Vindication of Baptizing Believers Infants, Chapter 9
CHAP. IX.
SOme other Arguments occur,Exercitat. which make a number without ſtrength.
Why then doth Mr Tombes reckon upon ciphers?Animadver. …,Exercitat. § 5. The Argument from generall promiſes for Infant-baptiſme examined. it is argued from generall promiſes made to the godly and their ſeed, Exod. 20.6. Pſal. 112.2. &c. Whence it is gathered, That God makes a difference between the children of the godly and the wicked; that he promiſeth bleſſing to thoſe, not to theſe; therefore the children of the godly are to be baptized, not the other.
Anſw. The promiſes recited, are firſt generall and indefinite: ſecondly, for the moſt part concerning corporall good things; thirdly, with the exception of free Election; fourthly, to be underſtood with the imployed condition of faith and repentance, and ſo they ſerve not to this purpoſe.
We Reply, to the firſt: If generall and indefinite from God,Animadver. therefore not to be reſtrained by men from all thoſe God mentions.
To the ſecond, If for the moſt-part concerning corporalls, yet Mr T. dares not ſay altogether: If ſome ſpirituals meant, it is to the purpoſe: ſecondly, In Exod. 20.6. The judgements there on ſinne muſt needs ſignsfie thoſe that are ſpirituall; therefore, by the Antitheſis, ſpirituall mercies muſt be underſtood. Thirdly, In that 112. Pſal. v. 2. To expound that, The ſeed of the upright ſhall be bleſſed, that is, with outward things, were to ſay they ſhould have no more then what multitudes, if not moſt of wicked mens children have; which in Goſpell-Engliſh were to ſay, they are curſed. Their table may be made a ſnare, Pſal. 69.22. And theſe are the ungodly that prosper in the world, Pſal. 73.12.
To the third: That the promiſes to men of ripe years alſo are with the exception of Free Election. So Rom. 9.18. Speaking of them that ſtood in oppoſition over againſt rebellious Pharaoh.
To the fourth, we ſay: firſt, That promiſes muſt be conſiderable in the eyes of men, ſo as to come & waite under the preſſing them, or elſe they will not be comfortable meanes to work actuall faith and repentance in them. Secondly, That Mr T. cannot ſay that Infants are uncapable of faith: For if Iohn Baptiſt, whiles a child, was full of the holy Ghoſt; ſure he had that fruit of it, faith, in the habit. And thoſe little ones Ghriſt bleſſed, could not be bleſſed without union with Chriſt, which is by the ſpirit of faith.
Secondly,Exercistat. § 9. The Argument from Iſa. 49.22. for Infant-baptiſme examined. from Iſai. 49.22. it is foretold that Gentiles ſhould therefore the Prophet foreſaw in Spirit the baptiſme of the little ones of the Gentiles.
Anſw. Firſt, little ones might be brought for other ends then baptiſme, as Mat. 19.15.
Secondly, I will uſe the words of Francis Iunius in his Annotations on the place, All theſe things are ſaid Allegorically, of the ſpirituall amplification of the Kingdome of Chriſt, as the Prophets are wont; they are fulfilled in the perſwaſions in which the Gentiles exhorted their children to imbrace Chriſt.
We Reply.Animadver. To the firſt: That Infants in that place, Mat. 19.15. were brought for an higher thing then Baptiſme (as we ſhewed, and Mr T. confeſſed afore on that Text) therefore might be brought to a lower. viz. Baptiſme. Secondly, ſure they ſhould bring their children to the congregations of the Churches, to which Kings and Princes ſhall ſubmit ſpiritually (as Conſtantine, &c. did) and this the Gentile parents ſhould do, for their children in bringing them, upon the lifting up of Gods hand and Standard; that is, the preaching of the Goſpell, (as Mr T. his Iunius note son that place:) And therefore muſt bring their children whom they were fain to carry in their Armes, and on their ſhoulders, for ſomewhat theſe children might have from the Goſpell, (or elſe as good they had been left at home in the cradle or bed:) And there is no former or lower Ordinance for children then the firſt Seal, as in the Old Teſtament, ſo in the New.
