deal of evidence, the words of sobriety, and truth, and is used as a motive to bring home the ignorant, but well meaning people (whom such as he hath seduced) to make use of godly, and Orthodox Ministers to baptise their Infants, as they, and all their progenitors were, and to convince, not to make odious, those that will not; whom we pity for making their own children (as much as in them lies) as vile as the children of Turks, Tartars, and Cannibals; yet hope God will not punish the innocent bab●● for their sins. It is a malicious slander that we make them odious that will not bury, that is, officiate at the burial of the dead, in which some of us may challenge precedency of Master Tombs, who turned not with (and it's to be feared, for) the times, as he, but prevented them: yet we cannot be persuaded Christ's burial ought to be a more necessary precedent than his death, for ours, till he can prove the Jewish burial rites, and amongst them, those that died as Malefactors, to be our directory; for than he must bury his friends out of Towns, Churches, or Churchyard, in the fields, in rocks, or caves, and not cover them with Earth: we know not from Scripture to put any difference between believers, and Pagan's children, unless the one be in visible covenant, and may have the seal, whereas the others are without them; God hath made no promise to any that are out of visible covenant. And if the hope fullness of our children without the covenant, or promise, depend only upon our prayers, education, example, society; Their condition even in this also, is no better than of Infidels children, who if they should live amongst us, aught to participate of all these, which we ought not to be contented withal, seeing God hath enlarged his bounty further, but complain of them who deny infants those real, and Scripture-grounded privileges, which would consequently (for any thing we know) deprive them both of grace, and glory. We look upon children of believers, that die unbaptised through invincible necessity, as hopeful; despair not wholly of Anabaptists children, that through Parent's contempt are not baptised; It may be, he that said Genes. 17. 14. (The uncircumcised child shall be cut off from his people, he hath broken my covenant) will not visit the Parents sins upon the children, they being federally holy, and in covenant, their Parent's infidelity in that, perhaps cannot defeat them, though they want the seal. And methinks Mr. T. might be ashamed to use this forgery, when he had my words before him, to say I said, The children of Anabaptists are as vile, as the children of Turks Tartars and Cannibals, when my words were expressly, all the Infants of Christians (if they were out of covenant) would be as vile, as the children of Turks, Tartars, and Cannibals; I hope all Christians are not Anabaptists, and for the Parents to contemn the seal, though commanded, is not simply to put the children out of covenant. This is not to affright the poor ignorant people (as he further traduces me) as the Popish priests did of old with a Limbo or Purgatory of Infants, but to tell them their danger, who detract from, or diminish the word, and institution of Christ, and make the way and entrance into the Church narrower than God hath made it. Mr. Tombs 23. Section. FOurthly saith he, They would be without God, without Christ, without hope in the World; not the children of God, but would all be damned, for out of the covenant, and visible Church (ordinarily) there is no salvation. Answ. By covenant, he means doubtless no other than the outward covenant, which is not showed to be any other than Baptism, and indeed we do not otherwise put them out of the covenant, than by denying of them baptism; which being presupposed, Mr. C. speech must needs imply, that denying baptism infers all this. which cannot be true without conceiving, that all that are unbaptised are without God, without Christ, without hope in the World, not the children of God, but of the Devil, will be all damned, have no salvation, which is not only more than what the Epistler makes heinous in me, all that would be saved, must be baptised after profession (though it were understood by me duly of necessity of precept, which Mr. C. himself asserts to be imported Mark. 16. 