Reply.

A Plea for Anti-Paedobaptists, and why? Does Mr Tombes intend to commence a suit against the Uni­versal Church, and to overthrow the divine in­stitution of Infant-Baptism with the Antiquity, V­niversality, and Succession thereof? Let him first consider whether his Action will hold Plea, and whether there [Page 54] 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 Ulisses, and Traverse the Inditement preferred by Mr. Halls Font-garded, page 74, in these words, Hold up thy hand Anabaptist (or Alias Anti-Paedobaptist) Thou art here indited by the name of Anabaptist of the City of Munster in the County of Babel, for that thou contrary to the peace of our So­veraign 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, &c. Together with a Squadran of Arrians, Arminians, Socinians, Anti-Trinitarians, Anti-Sabbatarians, Anti-Scripturists, Mortalists, Familists, Perfectists, Origenists, Atheists, Millenaries, &c. And that this might be the better effected let him except against the Jury, which is first the Anti­ent 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 indited 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, Councels, by learned and pi­ous Divines, both sorraigne and domestick, both old, and new, by friends and foes: And therefore I adjudge thee to a Recantation, and Abrenunciation of all thy loose licentious tenets, that thou no more disturb this Church and State, least Justice do Arrest thee.

But he unmindfull of this, (as if the Anabaptist were the Plan­tiff, and not the Reus, or party at the Barr in question) inveighs against the vanity, and falshood of scribled papers, Tria Cerberus extulit ora, & tres latratus simul edidit. Ovid Metamor. 5. Three terms of diminution with three breaths. It was Libanius, Por­phyrie and Julians project to throw dung in the face of Orthodox Writers: So does Mr. Tombes, calling Mr. Baxters learned piece, Plain Scripture-proof for Infant Baptism, A cheat, and Mock-titled [Page 55] book: Mr. Marshalls impregnable Defence, Ink and paper, and the relation of the dispute had with him at Abergaveny, vanity and falshood of scribled 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 falshood, and such an one as may leaven the whole lump.

But why of scribled papers? It may be Mr. Tombes met with it before printed, and not unlikely; because his Answer came out within three weeks after it, which could not be, unlesse it had been mounted upon Bellerophons 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 entituled The Anabaptists Anatomized, and si­lenced. By whom? Not by the Relator, nor Mr. Vaughan, nor me: I will not say by Mr. Tombes and his party, but I am con­fident they knew of it long before any of us. But where Anato­mized, and silenced? He says in a publick Dispute at Abergave­ny in Monmothshire, he sayes; But neither the scribled papers (to use his Tapinosis) nor printed papers mentions any such thing: Indeed the engraven paper speakes of Anabaptists Anatomized and silenc'd, 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 falshood 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, joyn them together and you know the sentence; And this book thus frontispieced, and imbellished, is to be sold at the sign of Sir John Old-Castle, 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.

Reply.

He sayes, There came newly to his hands a Pamphlet; And why a Pamphlet, and yet scribled papers? Unlesse a Manuscript with a womans [...]oot, and all contradictions ex adjecto may be recon­ciled: The Intitler (of it he say [...]s) speaks like a va [...]n Braggadochio, as if the book had ript up the Anabaptists; The Intitler he means of the Anabaptists Anatomized 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 alters the state of the question; In the Title page (he sayes) the Anabaptist anatomized and silenced in a dispute at Abergaveny, and here he speaks of the book Anatomizing and si­lencing the Anabaptists; how do these things suit with the truth? or c [...]here one with another? There is not such a word in the book as that the Anabaptists were anatomized and silenced at A­bergaveny, or if anatomized 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 addes, 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 [Page 57] found nearer home some more resembling the most Prelatical of Prelates (not excluding the Pope) and thats they that Magiste­rially prefers their own private opinions before the judgments of learned and godly Assemblies of Divines, Harmonies of Confessi­ons, Determinations of Councells Oecomenial, censuring all their brethren that dissents of prophane abuse and sinfull pra­ctise, as he does in the words following.

In the interim he sayes, there was but one, whom with any face it could be pretended he was Anatomized 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 spake 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 re­joyceth that those that d [...]ssent from him, have no other thing to charge him with, than his contending for a reformation of that prophane abuse of Infant-sprinkling: Well, be it so, or the contrary, we had rather with Sem and Japhet cover the nakednesse 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 Pharisie that rejoyces, or thanks God that he is not as other men, nor as those that are for the prophane 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 devill did, when going to streighten his dammes legge, he broak it; In the mean time, the lesse hope we have of his return, the more is his losse; yet who knowes, but he that like Saul re­viles this way, which he calls of sinfull practise, may with the stray sheep be brought home at length to see his errour to the joy of men and Angels.

Reply.

Still more venome, he calls it a Libell; 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 Libell (as my Lord of St. Al­bans Etimologized it) hath its name from a Ly, and a Bell; A Ly hatched at home, a Bell to ring it abroad; So Mr. Tombes his Plea for Anti-Paedobaptists was hatched in private in his study, rung abroad through the Country; A Lye, nay like the man possessed with devils amongst the Tombes, its name is Legion, because they are many.

This he saith, hath a Frontispiece, (he should have said an An­ti-frontispiece) which pretends to shew the manner of Anabaptists dipping, but most falsly, sith it represents to the eyes of the beholders, as if they held persons by the heels, when they baptize them, which is o­therwise then their practise; To which I return in his own lan­guage, he relates it most falsly, seing 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 blind­nesse, he might have seen they hold them by the hands [Page 59] and not by the heels; unlesse their heels be-continued, and immediately joyned to their neck, and shoulders, which cannot be imagined, unlesse like Ulisses companions, when thrown into the water, they are Metamorphized into swine, their armes tur­ned into leggs, their hands into heeles. And what strange Pro­digie, if they had been represented as held by the heels? Its 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 new-born, but God takes them to himself.

But this Anti-Paedobaptist 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 Christs appointment, and says that they have likely proofs from Heb. 6. 2. and our Saviours practise and command John 13. whence we may gather that there are some things of Christs ap­pointment, and have proof from Scripture and our Saviours pra­ctise, 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 lyable to stray as far as the German Anabaptists. I will not impeach him with Judaism, 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 passe; 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 Bap­tisme, 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 Idolize, or to expose to contempt dipping, or rebaptizing which he calls the Ordinance; But if it were Christs 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 Waynes la­den with reproaches, inveighing against the Frontispiece of Dr. Featlies book, and this, with the Epistles, and other passages, which (he sayes) do give occasion to Intelligent persons to conceive [Page 60] that this sort of men do make but a sport of Christs Ordinance.

As for Dr. Featlie, 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's, 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 Christs 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 re-baptizing, 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 scandalizes 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 poysoned in judgment, and imbit­tered in affections against the reformed Churches, and their Mi­nisters, which he further confirmes them in, calling them loose, or formal pretended Ministers; Which argues a great deale of rash ignorance in him, seeing, he neither knowes 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 loosenesse, and formalities, and more constant to the principles of truth, and conscionable, than they that vilifie them, and labours as much for reformation of igno­rance, superstition, profanenesse, and ungodlinesse (which a­bounds lesse in these parts, than under his wing) as the Anabap­tists does to gain Proselytes by re-baptizing; which whosoever in the spirit of meekness opposes, and would keep their flock free from infection, he brands them with the mark of formall preten­ted 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 Judgment of the whole Church, whether Mr. Tombes 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 [Page 61] oppositum, or Ishmael, his hand is against every man.

Reply.

SOme Truths we are impregnably setled 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 trye 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 doe the Anabaptists. And we are so far from insulting over tender consciences, that wheresover we see any spark of piety, we encou­rage [Page 62] it, any looseness, we reprove it, yet we think not that it is to deter enquiring souls from the wayes of Christ; meekly to dis­swade them from questioning one Ordinance after another, till Satan have disputed them out of all; as we know some by wofull experience, who first denyed Infant-Baptism, then all Baptism, except spirituall, (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 concerne not us, though we believe he had faire dealing from Mr. Baxter whom he girds at. And in relation to our selves, 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 publick stage, we must not be offended, if our words and actions be made publick. 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 sayes 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, seemes to me a Chaos of contradictions. Untrue it is, that I did own the Copy that was shown me, otherwise than misshapen rapsodies, and snatches here, and there, as the Gospel may be owned in the Turkes 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 subjoyne.

By this I hope you see what truth is in his assertion; of the same leaven it is, that he accuses us of a shamefull practise, which justly reflects upon himself, for calling that a verball, extemporal dispute on his part, touching that Question, in the study whereof [Page 65] 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 prevailes 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 impetuousnesse, 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 lawfull, all that would be saved must be rebaptized, or baptized 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 aime being this, to trample down with disgrace the persons of them, the weight of whose Arguments he cannot elude with wire-drawn 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 reformed, but averse from right sayings, onely 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 Catholick Church.

Reply.

WHo the J. T. P. or J. W. is, he knowes not, nor shall [...] for me: The six heads, to which the former Epistle is reduced, he waves; [Page 66] 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 Councel, but al­wayes observed, cannot otherwise be believed, but that it came from the Apostles; The later is, The whole Church always held Infant-Baptism; both these he denies, which are both Austins; The former de Bapt. contra Donatist. lib. 4. cap. 23. The later Serm. 15. de verb. Apost.

Ile begin with the former; 1. Applying to the Test the propo­sition, then examine the sandy ground upon which he denies it; The proposition which he calls Austins rule is, That which the universal Church holdeth, and was not instituted by Councels, but hath been ever held, was not delivered but by Apostolical Authority; This I undertake to make good, 1. Distinguishing of Church, 2. Of the Object, or that which is holden of the Church.

Church, is sometimes taken for the representative of the Church, and that according to the extent, or restraint, provin­cial, National, or Oecumenial: Sometimes it is taken essential­ly (as some call it) or integrally for the body of professors living at the same time, and this either for the major part, which (as in Councels) obtaines the denomination of the whole, or of the whole made up of integrall parts, without any considerable exception. Sometime it is taken for all professors of all times, whether since the death, and expiration of the Apostles, or since our Saviours commissioning of them, after his resurrection, or full qualify­ing of them upon the day of Pentecost after his ascension, while (as Egisippus said) the Church continued a pure Virgin.

Secondly, we must distinguish of the Tenets, or things hol­den by the Church, which is either matter of Doctrine, or Disci­pline: Discipline grounded upon Scripture binding, and neces­sary; Or Adiaphorous of Ecclesiastical institution, and arbitrary. These grounds thus laid, I raise these propositions. First, its con­fessed A representative Church, whether Provincional, National, or Oecumenial may err, hath erred de facto in superstructures, or things less fundamental. 2. Neither Provincional, National, nor Oecumenial representative can erre in fundamentals, for then it would cease to be a Church. 3. The major part of the Church, living at the same time, may err, as in the time of Elias, I only am left (sayes he) that have not bowed my knee to Baal. Vnus Athanasius contra cotum mundum. 4. The whole Church [Page 67] consisting of all the integral parts cannot erre in matter of Do­ctrine requisite to be holden, I have reserved seven thousand (says God) that have not bowed their knee to Baal; and undoubtedly many besides Athanasius that in his time were not infected with Arrianism. 5. The whole Church, since the Apostles in all ages collectively considered, cannot err either in Doctrine, or Disci­pline, then Christ should not make good his promise, that the gates of Hell should not prevaile against his Church, that he would be with it to the end, that he would send them the Comforter, that would lead them into all t [...]uth; Which promises, howsoever the Church of Rome misapplies to themselves (whom Dr. Reignolds hath proved neither are the Catholick Church, nor any sound member thereof) yet it is true of the whole Church. 6. It is possible that the whole Church since the Apostles may hold an Adiaphorous, or indifferent Discipline, or Ceremony, which was not Apostolical, or of Divine institution. 7. That which the whole Church holds, hath in all ages holden, including the A­postles, whether it be Doctrine or Discipline, must needs be Au­thentick and infallible: Of th [...]s nature is the present Question, as appears by the words of Austin in the fore-quoted place; if any aske for Divine authority (observe it) not humane, in this matter; Although we most rightly believe, that what the Vniversal Church holdeth, and was not instituted by Councels, but hath been ever held, he does not say since the Apostles, for that is not ever, was not delivered but by Apostolical authority, because it is impossible that any thing should generally be holden in the Apostles time, that was not by their authority▪ and approbation: By this you see the truth of the proposition; Now let us examin the ground upon which he denies it, for then (saith he) the obser­vation of an Easter, and sundry other superstitious Rites should be from the Apostles. His Argument put in form is this,; Easter and o­ther Rites have been held alwayes, but Easter, and those Rites are not from the Apostles, therefore that which hath been held alwayes, is not from the Apostles. I deny the first proposition that Easter hath been alwayes, for by what Cronologies, and Hi­stories will he prove that Easter was observed in all Centuries, in all Churches, East, West, African, Greek, Latine, in China, Musco­via, India? For so much [alwayes holden] implies; have not our Antiquaries, and Century-writers discovered a known be­ginning of Lent-fast, and Easter; And after it began somewhat obscurely, like the heads of Nilus; as Eusebius says in his fift book, chapt. 24. it was left free unto all men, which argues it was [Page 68] not alwayes, but an Adiaphorous Rite of Ecclesiastical instituti­on: Therefore Irenaeus treated, and argued the businesse with Victor Bishop of Rome, when he would have excommunicated the East Church, because it agreed not with the Church of Rome about the keeping of Easter, What (saith he) may we not live at concord, although they use their own Rites, and we ours.

The time of keeping of Easter (as Venerable Bede stories it) was one of the three Questions that occasioned the Massacre of eleven hundred Monks at Bangor, the British Bishops pressed the obser­vation of it upon the day of the month of our Saviours resurrecti­on. Austin the Monk from Gregories authority, would have it a movable Feast observed after the manner as the Church of Eng­land did of late; Both sides hotly pretended Apostolical institu­tion in circumstances so different, which argued neither side had just claim to either. Now whether of these will Mr. Tombes a­vouch was alwaies? For he speaks indifferently, and indefinitly, calling it the observation of an Easter, he must either both, or neither; If both, his judgment will be l [...]ke his Ho­linesse of Rome, who when the Parisians in France, and the Inha­bitants of Mentz in Germany laid claime to the Reliques of St. Dionyse enterred many hundred years before, he adjudged that both places had the whole body: I should think a domestick sentence symbolizes better with the present controversie, which was this: When, after the death of Anthony Kitchin aliàs Dunstan, Bishop of Landaff, there were severall suites commenced by seve­ral men, all lay [...]ng claim to the house and lands belonging to the Episcopal See, as sold by him, all of them respectively shew­ing instruments (as they pretended) with his hand, and seal; the Court rejected them all as forged after his death; for it was conceived, if he had truly sold them, it would have been but to one. So if Easter had been alwayes, and had not crept in 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 denyed is this, That Infant-Baptism was not alwayes, he cunningly alters 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 bod [...]es 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 [Page 69] to Nature, who requires mercy and not sacrifice: And that Infant Baptism was thus held alwayes, is apparent: To pass by divine Institution, and Apostolical practise, 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 entituled 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 dye baptized, and of those children who dyed unbaptized. Two things are objected against this Testimony, 1. That the reason of Baptizing 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 confirmes the reason, being in Covenant with the parents (for of such speaks the Au­thor whose parents are believers) gives the children capacity to be baptized, and they are baptized, 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 Academicks, Scepticks, and Seckers in all things; howsoever it gives evidence to matter of fact, that Infants were Baptized 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 boyes &c. Who are those that are new-born? The Bap­tized: 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 baptized, says [...], They are born anew, or regenerated after the same manner we are rege­nerated, being washed (as it followes) in the name of the father, and of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Dio [...]y­sius [Page 70] Hierarch. cap. 2. calls the materials of Baptism [...], Divine signes 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 baptized for the remission of sins. The exceptions against these are three. 1. They are translations, Origens 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 onely 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 Authentick. 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 truthes [...], 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; unlesse it were an Apostolick Tradition, and yet proves the necessity of it from John 3. 5. Ʋnless one be born again of water and the Spirit, &c.

Gregory Nazianzen, (who as Dr. usher, and Mr. Perkins sayes li­ved in the year 370, or 380.) commands Children to be Bapti­zed, and gives a reason, Orat. 40. [...], that they not misse of common grace; nothing is excepted against this, but that he gave his opinion of others to defer their Baptism, unlesse they were in danger of death, which I shall clear anon. To these may be joyned Athanasius, who interpret. Script. [Page 71] Quest. 94. saith, [...], the dipping of the Child quite under the water thrise, and raising of it up a­gain doth signifie the death of Christ, and the Resurrection the third day. In his second Question ad Antioch. he enquires how one shall know that he was truly baptized, 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 knowes she hath conceived, when she feeles the Child stir in her womb. And Question. 114. he being asked whether Infants dying, go to be punished, or to the Kingdome? 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 Baptized do as unspotted, and faithfull enter into the Kingdome.

Epiphanius amongst the Greek Fathers brings up the rear, a­vouching that Circumcision had its time, untill 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, unlesse children that were circumcised, were in his judgment baptized.

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 baptized.

The Latine Fathers come up with a full body to joyn 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 lesse years after St. John, in which short tract of time the Apostolical practise 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 practise of it had not been as transparent to every mans apprehension, as if it had been writ with the sun-beams.

That Infant-Baptism was in practise in Tertullians dayes 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 infancie) make hast for remission of sins? meaning Baptism; which is a clear case, whatsoever Semi So­cinian [Page 72] 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 cavill of his advice to deferr 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 onely expresse for Infant-Baptism himself, but mentions a Coun­cell of sixty six Bishops, who had declared the same, and all this to satisfie the said Fidus, who was not aginst the divine Institu­tion, and Apostolical practise of Infant-Baptism, but conceived that Infants might not be Baptized before the eighth day, because they might not be circumcised. Cyprian tells him that Infants might not onely be baptized before the eighth day, but any day: Austin approves of this Epistle, and his judgment, saying Epist. 28. ad Hier. Cyprianus non novum aliquod decretum condens, sed Ecclesiae fi­dem firmissimam servās. That Cyprian did not devise any new decree, but faithfully observed what the Church had done before him.

Augustine, that bright day-star 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 us (que) 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 lesse 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 baptized when Infants, was either because their parents were not Christians, or they were not converted till of age, or were tainted with some heresie, or afraid of persecution, as Philip the first Christian Emperour no sooner baptized, [...]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 its excepted (for that of giving them the Eucharist is impertinent) that he held a certaintie of regeneration by Bap­tism, and he makes no question of the regeneration of In­fants.

I answer, he does indefinitly of the species, or sort of baptized 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 baptized Infant without limitation is regenera­ted, but the contrary, cort [...]cem sine nucleo, the shell without the kernell, as he averres there are some, quirem Baptismi abs (que) 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 Antients are of the same judgment, 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 en­joyes eternal life, and how? seeing he was not baptized? He gives the reason, he was baptized inwardly in will, though not outwardly with water.

The last exception is, that Austin maintained that not onely Infants of Beleevers, but Unbelievers also might be bapti­zed: Its true, if Christians had the Tuition of them, and would engage for them, they might as well be baptized, as the children, Abraham's posteri [...]y bough [...] w [...]th mony, 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 sayes that every age is liable to sin, there­fore every age is fit for the Sacrament of Baptism. Lactantius, Fulgentius, Prosper, Aquatanicus, the Milevitan Councel with all the succeeding worthies (enough to swell a Volume) goes in the same Equipage.

But (says Mr. Tombes) 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 mens 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 deferre 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 Tombes further sayes, the Popish doctrine of the ne­cessity of Baptizing 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 An­tients.

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 Baptizing to Salvation. Secondly, That it is Popish Doctrin.

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 Homilie of the 40 [Page 75] Martyrs, says of one, [...], he was baptized 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 dyed unbaptized, re­tracted his opinion, and acknowledged that Baptism was not ab­solutely necessary to Salvation lib. 5. de Baptis. contra Donatistas. Etiam at (que) etiam considerans invenio, &c. I, again and again con­sidering (saies he) do find, that not onely 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 strait 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 damnes; 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 Bernards 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 denyed. True it is Baptism does not conserre grace ex opere operato, all are not saved that are baptized, nor all dam­ned that are not baptized, yet under the Gospel we have no promise of any to be saved that are not Candidati, or to use Ter­tullians language designati sanctitatis, in covenant visible, and ca­pable of Baptism. Of which I have insisted more largely to give light to that which followes.

Reply.

IN the former Section nine untruths (out-vying the number of the lines) are asserted by Master Tombes. 1. that the Epistle affirms, that the baptizing 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) baptizing 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 baptized, it was very rarely. 8. That it was onely in case of danger of the neer­ness 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 Baptizing of Believers had its rice, and spring from Nicholas Stork. The words are these, as all errours, so it, (that is Anabaptism) had its beginning after truth, The husbandman first sowed good corn, then the enemy tares; and then mentions the most notorious Hereticks 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, then Regnant, then Triumphant; And no sooner appeared a Reformation in Luthers time, but there were Herods that sought the life of this Babe, Dragons watching while the woman was travelling, to devour the child, amongst whom the Anabaptists [Page 77] of Germany were most venomous, the Author whereof was one Nicholas Stork, then Phiser, Knipperdoling, Muncer, with their Tayler King John Becold of Leyden. Now by what Chymistery will Master T. extract from hence, that the Epistle affirms, that the baptizing of believers had its rise, and spring from Ni­cholas Stork? This will be strange Logick, the Anabaptists of Germany in Luthers time were the most venomous, or greatest di­sturbers of Reformation, the first Author whereof was Nicholas Stork, therefore baptizing 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 bapti­zing 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 baptizing of believers had its rise from thence.

Baptizing of believers (we confess) had its spring from Christ, John Baptist, and the Apostles; but not onely of actuall belie­vers excluding Infants; Though Master T. confesses that In­fants may habitually believe, nay, by extraordinary means have actuall faith. And here by the way observe two things. 1. He cunningly alters the subject of the Question from Anabaptists (that is denyers of Infant Baptism, and Rebaptizers of Bapti­zed) to Baptizers of believers. Secondly his [...] cal­ling him Nicholas Stork, or (as others) Pelargus, not Stork, as it is apparent per Antiphrasin by the contrarie, for he was so far with the Stork [...] piously to relieve his Mother the Church, that he did rather Viper-like 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 Baptize Infants of believing Pa­rents, and being baptized 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 baptized again, when they become actuall believers; and this he puts in execution by making as many Proselytes by rebaptizing as he can.

The third untruth is, that baptizing 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 rendring invalid his own Instances alledged against it in his writings. Constan­tine the Great; Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Adeoda­tus, &c. Were not baptized when Infants (says he) therefore baptizing 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 antient, or alwayes.

The Question is not whether onely Infants were baptized 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 baptized as soon as they became Christi­ans, not onely 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 baptized 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 Marshall, and Ma­ster Baxter, have cleared beyond exception out of Authentick histories; And that they were not baptized as soon, as conver­ted, as it is impertinent to the present controversie, so it is fal­lacia non causae ut causae, a Paralogism that would impose upon us, but frontlesly, that denyall of Infant Baptism was the reason; The consequence will be strange, Constantine, Nazianzen, Chryso­stom, Augustine, &c. 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 then were not circumcised.

The true reasons why they superstitiously deferred Baptism were these. 1. An imitation of Christ, who was not baptized till he was thirty years of age. 2. An ambition to be baptized in the same place where Christ was, that is Jordan, thus Constantine, and Valentinian, but fell sho [...], the one was baptized at Nico­media, where he dyed, 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, &c. Baptismum tum demum suscipiam, cum à vitūs, & 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 Baptized 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 Em­perour 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 thy self a ladder, by which thou mayest alone ascend to Heaven. 6. Some put off Baptism, to avoid per­secution: by Imperiall 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 Ʋir Caius Seius in hoc tantum malus quod Christianus, Caius Seius was a good man (says the storie) in this onely 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 Hereticks, who corrupted the faith and grated the foundation, and therefore they would not have their children baptized 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 [Page 80] might deny their Infants baptism, not absolutely, but ad hoc, to be baptized by Hereticks according to the judgement of Cyprian, and other Africanes, who held their baptism null. 4. They might out of neglect, or some other humane frailtie defer Infant bap­tism being tyed to no day, as Moses did Circumcision of his Infant from the eighth day so precisely commanded, [...]nd yet for all this, baptizing 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, bap­tizing 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- Baptize. 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 antient, seeing they may be also the Lambs of my Flock.

Secondly here is the Acte baptize, that is as the Jews Chil­dren, and Proselytes were admitted into Covenant by Circumci­sion, oblation and washing, which was but their Typicall, 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 onely of the inward Call, but the outward Character, [Page 81] 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 baptizing 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 enroll 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 are Relata disquipa­rantiae, The fundament, or ground of the relation, is Gods love to enter into Covenant, the formall 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 Christs 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 baptized; some passively (as Children that are put to School by their Parents before they know a Letter) thus Infants are matriculated into Christs 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 Instrumentall, must wholely depend upon the principall 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 denyed by the Anti-Paedobaptists, the proof lyes upon them, which they will performe ad Graecas Ca­lendas. A Negative Argument in matter of fact of this nature is of no validity, no mention is made [...] express termes, that the Apostles baptized infants, therefore they baptized none is in­consequent, it might fall out oft de facto, that they baptized none but of ripe age, as preaching to publick Congregations, who had travalled far to hear them; might baptize those that were wil­ling, and yet have no leisure to go from house to house to bap­tize their Infants, yet it will not follow that de Jur [...], they might [Page 82] not have baptized them, or that they did not actually baptize them, when there was opportunity. When John baptized 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 baptizing, of which Infants are a principall part, as was fore-prophesied, Isai. 2. 2. all nations should flow in; they baptized many whole families upon the faith, and account of the chief of the house, Zacheus believed and salvation came to his house, They baptized Lydia, and her houshold Acts 16. 15. men­tion is onely made that her heart was opened, and that she at­tended to the things that were spoken, not one word of the rest of her familie, and yet the text says they were baptized. This Argument would be far more concluding, no mention is made, that any of Lydias houshold attended to the word, but she, therefore they were baptized without giving attention to the word: Then this, no mention is made that any Infant was bap­tized in her houshold, therefore none was baptized. It will follow as well, no mention expresly is made that her sons, or daughters, or servants, or sojourners were baptized, therefore they were not baptized.

Generals includes particulars, houshold is a collective term, and comprehends all the members, and branches of a Familie; And seeing the Apostles were commissioned to baptize all Na­tions, and questionlesse did execute accordingly; All Judaea, and Jerusalem came to be baptized of John; Peter and the twelve baptized so many families upon record, and doubtlesse thousands besides, how dare any incurre that curse of God by diminishing of the word, and make that exception God never made, that the Apostles baptized all Nations, and whole families, and yet by an implyed contradiction, excluded Infants.