To the ſecond: The words of Iunius: We Reply, firſt, So the Gentiles might exhort their children; but it muſt be long after they ceaſed to carry them in their armes, and on their ſhoulders; when they could more then go of themſelvs. 2. Take Calvins words into the ballance with Iunius. The Prophet pronounceth, That the children of the Gentiles ſhould be given to the Church. But how, if not in and by the firſt Ordinance (if not the leaſt) Baptiſme?Exercitat. § 20. The Argument from 1 Cor. 10.2. …iſme examined.
Thirdly, from 1 Cor. 10.2. All our Fathers were baptized, therefore alſo Infants.
I anſwer, firſt, if this verſe prove that Infants were baptized, the verſes following will prove that they received the Lords Supper.
2. The ſence is not they were formerly Baptized with the right of Baptiſme begun by Iohn, and Ordained by Chriſt; but that by a like repreſentation, the ſea and the cloud ſignifie Salvation to them by Chriſt, as Baptiſme doth to us; and that they were in like condition, as if baptized.
We have ſaid a little to this Text before in Chap. 3. In reply to Mr T. his Anſwer to Coloſſ. 2.11. we add,Animadver. In reply to Mr. T. his firſt Anſwer. Firſt, That it was not ſo neceſſary, nor ſo probable that the ſucking children, that lived on their mothers milk, and the milk of the Heards driven along with them, ſhould eate Manna and drink water; as it is infallible that they were baptized in the red Sea and in the Cloud.
Secondly, It is ſaid expreſly, They were all baptized in the cloud and in the ſea, but not that they all ate the Lords Supper, either becauſe the Infants did not eate the Manna, and drink the water of the rock; or that there might be no hint for us to carry children to the Lords Supper; but hearken to the rule, Let him that will eate of that worthily, examine himſelf, 1. Cor. 11.
Thirdly, If Mr Tombes could prove that the Jews Infants did eate the Lords Supper in the wilderneſſe; it being then not againſt the rule for children that could eate fleſh and bitter herbes (and therefore were of ſome age) to eate the ſecond Sacrament, the Paſſeover; yet this makes nothing for Mr Tombes, that we ſhould be afraid to ſay They were baptized: For we can ſay boldly That there is no expreſſe command to forbid the Baptizing of children; and yet it will not follow that Infants muſt receive the Supper too under the New Teſtament, becauſe there is an expreſſe rule to forbid it.
To the ſecond Anſwer of Mr T. We Reply, firſt, That they were really baptized in the cloud and red ſea; and with a Baptiſme inſtituted by one greater then Iohn; namely, by that Rock that followed them, or went along with them, CHRIST, 1 Cor. 10.4. And this Baptiſme had the precedency in ſeniority, and of bringing the firſt tydings of the New-Teſtament-Baptiſme. Yea the cloud had a capacity to reſemble as wel the baptiſm of the fire of the Spirit (of which the Jews were aware, as appears in the Rabbins Commentary) as of water; and the Sea called the red Sea, being ſo by weeds or other wiſe had an aptneſſe to ſound of, and reſemble blood; and therefore no leſſe fit to be the Symbols or Elements of Baptiſme, then river water now.
For the two laſt lines of Mr Tombes his anſwer. Namely, [But by a like repreſentation, the ſea and the clould ſignified ſalvation to them by Chriſt as Baptiſme doth to us, and that they were IN A LIKE CONDITION, as if they had been baptized] We need ſay no more but to thank him for them. For if the Sea and the cloud ſignified the ſame ſalvation by Chriſt, and that according to the mind of Chriſt, whoſe Text the 1 Cor. 20. is; and that they were in the like condition as if baptized with New Testament Baptiſme, and called baptiſme by divine authority; and the Jews are ſaid in regard of it, to be baptized; and that it did repreſent the State of the New Teſtament: I know not what materiall thing can be alleadged to enervate and weaken the Argument, that as the Jews children and Infants were baptized in the cloud and the red ſea; ſo may the children of converted Gentiles be baptized with water under the New Teſtament. Mr B. his objection, that it was extraordinary Baptiſme, makes for us. For if the Jews Infants were capable, and did in the Old Teſtament partake of extraordinary Baptiſme; then ſure it cannot be denyed to Beleevers Infants in the New.