16.) but worse than Austin says, whom Mr. C. himself called the hard father of Infants, and says went too far, worse than Papists themselves speak of the dying unbaptised. which shows that he preached this Sermon with a bitter, and furious spirit. His closing speech [out of covenant, and visible Church (ordinarily) there is no salvation] if understood of the covenant of saving according to election, I grant, that neither ordinarily, nor extraordinarily is there salvation: If of the outward covenant (as they call it) that i● there outward administration of seals, it is certain there may be salvation unless profane contempt, or wilful neglect against conscience do hinder salvation. The speech, Out of the Church is no salvation, hath been interpreted by Protestants of the invisible church. A person of years that believes, though he be joined to no particular visible Church, if there be not profane contempt, or wilful neglect against conscience, may be saved. But they that are only negatively, or privatively out of the Church visible merely for want of age to understand the faith, and ability to make profession, may ordinarily, if it be meant frequently, constantly be saved, though they be not ordinarily saved, are [ordinarily] notes ordinary means, preaching the word, and profession of faith. Reply. THe fourth Absurdity was, If Christian Infants were without visible covenant, and consequently baptism, they would be without God, without Christ, without hope in the World, not the children of God, but of the Devil, would all be damned, for out of the covenant, and visible Church (ordinarily) there is salvation; which his answer does not impeach, for by covenant I mean outward covenant, which is not only (nor properly at all) baptism; but federal holiness, that (as the Directory says) gives capacity thereto; By denying of both of them, they put them out of covenant, and my speech implies, that denial of visible covenantship, federal holiness, and baptism, infers all this; which comes far short of that the Epistle relates, and the Examiner confesses, he delivered in his Sermon, for he affirmed, there was no hope of salvation to those that were baptised when Infants, if they were not baptised again, that is, that contemned a second baptism, as his necessity of precept infers; which necessity I only understand for baptism of Infants, and conceive that Austin was called a hard Father of Infants, for sometimes holding as well a necessity of means, as precept. But Anabaptists deny not only the seal, but federal holiness, and visible Church-membership to Infants: This I delivered in the Sermon with the spirit of truth, and meekeness, which for Mr. T. to traduce, and aggravate (as he does) becomes no professed Christian, much less a Minister of the Gospel. By interpreting my closing speech [out of covenant, and visible Church (ordinarily) there is no salvation] that is out of the covenant of sav●ng according to election, he makes it a Tautology, and nonsense, The word [visible] added as Epithet to Church, m●ght have chalked him out my meaning, that out of the outward covenant, wh●ch g●ves capacity to the administration of seals, is no salvation; which seals, though we be bound by necessity of precept to accept, yet I confess, there may be salvation without them, unless profane contempt, or some neglect not out of invincible ignorance, do hinder the acceptation: However that speech of his [out of the Church is no salvation] hath been interpreted by Protestants, it weakens no● the truth of mine [out of covenant, and visible Church (ordinarily) is no salvation.] That supposition is vain, and implies a contradiction, that a person of year's should be a believer, and be joined to no particular visible Church congregational, Parochial, Provincial, National etc. without profane contempt, or wilful neglect against conscience; for i● he receive baptism, and other ordinances from any of these, he joins with them, if not, there is profane contempt, and wilful neglect; And indeed is not intelligible how he became a believer without joining in some measure with some. My meaning is out of covenant and visible Church (ordinarily) is no salvation; That is, God hath not promised, neither have we ground to believe, or hope the salvation of any but of them, that are in covenant, and members of the Church visible; Though I deny not, but God can by his absolute power, and secret will save otherwise extraordinarily. Infants of believers are neither negatively, nor privatively out of the Church visible, for neither want of age to understand the faith, nor ability to make profession excludes them more now, than it did the Jews children under the Law, who were ordinarily, that is, according to Gods promise annexed to the covenant, saved; If any Gentiles children unproselyted, were saved, it was extraordinarily, that is, without promise, or visible covenant. And Anabaptists giving us no more ground of Christians Infants salvation, than of these, are miserable comforters. Mr. Tombs 24 Section. HIs last Argument is, That