The sixt untruth is, th [...]t there were not any Infants baptized in the first ages, which is an asse [...]tion so frontlesse, that it needs no other re­futation, but what hath been formerly delivered: Mr. Tombes hath rather shifted, than in the least colour answered many learned, and godly Divines that have proved the constant practise of In­fant-Baptism in the primitive Church, by induction of the Au­thorities of several Fathers to that purpose, like the Angels in Jacobs ladder Gen. 28. 12. some descending, some ascending up the scale of Primitive practise, till they loose it into Apostolical use, and divine institut [...]on To passe by Dionysius the Areopa­gite contemporanian with the Apostles, Clemens the Author of the [Page 83] Questions ad Orthodoxos. Justin Martyr who flourished 150. years after Christs Nativity, 48 years after St. John. Iren [...]us that lived in 180. Origen in the year 230. Nizianz [...]n 280. Cy­prian, and a Councel of sixty six Bishops 260 Augustine who flourished 405▪ do all harmoniously avouch the Universal pra­ctise of Infant-Baptism, of whom Augustine is the mouth, The Church, says he, alwayes had it, alwayes kep [...] it, received it from the faith of their Ancestors, kept it perseveringly unto the end. To which I will onely add that of Pelagius which is unanswera­ble, a man who lived but 400 years after Christ, a great Scholer of eminent parts, that travelled over Europe, Asia, and Af [...]ice, whereby he gained great experience, knew the custome 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 custome of the Church in all ages to baptize Infants, and that expresly 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 Scholers, to wave many more instances, that might be produced. The Argument in forme is this. Those who according to the custome of the Church have been baptized in all ages, have Original sin, But Infants according to the custom of the Church have been baptized in all ages, therefore Infants have original sin If there had been the least colour, that he could without shamel [...]sse impudencie have deny­ed the Minor, he might have said, I have been a travellour, and have conversed with the most Churches in Christendome, have read over the Annals, Histories, and Antiquities of these four hun­dred years since Christ (as doubtles he had) and I find the cu­stome 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 unt [...]uth, as would render his o­ther Tenets ignominious; But endevoured to evade Austin's Argument by this device, namely by pleading that Baptism was administred to Infants, not to wash away their Original sin, but to bring them to the kingdome of Heaven. This Master Tombes confesses, (but his figg leaves to cover the shame of it are most pittifull) that the Pelagians did grant the baptizing of Infants, because they durst not oppose the custome of the [Page 84] Church that was generall; 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 advantagious for his interests; when he durst broach errors so pernicious, and de­structive, maugre the opposition of Prelates, Councells, and the whole Church.

The seventh untruth is, That when Infants were baptized, 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, unlesse it be for the fore­going, or the like reasons. Walfridus Strabo, his sayings, chapt. 26. de rebus Ecclesiasticis (that in the fi [...]st times the grace of Bap­tism was wont to be given to them onely, who were come to the integritie 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 new-born to Christ) is meant onely 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 Authentick history to be Christians when he was born, and the words following, backs this Interpretation. Af­terwards being Christians, and understanding original sin &c. ne perirent parvuli, si sine remedio regenerationis gratiae defungerentur, statuerunt eos baptizari in remissionem p [...]ccatorum; least their little ones should perish, if they dyed without the remedy of the grace of regeneration, they appointed to baptize them for the remissi­o [...] 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 baptized, but being Christians, and understand [...]ng it, their Infants were bapti­zed.

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 groundlesse 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 taile of this Question, though otherwise there were fire brands of dissen­tion between them. Photius a learned Grecian, who knew bet­ter the custom of the Greeks, than either Grotius, or the Ana­baptists [Page 85] his clyents; produces an Imperiall constitution, where­in it was decreed, that all baptized 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 baptized themselves, that they should bring their children to baptism. He alledges another imperial constitution that the Samaritans should not be admitted to be baptized, till catechised in or after conversion, but their children, though they knew not the doctrine, were to be baptized.

The Councell in Trullo canon 84. requires that all the Graeci­ans little ones without delay should be baptized. One of the eight Canons in Carthage concluded against Pelagius, affirmed, that whosoever denyed Baptism for the remission of sins to a new-born Infant should be Anathematized. Balsamon in his glosse 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 baptized, or no? some pleaded they came from a Country where Christians dwelt, and therefore it was to be presumed they were baptized [...], in their Infan­cie, others doubted whether they were baptized or no, all con­cluded if they were not, they ought to be baptized. 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 lawes; and Synodical Canon required In­fant-Baptism, if there were any Infants of whose Baptism they doubted, they required they should be baptized, why should Master Tombes out of Grotius give this false Echo, That Infants in the Primitive times were baptized very rarely.

The eighth untruth is, That Infants in the Primitive times were baptized only in case of danger of nearnesse of death; the con­tradictory whereof is so evident, that it need no other refutation but reflexion upon the Premises, to which I referre the Reader. None of the Anti-Paedobaptists 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 alledged in case of danger of death; Nay that any dogmatically, [Page 86] and out of scruple of conscience denyed, 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 alledged) advised to put off Infant-Baptism, which irrefragably proves that Infant-Baptism was generally in practise in their times, that they approve of the lawfulnesse of it, onely advises the conveniency of deferring in some cases fore­mentioned, neither do we find upon record, that either of them prevail [...]d. In case of urgent necessity death approaching, they more veh [...]mently pressed the necessity of Baptism, according to Tertullians own ground. Tertul. de Baptismo. Praescribitur ne­mini sine baptismo compet [...]re salutem, none can be saved (sayes he) with­out baptism, from that sentence of our great Master, unless one be born of water, he hath not had life, for he hath tyed faith to the necessity of Baptism; thus farre he; From whence we may gather, that as Tertullian elsewhere confesses the universal custome of baptizing Infants; so here impliedly he approves of the lawfulness, nay the conveniencie 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 conditionall 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 clensed Naamans leprosie without wash­ing in Jo [...]dan, but would not if he had stubbornly refused, there­fore that was good counsell 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 advise 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 widowes though professi [...]g Christ, to delay their baptism, till they were either marryed, or confirmed in chastity, that is, single life

Now as this would be a strange Argument, Tertullian advised young men, and widdowes to delay their Baptism, till they were either married, or confirmed in chastity, Therefore young men and widdowes in the Prim [...]tive times, when converted from Paganism were not baptized; As strange is this, Tertullian ad­vised to deferre the baptism of some Infants, therefore in his [Page 87] time, and the ages before him infants were not baptized, 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 yeild up their armes.

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 Rereward, 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 Sodomes gulf, or the dead sea. What! was Infant-Baptism instituted by Christ, practised by the Apostles, used in the first Centuries, a custome so sacred in Pe­lagius his dayes (by Mr. Tombes's own confession) as he durst not oppose it? And yet a Popish abuse, when Popery had yet no be­ing: Did Augustine averre the Church was alwayes Popish, when he said the Church alwayes 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 Tombes would have it) in Africe, then Italy, and yet a Popish abuse? This is a strange Prodigie. 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 Tombes would be esteemed a judicious and learned man, much versed in Anti­quity, should account Infant-Baptism a Popish abuse, and in­terpretatiuely accuse the Magistracy, and Ministery 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 saies, it was sought some hundred years before Luther, Sought by whom? At the hands of what Councell, Magistracy, Presbytery? He mentions here none, but Pithagoras like, thinks his [...] is sufficient. In his Examen of Mr. Marshals Ser­mon he gives four instances for proof of his pretended allegation [...] [Page 88] 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 sayes 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 onely 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 shal 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? Besid [...]s this fame was a lyer, for in so many Synods held against Berengarius, we never find any (saith Bishop Usher) thing of this nature laid to his cha [...]ge.

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, hi reliquis erroribus, quos a Manichaeis, & Priscillianistis mutuati sunt, &c. These to the rest of the errours 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 Ʋsher sayes than that it did not conferr 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 Albig [...]nses, doth abundantly own their baptizing of Infants. N [...]gatively that the Magde [...]u [...]gen [...]es that diligently related their doctrine, nor Reignolds in his Caluinotur­cismus, wherein he endevours to reproach them, layes any such thing to their charge. Aeneas Silvius delivering a large Cata­l [...]g [...]e 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 [Page 89] [...]rare pro mortuis, & avaritiae sacerdotalis inventum: Dei, & san­ctorum imagines, delendas, Aquarum, palmarum (que) 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 eis divina bonitas inveniatur. Sa­cerdotales vostes, altarium, ornamenta, pallas, corporalia, calices, patinas, vasa (que) 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 quo (que) 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 sayes (amongst other things) irrident nos quià baptiza­mns infantes, they scoff at us because we baptize 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 authentick 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 errour, that little ones may not be baptised. I answer Cluniacensis a railing Abbot endevoured to render them odious to the people, because they opposed the Monkes idle, and unprofitable life, and casts this aspersion upon them that they deny Infant▪ Baptism, when they onely [Page 90] denyed the trumpery that went along with baptism in those days, as spittle, salt, exorcism; and that it did conferr grace, ex ope­re operato: None charges them with laughing at Infant-Baptism it self, 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 Ʋladislaus 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, sayes they present their children to Baptism, which they ought to do, to whom the children are nearest, as Parents &c. By these di­scoveries it may appear how farre 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 [...] Mus, great boasts, but small roast.

Reply.

IN the first Paragraph he undertakes to answer to the third head of the Epistle, the reasons of the present grouth, and increase of Anabaptism, wherein he forges a Chimera 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 grosse 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 Souldier did from Augustus Caesar) be­cause he could not endure the darting beams of his eys. 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 grouth of Anabaptism calls them vain; yet they shall once more appear at the bair against him, which we submit to the judgment 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. Satans malice like a river the further it goes the deeper, and fiercer. 3. The corruption of mans nature more inclinable to errour than truth. 4. The fitness of the engin 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 ruines by rebaptizing. 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 loose living, as if the native Jewes, that were sealed, when Infants, were more dissolute than the Proselites. 7. To limit it to ripe years increases piety; as if Jewes, and Turks, and their rebaptized converts, were not more fre­quently guilty of Apostacie, and hipocrisie. 8. Not understan­ding that Infants Church membership in the Old Testament is not repealed, but confirmed in the new. 9. A carnal estimation [Page 92] that the Covenant made with Abraham was partly carnal, of which circumcision is a part, as if godlinesse 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 sayes, make disciples of all Nations, and Isaiah sayes, 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 baptized, and because they are not expresly 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 judgment and persons of all godly, and learned men of this present, and former ages, building up their rotten foundation upon their ruines. 16. Temporal in­terests of the lowest of the people, which while they dream it is countenanced by men in power, cry Hosanna, and perhaps cru­cifie 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 practises. 18. The learning, subtilty, and industry of some Anab [...]ptists to gain Proselytes; Arrius, Pelagius, Marcion were not wiser in their generation than they, to invegle the poor sim­ple people, especially women, and inferiour tradesmen; which in seven years can scarce learn the mystery of the lowest professi­on, thinks half seven years enough (gained from their worldly imployments) to understand the mistery 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 farr the assignation of the reasons of Anabaptism which he sayes 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 ingender several vermins, than the fore-assigned reasons occasion the grouth, and increase of Anabaptism.

The second Allegation is, that Anabaptism is true Baptism, [Page 93] 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 practise interprets it) is now to be questioned; And that I fight not with the ayre, or an adversary of mine own fra­ming may appear from Mr. T. who examen pag. 23. begges an Argument of Mr. Martial to prove reiteration of Baptism to be intrinsecally unlawfull, and that in the tone of the Marcionites and Aetians, who in several Councells have been whipt for it, and have received these, and the like reasons for their pasport. 1. In the institution of Baptism there is neither expresly, nor consequently any mention of reiteration of it, as in the Lords Supper, Quotiescunque feceritis, as often as ye shall do it, &c. and whatsoever is not of faith is sin, whatsoever is not grounded on Scripture is will-worship, there is no instance, or president in Scripture that any one was baptized twice, for those, Acts 19. 3. 4. were either first baptized metonymically, that is initiated with the doctrine of John, and then afterwards baptized with water as some say; or adulteratly baptized with false Baptism (as Ambrose thinks) and then with true Baptism; or baptized first with John's Baptism, and then with Christs, which (as Austin conceives) are two distinct Baptismes; or which is most conso­nant to the Text, first baptized 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 begins but once, Bapt [...]sm that matriculates us into Christs Schole, is to be performed but once; Therefore even Cyprian himself, and his followers never baptized any whom they thought were truly baptized before: 3. Baptism succeeds Circumcision which was but once administred, 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 [Page 94] circumcised already, it should not have been done again. And seeing circumcision was tyed to the eight day from the birth, till a second eight day besides the first can be found, it cannot be ju­stified without sacriledge.

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 rayes (as the Astronomers speak) in inferi­ores crateras, into inferiour sublunary vessels; If the Scripture have thus emptied it self for the advantage of Anabaptism, they might do well to let it appear, produce one sol [...]d Argument out of Scripture against Infant-Baptism, name one Authentick, and impartial Author that demonstrates out of one Text of Scrip­ture that Infants▪ ought not de jure to be baptized, out of the un­doubted Records of one Century, that de facto they were not bap­tized, but this they never could do yet, never will do. Indeed they may fancy to themselves abundance of light out of Scrip­ture, like sick persons in some disease, when death approaches thinks, that store of tapers, and torches are lighted about the bed, when the candle is out; the cause is in the distemper of the brain, and eye, and if the spiritual eye of the soul be darken­ed [...] how great is the darkness.

The fourth Allegation is, That this light out of Scripture, and o­ther Authors was not discerned formerly as now. Some of our Ana­baptists are of opinion that Christ never locally ascended into heaven, but onely vanished out of sight and is yet bodily upon the earth, vouchsafing his apparition to the Saints now, which he did not in former ages; This is either a diabolical fiction, or a deluding Phantasm; like to this, is the pretended light out of Scripture, and other Authors for Anabaptism not discerned formerly as now. Did Berengarius see more than the primative Fathers, and Martyrs? The Albigenses of France, and the A­nonymi more then Berengarius: Peter de Bruis more than the Al­bigenses? Baltazzar, Hubmir, Pacimontanus, Muncer, and John of Leyden more than Peter de Bruis? And Mr. Tombes as a child upon these Giants shoulders sees further into childrens baptism than they all? Ring the bells backward, and make Horace re­cant his parentum pejor avis, lib. 3. ode. 6. That every thing de­generates; [Page 95] Ovid and Hesiod were mistaken, now is the golden age, and not before: It seems the promise that Christ made to the never dying corporation of his Apostles, and their successors, that he was with them alway, even to the end of the world, was not performed before; That the Holy Ghost that was to lead into all truth was not sent till now. We have special pre­dictions of these latter dayes, but its such as these. 2 Tim. 3. 1, 2, 6 7. In the last dayes perillous times shall come, for men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankfull, unholy, &c. Of this sort are they that creep into houses, and lead captive silly wom [...]n laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever hearing, and never able to come to the knowledg of the truth; Now as Jannes, and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also the truth; Jude 18. 19. There should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts; These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. And our Saviour himself tells us, when he shall come, he shall scarce find faith upon earth. But that there is shining light out of Scrip­ture, and other Authors not formerly discerned about Infant-Baptism (otherwise than that by opposition the truth is more cleared) I fear is but a bragg like Oromazes in Plutarch, who boa­sted he had an Egge that had included in it the happiness of the world, which being broken proved a wind-egg, and nothing came forth, but corrupted aire. I have read of a Mountebanke that bragged of a new receipt that would make dimme eyes see as perfectly as those of Lynceus, who could discover the flaggs of ships from the Carthaginian to the Lilibaean shore, but being ap­plyed put them out. Satan promised Eve that her eyes should be opened, and that they should be as Gods, knowing good and evill, but it was to see▪ their misery, as the event declares. John of Leyden when he awaked out of his deep sleep, pretended strange revelations, and new lights, which ended in riding up­on a blind Asse in the market place, where he afterwards for his impostures suffered: Male ominatis parcite verbis, God grant that the end of our Anabaptists may be to their own comfort, and the peace of the Church, and that is the worst I wish them.

In answer to the fourth head of the Epistle, why the Anabap­tists were permitted, and their books printed, seing those of Ar­rius, Dr. Pocklingtons, Mr. Archers were burned, he passes by the reasons there assigned, which are these, 1. The providence of God, 2. The wisdome of the state. The providence of God, [Page 96] who suffers errours, 1. That truth by opposition may more di­ligently be searched out, 2. That the sincerity, and constancy of the faithfull may be tryed. 3. That impenitent and proud in spirit may be blinded, and hardned.

The wisdome of the State, that like wise Chirurgians will not launce a turgid ulcer, till it be ripe; A skilfull Phisitian that will not purge some floating humors till they be settled, These he calls the Epistlers own ignorant surmises, when they are not his own, but in effect of the whole Church,; not ignorant sur­mises, but the judgment of most learned men, wherein conse­quently he accuses many former Councells, Synods, Harmonies of confessions, Parliaments, Canon, Civill, Statute laws, many former Treatises of learned Divines, and the late Assembly, of ignorant surmises.

The true reason (sayes he) why their books, and practise is permitted, is because they have at least, so much appearance of truth as is sufficient to make wise men to let them alone, least they haply should fight against God; This is the [...] or common allegation that the Quakers, Shakers, Ranters, and all dissenters plead for liberty of conscience, wherein are couched two words that discovers an Asses ears under a Lions skin, and a poult-foot under a long mantle, for he speaks not out, and sayes absolutely that there is truth in their books; but that there is at least so much appearance of truth; not that those that oppose them, fight against God: but that haply, that is casually, they may fight against God: True it is which the Phi­losopher saies, [...], many things appears and makes fair semblance, which are but shadowes, and kickshowes: Copp put such a gloss, and varnish upon upon his blasphemies, that a Matron that cryed shame upon him before, when she heard his Sophisticated reasons, was convinced to be of his judg­ment.

Anabaptism is a Magazine of all subtiltie, fortified, and ammu­nitioned with all sorts of Paralogismes, and Elenches of Sophi­strie. In which Etnean forge, Mr. T. is the chief Briarius, 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 pole-star 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 errours on the one hand; and the [Page 97] Charybdis, or rock of absurdities on the other. Now if any well meaning, though weak Christian, be inveigled with this errour, 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 sixt, when Cranmer Arch-bishop of Canterbury, and Ridley Bishop of London were sent from the Councell 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 zeale, and constancie, wept as fast as he, as convinced with his tears, which like Mary Magdalens tears, may well be proclaymed 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.

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 Heretick Eunomius) He answers by concurring in judgment with the resolution there given, gran [...]ing by an hypothesis, that Disputes are us [...]fu [...]; but like Margery-good-cow, [...]ve [...]th owes it pres [...]ntly again with th [...]s Thesis, that such unworthy artifi [...]es as he fi [...]ds 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. Tombes found i [...] Disputes? L [...]g [...]ck, and Divine Truth, Logick, or refined reason, whereby [...]is [...]alacies, Divine Truth, whereby h [...]s errours 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 publick view: O unworthy project! Cannot Bajaset b [...] taken, but he must be carr [...]ed ab [...]ut in a Cage to be s [...]en? Nothing grieved the Monks, and Friers so much, as when the Images of Da [...]n [...]l Gathern, the rood of Grace, and Wilfrids ne­d [...]e were pulled d [...]wn, that they were showne at Pauls-Crosse, and els [...]where, that all m [...]g [...]t s [...]e the secret gimmers by which a Pri [...]st invisible d [...]d act the pretend [...]d Mirac [...]es. And he further [Page 99] 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 hereaf [...]er, who nev [...]r writ so fair a hand, as when he writ back­ward, his [...]erractations.

What successe the Disputes at Bewdley, Hereford, Ross, and Abergaveny had (he sayes) is not so proper for him to enquire; whether proper or no, we cannot believe but that he is so carefull a husbandman, when he hath planted, and watered, he will look after the increase; or if he enquire not, others will be apt to tel him; (which he confesseth afterward) for Fame hath an hundred feet, an hundred wings, an hundred mouthes. That at Bewd­ley (he implyedly confesses) hath had success for Infant-Baptism, but presently he sends up a swarm of Locusts to dimm 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 stiled 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 poure water into the Sea, and light a candle to the Sun.

The rest of the Disputes (he sayes) 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, onely 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 Lunatick 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 [Page 100] of them that are for the prophane 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, ought in his judgment to move the Sphears in these inferiour orbes of Church, and Commonweale. With these we confess the Disputes have gained no more credit, than Luthers reforma­tion hath done with the Jesuits; Saint Peters miracles with the Disciples of Simon Magus, or our Saviours 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 dipt, were to be thrown into the water in a sack of Leather for a Parricide, or condemned to Tyber from the Scalae Gemoni [...]?

To the Sixt 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 sayes) he preached, and that's true; and some things the letter mentions he spake, and does still avouch; But what he spake, 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 spake were these. That Infant-Baptism was a nul­lity, a mockery: no Baptism but by dipping, or plunging was lawfull, that all that would be saved, must be rebaptized, or baptized 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 Au­thentick as his.

And whereas the Epistle sayes 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. Onely 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 Antients, and other things that grieved his spirit to hear, and de­sired therefore to conferr with him there about the next morning, and that he slighted the grave old Gentleman with as much [Page 101] contempt as Austin the Monk did the British Commissioners at Bang [...]r. He sayes 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 sleighting, 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 Pharis [...]es, lay heavy burthens upon others, but would not touch them with one of his fingers, could presse Arguments for two hours, that people must be d [...]pped in rivers over head when himself was im­patient for two minutes to be baptized 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 sayes, he was willing to have conference with Mr. V. who seemed modest, and intelligent; in which words, is involved a fripperie 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 Encomi [...]m he gives Mr. V. and much more is his due: But I fear [...], his grants are but lures; Some Stratagem lyes 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 Triumvirat 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 [Page 102] 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 sayes 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 publick 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 Alarme, ready to be beat for the Dispute, Mr. Tombes unexpectedly entred 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 end [...]d, Skinner takes place, and goes on with the Protasis, mustring 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. Tombes would depart, or keep silence, which he refused, alledging he came to maintain the Truth; hereupon (after some debate) he was chalenged to take up the gantlet, 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 Tombes, that he was more for the extravagants, than the digests, and like as they define the Aire, would easily entrench o [...] others bounds, but would hardly be kept within his own; whereupon I pressed him to La [...]onisme, minding him of his Respondents office, which was to repeat, deny, distinguish, discover the fallacy, give a curt exposition of a Text alledged, and not like a Lapwing to carry farre 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 [Page 103] it self. This the Poet cannot endure, Quis tulerit Gracch [...]s de seditione querente, Verrem de furto? Its one of our Saviours first lessons to cast the beam out of our own eye, before we see the mote in a­nothers.

For the second calumnie, that I could not blush, whether he take it naturally, or morally, it will easily reflect upon himself: If natural [...]y, I appeale to any Physiognomer, whether Master Tombes countenance, or mine are deeplier dyed 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 Emperour, said he saw in h [...]s complexion [...], dirt mingled with blood, that is, basenesse with c [...]uelty. Cardanus saw a man at Millan that washed h [...]s face with scalding lead, as carelesly as a man washeth himself with ordina­ry water. I will not make application; onely this I say, he must needs have a stayed countenance that can confront [...]he whole Ca­thol [...]ck Church without blushing. If he mean Morally, let him shew 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 uncivill expressions, and carri [...]ge; whereas, if need were, I could muster up a decade of his, and some so grosse, 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. Sed 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 lesse then scurrilous.

In answer to the second Epistle (where the Relator gives the reasons of his publication of the Dispute and Sermon) he sayes two things are meerly 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; onely 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 denyed the Minor, in which he imagined that fallacie, which he does not now upon sight deprehend. Pag. 22. In denying the Major in the first Argument, he confesses he was mistaken through in­advertencie, [Page 104] 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 Owles 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 groundlesly 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. Onely I came to hear Mr. Bonner, when that failed, fear of offence, and the peoples Aposta­cie drew me to it. For the Sermon, though it was the gleanings of two, it had not the entire retirednesse of one day, as those that knew my other imployments, will easily believe.

For the words following I concur with him, that it displeaseth not me, that the businesse 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 businesse 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 begins to write his Confessions, may hereafter with Austin write 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 deliberatly. In the wombe of which Monster, three untruthes 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 fancie, [Page 105] 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 deliberatly, whereas now after six months time, he brings them forth in print, but as meer unlick­ed Bears whelps, and misshapen Moon-calves as formerly; for all he pretends he will either shew how his Answers were misreported which was not at all; or how they are to be amended, which (as shall appear) is not yet.

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 notor [...]ously false, for neither were my expressions so voluble, but an ordinary capa­city might go in Equipage with them, nor my Syllogismes 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. Tombes had done dayes, dayes 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 heele falls upon the first En­thymene (as he calls it) with that overflowing of gall, that his [Page 109] whole paper is tinctured with the Jaundeis [...]. Hom. Ilid. a. And why Enthymene? unless because [...], it sticks in his stomack; that he kevisses like a Dere 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. Tombes might have remembred so much out of Logick, that there is a species, or kind of Argumentation distinct from Ethimema, which by K [...]ckerman Systematis, Log. pag. 45. is stiled 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 wayes) 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 im­mediatly 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 baptized, therefore some Infants may be baptized, This he sayes 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 inadvertencie, that betrayes him to a double mistake; 1. that there was no way of Arguing conse­cutive, by two propositions, but Ethymematically, so that they were immediatly reducible to a Syllogism compleat 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 baptized, may be baptized, some Infants may not be bapti­zed, Ergo some Infants may be baptized. Truly this is so fri­volous, and deserves so much contempt, that a fresh-man would laugh at it. I find in Master Marshal's Just Censure of Master Tombes, that he makes himself merry, by turning the Orations, Epistles, an Allusion of Fathers into Syllogismes; That his main faculty lyes 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 sayes, Master Tombes can discover con­clusions arising from premisses, that no man else can see, But that hee was not able to make a Syllogism, or reduce [Page 110] 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 Premisses of two negatives, in the conclusion of an affirmative, whereby (as every Puny knowes) 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 premisses.