Fourthly,Exercitat. § 11. The Argument from Epheſ. 5.26. Examined. from, Epheſ. 5.26. Mr T. repreſents to us our Argument, thus. It is ſaid there that Chriſt clenſed the Church, with the waſhing of water, through the word. Therefore Infants either belong not to the Church, and ſo are excluded from the benefit of Chriſts death; or they are to be baptized.
Mr T. his Anſwer is: If this Argument be of force, the theef crucified with Chriſt, and repenting on the croſſe, Infants, Catechumeni, Martyres, &c. dying before Baptiſme, are excluded out of the Church, and from the benefit of Chriſts death. We are therefore to ſay, That either the Church is taken for the more famous part of the Church, or that purification is to be underſtood of that which is for the moſt part.
Our Reply is: Firſt, That the proceſſe of the Argument is not of an impoſſibility preventing Baptiſme; As in the Theef, the Infants of Beleevers, Catechumeni, (that is, heathens or unbeleevers children catechiſed for Baptiſme) Martyrs, newly converted, that were prevented by death, before poſſibly baptiſm could be duly adminiſtred to them. For in ſuch caſes, where an Ordinance cannot be had, God doth ſave without an Ordinance, by his Royall Prerogative: But the Argument proceeds of a voluntary excluſion, upon mans judgement, judging infants of beleevers unfit to be admitted to baptiſme; and ſo theſe abſurdities will follow againſt ſuch excluders. That Infants of beleevers belong not to the Church, and ſo nor Chriſt to them. For theſe go together, Epheſ. 2.12. Where foreign muſt be underſtood of the Church-policy, Church-priviledges, not the Common-wealths policy, or elſe Common-wealth muſt be underſtood as including, or twiſted with the Church.
To Mr T. his diſtinction of the more famous part of the Church, we Reply. Firſt, it is a venterous ſpeech to ſay that any part of the Church is infamous; or to ſay that Chriſt hath no Ordinance, as alove expreſſion, and care for his Lambes, his leſſe famous ones, which is manifeſted in his charge to Poter, Iohn 21. And Mat. 19. Mar. 10. Luke 18. expreſſed in his welcoming, and bleſſing little ones; and in that, this ſpeech, Epheſ. 5.26. The relative, IT REFERRS to the Church in the former verſe, Chriſt gave himſelfe for the Church. Now did not (I pray you) Chriſt give himſelfe for the Infants of beleevers indefinitely?
To Mr T. his diſtinction [for the moſt part] we ſay: firſt, That if Mr T. can ſo eaſily coine that diſtinction here, why might he not afore, when he ſaid that all the houſholds, or the whole houſholds heard the word, or rejoyced. Secondly, whether or no the many children, that moſt beleevers have, may not be taken in within the moſt part. For ſure Mr T. doth not mean purified for the moſt part, for then he grants a ſuppoſition, That Beleevers and their children are purified in ſome part.
Fifthly, (ſaith Mr T.) They argue from 1 Pet. 2.9. Beleevers are called a choſen generation, a holy nation, Exercitat. §. 12. The Arguments from 1 Pet. 2.9. Examined.which things are ſaid of the Iſraelites, Exod. 19. …, 6. Therefore beleevers of the Nations obtain the ſame birth priviledges, which the Iſraelites had, and therefore the children are within the Covenant, and to be baptized, as the children of the Iſraelites were to be circumciſed.