which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success, must needs be lawful; But Infant-baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles times; Ergo The Minor is denied. The blessed success he proves not. In my exercitation I show many errors, and corruptions which have come from it, not by accident in respect of some persons that embraced it only, but even from the tendency of the practice itself. I may truly say, that Paedobaptism hath been as cursed a root of corrupting the Churches, and losing the gifts of the spirit conferred at first commonly at baptism by laying on of hands▪ as, I think, (except some few) any other corruption in the rites of Christian Religion. But Mr. C. thinks to draw it down from the Apostles days. He gins with words of Dionysius Arcopagita; ● Holy men have received a tradition of the Fathers, which very words show it was not Dionysius Areopagita mentioned Acts 17. he would doubtless have said, I have received it from blessed Paul, not have told what other holy men have received from the Fathers, whom Mr. C. vainly conceives to be meant of the Apostles. But the books that go under his name have been so often by so many learned men, Papists, and Protestants proved to be mere counterfeits, that either it is much ignorance, or much impudence that this is produced as his. Salmatius sundry times speaketh of them as certain▪ that the Author of them was not till the fift age. The Apostolical constitutions appear by many observations of Sculte●us, and others, not to have been witten by Clement, but of much later time. Irenaeus his words make nothing for Mr. C. as he citys them, nor as they stand in his own works. Reply. THe last Argument was, That which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success must needs be lawful; But Infant-baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles Therefore it must needs be lawful. He denies the Minor, saying in his exercitation he shown many errors and corruptions which have come from it, not by accident in respect of some persons that embraced it only, but even from the tendency of the practice itself; whereas Dr. Homes, Mr. Martial, Mr. Hussey proves the contrary, and makes his own▪ accusations recoil as dung into his face, yet like the dragon in the Revelation he casts out a venomous flood to poison the Churches of all ages; saying, that Paedobaptism hath been as cursed a root of corrupting the Churches as he thinks (excepting some few) any other corruptions in the rites of Christian Religion. I make no doubt, but the Antiscripturians will say as much of the Bible, and the Ranters of marriage. But what are his corruptions Infant-baptism hath brought in? 1. Private baptism; Answ. as if we might not as well baptise Infants in houses, As the Apostle did the Jailer; or two or three of them steal to a river side to duck, or cuck a Proselyte. 2. Baptism by women. Answ. Protestant Churches allows no such thing since Luther, but closes with the Council of Carthage Can. 10. Mulier baptizare non praesumat, let not a woman presume to baptise; Bold Zippora circumcising must be no precedent. 3. Baptising of Infants not yet brought into light. Answ. If he mean the mother with child, Counsels are against it, If he mean the child, we know no such approbation, or practise 4. Baptism of children of uncertain progeny, Answ. we approve, and know of none, if the Parents be not believers, and Christians engage for them. 5. They are baptised in the name of the Lord, that know not the Lord. Answ. As well as Jewish Infants circumcised with the seal of righteousness of faith in Christ, who knew not Christ. 6. It admits the ignorant, and profane to the Lords supper, because the sacraments are concommitants. Answ. The Antecedent, and consequent are both Scriptureless, and false, the one is the Sacrament of initiation, the other of perfection, to which the former is a preparative: 7 It. perverts the order of discipline, by baptising before Catechising. Answ. In Infants it does, as in Isaac, and the Jew's males, but not in adultis, and what inconvenience? 