Might it not more likely, (I will not say truly) have been compleated in Darii, thus; All besides them that are excluded Baptism, may be baptized; There are some Infants besides them that are excluded Baptism, therefore some Infants may be baptized. Howsoever the force of the Argument lyes 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 sayes) Logic. pag. 350. Whence Argu­ments may be drawn, a dissentaneis, that what one member re­ceives not, the other admits; As for instance, from the imme­diat 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 sayes Matth. 24. 41. Two women shall be grinding at the Mill, the one shall be taken, and the other left; hence it followes from his Testimony, one shall be taken, therefore one shall be left; From the like Testimony, chapt. 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 forme, 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 Tombes by this (I hope) sees that there is another way according to Logick 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 sayes, 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 Antients [Page 111] thought) it will follow; If not capable (for I speak of such) his Pa [...]allel is impe [...]tinent, and will not follow; as also his o­ther, Some Boyes are not to be Ordained Bishops, therefore some are; here I would know what Mr. Tombes means by Ordained? What by Bishop? If by Ordained he mean a solemn setting apart by imposit [...]on or hands after Election▪ and Examination, If by Bishop, he mean a superiour dignity, and Office of the Ministe­ry; I say that in sensu Composito while Boyes, 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 boyes 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. Tombes consequent­ly grants, for he yeilds that Infants may be elected, that they may have the habit, nay, the act of faith, which if he knew, he would baptize; now his ignorance cannot hinder their capacity. And this was involved in the consequent, which he denyed, 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 pra [...]tle, that as the Auditors then discovered weaknesse in his Logick, and rationals, so the reader may do now in his Ethicks, 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 unavoydable strait, ven [...]s an infectio [...] ordour against the pursuer; and this wa [...] all the reason had without reason to say &c.

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 [...] controversie, that some Infants may be baptized, which I di [...] thus: To whom belongs the Essence of Baptism, they may be baptized, to some Infants belongs the Essence of Baptism, ergo some Infants may be baptized. Here he confesses he denyed the Mi­nor, where he should have denyed the Major; And which is worse, though he perceived by my next Syllogism he was mistaken, he could not recall himself by reason of my quickness, and multi­plying words would not permit him; pittifull figge leaves; Did not he first heare the Argument from me, and then repeat it him­self, what quickness? Is not the Syllogism briefly couched, that took away his Minor, what multiplying of words?

But now he makes amends, and repaires the loss by a distinction of a twofold Essence of Baptism, which is a meer Cymera, or ra­ther an Ens fictum impossible, never heard before; for as Ens is unum but one, so Essentia una, essence is but one: who ever read of this new Divinity, and Metaphysicks, that the essence of Baptism belonging to Infants may have two senses? First, (as he glosses it) that the baptism of Infants is true Baptism, that is according to transcendental verity, such as hath the na­ture of Baptism; And in this sense he grants the proposition is true, that the essence of Baptism belongs to Infants; The other sense is, the essence of Baptism, that is, that which is of the essence to the right administration of Baptism belongs to Infants, in which sense (he sayes) he denyes, that the essence of Baptism belongs to Infants; as if the essence were not indivisible, that they that had one part, had all, wanted one part, wanted all; For as Eustachius hath it, Metaphys. pag. 21. every created essence consists of parts Physical, or Metaphysical, eatenus tamen dicuntur indivisibiles quod nulla sit natura, quae secundum naturam specifi­cam inaequaliter participetur ab individuis, Therefore essences are called indivisible, because there is nothing of nature that ac­cording to the specifical reason may be unequally participated of Individuals; As appears by induction, humane nature belongs [Page 114] not more to one man than another, so that one man cannot more be said to be a man than another, and he gives a reason, because nothing that belongs to the essence of a thing can be added, or withdrawn, but presently the nature and essence is changed, whence Aristotle Metaphys. 8. cap. 3. Tom. 10. compares essences to numbers, to which if we add, or substract but an union, the same specifical number is changed, hence the result is, if the es­sence of Baptism belongs to Infants, then indivisibly, and equal­ly to them, with those of riper age, but Mr. Tombes being Judge, the essence of Baptism according to Transcendental verity belongs to Infants, therefore Baptism belongs indivisibly, and equally to Infants with them of riper years; Neither will his parallel in­stance relieve him, that Infants eating bread, and drinking wine, is true eating, and drinking the Lords Supper, and have the essence of it, which is his groundlesse dictate, and hath no truth in it, for up­on supposition that Infants are excluded the Lords Supper in the divine institution, which is the fundament, and gives being to the relation, they are no more capable of the essence, and true eating of the Lords Supper while Infants, than degs, and mice, which how ridiculously the Canonists of the Church of Rome Di­spute whether they eat the Lords Supper, or no, every man of common sense knowes; As for the other part of the distinction, which he also calls the essence of Baptism, it is so farr from be­ing the essence of it, as his own terms (right administration) im­plies, that it is but an accidental perfection superadded to the es­sence. If his distinct on had been of the truth of Baptism, it might have had some ground in it, though not as applyed to In­fants; for as the Church of Rome, and other Churches that holds the fundamentals, according to Bishop Hall, and Davenant are true Churches in transcendental verity, but in relation to their erronious superstructions, they are not true Churches, eatenus in moral verity. Baptism with water in the Church, administred by a Priest in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is true Baptism in Transcen [...]ental verity, though in respect of their additions of salt, spittle, exorcism, and other superstitious cir­cumstances morally not true; But Baptism of Bells is neither Transcendentally, nor morally true, much lesse have they th [...] essence of Baptism, as wanting the fundament, which is the root of the ent [...]tie. Whereas Mr. Tombes confesses Infants may have the essence of Baptism, or that it belongs to them, which the Argument from the defin [...]tion further proves, in forme thus. To whom belongs the definition of Baptism, to them belongs the es­sence, [Page 115] to some Infants belongs the definition of Baptism, there­fore to some Infants belongs the essence; This is no Identical probation, or all one (as he sayes) as to argue Infant-Baptism is Baptism, therefore it is right Baptism, it is not Identical, for an Argument taken from the definition is a demonstration, â priori, & notiori, from the former, and better known: It is not all one to argue Infant-Baptism is Baptism, therefore it is right Baptism, but it concludes Infant-Baptism is Baptism, therefore Infants may be baptized, which is the Question by this inference put out of Question. And if we make a deeper Scrutinie into the parts of the definition, we shall find that their Baptism is right Baptism, and that Infants may rightly be baptized, for the entire definition of Baptism comprehends in its wombe these parts, 1. The fundament, which is the divine Institution infolding Infants in all Nations, in several families, 2. The principal cause, the Holy Ghost, of which they are capable, what then can forbid water? 3. The Instrumental cause, the Minister, whose commis­sion extends to them, go baptize all Nations. 4. The matterial cause, water, of which Christian children are as capable, as the Jewish children were of Circumcision. 5. The formal cause also, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 6. Tho correlative Christ, of whose Union, children are receptive. 7. The final cause, grace, and glory, from which they cannot be excluded, for to such belongs the Kingdom of God.

And this is the Argument perticularised by which I proved the definition of Baptism belonged to Infants thus; The definition of Baptism, as of all other relations, is made up of the funda­ment, correlative, and Termini, but all these three, Fundamentum, Correlatum, and Terminus belongs to Infants, therefore the defi­nition of Baptism belongs to Infants. Here he denyed Baptism was a Relation, wherein (he sayes) 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 sayes, Baptism is a Relation, and that terminus baptismi est obsignatio, & confirmatio absolutionis peccatorum per sanguinem Christi, The terme 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 signe of regeneration into Christ, into his death, and resurrecti­on &c. and that by signe, he means Metonym [...]cally a Relation betwixt the signe, and thing signed, and signified is apparent by the words following; A Signe is a word common to Baptism, and [Page 116] other Sacraments is proved hereby (sayes 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 signe 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, Ʋrsine, Bucane, Bishop Jewell described Baptism by Relation, or Rela­tive terms; so among the Antients, Dionys. cap. 2. calls it [...], the garment of incorruption; and Austin, a Sacrament of remission of sins.

Now Mr. Tombes in opposition to these, and many more which might be alledged, denies it to be a relation, and least 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 Tombe at Mecha: He might have remembred that nothing formally can be placed in two Categories, and as in words [...], not to signifie one thing distinctly, is to signifie 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 baptizing, is an action, as it looks at the party baptized, its a passion; And why may not as well Marriage be said to be in both, seeing in it there is both acti­on and passion? Its confessed that in Baptism is included bap­tization which is both action and passion, the party baptizing, and the party baptized 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 signe of water, and inward grace signified by it: This Master Tombe [...] 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 signe, which predication is but Metonimical, the true genus of Baptism must be the union be­tween the signe, and the thing signed, or signifi [...]d, which is a re­lation, and n [...]t as he would make it an action, which would car­ry [Page 117] in the bowels of it this absurdity, that then Baptism would be inherent in the baptized, that the party baptized could not say mine, but the Ministers 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 de­nyed both the premisses, but now minces it, saying that he confes­ses that the terme Sacrament, being but a term invented by Latine Fathers, may he layd aside: What Latine Fathers? The duode­cim Tabulae? For they mention it; There was among the Anci­ent Heathen Romans Sacramentum militare, a Souldiers Sacra­ment, whereby Plantiff, and defendant put in gages to abide the tryal, this Tully alludes too pro Milone Sacramentis alienos fun­dos petunt, They sue for other mens grounds with Sacraments, or gages of mony. Therefore the Terme Sacrament was not in­vented by the Christian Latine Fathers, but was long before them: Perhaps he means the terme Sacrament to speake properly, was not invented but applyed to Baptism, and the Lords Supper by the Latine 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, Ile instance in one, Episcopus, Plutarch in Pericle sayes, [...], 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, Vnity, Humanity, and (which they cant so much withall) Anti-Paedobaptist, must be laid aside: Besides is there not [...] mystery in the Original, which to express in our language, and the Latine no fitter 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 signe, of an inward and invi­sible grace, is both a Relation, and a Sacrament; Baptism is an outward and visible signe 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 [Page 118] of a Sacrament expressed in Scripture. 2. That Austins 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 it self; 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 it self, 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 judgment of the Antients, and the most of the Divines of reformed Churches, a­mongst which expresly Bucanus Loc. commu. pag. 557. sayes, 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, sayes in the fore quoted place, pag. 102. L. C. A Sacrament is called a Signe, 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 adde Ursine Catech. pag. 414. with many more.

His second groundless assertion is, That Austins definition, or that which go [...]s in his name (for he scruples it) of a Sacrament is impertinent, and his reason is as groundless, sith (saith he) it may be applyed 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 signe of Christs Office of the Mediatorship, and not of his righteousness of faith? What signe of invisible Grace was Christs washing of his Disci­ples feet, but a pattern to teach them humility, the service it self [Page 119] 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 Gods Word, or a civill ceremony in deposing before the Magistrate, common to us, with Turks who also kiss their Alcoran. But grant that all these were [...], positive signes of Divine Institution (which is the Genus of a Sacrament) as habit is of saving graces; will it more follow▪ these are signes of divine Institution, therefore Sacraments; than this, Logick is a habit, therefore a saving grace? But let him lay aside his double fallacie, which he tw [...]sts together, 1. Argu­ing affirmatively à Genere ad speciem; 2. His fallacia divi ionis, and take the whole definition (for I onely 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, its this as every child knows; An outward and visible signe, 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 applyed to the descent of the Holy Ghost as a dove, Christs 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. Tombes himself, or any one that hath not lost his in­tellectuals; And whereas he further sayes, it may be applyed to many other actions, which are not Sacraments, let him shew 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 Austins definition of a Sacrament. But howsoever th [...]se he sayes were but Quirks that he imagines I used onely to weary him, and blunt his attention, and make some ostentation of my self, and that he was weary of them; I shall think till he give more satisfactory Answers, that they were concluding Arguments, and that his wearinesse and bluntnesse of attention did arise from the difficul­ty of untying the knot, which was not tyed by me for ostentation of my self, but for tryal of him, and discovery of truth; to which he replyed 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 [Page 120] the people might understand, how both my Argument, and per­son were abused.

Reply.

THat the definition in the right administration thereof (which was the thing denyed) 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 [...]ptism; But God instituted, Christ merited, and Infants stand in [...]eed of it, therefore to Infants belongs the definition of Baptism, He denyed the Minor, every branch whereof I promised to prove in order, and would have endevoured (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 Gospell, did institute Baptism for them, God appointed In­fants Church-members under the Gospell, 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 baptized, were not termini convertibiles; This I gran­ted, for Infants under the Law were Church-members, and yet not baptized, but circumcised, and before the Law, Church-mem­bers, and yet neither circumcised, nor baptized, but under the [Page 121] Gospel they were so convertible, that all that were baptized were Church-members, and all that were Church-members were to be baptized, 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 denyed till a Gentleman told him that he heard him affirm the same in his Sermon the day before, this he then let passe, but now cements it thus, with this untempered morter; in the first words of his former Paragraph thus, As for that which he saith I denyed all that were Church members were to be baptized, and yet affirmed in my Sermon, that they were to be baptized, 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 baptized, all visible Church-members may be baptized: This is his Cardinal distinction upon the hinge whereon hangs the whole Fabrick of his Anti Paedobaptistical Babel, and like the string in the Lamprey, runs with a poysonous 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 applyed to this place. 2. That it is untrue. Not fitly applyed to this place, for the proposition by him denyed, 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 baptized, then all baptized before (they being visible members) were to be baptized again, and so toties, quoties, that all should turn Hemerobaptists, be baptized e­very day; and if Mr. T. say this is a fallacie, it is but paying him in his own coyne, 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 baptized 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. Its worth the enquiry, whether he rightly denyed that all of them were to be baptized; 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; He [...]ce the Quaere is not whether the Saints in Heaven may be baptized, for they are above Ordinances, nor whether the Elect before con­ception be baptizable, for they are onely in Gods decree and po­tentiâ objectivâ, and are short of Ordinances; Nor whether In­fants unborn in the mothers wombe, though sanctified with John Baptist, may be baptized; for though they be in potentiâ proximâ, yet they have not attained the [...], or full groath of Ordinan­ces, it being more impossible to baptize them, than to Circum­cise females; Nor whether the Elect amongst Jewes, Turks, and Pagans before they be called, be to be baptized; 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 baptized, or no? For to be in visible being, and members of the Church invisible, implyes no more contradiction, than for the good, and bad fishes to be both visible in the net, and yet not discernable 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 indiscernable 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 Spyes the second time to enter Canaan, or as Gideons souldiers that lapped w [...]re [...], out of his numerous Army to enter battell. Now i [...] all invisible members be also visible, it will inevitably follow that they may be baptized, 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, onely this by the way, to discover the misapplication, and untruth of this Utopian distinction.

Mr. Tombes insisting upon the denyal of the Minor, which was that God did institute infants Church-members under the Gospel, I undertooke to prove it with a threefold co [...]d, before the Law, un­der [Page 123] 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 Gospell, 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 Gospell, Therefore God did appoint Infants Church-members under the Gospell. In answer to which he sayes, had not Mr. C. quickness hindred him, he had shewed the vanity of the Major, as well as denyed 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 hindred, 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 shewed 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, Its true I doe 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 Church­members, why talks he vainly of invisible? If he had a conceit I meant invisible, why sayes 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 sensless 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 Gospell; The truth of this proposition hath no dependance upon faith, or profession, which is but Mr. Tombes his dream, but upon a threefold impregnable rock, first Gods promise which is founded upon his veracity, se­condly his prediction which is founded upon his omnisciency, and infallibility, thirdly, from the intrinsecal connexion of the terms, which makes it to be aeternae veritatis; for actually to receive into [Page 124] covenant under the Gospel, and to appoint Church-members under the Gospel, are as essentially coincident as to be a man, and a reasonable creature; To deny the two former branches is no less than blasphemy; to question the third, would grant a Metaphysical, and Logical principle, upon which is built the superstructures of all Arts, and Sciences. What can be more ab­surd than to affirm, that what God hath promised, foretold, per­formed, is not executed? When Orthodox Christians argued that God created the World of nothing, because when there was nothing extant besides himself, he decreed to create it, said be­fore there was any creature, fiat Coelum, let there be Heaven, and Earth, and in six dayes framed all things, he made the World of nothing; but when there was nothing extant besides God, he de­creed to create the World, and before there was any creature; said fiat Coelum, and in six dayes framed all things: Therefore God made all the World of nothing. Porphyrie, and Libanius those Atheists, answered, that if by Gods decree, fiat, and fact was meant that God made all things sine praejacente materiâ, with­out a fi [...]st matter, they denyed the Major; as if God could not of nothing create all things. In imitation of these Mr. Tombes d [...]nies those whom God did promise before the Law, foretell un­der the Law, actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel, that he did appoint them Church-members under the Gospel, if by actuall receiving into Covenant, I understand such an actu­al receiving as is without any act of Faith, or profession of the persons received into Covenant; as [...]f God could not appoint them Church-members, even though he had promised, foretold, and actually received them into Covenant, without an act of faith, and profession.

This might have had some colour, if applyed to the Minor, which he sayes he also denyed, implying that in the Dispute he denyed the Major, which will throw him upon the horns of this Dilemma, if he denyed it, then my quicknesse prevented him not; if he denyed it not, then he tells an utruth, and contradicts him­self, but this is so usual that I am wearied to take notice of them.

Reply.

HE having denyed the Minor, that God did promise before the Law, foretell under the Law, and actually receive Infants into Covenant under the Gospel; I proved the branches in or­der. First, that God did promise before the Law, that Infants should be in Covenant under the Gospel, thus. That which God did promise to Abraham was before the Law, but God did pro­mise to Abraham that Infants should be in Covenant, or actually received into Covenant under the Gospel, therefore God did promise before the law that Infants should be in Covenant, or a­ctually received into covenant under the Gospel. Here he sayes I change the terme of actually receiving into being in Cove­nant; whereas if his memory had not failed, he might have recollected that in the Dispute I used both, if his charity had not been a grain, or too too light, he might have imputed it to the Relator, who for brevity sake omitted the one terme, which was used but [...] to in­terpret the other, th [...]y being Equivalent in sense. [Page 126] But he sayes 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's soul be in his body, it is actually received into his body, and if the sword be in the Scaberd, it is actually received into the scaberd; But he disproves this Instance, sith a person may be in Covenant that [...]s, have a Covenant made to him, who is not yet born as Isaak, Gen. 17. 21. Three untruths couched in one kennil.

1. That a person may be in Covenant who is not yet born.

2. That to have a Covenant made to him, is to be in Cove­nant.

3. That Isaak was in Covenant, who was not yet born, Gen. 17. 21.

First, That a person may be in Covenant, who is not yet born or conceived, as his instance of Isaak implies, may be confuted insito Argumento, by an Argument inbred in the terms, for he implyes, and that right, that a person must be the subject of be­ing in Covenant, but none who is unborn, and unconceived as Isaak, Gen. 17. 21. is a person; for a person must be a substance, which excludes all Accidents from Covenant capacity; à substan­tia prima, must exist, and be cloathed with individual circumstan­ces, which excludes universals, must be Intelligent, which ex­cludes all irrational creatures, Incommunicable, which excludes the Divine nature; No part of another, which excludes the soul or body of man, after separation to be persons; Not supported of another, which excludes the humane nature of Christ, because it is supported of the Divine. Now that which is unborn, not conceived, or organized in the womb, is therefore uncapable of being a person, which by his own confession is the subject of be­ing in Covenant.

Secondly, It is a false suggestion, that to have a Covenant made to one, is to be in Covenant, if by having the Covenant made to one (for the phrase is somewhat strange) he means (as he can mean nothing else) a promise from God to be, and be in Cove­nant, for a promise may be made to, or of one long before he have any being, not executed, or performed till long after his being; Then to be elected, and to be in Covenant would be both one; then Mary Magdalen, while possessed with seven Devills, [Page 127] 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 i [...]to thee, at this set time in the next year, where observe. 1. God promises that Sara shall bear Isaak unto Abraham, therefore he was not yet born. 2. That she should bear him at that set time of the next year, therefore not conceived yet. 3. That he will establish a co­venant with Isaak in the future, not that he does establish a co­venant in the present. 4 He will establish his covenant with I­saak, not that Isaak is in covenant; to be in covenant, and to e­stablish a covenant with one are distinct terms, what child can­not discover this inconsequence, God promises that he will esta­blish his covenant with Isaak, before he was born, therefore Isaak was in covenant before he was born: Master T. might as truly con­clude thus, God promised Gen. 49. 10. That the Scepter shall not de­part from Judah till Shilo come, Therefore the Scepter was in Ju­dah before David, or any governour of that tribe was born. I con­fess that God loved the elect from eternity with the love of in­tention, but not till c [...]nverted with the love of execution, at which time they begin to be internally in covenant with God, and mem­bers invisible, and externally in covenant, and members visible, as soon as they are born, if infants of believing Parents, as soon they profess, Jews, or Pagans.

But he goes on with the other branch of his new distinction, af­firming that a Person is not actually received into covenant till he be born, which is true of the externall, and outward receiving, but not of the internall, and spirituall receiving, for who can deny with reason that John Baptist, and Jeremy that were sanctified in the wombe, and elect children that dyes in the wombe are not spiritually, and invisibly in covenant with God, seeing they are qualifyed with graces sutable to their present condition, that God is well pleased with them. But whereas he addes, that one is not actually received into covenant till by some acts of his own, he engageth himself to be Gods; This erronious superstructure is founded upon the Basis of this mistake, that every covenant must be expresly, and actually mutuall betwixt both parties that are covenanters, and is an Arguments sophistically (though sillily) [Page 128] drawn à negatione unius speciei ad totum genus, and in forth sounds thus: Some covenants must be expresly, and actually mutuall between the covenante [...]s, therefore all, even that between God, and Infants, must be actually, and expresly mutual, or which is more, Infants by some Acts of their own, must engage themselves to be Gods: Whereas covenanters are twofold, 1. Actually mu­tual, when both parties correspondently indents, and stipulates; 2 Or not mutual, and reciprocal, when one party imposes some­thing upon the other, as Conquerors upon captives; as 1 Sam. 11. 2. And Naah the Ammonite answered them, on this condition will I make a covenant with you, that I may thrust out all your right [...]yes, and lay it for a reproach on all Israel; This was upon suppositi­on of his conquest, to enforce them whether they would or no; and is an Act of Justice, sometimes an act of mercy, as Ezek. 36. 26. Where God engages without any mutual stipulation, That a a new heart he would give them, and a new spirit he would put within them, and he would take away the stony heart out of their flesh, and that he would give them a heart of flesh, and that he would put his spi­rit within them, and cause them to walk in his Statutes, and keep his Commandements. In this case one party maketh the Covenant without mentioning the other, but as patient, therefore Gen. 15. 8. God is said to make a Covenant, with Abraham, and 17. 9. God calleth the covenant his covenant, God made the promise, & conditions, not Abraham: The former kind of covenant which is mutual, wherein both parties in a sense indent, and stipulate, is twofo [...]d, 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 cir­cum [...]ised. Secondly, representatively by others who are their Proxies and engages for them, they being but meer passives, and are received into covenant without any voluntary act of their own; Thus Infants in all generations from Abraham became co­venanters by circumcision, when they were but eight dayes old, which Christ himself confirmed by his own example pro parvulis 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 [Page 129] covenant. By this you see it smels rank of heresie, if not of blas­phemie, to affirm that a person cannot actually be received into covenant, till by some acts of his own he engageth himself to be Gods: for then all Infants from Adam till Abraham; Isaak and all circumcised Infants from Abraham till Christ, from Christ till the end of the world, nay, Christ himself, while an Infant (who as he was the first begotten of the dead, was the first in co­venant) would be excluded the Covenant: We finde in the Gospel, that sick persons, that were carried by others, were cu­red upon account of their Faith; and Infants brought to Christ by others, were actually themselves blessed by him: Therefore vain is that he asserts, that actuall receiving into covenant imports an offering which is to be done by profession; as if more were to be required for admission of visible members into covenant, than was for admission, or actuall receiving of Christ as God-man, and Mediator to be visible head of the Church; for though we read that the Star, and Angels proclaimed him, the wise men offered Gold, and Myrrh, and Frankincense to him, yet we read not that he made any offering himself by profession, till he came of riper years, increasing in knowledge, and stature, and favour with God, and man.

The proof of the Minor, that God did promise to Abraham that Infants should be in covenant under the Gospel, taken from Genes. 17. 7. I will establish my covenant between me, and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee, and thy seed after thee, he sayes he had many exceptions against it, but I remember none, but those here mentioned by him, nor all them, which how incongruously they are applyed, will appear by reci­ting the Argument in forme which was this. He that makes an everlasting covenant to Abraham, and his seed after him, in their generations, promised that Infants should be in co­venant under the Gospell; God made an everlasting co­venant with Abraham, and his seed after him in their ge­nerations, Therefore God promised that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell, His first exception he sayes was, That if it be understood of the naturall seed of Abraham, the ever­lastingness of it was but for a time: But for a time? How does that follow? If it had been with a particle of exclusion, onely to the naturall seed, there might have been some colour of [Page 130] dispute, and yet without all controversie, the everlastingness of it is extended even to the naturall seed of Abraham; for there hath been, is, and will be a succession of Jewish believer [...] to the end of the world, which proves that in his sense its false, that the everlastingness of it was but for a time, and that time afore the Gospell: But the truth is, it is not onely meant, of the naturall seed, but of the spirituall seed of Abraham, both whereof succes­sively, and in part, if not altogether concomitantly (for there were alwaies P [...]oselytes) it is everlasting, or to the end of the world; Neither is he relieved by the next verse wherein he sayes the possession of Caena [...]n is promised to be everlasting, and yet the Jews are dispossest now of it, unless that the same word in adjoy­ning verses must necessarily signify the same thing; Then the Argument would be good, Everlasting in the latter verse signi­fies not continuance to the end of the world without interrup­tion; therefore not in the former. Upon the same ground an Ar­gument might be drawn against the infiniteness, and eternity of the deity, from these words, God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, Gods, and Lords in the latter signifies creatures, Therefore in the for­mer, but how inconsequently in both a child may judge.

But when all this is done, what if in his sense the possession of Canaan is not promised to be everlasting? the words are these, I will give unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, wherein you see the gift is the whole land of Canaan; The parties to whom Abraham, and his seed after him; The continuance for an everlasting possession: Now Abraham was so far from the pos­session of the whole land of Canaan, that he onely sojourned in it, and that but for a while as a stranger; Jacob his grand-child with his posterity, after their departure into Egypt possessed nei­ther whole, nor part, till Josuah's time, which was almost three hundred years; after Josuah's time till the destruction of the Temple by Titus, the Jews could never compass the possession of the whole, or expell the Je [...]usites, and Canaanites. What then must be mea [...]t by Gods promise to Abraham of an everlasting posses­sion of Canaan? one of these three; either that they had; jus ad rem, though not in re, title to it, though not actuall possession of it, or that it was a type of the everlasting spirituall Canaan, in which senses from Abraham they possessed it; or that the plenarie, and full possession of the whole begins at the conversion of the Jewes, and shall last from thence to the end of the world without interruption; None of these will support Mr. T. his declining [Page 131] cause; nor will my grant do him any good, that the Jews are dis­possest of Canaan; neither will it follow from thence, that I must needs grant, that the promise verse 7. though it be termed ever­lasting, yet it is onely to be understood of a limited time, for I deny both the Antecedent, and the consequent, The Antecedent, it is not meant of a limited time, The consequent, that if it were so meant, it is no sequel that the former must be so meant also. Those pretended parallels taken from Exod. 2. 16. and 12. 24. are heterogeneal, and indeed [...] another Question, which speaks not of everlasting, but ever, and is to be limited to the subject 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 sayes 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 beseeged. The Question is not of actuall possession of Canaan, but of such a possession, as God promised, and undoubtedly performed to Abraham, and his seed after him; when Abraham himself possessed scarce any part, his poster [...]ty from Jacob till Josuah none at all; from Josuah till the destructi­on of Jerusalem according to the letter not all of Canaan; There­fore his inference is inconsequently infer [...]ed, that the possession was not everlasting, that is at all times, particularly not in Gos­pel-times, seeing they were never, no not in the time of Babylo­nish captivity dispossest of Canaan in that sense, in which it is said to be everlasting.