Mr T. his Anſwer is, firſt, If this Argument proceed, it will follow that there is ſome Nationall Church among the Gentiles, as of old among the Jews, which is not to be granted, which I would have underſtood in this ſence, There is now no ſuch Nationall-Church, as amongſt the Iſraeliets, ſo as that a perſon ſhould be accounted a member of a Church, in that he is an Engliſhman, Sco…, Dutchman, &c. In this ſpeech JOPPOSE NOT THEM WHICH AFFIRME,Note. THE OUTWARD GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO NATIONALL SYNODS. Secondly, Exod. 19.5, 6. God ſpeakes not of a priviledge flowing from birth, but Obedience. Thirdly, The Epiſtle was written to the diſperſed Jews, and therefore the Argument lies lyable to exception, when it is drawn from that which is ſaid of the Jewes, as if it were ſaid of the Gentiles. Fourthly, The ſence is, ye which beleeve, ver. 7. whom God hath called out of darkneſſe, are a holy Nation, whether Iews or Gentiles, by ſpirituall regeneration, as beleevers are called a family, or kinred, Epheſs. 3.15. The houſhold of faith, Gal. 6.10. The houſe of God, 1 Tim. 3.15. A people, 1 Pet. 2.10. Wherefore in this family, kinred, houſe, people, are onelyonly beleevers, whom not carnall birth, but ſpirituall, cauſeth to be reckoned in that number.
We Reply,Animadver. to Mr T. his firſt particular, thus: The Argument in my eye doth not proceed to ſuppoſe ſome Nationall Church among the Gentiles. For it doth not ſay [The Nations of beleevers] but [The Beleevers of Nations] obtaine the ſame birth priviledges. Beſides, it recites a text written to the Iewes who were ſcattered (from being a formall Nation) throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Aſia, and Bithynia, Chap. 1. v. 1. And when they were a formall Nation, a perſon was not counted a member of that Church quatenus ipſum preciſely as he was a Iew, but as he was circumciſed, or the Infant of one circumciſed, and ſo to be circumciſed alſo. A Iew was cut off, if not circumciſed according to the inſtitution to Abrabraham, Gen. 17. And a Gentile though a Gentile was a member of that Church, if circumciſed, Ibid. Gen. 17. Juſt as an Engliſhman, as an Engliſhman, was not reckoned a member of the Church, or Churches in England, if unfit to be Baptized, but kept out; or a damnable Heretick after Baptiſme, but was caſt out; or if one be not the Infant of one baptized. Though Mr Tombes ſeemes to oppoſe Nationall Churches, yet he ſets them up thus far (wherein thoſe of his judgement in the Queſtion in hand, I mean the ANABAPTISTS WILL NOT APPROVE Mr TOMBES) That the outward government of the Church ſhould be SVBIECT to NATIONALL SYNODS. Nor will Mr Tombes pleaſe himſelf with the direct inference that will follow from his expreſſe words, which inference is this; That if a Nationall Synod in England, ſhall determine that Infants of Beleevers ſhall be baptized, whiles Infants; Mr. T. muſt SVBIECT to it, and lay down all his Exercitat. Examination, and Appendix against the baptizing of beleevers Infants, as labour in vaine, cancelled writings, an old Almanack. For Mr Tombes hath not, in a matter of ſo great conſequence, reſerved to himſelf (by any expreſſe here) ſo much as this exception, That he will not SVBMIT, in caſe they determine contrary to the Scriptures in his judgement; but that he will have his liberty to ſtand out against the determination. If any can at the firſt ſight of this, ſuddenly divine, and Edict by Proclamation, that this exception was ſuppoſed, it may be as ſuddenly and rationally argued back again, that this would have been ſooner underſtood of the vulgar, and readier been beleeved of the wiſer, if it had been here expreſſed. But if they will have it ſuppoſed, then the Queſtion will be, firſt: Whether Mr T. according to his deſign, hath prevented all offence to any of whom he would be rightly understood touching Nationall Synods? Secondly, What greater thing hath he ſaid than divers others, with whom yet he doth not (for ought I know) cloſe in point of Church-Government?
To Mr T. his ſecond reply, touching Exod. 19.6. That the place being ſpoken to the parents (ſuppoſe upon condition of obedience) doth no way infringe, that the children of thoſe obedient parents, ſhould be counted of that holy Nation, that is, among the reputed holy of that Nation, witneſſe their Circumciſion, and their no-capacity of diſobedience.