8. It's turned to a feast, and men forget baptism. Answ. There was a feast at the weaning of Isaac, and feasts of charity at the Lords Supper without profaneness; we can mind at ripe years what was bequeathed us by Legacy when we were Infants, may we not as well our solemn vow which we are put in mind of daily? Thus his vainly pretended errors and corruptions vanish, without impeaching the blessed success of Infant-baptism since the Apostles; which briefly here I drew down from the Apostles times, more largely before, beginning with the words of Dionysius the Areopagite, whom the Apostles converted at Athens; who said, Holy men have received a Tradition from the Fathers, that is the Apostles, to baptise Infants, instancing not in one Apostle as Paul, but all former authority, whom the converts called fathers, as they them children, which is no vain, but a Scripture▪ grounded conceit, vos genui per Evangelium. Though I am not ignorant some Papist, and Protestants have questioned the authority (which censure the most books in Scripture have undergone;) But that either Council, Synod, or University have declared them counterfeit, is more than I have heard; And to produce them, as his whose nam● they have born in all Libraries, in all Countries, for many Centuries, is modest verity; which for one Grammatian Salmatius, and one quondam Surrogate M. T. to oppose, relishes rather of insolency. Clemens who is recorded by some of the Ancients to succeed Peter in his Ministry at Rome, says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, baptise your Infants: does Master T. think that we will admit of the conjectural observations of one poor yesterday, Palatinat Minister Scultetus, to overthrow the Apostolical constitutions, when he himself denies the authority of all Protestants jointly, as convincing▪ Irenaeus who lived in the second Century says, Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est, Christ became a little one for little ones sake, and lib. 2. cap. 39 Christ came to save all that are new born by him into God: Infants, and little ones, and boys, These that were new born, are the baptised in Scripture-phrase, Tit. 3. 5. baptism is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the washing of the new birth, which to be so meant, Master Mead in his Diatriba, thinks none will deny. Master Tombs 25. Section. origen's speeches are in the Latin books translated by Ruffinus▪ into which many things were foisted by him, and these its probable were so, as being so express against the Pelagians; nor do I find he was ever alleged by Austin, who gathered the most ancient testimonies he could for original sin, and infant-baptism. Therefore saith Vos●ius in his Theses of infant baptism, we less care for Origen, because they are not in Greek Cyprian's testimony is granted to be in the third Century, and Ambroses, and Augustine's, and the Milevitan Councils, and innumerable more, but all upon the Popish errors of giving grace, and the necessity to save a child from damnation. Gregory Nazianzen, and Tertullian before him dissuade from it, except in case of danger of death in appearance near: out of which case the ancients did not baptise infants, and in that case the Communion was given them. But otherwise they baptised not infants, no not of believing Parents, till they came to years, and then they were first Catechised in Lent, and then solemnly baptised at Easter, and Whitsuntide, as may be gathered, even from the Common Prayer Book in the Rubric before Baptism. Reply. Origin that lived in the beginning of the third Century says, The Church received a tradition from the Apostles to baptise Infants, and gives a reason, because they are born in impurity of sin; what is added is ingenuously confessed by Ruffinus the Translator himself; Erasmus, Perkins, nor any that plays the Critic upon him, impeaches him in the fore quoted place: A negative argument from Scripture in matter of fact will not conclude, shall Augustine's non-allegation then of Origen, or which is more ridiculous, Mr. T. not finding it, disparage the authority of Origen? Vossius in his Theses of infant baptism, less cares for those parts of Origen that are not in the Greek, yet does not wholly discard them, some testimonies may be more authentic than others, yet all creditable. Pelagius a great Scholar, who lived in the latter end of this Century; Though he denied Original sin, yet confessed Infant-baptism, for when they pressed him with this Argument, If Infants had not Original sin, what need they baptism? He answered, that Christ appointed, and the Church practised Infant-baptism, not to purge sin by past, but to prevent it for the time to come. This Mr. T. ingenuously passes by as unanswerable, and by silence gives consent: Cyprian confirms it in his 59 Epistle to Fidus, and gives an account of sixty six Bishops that decreed that Infants should be baptised. Ambrose says, because every age is liable to sin, therefore every age is ●it for the Sacrament of Baptism; Nazianzen says, it is better to Seal Infants with Baptism (though they know it not) than to leave them unsealed. Austin Serm. 15. de verb. Apost.) speaking of Infant-Baptism says, The Church always had it, always observed it, received it from the faith of their Ancestors, keeps it with perseverance