Reply.

MAster Tombes 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 excellencie, 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 Logick and ve­ritie. 3. Having missed 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 natu­rall seed were promised to be in covenant under the Gospel, as will appear to any one that observes the concatenation of [Page 133] the Mediums, which loosed into a Sorites presents themselve [...] thus: Infants may be baptized, 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 Church­members under the Gospel; he appointed them visible Church­members 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 Gospel­covenant it was proved, Gal. 3. 8. God preached the Gospel to Abraham. Now where did I urge that Abraham's naturall s [...]ed were promised to be in covenant under the Gospell? Master T. his conscience tells him, no where; Let him take heed of these untruths that he thinks are officious, and pious frauds, least they prove malicious, and unexpiable without confession and sa­tisfaction.

Secondly he shoots at his own Idol against the rules of Lo­gick, and veritie, for having swallowed, and digested this untruth, that I urged Abraham's naturall seed were in cove­nant under the Gospel, he attempts to disprove it from the Text alledged, 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 naturall seed of Abraham be in covenant under the Gospell, 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 naturall seed of A­braham, (though not as naturall,) were the naturall bran­ches of this Olive, and in visible covenant till Christs in­carnation; and yet not these alone, for Proselytes also of every nation were admitted; After Christ, the Gentiles, or Nations, as wild Olives were ingrafted into the place of the naturall Olive, which in great part was broken off; and yet many of the Jews embraced Christ, continued in [...]he stock, and were both the naturall, and spirituall seed of Abra­ham; [Page 134] 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 onely with the naturall 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 faithfull Abraham; and if the continuation of Abrahams seed had been onely by this spirituall 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 Abrahams na­turall seed were promised to be in covenant under the Gospell; whereas no man whose conscience is not seared, and face starched will say, that I affirmed Abrahams naturall seed were promised to be in covenant under the Gospell, 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 waspe by shooting out her st [...]ng, may very well loose 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 uncivill language in the dispute without provocation, he vents so much rancour deliberately in wri­ting.

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 affi [...]med, 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 Gospell-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, then took away h [...]s answer thus. If God commands Infants to stand in co­venant before him, then 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, &c. 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 onely 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 onely of a transient fact, is confuted by many Arguments rivitted in the text: Ile 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 perpetuall to all, and binding all, even children, and to put this out of all controversie, he addes in the 29. that those things that are revealed (meaning concerning [Page 136] 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 sowen, nor any grasse 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 lesse 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 shew a line in Scripture where the priviledge 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 Gospell, as well as under the Law; then by his own concession it may be concluded, that Infants are in covenant under the Gospell, but wives, and servants are in co­venant as well under the Gospell, as under the Law, Therefore Infants are in Covenant under the Gospell; and to this fair issue the matter is come.

Reply.

THough Mr. Tombes could not make his retreat good, nor man his fort consisting of a fourfold exception; yet like as Thuci­dides said of Pericles, when he was asked by Archidamus King of the Spartans, whether he, or his adversary wrastled better? A man (saith he) cannot tell, for when I cast him down, he by say­ing he hath no fall, perswadeth the beholders, and so overco­meth: So he being beat out of his holds, peremptorily held his conclusion, maugre the premisses, that the covenant was not perpetual, and as well to Infants under the Gospell, as under the Law: Against which was concluded thus. If Christ hath ob­tained a more excellent Ministery, 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 Ministery, was a Mediator of a better Covenant, which was established upon better promises; Therefore if Infants were in Co­venant under the Law, they are in covenant under the Gospell. This he sayes 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 then 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 [Page 128] but the elect, and true believers, and so not to Infants as the na­turall seed of believers. These are either wild assertions, or incon­sequent deductions which now comes to the touch-stone:

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 Denisons before, their children. A noble mans patent may be enlarged with greater priviledges, 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 least 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 onely 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 won­derfull 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 naturall 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 Gospell, as under the Law; nor will it avoid [Page 139] my Argument, unlesse 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 preheminence of circumstances (wherein the dignity of the Covenant under the Gospell, and under the Law is distinguished) countervaile the holding out of one soul out of Covenant, and so ordinary capacity of salvation, much more, so many millions of Infants that dy 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 Gospell, than under the Law; or as if the promises under the Gospell, and under the Law were not in effect the same, differing onely 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 Serpents 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 assention: But before the Law, under the Law, and under the Gospell, 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 inter­nall, and spiritual, or external, and of Ordinances: Interna [...] again, are either hypothetical, and conditional, or categorical­and absolute: Hence arises these three propositions. 1. That the external promises of the Gospell, 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, [Page 140] catagoricè and hypotheticè; voluntate antecedenti, & consequente.

3. That the internal, and spiritual promises of the Gospel are made absolutely, and terminated or performed onely to the E­lect, and invisible members [...] Here it is apparent that his allega­tion is onely true in the third sense, in the two former manifestly false; in which sense onely it concerns our present controversie 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 alwayes the same reason; Enoch, Abraham, Eliah and Moses, were as well justified by faith, and had a respect to the recompence of reward, Heb. 11. as well as Peter and the rest of the Apostles.

His last assertion is, That because the promises of the Gospell 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 externall 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 Jewes 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 onely, but also walk in the steps of his faith; which implies that he was the Father of them, who are of circum­cision onely, and walk not in the steps of his faith: The same reason is of the Gospell, unless they were two distinct covenants, and essentially different, and that made with Abraham, and his seed carnall, as the carnall Anabaptists affirme; which absur­dity supposes it little better comfort, for Abraham and his seed to have such a portion onely 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 Jewes little better than the beasts that [Page 141] perish; as some grosse 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 firme 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 limit­ted time is put out of doubt, Isai. 54. 8. 10. With everlasting kind­nesse will I have mercy on thee saith the Lord thy Redeemer, and the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed, but my kindness shall not depart 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 Belee­vers (though not as natural, but natural of Believers) as well as under the Law. And though the Jewes 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.

Reply.

MAster Tombes 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 Christendome, 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 Christen­dome, and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation, therefore it cannot be a better Covenant. Then he gave no direct answer, but now sayes, if I mean by Christendome 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 sayes that he knowes 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, &c. 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 Christendome, and leaves them no ordinary means of salvation, may be a better Covenant; Ile trace him in his own foot steps.

First to gratifie him, I mean by Christendome 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 baptized again, or readmitted by iteration of the seal, contrary to Cyprian, the Novatians, and Donatists, with the Councell of Carthage.

2. I conceive that Infants, that is (besides those that dye in their mothers wombes) 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, [Page 143] 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 onely so, but of invisible Church-membership, also interpretatively, and consequently▪ for they that are not in covenant, and members of the Church­visible, have no promise, no present hope of Salvation Ephes. 2. 12. This he seems to overthrow by these positions following▪ 1. That he knowes 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 levell them.

First he sayes, that he knowes 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 onely 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 Gospell, left without any ordinary means of salvation, save onely Baptism, seeing Christ sayes, John 3. 5. Except a man b [...] born of water, and of the Spirit be cannot see the Kingdome 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 Baptized, heare 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 Gospell baptized, engaged by their parents, or sureties. Or those thing, that are neither in [Page 144] our power, nor others, performed neither by our selves, nor o­thers, yet by Gods free Charter in our selves, and others; Thus covenant-holiness, prerogative of birth, Gods promise to Abra­ham, that he would be his God, and the God of his seed; That of Peter, Acts 2. 39. confirmed to Jewes 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 Jewes children with whom they hold pro­portion, Rom. 3. 12. What advantage hath the Jew, or what pro­fit is there of Circumcision? Much every way; chiefly 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 Gospell.

Secondly he sayes, 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 unsavory, 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 breath without the heart, nor the Colonel issue out any word of command without subordination [Page 145] to his generall: But Baptism may be true Baptism even in a­dultis, as Hymenaeus, without true faith, and many other hypocrites who when they became true Penetentiaries, none but those He­reticks, the Novations, and Donatists, durst Baptize again, But for the Baptism of Infants, actuall faith is not necessarie 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, charitie, 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 onely understand it, but the Infants, and sucklings that under­stand it not, have equall benefit by it, their honest overseers, and Guardians will look to their Interests, and shall we think God to be less carefull of Infants, to whom he hath proclaimed be­longs the Kingdom of God?

Lastly he sayes Infants are saved by the election of God, re­demption of Christ, and work of his spirit without ordinary means; This implyes a contradiction, of which his forge is full; for if God hath revealed in the Covenant of the Gospell, and made a promise thereof, that Infants are saved by the election of God, redemption of Christ, and work of his spirit, then 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 Gospell, 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 member [...]: 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 [Page 146] 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 (sayes the Apostle) that these may not be baptized, seeing they have recieved 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 Baptize 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 baptized, even from his own grounds, is past my understanding to apprehend. Now to return to the Argument, and summe 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, Gods promise of grace, and glory, cannot be a better covenant than that which differed onely in circumstan­tials, and deprived of none of these, but to deny Infants to be in covenant, deprives the one half of Christendome of substantials, as the benefit of the word, inward and outward Baptism, visible Church membership, Prerogative of Birth, covenant-holyness, Gods promise of grace, and glorie; Therefore it cannot be a better covenant than that which differed onely in circumstan­tials, and deprived of none of these.

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 onely with the spirituall 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 al­ledged, or if it had been right, & determined so, that it had made nothing against my present allegation, comes now to be tryed. First the saying was not right, that the Covenant under the Gospel was made onely with the spirituall seed of Abraham, that is, Gal. 2. 15. not with chose that are not Jews by nature, or lineally descended from Abraham, but onely 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 onely to the Jews, the Epistle of James sent onely to the twelve tribes scat­tered abroad, the former Epistle of Peter to the strangers scat­tered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bi­thynia, that Jew, and Gentile are all one in Christ Jesus: The summe of all which amounts to this, That which was propo­sed and entertained with success by the Jews, which were the naturall seed of Abraham, was not onely made with the spiri­tuall seed of Abraham; But the Covenant under the Gospell was proposed, and entertained with success by the Jews which were the naturall seed of Abraham, Therefore it was not onely made with the spirituall seed of Abraham.

2. it was not determined by those forequoted places, that the [Page 148] covenant under the Gospel was onely made with the spirituall 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 naturall 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 onely, which is Equivalent in sense with that we affirm, he was a Father to the naturall Jews, when they be­lieved, and entertained Christ. And the 16. ver. makes the re­lations of paternity and son ship equall to Jew, and G [...]ntile 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 one­ly 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 Gospell: 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, professours, and believers, they, and their children are in co­venant; for then the posterity of Ishmael, when the apostated and the unbelieving Jew [...], to whom the Gospell 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 guiltie of backsliding, and r [...]ciduation, as the posterity of Ishmael, and Ketu [...]ah were; otherwise it is appa­rent, that not onely the outward Ordinances, and seals of the covenant, but even the spirituall 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 stiled, either because they were never in visible cove­nant, as Pharaoh, and the Egyptians; or that were in covenant, [Page 149] and apostated, as the posterity of Ishmael, and the Jews that were broak off at Christs 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 veritie; 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 spirituall 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 Gosp [...]ll 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 charitie, and for any thing we know, by ele­ction, and Judgement of veritie. 3. Those that are in v [...]sible covenant, till they apostate, are children of promise, so that out­ward Or [...]inances belongs to them absolutely, the inward, and spirituall 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, spirituall grace, and glory the end; In all these respects the Apostle speaks, Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Christs, then are ye Abraham' s seed, and heirs according to promise. If Christs by profession, then Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise in Judgement of charitie; If Christs sincerely, then Abraham's seed, and heirs really, and in veritie 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 spirituall seed of Abraham (for he speaks [Page 150] ambiguously) understand believing Gentiles, as opposed to the Jews; or the elect of both Jews, and Gentiles, as opposed to the carnall 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 onely with the spirituall seed of Abraham.

Thirdly if it had been right, and determined so, that the cove­nant under the Gospel, was made onely with the spirituall seed of Abraham, it had made nothing aga [...]nst my present allegation, which was this, That which unchurches the one half of Chri­stendome, 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 onely made with the spirituall seed of Abraham, therefore though it unchurch Infants, which are the one half of Christendome, it may be a bet­ter covenant than that of the Law; whereas the excellencie of the covenant, whether made with the naturall, carnall, or spi­rituall seed consists in the excellencie 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 onely made with the spiri­tuall 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 Gospell it was not onely made to the spirituall seed, but it was made in the same manner, and extent to the Gentiles as it was to the Jews, There­fore under the Gospell it was not onely made to the spi­rituall seed. Then he denyed 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 denyed 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 naturall 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 nationall to the naturall seed of believers as was to Abraham, either expresly, or by consequence not expresly, for my words, that the covenant was made in the same manner, and extent to the Jew, and Gentile, not by consequence; in the [Page 151] same manner, because by mutuall stipulation, in the same extent▪ because Parents with children; And that is was nationall to the Jew, was Accidentall, for it was made with Abraham when he was but a familie, dwelt in the middest 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 onely 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 wayes; either when one familie of Christians, like Abraham's, hath grown to be a nation; or when the supream Magistrate engages for his subjects, that they shall be the sub­jects of Christ, and by imperiall decrees proclaimes an unifor­mity in Religion; or when by Gods blessing upon Ministers en­deavours, whole Nations are convinced to profess Christianity, as in this o [...] ours, where Church, and Common-wealth as both one; And to say we have many hypocrites, and carnall Profes­sors, concludes no more that our Church is not nationall, than against the Jews, that theirs was not nationall; or against the seven Churches of Asia, that they were not Churches, for there were many hypocrites and carnall 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 Gospell: for as the Jews, even the whole nation of professors were received into covenant, that inde­finitly they might be fellow heirs with Christ, of the same mystical body, whereof he is the head, and partakers of spirituall comfort, though a remnant of them were but saved, and attained the end. So the Gentiles are received also into covenant, even whole Na­tions, when they profess (the partition wall being pulled down) for the end that they may be fellow-heirs with the Jews, of the same body, & partakers of the promise in Christ by the Gospel; Though all that are called, are not chosen; for there is a difference betwixt inward, and outward calling, visible, & invisible members, yet not easily discernable in this life. Therfore it is true that the Gospel-co­venant is made with the whole visible Church, for all receive the [Page 152] seals of the covenant, participates of the ordinances, gives up their names to Christ, engages to fight under his banner.

Now as a Souldier that is listed, cannot be denyed to be a member of an army, though he be treacherous, or unserviceable, till he be discovered and cashi [...]red, nor can a Professor be denyed to be Christs Souldier while he is Militant here. The Apostles di­stingu [...]sh all the Churches to whom they write from heathens by the Characteristicall note of Saints, yet it is to be feared, the greater part of these fields were tares; neither is this any whit impeached by that which he subjoyns, that the Gospel-covenant is not made with the whole visible Church as it is expressed, Heb. 8. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. This is a fallacie a dicto secundum quid, ad simplicuer negativè, for if it be made with the whole visible C [...]urch in the sense in Question, it is sufficient for our purpose, though it be not in every sense, or that there expressed. One and the same covenant is expressed severall wayes, differing onely in graduall perfections according to the capacity, and receptibility of the Covenanter; Sometimes signanter, & in via, as is propo­sed to them in the way; sometimes efficaciter & in patria as it is te [...]minated, and made effectuall at the end of the way; Now the covenant as it is expressed, Heb. 8. 7. (whether it be meant lite­rally of the Jews when recalled. 8. I will make, the word is [...] I will perfect, or finish a new covenant with the house of Israel, and the house of Judah; or siguratively of the converted Gentiles) offers no violence to my 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 (sayes God) from the least to the greatest; therefore not onely the spirituall seed of Abraham, which were invisible, and none knew who were the greatest, or the least, but points at signally, and [...] those that were faithfull to the end, and received a crown of life.

Now in the dispute the consequent by him denyed was further p [...]oved thus; That which is made with the whole visible Church is not onely made with the elect, and true believers; The cove­nant is made with the whole visible Church, Therefore not onely with the elect, and true believers. In answer to this he sayes, If he denyed the Major (as he did pag 29. in the first Ar­gument) he confesses he was mistaken through inadvertencie, his conditionall [if] implying his memory may fail, His confes­sed [mistake] that his Judgement may fail; [Inadvertencie] that there is a ground, or principle within him, whereby he is inclined [Page 153] to faile: 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 Tombes forsooth could not be mistaken, if it were not either through my fast sp [...]aking, or some humane infirmity, or some o­ther occur [...]ence now not remembered; but which of these he cannot tell, onely this he can tell, he was mistaken. Here we have that great advan [...]age which Tully sperks of, confitentem reum; were we but sure to [...]ye a knot vpon him, for he is some­what sl [...]ppery. Quid cum manifesto tenetur? Anguilla'st, elabitur, Plautus in Pseud. for now after six months travelling in concep­tion, he denies the Minor he granted before; but with two li­mitations, 1. If it be understood of the Gospel Covenant, Heb, 8. 10. 2. If the whole visible Church be taken without any Sy­necdoche for every Church member; Thus we have his colle­ction in words at large, and not in figures.

The former I have cleared before that it is understood of the Gospell Covenant, which all those that are baptized, and disci­pled into Christ, are entred into; As Apprentises, as soon as the Indentures are sealded, are in covenant with their Masters, though peradventure some of them serve not out their time, and through miscarriage attain not their freedome, Roman Souldi­ers were all Sacramento militari obstricti, bound by an oath to their Commanders, though some after fled from their colours: All visible professors are in Covenant inchoative, and enjoy the means; though not consummativè, that they may enjoy the end. And that Heb. 8. 10. does not enfeeble, but enfo [...]ce this; for God puts his Law into the minds, and wri [...]es them in the hearts of all professors; for the seed is sowen, and pa [...]tly comes up in the whole field, some receive it with joy, tasts the good word of God, the heavenly gift, are partakers of the Holy Ghost, and yet falls away, Heb. 6 6. God is to them a God, and they to him a people, for he is a Saviour of all men, [...], especial­ly of them that believe.

His second limitation is, That the Covenant is not made with the whole visible Church, if the whole Church be taken without any Synec­doche, for every visible Church-member: For 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 onely the elect [Page 154] 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 Syn [...]cdoche, or taking part for the whole; and this answers, Heb. 8. 10. take it in what sense you please.

Secondly, there is a making, and so a being in Covenant in facie visibilis ecclesiae according to visible profession, participation of Ordinances, communion with Saints, all outward Characters of Saintship undiscernable, Rom. 9. 4. Deut. 29 10, 12. John 1. 11. Psalm 50. 5 John 15. 2. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh away: whence it is appatent, that there are branches in Christ, in Covenant with Christ, that brings forth no fruit, yet are visible members while they carry in the vine; And in this sense the Gospel-Covenant is made with the whole visible Church, being taken without any Synecdoche for every Church­member; Otherwise there could be no visible Gospell-Covenant, Gospel-Ordinances, Gospel-Ministery, which must needs take the denomination from the visibilitie of the object, and ac­cording to this new Tenet would be Utopian, and no where.

Reply.

HEre Mr. Tombes (like a bad division) saltum facit, skips over main passages in the dispute, that it is needfull to find the end of the th [...]ad, to guid us in the Meanders of this Labyrinth: Then th [...] major proposition by him denyed was thus confi [...]med: That which is made to the k [...]gdome of God upon earth is not onely made to the elect, that which is made to the whole Church visible is made to the kingdome of God upon earth, therefore it was not onely made to the elect.

Here he denyed the former proposition again, which was proved thus: In the Kingdome o [...] God, that is, in the Church Militant, the [...]e are not onely elect, but reprobates, Saints, but hypocrites, for all that are outwardly called, are of the kingdom of God in this sense, and many are called, and few chosen; the Kingdome of God is compa [...]ed to a field, where there are tares as well as wheat; a fold, where there are goats as well as sheep; To a Noble mans house, where there are vessels of dis­honour, as well as hon [...]ur: And if the Church in regard of out­ward administration of Ordinances (which is the Question) were onely the Elect, then it would follow that there were no visible Church upon earth, the Jewes had no more visible Church than the Heathens, the distinction of the Church visible, and [...]nvisible were frivolous, for no mo man nor Angell 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; onely like Ari­stotle's [...], Ethic l. 4. c. 1. he catches at circumstances, as men, when almost drowned, do at sticks, or weeds; for he sayes he perceives by my words, pag. 30. If the Church in re­gard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the e­lect, &c. that the 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 my self to mean the whole visible Church, as in the major denyed, pag. 29. [...]nd by Covenant to mean an external covenant made with all vsible Professors in op­position to his Covenant made onely with the spiritual seed of Abraham, pag. 14 Whosoever reads the Premises, or the relation of the Dispute will find that I spake so clearly, & distinctly home in these terms, that he conceiving my meaning did directly [Page 156] overthrow his, gave no answer then, nor does yet, save this col­laterall shift, which like the black mud cast over the fish Sepia, or Cuttle, showes where he was taken; But with Reignold he hath more evasions yet, for my fast speaking, he sayes, would not per­mit him deliberately to consider my words; what a sore is this, that he layes his finger upon, and complaines o [...] almost in every page? The truth is, I spake no faster than he repeated, but faster than he answered, That as the Cardinall of Lorrain said at Beza's dispute, he wished the people had either been deaf, or I dumb, But this my fastness would not suffer him deliberately to consi­der my words; If almost three hours time would not suffer him, deliberately to consider of that which might have been delivered in one hour, yet methinks six months since might; But this [...], as in the Epigram, brings forth now as blind whelps as then: So that it was a marvell that he desired liberty then to explain himself, and to enquire into my meaning, which was as transparent, as if it had been writ with the Sun­beames; but amounts to a prodigie that he should averr so now, when he neither did so, nor had the least occasion for it; Onely when he perceived the people apprehended that he was brought to an apparent absurdity, he waded into a large discourse to wind himself out, it being impossible for him otherwise seeming­ly to answer, or to make the disputation on his part, but sophisti­cally probable, but by obscuring the truth.

But his assertion in the next section is more frontless, for thus he charges me; As for that which Mr. C. saith, it was the Questi­on whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordi­nances were onely the elect: It doth untruly suggest as if I so con­ceived, whereas the truth is, he untruly suggests that which I said not, for my proposition was not Categorical (as he mis-re­ports it) that it was the Question, whether the Church in re­gard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect; but hypothetical, if the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances (which is the Question) were only the elect: These were my words expresly, neither can he drawout by any con­sequence that I implyed so much, for if he rack them upon the Ten­ters, he cannot stretch them to say that the question was whether the Church, in regard of outward administration of Ordinances was onely the elect, but the Question was about the administrati­on of an outward Ordinance, to wit Baptism: And if I had said, that had been the Question (as he alledges it) I had suggested nothing otherwise than he conceived, if we may judge of his conceits by his [Page 157] expressions, as appears by denying the Major, pag. 29. of the re­lation, viz. That which is made to the whole visible Church, is net onely made with the elect: For if the whole visible Church, and the elect be all one, and termini convertibiles, as his denyal ne­cessarily inferrs, 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 onely the elect; And though he retract it in his answer, confessing that he was mista­ken either through inadvertencie, or some humane frailty, or by some other occurrence by him not remembred; how could I divine this in the dispute, or the Relator after me? Seeing it was seve­rall months before he sung this Palinodie, 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 onely the elect.

But he further confirmed his recantation by saying he holds the Church invisible are the elect onely, to let u [...] see that he con­currs 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 knowes 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 onely 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 vertue thereof the formal hypocrite with the foolish virgins may not onely deceive others, but themselves.

And whereas he sayes 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 Epilepsie, or Morbus facer, so often surprises him, that his Tenets are like the Island Delos al­wayes floating, and never setled; Therefore I shall put him in mind of his next grant, that outward Ordinances may lawfully be administred to others than elect persons, upon their professi­on [Page 158] of faith in Christ, when I shall have occasion hereafter to prove that outward ord [...]nances may lawfully be administred to none but them in Covenant; And that there is the same reason of professors chi [...]dren 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 pa­rents faith and pro [...]ession may have so much influence upon their children, that they may receive the outwa [...]d Ordinance of Bap­tism in referrenc [...] to the cu [...]e of their spiritual maladyes But like the Se [...]pent Amphisbene, that hath a st [...]ng at both ends; as he began, so he ends with poyson, saying that by confounding these term▪ [to be in C [...]venant, to be subjects of Baptism] I mislead unwary hea [...]ers, and readers, whe [...]eas I clearly affi [...]m withall 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.