To the third particular we reply, That this Epiſtle being written to the diſperſed Jews, leanes pronly for application to the Gentile-beleevers, that though they are as a diſperſed people among the unchriſtian. Chriſtian called-nations, yet their Infants with them are to be accounted (indefinitely) holy, as the children of circumciſed Jews were counted holy.
To Mr T. his fourth particular, we reply, That there is nothing in it that doth evince, that the children of the regenerate ſhould not be accounted federally among the beleeving Gentiles of the more more glorious New Teſtament, as among the Jews under the ſhadowed Old Teſtament.
Sixthly it will be anſwered (ſaith M. T.) that the Church of GodExercitat. failes not;§ 13. The Argument from the Churches ſayling, if Infant-baptſme be not lawfull, Examined. But we muſt ſay the Church of God hath failed, if Baptiſme of Infants be not lawfull: Ergo.
Mr T. Anſw. 1. The Church of God may conſiſt without baptiſme, as in the crucified converted thief, &c. Secondly, neither perhaps, is it neceſſary to be ſaid, that the baptiſme of Infants becauſe not lawfull, is therefore null. Thirdly, there was in the Church Baptiſme of perſons grown, in all ages: Ludov.|Vives in his Comment. upon Aug. de Civit. Dei. lib. 1. cap. 27. hath theſe words; No man of old was brought unto the place of holy baptiſme, unleſſe he were of grown age already, and when the ſame perſon knew what that myſticall water meant, and deſired to be waſhed in it, and that more then once; an image of which thing we ſee yet, in our baptiſme of Infants; for as yet the Infant, though born the ſame day, or the day before, is asked, whether he would be baptized, and that thries; for whom the ſureties anſwer, that he would. I beare in ſome Cities in Italy, that the old cuſtome, for a great part, is yet preſerved.
We reply; To the firſt particular. Firſt doth one converted theeſ continue the church?Animadver. 2 Or if an accident that many by divine providentiall neceſſity are bolted and debarred from an ordinance for a certain time, doth not interrupt the Churches ſucceſſion, when God by his prerogative will continue it; Can at another time wilfull neglect of an Ordinance in a right manner, yea the applying of it groſſely to the wrong parties (as the Anabaptiſts pretend both and proclaime thereupon a nullity of Baptiſme of ſuch perſons) juſtifie that then and there is a due ſucceſſion of the Church? Yet thus hath the Baptiſme of beleevers infants ten thouſands for one of ripe years, continued in Holland, Scotland, England, and other Churches in France and Germany (and where other-wiſe) beyond the memory of the oldeſt man alive: Where then hath been the ſucceſſion of the Church all that while, according to the principles of the Anabaptiſts, touching childrens Baptiſme? Sure they will not hold the preaching of the Word an infallible eſſentiall note of a Church ſo long as whiles Infants grow up to be men. For true preaching of the word of God on the preachers part may be to heathens. Doubtleſſe (as M. P. and Voſſius diſtinguiſh;) Wide is the difference of a Church in the conſtitution when men of ripe yeares muſt receive the firſt Seale, from a Church conſtituted, wherein the firſt Seal deſcends from the beleever to his child for any precept that appears in the Old or New Teſtament to the contrary.
But Mr T. faith in his ſecond particular (which will nothing pleaſe the Anabaptiſts) perhaps it is not neceſſary to be ſaid, that the Baptiſme of Infants, becauſe not lawfull is not therefore null. Note.Wee reply, Mr T. ſpeakes but perhaps, and it is not neceſſary, and to ſay ſo. But what perhaps will M. T. ſay, and how neceſſarily ſay Baptiſme of Infants is all null, by that time he hath fully concocted this principle of the unlawfullneſſe of the Baptizing of any Infants; as thouſands of others have done and ſome honeſt men and ſcholars who upon the ſaid principle of Antipaedaptiſts have turned Anabaptiſts, though they drew their originall of Re-baptiſme from moſt ſcriptureleſſe Se-baptiſme? I may well put the queſtion; For by that time M. Tombes is gone ſix leaves further: Viz. in the 34, and laſt page of his Exercitation he begins to be beyond perhaps, and ſpeaks as if it were neceſſary to ſay that [The aſſuming of Baptiſme in ripe years, by thoſe who were waſhed in infancy, is not a renouncing of Baptiſme as ſome in their groſſe ignorance conceit, but indeed a firmer avouching of Baptiſme, according to Chriſts mind.] If the Reader will but marke theſe lines well, and eſpecially thoſe words we have put in another character, hee will eaſily be a Commentator to himſelfe upon Mr Tombes his warping judgement.