to the end. The Milevitan Council decreed, That whosoever should deny that Infants, even taken from the Mother's wombs, might be Baptised, should be accursed. All this he grants, yet blasts it, (as his brethren of Transilvania did the Trinity) with this infectious breath, that they were all upon the Popish errors of giving grace, and the necessity to save a child from damnation, when Popery was not yet, nor was this the error of all, or any of them finally, as Dr. H●mes hath proved; or if it were, shall the abuse of a thing take away the lawful use, much less the evidence of fact, which is the Question? How Gregory Nazianzen, and Tertullian before him dissuades from it, except in danger of death, is formerly answered; It was either Pagans, or if believers, to consult their bodily health, they did the like to young men unmarried, that were converted, and widows, neither do we find they prevailed in the least against the general practice of Infant Baptism, which was so inviolable, that as the Question is stated, I think he cannot show one instance to the contrary; If some gave them the Communion, i● no more impeaches the lawfulness of their Baptism, than the Jesuits joining spittle, Salt, exorcism in Baptising the Indians of years, does Mr. T. supposed Baptism of believers. That unless in danger of death the ancients Baptised not Infants, is as loud a lie, as any is in the Golden legion, Ovid● Metamorphosis, or Lucian's Dialogues. The Rubric of the Common Prayer book before Baptism, makes no mention of Catechising in Lent, much less that believers Infants were not Baptised till they came to years, but that the Sacrament of Baptism in the old time, was not commonly ministered, but at Easter, and Whitsuntide; He that thus falsifies an evidence, that every Boy▪ or Girl, that can but read, may check him in, Judge what he does with the Greek, and Latin Fathers. Mr. Tombs 26. Section. IT is most false that all ages, all Churches agree in infant baptism; some Churches never had it, Some Churches five hundred years' ag● of the godly, and learned that then were, did oppose it, and practise the baptism of believers only. If Mr. Fox, and others did account▪ Anabaptists Heretics, it was for other Tenants than this. Master Baxter himself saith, no sober divine did ever reckon the Anabaptists as Heretics merely for the error of rebaptising, plain Scripture proof, etc. part. 1. chap. 1. yet Mr. C. bespatters Antipaedobaptism thus, it robs the Scripture of its truth, infants of their right, Parents of their comforts, the Church of its members, Christ of his merits, God of his glory. Sure he hath learned the art of him in the Comedian to calumniate boldly, imagining something will be believed, though there be not a word true. But there is more of this venom behind; That it is the mother of many other errors: Hence sprung the Ranters, Socinians, Antitrinitarians, Quakers, Levellers, they that are above ordinances, Antiscripturians, will any believe that from the Tenet, which doth so stiffly maintain an ordinance, should spring the error of being above ordinances? Or that the error of Antiscripturians should spring from that Tenet which doth s● strictly insist on the Scripture? Let Mr. C. show any the least connexion between Antipaedobaptism, and the errors he names, and he saith something, else if only the persons, and not the Tenet be guilty of these errors, he doth but calumniate. He might with like reason say, The Christian Religion is the Mother of many other errors; hence sprung Ebionites, Corinthians, Nicholaitans, Gnostics, etc. such kind of criminations are most stinking, and base slanders; unworthy a sober minded man, much more a Divine in the Pulpit, speaking to many people, who examine not, but take all for true, which such Rabbins talk with confidence. Reply. IT is most true, That all ages, all Churches agree in Infant Baptism; He cannot name one Church, one particular Congregation that never had it; I have already proved it a mere fiction, that any Church five hundred years ago, either opposed it, or practised the baptism of believers only; Master Baxter challenges him to name one man, that was against, or did once question Church-membership of infants from the Creation till two hundred years ago, and less; which challenge is not yet answered. To these I further added the harmonies of confessions of all Reformed Churches, the Church of England in the Apology, the old Catechism, the twenty seventh Article, the Directory, the confession of faith, the greater, and lesser Catechism composed by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, and approved by the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland; the