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 perswaded 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 denyed the major, saying the meaning was that the Jews should bring the Gentiles children, to which was reply­ed, God sayes I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and they that is the Gentiles shall bring thy sons, and Mr. T. sayes the Jewes 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 sayes his answer was at first (though it was otherwise taken) that it is a prophesie, that the Gentiles should bring back the Jewes not onely 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 knowes; But let that pass as matter of fact, and impertinent to the present controversie, 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 onely meant of the Gentiles bringing the Jewes from captivity, which he undertakes not, but the contrary, saying afterwards that he denyes not, but the words may be accommodated to the times of the Gospel. But how proves he that it is a prophesie, that the Gentilds should bring back the Jewes, not onely Infants, but others from captivity? Two wayes, First by Testimo­ny [Page 160] of Scripture. Secondly of Mr. Gataker, which like Linsie­woolsie he weaves together. First Scripture, for he sayes 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 wast, 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 Jewes? 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 strait 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 verifyed, that the land of Canaan was too streight during the time of captivity (as the words point) to contain the Jewes: And this interpretation in part Mr. Tombes 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 lawfull cap­tive delivered? This Interrogation is equivalent to a Negation, The prey shall not (that is easily) be taken from the mighty, or the lawfull captive is not usually deliverd; 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 f [...]regoing conclusion: But perhaps he means it joyntly with the following verse, I am willing to joyne 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 Jewes from captivity; the prey of the terrible shall be delivered children are not preyes to their nurses, neither are nurses ter­rible [Page 161] to their children, unless it be the Indian women, who swim­ing 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 symbolicall, and Concentrick; 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 Antient, 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 onely Infants, but others from captivity: Therefore that the Gentiles should bring the Jews not onely▪ 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 Authentick his saying, that Casaubon upon Matth. 3. made for dipping hath taught me: yet I rather believe him, that it is Mr. Gatakers meaning, then 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 onely Infants but others from captivity? I will not question their history for making Artaxerxes, and Ahasuerus two severall men, which Philo, and Esdras makes but one, Nor their Chro­nologie [Page 162] 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 raigned 29 years, his successors in order reckoned by them were Cambyses that raigned 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, odde 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 Captivitie, 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 Te­stimonie, 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. Gods love is perpetuall to his Church. 18. The powerfull 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 denyed 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 powerfull deliverance cut of Captivity] do ra­ther confirme 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) publickly read them; And grant there had been no Canon to tye, no Rubrick to direct, it hath been usuall since the Reformation, 1. To read the Contents, then the Chapter, and though it c [...]uld [Page 163] not be proved positively such a Parliament, Synod, Royall 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 onely the judgement of the supreme Magistracie, 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 then 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 contrarie, but that is was a prophecie 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 analogie 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 Monar­ [...]hie lasted 191 years. The Grecian Monarchie 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 fortie yeares since the dayes 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 [Page 164] 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 prophecie 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 contra­rie, that it was not a prophecie 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 powerfull 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 power­full deliverance out of Captivitie 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 powerfull 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 irrationall, that the peo­ple in the dispute laughed at it, in which he says now they shew­ed their ignorance. As I did not then, neither do I now approve of their laughing, yet I think he cannot prove they shewed their ignorance, unless in this practicall Axiome, that errours are rather to be pittyed in brethern then laughed at. But if he means they shewed their ignorance in not understanding his conse­quence, I must profess my self to be amongst those ignorant, and so I believe will the most that hears it, in which he will as soon perswade any rationall man, as Anaxagoras that the snow is black.

But he hath also a snatch at me, saying that I shewed my heed­lesness when I said it was an Addition to the Text, that the Gen­tiles should bring the Jews: well, let that be examined; An ad­dition may be two wayes, either in words, so it is apparent, for the [Page 165] Text says, not that the Gentiles shall bring the Jews: Or in sense, and so it is not said the Gentiles shall bring thy Children by na­turall generation (which I conceive is the Question) but their own; But he sayes the very distinction of [thy Children] from [the Gentiles] shews it meant of the Jews, otherwise it should have been [their Children] in the third person, not [thine] in the second; here is vindice cuneo nodus dignissimus, a knot that one may unty with his gloves on; They, the Gentiless shall bring thy sons, that is Sons of the Church, and yet the Gentiles Chil­dren. But who ever interpreted it thus? A great writer. 1. Tombs B. D. in his Plea for Antidaedobaptists pag. 14. for these are his words; The Church is spoken to, observe not [the Jews,] and the Children were both the Gentiles Children, and yet [thy Children] that is the Churches; Now who shewed his heedles­ness? But in the same blindfold posture he goes on, saying it can not be meant of Gods Children as his, for then it should be [mine] in the first person, for God speaks those words: Here is an Excellent Grammar-lecture of the distinction of persons, for which the Author merits to be Terrae filius, the next year; But let us look back? It cannot be meant of Gods Children ( [...]ayes he) as his, for then it should be [mine] in the first person, for God speaks those words; well, God sayes to Moses thy Chil­dren which thou hast brought out of Egypt, it can not be meant of Gods Children, for God speaks the words; This is a fallacie a dicto seeundum quid ad simpliciter; All this may be easily re­conciled; They are the Churches Children by spirituall succes­sion, the Gentiles by naturall generation, Gods by adop­tion.

But we might have spared our labour all this while; for he denyes not but the words may be accommodated to the times of the Gospel, This is something that he is contented with the Adulterous woman that the Child shall be divided, and we shall have part; but the true Mother will either have all, or none. How accommodated to the times of the Gospel? If [...]lterally, then not to any historicall thing under the Law, If Mystically, then it was a Prophesie of a prophesie. But without further enquirie this grant is enough for my purpose, though not of bringing In­fants to Baptism, which is [...] another Question, yet to prove the Proposition in Question, that God foretold that In­fants should be Church-members under the Gospel, whence In­fant-baptism will follow; and this hath so much colour from the Text, That Master T. for all his experience, can put no other [Page 166] colour upon it, for if by his own confession it be a prophecie, that the Gentiles should bring back the Jews not onely Infants, but others from captivity in the letter, and type; It will follow, the Gentiles shall bring back not onely children, but others from spirituall captivity, in the Mystery, and Antitype, which his words unawares of him seems to carry, when he stiles them the Gentiles Children, that is the Churches; And this will further appear by considering my answers to his Questions, put out Socratically to entangle me, and cunningly to darken the Text.

Reply.

AS it is a Stratagem in War, when an Army is brought into a strait, and finds it self over-matched, with Quintus Fabi [...] to parly, till they have found an advantage, and then suddainly to fall upon the enemy; So it is the Trick of a Sophister, when he is at a loss in dispute, to aske Questions to ens [...]are the a [...]versarie, and then with Crocodile [...]leights supprise him; Mr. T. is very dexterous in this art, which he exercised in the dispute, asking what I understood by Standard, what by Kings, what by nursing Fathers? I told him, that it was not his place to dispute Socra­tically by asking of Questions, but to answer ad oppositum.

But to give him satisfaction (which I needed not) by Standard I understood visible holding out of Gospel-Ordinances, as Bap­tism, &c. By Kings supreme Magistrates, By nursing Fathers, and Nursing Mothers Patrons, and Protectors of the Gospel. Now to put a gloss upon his counterf [...]t wares he sayes these Questions were put out needfully to clear the Text, that it had no colour for bringing Infants to Baptism; whereas he should have said to be visible Church members under the Gospel. For 1. sayes he, if by Standard be meant Baptism, which the Scripture never dalls Standard, and the bringing should be to Baptism, then the sense should be, that supreme Magistrates as Kings and Queens should bring 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 prophecie, In which word there is neither verity, nor consequence, if sense.

Fi [...]st he sayes 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, &c. to wit preaching pray­ing with many more: Now who knows not that there is a diffe­rence betwixt Gospel-Ordinances in generall, 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 sayes the Scripture never calls Baptism Gods standard, yes, even in this place, for I had thought the Genus might have been praedicated of the Species, though the Species [Page 168] 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, then the sense (which I think is non-sense) 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. Kings 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 strait, or the Kings were very many that it could not hold them, ver. 20. Nurses, that is the Mothers commonly lyes in, while the Children are carryed to be baptized, and other nur­ses are often provided after baptism.

Fourthly he sayes 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 Criticize 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 affi [...]med, that rather than his Child should dye 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 Baptized himself by the per­swasion of King Wulfhere brought others Parents, and Children to be baptized of Wilfride. Edwine King of the Northumbers while he was attending the baptizing 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 bap­tized by Paulinus the Bishop, and named her Eanfleda. These stories both mentions that such a thing was done, and that In­fants were baptized; 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 Protectours of the Church; And [Page 169] that is not too frivolous to be made the matter of that prophe­ci [...], a part whereof Theodosius the Emperour 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 addes, 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 Mothers verse 23. be Metaphoricall, must therefore Gentiles, and people, and Armes, and Shoulders, in the 22. be Metaphors? What he means by my application I know not, but to gratify him further, and satisfie the Reader, thus I conceive, that it is a Prophecy poynting at the time of the Gospell, where Christ is the Generall, all visible Church-members are his Soul­diers fighting 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 protectours of Baptism, and all other Ordinances of the Gospel; which hath been verifyed ever since Constantine, and Lucius his time. Now if it be ob­jected that Infants are uncapable of spirituall warfare; I answer it is their mistake, who without ground think they are more uncapable of spirituall warfare, than temporall, 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 courtesie of the Camp enrolled in the Souldlers list on his birth day, and by the allowance of the State recei [...]es pay from the time of his Nativity: In the Christian warfare, though Christ alone be our Captain, every common Souldier Male, or Female enlisted under him derives this Priviledge to all his Children, that from their very births they are thus far entred 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 Hesters time. Hester was wife to Ahasuerus, and had power but in one Kings time, before he said it was was fulfilled in Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Darius, Ahasuerus times: pergit pugnantia secum frontibus adversis componere Horat. Satyr. 1. But how he proves that it was fulfilled in Hesters 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 Authentick, that he refers the Reader to them, and will not trouble himself to examine my dictates (as he calls them,) I suppose because they overthrow 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 ayms 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 Jewes 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. Kings shall see, and arise, Princes also shall worship. 7. And the Holy Ghost quotes verbatim, and applyes to the times of the Gospel the 8. verse; and that expresly [...] Corint. 6. 2. There is an implyed cutting off of the Jews. 20. And ingrafting in of the Gentiles, the children of the w [...]ld Olive into the stock of the naturall Olive. 21. A bringing of Children to visible Ordinances 22.

In the dispute by d [...]nt of Argument, and push of Syllogisticall Pike, being forced to surrender up his former hold, Mr. T. ende­voured 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 carryed in arms, and upon Shoulders; Now he sayes, though it should be understood of the times of the Gospel, yet it might be understood [Page 171] of grown men perswaded by the Preaching of the Gospel, as J­nius in his Annotations: The force of the Argument is this, Ju­nius sayes 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 Christs Kingdom, but he doth not say that the bringing of children in arms should be under­stood of growen 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, sayes, erigam manu, & pocentia mea signum, &c. 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 Generall 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 faithfull, but shall nurse them as Infants with the sweet milk of the Gospell, 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 faithfull 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 (sayes 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 bosome, if it [Page 172] should be a metaphor, proves they were Infants, though not onely Infants, for mine intention was onely to prove that In­fants were visible Church-members, and baptizable, but not one­ly they excluding all others? And this to be the true meaning (methinks) he seems to be conscious, when he sayes, 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 Gospell-covenant, not by civill favours, from Paganism, not Babylonish captivity to Gospel-ordinances, not to repair Jeru­salem; Thy sons, that is the Churches by a spirituall succession, not the Jews by naturall generation, then it must needs clash with his former, that it was a prophecie that the Gentiles should bring back the Jews not onely Infants, but others from captivity.

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 Gospell, was Isaiah 65. 20. there shall be no more thence an infant of dayes, &c. but the child shall dy 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 rais 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 advantagious for him, he had liberty to urge it in his answer, otherwise (as every disputant knowes) 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 fallacie; what fallacie could he perceive before he heard mine Argument? I had thought that every fallacie had been either in single words, or in the composure of the whole Sil­logism, as Aristotle sayes cap. 4. lib. 1. Sophist. Elench. [...]. Now how could he discover this before he heard the Syllogism? Thats not all, he doubles his files, and charges me further to adde 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 Logick, & not be told of it, without the brand of impudency; 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 practise 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 Schoole-way) before the Argument had a manifest shew of deceit, and not of plain dealing; which afterwards when there is a just cause, may be applyed 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 dayes, that is Infants shall not be uncapable of the seal while their age is measured by dayes, as the Jews infants, that might not be circumcised, till a weeke 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 Bap­tized under the Gospell. To the former, to wit, There shall be no more an Infant of dayes, that is, Infants shall not be uncapable of the seal; he answers now implyedly, by denying the consequence, saying it hath no proofe but my dictate; To which it were suffi­cient reply to say it hath no disproofe but his dictate, which is without all shew of probabillity, 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 Gospell 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 denyed 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; [Page 175] 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 avoyd 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 (sayes he) as if they were baptized under the Cloud, when nothing hindered, but they were really Baptized 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. [ Baptized 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 Bapti­zed, 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, then they were not as Bapti­zed, or washed, for nothing that is like, is the same. And the sense is plain according to this sense, [ were Baptized] 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. chapt. of Exodus all interpreters antient, 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 sayes 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 Baptized, for they understand positively a reall, though Typicall Baptism, resembling Sa­cramentall Baptism the Antitype, not negatively no bap­tism, or washing but as washing. For Typicall Baptism, and Sa­cramentall 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 Sacramentall, less principally Typicall washings, whether ordinary the Leviticall, or extraordinary this [Page 176] under the Cloud, and in the red Sea; And Analoga are twofold, either of inequalitie, so entitie, 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 dyet as the cause of health; To the later of these our Typicall 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 analogicall, and not proper, so the 20. ver. is wholly Tropicall, and Mysticall. There shall be no more thence an Infant of dayes; How can this be understood literally? did not Infants after, as well, as under the Captivity make up their weeks of dayes, months of weeks? &c. It must needs relate to something under the Jewish Paedogogie, and nothing so pro­bably as that of theirs, that nothing was clean till a Sabboth 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 Lions 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 Grammaticall construction according to rule, not li­terall interpretation, or univocall, not analogicall praedication; And this Syntax he sayes, is as clear as the day-light, or Sun­shine, perhaps to an Owle, or Bat: And what is this Syntax that is so clear? The Child, or youth that now is, shall dye 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 praediction, and so both an Addition, and an untruth; shall dye the son of an hundred years, there is a third, [ son of] by addition put in, old by substraction taken away, excellent A­rithmetick; 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. [Page 177] According to which interpretation the words must carry this sense, There shall no more Infants dye when they are young, nor an old man till he hath filled his dayes, for he that now is a child shall not dye till he be an hundred years old; I wonder in what age this was performed, that no man dyed 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 onely a disparagement, but praesumption: 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. Tombes as to make him infallible; nor depresse 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. Tombes 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 boyes, and girls playing in the streets thereof: What is this to an Infant of dayes, 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 Jewes return from captivity; and more apparent that, that of Isay, is meant of the state of Christs 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 togither, and the lion should eat straw with the bullock, and dust should be the serpents neat; The Parallel place to which the marginal notes, and [Page 178] Expositer [...] refer it, can be understood of none but Gospel-times, for Isai 11. having expressed Christs lineage, natures, office, he declares the peaceable estate of his kingdome, 6. 7. The Wolfe also shall dwell with the Lambe, and the Leopard shall ly down with the Kid, and the Calf, and the young Lyon, and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them, and the Cow, and the Bear shall feed, their young ones shall ly down together, and the Lyon shall eat straw with the Oxe. 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 Vespatian and Titus, never rebuilded, nor restored yet; So that either it must be understood mystically of the con­version, and fulness of the Gentiles, or literally of the final cal­ling of the Jewes. 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 remembred, and come into mind, for it crosseth St. Peters 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 remembred? When the antient men are said to weep, because the glory of the latter Temple was short of the glory of the first, Ezra, 3. 11.

Reply.

THe first words about Dr. Prideaux his use, he brings in like a fragment, seemingly having no dependance of the foregoing or following discourse, concerning which the Reader must be informed, that from answering Mr. T. fell to moderating and magisterially determining of the Question, that before he would resigne the chaire, I was forced to tell him, that he violated the rules of dispute, and did lasciviously wanton it out into a wilder­ness of words, that the truth might be obscured or lost, and like a lapwing, carry the hearers far from the mater; Then his Apo­logie was, that Dr. Prideaux, when a place of Scripture was ci­ted, was wont to give a large Exposition; To which was then replyed, that he was Dr. of the Chaire, and Judge of the con­t [...]oversie, and might do that a Respondent may not do, whose office is onely to repeat, deny, distinguish, and when a Text is quoted to give a brief Exposition, that the Opponent may have some thing to fasten upon; Now he asserts, that what he said of Dr. Prideaux his use was true, that he would require the Respon­dent before he answered, to read the Text, and consider it; which I do not deny but that de facto, it was done, de jure it ought to have been done, not onely (though principally) in d [...]vinity Disputes, but even in Philosophie, and Mathematicks, when the Argument depends upon the authority, or meaning of A [...]i­stotle, Plato, Euclide, or the like. But that any mention was made thereof in the Dispute, I do not remember, for there he spoke of Dr. Prideaux his practise in his own person, not what he willed in the person of the Respondent: Besides it is one thing to require the Respondent before his answer to read the Text, and consider it, another thing to suffer the Respondent (after he hath spun out his Answer to a long thread) to enforce his own sense upon the Chapter, and determine the Question: And though it may be true, it was his use, that he required the Re­spondent before he answered to read the Text, yet I am sure it is as true, that he would not require the Opponent before the framing of his Syllogism to read more than he drew his Argu­ment from, for neglect of which he unjustly accuses me of fal­lacie.

What he means by Explosion, or a meer figment I know not, this I know, that when he would not be satisfied with Dr. Savage his Answer, nor the Professors determination; but fell to repe­tition, [Page 180] exploserunt saltem juniores, not once, but again at his n [...] answering the Drs. challenge. Though perhaps Mr. Tombes was so harness [...]d with confidence, that he was not sensible of it,

And such Explosions are grounded upon equitie, because those that will not acquiess in the Vicechancellors, or Professer [...] determinations, by the University statutes, are to be admonished. But he unmindfull 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 Chaire did avoid his Argument, by their Answer is manifest enough from Dr. Savage his own reci­ [...]al of his Answer in his printed book. Sed quo judice? Who shall be U [...]p [...]re in this debate? Mr. Tombes himself, for he sayes that this had been shewed in print ere this, but that the Printer failed to print his Answer in the fit time; How much was that Printer to blame, that would not expedite that Canon that must regulate the whole Church in opposition to harmonies of confessions, Assemblies of Divines, determinations of Universi­ties; Frange l [...]ves calamos, & scinde Thalia libellos, Si dare &c. Mart.

But he f [...]lls off [...]rom vying with his sword and buckle [...], where­by he avoyded the Drs. Arguments, to vaunt his coat of Male, as if he had got Vulcan's Panopl [...]e, and were shot free; for he sayes the frivolous conceit of his fear of my gun-shot, is foolish; In some sense, I confesse, its true; for he that will not fear the whole Church, terrible as an Army with Banners, will not trem­ble at the shot of one private souldier; But that in another sense he feared, was apparent, both from his abrupt breaking off the Dispute, and refusing further engagement. And for all he counts not my Arguments to be of so much force as a squib, his eyes may be opened one day, to see his whole Magazine blown up thereby, as it is to manifest, his patience is already, by which he might have possessed his soul, one dram whereof is to be prefer­red before the Vatican Library full of such volumes as his.

Reply.

HAving dispatched the two former branches of mine Argument That God did promise before the Law, foretell under the Law; I came unto the third, That God did actually receive In­fants to be Church-members under the Gospel, & that they might be baptized thus▪ Those whom Christ commanded his Disciples to baptize, they may be baptized, Christ commanded his D [...]sci­ples to baptize Infants, Therefore they may be baptized. The Minor being denied was proved thus, He that commanded his Disciples to baptize all Nations, commanded them to baptize Infants, Christ commanded his Disciples, Math. 28. 14. To baptize all Nations, therefore Christ commanded them to bap­tize Infants; he denyed the Major, which was proved by this Enthymema, the whole encludes every part, Infants are a part of nations, therefore he that commanded to baptize all nations, commanded to baptize Infants; he denyed the consequent, which was proved thus, from that Axiome in Logick, Philoso­phy, and Divinity, that a general whole being granted, no part of it could be denyed, as Psal. 117. 1. Praise the Lord all ye Na­tions, is interpreted by another Psalm, old men, & babes, young men, and m [...]idens 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, [Page 182] qui dixit omnes, nullos exclusit, ne (que) parvulo [...], he that said baptize all Nations, excepted none, no not Infants; To which he gave no distinct answer then, nor now, saving he sayes 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 dyed, now Christ dyed as well for Infants as others, took [...]nfancie upon him visibly as other ages, that being visible head of the Church, even when an Infant, might by his passive obedi­ence sanctifie 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 Christs death, without visible membership, or seal of the Cove­nant; The Answer is apparent, that this is an Argument from Gods 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. Tombes 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 dayes.

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 verbe [...] teach, includes a­ctually in it the noun [...] Disciples, 2. Because it is placed before [...] baptizing, therfore it is before it in order of na­ture [Page 183] and time; 3. That [...], if it should signifie 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 noune [...] 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 Scholer, till the compleating, 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 ende­vour to bring their Scholars to all perfection; but that every act was requisite before baptizing of any, or any acts to be precursors of believers Infants baptism, save bare acceptation of them, with­out further proof I cannot be perswaded: And to argue from the lat [...]tude of the signification of [...] is inconsequently to draw an A [...]gument à potentiâ ad actum, a genere ad spec [...]em af­firmativè, and concludes thus, [...] a scholer may signifie 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. Tombes, 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 alwayes, and is the former fallacie.

His third Instance for all Beza's translation seems to make a­gainst him, [...] had taught many, how knowes he that all were effectually wrought upon, that were t [...]ught? Or if discipulos multos adjunxissent, they had joyned many Disciples, how knowes he that Infants were none of these Disciples, when whole families so frequently were taken in? Infants are as well under the Gospel, Christs 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 Rabbies, 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 [Page 184] 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 [baptize] therefore in order of nature and time it must go before it? The order of things are not al­waies 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 Disc [...]ples first, and then baptize them, for the words are not, going, Disciple and baptize, but going, Disciple baptizing, &c. 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 verbe, as if he had said make Disciples by baptizing; The Greeks want the Ge [...]unds, which oftentimes are supplyed 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 begins but to be builded by laying the foundation: Di­sciple is placed before Baptize, yet they begin to be discipled by baptizing: This is confirmed by learned Gerard [...] est pro­priè Discipulos facere praedicatione verbi apud adultos, & administra­tione baptismi apud inf [...]ntes, it signifies properly to make Disci­ples by preaching of the word to them that are of ripe years, by administring 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 patient running? Mat. 3. 6. The people were baptized of John in Jordan, confessing their sins, if they were baptized 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 [Page 185] signifie to make actual Disciples, or Disciples of actual believers) is not put Synecdochically also for the Infants of believers; of this judgment is learned whitaker, [...] Pertinet pri­mum ad homines adultos, tum ex vifoederis etiam ad illorum liberos, make Disciples (sayes 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 parentes prose, & familiâ Christo nomen dant, tota eorum domus [...]; it is to make a Disciple, not onely 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 familie, their whole house is (or shall be) discipled.

The last of the three Queries remaines, 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 baptized ones 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 Jewes 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 decrepid or sick persons. The fallacie in this Argu­ment pressed against us by our adversaries is discovered by Danae­us contra Bellarm. est fallacia a dicto secundùm quid ad simpliciter &c. What Christ commands (sayes he) to be done onely in the bap­tism of those of age, they generally would have done in bapti­zing of all, even Infants: Spanhemius judiciously determines the Question, having granted that their Infants as well as actual believers are Disciples, sayes, 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 remaines 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 baptized, or because [Page 186] they are not capable, but for none of these three, therefore In­fants are not excepted. In the conference Mr. Tombes denyed the Major, saying that a fourth reason might be given, because they were not Disciples, whereupon I told him that in this an­swer he shewed 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 sayes, for my division he gave the genuine reason why Infants are excepted from the precept of baptizing, because they are no Disciples, and that there was no defect in his Log [...]ck, 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 baptizing 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 Logick, in not reducing it to one of my members, is manifest from the lawes 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 addes 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 sayes 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 baptizing 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 overthrowes his position, that they are subordinate; if by difference he means [Page 187] they are disparata then one cannot be predicated of the other, which he allowes.

But he concludes from a supposed concession of mine, saying he presumes I think baptized persons already Disciples, yet not capable of baptism; It is but his presumption, for though I think baptized persons already Disciples, yet capable of Bap­tism not in his sense that they may be rebaptized 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 baptized 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 aequivocatio­ [...], & accidentis, and could make nothing for his purpose, seeing Infants, of whom we discourse, are not baptized persons already, and therefore for his non causa ut causa can not be rendered vn­capable.

Reply.

WHen I demanded of him, where it was required, that those that are to be baptized must be Disciples? He said out of the Text, for that which is translated, teach all Nations, is [...], make Disciples; I first denyed the Consequent, then for his Antecedent I told him, that he fou [...]d fault with me at Rosse for that Translation, asking 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 sayes now that he is as sure it is my fiction as that he spake 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 spake any thing to him, of many of the particulars whereof I could give account; and there are besides my self not a few, that will testifie, same of his own partie, who returning to Abergaveny had nothing to boast of, but, 1 That he asked me if I was wiser than the Tra [...]sla­tors for giving the signification of [...] not teach, but make Disciples. 2. That he corrected me, when I rendered [...] make Disciples by baptizing, shewing a place in the same Chapter where the Participle is not expressed by the Gerund; whereas I held it not universally, but [...], inde­finitly; And for my part, if I had not heard him, I could be­leve 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 (then 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 Hereticks, and a l [...]tter of grievous Wolves: His denying before a great Congrega­tion that ever he accused Master Baxter of Apostacie, of which he was convicted by several witnesses.

His opposition of Episcopacie, 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 controule 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 Epithete whether his sayings 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 needfull to Circumcise them, but they upon whom the yoke was to be imposed by Circum­cision were onely 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 needfull 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 [Page 190] 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 sayes 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 onely on brethren: Ile 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 onely on taught brethren is pressed onely as a Translent act, not per­manent to posterity, Therefore Circumcision acted onely 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 alwaies to posterity, of which nature in their Judgement was circumcision, and obli­gation to Moses his law: Therefore the determination of the Councell 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 bretheren, 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 Councell had determined nothing against Infant-circumcision which neverthelesse would have been still in force, provided they [...]bstained from circumcising of taught bretheren, which is a most grosse, and hereticall 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, then 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, then they would have In­fants also Circumcised, But they would hav [...] them Circumcised after the manner of Moses, Therefore they would have Infants [Page 191] 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 denyes, saying when the Apostles ver. 6. did consider of the matter, they did not consider of the circumcision as acted, but taught, and not onely 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 (sayes 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 doctrin, and the law of Moses, The Satyr will be affraid 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) cleer 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 needfull to Circumcise them, not needfull 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 aggregativè) 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 lye, as appears in the three former Texts, teaching was the means by which the false brethren pressed actuall 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 actuall Circumcision, and it is most certain that these men coming from Judea did act it onely 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 onely; And therefore it is a meer 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; con [...]rarie to the precept, nature, and use of Circumcision, which was applyed either to Infants onely, 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 joyns 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 chastitie, 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.

Reply.