To Mr T. his third particular wherein he aeſſerts [That there was in the Church, Baptiſm of perſons grown in al ages] and quotes LƲDOVICVS VIVES to prove it. We reply firſt to his aſſertion; Firſt that is very generall for an anſwer to an argument; There were perſons: How many? In all ages: What meanes that? In every hundred yeares, or ordinary age of man: Suppoſe ſixty years or leſſe? What is all this to clear a continued ſucceſſion of the Church in point of baptizing perſons of ripe years? Secondly, let us deal plainly one with another in things of this nature. Can M. T. or any elſe produce proof that in England, Scotland, Ireland, &c. there hath been baptized in either of theſe at leaſt one of ripe yeares every year, for theſe 80 or an 100 yeares laſt paſt: If not, or if ſo, where is a ſufficient number to continue the ſucceſſion of Churches we talke of in point of adult-Baptiſme, Baptiſme of perſons of ripe years.
2 To his quotation of LVD. VIVES, we ſay; Firſt he is but of yeſterday to ſay without proofe what hath been in former ages. For in all his Notes on Auguſt. he cites not one Scripture, not one Antiquity, not one Author, nor any thing that may go for a Reaſon; but only tells us of a faſhion of queſtions put to humane-deviſed God-fathers and God-mothers as they call them; and of an hearſay out of Italy; a likely place to preſerve any pure truth.
2. Though Lud. Vives were a good Schollar in Arts; yet we muſt not give credit to him in divine things, when his phraſe departs from purity, and his aſſertion from verity. He ſaith, Nems olins ſacro admovebatur baptiſterio, that is, No man of old was brought unto the holy Baptiſtery, Font, or Veſſell to waſh in. He puts holineſſe in or upon the Veſſell in which theſe perſons of ripe yeers were baptized (for it ſhould ſeem by him they were not baptized in a River) which phraſe of Lud. Vives, Mr Tombes covers with a double garment, firſt Tranſlating Baptisterio by the word [place] that being wide enough in ſignification to include rivers. Secondly, Tranſlating ſacro Baptiſterio [the holy place] by [the place of holy Baptiſme]. LVD. VIVES goes on; Niſi adulta jam aetate, that is unleſſe he were of ripe age already. Now this is a groſſe miſtake, and oppoſite to the beſt approved antiquity, that tels us it was a known cuſtome in the Churches, to baptize infants within few years after the death of the Apoſtle John: And therefore this cuſtome could not totally invade the Churches on ſuch a ſudden, without any mention in Antiquity, but flowed doubtleſſe downe from the Apoſtles. So Juſtin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Gregory Natianzen, Ambroſe, Auguſtine, and others. For the pretences made by Mr T. againſt ſome Quotations of thoſe fathers I doubt not but to take them off and to juſtifie theſe antiquities; when we come in our XIII CHAPTER to Mr Tombes his fourth Argument againſt the baptizing of Beleevers Infants. In his Exercitation §. 17. For the preſent we have no more to ſay to VIVES or Mr TOMBES upon this argument but only to admire that Mr Tombes would tranſlate VIVES as if he had ſaid [that the perſon of ripe years deſired to be waſhed more then once in the water of Baptiſme]; for ſo it lies fairer in Mr Tombes his Tranſlation to pleaſe an Anabaptiſt; namely [The perſon of ripe years defired to be waſhed in the water of Baptiſme, and that more then once] whereas Mr Tombes following the Latin cloſer which is, So ablui ill… aquâ pe…eres, nec ſemel peteres he might have tranſlated clearer that he deſired and deſired more then once, (what?) to be waſhed with that water.