late Parliament by a further Declaration, all confirming it. The Canons of our Church did not only in former times declare, but the Laws of our land did punish Anabaptists as Heretics: Master Fox in his Acts, and Monuments approves of the Albigenses, Waldenses, Wickliffists, Lollards, poor men of Lions, Brownists, Barrowists as members of the Reformed Churches, but wholly excludes the Anabaptists as erring fundamentally▪ He passes by all these as Forts impregnable, only parlyes with Master Fox saying, If he did account Anabaptists Heretics, it was for other Tenants than this, to wit, rebaptising: yes, for denying Infants Church-membership, Covenant-holiness, and baptism, which are enough; But those are not all, like Gad, it goes with a Troop attending it. But he relieves himself from Mr. Baxter (crying quarter from an enemy) who said no sober Divine did ever reckon the Anabaptists as Heretics merely for the error of rebaptising. This will throw Master Tombs upon the horns of a dangerous Dilemma: for if they be not Heretics, Master T. is no sober Divine for calling them Heretics, and a litter of grievous Wolves, Treat▪ of Scandals pag. 323. If he be a sober Divine, Then they are Heretics; utrum horum, let him choose. whether he pleases. But Mr. Tombs perhaps meant, and Mr. Baxter says, merely for the error of rebaptising; It's true; There is Infant Church-membership, and baptism besides, which being denied with making a party, and division, Mr. Baxter demonstrates monstrates how dangerous, and heretical it is. Therefore I truly said Anabaptism with its attendants, was a dangerous error, that robs the Scripture of its truth, infants of their right, Parents of their comforts, the Church of its members, Christ of his merits, God of his glory, whereof every word is true, and free from the calumniating art of Machiavelli, studied so much by the Anabaptists, which he falsely attributes to the Comedian, In what Comedy? Asinaria. I further averred, at which he disgorges his venom, That it is the Mother of many other errors; hence sprung the Ranters, Socinians, Antitrinitarians, Quakers, Levellers, they that are above Ordinances, Antiscripturians; for it stands with reason, and Gods just judgement, that Satan the Serpent, having wound in the head, by making them deny Infant baptism, winds in further by degrees to the denial of all baptism Communion, Ordinances; And having rejected plain Scripture-proof for Infants, Church-membership, and baptism, are infatuated by degrees, till they deny all Scripture: According to Mr. Sidenham, Anabaptism hath been always ominous, and of a wonderful strange influence, accompanied with the most dangerous retinue of errors, since the first Embryo of it was brought forth, whether from a judgement of God, or from its natural, and secret connexion with other principles of darkness, God hath showed some black Characters on it, in every Nation, where it prevailed. It is void of reason to say, that the Christian Religion, which is the Mother of truth, should be the Mother of error, Ex veris nil nisi verum: The Ebionites, Corinthians, Nicholaitans Gnostics sprung from the corruptious of men transgressing Scripture-rule; And it is somewhat blasphemous to compare Anabaptism to Christian Religion, the one proceeding from the Holy Ghost, the other from an impure Spirit. The Helchesaits, a kind of Anabaptists (as Bullinger says adversus Anabaptist. Cap. 2.) did boast they had a Book sent from Heaven, wherein mysteries were contained, which whosoever heard read, should have pardon of sins. Nicholas Stock gave it out (as Guy de Bres. lib. 1. cont. Anabapt.) That God spoke to him by an Angel, and revealed to him his will in dreams, promising him the place of the Angel Gabriel. Muncer told his Soldiers (as Sleiden Comment. lib. 5.) God had revealed unto him, that the day should be theirs. Tuscoverer (as Gastius says,) told the people, God had revealed unto him, that John of Leyden should have the Empire of the whole world: Do not our Quakers, Levellers, those that are for a spiritual Monarchy, (which are all Anabaptists) affirm the like? And if Mr. T. must have a further connexion between Anabaptism, and the errors I named, it's this (to use his own words) They are the litter of the same Wolf, fruits of the same Spirit; which being their own confessions, recorded by learned, and Godly Authors, are no criminations, or base slanders, but truths beseeming sober minded men, and especially Divines in the Pulpit, whose charge it is to look to their flock, that they be not worryed by that litter of grievous Wolves. Mr. Tombs 27. Section. THe like I say of the Judgements of God, Those in Germany were by war, the events that have happened in our days should teach us to be sparing in our Judging. Mr. Cottons speech was according to his prejudice. Solomon Eccles. 