TO prove further that Infants of Believers were Disciples, and might be baptized, in the conference I urged; They to whom is the promise, may be baptized, it is the Apostles own inference, Acts. 2. 28. be baptized, 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 baptized. Then he denyed the Minor, now he seems to deny the conclusion by an indirect evasion glossing thus; as for Mr. C. Argument from Acts 2. 38, 39. it is false that the Apostles inference is as he infinuated, un­less his Argument hath four terms, that they may be baptized to whom is the promise; By four Terms I imagine he fallaciously means a fallacie, for if his answer had been distinct to cle [...]r 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 baptized, not may be baptized 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 lawes, whose commands are in the Imperative mood, Mr. Tombes 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, [Page 194] and [...], let a man examine, let him eat, all in the Imperative, not in the Indicative, or Potentiall, this would be a sufficient buckler for the Socinians against the Eucharist. The Antinomians might shake off the yoak 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 atchievement, because God commands it as a duty; Gods command makes a thing lawfull, 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 baptized is Equipollent to may be baptized.

We cannot without blasphemy imagine divine precepts other­wise than lawfull, the transgression of them a sin, the observati­of them a virtuous duty, contrariorum est contraria consequentia commands (which all Imperative injunctions implyes) 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 wayes.

Having no better success in denying the conclusion, he quar­rels with the premisses, yet so, as he neither impeaches the major, which is, they to whom is the promise may be baptized; Nor the Minor, To Infants of believing parents is the promise; But as the Elephant in the Amphitheater passing by the Rhinoceros, and Leopard fastned upon a Curr: 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 baptized, parents with children▪ [Page 195] then parents with children may be baptized, but they that are not yet believers parents with children may be baptized, Ergo parents believing with children may be baptized. The conse­quence is evident, and the minor proved out of the Text. And that they were not yet believers he sayes 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 denyed 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 addes 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 my self, when he enquired what I meant by that schoole distinction, saying they were believers by outward assent, and disposition, though perhaps not by inward assent, and habit: To this he replyes 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 forme, 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 onely 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 sayes 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; [Page 196] and his Subquere in the cloase is as irrational, where he demands, do I know they were hypocrites? Which cannot be presumed of me, who knowes 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 lesse 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 shew, which expressed outward assent to the acknowlegment of Christ as their Lord? Which Question I answer with another Question; what act did the rest of the houshold of Lydia shew, which expressed outward assent to the acknowledgment of Christ as their Lord before they were baptized? 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 knowes 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 acknowledgment of Christ as their Lord, what can be more signal than these? After they heard Peters Sermon con­cerning Christs 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 baptized 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 sayes, 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 Caesars, that could forget nothing but injuries; If he mean it was impertinently applyed, [Page 197] 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 justifie them, I further asserted, that I knew Mr. T. would not say that none are to be baptized, 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.

Reply.

HE denying that these Jewes, 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 baptiz [...]d, were sufficiently qualified, but the Apostle commanded them to be baptized, Ther­fore they were sufficiently qualified. He denyed that the Apo­stle commanded them to be baptized, which was proved, verse, 38. [...], imperatively be baptized every one of you; his answer was, upon condition of repentance, repent, and be baptized: That I told him, was a condition of his own ma­king, and an adding to the Word of God, for the Scripture no where expresly, or implyedly sayes that repentance is a conditi­on of baptism, if it be meant of compleat repentance; for though it was their duty, both to repent, and to be baptized, to repent in relation to crucifying of Christ, to be Baptized in relation to Judaism, which they were to put off, and Christianity, which they were to put on; but that they must have compleat repen­tance before baptism, is not so much as hinted at; all this he passes by, which might have given light to that which followes, onely [...]atches at this, what I say that Acts 2. 38. repentance is not ma [...]e a condition of being baptized is in his apprehension manifestly false; where he unfaithfully reci [...]es my words, lea­ving out that, whith is the hinge of the controversie, for I said not, but granted, that repentance was a condition in adultis of being baptized, but denyed that compleat repentance was; for then none were to be baptized, till they were compleat Christi­ans, then the Pharisees, and others John Baptized were such, Then the Apostle preached to, bapt [...]zed, and brought to that perfection three thousand Jewes in one day, then the Goaler and his family were perfected in a part of a night: Lydia, and her houshold 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 compleat 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, sayes [Page 199] 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 incompleat repentance which con­sists in acknowledging ones former errour, and inclining to ac­cept of Christ, is a condition requisite, and therefore he idly beats the aire; Secondly I deny that he requires compleat repen­tance first to be done; Thirdly that he requires Baptism to be an­nexed to compleat a repentance 1. He requires not compleat 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 begins at the end.

Therefore, 2▪ he requires not Baptism to be annexed to com­pleat repentance, but presupposes it before it, therefore the Ca­techumeni, or converted Pagans in the infancie of the Church, and the baptized 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 Commandements; So that Baptism does not necessarily p [...]esuppose, but is a tye for the future obliging to complete repentance, therefore John Baptist sayes Matth. 3. 11. 1 Baptize [...], to repentance, and they were baptized, v. 6. [...], confessing their sins; first baptising is expressed, then 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 baptized (for it is not repent, and thou shalt be baptized) 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 [Page 200] another, as faith of salvation, it doth not follow from a parti­cular to an universal, that alwayes 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 its 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 Asse, 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 baptized, 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 baptized shall be saved; by his Logick 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 inforce 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 compleat after it had wrought a while upon his stomack, he was forced to vomit it up, and with it some gall, faying my talk about incompleat 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 faire, let him take pa­tience along with him, and look before he leape; I say again, incompleat repentance, not onely 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 compleat repentance, which dispositions they had at least already, but the gradual perfections of compleat repentance, which is not to determine in one [Page 201] 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 Judaism is ap­parent from their being pricked in their hearts, there is their [...], having accepted of Christ in a generall way, they ad­dress themselves to the Apostles for further directions, men and bretheren 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 Baptized: And seeing Quod est primum in uno quo (que) genere est mensura reliquorum, why this may not be in­terpreted by that of John Matth. 3. be Baptized 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 incompleat 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 incompleat 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 sayes, who will believe him, that the 3000. Jews were Baptized upon an incompleat repentance, when the Text expresly saith that they that gladly received the word were Baptized; To which I retort this crosse Interrogatory, who will believe him that the 3000. Jews might not be Baptized upon an incompleat repentance? for all the Text expresly sayth that they gladly received the word, seeing Christ sayth Luke 8. 13. They received the word with joy, and have no roote, 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 incompleat repentance, the thing I said was this, they had an incompleat repentance at least, and that was suffici­ent for Baptism. But I am grapling 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 Baptized, 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, [Page 202] 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 baptized, when the Text sayth 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 baptize 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 expresly 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 sayth the Text doth so expresly 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 Baptized, they that gladly received the word were Baptized, Therefore because Peter sayd be Baptized, they were Baptized; And such [...] are usuall in Scripture Genes. 1. God having expressed the creation of man, and Gods 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 Baptized 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.

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 sayes 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 applyable to these Jews, for the words in their genuine sense sound thus, The pro­mise is [made] to you [Jews] 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 [Page 204] de Dieu. Secondly there is no mention in the Text of believers at all; for the words are not believe, and be baptized, but repent, and be baptized, 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 applyable to these Jews, it had been no 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 Christs 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 promu [...]gation, 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, then 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: Its 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 immediatly 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 Laconick 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, &c. Mr. T. I hope hath not [...]orgot 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 usuall distribution in other Scriptures, The Gentiles being usually called those afar off, and the promises equally distribu­ted, onely he addes (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 Baptized, 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 sayes Cornelius à Lapide is Periphrasis Gentium, a description of [Page 206] the Gentiles; I do not unwillingly assent (sayes 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 applyed to them for the future, according to that note of Ca­merarius, far off, must not onely be understood of place, but of mind, and judgement; This Mr. T. seems to assent to, loosing his former hold, when he sayes, 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 Gods 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 Gods 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 sayes Beza his reason, that afar off should signifie 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; onely he perceived not the time to be so near till Acts 10. and because near, therefore future.

But he hath a third Evasion as voyd of reason, as the two former pretended reasons; it is frequent (sayes 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 Universall, 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 [Page 207] 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 Judaism by one Medium, then 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 kingdome of Heaven; Who ever interpreted it thus? Is not the kingdome of grace, which they are possessed of already, the kingdom of Hea­ven, which is the same specificall kingdome, and differs onely modally, and in degrees of perfection, from the kingdome of glory.

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 baptized; But had this evasion, by those Children were not meant Infants, but grown men, now he addes that by [Children] is no necessity to understand Infants, I yeeld, unless the context limit it, and the subject matter require restraint, for [...] (sayes Leigh) is a generall 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 indefinitly, and in respect of the matter is equivalent to an Universall, 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 joyn 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. sayes 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 [Page 209] 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. sayes that contrarie 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 [ [...]] indefinitly may signify off-spring 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 Infancie, and in their Infancie 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 replyed 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 alwaies to bring forth, but sometimes to beget, Homer. Odys. 3. [...], whom Ulysses begot, Bacchus in the womb is called [...], Jupiters Child, or of-spring. Its applyed to women in travell, before the Child-birth, 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 [Page 210] 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 Child-bearing, [...] is murthering 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 Terpsicore calls a woman [...] that is fruitfull to conceive Children, [...] (whence immediatly 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, of-spring is­sue, which is properly so called in the womb, as fruit of the womb, &c.

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, then 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 onely to bring forth, but to beget, conceive, and travell withall in the womb, as hath been proved out of Scripture and Classick Authours, and a child in the womb is brought forth though not à secundinà from the Tun [...]cle it is wrapped in the matrice, yet a femore Patris, from the Fathers loynes, [...]. 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) su [...]ts with the Primitives; yet sometimes they signify [...] by hap-hazard, sometimes [...] by the contrarie. Mr. T. contradicting himself here, [...]gh [...]ly dete [...]m [...]ns this controversie pag. 108. Antipaedobaptist. 1 Part. where he sayes, 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 speciall 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 [Page 211] bless, and to curse, [...], a crime, thing polluted, and a pious fact, [...] a medicine, and a poyson; 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 [...] signifyes properly a young child, because it comes from [...] to beget, conceive, travell, 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 sayes 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 sayes that he had thought that child, and Parent, meaning the Mother, had been Relatives; It seems then these three thousand the Apostle converted, and baptized were women, but he calls them [...] men of Judah ver. 14. [...] men of Israel 22. [...]; men and brethren 29. To that he sayes 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 severall Provinces had not at the least some young children? The houshold of Lydia, Stepha­nas, and the Jaylor, 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 [Page 212] 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 fruitfull nation, that had the further ad­vantage of Polygamie, 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 German Anabaptists, who I know not by what unhappy [...], or [...] corroding, burst out o [...] the Channell, have begot so dangerous an imposthume, or Pleuresie, that I pray God it may be cured by Lenitives, without Phlebotomie. 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 baptized, for that follows necessarily from the Analogie 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 baptized as we, and we Circumcised as they, the difference was onely in the outward Ceremonie, and shew, 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 [...] [Page 213] to the good Publican Sueton, in Flav. Vesp. c. 1.) that the Text makes it belong neither to Parents, nor Children, but those that God calls? yet his Interrogative point spoyls all, which surely I may rather impute to him, then 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 Christs 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 obstina­cie became Apostates, and branches broken off. And to his last Question; I think Christs 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.

Reply.

THat the promise belonged to Infant Children, was thus fur­ther [...]videnced, The blessing is as large as the curse, but the curse was extended even to Children before they could actually believe ( his blood be upon us, and upon our children) Therefore the blessing. To this he accommodates now no answer, but in­stead thereof, bolts out this Question [doth he think that Christs blood was not avenged on th [...]m? if it were, how was the remedy as large as the disease? how satisfactorily let any intelligent man Judge; Christs blood was avenged upon the murdering Jews, and their Infant children, therefore does he think, it was not extendable to the believing Jews, and their Infant-children? Reason dictates the contrarie. His evasion in the conference, was more colourable, thus. If by blessing was meant the Inward, and spirituall part of the covenant it might be true, but that was not to the present purpose, seeing it is not known to us; but if the outward, and visible part, he denyed that Infants were capable of the blessing as well as liable to the curse, which distinction was thus taken away; They that are holy with a Covenant ho­liness are capable of the outward visible part of the blessing, But Infants of believers are holy with a Covenant holiness, There­fore they are capable of the outward, and visible part. Of this Syllogism he sayes, he might have denyed the Major, Its strange a man should be more absurd upon deliberation, than on a sud­den, as is evident he is by his reason, for (sayes he) there is a Co­venant holiness according to election, which doth not alwaies instate the person in that which I call the outward part of the blessing, by which I mean title to Baptism; what he means by this Centaur of Covenant-holiness by election is hard to conje­cture, whether of elect Infants before they be born, or of elect Infidels before they be called, or of believers, or unbelievers, san­ctified Infants, before profession. If he mean it of elect Infants before they be born, it is ridiculous, seeing the subject of the Que­stion is Infants of believers, they that are actually in being, not [Page 215] a subject in posse without an Accident, an Accident in posse with­out a subject, at the best but ens fictum possibile. If he mean elect Infidels before they be called, how are they holy, that have nothing in them but the old Adam? It seems holy Saul while he was a persecutor, holy Dionysius, while a Heathen Philosopher, holy 3000. Jews, while they were crucifying Christ. If he mean of unbelievers, or believers sanctified Infants, first let me enquire of him, what groudn he hath from Scripture, or any divine Re­velation that Infants of unbelievers are sanctified, that there is salvation out of the visible Church, that any such a [...] promised to be so qualified, till professors: Every act of Faith hath for its object Gods promise, or Revelation, and whatsoever is not of Faith, even in this sense is sin. Secondly for the sanctified holi­ness of believers Infants according to election, if he mean that they are elected to, for the future, and have not yet, that cannot denominate them holy, if he mean that holiness of election they enjoy for the present, Master T. confesses, that holyness makes them capable of the outward visible part of the blessing, and in­titles them to baptism, and that if he knew they were so qua­lified, he would baptize them; The Question is not whom he according to his light may baptize, but who are baptizable; But he knew that my proposition pointed at none of these, and there­fore idely beat the air, as his next words discovers, for he sayes, he denyed the Minor, understanding it, and so did I, of out­ward Covenant holiness, upon which he bestows two taunts. 1. [As they call it.] 2. That he truly said [that it was gibberish] yet confesses that Vossius, Bullinger, and the late assembly did so conceive of it; To these he might have joyned all the Harmonies of confessions of Reformed Churches, Tertullian de anima Cap. 39. Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait, tam ex seminis praerogativa, quam ex institutionis disciplina, caeterum inquit immundi nascerentur, quasi designatos tamen sanctitatis & per hoc etiam salutis, intelligi volens fidelium filios, ut bujus spei pignora matrimoniis, quae retinenda censuerat, patrocinarentur; The Apo­stle sayes he, avers, they may be procreated holy of either sex being sanctified as well of the Prerogative of the seed, as the Discipline of education, otherwise he sayes they would be born unclean, willing the children of the faithfull to be understood as designed to holiness, and consequently salvation, that he might maintain the pledges of this hope to marriages, which he judged to be retained: Junius upon these words [ quasi designatos] glos­ses thus; alludit ad priscum Rom. morem, qui ante annum ferm [...] [Page 216] [...], Praetores alios designabant quam inirent Magistratum, &c. he al [...]es [...]yes he to the antient Roman custome, who designed alm [...] ear before they entred their Office, Consuls, Prae­tors, and other Magistrates. So that the sense is, the children of the faithfull, to be as it were designed to holiness, and con­sequently salvation, even as Magistrates were wont to be design­ed: here in the Church they are designed by a common call, there in heaven, they enter glory by a singular call, and benefit. Athanasius in his 114. Question, being asked whether Infants dying go to be punished, or to the Kingdom, says [...], your children are holy, and [...], Infants of believers that are baptized en­ter into Heaven; Hugo Grotius. Mr. T. his great friend (for all he vainly thinks he means otherwise) here forsakes him, saying, non loquitur Apostolus de sanctitate naturali, &c. The Apostle sayes he, speaks not of naturall holiness, and inhering to the na­ture of children, but of holiness adhering to them outwardly, that is of the holiness of the Covenant, for the children of be­lievers are comprehended in the Covenant of grace, and so far forth are judged holy of God. Well said Hugo; What now says Master T. to his beloved Pamphilus, being defeated of his Philo­mena? but in the language of Charinus, nullane in re cuiquam hominum esse fidem? Terent. Andr. The Assemby of Divines con­sisting of a hundred and fiftie Reverend and learned Ministers, indeed the Representative of the Church of England crosses him in this. First in the Directory pag. 21. Infants are Christians, and federally holy before Baptism, and therefore are they Bap­tized, and this confirmed by Ordinance of Parliament, Larger Catechism pag. 138 Infants descending from Parents, either both, or but one of them professing Faith in Christ, and obedi­ence to him, are in that respect within the Covenant, and to be baptized. Lesser Catechism, pag. 176. Infants of such as are Members of the visible Church are to be baptized, in both pla­ces quoting 1 Cor. 7. 14. else were your children unclean, but now they are holy.

All these he sayes with Ʋossius, Bullinger, the Parliament, with hund [...]eds more of the greatest lights the world hath had, are meer [...] mistaken, and that holiness of Children, which is men­ti [...] 1 Cor. 7. 14. is truly said by him, to be onely matrimoni­all s [...]iness, or legitimation; O infallible Oracle, Credite me foli­um vobis recitare Sibylles: we have found another Socrates but with this difference. 1. The former was judged the wisest man by [Page 217] the Oracle of Apollo, this by his own Oracle and opinion, [...] I truly said; The former was [...], dissembling he knew no­thing, This other is plain-dealing, professing in Mysteries, the whole Church was ignorant of before, he knowes all things.

I will not loose time, nor blur paper, about his Triviall cri­ticism, [ [...]] whether it be the unbelieving husband is, or hath been sanctified in, or to, or for the wife, or [...] believing wife, as Beza's Copies hath it; Nor will I take advantage of his grant that it is easie for us to bring ten for one who interpret this Text as we do, if we understand it of those, who are called Cal­vinists, though he thinks scarce so many of the Papists, and Lu­therans. His impertinent quotation of Augustine Tom. 7. de pec­cat. merito, & remission. c. 26. who rejects not the Covenant-ho­liness, but original holiness. I will pass by his Acyrology, or Ca­tachresis, that in impropriety, or abuse of speech, the sense might be as he conceived it most likely to be thus understood; The unbelieving husband, though an unbeliever is sanctified, that is all one to his wife in respect of the lawfull enjoyment of him as her husband, as [...]f he were indeed sanctified to God; because (for­sooth) Piscator interprets some thing in the fore going verse so.

Neither will I take notice of the feebleness of his Argument ta­ken from [...]. which signifies chastitie, or to be chast, therefore [...] may signifie so; and because it may signifie, therefore it does signifie so, because they all come from the same root, which I believe is untrue; for whether [...] ho­ly come from [...] to worship, (as Jansenius would have it) or from [...], as Aretius in his Problems, or from the Hebrew word signifying a feast, as Pasor, from [...], and [...], as Beda and the best Grammarians) it hath no affinity with the forementioned words; These with a miscellanious [...]ubbidg of much more I supersede, whereby like the Limner that could not draw the picture to the life, he casts a veil over the face of truth, and with that General that durst not face his enimy, raises a thick mist, that he may march away in the dark.

But to his answer, That 1 Cor. 7. 14. is meant only of matri­monial holiness, or legitimation, it was thus replyed; That which in Scripture is taken almost six hundred times in a di­stinct sense, and not once for matrimonial holiness, or legitima­tion, cannot be so meant here, but it is taken in Scripture almost six hundred times in a distinct sense, and not once for matrimo­nial holiness, or legitimation, therefore it cannot be so meant here.

In stead of answering, he goes about, 1. To disgrace this Ar­gument, and his Opponent saying, it is out of Mr. Baxter; What then? May not I as well entertain truth from him, as Mr. Tombes errour from Grotius, the German Anabaptists, and them of Alba-Julia? Whose Monument he does not only prodigiously erect, as Artimesia did of her husband Mausolus, but with her drinks drown their very ashes, Valer. Max. 171. That in England, Ireland, Scot­land, his Trophies are erected,

Barbara Pyramidum sileat miracula Memphis.

Secondly he sayes, That in six hundred times, in which holy is u­sed in Scripture, in none of them it is found for outward Covenant ho­lyness, entituling to Baptism; [Entitling to Baptism,] Is there any such thing in my Syllogism? Look you never so strictly to that Gamester he will slir a die,

Etsi non aliquo nocùisset, mortuus esset.

Let us see how he makes that good anon; In the mean time observe how he manages his Bactrian like fight, tergiversando, shooting over his shoulders, which he calls retorting, and a right way of answering, though it be called indirect by the Logicians; What Logicians call it a right way of answering? Seton in his Officio Respondentis sayes, non est fas ut responsor ulla disputanti ob­jiciat, aut questiones proponat, suum agat negotium, id est objecta re­petat, repellat, solvat. It is not lawfull for the 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, repell, unty them; with him agrees Crakenthorp, Burgersdicius, and others; Neither do I find any thing that makes for him in his sense; its true Keckerman System. Log. pag. 444. speaks of an indirect Syllogism, which concludes by that which is indirect, or absurd, which by Aristotle, lib. priorum, cap. 2. is called [...], A Syllogism bringing to that which is impossible; And 2. priorum cap 15. is called [...], a Syl­logism of contraries; but this is in the Opponent, not unman­nerly snatching from him by the Respondent, howsoever not to be used to invert the order of the Dispute, when there is another way of answering: But to return to his retorting Syllogism; That which in Scripture is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense, and not once for Covenant-holiness, cannot be meant here, but it is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense, and not once for covenant-holyness, Therefore it cannot be meant here: I might deny his Major, which may be false, and mine in a contingent matter true; [...] is oft taken in a distinct [Page 219] signification from a veil, and not once for a veile, 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 holin [...]ss intitling to Baptism (which are his own addition) but that real saving holiness, which is accor­ding to the election of grace, according to which Jewes elected, shall be graff d [...]n again; This novel interpretation crosseth Be­za, who saith children are holy, and comprehended in the Co­venant from the wombe; Bowles, 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 prophane, that they not be accounted prophane 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; Wendel, 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 sayes, 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 authentick than his.

Mine intended brevity will not suffer me to give reasons of this genuine interpretation, onely thus much by the way, that holi­ness is here meant, from which the Jewes were fallen, and the natural branches were broken off, but it was outward covenant holiness from whence these Jewes were fallen, and the natural branches were broken off, Therefore outward Covenant holi­ness is here meant; The Major is clear in it self, and may be further evidenced from the connexion betwixt the 16. and 17. verses. The Minor is thus confirmed, The Jewes were fallen from that holiness, and the natural branches broken off, which they were capable to loose; but it was outward Covenant holi­ness, from whence the Jewes were fallen, and they were capable to loose, therefore it was outward Covenant holiness, from whence the Jewes were fallen, and the natural bran­ches broken off. The Minor again is thus proved, either they were liable to loose outward Covenant holyness, or inward holiness according to election, but not inward holiness according to e­lection, therefore outward Covenant-holiness. Not inward [Page 220] holyness according to election, then the immortal seed would dye, the gifts, and graces of God were not without repentance, those whom God justifies, them he would not glorifie, 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, least 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 least 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 perswaded &c. Therefore outward covenant holyness is here meant.

Fourthly that holiness is here meant, according to which the body of the Jewes shall be graffed in again, but it is covenant-ho­liness according to which the body of the Jewes shall be graffed in again, therefore covenant-holiness is here meant. The Mi­nor is thus made good, the body of the Jewes 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 Jewes 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 Covenant­holiness, 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 [Page 221] be saved, where shall the ungodly, and sinners appear? Last­ly that holiness is here meant, that is in every Epistle, stil [...]ng 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 judgment, which neither Apostle, nor Angel, nor any save God himself knowes; Therefore it is covenant-holiness.

Reply.

MAster Tombes his retorting Argument vanishing like a Comet in smoak, and stink, [...], Eurip. I returned from whence by his irregular moti­on, we had digressed, and proved that holyness 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 denyed 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 onely 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 onely 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 lawfull 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 meer 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 Jewes [Page 223] 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 Jewes, 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 denyes the consequence, which is proved thus, If God forbid the holy seed to mingle with none but them that are unholy (which he in­terprets bastards) then it will follow, the holy seed, that is, the lawfully begotten Jewes 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 Jewes have mingled themselves with the seed of those lands, that is the bastards of those lands: The consequence is evident, If God forbid them to mingle with none but those that are ba­stards in his sense, the meaning is, the legitimate of the Jewes 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 implyed in the Text, the holy seed have mingled themselvs with the people, which ar­gues the Jewes 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 Jewes had a particular outward holiness, which other Nati [...] ons were not capable of, appears by their washing of their gar­ments, as thinking themselves prophaned, when they touched them but in the market-place; 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 aire, whereof some were clean, some unclean; The clean represented the Jewes before Christ, the unclean the Gentiles, v. 13. There came a voyce 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 clensed call not thou common, that is count not thou the Gentiles unholy, whom God intends henceforth to graff 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 [Page 224] when they give their names to Christ: So that the sense is not (as he sayes) the holy seed, that is, those who were descen­ded by lawfull generation of allowed women, these have taken to themselves of the daughters of the Nations whom God for­bad 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 forbad them to marry, being not in covenant with him, which is plain out of the verses 1, 2. So that I confesse 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 Jewes, 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 joyned an unholy seed with a holy, and fell under this re­proof.

What Mr. Tombes talks of Jepthe makes him guilty of that he ac­cuses others, of running like Ahimaaz without his errand, and fighting 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 Gods 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 [Page 225] to his, for all he sayes that the Aethiopian woman was not forbidden; Not forbidden, he means when he marryed 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 lawes before that to keep their tribes entire without prophane 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 faire, 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 joyned 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 Jewes; And though it was an Appendix thereof to be capable of inheritance among the Jewes, this can no more be called legitimation, than the manumission of a servant that was not free before, or the na­turalizing of an Alien, who was no Dennizen before, can be so stiled.