9 1, 2. Chr. Luke 13. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. reaches us more sobriety, than so easily to pronounce of God's judgements. If we should judge of men, and Tenants by outward judgements, Job had been condemned justly. One man had his house burned that did not sprinkle his child, thousands have had their houses burned, who did, and perhaps upon occasion of that abuse, by means of provision for the feast. May not we as well say, God thereby judged against infant sprinkling? Thousands have prospered after their refusing to baptise infants, thousands have fallen into calamities after they have baptised them. May not we this way as well decide for Antipaedobaptists as against them? Divines that maintain the Scriptures to be their rule should not thus judge of what is true, or false by Gods dealing with men's persons, which is often upon secret reasons, not discernible by us, but by his word, which is our rule, and wherein he hath revealed his mind. The rest of Mr. C. speech is as vain. Doth this benefit come to Parents, and children by infant baptism, that God is not ashamed to be called their God, and the God of their seed after them, Heb. 11. 16. what a ridiculous conceit is this? The text saith, that through the faith of the persons it is, that God is not ashamed to be called their God, not their God, and the God of their seed, much less a word of infant baptism, as if such a benefit came by it. All the benefit he talks of that comes to infants is either a mere empty title, or else it comes to infants as well without baptism, as with it. The Devils dealing, if it be, as Mr. C. saith, makes it appear the faith is good into which the pretended baptism is, but not that the baptism is right. Reply. THe Signal judgements god expressed against them in Germany, and the sad effects it hath wrought since these late wars with us, may awake us to take heed of the sin, lest we partake of the punishment. Read Calvin, Bullinger, S●elden, Gastius, Guy-debrees. Mr. Cotton understood himself, when he told one of his Apostated flock, that had his house burned, and his children in it, no wonder that fire seized upon his house, and God denied water to quench it, who denied that water should be brought to baptise his Infants. Eccles. 9, 1, 2, one event falls out to the righteous, and to the wicked▪ and Luke 13, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Those whose blood Pilate mingled with the sacrifice, and they upon whom fell the Tower of Siloam were not greater sinners than others; yet we may with sobriety pronounce of God's judgements against the Sodomites, Baalites, E●ymas the Sorcerer, Simon Magus, and such: we judge not of men, and Tenants by outward judgements; but of outward judgements by men, and their Tenants, so Job was justifiable; One may have his house burned, that baptises not his child, perhaps another baptises, these abstractly concludes nothing: But when Herod is smitten with an Angel, while vaunting on his throne, Ananias and Saphyra, while lying, Elymas the Sorcerer, while seducing, there is something remarkable in it, especially, if it fall out always, or often: as it is observed, disturbance of Peace, and divine Vengeance hath attended the Anabaptists in all Countries hitherto. It may be some, (I doubt not thousands) have prospered outwardly, for a while, after their refusing to baptise Infants; Thousands it may be, have fallen into calamities, after they have baptised them, yet neither of them for that cause, and yet the one a virtuous action, the other a sin deserving punishment, which coming slowly will recompense the delay with a heavy stroke at last: we judge of Gods dealing with persons by his word, precepts, prohibitions, threats; If God say the child that is not circumcised, shall be cut off from his people, for he hath broken my covenant: we conceive it is just, that God meets Moses, and for neglect of circumcision threatens to slay him. The rest of Mr T. his speech is invective. As privatively the contempt of Infant-baptism is dangerous, so positively it is beneficial both to Parents and children. first much comfort comes thereby to Parents, when they consider Gods free grace to them and theirs, that he is not ashamed to be called their God, and the God of their seed after them, Heb. 11. Genes. 17, 7, And this comfort springs from Gods promise founded in Christ's merits, conveyed by covenant-holiness or birth-priviledge, sealed by baptism, laid hold on by faith of Parents; sometimes faith in the seed, or secret act of Infants; which to enjoy, and be disobedient to the precept, and practice of Infant-Baptism is a ridiculous conceit: for Infant-Baptism brings not with it a mere empty title, but obedience, which is better than sacrifice, and the benefit comes no more without Baptism, than cleansing of Naaman's leprosy without washing in Jordan. Secondly much benefit comes to Infants by Baptism, which the Devil knows well, when he causes Witches to renounce their Baptism when they enter into Covenant with him; for they are thereby admitted into the bosom of the Church, devoted, & consecrated unto God, his name is put upon them, they wear his royal badge, and by it they are distinguished from Heathens, and this so clearly from Scriptures truly, and spiritually understood, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it: This he passes by, saving one gird at Witches, saying, the Devils dealing makes it appear the faith is good into which the pretended Baptism is, but not that the Baptism is right: Nay rather, if Infant Baptism (as he says) be a nullity, mockery, will-worship, They should stick to it, for therein the Devil delights; he might as well say, The Devil causes Popish Conjurers (when they enter into Covenant with him) to renounce Baptising of Bells, worshipping of Images, because driving away Devils, the end of the one, and adoring the prototype the design of the other, is good. Mr. Tombs. 28. Section. ENough of this frothy, uncocted Sermon, calculated for the ignorant, and superstitious common people, and the profane lose Gentry, who mind not Godliness in earnest, and for the blind Teachers of those parts, who know not the Gospel, but mind their own profits more than the understanding of the truth, from whom the Lord deliver the dark parts of this land, and provide Teachers for the people after his own heart, that it be not, as now it is in too many parts, The blind lead the blind, and both fall into the ditch. Reply. HIs Epilogue, or Peroration is wholly invective, and beyond the bounds of the most scurrilous satire, Calumniatory, Bespattering. 1. The Sermon. 2. The Commonalty. 3. The Gentry. 4. The Ministry of our parts, concluding with John of Leydens' Liturgy, which he sung in procession upon his blind ass after his three nights dream) from Luther, Melancthon, and the rest of the blind guides of the Gospel, Good Lord deliver us. 1. For the Sermon, neither my Auditory re 〈…〉 red, nor I affected curiosity, nor could it be expected from 〈◊〉, exercising again that afternoon, having preached a Funeral 〈…〉 mon that week, and taught children every day; yet I am con 〈…〉ent, it is truth in a homely dr●ss, and free from that censure a learned man passed on his at Rosse, That he never heard a speech ●or truth more questionable, for Method more disordered, for language more discomposed, than it. 2. For our common people (as he calls them defaming the Rock, out of which he was ●hewed,) They are neither ignorant, nor superstitious, but well Catechised and grounded, saving a few Anabaptists, and some others, whom they have scandalised by their opinions, practice, and divisions, making Religion odious. 3. For our Gentry, (whom this Lycophrons' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls profane and lose) Their judicious piety, and discreet sobriety is so well known, that neither Shimeiss railing, nor Doegs defamation can impeach them; and they mind godliness so far in earnest, that he can not obtrude his errors upon them, hence his gall overflows. 4. For the Teachers of our parts, (whom he calls blind) They have all eyes ●nough to see his palpable mistakes; Some knows the Gospel as well as himself, attending their flock with far more fidelity, and constancy, not deserting them upon every trivial occasion, as he; and contented with less than half his means, with patience undergoes a double pains; This in answer. Now to gratify him. To much of this Examination, like raging waves of the Sea foaming out his own shame, Judas v. 13. Calculated exactly for the new Gospel Horizon discovered by Baltazzar, Hubmir, Nicholas Stock, John of Leyden, Barnard Rotman, John Tuscoverer, and the rest of the Garrison of Munster; and may serve without any remarkable mistake for the Midnight Meridian of our English Anabaptists, Ranters, Quakers, Levellers, from whom the Lord deliver the enlightened parts of this Land, and confirm Teachers for his people after his own heart; that it be not, as now it is in too many places, the lowest of the rabble with Jeroboams Priests fill their hands, and then advance their own Calves, destroying souls like Pestilence in the darkness. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.