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 armes, 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 Covenant­holiness: But Christ took up little children into his armes, 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 sayes) he denyed 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 errour in the whole controversie: His mistakes were two, 1. In saying it was a fallacie 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 untruthes unto it, First that he particularly denyed that Christ pronounced a curse upon those that despised little children, and that, that was to be proved, Secondly, that I alledged Matth. 18. 2. for clearing of which, the Reader is to be advertized, that I having told him, it was not an explicite 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 Kingdome of Heaven are holy, and in Covenant, but to little children belongs the kingdome of Heaven, therefore little Children are holy, and in covenant. By this any reader may percieve 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 [Page 228] that also in it order, and would have endeavoured by Gods assi­stance, if the time, and his patience would have permitted, which will fall in anon; for the present he implyes a denyall of my Minor, saying the Text I alledged, 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 Christs 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 controversie meant a little child in age, onely of that in the sixt vers. [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 orders 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 mothers womb. So Psalm 22. 9. Thou didst make me hope, when I was up­on my mothers breasts, I was cast upon thee from the womb, and as they are numbred Psal. 115. 13. Revel. 19. 5. with the fearers of God, Ye that fear the Lord both small, and great, and the scanda­lizing such is the harming of them, which those that denyes 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 bosome, 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 sayes 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 sayes expresly chap. 9. 48. That Christ said that of that little babe too that he took in his armes, and set in the midst of them, he that receiveth this little [Page 229] child in my name receiveth me: And so in Mark. 9. 36, 37. ex­presly, he that shall receive one of such little children, (without men­tion of any other foregoing, but the child it self taken into his armes) receiveth me. Therefore his allegation is false, that the Text I alledged, did not say of little children, that to them be­longs the Kingdom of Heaven; for as Christ expresly sayth Mark 10. 14. suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God; so he sayes 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 rendred capable of the Kingdom of Heaven, the little child, who was their pattern, and president, was much more, there being not a bare analogical Identity, as in doves and lambs, but a specificall sameness betwixt the qualifications of little children, and those required in believers, which our Saviour puts out of doubt, when he sayes 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 mans 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 alledged, 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 sayes 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 sayes) I added that it hath relation to disci­ples in the first verse, who must be converted from their actuall sins, & become as little children, which have no actuall sins, is Or­thodox, & agreable to the Analogie of faith: for in true repentance there is an aversiō from the creature, & a conversion to the Crea­tor. Therefore it was a Lucian like scoff proceeding from the spi­rit [Page 230] of malignity in him to say unjustly upon this occasion, how unhappy are the people that are seduced with these toyes, are you not ashamed? Whereas he seduces the people with toyes, whom we endeavour to undeceive with solid truth, and the light of the Gospel, of which we are not ashamed; Therefore I replyed then, that he had learned of the man in Lucian to cry out [...] O cursed, and to vilifie that Argument he cannot an­swer, besides which I saw nothing shame-worthy, nor do I yet, saving that to his verbal contumel [...]es, he addes a surplusage in print; That if others of his judgment 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; Frantick bedlam Anabaptists (saith he) who are fitter to be out of the number of men, and driven out of the bounds of humane nature, than to be disputed with, Assise Sermon, pag. 13. which cen­sure he may seem in part to merit by his uncharitable vocife [...]ati­on, 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 innocencie, 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 Christs, 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 thieves, nor coveteous, 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 Christs words, Math. 18. 3. not only according to mine interpretation, but of antient 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 despaire 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 sayes chap. 3. 2. In many things we offend all; yet Saint John sayes, 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 sayes, 1 Epist. chap. [Page 231] 1. 8. If we say we have no sin we deceive our selves, and the truth is not in us, this is in regard of inherence and st [...]in; so the same A­postle sayes, 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 acqu [...]escing 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 sun-beame, resembling the rest of the litter of grievous wolves, as Mr. Tombes himself stiles them, of which Master Bol­ton speaks, Assise 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 mouthes.

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 Hippocrates his interpretation, who makes it to signifie a child under seven years of age, and Beza, who sayes [...] 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; its 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 joyned 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 baptizing after discipling, or believing would prove that discipling, and believing is to be first found in persons, be­fore they must be baptized; Then the same Argument would prove that these Infants were formerly baptized, because they [...]ame for imposition of hands, a right usually following mens [Page 233] baptism too, in the practise of the Apostles; as in Acts 8. 17. and 19. 5, 6. Nor can Mr. Tombes give us any certain proof, o [...] demonstration, or ought besides his own presumtion, 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 sixt 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 sixt 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 middest 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, forbid them not to come unto me, for of such is the kingdome of God.

But now I perceive his erroneous mistake, for he sayes 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 impudencie to say mine Argument was not answer­ed, when mine own confession answered it: By this I see one er­rour begets many, for 1. my Argument was not that Christ pronounced a curse on them that despised, and received not [Page 234] 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 lesse 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 Childrens sake, be­cause they would have hindred them to come to him for a bene­diction.

By this it appears upon whom this height of impudency re­flects; The Areopagites at Athens had two stones erected in the Market place, the one of impudencie, the other of contumely; Mr. Tombes 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 discent from him in judge­ment, of which he is liberal in the words following, for (saye [...] he) justly here after five hours time, ( Skogan spewes crowes) [...]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 waggs stil his taile, and in the end thrusts out his sting, to wound their reputation, who had any dealing with him. In this Argu­ment; beginning with me sayes he had experience of my meer cavelling 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 bound him within the virge of a lawfull Dispute; As for the Dispute at Abergaveny, the relation thereof, with his answer, and my reply, let others judge whether is the meer caveller: But he dwelt 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 snailes with their houses upon their backs. But as Marcion said of the Orthodox, and Catholick Fathers, he finds nothing [...] me, and those other Paedobaptists he hath answered (meaning Dr. Hamond, Master Marshall, Master Baxter, Dr. Homes, Dr. [Page 235] 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, franticks; 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 yeilded 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 inf [...] the ignorant, and fill all corners of three Nations with his bo [...] (as Arrius did the Empire with his) which are so subtilly, a [...] laborately contrived, that he hath gained a repute by the c [...] sent 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 lesse 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 faithfull 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 Marcion and his follow­ers did) that their Champians durst not shew their faces whilest Mr. Tombes was in town, whereupon I was assaulted with one messenger after another, who rather enforced, then perswaded me to be present at Mr. Bonner's debatement, and his: My first salute was, when I entred the Town (from a friend of his sent as he said to know) whether I would dispute with Mr. Tombes: I returned, I was not then provided, but if he gave the challenge, and withal a competent time, I would (God 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 [...] [Page 236] 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 steele: 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 publickly 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 causelesly from the sharp rasor of some of their tongues, beyond barbarity.

As for the speech of him, who said Mr. Tombes 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 ray­ling speeches are a bad Omen, and presages ill; A man of his [...]retended gravity, and wisedome, 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 heale an evill 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 Jesuites 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 O­rigens 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,

If he had not thus abruptly cut this Gordian knot, which he [...]hould have untyed, my purposed methode 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 [Page 237] to prove Infant-Church-membership; whose answers to o­ther mens 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 anatomized by me, for I intend onely a brief Scheme or Ske­leton of it for the present.

Reply.

THis [...] self willed Hydra infects the waters of Baptism, and by his self-pleasing principles turns all to poyson, trutina­que examen in ista castigat, nec se quaesiverit extra. Pers. An anti­dote I aym at for the present, re [...]erving a further re-examination of this Examiner for the future. I said [and is baptized] 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 denyed not incompleat, but compleat 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 sayes, take heed to all the [...]ock over which the Holy Ghost [...] hath set, or fixed you [...]verseers; and Titus 1. 5. I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, [...], and ordain, or rather setle Elders in every Citie, 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 Panegyricks. I seriously considered what I said, when I neither would extend [ [...], Mark 16 16.] to every rationall creature, as Divels, nor re [...]train it to men of age, [Page 241] 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 Fathers 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 Church­membership, and Baptism, with the attendants, and sequels are due to Infants; And it is so far from being foolish, that it pro­ceeds from the wisdome of him, who is wisdom it self, to attempt it; which my words shew, 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 naturall instinct, and [...] earnest expectation, of men of years, who by actuall understanding, and profession of Faith; of Infants, who besides a naturall 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 Baptized 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 conditionall necessity of bapti­zing, and re-baptizing, 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 bapti­zed, or not see the Kingdom of God, and yet [...] may gather from John 3. 5. conditionally, Infants Baptism; All are not damned that are not baptized, 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 baptized before we can hear the word Preached, or repent for all his fri­volous reason that the Text does not express that John baptized afore he Preached; Its true, no more does, Math. 28. 19. that they must make Disciples, or Preach before they baptize; but [...]e sayes, Mark recites these two as connexed, yet the latter is [Page 242] 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 Mathew Chap. 28. 19. recites these two [Preach and baptize] 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, [ baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Reply.

AS we cannot know the person to be Baptized 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 Baptized, to whom it is not spoken; neither is there ground from any other Scripture, that the party to be baptized should not undertake that Ordinance without a saving Faith; nor the baptizer should stay so far (as is discernable) till he discovers a saving Faith in the person to be baptized; All that is necessarily required in them of age, is a willingness to re­ceive Christ, and his Ordinance, which was performed by the Jaylor, Lydia, and their families on a sudden, with those three thousand Acts 2. 39. who could not possibly in one day hear the [Page 243] word, be baptized, 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 baptizing 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 it self being Adiapherous, or indifferent. Infant-Baptism was not opposed before John of Leydens time, as is formerly proved, who was not onely 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 authentick Au­thors, German, and English, that he might have known, and remembred, if he would have impartially read, and judged. I said truly, Baptizing 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 onely Ravenel, who made a Dictionary accor­ding to the true, and Scripture-use of terms, but Paraeus, the old Catechism, the Directory, to which I adde the greater, and lesser Catechism of the assembly. I shewed out of Hesychius, Bu­daeus, Stephanus, Scapula, Arius Montanus, Pasor, that it signi­fies first tingere to dye, or tincture; Secondly mergere to drown, or plunge, Thirdly madefacere to wet, or moysten, 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.

Reply.

HE begins with a notorious untruth; for I confesse not that Casaubon in his notes on Math. 3. 6. distinguisheth between baptizing, 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 criticize upon it) is to swim between the top and the bottom; But I was so far from saying that Ca­saubon, distinguisheth between baptizing, and rantizing, that I said the three last were onely 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 saies their judg­ment is deservedly long since exploded, and trampled down, that would have baptizing 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 baptizing 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 presse, 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 Lords supper (its 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 controversie; his speeches out of Bernard and Cl [...]niacensis two Popish Abbots byassed with prejudice against [Page 245] the Albigenses shall justly be of lesse 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.

Reply.

IT is of weight, and preponderats his novel fiction, which I say, the Israelites were baptized, when their feet did but touch the water, or watry sand, for all the Text sayes, 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 baptized in the cloud, with the water sprinkling, or falling upon them, then the Text, 1 Cor. 10. 2. doth prove baptizing to be by sprinkling, or pouring on; Hugo Grotius in­terprets [...] by madefacere, lavare, abl [...]re to moysten, wash, purge, not necessarily to dip; If his authority be of weight, the controversie is at an end; if not, why quotes he his descant, that they were baptized, that is, as if they were baptized; which he quite overthrowes, to be taken in his sense, when he sayes, it is the same with that of others, to be analogically baptized, who meant that they were truly washed, or baptized, as were those typical of the Law, materially the same, differing formally, be­cause representing some analogie, or similitude with the sacra­mental baptism of the Gospel. Its true and demonstrable which I say, where is mention made in the Gospel, of baptizing 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 onely because water was so scarce, but for other reasons rivetted in the Text, Luke 11. 38. The Pha­risees wondered at Jesus [...], that he was not baptized, 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 beggs that Laza­rus might be sent [...] that he might baptize, 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 hony comb. So Sophocles uses it, [...], thou hast tinctured (not dipped) thy whole weapon in the Grecian army. Mr. Tombes interprets that literally, Mat. [Page 247] 3. 11. as verified on the day of Pentecost, [...], will baptize with the Holy Ghost, and fire, the fire did not encompasse the whole bodies, but sate in the shape of cloven tongues upon part of their garments. This acceptation the Athe­nian Oracle puts out of question, [...] baptize, 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 quo [...]es him) speaks only of men and vessels rendred unclean by the dead car­kases of unclean beasts, who (haply) in that case were not clen­sed but by dipping in the whole; This is fallacia a secundum quid ad simpliciter, makes nothing for the Typicall, much lesse all baptism to beby dipping.

Reply.

I cannot allow of this consequence of the Anabaptists, John baptized 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 baptize them, if he can prove the Eunuch had a ves­sel in his Chariot; or John Baptist a fitter Font than Jordan to bap­tize 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 bap­tized 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 it self, or a distinct act from it; if a d [...]stinct act from it, how proves it dipping? If it was dipping it self, then 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 entituled of Baptism, he can­not produce many of the prime writers, even leading Protestants gathering the necessity of dipping thence, as to be used onely in baptizing; nay nor scarce the frequent practice then; Eusebius de locis Hebraicis, and Jerom his Interpreter, from the smalnesse 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 baptized in Enon were dipped, because Geogra­phers and Travellers of cred [...]t 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. presse a necessity of dipping, either from the resem­blance, or the resemblance alluded to without a divine institu­tion, or determined practise of the Apostles, which was not con­fessed by Mr. Vaughan, but the frequencie of it in succeeding Centuries, which being a thing Ad [...]apherous, the Church had [Page 249] their liberty of indifferencie, not to alter Christs institution (as he dis-ingenuously charges him) but the manner undetermined. The scope of the Apostle is to shew, that one end of our Bap­tism is to seal our communion with Christ in his death; and con­cludes as well, that the resemblance of Christs burial is to be con­tinued as much in the duration, as the thing; as well lying three dayes, and three nights, as under the water at all. There­fore all resemblances betwixt our baptism, and Christs burial, not bottomed upon divine institution and Apostolical practise revealed in Scripture are but humane inventions, which they that Idolize, as Anabaptists determining baptizing to dipping, sins against Christs command, as godly learned men, and assemblies out of holy writ have discovered.

Reply.

I confesse with Mr. Perkins, that if we were to baptize converted Turks, or Pagans of ripe age, in hot Countries (which he leaves out) we might baptize them by dipping; which shewes that it is not onely for infants sake, but the coldness of our Clymats, we baptize by dipping in part of the body, pouring on water, or sprinkling, which are as well according to Christs institution, as [...]lunging, God will have mercy, and not sacrifice: The Ana­baptists shew that it is for dipping sake, which sucklings cannot endure, that Christs institution of Infant baptism is altered, and so one corruption hath brought in another.

I add, provided their garments were not first baptized, or wash­ed; which intimates not necessarily I would have them naked, for they may have loose garments after the manner of the Jewes, 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 cloathed in cold Climats to be against the sixt 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 Countries where (without impeachment of modesty) they go naked, or slender cloathed; Mr. T. may justly be schooled by us both, for his unfaithfull dealing in the premises. The reason is solid, which is not mine, but Vossius his; who sayes Baptismus non est immersio vestium, sed humani corporis, Baptism is not a washing of garments, but mans body: Baptizing of garments may be as well superstitious, as of Bells, for all they are not baptized 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, at (que) 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 baptized as Bells, to drive away devils, yet they are conceived to be baptized without divine [Page 251] in [...]itution, and so from the Devil; Baptizing of the body is not worshipping of it, but [...] performing of Christs Ordinance in re­lation to it, which to perform also to the garmants is wil-worship and therefore f [...]tly co [...]pared to Romish [...]uperstition, and i [...]ola­try. He that aff [...]rms that baptizing without dipping is not law­full, that it is wil-worship, that infant▪ baptism as used is a nul­lity, that notwithstanding such baptism, yet rebaptizing remains a duty, speaks sacrileiously, schismatically, heretically.

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 baptized before were not to be baptized again. And it is neither a Logicall, nor Thelogicall conclusion in Mr. T. as proceeding neither from reason, nor charity to say from thence its probable that I am a bloudy min­ded man, who would rejoyce 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 coun­cell 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. Tombes out of tender­ness of conscience should follow that which he thinks (though mistakingly) the plain rule of Christ, he should be more meeke, than causlesly 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 entred 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 baptizing is not dipping, but prove it for if there be four manners of Baptizing, whereof dipping is but one, then baptizing is not onely dipping; Species non praedicatur de genere, nec cum eo reciprocatur. I undertake to prove that Infants may, nay ought to be baptized, 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 [Page 253] 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 compleatly, out of which ordinarily there is no salvation: Poore they are, in re­gard they are self-helpless; Saints or holy, in regard of birth­privilege, or election of grace, whch none but Satan, and his com­plices denyes them.

The preface, (which the pittiless Herodian Infanticides op­pugne) recommends two considerations, first, that those truthes that were not in controversie in the primitive times, the Apostles were not so punctuall 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 unnaturall 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 denyed it, as being so firmly founded in Christs appointment, and their practise, 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 fabrick from the German 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 sayes, 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.

Reply.

THe first Argument is, Those (meaning under the Gospell) 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 truely sayd 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 baptized, visi­ble Church-members, and visible Covenanters are Synonima; And that those that were actually received into Covenant might be Baptized; to be visibly in covenant, and actually received into covenant, are both one.

I cited five more, four eminent Protestants Danaeus Davenant, Wendel, and Perkings; One a Papist, Ferus, who he sayes, is more ingenuous than them that are fore-mentioned, see his affection; and (if you please) Ferus his ingenuity, who upon Matth. 19. sayth, juste, 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 truely from the spirit of God, the Church even baptizeth children; therefore it is not a Christan act, but plainly like Herod, or rather like the Egyp­tians to murder the little ones of Gods 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 dictats poysons 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 denyed and attempted to prove Exam. part 3. Sect. 1. letter to Mr. Bayly Sect. 3. Antipaed. 1. [Page 255] part Sect. 5. That those that were in covenant with God, had no seal before Abrahams 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, ought 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 sayes, he would Bap­tize an Infant if he knew him to be regenerat, yet I think, he durst not give him the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper.

Reply.

THE Minor I prove from Genesis 17. 7. where the Infants of believing Parents are implyed, it being a covenant not one­ly established with Abraham, but with his seed after him in their generations for an everlasting covenant, by virtue of which Isack, 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 sillable 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 implyed Abrahams seed, in that it was a Gospell-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 onely from Abrahams 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 onely when he was but eight dayes old, but before the seventh; but we speak of a visible covenant, which he at least compleatly entered not till by circumcision the eight day; which outward seal, I say meaning circumcision, as well as the inward circum­cision [Page 257] 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 Christs death, as the Meritorius, as well as by reason of Gods command the efficient cause; To looke at any circumstance of the covenant of grace out of Christ, or not receiving virtue from Christ, is too looke in a glasse wherein we may see our own dam­nation. I rightly inferred, if Isack had the s [...]al (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 Phantasie. 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 Jewes 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 mani­ [...]est 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 compleat repentance, which was initiated, or begun in them, they were pricked in heart, there­fore also faith, that is profession of faith, Men and Bretheren what shall we do? I said in the sermon, compleat repentance is an effect, and fruit of saving faith, as in order of nature after it; Yet there is an incompleat repentance, and profession of faith an­tecedent to both; In the dispute accordingly, I made them be­lievers in fieri, with an incompleat repentance, though perhaps not in facto; what then? verse 40. he exhorted them with more words than are in Lukes abbreviation, but not than were in the sermon, upon hearing of which sermon, some of them gladly re­ceived the word, and were believers by acceptation to entertain Christ; but by justification to be implanted into him, is more than [Page 258] he knows. Peter said not unto them before they were believers, that is accepters, the promise is to you, and your children, every cir­cumstance in the Text makes it clear, that as soon as they were believers, their children were in covenant with them, and to be baptized, be baptized every one of you, for the covenant [...], is for the present to you, and your children; and to them that are afar off, to wit the Gentiles aliens in affection, when God shall call them, Parents with children for the future.

Reply.

MY second Argument was, such as were circumcised under the Law, may be baptized under the Gospel; But In­fants of believers were circumcised under the Law; there­fore they may be baptized under the Gospel; for this I cited learned Whitaker, saying, huic Argumento non omnes Anabaptistae resistent. All the Anabaptists shall not be able to resist this Ar­gument; This Antagonist flights him, calling it his conceit, that hath not the force of a feather, so as to need resistance as mine before not of a squib; high towring words,

Proijcit ampullas, & sesquipedalia verba;

Reverend Bishop Hall sayes of him, who ever saw him without reverence, or heard him without admiration? Lear­ned, and pious Doctor Arrowsmith gave him this Enconi­um the last Commencement at Cambridge, Egregie Whitakerus ut in omnibus; yet this fore-house in the Anabaptists tearm (as Mr. Carpenter calls him) as if he had the Monopoly of plumes, allows not his Arguments (that astonished Cardinals) the force of a feather. To it, he sayes, he answers. 1. Indirectly by retor­tion, but indeed proves directly for me. Such as were circum­cised under the Law, may be baptized under the Gospel; But Infants of unbelievers, as the Males bought with Abrahams mo­ney, of the stranger not of his seed, Gen. 17. 12, 13. 23. 27. persons out of covenant, as Ishmael Gen. 17. 19. 21. 25. were cir­cumcised under the Law; Ergo, if the one be irresistible, so is the other. I yield all, the premises being truly understood; for children of unbelievers, if under Christians tuition, are capa­ble of baptism; we plead education, as well as birth-right; Those that are out, that is that have not the covenant establi­shed to posterity, with Ishmael may be baptized: Ishmael was not out of the outward, and visible covenant, which is the Question, nor as Luher thinks out of the invisible, though his posterity a­postated, and Christ came not out of his loyns; which if he de­ny, one branch of his Copulative Minor is false, and according to his own rule, renders the whole untrue, and his conclusion not deducible. 2. He says, he answers directly, by denying the Major, if universall, whereas his own former instance▪ have de­monstrated it universally true. My proofs are convincing; That from Austin is of force, Mutatis signis manet eadem gratia sine aeta­tis discrimine, the outward visible signs being changed, the same grace remains without difference of age, and is vainly supposed [Page 260] by him, that therefore, 1. by circumcising under the Law, and baptizing under the Gospell, the grace of God is conferred, o­therwise than sacramentally, and signally according to divine in­stitution, which is no Popish conceit, Circumcision did no more bind to the keeping of the Morall Law, than doth Baptism, both beings seals of the righteousness of faith; nor do we, nor did Austin upon more mature thoughts, find that the grace of God was either Physically, or Morally conferred by the circumcision of each person rightly circumcised, nor do the Papists by baptis [...] for some may ponere obicem: we say further its conferred on none either Physically, or Morally, and yet conferred sacramentally, according to the nature of the union of the sign, and thing signed, or signified. 2. It justly supposeth, if Infants be not ba­ptized, the grace of God is straiter in the new Testament than in the old, which is true; for the grace of God according to the Oeconomie, or dispensation under the Gospell, is not ordinari­ly conferred without sacraments; Gods administration of the Church before Abrahams time without Scripture, and sacraments, is no president to us, who must follow the present rule, and con­cludes as well for Antiscripturians, as Antipaedobaptists: God disp [...]nsed grace before Abraham without sacraments, because it was his pleasure, not so since, at least, to the contemners of sa­craments, for the same reason. Schoolmen gave not so much to the right use of the sacraments (it seems; as Mr. T. does to the sacrilegious abuse, who confesses he asserted in his Sermon, all that would be saved must be baptized after profession, that is, baptized again, though they were baptized when Infants.

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 Gospel­and is grounded upon this impregnable rock, which the Anabap­tists will never overthrow, that to be circumcised, or baptized is all one as to be in visible covenant; That the reason of bapti­zing, or circumcising a person, is their birth-right, 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 controversie, but is a con­fused Maze intricated with his fallaciâ decumanâ, or Master-falla­cie of Gods making, whereas he should say, compleating his cove­nant onely with the elect, or spirituall seed, and this as the poysoned string in the Lamprey, runs through the whole: we have seen: his attempts hitherto, as fallacious, as the hanging of Mahomets [Page 262] tomb in the aire, his followers may expect as much satisfaction from the many sections of his third part yet invisible, as Maho­mets from his second comming: Hebr. 8. 6. The new covenant is a better covenant, not onely 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 b [...]came a little one for little ones sake, that he might redeeme little ones, outwardly as well baptizing them with water, as inwardly with the Holy Ghost, after his precept not example, who was not baptized till thirty years of ag [...], be­cause baptism was not instituted till then, but circumcised, when eight dayes old As d [...]mnat [...]on; and contempt, so Christs redemp­tion, and acceptation of baptism, are connexed. My saying of little ones, that they were the first Martyrs that suff [...]red for Christ, is true; for they may be M [...]rtyrs, or w [...]tnesses, who do suffer, or signifie any thing relating to Christ, without an express ver­ball 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 dayes are wisest witnesses, and Plato [...] I produce nature for a witness. That expression that they witnessed onely by dying (I confess) is vain, which is Mr. Tombes 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 vocall expression, by impression may witness. They suffered be­ing baptized with the baptism of blood for Christ, whom actual­ly they knew not, though Herod was the Instrument, as Pilate was of Christs suffering for us. This suits with the language of Fathers, and leading Protestants, and infers not the keeping of Innocents day much less the rankness of Common-prayer books superstition, which about twenty years ago I opposed in a Bi­shops [Page 263] 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.

Reply.

HE confesses, there is that behind, which hath most shew 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? bury­ed 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 &c. [...] in the Aorist of the Participle, being buryed, or by having been buryed with him in baptism: These are predicated of the same persons, and so con­joyned, as to express how the former was done by the latter; not so in that which followes, They (one subject) were raised (passively) by the faith of the operation of God, vvho raised (actively) Christ from the dead (another subject) and being so expounded, its true, for they vvere circumcised vvithout hands by baptism secundum quid, relating to the manner of legall cir­cumcision, vvithout hands s [...]mpliciter relating to the invvard baptism signed by the outvvard, vvhich being granted, it is con­sequently cleared by the Apostle, that baptism comes in the roome of circumcision, vvhich is the scope of the place v. 10. That vve are [...] compleated, or filled in Christ, by baptism vvith­out circumcision, and that Christ, vvho is yesterday, to day, and for ever the same, substituted baptism into the place of circumcisi­on, vvhich vvith other Jevvish ceremonies v. 17. vanished at his passion. And therefore the Apostle asserts, that Christ in the flesh vvith baptism, and the rites under the Gospell, came in the place of Christ promised vvith circumcision, and other rites un­der the Lavv. Mr. Marshall had reason to grant that persons came to be in Christ, and compleated 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 vvas to come, vvhich is agreeable to the expressions Gal. 3, 23, [Page 265] 25. Circumcision mentioned, Coloss. 2. 11. is baptism succeeding le­gall Circumcision to which it alludes, receiving virtue from Christs personall 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 implyed, against which he proves nothing, Antipaed. part. 2. Sect. 2, 3. but beggs the Question. Ministers children under the Gospel succeeds not, as the Priests children did under the Law, because God in no place sayes 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 baptized 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, buryed with him in Baptism. So that the Argument, that Mr. T. presumptiously 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 Anti-scripturians does the whole Scripture) by denying it; yet I cannot imagine they can with any probable evasion elude it, when their great Goliah falls before it, and perishes with his own sword.

Reply.

THe third Argument rising thence, hath its unanswerable sta­bility thence; which was this; Those that were in covenant, had the seal of the covenant, and were never disfranchized, and put out of covenant, have title to the Covenant, and seal of it still; But infants were once in Covenant, had the seal of the Co­venant, and were never disfranchized, and put out of Covenant, Therefore infants have title to the Covenant, and seal of it still. To this he gives no direct answer, but catches at his own shadow, with Ixion begetting Centaurs, which to deny is to con­fute, they are Clouds, and will vanish; for denying of Infant-Baptism, is putting out of visible Covenant, disfranchizing, out of which we have no promise of invisible. Circumcising supposed visible Covenant, was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace; If the Gospel puts Infants out of visible Covenant, for any thing we know, or is revealed in the word, it puts them wholely out of the Covenant of Grace▪ My amplication to the people, which he scoffingly calls proofs; are significant, and sutable. The Gospel is so far from expressing of infants, that they are put out, that it gives them large commendations beyond them of riper years, making them the rule of our perfection; as new born babes re­ceive [Page 267] the sincere milk of the word, unless ye be as little children, y [...] shall not enter into the Kingdome of God. His own Argument, as he moulds it, concludes against him; little children are humble, and proposed herein as paterns to us, Therefore they are in Co­venant; for if those that follow them are so qualified, The Co­py, and patern much more, especially that humbleness being a fruit of the spirit, which he can never prove to be as true of Infidels children, as Christians, nor the one consequently to be in Covenant as well, as the other; That these acts, or qualities of little children are onely naturall, not seminally virtuous, is his bold conjecture, which if so, might give evidence of their being in Covenant, God selecting his own federally, though not morally holy, for presidents: There are commendations of litle children, 1 Pet. 2. 2. and Math. 18. 3. compared with other pla­ces, making them more the rule of our perfection than Sheep and Doves, Math. 10. 16 for when did our Saviour take Sheep, and Doves up in his arms, lay his hands upon them, and bless them, saying the Kingdom of God did belong unto them? and unless ye be as Sheep, or Doves, ye shall not enter into the King­dom of God? Doctor Everard is blamed for saying Swine, and Sheep praise the Lord in laying down their life, according to Gods will, for man, as well as Stephen, and the Martyrs, when they called upon God; meaning in their kind, not in the same degree; Then shall Mr. T. be justified for saying Scripture nei­ther commends, nor makes little children the rule of our per­fection, more than Sheep, or Doves, excepting no degree, or graduall perfection? Some may better steal a Horse, than others many look over the hedge. The Philosopher sayes, [...], that an Accident hath no Accident; But that natu­rall qualities in rationall creatures should resemble virtuous qua­lities inhearing in no creatures to be a rule to spiritual creatures, is a Prodigie beyond the Mint of Popish Transubstantiation. My testimony out of Bellarmine intimates that Bellarmine, and the Jesuits that concenters with the Anabaptists in opposing Covenant-holiness, and Analogy from circumcision, deserts them here, as ashamed of the conclusion of Anti-paedobaptism they draw thence: If it be more likely to be false, because Bellarmine a Jesuit saith it, then that there is no such thing as Covenant-ho­liness, and that Arguments drawn from analogie of circumcision are not concluding, is also false, which will necessarily enforce our Thesis; It being also true that Christ instituted baptizing of children with Parents, who with their Parents being in visible Covenant, are capable of baptism.

Reply.

MY fourth Argument proved Infan-t Baptism commanded Math. 28. 19. because Nations are commanded to be baptized: according to Ambrose, qui dixit omnes, nul­los exclusit, neque parvulos, he that said baptize all, excluded none, no not little ones. I confessed [...] is, ye shall make Disciples, but not that baptizing is onely of actuall Disciples; for 1. It can not be proved, that the verb [...] teach, in­cludes actually in it the noun [...] Disciples. 2. It follows not, because it is placed before [...] baptizing, therefore it is [Page 269] simply before it in order of nature, and time. 3. Though [...] should signify, make actuall Disciples, and in order of na­ture and time procede, it may be put Synecdochically for the greater part, actuall believers, not excluding their infants. My speech, Infants are not uncapable of baptism, because they have not faith, and repentance, because Christ was baptized without repentance is unanswerable; for it presupposeth his proposition drawn from [make Disciples] not to be universall, and so irre­gularly to conclude from particulars; for if there be not the same end of Christs baptism, and ours, there may be different ends of infants Baptism, and those of age: Christ was circumcised for one end, Isaak, and Ogdemerans for another, Abraham, and aged Proselytes for another: Christ was baptized 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 meer objective power, or receptibility, as the world in its Creation was of nothing, so infants regeneration, or new creature is of nothing. It is also a divine truth, that up­on the account I spake of, many whole families accepting Christ were baptized, and their infants with them, which the Texts I alledged in the Sermon, proves, Acts 10. 47. Those were bap­tized that received the Holy Ghost, of which infants are capa­ble, as Mr. T. often confesses; Jeremy, and John Baptist were san­ctified in their Mothers womb, Acts 16. 15. mention is made onely of Lydia attending to the things that were spoken by Paul, yet upon that account her whole houshold was baptized with her 1 Cor. 1. 16. Paul baptized the houshold of Stephanas, making no mention of faith, and repentance, Acts 16. 30, 31. The jay­lers family is baptized in reference to his faith, believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house, whereupon he was baptized, [...], 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 applyed to the subject matter capable of those duties, and proves affirmatively, such so qualified, were baptized, but nothing negatively, they that were not so qualified, were not baptized; The contrary whereof the Holy Ghost put out of Question, na­ming whole families, wherein infants are included, that were baptized without exception.

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 spirituall 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 baptize them, what can hinder water that these may be baptized, 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 Ministery, 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 graduall 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 Gods 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 actuall 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 joyntly 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. eternall life. It is true that Christ said, not onely of little ones in Spirit, who are converted, and [Page 272] believe in him, but of little ones in age, their Samplers, and paterns, 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 Christs blessing of little ones, to check (as it falls out) the novell Anabaptists, and to declare that which I call a precious truth, which maugre all opposition, may be ga­thered to be so from the story.

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) baptized 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 expresly, 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 madnesse; 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 Ministery 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 baptized before: er­rour drawes on another.

Reply.

MY sixt Argument was, All disciples may be baptized; But Infants of believing parents are disciples; There­fore some Infants may be baptized. 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 onely upon the Infants of belie­ving Jewes, 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 dayes old. v. 5. they taught it was needfull to circumcise them. v. 14. Ye must be circumcised; whence it is clear, that it is not onely Circumcision taught, but acted, not acted upon taught brethren onely, but their Infants; That I dare boldly say, they that as­sert the contrary, do but cavill against conscience, and with Ju­lian the Apostate throwes the blood of their own self-conviction against the Son of Righteousness. That Text Isai. 54. 13. is not meant onely 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 Saviours exposition clears, for when he ap­plies it to actual hearers, he leaves out the word [ children] saying they shall be all taught of God.

Reply.

MY seventh Argument was, All that have faith may be bapti­zed; Some Infants have faith; Therefore some Infants may be baptized. 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 baptized; this he onely insists upon, denying it, because it is not made known, confessing oft, if it were known, he would baptize them; this exception denies not, but they are baptiza­ble, but that he may not baptize 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 baptize none, till [Page 276] their faith be made known, he must supersede till this mortal put on immortallity: It is false that I alter the conclusion, which in the dispute was, some Infants may be baptized: In the Ser­mon indefinitly, Infants may be baptized, 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. Its 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 expresly calls little children in age (as many interpret it) believers, from the authority of Luke, who Chapter 9. 48. sayes; Christ sayes that of the little babe he took up in his armes, 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 it self 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 scandalizing of little children in age, whom he childishly, and untruly sayes are offended with none so much as nurses for dressing or chiding them, when they cry: Mr. T. might know that [...] is rendred 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 scanda­lize him, in defaming him, and rendring him uncapable of tem­poral birthright; but they that deny Infants spiritual birthright and church membership, scandalize 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 baptized, before they make profession, upon their birthright priviledge grounded on Gods 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 [Page 277] of the visible Church, we have neither commission to administer the Ordinance, nor promise of Salvation.

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 it self by works in walking with him, which Infants cannot do, at least in that degree, and manner; yet are not therefore without faith; God loved them, as elect, from eternity, with a love of intention, but not before they were in being, and had faith, with a love of execution, which he expressed by blessing of them. I said from Scripture-grounds that faith must be allowed them, or salvation denyed them, but the latter was cruell, and impious, therefore the former must be godly and pious, faith onely purifieth the heart Acts 15. 9. and no unclean thing shall enter into Heaven; This he grants, saying [Page 278] faith in the seed is sufficient to make them clean, which is not de­nyed, may be in Infants; But denies that Isai. 65. 20. sayes any such thing; the contrary whereof hath been formerly proved. He takes no notice of the Testimonies of Paraeus, Hommius, Be­za, Trelcatius, and Vossius, but girds at Austin, who to Pelagius asking him, where he places Infants baptized, answers in numero credentium, in the number of believers, and addes, nec judicare aliter ullo modo audebis, si non vis esse apertè haereticus, neither may thou presume to judge otherwise, if thou wilt not be a plain he­retick; to shake of this load that is laid in the right saddle, he sayes Austins words expresses nothing, but his own conceit accor­ding to the language of the time; when as indeed it is the language of Scripture, and all ages, saving John of Leyden's, when he was backed with the German Boars, and this present, when by reason of our late distractions, the hedge of discipline was broken down; Mr. Tombes to get him a name with Erostratus, took liberty to advance also his Idol, thought Antipaedobaptism most plausible, whereas according to all antiquity, faith in seed, or act unknown, with Covenant-holiness doth intitle to baptism.

Reply.

THe eighth Argument was, those that are holy with a Cove­nant-holinesse may be baptized; Infants of believing parents are holy with a Covenant-holinesse; Therefore they may be baptized. The Major, and the Minor, which he sayes, he de­nyed, were proved before, to which in the Sermon I further ad­ded the Testimonies of Vossius, Bullinger, Sharpius, and his friend Hugo Grotius, who all (with the Assembly in the confession of faith, greater, lesser Catechism) interpret 1. Cor. 7. 14. of Covenant-holyness, nor legitimation, as he sayes Melanchton, Camerarius, and Musculus do, which are but three he can name amongst Protestants, granting we have ten to one to the contrary, he might have said ten times ten, and have kept within compasse. Dr. Featly called it rightly a bastard exposition, which to prove genu­ine Antip [...]dobap. first part, he hath spent many words in vain;

It is absurd to say Pagans children are holy in the Apostles sense, when the A­postle speaks there of special priviledges of Christians, and the sanctifiednesse of the yoke-fellow, and holiness of the children is ascribed to the faith of one parent, not to the conjugal relation between them, which they had before they were Christians. The first fruits, and root Rom. 11. 16. are Abraham as remote, every believer more immediatly relating to their next posterity; The lump, and branches are Abraham's children, not onely by election and faith, but visible Church-membership, which involves pro­fessors children, and the holiness is meant as well of meer out­ward visible holiness, as of saving holiness; Thus Grotius; loqui­tur Apostolus de sanctitate foederis, credentium liberi foedere gratiae com­prehensi sunt, & eatenùs sancti a Deo censentur, The Apostle speaks of Covenant-holiness, for the children of believers are compre­hended in the Covenant of Grace, and therefore are judged ho­ly of God. The breaking off, and graffing in, Rom. 11, 17. are meant of the visible Church, in which sense parents with children are broken off, and graffed in together, not of the invisible which would imply Popery, Pelagianism, and Arminianism, if the invi­sible members the elect could be broken off. See Mr. Blake, Serm. pag. 7, 8. his Answ. to Mr. T. page 29. Geree Vindication, pag. 23. Mr. Marshals Defence, page 134. Cotton pag. 77. to 110. Cobbet, pag. 151. to 168. Mr. Baxter, pag. 44. to 50.

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 baptized, and to be in v [...]sible Covenant; none are in visible Co­venant, but are or may be baptized, all that are baptized, are in visible covenant. The absurdities are these, Infants would be loosers by Christs coming, and in worse condition than the Jewish Infants were, they with the parents were admitted to the seal of the Covenant, which was Circumcision, 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 Christs coming; which I grant, but it is nothing to the pur­pose; our condition under the Gospel is better than theirs under [Page 281] the Law, theirs under the law infinitly 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 Jewes 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 seale, or ordinance by which the Jewes were bound to observe the ceremonial Law of Moses, and yet a rite that under that troublesome Oconomy sealed the righ­teousnesse of faith in Christ to come, baptism under an easier yoke seals Christ that is come.

Secondly, its acknowledged; though Baptism, and other Sa­craments be pure Evangelical priviledges, yet they are not such priviledges, but parents, and children did well without them, as well as without Scriptures before Abraham's time, & all the femals 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, then a time of legal, now a time of Gospel-ordinances. And those priviledges of the Law, what ever they were, are abundantly recompensed by Christs coming, and the Gospel-ordinances he instituted, whereof Infant­baptism 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 dore, 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 Jewes.

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 Jewes, which by degrees were multi­plyed, 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 Infants 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 baptize their Infants, as they, and all their progenitors were, and to convince, not to make odious, those that will not; whom we pitty for making their own children (as much as in them lies) as vile as the children of Turks, Tartars, and Canniballs; yet hope God will not punish the innocent bab [...] for their sins. It is a malitious 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 Tombes, who turned not with (and its to be feared, for) the times, as he, but prevented them: yet we cannot be perswaded Christs burial ought to be a more necessary president than his death, for ours, till he can prove the Jewish burial rites, [Page 283] and amongst them, those that dyed as Malefactors, to be our di­rectory; for then he must bury his friends out of Towns, Chur­ches, or Church-yard, 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 Pagans 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 onely 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, ought to participate of all these, which we ought not to be contented withall, seeing God hath enlarged his bounty further, but complain of them who deny infants those reall, and Scripture-grounded priviledges, which would conse­quently (for any thing we know) deprive them both of grace, and glory.

We look upon children of believers, that die unbaptized through invincible necessity, as hopefull; despair not wholly of Anabaptists children, that through Parents contempt are not baptized; 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 Parents 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 expresly, 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 contemne the seal, though com­manded, is not simply to put the children out of covenant. This is not to affright the poore 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.

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 Devill, 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 onely (nor properly at all) [Page 285] baptism; but foederall holyness, that (as the Directory sayes) gives capacity thereto; By denying of both of them, they put them out of covenant, and my speech implyes, that denyall of visible covenantship, foederall holyness, 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 baptized when Infants, if they were not baptized again, that is, that contem­ned a second baptism, as his necessity of precept infers; which necessity I onely 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 denye not onely the seal, but foederall holyness, 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 Gospell.

By interpreting my closing speech [out of covenant, and visi­ble Church (ordinarily) there is no salvation] that is out of the coven [...]nt of sav [...]ng accord [...]ng to election, he makes it a Tautolo­gie, and non-sense, The word [visible] added as Epithe [...]e 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 prophane 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 implyes a contradiction, that a person of y [...]ars should be a believer, and be joyned to no particu­lar visible Church congregational, Parochial, Provincial, Nati­onal &c. without prophane contempt, or wilfull neglect against conscience; for i [...] he receive baptism, and other ordinances from any of these, he joyns with them, if not, there is prophane con­tempt, and willfull neglect; And indeed is not intelligible how he became a believer without joyning 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 [Page 286] 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 Jewes 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.

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 Therfore it must needs be lawfull. He denyes the Minor, saying in his exercitation he shewed many errours and corruptions which have come from it, not by accident in respect of some persons that [Page 287] embraced it onely, but even from the tendency of the practice it self; whereas Dr. Homes, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Hussey proves the contra­ry, and makes his own▪ accusations recoyle as dung into his face, yet like the dragon in the Revelation he casts out a venemous flood to poyson the Churches of all ages; saying, that Paedobaptism hath been as cursed a roote 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 baptize In­fants in houses, As the Apostle did the Jayler; or two or three of them steal to a river side to duck, or cuck a Proselyte. 2. Baptism by women. Answ. Protestant Churches allowes no such thing since Luther, but closes with the Councell of Carthage Can. 10. Mulier baptizare non praesumat, let not a woman presume to bap­tize; Bold Zippora circumcising must be no president. 3. Bapti­zing of Infants not yet brought into light. Answ. If he mean the mother with child, Councells are against it, If he mean the child, we know no such approbation, or practice 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 baptized 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 prophane 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 baptizing before Catechizing. Answ. In Infants it does, as in Isaack, and the Jewes males, but not in adultis, and what inconvenience? 8. Its 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 prophaness; we can minde 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 minde of dayly? Thus his vainly pretended errours 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 [Page 288] is the Apostles, to baptize 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 Councell, 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 Antients to succeed Peter in his Ministery at Rome, says, [...], baptize your Infants: does Master T. think that we will admit of the conjecturall observations of one poore yesterdayes, Palatinat Minister Scultetus, to overthrow the Apostolicall constitutions, when he himself denyes the authority of all Protestants joyntly, as conv [...]ncing▪ 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 boyes, These that were new born, are the bapti­zed in Scripture-phrase, Tit. 3. 5. baptism is called [...], the washing of the new birth, which to be so meant, Ma­ster Mead in his Diatriba, thinks none will deny.

Reply.

ORigen that lived in the beginning of the third Century sayes, The Church received a tradition from the Apostles to bap­tize Infants, and gives a reason, because they are born in im­purity of sin; what is added is ingenuously confessed by Ruffinus the Translator himself; Erasmus, Perkins, nor any that plays the Critick upon him, impeaches him in the fore quoted place: A negative argument from Scripture in matter of fact will not con­clude, shall Austins non-allegation then of Origen, or which is more ridiculous, Mr. T. not finding it, disparage the authority of Origen? Vossius in his Theses of infant baptism, less cares for those parts of Origen that are not in the Greek, yet does not wholly discard them, some testimonies may be more authentick than o­thers, yet all creditable. Pelagius a great Scholar, who lived in the latter end of this Century; Though he denyed Original sin, yet confessed Infant-baptism, for when they pressed him with this Argument, If Infants had not Originall sin, what need they baptism? He answered, that Christ appointed, and the Church practised Infant-baptism, not to purge sin by past, but to pre­vent it for the time to come. This Mr. T. ingenuously passes by as unanswerable, and by silence gives consent: Cyprian confirms it in his 59. Epistle to Fidus, and gives an account of sixtie six Bishops that decreed that Infants should be baptized. Ambrose sayes, because every age is lyable to sin, therefore every age is [...]it for the Sacrament of Baptism; Nazianzen sayes, it is better to Seal Infants with Baptism (though they know it not) than to leave them unsealed. Austin Serm. 15. de verb. Apost.) speaking of Infant-Baptism sayes, The Church alwaies had it, alwaies observed it, received it from the faith of their Ancestors, keeps it with perseverance to the end. The Milevitan Councill decreed, That whosoever should deny that Infants, even taken from the Mothers wombs, might be Baptized, should be accursed. All this he grants, yet blasts it, (as his brethren of Transilvania did the Trinity) with this infectious breath, that they were all upon the Popish errours of giving grace, and the necessity to save a child from damnation, when Popery was not yet, nor was this the errour of all, or any of them finally, as Dr. H [...]mes hath proved; or if it were, shall the abuse of a thing take away the lawfull use, much less the evidence of fact, which is the Question? How Gregory Nazianzen, and Tertullian before him disswades from it, except in danger of death, is formerly answered; It was either Pagans, or if believers, to consult their bodyly health, they did the like to young men unmarryed, that were converted, and [Page 290] widows, neither do we find they prevailed in the least against the generall practice of Infant Baptism, which was so inviolable, that as the Question is stated, I think he cannot shew one in­stance to the contrary; If some gave them the Communion, i [...] no more impeaches the lawfulness of their Baptism, than the Jesuits joyning spittle, Salt, exorcism in Baptizing the Indians of years, does Mr. T. supposed Baptism of believers.

That unless in danger of death the antients Baptized not In­fants, is as loud a lye, as any is in the Golden legion, Ovid [...] Metamorphosis, or Lucians Dialogues. The Rubrick of the Com­mon Prayer book before Baptism, makes no mention of Cate­chizing in Lent, much less that believers Infants were not Bap­tized till they came to years, but that the Sacrament of Baptism in the old time, was not commonly ministred, but at Easter, and Whitsontide; He that thus falsifies an evidence, that every Boy▪ or Girle, that can but read, may check him in, Judge what he does with the Greek, and Latine Fathers.

Reply.

IT is most true, That all ages, all Churches agree in Infant Baptism; He cannot name one Church, one particular Con­gregation that never had it; I have already proved it a meer fiction, that any Church five hundred years ago, either opposed it, or practised the baptism of believers onely; Master Baxter challenges him to name one man, that was against, or did once question Church-membership of infants from the Creation till two hundred years ago, and less; which challenge is not yet an­swered. To these I further added the harmonies of confessions of all Reformed Churches, the Church of England in the Apo­logy, the old Catechism, the twentie seventh Article, the Di­rectory, the confession of faith, the greater, and lesser Catechism composed by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, and appro­ved by the Generall Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland; the late Parliament by a further Declaration, all confirming it. The Canons of our Church did not onely in former times declare, but the Laws of our land did punish Anabaptists as Hereticks: Master Fox in his Acts, and Monuments approves of the Albigen­ses, Waldenses, Wickliffists, Lollards, poor men of Lyons, Brow­nists, Barrowists as members of the Reformed Churches, but wholy excludes the Anabaptists as erring fundamentally▪ He passes by all these as Forts impregnable, onely parlyes with Ma­ster Fox saying, If he did account Anabaptists Hereticks, it was for other Tenents than this, to wit, re-baptizing: yes, for de­nying Infants Church-membership, Covenant-holiness, and baptism, which are enough; But those are not all, like Gad, it goes with a Troop attending it. But he relieves himself from Mr. Baxter (crying quarter from an enemy) who said no sober Divine did ever reckon the Anabaptists as Hereticks meerly for the errour of rebaptizing. This will throw Master Tombes upon the horns of a dangerous Dilemma: for if they be not Hereticks, Master T. is no sober Divine for calling them Hereticks, and a litter of grievous Wolves, Treat▪ of Scandals pag. 323. If he be a sober Divine, Then they are Hereticks; utrum horum, let him choose. whether he pleases. But Mr. Tombs perhaps meant, and Mr. Baxter sayes, meerly for the errour of rebaptizing; Its true; There is Infant Church-membership, and baptism besides, which being denyed with making a party, and division, Mr. Baxter de­monstrates [Page 292] monstrates how dangerous, and hereticall it is. Therefore I tru­ly said Anabaptism with its attendants, was a dangerous errour, that robbes the Scripture of its truth, infants of their right, Pa­rents of their comforts, the Church of its members, Christ of his merits, God of his glory, whereof every word is true, and free from the calumniating art of Machiavell, studyed so much by the Anabaptists, which he falsly attributes to the Comaedian, In what Comaedy? Asinaria. I further averred, at which he dis­gorges his venom, That it is the Mother of many other errours; hence sprung the Ranters, Socinians, Antitrinitarians, Quakers, Levellers, they that are above Ordinances, Antiscripturians; for it stands with reason, and Gods just judgement, that Satan the Serpent, having winded in the head, by making them deny Infant baptism, winds in further by degrees to the denyall of all baptism Communion, Ordinances; And having rejected plain Scripture-proof for Infants, Church-membership, and baptism, are infatuated by degrees, till they deny all Scripture: Accor­ding to Mr. Sidenham, Anabaptism hath been alwaies ominous, and of a wonderfull strange influence, accompanied with the most dangerous retinue of errours, since the first Embrio of it was brought forth, whether from a judgement of God, or from its naturall, and secret connexion with other principles of dark­ness, God hath shewed some black Characters on it, in every Nation, where it prevailed. It is voyd of reason to say, that the Christian Religion, which is the Mother of truth, should be the Mother of errour, Ex veris nil nisi verum: The Ebionites, Corinthians, Nicholaitans Gnosticks sprung from the corruptious of men transgressing Scripture-rule; And it is somewhat blasphemous to compare Anabaptism to Christian Religion, the one proceeding from the Holy Ghost, the other from an impure Spirit. The Helchesaits, a kind of Anabaptists (as Bullinger sayes adversus Anabaptist. Cap. 2.) did boast they had a Book sent from Heaven, wherein mysteries were contained, which whosoever heard read, should have pardon of sins. Nicholas Stock gave it out (as Guy de Bres. lib. 1. cont. Anabapt.) That God spake to him by an Angel, and revealed to him his will in dreams, promising him the place of the Angel Gabriel. Muncer told his Souldiers (as Sleiden Comment. lib. 5.) God had revea­led unto him, that the day should be theirs. Tuscoverer (as Ga­stius sayes,) told the people, God had revealed unto him, that John of Leyden should have the Empire of the whole world: Do not our Quakers, Levellers, those that are for a spirituall Monar­chy, (which are all Anabaptists) affirm the like? And if Mr. T. must [Page 293] have a further connexion between Anabaptism, and the errours I named, its 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.

Reply.

THe Signall judgments 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 [Page 294] 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 denyed water to quench it, who denyed that water should be brought to bap­tize 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 Pilat 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 Gods judgements against the Sodomites, Baalites, E [...]ymas the Sorcerer, Symon Magus, and such: we judge not of men, and Tenents by outward judgements; but of outward judgements by men, and their Tenents, so Job was justifiable; One may have his house burned, that baptizes not his child, perhaps another baptizes, 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 allwayes, or often: as it is observed, disturbance of Peace, and divine Vengance 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 baptize Infants; Thousands it may be, have fallen into calamities, after they have baptized 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 re­compence 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 beneficiall 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 Christs merits, conveyed by covenant-holiness or birth­priviledge, sealed by baptism, layd 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 [Page 295] is a ridiculous conceit: for Infant-Baptism brings not with it a meer empty title, but obedience, which is better than sacrifice, and the benefit comes no more without Baptism, than clensing of Naamans leprosie 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 bosome of the Church, devoted, & consecrated unto God, his name is put upon them, they wear his royall 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 prevaile 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 Devill delights; he might as well say, The Devill causes Popish Conjurers (when they enter into Covenant with him) to renounce Baptizing 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.

Reply.

HIs Epilogue, or Peroration is wholly invective, and be­yond the bounds of the most scurrilous Satyr, Calum­niatory, Bespattering. 1. The Sermon. 2. The Commo­nalty. 3. The Gentry. 4. The Ministery of our parts, concluding with John of Leydens Liturgie, 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 [Page 296] 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 Funerall [...]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 Catechized and grounded, saving a few Anabaptists, and some others, whom they have scandalized by their opinions, practice, and divisions, making Religion odious. 3. For our Gentry, (whom this Lycophrons [...] calls profane and loose) Their judicious piety, and discreet sobriety is so well known, that neither Shi­meis rayling, nor Doegs defamation can impeach them; and they mind godliness so far in earnest, that he can not obtrude his errours 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 triviall 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 fo­ming out his own shame, Jude 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 enlightned 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.

[...].